From:
The Charlott Conservative;
World Net Daily;
And America Coast To Coast
Rep. Deal (R-Ga), Challenges Obama’s Eligibility
FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The Charlott Conservative;
World Net Daily;
And America Coast To Coast
Rep. Deal (R-Ga), Challenges Obama’s Eligibility
FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative for Georgia, is running for Georgia Governor in 2010.
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America.
The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories.
It originated solely from Representative Deal.
Now, what does this mean?
Now, what does this mean?
This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.
This forever changes the public discourse.
Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence.
Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence.
The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00?
He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen.
This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper.
Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals.
Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half!
Obama's original birth papers have yet to be made available for review, and there are critics who contended he wasn't actually born in Hawaii. Others say that doesn't make any difference, since with a father subject to British rule at the time of his birth, he was at best a dual citizen. The critics contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from being called a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution.
The "natural-born citizen" issue has been raised in a multitude of lawsuits since before Obama was elected, including some pending at various levels of the judicial system.
Most judges, however, have concluded that U.S. citizens and political candidates simply have no right – or "standing" – to question whether Obama has met the requirements of the Constitution.
But the questions have been exacerbated by other information Obama has chosen not to release.
Other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed.
To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here:
The Honorable Nathan Deal
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1009
DC Phone: 202-225-5211
DC Fax: 202-225-8272
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/deal/contact.shtml
WWW Homepage: http://www.house.gov/deal/
Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals.
Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half!
Obama's original birth papers have yet to be made available for review, and there are critics who contended he wasn't actually born in Hawaii. Others say that doesn't make any difference, since with a father subject to British rule at the time of his birth, he was at best a dual citizen. The critics contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from being called a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution.
The "natural-born citizen" issue has been raised in a multitude of lawsuits since before Obama was elected, including some pending at various levels of the judicial system.
Most judges, however, have concluded that U.S. citizens and political candidates simply have no right – or "standing" – to question whether Obama has met the requirements of the Constitution.
But the questions have been exacerbated by other information Obama has chosen not to release.
Other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed.
To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here:
The Honorable Nathan Deal
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1009
DC Phone: 202-225-5211
DC Fax: 202-225-8272
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/deal/contact.shtml
WWW Homepage: http://www.house.gov/deal/
_______________________
YOU GO CONGRESSMAN DEAL!
We're with you all the way!
Re: "The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii."
ReplyDeleteThat is NOT true. You cannot obtain a Certification of Live Birth that says "born in Hawaii" for someone who was not born in Hawaii.
Obama's Certification, which is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii and is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by ALL the departments in Hawaii (yes, including DHHL; I checked) and by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA, says "born in Honolulu, Hawaii."
This is what the Wall Street Journal says:
"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."
smrstrauss, You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I however choose to take my own advice and follow the path of common sense.
ReplyDeleteIf a man has a British subject as a father, then was later adopted by an Indonesian surrogate father, he has certainly forsaken his claim to ANY citizenship in America.
Even though these events were not of his doing, all he ever needed to do was to divulge the truth of it. Instead he chooses to be aloof and hide behind 'believers' like you.
The truth will come out.
If it's proven he is a natural born American citizen, I will certainly appologize to all.
If, however it is proven that he is indeed a fraud, I don't expect such an appology for you or any other 'believers'.
Folks like you have long ago shown that you have no honor, no regard for our American heritage, no respect for traditional values like appologizing when you're wrong.
No, you'll just change the subject then make some excuse about needing to be at a meeting. Diversion, confusion, and misrepresentation.
That's your way...
You also are entitled to your opinion. But you will not win at the Supreme Court. The reason is that the justices are aware of the original meaning of Natural Born, which was simply "born in the country."
ReplyDeleteBy the way, did you know that Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents? Some say that they were naturalized, but there is no evidence of it.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
smrstrauss, Thanks for your comments, and THANKS FOR VISITING MY BLOG!
ReplyDeleteIf I could only get other 'believers' like you to visit and comment, maybe we could make some progress in our great country!
This flimsy issue of 'not having standing' as reason for any court to hear this issue is just ludicrus.
Plus, the laws in 1961 were quite different concerning citizenship than they are today.
There are SOOOO many issues surrounding this usurpers birth and validity, it is simply astounding!
As I said, the truth will come out.
Thanks again!
Re: "This flimsy issue of 'not having standing' as reason for any court to hear this issue is just ludicrus."
ReplyDeleteIf I remember right, the precedent of a person having to have standing came mainly from lawsuits against the Vietnam War.
Re: "Plus, the laws in 1961 were quite different concerning citizenship than they are today."
Yes. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 and is a citizen according to US laws at the time, which were -- and are -- if you are born in the USA you are a Natural Born US Citizen.
You don't seem to be familiar with the laws of the time. Back then one had to have lived in the US for 5 out of the last 10 years in order for their offspring to be 'automatic' natural born American citizens.
ReplyDeleteObama's mother did not meet that requirement, nor did his Kenyan father.
And the issue of 'standing' relates to whether a person has any 'vested interest' in the outcome of the proposed judicial matter. So far, every judge say Americans can't even criticise this guy because they have no vested interest in whether or not the usurper is legitimate. Seems sort of odd doesn't it?
Oh and you can check out this site- http:// www. colony14.net/id41.html- for a pretty accurate track on the Obama Timeline.
Your tactics are pretty transparant, but, you keep trying, hear?!
Thanks again...
Re: "Back then one had to have lived in the US for 5 out of the last 10 years in order for their offspring to be 'automatic' natural born American citizens."
ReplyDeleteFrom the time that the 14th Amendment was passed EVERY child born in the USA was considered a citizen. The age of the mother and the nationality of the father do not affect that.
Nor does the nationality of the father affect Natural Born Citizen status. All children born in the USA are also Natural Born Citizens because the original meaning of Natural Born was simply "born in the country."
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)