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 ...
Clinton wasn’t a Kenyan Pinko Muslim traitor that was hell bent on destroying this country. The Kenyan is one termer. I’ll put money on that.
No, Nixon resigned when the House Judiciary Committee approved 3 articles of Impeachment.
Nixon, unlike Clinton, was never impeached by the House. The House brought 4 articles of impeachment against him. Nixon did have enough honor to resign, again unlike Billy Jeff.
Only two Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's VP) and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Neither was convicted in the Senate. Although in Johnson's case I believe the Senators at least looked at the evidence, and did not argue Scottish law. In fact they took over 2 months to do so, and fell only 1 vote short of conviction. There were 11 articles of impeachment. But Johnson's real "crime" was trying to "go easy" on the defeated South, as Lincoln wished to do, and being a Southerner himself.
Clinton's was lying under oath.
He acts 6 or 7. Thinks he is witty. He’s actually pretty old, ugly and a huge geek.
>>Treason is one such term; it is interesting to note that besieging DC would NOT be an act of treason under the Constitution as DC is NOT a state.
>
>But since D.C is part of the United States then yes, it would.
Let’s see what the Constitution says, here is Sec. 3 of Art. 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted
of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
1) Note the plural of “them” in the sentence, obviously this indicates that the states themselves are being referenced.
2) Secondly, note that nobody is to be convicted of Treason except on a) confession in an open court, OR b) the testimonies of at least two people.
3) Section 8 of Article 1 says, in part, this:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be”
This is referring to what would later become Washington DC; note that is is specifically NOT a state, but rather a district.
4) Note the second part of the definition of Treason: “or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” this can be quite nicely illustrated by the so called “sanctuary cities” where the local governance acts in defiance of laws AND allows those who could rightly be considered invaders more than just a little protection.
Therefore, while an attack [by a foreign power] on DC would rightly be considered an Act of War as it is an assault upon the seat of our governance, it is not Treason for the people, or even several states, to besiege that city. Perhaps Sedition, but that has a different definition.
Our whole government is lawless, yet they keep heaping laws on the citizens. Laws and taxes. Who works for whom when they can spend our money before they even have it?
He always calls FReepers names. He’s only nice all the time when he’s posting over at Kos and DU. See what a nice person this ah is?
Why would he grant it without giving the other side a chance to respond? Are you sure you aren’t clueless?
Well, keep telling yourself that stuff and we’ll see what happens in October.
Hope this helps.
NS-Not at all, jerkface.
The first thing you’ve said to date that we can agree on, you blithering jackass.
Thanks for confirming you’re a fool.
But if I abandon it then I let the loonies win and spread their nonsense unchallenged – NS REFERRING TO FREEPERS AS LOONIES
You too, butthead.
It’s really a sad state of affairs when the President of the United States cannot address school children
I swear you people must not realize just how ridiculous you sound some times.
I guess you’re just not as bright as your buddies, huh?
You boneheads just don’t get it, do you?
It also means that no future president will ever be able to address America’s students in a nationwide speech ever again.
I see people jumping on the Palin bandwagon for the same reason that they jumped on the Obama bandwagon - a pretty face who talks a good game
If a stupid crack by David Letterman and ethics charges by political opponents are more than she can handle then she should by all means stay on the rubber chicken circuit where it’s safe and out of politics
Sahah Palin as Winston Churchill? The ultimate ROTFLMAO moment.
So you’re agreeing with the author that the acid test of conservatism is rejecting evolution and opposing abortion rather that smaller government and lower taxes?
Has General Mills announced their pulling out, like advertisers for Beck did?
Sounds as nutty as Fred Phelps.
Well. They’re both Baptists.
Nah it far more fun hanging around here watching boobs like you
Yes well when it comes to being stupid I’ll defer to your expertise in that.
The health care trainwreck didn’t hurt the Clintons in 1996.
An Open Letter from President Obama to Joe Farah: “No.”
A FOX show that distorts to the right? Who would a thunk it?
Yeah, but the majority will condemn him because he’s a Muslim.
If he dumps the public option then his only alternative is to lean on the private companies to insure anyone. That should result in higher costs for the rest of us.
Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush
Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:36:26 AM • 83 of 289
Non-Sequitur to meandog
As a rule I don’t buy politician’s memoirs. But I might make an exception in this case.
Earth to Steele, Earth to Steele, come in Steele. Every president stacks the room for events like this. Obama didn’t invent the process.
The Birther movement could disappear tomorrow and the GOP would be in the same sorry shape it’s currently in.
The problem, of course, being that the GOP is on a faster track to oblivion and are not in a position to take advantage.
Note* Here he replies to a troll that was then banned:
Is this really it? (re: possible Obama’s Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link
Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:17:57 PM • 7,353 of 10,244
Non-Sequitur to Cymraeg
You Birthers are a disgrace to America.
