Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama Citizenship Case Thrown Out Not on Merit


Yes, the headlines will read that a federal judge through out Phillip Berg's case questioning the validity of Barrak Obama's citizenship . Berg's case is based on his request for Obama to produce the full original birth certificate as Phillip Berg has audio recordings of Obama's family, including his paternal grandmother, claiming that they witnessed Barrak Obama being born in Kenya in 1961. The Judge said that an ordinary citizen does not have the standing to sue as he cannot prove injury due to the possible ineligibility of a presidential candidate.

While the judge is skeptical of Berg's claims, this does not dismiss the merit of the claim. He believes that Obama was sufficiently screened during the "hotly" contested primary. I dismiss such a statement as we know that Joe the Plumber received more media scrutiny than Obama. Obama's life and past are off limits to investigation and there really seems to be no will in the press to look into such important matters. Bush's guard service was absolutely essential in 2004, but Kenyan born Obama is just a technicality.

2 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Let us suppose you were right and that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

He WAS born in Hawaii. I’ve seen pictures of his certificate of live birth and a notice in the Honolulu Advertiser. If you claim that these are fraudulent, then the burden of proof is on you to show that he was born in some other place than Hawaii.

The guy who brought the original suit has never shown his alleged evidence. He claims that he has an audio tape from his Kenyan grandmother, which of course could be from any old Kenyan woman. And even if it is the grandmother, she could be confusing him with some other grandkid. Good evidence would be something from the Kenyan records showing that Obama’s mother had traveled to Kenya at the time of his birth. There’s absolutely no evidence of that, not even a claim that the guy has evidence.

If Obama had been born in Kenya, you would think that a Kenyan newspaper would be able to find that fact out. Or, if Obama had not been born in Hawaii, you would think a Hawaii newspaper would be able to find that fact out. Neither is the case.

The usual procedure when you want to prove something is that you produce the evidence to prove it. You do not claim that the other side’s not producing evidence against what you say is proof of what you say. The burden of proof is on you.

But suppose on a wild chance that all this evidence for Obama being born in Hawaii is wrong.

Suppose that Obama were born outside the USA. Suppose that this fact were to be proven before the election. Would this make McCain president? No. It would merely make Joe Biden the presidential candidate of the Democratic party.

Would Biden win just like Obama would? Sure.

Would he win even bigger than Obama would? Maybe. You can’t call him inexperienced or a terrorist or a friend of Ayers, nor would people who vote against Obama because of his race or alleged Arab ties or alleged Moslem religion vote against Biden.

Biden would get all the votes of Obama and maybe a few more.

Suppose it was proven after the election. Would that make McCain the president? No. If the Congress really bought the fact that Obama was not naturally born in the USA, and that Obama was not eligible to be president (which is a stretch because it is controlled by Democrats), then Biden would be president. If it were to go to the Supreme Court (which is a stretch because the court in the past said that the Congress has to decide such things), then would they give the election to McCain? No, at most they would give it to Biden.

So, what is the point?

jrchaard said...

Biden never got more than 1% of the vote in the primary. I welcome a Biden solo bid for the presidency.