Sunday, January 24, 2010

Saturday, January 23, 2010


BORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily

White House mum on eligibility demand
Congressman's question to president confirmed

Posted: January 12, 2010
10:10 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


WorldNetDaily

The White House has confirmed that a member of Congress formally has requested that President Obama document information regarding his birth and, therefore, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

WND previously reported the letter was sent by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., and also that neither Deal's office nor the White House was willing to discuss the situation.


Rep. Nathan Deal

Now, according to Jim Galloway, who blogs for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, confirmation has come from two sources that the letter was sent and received.

"The White House on Thursday confirmed receipt of a letter from U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal that formally asks Barack Obama to address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president," the report said. "The letter arrived Dec. 10. Beyond that, no one is willing to say much."

Get the must-wear clothing item for 2010! "Where's the birth certificate" T-shirt!

Galloway wrote, "According to my AJC colleague Bob Keefe in Washington, Todd Smith, Deal's chief of staff, likewise confirmed that the letter had been sent. But neither Smith nor his boss would comment on its content."

Smith told the reporters, "[Deal] just did what he said he was going to do. It's not news."

Galloway reported, "Likewise, White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai – while acknowledging receipt of Deal's letter, declined to release a copy or discuss its content, saying that the issue of Obama's birth has been addressed repeatedly."

Deal, who is running for governor, said two months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility. At the time, Deal confirmed there was "no reason to think" Obama is not a "legal citizen" but said because of the questions raised, he should answer.

"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November, Galloway reported.

A new media initiative by a group of citizen-journalists reported earlier Deal wrote to Obama. According to the Post and Email, "This forever changes the public discourse."

"What does this mean?" the site asks. "This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president … one full year into his term.

"Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence. The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00. He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen. This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper," the site said.

Obama's original birth papers have yet to be made available for review, and there are critics who contended he wasn't actually born in Hawaii. Others say that doesn't make any difference, since with a father subject to British rule at the time of his birth, he was at best a dual citizen. The critics contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from designation as a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution.

The "natural-born citizen" issue has been raised in a multitude of lawsuits since before Obama was elected, including some pending at various levels of the judicial system.

Most judges, however, have concluded that U.S. citizens and political candidates simply have no right – or "standing" – to question whether Obama has met the requirements of the Constitution.

But the questions have been exacerbated by other information Obama has chosen not to release.

As WND has reported, other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

1 comment:

  1. To date, not one single solitary person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch of government has done anything other than accept Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace.

    Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”

    At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.

    In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to obtain a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Five of the six procedures lacked an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. A "official" state-issued document that summarizes a document that lacks an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness is not worth the paper it is printed on.

    Why does all of this matter? This nation can not risk having a President who may harbor divided loyalties because the President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.” Copied with permission from http://birther.com (contains actual scans of Hawaii's Revised Laws from 1961).

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.