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 ...
Because courts don't accept documents they haven't asked for, particularly to make a decision on the outcome of a case they haven't yet accepted as appropriate. I gather that you have no actual comprehension of legal processes. But courts don't want and won't accept documents for determining the validity of a posed question before standing is established, a case is established, and they request them.
Asking Obama to do something that the Court won't accept or use as a determination for anything is nonsensical. It's not a valid counterpoint to anything. It may even be, dare I say it, a non sequitur.
Perhaps you should rewatch “My Cousin Vinny” for that lecture the judge gives Joe Pesci during the arraignment.
Because it's damning to his presidency.
Dishonesty is what you like in a president. An honest president would without question submit it to a court to put this matter to an end, but Obama is not honest. It's a simple thing to do as submit a birth certificate to a court.
The non-sequitur nonsense what you guys do ...for all to see.
When I say there's more than UPI's article or the newsletter there's is more. You are easy.
-snip-
"Kenya's East African Standard, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled "From Young 'Barry' to Top American Senator," previously said of Obama: "The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen's Medical Centre in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Centre of the University of Hawaii in Manoa."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104292
Now that's an major paper! The very crem de la crem of global journalism! /sarcasm
Did you ever stop to think why it was only the obscure news outlets staffed by hacks that got the hospital of birth wrong?
Why is it you can't find the same error in oulets like the Associated Press, the New York Slimes, the Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post?
That may well be true, and I agree that Obama isn't an honest man.
Unfortunately, though, honesty isn't a presidential eligibility requirement.
The Obots are scared to death of Barry spending $10 and showing a long form. Simple request met with excuses galore and backpedaling. Real simple, real devastating! Trust us, you will know fear.
“So you’re saying Obama fraudulantly registered his own birth when he was a week old?”
You know that’s just the kind of crap he’d try....
Thank you for submitting the abuse report regarding #536.
Non-Sequitur is not a troll and we will not be banning him as you requested.
Dishonesty appear to be the hallmark of your character. You don't understand legal processes even after they have been explained to you, you make that self-evident by repeating the same folksy gibberish talking point over and over, and you ultimately have no other recourse than to attack others for your own failings. It's simply a repeat of the silly newspaper error discussion with Curiosity where he is obviously the lucid participant engaging his faculties.
If you would like a President with intellectual honesty, perhaps you should practice that attribute yourself first.
No, he -- Chief Justice Waite -- "acknowledges" a lot of doubt.
He uses the word doubt TWO times in referring to those that hold the view -- that you yourself ADMITTEDLY hold -- that one born in the united states, with a foreign national, for his/her father, is a Natural Born Citizen.
However -- as you have indicated to ALL on this forum -- the Question of Obama's citizenship is, in your OPINION, settled law.
By the way, when Justice Waite writes about the opinion YOU hold he uses the term "SOME" authorities... etc.
Do you understand the import of the word SOME in logic?
When Justice Waite writes about the opinion "Birthers" hold -- born in the country of citizen parents (PLURAL)-- he says (Paraphrase) "of this class there has never been doubt," meanining, ALL (not SOME) agree: that one born in the country, of citizen parents(Plural)are Natural Born citizens.
Your "opinion" is, indeed, the minority one!
Does that mean that your minority view is necessarily wrong?
NO!
However, it does mean that YOUR "opinion" as to what makes a Natural Born Citizen (born in country with a foreign national for father)is in a state of uncertainty, or DOUBT; whereas, the "opinion" of the birthers (born in country, both parents citizens)is certain, or -- as Chief Justice Waite said (paraphrase) -- "of this class there can be NO doubt!
Thus, Birthers are on solid ground where the "opinion" of anti-birthers are fraught with doubt!
In review of the above it would seem that the onus would be on those with the shaky position to prove their case, rather than the ones -- whom ALL authorities agree -- are on solid ground.
I'm afraid that born in the country to two citizen parents(NO DOUBT AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)trumps born in country with a foreign national for father.(DOUBTS AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)
We're done here...
STE=Q
Yes, a true crisis time for the USA, and secondarily, Canada. As we go, so goes Western Civilization. This is going to be a challenging year. One good thing, the American people have 10 months to get educated about Obama and discover everything the MSM covered up before the election and the manufactured financial crisis that put him over the top. Cloward-Piven, the New Party, his Marxist mentors, . on and on. Everyone should be fully informed by November, 2010. We all can do our part - pass on those informative emails, join patriot groups, back conservatives that are running in November. A very big year in our history indeed. . .
Thank you for the heads up on the obdurate minds of the Obama apologists that populate this thread.
Might as well talk to a brick wall!
See post #551.
STE=Q
Like their hero 0bama, they think the Constitution is just a piece of old paper, quite flawed, actually.
This is a very interesting thread. Been kind of quiet as far as the 0bama toe suckers lately, now - whammo! - they’re all one board, even ones that only would be occasional.
Something must be up at headquarters.
I am sure that the truth will come out eventually. IMO that will be when some of those who know get scared and don’t want to go down with the ship.
Time will tell. And I can tell right now that the 0bama toe suckers are getting nervous. It stinks up this thread, right now! Fear has a certain stench.
There are undoubtedly those who know the facts, perhaps quite a goodly number.
Dishonesty is a description of your character not mine.
Drop the court procedure BS that Obama hides behind.Only a few minutes are needed in court about him being born in Hawaii if he would just showed a court of law his Hawaiian birth certificate. Your total implacability defending Obama for a simple request that a mere child has to do on occasions paints you in a bad light.
It's simply a repeat of the silly newspaper error discussion with Curiosity where he is obviously the lucid participant engaging his faculties.
Your thought process is complete nonsense while I logically explained mine with understanding in my previous posts.
They thrash around quite a bit on this thread.
Thus, Birthers are on solid ground where the "opinion" of anti-birthers are fraught with doubt!
Yes, your total post in 551 above is right on the money. If there is 'uncertainty' in the allegiance to a country because of birth - how can that person be a natural? The most obvious answer he is not.
I don't lie here and you certainly defend the liar-in-chief with vigor.
Again, you are incapable of reading or actual thought, or both. I most certainly have not defended Obama or his policies. You, as many others, seem so blinded by your hatred of Obama that you cannot deal with reality. Neither can you effectively converse with those who do. You simply write off those who disagree with you because you do not have the capacity to rationally defend your emotional obsession. In that, you are more truly liberal than conservative.
I do not defend Obama. I defend rationality, which real conservatives prize.
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.