PostHeaderIcon To Bernie Goldberg

Bernie Goldberg has a couple of derisive posts up on his website, chiding anyone who still believes the Obamunist is ineligible for the office of POTUS. I just posted the following to his BBS at:


No, I am not and would never wish to be a professional lawyer. I detest neckties and eschew those who adorn pencil necks with the infernal contraptions; but I could steer you to several who vehemently disagree with your opinion. They no doubt would be delighted and honored to be interviewed by an imminent professional journalist; another honorific I thankfully can’t claim. Nor am I a professional pundit; but I am a voracious reader, a consummate thinker, and a professional red-blooded American Patriot, which gives me every right to an informed opinion or two of my own.

We are the same age and ever since I read your first book, I have always appreciated your willingness to speak your truth to power, regardless of the social consequences. I reckon you to be a good guy; so I would like to believe that you do not intend to insult my intelligence with your knee-jerk dismissive attitude toward anyone still questioning Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS. For me, the place and/or documentation of his birth were never issues; but his manifest ineligibility was and still is.

Unlike many, I choose not to believe that you, of all people, are part of some media conspiracy to ignore and/or obscure the increasingly obvious fact that Obama is indeed ineligible; and that we are now facing a Constitutional crisis, which could have been easily avoided had, before his election, the Fourth Estate properly done their jobs. Concurring with your frequent observation that the myopic Left-leaning press is not a cabal, but simply creatures of their environs, I suspect a similar handicap; because you undoubtedly share my disdain for wild conspiracy theories, and grow weary of their fanatical proponents.

They appear to waste their time, and try to waste ours, with ever increasingly fantastical claims, which are easily refuted with only a modicum of research. E.g. I am so turned-off by the so-called ‘Truther’ crowd, that my mind immediately snaps shut every time I encounter one. I long ago looked into many of their claims, applied a little critical thinking, and dismissed the subject as silly. The risk, of course, is that there might be a kernel of truth being obscured by the overwhelming nonsense, which my prejudices may now never allow me to discover.

I could readily accept the idea of a coverup of foreknowledge of the plot; but to suggest that GWB et al planned the attack and had demolition charges awaiting it, stretches credulity beyond the limits of my imagination. Perhaps you share a similar prejudice toward some of the dimwits in the so-called ‘Birther’ movement (I shall hereinafter refer to it as the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) controversy), who have propagated some ridiculous and easily refutable nonsense. However, much of it may just be carelessly parroted disinformation, deliberately inserted into the fray to discredit more serious research (E.g. the phony Kenya birth certificate (BC) admittedly produced by an Obama supporter).

A natural born skeptic, I deploy an uncommonly open mind in the process of forming my own opinions, rather than accept uncritically the pronouncements of so-called experts. Once thus earned, I am quite prepared to defend them; but I still endeavor to remain open to the possibility of error, and changing an opinion when new data presents itself. Yet, I am not sure what it would take to get me to waste any further time revisiting the 9/11 Truth conspiracy; so I think I understand where you are coming from.

Still, I am at a loss to explain why your old news hound’s latent curiosity is failing to notice that the NBC controversy is growing exponentially with the latest release of an Obama BC, when it should have subsided. I would like to believe that you have not bothered to read any of the many evidence-laden charges posted at WND, by purported experts and amateur ‘Rather-gate’ type sleuths alike, rather conclusively proving to even the critical reader that it was a rank forgery, and not a very good one.

That, in and of itself, is a news item of epic proportions, for which even Fox News is losing credibility among once loyal and devoted viewers, for deliberately ignoring. Are there no honest and/or fearless investigative journalists left anywhere in the media? It is viral out here in the Patriot/TEA Party community, and those who once found the NBC controversy crowd embarrassing, can’t help asking themselves, “Why on Earth he would have taken such a risk, if a valid BC proving his nativity narrative actually existed?” Have you? Doesn’t it suggest that there just might be something to the NBC controversy?

This puts me at pains to think of what I could possibly offer to entice you into investing about an hour, with your mind pried open at least a crack; so that you have a fair opportunity to learn that your prejudices may need a little rearranging. The only thing I can think of, is the potential that you might could slide past O’Reilly, in fame if not fortune (although it could spawn your next bestseller), and earn the undying gratitude of the very folks most likely to buy and read your books. I have a plan that could make you a hero. All you have to lose by exploring it is an hour of time; the upside potential is enormous. Game?

You see, the eligibility issue has never represented a conspiracy to me. I have been irrepressibly fascinated by the subject since the moment I first heard that Obama’s father was a British subject, visiting America on a student visa. It happens that my younger sister is not a NBC, because she was born in a civilian hospital in Munich, Germany, while my father was stationed there during the occupation after WWII (1947).

Some 55 years ago, it was not thought necessary to have a Law degree and a library full of ‘case law’ books to be able to ‘interpret’ our Constitution. Written in rather plain English, it was generally thought at the time to mean exactly what it said; so, with a little help from a dictionary for the occasional archaic word, it was assumed to be easily taught (line by line as I recall) to any average junior high student. Thus, I can still remember clearly the day when my teacher revealed the startling detail that my sister and I had different classes of citizenship.

He specifically taught us that to be a NBC required BOTH one’s parents to have been American citizens, AND one’s birth must have taken place on sovereign American territory. Interestingly, I recall him explaining how an American embassy was considered our sovereign territory too. I even remember discussing my surprise at this information with my parents that night. They allowed as how it was unlikely that my sister would ever want to be President, and in every other respect her citizenship was the equal of mine. Thus, if I were to have forgotten every other detail of our Constitution, the proper definition of NBC would still be indelibly etched in my mind.

From day one, when Larry Johnson (whom I had liked and respected from his past frequent appearances on Fox News) was leading Hillary’s PUMA opposition researchers in unraveling Obama’s phony nativity narrative, and started the NBC controversy; I have been ranting and blogging that, while what they were uncovering was stunning, it was irrelevant. It mattered not a whit where he was born, or that he lost his American citizenship upon becoming an Indonesian citizen as a child. By definition alone, he was not a NBC, because he was born a British subject. Period. Full stop. Fini.

You cite Wikipedia as your sole source, for flippantly dismissing the subject after reading an incomplete quote therein from Madison. The Wiki is a notoriously unreliable source, especially for topics such as this, because partisans are forever rewriting its articles to spin their side of a debatable issue. It is great for a quick overview of a new subject, and I do frequently use it as a starting point for research. It rather nicely aggregates links to reference material and alternative research sites; but I have learned never to regard it as authoritative, and I would regard doing so as a bit sloppy for a reporter.

Are you ready for your shot at Journalist of the Year? If nothing else, you may gain a better insight into the demographics of the purchasers and readers of your books, which being cloistered in NYC may hamper. Here is your assignment. First, read my recent essay at:

It won’t be a waste of time. One commenter recently remarked:

“That is the best synopsis and logical article I have read … gets to the heart of the matter and offers a practical recourse in the hands of the people themselves. I have turned the article into a PDF (& added a little artwork) that should be easy for everyone to send by email to as many people as they can. The PDF is available on my site at:
As a PDF it can also be easily printed and passed around that way too.”

When I went to his website, I found it featured on the front page introduced thusly:

“Editor :: This article is a MUST-READ. Dave Hunter hits the nails right on the head with a factual, logical and easily understood article explaining the history, mechanics and remedy concerning the usurpation of the Whitehouse (sic) and the overthrow of the American republic. Make sure you pass this on to everyone you can.”

When you get to the place where I suggest what Donald Trump or Sarah Palin et al could do to change the course of history, plug your own name in alongside theirs. Then, after finishing reading the downside in the “Aftermath” section, ponder long and hard as to whether, if you were to become convinced Obama was not a NBC, you have enough moxie to ask for the podium at the National Press Club, and cajole at least C-Span and Fox News into having their cameras rolling. If not, go back to sleep and peace be upon you. I am sorry to have disturbed you.

