Welcome to Gaia! ::

Idol Syndrome's avatar

Tipsy Prophet

VirginianRanger
With the help of kyoji
VirginianRanger


Kyoji, I know this is way before your time but The Beatles had a song called "Think for yourself". You should try that.

User Image


Oh, Kyoji.....you're so funny! Some of the time. That's why they keep you around.

emotion_dowant
-I Am Foxx-
l Poetic I
" Independent News sites" don't mean s**t . This has been brought up enough times that you should know better.


Why don't they mean anything?


Because anyone can claim to be an Independent News site. All it means to be an independent news source is that it is not run by or funded by any private or public corporation. (basically, private corp = business. public corp = government)

I could start a blog, talk about the news, and call my blog an independent news site. Now, just because I'm an independent news site, that doesn't mean my information is automatically wrong. But it also doesn't mean my information is right. The poing Poetic was trying to make was that being and independent news site doesn't, in and of itself, give that site credibility.

So, let's look at the credibility of the site, shall we? Let's analyze our source. (which, btw, people should do for ALL news outlets, whether they're independent or not) Look at the "About" page for American Vision News.

Here are some lovely gems. (Or you can just skip to the summary in bold at the very bottom of the post for the short version)

Quote:

About
American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation. American Vision (AV) has been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live by a Biblically based worldview. Whether by making available educational resources about God & Government, or by tackling the formidable issue of eschatology [note from garra_eyes: eschatology is the theological study of the end of human life, the end of an age, and the end of the world] in the Church, AV is on the front lines, circulating material around the globe to Christians passionate to meet God on His terms in every area of life—right now and for generations to come.


Who are the people running this website? Very passionate Christians who want to talk about Christianity. Not exactly the description you'd expect a site whose main goal was unbiased political journalism to put forward about themselves and their qualifications, is it?

But wait, there's more!

Quote:

Mission
Restore America to its Biblical Foundation — From Genesis to Revelation — Psalm 11:3


Their mission statement is to "restore" America to a biblical foundation. (not that it ever had a biblical foundation, but shhhh! don't tell them that.) That's it. Their mission statement is not to present the news in a non-biased manner. In fact, they're telling you exactly what their bias is right here. They're fundamentalist Christians. I think that, by extension, we can also assume they're pretty hard core conservatives. (There might be one or two vaguely liberal fundamentalist Christians out there. Or... well... maybe some who just aren't hard-core conservatives. Maybe. But what are the chances that those two people happen to be running this site? Not good.)

Now, if these people are hard core conservatives, that already sets them as being very strongly biased against Obama, our very very liberal President. But let's go on.

Quote:

Vision
An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life, where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be again a “city on a hill” drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom.


Their vision? America as a Christian nation. Their vision isn't just that Jesus is awesome and they want to support anyone who wants to learn about him. Their vision is that everybody in America should be Christian. And then, this Christian America will make every other country Christian as well.

Obama has celebrated many traditions and holidays of other world religions during his time at the White House. How do you think AV feels about the President endorsing the legitimacy of any other religion besides Christianity?

Quote:

Publications
Bringing the best works of today’s and yesterday’s authors to a wide and thirsty market for God-honoring reading, American Vision meets atheism, Islam, socialism and revisionist history head-on.


AV specifically does not like atheism, Islam, and socialism. (Note: not really touching revisionist history, because when people, especially fundamentalists, complain about it, they're usually just complaining about people interpreting history differently than what they want it to be.) This site calls out these three philosophies specifically. They are the worst of the worst. They are directly opposed to everything AV is trying to preach.

Now Obama? He's a Christian. (Not surprising. Only 3 of our Presidents haven't identified as Christian. Two of those were Deists and one mentioned kind of having Christian beliefs, sort of, but wasn't a member of and didn't attend a specific church or denomination)

However, that hasn't stopped conservatives of accusing him of being Muslim. Sometimes with groups like AV, any accusation of not being against the people they dislike is as good as confirmation that you are for that group. As for socialism, live in any overwhelmingly conservative city, listen to people talk about Democrats, and you'll get an idea of just how many Democrats' ideas are referred to as socialist policies. (Or hell, just look at how ultra conservatives talk about Obamacare.)

That's one more tally (well, two really) in the "biased against Obama" column.




TL;DR: If you read what this "Independent News Source" is telling us its mission statement is, it's not to give us reliable, unbiased news. Their mission isn't even to give us any news, be it reliable or not, unbiased or not. Their mission statement is to make sure that America follows the bible. Their mission is to make America Christian and to reject and counter any ideas from Muslims, Atheists, Socialists, and anyone who has a different interpretation of history than they do.

Might there be reliable facts on this website? It's possible. But can we trust that their information is likely to be accurate based on anything we know about the people running the website? No. Therefore, there is no reason for us to trust that this site is a credible news source, especially given the many, many biases that the group running this site is likely to have.


Note: redbank.patch.com, the site AV took the article from, has a bit more credibility, but there are still some problems with their argument, which I'll address in a later post. My point in this post was simply that AV is not a credible news source and accepting independent news sources just because they call themselves that is a bad idea.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

No, you're just a dumbass. Learn to live with the diagnose.
Vampirate Kitsune's avatar

Apocalyptic Cutesmasher

14,850 Points
  • Destroyer of Cuteness 150
  • Thread Flip 150
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
I've read bunches of stories about this, and none of them quote the alleged "admission" that the birth certificate is false. Several sites even said "Hill effectively admitted ...," which is to say, "We're interpreting what she said as what we want to hear." I want to read the actual words used.

The burden of proving that Obama was not born on U.S. soil is on the plaintiffs, and none has very proven that he wasn't born in Hawaii. They make lots of allegations and have lots of theories but not a single document or any other reliable form of support for their claims. The defendant doesn't have to prove or disprove anything.

If Panama-Canal-Zone-born John McCain had been elected, would the birthers make an issue of his ineligibility?
Vampirate Kitsune's avatar

Apocalyptic Cutesmasher

14,850 Points
  • Destroyer of Cuteness 150
  • Thread Flip 150
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
-I Am Foxx-
I've been checking this story out for a while now. Its all over independent news sites but far away from mass media. I also saw an article on fox saying that "the birth certificate is definitely real". I don't think it is. Check this out.


btw, your headline is inaccurate. The judge ruled that the because Obama is already President, his name automatically appears on the ballot. There was no ruling on the merits of the complaint.
Acellia's avatar

Shy Sophomore

6,400 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Citizen 200
nottakittycat's avatar

Friendly Giver

6,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Befriended 100
  • Generous 100
With the help of kyoji
User Image

ha! nice.
-I Am Foxx-
I've been checking this story out for a while now. Its all over independent news sites but far away from mass media. I also saw an article on fox saying that "the birth certificate is definitely real". I don't think it is. Check this out.


1. There's a reason it's all over independent news sites. The privately owned media corporations already beaten that dead horse to death four years ago. When Obama was coming into office, there was a big uproar about whether or not Obama was a naturally born citizen of the United States (as is required to run for the presidency). The news jumped on it then. Obama got the officials in Hawaii (where he was born) to confirm the authenticity of his birth certificate. Most of the big news sources figured it was legit, and dropped it. However, some people kept hounding him about it, so they finally produced scanned copies of the birth certificate to release to the entire nation to say, see? This is a picture of what the officials in Hawaii authenticated. By that point, Obama had been elected, this was old news, and people just let it go. However, some people will not let it go. They're convinced it is a conspiracy, Obama is out to destroy our country, blah blah blah.

2. What evidence do you have about the birth certificate not being real? Someone on the internet said it wasn't?

User Image

What does the article ACTUALLY say? Does it contain transcripts from the trial showing that Hill said it can't be proven that Obama's birth certificate is real? No. Does it contain the account from a reporter at the trial who said that Hill admitted this? No. The article contains a quote from the guy trying to prove that the birth certificate was a forgery saying that Hill said it couldn't be proven that it wasn't. What we got was hearsay.

If you would like, you can look at the actual hearing and see what was actually said.
youtube link

Around 38:00, the judge restates that the issue of the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate is not what this case is about. It is not the position that is being argued by either side, and therefore is irrelevant to how he will be making his decision. He states that this is why the witness for the authenticity of the birth certificate was not called for this case.

Let me say that again. This case was not about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. It was about the definition of a natural-born citizen and whether someone whose parents were not both citizens of the United States at the time of that person's birth, can be called a natural-born citizen. (The argument being made is basically that being born in the United States and having that birth be the basis for your citizenship is not the same as a natural-born citizen.)

Now, let's look at what was actually said in the discussion of whether or not to include this witness in the trial.
youtube link

Hill makes four arguments here.

Argument 1: The birth certificate is not relevant to their discussion at this hearing. Apuzzo brought up the issue of whether being born in the US is enough to qualify someone as a natural-born citizen, and the case on that day was arguing the law in respect to that. Therefore, whether or not the birth certificate was real would not affect his argument, as that argument must assume that Obama was in fact born in the US to have any relevancy whatsoever.

Argument 2: Apuzzo's expert witness has not seen the original documents of Obama's birth. He has only seen the computer images. Therefore, the witness would only be able to testify on the authenticity of the computer images, not on the birth certificate itself. Because that New Jersey court does not have access to the actual certificate, they cannot confirm or deny its authenticity, and therefore cannot prove that Obama is ineligible to be placed on the ballot on those terms.

Note from me: Other people have confirmed the authenticity of the birth certificate. Therefore, the burden is now on people to disprove that if they want to claim that the birth certificate is a fraud.

The judge then agrees that the testimony of the witness that the birth certificate is a forgery is irrelevant to Apuzzo's case (and Apuzzo agrees) because the argument that Apuzzo is trying to make is that, by not presenting the original document to the Secretary of State, Obama has not proven his eligibility to run for president.

Argument 3: New Jersey law does not require that a candidate publish, produce, or release an official birth certificate to be placed on the Presidential Primary ballot. Ergo, Obama does not need to produce any birth certificate, electronic or physical, in order to be on the ballot. Seeing as this case is SPECIFICALLY ruling on whether or not Obama can be legally placed on their ballot, this is an entirely acceptable argument to make. She is not saying that Obama doesn't have to prove he is a natural-born citizen in order to be president. She is saying he doesn't need to prove that in order to be placed on the New Jersey ballot.

Argument 4: There has been no verified contrary evidence to prove that the authentication of his actual birth certificate is false.

At this point, the judge asks her, "Indeed, you concede that Obama has not produced a alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State, saying here's my birth certificate." *mimes holding up a piece of paper* (It is clear at this point that he is referring to the original document itself, not a photo-copy of that document)

Hill responded, "Not to my knowledge."

The judge then goes on to say that, because Obama has not done this, and because Apuzzo is arguing that he MUST do this, the authenticity of the electronic copy is irrelevant to this case.

Apuzzo then asks, and I quote, "Can we have a clear stipulation that that internet birth certificate is in no way evidence, in any shape or form, of whether or not-"
The judge cuts him off, "In this case?"
Apuzzo: "Yes, in this case."
Hill agrees.

That's all that was said. Hill argued that the birth certificate was not relevant to this case. The judge agreed. Apuzzo asked that Hill agree then that the internet birth certificate no be considered evidence in this case. Hill and the judge both agreed. That's it.
Vampirate Kitsune
I want to read the actual words used.


The second video I posted has this discussion. Hill did not say the Birth Certificate was false. She said it didn't matter whether the birth certificate was true or false because it wasn't relevant to the case. She also agreed that the scanned copy of the birth certificate should not be accepted as evidence for Obama's status as a natural-born citizen in that particular case. (Once again, because that's not what the case was about.)

Vampirate Kitsune
If Panama-Canal-Zone-born John McCain had been elected, would the birthers make an issue of his ineligibility?


It's an interesting question. (One we all know the answer to, but interesting in what it reveals about what we're willing to accept and what we're not) The reason McCain is considered a natural-born citizen is because he was the son of military personnel. Therefore, there is an exception made for him.

So, when constitutional law makes no stipulations as to what to do in the case of a child of a military family being born abroad, it's fine for us to say that that counts as being a natural-born citizen. However, when the constitutional law offers no definition of what a natural-born citizen is, and when indeed that constitutional law leaves it to the states to determine citizenship requirements, most of which accepted being born in the country as the definition of natural-born citizens... well now we have a problem.

Classy.
Vampirate Kitsune's avatar

Apocalyptic Cutesmasher

14,850 Points
  • Destroyer of Cuteness 150
  • Thread Flip 150
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
garra_eyes


Thank you for the information! biggrin heart
Birtherism: The retardedness that refuses to die.
Manas Advocate's avatar

Hygienic Fatcat

More thinly veiled racism from the right wing? Thought we were over this.
Kasumi of Vientown's avatar

Conservative Voter

8,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
  • Signature Look 250
Vampirate Kitsune
I've read bunches of stories about this, and none of them quote the alleged "admission" that the birth certificate is false. Several sites even said "Hill effectively admitted ...," which is to say, "We're interpreting what she said as what we want to hear." I want to read the actual words used.

The burden of proving that Obama was not born on U.S. soil is on the plaintiffs, and none has very proven that he wasn't born in Hawaii. They make lots of allegations and have lots of theories but not a single document or any other reliable form of support for their claims. The defendant doesn't have to prove or disprove anything.

If Panama-Canal-Zone-born John McCain had been elected, would the birthers make an issue of his ineligibility?


Technically both his parents were natural-born Americans, and if I recall correctly he was born on an American Military Base, which is legally considered to be a part of America. He was born on American soil
Kasumi of Vientown's avatar

Conservative Voter

8,800 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
  • Signature Look 250
By the way, the fact of the matter is that under the United States Constitution, Barrack Obama is emphatically not a natural-born citizen of the United States. One of the problems in the US today is that judges make rulings based first upon earlier court rulings instead of upon just the Constitution. In 200 years, there have been a lot of rulings that have moved us further and further away from the Constitution.

People who want to uphold the Constitution in it's entirety tend to be birthers, I think, and there's nothing wrong with that. The Constitution is supposed to be the foundation of all our laws, so even I think that court precedents should be secondary to the Constitution.
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
-I Am Foxx-
l Poetic I
" Independent News sites" don't mean s**t . This has been brought up enough times that you should know better.


Why don't they mean anything?

Because any jackass with a domain can make a "news site" and post whatever garbage they want.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games