You know you’re a nObama if…

27 Responses to You know you’re a nObama if…

1. Ted says:

   December 20, 2008 at 9:14 am  Ted(Quote)

   THIS AMAZING (YET TYPICAL) RESPONSE FROM A REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBER (IDAHO CONG SIMPSON) — THE 3 BRANCHES OF GOVT ARE NOW PERFECTLY WILLING TO CONTINUE WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION:–

   “You mentioned your opinion on the citizenship of President-elect Obama. The Supreme Court has turned down the appeal that questioned the eligibility of President-elect Obama to hold the office of President. The Court did not comment on its order. Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. I look forward to working with the new administration to continue serving Idahoans throughout the 111th Congress.”
2. Ted says:

   December 21, 2008 at 1:37 am  Ted(Quote)

   If 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor forcefully to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a coup d’etat.

   SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.
3. Ted says:

   December 23, 2008 at 1:33 am  Ted(Quote)

   While the “October Surprise” credit crisis netted Obama the general election, a “January Surprise” constitutional crisis will NOT net Obama the Presidency!
4. Ted says:

   December 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm  Ted(Quote)

   QUESTION: By the apparent lack of interest of Congress and the Supreme Court in enforcing the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause thereby inaugurating an outlaw “President” and Federal Government, what moral and legal authority remains to compel taxpayers to file and pay federal income tax in 2009? Just wondering?
5. laughinghysterically says:

   January 13, 2009 at 11:52 pm  laughinghysterically(Quote)

   Don’t forget:

   You identify yourself as a PUMA, and roar at other PUMAs upon meeting them.
6. Patrick McKinnion says:

   January 13, 2009 at 11:59 pm  Patrick McKinnion(Quote)

   8b. You believe Pravda-on line is an objective news provider.
   8c. You believe The Globe Magazine is an real news provider
7. jazz says:

   January 14, 2009 at 10:41 am  jazz(Quote)

   1.You belive Obama is a muslim who’s out to get all christians and kill white folk.

   Or

   2. You naturaly belive Obama is the anti-christ.

   3. You belive Obama killed is grandmother to keep her from talking about his real birth place.

   4 you belive Obama casted a spelll on all his suppporters to make them vote for him.

   5. You belive the election was “fixed” to make Obama the first black president.

   6.You belive all our government is corrupt and part of the conspiracy to take over America and create BIG government.

   I mean it goes on and on and on.
8. laughinghysterically says:

   January 14, 2009 at 11:42 am  laughinghysterically(Quote)

   You may be a nObama onspiracy theorist if:

   You are off your medication, and are listening to the “voices”.

   You question the authenticity of the Obama birth certificate, but believe everthing Linda Starr, Polarik, Orly, Ed Hale and any other anti-Obama blogger says requiring them to provide NO PROOF AT ALL.
9. MNBV says:

   January 14, 2009 at 12:04 pm  MNBV(Quote)

   Nice one.. LOL!!!
10. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 14, 2009 at 2:59 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Revised number 11:

    11. You believe Ron Polarik has released HIS birth certificate.
11. John Dean says:

    January 14, 2009 at 3:53 pm  John Dean(Quote)

    You believe API taped Michelle Obama, had a deal with Fox, received $500,000 via Paypal, dispatched an Iman to bring a Kenyan birth certificate out of Africa, yada yada yada….
12. bogus info says:

    January 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm  bogus info(Quote)

    Somebody posted something about “Vattel being the Holy Grail”. That’s when you know you are a nObama.
13. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 14, 2009 at 7:18 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Vattel is the holy grail from which the nObamas drink their poisoned Kool-Aid.
14. bogus info says:

    January 14, 2009 at 7:23 pm  bogus info(Quote)

    That is a good one!
15. Ted says:

    January 15, 2009 at 5:29 pm  Ted(Quote)

    The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.
16. Ted says:

    January 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm  Ted(Quote)

    CHALLENGE TO ANY LAWYER, INCLUDING ANY JUDGE, IN AMERICA (OR ANYONE IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER):

    READ (CAREFULLY) THE ANDERSON AMICUS BRIEF — NOW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT — AND STATE A BASIS FOR BHO TO BE SWORN IN AS POTUS ON 1/20/09?

    Link at:

    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf

    or at:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145354/posts
17. Tes says:

    January 17, 2009 at 9:04 pm  Tes(Quote)