If so, you are on the hero’s path. You will now need to do the independent research necessary to become absolutely convinced that my junior high history teacher was teaching us the truth. Before embarking on your journey, permit me to offer an observation or two regarding the only obstacles you will encounter – slime drenched prevaricating lawyers. Fortunately, Obama’s fatal tactical error, of walking up to the microphone and personally vouching for the fraudulent birth certificate on April, 27th, will render them toothless in the end game; but we have to get you past their obfuscation in your own mind, before you can initiate it.

First, you will need to decide if you are an Originalist regarding the meaning of the plain language in our Constitution – that the words therein mean exactly what our Founders intended them to mean when they penned this contract. Or, do you buy the Progressive notion that it is somehow a ‘living document,’ which can be reinterpreted by arbitrary judicial fiat from time to time, to reflect evolving societal paradigms, without needing bother with the cumbersome Amendment process. If you agree with ‘Original Intent,’ you remain on the hero’s path.

Please understand that respect for common sense, truth, and real justice were discarded from the legal profession long ago. They have been replaced by an unholy reverence for procedure, plausible deniability, and precedent. Ignoring any latent sense of justice, the esteem a modern lawyer earns from his peers, is strictly based on how effective he is at employing every trick in their tool bag, to prevent a client from losing in court, regardless of the facts of a case.

A dismissal over some arcane procedural issue is celebrated equally with an acquittal. Coercing a defendant to settle a nuisance lawsuit out of court, because it is cheaper and far less time consuming than fighting it, is the equivalent of winning on the merits to these characters. Tying up the courts and righteous plaintiffs for years, with dilatory procedural tactics to run out the clock and run up their fees, rather than allow the merits of the case to be addressed in court, is reckoned just good lawyering.

Thus, Obama has spent a couple of million dollars, much of it probably ours, in legal fees over the past three years; and allowed a Constitutionally conscious military officer, merely upholding his own oath, to actually go to prison, just to prevent having to do what he subsequently casually did on April 27th. Honestly ask yourself why, while listening carefully to your intuitive gut, and you will remain on the hero’s path.

Then realize that this is no less than a SCOTUS issue. They have never found a need to rule on the actual definition of NBC; but they are still permitted to use common sense. Since the Constitution very definitely makes a distinction between a ‘citizen’ (required for legislative office), and a ‘NBC’ (required for CinC) doesn’t that in an of itself suggest that they are not meant to refer to one and the same thing as Obama’s defenders suggest? There is no way to legitimately mangle the 14th Amendment in a manner that would in any way modify the Founder’s obvious intent in the NBC clause. Thus, the SCOTUS’ primary resource for divining what they intended, would of necessity be a contemporary English dictionary.

Failing that, they would need to seek a written definition in other contemporary texts, especially legal texts. Enter Vattel’s, “The Law of Nations,” (1758) and first translated into English in 1760. It not only defines the term precisely; but while a newborn’s citizenship customarily followed the father’s back then, he actually used the plural ‘parents’ when defining NBC. You might appreciate the comments regarding our Founders familiarity and use of this legal scholar’s book at:

Dig deep enough, and you should come to the realization that had Vattel not conveniently provided a precise term for the concept John Jay was requesting be placed into the qualifications of CinC, they would undoubtedly have articulated their intent more verbosely. Then, note Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 or our Constitution; to wit:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

Now, pray tell, since they ‘neglected’ to define this term also (suggesting that here too, there was not the slightest dispute regarding its meaning among them); what do you suppose they meant by ‘Law of Nations?’ Would we need to go through a lot of contorted legal research and lawyerly review of a couple of hundred years of subsequent ‘case law,’ to reach and informed opinion as to their intent here? Or might we be permitted to use a little common sense and Occam’s razor, to conclude they were referring to the same subject matter as the book by that name, which they were using as a valued reference for their task at the time?

My point is, that once all the dilatory tactics have run their course, and some brave judge finally agrees to hear the merits of one of the dozens of cases that keep getting dismissed on various procedural grounds (chief among them that a mere American citizen lacks ‘standing’ to challenge the eligibility of one of our employees for high office), these clever legal eagles will immediately switch gears. Then will begin the obfuscating blizzard of legal briefs, trying to shoehorn obscure dicta within various obscure ‘case law’ lower court decisions, to suggest that some obscure partisan judge in the past, has effectively modified the plain meaning of the term NBC as used within their plastic Constitution.

