DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate

Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots'

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. Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.

Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent. "I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots. "Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.

"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."

Berg is frustrated, not only with his own party's leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama's background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well. "I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama. "Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.

Obama's website counters Berg's claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website's "Fight the Smears" section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.

Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right. "I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

Berg told WND, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. .Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."

When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court." "We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this. "The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.

Source







Hillary Clinton bites back at Obama

HILLARY CLINTON, Barack Obama's defeated opponent in the Democratic primary, has infuriated his supporters by praising Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, for her performance in last week's television debate. "It is amazing, you know, she's been thrust in the spotlight with very little national preparation and I think, all things considered, you saw a very composed and effective debater," Clinton said.

Her husband Bill recently issued some compliments of his own. "I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," he said. Her husband's lukewarm endorsement of Obama was parodied on Saturday Night Live.

Source





Sarah unloads on Obama

Fox News' Carl Cameron conducted the first post-debate interview with Sarah Palin this morning. The extensive interview went over last night's Vice-Presidential face off, her debate prep, campaign strategy, media access and the hits she has been getting for not having more access to the media, and of course the much talked about and criticized interview she did with CBS's Katie Couric.

Palin told Carl that she was "annoyed" at some of the interviews she has done, "Ok I'll tell you honestly the Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed because it's man no matter what you say you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question you are going to get clobbered on the answer," Palin said. "If you choose to try and pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about you get clobbered for that too."

She then aimed to defend herself for some of the criticism she got for the Couric interview. She was blasted for not answering Couric's question on any of the periodicals she reads or even a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. She defended some of the circular answers she gave the CBS anchor saying that she did not get to cover some of the topics she saw as important, "But in those Katie Couric interviews I did feel that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a V.P. candidate stands for. What the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars."

She then slammed Barack Obama calling him disqualified to be President of the United States, "Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may - in my world- disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief." Palin said, "Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly- just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That's reckless. So I wanted to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize about being a little annoyed, but that is also an indication of being outside that Washington elite and being outside the media elite also and just wanting to talk and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."

Source







Maybe Obama Does Not Know How to Use A Computer, Either

Senator Obama's campaign made fun of John McCain for not using email (and by implication, for not knowing how to use a computer). After the most recent debate, I think Obama may not know how to use one, either. I remain undecided about the best way to stay informed about current events. I still like newspapers and cable television, but I also learn a lot from Internet news sites, even e-mail. Running for president is a busy job, but it seems that there should be time for flipping open the old laptop occasionally. If Senator Obama had done so, he would have found out a few things that Friday night's debate seemed to leave in doubt.

Take the war on terror. Senator Obama seems to believe that the war on terror is equivalent to a war on Afghanistan, saying that the war began there and that it should have been our central focus, that we took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq, that McCain was wrong when he said we would be hailed as liberators. His laptop could have told him that the war on terror is a war against terrorists and an ideology, not against a country. The 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Using his logic, we should have attacked Saudi, not Afghanistan. Most Americans certainly want to capture Osama Bin Laden, so if Obama is certain that he is in Afghanistan, why doesn't he tell the military the location of the cave he is in so they can send a bunker bomb?

Was Iraq really taking our eye off the ball? Think back to 9/11. Options included fighting back or allowing the terrorists to murder us a few thousand at a time. Terrorists are all over the world, but they are prevalent in the Middle East. We needed a stronger presence there, to be closer to them. Afghanistan has the most hostile terrain in the world. Ask Russia. Aren't those their tanks left to rust in the mountains? Iraq, on the other hand, had a malevolent dictator who had violated fifteen UN resolutions and tortured and killed innocents daily. He had openly stated his desire to obtain nuclear weapons and had taken steps to do so, had thrown out UN inspectors, and had used chemical and biological weapons in warfare before. Let's see now ...search thousands of caves for Bin Laden in the worst terrain on the planet or invade a hostile country that is close to the heart of terrorist activity? Tough question.

McCain was wrong when he said we would be greeted as liberators? Who were those people waving and bowing as our tanks rolled through Baghdad? Who were those guys who pulled down the statues of Saddam Hussein? Sure, they did not include the people we had defeated, but I don't think that McCain or any reasonable person expected the enemy to hail us as liberators. Citizens who had been freed from tyrannical rule, however, did welcome us. True, few anticipated the strong resistance from Sunni and Shiite tribes. Few knew that Iran would supply the tribes and terrorists with weapons. But things go wrong in every war, and McCain was on target when he called for more troops. Where were you, Senator Obama? I believe you were advocating surrender.

On the subject of surrender, is it true that you sent envoys to Iraq urging delays of American troop withdrawals so that your administration can take credit for ending the war? And please explain why American lives are more precious in Iraq than they would be in Afghanistan-why you are willing to spend treasure and lives in this hostile land, but want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq?

Obama says that Al-Queda is stronger than it was in 2001. A quick glimpse at the laptop would have told you that we have just about defeated these guys in Iraq. They are on the run, unless those generals and Iraqi leadership are all wrong. Don't we want them on the defense? They were clearly on offense on 9/11/01 and the multiple other times they attacked us.

