Everything you need to know about the Berg v. Obama case and the upcoming October surprise

Obama Demands Extensive Disclosure for Potential Appointees

Nov. 15, 2008
President-Elect Barack Obama has demanded that all potential appointees undergo a thorough background check prior to being considered for any job in his administration. Would-be cabinet members, deputies, assistants, aides, secretaries, and receptionists are being asked to provide extensive dossiers on themselves if they hope to be hired.

Among the documents required are original birth certificates, all school transcripts, complete health records, military service histories, any police reports, and a listing of all business and personal associates since the applicant’s 18th birthday. Applicants are also being required to submit, under penalty of perjury, sworn affidavits either admitting to the commission of any illegal acts for which no police records exist or attesting that no illegal acts were ever committed.

“My administration will be the cleanest in the history of this country,” Obama proclaimed. “There must be no taint of illicit actions or associations to undermine the nation’s faith in me....

The best satires are the one that get you hopping mad before they say
Gotcha!

indeed.

First,. there was Orphan Annie, then came DannieLynn ( Anna Nicole Smith's)  & now we have Obie.

Even pitbull Palin's mom will be voting for obie tomorrow because of that.   One the brither side, Auntie Zeituni Onyango is still around.  She's  in disguise of course but who cares, right? Thank God for auntie! 

Please say  Hi to auntie Z err "Em" if you ever  see her on street.

Barack Obama's maternal white grandmother has died in what may be the first politically timed terminal sedation.

There goes the witness to the facts of his birth.

Obama stole his LOGO with no credit

It looks to me as though Berg's suit is still going nowhere because of standing. I understand he can't bring anything or anyone new into the Appeal?

If Berg appealed the lower court's ruling that he did not have standing, he couldn't add new party because that would be changing the facts on which the lower court ruled. That would essentially a new case, and you can't bring a new case to an appeals court. You have to start at the district court.

I don't suppose Berg knew anyone with standing or he would have joined him in the first place. If someone did turn up in the eleventh hour, I suppose Berg would have to start afresh and file a new suit with that new plaintiff. I don't think it's going to happen.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Thanks for the great explanation.

It looks to me as if the only one able to ask for qualifications is the Secretaries of State, or the FEC in the case of McCain who took Federal campaign funds.

It looks to me as though Berg's suit is still going nowhere because of standing. I understand he can't bring anything or anyone new into the Appeal?

To answer your questions:

Who has standing and what is required to have standing?

Standing is shown by proving: 1)an injury; 2) that that injury was caused by the conduct of the defendant, and 3) that the injury is redressable by an action of the court.

Anyone proving these three elements will probably have standing.

Let's say I want an injunction to stop someone from cutting down some trees. If they are just trees in a field, then I won't be able to show an injury. If they are in my field, viola, I am injured.

Causation: I have to show that the defendant is cutting down the trees.

Rederessability: The trees would have to be in the same state as the court granting the injunction. If it is in another state, the injunction won't have any power.

Why would Berg, a licensed Attorney and Officer of the Court not have the right to ask the Court a question regarding a candidates Constitutional qualifications for President?

That would be a nice way to frame Berg's argument for standing, but it would fall short of showing a real injury. I think it would be a stretch to show that all attorneys are vested with the responsibility of insuring that candidates for office are responsible for meeting the qualifications.

Would an elected official at the State or Federal level have standing?

Yes, I believe so. An official whose job is to put the names on the ballots would have a vested interest in making sure that the candidates meet the qualifications. Attorney General, (State or Federal), Secretary of State (State not federal), and the Hawaiian official in charge of documents all are charged with those responsibilities.

I think it would be easy to show a harm: that the election is illegal because an constitutionally unqualified candidate is on the ballot. The elected official has been charged with making sure the elections are legal.

Causation might be a problem because the Secretary of State, for example, could simply remove the offensive name from the ballot. (Then the candidate would be put into the position of proving he is worthy.) So the secretary of state wouldn't really need the court. Perhaps if there was some other agency that refused to follow the Secretary's orders. Or say the Attorney General objected and the Secretary refused to act. Then I suppose the court could step in with an injunction.

Courts, under separation of powers, are supposed to let the branches of government act. In Bush v Gore, the court should not have acted because there was a political resolution to any hanky-panky in Florida. The congress could have rejected Florida's electoral votes. I mention this because the courts might not allow standing to a government official if there is a political resolution.

Would a Military officer have standing?

I think there would be a problem showing harm. You could frame it as: the officer is concerned that someone constitutionally unqualified would be commander in chief during a time of war; and that the officer has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. But I think that's a stretch.