One already encounter’s such arguments from young Obama friendly attorneys, who have been programed in modern law school not to think for themselves; but to seek answers to all legal questions within their ‘case law’ libraries. Don’t swallow their arguments without chewing first. I assure you that there are plenty of old guard Constitutional scholars and attorneys, who will vociferously disagree with them. Find them before reaching your own conclusions, and you shall remain on the hero’s path.

Since you are obligated to check out my quotes and assertions anyway, I will leave you now to your own due diligence. Here are a few good places to start:

I would appreciate a reply, if you can find the time, to let me know if you are interested; or why not? Else, I’ll need to expand my search for our savior. Remember, the first one to the podium wins the grand prize. I am also curious if you folks writing books for this genre ever bother to read each other’s work. Have you read any of the three I mentioned in my essay? Which; and what did you think of them?

I would think Cashill’s exposé in particular, would rub honest scribes the wrong way, no matter their politics. Obama must serve some powerfully potent Kool-Aid! I find it puzzling how little coverage any of them got in the media, yet all were seriously researched efforts, by well-credentialed and accomplished writers.



America is at an awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards.

26 Responses to “To Bernie Goldberg”

  • Troy says:

    Goodness Dave, Goldberg has pushed your button hard!

    This is, of course, a superbly written essay, not that I would expect anything else.

    The only fault I can possibly find with it is that it is beside the point. The United States of America has ceased to be a constitutional republic, ergo, any and all arguments based on the constitution are arguments about nothing.

    By the way, I like your new postscript but I disagree with it as well. It is NEVER too early to shoot the bastards. Indeed, while I abhor the very notion, deep inside I know that it will come to that. The situation is way too far past the point of some rational solution.

    I trust you will let us know if Bernie sees fit to respond?

    If he does, could you give him a request from me? What I want is for him to calmly get off his seat, lean across the table, then slap the living crap out of Bill O’Reilly.


    • LOL… I’ll tell him for sure, if I get his attention, which I rather doubt. otherwise I am afraid I can’t argue with your critique. I had occasion to reread my “Dark Ages II” essay the other day, which is always a depressing reminder of the futility of my other rants…

  • Blue says:

    Hello Dave,

    Thanks for the informative essay.

    Like you, I distinctly recall a junior high American Government teacher in the mid 1960s teaching us the same definition of “natural born citizen”, as it applies to the POTUS, as you were taught. My wife remembers it also. It must have made an impression on us as it helped to define the importance of the office.

    I’d venture to guess that it isn’t being taught today and that it’s been that way for quite some time.

    Like you, I believe that the controversy surrounding the birth certificate is merely diversion. I also believe that those who surround obama, as well as all of The Congress know without doubt that obama is ineligable for the office he holds. The question then becomes why was it allowed to happen in the first place and why has it been allowed to continue?

    A lot more questions than answers.

    Again, thanks for the essay.

    Take care.

    • Hi Blue,

      Thanks for your service to our country, for your kind words, and for being a regular reader, it seems. Thanks also for the confirmation regarding our schooling. As I understand it, one can now graduate from most major Universities without once having even read our Constitution in 16+ years of schooling.

      Thanks also for the idea I appropriated for my latest post, and the link in your blog roll. I just added you to my own sparse blog roll. I will become a regular reader of yours now. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Trial says:

    “I would like to believe that you have not bothered to read any of the many evidence-laden charges posted at WND, by purported experts and amateur ‘Rather-gate’ type sleuths alike, rather conclusively proving to even the critical reader that it was a rank forgery, and not a very good one.

    That, in and of itself, is a news item of epic proportions, for which even Fox News is losing credibility among once loyal and devoted viewers, for deliberately ignoring. Are there no honest and/or fearless investigative journalists left anywhere in the media?”

    Fox News has already gotten the opinion of an expert. Fox News reporter Jana Winter wrote an article entitled: “Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate is Legit” confirming the birth certificate’s authenticity by interviewing a leading software engineer, Jean-Claude Tremblay.

    After the article was published, Tremblay came forward and said Winter misquoted him and refused to correct the misleading article.

    BTW, Arthur B. and I from the “Do you believe in the Devil” article put together what Bernie’s real motivation is for these articles- The support of Rubio.

    • Yes, I was aware of Fox’s misleading story and refusal to correct it, or entertain opposing viewpoints. This, combined with O’Reiley’s scrubbing his blunder on the phony SSI card issue from their website, without explanation or apology, is why I suggested Fox was complicit in the coverup and losing credibility out here.

      I am inclined to concur with your conjecture regarding Bernie’s motives; but like I said in my main “Support & Defend” essay that I asked Bernie to read, Amend the Constitution if one thinks this necessary. But, we bend or ignore it for transient causes at our peril.

      Thanks for dropping by. I hope to see more of you, Sir. ◄Dave►

      • Trial says:

        I’m usually not one to debate the technical aspects concerning the definition of “natural born citizen” or even the technical aspects of the LF birth certificate.

        The short form birth certificate, however, has been proven to be unauthentic. It had a debossed seal. Only BCs with embossed seals are authentic according to Hawaii law.

      • Agreed, Trial. I had read that lady’s work, and found it very persuasive. I have been surprised not to have heard anyone mention it anywhere else before today. I noted with interest that the Obot wouldn’t engage you on that subject on Bernie’s site!

      • Trial says:

        Interesting Tid-bit:

        Dr. Conspiracy, one of the anti-birther gods, had to pretty much recant an entire article of his concerning the subject. He tried to claim the debossed seal was an optical illusion. The Obots went on several sites claiming this disinformation until finally Dr. Conspiracy had to admit he was wrong. It gets better though. The moment he published his article, he wrote a comment claiming someone found out the “truth” before he did. It turns out, he linked to a post that a “birther” wrote proving the seal was debossed. Dr. Conspiracy then scrubbed the comment section after realizing he made himself look like an idiot.

        The story then changed to Miss Tickly was just getting the HDOH on a technicality. That’s right, the same anti-birther’s who quote a bunch of Hawaii laws are also the ones who say the law isn’t important for this particular issue.

        I caught on to all this, so I bring up the seal issue whenever I get a chance. It’s like poking the anti-birthers with a giant stick. All they can do is rely on disinformation (and yes, that is exactly what it is, because these same people posting on Bernie’s board have already gone over the seals and realized they were in the wrong) and say the same anti-birther talking points that they know have been debunked in the past. How do you have an honest debate with these people?

      • Obviously, one can’t. Interesting data, thanks for sharing. I haven’t had much experience engaging the Obots, since my issue has always been the obvious parentage issue, not the BC stuff. Knowing they are deliberately lying, rather than just Kool-Aid quaffers, I’ll be a bit more cautious…

        Personally, I doubt that his father was even Obama Sr.; but as of Apr. 27th he has legally committed himself to that narative with the phony BC. I suspect that his actual birthplace was Canada, at a home for wayward girls, probably under a different name. The registration of his birth in Hawaii was probably done by her parents as much for the benefit of Senior’s immigration status, as establishing his U.S. citizenship.

        The original Hawaii certificate was probably amended to reflect his adoption and name change, which would have ended his U.S. Citizenship. Hence, the need for a new phony one. Of course, that is all just an interesting side show to me; “Born a Brit – Not Legit.” â—„Daveâ–º

  • Trial says:

    It appears my comments are now being blocked from Bernie’s site.
    I left this reply for Paul Courtney:


    “Again, even if you’re right (BO born in Kenya, or in Asia, or in another galaxy), and a fed court agrees, likely outcome is dismissal because impeachment is exclusive remedy for forced removal of Pres. 12th Amendment is also a problem for you.”

    I believe the “birther” argument is that Obama was never an eligible President to begin with, thus he should not be “impeached.”

    “But if you folks feel there is explosive revelation that will cook his goose, fine, it’s your dime.”

    Your whole rhetoric screams defeatism. No journalist is willing to cover the “birther” issue because of fear or prejudice. Your logic would be sound if just one journalist would research all these “birther” claims and come to conclusions for himself. Thus far, no journalist has been willing to take that plunge.

