Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency

Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency

by Jeff Schreiber
America’s Right.com

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit–just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver–for the health of the Democratic Party.

“I filed this action at this time,” Berg stated, “to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.”.

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator’s background, and in today’s lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls “dual loyalties” due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator’s use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of “multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries” remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, “apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight.” As Sen. Obama’s own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham–Obama’s mother–gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama’s birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals–Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital–in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple “registry of birth” records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a “natural born” citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama’s registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name “Barry Soetoro” and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama’s half-sister.

“Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama’s lies and obfuscations,” Berg stated. “If the DNC officers … had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws.”

“It is unfair to the country,” he continued, “for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected.”

Obama Sued In Philadelphia Federal Court On Grounds He Is Constitutionally Ineligible For The Presidency

Middle Eastern Crime

Hussein: U.S. Responsible For Russian Invasion Of Georgia By Setting Bad Example In Iraq

Rock Stars & Dead Babies: Hussein Exposes Himself As Lying Baby-Killer – With Video

Poll: Coloradans “not jumping up and down” over DNC

Obama’s Education Track record in Chicago

Obama’s Education Track record in Chicago

Ed Lasky
Barack Obama’s record as leader of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) has come under scrutiny by, among others Steve Diamond, Tom Maguire, Stanley Kurtz and our own Tom Lifson . The CAC was a group formed in 1995 by former Weather Underground terrorist and current educational radical theorist Bill Ayers and  Barack Obama, then an attorney at a politically connected law firm-Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.
 
Barack Obama was the founding chairman of the board and led the organization for 4 years. During his tenure, the CAC received $50 million dollars from the Annenberg Foundation and tens of millions of matching funds from local private and public dollars. This money was supposed to be spent improving the schools of Chicago. However, studies from the CAC itself, and confirmed by an analysis from the well-regarded Thomas B. Fordham Institute, show that the effort directed by Barack Obama led to no discernible improvement at all in the schools which were the beneficiaries of the funds nor in the ultimate intended beneficiaries, the students.

Earlier in the year, the author of that study, Alexander Russo, wrote a column for Slate magazine taking another look at Barack Obama’s performance as a school reformer. Given the current controversy over the Annenberg issue, Russo’s report should be revisited. .

 

One of the goals of Barack Obama was to devolve power over schools to local school councils (LSC) which were independent bodies made up of parents, teachers, and community members (ten in all) plus the principal. They were each dominated by 6 parents and were empowered to have a say over curriculum and also had the power to fire principals-an action that could be very disruptive to schools.

 

Russo writes:

 

Not surprisingly, the relationship has been extremely uneasy between the central board office (dominated by college-educated professionals) and individual school councils (dominated by minority parents, not all of them college-educated).
In reality, Obama never really championed the local councils. He supported them behind the scenes and only eventually came out publicly on their behalf. When he did weigh in, he came down on the wrong side of the debate-against protecting principals from unwarranted dismissals and in favor of keeping councils independent, no matter what. In the end, the resolution of the conflict between the two sides didn’t alleviate anyone’s concerns. Instead, it prolonged a turf battle that seems to have dragged down academic progress in the years since.
Obama’s links to local school councils began more than 20 years ago, when they were first being created. His South Side community organizing group, the Developing Communities Project, supported the 1988 reform act that created the councils. A decade later, when Obama was a second-year state senator, he served on the board of several local education foundations that had supported the councils and chaired the board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million philanthropic effort that supported local control.
Vallas felt that some effective principals were being let go because they were white or because of personal conflicts. He proposed giving himself the authority to review and approve most decisions to let principals go, styling the change as an “accountability” measure. Local-control advocates called it an attempt to “gut” local control.

 

Russo noted that Obama was ideally positioned to have worked to reconcile the two “sides’ in the conflict. He was friends with Arne Duncan and Paul Vallas-who was the superintendent of the school district and wanted to  restrict the power of the local school councils to fire principals and worked to organize the school system to work more effectively.

 

Where was Barack Obama during the controversy? He was AWOL.

 

Still. For several months, Obama didn’t indicate clearly where his sympathies lay. He didn’t join with protesters and other legislators who swarmed public events denouncing the Vallas proposal. He didn’t talk to the press about the importance of community engagement for schools or the unfairness of diminishing the influence of the 5,500 elected LSC members. Obama kept tabs on the negotiations through his staff, met occasionally with local-control advocates, and, according to those who were involved, sometimes provided ideas and advice in private. But that was about it. Some local advocates weren’t even sure whether he would ultimately be on their side or not. And many worried that without someone like Obama to stop it, the Vallas juggernaut would overrun any opposition.

