Birthers Will "Move The Goalpost" If The Original Shown?
Originally Posted by [Phill
]Also i googled Chester A Arthur assuming he would be who he was, i loled. Good job birthers, you have narrowed a definition so far (and without legal standing) that the 21st President wasnt eligible.
Of course, Chester A. Arthur is really irrelevant anyway. His birth came before ratification of the 14th amendment. It's still interesting, however, because there were questions about his birth. Some thought that he was born in Ireland and then smuggled over.
The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue in terms of "natural-born", but Congress did pass the 14th amendment. It's still as powerful now as ever. By attacking it, not only are birthers making a mockery of the political process, they are actively trying to remove a sitting president. Under the birther's logic, Governor Bobby Jindal is ineligible to run for president because he was born in Louisiana to two immigrants who moved to the United States six months before he was born. In fact, if you go over to Freeperville, you will see the birthers saying that Jindal is ineligible for this reason. They have to be consistent now. They can't let their hero Jindal be eligible because that would legitimize Obama. Now you'd think that in light of that crap, Jindal wouldn't be a fan of the birthers. You'd be wrong. :P It didn't stop this anchor baby from saying he'd sign the birther bill that Republicans are pushing in Louisiana, however. Obviously, Jindal is eligible to run for president just like Obama was. Being born here satisfies the natural-born requirement.
The Supreme Court has said that unincorporated territories were not part of these United States, and at the time John McCain was born, the Canal Zone was one of those unincorporated territories. There are only two ways to get U.S. citizenship -- either through birth or through naturalization. Considering John McCain didn't obtain his until a year after he was born, I'd argue that makes him ineligible. Congress tried to fix their mistake by making the 1937 law retroactive, but I don't see how you can retroactively make someone a natural-born citizen. You can't go back in time. If birthers think that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have considered Obama a natural-born citizen, well... I seriously doubt that the Fathers would have considered it possible to retroactively give someone natural-born citizenship.
Again, it is a terrible loophole that some argue makes him ineligible. It is a terrible loophole because if John McCain had been born in Canada, territory that is clearly outside the province of the U.S., he'd clearly be eligible and he could obtain his U.S. citizenship at birth via statute, because he was born to two U.S. parents. U.S. incorporated territories at the time, however, were kind of in a grey zone. Not U.S. soil, but not foreign soil either. Others have argued that he is in fact eligible. Either way, it's clearly a more contentious argument and those who think that John McCain was ineligible to be president CLEARLY have more facts and more supporting theories on their side than those who doubt Obama's eligibility. Those who doubted John McCain's eligibility have the constitution on their side as well as the opinion of a well-regarded law professor at the University of Arizona. Birthers have Orly Taitz and Joe the Plumber's second cousin.
Phill, if this type of stuff interests you, I highly recommend taking a look at the University of Arizona law professor's article published in 2008. I paraphrased a bunch of the stuff in this post from it. You can download it here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act-id=1157621
It also gives a very good background of the various statutory and constitutional provisions for natural-born citizenship.
Dead,
I think you are missing some of the subtlety of the birthers' arguments. (Holy ****, did I just type that?)
Anyway, they claim that a "natural born" citizen is a different standard from a regular citizen. There is some quote by John Jay that apparently indicates he believes that a "natural born citizen" must have citizen parents and be born in the USA.
The fact that the courts have never (to my knowledge) ruled on what exactly a natural born citizen is leaves them a sort of gray area to play these stupid games.
I think you are missing some of the subtlety of the birthers' arguments. (Holy ****, did I just type that?)
Anyway, they claim that a "natural born" citizen is a different standard from a regular citizen. There is some quote by John Jay that apparently indicates he believes that a "natural born citizen" must have citizen parents and be born in the USA.
The fact that the courts have never (to my knowledge) ruled on what exactly a natural born citizen is leaves them a sort of gray area to play these stupid games.
