Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 81185

The release of Barack Hussein Obama I's immigration file is stunning in what it reveals and the questions it poses. BHO I's visa expired Aug. 8, 1961 (Barack Junior was born Aug. 4, 1961) – is that why he married Obama's mother? Stanley Ann Dunham was a white girl in a family way with a mixed-race child, desperate for legitimacy in a culture that condemned such behavior as abject immorality, and Barack Obama Sr. was a con man from Kenya desperate to stay in the USA. Was the marriage merely a business arrangement (she was 17 when she got pregnant)? Is that why it was so important to place the ads in the Hawaiian papers announcing the birth of the future president – because his father was about to be deported?

Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been so savvy as to know that BHO I was a Muslim polygamist. Yet clearly, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was never divorced from his first wife in Kenya. The Immigration and Naturalization Service suspected that the elder Obama's marriage to Dunham was a sham, arranged strictly to secure immigration status for him. Despite the fact that BHO I had married Dunham, the government wasn't buying it: An INS official wrote in 1961 that the agency should "make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona-fide of the marriage."



It is interesting to note that BHO I claims in the documents to have divorced first wife, Kezia, "verbally." According to the Shariah, a man can divorce his wife by repeating it three times. Further, when BHO I returned to Kenya, he apparently lived with his first Kenyan wife and his American third wife, suggesting that the "divorce" he ostensibly secured to marry Dunham was a transitory ruse.

That would make the president illegitimate. In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.

Pamela Geller, Right Wing Watch 32 Comments [5/11/2011 2:53:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 26
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
nutbunny

In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights.

We know better now. Society attempts to rid itself of practices that are morally reprehensible.

Progress.

Better.

5/11/2011 3:12:57 AM

Haseen

Keep moving those goalposts, birthers. Every sane person knows your bullshit will never end as long as the president remains black.

5/11/2011 3:18:30 AM

ausador

In 1787, women had different rights too.

Now shut up, get your barefoot, pregnant self back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich Pam.

5/11/2011 3:29:20 AM



So he's a bastard. So? Doesn't say shit anywhere about that in the Constitution.

5/11/2011 4:53:34 AM



illigitamate only refers to children born of parents that cannot leagally marry, e.g., the child of a brother and sister,

5/11/2011 5:41:59 AM

WMDKitty

1961 =/= 1787

Dumb cunt.

5/11/2011 5:55:32 AM

Veras_the_Brujah

By "illegitimate children" do you mean the children that were the result of your beloved founders' repeated rape of their slaves? Because that's not the same thing.

Alexander Hamilton was one of the great minds of the early republic, and he was born out of wedlock. Washington didn't have a problem appointing him Secretary of the Treasury.

It's fun to watch the birthers dial up the crazy.

5/11/2011 6:12:35 AM

sandchigger

My birth, in 1980, was announced in not one but TWO local newspapers. And my parents were legally married, native born citizens of the United States. This raises the obvious question of WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?!

5/11/2011 6:34:58 AM

Doubting Thomas

So... you can't argue that he wasn't born in the United States anymore, so now you have to attack his parents' marriage?

It doesn't matter what the practices were in 1787. If there were provisions in the U.S. Constitution that state that a bastard couldn't be president, then there's no way G.W. Bush would have legally been allowed to run.

5/11/2011 6:43:33 AM

vaiyt

> Useless shit about Obama's father

Whatever he did does not condemn his child.

5/11/2011 7:18:49 AM

Argle Bargle

Why don't you simply come out and say: "I have a problem with Obama because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a black man having any sort of authority over me." That would save you a lot of time, and you wouldn't have to make up increasingly ridiculous excuses for your racism.

5/11/2011 7:37:38 AM

Lucilius

Fantasize all you like. He's still black, and he's still president.

5/11/2011 7:53:46 AM

Jeff Weskamp

(Sigh)

Nothing is ever going to convince these people that President Obama is an American citizen.

5/11/2011 8:18:55 AM

gravematter

What amazes me is that the fundies credit the founding fathers with being pretty much saints - and then, when it suits them, start saying "oh, the founding fathers were much too stupid to consider the possibility that society might change". Just like they were too stupid to think that anyone might be an American and not be a christian at some point in the future - the separation of church and state being only a way to stop government interfering in christianity, and not anything else. Some of the founding fathers had a lot of legal expertise. They weren't stupid enough to come up with a constitution that didn't express their beliefs and views pretty definitively. Anyway, so if we can prove somehow that Obama wasn't illegitimate, what will you come up with after that? Obama doesn't own slaves, and there is no way the founders of the nation intended for a non-slave-owning individual to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land?

5/11/2011 9:56:56 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Wow, just wow. This person really wants to deny people rights just based on whether or not their parents were married at the time of their birth. That is truly despicable. This might even work better in FSTDT because of that.

5/11/2011 10:21:53 AM

nazani14

Go ahead, make people born out of wedlock ineligible to hold federal office. (I just checked the out of wedlock birth rates in the Southern states.)

5/11/2011 10:42:15 AM



Should I remember that we're not any longer in 1787?,and that Obama is not an illegitimate child in any way or shape?

5/11/2011 11:24:30 AM



Too late. If I remember well, an illegitimate child was governor of Missisipi. Try not to fall into those slippery slopes.

5/11/2011 11:26:53 AM



In 1787, black people were often considered property, and certainly not citizens. That's really why you want to go back to those days, right?

5/11/2011 12:33:28 PM

aaa

Damn, how did you get that veil so thin?

5/11/2011 3:32:18 PM

Berny

The Founders more than likely had their own fair share of illegitimate children. This is the 21st century and we don't give a flying fuck was racist assholes like you think makes a human being "legitimate".

5/11/2011 4:56:51 PM

Percy Q. Shunn

I imagine the rectal-runoff spewing out of your face-hole is amplified by the fact that you don't look like this...


5/11/2011 8:18:40 PM

DevilsChaplain

@Percy

The thing is, Pamela Geller isn't really bad looking. She's just thoroughly rotten on the inside, right down to her black, Muslim-hating heart.


5/11/2011 9:50:34 PM

FMG

Actually the founders of "your great nation" would have been horrified that a "coon/nigger/one of the many other terms for black people that exist" has become the president and that you cannot own people as property.

Also the fact we can fly and speak on boxes made out of dead monsters powered by tame lightning.

5/11/2011 10:34:14 PM

Meshakhad

@FMG

Actually, Ben Franklin would probably find the last bit pretty awesome.

5/11/2011 10:36:54 PM
1 2