Here’s the video posted on YouTube last May:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfRtbIQ1kTw
The sound track goes:
As for the international order that we have worked for generations to build, [camera cut to audience] ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs. That order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.
I tried to punctuate that transcript so as to follow what I think the video maker intended people to hear, but it doesn’t quite match the vocal inflection that would dictate a period following the word “build,” creating an incomplete first sentence. Indeed the camera cuts to the audience shot at just that point and the video cuts out an entire paragraph of the actual speech. Rather than praising authoritarian government, Obama is actually critiquing that idea.
More, including the full text of what Obama said, is at FactCheck.org.
One of the more blatant examples of the “cut footage so as to make a person sound like the most monstrous and cunning villain” tactic so beloved of a certain type of comic book villain.
This has all the flavor of birther propaganda.
You know, I hate it when somebody says “this (…whatever…) tastes like sh1t”.
I mean how do they know? Have they eaten sh1t? Was the taste a good thing or a bad thing? What are they trying to tell me? What image of their culinary habits are they trying to project?
Do they think that I have eaten sh1t so that I would recognize what they are describing? What makes them think that I am interested in the flavor of sh1t? What are they saying about their impression of my culinary habits?
It is one of the most annoying idioms in English, I reckon.
It probably will be, after someone steals it and repackages it the way they did with the obamasnippets.com “Born in Kenya” spoof.
But birfers can’t use it as-is, because the description is in German, and they believe being exposed to anything more “foreign” than Lord Monckton will make their wee-wees fall off.
The craziest part however is how the conspiracy believers in the comments defend their case even when shown multiple times that the video was edited.
One of them even claims it’s OK to present falsified evidence when real evidence is not there and says “no-one is hurt by my dishonesty”. (The Zullo followers come to mind.)
That’s vanilla mental illness, not just unreasonable hatred or racism.
In that case they will miss the description says it’s satire so they can eat it up all the better.
Yeah, they probably consider that even if the evidence is falsified, it still ACTUALLY SHOWS WHAT OBAMA IS LIKE and thus, PRESENTS A GREATER TRUTH or something.
Exactly that’s the point at least one poster made.
I have been the perenial candidate for the 86th dist of the Kansas house for every election except 2010 and I have to say the conspiracy theories have just gotten worse. At a meeting this week, we ended with a birther arguement.
The most difficult thing in politics is convincing folks that they have been lied to.
When you bring up truths they will just get loud to prove a point. I can be just as loud. Thank you for your site and links to things like federal court orders. The gist of last night’s arguement was that no court certified that the president was eligible. Clearly regurgitating the Kool-Aid, not understanding that the courts jurisdiction , ..It’s just breath taking but I shouldn’t be suprised as the Liberal Obamavoting Liberrtarian of Wichita home of Mr. Charley.
James, thank you for commenting. It’s good to hear from readers beyond the usual gang, to learn what other folks find the site useful for.
Hear that, everyone? We need to really step up our wacky antics!
James, good to hear from you.
Some courts have found the President eligible, like our Indiana court in the Ankeny case.
However, the one and only reason most courts have not addressed the issue is that the Constitution assigns the job of vetting the President to the electoral college and to Congress. Of the probably 600-700 members of Congress over the last 6 years, not a single one has sought fit to challenge the President’s eligibility on the two occasions where such a challenge was timely. Not a single one. And, as best as I can recall, not a single member of the House has introduced an impeachment resolution on any topic.
The next time someone brings that up, ask them which court certified that George W. Bush was eligible, or that Ronald Reagan was eligible.
In fact, as John Reilly has pointed out, President Obama is the only President ever to be certified as eligible by a court of law.