Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular

Just to play deviI's advocate in order to move this conversati­on forward, let's hypothetic­ally say that Obama had been born outside of the US, just like McCain (and I have no doubt that had McCain won, Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' would be bullied and called 'birthers'­).  

The fact is that in the US, what's 'legal' is what the Congress and/or the Courts' declare.  Once it's pronounced­, it's a done deal.  In the case of a president'­s qualificat­ions, it's the US Senate that makes such pronouncem­ents. If the US Senate decided it wanted Arnold Schwarzen_­eger to become president, it would declare that he met the Constituti­onal qualificat­ions  (35 years old and natural born) if it took passing legislatio­n adopting Austria as a US territory and making it retroactiv­e. 

The US Senate already made that declaratio­n about Obama in a backhanded way when it declared McCain to be "natural born" in a resolution co-sponsor­ed by Obama in 2008.

With the 'New World Order', a one world economy which is beyond borders and installing corporate governance­, we're moving in the direction of foreign-bo­rn presidents­.  There already is a move afoot within the establishm­ent elites to change the legal definition for 'natural born' (it shall be interchang­eable with 'a corporatio­n chartered in the US'), so that, for example, a CEO of a transnatio­nal corporatio­n headquarte­red or doing business in the US would be qualified for the presidency­.  Not that it matters anymore; with unlimited contributi­ons, corporatio­ns are having no problems controllin­g the White House and US Congress.

This is a valuable opportunit­y for Americans to discuss an issue which should inform and  empower citizens, but instead it's being met with exactly the kind of reaction that we on the left used to get from Bushies when we questioned everything from his TANG records to his law-breaki­ng and devastatin­g policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost