Birthers Gearing Up for Obama's Re-Election?

[Balerion]

Carcano

It's real simple...

1. Obama's mother was an American citizen.

2. Obama is therefore a "Natural Born Citizen", no matter where in the world he was born.

John McCain was born in Panama, I don't see anyone making something out of that or questioning his eligability to run in 2008. Hmmm, now what could be the difference between how one is treated as compared to the other, both of whom ran for President?

Birtherism is a stalking horse for the regressive, racist feelings of those who practice it, either overtly(they know they are racists)or covertly(they just don't like Obama, they'll tell you all sorts of reasons, but they are usually lies, ignorance or trivial).

Grumpy

Actually, that's not true. There is no clear definition of "natural-born citizen" but it is generally agreed that it amounts to a person being born on US soil, whether in the states themselves or abroad. Obama's mother's citizenship is therefore irrelevant, and has been ever since the last Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802.

The reason no one cares about McCain's place of birth is that he was born on an American military base, which is US soil no matter where in the world it is.

But I do agree that this Birther stuff is nonsense. I'm not so quick to say it's racially motivated, because Obama isn't the first candidate to have his citizenship question (in fact, he's the first major candidate of color to endure such accusations). We've all seen how Republicans operate, this should be no surprise.

 

[Grumpy]

JDawg

Where you were born has nothing to do with whether you are an American citizen, UNLESS you are a foreiner who has a child on US soil, in that case the child is a citizen, but not a "Natural Born" citizen. A "Natural Born Citizen" means you were born from a mother who is/was an American citizen(IE that your family are Americans), given that, the place you were born is irrelivant. A child of an American Diplomat who is born in the back of a taxi on the way to the hospital is a NB citizen, even if that taxi is in the center of Mexico City. The whole citizen thing is not about place of birth, but the citizenship status of the parent. Only in the case of emmigrants does place of birth come into the question. Think of all those rich people who give birth in the south of France(or any other vacation spot in the world), do you think they will accept that their children are not NB? If that is the case with them(and they make sure it is), it would be the same for Obama if he had not been born in Hawaii.

And this is largely racism. Not all racists foam at the mouth, and the brain will justify, in terms your cognizance can accept, the feelings you have about someone of another race. So they may not be having racist thoughts, but their behavior is racist, nonetheless. When they justify their behavior they give all sorts of reasons, most based on lies, ignorance or ideology, but the end result is the same. It's human nature, equality goes against the natural "us vs. them" mentality evolution left us with. It takes active mental effort to fight this animal behavior, that's what creates collective societies. Lazy, bigotted and ill educated people do not make that active effort, thus they display racist behavior.

Grumpy

 

[The Esotericist]

Carcano

It's real simple...

1. Obama's mother was an American citizen.

2. Obama is therefore a "Natural Born Citizen", no matter where in the world he was born.

John McCain was born in Panama, I don't see anyone making something out of that or questioning his eligability to run in 2008. Hmmm, now what could be the difference between how one is treated as compared to the other, both of whom ran for President?

Birtherism is a stalking horse for the regressive, racist feelings of those who practice it, either overtly(they know they are racists)or covertly(they just don't like Obama, they'll tell you all sorts of reasons, but they are usually lies, ignorance or trivial).

Grumpy

Incorrect. Unless Obama's Mother was on active military duty, part of the U.S. diplomatic service, or an active registered participant of an international charity/relief organization, than no, if he was born in Kenya to a U.S. citizen and a non U.S. citizen, that does not automatically make him a U.S. citizen. Nice try. Thank you for playing.

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

USC-prelim
US Code
Notes
Currency
Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Personally? I feel most black Americans have more claim to the heritage, history, and capital infrastructure of the united states than most whites, it has nothing to do with race. Most whites immigrated here after the civil war. Blacks, most of them can trace their roots here back further than Ellis island, they truly were the ones that really built this country. If anyone should be concerned that the president is an international agent and an interloper trying to subvert the nation's interests, it is they. And really smart educated ones do, they usually support Dr. Paul.