 

Ultimately, Vallas lost the battle. Only after the battle was lost did Obama come out — for the victors — the local school councils.This would not be a Kennedy-like Profile in Courage moment.

 

In being so late to the debate, however, Obama didn’t really have to stand up to anyone — not the groups he was affiliated with, not Vallas, not Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. He was just approving the final result. He remained loyal to his roots, but only when it was easy to do so. To some critics, this is exactly the problem. “Obama has no history of standing up to school interests or anyone else,” says Dan Cronin, the Republican state senator who handled the 1999 legislation (and recalls little if any involvement from Obama). “If you look at his past record, there’s nothing that’s particularly bold or creative.”

 

Russo opines that Barack Obama would not be a leader in reforming our education system-given his sorrowful record in the City of Chicago. This is a conclusion that can certainly be drawn as well from an examination of how the funds raised for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge were apparently completely wasted.

 

Given the roadblocks placed in the way of Stanley Kurtz in examining the records of the Annenberg Foundation, perhaps another source of information might be Alexander Russo who wrote the Fordham study that laid bare the failure of the Obama led Annenberg effort in Chicago and who seemingly is one writer who is not reluctant to scrutinize Barack Obama’s record..

Did Michelle Obama funnel contract to big fundraiser?

Did Michelle Obama funnel contract to big

fundraiser?

Rosslyn Smith

The Washington Post notes that Michelle Obama’s employer, University of Chicago Medical Center,  gave a $650,000 contract to Blackwell Consulting.  The son of the owner,  Robert Blackwell Jr., a former partner in the consulting firm is one of her husband’s long time fundraisers.  In a now familiar refrain 
Blackwell Sr. described the genesis of his contract as “really fuzzy.” Sometime in 2004, he said, an employee of the center’s diversity office — he cannot remember who — mentioned an opportunity to bid on contracts there and offered to “talk us up.” 
The University of Chicago Medical Center has been the recipient of several of Senator Obama’s earmarks, as have been several other thriving Chicago not for profit organizations that have Obama fundraisers on their boards such as the Shedd Aquarium.   . .  The son of the owner,  Robert Blackwell Jr., a former partner in the consulting firm is one of her husband’s long time fundraisers.  In a now familiar refrain 
Blackwell Sr. described the genesis of his contract as “really fuzzy.” Sometime in 2004, he said, an employee of the center’s diversity office — he cannot remember who — mentioned an opportunity to bid on contracts there and offered to “talk us up.” 
The University of Chicago Medical Center has been the recipient of several of Senator Obama’s earmarks, as have been several other thriving Chicago not for profit organizations that have Obama fundraisers on their boards such as the Shedd Aquarium.   .

Bill & Barack’s Excellent Adventure

Bill & Barack’s Excellent Adventure

By Thomas Lifson

William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist and education professor, is once again being tied to Barack Obama in the public mind. Controversy builds over the withholding of the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an expensive failed school reform effort headed by Obama and effectively run by Ayers, held by the library of the University of Illinois Chicago. Researchers who have gained access to a few documents recording the history of the project have found strong evidence of a very important working relationship between the two men on the project, Obama’s sole claim to executive experience.

 

Oddly enough, even though the project produced no measurable improvement in student performance according to its own final report, educators and administrators — participants and grantees of the CAC — were reported by outside monitors to be often “ebullient” about the activities.  For insiders, it was an excellent adventure. For the pupils stuck in the failing public schools of Chicago, an ongoing, unrelieved disaster.

 

Obama and his campaign long have gone out of their way to downplay, in fact distort, the long and evidently deep relationship between Ayers and Obama. In the Philadelphia Democratic debate last April, George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relationship with Ayers, and the candidate responded:

 

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

“And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George. [….]

“So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow — somehow their ideas could be attributed to me — I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.”

 

Almost two months earlier, the “neighbor” talking point campaign manager David Axelrod introduced the notion that Obama and Ayers were mostly just neighbors, telling The Politico’s Ben Smith,

 

“Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school,” he said. “They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”

 

Ayers and his wife are in their sixties, while the Obamas are in the mid-forties. Ayers’ children are all adults, while Obama’s children are currently 10 and 7. Axelrod’s prevarication is obvious and bespeaks confidence that nobody in the media will bother to dispute an obvious falsehood.

“Flimsy” turns out to be a completely misleading word when it comes to characterizing the Obama-Ayers relationship.

