Skip to comments.Mad Magazine Dishes on Obama’s Birthplace
Posted on 03/23/2011 5:53:42 PM PDT by Nachum
Lawsuits have claimed Barack Obama fails the Constitution's eligibility test for presidents because his father was a Kenyan, because he was born overseas and because his original long-form birth certificate has been withheld.
Mad magazine, now, has released its solution: His birthplace is "wherever it was he was born."
The magazine, in an article "How Barack Obama stacks up to the other 42 presidents," also takes jabs at Obama's dependence on Teleprompters, his middle name (Hussein), his busted lip and his onetime pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
While George Washington's "head was carved into Mt. Rushmore, Obama's head was sculpted into a Chia Pet," the article starts. Then, John Adams "got lost on his way to go live in the White House. Obama successfully reached the White House, but has been lost ever since."
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Ouch! Has Mad gone right wing? I’ll have to subscribe - first time since I was about thirteen years old.
They spare no one :). I am getting a copy!
I hope they totally ran with it. Ridicule is one of the only weapons we have left.
Though “Mad” will never regain the heights it reached with the immortal Don Martin it looks pretty damn funny.
Great, price of these issues just hit about forty bucks.
Love it!! Thanks for posting.
I may have to try to pick up a copy at the bookstore news stand. ahaha
Mad has always jabbed at everyone. Like South Park, I don't mind them digging on our side because I know they are equal opportunity offenders.
Mad Magazine has clearly not been so effected by the agitprop directing those who haven't yet read our framers or current congressional documents relating to presidential eligibility, SB 2678 and SR 511. No one, of course, has seen the mysterious non-documents, and rumors have been augmented by Obama’s use of his Kenyan father's exotic origins to augment Junior's thin credentials. Remember, it was the left who were all over McCain's eligibility problems, problems for which most citizens would like to see a constitutional amendment. Most conservatives, and probably, liberals as well, believe a carefully crafted amendment could achieve the goal of our framers and founders to protect us from foreign intrigue.
It was famous private airplane owner, and slumlord, Claire McCasklill, who, along with Obama, filed a bill to pass a law addressing McCain's eligibility problems - “A Bill to Insure That Foreign Born Children of Citizens in the Military are Eligible be President of the U.S.” That was SB 2678, Feb 2008.
Implying that McCain was eligible, when he wasn't, silenced Republicans, all of whom were afraid of the repercussions of challenging Obama’s eligibility, though every Senator knew the truth, having signed McCaskill and Leahy’s SR 511, in which Leahy agreed with Judge Michael Chertoff:
My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen>/b>, Chertoff replied. That is mine, too, said Leahy.” (Congressional Record, Judicial Committee Hearings on SR 511)
What will have caused more damage, the exposure of the constitutional ineligibility of the man in office, or the attempted destruction of our economic system and our role as the protector of individual as distinct from ‘collective’ freedoms advocated by Marxists? As improbable as it sounds, unless we all agree to ignore the Constitution, as Obama's team has, again and again, no bill with Obama's signature is a valid contract.
How long have you read Mad? I’ve been reading it since about 1960 and I can assure you that Mad was quite left wing. My mom always allowed us to have it because it was genuinely funny and had lots of non-political humor (oh, those movie parodies!) but she always called it a commie rag, lol! The magazine became absolutely unreadable during the Viet Nam War. It’s no surprise that the oleoginous Tom Hayden is quoted as saying Mad was his first introduction to revolution! What shocks me is that the grey, humorless Hayden could even understand a funny magazine like that.
I wish we still had our Alfred E. Newman bobble-head doll which sat in the back window of our old Chevie in the early 60s.
Oh, how I loved Don Martin! I still have several paperbacks: Don Martin Strikes Back!
"Lincoln was a skinny lawyer - Obama is a skinny lawyer
Lincoln was a great American - Obama is a skinny lawyer"
I still remember staring at the January 1961 issue in the grocery store. It was designed so that you could turn the 1961 upside down to read 1961 again.
This conservative certainly would like to see a "carefully crafted amendment" proposal. The trouble is, we already have a prohibition
Article 1 Section 9:No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
By law, gifts to the POTUS are gifts to the U.S. government, not the person. It should have needed an act of Congress to entitle Mr. Obama to accept any honor, let alone a million bucks, from the government of Norway - or any body which is a creature thereof. Which is precisely the mechanism that Alfred Nobel's will provides for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not only Obama, but Theodore Roosevelt before him, accepted the Nobel Prize without a by-your-leave to Congress. It is for America, and not for the government of Norway, to pass judgement on our elected (or appointed) officials.Theodore Roosevelt promised to use his prize money charitably, and Obama has done the same - promised, that is. TR never followed through on that promise. What exactly has Obama done with the million bucks?
But that is the least of it, as you have implied. How do we amend the Constitution in such a way as to cause the Constitution to be taken seriously? 'Tis a puzzlement.
And that is why, when people speak of constitutional amendments for this or that specific thing (e.g., defense of marriage) which actually should require no further constitutional language, my response is always to ask what might be done to modify the incentives facing SCOTUS. One fantasy of mine would be a constitutional amendment which did precisely nothing - nothing but fire a shot across the bow of SCOTUS by stipulating that the current members of the Court, by name, are the members of the Court. That action would do nothing - except make the point that the states actually do have the authority above that of SCOTUS. All it would take would be majority votes in 38 states . . .