But Obama isn't an American. He is a pawn, a shill for the internationalists and the "Novus Ordo Seclorum."

 

[The Esotericist]

When they justify their behavior they give all sorts of reasons, most based on lies, ignorance or ideology, but the end result is the same. It's human nature, equality goes against the natural "us vs. them" mentality evolution left us with. It takes active mental effort to fight this animal behavior, that's what creates collective societies. Lazy, bigotted and ill educated people do not make that active effort, thus they display racist behavior.

Grumpy

Wow. This sounds like the same communist CCCP propaganda that Stalin and Mao used to justify the wholesale slaughter of their "enemies."

The lazy, bigoted and ill educated people just need to be "re-educated" or eliminated.

You blather on and on about, "racism" on the right, but it is used by the left just as much. All these things you accuse one side of using, the other side uses as well, to the same extent to achieve its' goals just as much. No side has its' hands clean. What it is, is an attempt by those who control both sides to get them to divert their attention from who is controlling them all, the classic Hegelian Dialectic.

Your assumption is that collective societies can be imposed by a top down hierarchy of force, obfuscation and manipulation of truth. Are there ever truly collective societies if there are hierarchical control paradigms? And yet here they clearly are. . . still. The people have grown wise to false collectivism before, no reason why they wouldn't again if it were to be imposed artificially. It matters not if you claim the fascists are a threat to the Jews, the homosexuals, the blacks, women . . . whoever. The left is always invoking societies fear of the reactionaries to impose their "vision" of some egalitarian top down collectivist utopia. But who's to be in charge? You? "Independent" bankers? The international elites? The IMF, UN, WTO, WHO? I'll tell you who won't be in charge. . . the local communities, the local people. That's right, they're too stupid to know what is in the best interest for themselves, their children, their families and their communities. It's best to make laws from far off ruling capitols to tell them what their money is worth, what their labor and savings are worth, and in the end, what their morality and lives are worth. Isn't it? Well, I guess that's what Mr. Obama is best at. . . .

 

[joepistole]

Wow. This sounds like the same communist CCCP propaganda that Stalin and Mao used to justify the wholesale slaughter of their "enemies."

The lazy, bigoted and ill educated people just need to be "re-educated" or eliminated.

You blather on and on about, "racism" on the right, but it is used by the left just as much. All these things you accuse one side of using, the other side uses as well, to the same extent to achieve its' goals just as much. No side has its' hands clean. What it is, is an attempt by those who control both sides to get them to divert their attention from who is controlling them all, the classic Hegelian Dialectic.

Your assumption is that collective societies can be imposed by a top down hierarchy of force, obfuscation and manipulation of truth. Are there ever truly collective societies if there are hierarchical control paradigms? And yet here they clearly are. . . still. The people have grown wise to false collectivism before, no reason why they wouldn't again if it were to be imposed artificially. It matters not if you claim the fascists are a threat to the Jews, the homosexuals, the blacks, women . . . whoever. The left is always invoking societies fear of the reactionaries to impose their "vision" of some egalitarian top down collectivist utopia. But who's to be in charge? You? "Independent" bankers? The international elites? The IMF, UN, WTO, WHO? I'll tell you who won't be in charge. . . the local communities, the local people. That's right, they're too stupid to know what is in the best interest for themselves, their children, their families and their communities. It's best to make laws from far off ruling capitols to tell them what their money is worth, what their labor and savings are worth, and in the end, what their morality and lives are worth. Isn't it? Well, I guess that's what Mr. Obama is best at. . . .

No this is you dumping your personal trash on Grumpy. Grumpy made an honest mistake. Grumpy didn't say or do anything that warranted that manure dump.

 

[Grumpy]

The Esotericist



You left out the relivant passage to bold...

