On the Mainstream Media and Barack Obama

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2008

On the Mainstream Media and Barack Obama

Election Day is tomorrow. Tens of millions of people from coast to coast will take to the voting booths, armed as they pull aside the curtain or settle in between the dividers with only their intellect, instincts, and information about their choices gleaned from one source or another.

On the eve of the election in 2000, as the country unknowingly stood on the precipice of unprecedented uncertainty manifested in chads of every variety, I was preparing for my graduation from Auburn University and was a registered democrat.

That's right. Eight years ago, I was a registered democrat. I chalk it up to naivete.

My Fosburian leap to the right side of the political spectrum came after the 2000 election and was sparked by a single book by Bernard Goldberg, a CBS correspondent before turning squawk-box nomad. While I was only then beginning to gain interest in politics, I was fascinated by the news media. Bias opened my eyes wider than they'd ever been before. It was only then that I began to question what was being put in front of me like the mainstream press, and I've been at it ever since.

Tomorrow, the lines will form with people who have varying degrees of knowledge with regard to the world around them. As strange as it sounds to people like you and me, many will be making up their minds as they stare at the ballot, in whatever form, for the first time. Many more will draw only upon what they've seen on their local news, or read in People magazine, or heard from the lady with the horn-rimmed glasses at their office watercooler.

In the eight years or so since I became enlightened, I've never seen the media like this. I've never seen the media so aware of their power over the masses, so in the tank and blatantly unapologetic in their support for a single candidate. For lack of a better word, it has been disgusting.

I've also yet to see a single article or piece of writing which encapsulates the media's take on this presidential race like the one included below.

Read, enjoy, and get out and vote tomorrow!

-- Jeff


The End of Journalism
By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression.

In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.

The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.

Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.

THE VP CANDIDATES

We know now almost all the details of Sarah Palin’s pregnancies, whether the trooper who tasered her nephew went to stun or half stun, the cost of her clothes, and her personal expenses — indeed, almost everything except how a mother of so many children gets elected councilwoman, mayor, and governor, routs an entrenched old-boy cadre, while maintaining near record levels of public support.

Yet the American public knows almost nothing of what it should about the extraordinary career of Joe Biden, the 36-year veteran of the Senate. In unprecedented fashion, Biden has simply avoided the press for most of the last two months, confident that the media instead would deconstruct almost every word of “good looking” Sarah Palin’s numerous interviews with mostly hostile interrogators.

By accepted standards of behavior, Biden has sadly proven wanting. He has committed almost every classical sin of character — plagiarism, false biography, racial insensitivity, and serial fabrication. And because of media silence, we don’t know whether he was kidding when he said America would not need to burn coal, or that Hezbollah was out of Lebanon, or that FDR addressed the nation on television as president in 1929 (surely a record for historical fictions in a single thought), or that the public would turn sour on Obama once he was challenged by our enemies abroad. In response, the media reported that the very public Sarah Palin was avoiding the press while the very private Joe Biden shunned interviews and was chained to the teleprompter.

For two months now, the media reaction to Biden’s inanity has been simply “that’s just ol’ Joe, now let’s turn to Palin,” who, in the space of two months, has been reduced from a popular successful governor to a backwoods creationist, who will ban books and champion white secessionist causes. The respective coverage of the two candidates is ironic in a variety of ways, but in one especially — almost every charge against Palin (that she is under wraps, untruthful, and inept) was applicable only to Biden.

So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things.

Imagine the reaction of Newsweek or Time had moose-hunting mom Sarah Palin claimed FDR went on television to address the nation as President in 1929, or warned America that our enemies abroad would test John McCain and that his response would result in a radical loss of his popularity at home.

THE PAST AS PRESENT

In 2004, few Americans knew Barack Obama. In 2008, they may elect him. Surely his past was of more interest than his present serial denials of it. Whatever the media’s feelings about the current Barack Obama, there should have been some story that the Obama of 2008 is radically different from the Obama who was largely consistent and predictable for the prior 30 years.

Each Obama metamorphosis in itself might be attributed to the normal evolution to the middle, as a candidate shifts from the primary to the general election. But in the case of Obama, we witnessed not a shift, but a complete transformation to an entirely new persona — in almost every imaginable sense of the word. Name an issue — FISA, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, coal, nuclear power, drilling, Iran, Jerusalem, the surge — and Obama’s position today is not that of just a year ago.

Until 2005, Obama was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist. Rev. Wright was an invaluable spiritual advisor — until spring of 2008. Father Pfleger was praised as an intimate friend in 2004 — and vanished off the radar in 2008. The media might have asked not just why these rather dubious figures were once so close to, and then so distant from, Obama; but why were there so many people like Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko in Obama’s past in the first place?

Behind the Olympian calm of Obama, there was always a rather disturbing record of extra-electoral politics completely ignored by the media. If one were disturbed by the present shenanigans of ACORN or the bizarre national call for Americans simply to skip work on election day to help elect Obama (who would pay for that?), one would only have to remember that in 1996 Obama took the extraordinary step of suing to eliminate all his primary rivals by challenging their petition signatures of mostly African-American voters.

In 2004, there was an even more remarkable chain of events in which the sealed divorce records of both his principle primary rival Blair Hull and general election foe, Jack Ryan, were mysteriously leaked, effectively ensuring Obama a Senate seat without serious opposition. These were not artifacts of a typical political career, but extraordinary events in themselves that might well have shed light on present campaign tactics — and yet largely remain unknown to the American people.

Imagine the reaction of CNN or NBC had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics, or had McCain himself sued to eliminate congressional opponents by challenging the validity of African-American voters who signed petitions, or had both his primary and general election senatorial rivals imploded once their sealed divorce records were mysteriously leaked.

SOCIALISM?

The eleventh-hour McCain allegations of Obama’s advocacy for a share-the-wealth socialism were generally ignored by the media, or if covered, written off as neo-McCarthyism. But there were two legitimate, but again neglected, issues.

The first was the nature of the Obama tax plan. The problem was not merely upping the income tax rates on those who made $250,000 (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000, or both, or none?), but its aggregate effect in combination with lifting the FICA ceilings on high incomes on top of existing Medicare contributions and often high state income taxes.

In other words, Americans who live in high-tax, expensive states like a New York or California could in theory face collective confiscatory tax rates of 65 percent or so on much of their income. And, depending on the nature of Obama’s proposed tax exemptions, on the other end of the spectrum we might well see almost half the nation’s wage earners pay no federal income tax at all.

Questions arise, but were again not explored: How wise is it to exempt one out of every two income earners from any worry over how the nation gathers its federal income tax revenue? And when credits are added to the plan, are we now essentially not cutting or raising taxes, but simply diverting wealth from those who pay into the system to those who do not?

A practical effect of socialism is often defined as curbing productive incentives by ensuring the poorer need not endanger their exemptions and credits by seeking greater income; and discouraging the wealthy from seeking greater income, given that nearly two-thirds of additional wealth would be lost to taxes. Surely that discussion might have been of interest to the American people.

Second, the real story was not John McCain’s characterization of such plans, but both inadvertent, and serial descriptions of them, past and present, by Barack Obama himself. “Spreading the wealth around” gains currency when collated to past interviews in which Obama talked at length about, and in regret at, judicial impracticalities in accomplishing his own desire to redistribute income. “Tragedy” is frequent in the Obama vocabulary, but largely confined to two contexts: the tragic history of the United States (e.g., deemed analogous to that of Nazi Germany during World War II), and the tragic unwillingness or inability to use judicial means to correct economic inequality in non-democratic fashion.

In this regard, remember Obama’s revealing comment that he was interested only in “fairness” in increasing capital-gains taxes, despite the bothersome fact that past moderate reductions in rates had, in fact, brought in greater revenue to government. Again, fossilized ideology trumps empiricism.

Imagine the reaction of NPR and PBS had John McCain advocated something like abolishing all capital gains taxes, or repealing incomes taxes in favor of a national retail sales tax.

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2008

Obama's War on Capitalism

"So, if someone wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them."

Once again, thanks this time to NewsBusters.com, we see the disdain for capitalism, the hatred of American industrial strength, and the overall contempt for America and everything for which She stands which is at the heart of Barack Obama's worldview and ideological perspective.

We've known for a while that Barack Obama advocates a cap-and-trade system designed to punish industry, but what we're seeing now is the motivation behind such a policy. We've known for a while that Barack Obama intends to draw down the military and spread America's wealth (see, for example, his Global Poverty Act), but what we're seeing now is the intent behind the ideology.

Obama's statements in an interview used by the San Francisco Chronicle for a January 18, 2008 piece--of course, the paper makes no mention of Obama's hope to bankrupt the coal industry--belie his superficially centrist and relatively innocuous campaign trail approach:

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

The problem with cap-and-trade legislation as a whole is that it provides business and industry with an incentive to either set up shop outside of the United States or move existing operations elsewhere, perhaps to India or China which pollute more than we do yet have no such regulations. Here, however, this has direct consequences not just on business and industry, but on our economy and national security as a whole.

We need to be energy independent. Even Obama, in his soaring rhetoric with promises of a ten-year plan, says that energy independence is paramount. Our national security depends upon it. Our economic health and well-being depends upon it. Yet he refuses to drill offshore where it matters, he refuses to drill in ANWR, he refuses to explore the possibilities surrounding shale oil, and he holds the coal-power industry in utter contempt.

When he does speak about energy, he makes no sense. He says that filling our tires and having regular tune-ups will increase gas mileage and somehow eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil. He says that nuclear power is great, but we can't build more plants until we deal with a number of environmental issues. He even said, according to HotAir.com, that he wants a 15% reduction across the board in America's demand for electricity, yet in the same breath says that he wants to force the transition to electricity, in vehicles and more, from gasoline. I guess he believes we can hope for more energy to appear out of nowhere; perhaps, we can produce biofuels from the excrement coming from the collective mouths of the political left.

Now, Obama supporters may be quick to respond that John McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation. Indeed he does. Indeed, his McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, the piece of legislation he said, in the second debate, was unfortunately not passed, is yet another example of a short-sighted, half-hearted and misguided plan which would adversely affect the American economy in the name of the unsettled science of and facade for socialism which is Global Warming. Still, even though this issue is one of many with which I do not see eye-to-eye with the Arizona senator, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here because nothing suggests to me that his maverick-ish will to help the environment at all costs is born from the abhorrence of capitalism and the free market.

You'd think, at this point, it would be abundantly clear that a Barack Obama administration would mean nothing short of economic disaster for this nation. You'd think that the American people, hearing something as simply put as his intention to "spread the wealth," would wake up and smell the socialism. Between his goal of raising capital gains taxes for the sake of "fairness," to his plan to increase corporate taxes and hope that nobody loses their job, to his aspirations for a bankrupt coal-power industry and more, America will be lucky to emerge from four years of President Barack Obama with the economic strength and foreign policy clout of a western European nation.

Then again, knowing what we know about Obama and his perspective on America's greatness, that might be exactly what he wants.

The "Sarah Obama Tape"

*** WARNING -- Please Read ***

As I wrote on Friday, this whole thing does not sit well with me. I've heard the tape, read the transcripts and the affidavits, and just don't know what to make of it. I don't particularly think that it smells right, but feel that IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION.

Read the information, listen to the tape and decide for yourself. That's how it should be, isn't it? Stop with the agenda-setting, just give the information to the people and let them decide what they think. Personally, while I've been open to the idea that Barack Obama has not been entirely truthful with regard to his background, something here does not seem right.

Since Berg filed his suit in late August, I've done my best to give you the information as I get it, and I have tried to present both sides of the argument. This is no different. This information is included in Berg's filing and, while it just doesn't sit right, we're too close to the election for anything but full disclosure.

Again, I DO NOT FEEL IT IS MY PLACE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION.

To me, this has little to do with Obama, a man who I do feel is not right for America because of his radical ideology and questionable associations and alliances. This has to do with the availability of all information on all political candidates. If there were something out there which would raise questions about John McCain's fitness or eligibility for the presidency, I'd want it out for public consumption and debate.

Decide for yourself with regard to the information below. I already have, and if you're stillwondering what I think, re-read this warning and notice that I've never before felt it necessary to include such a disclaimer at America's Right.

So, to borrow a phrase from a much maligned news organization, when it comes to the information below ... we REPORT, you DECIDE.

-- Jeff Schreiber

For the better part of two weeks, Philip Berg has been talking about evidence that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not Honolulu, Hawaii as the senator contends, specifically a taped interview with Sarah Onyango Obama, paternal grandmother of Barack Obama, in her home in Kenya after the third and final presidential debate during which she states that her famous grandson was born in Kenya, and that she was indeed present for his birth.

At first, Berg insisted that he still had some legal issues to resolve before releasing the audiotape itself [which is in Swahili]. While he did not include the tape itself in his recent filings with the United States Supreme Court, he included the transcript of the conversation, sworn affidavits from people involved here and in Kenya, as well as e-mail messages exchanged between the two ministers involved.

The first of the two contacts is Rev. Kweli Shuhubia. His name, as it appears within the filings, has been changed for the sake of his safety considering the political climate in Kenya, not to mention here as well. According to his affidavit, Shuhubia is an ordained minister, native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya.

On October 16, at the insistence of the second contact, he traveled to the home of Sarah Obama in the village of Alego-Kogello, and found it to be "heavily guarded by Kenya Police" and "flooded with people who were celebrating Senator Obama's success story." He took photographs of Sarah Obama, another grandson who was present, and other family members.

The second contact is Bishop Ronald McRae. In his affidavit, McRae states that he "oversees the Anabaptists Churches in North America" and also serves as "Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery," where he assists in oversight for churches in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and mission work in other locations there. During his travels, he says in his affidavit, "United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a very popular topic of discussion."

What the affidavit and the Court filings do not mention, however, is that McRae is better known stateside as a "street minister," and that his "bishop" title is largely self-applied. A September 10, 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette describes McRae as a "self-proclaimed Anabaptist bishop" who "has felt it his calling to disrupt the lives of gays, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and whatever other among the citizenry he considers the future entree at the Almighty's celestial barbecue come Judgment Day." He made news that day for denouncing the design of the Schwenksville, PA memorial to those who perished on Flight 93 as a "symbol of Islam" because the finished product would resemble a red crescent in the autumn months, when the leaves on the maple trees would turn red. To his credit, I guess it would, but cannot imagine that appeasement of radical Islam was behind the design.

This, nonetheless, is the gentleman who brought the tape of Sarah Obama to the world.

Phil Berg was not aware of McRae's history as a "street minister" or as denouncer of crash site memorial designs--yes, I indeed thought it ironic that Berg, a man who believes that the United States government was complicitous in the attacks of September 11, 2001, was relying on a man who felt that the planned memorial to those who died on that awful day was woefully inadequate--but said that he nonetheless "feels comfortable that it's right."

"Say what you want about the man," Berg said, "but he has spent considerable time in Kenya, and the minister on the ground over there has known Obama's grandmother for years. Given the nature of the e-mails and such, I have no reason to believe that this isn't right."

The telephone records attached to filings do indeed add up, showing that there were indeed telephone calls between Kenya and a Detroit, MI telephone number--presumably McRae's--on the dates provided in the affidavits. Furthermore, apart from information that Sarah Obama's comments were translated from Swahili, a language of which a February 2008 article in The New York Times suggests that she speaks only little, the affidavits taken alone are interesting, if not compelling.