Yeah but they’re fun to watch.
Non-Sequitur has admitted that he/she/it comes to these threads as a means to amuse him/her/itself by fomenting as much fuss as he/she/it can.
And you never fail to provide that amusement.
*note.( just because this is funny I had to throw it in)
If I’d ever had a son I would have named him Caractacus. Either that or Bob. And I was going to name my daughter Boudicca but my wife insisted on naming her after her grandmothers
I know people who have been out of work for 18 months or more. Who knew Obama’s actions went back that far?
She has committed political suicide. Palin will never be president, will never even be the Republican candidate for president. Bookmark this thread and see if I’m right.
Where’s the book you moron? So you can prove what you’ve been blathering about all this time.
April Is Also Confederate History Month
Sunday, April 05, 2009 5:12:27 PM • 314 of 667
Non-Sequitur to stainlessbanner
Don’t think Wlat was a professor.
Nor do I ever recall him claiming he was one. I believe he was from Tennessee, but I never held that against him.
I guarantee this: YOU WOULD NEVER SEE A SOUTHERNER BOW TO A SAUDI.
Nah. Y’all are into holding hands.
*Note then he posts pic of Bush with Saudi King
. If you Southron know one thing it’s how to hate.
It’s interesting to see that Canadians are just as clueless as you are.
According to meteorlogy, period, the water cycle makes Noah’s flood impossible.
We Should Build a Bigger Navy - China is.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:34:33 AM • 43 of 62
Non-Sequitur to unkus
If anything, our whole military is going to be used and abused and cut.
Where have you been for the last 8 years?
Obama is my President, only if
Monday, November 03, 2008 8:04:02 PM • 48 of 99
Non-Sequitur to SonsOfLibertyII
Obama is my President, only if
So where you moving to if he wins?
A lot of tasteless FReepers and their sick paranoia probably.
You strike me as someone who will happily follow Obama into the fascist tyranny he will take this country, and you will gladly forfeit the last of your freedom; and you will brook no dissent, just because it is “the Union.” You remind me of those folks who screamed “My country right or wrong!” several years ago. You’re brownshirt material, alright.
NS- Ah, the last gasp of the Sothron psychotic: it nothing else works accuse your opponent of being a liberal. Nice to see that you’re being true to form. No doubt the fact that you can connect a black man to your pejorative is only icing on the cake for you.
Ah!! Ok, I will just pity him then! :o)
“Obama’s campaign sent in $10 or whatever, got a standard issue COLB from Hawaii, and thought, like any normal person, that this would settle the issue. They didn’t realize they were dealing with a bunch of lunatics impervious to reality.”
So once they realized they were dealing with a bunch of lunatics why didn’t they provide the long form with the doc’s name and signature? Rather they have tied up several courts and spent large sums of money (probably taxpayers)to keep this document from seeing the light of day. From an earlier post and worth repeating, “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970),cert. denied,
400 U.S. 831 (1970)
No, you get to see whatever you wish without one. But you have to ask to see or be told stuff.
The Constitution allows the voter to be a colossal fool and put an absolute traitor in office if the voter is so inclined.
As in the case of Red Ron Dellums, who came within a hair's breadth of being head of the House Intelligence committee, which he would have likely become if the Dems had held onto the House in '94. He's currently mayor of Oakland CA.
Yes, but don't forget that SHE too will feel all Hell, because she is an enabler by sending sworn statements to all SoS!!!
Been watching this "Truth Squad" BS from afar. Never changes.
Folks tried, the courts and the "media" were not interested. In the later case they'd have called anyone who questioned The One's eligibility racist.
LOL!!! Thanks for the info. Sounds like NS is really al franken!!! (Of course he’ll consider that a compliment.)
Chief Justice Waite (in Minor v. Happersett) takes the liberty to use the terms interchangeably.
I just thought it odd that fight the smears would use the more obscure term, Native born; rather than the well known one, Natural born
. ... the Constitution identifies two specific forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized.
Yes, and you also believe that Obama is a Natural/Native Born Citizen -- even though he admits his father was a foreign national.
Correct?
The same Chief Justice Waite (in Minor v. Happersett)indicates that the above stance is worthy of doubt, as follows:
In Minor v. Happersett Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, which included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents{PLURAL} who were its citizens{PLURAL}became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been DOUBTS but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these DOUBTS. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
(emphases mine)
It would seem that if Chief Justice Waite were on this forum he would be called a "birther" for indicating that such a birth as Obama's is fraught with doubt as to his (Obama's)Natural/Native Born status.
STE=Q
It can’t and anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize that.
“I really do not know if he’s a natural-born citizen or not...”
Maybe this could help you out???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU&feature=PlayList&p=B278681E23614868&index=0
He is? Funny he looks more like Stanley A. Dunham, a white guy from Kansas, than anyone one else.
On iPhone now tomorrow I look I remember it well
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.