Rush Limbaugh Catches Rachel Maddow In Bald-Faced Lie About Him
By Noel Sheppard | August 05, 2011 | 19:02
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on Friday exposed Rachel Maddow for lying about him on her MSNBC program.
On Thursday, during a lengthy segment about Barack Obama's birth certificate, Maddow said (video follows with transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: I will say -- I thought at the time when President Obama released the second form of the birth certificate that that would not put this thing to rest, that it wasn’t fact-based, and giving more facts wouldn’t help, but it did put it to rest. I was wrong. It put it to rest.
On the president’s 50th birthday today, it is now just the dead-enders and the profiteers at this point who is plugging this thing. There is nobody who has any pull at all in conservative politics or Republican politics at all who has -- seriously? Are you sure?
Are you sure this is not from last -- this is this week? This is from yesterday? OK. Play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Tomorrow is Obama’s birthday. Not that we’ve seen any proof of that. We haven’t seen any proof of that. They tell us August 4th is the birthday. But we haven’t seen any proof of it. Sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Sorry. Apparently, it’s not over.
Problem is, the clip Maddow played was from last year. Here's what Limbaugh had to say about that Friday:
LIMBAUGH: It's fun time now. Now, I've told Cookie, just so you people know this, that we have a moratorium on any audio sound bites from hosts at MSNBC, for a host of reasons, but every moratorium is lifted occasionally now and then, even if temporarily. Today is one of those days. Last night on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, she talked about me and President Obama's birthday, and she played an audio clip of me.
MADDOW: On the president's 50th birthday today, it is now just the dead-enders and the profiteers at this point still flogging this thing. There is nobody who has any pull at all in conservative politics or in Republican politics at all who has (pause) -- seriously? Are you sure? Are you sure this is not from last -- this is this week? This is from yesterday? Okay. Play it.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
LIMBAUGH: Tomorrow is Obama's birthday. Not that we’ve seen any proof of that. We haven’t seen any proof of that. They tell us August 4th is the birthday. But we haven't seen any proof of it. Sorry.
MADDOW: Sorry. Apparently, it’s not over. Rush Limbaugh is still a birther? I mean, isn’t birtherism over now?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
LIMBAUGH: So she played a clip of me from a year ago that they said I said yesterday. And I think they've gotta be called on that. This is no different than these people making up all those phony quotes during the NFL, St. Louis Rams business. Plus taking it out of context. All of that has always been in the context of a joke.
Here's the transcript from August 3, 2010:
LIMBAUGH: Tomorrow is Obama's birthday. Not that we've seen any proof of that, but tomorrow is Obama's birthday, and they're trying to rally Obama's base by sending out fundraising letters -- (interruption) what? What, Snerdley, what? We haven't seen any proof of that. They tell us August 4th is the birthday. We haven't seen any proof of it. Sorry. It is what it is.
This is some really pathetic nonsense from Maddow and the folks at MSNBC. Is this really what passes for journalism at this disgrace of a so-called "news" network?
In any profession, such negligence would be met with the harshest consequences.
Why are media members today allowed to lie with total impunity?
(H/T Right Scoop)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
someone cares?
Submitted by hoosherdaddy137 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:06pm.
someone cares?
hello comcast?
Submitted by michiganruth on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:18pm.
this was a deliberate lie. there's no WAY you could mistake audio/video from a year ago; you'd have to go to the archive to even find it.
I'm eagerly awaiting Rachel's snarky apology.
Comcast, are you listening? is this the kind of news operation you want to be running?
sue het butt
Submitted by no you cant on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:50am.
she needs another fat law suite, she pulls this garbage every week. get her rush!
I thought the federal
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:04am.
I thought the federal gubbermunt had madcow disease under control...
Guess not. there's still at least one mad cow spewing venom and hatred. More if you could count all but one of the hosts on "the view", any lamestream female talking head, margret carlson, maurine dowd, ect.
But nobody can count them all..... Well, we could, but they are 'smarter than us' so it wouldn't count.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
The tell-tale birth date
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:26pm.
No, not August 4. Try April 1—April Fool's Day—1973, when Rachel Maddow came into the world looking for all the world like Ron Reagan (have you ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?)
Happy April Fool's Birthday, Rachel-Ron.
Ronald Reagan did many things right, but fathering...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:38am.
Patty Davis and Ron Reagan wasn't among them.
Maybe they were secretly adopted.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:24am.
I would like to think so.
and one year later ...
Submitted by Jayke on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:45pm.
... we still don't have any proof of it. As one of the original "birthers" I was not satisfied with the "proof" released by the White House. I want to see a real scan of the real original. I want forensic experts to examine the paper and ink with a microscope. Maybe then I can move to asking to see his school transcripts, passport history and his records as a Chicago State Senator.
I'd settle for an English Lit 101 paper
Submitted by lsudolemite on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:49pm.
that wasn't ghostwritten by Bill Ayers.
Get over it please.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:18am.
It was real. We have what is arguably the worst President in our history currently in office. Going of near 3 years of some of the worst moves a President could ever make. And you want to keep pushing the Birth Certificate thing even after he has released ALL of the birth forms Hawaii can give out.
The issue is dead for people that want to be taken seriously. Stop.
It was obvious that the reason he refused to produce...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:35am.
his actual birth certificate was because he wanted his political foes to talk about that instead of asking to see his college transcripts and term papers (or talking about him being our worst and most disastrous president ever).
He is worse even than Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In fact, compared to him, Clinton looks like George Washington.
(The only reason I left FDR off the list was because he was a pretty good wartime president and he was lucky enough to have picked Harry Truman as his V.P.)
Exactly
Submitted by KornKing on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:31am.
And the lapdogs went along portraying the birthers as nut cases-and in this case Limbaugh was having a little fun---over a year ago, and point here is the depths to which the lapdogs will sink to try to portray a conservative voice as one of the nutcases
I would say that based on what we've already seen...
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:03pm.
...that even if Obama was proven not to be a 'natural-born citizen' , Democrats would refuse to investigate or impeach him.
Furthermore, the entire liberal media and every other liberal institution would launch a massive propaganda campaign to keep him in office surpassing even the full-court press they gave Bill Clinton after he was exposed as a liar, perjurer, obstructor of justice and all-around lounge lizard.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Jayke on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:08am.
... I will NOT get over it.
Jayke, if you watch 'the vet'
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:23am.
Jayke, if you watch 'the vet' and his cadre of 'supporters' you will notice that they are always front and center shouting their 'conservative' credentials while spouting the liberal mantra of 'deny anything against the liberal/marxist/ movement in America.
They live in hopes of getting people like you to cower down and crawl away so the issues die quietly and are never brough into full daylight.
It's the liberal way.
However, if you upset them enough, they whine and cry and complain endlessly to the moderators in hopes of an official blackout of your comments.
Again.. it IS the liberal way.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
How to tell the difference between liberal and conservative*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:34am.
*
Where is your cadre of supporters
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:39am.
They live in hopes of getting people like you to cower down and crawl away so the issues die quietly and are never brough into full daylight.
You can rant about anything you want, even Obama's BC. Just be prepared to defend it. Seems your the only one whining about that
Oh look, the loon shoots himself in the foot again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:53am.
