Its a very complex issue right now but to get some of you up to speed, Obama simply cannot produce the documents requested because he doesn't have them. Still waiting for Judge Surrick to rule on these motions. What are you hiding Barry Soetoro?

The ongoing Berg vs Obama case...

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2...4083/case_id-281573/

McCain actually produced a vault version of his birth certificate.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/11/mccain-showed-h...tual-piece-of-paper/

In order to be the president of the U.S., you need to meet three requirements: Be a natural-born citizen of the U.S., be 35 years of age, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Naturalized citizenship has been interpreted differently throughout the years, but the most common, most tried and true method of determining natural born citizenship is if a person was BORN IN THE U.S. Obama was born in Hawaii. It was a state at the time of his birth. This is nonsense. This suit also smacks of racism in my opinion. If Barack Obama's name was Billy O'Malley I don't think we would be having this problem. How many of you out there were named in some way shape or form after your father or mother? Heaven forbid the man has his father's name. What kind of a world do we live in?

HB, if you are right and Obama turns out to be a terrorist that wants to tear down the U.S. from the highest point and destroys us all, I'll give you a token apology. Honestly, how many people actually believe this crap? Another ridiculous assumption by the ultra right wing conservatives of the U.S.

Berg's suit claims that Obama lost his natural-born citizenship rights when his mother went to Indonesia and became a naturalized citizen there. So freaking what? What in the world does that have to do with her son? Do you honestly think that his citizenship status should be determined by his mother's choices? There have been different interpretations of citizenship by individual STATES in the U.S. There is only one way to determine natural-born citizenship in the FEDERAL government's eyes, and that is if they were BORN IN THE U.S. Federal laws trump state laws any day of the week.

HB, your allegations are getting to the ridiculous side now. If you would sit back and look at what you are posting, maybe you would realize that enough is enough. This is more conspiracy theory or urban legend stuff at this point.

By the way, how would Obama get a passport to travel overseas if he did not have a birth certificate?

Let it go and let the candidates compete against each other in a one on one, fair manner.

It's a losing competition for us, regardless of who wins in November.

Unless, of course, Obama and McCain were both beaten by a third party candidate. If only we could get 50-60 million people to see the light...

Again, I ask you, why doesn't Obama produce the documents in question so the lawsuit goes away?? Would you, if it was you being sued? Why can't the man produce his college thesis? How about his legal billing records? State legislature papers? For wanting to be President of the United States, the sure is pretty forgetful and irresponsible. Not only that but if you take him at his word, he actually was too stupid to realize that his buddy Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist and Jeremiah Wright was an anti-American racist.

You say matter of factly that Obama was born in Hawaii. What proof do you have? Please tell me. Because Obama/Soetoro sure hasn't provided any evidence that he's a natural born citizen or eligible to run for President.

The question I want answered is if this is racially and church-related about Obama. You bring up this claim that Obama was raised in Indonesia, following the Muslim faith, and enrolled in a Muslim school when he was very young. I didn't know that you can control what you parents do when you are very young. Regardless, this is pulling at strings about a man that you do not like and an attempt to assasinate his character. No one is doing these type of things to McCain. This is ridiculous. Once again, I'll stand by my claim that if Barack Obama was Billy O'Brien (Yes I used another name last time) this would never happen. I thought the year was 2008, not 1958. This is some of the most far-fetched allegations anyone can pull.

This pretty much coincides with what the newly entered plaintiff who is a forensic psychologist, outlines in the lawsuit motion:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

What's This, FactCheck??

From the high-res photos that FactCheck provided, I was able to confirm a number of my findings that exposed the FactCheck COLB image as a manufactured forgery. To get everyone up to speed, there has been one, and only one forged image. From this one source image, several copies were generated. One was kept by the Obama campaign while one copy went to the Daily Kos, and the other went to FactCheck. Both the Daily Kos and the Obama campaign cropped their images before posting them on June 12. The Obama Campaign posted a very small, low-res copy to their "Fight the Smears" website, while the Daily Kos image was cropped close to the borders but left in its original size. FactCheck posted their uncropped image to their website four days later on June 16.

Here's what FactCheck said in their "Expose" about Obama's long sought-after birth certificate:

The truth about Obama's [bogus] birth certificate.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Well, speaking for the huge population of skeptics, I beg to differ. Other than showing that Obama took a trip to Hawaii just to get this thing printed, and bring it out for a show-and-tell to FactCheck's affiliates, the "supporting documents" prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the image posted on FactCheck;'s website was NOT an accurate copy of a real "birth certificate," but was instead, a stone-cold, dyed-in-the-wool forgery.

There are a lot of things that do not match up between the image FactCheck posted and these new photos of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth." In fact, there are a whole host of things wrong with the image FactCheck posted when compared to genuine scans of real 2007 COLB's.

FactCheck went on to make derisive comments about the claims that others made, including me, about the suspicious image they posted: Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi said in that interview that "there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce."

Never have truer words been spoken. Not so for the hard-headed hoohahs at FactCheck who still insist that the image they posted on June 16 was genuine:

Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

* The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.

* It isn't signed.

* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.

* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.

* The certificate number is blacked out.

* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.

* The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

I must say that FactCheck is not known as a place that gets its facts straight. The only ones I care about are those that pertain to my research. No, FactChump (sic), I complained about there being only one "crease from folding evident" in your full-length image, when all others had two folds evident.

No, FuktCheck (sic), I did not talk about "strange halos" around the letters, but well-known and well-defined white and gray pixel halos BETWEEN the letters, when there should also have been greenish-colored pixels. Leave it to FlakCheck (sic) to come up with the reason why their image was fake, and not why this fast-food COLB has no pixel halos:

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

No, FaxedChek (sic), not to "some" people, but to "one person" who spotted the telltale signs of an image that had been graphically altered only three days after you posted it. Plus, I am going to post all of my test images that failed to create ANY pixel anomalies or "digital artifacts."

By golly. You know, every one of my detractors have said stuff like this, as if there are thousands of the same "pixel halos" fully documented as being artifacts. In fact, FactCheck, I have never even seen one that matches the hack job you posted.

FactCheck pulls a fast one when it makes the following claim:

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect.

Very clever, just like your Messiah. I, and others like ne, never doubted the content of your COLB image. What we sincerely doubted was the "authenticity" of the document image you posted on your website. It was a fraud, and you, FactCheck were complicit in promulgating it as the real deal.

The folks at FastChick (sic) quoted another one of the fraud perpetrators, PolitiFact.com, who "also dug into some of these loopy theories."

Now, them's fighting words. there is nothing "loony" about felony fraud. There's nothing "loony" about constantly deceiving the American public as Obama and his band of rogues have done. Here's Politfact's two cents:

Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over.

No way, Polident! (sic) The "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" was just posted by your buddies at FeltChunks. They confirmed what I've known all along: that the image purported to be a true copy of Obama's original birth certificate was, absolutely, a well-conceived forgery of what his "birth certificate" might look like -- but, one that had too many flaws to fool this expert.

"How do I loathe thee. Let me count the ways."

For starters, there are those wacky borders.

I had always said that they were added last to the image, and were the least compelling evidence that a forged image had been "manufactured." Now that I've had a chance to compare them to the genuine borders of real 2007 COLB images, I can now say, with 100% certainty, that these wacky borders were poorly drawn replicas of what real borders are supposed to look like.

The degree of smearing on them and the lack of any "real artifacts" were incongruous, given that this image was a high-resolution one. Basically everything inside the borders were far superior in quality to the borders themselves. Proof-positive that they were added post-hoc to a forged image.

Furthermore, the two vertical borders on each side of the FactCheck COLB image were not drawn as long, parallel rectangles, but as divergent ones! When comparing them to real 2007 borders, the border on the left side went from being narrow at the base to being wider at the top. Conversely, the border on the left side went from being wider at the base to being narrower at the top. These disparities show up when the FactCheck COLB is made semi-transparent and laid on top of a genuine 2007 COLB image (as shown below).

To demonstrate the disparities, I created a semi-transparent New 2007 COLB image and placed it on top of the FactCheck COLB image, so that we can see the underlying FactCheck COLB image through the partially transparent 2007 COLB image. I lined both of them up at the top border corners.

For comparison purposes, I also created a semi-transparent PD COLB image to place on top of the FactCheck COLB image. Recall in my previous post that I found a very close correspondence between the 2002 PD COLB and the "2007" FactCheck COLB.

