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 ...
And yet all you Birthers are convinced that the Constitution does define natural-born citizen. It doesn't, it merely identifies the two forms of citizenship. What constitutes atural-born citizenship status is established by federal statues.
Yes, what’s a Constitution anyway? All those nifty countries that don’t have one, we should be like them don’t you think? Let’s just let a complete fraud and his Ci-cago thugs trash the thing. Let Soros reign, having done it in.
“I contacted the Georgia congressman’ office this morning...”
I did the same and I’m not a constituent. I commended the congressman on his moral courage.
Every Freeper should do the same!
Got a link to the article where they said this? They were doubtful, back when the document was only seen on a fuzzy video. And somewhat jealous, since they'd been trying to get a Kenyan BC for some time. But all or most of their arguments have been refuted. For example they say the doctor never practiced in that hospital, but evidence, in the form of technical papers authored by him, indicating that he did for a time. Same with the name of the place, which they said didn't have that name in '61, but which it's now been shown that it did.
But be that as it may, it is still evidence. Evidence that, unlike the images shown of a supposed CoLB, has been entered into the record in a court of law, and not refuted. (The court never got around to looking any evidence, and the defense never submitted any counter evidence).
“I contacted the Georgia congressman’s office this morning...”
I did the same and I’m not a constituent. I commended the congressman on his moral courage.
Every Freeper should do the same!
Wasn’t Rep. Linder from Georgia supposed to have raised an objection/request for clarification about BO’s eligibility when the electoral votes were certified by Congress in January 2009?
Probably what Stanley Ann told Lolo. Doesn't make it true. But it also doesn't matter.
You’re right... at least Deal followed through.
That’s a good one!! What are you, 6 or 7??
Poor poor thing!
Do you really believe that federal statutes can amend the constitution?
The definition of natural born citizen (as applied to the constitution) has never changed.
Also where do you think the CIA gets the authority to “check out” as you call it an American citizen?
Before the CIA can give you a clearance, you have to sign documents giving them permission to vet you for that clearance. Even the FBI needs legal authorization.
A CIA analyst can not wake up one morning and go into his office and decide to “investigative” someone or something because he feels like it. The CIA can no more do this then Air Force OSI analyst can decide to investigate say his neighbor. Every action particularly in the information age leaves an “audit trail” and analysts & field people are constantly “audited” to make sure that every action done & dollar spent is against the “target list”. It is a absolutely career ending and/or prosecutable action if someone should spend time & dollars against something not on that list. To even get time on a “national asset” means many many targeting committee approvals. So doing what you are suggesting wouldn't remain "secret" very long. The person that did this would be very lucky if he was only demoted!
The “rogue” federal agency notion is for spy novels, TV & movies.
Because he is black and they got to keep the myth alive.
In my opinion - anyone who may be affected/impacted by bobo’s acts, either directly or indirectly, has standing to require proof of eligibility. Any judge that ‘finds’ differently, should then clearly state why that person has no standing (rather than just ruling that the person has no standing with no explanation whatsoever), or be removed from his judgeship. Also, if standing is a requirement, I think the just-us dept should come out and say just who DOES have standing rather than just leave us guessing.
>>It does not define the term
>
>So, do you always go to the Constitution to find definitions of terms? Good luck, because you won’t find very many terms defined in the Constitution.
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.
No one!
The CPUSA Presidential candidate even when he/she was a the absolute cat's paw of the old USSR during Cold War, if he/she would have actually won. Well then they won, too bad American voter! American voter you should have cared more about the voting franchise then about who is on American Idol!
A voter has great responsibility, candidate character matters ! It's the voter's job to vet the candidate! However I am sure you know that or you wouldn't be on this forum.
The what makes anything else on it - name, nationality, religion, etc. - true?
And where in the Constitution is it defined?
Old enough so that I don't have to try lame attempts at insult by implying my opponent is a child.
But since D.C is part of the United States then yes, it would.
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.