If you can convince a judge with a clever argument, then you can make a living as an attorney. Of course, a lower court that granted standing on a shaky basis would likely be reversed. Especially if the court was eliminating one of the candidates from the ballot for election of POTUS. The judge would be making himself look like a crank.

Generally, I think the only people who have standing are the ones empowered to set up the elections because they are the only ones who can assert a harm. I know that anyone could claim a harm: That guy is not constitutionally qualified. But the courts would say that is too attenuated.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

dont hurt yourself playdough

I appreciate your comments in this section and have a question regarding the concept of "Standing before the Court". Who has standing and what is required to have standing?

Why would Berg, a licensed Attorney and Officer of the Court not have the right to ask the Court a question regarding a candidates Constitutional qualifications for President?

Would an elected official at the State or Federal level have standing?

Would a Military officer have standing?

My research into this case leaves no doubt that zionist interests are behind the Berg lawsuit. The initial expose about the fraudulent Certificate of live birth came out of ziostan.

It's entirely possible that Obama is adverse to the zionist cause. His kowtowing in Jerusalem and AIPAC boot licking may have been practical political theater.

All that is really irrelevant to the basic question here.

ARE John McCain and / or Barack Obama Constitutionally qualified for the office of President?

Neither Frank Davis, nor Obama Sr. can explain those ears!

Obama Birth Certificate case appealed to Supreme Court.

Hawaii Governor,a Republican and a Sarah Palin supporter, SEALS Obama BC from press.

It's not like the Constitution is followed anyway on major shit, this is just a minor thing in comparison to stuff like the war in my opinion. I don't want McCain to be president & that's what's going to happen if Obama's disqualified. Also I think people should look at this Phil Berg guy & the fact that he's behind the lawsuit. He's Jewish & was accused of purposefuly sabotaging those 9/11 lawsuits by Ellen Mariani. He's also a member of the NAACP I've discovered, a Jewish run organization which poses as one defending the rights of black people but has been accused by some informed people such as Prof. Tony Martin as being a fraudulent effort to subvert the black rights movement on the part of Jewry. So I don't trust that his intentions are good for this suit, I think that his motivations were the same for what they likely were on the 9/11 lawsuits & the NAACP, to benefit the interests of Zionist Jews. The most hardline Zionists, who call themselves the real Jews, don't want Obama to become president.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawy...

Another treat for the file of Sparky and the boys.

They firmly believe in changes that Obama ( as instructed by   Zio-masters)  talks about all the time and they literally took his advice & did it all the way ... by hacking off their ...... yap.

Obama is so damn popular among 'em! I am wondering which one will end up  working as Barney Frank's intern or Sec of Defense when Obama will become dictator err president of this great land?

 CHANGE for sure.

Sparky:

More good news for your messiah

nice research Marlowe

I'm just puttin' this stuff in a big file here in case this breaks. That API story sounds hokey to me and as far as Berg's case goes, all I really see is a bunch of unanswered filings with no rulings.

I thought we had a minimum level of BS detection. That "African Press International" story didn't smell right, so I did just a tiny bit of research and found:

Even conservative columnist (Nation Review) Byron York wrote a short piece about that story lacking credibility.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWM2MDA2NzZkNzdjNWMzZGFlOGJiZGU...

Even if you are bound to believe every bad thing about Obama, perhaps a teensy bit of logic will dissuade you.

[T]here were obvious signs that the interview, and the organization, is fakety-fake McFake. For example: there are two "r's" in "Farrakhan." "Inauguration" is not spelled "innoguration." And you'd think that a writer for "African Press International" would be clear on the concept of capitalizing one's own publication's name. Nevertheless, these obvious signs proved too elusive for some people, hence Byron York's involvement.

http://tinyurl.com/54ny3h

Another summary of why it should be obvious that the API is a phony right wing front:

So we have allegations being made by “news agency” on a blogsite, owned by a “Foundation” that claims to have been in operation since 1995, but whose website was only set up last week - a foundation WITHOUT ANY PROJECTS except a website that smears Obama, and apparently appropriating the name of a real children’s charity. In short, an obvious fraud run by lying, anti-Obama scumbags.

http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-176402.htm

And of course, the question should be: "If you've got audio of the Michelle Obama phone call, why don't you release it?"

What makes it fun is guessing about how far they can keep their fraud going. Initially they announced that they had a voice recording of Ms. Obama’s call. They were not releasing it because they had obtained it without informing her. Now they’ve revealed that they CAN release it, but will hold on to it just a little while longer while they decide how and to whom it should be released. This they intend to determine by asking their readers for suggestions.

And guess which network is the favourite nominee among the terrifyingly large number of people too stupid to recognize this for a transparent fraud?

