Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Moonbat Line of Attack: Rubio Campaigning With Romney as 'Homoerotic'
Newsbusters ^

Posted on 04/25/2012 7:12:44 PM PDT by mnehring

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh said this about the two Johns ticket of Kerry and Edwards in 2004.

Randi Rhodes does what she can to make her presence known in that barren wasteland known as liberal radio. Unfortunately, it usually consists of little more than bloviating inanities. (audio clip after page break)

Here, for example, is her take on GOP Senator Marco Rubio of Florida campaigning with Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania --

I guess I'll call it the, is Marco Rubio too short to stand next to Mitt Romney tour/audition? That's what it is. And you know, and the answer is yes because when they stand next to each other Marco Rubio looks like a 17-year-old. God love him. He does, he looks like a little boy. It's almost like the Batman and Robin thing that Quayle and Bush senior had going on there, it's very homoerotic, I gotta say.

Which would be a good thing, if they were liberals, but is a decidedly bad thing, seeing how they're conservatives. See how it works? Nothing to do with homosexuality. Liberals are more than willing to engage in coded homophobia to suit their purposes, followed shortly thereafter by their angry denunciations of conservatives as homophobic.

It's this kind of keen insight and lacerating wit that made Rhodes the scourge of the junior high cafeteria where, not incidentally, she still finds herself today.

Amazing how Romney and Rubio -- who've fathered nine children -- have succeeded in hiding their true nature from the public (except, of course, from Rhodes, she of the infallible gaydar). Romney, especially, going so far as to marry his high school sweetheart to maintain this decades-long ruse -- brilliant!

You may recall that Rhodes was suspended, then quit (or was fired, depending on who's telling the tale) by the now-defunct Air America Radio after describing Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton each as a "****ing ****e" at an off-the-air affiliate event in San Francisco four years ago.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2012election; billmaher; election2012; florida; homosexualagenda; kenyanbornmuzzie; marcorubio; mittromney; newsbusters; newtgingrich; randirhodes; ricksantorum; romney; rubio; rushlimbaugh; sandrafluke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: mnehring

Wait, don’t barking moonbats like this kind of thing? Why would they joke about it? Isn’t that hypocritical?


21 posted on 04/25/2012 8:26:37 PM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
You know how these leftists are always projecting.

I always equated it to when you have a new car and suddenly you see the same type of car everywhere. What does that tell you about people like Randi who sees gay in everything?

22 posted on 04/25/2012 8:26:52 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

She’s certainly well pickled.


23 posted on 04/25/2012 8:38:39 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
"Romney and Rubio are BOTH INELIGIBLE."

There is no question that Rubio is not eligible. Like Obama, he was not born to parents who were citizens.

There have been cogent explanations along the line that Romney's father was a 14th Amendment citizen, a naturalized citizen, like Obama, because George's father was citizen. Remember, under Article 1 section 8 Congress was chartered with creating a uniform rule for naturalization. It had nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Citizens are either naturally born citizens, or native-born, like anchor babies, and become naturalized citizens like Wong Kim Ark. George was a naturalized citizen, which was an issue raised around a George Romney candidacy.

I would welcome a correction on my recollection. With Obama running again it is clear that the Republicans will again not participate in any vetting of presidential candidates, though they did participate in hearings for McCain, and never established his eligibility. The only actionable Senate measure to make McCain eligible was S.2678, sponsored by Obama and McCaskill, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, in February of 2008. Lewis Carroll didn't write this script. Why would the Senate, Obama and McCaskill, the core of Obama's candidacy, submit a bill to the Senate if McCain was eligible? It failed to pass.

