Posted on 09/19/2014 3:27:56 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Footage has recently surfaced of a speech given by Michelle Obama in which she admits that her husband was born in Kenya.
Speaking about Barack Obama, Michelle says, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test for the very point of showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.”
My, my, that seems like quite a Freudian slip! Barack could not have been happy that his own wife blew his cover, but I guess that's what he gets for marrying a fool like Michelle…
Video at link
Homosexual marriage & presidential eligibility as a natural born citizen. Yeah, I can see that they are identical legal issuesl
At the Supreme Court, Justices Thomas and Alito have voted against gay marriage in every instance but they have not voted to hear any challenge to Obama’s eligibility and they have both rejected issuing injunctions to stop Obama from taking office.
There are many state court judges and justices who have also never voted in favor of homosexual marriage and those same judges and justices also have never voted for Obama to be declared ineligible.
I don’t think you are missing the point so much as attempting to obscure it. If you are genuinely & honestly missing the point...that is scary.
I can’t make it any clearer than I already have, so I will reiterate. You compulsively cite the figure of how many courts/judges have ruled against eligibility cases. You put forth the argument that so overwhelming a majority legal opinion means there is no merit in such cases.
A similar overwhelming majority of judges/courts have ruled that the Constitution is more concerned with redefining marriage so that two homosexuals have a right to traditional marriage identical to that of a man & a woman than it is with respecting states’ rights. If an overwhelming legal majority means anything in eligibility cases—and you say it does—then you must make the same argument in favor of Constitutionally mandated same sex marriage. But if an overwhelming majority of judges/courts is wrong on homosexual marriage, then the same overwhelming majority could be just as wrong on eligibility.
Can you understand my simple terms? Or will you try desperately to tap dance around this obvious point?
Drew68: “I don’t think anyone really cares anymore.”
I beg to differ. Just because people aren’t lighting up FR with debate doesn’t mean there aren’t many, many people who still believe Obama is currently in office under false pretenses. Eventually most of the lies will be laid bare...
You are right, v_a, it still matters. Let me give you a very practical illustration.
Obama’s poll numbers are in steep decline. Some say, ‘How does this matter? He’s in office for his second term. He can’t run again. How is it significant if his poll numbers drop?’.
It matters two ways. First, the Dems are headed for a major shellacking in Nov. They acknowledge that Obama’s unpopularity is dragging them down. Many voters openly admit that they are voting against Dems as a proxy for voting against Obama. Any conservative who can’t see the power in that dynamic can’t see much of anything at all.
Secondly, for every point Obama drops in popularity, the GOP, including even some GOPe-ers, gains confidence. I.e.: they oppose Obama & his shills more openly & with greater determination. This happened in the Senate the other day. Corker grilled John Kerry so hard it left Barbara Boxer “shaking and trembling”. Hello? There is a direct, one-for-one correlation between Corker’s hardline approach to Kerry & Obama’s unpopularity. When you are the party facing both the Dems & their auxiliary troops, the MSM, you watch your step. But when the party’s leader sinks sufficiently low in the polls, you find the courage to go hard at the Dems regardless.
The backlash against Obama & the Dems, were extreme fraud uncovered re: Obama’s eligibility & election, would be far more intense. Nobody likes to be played for a fool. Yes, the GOPe was complicit, but they would not get the blame. Obama & the Dems would shoulder it alone. The price they would pay would be very steep. They’d be swamped & mired in scandal for several elections to come.
Of course it matters on other levels. But that’s just the practical POV. The results, for the Dems, would be devastating. & I say, the sooner the better.
I got your point, I just happen to disagree with it.
I think the attempt to analogize court rulings on presidential eligibility with court rulings on homosexual marriage is flawed.
Many courts have ruled against homosexual marriage and yes some of those rulings have been overturned by higher courts on appeal. Congress passed legislation on homosexual marriage, “The Defense of Marriage Act.” And yes, the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional by a five-four majority with Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas in dissent. There are 31 states where homosexual marriage is banned and 19 states plus the District of Columbia where it is permitted.
There has never been even one state or federal court ruling at any level of the judiciary that Obama is ineligible and there has never even been a single congressional hearing held on Obama’s Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
50 states plus the District of Columbia cleared Obama for the ballot in 2008 and in 2012 despite scores of legal challenges.
But if you think court rulings on homosexual marriage and natural born citizenship form a valid analogy, hey, knock yourself out.
Bans on same-sex marriage are falling like dominoes. Here’s the part you didn’t quote:
“Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, U.S. district courts in thirteen states[c] and state courts in five states[d] have found that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution, while one U.S. district court[e] and one state court[f] have found that same-sex marriage bans do not violate the constitution. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have affirmed the unconstitutionality of such bans. Additionally, a U.S. district court has ordered Ohio to recognize of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[g] All but two of these rulings have been stayed. In Oregon and Pennsylvania, where the state defendants did not appeal the district courts’ rulings, the district court rulings ended those states’ bans on same-sex marriage.[h]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
According to you, the juggernaut of same-sex marriage is valid, since it is racking up one victory after another. Your protestation falls flat since the major ruling was federal. The toppling of the states’ bans will follow, as indeed they are following. It’s just a matter of time.
Put it this way. When one court after another finds in a manner in keeping with your anti-birther crusade, you proclaim the cumulative decisions significant. When a similar wave of decisions rolls across states’ rights in favor of homosexual marriage, you say it is meaningless. Inconsistency is the lifeblood of anti-birtherism/liberalism. It doesn’t play as well in conservative circles.
Very interesting for a thread about judicial rulings on homosexual marriage. In a thread about Michelle Obama saying that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not so much.
You are the one who, for the umpteenth billionth time, claimed the cumulative weight of court rulings on eligibility is significant. I merely pointed out your fundamental inconsistency.
This story is so old it has whiskers on it.
So I have been told.
That was from the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. The White House Correspondents Dinner is where Presidents spoof the issues of the day and make fun of themselves. Comedians write jokes for the president to deliver.
Obama was making fun of the ineligibility movement with that born in Kenya joke.
Another Obama Kenya joke from the 2014 White House Correspondents Dinner: “Let’s face it, Fox News, you’ll miss me when I’m gone. It will be harder to convince the American people that Hillary was born in Kenya.”
Was it also comedy when Obama told his own literary agent he was born in Kenya?
The joke was on Miriam Goderich. She is the person who edited the text of the bio. She said: “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time.”
“There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
A year earlier than that 1991 bio Barack Obama was interviewed by several newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times when he became President of Volume of the Harvard Law Review. All of those newspaper articles list Hawaii as his birthplace and Kenya as the birthplace of his father.
For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Whoa, Nero, what’s going on? Do I not accurately recall that you assured the owner, the actual *owner*, of this site that you are a conservative? Yet here you are, giving credence to the most obvious, silly, transparent & stupid lie ever told on behalf of covering Obama’s butt.
What gives? Are you a far left moonbat/Obama-apologist after all?
What is the alternative? An IQ under 80? Anybody else could and did see through that ridiculous lie. Why on earth are you repeating it? Are you, along with the literary agency, working overtime to give Obama cover?
My dream ticket to oppose whoever the Democrats run in 2016 is Sarah Palin for President and Ted Cruz for Vice President.
I’ll leave it to you to apply labels as you see fit: liberal, conservative, libertarian, Obot, whatever.
As Shakespeare said: “What’s in a name?”
If it makes sense to you that Obama would be interviewed by the Washington Post, the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times in 1990 and that he would name Hawaii as his birthplace while stating that his father was from Kenya and his mother was from Kansas and then, a year and a half later in 1991, name Kenya as his birthplace, then so be it.
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and interpretations but that makes little sense to me and 15 years later, its nigh on to irrelevant.
Not really. That's why they almost all sound exactly the same. They come from marketing departments.
Not really. That's why they almost all sound exactly the same. They come from marketing departments.
Sorry about the double post.
Other published authors have said they wrote their own sell sheet. I had to write mine. On what basis do you envision these literary agencies commanding a marketing department large enough to do the authors’ work for them? Also, please link me to some kind of fact sheet re: literary agencies’ marketing departments. Most literary agents don’t have such a department. Maybe the largest and most successful agencies do. If so, I’d be interested in reading about it.
[Hint: the agents ARE the marketing dept.; that’s what they do. They market their authors and their authors’ work. Why they require a second tier marketing dept. is info I’d like to get from you.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.