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

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."

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.

Because it isn't.

The only other one it could then be discussed is on the DNC “protective order” from that same time frame.

That would be Obama's and the DNC's request for protective order with regard to discovery. And it's not in that either.

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.

I'm glad you brought that up. Because Berg himself, in his response to Obama's and the DNC's request for a protective order, directly refutes the claim that Obama and the DNC argued that disclosing the documents would cause embarrassment.

From page 16 of Berg's response to Obama's request for a protective order:

Defendants do not allege that disclosure of the requested information will cause any embarrassment.

Here, let me emphasize that in case you didn't catch it.

DEFENDANTS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION WILL CAUSE ANY EMBARRASSMENT.

And for those of you in Rio Linda, "defendants" means Obama and the DNC.

So there you have it from Berg himself. Obama and the DNC NEVER argued that releasing the documents would cause embarrassment. Again, those words never appeared in any filing by Obama and the DNC.

Once again, YOU WERE LIED TO.

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.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, it doesn't say there are only two ways. The Constitution itself says that when it refers to only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized.

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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set uniform laws of naturalization. In order to define who is a naturalized citizen it stands to reason that Congress must first define who doesn't need to be naturalized. In other words, who is a natural born citizen. And Congress has done so, and has tweaked its definition from time to time over the past 220 years.

Family members have no say over such things.

There would be standardized forms.

From the Factcheck website:

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be."

Mr. Tsue is in the communications office of the Hawaii Dept. of Health. His contact information is easy to find if you want to verify this.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment is an INCLUSIONARY rule, not an EXCLUSIONARY rule.

No where in that Amendment does say “ONLY” -— and the PURPOSE of said Amendment was to overturn Dred Scott, and grant citizenship to Blacks “born or naturalized” in the United States.

The 14th Amendmend does NOT prohibit Citizenship to those born abroad.

As explained in the Passport Application, Citizenship can be obtained SEVERAL different ways.

However, if Obama was not born in the USA, Obama is NOT a US Citizen, as his mother was only 19 years old. That was the law at the time of his Birth.

Nice lawyer trick.

It is perfectly ok for a lawyer to offer both sides of the same argument.

Even in the same motion.

Obama’s lawyers mention Rules of Procedure that allow for discovery denial, in the case of possible embarrassment.

Obama’s lawyers list other court cases, where embarrassment was a factor in discovery denial.

However, Obama’s lawyers do NOT list what embarrassment would be caused, directly, to OBAMA!

Well, DUH, because if we knew what Obama was afraid of, it would kind of END the controversy, huh?

So, Berg says that Obama has NOT told the court WHY the documents have not been released, in Obama’s specific case?

Berg is being perfectly consistent.

Is it your position that the legal documents and filings, on Berg's website, are NOT the actual documents that were filed in court?

LOL

Have fun with that one.

“What as posted wasn’t a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certificate of Live Birth IS a birth certificate. What was posted was a Certification of Live Birth, which is a certified copy of the birth certificate.”

I’m thinking it shouldn’t be called a “copy” of the birth certificate, because it isn’t identical. I’m not sure what the proper term is, but it’s a short form, an abstract, a summary - but the point is, it only contains partial information of what is on the original BC.

So I don’t believe it’s accurate to call it a “copy”. That really implies it’s the same exact form, just a duplicate. Which, of course, it isn’t.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, it doesn't say there are only two ways.

The Fourteenth Amendment says "All persons born, or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States..." That's rather clearly saying that there are only two ways for anyone to become a citizen of the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set uniform laws of naturalization.

That became moot after the Fourteenth Amendment.

In order to define who is a naturalized citizen it stands to reason that Congress must first define who doesn't need to be naturalized. In other words, who is a natural born citizen.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, that was left entirely up to the states. Congress had no power to define who was a natural born citizen. They could only establish a uniform rule for naturalization, which would have applied to those who were not considered natural born citizens by the states.

And Congress has done so, and has tweaked its definition from time to time over the past 220 years.

Um, no.

They tried that once in the 1790 Act, declaring those born outside the United States to citizen parents "natural born citizens," but after the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, that was eliminated a mere five years later in the 1795 Act.

And then came the Fourteenth Amendment, which again, clearly states that you are either a citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, or through naturalization. Congress doesn't have the power to amend the Constitution by way of simple legislation.

This entry “AFRICAN” that is entered on the form has caused me to ask some questions. It may not be on the vault copy BC but if it is, perhaps it was entered in this way to make his race ambiguous. The term African does not imply a specific skin color (since many whites and other ethnicities were born in Africa). Maybe this was a suggestion of the Dunhams or Obama Jr’s mother to avoid questions of race.

I know a number of “african-american” friends (children of missionary parents) who do not fit the traditional definition.

Just a curiosity...

The 14th Amendment is an INCLUSIONARY rule, not an EXCLUSIONARY rule.

