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
(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!
Obama’s bubble has burst. Americans are waking up. A momentum is building now. Suddenly, it is alright to say “The Emperor has no clothes”.
Right you are David!
I hope this Nathan Deal will stand up and be counted. He will look very foolish if he doesn’t.
Obama will say NOTHING to Nathan Deal because…he can’t say anything ! He is a fraud and a liar. The question is…what will Nathan Deal DO when Obama fails to answer? or Will he just let it go?
Great article. However, while you did mention Race Bannon’s statement, You omitted Lucas Smith’s document. He went to Kenya & obtained a bc for Obama from the hospital there. It has signatures, the seal, & more. That item is just as important as any other evidence to date. It has been entered into court, accompanied by Lucas sworn affidavit as to it’s authenticity & how he obtained it. I mean no offense to Race, but without Lucas document, his story is a recollection that will fall into “he said, he didn’t say”. Lucas’ document & Race’s statement combined is the nuclear weapon the Birther movement has been looking for.
Nathan Deal and the other men who signed that paper need to keep asking and keep up the pressure on Kenya Boy. Demand all records….then go after Peloser for election fraud.
I have a conundrum which I hope somebody can answer with reasonable and rational points over Obama’s allegedly questionable origins. When somebody runs for higher offices of all states or federal government a most thorough background check is made by all security services (none of us want a Manchurian Candidate do we?). When Obama first announced his presidential campaign, Dubya still had Cheney pulling his strings. It would have been in Cheney and the GOPs interest to continue the hegemony by officially exposing Obama – he would surely have sunk without trace, so why didn’t they?
Either the rumours are false, OR I could be very unpatriotic and say FBI, CIA etc do a rubbish job and collectively are as useful as a chocolate coffee pot, but I won’t. When running for senate their investigations into Obama should have found his secrets, so in my perception some people are just whistling the wind because they were sore at the election result – remember democrat fury over the Floridian butterfly ballot paper? Well in my book the cycle has spun and its the republican’s turn to have their noses put out.
—————
Mr. Charlton replies: Showme, use our search form and search for “NBC game” and you will have your answer.
Exactly Jon. It is amazing to see every official avoid the fact most of them know – clearly a subject too hot for them to even acknowledge. “Born of the soil of parents who are its citizens.” Time and again the Supreme Court has acknowledged the common law definition, with C.J. Waite even refering to it as “…by our common law”. None of us can be certain of Obama’s birthplace, but we are all assured by Obama that his father, and thus he himself, was born a British subject. This is a direct violation of the “parents who are its citizens” provision, often referred to as “jus sanguinis.” Our founders were justifiably concerned with foreign intrigue. Now we have “global citizen” Obama because our representatives and our courts are pretending that our Constitution no longer means what it did until 2008 when Jim Leahy and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and … all signed Senate Resolution 511 asserting that “Because his parents were citizen of the U.S., John McCain is a natural born citizen.” They were joined by former federal judge Michael Chertoff, who reinforced their assertion that citizen parents make one a natural born citizen. Forget that they chose to ignore jus soli, they all signed Senate Res. 511. Let’s not gamble with the legal smokescreens provided by Obama’s legal team. Obama is ineligible because he was born a British subject. The “grandfather clause” in the Constitution provided that colonial citizens born before the Constitution were eligible, but no one born outside of the U.S., and no one whose parents were not U.S. citizens can be president since the ratification.
Unless Obama manages, as Zelaya tried in Honduras, to amend or replace our Constitution, no bill he has signed has the force of law – which may be a good thing, and might possibly provide a charitable explaination for why so many lawmakers have chosen to remain silent about Obama’s British citizenship at birth. That our courts and our military are complicit in seeing the emporer’s new interpretation – since 2008 – of Article II Section I clause 5, is particularly frightening, because, while we head for an inevitiable financial cliff, fighting men are dying as a direct result of the allegiances of this commander in chief. John Jay, John Marshall, Joseph Storey, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Binghim, C.J. Waite, all knew our laws and applied them scrupulously to protect our freedoms. Obama is intent on removing those freedoms and blatently ignores the Constitution created to protect them.
Joe,
I agree. Neal and any other elected officials or persons in authority who write to Obama about the eligibility issue should not only demand to see a genuine computer printed with embossed sealed COLB from Hawaii for which images of same are allegedly on the internet, but also demand to see certified copies of the original, long form birth records by having same provided to the requester by Hawaii, … AND demand that Obama provide a sworn legal statement from Obama as to why he believes that simply being born in the USA, even if such can be conclusively proven by some controlling legal authority, would on that point alone meet the “natural born Citizen” Presidential eligibility clause and requirements of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. They should ask Obama to cite the contemporaneous historical and legal definitions of “natural born Citizen”, i.e.,for that specific term for the USA, not for being a British Subject in those days, which would enable him to say he is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and that citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with the eligibility requirements of Article II. Also ask Obama to cite a U.S. Supreme Court case that defines what a “natural born Citizen” is in its rulings, a definition for what it means … “without a doubt”.. I can suggest one that does, Minor vs. Happersett, 1874, and Obama does not meet that definition since his father was not a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA.
My chart and essay on the meaning of “natural born Citizenship” as used in Article II of our U.S. Constituion:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1467
Here is a good essay about Obama and his lack of being a “natural born Citizen” of the USA:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/being-born-subject-to-foreign-power.html
M Publius Goat
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=105
Can someone please get in touch with the hackers in Climategate. We need them to hack the DOH in Hawaii before they dump the original data. This may be the only way we get a look at the original. They continue to refuse all FOIA request, sound famil-liar
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.
The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).
United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] 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.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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.
Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”… To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Moreover, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…
Obama acknowledges at his Fight the Smears website that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
British Nationality Act of 1948 – Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Citizenship by descent
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…
Perhaps he might say- Watch this video – it’s a bit of “Holiday Cheer” for the White House that includes a color version of the Washington Times B&W ad of the “three monkeys” that caused the Flying Monkeys to lose their cookies:
We still need to be cautious. If we ever see a “real” birth certificate it still does not qualify Obama to be a natural born citizen with his father acknowledged as a British subject. My fear is that once the document is released (can we ever be sure it is authentic?) the public will be convinced that Obama is now a legitimate president and ready to run for another 4 years? Assuming that amnesty is next Obama will have a commanding lead just through the change in demographics.
Jon: i agree with you totally. I’ve argued myself blue in the face to the people who insist that the Birth Certificate is the smoking gun.
They’re leaving themselves wide-open to be discredited by the presentation of a genuine or fake Birth Certificate by Obama (an inevitability is that he is going to have to come up with of these eventually)
That fact that he was born a dual citizen (a fact no one denies) makes him ineligible no matter where he was born.
All records need to be released on this fraud not just his BC
I have a conundrum which I hope somebody can answer with reasonable and rational points over Obama’s allegedly questionable origins. When somebody runs for higher offices of all states or federal government a most thorough background check is made by all security services (none of us want a Manchurian Candidate do we?). When Obama first announced his presidential campaign, Dubya still had Cheney pulling his strings. It would have been in Cheney and the GOPs interest to continue the hegemony by officially exposing Obama – he would surely have sunk without trace, so why didn’t they?
Either the rumours are false, OR I could be very unpatriotic and say FBI, CIA etc do a rubbish job and collectively are as useful as a chocolate coffee pot, but I won’t. When running for senate their investigations into Obama should have found his secrets, so in my perception some people are just whistling the wind because they were sore at the election result – remember democrat fury over the Floridian butterfly ballot paper? Well in my book the cycle has spun and its the republican’s turn to have their noses put out.