Posted on 12/04/2009 4:47:27 PM PST by cycle of discernment
OFFICIAL REQUEST BY CONGRESSMEN TO SEE OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE WILL BE THE STRAW WHICH BREAKS THIS CAMEL’S BACK
Political analysis by John Charlton
Obama's presidential campaign was hailed for its forceful imagery, but after 11 months the public has come to understand the undisputed facts about him, don't fit the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
(Dec. 4, 2009) — Georgia’s representative in the U.S. House, Nathan Deal announced in early November that he and 10 House colleagues were going to sign a joint letter, asking Obama to publicly reveal his birth certificate,.
The simple enough question was rebuffed and ridiculed by the Main Stream Media, and even the Savannah Morning News, as if a birth certificate was some sort of private journal or diary of past affairs.
The mere fact that the liberals and progressives ridiculed Nathan Deal — whose only interest is to quiet the nation — shows that they have no substantive reason to oppose the request. It further shows that they know that Obama cannot oblige Deal and his co-signatories, for in Democratic circles nothing is a secret.
What will Obama say to Nathan Deal? The answer must come soon. Deal said that he was to send his letter after Thanksgiving. Any delay on the part of Barack Hussein Obama to oblige Deal, will only further erode his political influence in Washington, D.C..
Obama has been effectively checkmated by the concerted effort of public support, publicized lawsuits on the eligibility question, publicity campaigns such as those of World Net Daily and Charles Kerchner to put the issue in the face of liberals on a constant basis, and blogs and bloggers the world over.
If Obama obliges him, then the online image of a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) provided by his campaign will be proven a forgery, according to the consensus of opinion of citizens who have studied the images posted on the net and found some images of the allegedly same document, contain a HI State seal and some do not.
If Obama does refuses, however, it will only further confirm that he has something to hide.
Palins remark that it is a valid issue and Ogden’s resignation as Deputy U.S. Attorney General in the same week, following the sending of Nathan Deal’s letter, appear to be diagnostic signs that the political establishment understands the risks and imminent crisis about to break. The publicity garnered by the testimony of the U.S. Marine, who goes by the nik, Race Bannon, only further tilt the Obama regime towards political implosion.
Even the pulse of Obama’s political support on the net tells the tale: a lull and quiet among them posting comments at opposition blogs is noticeable. There remain only the violent, the perverse and the somewhat mad to carry on the cheers of “Change,” which were the mind numbing drum beat of the Obama for American campaign, just 14 months ago.
The political momentum of the nation now follows diverse roads to the same destination, and the resulting fireworks are going to be much brighter and invigorating than those of any Fourth of July in many a year!
Nothing I have ever posted, on FR or elsewhere, identifies me as an Obama worshiper. That’s just ignorance or insanity on your part. I don’t know which.
I have read it already ver batim, read the EO...I understand it perfectly. I do not need you to school me on what Barack Obama did.
Thank you, very much.
NOT IN THE STATE OF HAWAII!
There are programs funded by the state for native-born Hawaiians that REQUIRE the long form as proof of birth in Hawaii!
Glad I could help.....
Yes it is.
There are programs funded by the state for native-born Hawaiians that REQUIRE the long form as proof of birth in Hawaii!
No there aren't.
“There were no restrictions on US citizens traveling to Pakistan in 1981.”
There were no prohibitions, true. However, American citizens were strongly advised by the State Department NOT TO TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN at that time!
Except his paternal grandma who was at his birth in Mombasa, and his sister (who said it was a different hospital).
BTW the newspaper birth announcement listed a house where they never lived as their residence.
“...when the director of public health for the state of Hawaii officially verifies that the state vital record also shows he was born in Hawaii...”
Since you are so fond of pointing out others’ misinformation:
The official said no such thing. I personally saw that official say there is indeed a birth certificate on file in the state records, but NOTHING about what was contained in it!
“No there aren’t.”
You’re childish, even for a TROLL.
That doesn't explain why the founding fathers would use a definition without explanation from a theoretical work casting aside a definition of citizenship familiar to all.
Why? Vattel's work was philosophical and theoretical. It may be useful if one wished to argue how things ought to be, but not as a handbook of laws as they existed.
One could be a native born Hawaiian and prove it going all the way back to Captain Cook and still not qualify for the state programs to which you refer because the programs are for native (ethnic) Hawaiians. It has to do with proving ethnicity, not citizenship.
Well, curiosity, since you are one of the usual suspects, as obamite apologists go, why don’t you post the law (cite, please) in 1961. After, if you are calling me a liar, back it up.
You are assuming it was "theoretical" in their eyes. It wasn't, any more than Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", with which it was more or less contemporary. (1765-1769 for Blackstone, 1758 for Vattel). Blackstone's commentaries were presented first in oral form starting in 1753)
There was no such "familiar definition" of citizenship. There were definitions of natural born "subject". But being subjects of some royal ashhole was just what they did not want. Thus they chose, or accepted, a definition that would not allow the first generation progeny of European royalty to hold the office of Commander in Chief of the American Army. Using the "born in the country" definition (that was not really the pure case in England either) would have allowed some "peer" of the Relm to come over with a pregnant Royal wife, or marry some American wench, and then set up, using the ample purses of the "great families" of Europe, his progeny as President and Commander in Chief, and from their form a new Royal Line, in America.
To such a notion the founders, common men and more educated elites alike, would have said not only No, but Hell No.
To such a notion the founders, common men and more educated elites alike, would have said not only No, but Hell No.
I see, so the founding fathers wanted to make sure that no child of a peer born on US soil could grow up and run for president, even though no one would vote for him anyway.
Just like no one would ever vote for a left leaning Muslam sympathizer, just 8 years after several thousand Americans had been killed by radicial Muslims?
In a word, yes.
Yes she did. The following is a direct quote:
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i"
The full press release is at the following link:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
I see, so in your mind, when someone says something is false, it is somehow childish for me to point that out.
What pray tell, in your world, are adults supposed to do when someone makes a false statement?
How can I post a law that doesn't exist?
Let me give you a hint. When you make a claim, like your assertion that under some unspecified 1961 law Obama would not be an American citizen even if born in Hawaii, then the burden is on you to back it up. The burden is not on those who would say your claim is false.
That is especially true if you won't even say which law you are talking about.
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.