It is neither inclusive nor exclusive. It is definitive.

No where in that Amendment does say “ONLY” -

It says "ALL PERSONS."

and the PURPOSE of said Amendment was to overturn Dred Scott, and grant citizenship to Blacks “born or naturalized” in the United States.

The PURPOSE, was to take the issue of citizenship out of the hands of the states and grant that power exclusively to the federal government, and to settle the issue of citizenship once and for all. As per Senator Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

It settles the great issue of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

In other words, if you're not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning you were either born IN the United States or you were naturalized here, you're not a citizen of the United States.

The 14th Amendmend does NOT prohibit Citizenship to those born abroad.

No, those who are born outside the United States can be considered US citizens, but they cannot be anything other than naturalized citizens as the only other means of being a citizen of the United States is to have been born IN the United States.

However, if Obama was not born in the USA, Obama is NOT a US Citizen, as his mother was only 19 years old. That was the law at the time of his Birth.

That's correct. And even if she were old enough to confer citizenship on him, he still could only be a citizen through naturalization, and hence, not a natural born citizen which requires birth in the United States or its territories.

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.

It's not that I doubt what you're saying, it's just that I'd like to see something that corroborates your statements. In Phil's defense, he's a noobie when it comes to image graphics (which is understandable given his profession), and if someone were to ask him to correctly identify, out of dozens of claims made about the COLB, which of them came from Techdude and which of them came from me, he would probably not get more than half correct. But, that's OK.

He knows the most cogent discoveries, such as the problem with the Seal on Obama's 2007 COLB not matching the actual Seal used on genuine 2007 COLBs. He probably would also get the part about the missing second fold line. But, since the question of whose COLBs were used to make the composite COLB scan has never been determined, Maya's COLB is as much a possibility as any other COLb contender. Basically, every 2007 COLB is a suspect and there are no front runners in this race. Besides, finding the source documents is not a necessity, with the possible exception of locating the COLB that has the same, telltale spot of dirt that's seen on all of the COLB copies.

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

Berg's credibility does not hinge on getting all of the COLB facts right. On the contrary, the consensus of opinion in America is that the COLB image posted on the Internet is a forgery and that, even if real, cannot be used to prove NBC -- that's all Berg needs to know. His cases are primarily built upon the requirements of the NBC, which having dual citizenship negates -- meaning that proof of Obama's birth on US Soil is not necessary to demonstrate that he fails the NBC test by virtue of acquiring British citizenship from his father.

Berg's arguments that Obama is not an NBC are absolutely credible; wheras, the claims that Obama is an NBC are not at all credible given that his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth.

Berg only has to be right on the key issue of Obama's NBC citizenship, and he is. Obama supporters are trying to make the case that this criteria is "arbitrary," and that dog won't hunt.

That became moot after the Fourteenth Amendment.

Not at all. Congress can, and still does, establish laws of naturalization.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, that was left entirely up to the states. Congress had no power to define who was a natural born citizen. They could only establish a uniform rule for naturalization, which would have applied to those who were not considered natural born citizens by the states.

No it was not. The Naturalization Act of 1790 states that children born outside the U.S. of citizen parents were natural born citizens. That is the first instance that I'm aware of where Congress started defining who was natural born and who was not. And it wasn't the last.

They tried that once in the 1790 Act, declaring those born outside the United States to citizen parents "natural born citizens," but after the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, that was eliminated a mere five years later in the 1795 Act.

Um, yes. The fact that it was later changed by the 1795 act does not mean that children born between 1790 and 1795 were not natural born citizens. Nor does it mean that 1790 act was unconstitutional.

And then came the Fourteenth Amendment, which again, clearly states that you are either a citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, or through naturalization. Congress doesn't have the power to amend the Constitution by way of simple legislation.

And after that came any number of nationality laws extending natural born status to children born outside the U.S. under specific circtumstances. And there is nothing in the Constituiton forbidding it. Nor has the Supreme Court ruled that Congress doesn't have that power.

Obama’s lawyers mention Rules of Procedure that allow for discovery denial, in the case of possible embarrassment.

And annoyance, which you conveniently ignore.

They were simply citing the Rule which would authorize the court to grant a protective order.

Obama’s lawyers list other court cases, where embarrassment was a factor in discovery denial.

No, they don't. The cases they cite had to do with granting a stay of discovery while a motion to dismiss was still pending. And THAT'S what their actual ARGUMENT was. This is made quite clear in their conclusion at the end of their motion:

For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the motion of defendants DNC and Senator Barack Obama for a protective order staying discovery pending a decision on their motion to dismiss.

Because if the motion to dismiss were granted (as it in fact was), then any issue of discovery would be moot. And that there was no compelling reason to grant discovery before the motion to dismiss had been ruled on.

However, Obama’s lawyers do NOT list what embarrassment would be caused, directly, to OBAMA!

They never said what embarrassment would be cause because THE NEVER CLAIMED OR ARGUED THAT IT WOULD CAUSE EMBARRASSMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

So, Berg says that Obama has NOT told the court WHY the documents have not been released, in Obama’s specific case?

What Berg did is precisely what you've done, completely IGNORE that "annoyance" was included in Rule 26(c)(1). Instead, Berg just latches on to the single word "embarrassment" and claims that Obama hasn't shown that he would be embarrassed and therefore Rule 26(c)(1) could not apply with regard to granting a stay of discovery.

And Berg has a habit of ignoring things like this. Just like he ignored the proviso in INA 1952 which said that Obama could NOT have lost his US citizenship even if he were naturalized as an Indonesian citizen. Instead, Berg only looked at the first portion of that section and made a fool out of himself when he claimed that Obama lost his US citizenship when Obama was taken to Indonesia by his mother.

The portion of INA 1952 that he cites DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his own claims.

And just as he made a fool out of himself my citing a Canadian birth certificate on the Internet under "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS" that was intentionally created as a JOKE, and was signed by cartoon character Dudley Doright.

Please!

However, if Obama was not born in the USA, Obama is NOT a US Citizen, as his mother was only 19 years old. That was the law at the time of his Birth.

That is incorrect. According to the laws in effect at the time, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years..." Obama's mother met that requirement.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

That's correct. And even if she were old enough to confer citizenship on him, he still could only be a citizen through naturalization, and hence, not a natural born citizen which requires birth in the United States or its territories.

Again, incorrect. See § 1401, Clauses c, d, e, f, g, and h.

I’m thinking it shouldn’t be called a “copy” of the birth certificate, because it isn’t identical.

I guess it depends what you apply "copy" to.

No, it's not a copy of the document itself, as a photostatic copy would be. What it is is a copy of information on the document.

If I "copy" a CD by saving the information onto my hard drive, it's not a copy of the CD itself, as my hard drive isn't a CD. What it is however is a copy of the information that was on the CD. And it's the same information whether it's on the CD or on my hard drive.

I’m not sure what the proper term is, but it’s a short form, an abstract, a summary - but the point is, it only contains partial information of what is on the original BC.

No, it doesn't include all of the information that was contained in the original certificate. But for Article II purposes, it doesn't need to.

In reading your post, I saw this particular part — “On the contrary, the consensus of opinion in America is that the COLB image posted on the Internet is a forgery and that, even if real, cannot be used to prove NBC — that’s all Berg needs to know.”

Well, Berg can file whatever case he wants (as we’ve seen he has done, in his case with Bush having some kind of part in the 9/11 attack) — and it doesn’t have to have any kind of “consensus” at all.

But, when you say that there is a consensus, that really jumps out at me. I have seen no such consensus that what was posted on the Internet, by Obama and/or his campaign was a forgery. As for me, I won’t know one way or the other until a court of law certifies it or not — one way or another. That’s when it becomes a “consensus” for me, personally, when a court of law affirms or denies it according to their procedures, and makes a judgement on it.

Heck, if that were the case (that there is a “consensus”), then all the comments that I was making *before the election* about showing the original documentation would have been demanded by that very same “consensus” in the public. It wasn’t. And as I saw it, from the election, I lost... (in fact, I saw that it was by almost 10 million more, against me and against my demands that the original documentation be shown).

That’s no “consensus,” as you say, or we would not have seen the election turn out the way it did.

Furthermore, there isn’t even a consensus on Free Republic in regards to that issue. There are conservatives, here, that think this is like what has been “identified” nationally (as a “malady”) — as “Obama Derangement Syndrome”

For those who may not know that “Obama Derangement Syndrome” has been identified and named by others (and is the source of articles, nationally)..., you can see the following...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/avoiding-the-clutches-of-obama-derangement-syndrome/

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16306.html

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama%20derangement%20syndrome

And when it comes to the point where a certain position comes with its own “name” and is “identified nationally” as “Obama Derangement Syndrome” — that doesn’t indicate a “consensus” by any means... LOL...

This entry “AFRICAN” that is entered on the form has caused me to ask some questions.

And it would have raised an eyebrow for me as well if his father had been a domestic black person instead of an African national.

It may not be on the vault copy BC but if it is, perhaps it was entered in this way to make his race ambiguous. The term African does not imply a specific skin color (since many whites and other ethnicities were born in Africa).

I don't think "African" conjures up much of anything other than "black" for the vast majority of Americans. Afrikaners might think "white," but not your typical American.

Just consider the old popular racist joke about going out and "Shooting some cans." "Yeah, MexiCANS, AfriCANS..." They certainly weren't thinking anything other than "black" there.

Maybe this was a suggestion of the Dunhams or Obama Jr’s mother to avoid questions of race.

I think you're off into wild speculation territory here.

Do you ever tire of looking stupid and being wrong?

“Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.”

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

The U.S. Department of State is my authority.

You are just making stuff up as you go along.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.