Still waiting Loon. Proof of any of these?
The fun that is Willis_Loon_Johnson: The birth certificate is fake. The media purposely and with deliberate intent cause riots. The Constitution references a book by a Swiss guy written in French and gets the term "natural born citizen" from the 2 English translations even though the term "natural born citizen" was not in any translation until 10 years after the Constitution was written. Half of the ancestral lineage of the President of the United States sold others into slavery. The hospital the President was born in did not exist in 1961 even though the name of the hospital appears on the birth certificate of every baby born there in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1960, 1964, 1959.... Women should not allow their children to enjoy Sesame Street. Contrails poison us. Shadow people steal your souls. President Kennedy was shot by aliens from Planet 10
Still waiting Loon.
The fevered imaginings of the Vattel Loon --
I had a meltdown - Proof? None.
I was told to knock off temper trantrums - Proof? None
I make the board look bad - Proof? None
I am here with the same name calling - Proof? None
I pretend what I have to say has value - Proof? None
Still waiting Loon.
Tell us more about your oh so legitimate Tea Party Website that you peddle with every post.
Obama has released his birth certificate after being asked for it for the last three years. The released version is an obvious forgery. Why, why has he allowed such an obvious forgery to be released? What is his reasoning? Why did he not release it earlier? What is his calculated thought line? You must ask yourself this question. It must be answered. It is the reason for his delayed response, his cunningly deceptive false move.
~
There is no doubt that this certificate has been put together by someone trying to be a co-conspirator. Now all that is left to be asked, is why such a blatant fraud allowed to be presented?
Tim Fenwick
President of the Board
gjresult Tea Party
President and CHIEF LOON Tim Fenwick.
Willis, you aren't what I would consider a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:42pm.
crack conservative, but you might just be a conservative on crack.
You are spouting straight bullshit now.
MD
Iz okay.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:52pm.
He learned to debate on the internet with all the trolls.
Swap out racist for liberal and you have Willis_Loon_Johnson.
Whatever Jayke.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:13am.
Don't get over it. No skin off my back.
The birth certificate was released over 3 months ago. Nice to see you respond with a nice focused post with one source after another where you prove beyond all doubt the birth certificate is fake and boy is my face red now.
I will now slink away and never speak of this again.
Wait.
That ain't what you did at all. Now was it?
See Jayke?
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:15am.
The leftist loons swarm when their idol is skewered.
The Constitutional requirement is "unsettled law", while the BC is truly irrelevant to the Natural Born" requirement, it makes life easy to drag the nutcases out of the woodwork for the People to recognize and learn their true allegiances.
They have little to say on the actual subject, but spend hours with personal attacks, whining and gnashing of teeth.. and keyboards. In addition to requiring often stops to clean their monitor screens.
Their position usually seems to be "but it's too late now to do anything because he's already in office."
That's like saying, "well, the bank is already robbed, so forget about it and let's move on.", or "well, all 15 school children are already dead, so let's ignore the person that did it and move on.", "Well, THAT law only applies to the Law-Abiding, not to the criminals, so lets make more laws just like it so they think we're doing something to earn our positions."
No difference in philosophy, just a different set of circumstance with same attitude applied.
And the same set of "usual suspects' jumped in and screeched like spoiled little girls.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Whatever Loon.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:49am.
The Loon that claims the Birth Certificate is a fake says what again? The Loon that claims the hospital did not even exist when PBO was born says what again? The Loon that sells the website of the Chief Loons says what again?
Why did you quit calling me a liberal again? Huh, Loon?
Swap out racist for liberal and you have Willis_Loon_Johnson.
Willis_Loon_Johnson, the Loon that learned to debate on the internet.
silly childlike creature
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 2:49pm.
I did not "quit calling you a liberal".
I leave it for you to prove by your own posting.
And you do so ever so nicely. And I do appreciate your efforts to make yourself look even more foolish than I ever can.
Now, please explain why everytime this subject comes up your get so radically far to the left?
Do you feel the need to protect the Arab?
WHY do you depend so heavily on ONLY the genetically 1/8th (non descendent of slaves) Negro to be the ONLY characteristic to be allowed?
WHY do you try to hide his Caucasian half in the same manner as he does?
It truly is all about his race, is it not?
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
What?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:45pm.
Anyone know what the Loon is on about? I am depending on slaves and negroes and hiding caucasians in what race? Huh?
How am I supposed to respond to a Loon that makes no sense?
Interesting
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:33am.
Interesting 'vet(?)'...
Admitting that you don't understand your own position?
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Don't let your complete lack of evidence stop you.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:34pm.
Just post away loon. It is what you do best. Insult when you get busted in another Stupid.
Our prez
Submitted by packman on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:30am.
has a history of making false statements, miss-speaking, flip-flopping on practically every single issue, he has instituted unconstitutional czars into our government and can't even make a single speech or answer a press conference without a host of technical support including a teleprompter. He has carefully hidden the record of his life from the American people for fear that they will see him as he really is, an intellectual no-talent, ex-community organizer that knows how to talk a good talk but is short on substance, intuitiveness and ability. He has bowed before every leader of every country he's ever visited and his foreign relations efforts are a dismal joke. He was at the forefront of the Obamacare fiasco wherein several thousand pages of laws and regulations were forced onto the American people without making the details public. Only now are the secret back-room deals coming to the light. He has proven he will do anything to make himself look good and all he really cares about is being re-elected.
So here is a man whose entire life is basically paper-mache, so you're saying you don't think he would consider presenting false evidence of his birth if it would save face? Well, his track record indicates otherwise. For many of us, the issue will never go away because we simply don't trust him. Image is everything for this man and he would do anything necessary to preserve it.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Yes. That is correct.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:07am.
The man did not fake his birth in a real Hawaiian hospital with a real doctor and real staff that signed a real birth certificate. A real birth certificate the Health director in Hawaii certified to be true. Certified under penalty of law.
Your entire first paragraph is not enough? You idea of winning the next election is to hammer the not born in a Hawaiian hospital theme and the whole birth certificate thing is a big fraud with absolutely zero proof of actually being fraudly-ent. Yeah, just ignore all that stuff you wrote in the first paragraph where you show and can back it up, hell most of us could back up with a little google searching, just ignore that whole worst President ever stuff, we are gonna sit around and look like loons pointing out how fakey fake fake faker faking fakers the birth certificate is.
By the by, this site, NewsBusters, not a single contributor, editor, publisher, associate editor, editor at large, administrator, or designer buys into the fraudulent, fakey fake fake birth certificate theory. NOT ONE. Willis_Loon_Johnson does though. And he is desperately looking for a buddy.
Your faith in the Hawaiian State Government
Submitted by packman on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:14pm.
to always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is commendable...I think. I don't form my opinions on what NewsBusters staff believe, I can actually think for myself and draw my own conclusions from my own research. Just because you side with mainstream beliefs on this issue doesn't mean squat. If millions of people choose to believe something, that inherent belief changes nothing. It is the facts, i.e., the truth of a matter that is important. Believe me, Odumbo has plenty of other problems that hopefully will prevent him from being re-elected in 2012.
