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.

[Reily]

“....You get a security clearance by winning the election

No, you get to see whatever you wish without one. But you have to ask to see or be told stuff.
....”

Actually you may not realize it but we agree on this !
You get a “de facto” clearance by winning. It's not a “clearance” in the formal sense. However as you stated you get to see whatever “classified information” you ask for.

However those of us in the “great unwashed” can ask until the cows come home and we will not see that information.

Dellums was on the House Intel committee (HSSI), I will take you word for it that he came within a hair's breadth of being chairman.
However he was on the HSSI which meant he had way too much access then he should have.

[lucysmom]

If ‘native and ‘natural mean the same thing — to them — then why not just use the term Natural Born: as used in the constitution?

I do believe you've answered your own question.

[Reily]

Huh?
Don’t understand!

[mel]

We will see

[danamco]

“Who IS this Guy?”

---

Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose didn’t now either BEFORE the election:

Brokaw And Rose: Who Is Obama? (Two MSM Journalists Talk About Obama The Empty Suit Alert)
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | 10/31/2008 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 3:48:51 PM by goldstategop

RUSH: Now, on Charlie Rose Show last night on PBS. Are they doing their pledge drive yet? Is PBS doing their drive? Because, you know, “Without your Pledge, we cannot dust.” He had on Tom Brokaw last night, ladies and gentlemen. Here’s a montage. Now, this is last night. As you listen to this, keep in mind everything you’ve heard from Brokaw and others in the Drive-Bys can for the past six months, three months, two months or whatever. This is a montage of Charlie Rose and Brokaw trying to figure out who Obama is.

ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

RUSH: Incredible! (laughing) Let’s send the journalist to find out! Why, have you guys ever thought of that, Tom? Have you ever thought about sending a reporter to find out who the guy is? Charlie! You got plenty of reporters there at PBS, at least on the... Have you ever thought about sending anybody out to find out who he is, besides the two books? (laughing) I cannot believe this. We know who his heroes are — and, of course, that’s the point! We know who his heroes are r we know who his alliances are with. We know who his friends are. We know that he chose them all. But to hear... This is last night. This is, what, four days, five days before the election. These are two of Obama’s biggest media supporters! You gotta... I gotta hear this again. This is hilarious if it weren’t so damn maddening, because the answer to this is, “Hey, Tom? Talk to the bureau chief in Washington, the new guy who replaced Russert. What you do is, you assign a reporter to go out and find out who Obama is.” ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

RUSH: Well, we know one of his heroes is a member of the Communist Party, Frank Davis. He mentored him in Hawaii. There’s a lot we know, Tom. (laughing) Does this not ice it? Does this not ice...? We know as much as can be known about Obama, far more than he wants us to know, and here are these two pillars of Drive-By journalism. “I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s an interesting question, Charlie. It’s an interesting question.” (laughing) I just think this is... “That’s true.” Two pillars of journalism, one has an audience and one doesn’t, but it doesn’t matter. They’re both still pillars. Hey, Tom, Charlie, I think we can help here about his view of China. This was last night on MSNBC, and he was asked this question, Obama was. “Is there a possibility you could see in your first term if elected and we need an economic stimulus, an FDR style public works program?”

OBAMA: I’ve actually talk about this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China’s doing right now. They, uh, er, uh — Their trains are faster than us. Their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive Twenty-First Century economy, and we’re not.

RUSH: Okay, Charlie? Tom? You just heard Obama say after you’re wondering where he is on China, he thinks they’re better than us! And, by the way, to be grammatical correct it would be “better than we.” You don’t say “better than us are.” You say “better than we are.” The trains run on time? All this infrastructure? Look at the infrastructure that cannot handle a .0001 earthquake! Basically a giant taking a couple of steps will crap some buildings over there. But here’s Barack Obama singing, once again, the praises of China, a communist country — and what? Criticizing the United States. It was an interesting point. It was a very interesting point to an interesting question. Tom Brokaw said it was “an interesting question,” What is his attitude on China, the people advising him. Here it is. He loves China, he thinks the United States sucks. Barack Obama, last night on PMSNBC.

[STE=Q]

FROM YOUR GREAT HOMEPAGE:

“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much to forget it” ... James Madison

THOUGHT IT WOULD BE TIMELY TO POST...

THANK YOU!

STE=Q

[El Gato]

The “rogue” federal agency notion is for spy novels, TV & movies.

I assumned he was thinking of something above board and legitimate, not sub rosa. For the same reasons that the rest of us get investigated before we can get certain jobs.

Of course we can't have the CIA or FBI "vetting" cannidates for elective office. But it would be nice if the "press" would do that, since it is supposed to be their job. They investiaged the snot out of Sarah Palin, but when it came to BHO, or any other socialist/liberal, they cover their eyes, plug their ears and warble as loudly as they can. Or they go into this routine:

[lucysmom]

This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments.

So then that little revolution thing didn't amount to a hill of beans because when citizenship is at issue, we defer to Brittan's laws.

[Reily]

Yep I agree
It's what the press is supposed to do.
I want an adversarial press, a press that is skeptical even hostile equally to any and all candidates!

[STE=Q]

I do believe you've answered your own question.

The 'question' was rhetorical.

see post #396

STE=Q

[lucysmom]

You don't know if his records are sealed. There are records available for millions of people in this country.

So go after the records that are available.

[El Gato]

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,

This mirrors the Vatel/Law of Nations definition.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". In the original French, IIRC, the terms were "indigenes o naturales". (Pardon the spelling and lack of accent marks). Even though I can't read French, many of those who wrote the Constitution could, and had both an earlier English translation and the original French versions at hand.

[El Gato]

And where in the Constitution is it defined?

Not many terms are defined in the Constitution, Treason being an exception. But that doesn't meant they didn't have known definitions at the time. Whatever those were, they still are.

[Candor7]

Buahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Kudos to you MoJo!

NoneStinkier is indeed great brown shirt material.His/her type facilitated the nationalist socialist party in Germany circa 1928.Maybe there is a reincarnation here. OMG! Its a reincarnated SS officer!Memory Flashes. The dehumanization of opponents, the blind acceptance of talking points ,and blatant ignorance of our constitution's purport and intent.

Its all there in the cyclic pattern! The vampire like abhorrence to statues and busts of Winston Churchill, ( Obama too),as if they were garlands of garlic or crucifixes!

Even though we need silver bullets and exorcism, we laugh at their paltry attempts to contain the natural liberty that is the gift of the divine to all humans.YES. We dare to impugn the pretend president of the United States on a constitutional issue of qualification.Yes Obama is hiding his defacto birth details, among other sordid history at Occidental college, his passport records and his travel records as well as his medical records. Looking at the side of the pretender's head, one can see the remnants of cranial surgery, ,yet, IT NEVER HAPPENED!

Don't you get it Mojo? You and I must live in a politically correct world, not in the world of fact. The world of fact no longer exists! The Vampires have said so! Drink their koolaid, give up your strident investigation of the defacto birth details o f the president, you are a fool, you must stop...you must STOP! Bauhahahahahahahahahaha!

The vampires are now turning into whirling dervishes inside their day time coffins.We MUST be getting close as members of Congress are now asking Obama the same question we have been asking for 2 years.

WE ARE VICTORIOUS!

[El Gato]

Actually you may not realize it but we agree on this !

I know, I was just clarifying your language a bit.

Dellums was on the House Intel committee (HSSI), I will take you word for it that he came within a hair's breadth of being chairman. However he was on the HSSI which meant he had way too much access then he should have.

Oh yea, but there were "aggreements" with the actual leadership of the Committee, about who got briefed on what. Bottom line, he didn't get briefed on much, and was only shown what he knew to ask for. His aides and assistants got zilch. I remember being briefed into a "compartment" around 1983, and specific mention of RR was made. Something like "if he comes in, show him what he specifically asks for, but otherwise, don't tell him anything."

[Brown Deer]

So go after the records that are available.

Why should I go after dalebert's records?

[Candor7]

Yes.

[Candor7]

Yes.

[Spaulding]

Your statement that that “English Common Law was the foundation for the Constitution” is simply not true. I'm assuming you are not one of the gang of obfuscators so busy on this list.

The most direct counterexample is the citation by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, page 289,

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Vattel’s Law of Nations, often referred to as “Continental Law”, was the single most cited legal reference in U.S. jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820 (Grotian Society Papers - 1972). Your reference only points out the obvious; of course The Common Law was important, that is what was being replaced. Alexander Hamilton declared Vattel’s Law of Nations part of “The U.S. Common Law.”

Your reference to the Congressional Record, which discussion concerned Mitt Romny’s natural born citizen problems, refers to Minor V. Happersett. Among the definitions of common law are settled case law. In the opinion delivered by Waite:

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 who were its citizens 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Waite repeats the Vattel definition. Don't be confused by the “Some authorities...” statement. He is referring only to citizens - words mean things - not natural born citizens.
He is raising the question of the validity anchor babies, though there was not that concern in 1875.

Further, if you refer to Kent, as did the Cong Record article you cited, Kent, In his Commentaries on Citizenship remarked:

It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested by any act of their own. In the case of Macdonald, who was tried for high treason,in 1746, before Lord Ch. J. Lee, and who, though born in England, had been educated in France, and spent his riper years there, his counsel spoke against the doctrine of natural allegiance as slavish, and repugnant to the principles of their revolution. The Court, however, said, it had never been doubted, that a subject born, taking a commission from a foreign prince, and committing high treason, was liable to be punished as a subject for that treason.”

Obamo II was born a British Subject. That is just part of the clear thinking that resulted in requiring that our President be a natural born citizen.

[little jeremiah]

Actually several got zotted; most quite a while ago. I can hardly remember their names and since my computer is not behaving, I can’t access the list, even if I still have it.

But there were several who got the axe. Not lately, for some reason they’re allowed to keep spewing 0bama support toxicity.