    “Even those of us with some academic interest see this go round and round, endless source material, vitriol both ways, all leading nowhere.”

    …because only the “birthers” are asking for FOIA requests concerning Obama. Why hasn’t the same reporters who did all that research on Sarah Palin (remember those e-mails?) who found nothing on her do some research on Obama’s past? Is it not important enough?

    As I’ve stated before on this thread, I’m not a “birther.” But, I truly do believe crimes have taken place. Fox News has committed libel to keep this story buried.

    Trial is saddened by this censorship 🙁

    • I posted a link to here for him, primarily to see if I could. I had no problem. What did you do to get banned? The way my letter languished for a week awaiting moderation, I had the impression the moderators weren’t paying much attention… ??? â—„Daveâ–º

      • Trial says:

        I have no idea what happened. I tried sending my comment, the page refreshed, and…nothing showed up. I tried it again and it said my comment was a duplicate. In other words, my comments are “going through,” but for whatever reason, they weren’t being posted. (And, no message came up about “awaiting moderation”). I’m guessing my comment was being censored automatically? I really don’t know.

      • Trial says:

        I just tried a test comment. I think their blocking me through the e-mail address?

      • Probably your IP address. If you didn’t do anything that got deleted, it could be that your ISP has another user that got spam blocked, and Bernie’s site has an automatic spam cop. This one does, and it works amazingly well. If you have access to an alternative internet connection, try again.

  • Trial says:

    Nah, the first thing I checked was the ip address.

  • Trial says:

    Just read Paul Courtney’s reply. He totally ignored all my points. No wonder I my comments got blocked.

    • Trial says:

      Oh, I should probably point out I have taken neither the “birther” position or the NBC position. Either this guy is purposely spreading disinformation, or he has a reading comprehension problem (or, he ASSumed I was a “NBC believer” and made his post accordingly).

      I think the NBC argument by some skeptics is very persuasive, but that’s usually not what my posts are about.

      • A cursory reading of your many anti-Obot posts, could easily lead a newcomer to assume you were on the birther team. I just responded to his reply to you.

      • Trial says:

        You wrote an excellent reply to Courtney.

        The “birthers” who consider the NBC issue to be judicial, do not always consider that judges would more than likely vote in favor of Obama being an NBC. It would not matter what was stated in Minor; what was said would either be twisted or ignored.

        For these reasons, I would consider NBC to be more of a “political” issue. An investigation needs to be carried out to see if crimes have been committed. Even if there wasn’t a “crime,” what may have occurred behind the scenes could prove damaging to Obama and/or his accomplices. Investigative journalists need to look past their own fears and prejudices and look into Obama’s past.


        Courtney has been a lemming for Bernie for quite a while now. By looking at his other posts on the site, he appears to look at Bernie like a god. Talking to people like him is pretty much fruitless because they want to only look at “more important issues.” In other words, people like Courtney are living in a bubble and don’t want to look at the truth even if it’s staring at them right in the face.

  • Trial says:

    Yep. To be completely honest, it just makes me feel a little depressed.
    BTW, did you like the video “Chester A. Arthur” posted? 😉


    You have an awesome site here. I’m surprised it hasn’t been taken down.

    • Thankis. Taken down by whom and for what? Have you been reading my John Hancock or Gun Collecting essays, by any chance? 🙂

      I liked the video of course, although when I first watched it, it had 0 views??? Then it went private. Then it was removed, Then it resurfaced with a new address, which the first usurper posted right away. Tell me, am I reading your book tonight, doc?

  • chewin'mule says:

    Dave, Trial, and Troy, keep up the great work. Yall got this Ol’ Mule just readin’ and chewin’!

    • Trial says:

      Hey, Bernie’s mod team can block me all they like. All that did was make me want to post more ;D This Monday will be a HUGE day for “birthers.” The leaders of the “birther summit” have FOIA documents they don’t plan on revealing until an opportune time. Some people from the movement want Obama to be “locked in” as the Democratic candidate in 2012 then spring the documents then. Oh, by the way, many people reading my comments may have been given “exclusive info.”


      Yes, I have been reading the articles at this site. They are far more intellectually stimulating than some of the garbage I usually read online.

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links