Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
My BC states which hospital I was born at.

Anyone know the hospital BHO was born at?

The Certificate of Live Birth that was issued to him (and later released) doesn't list a hospital, but presumably the original long-form certificate would include that and other additional details currently kept private. Not that we'll ever know, since it will never be releaed.

Edit: FWIW though, Obama's half-sister Maya stated in one interview that he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, and then in another interview four years later she stated that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu. This inconsistency was one of the reasons for the suit, but it's probably just an honest mistake. It was one of those two.

[Ramo]

a well-regarded formed Deputy Attorney General of a large state

Berg claims to be a former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General, although any attorney admitted to the Bar of Pennsylvania that provides legal services for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General is given this title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_J._Berg#cite_note-0

And "well-regarded" according to whom?

I think Alan Keyes (again, who filed a similar suit) is significantly more credible than this guy. Which I didn't think I'd ever say...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip...rg#cite_note-0

When did I say he was the AG's right-hand man? Even if he was on the lowest of the four DAG tiers, which you haven't shown, it's still a position given a great deal of public responsibility. I'm not saying he's the next Jim Garrison or anything.

Originally posted by Ramo
And "well-regarded" according to whom?

Ok it was stupid to word it that way, but I only mean prominent in his local community to the extent that anyone must be to become the third-largest PA county's Democratic Party Chair, obtain a DAG appointment, garner tens of thousands of votes in gubernatorial & senatorial primaries, etc.; i.e. he's at least a more substantial and professional figure than the Dale-Gribble-esque-mom's-basement-blogger-types that are associated with this topic, which of course isn't saying much.

I've even said in this thread that I think he's a crackpot. I was only responding to your suggestion that somehow the public memory of this story will be of a GOP hatchet-job, even though the publicized standard-bearer openly despises Republicans. The guy thinks Bush let 9/11 happen and sought SCOTUS justices' disbarment over Bush v. Gore for crying out loud. Hardly a Coulter fan.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
I just want to know the truth.
Its in my nature to question.
I just wish more people would do the same.
No harm in asking a question unless one has something to hide.

You have been told and shown the truth repeatedly. The problem is that you refuse to believe it without any sane reason.

[Docfeelgood]

Originally posted by GePap


You have been told and shown the truth repeatedly. The problem is that you refuse to believe it without any sane reason.

From a bunch of cyberbullies who think they know it all?
I don't think so buba!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood

From a bunch of cyberbullies who think they know it all?
I don't think so buba!

Sorry to break it to you, but facts are facts no matter who delivers them, and no matter what you think of those people.

You have no shown no documentary or testimonial evidence that Obama wasn't born in the United States, or links to any site showing such evidence.

All you have is supositions, rumors, and an asenine beliefe that somehow you or any tom, dick, or harry is entitled to view someone's confidential information cause you care to.

Hey, you know what? You are a tax cheat. Prove you aren't! Post your tax returns for the past 10 years. Until you do, it is clear that you can't disprove the claim. After all, making a claim seems sufficient to create an "issue" in your mind.

[GePap]

NIce article form Slate about the insanity.

http://www.slate.com/id/2206033

I am not going to waste the time to quote it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Hey, you know what? You are a tax cheat. Prove you aren't! Post your tax returns for the past 10 years. Until you do, it is clear that you can't disprove the claim. After all, making a claim seems sufficient to create an "issue" in your mind.

Wow, I hadn't noticed that DFG was running for President of the United States, with basic qualifications derived from the country's founding document. I'm so honored to be graced by his presence.

[OzzyKP]

I'm not going to waste my time posting in this thread.






oh crap

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


Wow, I hadn't noticed that DFG was running for President of the United States, with basic qualifications derived from the country's founding document. I'm so honored to be graced by his presence.

I am complete uninterested in your crusade about standing.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Darius871


When did I say he was the AG's right-hand man? Even if he was on the lowest of the four DAG tiers, which you haven't shown, it's still a position given a great deal of public responsibility.

That's what "Deputy" signifies in most states. As for my lack of evidence, that's all I could find about his "office" (and no, providing an unspecified service to a state AG's office is almost certainly not "a great deal of public responsibility"). If he were higher up on the food chain, one would think more information would be available.

I was only responding to your suggestion that somehow the public memory of this story will be of a GOP hatchet-job, even though the publicized standard-bearer openly despises Republicans.

I don't agree that this guy becomes the story when far more people than him traffic in it, the vast majority of whom are Republicans. And he is clearly not the highest profile guy who filed suit. Alan Keyes has a far higher profile, and there may be others.

the third-largest PA county's Democratic Party Chair, obtain a DAG appointment, garner tens of thousands of votes in gubernatorial & senatorial primaries, etc.

In the last election he ran in (AFAIK), he got a grand total of 1.3% of the primary vote. The guy who ended up actually winning was the political juggernaut who managed to lose to Rick Santorum just as the Dems were taking a number of class of '94 GOP Senate seats. In the county where he was supposedly chair (who knows when), he did slightly better - 1.9% (503 votes). That's not prominence; that's noise.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=12&ElectionID=1

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap




I am complete uninterested in your crusade about standing.

My "crusade"? So far I'm merely unconvinced about standing, and against Berg on the facts. In fact, he's so obviously DOA on the facts that standing is about the only issue worth discussing. But I do think it is utterly ridiculous taking about "privacy" with respect to eligibility of people who voluntarily choose to seek public office. To compare them to an average schmuck like docfeelgood is, well...

[Imran Siddiqui]

People need to calm down on both sides here. Darius is correct that the standing issue is something the SCOTUS may want to clear up. It makes no sense that a voter can't have standing to challenge the eligibility of a government official for office. Who else would have standing? His opponent?

Secondly, Obama was born in Hawaii, there is more than enough proof of it.

Thirdly, as I pointed out, even if Obama was disqualified (wouldn't happen) the electors are Dem electors and would end up putting Biden or Hillary Clinton in... or someone even more left wing and less pragmatic (see Obama's cabinet picks and compare them with what someone like Pelosi would have done), so Republicans licking their chops over this need to knock it off.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
providing an unspecified service to a state AG's office is almost certainly not "a great deal of public responsibility"

"Unspecified service"? The website makes clear that anyone with that status is at the very least an active litigator with the state of Pennsylvania as his client, and with the lower tier of law clerks doing research for him/her. How is that not a great deal of public responsibility? Maybe a rubber-stamping court administrator wouldn't be, or some associate working at a private municipal law firm hired by a county to file for a water main easement, or whatever the hell else, but not a DAG leading a litigation team in the state's employ for almost a decade. Just ask any acquaintance in law school if that's a big deal.

Originally posted by Ramo
In the last election he ran in (AFAIK), he got a grand total of 1.3% of the primary vote. The guy who ended up actually winning was the political juggernaut who managed to lose to Rick Santorum just as the Dems were taking a number of class of '94 GOP Senate seats. In the county where he was supposedly chair (who knows when), he did slightly better - 1.9% (503 votes). That's not prominence; that's noise.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa....2&ElectionID=1

*shakes head* When did I say he was a serious contender? I was very, very explicit that his prominence and related degree of credibility are only notable in a relative sense when compared to the typical kooks that do this sort of thing, and that's not saying much. I also made clear that it only matters insofar as it affects how much he'll be at the forefront of the public memory of this controversy vis-a-vis the GOP (and you can forget about Keyes, since everybody else has forgotten it, out of those who ever even caught that minor aspect of a minor Senate race half a decade ago, who were few to begin with). If you want somebody to actually defend the guy or suggest he's objectively credible, then ask docfeelgood, TCO, or that straw man in the corner, because I'm done with this. I thought I couldn't have been more clear:

Originally posted by Darius871
I'm not saying he's the next Jim Garrison or anything.

...

i.e. he's at least a more substantial and professional figure than the Dale-Gribble-esque-mom's-basement-blogger-types that are associated with this topic, which of course isn't saying much.

I've even said in this thread that I think he's a crackpot.

[TCO]

It would be a glorious kerfuffle. No doubt that Biden takes over (if after the swearing in). Or him or some demo if before. But would be a glorious embarressment.