Had he not been born in the United States, he would not be a U.S. citizen, and would be an unconstitutional usurper. If, for example, the long form had revealed what the mouth-breathing birthers hoped it would -- that he was born in Kenya or some other African country, then he would not be eligible. The reason for this is that statutory law (another way to obtain natural-born citizenship besides being born in the country) at the time didn't allow for it. At the time, the statute said that if one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, and the other is not, then your U.S. citizen parent must have spent 5 years in the country after the age of 14. This was obviously an impossible qualification for Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother to meet, because she was only 18 years old when he was born. Again, however, it is irrelevant, because he was born in a U.S. state, two years after it was granted statehood. Automatic natural-born citizen.
Dead,
I think you are missing some of the subtlety of the birthers' arguments. (Holy ****, did I just type that?)
Anyway, they claim that a "natural born" citizen is a different standard from a regular citizen. There is some quote by John Jay that apparently indicates he believes that a "natural born citizen" must have citizen parents and be born in the USA.
The fact that the courts have never (to my knowledge) ruled on what exactly a natural born citizen is leaves them a sort of gray area to play these stupid games.
I think you are missing some of the subtlety of the birthers' arguments. (Holy ****, did I just type that?)
Anyway, they claim that a "natural born" citizen is a different standard from a regular citizen. There is some quote by John Jay that apparently indicates he believes that a "natural born citizen" must have citizen parents and be born in the USA.
The fact that the courts have never (to my knowledge) ruled on what exactly a natural born citizen is leaves them a sort of gray area to play these stupid games.
Originally Posted by Dead
As I mentioned in the birther thread started by Nick Van Exel (that I think was later shut down), the racist birthers would just move on to something else if he released the long-form. They'd jump on it and claim it's a forgery, and if that fails, then they'd move on to their other arguments.
Here is the new argument being pushed by the mouth-breathers. I hope that people on THIS forum are intelligent enough to understand that it is a bull**** argument. If someone responds to my post and thinks that there is any merit to the birthers new claims, you will be outing yourself as an idiot birther and you should be ridiculed.
With that, here is the new claim:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42786288...decision_2012/
"In fact, Farah said, Obama’s citizenship, not his birth, is actually the principal theme of World Net Daily’s upcoming book by Jerome Corsi titled, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.” Corsi first garnered headlines in 2004 as one of the architects of the so-called “Swift Boat” attacks on John Kerry’s war record. "
"Even if [the birth certificate] is authentic, Farah said the real issue is that Obama is still not eligible to be president because his father was Kenyan and his adopted father was Indonesian, making him a potential “dual citizen” of two separate foreign countries. (Farah supplied no evidence to support his contention that Obama ever held “dual citizenship.” Nor did he explain why it would make any difference, given Obama’s birth to an American mother on U.S. soil, which would meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that he be a “natural-born citizen.”)
“I know for some people this settles the issue,” Farah said of the birth certificate. “It’s up to us to persuade people that there’s a lot more to this issue than the Hawaiian birth.”
Okay, so that's one of the things Republicans are pimping now. What's the response from someone who, you know, actually knows about the law and the Constitution, someone, like, say, a Harvard law professor?
"'A totally wacky argument'
Asked about Farah's contention, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe said by email that this is "a totally wacky argument, without any conceivable merit. ... The 14th amendment unambiguously and expressly confers U.S. citizenship on everyone ‘born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ This means that Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen at birth. independent of the citizenship or age of either or both of his biological or adoptive parents. ... This birther thing is a moving target, rather like the creatures in the “Night of the Living Dead.” Driving a stake through its heart seems incapable of killing it.")"
That should settle this, right? Hardly. The freepers don't believe it. The nutty freakshows think that Obama are breaking down into three camps: The first group suspects the document is a fake. The second group thinks it might be real, but even if it is real, they subscribe to Joseph Farah's idiotic crap like mentioned above, that someone can't be a U.S. citizen unless they're born in the U.S. to TWO U.S. citizen parents. That is crap, as we know. Chester A. Arthur was born to a father who did not have U.S. citizenship at the time. The 14th amendment also trumps (no pun intended) all of this citizenship debate. Pre-14th amendment, they'd have a case for saying Obama isn't eligible. But anyone born in the United States after 1868, except those born to foreign diplomats, is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth. They were NATURALLY BORN. They didn't have to go through the naturalization process. Their citizenship conferred automatically on them due to the fact that they were born in this country.
