Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
We do get it. You have an emotional block on this issue that precludes rationally processing the available data.
That YouTube was AMAZING! What a cool, little guy.
Thanks!
Simple. Produce the link. You either can or you can’t.
From the article: Where do we go from here?
2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
The DC District Court has the authority to investigate the eligibility of a sitting President. The DC District Court received this authority from Congress when Congress passed the Federal Quo Warranto Statute in 1901 and revised it, in 1963, to its present form.
A Quo Warranto inquiry is not a prosecution. It does not accuse Barack Obama of breaking any law. The inquiry is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. In a Quo Warranto inquiry, the DC District Court would say to Barack Obama something to this effect (loosely paraphrased):
Mr. President, you are being asked to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to hold the office that you are currently holding. Please be advised: 1) You bear the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that you are eligible to serve as President. 2) Constitutional questions will be heard and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3) This Quo Warranto proceeding has teeth. It operates under Congressional authority. If you cannot or will not show the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to be President, this Court has the power and the authority to remove you from office. The DC District Court would determine (by jury, if necessary) the relevant facts of the case -- Obama's birthplace, his parents' citizenship, etc. The Supreme Court would then decide the Constitutional legal issues, such as what a Constitutional natural born citizen is and whether Barack Obama is such a citizen.
If you believe there is enough doubt about Obama's eligibility to warrant a public inquiry, please consider writing, in your own words, a letter to the proper authorities, politely and respectfully asking them to bring (or permit a third party to bring) the matter before the DC District Court. Attorney Leo Donofrio suggests writing to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, since the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor has resigned.
By writing, you would show that (a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President's Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.
“Kapi’olani didn’t deliver babies? “
He said he was born at Queen’s.
"British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth."
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Schwartzenegger and Kissinger could never qualify either.
Do a search, yourself. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
There is no definition in the Constitution or the body of the law that precludes a dual citizen at birth from also being an NBC. That is a fact. You want to read such a definition into the Constitution. That is your privilege in personal thought, but it doesn't make it so.
Arnold and Henry don't qualify becuase they weren't born here. The law is clear on that point.
“So a question for you, what leads you to believe that something which was a well known fact for years before the election, that no one with any authority objected to or even mentioned, is going to change anything over a year after the election?”
The only logical answer is that they are all crooks. ALL of them.
No, you’re admitting that you can’t produce it and feel more comfortable with a lie than the truth.
Don’t you love how the trolls always say, “site your source” instead of proving their own points??
No, you refuse to prove your own points by changing the focus. That’s an Awlinsky rule.
uh-huh...
Read my tagline and pour yourself another glass of kool-aid.
Oh..and have a nice day!
He said he was born at Queen’s.]
Uh, no he didn't. I already noted that myth in the previous post. And if you think that even matters, here's a quote from World Net Daily of all places:
“In 1961, the two hospitals delivering the vast majority of babies in Honolulu were at that time Kapi’olani Women and Children's Hospital and Queens Hospital.”
So what hospital was it that wasn't delivering babies in 1961? I've never seen people just make stuff up like birthers.
Nothing.
Sorry, I just don’t see that happening. He still has the same approval numbers as Clinton and he got reelected.
The list is long, but distinguished. Look at the other posts and you can tell the Birthers from the non-Birthers.
Even if the R's gain majority in both houses and tried to impeach in 2011 and 2012 if will only help Bammy get reelected.
The constitution is done.
It can only be revived with spilled blood.
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.