- Home
- Comments page at Berg site
- Believers in Barack – Apparently, “Obama love is blind”, by Thomas Sowell
- “Not a good time to be an American Muslim”: Both candidates running scared of 12% of electorate who think Obama is a Muslim
Comment at end
26th October, 2008
No “standing”? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
‘Judge Richard Barclay Surrick ruled that Philip Berg, an attorney in the state of Pennsylvania, lacked standing to bring such a suit.’
BERG APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT AND ASKS – WHO DOES HAVE STANDING?
So says the ‘Sunday Nation’ (African site). This publication also made the claim that this is a desperate attempt by “extremists” to prevent Obama from winning, neatly omitting to mention that the complainant is a Democrat and NOT a (right-wing) Republican.
‘Many of the same extremists have sought to link Senator Obama closely to Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who is portrayed by Obama-haters as both a communist and a supporter of radical Islam.’
AN EXPERIMENT
TONY BLAIR STANDS FOR US PRESIDENCY
Listen up, folks in Africa, America, Europe or elsewhere who are throwing the racist jibes around.
Let’s replace Obama with a white non-American … oh, I don’t know … let’s say Tony Blair for the sake of argument.
Tony Blair with Senator Obama earlier this year.
If Tony Blair had been chosen as the candidate for either party on the grounds that he was popular, respected and could bring people together right across the political spectrum, do you really think no-one would question his eligibility? Of course they would, on the grounds that he was born in Britain. People of all races would be right so to do.
According to the US constitution you need to be a “natural born Citizen” to stand as President. No ifs, no buts.
So Blair’s candidacy would be thrown out, and rightly so.
WHAT IF…
If Mr Obama IS elected president and afterwards it is confirmed that he was NOT born in the USA, what happens then?
- Is it a fait accompli and the constitution is altered retrospectively to allow any and all others from any and all countries to stand for president. (Might we have President Ahmadinejad in 2012?)
- Or is it accepted as a one-off boob – a bit like the female catholic pope?
- Or does Obama stand down, do a spell inside for misrepresentation of the facts, as Joe Biden becomes President?
- Or do the Republicans take over by default?
- Or are there new elections with a new Democrat candidate?
It seems an odd decision to say that Mr Berg has “no standing” to file such a claim about the potential leader of the Free World.
We are still awaiting confirmation that Mr Obama’s birth certificate has been cleared as genuine. When that is done by a court/body trusted on all sides, we can all forget the claims. And I’m sure we will.
The Count Us Out site has a scanned photocopy of the judge’s decision (pdf)
They quote Berg here:
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
And Berg’s ‘Obama Crimes’ site has the press release (pdf) which he has released.
Rough pasted copy follows:
For Immediate Release: – 10/25/08
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire Berg v. Obama
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005 No. 08-cv-04083
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659 philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Philip J. Berg is Appealing
to the U.S. Supreme Court
as Obama is “NOT” qualified
to be President of the United States
Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who
filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications”
to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately
appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg
v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of
the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have
standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question
the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-
Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having
their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility
requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Application Data\Opera\Opera\profile\cache4\temporary_download\Obama
Press Release 10 25 2008.doc 1
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’
Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the
Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread
the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV
stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people,
are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
WHO SAID: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”?
But if they want Obama in many if not most European countries, what does it matter if he is ineligible to stand?
Billboard in Belgrade, Serbia. WHY? Do THEY have a vote? "Change we can believe in. Europe has no alternative". What absolute ignorant codswallop!
After all …
Tags: Barack Obama, court rejects Berg case, Judge Richard Barclay Surrick, judgement, lacked standing, no standing, Obama birthplace Kenya, obama indonesia born, Pennsylvania, Philip Berg Democrat attorney
Tony Blair 
October 26, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!
October 26, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
Right, Ted,
As a British citizen led to believe that “We, the people” is meaningful, I must say I find this conclsuion – “no standing” astounding.
I have no idea where Obama was born, but it can’t be that difficult for him to PROVE it, if it was in Hawaii. There are too many questions being asked for him just to ignore this. If he wins under this cloud, I think the calls of dissatisfaction will continue and get even louder.
Don’t know how much coverage this is getting in the American general press, but I tell you something, the British press are VERY quiet on it.
Well, knock me down with a biased journalist!
October 26, 2008 at 8:47 pm |
It is not only a question of his birthplace (NO birth certificate has been released…only a Certificate of Live Birth..different doc). It is also a question of his Indonesian citizenship when his mom married an Indonesian man who adopted Obama. That vitiated his US citizenship, if he had any.
The Judge who said US citizens cannot test the eligibility of a candidate for President under the US constitution is a frightening person. Our democracy is in the hands of a few elitists, not the people.
If it were not for the internet and one talk radio station (Savage) no one would know about this either. If you bring it up in politically correct society, people think you are “cranky.”
Scary!
From California
October 27, 2008 at 2:25 am |
Looks like it to me too.
You obviously need the British pressure group – Liberty – who work hard here to prove that all politicians are instinctively evil. They could come over to the states and sort it out for you.
If they do, please feel free to keep ’em.
October 27, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
I notice that, in the words of an article at the right-wing news site, News max.com, “Berg’s credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left “9/11 for the Truth” campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by “controlled demolition” ordered by the president of the United States”.
No doubt this explains why his appeal was thrown out on grounds of his “lack of standing”. In my view anyone who plays any part in a claim like that has forfeited the right to be taken seriously about ANYTHING.
October 28, 2008 at 12:33 am |
Good point Stan. Well your FIRST point, I mean. Berg’s credibility is tarnished to me too, now that this information is around.
Having said that, is that the approach I (& you) should be taking to this Mr Berg?
After all, is he a convicted criminal? And if he was, does that mean he has NO RIGHT to bring up such an important issue, given it’s not just invention?
In the good ol’ UK he’d be listened to intently if our courts are anything to go by. His Human Rights would be AOK, first and foremost and his right to lay a claim would likely be as pure and clear as that of any other citizen.
Or am I being too harsh on our courts? Perhaps.
You know if there is an expanded reason for saying that Berg lacks “standing” I’d be preapred to accept it. But I haven’t seen an explanation of what that actually means.
Do ALL US citizens lack standing, or is it just him because of his time-wasting over 9/11?
In short I have SOME sympathy with your view that he has forfeited the right to be taken seriously, in the same way that I’d feel if George Galloway was trying to bring a case against Blair for “war crimes”.
But something irks me here. It seems hardly right in a “liberal, free society” where each case should be considered on its merits.
It’s like we are pre-judging the validity of his claim, because we didn’t agree with his ‘treacherous’ remarks before, in another case.
So, I’m still open-minded on this business.
I’d just like Mr Obama to put the conspiracy stuff to bed and produce the birth certificate. It REALLY can’t be that difficult.
What do you say to this point, Stan? Do you think Obama should tell them all to get lost, and that it’s HIS birth certificate and none of their business. (McCain has already provided his for scrutiny.)
And what’s the history of producing birth certificates, I wonder? Are presidential candidates normally expected to produce them at any stage in the selection/election process?
Perhaps one of our American visitors here will let us know.
Just curious.
October 28, 2008 at 12:46 am |
Stan and others:
I have found this information here:
This is probably part of the earlier scanned judicial report which was hard to read. It says this:
So, looks like that’s it then, unless there is more to come out at another court or the Supreme Court.
October 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
BS, I’m glad to see that this particular conspiracy theory seems to have been finally nailed.
On your wider point, if time was spent taking everybody seriously and putting every conspiracy theory to bed I don’t think there would be much time for anything else.
October 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
Stan, you only have to spend the time reading the comments at the sites which have sympathy with Berg to see that they are not satisfied.
So, as for it being “nailed”, well, perhaps the jury’s still out.
I’m not sure yet if their agenda is wider than that stated – i.e. they don’t like or want Obama and will find anything they can to denounce him. We have seen Blair & Bush being castigated for those reasons, and it can be an unsavoury sight.
But personally, as a half-disinterested British citizen, I’m still undecided.
October 29, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
A Clinton appointed Judge says it all depends on the what the meaning of standing is! He had a good leader who asked what the meaning of is is!