So spare me the chiding and opinionated ass-chewing. If you don't agree with something that is posted, that is your right. I will continue to believe what I choose to believe whether you like it or not. Heck, for all we know, Willis_Loon_Johnson might very well be your first cousin or somethin', but then we could get the Hawaii folks to verify that for us.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Wow.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:53pm.
Whatever. The Hawaiian government is full of liars. Any other states full of liars you care to inform us about? Whatever.
Whatever. I will spare you the chives and gum chewing when you DON'T respond to one of my posts. Man that stick up your butt is vibrating. You responded to MY post remember? Now suddenly I am just a big bad word bully chewing on chives and ass gumming. Whatever.
Whatever. Again. You want to believe what you believe. Go for it. The man has been President for 2 1/2 years. PREDICTION: he will finish his term without one single birther issue every getting anywhere in the courts. Now you tell me about your millions upon millions of tender souls on your side and how far that is getting to you again? Whatever.
Whatever. Sorry I smacked you upside the head with the truth. I did not now the vibrate switch on the stick up your butt was so loose and gets switched to the on position so easily. Whatever.
Again.
You.
Responded.
To.
My.
Post.
Childish little feller...
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:37am.
Childish little feller... VERY childish.
Alinsky's rules for Radicals, for your reading enjoyment.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Seems to be right up your alley doesn't it?
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Up your Loon.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:36pm.
Every single argument you had is complete horseshit yet you just go on posting like you got the right to Troll and Loon and K00K here. It is all you got.
The "issue" was a red herring
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:35pm.
from the get go.
Obama's handlers knew he was born in the US just like they know he is not a natural born citizen in spite of the place of his birth. They also know he has done things as a young adult that call into question his citizenship. The man is STILL constitutionally unqualified to be President, but nobody wants to talk about that because of the Birth Certificate battle.
Come on buddy.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:47pm.
Constitutionally unqualified? How? What information are you privy to that the entire voting population of more than 100 million souls managed to miss all throughout 2008?
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
He was naturally born into citizenship as opposed to being sworn in to citizenship via naturalization.
He was older than 35 years of age.
He had been a resident within the United States for longer than 14 years.
How does this get confusing for a man of your intellect?
Try doing a little more research.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:47pm.
1. Obama is a 'native born citizen'. Or at least he was born as one. This is not the same thing as a natural born citizen.
This is some of what Rep. John A. Bingham, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment, has to say about this subject.
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Notice parents is plural. Obama's father is was a British Colonial Subject at the time of Obama's birth and never became a naturalized US Citizen. His allegiance was forever to Kenya.
Further, there has only been one ruling by the Supreme Court as to what constitutes natural born citizenship, that being Minor v Happersett, 1874
" all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Again, we see parents. Plural.
Very simply put, Obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because his parents are of divided allegiance.
2. It is widely alleged that Obama possessed and used an Indonesian Passport as a young adult. It has bee further rumored that he might have claimed Indonesian nationality as a college student to avail himself of aid offered only to non-native students. If any of this is true, then Obama declared himself a foreign citizen and renounced US Citizenship under Title 8, Section 1481 (a) :
"(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or"
Slim slivers of arguments are not evidence.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:15pm.
I spent 20 years in the military. 17 years overseas. I know of 1000's of servicemen that married foreigners. Tens of thousands when you count all servicemen going back well beyond WWII. You telling me their children cannot ever be President?
I married a Filipina. Are you telling me none of my children* can be President? 17 children. Not one of them can be President?
You are telling me the the emancipation of women, a hundred years of giving them the same civil rights as men now mean nothing. Nothing at all. Citizenship only flows through the tip of the penis, same as it did 230 years ago. Is this what you are telling me? Women now mean NOTHING when it comes to the birthright of citizenship? In the year 2011? Women have ZERO RIGHTS when it comes to the citizenship of their children?
And NL207, a man I respect, is telling me I am now to go on "widely alleged" and "rumored" and walk into a court of law to present that as evidence President Obama walked around under another flag?
* The Vet is actually rumored to have 17 illegitimate children** spread over 12 countries and 4 continents. He actually has no children.
** The Vet denies this when asked about it.***
*** Except on tax day when all the people that have 6 children get to claim them all on their tax returns. Then The Vet talks about his 17 illegitamate children.
The laws are what they are
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 7:00pm.
"You telling me their children cannot ever be President?"
Yes, I am, because that is clearly what the authors of the US Constitution intended. You speak as though this were some great imposition. Our founders discussed this single limitation on the rights of citizenship in great depth. They were most concerned that a man [recall women couldn't vote in 1788] not become President who had allegiance to a foreign power. Obama is in fact the next worse option. While we cannot show he has any allegiance to a particular foreign power, it is clear he hates the Constitution and violates it routinely. He seeks to overthrow it by precedent of law as do many others of his ilk. Obama hates Capitalism. I think Obama hates individual rights and liberty as well. He is literally, an anti-American. We can also refer to 'Dreams from My Father' to see what influences Obama derives from his father : the PoV of an African anti-Colonialist Marxist..
In what way does the argument slight women? US Law says parents, plural, as in father AND mother. Having a foreign mother would be no different than having a foreign father : divided allegiance.
Rumors? I recall when it was rumored that the President had paid hush money for the silence of some third rate burglars.
There is some substance to this Obama rumor. There is no question that Obama traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia when he was 20 years old. There is also no question he attended Occidental College for two years. The devil is in the details, which remain unknown. Since Obama refuses to disclose any of his personal records for the periods in question, we are left to guess the full truth.
I will offer you this piece of tripe from Fact Check, and organ of the Annenberg Foundation, who are Obama allies. They spend considerable verbage denouncing birthers and Phillip Berg, who filed the original birther suit in Pennsylvania. But they NEVER ONCE address the issue of Obama's passport when he traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. Did he use an Indonesian Passport? Did he have two passports, one US and one Indonesian? Or did he possess only one passport, US? The issue is only the valid passport(s) Obama possessed, not under what terms Pakistan admitted him. If he possessed a valid Indonesian passport after age 18, he has a US citizenship problem because Indonesian Law forbids dual citizenship.
I feel like this is where I came in about 3 1/2 years ago.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 1:22am.
NL...This ship has sailed. Do you really think the Courts would stop Obama from running for a second term at this point--on the basis of disputable facts and ambiguous law? And, even if he wins in 2012, which is problematic to say the least, do you honestly believe his ass would be dragged out of office sometime during the course of the potential remainder of his presidency. The SC would never issue such a ruling. This is a Constitutional issue for another day.
Jer
You are not talking about laws.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 9:38am.
You are bringing legal arguments that have never been fully settled if they were ever brought up at all. You bring them as though they were facts. They are not.
As with Jer, I have posted more sources here than I have forgotten about.
Again, you bring arguments as though they are established fact.
For example, you John A. Bingham quote. I begged you sir, to kindly reconsider, but here goes ---
Mr. Bingham was talking about a bill before Congress not the 14th amendment. And he was stating an opinion. not reading from a law. The Constitution never defined what a natural born citizen is. It did not have to. Citizenship flowed through the father at that time. Nor has any Congress since defined the term. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.
