Barack Obama Nationality Scandal

There have been rumbles of unrest around the world regarding Obama’s nationality since the day he stated he would run for the presidency. Now, after more than a year as president of the USA, the rumbles have turned into a full on eruption.

The Barack Obama nationality scandal is refusing to burn itself out and seems to be gathering even more speed with Congressman Nathan Deal questioning the eligibility of Obama to hold the presidency. This is the first time in history that a serving president has been questioned about eligibility by a member of congress.

Over the last week the internet has been reporting this story with the blogosphere almost going into meltdown over the latest developments yet no mainstream media seem interested in the story that just won’t go away for Obama.

Congressman Deal asked the president to prove that he is legally entitled to hold the presidency electronically on December 1st 2009. This communication was confirmed received by Obama’s staff but has yet to be responded to.

Even though the president has already produced his short-form birth certificate in order to stop these questions, he has spent a large amount of taxpayers money (estimated to be more than two million dollars) ensuring that the long-form certificate is kept from the public – an action that has raised more than a few eyebrows along the way.

Throughout the campaign trail and longer, Obama made promises of the most transparent administration than any other so why the need to hide a simple birth certificate? Many claim that the whole situation is a complete waste of time and distracting but supporters of the question refuse to stop asking more and more questions.

It seems that the original question seems to have caused a stir not just in America but worldwide with thousands of people doing independent research in an attempt to get the facts out. The problem with independent research is that it is hard to verify where the alleged facts came from and when they are traced back its not unusual to find that it stemmed from opinion.

With several birth certificates doing the rounds, many proven as hoaxes, the ‘official’ birth certificate in the Obama nationality scandal seems to prove that the president was in fact a British Subject at birth. On the website dedicated to protecting Obama from smears, Fight The Smears, there is an electronic copy of the birth certificate showing that Obama was born a British Subject. This in itself has been the cause for much speculation on how, why and when nationality was transferred.

Obama’s nationality scandal doesn’t seem to be going anywhere at the moment and even the secret service seem to be taking an interest in anyone questioning Obama’s nationality with visits being made for security reasons. Reported last week at Mother Jones, more and more people who have raised issue are being visited by the secret service and being left feeling very intimidated.

No matter what side of the fence you sit on this scandal seems set to stay around for a long time to come.

Star Traveler: The problem with that -- as it pertains to the State of Hawaii and to that department -- is that they are the only ones who make up certified copies of a person's birth certificate (in that state).

Garbage In Garbage Out. It's very likely the problem with Obama's birth certificate. Explained and repeated below.

Star Traveler So, if you're saying that the only agency who can actually prove where Obama is born -- has information that cannot be trusted -- then you're basically saying that there is no way you'll ever know (no matter what) where Obama was born -- because there is no other place to get a certified copy of the birth certificate... LOL...

You've got a real problem there, I would say... :-)

What I said in my prior post is clear, but you like to distort what I said. For the millionth time, Obama could show some honesty and authorize Hawaii to release his BC for the public to see. Carefully parsed and measured statements from Hawaii are not good enough.

Here is what was said in its entirety that you distorted:

-----

"Star Traveler : And since it's the State of Hawaii who produces any certified birth certificate for someone who requests it there -- that means that they do know what they're talking about (I mean, they keep, maintained and certify the birthplace...).

That's all I have to know...

She does not understand the concept of Garbage In you get Garbage Out or GIGO for short. An old computer programming term about if the data being processed or inputted is bad the output will also be garbage.

I told her a DoH bureaucrat from Hawaii is not an impartial person to decide about Obama's birth records as legit in this case because they may have motives to hide flaws about their system.

As an example, as you know, Hawaii accepted statements from any person who said they witnessed the birth of a baby in Hawaii. A big red flag that calls out for abuse. If that's the case with Obama, it would blow him out of the water. So Hawaii is likely taking what their records say about Obama at face value even if they have suspicions now it's bogus information - they won't mention any concerns publicly and they'll state the opposite.

Other ignorance on display is lack of simple logical inference from them. If Obama was born in a Hawaiian hospital, there is no reason for Obama not to authorize Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate to the public. The After-Birthers will do anything not to acknowledge this. It's absurdity on display."

You were saying ...

Fukino and the Hawaii group, cannot make such a statement.

Well..., obviously since they "did make such a statement" -- you probably don't mean that they are not "able" to make such a statement.

Therefore you must mean -- either -- (1) they "should not" make such a statement, or (2) they are "not legally able" to make such a statement, or (3) "the statement they are making is wrong" [i.e., is a lie and/or totally wrong and he was born elsewhere and/or he is not a natural born citizen].

I doubt that you are saying #1, that they "should not" make such a statement, since that's what people are wanting to know... :-) (i.e., whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not and if he is a natural born American citizen).

I don't know if you're saying #2, that they are "not legally able" to make such a statement, but I wouldn't pin my hopes on that one, if that's what is meant.

So, I'm guessing you mean #3, that "the statement they are making is wrong".

And with that -- there are two parts (1) where he was born, and (2) he is a natural born American citizen or not.

With the first part, since the State of Hawaii and the birth records agency is the only one who has all the record and is the very agency who is tasked with producing a certified copy (when requested) -- I would say that they have to know that this is true -- or else -- no one can know that information... LOL...

In other words, if the very agency who produces the very thing that everyone wants -- the certified copy that people request -- does not know from their own records that Obama was born in Hawaii -- then no one who requests the information from them can ever know -- either... :-)

BUT, on the second part -- as to whether he is a natural born American citizen, this happens to be -- the very last refuge of the birthers -- because there is now no other refuge left to maintain the issue of Obama not being qualified under the Constitution (as I see the issue having been played out thus far).

And with this very last refuge of the birthers -- being the status of the parents and their citizenship -- in regards to Obama's qualifications -- this is an area and issue of dispute -- even with conservatives, who don't see it the same way you do (not to say anything about the other legal authorities and the State of Hawaii and the general public).

With conservatives saying that it isn't a factor (and that include President Bush, Vice President Cheney, our former candidate John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin -- all whom never objected to this issue when Obama was running for office) -- the only way you're ever going to get this one issue and area of discussion solved -- is with a Supreme Court decision.

Thereofore, I would advise that you get to working on the Supreme Court decision as soon as possible.

Obama’s father is Not a US Citizen, not then, not now, not ever. Therefore Obama cannot be a Natural born Citizen, period. To be a natural born citizen, both parents have to be US Citizens first and foremost...

I spoke to this just above, but to continue -- the very facts that you're using to form the "basis" for your argument -- are those facts which were well known and are not in dispute with anyone.

You see, no one is disputing the facts concerning the citizenship issue of the parents. I haven't seen any disputing that. Anyone who disputes this is disputing on the basis that those given and acknowledged facts (that form the "basis" for your argument) -- don't relate to Obama being a "natural born American citizen".

As I see it, there are no facts in dispute here any longer. He was born in Hawaii (per the official statement of the State of Hawaii) and they assert that he is a natural born American citizen (even while knowing his parentage and the issue involved) -- and it's only the "application" from the understanding of legal issues that pertain to whether he's qualified under the Constitution or not.

And when we -- in our country -- have legal issues that are in dispute and they are of Constitutional issues -- the place where those legal issues are settled is in the Supreme Court.

Again..., you're going to have to get a Supreme Court decision on this, if you expect to have it solved.

Game, set, Match... Obama has stated this himself many times, that is the huge elephant in the middle of the room that nobody wants to notice.

They've noticed it. Those others just don't agree with you. The only way you're going to come to a "resolution of the matter" is with a Supreme Court decision, one way or the other.

Sadly, as a constitutional scholar, he is fully aware of it too.

That's a supposition and an interpretation of yours. My "take" on it, would be that since he ran for office -- that he has the "other interpretation" on it and he asserts that one applies to him.

That's the simplest explanation of it.

2 million dollars later. America’s leaders do not have the backbone to kick his sorry butt out...

I don't know how much money he has spent, but let's say it was me, or it was you (on some issue that you believed was true for yourself and how the law applies to you). If you had the money or had the support of many others who had the money -- and you believed in the law applying to you in your way of thinking -- would you (or would "I") decide that I didn't want to spend all the money I could to defend my way of thinking, in regards to the law?

I don't know about you -- but as long as I had the money to defend it, if it had to do with something "Constitutional" and as it believed it applied to me -- I would be defending my position (in my understanding of it) -- all the way to the end.

I don't know why you seem to think Obama would do any differently than you or I or other conservatives would do -- if they thought there was some Constitutional issue at stake.

As far as American leaders not having the backbone to "kick his sorry butt out"... well, when leaders see that a candidate got 10 million more votes than the other candidate in the largest majority in a Presidential election in over 16 years (the last two candidates, Democrat and Republican) -- they take note of that.

Besides that, I would also say that President Bush and Vice President Cheney and John McCain and Sarah Palin -- since none of them raised the issue during the elecction -- don't think it's an issue that can disqualify Obama, Constitutionally speaking -- or else -- they would have disqualified him by their own actions and protests.

Perhaps America will have to do it herself...you think?

I think that "America" can boot him out, in this next Presidential election if those 10 million more votes for Obama than the GOP candidate can be turned around. We'll see if that's the case or not.

That's what Presidential elections are all about, and unfortunately we don't always win on those, either.

You were saying ...

Garbage In Garbage Out. It's very likely the problem with Obama's birth certificate. Explained and repeated below.

[ ... ]

Here is what was said in its entirety that you distorted:

No distortion here... I'm simply stating what the reality of the situation is. First you have this "reality". This is what the State of Hawaii said...

STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Given that reality, from the statement from the State of Hawaii, and from the very person in the department in that state that takes care of those records and who also creates the "certified copy" for the relevant people who ask for it (or when a court orders it) -- I would say that there's no distortion of understanding here...

If you're asking from that same department of the State of Hawaii to produce a certified copy -- for which they just said that statement above, officially and for the public -- and then you say that as far as their statement is concerned it's "garbage in garbage out" -- but I want the certified copy that they also produce -- then I would say that you've got a problem with reality here... LOL...

That's so apparent that you've seem to miss it... you want the very copy that they produce, but you don't want what they officially say about Obama...

That sounds more like you don't want to accept what they already know and have on record, more than anything else.

You were saying ...

But it’s entirely different from a politician doing things to maintain his voter base.

I didn’t create this distinction—it exists whether or not I explain it to you and whether or not you understand it.

The backers and supporters of such politicians also "act politically" too, taking cues from the very same politician. And likewise with issues and ideas, too -- in the political sphere -- where "talking points" (it doesn't matter which side, they both do it) are generated for "acting political" -- for gaining position and/or support on an issue or idea.

And in that understanding (which is also a normal understanding of it) -- that goes on all the time with political supporters (of which there are plenty here on Free Republic too).

A couple of examples of "acting political" ...

One would be, saying that I don't accept the statement from the State of Hawaii who says that the records that they have to produce the "certified copy" say that Obama was born in Hawaii -- but I don't believe it and I want that "certified copy"... LOL...

I mean, they jusst said it and that pretty much settles if for a large group of Americans out there who have heard that from the State of Hawaii.

And another would be a politican who says (one year later) I don't know if Obama was born in Hawaii and I want to see his birth certificate, while the same politician passed up the exact time and place where he could officially lodge his complaint and issue it -- at the meeting of Congress to certify the Electoral College Votes for Obama, which they did, without a single objection from a single politician in that group -- theirs or ours, including Vice President Cheney.

Again, doing so a year later, after the President has been in office all this time, and passing up the time when that politician could have done it -- is acting political.

You were saying ...

One more thing about Fukino’s carefully constructed obsfucation of a statement. If she had wished to be plain she would have said.

The issue at hand here, for which the State of Hawaii was making an official statement -- is -- (1) Where was Obama born, and (2) Is he a natural born American citizen?

For everything that I've read, about the Constitutional issue, it all comes down to those two things.

Thus, for the State of Hawaii to answer directly those very two things which are at issue in this whole controversy (about Constitutional qualifications) -- I don't call it a "carefully constructed obsfucation" -- to answer those two items directly as was done.

You were saying about what "should" have been said...

I saw the original long form birth certificate. His doctor was Dr. X. He was born in Hopital X, the witnesses were Nurses X and X, and his father's name was Barack Obama, Sr.

To say something about the doctor, the nurses and the hospital (while it's all there as background information in any case) -- is not the "direct answer" to "Where was Obama born?" and "Is Obama a natural born American citizen?"

The State of Hawaii made an official statement to the very core and crux of the issue, from their examination of the records that they have. The statement given -- was the model of simplicity and the most direct and comprehensive answer that could have been given and completely answer the crux of the issue while maintaining its simplicity at the same time.

You were saying about what "should" have been said...

She didn't. Instead she referred to vague “vital records” which could be anything at all, even amended records.

Well, when I read that, "vital records" means that they've looked over what they've got and this is the answer they have, for the public, from the results of looking over what they've got.

You were saying about what "should" have been said...

She would have said NOTHING about his natural born status since she has no authority whatsoever to declare anyone natural born.

The State of Hawaii hires lawyers too, you know... :-) You can bet that the State of Hawaii lawyers would not have the state make an official statement without having the legal backing to say so. I can be confident of that, with the fact that all the states have a team of lawyers for examining any subject that the state deal with.

What this means to me, is that there are lawyers who are going to examine "official pronouncements" of any state to the public and they're not going to let something in there that is a lie (from the state records) and is legally unsupportable.

And speaking from the position of non-lawyers, there are conservatives who do not think that this is relevant to the Constitutional issue of Obama being qualified, i.e., that natural born status, per the parents citizenship, and it affecting Obama, having been born in Hawaii.

That's obviousl since we've got all the Republicans and the Republican candidate, plus the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States (Bush and Cheney) -- none of them raising this issue as relevant in Obama's qualifications under the Constitution.

You were saying about what "should" have been said...

If it ever does come out that Obama is not a natural born citizen, I hope this woman is forever shamed in society for being a traitor.

That wouldn't happen, because the only way it would "come out" would be by a Supreme Court decision, since all the facts pertaining to the parents citizenship are known now. It's not a matter of facts not being known -- it's a matter of a different understanding for being a natural born American citizen.

And if a Supreme Court decision does come down and says that the legal understanding of being a natural born American citizen requires U.S. citizenship for both parents (or however they construe it in the Supreme Court) -- then you're not going to put someone in jail or be shamed for being on the "other side" of the "issue being decided" in a court of law.

In other words, when cases are taken to the Supreme Court, the other side who loses (in some Supreme Court decision) is not "shamed" -- but they merely lost in the legal understanding of the issue.

In fact, there are Supreme Court decisions right now that conservatives object to -- and I don't see that these conservatives, being on the "losing side" of the Supreme Court decision are "shamed" for it.

How many conservatives who oppose the decision of the Supreme Court in regards to abortion do you see are currently "shamed" for being on the losing side of that decision? None, I would say...

You were saying ...

Actually, I did not state what you claim that I did. I used the negative.

That 1 in 3 of the general population does not believe Obama was born in the U.S. is really rather remarkable given the complete blackout on reporting by both the Marxist media and conservative media.

I just went back to the source article that you supplied, and didn't quote you, but quoted the article regarding the poll results you cite.

So, what I do know -- is not what you said, but what the poll results you cited said. The quote is below...

70 per cent of respondents believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S., while 30 per cent do not.

And....We do not know ( perhaps you do) the percentage of people like me who say that it is impossible to know about Obama’s eligibility given the evidence.

Obama's "eligibility" (per the Constitution) breaks down into two parts (which happen to be the two "camps" in the issue here on Free Republic, too...

Camp One -- Obama was not born in the U.S. and is not qualified per the Constitution
Camp Two -- Obama may have been born in the U.S. but the relevant information is that he is not qualified per the Constitution because of his parents' citizenship.

Now, in Camp One, we've got the official statement from the State of Hawaii which says that Obama was born in the U.S., in the State of Hawaii. So, for something official and for knowing, that is settled.

In Camp Two, as I have said before, this will only be settled by way of a Supreme Court decision. There are conservatives who believe that anyone would be qualified being born in Hawaii and other conservatives who say that he would not be, even if born in the State of Hawaii.

You're not going to settle that and thus -- "it is impossible to know about Obama's eligibility given the evidence" -- until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue.

You were saying ...

Well?...Gee! Since it's so “definitive” then release the long form birth certificate.

The certified copy that the State of Hawaii produces when it is requested -- would only solve one of those two issues for many here. It would only solve the one of where he was born.

And, as you know, since we've already heard all the facts about the citizenship of his parents, it wouldn't solve that, as that is only an issue that can be solved by the Supreme Court -- as to which legal opinion is correct.

The State of Hawaii has weighed in officially on behalf of the legal opinion that Obama is a natural born American citizen.

For people, here (who make this their primary issue of contention in the Constitutional question), only the Supreme Court can give the "final word" on the matter.

Therefore, as I see it, there's nothing to be solved by having anything more said or given -- than what the State of Hawaii has already done -- aside from a Supreme Court decision on how the parents citizenship affects being natural born.

But...The problem with Fukino’s NOT so “definitive” statement is she did NOT specify to which vital records ( note the plural) she was referring. Hawaii's handling of COLBs was very lax as has been **definitively** pointed out many times.

Here's the official statement from the State of Hawaii, from the head of the department that maintains those records...

STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

That sounds defnitive to me. It's stating that they have seen the vital records that they maintain on file and from that, they verify that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.

It really doesn't get much plainer than that ...

Also...Dr. Fukino has absolutely NO, NO, NO authority or training to declare anyone a natural born citizen. Judges would be the people to rule on this.

Certainly the State of Hawaii has the ability, the expertise, and in many cases, the "request" (by many people) -- to make legal statements as they have made and do so in many different cases. States do that all the time. I've see that happen plenty of times for different legal issues. It gets run by their lawyers, they determine the legal status of something and they make a pronouncement.

I don't know where you've been but it goes on probably every day with states all over this country (one or the other or various ones on any day...)

At the same time, if a legal statement that a state has made is something that some people don't like, they can (and do) challenge those in a court of law.

But, I've said all along if you want a "settling of the issue" of Obama's qualifications per the Constitution and in regards to his parents' citizenship, the only settling of this is going to be by the Supreme Court.

However, that -- in no way, shape or form, prevents any state from making legal pronouncements, officially, on behalf of the state, no matter if someone wants to take something to the Supreme Court.

These two DOJ talking points are getting tiresome.

It is statements like yours above that cause people to believe that you are a troll for Obama. I can understand why you may think conservatives should put their efforts elsewhere, but...Please, Please, Please...don't use these two arguments to defend your position that conservatives should give up on Obama’s eligibility.

It may be getting tiresome, but I don't say what I say, in a vacuum. In other words, if no one posted on this issue, I wouldn't be raising it as I have. It's a response to existing comments to the contrary of what I've been posting. If mine are getting tiresome, being repeated, then what about the other side (of the issue, in this case) repeating things?

I haven't said to give up on the "eligibility issue" -- but rather -- I say that one segment (of the two differing segments) of the eligibility issue has been settled, since it's clear that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The one which hasn't been settled (at least, legally finalized to being beyond the point of dispute) -- is what requires the Supreme Court to weigh in on. That's the issue that has to do with the parents' citizenship and how it affects Obama's qualifications per the Constitution's three requirements, as it states.

In that regard, I have no problem with people seeking a final legal decision, from the Supreme Court, on this aspect of it. That's perfectly fine. But, someone is going to have to get a court case "framed" in those terms before the Supreme Court is going to hear it. So, people better "get going" on it, if they expect something to come down from the Supreme Court before Obama term in office eventually expires.

The State of Hawaii has weighed in officially on behalf of the legal opinion that Obama is a natural born American citizen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Star Traveler,

Fukino ( a physician) has absolutely no legal expertise or authority to declare anyone a natural born citizen.

Also....Fukino stated that she saw the original vital records ( note the plural) which could be anything given the lax nature of Hawaii's COLB policy at the time. And...Hawaii flat out refuses to state how or with which documents Fukino’s statements are based. Many FOI requests have been filed for this information. I believe there are now law suits demanding that Hawaii obey their own laws on this matter.

You are right that the long form birth certificate would show the name of the father ( if any is listed) and place of birth. That information is needed to determine if other action must be taken. Obviously if Obama’s true father was an American citizen then that would certainly be in his favor.

So...Again...I believe that conservatives can disagree on whether or not any attention should be paid to Obama’s eligibility.... But....When so-called conservatives use DOJ talking points regarding Obama’s natural born status, don't be surprised when those defending the Constitution label them TROLLS!

Also...I'll bet my entire 401K that those defending the Constitution ( pejoratively referred to as “birthers”)**are** ( as I type) working feverishly to get laws passed on the state level to force all candidates to prove certified documentation that they are indeed eligible to occupy the position for which they are running.

You were saying ...

Fukino ( a physician) has absolutely no legal expertise or authority to declare anyone a natural born citizen.

Yeah and I understand that. But, you must remember that the State of Hawaii and all other states, too -- employ a lot of attorneys for going over state stuff.

