# The Birfer State Law Tracking Thread



## Toro

The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.

A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are 

Oklahoma
Tennessee
Missouri
Arizona
Hawaii
Texas
Indiana
Montana
Connecticut
Nebraska
Maine

Wikipedia has the first 10.

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sheldon supplied Maine.

HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship

Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.

Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.



> It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
> 
> On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
> 
> Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.



Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona

Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1R/comm_min/Senate/021411JUD.DOC.htm


----------



## Toro

Here is the description of what happened in the Arizona Judiciary Committee.

Arizona Birther Bill Fails To Pass Senate Committee « GrateWire

As one blogger noted



> The bill isn't "dead" until the end of the session (it can come back as a strike-everything amendment to another bill at any time), but this is a stinging defeat for Gould.



http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/...paign=Feed:+BlogForArizona+(Blog+For+Arizona)


----------



## Toro

Thus far, the birfer bill has not come back as a Strike Everything amendment.

Strike Everything Amendments


----------



## Sheldon

Good call on the thread.

I want to do Missouri. It's just a great example of how birfer politics operates.



In 2009, some Republicans in their legislature introduced HRJ 34, a proposed state constitutional amendment, and what they called "the voters' bill of rights". Here's the relevant part:



> The right to have only qualified candidates placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall determine that each person is qualified for the office he or she seeks, according to the law, before placing his or her name on the ballot. *For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate&#8217;s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted.* Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall verify the qualifications of any elected officeholder who was previously placed on a Missouri ballot. Should any elected officeholder fail to provide the required documentation or birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall turn the matter over to the attorney general who shall within twenty days file suit to obtain the required documentation.
> 
> *Missouri Legislature Wants To Vet Obama BC: HJR 34 | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty*




After the jump, if you click on the link to the bill's text, you see it's been withdrawn. Why? Because the authors of the bill realized that Missouri ONLY issues COLBs. That bill would have excluded any Missourian from being on their own state's  ballot for President! There's not enough bandwidth for the number of lol's I want to post because of that.


So there's a new bill that's been introduced.
*Missouri House of Representatives*


HTML text:*http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.htm*

The relevant sentences are bolded. What's different? This one, which has yet to be heard, makes no distinction about an "official birth cerfiticate" and a COLB, like the debacle above. All that's listed is "proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each candidate", which means Obama's COLB and, say, driver's license would be good enough.



Birfers, the gifts that keep on giving.


----------



## Toro

Thanks Silky.  I owe you rep for that.

So I guess we can scratch Missouri off that list, eh?


----------



## Sheldon

As far as Oklahoma is concerned, I can't find any bill in this legislative session addressing proof of citizenship for being on the Presidential ballot. Nearest I can find is a bill that attempts to redefine state citizenship by closing the "anchor baby loophole" in the 14th. Imo that brings up some pretty major Constitutional issues, but that's for another thread, and doesn't directly address Presidential eligibility.


eta-- http://www.scribd.com/doc/47903325/OK-SB384-2011-Shortey , http://www.scribd.com/doc/47903322/OK-SB91-2011-Brinkley , http://www.scribd.com/doc/48030753/OK-SB540-2011-Sykes

But I also wonder about the Constitutionality of some of these bills, how they would work within the Full Faith & Credit clause. Can, for example, xotoxi's bill in Maine reject vetted, official documents from the state of Hawaii and declare that person to not be an American citizen?


----------



## rightwinger

Sheldon said:


> Good call on the thread.
> 
> I want to do Missouri. It's just a great example of how birfer politics operates.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, some Republicans in their legislature introduced HRJ 34, a proposed state constitutional amendment, and what they called "the voters' bill of rights". Here's the relevant part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to have only qualified candidates placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall determine that each person is qualified for the office he or she seeks, according to the law, before placing his or her name on the ballot. *For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidates birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted.* Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall verify the qualifications of any elected officeholder who was previously placed on a Missouri ballot. Should any elected officeholder fail to provide the required documentation or birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall turn the matter over to the attorney general who shall within twenty days file suit to obtain the required documentation.
> 
> *Missouri Legislature Wants To Vet Obama BC: HJR 34 | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the jump, if you click on the link to the bill's text, you see it's been withdrawn. Why? Because the authors of the bill realized that Missouri ONLY issues COLBs. That bill would have excluded any Missourian from being on their own state's  ballot for President! There's not enough bandwidth for the number of lol's I want to post because of that.
> 
> 
> So there's a new bill that's been introduced.
> *Missouri House of Representatives*
> 
> 
> HTML text:*http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.htm*
> 
> The relevant sentences are bolded. What's different? This one, which has yet to be heard, makes no distinction about an "official birth cerfiticate" and a COLB, like the debacle above. All that's listed is "proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each candidate", which means Obama's COLB and, say, driver's license would be good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Birfers, the gifts that keep on giving.
Click to expand...


Does that mean that Truman was not qualified to be President?


----------



## Sheldon

Toro said:


> Thanks Silky.  I owe you rep for that.
> 
> So I guess we can scratch Missouri off that list, eh?





Yeah I think so. I'm not a lawyer or anything like that, but the bill is pretty short and straight-forward. His COLB will be good enough, as it should be, and I suspect these other bills will end-up having their teeth yanked out too, if not through the legislative process then through the courts.


----------



## Toro

It seems that the sponsor of the bill in Maine is attempting to distance himself from the birfers.



> Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, is sponsoring LD 34, which as written would require public office candidates to show birth certificates in addition to driver's licenses or other government-issued identification documents to the Secretary of State's Office before qualifying for the ballot. ...
> 
> After the hearing, Cebra said the bill was not related to the proliferation of so-called "birther" bills that have been advanced by GOP legislators in other states, a series of proposals driven by questions about Obama's citizenship.
> 
> "I have no interest in the birther idea, although it did raise the questions about the House and Senate candidates," Cebra said.



Secretary of state backs bill requiring proof of citizenship to run for state office | State

This is what the bill says.



> A candidate for nomination by primary election must file a primary petition and consent under sections 335 and 336. The candidate must be enrolled, on or before March 15th, in the party named in the petition and must be eligible to file a petition as a candidate for nomination by primary election under section 144, subsection 3. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. *A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.*



HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship

What am I missing here?  It appears that the bill does ask for the long-form birth certificate, or am I wrong?


----------



## del

Toro said:


> The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
> 
> A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are
> 
> Oklahoma
> Tennessee
> Missouri
> Arizona
> Hawaii
> Texas
> Indiana
> Montana
> Connecticut
> Nebraska
> Maine
> 
> Wikipedia has the first 10.
> 
> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sheldon supplied Maine.
> 
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.
> 
> Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
> 
> On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
> 
> Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
> 
> Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> Format Document
Click to expand...


as maine goes, so goes vermont.

just sayin


----------



## Toro

The author of the Texas birfer bill does not expect it to pass.



> &#8220;We don&#8217;t think the president was vetted, and it&#8217;s just that simple,&#8221; Texas GOP state Rep. Leo Berman said, adding that he doesn&#8217;t know whether Obama is &#8220;a citizen or not&#8221; but that he believes the question has not been fully examined. ...
> 
> &#8220;My colleagues love it,&#8221; he said, adding that his bill will &#8220;pass overwhelmingly in the House.&#8221; But Berman predicted that Democrats in the state Senate would block the bill from getting the two-thirds majority it needs to pass.



