Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/20/2011 | Bob Unruh

[x]

You can be a Birther and still support F.C. Hansa Rostock.

Er ... Okay ... I guess ...

[stockpirate]

Even worse, the conservative talking bobblehead media will call you a birther.

[john mirse]

The ball is now in the state legislatures' court to force Obama to show his constitutional cards. Expect a full-court judicial press by the Dems and their fellow travelers.

******

Just wondering: What legal document does a presidential candidate in a state, like New Hampshire, have to attach to his application form to show proof that he is eligible to run for president under the laws of the Constitution?

That is, can a presidential candidate get away without attaching NO legal document at all like, say, an OFFICIAL document from a candidate's birth state with the state's SEAL on it?

For instance, if an unknown person like me wants to run for president on the Noname Party primary ballot, do I simply fill out and sign the application form without having to attach any legal document that I was born in the United States and that I meet the age requirement?

Do the election officials in New Hampshire simply take my word for it that I am who I say I am on my presidential application form I fill out in order to enter the primary?

If true, it scares me that anybody can run for president in New Hampshire without providing any OFFICIAL state documents that he was born in the United States, that he is the right age, and that he was not adopted by a citizen in a foreign country at some point in his life.

If I don't provide a long form birth certificate, how does New Hampshire election officials prove that I am NOT lying on my application form if they have doubts and suspicion that I was NOT born in the United States and that I do not meet the age requirement?

How about this idea: Republican presidential candidates VOLUNTARILY attach their long form birth certificates to their application forms in order to reassure the public that they have nothing to hide about their births and that they are who they say they are?

I bet state election officials would be thrilled to see a long form birth certificate attached to a presidential candidate's application form even though the candidates are not required to do so under state law.

As I see it, a state law can tell a presidential candidate that he is not required to attach a long form birth certificate to his application form, but there is no state law that keeps a candidate from VOLUNTARILY attaching a long form birth certificate to his application if he wants to.

[Red Steel]

When your questions are designed to raise an issue with the public, it is a push poll. And the questions in this survey were NOT ‘just the facts’ questions. They were intended to elicit a response the pollster wanted.

They all are designed to elicit a response 'Einstein'.

The questions are straight forward like this one Obama troll.

"4. Some states have drafted legislation requiring candidates for President to prove they were born in the United States and also meet all other Constitutional requirements to be qualified to serve as President of the United States. Do you support or oppose such state legislation?"

This is a 'yes' or 'no' question about a truthful subject. It's not a hypothetical that pushes the person being polled for a skewed answer.

This poll was intended to give WND something to write about. Look at the questions. It rates up there with union polls showing people support teachers making $250K/year...

I suppose you think the other media polls that come from the New York Slimes or from the socialist Huffington Post twits or the rest of the liberal puke media polls are different? Oh yeah, you're an OBot troll so you do.

[Red Steel]

When your questions are designed to raise an issue with the public, it is a push poll.

The pollster or its sponsor of the poll did not invent the issue. It's not a hypothetical or any other misleading questions. It's not a push poll.

[mupcat]

Thanks, melancholy, some of that makes sense.

[mupcat]

Hillary knew that if she pushed the issue of Obama’s eligibility that she would have lost the black vote and the election. She likely felt it was better to wait.

Amazing, sure is a good possibility. Never thought about the black vote, which was certainly in her corner before "O".

[mupcat]

You wonder why? Seriously?

LOL, well, as naive as it is, yes, silly me for considering that aspect.

[mupcat]

life long democrats took this to court first. Berg.... The thing that didn't happen was that Hillary herself never said it because she was probably afraid that she would be attacked as a racist.

I seem to remember a bit of that, but didn't progress much beyond that. Yes, as has been pointed out, that's a strong possibility why she didn't take it further. Sooooo near, yet so far away.

[Terry Mross]

I don’t believe the senate vote was so obama could have a mccain win overturned. He would have had to prove his own citizenship to do that. The purpose was so when obama won he could point to mccain and say “He wasn’t born here but the senate ruled he could run. Therefore my victory was legit.”

[Mr Rogers]

If you believe this garbage poll is accurate, you are too stupid to debate with. I don’t know enough small words to communicate with you...

[Mr Rogers]

“As far as your other links, they appear to be a year old or more.”

Umm...my links include the cited article this thread is based on...

[Red Steel]

If you believe this garbage poll is accurate, you are too stupid to debate with. I don’t know enough small words to communicate with you...

I've seen literally thousands of your posts. We all know your full of it and dumber than pill of Obama dung Ms. WKA.

[Berlin_Freeper]

LoL!

He said be careful or you will be called a Birther.

And my point was: I can be called a birther but the sun still shines, my wife still loves me and the garbage still gets picked up Tuesday mornings.

[jamese777]

It was undoubtedly a phony poll. However, I do believe there are enough Americans who want to know that when Obama runs in 2012, someone somewhere will pursue the question. If not, then I’d like to see FreeRepublic organize protests to “Free the Birth Certificate!”

Or maybe, “Set Your Records Free!” - to include releasing his educational records. The GOP candidate needs to be pressured to authorize release of both birth certificate and educational records, to smoke Obama out.

It won’t be easy. You know full well I’m not a ‘birther’. I think WKA was wrongly decided, but I also think my side lost 60 years before I was born, so that is a dry hole. But no one should be able to run for President without releasing their educational and birth records. I know it has often been done, but I also think folks have a reasonable expectation that a candidate will allow public assess to education, military and birth records. If they aren’t willing to release them, then we need to hang them around the slimeball’s neck.

We’ve spent a lot of time arguing on FreeRepublic, but I think this is something that ought to unite all conservatives. I don’t understand how anyone can object to expecting a presidential candidate to allow his qualifying records released.

---

It is interesting to me that Congressman Darrell Issa who plans to make Obama’s next two years a living hell with Congressional investigations to be conducted by the House Oversignt and Government Reform Committee which he chairs has already said no investigations of anything Obama-related the occurred prior to Obama’s first day in office.

I think that Obama’s political strategy is that he has no intention of giving his opposition any meat to chew on that might result in him being “Swiftboated” like John Kerry was.

If FreeRepublic organizes protests and that results in a defeat of Obama at the polls, then it is a good political move for conservatives for him to NOT release any more information and go down to defeat, in part because of that bad decision.

I expect a huge Obama “document drop” much cloer to the next election. I believe that is the reason why conservative elected officials are tredding lightly with this issue for fear of having been set up.

[Red Steel]

The Wenzel Strategies poll lines up well with this PPP Dem poll completed in February.

"A new poll is shocking the political powers in Washington with indication that only 3 in 10 members of the GOP believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States."

Q11 Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?

No 51%
Not sure 21%
Yes 28%

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=263973

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0215.pdf

In other words, that's a combined percentage of 72% who don't know where Obama was born or believe Obama was born in another country.

[MamaDearest]

Careful, the MSM will start calling you a birther...

The MSM are deniers! Sticks and stones and all that.... If they had nothing to fear about it, they'd dig up the facts to back their argument (including a complete background / history proving "birthers" wrong by producing documents not available to anyone and sealed under millions of dollars of security to keep them from American eyes - and there's a lot more missing than just a proper birth certificate - and what about the multiple social security numbers?). They can't do it.

[justiceseeker93]

Even preferable to state laws requiring presidential candidates to prove their constitutional qualifications before being allowed on the ballot would be a federal constitutional amendment requiring the same of all states.

Furthermore, that constitutional amendment could require candidates for vice president, U. S. Senator, and U. S. Representative to prove their (respective) constitutional qualifications as well.

[Cboldt]

Ballot access varies from state to state, but there is an interesting fact about presidential elections. The voter votes for an ELECTOR, not directly for the candidate for office of president or vice president. The electors are typically "party people," and the political parties are able to get a candidate's name on the ballot, because the voting public is familiar with the candidate, but not with the elector.

Anyway, there is no obligation to show any evidence of being qualified, for the most part. Some states have put known foreigners on the ballot, running for president. The state of California refused to put Eldridge Cleaver's name on the 1968 presidential race, on account of he was not even close to 35 years old.

I think states ought to tighten up the evidentiary showing that supports putting a presidential candidate's name on the ballot; seeing as how the federal Congress is utterly derelict in one of its most important duties.

[Brown Deer]

Is there a poll “out there” that presents the mirror image of these results?