Both of Berg’s claims are baseless.
He has no basis for his belief that George W. Bush carried out the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks and not basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
How do you know his claims are baseless? You sure are a know-it-all for a newbie
There is abundant evidence that O’bummer is not a natural born citizen, and zero evidence to the contrary.
Where the heck have you been? While some of Berg's case is questionable, the essential facts of his parentage - admitted by Obama himself - squarely and decisively place him OUTSIDE of "natural born citizen" status.
To be "natural born" one must be born within the United States to TWO US citizen (but not necessarily natural born) parents. Obama was not, and although (if born in Hawaii) he is definitely a US citizen as a result of the circumstances of his birth and the operation of statute law, he is not and never can be a "natural-born" citizen as demanded by the Constitution as a qualification to the Presidency. That is unless Unless the Supreme Court were to rule against all precedent, and to do that, they would have to agree to hear the case. Basically, under the law as it exists, and conforming to stare decisis, he is not qualified on the basis of self-admitted facts. The Supreme Court would have to take the case to clear the road for his inauguration.
You need to bone up on your legal scholarship, and FR is a good place to start.
Baseless? If it was so baseless then why is Obama hiding behind the sycophant press and lawyering up big time?