Then there was that thing about being against the war from the beginning. Obama stated that he took that position at considerable political risk. Some of my friends (who also do not seem to have computers) think that he voted against the war. I tell them he did not vote at all. It degenerates into several embarrassing "Did-too's" and Did-not's." Of course, Obama was not in the U.S. Senate during the vote, but in the Illinois State Senate. Do they vote on wars in Illinois? Since Obama is a creation of the Chicago Political Machine, which opposes the war, and since he represented a liberal constituency that also opposed the war, what exactly was the risk? If Obama had watched the U.S. Senate vote on C-Span, he would have known he was not there. He would have known that nobody cared about his opinion. Then again, maybe he does not watch television, either.

Source






Crossed paths

The New York Times looks at the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. It concludes that Obama may have downplayed his relationship with Ayers, but believes the relationship between the two was not close.

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."

Stanley Kurtz, a National Review writer who has extensively researched Barack Obama's working relationship with Ayers in connection with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational foundation based in Chicago, vehemently disagrees.

There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers' radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers' radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

Shane's article buys the spin on Ayers' supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers' supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers' later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn't view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he's not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise.

Glenn Reynolds argues that whatever befall, the Obama-Ayers issue has now crept onstage. But where exactly might this issue lead? One of Glenn's readers has flipped the question and argues that the real question isn't what drew Obama to Ayers, but what drew Ayers to Obama. "Here is the thing that eats at me. What did Ayers see in him? . Dorhn, Ayers, Wright all saw something in Obama that made them want to be with him and promote him? These are not people who like promoting pro-America candidates."

Of course Obama's defenders can argue that people are in the unfortunate habit of projecting their aspirations onto politicians, especially one who famously described himself as a `blank screen' on which different groups could project their dreams. Maybe what you see in Obama is whatever you want to see in Obama. Glenn Reynolds realizes that this argument applies both to the critics and believers in Obama. David Brooks caustically remarked that "Barack Obama loves the future because that's where all his accomplishments are." His supporters might argue that's also where his defects lie. Which brings us back to Ayers.

Although Obama's accomplishments may all lie in his glittering tomorrow, Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are inconveniently part of his existing record. Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are a substantial component of his political political career. It is one point upon which Obama actually has "history". Unlike the prospective, which is infinitely malleable, Ayers is the one of those things about BHO by which he can actually be measured. Therein lies the danger.

Source






Lots of law evasion in donations to Obama

Mr. Good Will - who lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You" - has contributed 1,000 times to the Barack Obama campaign. All the contributions have been in amounts of $25 or less. But they add up to $17,375 - far more than the legal limit of $4,600. That's $2,300 each for the primary and general election campaigns.

Kenneth Timmerman, a reporter for NewsMax, a conservative Web site, discovered Mr. Good Will when he reviewed 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest Federal Elections Commission master file for the Obama campaign. Mr. Good Will said he was from Austin, Texas. When I called directory assistance, they could find no listing for him.

Mr. Doodad Pro made 786 contributions for a total of $19,500. Like Mr. Good Will, Mr. Pro lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You." Mr. Pro said he is from Nunda, N.Y. Directory assistance found no listing for him either.

Mr. Obama has raised a whopping $223 million in contributions of less than $200. Candidates are not required to disclose the names of those who contribute less than $200, and Mr. Obama has not. John McCain has made his complete donor database available online. But the Federal Elections Commission does require campaigns to keep a running tally of contributions and to disclose the identity of donors once their total contributions exceed $200. This is how Mr. Good Will and Mr. Doodad Pro came to light.

If there are more suspicious donors to the Obama campaign, we won't know until long after the election as long as their aggregate contributions are below the legal limit. Mr. Timmerman was particularly curious about 11,500 contributions from overseas totalling $33.8 million.

Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton required foreign donors to provide proof of citizenship. Until very recently, Mr. Timmerman said, the Obama campaign did not. "More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address," Mr. Timmerman wrote. But they accounted for only 12 percent of Mr. Obama's overseas donors, and the aggregate total of their contributions was just $201,680...

If Mr. Obama were a Republican, the news media would be demanding he disclose the names of all of his donors - as er, the Republican has done - so we can see if there are among them other Good Wills and Doodad Pros.

CNN recently sent a reporter to Little Diomede Island, the westernmost part of Alaska (2.4 miles from Russia) to determine whether Sarah Palin had ever been there to see Russia with her own eyes. But CNN - and the rest of the media - have been incurious about the Obama campaign's fund-raising.

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about [the mainstream media] being in the tank for O is true," said an e-mail to Web logger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) from someone he knows at a major news organization. "We have a team of four people going through Dumpsters in Alaska and four in Arizona. Not a single one looking into ACORN, Ayers, or FreddieMae [sic]. Editor refuses to publish anything that jeopardizes the election for O, and betting dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. . The fix is in, and it's working."

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)