Freepers and other idiot birthers like to ignore the 14th amendment because they hate our president and because they hate America (hey, it's fair game, right? I mean that's what they accused liberals of during the run up to the Iraq War). They hate our country and our trying to subvert the very document that we hold dear by citing random crap from foreign philosophers like de Vattel who wrote his bull**** in French and his crap is obviously not binding on ANY U.S. Court. The 14th amendment, however, is. Anyone born here to non foreign diplomats is a U.S. citizen. Osama Bin Laden's child would be eligible for the presidency if born here, Prince William and Kate Middleton's children would be eligible for the presidency if born here, and President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president because HE was born here. Anyone saying that he is ineligible for the office despite the fact that he was born in Hawaii is a piece-of-**** birther who hates this country and, as I've said before on here (in Nick Van Exel's thread) is arguably guilty of pimping sedition.
Here is the new argument being pushed by the mouth-breathers. I hope that people on THIS forum are intelligent enough to understand that it is a bull**** argument. If someone responds to my post and thinks that there is any merit to the birthers new claims, you will be outing yourself as an idiot birther and you should be ridiculed.
With that, here is the new claim:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42786288...decision_2012/
"In fact, Farah said, Obama’s citizenship, not his birth, is actually the principal theme of World Net Daily’s upcoming book by Jerome Corsi titled, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.” Corsi first garnered headlines in 2004 as one of the architects of the so-called “Swift Boat” attacks on John Kerry’s war record. "
"Even if [the birth certificate] is authentic, Farah said the real issue is that Obama is still not eligible to be president because his father was Kenyan and his adopted father was Indonesian, making him a potential “dual citizen” of two separate foreign countries. (Farah supplied no evidence to support his contention that Obama ever held “dual citizenship.” Nor did he explain why it would make any difference, given Obama’s birth to an American mother on U.S. soil, which would meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that he be a “natural-born citizen.”)
“I know for some people this settles the issue,” Farah said of the birth certificate. “It’s up to us to persuade people that there’s a lot more to this issue than the Hawaiian birth.”
Okay, so that's one of the things Republicans are pimping now. What's the response from someone who, you know, actually knows about the law and the Constitution, someone, like, say, a Harvard law professor?
"'A totally wacky argument'
Asked about Farah's contention, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe said by email that this is "a totally wacky argument, without any conceivable merit. ... The 14th amendment unambiguously and expressly confers U.S. citizenship on everyone ‘born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ This means that Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen at birth. independent of the citizenship or age of either or both of his biological or adoptive parents. ... This birther thing is a moving target, rather like the creatures in the “Night of the Living Dead.” Driving a stake through its heart seems incapable of killing it.")"
That should settle this, right? Hardly. The freepers don't believe it. The nutty freakshows think that Obama are breaking down into three camps: The first group suspects the document is a fake. The second group thinks it might be real, but even if it is real, they subscribe to Joseph Farah's idiotic crap like mentioned above, that someone can't be a U.S. citizen unless they're born in the U.S. to TWO U.S. citizen parents. That is crap, as we know. Chester A. Arthur was born to a father who did not have U.S. citizenship at the time. The 14th amendment also trumps (no pun intended) all of this citizenship debate. Pre-14th amendment, they'd have a case for saying Obama isn't eligible. But anyone born in the United States after 1868, except those born to foreign diplomats, is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth. They were NATURALLY BORN. They didn't have to go through the naturalization process. Their citizenship conferred automatically on them due to the fact that they were born in this country.
Freepers and other idiot birthers like to ignore the 14th amendment because they hate our president and because they hate America (hey, it's fair game, right? I mean that's what they accused liberals of during the run up to the Iraq War). They hate our country and our trying to subvert the very document that we hold dear by citing random crap from foreign philosophers like de Vattel who wrote his bull**** in French and his crap is obviously not binding on ANY U.S. Court. The 14th amendment, however, is. Anyone born here to non foreign diplomats is a U.S. citizen. Osama Bin Laden's child would be eligible for the presidency if born here, Prince William and Kate Middleton's children would be eligible for the presidency if born here, and President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president because HE was born here. Anyone saying that he is ineligible for the office despite the fact that he was born in Hawaii is a piece-of-**** birther who hates this country and, as I've said before on here (in Nick Van Exel's thread) is arguably guilty of pimping sedition.
