It’s amazing what you can “learn” from reading World Net Daily. For instance, did you know that the Canadian-born Jennifer Granholm is considering running for President and doesn’t care what the Constitution says about it?
Oh, it’s true… if you believe World Net Daily:
The governor of Michigan has pooh-poohed concern over her allegiance to Canada – she was born there and has dual citizenship in the United States and Canada – and whether that would impact her candidacy if she chose to run for president.
“Come on,” Jennifer Granholm said while being interviewed, along with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”
Why that evil, conniving, constitution-hating Governor Granholm, running for president in 2012, setting our nation’s founding document a-flame! You have to read multiple paragraphs down below the opener (which 80% of readers won’t do) in order to get the truth:
* Granholm actually said, verbatim: “I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.”
* The phrase “come on” was uttered in reference to a FOX News anchor asking Granholm whether she supported American athletes or Canadian athletes in the Winter Olympics. The full quote: “I left Canada when I was 4. Come on.”
It is true that Jennifer Granholm said “come on” while being interviewed on FOX News. The rest of the tale is a fabrication. This is the World Net Daily strategy for proving just about anything: place a true but utterly unrelated statement after a claim, creating the appearance of substantiation. Want to make Jennifer Granholm a Satanist? Here’s how.
The Governor of Michigan took to the air amid concerns that she — born in Canada and not on American soil — is overly sympathetic to Satanic influence on FM Radio and may bring that Satanic sympathy to a possible race for President.
“Come on,” Jennifer Granholm said while being interviewed, along with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”
You see? Instant true!
One of my other favorite fact-folly pairings in the World Net Daily article:
The issue is one of the points of contention in some of the many legal challenges brought over President Obama’s eligibility for office.
Attorneys have argued the framers of the U.S. Constitution excluded dual citizens from eligibility when they required a president be only a “natural born citizen.”
It is true that “Attorneys have argued” this point. “Attorneys have argued” many things. “Attorneys have argued” that Michael Jordan should pay millions of dollars of damages to someone who looks like him because everyone bothers the lookalike for autographs. The fact that “Attorneys have argued” something is utterly unrelated to its truth. The undisputed fact that Obama’s citizenship “is one of the points of contention” that “Attorneys have argued” is not a documentation of the issue having any merit — but that doesn’t stop World Net Daily from mentioning it.
But wait… there’s more!
Obama’s own writings confirm his father never was a U.S. citizen and was subject to the governance of the United Kingdom and later Kenya on its independence. When Obama was born, some argue, he was subject to U.K. citizenship through his father.
“Some argue” is another great phrase. “Some argue” that the Queen of England is at the center of a cocaine smuggling ring. “Some argue” that you can collect Sasquatch DNA from a rubber monkey suit.
And we’re back to Jennifer Granholm:
At the Radio Patriot, radio host Andrea Shea King said, “Granholm’s response is indicative of the mistaken belief that because one of her parents is/was a U.S. citizen, she’s eligible.”
“This woman took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has she even read it?” King wrote.
“With this willful disregard of our founding document, is it any wonder that we have the son of a Kenyan-born British subject in the White House???” she asked.
It’s true that Andrea Shea King said this, but it doesn’t mean that what Andrea Shea King said is true. Read the FOX News transcript yourself. Then ask King: has she even read it?
Not only did I read it, I watched the segment where Granholm said these things.
I stand by my statement.
If you’re telling the truth then you are, frankly, insane.
Transcript:
That’s the complete, unadulterated transcript of the entire part of the transcript in which Wallace and Granholm discuss her being born in Canada and also being an American. Nowhere does she say she’s eligible to be president. Nowhere does she indicate a “willful disregard of our founding document.”
So which is it, Andrea Shea King? Are you a lying blowhard, or are you insane? Unfortunately, neither condition makes it particularly easy to tell the difference, but the more you write here the more you’ll give it away, so I encourage you to write with extreme verbosity.
P.S. Could you tell me what your problem is with the son of a Kenyan-born British subject being in the White House? Is it the son of an African part, the son of a British subject part, or more generally the son of a foreigner part? Your moral values are so interesting!
Come on, Andrea Shea King. Tell me true.
I would agree that she does not state a “willful disregard of our founding document”.
However, it is pretty apparent that the transcript can be interpreted in one of two ways, since the actual words do not negate the possibility. The key quote:
…WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship….”
So Wallace is not merely stating “she is a Canadian” He is stating what he believes to be a logical proof, namely:
She is Canadian, therefore, she cannot be President. (of the U.S. we assume)
She refutes the previous statement by ” I’m American” So it is completely unclear which part (or all) of the statement of Wallace that she is refuting, just the Canadian part, or the entire logical proof that Wallace stated immediately previous: She cannot be President, because she is Canadian.
She could be just saying, I’m an American, however, since the context of Wallace’s immediately previous remark was that this disqualified her to be President, then it’s equally fair to assume that she is using her negation of Wallace’s remark to indicate she also could be eligible for President, even though that part of the remark was not explicit.
She did not clarify that “I’m an American, and THEREFORE I CAN run for President”, but no one with any sense could honesty say that the context of what she was responding to probably meant both parts of Wallace’s remarks.
Whether she is actually eligible or not isn’t what I care about. On that note, I’ve heard various opinions on both sides by lawyers of just what is meant by the “natural born citizen ” clause. I think it’s entirely fair to say that her eligibility to be President is at least within the realm of being considered. Obama was born in Hawaii; assuming that’s been satisfied to everyone’s desire, then of course he is in a different position. For a person born in Canada, who lived there until she was at least four years old, I suppose it will be debated if she ever chooses to run. Of course, there are a lot of politicians who have said this or that about running or not running that somehow get reversed later on. So I put nothing past any politician.
Many times it’s of course not said explicitly, but we certainly know what is meant. Like Jimmie’s statement above: “..Your moral values are so interesting!.. ” Interesting does not imply that you disagree with someone’s values at all, but I would have to be dense to not take it in the context of the rest of the statement and infer that Jim probably does not find A.S. King’s values interesting in the same sense you would say that a great documentary that you watched was “interesting” One is implying favor through its context, the other does not.
You just wrote multiple paragraphs to write in between the lines something that Granholm not only did NOT say, but clearly did not mean since she had just said that she would NOT be running for president.
She said “I’m American.” She meant “I’m American.” She is American.
Your cartwheels are pathetic. Interestingly pathetic.
Your last line made my point and reinforced all I said.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Wow. Luckily, the period at the end of your last sentence just made me a million dollars!
Hey Jim, I’ll make you a million dollars:
POOF! You’re a million dollars!
And I wanted you to make me an ice-cream sundae with sprinkles.
And he ended up with a fudgesicle dip.
When constitution was written it was about the continental of the United States. Hawaii was not part of the continental of united states. Hawaii, became part of united states .