CERTIFICATE OF LIVE MUSLIM KENYAN BIRTH TO A WHITE LADY

Philip Berg’s lawsuit has been dismissed by Clinton appointed Judge Surrick on the grounds that Berg lacked standing.

The analysis of the COLB presented on Obama’s fight the smears website should have been the basis of Berg’s lawsuit because it presents “reasonable suspicion”. Berg’s conjecture or speculation is irrelevant. If you remember, I was not pleased that is was  Berg when he filed. The case must be made on evidence not speculation.

Prosecutor and reader John Jay remarked in the comments back in July:

Techdude is not running for President of the United States. His analysis is not subject to a standard of “proof beyond a reasonable” doubt.

Barrack Hussein Obama is running for President of the United States, and he has to meet and prove establish that he meets certain requirements to do so, e.g., age and citizenship. He has proofs of constitutional dimension in that regard, as must meet statutory and regulatory standards in filing for his candidacy, and proving his citizen ship and age.

He has political “proofs” of honesty and integrity as well.

The filing and.or flaunting of phonied up documents satisfy none of the proof requirements he faces, and would not in court.

This is a sad day for America. I cannot believe we are going to yawn and just take this

 

LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA DISMISSED BY PHILADELPHIA JUDGE America’s Right (hat tip peach)

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.

[….]

Who, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Read it all. But like I said, the analysis presented at Atlas should have been entered into evidence.

So what if I, we were wrong. I would have egg on my face? I don’t care – I was presented with strong evidence. What was worst the that could happen if we were wrong, a bitchslap from the leftards. So what?

Whats the worst that could happen if we were right. Traitor in the White House.

You weigh it. The judge certainly didn’t.

*

“History” Gives Obama Hope: Dysfunctional Family, Absent Father, Controlling Mother Often Leads to . . . the White House?

 

 

By Debbie Schlussel

When I first wrote, back in 2006 about Barack Hussein Obama’s absentee Muslim father and how he desperately wanted to please him, I was mocked by liberals around the net and the media for it (and by some ignorant conservatives). I wrote:

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father’s heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam?

But this was not pop psychology. It’s human nature. Not only was I right, but, now, historians agree with me.

Apparently, history favors an Obama history . . . but it’s not exactly the kind of history anyone yearns for. And his absentee Muslim father–who abandoned him and his mother–has a lot to do with it.

Wall Street Journal “Work & Family” columnist Sue Shellenbarger interviewed several authors, historians, and biographers of our nation’s Presidents. They say that the families that have produced American Presidents are dysfunctional, with eccentric, controlling mothers and absentee fathers.

Look at Bill Clinton. He’s Exhibit A, with a mother who chose abusive men and who, herself, was always the chief suspect in an Arkansas scandal involving a nurse (she was the suspected nurse) who euthanized her infirm and elderly patients.

Obama–well, he’s a different story. Also, father figure issues, but his mother was the opposite of controlling. She dumped him off at her parents and abandoned him for her own career aspirations. Imagine the issues he had from that.

The Kennedys–in Joseph Kennedy, JFK had a pro-Hitler, demanding father.

Poor John McCain. He had a relatively normal family and upbringing with two parents, which means the odds are–at least, in this case–against him, though the article tries to call John McCain’s father’s patriotic military service as “absenteeism” and compare it to Obama’s fathers total abandonment and irresponsibility (they are hardly the same):

The families that have produced U.S. presidents aren’t always great role models. In fact, they show a striking tendency to be deeply flawed. The childhoods of past presidents have been marked to an unusual degree by absent fathers, mothers so overinvolved that they could easily have been the original helicopter parents, and in some cases outright dysfunction, based on interviews with historians and family-history scholars and a review of presidential history books.Childhood events that would destroy most children seem somehow to spark greatness in leaders-to-be, says Doug Wead, author of two books on presidents’ families. As two candidates with highly unusual family backgrounds vie for the presidency, Mr. Wead even sees Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama — to different degrees and in starkly different ways — fitting a pattern he describes as “Mama’s boys with absent fathers who were perceived by the sons as high achievers,” he says.

Sen. Barack Obama’s father, a failed, troubled Kenyan politician, separated from his mother when he was 2 years old. He saw his son for only a few weeks during his childhood and died when Sen. Obama was 21.

To be sure, analyzing family patterns from afar, through the veil of history, risks oversimplifying them. Many presidents’ families, including the parents of John Adams, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, serve as relatively positive examples. But in this era of parental perfectionism, studying the unusual ones can lend hope to parents that our children, too, can rise above our foibles and failings. Beyond any particular thing, Mr. Wead says, the key to success for past presidents was a harder-to-define internal drive. . . .