When the top borders of the FactCheck COLB were aligned with the genuine 2007 COLB, the alignment of all the printed information common to both COLBs, grew worse as you progress downwards to the bottom of both COLBs.

Here's a visual comparison of the FactCheck COLB image placed on top of a New 2007 COLB:

If you are going to bash FactCheck, what makes Polarik's BLOG so reliable? When did this become a news source for the masses?

Did anybody watch the O'Reilly Factor (fair and balanced............hahahahahahahaha) last night? Anyway, it was actually pretty good, and for once, balanced. He was upset that neither candidate attacked the issue of de-regulation, which both parties agreed to, and that neither candidate seemed genuinely upset about what's going on. I think it's usually archived. Check it out.

Also, has Fox News (probably the only conservative to moderate major news network) picked up on this story and running daily checkups on the status of Berg v. Obama? Just wanted to know, because if this was such a huge story, I would see this story on that network at the very least.....

No. It's not valid. Otherwise I'm sure Sean Hannity would be all over it.

I guess that's why this thing is in court now isn't it? Again, I'm comparing analysis from document records experts who are far smarter than you or I. Again, you simply cannot answer the question as to why Obama won't simply produce the documents requested. Factcheck is an Annenberg associated organization that may or may not be impartial enough. I'd like to know how and why they are the only organization that actually has gotten to look at this birth certificate. Can you tell me why?

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pe...08cv04083/281573/16/

Quiz time for BNN and DBKP readers.

Let’s say you’re a Democrat and let’s say you’re running for president of the United States.

You’re a likable guy and are doing well–the New York Times and AP think you’re peachy–but there have been whispers of whether or not you are constitutionally qualified.

A prominent Democrat files suit in Federal court asking you to provide proof, to settle the matter once and for all. The judge then orders you to provide the court with the documents.

What do you do?

* A. Provide the court with the three documents in question and go back to shaking hands, making promises and smiling for the cameras.
* B. Provide images of one of the documents to a friendly website to post, but not to the judge.
* C. Ignore the judge, then make a motion to dismiss the case, in lieu of providing the proof.
* D. In the meantime, quietly, post a notice at your website, FighttheSmears.com that you had dual citizenship with Kenya.
* E. Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case.
* F. File a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08, thereby putting the matter off until–hopefully–after the election.

Time’s up. What do you do?

Most readers sensibly chose A.

But, if you’re Barack Obama, you chose answers B, C, D, E and F.

A curious response for a campaign interested in “fighting the smears”.

What’s the big deal? Regular folks provide their birth certificates every day for any number of reasons: obtaining a driver’s license or marriage license come to mind. Heck, even kids have to provide a certified copy of their birth certificates to register for kindergarten in many locales.

Most people do it–if they’re able–without much grumbling.

And they’re not even running for President.

As DBKP kept asking for ten long months during the John Edwards’ scandal:

“If there is nothing to hide, why is everyone involved going to such lengths to hide it?”

No large media outlet will touch this until Judge Surrick makes a ruling.

This sure seems like a mess. Come to think of it, Obama could be in a ton of trouble here.

Imagine how much trouble he'd be in if he had ever deserted military duty at a National Guard Unit......

He must have powerful friends to protect him and his interests, like, say, this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF5MhzFdBsU

Nice of you to deflect the issue at hand.

The real question is WHY this is brought up in the first place. This is a race and religion issue, and I wish people would get this out in the open.

HB, I do understand ONE of your points though. It would end this matter if Obama would just provide a birth certificate. He SHOULD NOT have to, because of the reasons that I think (race and religion), but it would solve all of this. In some way I believe that if he gives into this suit, that would set a precedent to challenge Obama on every single issue that he has ever come across in his lifetime, and I don't think he should have to.

I think the issue at hand is the validity of a presidential candidate. Evidently, a deserter is a valid candidate.

So let me ge this straight, basically this whole post is about the republicans wishing, pleading, and praying that Obama doesn't have a legit birth certificate, meaning he isn't a natural born US citizen, so he in the end can't run for president? Wow I guess some people really must be scared that Obama might win and they are trying everything they can to stop that from happening. IMO