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 ...
Wrong. One sloppy reporter working for UPI, using only Wikipedia to check his facts, mistakenly wrote in a single article that it was Queens. This was the only news outlet to make this mistake. Every other mainstream news source has consistently reported that it was Kapiolani.
And no, a student newsletter put out by some high school in Honolulu doesn't count as a mainstream news source.
until people working on Obama's behalf changed that to Kapiʻolani.
Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained that he was born in Kapiolani, the mistakes of sloppy reporters notwithstanding.
Not as funny as what passes for Birther logic. Trust me on that one.
The left, your friends, made her sons birth an issue so it opened to door for conservatives to see your hero’s BC.
“He said he was born at Queen’s.
No he did not. “
So, where do you want Him to have been born?
The left, your friends, made her sons birth an issue so it opened the door for conservatives to see your hero’s BC.
Now, I’m for Sarah and I think she’s great and I’m hoping to vote for her one of these days (if she runs for something that I can vote for) — but she’s a cool cookie and I don’t think she’s buying into all this birther stuff...
What I’m saying may be a little bit of a “technicality” here, but if I remember correctly (but someone will have to verify...) — I think Sarah Palin said that Americans have a right to “ask” to see it...
Note those words, and if I’m correct, then she’s provided herself enough wiggle-room there... :-)
Then quote where it does. By all means point to the Article that defines natural born citizen or the clause that mentions dual citizenship.
She did, in an earlier statement.
If they are referring to a COLB, it is not proof of his birth in HI.
Yes it is.
Please give me a logical reason Obama would hide his BC if he was born in the US?
To encourage his opposition to waste its time spinning crazy conspiracy theories, thereby keeping them distracted from the real issues.
Uh, no. Obama was born in this country and also had a citizen parent. He is a NBC.
The phrase “and no parent citizens” in my previous response implicitly acknowledges the special case where a person is born outside of a country to citizen parents of that country.
He and every member of his family who has spoken on the subject has consistently maintained he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, the errors of one sloppy UPI reporter notwithstanding.
You’re the one who stated the hospital he was supposedly born in didn’t deliver babies in 1961. Both candidate hospitals did.
I’ve already done enough which is all I’m going to do. You can live in your dreamworld for all I care.
THE DARKNESS HATES THE LIGHT
So how about his own website Otganizing for America? http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueHospitals.htm
No, actually, people with uninformed opinions invariably sling slogans when forced to defend them.
No one on a site like this voted for Obama or generally approves of his policies. But conservatism isn't about concocting a fantasy world to avoid dealing with the real world implications of losing one election.
The Natural Born Citizen clause is about having a single allegiance to the United States. It's all about allegiances or lack-of to other countries. No amount of obfuscation is going to change it. When the courts ever get serious about the true intent and meaning -- the conclusion is obvious.
Make sure that they know that.
It's certainly not what you want the Natural Born Citizen clause to be. Lets go back to 1787, where the founding fathers of US Constitution are deliberating over the NBC clause:
Yes, it is our intent to have persons who have allegiance or are still subjects to the King of England can become future presidents to the United States. Yes that's our intent! Oh yeah, really non-Sequitur that's your definition of a natural born citizen. What you want an NBC to be is completely laughable and idiotic.
Your rationality seems to be slipping by the moment.
“Both candidate hospitals did.”
Are you sure? I mean really sure? Like you were there sure?
That was just some guest blogger, who probably read the same mistaken Wikipedia entry as the UPI reporter and repeated the same error.
We are, of course, free to disagree with that understanding.
It may even be wrong.
Regardless, it is what it is.
I personally think that if the founders had elaborated on this issue, they probably would have explicitly stated that an NBC would need two citizen parents.
But they didn't. And my opinion doesn't drive the issue.
So unfortunately, it is what it is.
This begs the question, can this really go anywhere? If not, is it beneficial to press it?
I would think that your dreamworld is getting kind of crowded by now.
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.