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 ...
So, again you are saying that congress can simply amend the constitution as easily as changing any law?
I'm saying nothing of the sort. And I'm at a loss as to how you can conclude that I am.
You said that you will continue to post a story that is not true - false - that is certainly an abuse, right???
You keep saying that any term in the constitution that is not defined in the constitution can be changed by congress. You said that nbc is defined by federal statutes.
Remember when people wanted arnie to be president. You’re saying all they need to do is get congress to write a law that natural born citizen means anyone that has been governor of a state is also a natural born citizen and then poof, arnie would be able to become president?
Has your distracting post-counter reach the 250 mark yet??
Yes. How is that changing the Constitution?
Remember when people wanted arnie to be president. You’re saying all they need to do is get congress to write a law that natural born citizen means anyone that has been governor of a state is also a natural born citizen and then poof, arnie would be able to become president?
An idiotic analogy. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria and there is no disputing that. At birth he had no connection with the U.S, either by family or geography. He can only be naturalized.
Russell Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political theorist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.
Here is a link:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
Sadly, I don't think those principles mean much in a fever swamp like this.
No, because then it would be the family member's error, not the writer's.
An error by the writer? The correction is sufficiently ambiguous that we do not know what type of error? No details.
True, but the description is sufficient to establish that the writer did not get the information from Obama.
Was the error because UPI believes was an error by their source(s), or was it that UPI just made the crap up?
Most likely the UPI reporter got the information from an unreliable source, such as Wikipedia, and UPI is too embarrassed to admit that detail.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet quite a sum on the proposition that the reporter got the erroneous information from Wikipedia.
UPI isn't exactly the cream of the journalism profession.
Without seeing the real Obama birth certificate, either one of the listing of Obama's birth hospitals could be an error.
True, Obama has lied a lot, and if he had something to gain by lying about being born at Kapiolani, I would be more skeptical.
But he has nothing to gain from lying about the hospital. Whether he was born at Kapiolani, or Queens, or at home is irrelevant to his eligibility. So long as he was born in Hawaii, as proven by state records, it doesn't matter.
I think you need to follow the thread better. I didnt say that. Before you start making threats on here, maybe you should get the right person. I have never posted a story on here. and I am not the one that posted that statement. Maybe you are the one that need to be reported for abuse.
Obama benefits from the confusion. His whole life is all about confusion. When someone promotes a state confusion about the facts in his life he has something to hide.
So long as he was born in Hawaii, as proven by state records, it doesn't matter.
That remains to be seen. As you well know, the Hawaiian state records could have been falsified, and if it was falsified, it was most likely done by a family member's statement to the Hawaiian Department of Health in 1961.
Honey, are you serious?
Every part of the constitution has some sort of intent. It’s not just words.
Terms in the constition are used to express intent.
When someone has allegiance to a foreign gov’t, we don’t expect them to put our interests first. They may not even be able to fully understand what is in our best interest.
In order to protect us from such foreign allegiance, the constitution mandates natural born citizenship. If congress can change the definition of natural born citizenship, they can also change the definition of any other term in the constitution. If they can change the term to that of just a mere citizen, they have nulified the intent of the provision and altered the constitution greatly.
Even if you are born and raised in the US, if you are raised by people with allegiance to another country, that influence shapes your perceptions.
Do you understand?
So how, exactly, does he benefit from confusion about his hospital of birth?
As you well know, the Hawaiian state records could have been falsified,
Any state's records can be falsified, and Hawaii's weren't any easier to falsify than any other state's. Nevertheless, they are still accepted by every court and government agency as presumptive proof of birthplace.
There's a reason for that. I will leave it as an exercise to you to figure out why.
and if it was falsified, it was most likely done by a family member's statement to the Hawaiian Department of Health in 1961.
Sure, it's possible, in the way that anything is possible.
It's just so extremely implausible as to not be taken seriously, since there is was bo motive for any of his family members to do so.
That was a mistake on someones part- the Obamas? The story line changed because they now think Obama being born at Kapiaoni hospital covers his rear end better. You discounting that the original source could not be someone in the Obama family is illogical since we don't know how the articles derived at their conclusion of Obama being born at Queens hospital.
Any state's records can be falsified, and Hawaii's weren't any easier to falsify than any other state's. Nevertheless, they are still accepted by every court and government agency as presumptive proof of birthplace.
There's a reason for that. I will leave it as an exercise to you to figure out why.
Oh, I figured it out a long time ago. You leave out Obama has never given his birth certificate or his COLB to a court of law. Obama has not proven anything.
It's just so extremely implausible as to not be taken seriously, since there is was bo motive for any of his family members to do so.
