Culture of conspiracy: The Birthers (mainstream decides to cover)

Politico ^ | 3-1-09 | Ben Smith

[STARWISE]

Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster "murder." George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth. And the new administration has brought with it a new culture of conspiracy: The Birthers.

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn't eligible to be president of the United States.

Viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, the subculture still thrives from the conservative website WorldNetDaily, which claims that some 300,000 people have signed a petition demanding more information on Obama's birth, to Cullman, Alabama, where Sen. Richard Shelby took a question on the subject at a town hall meeting last week.

Their confinement to the fringe hasn't cooled the passion of believers; the obscure New York preacher James Manning turned up at a National Press Club session in December to declare the president "the most notorious criminal in the history not just of America, but of this entire planet."

[Velveeta]

Michael,

I along with many others originally read those words in the court document filed by Obama and the DNC, which was the Motion to dismiss from I think Sept. 24th or so. This site also states the same information:

Barack Obama claims “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation” in the Berg case and has filed a request for dismissal and a protective order. Berg’s filing asks for copies of his birth certificate, citizenship records, passport and travel records, and other documentation proving citizenship in the U.S. as well as other countries.

First, let’s establish that I am no lawyer so don’t depend on my interpretation of the Berg vs. Obama lawsuit as being accurate. I am depending on the interpretations of others who know much more than I, and assuming they have it right. With that out of the way, let’s proceed.

Philip Berg (a Democrat and former deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania) filed his initial lawsuit against Barack Obama August 21, 2008 in Philadelphia Federal Court, claiming Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President based on citizenship. The first counter filing was from Obama only, but the DNC has since joined in.

Barack Obama and the DNC failed to respond to Berg’s filing of Sep. 15 within the required 30 days, which means they ADMITTED to all the charges in the filing by default. When they did not respond in any manner to any of the requests for information or documention the judge extended their deadline, and they then filed a motion for DISMISSAL and for a PROTECTIVE ORDER.

Their reasoning for requesting a protective order is that revealing the information (birth certificate, passports, citizenship in other countries) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” (emphasis added) Then they claim Berg has no standing to ask for it.
http://allthenewsthatfits.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/

Interestingly, I have found the accompanying Berg press release here:
http://www.obamacrimes.info/pressrelease102108.html

The court document had originally been linked at the end of the press release in the form of a pdf. If you scroll to the bottom of the press release, you’ll see that it had been attached.

Funny thing though - if you NOW click on the pdf link, you get this:

Page Not Found

The page you tried to access does not exist on this server. This page may not exist due to the following reasons:

You are the owner of this web site and you have not uploaded (or incorrectly uploaded) your web site. For information on uploading your web site using FTP client software or web design software, click here for FTP Upload Information.

The URL that you have entered in your browser is incorrect. Please re-enter the URL and try again.

The Link that you clicked on incorrectly points to this page. Please contact the owner of this web site to inform them of this situation.

http://www.obamacrimes.info/024_Berg%20v.%20Obama,%20Berg%20Opposition%20to%20Def.%20Motions%20to%20Dismiss%20complete.pdf

I have a feeling that you already knew that.

The documents were also linked at the time to the Americasright blog and lo and behold, it’s gone from there as well.

Y’all are working hard on purging - aren’t ya?

[visually_augmented]

ping

[null and void]

Suppose there is indeed something that could cause "particularly serious embarrassment" and/or “cause a defined and serious injury” if publicly disclosed.

Why can't the document be shown to the judges only with the condition that the contents will be held as private?

If all nine Supremes see it and subsequently declare that he is Constitutionally qualified, that will suffice for me.

Of course, I'll still resist on political grounds, as he isn't qualified on sooooooo many levels...

[Michael Michael]

You are correct on the first note. But, you forgot to mention that Israel Insider was the first publication to kick TechDude to the curb.

Yes, though I don't recall them ever featuring any of Techdude's reports the way TexasDarlin and NoQuarter had. I believe they only made mention of the reports that were published on the other blogs.

Fortunately, Linda Starr was not speaking for Berg when she made the erroneous reference to TechDude. She has owned up to the error she made.

Really? In public? I'll have to go check it out.

Berg only references my work, and you won't find any of Techdude's stuff left on Berg's website.

Interesting story about that.

There was once a post by Berg himself on the original blog where he claimed that Techdude was one of his "experts," and linked to one of his articles over on Atlas Shrugs.

Some time later, when they started allowing comments, someone mentioned that Techdude was one of Berg's "experts." Lisa responded saying Techdude had never been one of Berg's experts, and Berg's post was mysteriously "scrubbed" from the site. Though it was still available in Google's cache, putting the lie to Lisa's statement.

And then of course well after this happened, and after you claimed to have informed Berg that Techdude was a fraud, he went on the Michael Savage show and repeated the whole business about Maya's name being visible in the scanned image.

How Berg manages to maintain any amount of credibility with anyone is truly mindboggling.

Additionally, she still claims that Atlas Shruggs was the first blog to break the forgery story -- whiich is also not true as mine came out about a month before Techdude's first report.

Yes. I can vouch for that. ;)

[Non-Sequitur]

Why can't the document be shown to the judges only with the condition that the contents will be held as private?

Not their job. Nothing gives the Supreme Court the responsibility for checking presidential qualifications.

[I see my hands]

Thanks for raising your hand, it's good to know who is who. Now run off and attend an Emily Post seminar, I'll handle the political discourse.

[Michael Michael]

Let's see, it says:

A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.

Obama's Certification of Live Birth fulfills all of those requirements.

[freekitty]

Another thing is there are those that say don’t go any further we will have civil unrest or we are playing into their hands. Maybe, maybe not; but

You know what that’s even worse. To hold the public hostage or to scam the public is a miscarriage of justice.

[Frantzie]

Obama’s lack of response to Berg was stunning. I still don’t get it.

The economy and stock market are going down in flames. People and local talk radio are starting to speak out. Obama is a disaster. This guy is Chavez/Mugabe as I have been saying all along.

[nufsed]

"It's not our job"

Political Parties

Secretaries of State

Electoral College

Courts

Congress

This is how the biggest fraud in US history will play out. It's nobody's job to uphold the constitution and we have posters who agree with that interpretation.

Instead of being part of the solution, just kick back. We'll fight the fight for you conscientious objectors.

[Kansas58]

It is not a photocopy of the original.
That is what is needed, at this point.

And, there are lots of reasons to doubt this document.

One of which being: Who used “African” to describe “race” at the time of Obama’s birth?

[Non-Sequitur]

Instead of being part of the solution, just kick back. We'll fight the fight for you conscientious objectors.

So how's it going so far?

[Non-Sequitur]

It is not logically or Constitutionally possible.

Based on what clause?

[null and void]

...protesth too much...

[Michael Michael]

The law, in place, at the TIME OF BIRTH dictates who is a “Natural Born Citizen” -— there is no way to grant that status, retroactively.

The law in place at the time of Obama's birth says nothing different than it says now.

Here's current law:

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was what was on the books when Obama was born reads:

NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

[nufsed]

The goal is truth. It is a goal worth fighting for even if it takes a long time.

You seem to have some values that are higher than the truth. Skepticism, scorn, ridicule. Whatever it is, stay true to your values and we'll stay true to ours.

[Kansas58]

Is there a clause in the Constitution that refers to Webster's Dictionary?
Is there a clause in the Constitution that refers to the rules of spelling or punctuation or definition?

It is very easy for those who do not have intellectually challenged brains, or brainwashed liberal knee-jerk reactions, to see what the words MUST mean.

They can not, logically, mean anything else.

IF Obama was NOT a citizen, at the MOMENT of birth, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Nothing anyone does or says, after that point, can alter that fact.

You can, by Congressional fiat, or by Naturalization, make Obama a mere “Citizen” but you can to rise to the level of “Natural Born Citizen” any other way than by BEING a citizen, at the very moment of birth.

Again, why has the passport application and instructions looked the same, under several Administrations?

Why does it say what it says?

You libs give HUGE credence to the creaky Court House and State Archive abilities of the State of Hawaii -—

Yet you think our own, US STATE DEPARTMENT would make huge mistakes on the Passport application documents?

You are absurd.

Any 2nd rate High School debate team would eat you alive.

[Non-Sequitur]

IF Obama was NOT a citizen, at the MOMENT of birth, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.

And what decides whether he was a citizen, at the MOMENT of birth? Legislation passed by Congress. What Congress passes, Congress can modify. And what Congress modifies, Congress can make retroactive.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Also the President arranged for the State of Hawaii to censor his actual birth certificate. It hasn’t even leaked out.

Then there’s the ban on his family talking to the media imposed by the Country of Kenya.

I suppose this could’ve all been arranged by text messages.

[Kansas58]

Non sense.

Congress can not make “Natural Born Citizen” retroactive.

Why does the Passport Application tell applicants to refer to the law at the time of their birth?

HUH?