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

Politico ^ | 3-1-09 | Ben Smith

[Kansas58]

You cut your post short, your cut and paste job LISTS numbers. -—
IF their is a “Section 1” their must be other sections.
You list only one way to claim “Natural Born Citizenship” and you have left out other ways to do the same. You can be born, on foreign soil, and be a “Natural Born Citizen” due to other circumstances! (Your Mother must be 19, however!)

There are several ways to claim citizenship. The US State Department is the authority on Citizenship issues:

border=”0” alt=”Image and video hosting by TinyPic”></a>

[Hardastarboard]

I had another thought about this. In a world where we had a REAL media, not a propaganda machine for the modern American Socialist Party, I wouldn’t have to ask a complete stranger on a news and comment board, about these kinds of details regarding lawsuits against our President. I’d have heard it from every news source in the US.

[Kansas58]

[null and void]

LOL! That’s r-e-a-l-l-y stretching, even for you.

[Non-Sequitur]

Congress can not make “Natural Born Citizen” retroactive.

I just showed you where it did. Link

The Section 1401(g) was the part of the 1953 legislation which gave the military service exemption to someone born abroad of parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, and which identified those children as citizens at birth. Section 1401a makes that retroactive to children born under those circumstaces between 1941 and 1954. Prior to that apparently they weren't natural born citizens.

[Non-Sequitur]

LOL! That’s r-e-a-l-l-y stretching, even for you.

Not stretching at all. What legislation gives the Supreme Court the authority to check presidential credentials?

[Scanian]

I think you need to read what I said again. I was agreeing with you! (Anyone who uses DU smear words on FR, i. e. “birthers,” can EAT __IT and bark at the moon while they’re at it.)

[Michael 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.

No you didn't. You read them on the Internet, because those words never appeared in any court document filed by Obama and the DNC.

Obama and the DNC filed their motion to dismiss on September 24th. No such words appear in the motion to dismiss.

Here is the document, as posted on Berg's Obamacrimes website:

Obama, DNC Motion to Dismiss

Where do you see those words in the motion to dismiss?

Again, the answer is, NOWHERE.

This site also states the same information:

That website is just parroting the same nonsense that was posted at Israel Insider, and it's just as clear that the person who wrote it never actually read any of Obama's and the DNC's motions, just as you never actually read any of Obama's and the DNC's motions because those words don't appear in any of their motions.

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:

...

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

Nothing's been purged. When the people running Berg's websites gave them a facelift, they tried to better rearrange and name the case documents.

The file name for the September 24th motion to dismiss went from this:

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

To this:

http://www.obamacrimes.info/092408Obama, DNC Motion to dismiss.pdf

Again, all of the court documents can be found on Berg's website here:

ALL OF THE COURT DOCUMENTS FILED IN THIS CASE

And you won't find those words in any of the filings made by Obama and the DNC.

Put simply, YOU WERE LIED TO.

[MortMan]

No sale, starwise. (But then, you do seem to enjoy the pitch in and of itself...)

How are you?

[Kansas58]

Your nic fits you:

Websters
non-sequitur
n. phrase which does not follow logically from what has gone before; conclusion drawn incorrectly from the evidence.

---

Congress did NOT retroactively grant “Natural Born Citizen” status.
Congress retroactively granted “Citizen” status.

You always draw incorrect conclusions.

[Non-Sequitur]

You always draw incorrect conclusions.

Maybe it would help if you actually read it first?

[I see my hands]

Thanks for telling me I was mistaken. It's good to know there is another hardened good guy out there.

[Michael Michael]

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

Needed for what? The Certification of Live Birth already gives his place of birth.

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?

Perhaps an African national, who wasn't a domestic "negro." An African national who by accounts was very sensitive to the issue of race, and who may well have considered "negro" to be offensive, as other "negroes" of the time were beginning to consider it.

That an African national would self-identify as "African" rather than "negro" doesn't seem terribly odd to me at all.

So what are the other reasons?

[Michael Michael]

You cut your post short, your cut and paste job LISTS numbers. -—
IF their is a “Section 1” their must be other sections. You list only one way to claim “Natural Born Citizenship” and you have left out other ways to do the same.

Unless you can show that Obama was born someplace other than in the United States, then anything beyond "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is moot.

[Kansas58]

Well, then, tell Obama to produce his original, vault copy birth certificate and I will shut up.
Not until then.

[Kansas58]

Well, then, tell Obama to produce his original, vault copy birth certificate and I will shut up.
Not until then.

[Kansas58]

The State would have had RULES as to what qualifies as a “Nationality” -— it is not left up to clerks in a government office to decide such things. There would be acceptable terms for each race, during any period of time.

[ga medic]

How true that is.

[Velveeta]

Thanks for finding the Motion. I’m now traveling and unable to cut, paste and link from my blackberry. It doesn’t seem to be on this Motion. The only other one it could then be discussed is on the DNC “protective order” from that same time frame.

Berg in his response to whichever motion or order it was, even referenced the fact that the DNC and Obama have not shown how providing the info would cause serious embarrassment to Obama. It had to be somewhere for Berg to respond to it - plus I do recall reading it specifically on the pdf.

[Michael Michael]

The Section 1401(g) was the part of the 1953 legislation which gave the military service exemption to someone born abroad of parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, and which identified those children as citizens at birth.

How do you square that with the Fourteenth Amendment?

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, there are only two ways in which you may become a citizen of the United States; by being born in the United States, or through naturalization. How can anyone not born in the United States be a citizen of the United States except by way of naturalization? And I'd like to think we can all agree that a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen.