The "Ex-Gay" Myth and Why it Failed Me Read More!

The highly publicized lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama and the Democratic party itself has been thrown out of court. Berg filed the lawsuit in August of this year, claiming that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud and that Obama’s name should be removed from the ballot.

Conservative pundits have hailed the lawsuit in the past, with even popular radio show host Rush Limbaugh having opined on how Obama’s visit to his dying grandmother is related to the now-defunct lawsuit. More commonly asked is “why doesn’t Obama just show his original birth certificate? Then this will all go away.”

It will all go away? Really? If anyone really believes that, then I’ll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn for a thousand dollars. It’s cheap. At least it makes for good entertainment.

The Phildelphia Daily News reported on the dismissal today:

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg’s request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg’s complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.

They said that Berg’s claims were “ridiculous” and “patently false,” that Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Surrick agreed.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters. Surrick ruled that Berg’s attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”

When the judge writes that a lawsuit is “frivolous and not worthy of discussion,” I think it’s time to move on. But, of course, they won’t.

My favorite claim by conservative bloggers and pundits was that the birth certificate was “photoshopped.” Well, I am happy to say that while I might not be an expert on very many things in this world, Adobe Photoshop happens to be one of them. I’ve even got the credentials to prove it. And I’ll put myself on the line by saying, “horse hockey.” The certificate number on the certificate shown on Obama’s website was redacted. That’s it.

The most popular claim is that the image is not quite perfect, and has some signs of a “halo” around some of the copy. “But there are artifacts shown around the letters. That proves it was Photoshopped!” No. It proves that it was saved as a JPEG format, which is a lossy compression — that creates artifacts around sharp edges (like around type) when saved in a medium-to-low quality compression.

Look, I don’t care if you think the scan of Obama’s birth certificate was edited, but for crying out loud, don’t try to kid me with the notion that you know what a photoshopped image looks like. You’ll only embarass yourself. If that particular document was edited on June 12th, then great. It’s called “crop.” A standard feature in Photoshop. Nice try.

Now, if this image from Obama’s website was the only image on the Web, I’d be concerned. As luck would have it, it’s not. Newsweek’s website posted photos that were taken for the site, which present the document in various angles, and show the embossed seal (which is required on all official documents). Oh, by the way — they’re not “photoshopped” either.

Berg himself had been traveling the circuit, and declared to right-wingnut Michael Savage that Obama’s failing to file response to his ridiclous (as presiding Judge Surrick called it) was an admission of guilt. No, Mr. Berg. Your assertions were ludicrous, and the Obama lawyers knew it.

Berg has said he would appeal the decision, but really – when even the right-wing WorldNet Daily website has determined that the certificate is genuine, isn’t it time to move on? Apparently Berg and fellow nutjob Jerome Corsi don’t think so. Corsi is best known for his anti-Kerry attack book, Unfit for Command and the equally-discredited The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which met with a stinging, 40-page rebuttal from Senator Obama’s website.

Conservatives should be extremely leery of Corsi and his extremist rants. He’s even brought his verbal cannons against King George himself, claiming that President Bush is working to create a “North American Union,” which would eventually eliminate the sovereignty of the United States.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

Corsi is clearly not satisfied with blasting away at Democrats and liberals, so he goes after every single witch hunt imaginable. Not only are his conclusions highly questionable, his facts are often just dead wrong. I don’t think I’m going out on a stretch by saying “he’s a nut.” Apparently conservative writer John Hawkins said the same thing. Well, his word was “kooky.” If we add “creepy,” we’d have the first stanza of the Addams Family theme song. I’ll bring the snaps.

And this is one of the leading voices in the “Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud” nonsense. Maybe we’ll get a grip and realize just how silly all of this has been. The birth certificate/citizenship brouhaha has been little more than a mad-dash attempt to discredit Obama since they have little else to run on. Well, that and unlicensed plumbers.

The fact is that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine, and he is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America.

Share →

6 Responses to Obama birth certificate lawsuit thrown out of court

  1. Anonymous says:

    In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

    A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.

    At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

    From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.

    Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

    Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.

    In plain English, the judge is on the take and he is going down with Obama.

  2. David W. Shelton says:

    Well, Anonymous, this doesn’t hold water. There are a couple of facts to consider.

    1) it’s standard practice for attorneys to send unsigned judgments for the judge to read and sign. Berg himself sent several, including the much-ballyhooed “order” that would have demanded that Obama send his original birth certificate in — or admit that he was a fraud.

    2) Surrick ruled against an earlier dismissal request.

    Sorry, the previous comment goes inder the “wrong” cagegory. For more information, read the actual court documents:

    The linked blogger even goes on to ask why the document links were disabled right around the same time this order was being faxed – come on, really! Your boy lost. Get over it.

    The birth certificate is legit. Obama is a citizen. And if he gets more than 270 electoral votes on November 4th, he’ll be our next President.

  3. David W. Shelton says:

    What’s interesting is that the above blogger makes this big to-do over a silly date stamp at the bottom of the first page of the judge’s ruling. He even claims that the ruling was written by the Obama attorneys —

    Well, in a word, no. He didn’t. Do you think it might be possible that the 34-page document might have been copied with a date stamp? No, of course not. It has to be a :: GASP :: Conspiracy!

    Do grow up. Really.

  4. Thane says:

    e qui affirmat non e qui negat incumbit probatio…

    I haven’t seen the documentation, so I’m going to go on ‘allegedly’ here. No offense meant to David and his info.

    The case was allegedly dismissed. The dismissal of action is the termination of a civil action at the motion of the defendant. While an order for dismissal may be made at the conclusion of a trial, it’s usually made during the interlocutory proceedings… in other words, during this period where the lawyers have had their initial say.

    Obama’s team requested a dismissal based on only a fraction of the case. The judge took time to review things to see if there were grounds for a dismissal. There was sufficient evidence… for the judge… to say ‘part of this case is unfounded thus I must dismiss the entirety of this case. In my opinion, your birth certificate claim is rediculous.’ The birth certificate issue was too shaky to proceed on as is. There was more to the suit, specifically questions regarding his time abroad. You have to read the wording to understand why the judge allegedly cited a specific thing.

    Every lawyer knows this sort of case will be dismissed the first go around. They count on it. They want it to. What they’re doing is seeing if it would tread water, and watching how the other party is reacting to it. They are allowing the defendant to sift his own case. Thanks, Obama.

    They now know to go for the Indonesian connection instead of the birth certificate. They’ll use the ‘motion to have the records sealed’ against him. They’ll investigate his affiliation with FactCheck. They’ll question his motives. Who wouldn’t? Obama’s side was blustering, throwing up motions left and right. It’s also a normal tactic. It’s an obnoxious tactic. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to lose by simply meeting the demands.

    The next step, which Berg had spoken of in August is to take it to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals or go right to the Supreme Court. This is how law works, folks. This is why I’m saying ‘don’t celebrate yet’. It’s the normal process. Obama, as an attorney, knows this, too. The case is reworded, tightened, and the process begins again.

    The case against Obama is a civil case. It relies on the balance of probabilities. That is the standard of proof in civil cases, demanding the case that is the more probable should succeed. This is the kind of decision represented by the scales of justice. The court weighs up the evidence and decides which version is most probably true. The actual truth may never be known. If both sides’ evidence seem equally balanced, then the person pursuing the case loses on the basis of the maxim melior est conditio defendentis, ‘better is the position of the defender’.

    Judge Judy, presiding over civil cases, relies on the balance of probabilities, but some people think she lets her opinions affect her judgement. Opinionated judges are everywhere and that’s why our legal system allows appeals and the ability to file the case again in a higher court. This is also why Berg correctly calculated bringing suit in a higher court.

    Anyway, this post wasn’t meant as anti-Obama. I’m just explaining the court ‘stuff’ because a lot of folks just don’t understand all the layers that are part of it. didn’t have the actual dismissal posted yet… but I may have missed it. If you like, I can break down each of the events leading up to Oct. 22.

  5. Thane says:

    Oh and James? Dude, your ideas are asinine.

  6. Frank says:

    I,m With Obama/Biden !
    a chance for change!

Leave a Reply

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop us a note so we can take care of it!

Order David’s book!

The Rainbow Kingdom: Christianity & the Homosexual Reconciled - Order yours TODAY!