Notwithstanding the campaign’s efforts to direct attention away from Ayers, a 527 group, American Issues Project, has just released the following ad tying Obama to Ayers, and says it is spending 2.8 million on television airtime in key states.
Despite the legally questionable embargo of the CAC archives, most of its tax returns and official evaluations of the CAC have already been made public. In the hands of intrepid bloggers such as Steve Diamond, Tom Maguire and Dan Riehl, there is already proof of Obama’s extensive involvement with Ayers over the course of his chairmanship, and an emerging picture of Obama’s indecisiveness and absence when serious problems needed leadership.

 

Barack Obama joined the CAC shortly after William Ayers and Anne C. Hallett received news that their letter of November 8, 1994 submitting a grant proposal to The Annenberg Challenge had been approved. They were to get as much as $49 million from Anennberg, plus tens of millions more dollars from other foundations. Obama’s involvement predates by months the actual incorporation of the CAC and his appointment as founding chairman of the board. He came on board almost as soon as the proposal was approved.

 

How on earth did a relatively unknown associate at a politically-connected but small Chicago law firm come to be entrusted with the heady task of handing out tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money?

Keep in mind that Obama was at this point in his career very undistinguished considering his pedigree. It would be a kind understatement to say he had underperformed his academic resume. Three years out of Harvard Law and the Law Review Presidency, here is a short list of some of the things Obama had not done:

 

Clerked for a US Supreme Court Justice (or any Federal Judge);

 

worked in an important legal position at any level of serious responsibility;

 

written a law review article or note or published anything of legal substance. 

 

As of 1995 Obama may have had the most professionally empty resume of any President of the Harvard Law Review three years gone from “The Law School.”

 

And yet Ayers gave him a gig that would enable him to hand out large amounts of money to many people in Chicago, who could be expected to be grateful, once Obama ran for office — as he was to do later that very year, in an event held at the home of Ayers and Dohrn.

 

Quite clearly, Obama was already well-enough known and trusted by Ayers to be offered the sensitive, prestigious and highly visible post of chairman of this important new undertaking. So we must ask, when did Obama and Ayers actually first get to know one another? And how did they come to trust one another?

 

One possible connection between Ayers and Obama was Sidley Austin, the prestigious Chicago law firm where Obama had a summer job after his first year at Harvard Law School, and where he met his future wife Michelle, assigned to him as a mentor. Also working at Sidley Austin was Bernadine Dohrn, wife of William Ayers, and a fellow Weather Underground terrorist. Given the shared “progressive” politics of the three, they probably knew one another and associated together at a firm known as a white shoe corporate practice.

 

Or Obama might have met Ayers even earlier, during his stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, in fact. Ayers was a well-known and very active figure in left wing Chicago politics, and might have encountered the young, articulate, Ivy League educated rookie black radical Obama, working in a Saul Alinksy spinoff.

 

We soon will know much more about the period of collaboration between Obama and Ayers following the start of the CAC. Even if the archives continue to be withheld from public scrutiny, the cat is out of the bag with the documents available to all. The formidable analytical engine of bloggers trading insights and new data is warming up.

 

But the period prior to 1995, the time when Bill and Barack, the terrorist and the presidential aspirant, got to know one another and build the relationship of trust, is one excellent adventure likely to remain obscure.

 

Hat tip: James Edward Pennington and Ed Lasky

 

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

The Olympic Games: A Propaganda Victory for China?

The Olympic Games: A Propaganda Victory for China?

By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/22/2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Kai Chen, a victim of China’s Cultural Revolution who fled his home at the age of 15. He found salvation in basketball and rose to became a member of the Chinese National Team. He used this athletic skill to escape China and to eventually settle in the U.S. He is the founder of the Olympic Freedom T-shirt Movement and author of One In A Billion: Journey Toward Freedom.
 

FP: Kai Chen, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Chen: Thank you.

FP: The current Olympic Games are being portrayed as a propaganda victory for China. Do you think that the Chinese government has succeeded in concealing the real nature of Chinese society from the international media? Has the international media attempted to look behind the new bamboo curtain?

Chen: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is, and has always been, a corrupt organization. There has never been any control mechanism within that organization. It has paid only lip service on the human rights issues in China, and entirely ignored the illegitimate nature of the Chinese communist regime. In a big way, the IOC helps conceal the nature of the Chinese society – a post communist, but neo-Nazi society, and deceive the world as the Chinese communist regime intended to. I have to say that the IOC is a big sham in a big scheme to legitimize an illegitimate government. In some way the criminal communist regime has already succeeded in their deception from the start: President Bush was there, wasn’t he?

With countless violations and tragedies caused by the Beijing Olympics Preparation Organization under the Chinese government, have you ever heard IOC squeeze a f— toward the Chinese government. NBC which covers the Beijing Olympics, often using Tiananmen Square as the back drop, fails to mention Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. A deal somehow has been struck between IOC and NBC, wouldn’t you say so?

But the real nature of the Chinese society as a real issue will never go away. The criminal government with its countless atrocities against humanity in the past and present has caused more than 70 million innocent lives in peace time. That issue will never go away, unless God is blind. The current anti-humanity activities by the Chinese criminal regime is still continuing. Falungong, Tibet, Christians, dissidents, one-child policy, corruption, supporting all the criminal regimes and groups around the world from Darfur to Burma to North Korea to Latin America with weapons and money. The world has to wake up to the Chinese threat, a threat to our own conscience, an invasion of our souls.

FP: One of the submotifs of the Games is China’s apparent willingness to cheat to win. They hardly fielded a women’s swimming team because their swimmers, once dominant, were decimated by doping violations. And now there are allegations that they have altered the ages of their gymnasts in violation of international rules. What does this say about Chinese society?

Chen: Nothing surprises me or shocks me in China. When I represented China in many international situations, my passport was civilian, even though I was an army man. Though in the 1970, illegal doping was unknown in China, because the regime was ignorant about it, by the beginning of 1990s, with the import of many East German coaches, doping was instituted as a government program to many athletes, especially women athletes. But just like in East Germany, (all the doping scandals only came out with evidence after the collapse of the Berlin Wall) the Chinese doping scandals will be exposed only after the future collapse of the communist regime with its archives eventually opened to the public.

The moral issue facing the individual Chinese athletes is: Does anyone eventually come forward to confess to the world of their drug use (forced or voluntary) under the supervision of the communist regime. Do they really want to return their gold medals? Does the under aged gold medalist have the freedom and courage to defy the entire Chinese society, their own families, their own community to admit these violations? If not, what is the moral consequences they will have to bear in their entire lives?

FP: One of the stories of the Chinese Games–even though it has not been deeply probed by the media–is the environmental devastation of the Chinese environment. How deep a problem is it? Is it possible for any environmental movement (outside a governmentally sanctioned one) to take on these problems in the way that western environmentalists have in their societies?

Chen: By Western standards, China should be officially defined as uninhabitable. The pollution issue is so big that no one in China, in the Chinese government, and possibly in the world, wants to face it, for the bigger, more pressing issue to the regime is how to deceive the entire population, how to prolong their control over the Chinese people by spiritually drugging them, how to stabilize a fundamentally unjust society (an impossible task). Food must be on the table, unemployment must be kept to the manageable level, dissidents must be crushed, the increasingly restless population must be pacified. Pollution and environment damage? What pollution and environmental damage?

Quite a few teammates of mine have already died of cancer in their 40s and 50s. Are they going to find out what caused their cancer? Do they have the means to find out? Quite unlikely.

FP: Some analysts have said that the “openness” shown by the Chinese government in terms of media coverage of the earthquake, combined with the international media’s presence at the Olympics, will have a modest but permanent liberalizing effect on Chinese society. Is this so?

Chen: If there has been an “openness,” it is not because the Chinese government wants to open, but because they have to change their policies in order to maintain their control over the population. On the one hand, they will have to continue to attract foreign investment to keep the economy humming. On the other hand, they also will have continue to build the information “firewall” – a new kind Chinese Great Wall, to keep all threatening elements, such as Christianity, Falungong, ideas of freedom and democracy out of the reach of the Chinese people. They now have employed 200,000 internet police to monitor the society. They also hired countless “50 cent” propaganda amateurs to help “lead” the public opinions toward government side, by demonizing the West, America, Christianity, Falungong, and people like me. My email contacts were recently attacked with viruses systematically from an unknown source.

“Open” or “closed” is only a tactic in the hands of an illegitimate government, insecure about its own future for the crimes it has committed against the entire population over the past 60 years.

FP: As you look behind the imagery of the Olympics–undoubtedly glamorous, but also airbrushed and sanitized, according to critics of the coverage–what kind of society do you see?

Chen: China is a fascist and neo-Nazi society. No one nowadays, including members of the communist party, believes in the ideology of communism – an ideology discredited world wide with the collapse of the USSR. But the Party-State structure left by the previous founders such as Mao is still very much intact. To make Mao’s image everywhere in China, on the currency, in school campuses, on Tiananmen Square is a crucial government policy to numb the Chinese people’s senses. To dismantle Mao’s image, the National Anthem what espouses despotism, the National Flag that symbolizes individuals’ submission to the collective, and the entire communistic organizational structure is not a task the communist party will ever possibly engage itself in. It depends on the organizational structure to survive another few years.

Evil’s triumph is because not enough good people stand up. And no evil will disappear by itself.

FP: Kai Chen, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Chen: Thank you.