Posted on 10/04/2008 9:16:33 AM PDT by Amityschild
The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.
As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.
Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away instead of just providing the documents the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I thought Berg was a Democrat?
He doesn't seem to know much about his party.
SOMETHING FOR THE HOOD!!! Who dare tell them???
BARACK HUSSEIN (MOHAMED?) OBAMA, OSAMA BIN LADEN, are NOT typically African names, but they are ARABS names, linking BHO to be an ARAB-American, NOT an African-American according to unpublish article by Keneth E. Lamb/Richard Cohen
The author has written and researched for the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Jewish Information Network, among others
(NOTE: This IS NOT a rehash of the discredited discussion of either his education in Islamic schools, or any other ties to Islam. His religion, and education, outside of citing his Harvard attendance, play no role whatsoever in this article. THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED documentation concerning his ethnic identity claims. It is based upon original research that the author openly invites for further inquiry and academic verification in his preface to Mr. Cohen.)
Documentation of his actual ethnic background demonstrates Mr. Obama is not an African-American as defined in United States law. This research was initiated by a request from a daily news publication of international reputation in New York City.
The story then moves to documenting his fathers genealogy. This study indicates Sen. Obama is actually Arab-American. The significance of this is that the soul and substance of Mr. Obamas claim to fame rest entirely on his being the first African-American to achieve whatever it is that Mr. Obama is claiming at the time. If Mr. Obama is not legally an African-American, then his claims collapse. While there may still be historic firsts, for example, being the first Arab-American to be the president of the Harvard Law Review, those claims are not the star-appeal of his entire political life, and the basis of his current celebrity star status. If he is not African-American, then he is not what has propelled him up the political ladder; he is not, as described by one journalist riding Mr. Obamas campaign plane, what is currently capturing Americas cult attention.
The author includes a section that notes the double-standard Oprah Winfrey applied in her handling of Mr. Obamas autobiographical fabrications vis a vis her reaction to much less in a book by another author she promoted. It calls upon her to explain her double-standards, and asks, reasonably under the circumstances, if her double-standards are racist.
If what Mr. Cohen writes are truths, then what Mr. Obama wrote are lies. It's just as simple as that.
Yet there is not one word from the "Last Bastions of Accuracy" that comprise our first-tier information enterprises about the complete lack of integrity Sen. Obama shows with his fictional life history. He lies, but his lies are swept under the rug by a groupthink mentality that is so desperate to regain leadership positions - as opposed to actual leadership programs to earn those leadership positions - that it ignores the truth that Sen. Obama lies - about himself, about his life, about his actions - and even about his racial composition.
I researched what follows for a NY daily of international reputation. It wasn't what I thought I'd find. I documented it, presented it to the Washington Bureau Chief, but was hardly surprised that it never saw ink. As you'll see for yourself, this is the political equivalent of a nuclear bomb.
I must pause very briefly to note usage of the word Negro in what follows: In all academic studies of race, the proper scientific word for the ethnic composition I discuss is Negro. For any who scream racist at its mention, I say take it up with the scientific community. It's not my word, it's theirs. I am using it in its proper scientific context.
Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Negro not reported?
Because to acknowledge it is to report this devastating truth about him: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.
Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article, I've converted it to a decimal fraction for easier comprehension. You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.
Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.
Yet claiming to be African-American is the soul and substance of his claim to fame. It is what he has used throughout his adult life to distinguish himself from other competitors. It is the ethnic identity he proclaims, and it is the ethnic identity he craves. Without it, he is just another mixed race Caucasian Arab with an African influence playing on his skins pigmentation.
But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.
Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).
That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.
Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.
Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.
But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth.
Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding.
As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.
The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?"
The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic.
Need proof? Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government.
But in America's current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is "an inconvenient truth." It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo's scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting.
That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it.
There's a reason for that: it proves he is not sufficiently Negro to earn classification under American law as an African-American.
For Sen. Obama, telling the truth means he will give up all the accolades about being the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, an accolade that relies on a sleight-of-hand in job titling that changed the name of the top job from Editor to President.
If Obama were removed his electors could do anything they wished and turning to Clinton is not out of the question. Electors are completely free agents as per the Constitution.
Your interpretation of the 20th appears incorrect. Should Obama as President elect die then Biden would be president. But that is not the relevant passage; this is “...if a President elect shall have failed to QUALIFY, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;” That does not say that the VP elect automatically becomes president.
LOL!!
Not true. We no longer vote for President and VP from one list. Remember the votes are for separate offices since the 12th amendment. So Zero’s votes do not go to Biden. Now does this mean that we could have President McCain and VP Biden?
Remember that political parties have no real standing in this under the Constitution.
At the time of the Constitution’s writing there probably were no registry of birth outside of church records, no hospital records either. But this does not mean that there were no standards of citizenship. Hence, the Constitution did not have this qualification arbitrarily inserted into it. So because there were no birth certificates should not suggest this qualifcation has no meaning.
IF Zero has no BC then he has committed fraud several times when he presented a fraudulent one to get a passport and any other time which called for a BC.
Legally Zero cannot take the office of the Presidency unless he PROVES that he has the basic qualification, citizenship from being natural born. There is no way around this. Same would be true if he were not old enough i.e. 35 yrs of age. Do you think that one does not have to prove this either?
There was only a bried period when a foreign born citizen could have been president and that passed a long time ago.
Even Sarah cannot gut the gutless.
No court has authority to appoint a president. Congress would decide and it would likely be McCain-Biden since they would have the most valid electoral votes for their positions. And the votes are for seperate slates.
States would each have one vote now determined by the party affiliation of the Congressmen. I am not sure that that would mean a Red vote and think it would mean the RATS would win.
I will research this, but I think the rule I’m remembering refers to a tie. I think each state in the electoral college (all 57), not Congress, is allowed the 1 vote. So CA NY TX FL or on equal par with ND SD & AK. So the entire block of Dem CA 47 electoral votes count as only 1. If this rule applies, to this situation, then RED triumphs easy over blue!!
A lot would depend on when the 'disqualification' took place. If it took place after the Electoral College met but before the inauguration then Biden is president per the 20th Amendment. If it took place after the electiob but before the Electoral College met, it's far more likely they would go to Biden since Clinton is not on the ticket.
No, Biden's votes go to Biden. If the ticket took 300 electoral votes then Biden would get 300 votes as vice-president.
Now does this mean that we could have President McCain and VP Biden?
No. In my scenario above, Obama would have 300 electoral votes and McCain would have 235. Obama's disqualification isn't going to change that. But say they disqualify all of Obama's electors, then McCain still has 235 electoral votes, not enough to win. If it goes to the House then they will pick a president. Since the majority of the state delegations are dominated by Democrats then I'd expect them to pick Biden as president.
And if he does have one?
Legally Zero cannot take the office of the Presidency unless he PROVES that he has the basic qualification, citizenship from being natural born.
Says who? How did any of our prior presidents prove they had the basic qualifications? What's the procedure?
No, but if you think that the courts wouldn't be involved then you are wildly optimistic.
Congress would decide and it would likely be McCain-Biden since they would have the most valid electoral votes for their positions. And the votes are for seperate slate.
It would most likely be Biden and vacancy, since most state delegations are majority Democrat.
Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3 explains the procedure.
If a tie or no majority then the House decides.
Since 911 passport requirements are much more strict than when Obama got one. Now it must be a certified copy.
The house as of election date, or the house as of inauguration date?
It is not clear what the electors would do. That is the point.
If Zero’s votes are disqualified then McCain has 100% of the qualified electors and hence would be president.
Your “expectation” may not be what the electors would do. They are free to anything they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.