Let;s get the full quote on your Supreme Court Ruling --
"[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
New citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization --- I have said this. 2 ways. Either you are naturally born into citizenship or you are naturalized into citizenship
So, either he was born into citizenship, a natural born citizen, or he was naturalized. Which one is he? This ruling spoke of the most common type of birth at that time, both parents being citizens. But it did not speak to someone that had as parents one citizen, one alien. It did not exclude them and say they could not be a citizen.
Again, the term natural born just describes the one class of citizenship, being born into it. Either he was born into citizenship or he was naturalized. And no one is arguing the President of the United States was naturalized.
How many bullets hole are in your foot now?
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:29am.
"[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also...."
Both are pluralized.
The De Vattel thing still bothers you a lot doesn't it?
The Framers used, and relied heavily on his work, but you, and the ilk that blindly follows you around and plays choir for you run away and ignore it as quick as it appears.
17 years overseas? That would help answering a lot of questions...
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Whatever Loon.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:26pm.
There are 2 types of citizens. Natural born citizen, those that are born into citizenship. Or naturalized citizens, those that took an oath.
Since the Loon says the President can't be born into his citizenship, then the Loon is arguing he was sworn into it. Your proof Loon?
None. As usual. Oh, plenty of name calling agian. Yeah, that is how you win an argument. Right Loon that learned to argue on the internet?
Willps_Loon_Johnson: 17 years overseas? That would help answering a lot of questions
Hey Loon, are you saying my military service now precludes me from being a patriot for my country just because I was stationed at overseas bases? New low for the Loon. Now acting the Sissy troll he is that thinks he can denigrate veterans.
There are 2 types of citizens --- That is it.
Who are Citizens
The term citizens includes those who become citizen by birth and those by naturalization. The Constitution recognizes two forms of citizenship, one by birth and the other through naturalization. The latter one is implemented through statutory law, the former by our Constitution.
Minor v. Happersett[?] 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
One small problem Vet.. In
Submitted by wolfemanic on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 1:33pm.
One small problem Vet..
In Minor the case reads that the Supreme court first had to determine Minor's citizenship status for them to even determine her rights. In doing so the court identified that Minor was a "natural born citizen" due to born on US soil and born to citizen parents (plural). At this point the Supreme Court in Minor specifically declared it had no obligations constructing the case on the 14th Amendment in respect of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen because there was no doubt, she was natural born and in a class of her own.
The Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. The court defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens....the trial moved on.
The 14th amendment is for all others where there is doubt.
Now look at US vs Wong Kim Ark, there was doubt because there was alien parent(s) that were not US citizens. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically constructing the case upon the 14th Amendment. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen, his citizenship could not be determined by Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant Wong Kim Ark US citizenship.
Minor and Wong Kim Ark were both decided years after the 14th Amendment had been adopted. Minor avoided construing the 14th Amendment, while Wong Kim Ark required it. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen under Article 2 Section 1, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him citizenship.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
What is the small problem sir? Were you agreeing with me?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 5:57pm.
Either you are a natural born citizen, that is born into citizenship. Or you are naturalized, that is you are sworn into citizenship.
The arguments of people here is that Barack Obama was born on American soil to an American mother and somehow he is not born into citizenship, naturallly born into citizenship, because his father was not a citizen. The argument is that he cannot be a United States citizen despite being born on United States soil to a mother who herself was born on United States soil.
The arguments are that he can only acquire the citizenship of the father decades upon decades after women's emancipation and suffrage.
He was born into citizenship. Natural born citizen. Having parents of split nationalities is a problem how? What if the laws of his father said he could not be a British citizen? He is now a man without a country only minutes after birth. Why are we not hearing of this happening every day?
The fact is people are desperately searching for any straw to grasp here. The constitution was written in fairly clear English. English that is still readable 230 years later. You. Me. Anyone can sit down and read the constition and never once have to consult a dictionary or reread sections because they are too dense in lawspeak to understand.
If the framers had wanted to say the President of the United States would be required to have 2 United States citizens as parents, they most certainly could have. There were very specific about the age requirement and time living in the United States requirement. Very specific.
Again. Only 2 types of citizens. Those born into it. Those sworn into it. That is it. And the term natural born refers to the being born into it citizen. It is that simple.
That was what I was pointing out in the ruling above. 2 types of citizen. Not 6 or 7 depending upon your parents marital or fraternal or national status.
Sorry if I got confused about your post. I was just not sure what the problem was you were referring.
PS: I imagine the Loon WLJ will be along shortly with yet another post of nonsense and insults, none of which will do anything to prove his case, further his cause, or even explain how and why anyone opposing him is wrong.. Loons are anything if predictable.
One major problem, wolfematic...you mangled Minor
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 11:00pm.
The ONLY issue is suffrage. Citizenship is incidental. It just so happened that the petetitioner was born in the US of parents born in the US. Thus there was no question she was a natural born citizen. But the Court's recognition of that was not a "definition of the nataural-born citizen clause" and did not establish any legal precedent requiring the same factual scenario to be present in order for natural-born citizenship to obtain. Therefore, Minor doesn't mean beans on that issue.
Jer
What in the name of the mourning doves cooing in the morning dew
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 11:22pm.
does it take to get through to these people.
This lunacy of all the hard core birther theories has to be the absolute stupidest pile of crap to ever come down the road.
The fact that the man's father was not a citizen was known well in advance of the 2008 election. It was covered in the man's autobiography. And yet NOT A DAMNED SOUL SAID ANYTHING IN THE 2008 ELECTION.
That these frelling idiots think this is a winner of an idea, that they can unseat a sitting President by pointing out common frelling knowledge known to every citizen of the United States in 2008 is the most stupid idea I have ever seen in my short frelling walk on this planet.
My patience is up with you people. The man will not ever be touched by any of your silly stupid conspiracy bull. He was born here. His mother was born here. He is a natural born citizen. Shut up and get over it. We treat you with respect. Show you how you are wrong. And yet you think you can find some tiny little nugget of some hidden bit of truth that Geeeeee-asp, no one had a clue about in the 2008 election. Wrong. It don't work that way.
Shut up. Just shut up with your stupid birther crap. You want to act like Loons. Again. Buddy up with the master Loon Willis_Loon_Johnson. YOU ARE ALONE. More than 100 million people voted in 2008. You think you got something on them because you read some crap on the internet? Huh? You think knowledge that everyone on the planet had in 2008, that Barack Obama's father was not a citizen is now going to unseat him? Huh?
Shut the hell up. It is maddening to see what we thought was intelligent people buying into lunacy.
I told you I forgot more arguements and sources.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:34am.
Once again.
Women had almost no right when the constitution was framed. So when the plural parents is used where all the die hard birther love to point out that parents is plural and means both. It is because in almost ALL cases, boith parents WERE citizens. There were no dual nationality marriages.
Let's say this again. There were no dual nationality marriages when the constitution was written. WOMEN AUTOMATICALLY TOOK THE HUSBAND'S CITIZENSHIP.
AUTOMATICALLY.
So why mention something that was not even the case back in the day. The citizenship always flowed through the father.
That is why I present this a the last loony theory that won't die. And that is why it is so viscious. Women have been emancipated and HAVE RIGHTS. And one of those rights is to have your offspring take your nationality regardless of your husband's nationality.
I disagree Jer. Establishing
Submitted by wolfemanic on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:49am.
I disagree Jer. Establishing her citizenship was part of the direct holding of the case. Check the words “if born of citizen parents” again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. When the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point.
This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.
In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:
- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;
- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case.
We have neither.
wolfematic...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:16am.
It may set a binding precedent recognizing that a person born in this country of parents--both of whom were also born in this country--to indeed be a "natural born citizen" [not exactly a groundbreaking ruling by the court], but that in and of itself does not preclude other factual scenarios, which were not before the court, from also falling within the ambit of the "natural born citizen" clause. As such, in the context of Obama's and his parents' place of birth, Minor doesn't establish controlling precedent which must be reversed--or a constitutional amendment--for this President to be held a "natural born citizen". At best it leaves the question constitutionally unsettled. [And the weight of authority generally supports his position.] That's not to say a clarifying opinion or amendment wouldn't be helpful.
Jer
Predictable looney leftist
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 2:41pm.
Predictable looney leftist response 'vet'.
Quoting PARTS that you desire, then leaving the rest hidden in a dustbin somewhere.
But, as always, the end justifies the means is the liberal mantra....
Unless it is used against them, then the whining and crying becomes an endless droning noise....
Poor babies.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Regardless of your argument, Willis_L_J---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 5:17pm.
OR it's merits or lack thereof, your continued attempts to label The Vet a liberal are farcical.
Even as one who admires The Vet, I don't necessarily agree with every single thought or opinion he puts forth; differences are a part and parcel of life.
That you persist with your inanity reference throwing the 'liberal' charge in his direction merely underlines the fact that you are a damned fool.
MD
And another of the "Usual
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:46am.
And another of the "Usual Suspects" appears to bolster the 'credentials' of the leftist loon.
I left one for the (?)vet(?), so here's one for you....
Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Your problem is that to be 'ridiculed' by someone of your stature in life is actually a rewarding experience, simply for the fact that it makes the rest of us look like geniuses.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Willis_Leon_Johnson---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:42pm.
With nothing of substance to say (discounting borderline racist crap), falls back on his proud status as:
Ass of asses.
Fool extraordinaire.
Putz.
Dork.
Dipshit.
Pitiful portrayer of himself as a TRUE conservative.
Liar.
MD
Interesting mattie, nothing
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:53am.
Interesting mattie, nothing but name calling, insults and innuendo?
You could have done better if your liberal mantras didn't keep getting in the road.
And, pray tell little feller, what "borderline racist crap" were you trying to bring into the conversation, but knew you would lose on FACTUAL grounds?
Is it the bit about olbammer being praised as being 'black' when it has never been hidden that his genetic make up is only 1/8th AFRICAN Negro?
The FACT that his 'daddy' was 3/4 AFRICAN Arab?
The FACT that his 'mother' was a Caucasian communist radical?
The FACT that he has zero in common with any descendants of SLAVES?
The FACT that nearly all slaves sold to the Americas were captured and sold into slavery by MOSLEM ARAB SLAVERS, yet his ancestors suffered no such fate?
What 'borderline racism' is involved there little child?
Just like your friend the 'vet', you have nothing of value but lies, insults, innuendo and name calling to bolster your 'positions'.
When you find yourself running from the issues and throwing trash to cover your tracks, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your 'positions'?
Probably not in the case of you two closet liberal apologists....
But, you hang in there because you do make for good comic relief.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Thread is dead.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:22am.
The lights are out. The bleachers are cleaned. They are locking the gates.
Go home Loon.
No one cares. As usual you stick around with the ad hominems long after any argument you ever had was refuted. It is the Loon way.
Does it suck Loon? Knowing you have absolutely nothing left? Yeah, it has to suck hard for the Loon.
I say Hawaii has released every single birth certificate they have, there is nothing more. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say the last birth certificate was certified to be true. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say the founders could not have quoted Vattel as the English translation was not available until 10 years after the constitution was written. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say the name of the hospital PBO was born in was written on every single birth certificate of every single baby born there long before and long after PBO was born. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say no one involved with this site, NO ONE believes in the loony birther crap. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say this birther crap will never ever get anywhere in the courts ever. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say the entire country was well aware he had a father that was not a citizen in 2008 and yawned. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say there are only 2 ways to gain citizenship - being naturally born into it by way of birth or being sworn in to it by way of naturalization. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say that all referrals to parents plural was the norm before women were emancipated. The woman took the nationality of the husband upon marriage almost automatically. There were no dual nationality marriages at the time of the constitution right up to the emancipation of women. So the whole "both parents had to be citizens" is complete garbage because women have gain rights since then. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
I say that birthers have the slimmest sliver of reeds when it comes to their arguments. They are/have been laughed out of court every single time. Answer from the Loon --- Nothing.
You have nothing Loon. You started out with nothing. But you power on with your insults like we are the ones with the problem. Mmmmmkay Loon?
Yer fun. You have nothing
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:14pm.
Yer fun.
You have nothing that hasn't already been proven dead in the water, so now you claim the discussion over and want to run and hide?
Most losers try that in an endless loop of monotony and still end up as losers.
Now THAT is what you call PREDICTABILITY.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Whatver Loon.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:17pm.
Barack Obama is still President without one single birther issue getting anywhere. Going on 3 years. He will make it 4 years. There is no doubt.
Yeah, I got nothing. Mmmmmkay. Whatever. Loon. You do a victory dance. Mmmmmkay?
Poor little boy, YOU declared
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:47pm.
Poor little boy, YOU declared this issue closed, yet here you are...
Whining to the very end.... then whining some more.
Do you have ANY facts yet?
Is that your diaper I smell? Or is your colostomy bag open again>
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Whatever last word troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:31pm.
As usual, a last word troll always wins the last word game only they are playing.
Too bad I win the birther game. Reality always does. 3 years down. Obama stays. I win.
Troll: 0
Obama: 3
Tell the world troll. Tell the world we you are gonna get Obama kicked out of office with your birther crap.
Oh wait. You know he is not leaving. You only use this crap to annoy those around you.
3 years down
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 8:49am.
Obama stays. We all lose. But that was just a typo, I think.
Good to see that you are
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:08pm.
Good to see that you are finally out of the closet and doing your best to protect your hero.
Speaking as a "vet" that you claim to be, what do your think of your chosen heroes preparing to gut the military retirement?
And, as far as the 'trollish behavior' goes, why is it that everytime I post you and little mattie show up with your personal attacks?
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Pray Loon. Pray hard.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:00am.
31. Never let your opponents have the last word.
Always get the last word, even if your last "word" is merely a "The sound of a weasel sneezing!" or a disturbing picture, which has the added bonus of inflaming the regulars of a non-binaries group. With this goal in mind keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored; keep checking occasionally just to be sure. Sometimes it helps to post your reply as a new thread
Keep posting until you have clearly been ignored.
Keep checking just to be sure.
Because, Willis---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:44am.
you are an jerkwad, a nimrod, and a doofus.
"Little mattie" carries two hundred and thirty pounds on a six foot frame.
"Little mattie" could likely twist your head right off and even require that you enjoy the experience. :o)
Of course, being the masochist that you are, Willis, we know you would enjoy it.
MD
Little mattie can claim to be
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:37am.
Little mattie can claim to be any size that he/she thinks will impress others.
But, the fact remains, all little mattie has to work with is name calling, belittling and ignorant, childish taunts.
But you hang in there buttercup.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Pray. Pray hard.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:15pm.
Keep posting until you have clearly been ignored.
Keep checking just to be sure.
No problem whatsoever hanging in, Willie boy---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:07am.
if for no other reason than to just call your worthless arse names.
Not trying to impress anyone, Willie-butt; just letting you know that a lying dipsh*t dork like yourself is MOST Un-impressive.
You represent nothing quite so much a bulls-eye target for verbal haranguing.
You do that, masterfully.
MD
Insist he send back his ATPU keyring.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:18pm.
You keep the $1.50.
Another one over the wall.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:30pm.
I do believe that one sprouted wings.
If SickofLibs zingers were gut punches --- a lot of nobodies would be needing 2 new kidneys and a spleen.
No problem, there, Willie---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:28pm.
just trying to match my posting style to yours so you could get a gleam of understanding going.
Impossible, though.
I just can't dumb my posts down enough to get to your level.
Your continued lame bullshit about "liberals" attacking you on a conservative site is most entertaining.
You funny guy.
MD
Vet ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 2:35am.
This is a simple argument. The founders were exceedingly clear on this point because they debated it at length. The definition of 'natural born' citizen was, for at least a century, one who was born of parents, plural, who were themselves citizens of that country. The Founders explained this requirement in this way because they felt that a man [no women were allowed in 1788] who was born of divided nationality would also be susceptible to divided loyalties. This they explicitly wished to exclude for the office of President. It might be a subject for debate had not the Founders openly discussed this clause and their reasons for it.
The Founders never argued that other persons born of one US citizen and one foreign were not US Citizens. That and other rules of citizenship were left up to the Congress. They merely required in the Constitution that these persons be excluded from the Presidency just as naturalized citizens were excluded, AND FOR THE SAME REASON : conflicted loyalties.
The definition of 'natural born citizenship' is indeed not spelled out in the Constitution. The opinion written by the Chief Justice in Minor v. Happersett even mentions this very fact. However, that decision also goes on to explain what was meant by that term and how the definition might be ascertained in the original context of the Founders.
I referenced Bingham because he had authored the 14th Amendment and he said the very same thing as was explained in Minor (1874) some years earlier (1866). My point was that this interpretation of 'natural born citizen' was widely held and accepted as the law of the land a century and a half ago. Since the Constitution has not been amended in this regard since the 14th Amendment, we must conclude the term still means the same as it did in 1870.
Now, this will no doubt disturb you, but Marco Rubio is not, by the strict traditional definition of natural born citizen, eligible to become President. His parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth. Later, during his minority, they became naturalized US Citizens. I regard Senator Rubio as a vastly superior American to that piece of flotsam, Obama. He is nevertheless, not eligible to become President and for the same reason.
All points that could have been pointed out 3 years ago.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:14pm.
The entire argument was fully available in the run-up to the 2008 election. Over 100 million voters look at this and yawned. Are you saying this will now be used to unseat a sitting President?
I most certainly was aware that then Senator Barack Obama had a father that was not an American citizen. I saw nothing of it here. Not a peep was uttered about the elegibility based upon his having 2 citizen parents. Not peep one. Nothing. Oh, there was plenty about the birth certificate and being born in Kenya. Lots about that. Of course, that all died down after he finally produced a birth certificate with a doctor's name on it. Now we have this last grab over something fully known about in the election yet never taken seriously.
Again, there were no dual nationality marriages at the writing of the constitution. Women had no rights. They took the nationality of the husband upon marriage. So there was never any real discussion of a dual citizenship marriage producing offspring.
Yes. There is the tiniest of tiny tiny sliver of an argument there you could take to court. Whereupon it would promptly be thrown out. Wait. It has been brought up. I forgot. No. I did not forget. I just don't feel like looking it up again. Among the many many lost court cases concerning PBO and his eligibility, this issue was brought up and tossed out of court. I found the judgement and put it in a response to the Loon Johnson.
The issue is dead. You can have dual nationality citizens as parents. Case in point --- the current occupant of the White House - Barack Milhouse Obama.
What's the fuss?
Submitted by Bourbeau on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:49pm.
It's totally understandable; it's Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for God's sake, what the hell do you expect? Excellence in research and on-air accountability. Are you nuts? We have allowed the MSM, in this era of 24/7 cable news, to bastardize journalism to such a low level of accountabilty, that they can say anything they want, no matter how stupid or inaccurate, and not feel the least bit embarassed to offer a correction. It's laughable what has become the media these days.
Is this really what passes
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:12pm.
Is this really what passes for journalism at this disgrace of a so-called "news" network?
You know that's a rhetorical question.
Facts? They don't need no stinking facts!!
Let's see if Maddow corrects that error.
<Chris Matthews imitation> HA!!
If she does, it will be along the lines of "Well, yes, that was last year, but we have no reason to believe Limbaugh's changed his mind since then."
PS: Maddow will be doing another face-palm....this time in embarrassment.
Liberals are fact challenged.
Submitted by pbthinker on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:12pm.
Everyone knows Rachel Maddow is fact challenged but she's not alone. Yesterday, on Fox News, Mary Beth Cahill was on with Martha McCallum and Rich Lowery in the morning and they were talking about the lack of civility. Cahill then came out with this little gem, 'The Republicans started it when Joe Wilson called Barack Obama a liar during the State of the Union Address, in January." No one called her on it, no one. So I looked it up and Wilson did this in September 2009. They will continue to do this as long as no one calls them on it.
They are so desperate they will say and do anything. Hell, the Senate is so worried about the election they won't even pass a budget for fear someone won't like how much Obamacare is going to cost them.
The Republicans aren't there yet but the Democrats are really pathetic.
Wilson told the truth when he called Obama a liar.
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:08am.
Obama can't give a speech without lying or distorting the truth. I no longer listen to his speeches because my mother said if somebody lies to you once, it's their fault. If you allow that same person to lie to you a second time, it's your fault. I stopped watching Obama after I heard his first speech. (I'm aware of his lies because even though I don't listen to him live, I do hear what people I trust, to tell the truth, say what he said.)
Maddow lied?
Submitted by presjva on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:18pm.
what else is new? She lies more frequently than any other radio/tv host...period.
She is and remains a disgraceful excuse for a journalist.
Jim
MSNBC president Phil Griffin
Submitted by Reaver on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:20pm.
MSNBC president Phil Griffin must be so proud of Rachel. “We’ve got smart people, and they do their research.”
Whenever some lib that I
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:31pm.
Whenever some lib that I might be talking to starts trashing Rush, I just ask'em if they've ever listened to him.............and if they have enough gumption to say yes, then I'll ask a couple of other questions that only a Rush listener would know......and by then I'll know if they are telling the truth, which is usually not the case, Most 'urgan legend' about Rush is spread throughout the MSM in disingenuous and untruthful ways, as we all know..............
And when I've told people that Bo Snerdley is a 'real' black guy.........they either don't believe it, or call him an Uncle Tom or Rush's personal 'boy' or whatever.............