First, from Rev. Kweli Shuhubia's sworn affidavit::

During my interview of Sarah Obama; I called Bishop Ron McRae in the United States from my mobile number. I advised Bishop McRae that I was present with Ms. Obama in her home, and wished for him to speak with her. Bishop McRae informed me he would call me right back, to avoid the international costs on my personal mobile phone. Bishop McRae subsequently called me back; Bishop McRae requested permission to electronically record his telephone conversations with Ms. Obama, to which I agreed. Due to bad telephone connections Bishop McRae had to call me back three [3] times, before we were able to continue our conversation. The telephone interview conducted by Bishop McRae was conducted on loud speaker (speaker phone). During the interview conversation, one of Ms. Obama’s grandsons and myself acted as Swahili translators, and as Bishop McRae talked to and questioned Ms. Obama, we would translate what Bishop McRae said to Ms. Obama in Swahili, and then we would translate her Swahili responses to Bishop McRae in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write.

Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”. It appeared Ms. Obama’s relatives and her grandson, handling the translating, had obviously been versed to counter such facts with the purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii. Despite this, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto asEXHIBIT “A”.

I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information.

Second, a excerpt from Ronald McRae's affidavit:

Since Senator Obama’s birth was reportedly in 1961, birth records may or may not be available, so I felt it very important to obtain the testimony of his grandmother as a first hand witness, since it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especially around the Kisumu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.

Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16, 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhubia (actual name temporarily withheld to protect his life), an evangelist with our ministries in Kenya traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home, see the attached email, attached as Exhibit “4”.

Rev. Shuhubia is a very intelligent and educated citizen of Kenya, a former teacher and respected evangelist throughout Kenya. Rev. Shuhubia met and interviewed Ms. Sarah Obama at length on October 16th, during which interview; he called me on my mobile number, see my phone record attached as Exhibit “5”. Rev. Shuhubia advised that he was present with Ms. Obama in her home, and wished for me to speak with her. I advised Mr. Shuhubia that I would call him right back, to avoid the international costs on his personal mobile phone. I subsequently called him back, and requested permission to electronically record his telephone conversations and the conversations with him and Ms. Obama, to which he agreed. Because of static and bad connections I had to call him three times, before we were able to continue our conversation. In that conversation, Mr. Shuhubia and one grandson of Ms. Sarah Obama acted as Swahili translators, and as I talked to and questioned Ms. Obama, they would translate what I said to her in Swahili, and then they would translate her Swahili responses to me in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write. In the ensuing conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”. Though, some few younger relatives, including her grandson doing the translating, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, I asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A transcript of this taped interview is attached as Exhibit “6”.

Mr. Shuhubia took photographs during the meeting and interview with Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, which photos will be forthcoming.

Because of the seriousness of the political situation and the impact of such on a United States Presidential election, and because of the factual reality of tremendous violence in Kenya towards Christians, especially in the immediate area of Kisumu, where both Sarah Hussein Obama and Rev. Kweli Shuhubia live, it is requested that all reasonable and legal steps be taken to secure Rev. Kweli Shuhubia’s identity to the Federal Court alone, in order to protect his life and safety for being willing to provide this very important assistance in gathering this testimony and evidence to be used in any Federal litigation.

The filings with the Supreme Court--which, to the best of my knowledge, cannot actually be considered by the Court because they were not included with the original proceedings at the district court level--also include a transcript. In the transcript, there is a good deal of language that I sure cannot translate. Click on the image below to see it, copied as it appears in the Supreme Court filing.

The Court filings also contain images of e-mails exchanged between Bishop Ron McCrae and the Rev. Kweli Shuhubia. Like with the transcript, I've captured them from Berg's Supreme Court filings and reproduced them here.

The second e-mail clearly shows that Shuhubia's efforts to obtain birthing records and other documentation from officials in Kenya came after similar information-gathering efforts made by WorldNetDaily writer and The Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi who, according to the e-mail, offered $2,000 in exchange for any such information. Corsi, however, says that he doesn't work that way.

"I haven't made any bribes and haven't been involved in any bribes," Corsi told America's Rightthis afternoon. "There have been reports that people have made bribes on my behalf, and indeedWorldNetDaily reported that money exchanged hands to facilitate my removal from Kenya after I had been detained. However, I think payment of bribes for information is wrong, I think bribery gets bad information, and for those reasons I refuse to pay a penny, always have and always will, and refuse to reimburse anyone who pays a bribe on my behalf."

So there you have it. A tinny, hard-to-discern audio recording. Affidavits from people with changed names and a history of questionable conduct. E-mails which likely show what looks to be at least one fabricated detail. Here's the evidence we've all been clamoring for.

Take it, digest it, and decide for yourself.

You know, on the night that African Press International first reported that Michelle Obama had contacted them and said inflammatory things, I wrote that it just didn't smell right, it just didn't add up. Yes, over the following few days, I got caught up in the misrepresentations made by that fly-by-night organization, but in the end stuck with my gut feeling that something just wasn't right.

My coverage of Berg v. Obama has been, to me, about reporting to you the facts and underlying information, procedure and motivations behind Philip Berg's lawsuit as it progressed through the courts. I've provided you with the information as I have received it, whether from the newest filings in the court or from Berg himself. Throughout, I have attempted to provide you as best I can with a look into the rules and procedure on both sides of this civil action.

While I am certainly concerned for our nation and absolutely certain that Barack Obama has not been completely forthright when it comes to his past, whether it be about his ideological perspective, his friendships, his alliances or his personal background, I have refrained from making blind accusations or participating in wild conspiracy theories--hence the lack of material about Andy Martin's business in Hawaii, claiming that Frank Marshall Davis was Barack Obama's true father--because my interest is solely in the truth, and my jurisdiction is what I can physically see, smell and touch. This is why I kick myself for getting caught up in the Internet fodder surrounding African Press International. This is why I am so hesitant to make the information above available without expressly stating my lack of trust in its authenticity.

Still, who am I to conceal information publicly available but not easily accessible? Who am I to hide, from people who wish to decide for themselves, anything which may help them better understand the choice before them on Tuesday?

In the end, I hope that each and every one of you will pull that lever or push that button based upon more than a tinny conversation between someone purported to be Barack Obama's grandmother and a man who proclaims himself a bishop and sees red crescents in the autumnal hillsides of western Pennsylvania. This is an election of vast differences -- treat it that way. Instead of wondering just where Barack Obama was born, ask yourself whether you want government more or less involved in your daily lives, whether you're a capitalist or a socialist, whether you feel paying higher taxes is "patriotic," whether you value the unborn lives of the most defenseless among us, whether you want our fighting men and women home immediately or home with honor, or whether you feel that America's best days are in front of Her, or that the days of Lady Liberty as that shining city on a hill have gone by.

I hope I've made my point. As with anything else you've seen, heard or read during the past two years, take it in and decide for yourself. Personally, I'm a conservative, and will stick with the candidate I feel is best fit to preserve, for later generations, the tenets and benefits of conservatism -- and I'll do so with or without Bishop Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, Lolo Soetoro, or Philip Berg.



To listen to the audio, click HERE or, if needed, HERE.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2008

Halloween Provides Scare for Philip Berg, News on Sarah Obama Tape

Third Circuit Denies Appeal, Ohio Court Tosses Related Suit, the Associated Press Reports that Obama Birth Certificate is Genuine, and Berg Provides an Update on the Sarah Obama Tapes

In the last few days, I've been getting hundreds of e-mails with all sorts of questions and comments -- but mostly questions. So, while I've only been able to answer a relative few of them, in the interest of providing the requested updates, I've provided some of the information here.

If I may, for a moment ... please remember that this election is about large ideological divides. Yes, there are underlying constitutional issues which may or may not be genuine and may or may not work out as we'd like, but the one thing we CAN control, the one opportunity we have to control our own destiny, is in that voting booth. Please remember that, because we are facing the most important election in a lifetime.

-- Jeff

Third Circuit Denies Appeal

Philip Berg's attempt to delay the election until after Illinois Sen. Barack Obama produces his birth certificate and other documentation proving his constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States has been rebuffed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This afternoon, Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro denied the Emergency Motion for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008 Pending Resolution of the Petitioner's Appeal filed by Berg two days ago.

Counsel for Obama and the DNC had argued earlier today that the emergency motion should be denied because (1) it stated "effectively a new original case" than what had been included in his complaint, (2) Berg failed to comply with a rules which require him to "move first in the district court for any order granting an injunction while an appeal is pending," and (3) because his claims were "patently false" and he could not prevail if the case were heard on the merits. Judge Ambro agreed in part.

DENIED. For the reasons ably expressed by the District Court —and not addressed in Plaintiff-Appellant’s Emergency Motion— it appears that Plaintiff-Appellant lacks standing to challenge Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff-Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.

Berg, of course, remained defiant.

"The Third Circuit took the wrong position, again saying that I don't have standing," he said. "If I don't have standing, then nobody does. Nobody does. It's not right. I am doing my best to stand up for the rights of every American citizen to question, according to basic provisions of our constitution, the eligibility of the man who very likely could be elected the next president of the United States in four days' time."

"Judge Surrick said that nobody had that right," Berg said, noting that the district court judge suggested that Congress "should set up a mechanism for this sort of thing in the future."

"We're not dealing with the future, though," Berg said. "This election is in four days, and now we're leaving the hopes and wishes of all citizens who want the constitution followed with the Supreme Court."

Ohio Court Tosses Related Suit

Warren County (Ohio) Magistrate Judge Andrew Hasselbach rejected a lawsuit filed last week in a southwest Ohio court asking Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to verify Obama's citizenship or remove him from the ballot. According to an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Hasselbach told plaintiff David Neal that he "relied too much on what he read on the Web," and explained that the burden of proof was on Neal to show that Obama was ineligible, and not on Obama--or anyone else--to prove otherwise.

"It is abundantly clear," wrote Hasselbach in his decision, "that the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint concerning 'questions' about Senator Obama's status as a 'natural born citizen' are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner of this magistrate."

David Neal was not surprised, telling America's Right via e-mail [Halloween is a busy day when you have a two-year-old. -- Jeff] that he "knew it would take a Judge with a lot of courage and guts," and that "this one didn't have what it takes to defend America against all foes." As disappointing, but nonetheless expected, as Hasselbach's decision was, Neal felt as though he had no choice but to file suit.

"I have followed Obama`s rise since late 2006, and the longer it went on, the more it didn't add up," Neal said. "Now here I am. Just my duty I guess. Someone has to step up, and there are very few really, maybe 7 or 8 Lawsuits that have tried to stop this. Now, if there had been 500 or 1000 lawsuits this would have been settled by now. But when people are too afraid or don't actually care enough to become an activist, to physically do something, then the 'elite' will continue to run roughshod on America."

"Until we stand up and fight as one, like John McCain always says, we are doomed to stuff like this and the bailouts," Neal said. "God only knows what's next."

Neal also weighed in on the upcoming election, saying that he was wary of the polls, that McCain has done nicely in spreading the word on Obama's penchant for spreading the wealth, and that, just today, "Obama said it was 'selfish' to not want to raise taxes and share the wealth with all."

"He actually made references to Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness," Neal said. "I guarantee that didn't win him any votes."

With regard to his ongoing saga in the Ohio court system, Neal said that he has filed an appeal with the help of a retired county prosecutor, and that a memorandum will soon follow.

"I don't know what will happen, but all we can do is try," Neal said. "It seems as though the judicial system isn't working like ole' Tom and Ben [Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin] thought it would because of gutless Judges. I think the day is fast approaching when we as American citizens are going to have to find a different approach. The judicial system is failing us and failing the constitution."

Associated Press Reports that Obama Birth Certificate is Genuine

In an article published today in the Honolulu Advertiser, the Associated Press reports that Hawaiian officials have examined Barack Obama's "original birth certificate" and determined it to be genuine.

HONOLULU -- State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.

She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the U.S.

Earlier today, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.

While common sense dictates that this is certainly bad news for Philip Berg, leaving him to his argument that Obama had relinquished any U.S. Citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and was adopted by his Indonesian step

"If they’re verifying that they’re having a birth certificate, they’re looking at it in violation of the governor’s instructions that nobody should be looking at it," Berg said, referencing recently-refuted reports that Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a republican and reportedly close friend of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, had sealed all records connected with Barack Obama. "Either way, I can only assume that they’re only referring to the forged Certificate of Live Birth posted across the Web until I see otherwise."

"Besides," he said, "we've got other evidence confirming that Obama was born in Kenya."

The Sarah Obama Tapes

It was almost ten days ago that I first reported that Berg was in possession of a taped conversation with Sarah Obama, Kenyan paternal grandmother to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, during which she says that her famous grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present at the hospital for his birth.

Truth be told, I had known about this for some time before then, and had actually heard something, a conversation in a language which I sure did not understand. Berg maintained that the conversation had taken place on the night of the third and final presidential debate, and that he was waiting on affidavits from his contact here--a minister--as well as the minister who taped the conversation in Kenya. That, he said, is what took so long.

Saying on Michael Savage's radio show that he was going to release the tape in a few days without having the affidavits was a mistake, Berg said, but things have changed.

"I have the tape," Berg said. "The transcript of the tape is in the Supreme Court filings, along with the two affidavits from the individuals."

The audio of the tape will be released, Berg said, as soon as he "reviews some legal issues."

To me, his answer sounded a bit like it had come from the editor-in-chief of African Press International, who stalled and made excuses and continued to dig himself and his "news organization" into the hole after refusing to produce audio evidence of a purported conversation with Michelle Obama, during which the would-be First Lady purportedly said a few off-color comments. I smelled a fraud when the API story first came out, and I didn't much like hearing the "legal issue" excuse on this one as well. So I pressed Berg on it.

"The tape exists," he said. "I have it. The transcript and affidavits have been included with the filings at the Supreme Court."

Now, as far as I know, the Supreme Court procedurally cannot accept evidence save for what is in the record from the lower court. This is, after all, a review and not a new proceeding. Still, Berg is adamant that he is doing the right thing.

"We are proceeding on the basis that I have standing and that Barack Obama does not meet the qualifications to serve as president of the United States. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see that," he said. "Listen, there's an easy way to handle this. There's been an easy way to handle this from the beginning. Ideally, the Supreme Court should issue an order on Monday morning that Obama submit all information by 5:00 p.m. on Monday afternoon or have his name stricken from the ballot. I hold out hope that the Supreme Court, the people charged with upholding the United States Constitution, will do what they can to avert a certain constitutional crisis."



I've got to tell you, folks -- it's 2:45 a.m, I'm looking at the materials I've been given on the Sarah Obama interview, and it's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm not so sure I like the sources, and because of that I cannot help but wonder about the nature of the content. 

Listen, I was dead-on right about that African Press International fiasco being a total fraud. My instincts were correct within seconds of setting my eyes on the article in question, and I'm still kicking myself for not trusting my gut over the days that followed. 

I'm a fairly good judge of credibility. Despite Berg's views on the attacks of September 11, 2001, views which I've mentioned to him make me uncomfortable and ill, I've found the man to seem surprisingly credible on the issues surrounding his lawsuit so far. While I will NEVER be a conspiratorial kind of guy, I do think that Barack Obama is not telling us the entire story and, for that reason, I do want Berg's case to be heard on its merits.

This Sarah Obama stuff, however, just doesn't sit right with me. So, I've got a few options:

• Give you what I have in the interest of full disclosure, with the understanding that I'm not so comfortable with it.

• Do some research into the sources, press Berg about it, and post the information I have and what I've learned from the research, all with the understanding that I'm not so comfortable with it.

• Give the information to someone with better intestinal fortitude, and provide you with a link.

To me, America's Right has been about articulating the conservative message, exposing liberal bias in the mainstream media, and the preservation of the ideas and ideals of our founding founders. Reporting on Berg's suit against Barack Obama, to me, has been about the latter two more so than about Obama himself. It's been about the media and about the Constitution, not the candidate, and I'm not so sure that I really want to go down this road without careful consideration.

I hope that makes sense. 

-- Jeff

DNC/Obama Responds in 3rd Circuit, Ohio Suit Tossed, FEC Likely to Respond for Respondents in Supreme Court

I'll write more in this space later on this Halloween Day (it's time to take the two-year-old, in her Minnie Mouse costume, around to family and friends), but here's what I know so far from today:

1. Obama and the DNC have filed a response to the Emergency Motion filed by Philip Berg in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that Berg's Emergency Motion should be denied (1) because the motion is "effectively a new original case," (2) because Berg "failed to comply with Rule 8(a) ... requiring that he move first in the district court for any order granting an injunction while and appeal is pending," and (3) because "there is no possibility that Berg will prevail on the merits," citing Berg's "patently false" claims and lack of standing.

2. It looks as though the FEC will be responding for the Respondents in the United States Supreme Court.

3. An Ohio case, filed by Mr. David Neal, was dismissed by Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach. Another news article HERE. I've been in contact with Mr. Neal, and will address this in more detail later.

Happy Halloween, everyone. Be patient, if you can, and I'll be back with some more information, and will try my best to find out about those Sarah Obama tapes. Berg needs to fish or cut bait on those.

By the way -- yes, I mean SARAH Obama. The so-called Michelle Obama tapes were from African Press International and, in my opinion, were a hoax from the get-go. Sarah Obama is Barack Obama's grandmother. Berg has a tape, in Swahili, of a conversation between Barack's Kenyan grandmother and someone over there (name withheld because of apparent security concerns) on the night of the last election, during which Sarah says that, yes, her famous grandson was born in Kenya. 

He told Michael Savage, about a week ago, that he would release the Sarah Obama tape "in the next day or two." At the time, I think he intended to, but has not yet--as far as I know--received the affidavit from the Kenyan source. When I speak with him, I'll ask him.

Happy Halloween!!

Happy Halloween!!

This image was sent to me by a faithful reader, and I find it hilarious. I don't know if he did it himself or if he found it somewhere. Either way, it's fantastic.

(If I'm using someone's copyrighted material without permission, let me know!). 

At some point today, I'll be in touch with Philip Berg and will provide an update soon thereafter. In the meantime, enjoy your Friday, and continue to talk to your friends and neighbors about just how important this upcoming election is.

-- Jeff

State Lawmaker Joins Quest for Information on Obama

On a day where we're supposed to be a little scared, this certainly is an encouraging sign.

I'm with Rep. Metcalfe. This isn't just a Barack Obama-centric issue. This is a constitutional issue. Let's have the documentation from all candidates, and let's make sure there's oversight as to eligibility in the future.

-- Jeff


After Obama, McCain Rulings, State Rep. Wants Presidential Candidates to Prove Citizenship, Place of Birth
By Alex Roarty, PolitickerPA.com

A week after a Pennsylvania lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's right to run for president was thrown out of court, a state lawmaker has authored a bill that would force presidential candidates to prove they're a United States citizen before being placed on state ballots.

"As a veteran and an elected official who takes an oath of office, just like every past and future President of the United States, to uphold and defend the Constitutional rights of the citizens I represent, it is greatly perplexing and beyond troubling that a political candidate can ascend to the White House without providing sufficient documentation verifying his or her place of birth or American citizenship," state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County) said in a statement. "This legislation is intended to send the message that even those candidates who are running for our nation's highest office are not above the law."

Former Chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee Philip Berg filed the suit against Obama, saying the candidate did not provide an authentic birth certificate. The judge ruled against him, saying harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

In an interview with PolitickerPA.com, Metcalfe said many of his constituents came to his office asking him about the validity of the lawsuit against Obama. When he and his staff researched the issue, Metcalfe said they were shocked to find out presidential candidates in Pennsylvania don't have to prove that they were born in the United States, or that they are a citizen.

Every other elected office in the state must provide proof they are eligible to run, he said.

"I think the majority of citizens would be shocked there isn't more oversight of candidates by state government," Metcalfe said.

The lawmaker argues he is only trying to close a loophole that will put voters' minds at ease about the candidates on the ballot. Even with the intense scrutiny a presidential candidate must endure, the state must have a system of checks and balances, he said.

"It would really be the greatest hoax in U.S. history if somebody did get past the scrutiny," he said.

Still, it's almost impossible to separate his stated intention and the questions some Republicans have about Obama's origins. Rumors have spread that Obama was actually born outside the country and that his birth certificate is a fake. That birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Asked if he thinks the Democratic presidential nominee was born in the United States and is a citizen, Metcalfe didn't equivocally answer "yes."

"You would certainly think someone is, having held office as a state senator and U.S. senator,"Metcalfe said. "I think every American would think that.

"This has not been a question I've been involved in trying to investigate, as far as where he was born," he added.

Metcalfe also said his bill will obviously not take effect by Nov. 4.

John McCain's right to run for president has also been challenged by some. The Republican presidential nominee has born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there with the U.S. Navy.

A U.S. District Judge in California in September threw out a similar lawsuit against McCain, saying both his parents were U.S. citizens and recognizing a law passed a year after McCain's birth retroactively making those born in the zone "natural-born citizens."

Metcalfe is at times a controversial figure in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. During the summer he opposed a state House resolution that would have sponsored a Muslim's group'sconvention in Philadelphia.

His high-profile stances on positions like abortion, immigration and marriage have prompted his opponent in the 12th Legislative District to accuse him of not focusing enough on local issues.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2008

Berg to U.S. Supreme Court this Afternoon

Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg will be at the United States Supreme Court at 3:15 p.m. today to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as well as an application to Justice Souter--the applicable Justice given this region--for an immediate injunction to stay the presidential election currently only five days away.

Berg, who filed suit in district court here in Philadelphia back on August 21 alleging that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States, said that he hopes the Supreme Court will "do the right thing" by the United States Constitution and the American people and hear the case on its merits and, in so doing, avoid a constitutional crisis.

"This crisis can be averted," Berg said, "if the Supreme Court grants the injunction pending a review of this case, if the Court insists that Obama turn over certified documentation showing that he is a 'natural born' United States Citizen. If he cannot produce that documentation, he should be removed from the presidential ballot."

Berg's case was dismissed a week ago tomorrow by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on grounds that Berg could not prove injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing to sue. In his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Berg insists that he does have standing, and that much of the harm was caused by Obama's failure to live up to his promises to uphold the United States Constitution.

An excerpt from the writ, on the standing issue:

The very essence of civil liberty, wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. Against the backdrop of historical Supreme Court precedent beginning with Marbury and extending through Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008), the better-informed “test” for the injury-in-fact prong of the standing doctrine analysis more resembles a “sliding scale” of factors and variables operating as a function of the speculative nature and/or remoteness of the allegations. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 (1972); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998); Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008); Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000).

In Morton, this Court held that the environmentalist plaintiffs had standing, as injury to “aesthetic and environmental well-being” was enough to adequately constitute personal “stake” and injury in fact. 405 U.S. at 734. Subsequently, in Hunt, this Court held that despite a lack of personal “stake,” an association has standing to bring suit so long as the interests in question are relevant to the organization’s purpose and regardless of whether the claims asserted or relief requested involve the individual members of the organization. 432 U.S. at 343. Furthermore, in Laidlaw, a case stemming from noncompliance with the Clean Water Act, this Court noted the importance of a plaintiff’s demonstration of standing but followed up by stating that “it is wrong to maintain that citizen plaintiffs facing ongoing violations never have standing to seek civil penalties.” 528 U.S. at 184. More recently, in Akins, this Court rendered a decision maintaining that individual voters’ inability to obtain alleged public information met the injury in fact requirement, as it helped to ensure that the Court will adjudicate “a concrete, living contest between adversaries.” 524 U.S. at 21. Similarly and finally, in APCC, decided by this Court in June 2008, the conventional, “personal stake” approach promulgated in cases such as Lujan and Baker gave way to the idea that the “personal stake” requirement and the three requirements of standing—injury in fact, causation and redressibility—are “flip sides of the same coin” and are simply two different ways of ensuring that each case or controversy presents “that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination.” APCC, 128 S.Ct. at 2543.

The case at hand may lack the specificity of injury in fact required by Lujan, but the allegations from which the action arises are no more speculative or remote than the importance of environmental aesthetics of Morton or the party disconnect evident in Hunt. The foundation of the claims presented by Mr. Berg, the will to avoid a certain constitutional crisis, certainly amount to a “personal stake,” but in the case that this Court may deem otherwise, the underlying claims absolutely present the adversarial contest under which standing was found in the recent decisions in Akins and APCC.

Without a doubt, the Respondents will note that the premise behind Akins was the failure to obtain information, and will attempt to distinguish APCC because it involves standing in the context of contracts, assignors and assignees. However, Mr. Berg has indeed sought information vital to the election process put forth in the U.S. Constitution, and this Court in APCCstated that, apart from historical precedent for permitting suits by assignees under assignments for collection, “[i]n any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more recent decisions of this Court.” Furthermore, this Court’s treatment of the standing doctrine in APCC should be enough to show that the reasoning exhibited by the district court judge, grounded in Lujan, misperceives the three prongs of standing as enunciated just four months ago by this Court.

Therefore, because of the reasons stated above, because of the “sliding scale” nature of a “test” for injury in fact, because the very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury, this Court should hold that the Petitioner has standing to prosecute this action and reverse the decision from the district court which maintains otherwise.

On a promissory estoppel claim which, in my opinion, is a tempting but populist stretch (errors in formatting/indenting are on my end):

Barack Obama and the DNC made promises to the Petitioner and to the American people, reasonably expecting—in fact, counting on the idea—that the promises would induce reliance, those promises induced the Petitioner to expend money and billable hours and the American public to donate more than $600 million to Obama’s campaign, and injustice can only be avoided by adjudication in this Court.

A cause of action under promissory estoppel arises when a party relies to his detriment on the intentional or negligent representations of another party, so that in order to prevent the relying party from being harmed, the inducing party is estopped from showing that the facts are not as the relying party understood them to be. Thomas v. E.B. Jermyn Lodge No. 2, 693 A.2d 974, 977 (Pa.Super. 1997)(citing Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community College, 539 A.2d 1298, 1306 (Pa.Super.), app. denied, 555 A.2d 116 (1988)). Promissory estoppel is applied to enforce a promise which is not supported by a binding contract. Carlson v. Arnot-Ogden Mem’l. Hosp., 918 F.2d 411, 416 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding promissory estoppel is unwarranted in light of court’s finding that parties formed an enforceable contract); Bosum Rho v.Vanguard OB/GYN Assocs., P.C., No.Civ.A.98-167, 1999 WL 228993, at *6 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 15, 1999).

With regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is manifested, and not actual, intent which is paramount. The question is not what Obama and the DNC actually intended, as Judge Surrick claimed in his Memorandum, but rather what the Petitioner and the American public, as promisees, were justified in understanding that intent to be. There is no sound reason to suffer the harms in question because the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania incorrectly dismissed the Promissory Estoppel claim. Judge Surrick claimed the DNC’s promises were not actually promises but instead of statement of intentions. Judge Surrick went on further claiming “The ‘promises’ that Plaintiff identifies arc statements of principle and intent in the political realm. They are not enforceable promises under contract law. Indeed, our political system could not function if every political message articulated by a campaign could be characterized as a Legally binding contact enforceable by individual voters, Of course, voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises and Federal courts, however, are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric.”

The DNC and Obama made promises in writing which were posted on their website to lure people to donate money based on their promises. The DNC named this document “Renewing America’s Promise,” which presents the 2008 Democratic National Platform. In this document, the DNC promises among other things “use technology to make government more transparent, accountable and inclusive,” “maintain and restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return our Nation to the best traditions, including their commitment to government by law” and “work fully to protect and enforce the fundamental Constitutional right of every American vote — to ensure that the Constitution’s promise is fully realized”.

Obama placed on his website and stated on national television his promise to open and honest Government and his promise to truthfully answer any questions asked of him.

As a result of his detrimental reliance on these promises, Plaintiff donated money and billable hours to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC did in fact break promises by promoting an illegal candidate to run for and serve, if elected, as President of the United States, clearly in violation of the United States Constitution and in violation of their promise to enforce the fundamental Constitutional rights of every American voter. Furthermore, Obama has not answered, in an honest manner, questions about his citizenship. Moreover, Obama has breached his promise to uphold our Constitution; Obama is a Constitutional lawyer and is well aware he is ineligible to serve as the United States President. This is hardly an example of being open and honest, this is hardly an example of open and honest government, and it is neither the way to uphold our United States Constitution, nor the Oath of Office taken by Obama.

According to Berg, a television crew from Fox News Channel will be present to follow him as he files the documents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, a rally is being planned for 3:00 p.m. today on the steps of the Court.

As I've written over the past few days, however, the odds of the writ being granted and the case actually being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are slimmer than slim. Still, Berg is optimistic.

"We are at a crucial time for the United States of America," Berg said. "I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will do what is necessary to avoid a certain constitutional crisis."

UPDATE, 6:00pm

The rally at the courthouse was attended by about 30 people, Berg said, and coverage of what he called a "news conference" was provided by Fox News and a European news service (the name of which escapes me now). Apparently, the filing may be mentioned on tonight's Fox Report w/ Shepherd Smith, but nothing is confirmed.

Two America's Right readers were there, one of which described the coverage as "sadly thin." The other said it was "nice, but could have been a little bigger."

October 30, 2008 -- Assigned Reading

Fouad Ajami: Obama and the Politics of Crowds
(FROM: The Wall Street Journal) Very interesting. Exceptionally written.

There is something odd -- and dare I say novel -- in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right ...

Save in times of national peril, Americans have been sober, really minimalist, in what they expected out of national elections, out of politics itself. The outcomes that mattered were decided in the push and pull of daily life, by the inventors and the entrepreneurs, and the captains of industry and finance. To be sure, there was a measure of willfulness in this national vision, for politics and wars guided the destiny of this republic. But that American sobriety and skepticism about politics -- and leaders -- set this republic apart from political cultures that saw redemption lurking around every corner.

Found in a Run-down Boston Public Housing Estate: Barack Obama's Aunt Zeituni Onyango
(FROM: UK Times Online) So, his half-brother lives on one dollar each month in Kenya, and his aunt lives in dilapidated public housing in Boston. How wonderful. For a guy who is often seen as elitist and egotistical, this sure does a lot for that perception. Between Sen. Joe Biden's abysmal record of donations to charity--in the past ten years, the Bidens have given $3,690 out of their $2,450,042 in income--and Obama's failure to provide at all for his own family, the same family spoken of so nicely in his memoirs, it's a wonder that the pair can so successfully misrepresent themselves as caring for those who have less than they do. Amazing how they have no qualms about forcing ordinary Americans like you and me to share our wealth involuntarily, but have utterly refused to volunteer to share their own.


