FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The Post & Email ^ | Jan. 5, 2010 | P. Patriot

[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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Or not.

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:

Very well. How about some quotes from them on the subject?

[tired_old_conservative]

“Both candidate hospitals did.”

Are you sure? I mean really sure? Like you were there sure?

They're two major, historic hospitals. Even World Net Daily, no Obama friend, states that the majority of the baby deliveries on the island in 1961 were performed at those two hospitals. I gave you the quote. At this point, you're just being silly.

[jackv]

Ah yes. Talk about fantasy!!

Well, it would be very easy to end the questions, now wouldn’t it? bo spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the truth from coming out only perpetuates this story.

Don’t talk to me about “fantasy”.

[jackv]

“I would think that your dreamworld is getting kind of crowded by now.”

Actually I spoke of your dreamworld. I live in the real world thank goodness.

[jackv]

“Are you sure? I mean really sure? “

yawn

Goodnight, gracie.

[rolling_stone]

No its no mystery, Hawaii Homelands changed their requirement in June 2009 and long form certificates were still easily available them. They still are to the named individual through UIPA, you are entitled to a copy of any of your records held by the state that is not excepted and BC’s are not excepted to the named individual. They may not be readily available through website order but you they can request them under UIPA. So why did Hawaii make the change in June 2009? Logic says its a cover-up and no other reason makes sense. Why won't DOH explain the difference between date Accepted and Date Filed? What are they hiding? Shouldn't that be clearly public information? You maybe fooled and can try and fool others, but count me out. You are a shill.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105365

[Red Steel]

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.

How do you know it was sloppy writing? You have evidence to the contrary that the source was not the Obamas? It was written in many publications that Obama was born at Queens. It wasn't until World Net Daily pointed out the discrepancy that Obama was born in two different hospitals that the press started to change the facts.

Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained that he was born in Kapiolani, the mistakes of sloppy reporters notwithstanding.

They were content and happy that Obama was reported to be born at Queens.

[tired_old_conservative]

First of all, how would his birth certificate end any questions for you? He has already stipulated his father was a non-citizen, and you claim that is definitive.

Second, he did end the question of where he was born for rational people. He produced a legal document the state of Hawaii stands behind that substantiates his birth in Hawaii.

Birthers don't care. They live in a world where Presidential candidates proffer up forgeries of documents a state could easily disavow, where any evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii is subjected to the most outlandish conspiracy theories, while it's obvious he was born in Kenya, absent any evidence his mother even went there, and where major hospitals simply don't deliver babies. Basically, they believe whatever they must to keep the delusion going that Obama wasn't really elected President.

[jackv]

uh-huh...so you’ve said.

[tired_old_conservative]

Actually, you’re taking a shot at Lower 55. I forgot to put quotes around his second sentence, which is pretty obvious if you read the exchange.

[jackv]

uh-huh.

[Red Steel]

Very well. How about some quotes from them on the subject?

I don't need one. The history of the independence of the United States from world powers fits hand in glove supporting my opinion.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't need one.

Birthers never think that they do.

[Red Steel]

Your position is absurd though.

[tired_old_conservative]

Un, it's called the march of progress in a capitalistic society. or something like that. I think Reagan used to talk about such things.

“Long forms

Sample of a long form birth certificateLong forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth. The long form usually includes parents’ information (address of residence, race, birth place, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace, and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth of the child. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and at least one of the parents.

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems. The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for “hard copy” long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only. This benefits parents in many ways; registration can be completed via computer at the hospital, meaning that parents can stop by their Vital Statistics office on the way home from the hospital to purchase the birth certificate instantly. It also means that the extra cost for long form certificates will no longer be a factor.

Short forms

Sample of a short form birth certificate (certification of birth)Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration”. The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels.”

But, yeah, despite the fact that Hawaii went paperless in 2001, they specifically changed everything they do in June of 2009 to protect their nefarious state-wide conspiracy over Obama’s birth. That's so much more logical and straight forward than simply accepting Obama was born in Hawaii like the state says.

[tired_old_conservative]

“Your position is absurd though.”

Well, I'm convinced. What could possible be more compelling than dogmatic insistence?

[Red Steel]

Well, I'm convinced. What could possible be more compelling than dogmatic insistence?

I'm sure you are convinced but won't admit it. So how's your Democrat party doing these days? It doesn't look so good as Dorgan, Dodd, and Ritter won't be running for reelection. They're running scared...afraid they'll get beat 2010. ;-0

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

Anyone?

[tired_old_conservative]

It's not my Democratic Party. But since you asked, I think the Republicans have a good chance for a pickup in North Dakota. Unfortunately, I also think Dodd has acknowledged his negatives and is simply paving the way for a Democrat more likely to win.

[curiosity]

How do you know it was sloppy writing?

Because UPI admitted it.

You have evidence to the contrary that the source was not the Obamas?

Yes. There was nothing in the original story to indicate Obama was the source, and futher, UPI says the writer made the error:

"This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/04/Sen-Barack-Obama-Democrat-of-Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/

If the source had been Obama, then there would be something to indicate it in the original article, and it would be Obama's error, not the writer's.

It was written in many publications that Obama was born at Queens

Many? I know of only two: UPI and a high school student newsletter. Which other ones?

They were content and happy that Obama was reported to be born at Queens

And what makes you think they were even aware of the erroneous reports?

I seriously doubt Obama or any member of his family regularly reads either UPI or the rainbow newsletter.