More Narrow-minded Prejudice against Gay Republicans
This morning, while surfing the web, I chanced on yet another piece on a left-wing site attacking gay Republicans. This writer, the Huffington Post’s Gene Stone, must have thought himself particularly clever when he came up with the title for his April 2006 post, The Gay Republican: Oxymoron, or Just Moron?. But, all he really did was prove himself to be just another narrow-minded liberal insulting gay Republicans and/or conservatives and without making any effort to understand us. A man who prefers name-calling to thought or research.
Like Charles Kaiser, he just didn’t bother to contact any gay Republicans before writing his piece. Well, maybe he did, he just didn’t quote them in his 700-word diatribe. He makes some pretty sweeping generalizations and some pretty particular accusations such as “state republican (sic) parties have specifically told gay men and women they are not welcome in the party.” Um, Gene, could you please provide those specifics.
About the only piece of actual “evidence” he provides for Republican gay-bashing is that former New York City Mayor was “campaigning for arch-homophobes” as if the candidates in question (then-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and 2006 Iowa GOP gubernatorial hopeful Jim Nussle) had defined their entire political career by their animosity toward gay people, as if Rudy was campaigning for them precisely because they did not vote the way HRC wanted them to.
So he asks what he terms “the old question:”
Why would any gay man or woman belong to a party that has stated, over and over, as clearly as can be, without equivocation, that he or she is not welcome.
He provides no evidence whatsoever that the party has stated “over and over” in his view has told us we’re not welcome. Nor does he bother to consult any gay man or woman who belong to the party he so unfairly and inaccurately demonizes.
And that’s the point of this post. Those who harbor an animosity toward gay Republicans base their animosity not on the ideas and experiences of actual gay Republicans, but on their narrow view of Republican party.
Stone answers his “old question” by considering his own anti-Republican prejudices. To be sure, he doesn’t call them that. What liberal would admit to prejudice? But it seems only such deep prejudice could account for such an inaccurate picture of the GOP.
He believes that a gay person coming out as Republican “is almost the same thing as not coming out at all” and contends that “Gay Republicans can be among the most homophobic of all Americans.” Then, he goes on to say (repeat rather) that that party doesn’t want people like Bruce and me. And I repeat, not once does he provide any evidence to prove his point.
I’ll just offer one piece of contradictory evidence, the McCain campaign’s blogger liaison as well as those at the Republican National Committee (RNC) have reached out to both Bruce and me, including us in conference calls and welcoming our input. And heck, our very e-mail addresses indicate we’re gay. Hardly a sign of saying they don’t want us.
Stone’s post reminds me of a comment recently caught in our spam filter and subsequently approved. Reader Robert Oliver wrote:
Wow, the only thing that is scarier than a Republican is a gay Republican. It’s a good thing that you are such a small minority. It is painfully obvious from the comments about Pride and the fact that you cling to conservatism and the Republican Party that you have some issues with being gay. I imagine that you come from a generation in which you couldn’t come out. Self hate and hiding who you are must bring some sense of comfort and nostalgia to you. I won’t try to take that away. So keep on truckin’ and lovin’ those that hate and despise you!
Like Stone, Oliver doesn’t over one piece of evidence to substantiate his accusations. In my reply, I addressed Oliver and observed:
You say I’m hiding who I am out of a sense of nostalgia, then how did you explain that my co-blogger and myself place our names on the blog and are openly gay in conservative circles?
He betrays his intolerance by misstating facts that would be obvious to anyone who spent five minutes actually reading the blog’ and its masthead. And he attached his comment to a post where I noted that the “notion of [gay] pride was necessary to help erase [the] negative connotations” once associated with the word, “gay.” And the very post made clear I thought that was a good thing. A self-hating gay would give the word a negative connotation.
The point is this. Charles Kaiser, Gene Stone and Robert Oliver do not represent not some isolated phenomenon. All too many liberal pundits, journalists, columnists, even alas all too many of our peers define us gay Republicans based not on their experience with actual gay Republicans, but on their own prejudiced attitudes against Republicans.
They don’t feel it necessary to reference any facts or actual interviews with gay Republicans when they smear us. We need to remain ever vigilant against their intolerance and challenge it whenever we get a chance.
As we do so, not only will we have fun pointing out the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant, but we could even end up changing a few attitudes in the process.
42 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I really do not hink that people really think before talking. I see nothing wrong with gay people no matter what their social status is.
Feel free to see my views on things.
Comment by Blondie Writes — June 19, 2008 @ 8:30 pm - June 19, 2008
Geez. I am NOT a conservative and NOT a Republican, yet even I have enough knowledge of gay Republicans to answer that.
1) The Republican Party hasn’t said that. The closest thing they’ve done in my memory might be Buchanan-1992 - and they’ve never gone back to that.
2) Because gay lives depend on a strong and prosperous America. REAL homophobia - the gay-bashing, gay-killing variety; not your piddling, whiny variety - is to be found in Communist and Islamo-fascist countries, which not coincidentally, happen to be enemies of America and human freedom.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2008 @ 8:31 pm - June 19, 2008
A few years ago I heard David Kennedy (history professor at Stanford) lecture about our system of government.
He said that the way the two party system works is that the Democrats attract people from the center to the hard left. The Republicans from the center to the hard right.
But during primary season each party caters to the more extreme elements - since they tend to be more politically involved.
Once the general election arrives, the parties tack back to the center. Well doesn’t hold true today! One thing he didn’t mention is that the Democratic party has become a party of different and often opposing minority groups. They are so splintered, they can’t image even talking to one another. (When will HRC be holding a meeting in a Black or Hispanic church?).
Are there bigots in the Republican party? Of course, no one is exempt. But what those poor libs don’t get is that the average religious conservative is willing to set aside his differences and talk, campaign, find common ground with the fiscal conservative. One will vote against gay marriage, the other for it, but both will vote for lower taxes and our country’s security.
The hatred of the gay or black Republican is probably the most virulent - but any person who appears to be normal to your average Lib is considered to be outside the pale once they let it be known they are Republican. Great article on that subject today over atPajamas
Comment by Leah — June 19, 2008 @ 8:33 pm - June 19, 2008
link to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-politics-of-friendship/
Comment by Leah — June 19, 2008 @ 8:36 pm - June 19, 2008
I have seen more homophobic liberals than conservatives where I live. I’m straight female conservative that’s never prejudged anyone ever, but I guess I’m lying…
Comment by BeLinda — June 20, 2008 @ 1:13 am - June 20, 2008
An angry bigot explaining bigotry. Too funny.
I was under the impression these ass hats wanted to “unite” everybody.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 20, 2008 @ 2:33 am - June 20, 2008
I’d like to ask Gene, why would any self respecting male vote for the mommy party? But the comment section is closed.
probably has something to do with being named gene.
Comment by American Elephant — June 20, 2008 @ 3:15 am - June 20, 2008
#6 is fascinating.
Comment by jimmy — June 20, 2008 @ 5:52 am - June 20, 2008
I get more crap from my fellow gays about being republican than I have ever gotten from a republican about being gay.
Comment by John F in Indy — June 20, 2008 @ 9:01 am - June 20, 2008
Isn’t it cute, and flattering in a being-stalked way, that
jimmymarkiesean (lowercase)Ian *still* can’t stay away?Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 9:16 am - June 20, 2008
I would also ask “Gene” if he felt as an emasculated guilty liberal male that he belonged in the Dhimmicrat party.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 20, 2008 @ 11:11 am - June 20, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/20/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — June 20, 2008 @ 11:16 am - June 20, 2008
GPW: This may be what Gene was referring to:
Link
Keeping it classy, I guess.
Comment by torrentprime — June 20, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - June 20, 2008
I’ve heard of damning by faint praise. Is TP (inadvertently) praising by faint condemnation?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - June 20, 2008
(i.e.: that’s the worst he can come up with?)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 12:43 pm - June 20, 2008
ILC: Is that your best defense? A state GOP likens gays to the KKK and pedophiles, and your best come-back is “no others”?