Matthews on Obamamercial: 'Fabulous ... Just Right ... Realism'
(FROM: Newsbusters) To paraphrase morning anchor and former Congressman Joe Scarborough, they're all 'independents' at MSNBC. Especially Chris "The Thrill is Gone [up my leg]" Matthews, who had this to say about Obama's 30-minute infomercial:

I thought it was Hollywood. It was romance. It was realism. The technical quality of it, the production values were perfect, the way they timed going to live, the biographical material. But most important, the connection with the average person in the economic turmoil we face right now I thought was fabulous. Of course, there we see the setting, which is very much like an Oval Office setting, showing that he's comfortable and we should be comfortable and will be with him in such a setting. I thought everything was just right.

I thought, the most important part of it, I thought, was the biographical, showing him talking about his mom and talking about him taking a chance in history and not wanting to miss it having seen his mother die at a young age. It was very human and I think you'd have to be a tough customer not to be touched by it.

Karl Rove: Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote
(FROM: The Wall Street Journal) I've said it privately, so I might as well say it here: I think John McCain is going to win this election. And, while it may not be by a truly hefty margin, I believe it will be enough so as to leave those on the political left in America standing around on Wednesday morning, wondering what the hell just happened. Of course, I could be wrong. The polls certainly say that I am, and those of you following the Berg v. Obama case know that my gut feeling, as improbable as I admitted it was, was still off when it came to the disposition of the case in district court. That being said, I have confidence in middle America, in God-fearing people who bleed red, white and blue and who know, for one reason or another, that Barack Hussein Obama just isn't right for this country.

SEE ALSO:

• Dick Morris: McCain Closing the Gap (Newsmax)
• Rasmussen Reports: McCain Trusted More on Taxes and Economy
  

Biden Blows Fuzzy Tax Math
(FROM: The New York Post) So, which one is it? Throughout the past few months, Barack Obama has maintained that he would "cut taxes" for those who made less than $250,000 per year. In a television spot last week and in last night's marathon infomercial, the number was suddenly $200,000. Now, Biden is saying that it is $150,000. That's nice. Should Obama win, I wonder what the magic number will be by Inauguration Day -- maybe, just maybe, it will be low enough that Obama's beloved aunt in Boston can receive a tax cut.


John Lott: The Barack Obama We Hardly Know
(FROM: Fox News) When I clicked on the link, I expected a piece detailing Obama's perspective as a former community organizer on the Second Amendment. However, Lott takes his signature common sense approach to the Illinois senator's ideology as a whole and, while a number of recent articles have gone into greater detail--see, for example, Joshua Muravchik's Obama's Leftism--this was nonetheless a solidly written, informative piece.

SEE ALSO:

• Michael Reagan: You Can't Be Half-Socialist (Townhall)
• Andrew McCarthy: Obama's 'Redistributive Change' and the Death of Freedom (National Review)
• Michael Barone: New New Deal No Better than the Old One (National Review)
  

Did Saddam Hussein Bagman Help Obama Buy Mansion?
(FROM: WorldNetDaily) I've written before about Obama's involvement, through friend and corrupt Syrian businessman Tony Rezko, with Iraqi government fraud. The information in this article, included alongside a solid timeline, really opens up yet another set of questions for the Illinois senator. I'll let you read it for yourself and decide.


Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Campaign Donations
(FROM: Newsmax) Kenneth Timmerman has been all over this from the beginning, and just last week broke the story stating that $63 million of Obama's $605 million collected campaign funds came from unnamed sources, some of which used pre-paid debit cards to contribute to the senator's campaign. Now, he adds to the already exponentially expanding pile of information. You know, any one of these things--foreign contributions, ACORN, lying about tax plans, and the whole stable full of questionable associations and alliances--would be enough to completely and unequivocally disqualify John McCain or any GOP candidate, yet Obama seems to emerge unscathed.


MSM Ignores 'Nonpartisan' ACORN Boss Bertha Lewis's Impassioned Endorsement of Obama
(FROM: Newsbusters) It absolutely blows my mind that more has not been made of Obama's blatant attempt, through surrogates and those who share his ideology, to steal this election. An ACORN whistleblower just testified that she was provided with an Obama donor list. By golly, he gave them donor lists, paid them to get out the vote, and get out the vote they most certainly did -- now, they're being investigated in more than a dozen states, many of them swing states. At any rate, watch the video, and tell me just how non-partisan it is.

But he looks nothing like Laurence Harvey...

Every so often, an article comes to my attention which needs to be expanded here in full. Even less often than that, an article comes to my attention which needs to be listed in the "Essentials" section on the right side of the page. 

This is one of those articles. An excellent resource on all things Barack Obama.

Read, digest, pass it along.

-- Jeff


Yes, Barack Obama Really is a Manchurian Candidate
By David Kupelian, WorldNetDaily

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." – Abraham Lincoln

As Election Day rapidly approaches, many Americans are wondering why so many of their countrymen reject a genuine war hero with decades of experience, one whose pro-life, limited-government values pretty much reflect those of Middle America. Instead, these same countrymen are enthralled with a man who not only has no experience or qualifications for the job, but who is, in fact, the most radically left-wing major-party presidential candidate of our lifetime, having been mentored and supported for decades by terrorists (Ayers), communists (Davis), America-hating racists (Wright) and criminals (Rezko).

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate – even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party."And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.

So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will – with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary – bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:

• Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, having announced publicly: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, making America the abortion capital of the world. Of course, you know what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate, which as I have pointed out previously would end all hope of overturning Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.
  
  
• He's hands-down the most pro-homosexual candidate in history, promising to back virtually the entire radical "gay rights" agenda, including the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, essentially throwing open the door to gay marriage in all 50 states. And, as he proclaims in his "open letter to the LGBT community": "I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." That will allow and encourage overt homosexuality throughout the armed forces, something military experts have long maintained will destroy the very fabric of America's armed services.
  
  
• Sounds bad for Judeo-Christian values, you say? Dr. James Dobson's influential Focus on the Family organization analyzed issue after issue and predicts – are you ready for this? –"hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" as the fate of Christians if Obama becomes president.
  
  
• Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," warns the National Rifle Association, which points out that he has supported a complete ban on handguns, voted to ban most rifle ammunition, and supported increasing the tax on guns by 500 percent.
  
  
• Obama would devastate an already deeply troubled U.S. economy. Jacking up taxes, as he promises to do, during the worst financial crisis and credit meltdown since the Great Depression is breathtakingly foolish. No wonder three out of four CEOs of American companies say Obama would be a disaster. Apparently Obama, who constantly badmouths "CEOs" and "corporations," doesn't realize it is these very companies that create over 120 million of America's 140 million jobs (the rest being created by government).
  
  
• In order to throttle the troublesome talk radio truth-tellers who caused him so much trouble during the election season, and to reward his cheerleaders in the elite press, Obama willattempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by resurrecting the horrendous "Fairness Doctrine."
  
  
• Obama alone will be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory in Iraq. He is so weak, inexperienced and narcissistic, he will reflexively appease our nation's enemies and thereby encourage the growth of evil the world over. Millions will suffer as a direct result.

Then there's the issue of Obama's truly disturbing past. It seems that no matter how stunning the revelations – some of which are finally emerging, no thanks to a shockingly irresponsible and infantile "mainstream press" – they don't penetrate the public mind. Regardless of the evidence against him, people remain entranced by Obama:

• Amidst ever-growing evidence of vote fraud in multiple states perpetrated by ACORN – the notorious left-wing group with which Obama, despite his public statements, has long and deep ties – the Obama campaign's lawyers are now arguing that the Justice Department should not investigate any vote fraud claims until after the election. Instead, say Obama's attorneys, Justice should investigate those citizens who have brought to light the evidence of voter fraud, for supposedly trying to intimidate poor people into not voting. And no wonder: Thirteen of Obama's own campaign workers in Ohio have confessed to have fraudulently voted in that crucial swing state.
  
  
• Despite repeated indignant denials by the candidate and his campaign, Barack Obama was once a Muslim. If you question that fact as just a nasty "Internet rumor," examine for yourself Obama's registration papers to the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia, reproduced here by the Associated Press, which clearly indicate his religion at the time as "Islam." Much more troubling are the radical Islamist ties he maintains today, as respected Islam expert Daniel Pipes documents. Even rabid anti-Semite and leader of the radical Nation of Islam group, Louis Farrakian, says "the Messiah is absolutely speaking" through Obama.
  
  
• Which brings us to his most troubling association of all: Obama sat in the church pews for20 years listening to and absorbing the anti-American, racist, hate-filled sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who claims, among his other lunatic rants, that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks and deliberately created AIDS in order to commit genocide against black people. Wright's rage-filled preaching of "black liberation theology" – an anti-American, anti-White, Marxist philosophy disguised as Christianity – filled Obama's mind and soul for two decades, and they have unquestionably influenced his worldview.

  Sitting at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for two decades and being filled each week with such venom against America and white people can fairly be called a form of brainwashing. If you doubt this statement, try spending 30-60 minutes on YouTube and just listen to random video clips of Wright's "sermons." Then, imagine swallowing this poisonous concoction, in person, every week for 20 years. It would be transformative.

• One can go on and on, it's dizzying: Obama worked closely – for years – with William Ayers, a criminal and domestic terrorist who once bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings; there's absolutely compelling evidence – including independent scientific forensic analysis – showing that Ayers wrote all or part of Obama's best selling book "Dreams from My Father"; Obama received crucial funding and other financial benefits from notorious convicted Chicago criminal Tony Rezko; the Obama campaign refuses to produce a simple birth certificate to dispel persistent claims in multiple lawsuits that question the candidate's constitutional qualifications to be U.S. president – it goes on and on, and yet inexplicably, none of it seems to penetrate the minds of those entranced with Obama.

So again, the question: Why, despite a mountain of evidence utterly proving his profound unworthiness to be president, do so many millions of Americans worship Barack Obama? Let's take a closer look.

The magic of envy

In recent decades, more and more Americans have been conditioned by politicians to depend on government to solve their problems. This is how demagogues have long operated. They demonize "the rich," implying they obtained their wealth by exploiting the downtrodden; they stir up racial hatreds at every opportunity; they endlessly bash business and CEOs as evil exploiters; they promise "social justice" and universal happiness if only we will elevate them to power over us.

They do all this by appealing to anger and envy. They know instinctively that if they can stir up and ignite these dark, addictive passions in all of us, they will create a large voting bloc of people dependent on them, and thus be rewarded with great power. In its purest form, this phenomenon is called Marxism, communism, socialism – the spiritual core of which is raw envy. This philosophy of cradle-to-grave security and "wealth redistribution" exerts a powerfully seductive grip on people who have not discovered true inner "government." As William Penn famously said, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Communism, of course, is atheistic – where the government is the only true god, the giver of blessings, the solver of problems, the dispenser of justice and mercy. This envy-based, class-warfare-fueled revolutionary system talks always of justice, fairness, progress – but the only progress it delivers is from freedom to slavery.

This is the appeal more and more Americans have been conditioned over the years to respond to, as we have progressively fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that once animated our culture and institutions. The envy-based system Marx unleashed on the world is alive and well, and in different forms it still dominates large parts of the world. In America, it has taken root in the Democrat Party. Ronald Reagan may have destroyed the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, but you cannot destroy evil itself. Evil remains, and continues to do its job of tempting and, if possible, corrupting the souls of men.

Even the encouragement of immorality – free sex, abortion, homosexuality, easy divorce and so on – is all part and parcel of the socialist modus operandi, because immoral, dysfunctional people who have crossed the moral line and thus become estranged from God now need the "god" of socialist government.

All of this, my friends, is what we're poised to elect as president in the person of Barack Obama.

This has been coming for quite awhile. Americans, many of us anyway, have become increasingly corrupted over the years. We've been conditioned by our leaders into voting for lying, unprincipled, seductive candidates. We almost elected certified wacko Al Gore as president – someone who seriously wants to outlaw the internal combustion engine. Then we almost elected John Kerry – a super-ambitious, unprincipled and thoroughly unlikable man who first achieved notoriety by betraying his Vietnam soldier colleagues, scandalously maligning them as baby-killers before Congress and the nation.

Now, we're very close to electing an even worse candidate – and the reasons for this tell us much about ourselves.

The power of guilt

If you've ever studied disasters like the explosion of the Challenger Space Shuttle or the sinking of the Titanic, you'll find there was not just one reason, but a whole series of factors that seemingly conspired to cause the catastrophe.

One of the "aiding and abetting" factors in the current election is the fact that Obama is black. Let's talk about race.

Americans – even though slavery and segregation are long gone from the national scene – still have a large and understandable reservoir of collective guilt over its past exploitation and mistreatment of blacks.

Guilt is a fantastically powerful factor in all of our lives. It is a very uncomfortable, nagging pain in our conscience, this thing we call guilt. When we're guilty we try to relieve this inner conflict, and this is often a good thing. If we're guilty toward God, for instance, then we naturally want to make up for that guilt by finding reconciliation and obedience to Him. If we've wronged our neighbor and our conscience bothers us, that guilt is the valuable, redeeming factor that prods us to apologize and make restitution if appropriate. Without being able to experience a guilty conscience, we'd all be amoral psychopaths – literally oblivious to whether or not we had done anything wrong.

However, there's another side to guilt. Manipulative and unprincipled humans soon discover how to use our guilt to get their way. They can even make us feel guilty when we haven't done anything wrong – for instance, by way of false accusation, a tactic the left has perfected.

Now, Barack Obama obviously is not to blame for being black – or more to the point, for how people feel about him because of his race. But the fact is, his being black pushes the guilt button in most of us and we simply see him differently than we would if he were white. (Imagine voting for a white guy with such flimsy credentials and ominous associations.) With white voters in particular, there is a strong urge to finally move beyond our collective guilt over slavery and to prove, once and for all, that we're not a nation beset by racism – by electing a black president.

It's not an exaggeration to call this guilt-induced way of looking at Obama, this conditioned attitude, a type of trance. We hold him to a different standard, we see and feel differently about him, than we would if he were white. We have a kindliness, a desire for his success, a form of love and admiration and well-wishing toward Obama, all based on guilt. But love based on guilt is not real love. It's just an unconscious attempt to rid ourselves of guilt. Shelby Steele, author of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," puts it this way: "[Americans] struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with."

Yet this guilt phenomenon is also why craven race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still command media respect as "black leaders." We see them through the "white guilt trance," part of which means we're really afraid of being regarded as racists, so we don't criticize these men for their blatant serial demagoguery. Likewise with Obama, there is a great deal of hesitancy to criticize him out of fear of being thought a racist.

You might respond to this by saying: But I don't have any guilt over slavery or segregation. Fine, but it gets much subtler than that.

Did you ever get angry at your kids – and then find yourself "being nice" to them to make up for the guilt of having been impatient? With that in mind, consider just one of many ways guilt (in this case, racial guilt) can find its way into you: Let's say you're walking down the street and a group of black men are walking toward you, and you become fearful (very similar to the story Obama famously told about his white grandmother). That fear has a little resentment attached to it, for that's the nature of fear. But when you become resentful for any reason at all, you automatically incur guilt, because resentment is a wrong, failing way for mature human beings to respond to the stresses of life. Now, saddled with this new guilt associated with black people, a compulsion rises up from within you to make up for that guilt – which you do by discovering a mysterious affinity for black people that wasn't there before. But that "love" isn't real love – it's all rooted in guilt and resentment (just like when you got impatient with your kids, then suddenly became "nice" to them to compensate for your anger). Although my example here centers on race, this guilt principle is universal. Indeed, guilt-based false love is the basis of the ubiquitous "love-hate relationship" that so vexes the human race; hate easily turns into false love, to make up for the guilt of hating. Do you get it?

It's subtle, but this is exactly the kind of dynamic that leads to self-destructive relationships – from personal relationships to electing tyrants.

The Obama News Network

A third factor, shaped powerfully by both the secular love of government and the white guilt factor just discussed, is the incomprehensibly unprofessional way the news media have behaved during the 2008 election.

In my estimation, we basically don't have a free press in America any more, other than the "New Media" – that is, talk radio, the Internet and some cable TV. Most of the rest of the establishment media have pretty much committed suicide this year.

Just imagine that radical activist groups like the ACLU or the strident abortion outfit NARAL decided to start up their own "news organizations," complete with broadcast "anchor people," "reporters" and "correspondents," as well as newspapers and news websites and so on – and with a straight face they called their output "news." Everybody would laugh. Why? Because, while it would have the familiar form of news, it would of course just have the substance of their radical propaganda. No one would take it seriously.

This is exactly what we have in the so-called "mainstream press" today. The New York Times and NBC News, for example, are not true news organizations any more. They've become political and cultural activist organizations pretending to do news. And after having dropped all pretense at fairness this year, everyone knows it. This is why they're more concerned about Joe the plumber's tax bill than about the election being stolen by ACORN – because the elite media have become nothing more nor less than the propaganda ministry and attack dogs for Barack Obama.

Obama, the Manchurian candidate

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life.

In "The Manchurian Candidate," several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America.

America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate.

Choose well.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2008

PHILLIES WIN!! PHILLIES WIN!!

The Philadelphia Phillies
2008 World Series Champions

I know, I know, the rest of the country just ... doesn't ... care. Believe me, after watching and waiting for the last 25 years for a championship for any one of our four major sports teams, the Phillies or the Flyers or the Eagles or the Sixers, I--and the rest of the people in Philadelphia--know exactly what it is like to watch some other team win, some other city celebrate.

Damn it, though, tonight it's our turn!!

When I played Little League as a kid, I remember being disappointed year after year because I always drew the Tigers, or the Yankees, or the Dodgers, or the Orioles -- any team but the Phillies. Every kid wanted to be a Phillie.

As a Philadelphia Eagles fan and an Auburn University alum, I've always loved football. Growing up in the northeast, hockey has always been huge. Still, at the end of the day, it is baseball, America's pastime, which makes me think of simpler times when my parents were still together, when I knew nothing of mortgage payments or health insurance or busted water-heaters, when politics was something that angry grownups talked about.

This photograph was taken when I was just a kid, shopping in a department store and lucky enough to run into the Phillie Phanatic. My goodness, it was an absolute dream. It occurred to me tonight, watching my two-year-old daughter watch and laugh as her father hopped around the room (she called me a "hop-hop," meaning that, to her, I looked like a rabbit), just how long it has been since life has been simple, since the greatest cause for concern or celebration was a bunch of guys in red and white pinstripes.

You know, I'm usually the first person to disparage sports, much in the same way as I do the cult of celebrity and the eye-rolling superficiality parade which is American Idol, as a distraction from the things which truly matter. Tonight, however, as I look at the images on my television set, I see coming together and celebrating together and jumping and dancing and hugging and screaming together a city which, just six days from now, will most certainly be viciously--and perhaps irreparably--divided.

Sure, there may be some rioting and disobedience in the streets of Philadelphia tonight, but for the most part, there is far more love tonight in the City of Brotherly Love than there has been for a long while, and will be for some time to come.

There's something to be said for sports.

There's something to be said for victory.

And there you have it -- even on a night where pinstripes take precedence over politics, it becomes apparent that there is always a lesson to be learned.

Gaining Perspective on Surrick, Standing, and Berg v. Obama

Tomorrow morning, Philip Berg will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Washington in hopes that his lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States will be heard, on its merits, by the United States Supreme Court.

The case was dismissed from USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue.

A few days ago, I linked to this article following one of the recent updates on the Berg v. Obamacase. After careful consideration, I believe it should be reproduced here in full.

Many people have asked about the decision handed down by Judge Surrick, and asked about the standing issue in particular. As of yet, there has been no better-researched, more comprehensive piece on the disposition of this case -- this site included. So, if you'd like a better understanding of this case as it proceeds through the court system, take a look at this fabulous piece of writing. It is a lengthy article (hence my decision to display it in a smaller size), but it worth it for anyone who wishes to gain perspective on Berg's case.

-- Jeff

Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, 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 [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous voteinter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

A little much-needed levity for a Wednesday afternoon...

(Cartoons by Michael Ramirez.)

Mr. Berg Goes to Washington

Today, should everything go according to plan, only five days after his federal lawsuit against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was dismissed for lack of standing from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, attorney Philip Berg will file his appeal in Philadelphia and, once it is docketed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, will travel to Washington, D.C. to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

There, Berg says, should things progress on schedule, he will be accompanied by a television crew from Fox News Channel.

"Despite the setback we received on Friday," Berg said, "I feel as though we really do have momentum here. And, while this course of action may not be your standard fare, I think that we're too close to the election and too close to a constitutional crisis in America to not pursue this to the best of our ability."

The non-standard course of action Berg mentioned, it seems, is the concept of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court without first exhausting all options at the Circuit Court level. By appealing at the Third Circuit, the case could have been heard by a panel of three judges, if not more, and then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Still, Berg insists that due to the argument schedules at the Third Circuit and the nation being less than a week removed from Election Day, the chance of his action against Barack Obama being heard in time is slim at best.

Now, as was written yesterday at America's Right, the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant certiorari and choose to hear Berg's case are razor-thin. Each year, the Supreme Court is presented with approximately 8,000 petitions for certiorari but only grants about 75 to 120. Berg, however, is not extremely concerned.

"Of course, the odds are long," Berg said. "But this case does have to do with the prevention of a guaranteed constitutional crisis and, even if it is not heard in time or at all, the national media should have no choice but to pay attention."

Even if the case were heard, Berg faces long odds in the courtroom as well, as the standing doctrine as it stands now does not lean in his favor. Also from yesterday's update:

To have standing, a plaintiff must satisfy a three-prong test. He or she must prove (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressibility -- that they've sustained more than just general harm, that the harm can be traced to the conduct of the defendant, and that adjudication of the matter can provide a remedy to that harm. Berg's biggest hurdle, so far, has been establishing injury in fact.

Now, while there is a three-prong test for standing, there is no such definitive test for establishing what exactly constitutes an injury in fact. Instead, whether or not a plaintiff has sustained an injury in fact depends upon how that plaintiff's factual allegations are perceived by the judge on what has been described as a sliding scale of speculation, creativity and remoteness. In other words, if the factual support of a plaintiff's claims is deemed too speculative, too remote, or too creative, then the judge may not find injury, and visa versa.

In the past, the United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must have a "personal stake" in the matter being adjudicated. This, of course, is to ensure that the matter belongs before the court in the first place. More recently, however, the Court has paid greater attention to, and awarded standing for, plaintiffs who can show enough of an injury so as to provide something along the lines of a good contest among legal rivals.

In Constitutional Law class last year, we studied a few cases while looking at the standing issue. One was a case in which a group of environmentalists were given standing by the Supreme Court because the need for preservation of "environmental well-being" was enough to prove injury. In another case, an association in Washington state was deemed to have standing even though it was the individual members, and not the association itself, which could be found to have had the requisite "personal stake."

That being said, in the unlikely event that this case is heard by the Supreme Court, Berg will need to argue, certainly among other things, that the injury deemed too generalized by Judge Surrick is indeed enough to show injury in fact and therefore gain standing to sue. Only then can this case be heard on its merits.

All that being said, Berg says, he takes heart in knowing that while the law as it stands now may be difficult to overcome, he is at the very least arguing from the perspective of America's founders and in the best interests of the American people.

"Should my case be heard, and it should," Berg said, "Barack Obama will need to argue that the American people have no right to challenge whether or not a candidate for president of the United States actually is constitutionally eligible, in the eyes of our founding fathers, to serve in the office of the presidency. That's not right. That's not right at all. If the American people are not injured by a fraudulent candidate collecting $600 million while campaigning for an office he cannot constitutionally hold, if the American people do not have standing, then who does?"



UPDATE, 2:00pm:

The filing at the United States Supreme Court will be happening tomorrow morning and not today, according to Philip Berg, who explained that he still must attend to other commitments associated with his legal practice and was tied up in court later than planned. Berg assured America's Rightthat, from a conversation he had with representatives at Fox News Channel, a television crew will be meeting him in Washington D.C. to follow his progress as he files his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. 

Furthermore, Berg said, his interview with Fox News Channel's Rick Leventhal, taped yesterday, should air this evening in either the 6:00 or 7:00 hour, just before Barack Obama's 30-minute infomercial.

Obama's Dangerous Perspective on the Judiciary

This is an absolutely phenomenal, and extremely essential, article on Barack Obama's view of the role of the courts in the United States.

Remember that Obama's choices for the bench at all levels could affect the United States of America for a generation or more. This, above all else, may be the single most important issue of the election. It's just not as sexy (the robes aren't so flattering, I guess). 

Please read, digest, and pass it along.

-- Jeff


Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution
From The Wall Street Journal

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Bias Gives Way to Activism

The refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release a 2003 videotape showing Barack Obama lavishing praise on a former PLO operative and supporter of Palestinian terrorism against Israel is showing not just traditional media bias, but has crossed the line into activism.

Rashid Khalidi was first discussed here atAmerica's Right on May 31, 2008. There, and many times since, Khalidi has been identified as a long-time, close friend of Barack Obama's. The two met when Khalidi was teaching Middle East Studies at the University of Chicago; the videotape being intentionally suppressed by the Los Angeles Times is from a dinner party, a going-away event, when Khalidi made his way from the University of Chicago to Columbia University, where he still teaches today.

Also present at the event? Unrepentent domestic terrorist William Ayers and equally disturbed wife Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers, Obama and Khalidi all served on the board of the non-profit Woods Fund which, in the two-year span while Obama served, funneled $200,000 or so to Ayers' leftist educational programs and an additional $75,000 to the Arab-American Action Network, an organization founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, and notoriously supportive of Palestinian terror. Furthermore, Mona Khalidi served as a prominent English-language translator for the late Fatah founder and PLO leader Yasser Arafat.

Rashid and Mona Khalidi are said to have been frequent dinner companions of Barack and Michelle Obama, and have reportedly even baby-sat their children. The Khalidis threw successful fundraisers for Obama as well, and like William Ayers helped to launch his political career.

Now, there is videotape of the Illinois senator breaking bread with domestic and foreign terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, lavishing praise on one of them, and a major American newspaper refuses to release it. They're protecting him, just like they've protected him from the start.

When Trent Lott made an unfortunate joke at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, he was run out of town and ruined by the media. If tape of John McCain at some David Duke event surfaced, it would be given its own little box on MSNBC so it could be shown in a loop right next to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. If it were John McCain and not Barack Obama on this tape, not only would it run everywhere, but it would be an instant disqualifier -- just like any evidence of an association with people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Ayers, Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour and more would be an instant disqualifier for a GOP candidate as well. Now, there is videotaped evidence--only five years old, no less--that Obama, the man who would like the highest security clearance in all the land, is once again heaping praise on a terrorist, and the media refuses to cover it.

The mainstream media has been nothing short of disgusting during this election cycle. I can only imagine that they believe that leftist free speech will somehow be safe. What terrifies me is how the media's willingness to protect their Chosen One would translate into transparency--or lack thereof--should Obama be elected to the presidency.



NOTE: 

Yes, I know that African Press International is once again trying to stir the pot by stating that the notorious Michelle Obama tapes will be released by Fox News within the next few days. Yes, I know that Bill O'Reilly claims to have "big news" this week. No, I do not know if the two are related, but I suspect not.

Please note that I still do not believe that the Michelle Obama tapes really exist. It just doesn't make sense, any of it. That being said, I would happily--HAPPILY!!--admit that I am wrong once I, and the rest of the American public, hear otherwise. If I am wrong, professionalism be damned, I will post a goofy picture of myself, grinning from ear to ear, and admitting my error.

And that's all I have to say about that. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to bed. I cannot remember the last time I went to sleep before 1:30 a.m!

-- Jeff

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008

Philip Berg, Fox News, API, Standing, and the United States Supreme Court

I spoke with Philip Berg this afternoon as he sat in his office, awaiting a crew from Fox News Channel in New York. While interest in his lawsuit among those at Fox has been steadily mounting over the past few days and weeks, Berg does not know exactly in what capacity the end product of the taping will be used.

"At this point," Berg said, "the nation just needs to know that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as president of the United States, that he has so far successfully hidden behind procedure, and that we could very well be headed toward a constitutional crisis unless this is addressed."

And he is indeed working toward ensuring that the issue is addressed, Berg said, and has been spending the past few days preparing for his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, a move which could happen by the end of the week. This, of course, has caused him to shift other items to the proverbial back burner, including but not limited to the so-called Michelle Obama tapes purportedly possessed by editorial staff at African Press International.

With regard to API, Berg says that he's not so sure what has come or will come of it. "My name is associated with it," he said, "but now I see that there's a Canadian name associated with it too, and that they are claiming to have provided the tapes to Fox News or someone else. I don't know."

Still, even with the focus shifting to the Supreme Court appeal, the odds of the highest court in the land actually granting certiorari and hearing Berg's case are slim. Even though appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first exhausting other options in the Circuit Court level, while a rare move, can be done with regard to substantially urgent matters, the Supreme Court is presented with approximately 8,000 petitions for certiorari each year but only grant about 75 to 120 of those. Personally, if it were me, I'd exhaust my options with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before going to the Supreme Court -- this way, I could avoid a possible procedural error. While that may delay the outcome of the case until after the fourth of November, I'd rather delay it than watch it tossed for an improper appeal.

In the unlikely event, though, that four of the nine Supreme Court Justices decide to hear the case, Berg will first have to establish that, contrary to the arguments put forth by Barack Obama and the DNC and the specifics of the decision rendered by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, he indeed has standing to sue. As I've pointed out in these pages before, the standing doctrine as it stands today does not bode well for Philip Berg.

To have standing, a plaintiff must satisfy a three-prong test. He or she must prove (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressibility -- that they've sustained more than just general harm, that the harm can be traced to the conduct of the defendant, and that adjudication of the matter can provide a remedy to that harm. Berg's biggest hurdle, so far, has been establishing injury in fact.

Now, while there is a three-prong test for standing, there is no such definitive test for establishing what exactly constitutes an injury in fact. Instead, whether or not a plaintiff has sustained an injury in fact depends upon how that plaintiff's factual allegations are perceived by the judge on what has been described as a sliding scale of speculation, creativity and remoteness. In other words, if the factual support of a plaintiff's claims is deemed too speculative, too remote, or too creative, then the judge may not find injury, and visa versa.

In the past, the United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must have a "personal stake" in the matter being adjudicated. This, of course, is to ensure that the matter belongs before the court in the first place. More recently, however, the Court has paid greater attention to, and awarded standing for, plaintiffs who can show enough of an injury so as to provide something along the lines of a good contest among legal rivals.

In Constitutional Law class last year, we studied a few cases while looking at the standing issue. One was a case in which a group of environmentalists were given standing by the Supreme Court because the need for preservation of "environmental well-being" was enough to prove injury. In another case, an association in Washington state was deemed to have standing even though it was the individual members, and not the association itself, which could be found to have had the requisite "personal stake."

