b Kerry Thomas
December 16, 2008
I have a message for all the Barack Obama apologists
and schadenfreudists: Pull your heads out of (no) the
sand.
William Green of St. Germain is troubled by the
tone of “paranoid,
ultraconservative viewpoints.” He
characterizes my
opinions as a misrepresentation and manipulation of fact.
Too
bad Mr. Green’s December
16 letter reflects the very misrepresentations he decries.
Mr. Green asks if only zealots believe the
allegations that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. According to Green, this assertion “has been well vetted and
proven false.”
It
has not.
Jerry
Buerer asks if Barack Obama “would put all that time and effort
into electing someone who by birth was ineligible for the office?“ Why not, if no court is willing to examine the
question?
Weeks before the election, the Secretaries of
State of Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York,
Connecticut and New Jersey demanded Barack Obama produce a viable birth
certificate to dispel rumors that he is not a natural-born citizen.
Obama and his attorney ignored the
requests. So the Secretaries relied on
the Democrat National Committee to vet its candidate.
The
Supreme Court did deny an emergency hearing appeal request by Leo Donofrio of
New Jersey. The Donofrio case was not
the case to which I and other letter writers referenced. Nor were any of the “30 nuisance suits” referred
to by Mr. Green.
Previous
letter writers and I have been referring only to the case brought by Phillip Berg of Pennsylvania. Berg’s case was dismissed by federal judge
Surrick on October 25 for lack of standing.
Berg then
filed a writ of certiorari requesting review of the
case and an injunction to stay the election pending review in the U.S. Supreme
Court on October 30. Justice Souter
denied the injunction. However, the
Court has not decided whether or not to hear the case itself. The defendants were given 30 days to respond
to Berg’s suit. As of December 1, the
Court had not received any response from the defendants in the case.
In other words, as I wrote, Berg's case is currently under
consideration for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As for my other “inaccurate ramblings,” Mr. Green’s
“corrections” need correcting.
Yes,
Berg’s original lawsuit was filed against the Democrat National Committee, but
also against Barack Obama and the Federal Election Commission. The suit alleges a violation of the
Constitution and fraud on the part of the defendants.
Mr. Green claims, “none of the Berg assertions were
validated by any court ruling to date.”
That’s because no court has heard the case to date.
What Berg
filed was a Requests for Admissions, calling for a response by way of answer or
objection to be served within 30 days.
No response was served. By not
responding or objecting to Berg's assertions, by not challenging them in court,
Obama admitted to all of Berg's charges.
“The
staff at FactCheck.org were allowed to examine the original certificate.” FactCheck is not a court of law. They’re probably more reliable than Wikipedia,
but they’re still just another Internet source, with no legal standing.
“Hawaii's
health director and head of vital statistics confirmed the authenticity of the
certificate in October.” However, as I
pointed out, “The governor of Hawaii illegally defied direct orders from a
federal court and multiple Freedom Of Information Act requests to produce
Obama's birth records.“
Mr. Green
states, “Legal experts say there is little chance [Berg’s] suit will
succeed.” That misses the point
completely.
Barack Obama
has had numerous opportunities to bring his birth records to a court for
examination. On the other side of the
argument, Phillip Berg has presented affidavits attesting to Barack Obama’s
Kenyan birth. To date, no court has
been allowed to examine Obama’s birth records, and no court has issued any
ruling directly addressing the question of Obama’s birth.
Is the
question of a person’s Constitutional eligibility to hold the Office of the
President a “silly and obscure issue?” Let’s
hear the evidence in court, and let the Judiciary decide the matter once and for
all.
My point,
again, is that by not examining the evidence in open court, the American
Judiciary has abdicated its Constitutional responsibility. By refusing to examine the evidence, the
Judiciary continues to fuel the fires of conspiracy theorists across the
country.
Until the
evidence is examined in court, we may never know the real truth about the
matter of Obama's birth.