Friday, October 10, 2008

Send a Freedom Of Information Act Letter To Hawaii

Yes I can and you can do something to expose the fraud of Barack Hussein Obama. What if thousands send letters to Hawaii requesting his birth certificate?

He was born in Kenya because his mother was not allowed to board a plane to Hawaii when she was about to give birth. The plane trip was aborted. The facts point to the conclusion Obama cannot produce a valid birth certificate and will fight in court to hide his true citizenship. I believe he is not a US citizen. Why will he not provide the requested proof of citizenship? Why fight in court to hide the birth certificate? It is obvious, he is a fraud. Obama is a fraud

Below is an example of a letter to send to the Attorney General Department of the Attorney General State of Hawaii Email the Department of the Attorney General to request an answer under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552.
Email The state dept of health also for a copy that does not exist
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mark Bennett, Attorney General
Department of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 should be noted and honored.

This is a freedom of information act request for the birth certificate of Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961. Because Mr. Obama is a public figure and because of the importance of this information to the public welfare the ordinary rules of confidentiality do not apply.

Sincerely,

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Janice Okubo
Department of Health
State of Hawaii
1250 Punchbowl Street Room 326
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813

Dear Ms. Okubo:

Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 should be noted and honored.


This is a freedom of information act request for the birth certificate of Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961. Because Mr. Obama is a public figure and because of the importance of this information to the public welfare the ordinary rules of confidentiality do not apply.

Sincerely,

Phil J. Berg files amended complaint in Berg v. Obama





THE OBAMA FAMILY-- back row from left: Unknown, Barack Obama, half-brother Malik (Obongo or Roy), unknown, half-brother Abo, Bernard. Front: Half-sister Auma, stepmum Kezia, stepgran Sarah, unknown.


He is a "natural" Indonesian citizen! He was born in Kenya! This is the kicker, he was born in Kenya! He is not a US citizen!

Obama Crimes
The Berg lawsuit contends there is enough truth in the various reports to conclude, "Obama is not a 'natural born' citizen."
The issue here is not Philip Berg's credibility, as tempting as it may be to make it so. The issue is the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as 44th president of the United States of America. Berg and his idiosyncrasies must be taken into consideration but cannot be transmogrified into the determining factor alone.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The suit alleges that while records exist of a "registry of birth" for Obama in Hawaii (filed four days after his claimed birthday), no records exist of his mother's stay in any Hawaii hospital, suggesting she may have given birth elsewhere and filed the registration shortly thereafter on American soil.

"Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states. "Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."




Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, nor is he a “naturalized” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Phil J. Berg filed an amended complaint today in Berg v. Obama. The amended complaint adds the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes (in his official capacity), the U. S. Sentate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senator Diane Feinstein (in her official capacity as chairman) for their failure to exercise due diligence with respect to Barack Obama's contitutional qualifications to be elected and serve as President of The United States, and for his inclusion on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a candidate for President of the United States.

The amended complaint also bolsters the standing argument and adds additional relevent facts.

Essentially, the argument is this:

* Senator Obama could put this whole issue to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate.
* Senator Obama has chosen not to do so.
* The defendants (other than Obama) have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral system by properly vetting the qualifications of candidates, which they have failed to perform.
* Mr. Berg, other Americans, and our system of government are damaged by this failure.
* Senator Obama, who has collected $425,000,000 in campaign contributions, has perpetrated a fraud.

Following are some of the factual statements made in the amended complaint (The complete complaint is attached below):

36. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which he must be a “natural born” citizen. Additionally, Obama must be at least a “naturalized” citizen to hold his Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, nor is he a “naturalized” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia. This is proven by Obama’s school record with the student’s name as “Barry Soetoro”, Father’s name: Lolo Soetoro, M.A., and Citizenship: Indonesia.

37. There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

38. Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

39. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'

The issue is the cover-up; Obama’s concealment of his own identity.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Obama plants seeds of disaster with acorn


Who can we blame for the manufactured financial crisis that is affecting the election? Planting Seeds of Disaster ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party ACORN and Barack Hussein Obama have in affect manufactured this financial crisis.

(ACORN lobbied, extorted, bought, threatened and played the race card) In all of this mess there is a recurring theme of the 'race card' played or threatened to be played. ACORN is like a jessie jackson or al sharpton super shakedown organization. Over and over again you hear the race card being played or threatened to be played.

If you don't believe me read the story below and you will clearly see why this mess has been created.

Let me list the names as documented in the story below who are to blame for America losing Billions:


Comrade Barack Hussein Obama
Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy
Senator Allan Dixon
House Democrat Henry Gonzales
ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts
Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos
Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson
Vice President Gore
Barney Frank
Senator Chris Dodd
Franklin Raines



////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”

Disaster

In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE FULL STORY STARTS HERE

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

By Stanley Kurtz

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Militant ACORN
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN, Organizing Urban America, Rutgers University political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Barack Obama, as “oppositional outlaws.” Swarts, a strong supporter of ACORN, has no qualms about stating that its members think of themselves as “militants unafraid to confront the powers that be.” “This identity as a uniquely militant organization,” says Swarts, “is reinforced by contentious action.” ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers. According to Swarts, long-term ACORN organizers “tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists...the only truly radical community organization.”

ACORN’s Inside Strategy
Yet ACORN’s entirely deserved reputation for militance is balanced by its less-well-known “inside strategy.” ACORN has long employed Washington-based lobbyists who understand very well how the legislative game is played. ACORN’s national lobbyists may encourage and benefit from the militant tactics of their base, but in the halls of congress they play the game with smooth sophistication. The untold story of ACORN’s central role in the financial meltdown is about the one-two punch to the banking system administered by this outside/inside strategy.

Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.

ACORN’s efforts to undermine credit standards in the late 1980s taught it a valuable lesson. However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market” run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards. If, for example, a local bank buckled to ACORN pressure and agreed to offer poor or minority applicants a 5-percent down-payment rate, instead of the normal 10-20 percent, Fannie and Freddie would refuse to buy up those mortgages. That would leave all the risk of these shaky loans with the local bank. So again and again, local banks would tell ACORN that, because of standards imposed by Fannie and Freddie, they could lower their credit standards by only a little.

So the eighties taught ACORN that a high-pressure, Alinskyite outside strategy wouldn’t be enough. Their Washington lobbyists would have to bring inside pressure on the government to undercut credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only then would local banks consider making loans available to customers with bad credit histories, low wages, virtually nothing in the bank, and even bankruptcies on record.

Democrats and ACORN
As early as 1987, ACORN began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to review their standards, with modest results. By 1989, ACORN had lured Fannie Mae into the first of many “pilot projects” designed to help local banks lower credit standards. But it was all small potatoes until the serious pressure began in early 1991. At that point, Democratic Senator Allan Dixon convened a Senate subcommittee hearing at which an ACORN representative gave key testimony. It’s probably not a coincidence that Dixon, like Obama, was an Illinois Democrat, since Chicago has long been a stronghold of ACORN influence.

Dixon gave credibility to ACORN’s accusations of loan bias, although these claims of racism were disputed by Missouri Republican, Christopher Bond. ACORN’s spokesman strenuously complained that his organization’s efforts to relax local credit standards were being blocked by requirements set by the secondary market. Dixon responded by pressing Fannie and Freddie to do more to relax those standards — and by promising to introduce legislation that would ensure it. At this early stage, Fannie and Freddie walked a fine line between promising to do more, while protesting any wholesale reduction of credit requirements.

By July of 1991, ACORN’s legislative campaign began to bear fruit. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared...that they may succeed.” The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats.

A mere month later, ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts made news by complaining to a House Banking subcommittee that ACORN’s efforts to pressure banks using CRA were still being hamstrung by Fannie and Freddie. Butts also demanded still more data on the race, gender, and income of loan applicants. Many news reports over the ensuing months point to ACORN as the key source of pressure on congress for a further reduction of credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result of this pressure, ACORN was eventually permitted to redraft many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan guideline.

Clinton and ACORN
ACORN’s progress through 1992 depended on its Democratic allies. Whatever ACORN managed to squeeze out of the George H. W. Bush administration came under congressional pressure. With the advent of the Clinton administration, however, ACORN’s fortunes took a positive turn. Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos pledged to meet monthly with ACORN representatives. For ACORN, those meetings bore fruit.

Another factor working in ACORN’s favor was that its increasing success with local banks turned those banks into allies in the battle with Fannie and Freddie. Precisely because ACORN’s local pressure tactics were working, banks themselves now wanted Fannie and Freddie to loosen their standards still further, so as to buy up still more of the high-risk loans they’d made at ACORN’s insistence. So by the 1993, a grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats, and local bankers looking for someone to lessen the risks imposed on them by CRA and ACORN were uniting to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards still further.

At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade. Wall Street Analysts attributed Fannie Mae’s willingness to go along with the change to the need to protect itself against still more severe “congressional attack.” News reports also highlighted praise for the change from ACORN’s head lobbyist, Deepak Bhargava.

This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis. During these years, Obama’s Chicago ACORN ally, Madeline Talbott, was at the forefront of participation in those pilot programs, and her activities were consistently supported by Obama through both foundation funding and personal leadership training for her top organizers.

Finally, in June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”

Disaster
In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Barack Hussein Obama was a member of the democratic socialists of America or "New Party".

I am not surprised.

Barack Hussein Obama was a member of the democratic socialists of America or "New Party".

Monday, October 6, 2008

Butt buddies cause financial crisis




Can you believe this barney frank and herb moses, 2 butt buddies have caused the present financial crisis...a couple of queers it figures.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Chairman of the US House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, is responsible for oversight of the US mortgage markets administered by government created entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Barney's partner and lover, Herb Moses was a senior executive at Fannie Mae:Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest


"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" A GOP aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress. "I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover." According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Of course, such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector and putting the country on the brink of financial meltdown.

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Obama & DNC Hide Behind Legal Issues While Betraying Public in not Producing a Certified Copy of Obama’s “Vault” Birth Certificate

Obama's birth certificate lawsuit
This is amazing. I am amazed the American public is being duped into thinking Obama is an American citizen. Why does the dnc and obama not produce an answer to Mr Philp Berg's question. Is Obama an American citizen or not? Mr Berg says prove it. I say prove it Barack Husain Obama and don't hide behind the dnc and delay the answer. If you are an American citizen answer Mr Berg's lawsuit. Because you and the dnc are stalling and not producing a real birth certificate it leads me to believe you are hiding something. The dnc sends 40 or so lawyers etc to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sara Palin yet they can't or won't produce a valid birth certificate for Barack HUSAIN Obama. The dnc sends lawyers to court to stop the lawsuit that will reveal obama is a fraud and not a US citizen.
Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Faked Birth Certificate
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Obama & DNC Hide Behind Legal Issues While Betraying Public in not Producing a Certified Copy of Obama’s “Vault” Birth Certificate and Oath of Allegiance

Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/24/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the last day to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born.”

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.