[That's the best you can come up with, a link to a ten-year-old comment? Eight years before Stone penned his piece. So, we've got one state party saying that. It's a stupid, mean-spirited comment, to be sure, but it's no evidence of a trend. --Dan]
Actually, that’s the best I could come up with in 8 seconds of Googling to get a link to a story I just heard about. Imagine what rigorous research could determine.
And if linking to a state GOP’s disgusting smear on gays (GOP gays, at that!) is “faint praise”, I’d hate to see your definition of slander.
Comment by torrentprime — June 20, 2008 @ 1:58 pm - June 20, 2008
That’s right, TP.
Not that I think you were responding me specifically, but you seem to be now… Here is how I formulated the question:
“Republican Party” would be referring to a *national* organization. Because America is… you know? …a *nation*.
Now, what’s the best you could come up with in response to that? You scraped and scraped, and the best you could come up with was a statement from one State party official… 10 years ago. How about something current? How about something relevant? I know I could come up with stuff from current Democrat officials, TP. (Howard Dean presently being sued for anti-gay discrimination, anyone?) If the statement you scraped up is why you think gays are unwelcome in the Republican Party, TP, then all I can say is, you must have a thin skin.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - June 20, 2008
P.S. Not that I particularly care, as a current Independent and ex-Democrat, about either party. GOP defenders can take it from here.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - June 20, 2008
Definitely more hostility from the Gay Left than the GOP-types, I nearly been spit-on on bars after the discussion turned to politics many times…and I have had more than one beer poured on me as a means of short-cutting my political-logic.
Most GOPers here in the Northeast are moderate-types in the first place. Many think DADT is stupid in this day-and-age, but the “marriage thing” as they put it makes them uncomfortable.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 20, 2008 @ 2:48 pm - June 20, 2008
Considering Obama, who had this ex gay singer/pastor campaign for him, might add Sam Nunn to his ticket; I don’t think gay democrats or liberals should just willingly give up their vote to him or the party.
They haven’t done anything on DADT, and some reason about the ability to get it passed. I find that hard to believe when they have routinely held votes on the Iraq War that were meaningless and only done for symbolism. Those idoitic non binding resolution…what a waste of time.
Neither party is perfect, but the blind loyality to the Democratic party by some people is really sad. I know I used to think Republicans were mostly homophobes until I found this site and then meet some other republicans in college.
But yea, there is some real hate…from liberal sites and gay sites.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 20, 2008 @ 3:30 pm - June 20, 2008
Yeah,
Like in Louisana where LCR has 3 members on the State Central
Committee and 9 members on the Orleans Parish (County)
Executive Committee. Elected all.
Comment by Bill in New Orleans — June 20, 2008 @ 3:44 pm - June 20, 2008
#21 - Another good reason to visit the Big Easy, and boycott SF in the process.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 20, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - June 20, 2008
#9, I know how you feel.
I’m not gay, but I am a conservative Atheist and I have gotten zero grief from religious republicans and lots of it from liberal Atheists. I have heard similar complaints from Pagan republicans.
Comment by Andrew — June 22, 2008 @ 1:53 am - June 22, 2008
Sorry, but even as a gay Republican I am under the impression that Republicans in general say more things against homosexuality than Democrats.
The explanation is that key word “say.” Republican bigots tend to speak their minds, while Democatic bigots must censure themselves for the sake of poltical correctness. The MSM relentlessly covers every teensy “scandalous” action or remark by Republicans while ignoring or covering up missteps by Democrats. This creates the “impression” there are more bigots on the Republican side, but bigotry against homosexuality is not, in fact, a basic tenet of either party.
Don’t ask a Democrat to explain why they give the impression they are bigoted against White Males and Christians, they’ll talk your ear off.
Comment by DoorHold — June 22, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - June 22, 2008
Door: I have Democrats demonizize me everyday. I’m one of those “evil” rich people who dont pay my fair share.
Bitch Obama says I’m isolated and cynical.
Gay leftists, who do not know me, will tell me I hate myself. I should kill myself.. I’m self-destructive. Many say I should get HIV and bleed out of my ass. And many other things that require a medical license.
If those are code words I hate to know what they really think
Comment by Vince P — June 22, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - June 22, 2008
That is interesting, isn’t it Vince; Democrat Party leaders like Obama and liberal gays namecall and insult conservative gays, try to get them fired from their jobs, wish death on their children, and then insist that conservative gays should join these liberal gays and the Democrat Party because Republicans hate them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - June 22, 2008
I think the published platform positions by state republicans, like Texas make it quite clear that gays aren’t welcome. So let me ask you this; do you have any literature, link to a web site, etc. where the Republican party makes it clear that gays are welcome?
Comment by Kevin — June 23, 2008 @ 1:22 am - June 23, 2008
Kevin, read the post before commenting. In this post, I take issue with those who insult gay Republicans because they believe (or should I use the verb, “feel”) that the GOP has told us we’re not welcome. I note that they base their insults on something they only assume to be true.
I’m just showing that they haven’t backed up their prejudice with facts. And you have done nothing to show them to be other than I described them–and thus helped make my point.
And now you make a claim about state GOP platforms, yet provide no evidence to shore up your assumption.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 23, 2008 @ 1:36 am - June 23, 2008
The only good gay Republican - is a converted-to-Democrat gay Republican. It even sounds absurd: gay Republican. Isn’t it a lot like an African-American KKK member?
Comment by Nathan — June 24, 2008 @ 9:06 pm - June 24, 2008
Nathan, you just proved my point.
And please don’t think you’re original with you KKK comment.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 24, 2008 @ 9:26 pm - June 24, 2008
Another example of leftist derangement: a Democrat tries to draw moral equivalence between the GOP and a traditionally Democrat-aligned KKK, whose most prominent one-time member today is the longest-serving Democrat senator.
Comment by Attmay — June 25, 2008 @ 11:42 am - June 25, 2008
Good point Attmay,
When was it that the National Democrat party disinvited the then Governor of PA to speak because he’s pro life?
Or lets celebrate the diversity of view points in the party of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
Comment by The Livewire — June 25, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - June 25, 2008
You asked for a specific example of how the Republican party wants nothing to do with gays. Please read this. There really are many, many other examples. Its beyond belief that you all think that gays can make inroads into the GOP. As long as the religious right exist, gays will never be fully embraced by the GOP. Please dont fool yourself.
ome › Blogs › Andrew’s blog
Former Houston Log Cabin Republican President now Precinct Captain for Obama
Sat, 03/08/2008 - 13:06 — Andrew
March 07, 2008
Footnotes From Texas
One gay voter’s change of heart leads him to a change of party.
By Emily Kim
http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid52541.asp
To Houston voters, Noel Freeman was just one of hundreds of volunteers who flooded the streets of Harris County, Texas to turn people out for Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday night.
“It’s been a whirlwind tour here this week,” said Freeman, who also served as an official for the caucus.
What people likely didn’t realize is that Freeman also wears another hat – president of the Log Cabin Republicans chapter in Houston.
Freeman had told LCR national that he would be stepping down from his position following the Texas primary. “I’m working on my letter of resignation and I’m going to submit it to national within the next couple of days,” he said Thursday afternoon.
Freeman represents a much-talked-about class of crossover and independent voters that are attracted to Sen. Obama. A recent Pew poll found that Obama edges out McCain among independents by 49% to 43% in a general election match up – a figure that does not account for Republicans who might also vote for the Illinois senator. The Clinton camp argues that GOP voters will back away from Obama once they are more familiar with his voting record and progressive stances on issues such as gun control.
As president of LCR since the August of 2006, Freeman had been struggling with the idea of changing parties.
“I’ve thought long and hard about becoming a Democrat,” Freeman said, “I believe that of all the candidates out there Barack Obama is the one candidate who is most sincerely interested in healing some of the partisan damage that has been caused to our nation over the past 12-16 years.”
And if Sen. Clinton is the nominee? “I haven’t decided (what I will do) but I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton,” said Freeman, adding that he doesn’t believe Clinton is interested in bridging partisan divides.
Freeman’s unique military history also factored into his decision. He spent four years on active duty as an intel analyst in the Air Force and was a ROTC cadet at Texas A & M University before being discharged in 2000 under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
After leaving the Air Force, he took time off from the ROTC program, but returned to find that he was still allowed to be a cadet. “I ended up being the first openly gay cadet in A & M history to go all the way through and complete the Corps of Cadets program,” he said.
Despite his recent change of heart, Freeman held off on resigning from LCR sooner so that the transition would be less disruptive to the organization. “I thought it was important for us to get the organization through the primary and set some of the goals for the general election,” he said.
At the same time, he has been an avid volunteer in Barack Obama’s campaign and has spent his free time canvassing the streets of Houston to inform the people and especially the GLBT community about the importance of electing Obama.
Last Saturday night, he helped lead volunteers around the Montrose area, a predominately gay part of town, and told people why he, as a Republican, was leaving the party for Obama.
“The gay and lesbian community has been used as a political football for the last eight years,” said Freeman, “If you look at the Texas Republican Party Platform, it’s been openly hostile to the GLBT community.”
The breaking point for Freeman was when he ran for the Houston City Council in 2007 and the local Republican Party refused to list him on their website because he is openly gay. They eventually relented, but not without a fight.
“Particularly here in Harris County, they have gone out of their way to make it very, very clear that there is no place in the party for people like me,” he said. “It’s a whole lot easier to be a fiscally conservative Democrat than a socially moderate Republican.”
Freeman adds that part of the local GOP’s rigidity is a byproduct of the fact that they have a “stranglehold” on elected positions in the city. In Dallas, he noted, where Democrats have become a real political force, Republicans have been forced to be more open-minded and inclusive of differing viewpoints.
His newfound allegiance has also been a bonus in Freeman’s personal life. “My partner is very excited about my switch,” he said. “He and I both served as precinct captains for the Obama campaign, and he is a
http://www.stonewalldemswa.org/blog/node/15
please read this article of a former Log Cabin member in
Comment by kojoto — June 30, 2008 @ 4:06 am - June 30, 2008
“Particularly here in Harris County, they have gone out of their way to make it very, very clear that there is no place in the party for people like me,” he said. “It’s a whole lot easier to be a fiscally conservative Democrat than a socially moderate Republican.”
Comment by kojoto — June 30, 2008 @ 4:14 am - June 30, 2008
Kojoto: If there was any proof in that screed, I missed it. Plenty of unsubstantiated opinion, but no outright expression of the rejection of gays attributable directly to a GOP source.
I can see how, “… the local Republican Party refused to list him on their website because he is openly gay. … ” would be proof enough to someone profoundly averse to the idea of a gay Republican, but did it occur to you to question HOW someone knew the reason his listing was rejected? Who, specifically, was responsible for that decision? How was it stated? On the website? In an e-mail? Where’s the evidence, let alone proof, that this was a party decision?
Comment by DoorHold — July 1, 2008 @ 3:08 pm - July 1, 2008
Are the gay conservatives here serious? The Republican party hasn’t been awful to the gay community? C’mon people wake up! This is so frustrating –
The Republican party has done everything it can to ban gay marriage, teaching about gay positive role models in school, ensuring gays and lesbians are protected by hate crime bills, gays being allowed to adopt.
What’s it going to take for you all to realize — the Republican party is not our party - we are not part of its agenda…
John McCain (who, by the way, didn’t even know what the abbreviation LGBT meant) is definitely not the ideal choice for gay voters — I’m not saying he’s homophobic - he might not be. But I don’t care about his personal feelings on homosexuality - it’s his policy and how he stands on gay issues that I’m concerned about - that’s true with all Republican candidates - it’s funny, because I’m sure the lion’s share of them couldn’t care less if someone is gay, but they just pander to bigoted conservative Bible-belt voters.
I’ve spoken to gay Republicans (I’ve dated a few - never lasted very long), and while I try to see their points of view, there was an alarming and disconcerting consistency: they all were resentful of taxes that benefites social programs (ie welfare, unemployment, public schooling), they were NRA-supporters who wanted to ensure they had the right to hold on to their fire arms or they were under the delusion that George W. Bush and his administration’s foreign policy will protect us.
Comment by peter — July 2, 2008 @ 12:17 am - July 2, 2008
Um, peter, did you even read the post? I was noting how writers critiquing gay conservatives never bothered to substantiate their points that we’re being excluded from the GOP. And you haven’t either.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 2, 2008 @ 12:41 am - July 2, 2008
[...] deal out of it when Republicans get caught in a gay "sex scandal"? Oh, and here you go: GayPatriot More Narrow-minded Prejudice against Gay Republicans And it comes from the Hillary camp as well: Daily Kos: Hillary Endorser NC Gov Easley uses [...]
Pingback by For Once I Agree with Daily Kooks - Southern Maryland Community Forums — July 27, 2008 @ 9:27 am - July 27, 2008
[...] deal out of it when Republicans get caught in a gay "sex scandal"? Oh, and here you go: GayPatriot More Narrow-minded Prejudice against Gay Republicans And it comes from the Hillary camp as well: Daily Kos: Hillary Endorser NC Gov Easley uses [...]
Pingback by For Once I Agree with Daily Kooks - Page 2 - Southern Maryland Community Forums — July 27, 2008 @ 10:27 am - July 27, 2008
[...] going to shed too many tears for gays who happen to be Republican, but the stories are out there of prejudice against those whose politics are a deeper shade of red. A community only stays vibrant when all [...]
Pingback by Withers: Manhunt.net founders donate cash to McCain | 365 Gay News — August 14, 2008 @ 8:55 am - August 14, 2008
Apropos of nothing: A prescient lyric from the Heart song Barracuda, which was played on behalf of Sarah Palin at the close of the Republican Convention tonight:
“If the real thing don’t do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn it out to the wick
aren’t you, Barracuda?”
You’d think they would’ve at least vetted the theme song. And by the way, Heart is pissed. Oh, gay Republicans, you are an odd bunch, aren’t you…
Comment by Billy — September 5, 2008 @ 2:48 am - September 5, 2008
IsraelENews: Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes
Posted by adminOctober 12, 2008Someone is lying. According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate’s past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?
A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?
One explanation is that Obama’s mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama’s father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband’s family because she was white:
“Obama’s family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama’s grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii.”
However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn’t allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.
There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals– Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital–in Honolulu.
The Times Herald even reports: “the senator’s grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama’s birth in the African country.” Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family ‘believe’ he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama’s Truth Squad?).
Watch this interesting and important video clip.
I myself, not wanting to believe what I see, did some searching around, and this is what I came up with:
Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
and here it says:
Barack Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Centeron 4 August 1961.
So which hospital was it, or was he really born in Kenya? And why is this simple matter so confusing and disturbing? Do the search your self and plug in these key words:
Obama born Queen’s Medical Center and then Obama born Kapiolani Medical Center in a Google search. You will see he is reported to be born in two diferent hospitals. A miracle! Maybe he IS the Messiah (grin).
What’s so hard about knowing something so simple as which hospital or country someone was born in? And if it is simple, then why doesn’t Barack Hussein Obama just present the court with his original birth certificate to be analysed and proven? The onus of proof is on him, not the American public of which he wants their trust in him to be their leader.
So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister? Someone is.
p.s. Dr. Jerome Corsi will be on my show today (Sunday) where I will be interviewing him about his recent trip to Kenya to promote his new book, The Obama Nation, and to see if he can find Obama’s birth certificate. Instead, he was arrested, held at gunpoint and deported from Kenya. He’s back in the States now and wants to talk. Listen to the showwhich airs at 9am eastern time.
The opinions and views articulated by the author do not necessarily reflect those of Israel e News.
Comment by graham head — October 13, 2008 @ 4:18 am - October 13, 2008