We are not going to change those people. Their minds...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:59am.
are closed down to the truth. Our best course of action is to defeat the ones who run for office and try our damnest to tolerate the others. Hard things to do yes, but entirely necessary if we are going to stop our Country's downward spiral, which has only speeded up under Obama.
Who cares, MSNBC is irrelevant...
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:36pm.
MSNBC is left wing drivel produced by morons for morons.
Well here she goes again.
Submitted by ironhead4099 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:52pm.
Well I guess getting sued for $50 million over her patented misspeak week before last, and being off a week, this bimbette didn't learn a damn thing. She's right back to her old games of using old irrelevant tapes to make HER point. While she was gone last week I tuned in to see if that actually had someone intellegent on in her place, but I was WRONG! Not only did they put some other bimbette there, but I tuned in later in the week and someone else was on. This one looked like her dressed as a man. WHO ARE THESE IDIOTS? WHAT KIND OF BAD JOURNALISM IS THIS JOKE OF A NETWORK?
sorry to correct you, but
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-please on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:16pm.
Maddow is not a Bimbette. Bimbette implies you are referring to a female, and Maddow isn't one. I don't know what it is, but it is not female.
Dipstick
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:21pm.
Be my guess?
Sorry, but IT cannot be a
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:12am.
Sorry, but IT cannot be a 'dipstick' because dipsticks are a valuable tool that the automotive industry cannot live without.
The "IT" in question lacks that particular quality in all aspects of American Society.
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
A Butch...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:29am.
...who is forced by PC to dress as a woman.
I'd like to see this Maddow dude
Submitted by AGreer on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:57pm.
have to defend several simultaneous Defamation and Slander court suits.
I don't know why he isn't already.
Well that intern is fired
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:15pm.
I thought it was over after the House passed Resolution 593--------------unanimously.
50¢ says they knew
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:20pm.
it was from last year. They also know their audience -all 12 of them- wouldn't know; so they could get away with it unchecked.
My guess is she apologizes after playing yesterday's clip from Rush and the caveat that she was joking.
The twelve people who watch MSNBC think...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:44am.
that she told the truth. The twenty million listeners to Rush's show, know that she is a contemptible liar.
Birther Issue
Submitted by Poole on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:21pm.
Jayke:
You don't need to see the BC to know that Obama was NOT born in Kenya. Knowedge of world history and commercial aviation, along with basic psychology and logic, is enough to know he was NOT Kenyan born.
One post in 3 years?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:31pm.
Pray tell, please expound on "world history, commercial aviation, basic psychology and logic" there, and how they all apply, sleeper account.
And we can assume you have proof of this, right?
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:39pm.
Right.
-Dave
her "racket"
Submitted by spepper on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:23pm.
Madcow has her "racket" (which happens to the the EXACT word Hillary used to describe Rush, once) which involves intentionally taking words of folks she doesn't like, out of context to smear them. That's what MSNBC PAYS her for! (it stands for Mean Spirited National Broadcasting Co.)
Are you certain that it
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:16am.
Are you certain that it doesn't stand for "Mean Spirited Nasty B!tches Complaining"?
"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
Sue
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:26pm.
Wish some one would sue him/her. Rush, go for it!!
That was just Maddow's "Limbaugh Tweak of the Day"...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:30pm.
and Rush fell for it lock, stock and barrel. You would have thought Barack 'Ogabe' had stolen his white man's Palm Beach estate.
Jer
Got it Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:34pm.
for a liberal, tweak = lie. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:09pm.
It was my way of tweaking the tweakers who use tweaking as a cop-out.
Jer
Ain't buying it Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:32am.
I do believe you've defended Maddow in other posts, if not, my apology. But, she flat-out lied. You know it, I know it, and everyone else on NB knows it. Like it was pointed out, somewhere above, the intern or internette had to go to the archives to get this "quote" of Limbaugh's.
This on a POS network whose president claims to be a "serious" new source? Not surprising that this happened, but still contemptible.
Then I accept your apology, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:16am.
I have taken issue with the interpretation of words and context. As far as Maddow herself, I have described her as "stupid". I have watched her show two or three times at most since she has been on the air. Schultz even less. The same goes for Olbermann before he was canned.
How about you? Have you ever criticized a staunch conservative pundit/host in your entire life? Or ANY conservative? I know Rush is off limits. Maybe Coulter? Hannity? Beck? I could buy that.
Jer
So,"Rush is off limits"?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:23am.
Now, you've delved into mind-reading? Wow, I better clean up my thoughts vis-a-vis Obama, Reid, Schumer and the rest of the gang that can't think straight, right?
Yeah, Hannity drives me up the wall, more times than not. Beck seems to be into self-promotion these days, but, that's capitalism. More power to him. So, am I like some liberals, and in lock-step with those on my side of the aisle? Nope.
Good for you.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:25am.
Jer
With real estate prices the way they are...
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:01pm.
...I would not doubt anyone could steal anyone's property.
Saw a list of "safe" real estate markets. How often do these realty gurus get out anyways? They listed my neighborhood in San Antonio as being one of the better ones in the recession. Tell that to my neighbor who just sold his house at a loss. Glad my wife was obsessive about paying off the mortgage. The one phobia I don't recommend for treatment is debt phobia.
We'll see if that was her intention.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:09pm.
Knowing Maddow, MSNBC and their incestuous next-of-kin in the liberal media, my money's on the 'bald-faced lie'.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Jer loves Maddow and he hates Limbaugh. Jer is your...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:24am.
typical Lib and as a good Lib, he dreams of Rachel Maddow every night, but only on that rare occasion when he's not dreaming of his true love, Nancy Pelosi.
jawebster1
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:28am.
"Jer is your... typical Lib"
Jer loves to sound like all the other lefties. It's his whole reason for being.... at NB.
- Shy 12" (Vinyl)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I can think of a word for him. I wonder why he always...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:38am.
drops his stink bombs here and not at some liberal web site where they'd be most welcome. (Actually, I don't wonder. I know why.)
Webster, your relentless ignorance is becoming tedious
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:15am.
as hell.
This is one of the numerous less than flattering comments I've posted about Pelosi [and Harry Reid] over the years:
"However, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Pelosi was a miserable choice for House leader. The last thing Obama needed--or the majority of Americans wanted--was a San Francisco far left/liberal in charge of shaping and passing the Democratic agenda. As for Harry Reid, well...he's just a feckless buffoon."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/11/02/dan-rather-complains-republicans-demonized-nancy-pelosi-turned-her-v#ixzz1UEnThdm6
That was eight months ago and was one of the more generous compliments I've paid the lady. I've blasted Olbermann and Maddow, called for Schultz's firing and referred to Maher as a "towering asshole:". Does that sound typical of liberals, son? How about providing a few of your criticisms of conservatives, hack? Then I might grant a neutron of credence to your ill-informed, thoroughly unsupported and unsupportable, utterly worthless blather.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:18am.
"I have serious Conservie Street Cred!!!!! Here's my portfolio!!!!!!!"
Z z z z z z z z
- Shy on Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:26am.
I don't give a flip about my lib cred or conservie cred. I do care about Webster pulling flatout nonsense out of his backside and peddling it like it's gospel truth. He just makes it up on the fly. He doesnt bother to verify the rubbish he posts. It's lazy, dishonest, and childish.