You got it. Fox News, the favourite network of morons on EVERY continent.

http://www.stageleft.info/2008/10/19/update-on-african-press-international/

-------------------

Newsbusters? I can't believe someone at WUFYS is citing Newsbusters! I always figured that WUFYS readers were hip to the truth; yet anyone with half a brain should realized that Newsbusters appeals to drooling Faux News pin heads. The first clue should have been watching Jody Miller smirk while delivering that "comedy" news.

Don't get me wrong. Even Fox can be right once in a while, like the proverbial broken watch. (For example, the israeli spy ring story, detailing the sh*tty country's involvement in 911, later withdrawn, was the best MSM piece ever done on 911.) But certain media outlets are famously wrong, and should be viewed with a healthy skepticism.

We all have to be sharp-witted when gathering information and deciding who is credible. I think it is always a mistake to let our personal feelings on a subject overwhelm our better judgment. The result being that we end up using the WUFYS site to publish things that are obviously false.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

There's more where those came from. I'm just gettin' warmed up!

Good to see you back - your graphics are so unique, they give you away.

Some more satires perhaps? Hell, you can't hardly write anything as wierd as this stuff!

It worked .....  it worked!!

Enjoying all the peacefulness here .... it doesn't feel like Obomba election HQ or Dkos disinfo central  anymore. 

So, many thanks Clay!

Here's is another perspective on the whole Frank Davis / Obama / Larrry Sinclair connection.

Sparky:

This should help with your "fanboyism"

Thanks for that great word Sullivan - it fits Sparky like a glove!

Sparky:
I thought you'd enjoy this since you and Mr.Sinclair have so much in common.
ENJOY!

neo-con rats nest...

thanks for making your perspective perfectly clear for all claymore

you are all too transparent

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/15/will-msm-invest...

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-in...

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-real-father-connecting-...

http://www.astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/10/naughty-obama-mamma.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-true-parentage-is-barac...

I blew this last one off last month as a whackjob posting. Now I'm not so sure.

Looks like the right wing MSM is starting to break this story now that Obama is in Hawaii giving Grandma the pillow treatment.

An Online Symposium on Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship

http://www.public-action.com/911/suit.html

Mrs. Ellen Mariani, a 911 widow, has filed a RICO suit against George W. Bush et al. to discover the truth about 911. But her lawyer, Philip J. Berg, has written a complaint that protects the real culprits. It is littered with gross errors and malpractice. Berg is a suicide bus driver taking Ellen Mariani's quest for truth on a one-way trip to oblivion. Mar 3 2004 ...

C.Marlowe: I agree that this is a fishing expedition by Berg and whoever has put him up to this. He was a 911 attorney for Willie Rodreguez in cases which were dropped.

Obama should just produce the BC and shoo Berg away. I can't see where this is doing his campaign any good. Some of those websites have over 30 million hits.

Like I said, I'm just compiling documents for all to see here in the event that this breaks out.

 (from wiki)

 The Quranic Version of the episode is similar in most respects, except that the golden calf is constructed by a man named Samiri, rather than Aaron. Samiri claims that Moses has disappeared, and the Israelites have to find a new god. To this end, Samiri makes a golden calf from the gold jewelry brought out of Egypt.

Aaron, who is acting as leader in Moses' absence, attempts to prevent them from worshipping the statue, but is unsuccessful. When Moses does return, he is initially infuriated at the pagan ritual and Aaron's inability to stop it. Moses then exiles Samiri and orders the golden calf burnt and its ashes cast into the sea.

and a spike the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and other such mind altering drugs both illicit and prescirbed if Obama wins the elections? I predict that gun stores will have their best day of business ob November 5, 2008. Many people will walk around with that blank stare we all experienced in the aftermath of 9/11. God help us all!

Let's just hope Sarah Palin's boobs can convince enough wholeshome Americans to make a difference and prevent this travesty. Amen!

Free lifetime supply of white sheets to the first 100 people who can say Obama's full name backwards 20 times in a row without taking a breath.

Hallelujah brothers! Let the cross burn and shine its holy light on the path of our humble ways. hear hear!

requesting to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss has been decided.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce...

Rule 26(c)1 Protective Orders
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending — or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;

(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;
...
(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;

The brief in support of the request for protective order states that Obama's motion to dismiss is based solely on issues of law, so there is no need for discovery for the court to rule on that motion.

As I stated above, Berg's lawsuit is quickly shaping up to be a fishing expedition. The Obama brief states that Berg has requested 17 categories of documents, including copies of: all of Obama's law school and college applications; all of his law school papers; all of his requests for financial aid. Berg served 56 RFAs on Obama. He served and 27 on the DNC, of 5 catagories of documents, including all documents in DNC possession relating to Obama.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

usually parties will cooperate by not filing Discovery requests until motions have been heard. Obama filed a motion to dismiss 12(b)1 and 6.

While it is true that late responses to an RFA are deemed admitted, the judge can, with good cause, allow a party to amend an answer file a late response to an RFA. That is, if the judge does not dismiss the case, which I bet he will.

I think Phil Berg is making hay while the sun shines. He can go on radio shows and say that Obama "admitted" the allegations, (even when Obama's complaint denies them), because the RFAs were not answered. But when the case is dismissed, Berg won't go on the radio show and say that Obama denied them.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations

Rule 36. Requests for Admission
(a) Scope and Procedure.

(1) Scope.

A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:

(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and

(B) the genuineness of any described documents.

(2) Form; Copy of a Document.

Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.

(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding.

A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

(4) Answer.

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

(5) Objections.

The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.

(6) Motion Regarding the Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection.

The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may defer its final decision until a pretrial conference or a specified time before trial. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of expenses.
(b) Effect of an Admission; Withdrawing or Amending It.

A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other

Rule 6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

(a) Computing Time.

The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules or in any local rule, court order, or statute:

(1) Day of the Event Excluded.

Exclude the day of the act, event, or default that begins the period.

(2) Exclusions from Brief Periods.

Exclude intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when the period is less than 11 days.

(3) Last Day.

Include the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or— if the act to be done is filing a paper in court— a day on which weather or other conditions make the clerk’s office inaccessible. When the last day is excluded, the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or day when the clerk’s office is inaccessible.

(4) “Legal Holiday” Defined.

As used in these rules, “legal holiday” means:

(A) the day set aside by statute for observing New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day; and

(B) any other day declared a holiday by the President, Congress, or the state where the district court is located.

(b) Extending Time.

(1) In General.

When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:

(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

(2) Exceptions.

A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b), except as those rules allow.

(c) Motions, Notices of Hearing, and Affidavits.

(1) In General.

A written motion and notice of the hearing must be served at least 5 days before the time specified for the hearing, with the following exceptions:

(A) when the motion may be heard ex parte;

(B) when these rules set a different time; or

(C) when a court order — which a party may, for good cause, apply for ex parte — sets a different time.

(2) Supporting Affidavit.

Any affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the motion. Except as Rule 59(c) provides otherwise, any opposing affidavit must be served at least 1
day before the hearing, unless the court permits service at another time.

(d) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service.

When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the
period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).

I'm not positive how the days are counted but if weekends and federal holidays are excluded, then thursday is due day. That could be why Obama is in Hawaii.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/obama_grandmother

http://contrariancommentary.wordpress.com/

A request to admit is a simple, cheap, efficient means of discovery. It is so basic that sometimes it gets overlooked. Some Attorneys, because they don’t use them, forget about the thirty day response requirement. When you hit them with their screw up, they invariably get the client to settle the case to hide their embarrassment at their malpractice.

In addition, the beauty is that failure to answer requests for admission is virtually bullet-proof. That is courts almost never permit additional time to answer the admissions.

Berg will file a motion to have the court order that the requests for admission be deemed admitted for purposes of the litigation.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Berg: "Obama & DNC Admit all Allegations"

According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with a request for admissions. Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed on October 6 in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response be filed within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not. Therefore, this morning, Philip Berg will file two motions:

* A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted, and

* A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is "damning," and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James' talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today's filings and the ramifications the defendants' failure to respond may have.

“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”

Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.

Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:

The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.

Just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?

* Admit you were born in Kenya.
* Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
* Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
* Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
* Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
* Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
* Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
* Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
* Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
* Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
* Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
* Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

and ridiculous. One would have to legally, renounce an American citizenship to relinquish its effectivity. It doesn't merely disappear simply because one leaves the country. Moreover, in the US one is able to be a citizen of another country simultaneously as many Israeli citizens are. Dual citizens can even serve in the armies of the other nation and still remain American citizens. This latest twist in the misinformation campaign on Obama is at best silly.

_____________

"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, most of mankind are Nazis" --Isaac Bashevis 

Is it true??? 

Was he really adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and does Indonesia not allow for dual citizenship?

It seems pretty ridiculous that Obama's mother, who remains American, to renounce her son's American citizenship on account of her son's stepfather...she would have to be pretty stupid.

If so, is it even legal for Obama's custodians to denounce his American citizenship?

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

Obama's birth stirs legal action in Washington

The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, also known as the Hatch Amendment

Detailed analysis of fake Hawaiian COB

Dual citizenship laws