Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona House OKs Birther Bill
WND ^ | 4-10-10

Posted on 04/20/2010 12:47:47 AM PDT by hope

House votes to check candidates' citizenship Updated: Monday, 19 Apr 2010, 4:45 PM MDT Published : Monday, 19 Apr 2010, 4:44 PM MDT

PHOENIX (AP) -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxphoenix.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizona; az; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamaisabirther
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-258 next last
To: Red Steel

“Another false assumption by you. You take the lack of actions by Congress to mean that there was no wrong doing by Obama. Those people in Congress either lack the political courage to do the right thing because they are afraid of the redicule by the overwhelming leftist press or for other reasons of preservation. Or, they are part of the same party of enablers, Democrats, who will not act because they lack integrity.”


Stop lying. I made no such statement and no such assumption. What I said is that Congress also has subpoena power. I said nothing more and I said nothing less.

My exact statement: “Even a committee or subcommittee of Congress could subpoena Obama’s birth records.”


161 posted on 04/20/2010 5:42:41 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: dools007
There can be no doubt that considerable sums of money are being spent to protect The Marxist Onada’s usurping the American Presidency.

Then offering real proof should be pretty easy...exactly where can I find it?

162 posted on 04/20/2010 6:06:16 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Interesting! So you don’t believe that Obama is guilty of forgery and fraud which are criminal offenses and would therefore be prosecuted with indictments handed down by Grand Juries.

You are full of false assumptions. We've had this same conversation before where I spanked you illogical behind.

Plain old lying on the Internet is not crime. Anyone can point to a image online and say anything about it as they like without breaking the law. Now, if Obama used that image everyone calls a Certification of Live Birth in an official capacity as to falsify government documents using it as proof, then he could be prosecuted for wrong doing if it is not genuine. Alas, Obama and his sycophants can lie to their heart's content without retribution. Obama has never publicly associated himself with that silly image that you think as real. He keeps his distance for a 'plausible deniability' excuse and lets his koolaid drinkers promote it as real.

You can take it to the bank Obot that Obama will never show that forgery in a court of law.

163 posted on 04/20/2010 6:10:02 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
I don't need to lie Obot. I may misread something sometimes but it is no lie.

My exact statement: “Even a committee or subcommittee of Congress could subpoena Obama’s birth records.”

It may not be a false assumption on your part, but I believe you wish it to be so that Obama will never have his records subpoenaed by Congress even if he is criminal.

164 posted on 04/20/2010 6:16:55 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: dools007
No doubt you’re right. But Onada must keep a staff on the look out for new eruptions all the time.

The court requires Obama be served so he doesn't have to keep a staff on the lookout, he just has to wait to be served.

165 posted on 04/20/2010 6:43:26 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: edge919
What Constitutional role is that??

Here is the statement in conflict with the Constitution

It needs to exclude anyone not born to both parents being U.S. citizens. That way it WOULD cause a legal fight that would make it to the SCOTUS and finally be decided.

The federal government defines citizenship, not the states.

166 posted on 04/20/2010 6:47:44 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes
We need to remember how he told one lady in a town hall that obama was a good man, and there was nothing to be afraid of or fear from him. Effectively endorsing obama.

Oh, I remember it just like it was yesterday. As far as I'm concerned, he suspended his campaign and then put it in neutral...effectively throwing the election.

Now he wants to get all gung-ho against a principled conservative and expects us to buy it.

Elephants never forget.

167 posted on 04/20/2010 6:57:33 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Republicans...the REAL civil rights party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
This “millions spent by Obama’s lawyers” is just another self perpetuating birther myth. There is no proof.

Just like there is no proof that Obama sweats everytime another birther case comes up.

168 posted on 04/20/2010 7:03:32 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

LOL!


169 posted on 04/20/2010 7:05:16 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Elephants never forget.