    Re: CHALLENGE TO ANY LAWYER, INCLUDING ANY JUDGE, IN AMERICA (OR ANYONE IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER): READ (CAREFULLY) THE ANDERSON AMICUS BRIEF — NOW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT — AND STATE A BASIS FOR BHO TO BE SWORN IN AS POTUS ON 1/20/09?
    =====================
    From the Brief: “The states, however, could have provided by statute that in order for the name of a political party’s candidate to appear on the ballot, that candidate would have to provide affirmative proof of his qualifications.” (p. 7)
    ——–But, they didn’t. Obama and the DNC (and McCain/RNC) complied with the evidentiary requirements applicable in all states. Under THE LAW, as it existed at that time, Obama provided “sufficient proof.” We might not like that law, and we might work to CHANGE the law in our states (some already are working on this), but that WAS THE LAW. Therefore, under the LAW, Obama fulfilled his legal obligation to demonstrate eligibility.
    ——————————
    From the Brief: “And Congress could have acted to require that in order to count a vote of an elector for a particular person, there would first have to be affirmative proof.” (p. 7-8)
    ——–But, they didn’t. Actually, I’m not sure they could. I believe the right to determine how electors are selected is vested with the STATES. Therefore, a good argument can be made that the federal government would be exceeding its constitutional powers if it were to attempt to interfere in individual state rights as to the method of selecting electors – i.e., the process of popular election for the President.
    ——————————
    From the Brief: “The Constitution provides that if no person receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College, the President is to be elected by the House of Representatives ….” (p. 8)
    ——–But, Obama did receive a majority of the votes. Not a single elector “defected.” Therefore, under correct Constitutional procedure, Obama received sufficient votes to be certified as President-Elect. Under the LAW, Obama is President-Elect.
    ——————————
    From the Brief: “Therefore, if, by action of this Court, Barack Obama does not receive a majority of the vote of the Electoral College …..” (p. 8)
    ——–But, there was no such action by the Court. The Court declined to halt the Electoral College vote; Congress accepted unanimously, and without objection, the ECV, and Obama was certified as President Elect. Under the LAW, Obama is President-Elect.
    ————————————————————
    Therefore, the LEGAL basis for swearing Obama in on January 20 is:
    (a) Obama lawfully (following established legal procedures) requested to be on the ballot in all states, and all states lawfully (following established Constitutional and legal procedures) placed him on the ballot for the general election.
    (b) In the majority of states, the majority of voters lawfully chose Obama, sufficient to obtain the majority of Electoral College Votes;
    — The Supreme Court considered, and refused, requests to stay the Nov. 4 election.
    (c) The states lawfully (following established Constitutional and legal procedures) certified the popular vote and designated electors.
    (d) The electors lawfully (following established Constitutional and legal procedures) cast their votes in December.
    — The Supreme Court considered, and refused requests to prohibit states from certifying their states’ election, designating electors, and/or to stay the Electoral College Vote..
    (e) Congress lawfully (following established Constitutional and legal procedures), unanimously, and without objection, certified the Electoral College Vote.
    — The Supreme Court considered, and refused requests to prohibit Congress from certifying the Electoral College Vote, including the request to do so on the basis if res ipsa loquitur.
    Therefore, under the LAW, Obama is President-Elect and, as such, should be sworn in as President of the United States on January 20.
18. laughinghysterically says:

    January 17, 2009 at 9:28 pm  laughinghysterically(Quote)

    You may be a nObama conspiracy theorist:

    If you are reading this list and are COMPLETELY UNAWARE that you are being hypnotized by O-bots AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

    Doh!!! Too late now!

    Gotcha!
    Bwahahahaha!
19. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 17, 2009 at 10:40 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I have decided what to do about Ted. Since Ted’s comments are typically off topic, I decided to put them all together. Any Ted comment will be moved under this article. So as of now, nobody is banned on this blog.
20. Ted says:

    January 18, 2009 at 2:42 pm  Ted(Quote)

    The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists
21. Ted says:

    January 26, 2009 at 7:51 am  Ted(Quote)

    WTF, at least El Rushbo is constitutionally qualified to be President!
    Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951 to an American mom “Millie” and an American dad lawyer & WWII fighter pilot in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Since ‘President’ Obama now wants to silence El Rushbo even before BHO has a chance to try to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” to silence all conservative talk radio, I’ve got three questions (but answers to only two of them):
    FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
    ANSWER: Joe Biden
    Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in commencing’ an Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
    This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT, on either and/or both of two bases — (1) BHO refuses to show Birth Certificate to deny Kenyan birth/res ipsa loquitur “action speaks for itself” or (2) BHO admits dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen at Jr’s birth), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
    SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
    ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
    One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
    THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
    ANSWER: Not yet determined.
22. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    January 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Silence Rush Limbaugh? That would be too good to be true.
23. Ted says:

    January 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm  Ted(Quote)

    With the mounting job casualties, here’s hoping SCOTUS either finds someone, somewhere, has standing to require BHO’s birth certificate or fixes attention on a criminal indictment before he wins his War on Prosperity.
24. Patrick McKinnion says:

    January 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm  Patrick McKinnion(Quote)

    So is this your latest Tedbot?? Doesn’t have the oomph of your others.
25. mimi says:

    January 27, 2009 at 9:42 pm  mimi(Quote)

    Yeah. What gives, Tedbot? Got the flue?
26. ac says:

    November 1, 2009 at 4:26 pm  ac(Quote)

    The sad thing is that these claims could plausibly have been made by the Limbaugh-Beck-Palin Triumvirate of Stupid, and their minions.

    When you can no longer distinguish between the satire, and the actual stupid, things may have crossed the line.
27. Mary Brown says:

    November 1, 2009 at 5:28 pm  Mary Brown(Quote)

    Why silence the bully. The more he talks and screams the less likely moderate independent voters are to listen to the Republicans. Oh, and who would vote for the candidates of a party who are afraid of a radio talk show host. Especially one whose bravest act was sending a maid out for his drugs.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.