Daneman continues making a fool of himself:
Quote:
Phil Berg was a Hillary Clinton supporter who was furious an ineligible candidate was nominated. He filed suit, his analysis of naturalization law denying Obama citizenship at birth. I corrected Berg, sending him 8 USC 1409 and reminding him the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ab initio.
However, Berg's Indonesian law research was accurate, and your 1976 citation is flawed. There were 3.5 million Chinese legally residing in Indonesia, and they were given special dispensation . . . which a U.S. citizen marrying an Indonesian would not benefit from. Married, residing with Lolo Soetoro, and Obama taking on the Soetoro name . . . all required for the little Muslim bastard to be enrolled in school. Dunham and children were Indonesian citizens.
As for Berg's case, it avoided the Political Doctrine Question by being filed before the election. The Surrick court's response and Dismissal was terribly flawed, Berg indeed having standing being defrauded as a citizen and campaign worker.
Everyone else is flawed in their reasoning but berg and apuzzo are correct nevermind they can't win a case. The funny part about him quoting 8 USC 1409 saying that the Obama-Dunham marriage was void is that part C would destroy other birthers claims. Since he would have had citizenship at birth through his mother without the 5 year residency before 18 requirement. At least that's how I read part C as if Obama was born out of wedlock to a single mother.