Senate Resolution 511 was cobbled together in April 2008 when S.2678 failed, and like any resolution, it was a ‘feel good’ statement from the Senate to the affect that “while McCain satisfied the requirement that he be born to citizen parents, we think our framers would have overlooked an unfortunate technicality around the sovereignty of the Canal Zone, an issue which was fixed just a year after McCain's birth.” The weasel words for SR.511 were provided by Obama’s Harvard Con Law professor, and campaign committee adviser, Larry Tribe, citing the only congressional effort to extend the definition of natural born citizen, the 1790 Nationality Act. Tribe neglects to mention that the 1790 Act was entirely rescinded, by Washington, in 1795. Its replacement made the foreign born children of citizen parents into a citizens, no long a natural born citizens. It was all politics to protect Obama’s ineligibility by helping ther aisle crosser from McCain Feingold, the innocent bystander from the Keating 5, to be the sacrificial lamb to the ascendancy of The One.

Both parties find the Constitution an inconvenient obstacle to their assumption of the reigns of power.

Rubio is a red herring. Having someone so unpopular as Obama is, at least to conservatives, RINOs figure they can protect themselves from scrutiny for paving the way for, failing to vet, Obama. McCain was vetted, and never found eligible.

For real experience, along with Hispanic origins, Suzanna Martinez is the real thing. Allen West, though he avoids the topic of constitutional eligibility, is someone who understands our external, and internal enemies, even if he won't defend the brave Dr. Lakin, who took his oath seriously and went to prison for it. In combat who would you trust, Rubio, or Martinez or West, or Dr. Lakin? Dr. Lakin is now a felon for obeying the law, while military officers declared that the President was no longer the commander in chief, contray to the oath required of all military officers, who owe allegiance to the Constitution. I'd recommend Lakin's promotion to vice presidential candidate, but believe that somewhere in the law there is a prohibition against felons? Not sure?

Sarah Palin I'd save for primarying Romney, the RINO candidate, in 2016.

24 posted on 04/25/2012 8:41:02 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Sound slike hate speech to me. Perhaps a hate crime trial is in order.


25 posted on 04/25/2012 9:22:26 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I just love this article.....

snip-”A federal judge has dismissed a libel case against a homosexual who claimed Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign paid to rig a polygraph test regarding his sensational charge that he had sex and used drugs with the future president.”

“In addition, Sinclair says he believes that the murder of Donald Young – the homosexual choirmaster at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago – was an attempt to protect Barack Obama’s secrets. Young was murdered shortly before the 2008 Iowa Caucus.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/libel-case-against-obamas-gay-accuser-tossed/


26 posted on 04/25/2012 9:42:24 PM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

What it tells me is that most liberals think queers are disgusting too.


27 posted on 04/25/2012 9:43:57 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

>> You may recall that Rhodes was suspended, then quit (or was fired, depending on who’s telling the tale) by the now-defunct Air America Radio after describing Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton each as a “****ing ****e” <<

I’d like to buy a vowel. Seriously, what does “****e” refer to?


28 posted on 04/25/2012 9:44:39 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

There’s no question that a native-born citizen is not a natural-born citizen? No question at all? Tell me, then, of what nation is Rubio a natural-born citizen? Or did you not realize that the concept of natural law was articulated by Thomas Aquinas who said that every person is natural-born citizen of some country?

No, of course not. Two hundred and twenty years of legal precedent must be set aside because some FRENCH guy referred to “naturels.” What? You didn’t know that nothing was said of “natural BORN” in his writings? That he spoke of indigenous peoples, not of natural-born citizens? Fascinating how so-called conservatives are citing foreign-language sources, dubiously translated, as a source for U.S. law.

No, no, no, no.... “natural-born” means the nation to which you “naturally” received citizenship due to birth. How do we know? Because the founding fathers accounted for those who were Americans at the start of the revolution, and those who were born in America after its founding. By your definition, there would be a “lost generation” of people who were neither citizens at America’s founding, nor born of American citizens.


29 posted on 04/25/2012 9:52:23 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

30 posted on 04/25/2012 10:08:12 PM PDT by sjmjax (Politicans are like bananas - they start out green, turn yellow, then rot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
"There’s no question that a native-born citizen is not a natural-born citizen? No question at all? Tell me, then, of what nation is Rubio a natural-born citizen? Or did you not realize that the concept of natural law was articulated by Thomas Aquinas who said that every person is natural-born citizen of some country?"

Ah, an imaginative enough variation on the tired arguments of the past four years to deserve some response, particularly for a FR subscriber who has has hung around for ten years. Using Thomas Aquinas is a first. It would inspire the curious to read Aquinas, except that we have lots of examples of people who are not natural born citizens right here. Slaves, born in the US, were finally made citizens, and not natural born citizens, by the 14th Amendment, a naturalization law. Natural citizens and naturalized citizens are different, as explained by John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment.

Rubio’s status depends upon Cuba's law. If Cuba mirrors British common law, which addresses ‘subjects’, implying allegiance to some authority, then Marco may be a natural born subject of Cuba, as Barack was naturally born a subject of the British Commonwealth.

"Two hundred and twenty years of legal precedent must be set aside because some FRENCH guy referred to “naturels...”"

Some “FRENCH” guy, was actually a “SWISS” guy. Vattel wrote in the diplomatic language of The Continent, French, thoroughly understood by former Envoy to France, John Jay, by John Marshall, and by George Washington. Since Jay used the term “natural born citizen”, and was later a Chief Justice when Washington ruled on a congressional effort to extend natural born citizenship to foreign born children of US Citizens in the Nationality Act of 1790, repealed in 1795, and signed by Washington, you are presuming that Washington and Jay didn't understand the meaning they put into the Constitution. Marshall was Chief Justice when the last mention of natural born citizenship was expunged from the Congressional Record, forever, suggesting that those language deficient men who framed and founded our nation didn't understand the term they put in the Constitution. Such nonsense, but we've seen lots of it here. Of course, the end justifies the means.

Your comments warranted a reply because yours is the rationale being offered by the two latest judges to deny challenges to Obama’s right to be on state ballots. These judges cite Wong Kim Ark, the case which made the son of Chinese nationals, born in San Francisco, a citizen. It didn't make him a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited Minor v. Happersett is precedent for the definition of who were natural born citizens. The Wong Kim decision is based upon the 14th Amendment, which never mentions natural born citizens, and whose author explicitly specified “... of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” Thus the child of Muslim Brotherhood parents, in the US to prosecute the war on our nation, or force everyone to become Muslim, born in their hideout in Arizona, raised a jihadist, is eligible to become president? Our framers faced a similar threat from the children of royalists. For judges to misrepresent our framers may be treason (the only word defined in the Constitution), because it is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

31 posted on 04/26/2012 6:32:31 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Quite to the contrary, Spaulding. The 14th Amendment was consistent with the first 10 in that it asserted a natural right, according to natural law, where the human law had failed to recognize it.

YOu actually nailed it with the distinction between naturalized citizens and natural-born citizen. A naturalized citizen is one who was not natural-born a citizen. Conversely, unless someone is natural-born, they must be naturalized. Find me any reference to the naturalization of emancipated slaves.

>>Since Jay used the term “natural born citizen”, and was later a Chief Justice when Washington ruled on a congressional effort to extend natural born citizenship to foreign born children of US Citizens in the Nationality Act of 1790, repealed in 1795, and signed by Washington, you are presuming that Washington and Jay didn’t understand the meaning they put into the Constitution. <<

That’s just it, though. Vattel didn’t use the term “natural born” at all. He used the term, “naturel” which is best translated, “indigenous.”

>> Some “FRENCH” guy, was actually a “SWISS” guy. Vattel wrote in the diplomatic language of The Continent, French,...<<

Emmerich de Vattel was describing the Roman law (which has nothing to do with “Roman” Catholicism) of a foreign state, not the Common law of America or Britain, or any of Britain’s subjects. And he wrote in French, meaning people have been butchering his translation, by translating, “naturel” as “natural-born,” not “indigenous.”* He wrote in French because partly because it was his native tongue.

(*The French would adopted “les indigens” when referring to the population native to the lands they colonized, but this still held a connotation of being ruled by an empire, and is better translated, “native.”)


32 posted on 04/27/2012 5:44:18 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson