Considering the extent that Barry Soetoro, or Barack Obama, or Barry Dunham, or whatever-the-Hell-his-name-is, has gone to in order to conceal the details of his birth, his schooling, his upbringing, etc., nobody can seriously suggest that he changed his name for innocent purposes.
As far as Berg is concerned, at least he’s trying to do something about this. Anyone can be a critic, but it takes somebody like Berg to actually step up to the plate, and he’s doing that.
“nobody can seriously suggest that he changed his name for innocent purposes.
The issue is whether he did it for fraudulent purposes. He’s been using “Barack Obama” for decades and was in no way inhibited about using his other names in his 2 books. So while deliberately concealing his BC and other documents may NOW have a fraudulent purpose of serving as POTUS when he is constitutionally eligible, his filing as Barack Obama rather than Barry Soetero doesn’t constitute an illegal (i.e., fraudulent) act.
As for Berg, kudos to him. All I’m saying is that IMHO he erodes his credibility whenever he includes easily refuted bogus arguments among claims that might otherwise have much more solid legal grounding. In contrast—leaving aside what you might think of the merits of Donofrio’s legal claim, it was simple and consistent. He never gave the appearance of trying to throw everything he could at Obama and hoping something would stick. In my view, it really doesn’t help matters that Berg is a 9-11 conspiracy nut. That alone isn’t reason to dismiss him, but it creates a steeper hill for neutral observers to climb to overcome skepticism that Berg isn’t just doing this for notoriety/money etc. rather than a genuine belief in his legal claims. Again, Donofrio may be a bad comparison, but he always appeared to me to be more intellectually attached to his position than Berg ever has.