Just Hanging Around?
Haven't donated yet?
Consider becoming a monthly donor
A bunch of small amounts add up to a lot
Posted on 04/13/2011 12:39:01 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
Well, he would be out the $10 bucks for a copy of it! But he does have a billion or so to get elected and millions to fight it in court.!
hmmm, that is looking solid. Go Arizona!
Get’er done and you will be my dream retirement state!
““She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity.””
You know what I say to this.... it means precisely NOTHING.
Look at the statement, “birth record” that could be a long form signed by a doctor, it could also be a Late filed registration of birth. Both documents will have typed sections, and hand written sections.
She said something with out saying anything.
That’s why I demanded curiosity give me the quote and the link to it, which he/she failed to do.
Not one quote that I have read has ever said specifically WHAT kind of record generated that COLB. The type of record MATTERS.
FURTHERMORE, why isn’t everyone absolutely losing their minds over the possibility of widespread Citizenship fraud!??!??!??!?!?!
I mean DAMN, that deserves to be investigated regardless of Obama!!!!!!!!!!! Now THAT is a real WTF moment!!!!
At least candidates should be given this option.
Perhaps the option is already there in the form of “best evidence.” Were a mere citizen take it upon himself or herself to sue, it might be scoffed at by a judge, but if a candidate were to do so, the judge would in theory have to act more carefully in regards to rules of the court concerning best evidence.
In theory, at least...
So it is just the media calling it a birther bill showing their bias to Obama unprofessionalism again?
Birthers, Rejoice! Arizona Senate Passes Bill That May Keep Barack Obama Off Its Ballot
“Well, now: The Arizona Senate has passed a bill that would very likely keep Barack Obama off the state’s ballot for the 2012 election. The bill still awaits the Arizona House’s approval and the state Governor, but, if passed, would require that each and every presidential candidate have a certified copy of his or her long form birth certificate, including that names of the candidate’s father and mother and enough information to “determine the citizenship of both parents.” Also required: The name of the hospital in which the candidate was born, the name of the attending physician (if there was one) and the signatures of any others who witnessed the birth.”
8. Permits a member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Senate or any other citizen of this state to initiate an action to enforce this section.
It all becomes public record. In order for any citizen of AZ to challenge the documentation by the presidential candidates it has to become public.
Baptized into what? They're not Christians...Communists maybe.
And BTW, Obama still has to say he’s a natural born presidential candidate in AZ for 2012. Heck, you could use this 2007/2008 document against him in any future court challenge.
See Here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2704290/posts?page=30#30
But while they have lots of ways to say no, like being an incumbent is proof enough, we need just 1 state law requiring a certified copy of the original bc, and it will be newsworthy if he uses an excuse instead of that single piece of paper... we hope.
all it needs is one state
Many mainline churches are very particular about maintaining detailed records, including baptism. The records would be timely entered by hand by the officiant and witnesses present would sign. I would assume the "early" part would refer to a baptism done immediately after birth. Personally, I would place more credibility on an authentic baptismal record in a Churches archive than I would a BC copied by a state worker.
And, there is no way to fit a non-existant LFBC’s serial number between others born at the same time.
This is the exact reason the whole If-he-releases-it-you'll-still-say-it's-fake excuse doesn't hold up. All the information will be able to be confirmed, or NOT confirmed.
NE - LB 654 hearing held as of 3/10/11. MO - Failed in '09. Trying again, HB 283 hearing held as of 3/1/11. Not on calendar. TX - HB 295 intro'd 11/10, in committee as of 2/15 OK - SB91 passed Senate 34-10, advanced to House for consideration 3/14, Second Reading referred to Rules 3/16. "CR; Do Pass, amended by committee substitute Rules Committee" 4/7. To see the details, type SB91 in the "Measure Number" box on the Oklahoma Legislature Home Page Quick Search Form CT - SB 391 intro'd 1/11. In committee. IA - SF 369, intro'd 3/2. In committee as of 3/3. HI - HB1116 Rida Cabanilla (D!) intro'd bill 1/11 to supply BC for "persons of civic prominence" upon request and $100 fee. TN - SB 1043, died in committee as of 3/30. ME - LD34, Died in committee 3/3/11. GA - Failed in '10. (HB 1516). Failed in '11 (HB 401). MT - HB 205 intro'd 1/11. "Missed Deadline for General Bill Transmittal" IN - Intro'd 1/11. Died in committee. NH - Intro'd 3/11. Died in committee.
“That solves everything. A certified, exemplified, self authenticating, COLB short form from the State of Hawaii will be accepted as a prima facie showing.”
These bills should require the candidate to sign an authorization allowing the state to get the long form copy directly from the candidate’s state of birth.
Bout time.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489
- - - - - - -
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009.
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.