zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
The Public Affairs Officer of the DC Fire and Rescue Dept. gave the official estimate as 70,000 attendees, filling the Capitol grounds, but only extending as far as Third Street on the mall. Oh, and the aerial shot purported to show an enormous crowd extending past 17th Street, inexplcably fails to show the Museum of the American Indian, which opened in September 2004, and is located right next door to the Air and Space Museum, between it and the Capitol. This apparent anomaly in the space-time continuum can only be explained in one of two ways: either the Museum of the American Indian has a cloaking device or the photo is more than 5 years old. Everybody knows the Air and Space Museum has the only cloaking device in DC, and anybody familiar with the bureaucratic pissing matches in DC knows the directors of those two museums haven't spoken a civil word to each other in years, and in fact hate each other's guts. There is no way the Air and Space Museum would allow the Museum of the American Indian to use its cloaking device, which leaves us with the undeniable truth that the photo is in fact more than 5 years old, and the organizers (or someone sharing their warped views), embarrassed by the paltry attendance, attempted to use an old photo to support their bogus crowd estimates. Unfortunately for them, their lack of intellect and/or sanity blinded them to the obvious discrepancy between the photo and current reality, much like the ridiculously faked birth certificate purporting to show that Obama was not a native-born American.
Speaking of which, one wonders why the allegedly liberal media have chosen not to publicize the reasons the US federal courts, including SCOTUS, have thrown out all the birthers' claims and lawsuits. The most likely answer is that the media are not liberal, and by not publicizing the reasons for dismissal of the suits, they give the birthers' ludicrous claims a faslse sheen of respectability and keep them from being summarily dismissed by the public the way they have been summarily dismissed by the courts.
Here is the reason the courts won't even consider the suits: being born in a foreign country is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not one is a native-born American. There are only two classes of citizens in the US: native born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens are those who had to go through the naturalization process because they were born (1) outside the US and (2) to foreign nationals (plural). Both of those must be true in order to require naturalization. Children born inside the US are native-born citizens regardless of their parents' status, and here's the biggie: a child born to an American citizen (singular) ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD is a native-born American. If one parent is an American citizen, so is the child, regardless of place of birth or birth country's rules of citizenship. The only proviso to tbhe above is that a child born to a person who was an American citizen at the time of birth "will be divested of citizenship of the United States if he or she fails to reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling 5 years between the ages of 13 and 21 years." (quoted from form FS-240, "CONSULAR REPORT OF BIRTH ABROAD OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"...my own, as a matter of fact, and as the son of a Foreign Service Officer, I was exempt from the above residency proviso)