Jer
Mr. Jer
Submitted by ripper58 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:57am.
You have just described Mr.Maddow,Ms.Mathews and any other "host" on MSLSD ! Your insight to the liberal mind is astounding. Keep up the good work,Sir.
Thank you, Mr. ripper...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:39am.
Unfortunately, several of the posters here--Webster in particular--have picked up on the practice and honed it to an art form.
Jer
I have to side with you Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:45am.
That Pelousy crack was out of line.
And what about Maddow?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:50am.
Jer
She is a lying hack
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:07pm.
With Mitt's hairdo
Boudin: You indicated Webster's crack
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:22pm.
about Pelosi was out of line. My question is: do you believe his comment about Maddow and me was also out of line?
Jer
No worries Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:45pm.
I do not claim to read minds. Besides, there isnt any future in dreaming about Maddow, I dont think she likes guys.
I hope you know, as usual, I am just having some fun with you.
You probably should explain that to the admins
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:05pm.
who keep deleting our posts.
Jer
Hey Jer
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-please on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:30pm.
I still like you. I am a staunch conservative, but I have always found you to be fair minded. I don't agree with you too often, but I think you're a fair person.
Well, thanks Lord-come-soon...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:59am.
That was certainly nice to hear on a rough night. [Even my internet got knocked off line for six hours by a late afternoon storm]. I was imagining how badly I was getting thrashed in absentia without a chance to defend myself. ;-)
Jer
My post,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:08pm.
Are being deleted? When?
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 1:00am.
On second thought, I think it was just mine. But I have no idea why.
Jer
Pelosi and Reid are cynical Stalinists...
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:04am.
...as is Obama.
Neither of them took office in a vacuum. All were products of a radical Democratic political machine that selected them for leadership and united to put them, and keep them, in their offices.
Complaining about Pelosi and Reid is comparable to complaining about the color of the paint on the Titanic.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Madd Cow Disease
Submitted by Hausmaus on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:53pm.
Madd Cow doesn't really know her crack from a hole on the ground. Furthermore, I don't really believe she knows the proper use of either one of them.
Heck Noel
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:27pm.
Why are media members today allowed to lie with total impunity?
Been wondering that for years. The libtards applauded this crap,
Media Matters....
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:33pm.
...is probably slamming Maddow hard over this. /sarc
Even if'n they do
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:55pm.
It will be because they have issues.
Maddow busted again, and agiain, and again, an.............
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:39pm.
I am sure Maddow will be very apologetic about this, as she has been every other time.
Maddow is usually a little more subtle about her dishonesty. It's gratifying to see her so righteously slapped down. -bidn-
Any Wonder?
Submitted by telecaster on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:50pm.
What can be expected from a 15 year old school boy named Rachel who, while he is indulged in the distorted, aberrant world of MSNBC, is still and will always remain a page reading, pathological liar to the rest of us who actually fact check what this adolescent tries to pass off as news. No mystery here and absolutely no intelligence as well.
I swear.........
Submitted by djwolf12 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:06pm.
Did she purchase that Rhodes Scholarship off of the black market or something?
No...
Submitted by falcon on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:06pm.
It came in a box of Cheerios. Along with her Saul Alinsky secret decoder ring.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
→ Wolf12
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:27pm.
I believe that is a "Randi Rhodes Scholarship" It requires rapid repetition of several tongue-in-cheek maneuvers.
Ya think
Submitted by FrankB on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:21pm.
Do you really think that both her viewers really care?
True, big issue
Submitted by hayate1 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:24pm.
Many so called straight news people are lying bc they are told to or are reading a TelePrompTer. people like maddow and Limbaugh are commentators, offering opinion. the thing i always do is check out their statements on factcheck or politifact or with data sources. I guess I am less concerned about little white lies like this than about the huge, systemic lies delivered in an orchestrated and organized manner on Fox.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
At some point, hayate---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:07am.
the people running this place are going to catch up to your running line of BS and ban your stupid ass.
MD
Let's hear it Sissytroll the XXIV.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:25am.
Name a huge, systemic lie that was delivered in an orchestrated and organized manner on Fox.
Or don't. As usual. Like you actually will name one.
We are used to cut and run sissy trolls that throw out lies and run to post elsewhere.
THAT's one of the biggest 'systemic' lies I've heard.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:57am.
That's pure fabricated and baseless Media Matters propaganda.
And you're either an ignorant tool for believing it or a dishonest shill for peddling it.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Tailgunner, can I vote for both?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:37am.
Hayate has gone on and on about Fox, but not a word about the rest of the media. So, I would go with a fool and a liar.
Only if you're a Democrat.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 9:04pm.
Otherwise you can only vote once. =D
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
hayate1 {hmm, sounds like
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:13pm.
hayate1 {hmm, sounds like hate one when I sound it out} Anyway, interesting thought process. You suspect you are being lied to, so you go to sites that are *also* left leaning to invalidate/validate your conclusion(s)?
How often do you find those "little white lies" to be memes within the day/week?
And to your mind, this ISN'T on the same level as your *assumption* that there are "...huge, systemic lies delivered in an orchestrated and organized manner on Fox" is that correct?
So let's see if I have this straight: You think random, unorganized/unorchestrated lying to advance *your* side/cause is hunky dory, since it's for a good cause, but the other side lies in an organized/orchestrated manner, yet you have no *proof*, you just *feel* it?
Thank you for the insight into how a liberal mind works - it explains so much! I learned about projection in what, 10th grade psychology - until I started listening to/reading what libs had to say/write, I hadn't really seen it IRL!!!
Ronald Reagan
I'm telling you folks....
Submitted by gailannr on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:27pm.
She plays with skunks and we all know what that means!
Kick Comcast to the Curb
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:08am.
I'm cancelling my Comcast service tomorrow. I've had enough with (MS)NBC. I'd encourage others to do the same.
Some One Watched the Rachel Maddow Show
Submitted by Avitar on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:43am.
Who saw that?
Rachel, Rachel, Rachel
Submitted by NotFondOfLibs on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:16am.
This so called female and alleged journalist never surprises me with the things she says. If MSNBC had any concern about ratings, they would have run her off long ago.
Rush ought to immediately sue
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:37am.
Rush ought to immediately sue her and her boss's over at GE/ObamaVision TV for $50 million, like Heavy-metal rocker turned radio host and conservative preacher Bradlee Dean is suing MSNBC and its host Rachel Maddow for allegedly defaming him in a segment.
MSNBC viewers
Submitted by KornKing on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:43am.
remind me of the line "meet me at the mission at midnight, we'll divvy up there"
Etymology of a lie...
Submitted by amyshulk on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:09am.
Etymology of a lie...
Ronald Reagan
Rush, if you want to really underline
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:20am.
the actions here, sue this bitch and don't accept anything less than her job and 50 million bucks for defamation of character.
Go Rush!
Submitted by wiwf on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:32am.
Go Rush!
Funny thing about these useful idiots at M.S.S.R.:
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:45pm.
If the Obama Regime just so happens to get "re-elected" next fall and wants to continue with the "fundamental transformation of this country" (i.e. put the boot on the throats of everyone), these useful idiots will be the first to go. They are just too stupid to realize that.