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Last I looked, Hawaii is a state. In the United States. Born to an American citizen. Obama is a citizen and is our President no matter how much that really, really bothers you.

The rest of you posts seem to be some sort of personal angst problem. I posted my conclusions about what motivates Birthers, your spew has done nothing to disabuse me of that conclusion. I suggest you examine your own behavior in light of that evidence.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

"According to archive.org, a website that caches websites on a regular basis, the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007.

Archive.org shows that the Dystel website used the following biography for Obama as of April 3, 2007:

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

Obama launched his presidential campaign in February 2007.

By April 21, 2007, the Obama bio had been changed to state that Obama was born in Hawaii:

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Hawaii to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

Obama had already been a national figure for three years, since the Democratic National Convention in 2004, by the time the biography was changed; he had been a sitting Senator for over two years."

Wow, that's a big "so what".

 

[The Esotericist]

The Esotericist



You left out the relivant passage to bold...

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Last I looked, Hawaii is a state. In the United States. Born to an American citizen. Obama is a citizen and is our President no matter how much that really, really bothers you.

The rest of you posts seem to be some sort of personal angst problem. I posted my conclusions about what motivates Birthers, your spew has done nothing to disabuse me of that conclusion. I suggest you examine your own behavior in light of that evidence.

Grumpy

Oh, I was posting based on your assumption that it doesn't matter where the POTUS was born, and that he is still a citizen, that was your contention. I was simply stating, you are wrong. If you want to retract that statement and cling to his newly revised claim that he was born in Hawaii, that is fine.

Frankly, I don't really care. I'm not a "birther." There are so many other so called incidents that the political, cultural, scientific, and financial establishment ruling paradigm has labeled "conspiracies" that are much more important, that this one little issue is really a non-issue in my book. My interests and my ego have no horse in this race. If Romney were to win? There would be no substantial change in the BIG issues that really matter. Not in financial policy. Not in foreign policy. They are both big government Keynesian internationalists that seek to forward the goals of the globalists. What do I care which one wins?

On this topic, here's what I know to be facts, unclouded by my ego rooting for one guy in the ring or the other. After reading this thread, I was astounded, literally shocked, that in the past, Obama has claimed to be born in Kenya. Now, for political expediency, he claims to be born in Hawaii. So we know he is an opportunist, and quite clearly a liar. We could list the promises he has broken, but it is pretty clear, he says things he never intends to fulfill. Who cares, all politicians that are shills for the global elites are the same. But at least we know where he stands, right?

If he REALLY wanted to resolve this whole issue he could, but he doesn't need to or want to. Why? We can only speculate. We can say it denigrate him and the office if we want to defend him, or we can say he was born in Kenya and he doesn't have the goods if we don't trust him if we want to crucify him. But the facts are, he is a liar. He promised a more open and honest government, yet he has the most closed and secretive government in history. I really don't know why any intelligent person would continue to blindly support him. Oh wait, actually, I do. I don't have the time to get into it here today. I have studied the mass psychology of how and why Hitler was able to seduce so many into believing his lies. The same principles apply here. Even when Obama's lies are clearly shown to be just that, lies, a large mass of people will go on to continue to believe them. The large majority of the MSM continue to meet at the CFR and weave a story the sounds good to the people, plus, the government's own media outlets are always kind to the President.

Is the government more transparent? Is Gitmo closed? Did he end the wars and not start any more? Fat chance to all of this. He is just as bad as the previous president if not worse. Yet his supporters are just as empty headed as zombies, or as the Germans were that supported Hitler. . . and for the same reasons. Study mass political identity and psychology to understand why.

Even if it came out that he WASN'T eligible to be elected a U.S. president, I hardly think Obama supporters would even care. That is how little they care about the core philosophical underpinnings of the constitutional laws of the nation, and care more about the cult of personality and partisan politics. Thinking about political philosophy has no place in this nation anymore.

 

[The Esotericist]

Obama's lawyers have admitted that this long form birth certificate they released IS a forgery. He IS a liar. Yet they still feel he should be allowed to run. What they hell? See, I told you.

