Posted on 04/21/2010 5:53:00 PM PDT by Plutarch
President Barack ObamaThe "birther" myth is the political equivalent of a horror-movie villain: Not only does it refuse to die, but every time someone tries to kill it, it only comes back stronger.
The latest incarnation: a bill approved 31-22 by the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday that would require 2012 presidential candidates to offer proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the ballot. The proposal has little chance of becoming law. For that to happen, the state Senate would have to pass it and the governor would have to sign it. But it's still the closest birtherism has come to being codified.
Democrats have dutifully condemned the bill. One Phoenix legislator said it's turning Arizona into "the laughing stock of the nation." White House spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the measure and others like it on CNN as "fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories." Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly wrote, "The fact that fringe lunacy is being taken seriously at this level suggests a strain of contemporary Republican thought that's gone stark raving mad." Even some Republicans are rushing to distance themselves from the bill, particularly senatorial candidate J. D. Hayworth, whom John McCain has tried to tie to the fringiest elements of the Tea Party movement....
[excerpt]
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Drew68: “And, no, I haven’t read the text of the bill. I’m just guessing that when all is said and done, abiding by the requirements will be something Obama will easily be able to do come 2012.”
Yep. You are correct. Under the proposed law, I see no reason why Obama wouldn’t qualify based on the short form (Certificate of Live Birth) that he already released.
This is not something I have been concentrating on. My opinion is that if it comes out, they will just figure out a way to ignore it.
But the fact that Obama has run as “Kenyan born” bothers me. Even if it isn’t true, it means his identity is not American. And that he has spent so many millions so he doesn’t have to show his birth certificate stinks to high heaven.
It seems to me the “birther” issue has revealed a glitch in our process, wherein people are not required to document their citizenship status or age, and no one seems to have the responsibility to do it.
Therefore, it makes sense to pass laws at the state level to govern how the candidates will be deemed qualified to be on the ballot. No harm in that unless someone is in the USA illegally, misrepresenting themselves, and/or attempting to hide embarrassing things from the public.
Hayworth should stay away from this issue. Although the birthers may be correct, it is not an issue to garner votes for representation.
Hmmm. I don’t know... MAYBE ITS BECAUSE BHO HAS NEVER PRODUCED AN ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, EVER.
A myth on a mythion to destroy America
I am a dyed int he wool birther ... and you are absolutely correct, it is not an electioneering issue. It is the fundamental value of the Constitution at stake, not to be toyed with as a means to elect or smear a given candidate.
I wonder how California Secretary of State Frank Jordan managed to verify Eldridge Cleaver's age and thus disqualify him from getting on the ballot as a Presidential candidate (Mr. Cleaver was 34 years old, not the Constitutionally-required 35). Oh, right, Mr. Jordan asked to see his birth certificate, and Mr. Cleaver complied.
"According to a brief filed in California state courts by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, "In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president.
"Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions," the case reported.
"'Jordan did what he was supposed to do,' [Attorney Orly] Taitz said. 'He checked his [Cleaver's] documents, found he was only 34 and threw him off the ballot.'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=129057
Or maybe way back in the 1960s, both thought it a reasonable and honorable thing to ask and answer.
He did not release a valid document from the state of Hawaii. Nice try though ...
Why? Are they afraid their messiah isn't Constitutionally eligible? ROTFLOL
I think birthers are wrong - but I cannot imagine how anyone could object to this bill. All it states is that appropriate documentation must be submitted to the state for verification of a candidates minimal qualifications. It would be as true for McCain as for Obama - or for Goldwater, or a number of other previous candidates who had questions about their qualifications.
The COLB was not released “officially” by 0bama, but by Factcheck. Second, they released an image in the internet. In a court of law, an actual paper must be shown, not an image on a computer screen.
If you check butterdezillion’s comments, and read for a bit (she also has a blog, probably on her profile page) you can read for yourself what is wrong with 0bama’s COLB as evidence “proving” a HI birth.
Since you are making a lot of comments but have little knowledge of the subject, if you are interested in the truth of the matter, do yourself a favor and read her comments and her blog. She has done heroic research into this and found evidence from the DOH in HI that the COLB is a forgery.
Courtesy ping to butterdezillion.
Obama won’t release his forged COLB to anyone who isn’t a faither, sand head or paid apologist. If that thing was real, the hard copy would have been presented to a bona fide reporter. The HI DOH has done everything it can to deflect away from the fact that they CAN’T confirm it as genuine.
Wow!! You finally said something that stands to reason. Who can honestly object to full disclosure?? Why would that be a bad thing??
To be honest, it hadn’t occurred to me before Obama that it wasn’t the normal way of doing business. If the military requires a birth certificate, shouldn’t the President?
This law ought to be on the books in all 50 states as normal practice, applying to congressional candidates as well. If someone cannot show they are 30, they shouldn’t be allowed to run for Senate.
Thanks. It looks like I'm barking up the right tree.
Thanks to the "probably" in regards to his first name, my Unified Theory of Obama's Birth Certificate still stands. :-)
By now Obama has all the needed documents lined up and ready to go.
They may very well all be fakes, in fact I wouldn’t put it past him to make sure they aren’t very good forgeries, just to make sure the fight continues to occupy a lot of attention. Nervertheless, they are in a vault somewhere, and he’ll pull them out, just as you said, when the political time is right.
I think that’s why Beck, Coulter, and everyone else wants to distance themselves from the issue.
You put way too much trust in the label “Republican”. The president can’t just order an FBI investigation into somebody because he’s running for president. This guy hasn’t had a background check by ANYBODY.
I saw this posted elsewhere. It certainly says a lot about Obama and the HI DOH ...
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
United States v. Tweel, 1977
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.