It's not like they don't know the significance of a statement like that and what impact it would have and the necessity of having it vetted by their own state's attorneys. I'm sure they are well aware of the impact of such a statement and the necessity for it to be vetted by their attorneys.

With this kind of statement -- there's only one other thing that anyone could say about such a statement given by this statement from the State of Hawaii -- if they don't believe what they say...

That would be that the entire state mechanism (their lawyers and the governor and that head of the department) was engaged in a massive cover-up and lying campaign to say that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii -- while they have records which show that he wasn't born there...

So..., sorry..., I don't believe that they are engaged in that kind of massive coverup and lying about the records that they have, in that they show he was not born in Hawaii and they are saying that he was.

Also....Fukino stated that she saw the original vital records ( note the plural) which could be anything given the lax nature of Hawaii's COLB policy at the time. And...Hawaii flat out refuses to state how or with which documents Fukino’s statements are based. Many FOI requests have been filed for this information. I believe there are now law suits demanding that Hawaii obey their own laws on this matter.

Yeah, I did note the "plural" and I would expect it to be that way, as I would expect that any review of this information would include all that they had. I mean, if they had (let's say) three pieces of information filed in the records, and they reviewed only one to come to an incomplete answer, leaving out the other two records (which would affect it) -- then I would say that someone is trying to manipulate and fool us (if one would even believe that a state mechanism would be employed to do so, with their lawyers on the state team allowing such a thing to happen, given the liability that there would be for the state).

So, no..., I would expect it to be "plural" and all documents to be reviewed and then the determination from those documents to say either one of two things -- (1) Obama was born in Hawaii, or (2) Obama was not born in Hawaii.... it's either one of those two...

As for those lawsuits, I don't really expect them to go anywhere. I mean, you've already seen how countless other court cases have gone, so I don't know why people expect any different now. I'm just saying that seeing what has happened from experience pretty much tells you what is going to happen in the future, too.

But....When so-called conservatives use DOJ talking points regarding Obama’s natural born status, don't be surprised when those defending the Constitution label them TROLLS!

Those talking points that you're referring to may be out there somewhere, but I don't know where they are. If I say certain things that you've heard elsewhere, it's because when I've looked at this -- it's what I come up with just thinking about it on my own and analyzing it on my own.

The statement by the State of Hawaii, of course, is not my own, but that's a matter of an official statement and a matter of record, so that's something that is very important to refer to and is valid.

I just read on another FReeper post, just a few minutes ago, that Clinton said to Kennedy that he was supporting Obama just because he is black. Now, I might come up with that same assessment, but it doesn't mean that I read it from Clinton and I decided to take "Clinton's talking points" from him and then repeat them. It's just that I figured out the same thing myself... LOL...

Also...I'll bet my entire 401K that those defending the Constitution ( pejoratively referred to as “birthers”)**are** ( as I type) working feverishly to get laws passed on the state level to force all candidates to prove certified documentation that they are indeed eligible to occupy the position for which they are running.

I'm actually very doubtful of that. Whenever I post about such state legislation, I usually get one or two people who say it's a good idea and it sounds like they haven't heard of it before. Sometimes I get nothing in response. It simply seems that there is no support for such legislation from the reactions and responses to such legislation being posted here.

I don't see anyone tracking it in other states -- not even in the states that I've seen having such legislation (like Arizona, Texas and Missouri). I have posted what was going on with it in Oklahoma, but it's like it's a "dead issue" and no one really cares about getting such legislation through. It's very puzzling to me that I see no response or reaction and/or support (by means of legislative tracking and the informing of FReepers here) with Free Republic. I really think that no one really cares about it.

Apparently the people here who think the issue of where Obama was born is not relevant or has been settled don't care about this kind of state legislation. And then, those who have pushed the idea that we have to have court cases forcing the issue or force (somehow) Obama to show his birth certificate -- don't care about going down that track.

In fact, the people who have been pursuing Obama in this "other direction" (like you see with lawsuits and forcing him politically to do it) -- many of them have actually told me that to pursue this state legislation is simply a diversion to take people away from the "main action" of what they are doing... (hey! they've said it to me... ya know...).

So, I'm really doubting that there is any support out there (besides a mere handful) who are pursuing this.

And by the way, here in Oklahoma, the legislative session has not started yet, but before it does, I'm putting a call into the same legislator that sponsored it for last year and see what is happening this year. I haven't read a thing about it recently, but I will find out.

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.