Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Obama's October Surprise

Is It True?
Barack Obama compiled a lot of dirt under his finger nails from 17 years of Chicago machine politics
*******
*******
Obama's October Surprise
by Rosemary Regello, editor@thecityedition.com
June 13, 2008

Surrogates of Senator Hillary Clinton suggested last month that her Democratic rival faced a possible doomsday scenario before the general election, calling it an "October Surprise". Naturally, everyone assumed she herself would be instigating Armageddon, and not in October but May.
That assumption, however, turned out to be off base. Paula Revere (as Clinton sometimes refers to herself) was more likely dropping a hint, praying there was someone left in the national press corps who could recognize an undressed emperor when he saw one. After all, there was that fraud trial going on in Chicago. Is the U.S. Attorney's office now sitting on a felony indictment against Obama, just waiting for him to lock up the nomination? And what about the two Iraqi agents associated with Tony Rezko? How did those reconstruction funds wind up in the presidential candidate's campaign coffers? And does he really prefer to bank with pimps, as the Chicago Tribune suggested in an article, one that for some inexplicable reason was not picked up by NBC News?
While the answers to these intriguing questions may be getting short shrift from the media, you can bet Republican opposition researchers are already versed in the particulars. Moreover, if the G.O.P. is setting a trap, then maybe elected Democratic officials (a.k.a. superdelegates) should be boning up on the Chicago underworld, not lining up at the Bank of Obama ATM machine.
For one thing, it's not necessarily written in stone that the presumptive G.O.P. nominee will get voted in at the convention next September. Anyone who assumes McCain is the guy to beat really doesn't appreciate Karl Rove's ability to turn a presidential election on its head. Remember, America's favorite dirty trickster is still out on the lam, probably whistling the old Grateful Dead tune Friend of the Devil as he forages around the Fox News Channel studios each weekday afternoon.
In short, there are plenty of good reasons to fret about the future.
Surprises, then and now...
The term October Surprise dates back to 1980, the year President Jimmy Carter ran for re-election against Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush. By most accounts, he lost as a result of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and many suspected the Reagan campaign intervened in international affairs to set that ordeal into motion. In fact, many of the names, events and places from yesteryear seem to be popping up again today. Carter, Bush, the spike in oil prices, transitioning Middle East government, a U.S. presidential election... And just like 1980, this year's election cycle began with the assassination of a Bhutto. The daughter of Pakistan's first prime minister was gunned down on December 27, 2007. In 1979, Benazir's father was hanged after a military coup.
At the time of the first execution, the CIA was busy in Pakistan outfitting Osama bin Laden and his Islamic jihad to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. However, most Americans were focussed on Iran in those days. The U.S. backed Shah Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 after a popular uprising, and in the aftermath, an ayatollah named Khomeini flew in from Paris and tried to take advantage of the situation. Shortly after that, President Carter got a call from Henry Kissinger, asking him to let the deposed shah into the United States for cancer treatment. The embassy staff in Tehran warned Carter that it was no time to play Make a Wish, but Carter did let him in anyway. The Iranians reacted with angry demonstrations (believing the U.S. intended to reinstall Pahlavi) and a group of students stormed the embassy, taking 52 Americans hostage.
Although the Pentagon disputes it, two former embassy captives insist that the country's current civilian president, Ahmadinejad, was in charge of that operation. Like a perfectly synchronized Swiss clock, 444 days later and about 20 minutes after Reagan delivered his inaugural speech, the hostages were released. By then, Khomeini and his "supreme council" of fellow mullahs had rammed through an Islamic constitution and began purging the country of all those moderate, secular folks responsible for overthrowing the shah in the first place. (Remnants of that group, known as the MEK-NCRI, are holed up in Europe and even maintain a base in Iraq, although the United States and the U.K. bombed them in 2003.) At any rate, Reagan's campaign manager William Casey started selling missiles to the Islamic dictatorship as soon as he was appointed CIA director.
In Washington, people wondered. Did the Reagan campaign cut a deal with Khomeini to make sure he wouldn't free the hostages before the November election - hence Carter's October Surprise? Congress held hearings on the subject. Chaired by Indiana Democrat Lee Hamilton, the House committee eventually ruled there was no conspiracy. (Twenty years later, this same congressman would be tapped by President Bush to co-chair the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.)
Now fast forward to this election cycle. The G.O.P. knew four years ago that winning the White House after George W. Bush's reign of error would be an uphill climb. Especially with another Clinton coming down the pike. They needed to get creative. And in a little known state senator from the midwest they found reason to hope. As luck would have it, Barack Obama had compiled a lot of dirt under his finger nails from 17 years of Chicago machine politics. His principle benefactor, Tony Rezko, was a Syrian slumlord under investigation by the federal government for fraud and influence peddling.
Now this seemed promising. By using Obama as their trojan horse to get inside and sieze the apparatus of the Democratic Party, Republicans saw their odds for November improving dramatically. It didn't matter that the Illinois legislator was little more than a smug, petulant, unaccomplished hack from Chicago. He was African American, which meant that his Democratic opponents couldn't criticize him without alienating a key party demographic. And once Obama was nominated, the G.O.P. could make its case to the electorate along these lines: "Jeez, would you look at this guy's proximity group. He's got convicts, foreign agents and tainted campaign contributions coming out of the woodwork. And if he can't even obtain an F.B.I. clearance as a border patrol agent, do you really think we should be handing him the nuclear launch codes?"
Here are a few other Republican tactics that might come to fruition next fall:
An indictment from the U.S. Attorney: It turns out the federal prosecutor in the trial of Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko was Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel who handled the Valerie Plame C.I.A. leak case. No one knows for sure, but the Justice Department could conceivably indict Obama on corruption charges in the wake of the recent Rezko verdict. To date, the senator has been identified as a participant in crafting legislation to reduce the number of members on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The prosecution alleges that as a result, in 2003, the board was stacked by Rezko in order to steer big government contracts his way. Obama had previously helped Rezko and his partner Allison Davis acquire at least 11 housing redevelopment projects in his senate district, in addition to representing the landlord (as his attorney) when the City of Chicago sued over slumlike conditions and unheated apartments. The government's principle witness, Stuart Levine, has acknowledged in sworn testimony that Davis (Obama's former boss at a law firm) acted as go-between in the shakedown scheme of a Hollywood financier. Whether there is a crime here involving the candidate remains to be seen.
On another front, the New York Times has reported that Rezko's role in the purchase of Obama's South Chicago estate in 2005 may have been an attempt to shield assets from creditors in several lawsuits pending at the time. How much Obama himself knew about Rezko's finances is unknown. We do know that Rezko did a walk-through of the home prior to the sale, even though his wife would be listed as the new owner of the empty lot next door.
Links to Iraqi money men exposed: Shortly before the Obama property deal, Rezko received a $3.5 million loan from an Iraqi exile, Nadhmi Auchi. The Pentagon has identified Auchi as a former bagman for Saddam Hussein. This London-based financier is one of the world's richest men, convicted of fraud in 2003 over the notorious European Elf affair, the largest scandal in post-war Europe. Needless to say, the suggestion that it was Saddam's banker who made Obama's dream home possible will probably not play well among Independents and Reagan Democrats in November.
Another longtime Rezko chum, Aiham Alsammarae, was appointed Iraq's former Minister of Electricity in 2003. (Rezko, Alsammarae and Auchi all went to college in Illinois.) In 2005, Alsammarae was charged with stealing $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction funds. Wanted by Interpol, Alsammarae posted more than $2.7 million in property as collateral last April to help spring Rezko from jail. While Bush Administration officials won't tell anyone what the warrant is for, his arrest is not imminent.
The minister fled Iraq in 2006. Newsweek has reported that Alsammarae'a son sent several faxes to Obama's office in Washington prior while he was incarcerated in a Baghdad jail in December. Obama said this was a routine constituent request that was forwarded to a U.S. consulate. Thereafter, with the aid of Blackwater security guards, Alsammarae escaped. The fugitive now resides comfortably in his private compound outside of Chicago, where he donated online to the candidate in January, February and March.
A presidential campaign that banks with crime figures: According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, in 2006 Obama endorsed and appeared in campaign commercials for Alex Giannoulias, a banker who ran for Illinois state treasurer. Obama backed Giannoulias despite reports that his family-owned Broadway Bank made loans to bookmakers, prostitution rings and other criminal operations. "Records show Giannoulias and his family had given more than $10,000 to Obama's campaign, which banked at Broadway," the story read.
Martial Law declaration: Were the majority of Americans to become disenchanted with or remain uninspired by either candidates McCain or Obama, President Bush could potentially pull off a coup d'etat without a lot of grumbling from voters. After all, the Democratic Party has already managed to do pretty much exactly that with their Barack is the Nominee declaration in June. Perhaps savoring the prospect of a third term, President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, an executive order that allows him to suspend the constitution without prior congressional approval. In other words, he declares a state of emergency in the event of a major terrorist attack or other “decapitating” incident against the United States, then cancels the election. According to the directive, the attack need not even take place inside the country.
Well, isn't that convenient...

*******
An "October surprise" to help Obama?
By Alex Koppelman
Monday, May 12, 2008 12:51 EDT

Writing in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior editor at the seminal neoconservative journal Commentary, speculated about the possibility of an "October surprise" engineered by a rogue nation, terrorists or Iraqi insurgents with the intent of helping Barack Obama win the presidency. Recent history shows, however, that if there is such a surprise, it might in fact be aimed at hurting Obama's chances.
After naming Hamas, Iran and North Korea, Schoenfeld wrote, "One or more of these players might do everything in its power to hurt Mr. McCain and help Mr. Obama. Dramatic action keyed to our internal politics is, after all, already a page in some of our adversaries' playbooks."
Schoenfeld also reached back to the 2004 presidential election, writing, "In 2004, Osama bin Laden's television appearance only a weekend before the presidential election may have been a naked attempt to influence the outcome by reminding voters that he was still at large and President Bush's policy had failed."
Conspicuously absent from Schoenfeld's argument that these various groups would want Obama as president and would take some action to help him, and from his discussion of the 2004 bin Laden videotape, is one very important point: The CIA believed that bin Laden wanted the tape to help President Bush, not his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry. In his book about the war on terror, "The One Percent Doctrine," journalist Ron Suskind reports on a meeting at which high-level CIA officials discussed bin Laden's message:
What [the CIA had] learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons -- and those reasons are debated with often startling depth within the organization's leadership. [The CIA's] assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public ... [was] not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis.
Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection ...
John McLaughlin [then acting director of the CIA] opened the issue with the consensus view: "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the president."
Around the table, there were nods ... There was some speculative talk of why -- knowing that bin Laden acted out a strategic rationale -- he would have done this, just as there was, [Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, formerly the the CIA's operational chief for WMD and terrorism,] recalled, of why the Soviets liked certain American leaders, such as Nixon: because they were consistent and predictable ...
But an ocean of hard truths before them -- such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected -- remained untouched.
"It was sad," Mowatt-Larssen remembered. "We just sat there. We were dispirited. We had nothing left at that point."
Schoenfeld also makes one rather funny argument -- funny in both the odd sense and the "ha-ha" sense. He writes:
A terrorist kingpin like Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas, will not sleep particularly peacefully with a president in the White House like John McCain who describes himself, as he did last week, as Hamas's "worst nightmare."
Really? McCain's blustery boasting is by itself enough to have Hamas worried? That seems too credulous, perhaps too infatuated with manly posturing, doesn't it? That's especially true considering something I've written about before -- President Bush's policy regarding Hamas, which McCain would most likely emulate, has actually been a dream for the group. In a recent article for Vanity Fair, David Rose reported:
According to [Muhammad Dahlan, Mahmoud Abbas' former national security advisor], it was Bush who had pushed legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, despite warnings that Fatah was not ready. After Hamas -- whose 1988 charter committed it to the goal of driving Israel into the sea -- won control of the parliament, Bush made another, deadlier miscalculation.
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.) But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.
― Alex Koppelman
*******
Michelle Obama causes "October surprise" for Obama
Posted on June 2, 2008 by Lance Adams

If this turns out to be true, Obama will be branded the most racist candidate to have ran for office. I’ll repost here:
This is not guilt by association, this is guilt because of actual relationship.
Farrakhan, Wright, and Pfleger are each on tape in various settings spewing the
most vile racist garbage in the guise of preaching. Barack Obama, up to this
point, has tried to pretend he had no idea that these men had these thoughts or
said these things.
NONSENSE!! He knew and he knows. And the gig will be up
when the Michelle tape hits the airwaves. One source described how this tape was
acquired. Let’s just say that one of the republican candidates who is no longer
in the race, but had a dandy oppo research capability, uncovered this gem. If
Republican poohbahs have their way the tape will remain on ice until October.
But when it comes out, Barack will be permanently branded with the Nation of
Islam. That’s not a winning platform in November. And Barack’s bundlers
understand this threat. I also have learned some major financial backers are
asking the Barack team about the tape and are being stonewalled.
I always suspected that Hillary had an ace up her sleeve that she preferred not to play if she didn’t have to. Now, I don’t know if the reported Nation of Islam-connected rantfest happens to be it, but it does sound rather credible considering Mrs. Obama’s past writings and public statements. No wonder the Magic Negro kept trying to place her off-limits. And this also explains his sudden resignation from Trinity despite surviving the initial Rev. Wright storm.
While it’s always possible that it this is a manufactured Team Clinton effort like the Sinclair limo affair, the fact that the story appears to come from the Republican side would tend to negate that theory.
*******
October Surprise? Michelle Obama Rails Against "Whitey"
by Larry Johnson
Monday, May 19, 2008
Larry C. Johnson is a former intelligence officer of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where he served for four years, until 1989, when he became deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism, until October 1993. He is the CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management. He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.
On July 23, 2005, when Johnson spoke to the nation on behalf of Democrats in the party's weekly radio address, he said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped to "open doors" for him at the CIA. A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, in his Democratic Radio Address broadcast on July 23, 2005, Johnson criticized the Bush administration for their role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. In addition to his differences with Republicans in the Plame matter, Johnson is also an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War. He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak’s controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mainstream media and the alternative media and published commentary on the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as the Director of the CIA.
In 2008, Johnson has emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. He has "briefed Senator Clinton" and has dedicated several blog entries to praising her, even writing that "she is gracious, charming, and can laugh at herself." He claimed on May 8 that "Hillary has more popular votes." On March 30 he wrote that "Hillary has not used invective or insult of any kind against Obama or anyone associated with his campaign. Hillary has fought to eliminate such vile talk from the public arena."
Johnson has devoted several blog entries to examining Obama's past and has concluded that Obama has "Memory Loss", "is lying about significant portions of his life", and is "deliberately deceptive and misleading." Johnson has asserted that "Obama and his campaign are working hard to obfuscate and cover up".
On May 14, 2008, after Obama appeared to lock up the Democratic nomination, Johnson wrote "Hillary needs to stay in the campaign till the end because by the time August rolls around the damage to Barack will be so significant that rational folks will realize he is unelectable notwithstanding the mess Republicans have made of things. My advice? Patience. Let Barack have his codpiece, 'Mission Accomplished' moment. Like George Bush, he will rue his strutting and preening and declaring premature victory. Reality will intrude."
On May 16, 2008, Johnson reported having contact with three Republican insiders and another unspecified source who claim the existence of a videotape of Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's wife, speaking at the Trinity United Church of Christ and using the term "whitey" on multiple occasions." Johnson reported that the tape would be worth $1 million to anyone who could provide a copy to an unnamed billionaire Republican."
By Larry C. Johnson
May 17, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Here's the news short and sweet-if you have a copy of the Michelle Obama video, in which she is lambasting white people (four different sources say she uses "whitey" as an epithet) at Jeremiah Wright's church, then there is an ultra conservative Republican billionaire who wants to pay you $1 million dollars for the tape. Why? He hates John McCain. Conservative Republicans refer to John McCain as a Marxist and a sellout. The billionaire in question believes Barack is a very weak candidate and, if he gets the Democratic nod, then McCain will surely be President. Especially after the October "surprise" of Michelle Obama railing against whitey. The billionaire wants to preempt McCain and Rove and has put the word out through conservative networks that there is a $1 million dollar bounty for the person or persons who produce the tape.
I got this info courtesy of a major Republican operative. I am told that Karl Rove and his political allies control the tape where Michelle Obama has a Stokely Carmichael moment of sorts. Rove and company reportedly are showing the tape to big money Republicans to loosen up their wallets and get new money to fund independent expenditure groups. That's why news of this is starting to leak out. The money is being raised for 527 groups that will target the Democrats in the fall.
A retired CIA buddy is friends with a lawyer who saw the tape. This lawyer, who has a stellar reputation for being very low-key, described the video clip of Michelle's anti-white rant as, "stunning." My guess is that the billionaire who detests John McCain is probably going to find someone who will come up with the tape. So there you have it, someone is looking for "Whitey." If they find it they get a pay day. If not, you will have to wait till October to watch it.
*******
Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency
by Jeff Schreiber
A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.
Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.
"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated."
Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.
Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.
In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.
Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed "natural born," that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama's half-sister.
"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg stated. "If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws."
"It is unfair to the country," he continued, "for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected."
*******
Born in the U.S.A.?By: Keith Phucas, Times Herald Staff
08/25/2008
PHILADELPHIA - A Lafayette Hill attorney filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Sen. Barack Obama's claim to United States citizenship. The action seeks to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot.To be eligible to serve as U.S. president, a person must be born in this country. According to Obama's birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors that he is foreign born, the Illinois senator was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961.
On Thursday, Philip Berg filed a temporary restraining order in federal court to bar Obama from running for president, claiming the Democratic candidate was actually born in Africa."We really don't believe he was born in Hawaii," Berg said. "We think he was born in Kenya.
"The presidential candidate's father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, according to Obama's campaign Web site.
Berg's suit claims the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country.
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas, and his parents met at the University of Hawaii when Dunham was a student there, according to the Obama campaign.
Eventually, Obama's father returned to Kenya, and his son grew up in Hawaii with his mother and for a few years in Indonesia after Dunham married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. Also, Obama lived with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.
"If he was born in Hawaii, and he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, (Obama) would lose his citizenship," Berg said.
The Obama campaign has a special section on its Web site, "Fight the Smears," that debunks the birth certificate story and other reports that have circulated about him during the campaign.
"It's part of a smear campaign," said an Obama campaign volunteer who identified herself as Rachel. "There are just so many lies out there."
The lawsuit claims three "independent" document forensic experts performed extensive tests on the digitally-scanned image of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on the campaign's site and found the document to be "a forgery."
Jerome Corsi, author of the book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," has also deemed the birth certificate phony, according to The Annenberg Political Fact Check, www.FactCheck.org.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, aims to expose deception and confusion in U.S. politics.
Recently, FactCheck.org staffers "touched, examined and photographed" the original birth certificate kept at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago and concluded the document is genuine.
"The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.," FactCheck.org staffers concluded.
Sean Smith, Obama's Pennsylvania communications director, was contacted Friday about the suit but declined comment.
The civil suit filed by Berg will be reviewed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission, according to Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Keith Phucas can be reached at kphucas@timesherald.com or 610-272-2500, ext. 211.
*******
[under construction]