Some presidents’ families have been famously dysfunctional. Thomas Lincoln abandoned 9-year-old Abraham and his sister, 12, for several months in their frontier cabin right after the death of their mother, while he went to find a new wife, says Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and author most recently of “Team of Rivals,” a book about Lincoln. When Thomas finally returned with their new stepmother, Sarah Bush Johnston, the couple found them “wild — ragged and dirty,” seeming barely human, the stepmother later wrote.

Abraham’s father was “constantly taking him out of school or making him work off debt with other farmers or making fun of him that he was lazy because he was reading” so much, Ms. Kearns says. She and other historians credit his mother, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, and stepmother with providing the nurturing and love that propelled him to leadership. “All that I am or ever hope to be,” Lincoln said of his mother, “I owe to her.”

In another notably troubled family, Bill Clinton’s father died before Bill was born; his stepfather was a womanizer and an alcoholic who beat his mother, Virginia, according to biographer David Maraniss. Although Virginia, a warm, nurturing woman, made her son the adored centerpiece of the family, President Clinton said later that he often pined for his birth father.

Many leaders manage to draw inspiration from troubled legacies, Mr. Wead says. Sen. Obama’s father, a failed Kenyan politician, separated from Barack’s mother when their son was 2 years old, saw Barack for only a few weeks during his childhood and died when Barack was 21. Yet the senator as a child experienced relatives’ larger-than-life stories about his father as “a morality tale,” he wrote in his book, “Dreams from My Father.” He focused on his father’s good qualities — as a brilliant, gifted orator with high ideals and ambitions — and came to regard him as the embodiment of hope. “Even in his absence,” Sen. Obama wrote, “his strong image had given me some bulwark on which to grow up, an image to live up to, or disappoint.”

 

So, in other words, his family lied about his father who abandoned him. Guh-reat. Now, we know where he gets his ability to effectively tell voters tall tales and spread the mythology while he aims to “spread the wealth”.

In an even stronger pattern, historians say, many presidents had dominant and eccentric mothers. When Nancy McKinley’s son William became president, he set up a special telephone wire from the White House to her home in Ohio so they could talk every day, Mr. Wead says. And when young Franklin Roosevelt was quarantined with scarlet fever at his boarding school, Sara Delano Roosevelt found a ladder and climbed to his window to inspect him daily, wrote historian Doris Faber in a 1968 book on presidents’ mothers.Lyndon Johnson’s mother had Lyndon sleep in her bedroom when his father was away; she “put him at the center of her life,” says Ms. Goodwin, his biographer. That bond helped create in her son “that ambition to go forward in the world.” Some presidents, including Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson, have actually called themselves “Mama’s boys.” In his book “Faith of My Fathers,” Sen. McCain, too, calls himself “my mother’s son.”

Even the McCain family, with its tradition of distinguished military service, fits the pattern of an absent father and an overinvolved mother who fills the gap, Mr. Wead says. Sen. McCain’s father was a respected four-star Navy admiral and commander of Pacific forces in the Vietnam war, but he was mostly absent from home during Sen. McCain’s childhood. Sen. McCain reflects pride in his father and was taught to regard his long absences “not as a deprivation, but as an honor.”

But he also spends a fair amount of ink on his fathers’ failings. He writes that he grew up lacking “a loving and protective family.” He describes his father as “a distant, inscrutable patriarch”; of his father’s battle with alcoholism, he writes that “when he was drunk, I did not recognize him.” He turned to his mother as a result, writing, “Her heart has always been large enough to encompass her children with as much love and care as any mother’s child has ever enjoyed.” (Both candidates declined through spokesmen to be interviewed for this column. [DS: Gee, I wonder why.])

Mr. Wead undertook his 2005 book, “The Raising of a President,” hoping to discover “some little key” to parenting children who rise to leadership, he says. But, he found the presidents’ parents “were as neurotic and possessive and awful as anybody’s,” he says — a discovery he found “very liberating” as a parent. Instead, the unifying thread was “how these presidents were able to transcend these experiences or re-invent them as inspirational.”

What’s the takeaway for parents? “Love is the key,” Mr. Wead says. Even in families that lacked discipline, future presidents were often able to find it elsewhere, in the military or school. But with enough of the crucial ingredient — parental love — Mr. Wead says, a child can realize, “I do not have to be a prisoner of my past.”

 

Well, I’m happy for the Marxist, “spread the wealth”, William Ayers/Jesse Jackson/Louis Farrakhan candidate that he was able to not “be a prisoner of [his] past.”

Let’s just hope that come Election Day, we won’t be prisoners of his future.