October 11, 2008
This could be the game changer (updated)By Thomas Lifson
Someone with the unlikely name of Molotov Mitchell has produced a 10 minute and 52 second video [watch it below] that could well change the terms of the election -- if enough people watch it. Illuminati Productions has posted it to YouTube. They have provided the voting public a very professionally and engagingly done video generation equivalent of a long detailed article in a place like American Thinker.
It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama's citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. More important than the questions and allegations is the refusal of the Obama campaign to provide what should be the simplest response to an action brought in federal court: a certified birth certificate from Hawaii.
You can't get most voters to focus on print media in order to entertain a series of hard questions on what seems like a far-fetched notion. Especially those voters who rely on the Big Media. They figure that if this were true, they would have heard about it from the old familiar faces. But you can get people to watch 11 minutes of interesting video raising a slew of questions for Obama, in fact cornering him, on the question of his birth, citizenship, and eligibility for office as POTUS under the Constitution. Especially if people start talking about the video. It's called viral distribution. A friend emails an Obama-supporting friend and dares him or her to watch.
A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a Pennsylvania state committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating. Graphics and sound are well-deployed to avoid tedium as data is conveyed in a way that allows viewers to absorb it. When he contrasts Obama's behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain's full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? -- who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer's mind that there is something seriously wrong here.
We are talking about the Presidency and this guy stonewalls?
The only way Obama can satisfactorily respond is to release his supposed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn't he released it? If he does release it, game over. So why drag this out on technical grounds? It doesn't make sense.
If this video gets widely viewed and discussed, Obama's support will crumble in the face of his continued stonewalling. Why doesn't he authorize the state of Hawaii to provide birth certificate to the court?
I am grateful for the efforts of the people who put this op together. It is brilliantly timed. I do know that there are one or more smart Democrats who haven't forgiven Obama and who don't want to see him elected. They know how to design and implement really effective plans to get things done.
They might even want to get Obama thrown off the ballot and replaced by the second place finisher before Election Day. Or, if the Democratic Party stonewalls and the court delays, pick up the pieces.
Watch it and see what you think.
Hat tip: Clarice Feldman
Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.
Update: All the filings to date in the court action of Philip Berg are available here.
Update: Based on comments and email, it is evidently necessary to point out that Berg may or may not be correct in the factual assertions claimed in this video and, more importantly, in his court filings. Determining the factual basis is the responsibility of the court, based on filings provided by both parties. I have no way of knowing whether Berg is a kook on this issue or not.
The important point is that the Obama campaign has not chosen to confront Berg's claims in a straightforward manner. That is a fact. Posting two different electronic images of an alleged birth certificate does not carry weight in court. Nor do the opinions of organizations like factcheck.org or snopes.com. The only version of a birth certificate that would matter is one submitted to court and attested to as valid, under penalty of perjury, and subject to forensic examination.
It may be the case that Berg is completely wrong. If so, the Obama campaign could have submitted documentation to the court quashing this case. Instead, it has chosen to engage in a legal strategy of delay. Why would they do this if Obama's documentation were in order? Why would they only provide electronic (so far as I know) copies to friendly sources? Perhaps someone can explain that satisfactorily, but I cannot.