Wednesday, January 13, 2010


Rep. Nathan Deal

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.

World Net Daily 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.

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 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.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

On the Journal-Constitution website forum page, one participant wrote, "Obviously, there are very many people in this country, some in high positions in government, that have doubts about the birthplace of BO. If the White House has nothing to fear, a neutral panel should be appointed and an investigation begun to find out the truth. Frankly, with all the lies he told during his campaign, I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of BO's mouth. And I know, all you BO fanatics who believe he is the second coming will find fault with this suggestion which will lead me to believe that you too are afraid of what might be found by the panel."

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

Posted: January 12, 2010
10:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh




He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment