Replies

Craig v. U.S. 2009 is a very clever attempt to force the court to state the definition of natural born citizen, and thus force them to look at Obama. I won't try to explain it. Here is the pointer to Donofrio’s blog dealing with it. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/craig-v-us-10th-circuit-court-of-appeals-held-08-05-2009-14th-amendment-native-born-citizens-have-no-constitutional-right-to-natural-born-citizen-status/

It was just settled a few weeks ago, and does appear to affirm that statute (laws) cannot make someone a natural born citizen, confirming the nonsense when someone invokes the 14th amendment or the 1790 Naturalization Act.
There are a number of people who are learning more than they ever expected to learn about the intent of our founders - thank God! I hope they hurry.

I have paid little attention to Berg. I am concerned given his association with Hillary and Soros, about his motives. I hope I'm wrong. But his avoidance of Obama’s Article II Sec. 1 Clause 5 ineligibility has caused me to stop paying attention. His attacks on Taitz also give me pause. If he isn't running legal interference, he is doing a reasonably good job of pretending.