Originally Posted by Dead
According to the idiotic and racist birthers, there are three ways to acquire U.S. citizenship: you are born to two U.S. parents (natural-born), you are born on U.S. soil to anyone other than foreign diplomats (citizenship by birth), or you are naturalized (born somewhere else to aliens and emigrate here and are naturalized).
They think they're so ****ing brilliant but it's horse****. People born here (unless to foreign diplomats, because then they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws) ARE U.S. citizens AT BIRTH. They are natural-born citizens. You either acquire U.S. citizenship at birth or you have to go through the procedure of acquiring it. THERE ARE ONLY TWO CATEGORIES OF U.S. CITIZENS (BORN AND NATURALIZED). There aren't two subcategories of born citizens (natural-born and non-natural born (14th amendment citizens)). It's a scam. The courts keep smacking them down because they don't have standing and the idiotic birthers use every case dismissal as more evidence that the court system and everyone else is in cahoots with Obama. The idiots even think that Obama made a mistake releasing the long form because, get this: they think that now EVERYONE will realize that Obama's dad wasn't a U.S. citizen and that the birther thing will now really get going. HEY, MORONS. Most people in America have known since 2008 that Obama's dad wasn't born here. He wrote about it in his BOOK. So stop acting like this is some brand-spanking-new revelation and that it is your golden ticket. You are morons and you hate America. It honestly does border on sedition. They are trying to call into question his legitimacy to be president when the proof is iron-clad. They're holocaust deniers at this point. They had the faintest shred of hope that the long-form didn't exist. That's now gone.
They think they're so ****ing brilliant but it's horse****. People born here (unless to foreign diplomats, because then they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws) ARE U.S. citizens AT BIRTH. They are natural-born citizens. You either acquire U.S. citizenship at birth or you have to go through the procedure of acquiring it. THERE ARE ONLY TWO CATEGORIES OF U.S. CITIZENS (BORN AND NATURALIZED). There aren't two subcategories of born citizens (natural-born and non-natural born (14th amendment citizens)). It's a scam. The courts keep smacking them down because they don't have standing and the idiotic birthers use every case dismissal as more evidence that the court system and everyone else is in cahoots with Obama. The idiots even think that Obama made a mistake releasing the long form because, get this: they think that now EVERYONE will realize that Obama's dad wasn't a U.S. citizen and that the birther thing will now really get going. HEY, MORONS. Most people in America have known since 2008 that Obama's dad wasn't born here. He wrote about it in his BOOK. So stop acting like this is some brand-spanking-new revelation and that it is your golden ticket. You are morons and you hate America. It honestly does border on sedition. They are trying to call into question his legitimacy to be president when the proof is iron-clad. They're holocaust deniers at this point. They had the faintest shred of hope that the long-form didn't exist. That's now gone.
Well, if most birthers are on the right wing, yeah. What you're arguing above doesn't address the argument that you were replying to, that it's ideology that's driving the birthers and not racism. If McCain had won, it wouldn't be the current birthers raising any issues, it would have been the left wing. To wit:
That is quite different from repeatedly accusing a presidential candidate of producing a forged birth certificate, using a stolen social security number, being a secret Muslim, and all kinds of other vile ****. And FWIW, if McCain had won, I wouldn't be pimping this issue. The U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution stating that McCain was eligible (that Obama supported BY THE WAY), and I trust in their judgment. I also trust the judgment of Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olsen that John McCain was eligible. I realize that it would be very wrong to deny him the chance to be president considering he was born abroad to a U.S. Admiral who was serving his country in the military. Democrats in the Senate realized this and although some of them knew that he might not be eligible, they realized that you have to pick your battles, and this wasn't a worthwhile one. You don't have to believe me, but I'm talking about it now only because it illustrates how IDIOTIC THE BIRTHERS REALLY ARE. And how does it do that you may ask? Because some legal scholars made legitimate claims that McCain was ineligible to hold the office. No legal scholar, on the other hand, has ever advanced the argument that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz doesn't count as a legal scholar, sorry. She's one more filing away from being disbarred for out-and-out fraud.
Birther?
Yeah, I read that. But the constitution absolutely says "natural born citizen"s are the only ones who can become president, so it doesn't really matter to their argument that the phrase isn't used to confer citizenship in law today. Plus they have a quote form John Jay, you know. (They ignore the one from Madison that suggests the opposite).
Not that it makes their argument any less stupid, however.
Wait, unless Chester A Arthur did some **** I don't like that can now be undone. Checking....
Not that it makes their argument any less stupid, however.
Wait, unless Chester A Arthur did some **** I don't like that can now be undone. Checking....
As Dead says, not only is the evidence no "all things being equal" the very fact you think they wouldnt care about McCain as he was "their guy" sums up that there is at least some prejudice in play.
Is it racism? Well, we dont have a control study, but its surely more than them having questions about the evidence and racism is the easy answer if you want to reach to one i suppose.
Is it racism? Well, we dont have a control study, but its surely more than them having questions about the evidence and racism is the easy answer if you want to reach to one i suppose.
I didn't want to get to into this because McCain didn't win and it's a moot point, but there are solid legal arguments to be made that he was not a natural-born citizen. There are certainly other arguments on the other side to be made however as well, that the 14th amendment did apply to the Canal Zone. Either way, that is a legitimate constitutional argument to have.
blah blah blah
Birther?
And it's not just Trump. Go surf over to Freeperville, although I suspect you already have a membership in GOOD STANDING. They were the first birthers and they're cheering Trump on, saying that Obama should show all of his transcripts going back to kindergarten. This show me your papers bull**** is unquestionably racist. It was never just about the birth certificate. It's about delegitimizing the first African-American president this country has had and if you can't see that then you're ignorant or just plain blind. Now that their birther campaign has failed they are moving on to the college transcripts. You're right though, not racist, right? Give me a break. Trump may not be a genius but he has some intelligence. It's a dog whistle for the right.
The idiots talk about how Obama has to show all of this crap or else he's not fulfilling his pledge to be the most transparent administration of all time. Tell me how his college transcripts have anything to do with transparency in his administration's policies or shut up about it.
Nah, I don't think you're one, even though your logic seems to be as bad as theirs.
Yeah, I read that. But the constitution absolutely says "natural born citizen"s are the only ones who can become president, so it doesn't really matter to their argument that the phrase isn't used to confer citizenship in law today. Plus they have a quote form John Jay, you know. (They ignore the one from Madison that suggests the opposite).
Not that it makes their argument any less stupid, however.
Wait, unless Chester A Arthur did some **** I don't like that can now be undone. Checking....
Not that it makes their argument any less stupid, however.
Wait, unless Chester A Arthur did some **** I don't like that can now be undone. Checking....
You realize their primary source for this crap is a Swiss guy who wrote his book in French, right? They translated it and something is always lost in translation. De Vattel never used the phrase "natural-born citizen" either. It wasn't a part of the French vernacular. And the 14th amendment trumps it anyway. You'll never satisfy the racist birthers or their caffeinated defenders on here.
As Dead says, not only is the evidence no "all things being equal" the very fact you think they wouldnt care about McCain as he was "their guy" sums up that there is at least some prejudice in play.
Is it racism? Well, we dont have a control study, but its surely more than them having questions about the evidence and racism is the easy answer if you want to reach to one i suppose.
Is it racism? Well, we dont have a control study, but its surely more than them having questions about the evidence and racism is the easy answer if you want to reach to one i suppose.
Though, is it better or worse that they aren't calling Obama a drug-dealing murderer as they did Clinton? Do they think such accusations wouldn't stick on Obama, or do they fear being labeled racist were they to go down that path?
And it's not just Trump. Go surf over to Freeperville, although I suspect you already have a membership in GOOD STANDING.
It's about delegitimizing the first African-American president this country has had and if you can't see that then you're ignorant or just plain blind. Now that their birther campaign has failed they are moving on to the college transcripts. You're right though, not racist, right? Give me a break. Trump may not be a genius but he has some intelligence. It's a dog whistle for the right.
Only someone with no reading comprehension skills would compare a legal argument challenging McCain's eligibility to what the birthers are doing.
I mean, there were a lot of people (maybe not you) that would (and did!) attack McCain for the same issue people were attacking Obama. And there were statements by law professors and the senate that showed McCain was actually eligible (as you pointed out). But--before the issues with Obama came up, and even afterwards--there were people who had their ideological blinders on with respect to McCain's eligibility. Obviously they weren't racist, because McCain was Caucasian...but if those same claims are made against Obama, it must be because of racism
Just to make sure you follow that--I'm not saying it ISN'T racism (as I'm sure you were going to jump to that conclusion). Just saying you've got a lot more work to do to make those assertions, and thus painting everyone with the 'racist' tag is quite premature.
I was going to let that pass, but since you had to take another uncalled for dig at me, thought I'd point it out.
BTW, I hope you realize there's a difference between defending someone and understanding someone. I would thank you to not jump to unfounded conclusions. Though I don't think you can stop.
Yeah, I read that. But the constitution absolutely says "natural born citizen"s are the only ones who can become president, so it doesn't really matter to their argument that the phrase isn't used to confer citizenship in law today. Plus they have a quote form John Jay, you know. (They ignore the one from Madison that suggests the opposite).
Not that it makes their argument any less stupid, however.
Wait, unless Chester A Arthur did some **** I don't like that can now be undone. Checking....
Not that it makes their argument any less stupid, however.
Wait, unless Chester A Arthur did some **** I don't like that can now be undone. Checking....
How can we say on one hand that all men are created equal, but then also say that, say, Mitt Romney is eligible for a job but Arnold Schwartzenegger isn't? That essentially makes all naturalized citizens second-class.
I wonder what would happen if the natural-born requirement was challenged on that basis?
How can we say on one hand that all men are created equal, but then also say that, say, Mitt Romney is eligible for a job but Arnold Schwartzenegger isn't? That essentially makes all naturalized citizens second-class.
I wonder what would happen if the natural-born requirement was challenged on that basis?
I wonder what would happen if the natural-born requirement was challenged on that basis?
See now, it seems like we have a conflict in the Constitution. If there is on the one hand an amendment delineating only 'natural born citizens' as being eligible for the Presidency, then how does that stack up against the equal protection clause?
How can we say on one hand that all men are created equal, but then also say that, say, Mitt Romney is eligible for a job but Arnold Schwartzenegger isn't? That essentially makes all naturalized citizens second-class.
I wonder what would happen if the natural-born requirement was challenged on that basis?
How can we say on one hand that all men are created equal, but then also say that, say, Mitt Romney is eligible for a job but Arnold Schwartzenegger isn't? That essentially makes all naturalized citizens second-class.
I wonder what would happen if the natural-born requirement was challenged on that basis?
Could be related to this, its coming out in about a month:
Where's the Birth Certificate?
Product Details
* Hardcover
* Publisher: WND Books (May 17, 2011)
Where's the Birth Certificate?
Product Details
* Hardcover
* Publisher: WND Books (May 17, 2011)
The author of this book is one of the same guys behind the largely-discredited Swift Boat fiction during the 2004 election. Though I doubt they would ever admit it, the WH may be taking this seriously and trying to get out in front of it (it's the only reason I can think of for not waiting until Oct 2012 to produce the long form). Many people (we will call them "idiots") still believe the swift boat fiction was true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Sad for the author that he's now drawing dead on book sales (the book was #1 on Amazon a week or so ago, it's not even in the top 50 last time I looked).
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/2...questions.html
Texas lawmaker still has questions:
Texas lawmaker still has questions:
Along with a print-out of today's White House blog post, Berman also had with him on the floor of the Texas House another document: a purported copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.
I don't consider myself a birther, and I really don't give a **** either way, but there's been a lot of talk that the BC is a forgery. Can anyone please explain to a layman such as myself why the claims in the following presentation are either complete b.s. or actually legitimate?
Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE