Berg's Suit Against Obama is Dismissed

According to the website America's Right, the lawsuit filed in Philadelphia by Attorney Philip Berg challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

It appears that the judge was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations:


Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama's childhood form the basis of Plaintiff's allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff's opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama's cover-up.


The judge compared Berg's action with those of Fred Hollander, who sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen and held that Berg's stake:


"is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters." The harm cited by Berg, Judge Surrick wrote, "is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."


"regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election."

So now the question is folks " Who does have legal standing to challenge Obama ?"

Well according to the judge anyway, Congress does:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.


Berg is understandably disappointed but vows to appeal this decision to to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States, the most powerful man in the entire world, is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

Attorney Philip J. Berg

More Law Suits Filed in Obama Birth Certificate Question

Lawsuits Starting Across the Nation Proceeding to Avert Potential Constitutional Crisis, Possible Civil Unrest, and Confidence in Elections; Lawsuits are being filed in Eight States Seeking to Require Barack Obama to Provide Certification of Birth in U.S. or Be Removed as Presidential Candidate on State Ballots.

Seattle WA. 10/22/2008 - Lawsuits in eight states as of this writing- Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia. Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut, are seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Senator Barack Obama's qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born U.S. citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to force the certifying documents from Obama. Philip Berg's months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau yesterday as Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) failed to respond to the court that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and therefore not qualified to run for office of President of the U.S. They admitted to Obama's non-qualification by their failure to respond to a 30-day court ordered discovery in which Obama and the DNC were ordered to answer a petition by Berg. Berg is a lifelong Democrat in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party who has sought to ratchet up the legal pressure as Obama and the DNC has continually delayed providing certifying documentation of Obama's birth, which he claims to have been in Hawaii.

A lawsuit in Honolulu in the First District Court is seeking a court-order to open Obama’s secret birth records. Obama has thus far neglected a Freedom of Information request for the records at two hospitals in Hawaii. Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state Superior Courts to force the states' Secretary of State, as the chief state elections officer, to perform their state constitutional duties to require original certifying birth records from Mr. Obama that would verify his birth in Hawaii.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."


There are numerous allegations to Obama's claim of natural birth in the U.S. on the web and in the media, all raising suspicion and doubt as to Obama's actual place of birth and qualification to run for president. Some of the assertions to which Obama "admitted" on Berg's suit are: he was born in Mombassa, Kenya in 1961 while his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was married to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan; when his mother, divorced from Obama Sr, moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, Obama was adopted by Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen; while in Indonesia, Obama had his name changed to Barry Soetoro; Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an Indonesian passport when Pakistan was a no travel zone for Americans; Obama had "admitted" to receiving illegal contributions in his campaign for president. Additionally, there is an allegation that Obama's Kenyan grandmother claims that Obama was born in Kenya; Muammar Gadhafi, leader of Libya, has publicly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and studied in Muslim schools in Indonesia. Obama has also "admitted" to hold citizenship in another country (the U.S. Constitution forbids dual citizenship) .

Non-partisan and independent reviews and examinations of Obama's birth certificate as shown on his official website has evidence of tampering and in any case does not list any of the points of information commonly found which would make it traceable and verifiable such as hospital, doctor, size weight, foot prints etc.

Interestingly, all these state lawsuits would be dropped if Mr. Obama would simply provide the requested documents supporting his claim of being born in Hawaii.

Lawsuits in additional states are being added each day. For more information about each lawsuit, contact:

(HI) Andy Martin at email: AndyMart20@aol. com


(WA) Steve Marquis email: peoplesvoice@ peoplespassions. org ; website: www.peoplespassion. org


(CA) David Archbold email darchbo1@gmail. com


(GA) Tom Terry email: kingdommatters@ gmail.com


(PA) Philip Berg email: philjberg@obamacrim es.com ; website: www.obamacrimes. com


(NY) Dan Smith email: Dansmith1954@ aol.com


(CT) Cort Wrotnowski email: Metaqubit@aol. com


Hear Michael Savage interview Democrat attorney Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, about his lawsuit demanding Barack Obama present his original birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States and qualified to serve as president.

McCain Gains 12 Points In Battleground Poll

A week ago, the GWU Battleground poll (pdf) showed Obama with a 13-point lead over McCain (53-40). Today, after a week of steady narrowing, that lead is down to one point (48-47).

If the undecided 6% breaks toward McCain (as the cable news heads assure us they will), and/or if Obama's young-skewing constituency can be trusted to show up in fewer numbers than McCain's older electorate, and/or if the Bradley effect on display throughout the Democratic primary exists at all (or - for the racially sensitive - let's say "if Obama continues to systematically overpoll, for whatever reason, compared with his actual vote share"), and/or if the trend is ongoing, then this is a very McCain-friendly data point.

The poll's survey window is 7 days wide, so even if the trend has recently stopped, this latest reading wouldn’t yet capture the entirety of McCain's gains.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

AP POLL: Obama 44% - McCain 43%

The poll found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, it supports what some Republicans and Democrats have said in recent days, that the race narrowed after the third debate as Republican-leaning voters drifted home to their party.

Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling authority, said variation between polls occurs, in part, because pollsters interview random samples of people.

"If they all agree, somebody would be doing something terribly wrong," he said of polls. He said that surveys generally fall within a few points of each other, adding, "When you get much beyond that, there's something to explain."

Al-Qaeda: MCain Will Fight War on Terror, Obama Won't

In a pathetic attempt to smear McCain the AP published a story with this headline:Al Qaeda-linked Web site backs McCain as president

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if Al Qaeda wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

"If Al Qaeda carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

The SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

The message was posted by a frequent contributor named Muhammad Haafid, who apparently has no known ties to Al-Qaeda or knowledge of its operations.

SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the U.S. election.

SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis - and apparent jubilation - about American financial woes.

"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community, Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."


Folks, here is another example of the blatant bias in the main stream news media, they deliberately twist this report to make it seem that Al-Qaeda is supporting McCain.

First off the post is not an official Al-Qaeda response (is there such a thing, LOL). Second if you read the message it basically says vote for McCain and he will fight Al-Qaeda, vote for Obama and he won't. What the author is hoping here is to cash in on the financial aspect of this election, McCain means spending money to defend America, Obama means we will not spend money to defend America (in other words a vote for Obama is a vote for defeat, we are doomed)

This is what you can expect from the main stream news media until the elections, distortions, exaggerations, headline manipulations, it's kind of funny that they would bother doing this anymore considering their candidate is SUPPOSEDLY double digits ahead in the polls. The main stream news media is in the tank for Obama, they are tripping overthemselves to get him elected.

Calculate Your Obama Tax Increase

This is a site where you can prove Obama will raise your taxes. Enter your tax filing status; single, married filing jointly, etc., and enter your taxable income. You can enter in any year, so try it for 2008 and then try it for 2000, which is what you will owe once Obama repeals Bush's tax cuts.

If you are married filing jointly and make $100,000 this year, a lot less than $250,000, you will pay $17,688 in taxes. After Obama increases your taxes to the 2000rate, you will owe $22,300, an increase of $4,612, which is a 26% tax hike.

If you are single, earning $35,000 this year, you will owe $4,448. Obama's tax increase jacks it up to $5,250, for a tax increase of $802, which is an 18% increase in your taxes.

Click the link here. Look for the small box with "calculate" button.

Obama's False Medicare Claim

In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."


Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

The ad quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying McCain would pay for his health care plan with "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid," which the ad says would total $882 billion from Medicare alone, "requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

But in fact, McCain has never proposed to cut Medicare benefits, or Medicaid benefits either. Obama's claim is based on a false reading of a single Wall Street Journal story, amplified by a one-sided, partisan analysis that piles speculation atop misinterpretation. The Journal story in turn was based on an interview with McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He said flatly in a conference call with reporters after the ad was released, "No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning."

Twisting Facts to Scare Seniors

Here's how Democrats cooked up their bogus $882 billion claim.

On Oct. 6, the Journal ran a story saying that McCain planned to pay for his health care plan "in part" through reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, quoting Holtz-Eakin as its authority. The Journal characterizes these reductions as both "cuts" and "savings." Importantly, Holtz-Eakin did not say that any benefits would be cut, and the one direct quote from him in the article makes clear that he's talking about economies:

Nevertheless, a Democratic-leaning group quickly twisted his quotes into a report with a headline stating that the McCain plan "requires deep benefit and eligibility cuts in Medicare and Medicaid" – the opposite of what the Journal quoted Holtz-Eakin as saying. The report was issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to Democratic President Bill Clinton. The report's authors are a former Clinton administration official, a former aid to Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey and a former aid to Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

The first sentence said – quite incorrectly – that McCain "disclosed this week that he would cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health care plan." McCain said no such thing, and neither did Holtz-Eakin. The Journal reporter cited a $1.3 trillion estimate of the amount McCain would need to produce, over 10 years, to make his health care plan "budget neutral," as he promises to do. The estimate comes not from McCain, but from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. McCain and Holtz-Eakin haven't disputed that figure, but they haven't endorsed it either.

Interestingly, Obama proposes to pay for his own health care plan in part through some of the same measures, particularly expanded use of I.T. and better handling of chronic disease. Whether either candidate can achieve the huge savings they are promising is dubious at best. As regular readers of FactCheck.org are aware, we're skeptical of Obama's claim that he can achieve his promised $2,500 reduction in average health insurance premiums, for example.

But achievable or not, "savings" are what McCain is proposing. It's a rank distortion for Obama's ad to twist that into a plan for "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both," and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will "receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

Main Stream Media Continues Attack on "Joe the Plumber"

"Joe the Plumber" asked a question when Obama happened to stop by his current neighborhood a week ago.

He confronted Obama over his tax proposals, asserting that the Democratic nominee's plan would tax him more if he bought a plumbing business.

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Senator Barack Obama

It seemed innocent enough, an average American guy exercising his right to free speech, questioning a Presidential candidate. But, the main stream new media went into defense mode, why how dare he ask such a question of the "chosen one". Who does this guy think he is ? And then, the attacks on "Joe the plumber's" personal life begin, sent out as a warning to all who dare oppose the "chosen one" of what will happen if they try doing the same.

In the days since the debate, it became known that "Joe the plumber" is not a licensed plumber, is not buying a business that makes enough to be taxed more under Mr. Obama's tax proposals, and has some tax liens against him.

On Friday, the East Valley/Scottsdale Tribune in Arizona reported that "Joe the plumber's" Arizona driver's license was suspended in May, 2000, following nonpayment of a court-imposed fine for civil traffic violations. He lived in Arizona from 1997-2000.

Imagine that folks, and I heard he ripped a tag off his mattress too ! Who does he think he is !

Asked about the attacks on his personal life by the drive by media and leftist blogs he stated:

"It actually upsets me, I am a plumber, and just a plumber, and here Barack Obama or John McCain, I mean these guys are going to deal with some serious issues coming up shortly. The media's worried about whether I paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America. They really don't. I asked a question. When you can't ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me."

Joe the Plumber

That's right folks, Obama can associate with domestic terrorists and mobsters and we are told that is not important, the issues are, but "Joe the plumber" had a suspended license and was behind on some tax payments and that is VERY IMPORTANT to the media, so important that they report on this more than the issues. Hey, who knew ?