;)

170 posted on 04/20/2010 7:35:34 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

What I don’t understand is why not a single Senator has demanded proof that he is eligible for the chair he now sits in. IMHO, our Senators are traitors for not fulfilling their duties in Office. They all need to be removed also.


171 posted on 04/20/2010 7:55:30 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Should people be questioning their government? Yes and "Where's the birth certificate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
"They all need to be removed also."

No argument here.
172 posted on 04/20/2010 8:10:23 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I’ve already debunked the rational that Ankeny put forth. They undermined their decision by acknolwedging Wong Kim Ark declared no specific person to be a natural born citizen. Second, their decision (and the Indiana Supreme Court’s) to affirm the motion to dismiss was based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,not their infirm interpretation of natural born citizen or any claim of eligibility. That was tacked on nonsense.


173 posted on 04/20/2010 9:06:31 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Here is the statement in conflict with the Constitution

It needs to exclude anyone not born to both parents being U.S. citizens. That way it WOULD cause a legal fight that would make it to the SCOTUS and finally be decided.

The federal government defines citizenship, not the states.

States defined citizenship before our federal government ever did, and at the time of the founding of our Constitution, so I'm sorry, this notion of a supposed conflict is pure nonsense.

174 posted on 04/20/2010 9:10:03 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: edge919
States defined citizenship before our federal government ever did, and at the time of the founding of our Constitution, so I'm sorry, this notion of a supposed conflict is pure nonsense.

That should be at the time of the founding of our nation, not the founding of our Constitution. The Articles of Confederation have been replaced by the Constitution which gives the authority to Congress to establish uniform rules of citizenship.

175 posted on 04/20/2010 10:23:13 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
That should be at the time of the founding of our nation, not the founding of our Constitution. The Articles of Confederation have been replaced by the Constitution which gives the authority to Congress to establish uniform rules of citizenship.

Lucy, I wrote what I meant ... at the founding of our Constitution. This is the instrument that gave naturalization powers to Congress. States still had the power to define citizenship in their states. It's not until the 14th amendment that citizenship powers became consolidated at the federal level.

176 posted on 04/20/2010 10:30:22 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Let me get this straight, you think the states have the power to decide individually what the meaning of NBC is as it pertains to eligibility to hold a federal office?


177 posted on 04/20/2010 10:37:59 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Let me get this straight, you think the states have the power to decide individually what the meaning of NBC is as it pertains to eligibility to hold a federal office?

Do you know what the 10th amendment is??

178 posted on 04/20/2010 10:41:18 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Which can be reported by anybody to the local registrar, not just a hospital.

So? How else are babies born outside of hospitals supposed to get birth certificates?

This says nothing about whether the child was born in or outside of Hawaii.

Sure it does, in so far as the person reporting the birth would have to have committed fraud in order to get a foriegn birth registered. There was no provision under Hawaiian law at the time for the registration of births outside the state.

That is why any timely birth registration accurate unless it can be proven that fraud took place.

Do you have any proof that Obama's birth was fraudulantly registered?

Nonsense. You haven't disproven that a foreign birth can be registered within a week's time frame.

Perhaps it could be. My point is that such an act would involve felony fraud and possibly pergury.

More nonsense. The motive was to ensure that the child would be a U.S. citizen.We already know SAD was too young to pass on U.S. citizenship to her child if born abroad.

It is you who are spouting nonsense. While it is true SAD was too young to automatically pass her citizenship on to her son, as the child of a US citizen, he was eligible for naturalized citizenship. If he was born, all she would have to do get him naturalized would be to fill out an application at the nearest consulate and provide proof of her own citizenship and maternity. See my profile for the relevant references to the immigration laws in effect at the time.

Why commmit a felony to secure his citizenship, when it could all be done perfectly legally?

Never mind the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that such a fraud took place, or the she ever set foot in Kenya, let alone gave birth there.

179 posted on 04/20/2010 10:50:50 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Do you know what Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is?


180 posted on 04/20/2010 11:00:04 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-258 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson