Obama NOT a US Citizen?

**Webmaster** · 08-23-2008, 00:56

If this guy is right, then this is going to get interesting! It also means that he is ineligible to serve as President!

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

I am listening to an interview with this attorney (Philip Berg) and we've got issues with multiple and maybe forged birth certificates, and all type of irregularities.

**AllanJGAnderson** · 08-23-2008, 03:59

Sorry to let you down: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Hope you didn't donate TOO much money to that cause.

**Webmaster** · 08-23-2008, 04:08

Originally Posted by AllanJGAnderson

Sorry to let you down: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Hope you didn't donate TOO much money to that cause.

Sorry to let you down, but this is an actual lawsuit by a real lawyer and not some internet rumor. The gentleman that has filed this lawsuit has evidence to back up his claims that Obama may not be a US citizen (due to the weirdness of immigration laws) and that Obama may be using forged documents. I would not dismiss this so quickly based on evidence provided by the Obama campaign and a SNOPES entry. Documents can and have been forged before and SNOPES has gotten things wrong before. Read the documents on the Berg website and let's just see where this goes.

Oh and note that the supposed Certificate of Live Birth that is linked from the SNOPES website has a little strange discrepancy. The Date of Birth and Date Filed by Registrar are both in a different font type, size and using normal capitalization and not all capitalized as is the other information on the certificate. The Child's Name also appears to be not aligned on the left with the other text on like the mother and father's name. Another thing, look at the background pattern around the names. Note that the background pattern around things like the Child's Name and Father's Name is broken and not clear, whereas it is unbroken and clear around other text.

Oh and this has C L I N T O N written all over it.

**David Craik** · 08-23-2008, 05:33

I've handled a lot of birth certificates and I don't think I've ever seen one that simple before. Seems like they usually have the D.O.B. of the mother and father, often their nationalities too. No signature, 'certified true copy', or embossed seal either. I wonder what's up with the 2007 date stamp which seems to have bled through the paper. And since when is 'African' a race?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if there's any substance to the claim. It appears that Berg has a pretty impressive background in law and government, it doesn't seem like he would file a frivolous suit or not know what he's talking about. And he's a Democrat to boot?

**Robv82** · 08-23-2008, 06:52

Originally Posted by David Craik

I've handled a lot of birth certificates and I don't think I've ever seen one that simple before. Seems like they usually have the D.O.B. of the mother and father, often their nationalities too. No signature, 'certified true copy', or embossed seal either. I wonder what's up with the 2007 date stamp which seems to have bled through the paper. And since when is 'African' a race?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if there's any substance to the claim. It appears that Berg has a pretty impressive background in law and government, it doesn't seem like he would file a frivolous suit or not know what he's talking about. And he's a Democrat to boot?

I'd say it is about 50/50. He is a Hillocrat.

The timing to the DNC is interesting. Could raising enough doubt about Obama's back round cause problems with that process?

**Jeff C.** · 08-23-2008, 09:00

Why did they black-out the Certificate Number on his birth registration before publishing it? It is a matter of public record. What would be the purpose of blacking that out???

Jeff Cook

**David Craik** · 08-23-2008, 14:30

That is a good question too. That number exists only for filing purposes, it's not like an SSN or something. There is a helluva lot of blurring/halo around the text on that document too. I could forge a better one on my PC/scanner.

**stephenk** · 08-24-2008, 04:37

Can someone explain how, if the evidence is so clear, that this hasn't been a major focus of the Republican party.

It would seem that they have access to funds and, I imagine, quite a bit of heavy-hitting legal expertise and experience.

You would think that they would grab onto this like a starving rottweiler instead of leaving it to some random dude on the internet, who, although it seems has some state-level legal experience, seems to no longer be 'in the mainstream' :

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

Considering this would be an instant knock-out punch to Obama, I can't come up with a reason that they wouldn't pursue it.

You could make the argument that the Republicans are waiting longer to ensure the Democrats don't have time to recover before the election. But that would require the Republicans, and everyone on the internet, to know about this evidence and the Democrats to be ignorant of it. Otherwise they clearly would have either not allowed Obama to go forward or would have removed him already and would be using the time to market a new candidate.

I also think that it's likely that Clinton would have used this as well, as it would have handed her the nomination. I don't think she's the sort of politician to shy away from a strategy like that.

I'd like to note that I've spent a total of less than a minute looking at the 'evidence'. The fact is that I don't have the forensic knowledge to make any determinations nor do I have access to the actual physical documents that would be required to carry out an analysis.

Nor is such knowledge needed, all you need to do is assume that:

1. Each party wants to win.
2. Someone in each party, with authority, is aware of this. (i.e. uses the internet)
3. They (the party) have the ability (money, knowledge) to make use of the documents.

Really, that's about it.

Edit: I have no party affiliation and am truly (for the first time) 'undecided'.

**Webmaster** · 08-24-2008, 07:26

Originally Posted by stephenk

Edit: I have no party affiliation and am truly (for the first time) 'undecided'.

You're a Brit, I would hope that you have no party affiliation and are not planning on voting in our elections.

**AllanJGAnderson** · 08-24-2008, 09:19

Originally Posted by Webmaster

You're a Brit, I would hope that you have no party affiliation and are not planning on voting in our elections.

I was thinking the exact thing when I read that.

**Prince Loeffler** · 08-24-2008, 11:08

Originally Posted by stephenk

Can someone explain how, if the evidence is so clear, that this hasn't been a major focus of the Republican party.

It would seem that they have access to funds and, I imagine, quite a bit of heavy-hitting legal expertise and experience.

You would think that they would grab onto this like a starving rottweiler instead of leaving it to some random dude on the internet, who, although it seems has some state-level legal experience, seems to no longer be 'in the mainstream' :

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

Considering this would be an instant knock-out punch to Obama, I can't come up with a reason that they wouldn't pursue it.

You could make the argument that the Republicans are waiting longer to ensure the Democrats don't have time to recover before the election. But that would require the Republicans, and everyone on the internet, to know about this evidence and the Democrats to be ignorant of it. Otherwise they clearly would have either not allowed Obama to go forward or would have removed him already and would be using the time to market a new candidate.

I also think that it's likely that Clinton would have used this as well, as it would have handed her the nomination. I don't think she's the sort of politician to shy away from a strategy like that.

I'd like to note that I've spent a total of less than a minute looking at the 'evidence'. The fact is that I don't have the forensic knowledge to make any determinations nor do I have access to the actual physical documents that would be required to carry out an analysis.

Nor is such knowledge needed, all you need to do is assume that:

1. Each party wants to win.
2. Someone in each party, with authority, is aware of this. (i.e. uses the internet)
3. They (the party) have the ability (money, knowledge) to make use of the documents.

Really, that's about it.

Edit: I have no party affiliation and am truly (for the first time) 'undecided'.

Didn't we make it clear on the Ghent Contract for the Brits not to meddle with the affairs of the Colony ?.....................

We are still a tad bit wary of what you guys did back in 1814. Never seen a large bunch of phsycopathetic pyromaniacs ...err I mean troops do so much damage on one city .......

**Ramirez** · 08-24-2008, 11:18

Is Steve a Brit? I thought he was a US citizen residing and working in the UK.

**stephenk** · 08-24-2008, 13:46

Originally Posted by Ramirez

Is Steve a Brit? I thought he was a US citizen residing and working in the UK.

Leave it to a Canadian to figure it out.

What'cha think aboot that, eh?

(I have family ties to Canada as well!)

And, BTW, were it that I were a loyal subject of HM The Queen, I think the logic would still be sound.

**Jeff C.** · 08-24-2008, 14:06

Steve, I think everyone is just finding it SO hard to believe that an American would WANT to reside in the UK!

Jeff Cook

**Ramirez** · 08-24-2008, 14:11

Originally Posted by stephenk

Leave it to a Canadian to figure it out.

What'cha think aboot that, eh?

(I have family ties to Canada as well!)

And, BTW, were it that I were a loyal subject of HM The Queen, I think the logic would still be sound.

, We'll met for pints when I make it to the "city", we can debate the price of oil , Wall Street bonuses etc. whilst getting pie eyed with the Bodington's.

**Ramirez** · 08-24-2008, 14:12

Originally Posted by Jeff C.

Steve, I think everyone is just finding it SO hard to believe that an American would WANT to reside in the UK!

Jeff Cook

I guess you have never seen page 3 of the Sun....a couple of reasons every day to reside in the UK.

**stephenk** · 08-24-2008, 14:26

Originally Posted by Ramirez

I guess you have never seen page 3 of the Sun....a couple of reasons every day to reside in the UK.

Yes. Also less commercials on TV, 'real ale', and, oh, have you seen the GBP/USD?

**stephenk** · 08-24-2008, 14:27

Originally Posted by Ramirez

, We'll met for pints when I make it to the "city", we can debate the price of oil , Wall Street bonuses etc. whilst getting pie eyed with the Bodington's.

Done! First round's on me...

**Jeff C.** · 08-24-2008, 17:40

Originally Posted by Ramirez

I guess you have never seen page 3 of the Sun....a couple of reasons every day to reside in the UK.

Mark, you are a Canadian - I don't expect you to understand, eh?

If you guys had something POSITIVE to look forward to, the highlight of your life would not be to hang out with another DUDE getting smashed on bitter!

Jeff Cook

**Ramirez** · 08-24-2008, 17:47

Originally Posted by Jeff C.

Mark, you are a Canadian - I don't expect you to understand, eh?

If you guys had something POSITIVE to look forward to, the highlight of your life would not be to hang out with another DUDE getting smashed on bitter!

Jeff Cook

Jeff, I am married with 3 kids, getting smashed is the highlight of my existence
these days. Getting smashed in the UK would be even better.