With Obama who is an incessant liar it is extremely plausible.
What does it matter? Queens and Kapi’olani delivered the majority of the babies on the island according to WND. He could have been legitimately born at either. And Curiosity makes a pretty sound case that this was just a simple error in reporting that has been corrected.
“Oh, I figured it out a long time ago. You leave out Obama has never given his birth certificate or his COLB to a court of law. Obama has not proven anything.”
He leaves it out because no court has ever asked Obama to present such documents. Courts aren't some free authentication service. They don't accept and evaluate documents they haven't asked for. There is a legal process in each of these suits that has terminated them before they would ever get to such a request.
“With Obama who is an incessant liar it is extremely plausible.”
This is a good example of why the cases never get anywhere. “I think someone is a liar so the same rules that apply to anyone and the same benefit of the doubt for state documentation given to anyone shouldn't apply to him” isn't an argument that will ever go anywhere in court.
So basically, posting something that is an acknowledged falsehood is honest if it furthers your agenda?
I don't think “the light” buys that argument. “The darkness” probably does.
And what allegiance does Obama have to a foreign government? By accident of birth? Because the father he barely knew was Kenyan? Allegiance to a country that he has never lived in and has visited a handful of times? Don't be ridiculous.
The Founding Father's believed that the president should have a connection to the country by birth. That he must be a natural born citizen. Nobody is disputing that, or doubting the wisdom of it. The courts and the federal code all make it clear that a natural born citizen is someone who is born here or, under certain specific conditions, born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent. Nobody is doubting the wisdom of that. But nothing, not in the Constitution or in the court decisions or in the law, says that if the child is born in the U.S. then both parents must be citizens for him to be a natural-born citizen. Citizenship status in conferred by birth within the U.S., and that status is that of a natural born citizen since that is the only form of citizenship identified in the Constitution other than naturalized. The law says that. And for you, or anyone else, to complain that the law violates the Constitution is flat out wrong. It may violate what you think the Constitution should say, but that's about it.
If congress can change the definition of natural born citizenship, they can also change the definition of any other term in the constitution.
And how can you say that Congress is changing the definition of natural-born citizen when that is not defined in the Constitution? What you are saying is that Congress does not agree with YOU on what a natural born citizen is. And there is nothing illegal with that.
Even if you are born and raised in the US, if you are raised by people with allegiance to another country, that influence shapes your perceptions.
So by your definition then, can a Jew be president since they are raised from birth with a certain level of loyalty to Israel? How could that not shape their perceptions and possibly their actions?
Do you understand?
I understand all the Birther arguments. I just don't agree with them.
The Founding Father's believed that the president should have a connection to the country by birth. That he must be a natural born citizen. Nobody is disputing that, or doubting the wisdom of it. The courts and the federal code all make it clear that a natural born citizen is someone who is born here or, under certain specific conditions, born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent. Nobody is doubting the wisdom of that. But nothing, not in the Constitution or in the court decisions or in the law, says that if the child is born in the U.S. then both parents must be citizens for him to be a natural-born citizen. Citizenship status in conferred by birth within the U.S., and that status is that of a natural born citizen since that is the only form of citizenship identified in the Constitution other than naturalized. The law says that. And for you, or anyone else, to complain that the law violates the Constitution is flat out wrong. It may violate what you think the Constitution should say, but that's about it.”
Very well said. It's rather disconcerting to see all this pumped up hysteria simply because Obama has an essentially nonexistent connection to Britain (which is such a threat anyway) and a relatively minor connection to Kenya. It's gotten ridiculous enough that opposing it is almost a matter of simple human decency.
No, he acknowledges that some doubt. He neither agrees or disagrees with them. And considering that wasn't an issue before the court at the time, it's understandable that he didn't address the issue of defining natural-born citizen.
Birthers are also in a state of DOUBT as to Obamas Natural Born Citizen status as he TOO was born with a foreign National for a father.
No kidding. But you have no basis for supporting your doubt, other than your own opinion.
THEREFORE: ‘BIRTHERS’ PLEAD THAT OBAMA AND OR THE COURTS REMOVE THOSE DOUBTS.
Good luck with that one.
I’m not talking about Obama. I am talking about the US and our constitution.
It is very dangerous to allow the constitution to be amended the way you suggest.
I don’t know if you just can’t understand this or if you are blinded by your unconditional love for Obama.
EVERY TERM IN THE CONSTITUTION (for purposes of the constitution) MEANS WHAT EVER IT MEANT FROM THE BEGINNING UNLESS OR UNTIL IT IS RE-DEFINED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
There might be argument on the original definition of a term, but your claim that congress can change definitons of constitutional terms is ridiculous!
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.