That being said, in the unlikely event that this case is heard by the Supreme Court, Berg will need to argue, certainly among other things, that the injury deemed too generalized by Judge Surrick is indeed enough to show injury in fact and therefore gain standing to sue. Only then can this case be heard on its merits.

In the meantime, this election is only a week away. Talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors. Some will be too far gone to the political left. Others will be open to discussion. Regardless, make sure that people get out to vote next Tuesday, because the best way to stop Barack Obama from gaining the presidency is not through the court system but at the ballot box.



SEE ALSO:

• Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause? (American Thinker)
• Obama Must Stand Up or Sit Down (NewsWithViews)

One Week to Go

Right now, I am busy with something for which I can never take credit, but trust me that those of you on the political right would be extremely pleased if you knew what it was. Perhaps, in a week or so, you'll see it -- but my name will be nowhere to be found. 

In the meantime, this is as good a time as any to remind your friends and neighbors that Election Day is only a week away, and that this may be the single most important election in a generation. The American economy is teetering on the edge, enemies abroad are gathering strength, enemies within are whittling away at our freedoms, and the two choices in this presidential election could not be more different. 

Here's a great piece on one of those choices by Mark Levin. Please read it, share it, and enjoy.

Now, forgive me, but I need to get back to work. 

-- Jeff

The Obama Temptation 
By Mark Levin, National Review

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008

'Change' Could Last a Generation

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

So, according to Barack Obama, it is a tragedy that the Court never interpreted the U.S. Constitution, a document he said was fundamentally flawed and "reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day," so as to force the redistribution of wealth to African-Americans. He called it "one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement" that we could not "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution," and noted that "the framers had that same blind spot." At the time this interview took place, in 2001, he lamented that such change would likely not come from the judiciary and would have to come from legislation. 

A week from tomorrow, Barack Obama could be well on his way of ensuring that the Supreme Court, and indeed all levels of the federal bench, adhere more to his ideological perspective that the role of the courts is to "favor the weak against the strong" rather than interpreting the U.S. Constitution as it was written.

We already know that Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. He wants to punish those who are successful, and give the fruits of that hard work to those who simply have not chosen to work as hard. We already know that Obama has an ultra-left take on the role of the judiciary -- now, a week and a day before the election, maybe more people will see it.

With the advancing age of the Supreme Court Justices, it is possible that the next president of the United States could nominate anywhere from two to five--or more!--Justices to the highest court in the land. I wonder about how Barack Obama's potential nominees, who would inevitably make the Ninth Circuit look like Justice Scalia in comparison and would receive minimal vetting from a democrat-controlled Congress, would address the erosion of our Constitutional rights, the thinning of our core values, the prosecution of the War on Terror and the need to insulate ourselves from Islam and Sharia Law.

Barack Obama is absolutely, 100 percent wrong on the judiciary. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is NOT to evaluate the matter at hand based upon the feeling in their "hearts." The role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to make a decision based upon the interests of a single mother, a welfare addict, or anyone else for that matter. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to look at the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION when weighing a controversy and interpret the document--preferably in as narrow a fashion as possible--as needed to adjudicate the controversy in question.

We need to "break free" from the principles put forth by our framers? As far as I can tell, the abandonment of those ideas and ideals is what got us here in the first place, staring a bloated government in the mouth, watching as our sovereignty is eroding by the minute. Every single word, phrase and paragraph in our founding documents are there for a reason, placed there by people who fought, bled and died to make this country the antithesis of the tyrannical rule from which they escaped. This is a nation which, because of its founding principles, is a beacon of hope for those around the world who strive for freedom, opportunity and fairness. And now, the man who very likely could be the 44th president of these United States laments that the Supreme Court hasn't just tossed asunder the principles and aspirations of our founding fathers in the name of a Marxist approach to social engineering.

Achieving "social justice" through "redistributive change" is his goal. And, come January, he could be well on his way to using every branch of government to do it.

We absolutely must take back some Congressional seats through action in the voting booth. If the democrats obtain exclusive control of both the legislative and executive branches, and Obama the Oval Office, the judicial branch will soon follow. The harm done to our nation over the course of four years could last a generation.

For your reading pleasure, here's a piece on Obama's view of the Court from back in February of this year. I wrote about it back then, but think it would behoove everyone to take a second look.

-- Jeff

Obama's Class War Court
by Terry Jeffrey, townhall.com
February 27, 2008

When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the "weak" over the "strong."

When the nomination of Sam Alito came up in January 2006, he made the same argument.

Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law.

During the Roberts nomination debate, he argued that most Supreme Court cases involve no real controversy, "so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases."

In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. "In those difficult cases," Obama said, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren't in the right place.

"The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005.

"When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless."

Implicitly conceding that Roberts would be confirmed, Obama said, "I hope he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society."

So, in Obama's vision, who are the "weak" and who are the "strong"? Who deserves to win the "hearts" of Supreme Court justices? Who does not?

In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America together, Obama's Senate speeches against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal defendants were among the weak, majorities, men, employers and prosecutors were among the strong.

"In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process," Obama said of Roberts. "In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."

Alito had a similar problem, only with different preferred victim classes.

"If there is a case involving an employer and employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer," Obama said. "If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he will rule in favor of the state."

Obama expressed disappointed that when he interviewed John Roberts he could not get the judge to reveal more of his personal feelings. "Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper feelings," Obama said. "That is not how he is trained."

Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama should have listened more carefully to the judge's testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not consider who is "weak" and who is "strong" in a case, or consult their personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts and the law.

"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them," said Roberts. "I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."

If Obama becomes president, he will try to stack the court not with umpires, but with players who put their heart in every game -- consistently pitching and batting for Obama's favorite teams.

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2008

Addressing the Rumors Surrounding Surrick's Decision

The newest thing, I see, is that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick somehow was implored to decide as he did in the Berg v. Obama suit, that the memorandum and order was somehow thrust upon him by a former law clerk who now works closely with Michelle Obama. Fax transmissions shown on the readily-available document have been called into question, as though the judge was sent the decision he was supposed to render.

People, come on.

The standing doctrine is crystal clear. The law, in this case, was on the side of Barack Obama and the DNC when it came down to the procedural details. To prevail, Berg needed Judge Surrick to play the role of judicial activist and expand the law as it stands today. I've noted before that the standing doctrine had changed over time, but just because the judge [unfortunately] declined to change it again, we cannot simply assume that he was somehow coerced to uphold the law.

Don't get me wrong -- I was hoping that Surrick would indeed change the standing doctrine. I think that, in this case, the law as it stands could not be more wrong. I find it sad, and somewhat contrary to what I feel our founders would have liked, that individuals cannot ask that a presidential candidate who has failed to be forthcoming in so many different ways to come clean about his questionable past. Still, as disappointing as Surrick's decision was, it was far from unexpected.

It would not take a conspiracy to force a judge to come down on the right side of the law as it currently stands. He did what was expected of him. I understand the will to look for answers, but if there is an answer that we should all be looing for, it should be to the question of standing and, more specifically, injury. Hopefully, as Berg proceeds through the court system, he will frame his questions in a way which will nudge the courts into providing a true, specific, definitive test for injury-in-fact, the first of three elements in the standing doctrine. Right now, while a judge may apply the plaintiff's allegations to a sliding scale of remoteness and speculation in order to decide whether a plaintiff has been injured in a specific and particularized manner, it would be nice to see a definitive test for the injury requirement come of all of this.

In the meantime, we are nine short days away from the most important election of this generation, a contest between two men with stark differences in policies, ideology and aspirations. We may not be able to affect the thinking of a political candidate or a district court judge -- so let's take responsibility for our own actions and do the right thing in the voting booth.



UPDATE -- Sun., Oct. 26 @ 10:15pm

Obama's Birth Certificate Sealed by Hawaii Governor
(FROM: WorldNetDaily) Now, contrary to what some of you may believe, I am not a tin-foil hat kind of guy. Still, I find this to be strange, especially considering that the Illinois senator was just there a few days ago. At any rate, why not just produce the valid, vault copy and not only put an end to all of this, but come out looking better for having done so? If anything, Obama could turn it over and say something along the lines of "do you see how far people will go?" and come out smelling sweetly on the whole thing, but he doesn't. Odd.

A Look at Things to Come?

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has already done his level best to stifle outspoken critics of his policies and himself, whether it be through the "Truth Squads" employed in Missouri or the petitioning of radio stations in Chicago and elsewhere in an attempt to prevent journalists such as David Freddoso, Stanley Kurtz and Jerome Corsi from taking to the airwaves.

Now, he has cut off access for an Orlando-area television station because anchorwoman Barbara West dared to ask tough ideology- and policy-specific questions during an interview with Obama's vice presidential choice, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden. Later, Obama's campaign called West's conduct"unprofessional" and "combative."

For asking tough, valid questions?

Perhaps Biden and Obama just cannot walk straight with the shoe tied firmly onto the other foot. 

When Joseph Wurzelbacher dared to ask a question about how Obama's tax plan would affect his shot at attaining the American dream, how it would burden the plumbing business he was hoping to purchase, he watched as the Obama-loving mainstream media tore his life apart and, within 24 hours, caused him to lose his job, and exposed his financial past for all to see. Now, when the questioner was different, when the questioner was not merely an American citizen but rather by trade a professional journalist, Obama's campaign maligned her professionalism.

Is this what we have to look forward to in a possible Obama adminstration? Will the White House press corps be limited to questioning the contents of President Obama's iPod, or what the First Lady thinks of Tyra Banks' talk show? What hope do we have, with a presidential campaign that defends its proposals by manhandling the media, for transparency in an actual presidential administration?

Alask Gov. Sarah Palin is forced to address her support for the firing of a state trooper that had threatened her father's life and tasered a 10-year-old boy. Her daughter is called a "whore," her husband called a "hick," and she herself is deemed by many to be an undereducated fool. Cindy McCain is subject to criticism on her physique, and her marriage is torn apart. The mainstream media seems to have no problem whatsover going after every aspect of the lives of those on and supporting the GOP ticket, yet one anchorwoman actually points out that Obama's hopes to "spread the wealth" looks more Communist Manifesto than U.S. Constitution, and she's asked whether she was "joking" and then dismissed as combative and unprofessional.

Considering the left's attitude toward the Fairness Doctrine, and Barack Obama's hope for nationalizing everything from mortgages to healthcare, I wonder if after four years of an Obama administration, the nature of the media in the United States will look more like the dynamic in Venezuela or the former Soviet Union. 

Joe Wurzelbacher said that it was "scary" that a mere citizen like himself could not simply ask a question of a presidential candidate. I think it's a whole lot scarier when the media cannot either.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2008

Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

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.

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, 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.

Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.

Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."

In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president--with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick's decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"




For a full-text copy of the order and memorandum, click HERE.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2008

Two Articles, Two Sides of Berg v. Obama

After two months, news of Philip Berg's federal lawsuit is finally gaining traction. Pieces are popping up on local television stations from Florida to Alaska. The Internet buzz has reached more mainstream Web sites such as Newsmax and WorldNetDaily. Articles are popping up in big and small newspapers from coast to coast. Even Rush Limbaugh mentioned the case on his Thursday afternoon program, and Michael Savage did a surprising long interview with Berg later that evening.

"I was told that I would be doing a ten-minute segment," Berg told me on the telephone this evening. "The next thing I knew, it had been almost an hour."

Two recent articles in particular, however, caught my eye. The difference between them is stark, and could be a microcosm of the outcome of the case. The first one, for example, talks more about the evidence side of the action, about whether or not Barack Obama truly is eligible to be president of the United States; the second one talks more about the procedural angle, about whether or not Philip Berg has standing to sue.

In my opinion, the result of this action on the District Court level will depend upon whether the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick is more interested in the underlying eligibility questions, or in the satisfaction of the requirements necessary to raise them.

The first piece is by Kenneth Timmerman of Newsmax, the same reporter who, just a few days ago, wrote so well about the questionable $63 million in Barack Obama's campaign coffers. He goes into detail about Obama's birth certificate, even providing a link to the Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Illinois senator, and an official Certificate of Live Birth from a person born just two years later. Reproduction issues aside, one quite obviously provides more information than the other.

Timmerman also raises an interesting point by highlighting a segment from one of Obama's memoirs in which he actually mentions the document:

Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote.

As much as I am a skeptic as to all of this business--I've said time and time again that I simply feel as though we are constitutionally obligated to ensure that our leaders are properly vetted--this, to me, presents a question as to why it was necessary for Obama to provide an obviously laser-printed, recent copy of his birth records in the first place. If he had his original, tucked in among articles and old vaccination forms, why not just provide that one?

The second article ran on a Web blog entitled The Daily Jot, a nicely-written resource with which I am just now becoming familiar. This one highlighted the argument made by attorneys for Barack Obama and the DNC that, indeed, voters have no constitutional right to challenge the eligibility of the presidential candidates.

While I don't much like it, as the law stands right now the lawyers are technically right. Just as you or I could not have standing to sue the federal government simply because we are taxpayers, voters cannot sue simply because they are voters. Time and time again, on these pages, I've said that the standing doctrine weighs heavily against Philip Berg's cause. Just a few days ago, in fact, I wrote that common sense dictates that the suit be tossed on grounds of lack of standing -- though I specifically said that some unexplainable tremor in my gut told me that Judge Surrick could surprise us all and rewrite voter standing as we know it. Law texts, after all, wouldn't be so thick if the law never changed. 

That's why these two articles caught my eye. On one hand, the nature of the evidence, albeit circumstantial, makes me wonder if we might just be surprised by Judge Surrick's willingness to expand upon the standing doctrine and redefine injury a little bit. On the other hand, the law as it stands now says that Monday [hopefully, it's Monday and no later] will likely be a gloomy one for those interested in standing up for constitutional principles valued by our nation's framers.

At the end of the day, it's going to be one or the other -- faith in the convincing nature of circumstantial evidence, or devotion to the procedure and the letter of the law. 

Gut versus common sense. We'll see.

EIther way, I'm back in town. Typically near a computer. Keep checking at America's Right for updates.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008

SPACE RESERVED FOR NEWS ON COURT ORDER

UPDATE. 3:17pm Friday

I'm on the road, confined to Blackberry, and just got word that the decision will likely NOT be today after all. First, I was told it would be on Thursday or Friday. Then, I was told yesterday that it would be at the end of yesterday or this morning. Now, I'm being told not to hold my breath.

Listen, it's understandable. No judge wants to be overturned, especially with something like this. Take heart in knowing that, personally, I think it would take longer to side with Berg than to dismiss him, but that's just a amateurish thought. Still, I AM dissapointed, but also am glad that I will be able to bring details to you in full, details I couldn't provide on Blackberry.

Jeff


First, a reminder: DO NOT CALL THE COURTHOUSE! I have spent a half-dozen years building relationships there, and do NOT want to see these people pestered. Is that clear?

Second, I was told yesterday afternoon that the order would likely be coming down either late yesterday--5:30 to 6:00 p.m.--or some time this morning. Obviously, Judge Surrick has the final word on this, and if he feels that he is not satisfied with his memorandum, especially considering the number of new filings this week, it may be later.

Regardless, news will come here as soon as I get it.

Incidentally, Philip Berg was on Michael Savage's radio program last night and spoke about taped evidence, and sworn affidavits, that he has showing Obama's paternal grandmother in Kenya saying that she was present in the delivery room for his birth. I know for a fact that Berg does indeed have tapes of this kind in his possession -- but as the parts I heard were in a language I did not understand [and he was in the process of having translated], I cannot attest for sure that the tapes contain what Berg contends.

For now, that's all. Keep checking here, and if something does indeed happen, you'll at least hear basics right away.

-- Jeff



I have, from good and reliable sources, information suggesting that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick will come down with an order and memorandum either on Thursday or Friday.

This space is reserved for news on that order. Therefore, unless something monumental occurs over the next two days, I will not be reporting anything further so as to reserve this spot for news regarding the decision in the Berg v. Obama case. It should be easier for everyone that you can simply check this part of the page for news of the order without having to wade through anything else.

As luck would have it, Thursday and Friday represent the only two days this entire fall that I willnot be at the courthouse. However, I will have a laptop--and at the very least a BlackBerry--and will receive the order and memorandum as soon as it is handed down. Immediately, I will relate word as to the general disposition of the case in this spot, with details to follow at some point later. If the order does not, for some reason, come down in the next two days, rest assured that it will be covered here prominently when it does.

Common sense, for the past two months, has told me that Philip Berg's case will be eventually dismissed on grounds of lack of standing. Nevertheless, I have had a gut feeling that Judge Surrick may very well just surprise us all -- the information I have been getting over the past 24-36 hours reinforces that gut feeling.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURTHOUSE, as I am told that the phone calls are coming in at the rate of several dozen each day. And, as always, keep checking here at America's Right for updates, especially this crucial one. America's Right was the first to report on this lawsuit when it was filed on August 21, and I have no reason to believe that America's Right will not be the first to report on the judge's decision.

Thank you, and keep your fingers crossed for not only a decision, but a favorable one.

Jeff Schreiber
America's Right




For more background on the federal lawsuit against Sen. Barack Obama, please look to the right-hand side of the page, under the heading "BERG v. OBAMA @ AMERICA'S RIGHT."

Berg files Motion for Summary Judgment, API Just Won't Go Away, and Rumblings from the Court

As of 11:00 this morning, Philip Berg had done three radio interviews, the last of which was a half-hour spot on G. Gordon Liddy's popular program. Later today, he will be the subject of a piece by a CBS affiliate in Anchorage, AK.

I spoke with Berg immediately after his Liddy spot, and he mentioned two things of note. First, he plans to file a motion for summary judgment with the court today. Second, he has been in contact with African Press International and, as we spoke, his staff was working with the API staff on the electronic transfer of the alleged Michelle Obama tape.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Today, Berg filed a motion for summary judgment, essentially asking the court to make a determination without going to trial. Because Barack Obama and the DNC failed to answer or object to his request for admissions within the mandatory 30-day period, Berg says, the admissions are admitted by default and, therefore, there are no longer any genuine issues of material facts remaining and, therefore, Berg is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

In other words, if the motion is granted, he wins.

Generally, according to the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party--in this case, Obama and the DNC--may not simply rely on his or her pleadings but must actually bring forth evidence on every material issue. So, here, Obama and the DNC would be forced to confront, with evidence proving otherwise, the admissions claimed by Berg to have been admitted by default yesterday.

A possible problem here for Berg, however, is the continued question sure to be raised by the defense as to whether or not the 30-day time limit for response to the request for admissions was actually running, as according to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such requests typically cannot be served until after a discovery-related conference. If the defense can successfully raise that argument, then the admissions were not due, cannot be admitted by default, and Berg runs the risk that Judge Surrick could rule against him with a judgment as matter of law.

African Press International

I'm honestly just tired of it. I do not believe that the tape exists and, if you've read over the past few days, I was disappointed in myself for not trusting my gut feeling--that the whole account of the "interview" with Michelle Obama was a fraud--in the first place. Still, if my gut is wrong, I'll be more than happy to own up to it. Berg, it seems, is far more certain.

"We are working with computer people and Chief Editor Korir over at African Press International as we speak so the audio file can be transfered over to us for distribution," Berg said. "They say the information on there is far more extensive than just the things they reported, but before I do anything with it I want to review it in full."

As I've mentioned time and time again, it reminds me of the purported pictures of Bill Clinton allegedly burning an American flag in Moscow which never surfaced. It reminds me of the so-called "whitey" videotape of Michelle Obama which has never surfaced. It just doesn't smell right, I don't like that I'm even covering it, but I feel as though it's relevant to the discussion.

Rumblings from the Court

On the court, I cannot go into much detail, but I've heard a few things from a few people. Now, keep in mind that while every fiber of my being tells me that Berg's suit will be dismissed for lack of standing, I've nonetheless had this nagging, itching feeling in my gut that Judge Surrick may just surprise everyone and come down, at least partially, for Berg. The rumblings I've heard from three different people, while CERTAINLY NOT CONCLUSIVE, do slightly reinforce my nagging gut feeling.

I will not be in the courthouse tomorrow or Friday, so knowing my luck, the decision may very well come down then (in fact, I've heard even more talk today saying that's the case). That's the kind of luck I have. Still, I'll be within telephone and BlackBerry range of my contacts there, and will ensure that at least the very basics will be reported here immediately after anything happens. More detail will, of course, come later at America's Right -- but, honestly, no matter how Judge Surrick comes down, I'm fairly sure the decision will [finally] be getting coverage from the mainstream press.

Keep checking here at America's Right for updates.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

ELECTION DAY ESSENTIALS

OTHER SOURCES: 
1. Mark Levin: The Obama Temptation 
2. Joshua Muravchik: Obama's Leftism 
3. Terry Jeffrey: Obama's Class War Court 
4. IBD: Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism 
5. The Wall Street Journal: ObamaTax 3.0 
6. The Wall Street Journal: Obama and ACORN 
7. WorldNetDaily: Barack Obama, Manchurian Candidate 
FROM AMERICA'S RIGHT: 
1. Bricks, Sticks or Straw? 
2. Band-Aid, or Tourniquet? 
3. Character and the Presidency 
4. On William Ayers and Barack Obama 
5. Voter Fraud (Open Thread)

ABOUT ME

JEFF SCHREIBER

Legal writer by day, exhausted law student by night. Lucky husband and proud father throughout.

VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE

CONTACT ME OR CONTRIBUTE

Please send me an e-mail with any questions, criticisms, ideas or concerns. I'll try to answer each one, but due to my scheduling constraints and the volume of e-mail received, I may not be able to.

 

The decision to include a contribution mechanism was not an easy one for me. Had it not been for the dozens of e-mails suggesting it after I got a little personal in a commentary about the mortgage bailout, I don't know that I would have included the option.

Regardless, thank you. Thank you for coming toAmerica's Right for news and commentary. This site was borne from my frustration as a conservative, a federalist, and an American -- and it will always stay that way.

--Jeff

NOW THAT THE FINAL DEBATE IS OVER, WHO DO YOU THINK WILL WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? (IF SOMETHING CHANGES BETWEEN NOW AND NOV. 3, YOUR VOTE CAN BE CHANGED.)

BERG V. OBAMA @ AMERICA'S RIGHT

• EXCLUSIVE NEWS BROKEN HERE AT AMERICA'S RIGHT -- OBAMA SUED IN PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL COURT ON GROUNDS HE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

• COMMENTARY -- ELIGIBILITY GOES BEYOND CITIZENSHIP

• A CONVERSATION WITH PHILIP BERG

• BERG v. OBAMA UPDATE -- FRIDAY, AUG. 22

• COMMENTARY -- IS THIS FOR REAL, AND WHY HASN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERED IT YET?

• BERG v. OBAMA UPDATE -- MONDAY, AUG. 25

• WED., AUG. 27 -- DISSECTING, AND REFUTING, PHILIP BERG'S PERJURY CLAIM

• WED., SEPT. 3 -- SUMMONS REISSUED, OBAMA TO BE SERVED BY TOMORROW

• FRI., SEPT. 5 -- OBAMA, DNC SERVED YESTERDAY AFTERNOON

• TUES., SEPT. 9 -- BERG FILES MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, SEEKS DEPOSITION OF BARACK OBAMA AND HOWARD DEAN BY END OF MONTH

• FRI., SEPT. 12 -- ORDER PENDING IN CALIFORNIA ELIGIBILITY LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST JOHN McCAIN

• TUES., SEPT. 16 -- ELIGIBILITY-RELATED SUIT AGAINST JOHN McCAIN DISMISSED FROM CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT FOR LACK OF STANDING

• WED., SEPT. 24 -- ANSWER TO BERG'S COMPLAINT DUE TODAY FROM OBAMA, DNC; MOTION FILED

• WED. SEPT. 24 -- OBAMA, DNC FILE MOTION TO DISMISS IN FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY-RELATED LAWSUIT

• COMMENTARY -- A LOOK AT STANDING, THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR FRAMERS' INTENT

• SUN., SEPT. 28 -- BERG ON OBAMA'S APPARENT ADMISSION OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP WITH KENYA

• MON., SEPT. 29 -- BERG TO FILE OPPOSITION TO OBAMA'S MOTION TO DISMISS TODAY

• LEGAL ANALYSIS -- SHEDDING SOME LIGHT ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY AND THE COURTS

• THURS., OCT. 2 -- U.S. STATE DEPT. SUBPOENA REQUEST DENIAL LETTER TURNS UP IN COURT, AND DEBUNKING INTERNET RUMOR

• SAT., OCT. 4 -- WORLDNETDAILY REPORTS: BERG PREPARED TO TAKE SUIT AGAINST OBAMA TO SUPREME COURT IF NECESSARY

• MON., OCT. 6 -- TWO FILINGS. BERG FILES MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, DEFENSE FILES MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SEEKING DELAY OF DISCOVERY

• TUES., OCT. 7 -- INTERVENING PARTY FILINGS, AND POSSIBLE MEDIA ATTENTION

• THURS., OCT. 9 -- BERG FILES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

• SAT., OCT. 11 -- PHILIP BERG INTERVIEW HITS YOUTUBE

• MON., OCT. 13 -- OHIO FOX NEWS AFFILIATE AIRS INTERVIEW WITH PHILIP BERG

• WED., OCT. 15 -- LAWSUIT IN WASHINGTON STATE QUESTIONS BARACK OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP, ELIGIBILITY FOR PRESIDENCY

• SUN., OCT. 19 -- NEW SUITS IN CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII, AND AN AGING SUIT IN PHILADELPHIA

• MON., OCT. 20 -- OBAMA, DNC FILE MOTION TO DISMISS BERG'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

• TUES., OCT. 21 -- BERG: DUE TO PROCEDURE, OBAMA AND DNC ADMIT ALL ALLEGATIONS

• TUES., OCT. 21 -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FILES MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROPER JURISDICTION

• WED., OCT. 22 -- BERG FILES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

• FRI., OCT. 24 -- TWO ARTICLES, TWO SIDES OF BERG v. OBAMA

• SAT., OCT. 25 -- LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA DISMISSED FROM PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL COURT

• TUES., OCT. 28 -- PHILIP BERG, FOX NEWS, API, STANDING, AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

• WED., OCT. 29 -- MR. BERG GOES TO WASHINGTON

• WED., OCT. 29 -- GAINING PERSPECTIVE ON SURRICK, STANDING, AND BERG v. OBAMA

• THURS., OCT. 30 -- BERG TO U.S. SUPREME COURT THIS AFTERNOON

• FRI., OCT. 31 -- STATE LAWMAKER JOINS QUEST FOR INFORMATION ON OBAMA

• FRI., OCT. 31 -- HALLOWEEN PROVIDES SCARE FOR PHILIP BERG, NEWS ON SARAH OBAMA TAPE

• SUN., NOV. 2 -- THE 'SARAH OBAMA TAPE'

CHECK AMERICA'S RIGHT FOR UPDATES OVER THE NEXT DAYS, WEEKS AND MONTHS AS THE LAWSUIT PROGRESSES. 

OTHER ESSENTIALS

• OBAMA'S LEFTISM (a must-read)

• TOP TEN REASONS WHY DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOARING GASOLINE PRICES

• BARACK OBAMA'S SOCIALIST ROOTS

• WHAT IS A 'WINDFALL PROFIT,' ANYWAY?

• THE CLEAN ENERGY SCAM

FOX NEWS CHANNEL

• Transcript: Rick Davis on 'FOX News Sunday'
• Myanmar Activists Sorry to Lose Laura Bush
• Health Care, Defense Poised to Endure Downturn
• Bush Urges Americans to Vote on Election Day
• Rail Travel Subsidy Gaining Support in Congress

OLD RAMBLINGS

• ▼ 2008 (303)
  • ▼ November (3)
    • On the Mainstream Media and Barack Obama
    • Obama's War on Capitalism
    • The "Sarah Obama Tape"
  • ► October (66)
  • ► September (38)
  • ► August (32)
  • ► July (18)
  • ► June (28)
  • ► May (17)
  • ► April (18)
  • ► March (28)
  • ► February (33)
  • ► January (22)

AMERICA'S RIGHT MERCHANDISE AND APPAREL

TOPICS

• 2008 Election (133)
• Abortion (7)
• Adolf Hitler (1)
• Advertising (4)
• Affirmative Action (2)
• AIDS (1)
• Al Franken (1)
• Al Gore (16)
• Al Sharpton (4)
• ANWR (8)
• Appeasement (11)
• Armenian Genocide (1)
• Auburn University (2)
• Barack Hussein Obama (177)
• Barry Goldwater (1)
• Baseball (1)
• Berg v. Obama (48)
• Berkeley (1)
• Bill Clinton (8)
• Blame America First (3)
• Blame-Shifting (2)
• Bob Barr (1)
• Bobby Jindal (2)
• CAIR (1)
• California (1)
• Campaign Finance (7)
• Cap-and-Trade (2)
• Cartoons (1)
• Change (1)
• Charles Ramsey (1)
• Charlton Heston (1)
• Chelsea Clinton (1)
• China (4)
• Christianity (1)
• Christopher Dodd (1)
• Chuck Norris (1)
• Civil War (1)
• Concealed Carry (3)
• Congress (8)
• Conservatism (10)
• Constitution (65)
• Craig Williams (1)
• Crime (5)
• D-Day (1)
• David Letterman (1)
• Declaration of Independence (1)
• Democrats (39)
• Dick Durbin (2)
• Disarmament (1)
• Economy (28)
• Ed Rendell (1)
• Education (2)
• Eliot Spitzer (1)
• Energy Independence (23)
• Eric Cantor (1)
• Ethanol (1)
• Eve Carson (1)
• Fairness Doctrine (5)
• Family (1)
• Federalism (7)
• Fidel Castro (1)
• First Amendment (5)
• FISA (2)
• Fitna (1)
• Florida (1)
• Foreign Policy (10)
• Founding Fathers (13)
• Fr. Michael Pfleger (5)
• Fred Thompson (5)
• Gang of 14 (1)
• Gen. David Petraeus (2)
• George W. Bush (7)
• Geraldine Ferraro (2)
• Global Poverty Act (3)
• Global Socialism (7)
• Global War on Terror (12)
• Global Warming (28)
• GOP (1)
• Green Party (1)
• Guantanamo Bay (3)
• Hamas (1)
• Harry Reid (3)
• Heller (1)
• Hillary Clinton (31)
• Hippies (5)
• Hollywood (4)
• Homeschooling (1)
• Homosexuality (3)
• Hope (1)
• Howard Dean (1)
• Hugo Chavez (1)
• Hurricane Katrina (1)
• Illegal Immigration (24)
• Iran (9)
• Iraq (16)
• IRS (1)
• Islam (19)
• Israel (3)
• Jeb Bush (1)
• Jed Babbin (1)
• Jesse Jackson (2)
• Jihad From Within (7)
• Jim Johnson (1)
• Jim Webb (1)
• Jimmy "Dhimmi" Carter (2)
• Joe Biden (17)
• Joe Lieberman (2)
• Joe Sestak (1)
• John Bolton (1)
• John Cornyn (2)
• John Edwards (2)
• John F. Kennedy (1)
• John F. Kerry (1)
• John McCain (98)
• John Murtha (2)
• Judiciary (2)
• Keating Five (1)
• Ken Blackwell (1)
• Khalid al-Mansour (3)
• Laredo's Missing (3)
• Large Hadron Collider (4)
• Laura Ingraham (1)
• Lauren Burk (2)
• Law Enforcement (1)
• Liberalism (4)
• Lindsey Graham (2)
• Louis Farrakhan (1)
• Lyndon Johnson (1)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2)
• Mainstream Media (42)
• Mainstream Media Bias (2)
• Marines (1)
• Mark Levin (1)
• Mark Steyn (1)
• McCain-Feingold (2)
• McCain-Lieberman (1)
• McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (4)
• Media Bias (1)
• Michael Bloomberg (1)
• Michael Nutter (2)
• Michael Ramirez (14)
• Michelle Malkin (3)
• Michelle Obama (5)
• Mike Huckabee (4)
• Military (1)
• Mitt Romney (9)
• Mortgage Crisis (1)
• MoveOn.org (1)
• MSNBC (1)
• NAFTA (1)
• Nancy Pelosi (9)
• NASA (1)
• National Security (2)
• NBC (1)
• New York Times (2)
• Newt Gingrich (3)
• NIU Massacre (1)
• Nobel Peace Prize (1)
• North Korea (3)
• Nuclear Threat (8)
• Obama (1)
• Oil (11)
• Oprah Winfrey (1)
• Palestine (1)
• Pandering (2)
• Parenting (2)
• Patriot Guard (1)
• Patriotism (2)
• Pennsylvania (3)
• Personal Responsibility (1)
• PETA (1)
• Philadelphia (12)
• Photography (1)
• Polar Bears (1)
• Political Correctness (17)
• Polls (1)
• President George W. Bush (4)
• Primary (1)
• Protect America Act (1)
• Race and Politics (18)
• Raila Odinga (1)
• Ralph Nader (1)
• Rashid Khalidi (10)
• Religion (1)
• Rep. Mike Pence (2)
• Rev. Jeremiah Wright (16)
• Rev. Otis Moss III (5)
• Robert Byrd (1)
• Rocky (1)
• Ronald Reagan (4)
• Rudy Giuliani (2)
• Rush Limbaugh (2)
• Russia (3)
• Ryan Crocker (1)
• Saddam Hussein (1)
• Sandy Froman (1)
• Sarah Palin (19)
• Saudi Arabia (1)
• School and Campus Shootings (1)
• Science (2)
• Scott McClellan (1)
• SCOTUS (15)
• Sean Hannity (1)
• Second Amendment (19)
• Separation of Church and State (2)
• Sharia Law (1)
• Socialism (17)
• Spending (4)
• Stephen Hayes (1)
• Stimulus Package (1)
• Superdelegates (2)
• Supreme Court (7)
• surveillance. (1)
• Syria (1)
• Taxes (14)
• Ted Kennedy (3)
• Ted Nugent (1)
• Ted Turner (1)
• The Daily Show (1)
• Tim Pawlenty (1)
• Tim Russert (1)
• Tipper Gore (1)
• Tom Harkin (1)
• Tony Rezko (7)
• Tony Snow (1)
• Treason (1)
• Troop Surge (2)
• Turkey (1)
• Two-Party System (1)
• U.S. Senate (2)
• Unemployment (1)
• United Nations (3)
• Vaclav Klaus (1)
• Vice President (3)
• Vietnam War (1)
• Virginia Tech Massacre (2)
• Vladimir Putin (1)
• Voter Fraud (9)
• VP Search (1)
• Washington Post (1)
• Weather Underground (2)
• Westboro Baptist Church (2)
• William Ayers (15)
• William F. Buckley Jr. (1)
• World War II (2)
• YouTube (1)

SUBSCRIBE TO AMERICA'S RIGHT!!

 Posts

 All Comments

THE LIST -- WORLDWIDE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WHICH HIPPIES BLAME ON GLOBAL WARMING

ACNE
AGRICULTURAL LAND INCREASE
AFGHAN POPPIES DESTROYED
AFRICA DEVASTATED 
AFRICAN AID THREATENED
AFRICA, CONTINENT OF CONFLICT 
AGGRESSIVE WEEDS
AIR PRESSURE CHANGES
ALASKA RESHAPED
ALLERGIES INCREASE
ALPS ARE MELTING
AMAZON WILL TURN TO DESERT
AMERICAN DREAM AT END
AMPHIBIAN BREEDING PATTERNS
ANAPHYLACTIC REACTIONS (BEES)
ANCIENT FORESTS CHANGED
ANIMALS HEAD FOR HILLS 
ANTARCTIC GRASS FLOURISHING
ANTARCTIC ICE GROWTH
ANTARCTIC ICE SHRINKS
ANTARCTIC SEA LIFE AT RISK
ANXIETY TREATMENT
ALGAE BLOOM FORMATIONS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AT RISK
ARCTIC BOGS ARE MELTING
ARCTIC IN BLOOM
ARCTIC ICE FREE
ARCTIC LAKES ARE DISAPPEARING
ARCTIC TUNDRA WILL BURN
ATLANTIC OCEAN LESS SALTY
ATLANTIC OCEAN MORE SALTY
ATMOSPHERIC CHANGES
ATTACK OF THE KILLER JELLYFISH
AVALANCHES NOT AS COMMON
AVALANCHES MORE COMMON
BAGHDAD SNOW
BAHRAIN UNDER WATER
BANANAS GROW WILD
BEER SHORTAGE (yikes!)
BEETLE INFESTATION
BET FOR $10,000
BETTER BEER (yay!)
BIG MELT COMING FASTER
BILLION-DOLLAR RESEARCH PROJECTS
BILLIONS FACE RISK
BILLIONS OF DEATHS
BIRD DISTRIBUTION CHANGES
BIRD VISITORS DECREASED
BIRDS ARE CONFUSED
BIRDS RETURN EARLY
BIRDS DRIVEN NORTH
BITTERN BOOM ENDS
BLACKBIRDS STOP SINGING
BLIZZARDS
BLUE MUSSELS RETURN
BLUE TONGUE
BRAINS SHRINK
BRIDGE COLLAPSE (MINN.)
BRITAIN SIBERIAN
BRITISH GARDENS ARE CHANGING
BROTHELS STRUGGLE
BROWN IRELAND
BUBONIC PLAGUE
BUDGET INCREASES
BUDDHIST TEMPLE THREATENED
BUILDING COLLAPSE
BUILDING SEASON EXTENSION
BRUSH FIRES
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
BUSINESS RISKS
BUTTERFLIES MOVE NORTH
CAMELS ARE DYING
CANCER DEATHS IN ENGLAND
CANNIBALISM IN THIRTY YEARS
CATARACTS
CATERPILLAR BIOMASS SHIFT
CAVE PAINTINGS THREATENED
CHILDHOOD INSOMNIA
CHOLERA
CIRCUMCISION IN DECLINE
CIRRUS DISAPPEARANCE
CIVIL UNREST
CLOUD INCREASE
CLOUD STRIPPING
COCKROACH MIGRATION
COFFEE CROP THREATENED
COLD CLIMATE CREATURES SURVIVE
COLD SPELLS IN AUSTRALIA
COLD WEATHER TREND IN INDIA
COMPUTER MODELS
CONFERENCES INCREASE
CONFLICT
CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA
CONSUMERS FOOT THE BILL
CORAL BLEACHING
CORAL REEFS ARE DYING
CORAL REEFS ARE GROWING 
CORAL REEFS SHRINK 
COST OF TRILLIONS
COUGAR ATTACKS ON THE RISE
CRADLE OF CIVILZATION THREATENED
CRIME ON THE RISE
CROCODILE GENDER SHIFTS
CROPS DEVASTATED
CRUMBING ROADS & SEWER SYSTEMS
CURRICULUM CHANGES
CYCLONES IN AUSTRALIA
DANGER TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH
DARFUR
DARTFORD WARBLER PLAGUE
DEATH RATE INCREASE IN U.S.
DENGUE HEMORRHAGIC FEVER
DEPRESSION
DESERT ADVANCES
DESERT RETREATS
DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH
DISAPPEARANCE OF COASTAL CITIES
DISEASES MOVE NORTH
DOLOMITES COLLAPSE
DROUGHT
DUCKS AND GEESE DECLINE
DUST BOWL IN THE CORN BELT
EARLY MARRIAGES
EARLY SPRING
EARLIER POLLEN SEASON
EARTH BIODIVERSITY CRISIS
EARTH DYING
EARTH EVEN HOTTER
EARTH LIGHT DIMMING
EARTH LOPSIDED
EARTH MELTING
EARTH'S MORBID FEVER
EARTH ON FAST TRACK
EARTH PAST POINT OF NO RETURN
EARTH SLOWING DOWN
EARTH SPINNING FASTER
EARTH TO EXPLODE
EARTH UPSIDE DOWN
EARTH IS WOBBLING
EARTHQUAKES
EL NINO INTENSIFICATION
END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
EROSION
EMERGING INFECTIONS
ENCEPHALITIS
ENGLISH VILLAGES LOST
EQUALITY THREATENED
EUROPE BOTH BAKING AND FREEZING
EUTROPHICATION
EVOLUTION IS ACCELERATING
EXPANDING UNIV. CLIMATE GROUPS
EXTINCTION -- THE HUMAN RACE
EXTINCTION -- CIVILIZATIONS
EXTINCTION -- LOGIC
EXTINCTION -- INUIT AFFECTED
EXTINCTION -- SMALLEST BUTTERFLY
EXTINCTION -- COD
EXTINCTION -- LADYBIRDS
EXTINCTION -- PIKAS
EXTINCTION -- POLAR BEARS
EXTINCTION -- GORILLAS
EXTINCTION -- WALRUS
EXTINCTION -- WHALES
EXTINCTION -- FROGS
EXTINCTION -- TOADS
EXTINCTION -- PLANTS 
EXTINCTION -- SALMON
EXTINCTION -- TROUT
EXTINCTION -- WILDFLOWERS
EXTINCTION -- WOODLICE
EXTINCTION -- PENGUINS
EXTINCTION -- A MILLION SPECIES
EXTINCTION -- 1/2 ANIMALS, PLANTS
EXTINCTION -- MOUNTAIN SPECIES
EXTINCTION -- NOT POLAR BEARS
EXTINCTION -- BARRIER REEF
EXTINCTION -- LEECHES
EXPERTS MUZZLED
EXTREME CHANGES TO CALIFORNIA
FADING FALL FOLIAGE
FAINTING
FAMINE
FARMERS GO BANKRUPT
FASHION DISASTERS
FEVER
FIGUREHEAD SACKED
FIR CONE BONANZA
FISH CATCHES DECLINE
FISH DOWNSIZE
FISH CATCHES INCREASE
FISH DEAFNESS
FISH GET LOST
FISH STOCKS AT RISK
FISH STOCKS DECLINE
FIVE MILLION ILLNESSES
FLESH-EATING DISEASE
FLOOD PATTERNS CHANGE
FLOODS
FLOODS OF BEACHES AND CITIES
FLOOD OF MIGRANTS
FLOOD PREPARATION FOR CRISIS
FLORIDA ECONOMIC DECLINE
FLOWERS IN PERIL
FOOD POISONING
FOOD PRICES RISE
FOOD PRICES SOAR
FOOD SECURITY THREAT
FOOTPATH EROSION
FORESTS IN DECLINE
FORESTS ARE EXPANDING
FROG WITH MULTIPLE HEADS
FROSTBITE
FROST DAMAGE INCREASED
FROSTS
FUNGI FRUITFUL
FUNGI INVASION
GAMES CHANGE
GARDEN OF EDEN WILTS
GENETIC DIVERSITY DECLINE 
GENE POOLS SLASHED
GIANT OYSTERS INVADE
GIANT PYTHONS INVADE
GIANT SQUID MIGRATE
GINGERBREAD HOUSES COLLAPSE
GLACIAL EARTHQUAKES
GLACIAL RETREAT
GLACIAL GROWTH
GLACIER WRAPPED
GLOBAL COOLING
GLOBAL DIMMING
GLOWING CLOUDS
GOD MELTS
GOLF -- MASTERS WRECKED
GORE OMNIPRESENCE
GRANDSTANDING
GRASSLANDS WETTER
GREAT BARRIER REEF 95% DEAD
GREAT LAKES DROP
GREENING OF THE NORTH
GREY WHALES LOSE WEIGHT
GULF STREAM FAILURE
HABITAT LOSS
HANTAVIRUS PULMONARY SYNDROME
HARMFUL ALGAE
HARVEST INCREASE
HARVEST DECREASE
HAY FEVER EPIDEMIC
HEALTH AFFECTED
HEALTH OF CHILDREN HARMED
HEART DISEASE 
HEART ATTACKS AND STROKES
HEAT WAVES
HIBERNATION PATTERNS AFFECTED
HIBERNATION ENDS TOO SOON
HIBERNATION ENDS TOO LATE
HOMELESS BOOM TO FIFTY MILLION
HORNETS
HIGH COURT DEBATES
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REVERSAL
HUMAN FERTILITY REDUCED
HUMAN HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
HUMAN HEALTH RISK
HUMAN RACE OBLIVION
HURRICANES IN GENERAL
HURRICANE REDUCTION
HYDROPOWER PROBLEMS
HYPERTHERMIA DEATHS
ICE SHEET GROWTH
ICE SHEET SHRINKAGE
ICE SHELF COLLAPSE
ILLNESS AND DEATH
INCLEMENT WEATHER
INDIA DROWNING
INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURE (CANADA)
INDUSTRY THREATENED
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
INFLATION IN CHINA
INSECT EXPLOSION
INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON THE RISE
INUIT DISPLACEMENT
INUIT POISONED
INUIT TAKE LEGAL ACTION
INVASION OF CATS
INVASION OF HERONS
INVASION OF JELLYFISH
INVASION OF MIDGES
ISLAND DISAPPEARS
ISLANDS SINKING
ITCHIER POISON IVY
JELLYFISH EXPLOSION
JETS FALL FROM SKY
KEW GARDENS TAXED
KIDNEY STONES
KILLING US
KITTEN BOOM 
KRILL DECLINE
LAKE, STREAM PRODUCTIVITY DOWN
LAKE EMPTIES
LAKE SHRINKING AND GROWING
LANDSLIDES
LANDSLIDES OF ICE AT 140 MPH
LAWSUITS ON THE RISE
LAWSUITS SUCCESSFUL
LAWYERS' INCOME INCREASED
LIVES SAVED
LOCH NESS MONSTER DEAD
LUSH GROWTH IN RAIN FORESTS
MALARIA
MAMMOTH DUNG MELT
MAPLE PRODUCTION UP
MAPLE SYRUP SHORTAGE
MARINE DISEASES
MARINE FOOD CHAIN DECIMATED