A lawyer representing U.S. President Barack Obama has admitted the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House last year is a forgery – but that does not disqualify him from appearing on the ballot this November.

Defense attorney Alexandra M. Hill made the comments during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing, brought about by Tea Party members who question his eligibility to appear on the state’s presidential primary ballot. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, argued that President Obama has furnished proof of his “natural born” citizenship status to the state of New Jersey.

Apuzzo went on to say that Obama’s father was not an American citizen, meaning President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and ineligible for the office he holds.

Hill tried to dismiss the suit because, while the U.S. Constitution limits the office of president to only those who have a “natural born” citizenship status, New Jersey law does not require a candidate to furnish proof of his or her status.

According to the Tea Party Tribune, Hill went on to admit that the long form birth certificate released online by the White House in April 2011 is indeed a forgery that did not originate from an actual paper document and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status.

The issue of the birth certificate is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot,” Hill contended.

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/15/obama-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/13/obama-lawyer-admits-forgery-but-disregards-image-as-indication-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/

“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

 

[joepistole]

Obama's lawyers have admitted that this long form birth certificate they released IS a forgery. He IS a liar. Yet they still feel he should be allowed to run. What they hell? See, I told you.

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/15/obama-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/13/obama-lawyer-admits-forgery-but-disregards-image-as-indication-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/

How many times have you been banned from Sciforms for posting crap?

 

[The Esotericist]

How many times have you been banned from Sciforms for posting crap?

Never. I don't know why you call facts crap. These events took place. Sorry if you don't like reality. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, ain't it? When you don't like the evidence presented by a source, your only other alternative is to attack the source, isn't it? You see the tag line, "tea party," so you naturally assume the information in it isn't factual, don't you?

That's called an ad hominem fallacy, meaning you attack the source of the information rather than the information. You just refuse to believe the information because it doesn't come from one of your approved sources. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is. Sorry you live in a world of Media Black Out. But there it is. Obama's Lawyers have admitted to being in leagues with forgers. But techies have long known that piece of crap released last year purporting to be a long form birth certificate was just that, computer generated imagery. And bad imagery at that.

I've only ever got one warning, for calling someone a name that couldn't handle a little rough and tumble banter. Gee. . . I wonder who that could be?

I do my own research, I do my own thinking, I don't parrot the establishment paradigm. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable. But I try to play by the rules at all times. The is why I am indispensable to a forum of scientific inquiry. If people want opinions like yours? They can just go watch the nightly news for that propaganda. Science and Freedom need free thinkers independent of the establishment. Banning people like me will lead to the police state, you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot. I'm looking out for your best interests.

 

[spidergoat]

Esotericist, there is no evidence at either one of those links. It's all hearsay.

 

[joepistole]

Never. I don't know why you call facts crap. These events took place. Sorry if you don't like reality. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, ain't it? When you don't like the evidence presented by a source, your only other alternative is to attack the source, isn't it? You see the tag line, "tea party," so you naturally assume the information in it isn't factual, don't you?

Is your nose growing?

If what you are offering here was truthful, you might have a case. But it is not. You have to resort to using some very uncredible sources to back up your claims. Show me, using credible sources, where just one thing you have said is true. Show where, again using a credible source, where President Obama's lawyers admitted that the long form birth certificate they procured and released was a fraud. You can't.

Two, before you go talking about the cognitive biases of others, perhaps you should take a long hard look at yourself. I am not the one resorting to disreputable web sites to back up my claims - you are. Not everything published on the web is true. Mindlessly repeating something you have read on the web does not make it true. Mindlessly repeating sources and accepting as fact information from sources that have been proven time and time again as not being truthful, is more than a bit unwise to say the least. If you are going to use sources, you should use sources that have a record of being correct versus those that have a near 100% record of being wrong.

