Posted on 11/26/2008 9:36:13 AM PST by pissant
The right-wing just won't let go of their "Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen" bit of nonsense. Today the Christiantist site World Net Daily is asking their readers to FedEx letters to the Supreme Court demanding they hold a hearing on the subject. They also want letters sent to Republican members of Congress saying, "Please hold congressional hearings to investigate whether Barack Obama meets the basic constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land."
They are also demanding that the members of the Electoral College prove Obama's citizenship before their December 15th vote that will officially make him president:
-----------------------
A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15. If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
(Excerpt) Read more at joemygod.blogspot.com ...
The real question is, what your doing on this guy’s website in the first place? Yuck
That, of course, would be a disaster. The Democrat electors would still get to vote on December 15th, and they would elect Hillary Rodham Clinton. And anybody who thinks that Mrs. Clinton would be preferable to President-elect Obama needs his or her head examined.
I guess you want to make America into a taliban style dictatorship (but with Christianity-which is totally different than Islam) if ALL you want to do is FOLLOW the Constitution: I think it’s the left that won’t “give up” the extremism, not us.
‘Christianist’? New to me......
Apparently Phillip Berg has converted to “Christianist”.
Interestingly enough the squealing of the left is growing noticably louder. I’m thinking they’re worried.
"With all this talk of the word "Christianist," I thought I'd do a Lexis/Nexis search to see how often it appears. In the Law Reviews & Journals database, "Christianist" (or "Christianists") is used only once, in an article by Robert J. Morris called "Intersections: Sexuality, Cultural Tradition, and the Law: Configuring the Bo(u)nds of Marriage: The Implications of Hawaiian Culture & Values for the Debate About Homogamy," 8 Yale J.L. & Human. 105 (1996)("Homogamy"? That's new to me.)"
More info at - http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/11/christianist.html
The right-wing just won’t let go of their “Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen” bit of nonsense
Since they can’t produce a legit COLB they will go to the dem playbook of demonizing the opponent. It’s just an unproveable right-wing attack!
Clinton is far preferable to me.
The use of the term *Christianist* denotes a severe brain dysfunction.
;-)
Fags are the only ones who use it. Like the Andrew “Loafers” Sullivan.
see my post #11
BREAKING: People in pants Ramp Up Obama Birth Certificate Attacks...
I sort of agree, at least she won’t sell our country down the river as fast as Obama. She would probably be a lot tough internationally.
Are Christianists baptized, unlike a Christian like, say.... Obama?
It’s a namecalling technique to marginalize anyone with a different opinion.
That’s fine - as long as they don’t mind being called
Obamunists
for the next 4 years.
This story is not going away until this is proven.....
The use of the term *Christianist* denotes a severe brain dysfunction.
;-)
_____________________________________
It’s used in a derogatory way. Check out this troll site and you’ll understand. They HATE Christians and just ‘take the piss’.
http://truechristiansunite.yuku.com/
They are trying to be ‘Landover Baptist’.
Well yes, but at least she would be legal. And we could always say she was selected, not elected.
All evidence points to Clinton being a terrible person. The same sort of evidenc points to Obama being a generally good person who is young naive and confused. Only a racist could prefer Clinton to Obama.
Only a racist liberal would think only a racist could prefer Hillary to Obama. Hillary may be the worst hag in the world and she’d still be preferable to the lying marxist racist POS.
The usage is noted in a William Safire "On Language" column on May 15, 2005:
"Two weeks after writing about the fervor of the late Terri Schiavo's ''Christianist 'supporters,''' Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker last month described Representative Tom Delay as a ''hard-right Christianist crusader.'' A few months before, soon after President Bush was re-elected, the conservative Weekly Standard reported that an Ohio cartoonist had sent out a communication deploring ''militant Christianist Republicans.''
So apparently, you can use the term as you see fit.... ;)
“Today the Christiantist site World Net Daily “
uhm. Christianist. right.
that aside, don’t ever get added to world net daily’s email list. I have NO idea how I got on their list for every SINGLE email I have, but getting off is like cancelling AOL.
for crying out loud, leave me ALONE !
Sure we will, show us a valid birth certificate, it is that simple.
“Only a racist could prefer Clinton to Obama”
did you forget your sarcasm tag ?
ps. the word “racist” to me now has come to mean “someone I disagree with but can’t reason my way to a win”
What could it be?
- His slut of a mother lied about who his father was.
- He birthplace would render him ineligible for the Presidency.
- ?????
If Obama is permitted to be inaugurated - without PROOF of natural born citizenship — then the DNC has shown once again their contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law....
Clinton's machine was out matched and she has not said a word about his legitimacy or not.p> She is very quiet on this because he could hurt her chances of being appointed to the USSC. She don't want no Sec of State crap, she wants to be a USSC judge for life.
WorldNetDaily is also a forum for non-leftist Jews - therefore, are they "Jewists" or "Jewishists"?
Why is that? He's more of a narcissist than she is, that makes him potentially easier to influence.. IMO, she's a nasty lesbian-friendly ideologue, with laser like focus on all thats near and dear to the gender class warfare crowd.
Rainbow / Satanic Doctrine's focus is upon worshiping and indulging the self.Christian Doctrine's focus is upon worshiping God and sacrificing the self - being reborn daily via Christ's sacrifice.
That was sealed into fact forever with the Clinton senate impeachment vote. Nothing new here!
Since Obama’s campaign was one of three in his career that has taken advantage of the fact that the racial pump was primed by those who came before him and by his selection of his black self to represent his whole self, it is hardly likely that future historians will ignore this obvious characteristic.
If one thing has come out of this exercise in mountain-climbing by the molehill builders involved, it will be the the realization that the wisdom of the ages as it pertains to the futility of high-expectations will be proved immutable once again.
When the ranks of the typical black families catch on to what is truly happening here maybe even they will give up their love affair with this quite charming but insincere man.
Did you you mean that insult seriously? If so it is a shameful remark and you owe an apology.
Herding yourself along with the Liberals as they play the race card does a terrible disservice to this conservative forum and, by extension, to America. You ought to instantly withdraw that calumny.
Stupid Christians ... we’re always behind the PC times, and now we haven’t grown up enough to know the Constitutional requirements for president are obsolete. Stupid Christianists, we ...
Hillary’s running the show now anyway. Eclair’s cabinet is a bunch of Clintonistas. You didn’t think that Harlem meeting in early fall was simply a smoking session, do you?
When a guy uses the term “Christiantist” its a sign that he is clueless.
Geez, sounds like youre describing yourself. He's neither all that young or "naive". He's known what he wanted since he was 8 yrs old (ask Hitlery). All those "present" votes, establishing himself in Chicago with all the race pimps and their biggest advocates, the affirmative action appt to Harvard Law review and so on. Engineered with one thing in mind.
What we need is a Conservative Congress to keep him in check, which unfortunately Bush almost went out of his way to make sure we wouldnt have.
By using the term “Christianist” they’re striking back at those who call the One a socialist or stalinist.
"“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The Convention agreed and without debate the provision suggested by Jay was written into the Constitution.
That Jay’s advice was taken is not surprising because in his career Jay was President of the Continental Congress, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, Ambassador to Spain and France, Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State) and Governor of New York, among other things. He wasn’t a man whose advice could be ignored. Note that what particularly concerned Jay was not a political issue but a military issue arising because the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. He was bothered by issues of National Security."
If you can see a big difference in the private gun ownership policies of Clinton vs. Obama, sure, I'd like to examine your head. You're seeing things the rest of us don't.
If you were referring to Article II of the Constitution, then no, you don't need your head examined for expecting that it be upheld except that it's as stupid rule. It's original intent was liberal creep Thomas Jefferson's desire to prevent the co-founder of American Conservativism, Alexander Hamilton, from becoming President. Jefferson wasn't a "natural born citizen" either, as the United States only came into existence after the ratification of the document.
Meanwhile, had he been elected, John McCain WOULD have been eligible, despite the fact that he, too, was not a natural born citizen under the letter of the law. This was due to a supreme court ruling, and not an amendment to the Constitution. In other words, the original concept was flawed, and the entire process has become outdated.
Barak Obama is clearly not the udeal example of a US citizen, but he's the one we elected.
What is a “Christiantist” and why are the “Christiantists” the only ones concerned with preserving the Constitution? I’d like to sign up. Sounds like more look-mom-i-can-type-on-the-internet liberal blogging to me. Oh well ... no press on the issue is bad press.
I guess that makes him a penist, then.
I’ve recently run across some interesting information concerning the O’s COLB and his BS issue. They are:
1. There are NO hospital records of his mother being admitted to have a baby during the time period of O’s virgin birth.
2. The O wrote in one of his books about his birth certificate decribing it in detail.
3. His almost daily press CONferences.
Number 2 struck me as odd unless you consider he knows there is an issue and he wants to address spin it early in an attempt to get some cover.
And when you notice his recent behaviour of trying to appear as if he is already running the country it may be an attwmpt to pressure to court to not rule against him.
And I hope the SCOTUS is not affected by a bunch of letters in ruling o an issue. Mob rule is very unsightly.
If SCOTUS fails to rule according the constitution there will be only one way remaining to secure our country.
Generally, I respect what you have to say on FR, so I am repeating this statement for you so that you can identify the stupidity of suggesting that HRC is anything but a the lying marxist racist POS.
No, in this case the word "racist" refers to two corrupt politicians who have (in the words of Mark Levin) "not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them politically."
There are only three obvious differences between Clinton and Obama: One got elected, one did not. One's a man, and one is a woman. One is black, one is white. Perhaps you can think of another. I can not. Thus, the only valid reasons for preferring one to the other are either sexism or racism.
Would you care to list some of HRC's qualities that make her preferrable to Obama?
I learned a long time ago, that when someone tells you you’re stupid for asking a question, when they could easily answer it, you should keep asking till you get an answer.
Sometimes they were right, it was a stupid question.
More often than not, though, it wasn’t the question that was stupid; it was the answer they didn’t want to discuss.
If you ask about Obama’s citizenship, and rather than simply answer the question he sends his lawyers to fight you and his propagandists to insult you, you should probably keep asking until you get an answer. Everything about the way he responds tells me he doesn’t want to discuss it, and that tells me there is a reason. His reason may be something other than the reason I suspect, but there is a reason he doesn’t want to discuss it.
Read the whole thread, and tell me if you think you still understand what it is that I’m trying to say.
My point is this: I don’t like Obama, but I hated Clinton, and her character and her politics, and her pantsuits before I had ever even heard of the man. All of a sudden Hillary Clinton is looking better to a lot of people around here, and I’m just sort of scratching my about it. The woman is pure evil.
I would rather Hillary. At least she is a citizen and loves America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.