That's called an ad hominem fallacy, meaning you attack the source of the information rather than the information. You just refuse to believe the information because it doesn't come from one of your approved sources. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is. Sorry you live in a world of Media Black Out. But there it is. Obama's Lawyers have admitted to being in leagues with forgers. But techies have long known that piece of crap released last year purporting to be a long form birth certificate was just that, computer generated imagery. And bad imagery at that.

Prove your claim about Obama's lawyers. Quoting people who are making the claim, just repeating the allegation is not proof.

I've only ever got one warning, for calling someone a name that couldn't handle a little rough and tumble banter. Gee. . . I wonder who that could be?

I do my own research, I do my own thinking, I don't parrot the establishment paradigm. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable. But I try to play by the rules at all times. The is why I am indispensable to a forum of scientific inquiry. If people want opinions like yours? They can just go watch the nightly news for that propaganda. Science and Freedom need free thinkers independent of the establishment. Banning people like me will lead to the police state, you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot. I'm looking out for your best interests.

Just what is the establishment paradigm exactly? Yes science and freedom need free thinkers, but they also need real verifiable evidence and reason.

 

[spidergoat]

Contrary to poor reporting... at no time during the hearings did Alexandra Hill or any other lawyer representing Barack Obama "admit that the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House is a total forgery." Hill merely agreed to a stipulation that the image of Obama's birth certificate posted on the White House web site would not be used as evidence in the case, as his campaign had never presented it to the state or the court as proof of his eligibility in the first place (because there was no requirement for them to do so).​

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ineligible.asp

 

[pjdude1219]

Actually, that's not true. There is no clear definition of "natural-born citizen" but it is generally agreed that it amounts to a person being born on US soil, whether in the states themselves or abroad. Obama's mother's citizenship is therefore irrelevant, and has been ever since the last Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802.

The reason no one cares about McCain's place of birth is that he was born on an American military base, which is US soil no matter where in the world it is.

But I do agree that this Birther stuff is nonsense. I'm not so quick to say it's racially motivated, because Obama isn't the first candidate to have his citizenship question (in fact, he's the first major candidate of color to endure such accusations). We've all seen how Republicans operate, this should be no surprise.

Actualy McCain was born off the military base making him acceding to the laws at the time not a natural born citizen according to the letter of the law. I don't know about u but u feel the spirit of the law is more important

 

[Carcano]

My interests and my ego have no horse in this race. If Romney were to win? There would be no substantial change in the BIG issues that really matter. Not in financial policy. Not in foreign policy. They are both big government Keynesian internationalists that seek to forward the goals of the globalists. What do I care which one wins?

Is the government more transparent? Is Gitmo closed? Did he end the wars and not start any more? Fat chance to all of this. He is just as bad as the previous president if not worse. Yet his supporters are just as empty headed as zombies, or as the Germans were that supported Hitler. . . and for the same reasons. Study mass political identity and psychology to understand why.

Even if it came out that he WASN'T eligible to be elected a U.S. president, I hardly think Obama supporters would even care. That is how little they care about the core philosophical underpinnings of the constitutional laws of the nation, and care more about the cult of personality and partisan politics. Thinking about political philosophy has no place in this nation anymore.

Brilliant comments!

If we havent moved our money into a credit union...we are still part of the global problem.

 

[Grumpy]

The Esotericist


Obama is President, get used to it(Romney is already toast and the Rethugs know it).

You should probably seek professional help for that severe, terminal, gullibility thing and examine the motives for it's grip on your behavior and attitudes. While I have had much experience dealing with it in the case of Truthers, this subject is just too silly and irrelivant to be worth any effort on my part. I never had any success in treating Truthers, anyway, they too are immune to facts or logic.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

Brilliant comments!

If we havent moved our money into a credit union...we are still part of the global problem.

He's wrong of course. Romney's financial policy would allow Wall Street to regulate congress. His foreign policy would be to create an enemy of Russia, and to attack Iran. Those are clear differences between him and Obama. He hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay, but they are no longer torturing people there, so that's a step in the right direction. Being president is often about compromise.

 

[The Esotericist]

Esotericist, there is no evidence at either one of those links. It's all hearsay.

AND ??!

Contrary to poor reporting... at no time during the hearings did Alexandra Hill or any other lawyer representing Barack Obama "admit that the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House is a total forgery." Hill merely agreed to a stipulation that the image of Obama's birth certificate posted on the White House web site would not be used as evidence in the case, as his campaign had never presented it to the state or the court as proof of his eligibility in the first place (because there was no requirement for them to do so).​

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ineligible.asp

How can you in one breath claim sources have no basis in reality and they are just spreading rumors on wishful thinking. . . "heresay" as you put it. Then in the next post you have a link to a video of the actual event?

You know, "De nile" isn't just a river in Egypt.

Granted, that video was a cherry picked seventeen second soundbite from the court proceedings to establish an epistemological world view that the campaign is not lying to the American public, implying that this CGI birth certificate is authentic. The truth is actually something entirely different if you view the significant portion of the proceedings.

What are the significant facts?

1. The Obama defense feels that it does not need to show any proof of citizenship to run for president.

Are you shitting me? SERIOUSLY? And they want this whole "birther" issue to disappear? That's their defense? Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, but that is really weak, it implies guilt if nothing else.

2. It does not, and has not entered into as evidence this CGI long form birth certificate in any (as far as I know) court of law. Nor would they dare. For any techie knows, it would not stand up to the light of investigative scrutiny.

3. The Obama defense feels the burden of proof to prove that Obama is a natural born citizen is on the consul.

Again, are you shitting me? The judge shot the defense down on that one. That is why the motion to dismiss was essentially over ruled. The judge has nothing entered into evidence from the defense. NOTHING, bupkiss, nada, nothing, zilch.

Snopes.com is a mouth piece of the establishment. They should stick to urban legends and stay out of interpreting political discourse. Before people use it to further political agendas or to verify their own confirmation bias, they ought to do some research on who founded it, how it gets its funding, and it's political and epistemological point of view. I'm not saying it is a totally useless tool for investigative purposes, but only that one shouldn't let snopes do your thinking and interpreting for you.

Obama Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate Is A Forgery (court video)

Here's the short of the reasoning on those pages I linked to. If what the administration released last summer were indeed authentic, why not let the legitimate authorities in question SEE the original copy? It would end the litigation in now over half a dozen states. As it stands, the above exchange amounts to an admittance of "yes, we forged a document, released it to the MSM to pacify a bigoted, ignorant, and easily fooled populace."

Did they ever think it would have to stand up to technological scrutiny? :shrug:

I really don't give a damn. Frankly, I don't think they do either. They (elites both left and right of the dialectic) have shit on the constitution so many times already, again, I ask you, the Obama supporters, DO YOU REALLY CARE IF HE MEETS THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE?

I don't think most of his supporters really do, do you?

 

[The Esotericist]

He's wrong of course. Romney's financial policy would allow Wall Street to regulate congress. His foreign policy would be to create an enemy of Russia, and to attack Iran. Those are clear differences between him and Obama. He hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay, but they are no longer torturing people there, so that's a step in the right direction. Being president is often about compromise.

You're so disingenuous. Wall street is already regulating congress. The financial regulations are meant to stop wall street from being a casino, yet the banks still play fast and loose with investors money. What bank just lost several billion with out any repercussions? The missile defense initiative is going forward as planned either way, and it really doesn't matter who wins, Iran will be attacked just as soon as the election is over when covert agencies can create a crises and pin it on Iran. Look how those covert agencies are causing terror in Syria with special ops trying to start a war there thus trying to drum up an excuse for intervention there. Tell me that isn't pissing off Russia and China. Can you, with a clear conscious promise that Iran won't be attacked if Obama stays in office, seriously? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.