The Hawaii bill is designed to make money off birfers.  lol



> Hawaii Democrats are working on birther-influenced legislation of their own, designed, at least, to produce some revenue for the state&#8217;s trouble with the birthers. A new bill would allow the state&#8217;s Department of Health to provide copies of some of the president&#8217;s birth records &#8212; which the state had stopped doing during the height of birther activity &#8212; in return for a $100 fee.



And anyone who can do the math knows that the birfer bill has zero chance of passing in Connecticut.



> &#8220;I read about it and thought, &#8216;Why shouldn&#8217;t we do this? This sounds like a good idea,&#8217;&#8221; said Connecticut GOP state Sen. Michael McLachlan.
> 
> McLachlan conceded that his bill doesn&#8217;t stand much chance of passing the state&#8217;s Democratic-controlled Legislature, but said he hasn&#8217;t been deterred by opposition.



Birther debate alive across U.S. - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

So let's review five states

Arizona - Bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee as Republicans voted to kill the bill.
Missouri - All the Presidential candidate will have to do is show a birth certificate, not a long-form certificate
Texas - The bill's sponsor says it won't pass the Texas Senate.
Connecticut - Democrats far outnumber Republicans in the legislature and will kill the bill.
Hawaii - Democrats have introduced legislation to raise money from gullible birfers and put to rest the idea that Obama was born outside the country. 

Hawaii 'Birther' Bill Would Give Obama Records to Anyone -- for $100

So, thus far to the chagrin and contrary to the claims of the birfers, we have found that five of the eleven states are unlikely to pass anything stopping Obama from running for President.  And the sixth - Maine - are publicly distancing themselves from the birfers.


----------



## Toro

In Montana, the birfer bill has been tabled in committee.  It originally did not pass in committee, stalling at a vote of 9-9.  I'm not sure when the vote will be held.



> On a motion of &#8220;do pass&#8221; the roll call vote tied at 9 all. This was quickly followed by a motion to table and on the initial voice vote only one voice said &#8216;No&#8217;. However, the chair called a roll call vote and the motion to table was carried 10-8, so I suspect several members were covering their backs with their local crazies.



Oh, For Goodness Sake » Blog Archive » Montana HB 205: Birther Bill Tabled

Here is the bill.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0205.htm

The Governor of Montana is Brian Schweitzer, who is a Democrat and will almost certainly veto the bill.

Flathead Memo by James Conner: HB-205, Montana&rsquo;s birther bill

That puts six states where it is highly likely that there will be no legislation blocking President Obama from running in 2012.


----------



## Sheldon

For those not keeping track:



*Oklahoma--possible, they have 3 in Senate committees

Tennessee--possible*

Missouri--possible but ineffectual

Arizona--unlikely

Hawaii--not a ballot eligibility bill

Texas--highly unlikely, not enough for 2/3

*Indiana--possible*

Montana--unlikely

Connecticut--highly unlikely

*Nebraska--possible

Maine--possible, blame xotoxi*


----------



## Toro

What I've picked up elsewhere.  I'm not sure what is accurate and what is not.  I may do some hunting later.

Montana - The deadline for transmittal of House bills to the Senate was today, Feb 24.  If the bill has not been voted on in committee and passed onto the Senate, the bill is dead.  The bill had been tabled in committee after the last vote was tied at 9-9.

Maine - I'm not even sure if the bill applies to the President.  It appears to apply to candidates for in state offices.

Oklahoma - Three bills had been moved to the Rules Committee.  Deadline for being reported out of committee is Feb 28.

Indiana - Deadline for third reading was was yesterday, Feb 23.  As of last week, there had yet to be a second reading.

From Fogbow.com.


----------



## Sheldon

Toro said:


> Maine - I'm not even sure if the bill applies to the President.  It appears to apply to candidates for in state offices.




That's kind of what I was wondering. They didn't define beyond "public office", unlike the other bills that all explicitly stated that the office of President and Veep were included.

And there is this underlined part.



> A person who seeks nomination by petition qualifies by filing a nomination petition and consent as provided in sections 354 and 355. If enrolled, the person must also withdraw enrollment in a party on or before March 1st to be eligible to file a petition as a candidate in that election year, as provided in section 145. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. A person who seeks nomination by petition shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.



I read that as saying the potential candidate must have a legit petition for nomination from where they live, and the Sec of State has to verify it. How would that even apply to a Presidential campaign?


----------



## Toro

I think we can scrap Maine.

So it appears that the only ones that are unknown are Tennessee and Nebraska.  It doesn't look like the others will pass, though we should find out what has happened in Indiana, Oklahoma and Montana.  I'll look into it tomorrow.

But it doesn't look too good for the birfers!


----------



## The Big Pickle

Show us the damn birf certificate Obongo!


----------



## The Big Pickle

I'm praying for just ONE state to pass a law requiring proof of Natural Born Citizenship.


----------



## candycorn

Love watching Brithers or Birfers if you prefer fail all over the place.  I wish it were happening in Spring/Summer 2012 though.


----------



## DiveCon

Sheldon said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maine - I'm not even sure if the bill applies to the President.  It appears to apply to candidates for in state offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of what I was wondering. They didn't define beyond "public office", unlike the other bills that all explicitly stated that the office of President and Veep were included.
> 
> And there is this underlined part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person who seeks nomination by petition qualifies by filing a nomination petition and consent as provided in sections 354 and 355. If enrolled, the person must also withdraw enrollment in a party on or before March 1st to be eligible to file a petition as a candidate in that election year, as provided in section 145. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. A person who seeks nomination by petition shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that as saying the potential candidate must have a legit petition for nomination from where they live, and the Sec of State has to verify it. How would that even apply to a Presidential campaign?
Click to expand...

that covers any and all offices to run in a primary
at least thats what the author explained to me
and the "other papers" include naturalization papers for offices other than POTUS/VPOTUS


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> I think we can scrap Maine.
> 
> So it appears that the only ones that are unknown are Tennessee and Nebraska.  It doesn't look like the others will pass, though we should find out what has happened in Indiana, Oklahoma and Montana.  I'll look into it tomorrow.
> 
> But it doesn't look too good for the birfers!


technically, the Maine law is not a birfer law anyway


----------



## rightwinger

Essentially, each state has different standards for reporting a birth in that state. Constitutionally, one state cannot nullify the record issued by another state


----------



## MaggieMae

del said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
> 
> A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are
> 
> Oklahoma
> Tennessee
> Missouri
> Arizona
> Hawaii
> Texas
> Indiana
> Montana
> Connecticut
> Nebraska
> Maine
> 
> Wikipedia has the first 10.
> 
> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sheldon supplied Maine.
> 
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.
> 
> Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
> 
> On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
> 
> Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
> 
> Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> Format Document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as maine goes, so goes vermont.
> 
> just sayin
Click to expand...


I think it's the other way around.


----------



## MaggieMae

candycorn said:


> Love watching Brithers or Birfers if you prefer fail all over the place.  I wish it were happening in Spring/Summer 2012 though.



Oh they'll still be trying some trick. Their efforts fell flat with the USSC, so then they tried this little maneuver. When that fails, they'll try something else, trust me, just to keep the whole idiotic campaign of theirs on the front page of World Net Daily, et al.


----------



## MaggieMae

Thanks to everyone who did the extensive research. It's about time we stopped just treating this as a laughing matter and fight back.


----------



## Sheldon

MaggieMae said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love watching Brithers or Birfers if you prefer fail all over the place.  I wish it were happening in Spring/Summer 2012 though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll still be trying some trick. Their efforts fell flat with the USSC, so then they tried this little maneuver. When that fails, they'll try something else, trust me, just to keep the whole idiotic campaign of theirs on the front page of World Net Daily, et al.
Click to expand...



My guess is that the authors and sponsors of these bills, whose party affiliation will go nameless, all saw the polling numbers on this, that there's a non-insignificant part of the electorate skeptical of his birth location, or in other words, thinks he "probably was born here". Theses bills are pandering to that sentiment.

So they see those numbers, and a group of Republicans introduce these kind of bills, and, in the case of CT, even knowing it won't ever pass. And whether or not the laws could hold up in court is an irrelevant issue to the politics of it...the authors and sponsors can always go to the townhall meetings and say they "tried", and still hold onto those votes.

I suspect these bills will die in committee, with the possible exceptions in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Indiana. You know, major swing states.  And then there's the whole judicial branch to go through.


----------



## Sheldon

We can add and then remove one more state to/from the list. South Dakota.

HB 1199
Powered by Google Docs

This doesn't really seem like the typical birther bill. It's proposes some kind of voluntary compact between states to make legal distinctions between long forms, COLBs, etc of natural born citizens versus people not born into US jurisdiction. But, and here's the first funny part, they acknowledge Federal supremacy on this issue--the bill explicitly states that Congress must approve of any compact.

I see no way in which this would affect Obama's ability to be on the state's ballot. However, Orly Taitz supports it on her website, so... yeah.


The bill is scheduled to be heard on the 41st day of the legislative calender. Here's the second funny part: the SD legislative session is 40 working days.


----------



## Ravi

WTF is wrong with Florida? We usually take the lead in stupidity...where's our birfer bill?


----------



## WorldWatcher

DiveCon said:


> that covers any and all offices to run in a primary
> at least thats what the author explained to me
> and the "other papers" include naturalization papers for offices other than POTUS/VPOTUS




I didn't have any issue with the Maine bill.  It was general in nature and applied to all elective offices and wasn't targeted at one man.

The idea that candidates for elected position would have to provide proof that they met the qualifications for the position prior to being on the ballot just makes sense.


>>>>


----------



## Toro

Ravi said:


> WTF is wrong with Florida? We usually take the lead in stupidity...where's our birfer bill?



Funny.  I was thinking the same thing today!


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maine - I'm not even sure if the bill applies to the President.  It appears to apply to candidates for in state offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of what I was wondering. They didn't define beyond "public office", unlike the other bills that all explicitly stated that the office of President and Veep were included.
> 
> And there is this underlined part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person who seeks nomination by petition qualifies by filing a nomination petition and consent as provided in sections 354 and 355. If enrolled, the person must also withdraw enrollment in a party on or before March 1st to be eligible to file a petition as a candidate in that election year, as provided in section 145. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. A person who seeks nomination by petition shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that as saying the potential candidate must have a legit petition for nomination from where they live, and the Sec of State has to verify it. How would that even apply to a Presidential campaign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that covers any and all offices to run in a primary
> at least thats what the author explained to me
> and the "other papers" include naturalization papers for offices other than POTUS/VPOTUS
Click to expand...


Thanks Dive.

So the bill doesn't require a long-form birth certificate then?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Toro said:


> Thanks Dive.
> 
> So the bill doesn't require a long-form birth certificate then?




§ 334. Qualification of candidate for primary nomination

A candidate for nomination by primary election must file a primary petition and consent under sections 335 and 336. The candidate must be enrolled, on or before March 15th, in the party named in the petition and must be eligible to file a petition as a candidate for nomination by primary election under section 144, subsection 3. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.​
HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship



Since the COLB is the birth certificate issued by many states now and is recognized as proof of citizenship by the United States Government as the basis for establishing citizenship to issue passports - one would assume that the COLB is acceptable.



>>>>


----------



## Toro

workwatcher said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dive.
> 
> So the bill doesn't require a long-form birth certificate then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> § 334. Qualification of candidate for primary nomination
> 
> A candidate for nomination by primary election must file a primary petition and consent under sections 335 and 336. The candidate must be enrolled, on or before March 15th, in the party named in the petition and must be eligible to file a petition as a candidate for nomination by primary election under section 144, subsection 3. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.​
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> 
> 
> Since the COLB is the birth certificate issued by many states now and is recognized as proof of citizenship by the United States Government as the basis for establishing citizenship to issue passports - one would assume that the COLB is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Thanks.

Strike Maine from that list then.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> workwatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dive.
> 
> So the bill doesn't require a long-form birth certificate then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> § 334. Qualification of candidate for primary nomination
> 
> A candidate for nomination by primary election must file a primary petition and consent under sections 335 and 336. The candidate must be enrolled, on or before March 15th, in the party named in the petition and must be eligible to file a petition as a candidate for nomination by primary election under section 144, subsection 3. The registrar in the candidate's municipality of residence must certify to that fact on a form designed by the Secretary of State. A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.​
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> 
> 
> Since the COLB is the birth certificate issued by many states now and is recognized as proof of citizenship by the United States Government as the basis for establishing citizenship to issue passports - one would assume that the COLB is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Strike Maine from that list then.
Click to expand...

thank you


----------



## DiveCon

btw, if that was the intent of the Maine Bill, to require the long form, i see a MASSIVE hole
since it only covers PRIMARY elections, and the Dems here do NOT have a primary to pick delegates, they have a caucus, he wouldnt even have to file to meet this
unless they amend the bill to include caucuses


----------



## Toro

Here is the Nebraska bill.  Apparently, the author isn't exactly a constitutional scholar.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB654.pdf



> 25 (C) Requirement number two: One of the following in
> 1 subdivision (i) or (ii) or (iii) or (iv) or (v) of this subdivision:
> 2 (i) A certified copy of my birth mother's long-form birth
> 3 certificate indicating her United States citizenship;
> 4 (ii) Only if the document described in subdivision (i) of
> 5 this subdivision is not obtainable under the laws of the state that
> 6 issued my mother's birth certificate, then both documents described
> 7 in subdivisions (A) and (B) of this subdivision:
> 8 (A) A certified copy of my mother's certification of live
> 9 birth indicating her United States citizenship; and
> 10 (B) A sworn and acknowledged affidavit by me stating my
> 11 mother's place of birth as denoted on her long-form birth certificate
> 12 and stating that her parents names contained on her certification of
> 13 live birth are the same parent names as contained on her long-form
> 14 birth certificate;
> 15 (iii) My birth mother's Certificate of United States
> 16 Naturalization showing she obtained United States citizenship prior
> 17 to my date of birth;
> 18 (iv) My birth mother's Certificate of United States
> 19 Citizenship showing she obtained United States citizenship prior to
> 20 my date of birth; or
> 21 (v) Certified copies of documents that indicate my mother
> 22 was a United States citizen prior to my birth, being the same
> 23 documents as those required to obtain a Certificate of United States
> 24 Citizenship; and
> 
> 25 (c) Requirement number three: One of the following in
> 1 subdivision (i) or (ii) or (iii) or (iv) or (v) or (vi) of this
> 2 subdivision:
> 3 (i) A certified copy of my birth father's long-form birth
> 4 certificate indicating his United States citizenship;
> 5 (ii) Only if the document described in subdivision (i) of
> 6 this subdivision is not obtainable under the laws of the state that
> 7 issued my father's birth certificate, then both documents described
> 8 in subdivisions (A) and (B) of this subdivision:
> 9 (A) A certified copy of my father's certification of live
> 10 birth indicating his United States citizenship; and
> 11 (B) A sworn and acknowledged affidavit by me stating my
> 12 father's place of birth as denoted on his long-form birth certificate
> 13 and stating that his parents names contained on his certification of
> 14 live birth are the same parent names as contained on his long-form
> 15 birth certificate;
> 16 (iii) My birth father's Certificate of United States
> 17 Naturalization showing he obtained United States citizenship prior to
> 18 my date of birth;
> 19 (iv) My birth father's Certificate of United States
> 20 Citizenship showing he obtained United States citizenship prior to my
> 21 date of birth;
> 22 (v) Certified copies of documents that indicate my father
> 23 was a United States citizen prior to my birth, being the same
> 24 documents as those required to obtain a Certificate of United States
> 25 Citizenship; or
> 1 (vi) A sworn and acknowledged affidavit by me stating
> 2 that (A) no father is listed on my first original long-form birth
> 3 certificate, (B) I do not know who my birth father is and (C) I have
> 4 no reason to believe my birth father was not a United States citizen
> 5 at the time of my birth.



This comes from Fogbow.com.

IOW, the candidate for President has to have two parents who are citizens of the United States.  

But get this



> The 14-page bill, sponsored by District 44 State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, would prohibit placing presidential and vice presidential candidates on the state's ballot unless they provide a certified, long-form version of their birth certificate to Nebraska's secretary of state.
> 
> Christensen's bill would also require candidates to provide their parents' certified long-form birth certificates. If a person's birth father is unknown, Christensen said a candidate would have to file an affidavit with the state, stating that they have no reason to believe their father is not a U.S. citizen.
> 
> *The Nebraska Vital Records website contains no option to request a long form birth certificate. *Christensen said he had not talked to Nebraska Vital Records staff, but modeled the bill's language after what has been used in other states.



McCook Daily Gazette: State News: Christensen introduces 'birther bill' (02/03/11)

So under this genius's bill, as of right now, someone from Nebraska couldn't run for President.

It gets funnier.



> Christensen said he was motivated to sponsor the bill after receiving *two or three e-mails from constituents* who are concerned about the persistent rumors that President Barack Obama is not a citizen. ...
> 
> "Whenever you have a large amount of citizens who have doubts, it hurts our government. It hurts the integrity of the government," Christensen said.



2 or 3 = "large amount"  

As a constitutional scholar states



> John Gruhl, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln political science professor who specializes in constitutional law, called Christensen's bill "puzzling."
> 
> "Parents don't have to be citizens for their children to be citizens," Gruhl said. "So what's the point of this provision? To embarrass a candidate whose parents aren't citizens? To discourage a candidate from running in the first place, so his parents aren't exposed?"



And



> Nebraska's bill, introduced by state senator Mark Christensen, of District 44, goes one step beyond all other bills by requiring proof of citizenship of the candidate's parents as well.
> 
> By doing so, Christensen is making additions to the requirements of the Constitution. There is no mention in the nation's founding document of presidents' parents and their citizenship. Christensen was unavailable to provide comment at press time after repeated attempts yesterday and the day before.



" + artTitle.replace("-","") + " - " + "Daily Nebraskan" + " - " + "News" + "

Not the sharpest tacks in the drawer.

And "Bush's Brain" isn't called that for no reason.



> Karl Rove, a former political advisor to Pres. George W. Bush cautioned giving so-called "birthers" too much attention.
> 
> "Within our party, we've got to be very careful about allowing these people who are the birthers and the 9/11-deniers to get too high a profile and say too much without setting the record straight," Rove said on Fox News, according to USA TODAY.



IOW, keep the crazies at bay.


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> btw, if that was the intent of the Maine Bill, to require the long form, i see a MASSIVE hole
> since it only covers PRIMARY elections, and the Dems here do NOT have a primary to pick delegates, they have a caucus, he wouldnt even have to file to meet this
> unless they amend the bill to include caucuses



I'll take the bill's author at his word.  When I first read it, it didn't seem to be a typical Birfer bill to me.


----------



## xsited1

There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media.  I wonder why?


----------



## Toro

There are, of course, many problems with the birfer bills.  Here is one.

Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.​
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV

IOW, the federal government and the states must accept the official documents of the other states.


----------



## Toro

xsited1 said:


> There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media.  I wonder why?



Because he was born in Kenya.

WAKE UP, MAN!


----------



## MaggieMae

xsited1 said:


> There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media.  I wonder why?



The "long form" is simply the medical form, which gives length, weight, significant birth variances such as birthmarks or missing appendages for example. Otherwise, the other information regarding lineage is exactly the same as the certified copy, which the Birf's already have. The public at large has no business accessing that kind of private information. Would you want everyone to know you were born with only half a brain?


----------



## Sheldon

xsited1 said:


> There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media.  I wonder why?


----------



## Toro

An update on Arizona: As mentioned earlier, the birfer bill was killed in committee.  However, the birfers are doing their best to get the bill reintroduced.  This happened last year when the birfer bill failed, only to be defeated as an amendment to a Senate bill.

The birfers are doing their best to embarrass the people of Arizona.  Stay tuned!


----------



## rightwinger

Sheldon said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media.  I wonder why?
Click to expand...


Obama was born in Kenya...why don't you birthers just get over the fact that he got one over on you?

We have a Kenyan president...live with it


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> Thanks Silky.  I owe you rep for that.
> 
> So I guess we can scratch Missouri off that list, eh?



Nixon would never sign such nonsense.  Thank God we have a governor who isn't an insane ideologue.  

Even if the bills pass, they likely won't pass constitutional muster for numerous reasons already expounded upon here.


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> This comes from Fogbow.com.



Speaking of "fighting back".  

The Fogbow exists to pike tiny holes in birther stupidity.


----------



## mudwhistle

Toro said:


> The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
> 
> A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are
> 
> Oklahoma
> Tennessee
> Missouri
> Arizona
> Hawaii
> Texas
> Indiana
> Montana
> Connecticut
> Nebraska
> Maine
> 
> Wikipedia has the first 10.
> 
> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sheldon supplied Maine.
> 
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.
> 
> Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
> 
> On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
> 
> Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
> 
> Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> Format Document
Click to expand...


I think every Presidential candidate should be able to prove citizenship, have a TS security background check to see if he has any ties with enemies of the state, and release their findings to the public at least a month before the Nov. election.

It's total insanity that we have to take their word on whether or not they're a bad-apple. Look at all of the trouble this prick has caused since he's been President. Imagine the mess he's gonna make if he loses the election next year. It'll be like Saddam lighting the oil fields on fire.


----------



## rightwinger

Oil Fields ?????


I, for one can't get over the fact that Bush destroyed the economy before he left office

What a prick!


----------



## Toro

A birfer bill was introduced into the Georgia legislature.

HB*401*(History)*2011-2012 Regular Session

It was introduced by a birfer who had a similar bill fail last year.

Originally, there were 93 co-sponsors on the bill.  However, legislators have been removing their names en masse.  28 have withdrawn their names.

Lawmakers backing away from &#8216;birther' bill *| ajc.com
&#8216;Birther' bill losing supporters *| ajc.com
More lawmakers back away from &#8216;birther' bill *| ajc.com

The birfer is clearly targeting Obama.  The bill targets only the President.  However, it won't survive a court challenge since it disallows those who have ever had dual citizenship from running for President, which is unconstitutional.  There have been several Presidents who have been dual citizens.

&lsquo;Birther&rsquo; bill won&rsquo;t pass muster *| ajc.com

According to research posted at Fogbow, Georgia has a rule that the last day for a bill to be passed over to the other house is the 30th legislative day.  That means the bill has to be passed over by March 16.  If it does not pass over, it is dead.  Also from Fogbow, the bill has to pass through the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has 16 members.  Five are Democrats and two members have withdrawn their names from the bill.  Assuming that the two withdrawals are tacit disapprovals of the bill, Republicans must not lose a single vote of the nine other members for the bill to pass through committee.

EDIT - Here is a copy of the GA bill's sponsors with the names of those who have withdrawn support blacked out.






http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16852


----------



## Toro

Also from Fogbow, bills are still alive in Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Georgia.

However, bills have been killed in committee in Arizona (2 bills), Oklahoma (2 bills), Montana, Hawaii, Connecticut and Indiana.


----------



## Toro

Debunking that Obama has spent $2 million on legal bills to fight birfers.

Oh, For Goodness Sake » Blog Archive » Tennessee Birther Bills Multiply


----------



## Toro

From World Net Daily - The Mostest Bestest News Site in the World

Momentum builds in eligibility push


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> Also from Fogbow, bills are still alive in Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Georgia.
> 
> However, bills have been killed in committee in Arizona (2 bills), Oklahoma (2 bills), Montana, Hawaii, Connecticut and Indiana.



As long as Nixon is governor, the bill won't go anywhere in Missouri.

Our legislature is filled with morons.  Thank God the Governor has some sense.


----------



## Sheldon

Toro said:


> From World Net Daily - The Mostest Bestest News Site in the World
> 
> Momentum builds in eligibility push


----------



## Toro

Iowa is getting in on the act.  Hat tip to Welsh Dragon at Fogbow, from whom I ripped this off.



> 1. A candidate for president or vice president shall attach
> 4 to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the
> 5 candidates birth certificate certified by the appropriate
> 6 official in the candidates state of birth. The certified copy
> 7 shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be
> 8 made available for public inspection in the same manner as the
> 9 affidavit of candidacy.
> 10 2. A candidate for president or vice president who does
> 11 not comply with the requirements of this section shall not
> 12 be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for
> 13 president or vice president anywhere in the state.



http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/84/external/SF368_Introduced.pdf


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> Iowa is getting in on the act.  Hat tip to Welsh Dragon at Fogbow, from whom I ripped this off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A candidate for president or vice president shall attach
> 4 to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the
> 5 candidates birth certificate certified by the appropriate
> 6 official in the candidates state of birth. The certified copy
> 7 shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be
> 8 made available for public inspection in the same manner as the
> 9 affidavit of candidacy.
> 10 2. A candidate for president or vice president who does
> 11 not comply with the requirements of this section shall not
> 12 be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for
> 13 president or vice president anywhere in the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/84/external/SF368_Introduced.pdf
Click to expand...

that, as it is worded, to me, says its not really a birfer law
since all it requires is the states certified document
which Obama's CoLB would suffice
i think some of these laws are to tell the birfers to STFU


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iowa is getting in on the act.  Hat tip to Welsh Dragon at Fogbow, from whom I ripped this off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A candidate for president or vice president shall attach
> 4 to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the
> 5 candidates birth certificate certified by the appropriate
> 6 official in the candidates state of birth. The certified copy
> 7 shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be
> 8 made available for public inspection in the same manner as the
> 9 affidavit of candidacy.
> 10 2. A candidate for president or vice president who does
> 11 not comply with the requirements of this section shall not
> 12 be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for
> 13 president or vice president anywhere in the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/84/external/SF368_Introduced.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that, as it is worded, to me, says its not really a birfer law
> since all it requires is the states certified document
> which Obama's CoLB would suffice
> i think some of these laws are to tell the birfers to STFU
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's how I read it too.  But I didn't want the Iowans to feel left out!


----------



## Toro

This has nothing to do with state laws, but I ran across it at Fogbow so I'm posting it out of interest.  It is a ruling by a judge in Indiana against a plaintiff who wanted the 2008 election results thrown out.  They ruled that Obama is eligible to run for President.



> In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person&#8223;s eligibility to become President in issuing the Certificate of Ascertainment officially appoint[ing] the electors who cast the State of Indiana&#8223;s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (President). Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to be appointed Elector in Chief&#8223; in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2&#8223;s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State, and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .
> 
> we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...
> 
> Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not natural born Citizens as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...
> 
> The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, *the crux of the Plaintiffs&#8223; argument is that [c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there&#8223;s a very clear distinction between a citizen of the United States&#8223; and a natural born Citizen,&#8223; and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.* Appellants&#8223; Brief at 23. *With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...*
> 
> Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that [a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . . U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a natural born Citizen. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that [t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
> 
> *The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.* Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.​
> Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...
> *
> The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words citizen of the United States and natural-born citizen of the United States must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.* ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
> 
> The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called ligealty,&#8223; obedience,&#8223; faith,&#8223; or power&#8223;-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king&#8223;s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. *Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.* ...
> 
> It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore *every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject*, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
> 
> III. *The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...
> 
> All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.* We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​
> ... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, *we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. * Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens. ...



http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf


----------



## Toro

edited.

Thanks Dive.


----------



## USArmyRetired

Toro said:


> This has nothing to do with state laws, but I ran across it at Fogbow so I'm posting it out of interest.  It is a ruling by a judge in Indiana against a plaintiff who wanted the 2008 election results thrown out.  They ruled that Obama is eligible to run for President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person&#8223;s eligibility to become President in issuing the &#8220;Certificate of Ascertainment&#8221; &#8220;officially appoint[ing] the electors&#8221; who cast the State of Indiana&#8223;s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (&#8220;President&#8221. Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible &#8220;to be appointed &#8222;Elector in Chief&#8223; in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2&#8223;s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,&#8221; and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were &#8220;born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .&#8221;
> 
> we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...
> 
> Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not &#8220;natural born Citizens&#8221; as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...
> 
> The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, *the crux of the Plaintiffs&#8223; argument is that &#8220;[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there&#8223;s a very clear distinction between a &#8222;citizen of the United States&#8223; and a &#8222;natural born Citizen,&#8223; and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.&#8221;* Appellants&#8223; Brief at 23. *With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...*
> 
> Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that &#8220;[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .&#8221; U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a &#8220;natural born Citizen.&#8221; U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that &#8220;[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.&#8221; Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
> 
> *The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.* Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.​
> Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...
> *
> The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words &#8220;citizen of the United States&#8221; and &#8220;natural-born citizen of the United States&#8221; &#8220;must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.&#8221;* ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
> 
> The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called &#8222;ligealty,&#8223; &#8222;obedience,&#8223; &#8222;faith,&#8223; or &#8222;power&#8223;-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king&#8223;s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. *Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.* ...
> 
> It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore *every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject*, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
> 
> III. *The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...
> 
> All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.* We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​
> ... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, *we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are &#8220;natural born Citizens&#8221; for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. * Just as a person &#8220;born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject&#8221; at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those &#8220;born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.&#8221; ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The Indiana State court decision of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 679 (2009), is not binding on a federal court. But more important is that the decision is wanting in legal analysis and historical and legal support. It basically took Wong Kim Ark&#8217;s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment &#8220;citizen of the United States&#8221; and used it to also define an Article II &#8220;natural born Citizen.&#8221; Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause &#8220;natural born Citizen&#8221; from the Constitution. Such doing has no support in logic, history, historical sources, and United States Supreme Court case law. In fact, it is contrary to sound constitutional interpretation as taught by Chief Justice John Marshall. It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of &#8220;natural born Citizen&#8221; and &#8220;Citizen of the United States.&#8221; There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship. &#8220;It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.&#8221; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175 (1803). Use of different language in different parts of a statute suggests that the words used have a different meaning. E.g. Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997). Hence, every clause in the Constitution must be given its own independent meaning. The Framers were very specific in including both these terms into the Constitution. The unambiguous text and structure of the Constitution show that the terms each describe a different type of citizen and each are ascribed to different political offices. Hence, conflating &#8220;natural born Citizen&#8221; and &#8220;Citizen of the United States&#8221; is therefore simply not allowed and &#8220;inadmissible.&#8221; Moreover, apart from a strict textual interpretation of the meaning of the two terms, there is no United States Supreme Court decision holding or even suggesting in dicta that the two terms mean the same thing. On the contrary, the historical record, Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts all show that the two terms are separate and distinct with their own meaning.






[/IMG]


----------



## Sheldon

USArmyLiar, do you always plagiarize Apuzzo? Is this because you're to dumb to think of this stuff on your own?



> *Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Responses to an Obama Supporters Comments on Obamas Eligibility to be President*
> 
> Slartibartfast: _f any court rules on the definition of 'natural born citizen' that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...It basically took Wong Kim Arks definition of a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States and used it to also define an Article II natural born Citizen. Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause natural born Citizen from the Constitution..._


_

No, they didn't. What a bunch of hyperbole. What they "conflated" is that a citizen of and a natural born are both citizens, which is a fact. But there is still a legal distinction between the two because a natural born does not include naturalized citizens, which is a fact. But I'm sure he enjoyed knocking down his own strawman. Derp._


----------



## USArmyRetired

The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts. 
The problem with the Indiana case is that it references the Wong Kim Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen.


----------



## Sheldon

USArmyRetired said:


> The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts.
> The problem with the Indiana case is that it references the Wong Kim Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen.



No SCOTUS case was overruled by the IN Court of Appeals. There is no problem with Ankeny; the problem is with you and your inability to be honest.

Directly from the Ark decision:



> The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
> 
> *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*




Directly from Ankeny, p. 17:



> The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. 14Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478
> 
> Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
> 
> *ANKENY v GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA - APPEALS COURT OPINION - 11120903*


----------



## Toro

It appears that the Iowa birfer bill is dead.



> Legislation that would require anyone running for president to produce a birth certificate and make it available for public inspection was introduced this week by state Sen. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), however the bill is considered dead this session.
> 
> Friday marked the self-imposed funnel deadline for legislation to clear a committee in order to remain eligible for debate this session. Sorenson, a favorite of evangelical conservatives and the tea party movement, introduced the bill Wednesday, and it was assigned to a subcommittee on Thursday, where it remains.



&#8216;Birther&#8217; legislation introduced by Sorenson | Iowa Independent


----------



## whitehall

It's a shame that lefties seem to think that any candidate they can come up with is OK as long as he is equally as anti-American as the Van Jones and Bill Ayers revolutionaries. That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way but the lefties can always depend on the liberal meda.


----------



## Toro

whitehall said:


> It's a shame that lefties seem to think that any candidate they can come up with is OK as long as he is equally as anti-American as the Van Jones and Bill Ayers revolutionaries. That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way but the lefties can always depend on the liberal meda.



Wow, that is a really intelligent post.  It greatly contributes to this thread.  I just want to thank you for contributing.  It's outstanding.


----------



## del

Toro said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that lefties seem to think that any candidate they can come up with is OK as long as he is equally as anti-American as the Van Jones and Bill Ayers revolutionaries. That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way but the lefties can always depend on the liberal meda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a really intelligent post.  It greatly contributes to this thread.  I just want to thank you for contributing.  It's outstanding.
Click to expand...


i concur. it's representative of what this great thread is all about.

god bless america!


----------



## del

USArmyRetired said:


> The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts.
> The problem with the Indiana case is that it references the Wong Kim Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen.



how long were you deprived of oxygen?


----------



## DiveCon

del said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts.
> The problem with the Indiana case is that it references the Wong Kim Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how long were you deprived of oxygen?
Click to expand...

rough guess, in excess of 10 minutes


----------



## Toro

One Georgia House member, Rep Richard Smith, says he signed the Georgia birfer bill because he thought he was signing an entirely different bill.  Oops!



> You probably noticed in the Ledger that I signed HB 401 (That was the first time I knew I had signed the billl). Unfortunately I did by mistake. There was another piece of Legislation laying next to it that I was suppose sign & I signed the wrong one. I guess next time I will be more careful.I never had any intention of signing HB 401. I apologize for the incorrect statement that I sent to you earlier.
> 
> Richard



The Blog of Columbus, Georgia : my funny motto


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> One Georgia House member, Rep Richard Smith, says he signed the Georgia birfer bill because he thought he was signing an entirely different bill.  Oops!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably noticed in the Ledger that I signed HB 401 (That was the first time I knew I had signed the billl). Unfortunately I did by mistake. There was another piece of Legislation laying next to it that I was suppose sign & I signed the wrong one. I guess next time I will be more careful.I never had any intention of signing HB 401. I apologize for the incorrect statement that I sent to you earlier.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Blog of Columbus, Georgia : my funny motto
Click to expand...


i dont know what is worse, that he signed a bill he didnt even read, or that he thinks that will make any difference to some on the left, they will still use it against him


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Georgia House member, Rep Richard Smith, says he signed the Georgia birfer bill because he thought he was signing an entirely different bill.  Oops!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably noticed in the Ledger that I signed HB 401 (That was the first time I knew I had signed the billl). Unfortunately I did by mistake. There was another piece of Legislation laying next to it that I was suppose sign & I signed the wrong one. I guess next time I will be more careful.I never had any intention of signing HB 401. I apologize for the incorrect statement that I sent to you earlier.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Blog of Columbus, Georgia : my funny motto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont know what is worse, that he signed a bill he didnt even read, or that he thinks that will make any difference to some on the left, they will still use it against him
Click to expand...


Meh, I've heard worse.

Several years ago, FL legislators passed a law allowing pawn shops to charge outrageous interest rates, something like 20% a month.  It was attached to a bill in the dying hours of a legislative session which many legislators later confessed they had not read and had no idea it was there.


----------



## Toro

Indeed FTR, the Iowa bill is dead.




> SF 368 - Last 3 Actions:
> Mar. 02 11 Introduced, referred to State Government. S.J. 449.
> Mar. 03 11 Subcommittee, Hatch, Dearden, and Dix. S.J. 475.



http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Co...y=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=84&hbill=SF368

It had to clear committee on March 4.  It did not.  The bill is dead.  However, it can be moved into next year's session.


----------



## Toro

A birfer bill was introduced in the Arkansas House.

Bill Information
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB2020.pdf

However, Democrats control both chambers so it is almost certainly DOA.


----------



## Toro

So let's review the status of the birfer bills

*Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive.*
Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
Connecticut - Died in committee
*Georgia - Still alive in the House but sponsors have been dropping like flies.*
Hawaii - Died in committee.  Not really a birfer bill.  Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
Indiana - Died in committee.
Iowa - Died in committee.  Can be carried over into next year.  Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
Montana - Died in committee.
*Nebraska - Still alive.
[*]Oklahoma - Bill still alive.  A bill got through the House last year in Oklahoma but did not get to the Senate
[*]Tennessee - Still alive*
Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.


----------



## Toro

Tomorrow, the Georgia Government Affairs Committee meets, and birfer bill HB401 is not on the agenda.  



> PLEASE NOTE: The Governmental Affairs Committee meeting for Thursday, March 10th, has been changed to WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011  at 10:00 a.m. in Room 506 CLOB.    The following bills are on the agenda:
> 
> HB 454 by Rep. Mark Hamilton
> 
> HB 50 by Rep. Sheila Jones
> 
> HB 428 by Rep. Mike Jacobs



Calendar Detail

The birfer bill could be added tomorrow, but if it is not, it will be dead.

Thanks to Welsh Dragon at Foxbow.


----------



## Toro

The Nebraska birfer bill has a public hearing on Thursday.


----------



## GStarz

Note the obnoxious "BirFer" in the title. 

Toro is just a panicking liberal who hits and runs on other threads, and then tries to propagandize the issue here. He's full of shit. 

If you want to see where the info is posted and the issue covered in  correct detail by someone who doesn't cut lawns for a living, go to _World Net Daily_ that has a reserved seat at all White House press briefings, something "Skippy" Toro and his pals do not and never will have. Toro is not telling you the truth. He doesn't want you to know the truth. Period.

World Net Daily's complete, ongoing list of Obama citizenship stories and challenges is HERE.

By the way, Toro is so full of shit he doesn't even keep up on the news: WND is reporting a 13th state - New Hampshire - moving through a citizenship qualification law. Read it HERE.

Toro, I never thought I would see a liberal propagandist stoop as low as you do, but the depth of your dishonestly is epic. No one should give you two seconds of their time at this point. You're a disgrace.


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> If you want to see where the info is posted and the issue covered in  correct detail by someone who doesn't cut lawns for a living, go to _World Net Daily_ that has a reserved seat at all White House press briefings, something "Skippy" Toro and his pals do not and never will have. Toro is not telling you the truth. he doesn;t want you to know the truth. Period.



rofl

Well, I appreciate you participating in this thread GTardz.  Your opinions are amusing, particularly your opinions about WorldNetDaily.  

As for New Hampshire, here is the report



> Presidential candidates who want on New Hampshire's primary ballot next year may have to produce a birth certificate under a proposal being brought before a House committee.
> 
> Election Law Chairman David Bates said Tuesday that his committee will consider amending a bill Wednesday to require candidates to provide a birth certificate and affidavit swearing they're old enough and lived in the United States for 14 years as called for in the U.S. Constitution before being allowed to file to be on New Hampshire's presidential primary ballot.



It then goes on



> Bates, a Windham Republican, said he does not want people to think this is aimed at President Barack Obama and may seek to make the effective date in 2013. Some have raised questions about whether Obama was born in this country.



NH may seek birth proof from prez filers - Boston.com

So, sorry GTardz.  Even if this committee amends a bill, and even if it gets passed, it won't take affect until after the Presidential election.

But I'll keep an eye on it nonetheless.

Here is the committee.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H36


----------



## GStarz

You're desperate to do what you can to keep pubic momentum from getting behind this issue. that's too bad, because these threads are only read by a handful of people anyway. 

World net Daily is bigger and and more esteemed with a reserved seat at WH briefings. If you think that Toro The Great Message Board Participant can compete, then you're even more full of shit than I thought you were, and that's huge.

Everyone, Toro is not telling you the truth. Go to the world net daily links if you're interested in this story. No one is more dedicated to it than they are, and they're a real operation, not Skippy Toro, the Message Board Wonder.

You're such a lying sack of shit it embarrasses me that we share the same planet, asshole.


----------



## DiveCon

GStarz said:


> Note the obnoxious "BirFer" in the title.


hey dipshit, if you want to blame someone for the term "birfer" 

then BLAME ME
i coined the term because you fucking morons dont really give a shit where he was born nor do you deal with facts well


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> You're desperate to do what you can to keep pubic momentum from getting behind this issue. that's too bad, because these threads are only read by a handful of people anyway.
> 
> World net Daily is bigger and and more esteemed with a reserved seat at WH briefings. If you think that Toro The Great Message Board Participant can compete, then you're even more full of shit than I thought you were, and that's huge.
> 
> Everyone, Toro is not telling you the truth. Go to the world net daily links if you're interested in this story. No one is more dedicated to it than they are, and they're a real operation, not Skippy Toro, the Message Board Wonder.
> 
> You're such a lying sack of shit it embarrasses me that we share the same planet, asshole.



Well, you should leave the planet then.

You've given me an interesting idea.


----------



## GStarz

New Hampshire just threw its hat into the ring and joined the other 12. Not 'conspiracy theory", just a simple fact. Covered by World net Daily, an outfit esteemed enough to have a reserved seat at all White House news briefings, so this isn't coming from some corner somewhere.

13

Read about it HERE


The left appears to be making noise that all these laws are aimed at Obama, as though there is something wrong with that - as if it's unfair to regard the probable cause his suspicious fighting to keep the records secret as worthy of being addressed, when all Obama needs to otherwise do is pick up the phone for 2 minutes and order his lawyers to release the records. 

If Obama doesn't have the records and took the Presidency knowing he didn't have the records, which will eventually be exposed by these new laws, he'll ruin the democrats for 50 years.


----------



## Toro

This thread should be in Conspiracy Theories.


----------



## gekaap

How is he fighting to keep his records secret when he's make them public?  I hope that all 50 states pass such laws.  That way the birthers will be silenced once and for all when he makes it onto the ballot in all 50 states.


----------



## Toro

Actually, this thread should be merged into the Birfer State Law Tracking Thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/156813-the-birfer-state-law-tracking-thread.html


----------



## whitehall

You have to show a birth certificate to get a freaking drivers license in most states. You can't get a security clearance without showing a birth certificate. The Constitution says a president must be born in the USA. Nobody ever envisioned a left wing conspiracy within the democrat party that would fail to ensure that Constitutional requirements for the presidency would be followed. Just show the damed thing Barry and everyone will be happy.


----------



## Sheldon

GTardz contribution to this thread: All the information in this thread, including direct links to the bills themselves and statements from the bills' authors and sponsors and analysis of each states' legislature count, is all wrong. But I am incapable of explaining specifically why. So for objective coverage, see WND.


----------



## Sheldon

Toro: the leftist ACORN propaganda agent by day, riverboat gambler by night


----------



## Toro

Sheldon said:


> GTardz contribution to this thread: All the information in this thread, including direct links to the bills themselves and statements from the bills' authors and sponsors and analysis of each states' legislature count, is all wrong. But I am incapable of explaining specifically why. So for objective coverage, see WND.



lol

I owe you rep for that.


----------



## del

GStarz said:


> You're desperate to do what you can to keep pubic momentum from getting behind this issue. that's too bad, because these threads are only read by a handful of people anyway.
> 
> World net Daily is bigger and and more esteemed with a reserved seat at WH briefings. If you think that Toro The Great Message Board Participant can compete, then you're even more full of shit than I thought you were, and that's huge.
> 
> Everyone, Toro is not telling you the truth. Go to the world net daily links if you're interested in this story. No one is more dedicated to it than they are, and they're a real operation, not Skippy Toro, the Message Board Wonder.
> 
> You're such a lying sack of shit it embarrasses me that we share the same planet, asshole.



i'm not entirely sure you do. 

we live on this place called *earth*. 

fuckwit


----------



## EdSchultzIsFat

you need a birth certificate just to be a dishwasher or janitor in some employers.


----------



## Toro

The GA bill appears to be DOA.  However, it probably would have been unconstitutional.  For the birfers, note the opinion of the legal scholar at the conservative Heritage Institute.



> By last Wednesday, 93 state House members had signed on as co-sponsors to Rep. Mark Hatfields so-called "birther" bill, which would make presidential and vice presidential candidates prove their citizenship to make the states ballot.
> 
> The next day, more than 20 had crossed their names off the list. Several more did by Friday afternoon.
> 
> That same day, an op-ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution by local attorney and anti-birther blogger Loren Collins took more wind from House Bill 401s sails.
> 
> The bill would require presidential candidates to sign an affidavit saying they have never held dual citizenship. This means the bill would create requirements for president that dont exist in the U.S. Constitution, Collins wrote:
> 
> "There is not and never has been any constitutional rule mandating that the president has never held dual or multiple citizenship. This is pure birther fantasy, a nonexistent bit of pseudo law that an attorney such as Hatfield should know better than to promote."  ...
> 
> We presented Hatfields argument to legal experts on U.S. citizenship. They agreed that Hatfields concept of "natural born" citizenship makes little, if any, legal sense.
> 
> "If that [the bill] passes in Georgias Statehouse, it will be challenged and it will be struck down as unconstitutional. I am 100 percent confident," said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor.
> 
> Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Hatfields bill contains a dual-citizenship ban that does not exist in the Constitution.
> 
> "Its trying to add an additional requirement to the eligibility for president," von Spakovsky said. ...
> 
> Emory University professor Polly Price explained. The United States adopted the concept of "natural born citizenship" from the English, Price said. For nearly 180 years before the Constitution was drafted, people were natural born citizens of England if they were born on English soil.
> 
> This understanding was widely accepted in the U.S. during the colonial period.  People born in a colony were considered citizens of that colony, Price said.
> 
> "It may be that some of the founders intended to include only birth on U.S. soil as their understanding of natural born citizen, but it certainly would not have included that their parents also had to be U.S. citizens," Price said.



PolitiFact Georgia | 'Birther' foe says Ga. bill gets Constitution wrong


----------



## Terral

GStarz said:


> New Hampshire just threw its hat into the ring and joined the other 12. Not 'conspiracy theory", just a simple fact. Covered by World net Daily, an outfit esteemed enough to have a reserved seat at all White House news briefings, so this isn't coming from some corner somewhere ...




This is much too little and much too late. The whole system is corrupt for allowing Bush and Cheney to stay in the White House and now an illegal alien foreign national from Kenya. This is truly disgusting and points to the corruption of the entire Federal, State and Local Governments all looking the other way; while the USA goes down the toilet. 

Terral


----------



## Toro

In GA, the Government Affairs Committee did not add birfer bill HB401 to its agenda, making it almost dead.

In NH, the Republican President of the House opposes the birfer bill.



> House Republican Office spokesman Shannon Shutts said O'Brien was withholding his position on the bill "to see what happens" when the Election Law Committee takes up the bill on Wednesday. The panel was scheduled to meet at 10:30 a.m. in Room 308 of the Legislative Office Building.
> 
> The change in the effective date makes the bill a bit less controversial since it would not take effect until after the 2012 primary and general election. But it still stirred bipartisan criticism and warnings that it could damage the credibility of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
> 
> House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt issued a statement opposing it. Shutts said Bettencourt opposes the proposal regardless of the effective date.
> 
> It is unclear how the committee will report the amended bill to the House floor. It may reported it ought to pass as amended, it recommend that it be inexpedient to legislate, but there is a strong possibility that panel will suggest that the bill be retained and then taken up next year.
> 
> "Personally I think it should move ahead, but now the leadership (Bettencourt, but not necessarily O'Brien) is making it clear they don't want it to," said Bates. He said the committee will make the decision.
> 
> Bettencourt said the GOP leadership "will strongly oppose this amendment should it reach the House floor. It is unnecessary and detracts from important business, namely our economy."
> 
> He also said the proposal "could represent a threat to our first-in-the-nation primary as it gives other states reason and desire to try to jump us in line. We are working to discourage this amendment from moving forward and will oppose it should it reach the House floor."



John DiStaso's Granite Status: 'Birther' bill effective date moved until after the 2012 election - Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011


----------



## gekaap

whitehall said:


> Just show the damed thing Barry and everyone will be happy.



He already has!


----------



## Toro

The Republican President of the NH House opposes it.

John DiStaso's Granite Status: 'Birther' bill effective date moved until after the 2012 election - Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011


----------



## Toro

New Hampshire is dead.  The vote to kill it in committee was 18-0.



> WEDNESDAY UPDATE: The House Election Law Committee has voted the so-called "Birther" bill inexpedient to legislate. The vote was 18-0 and came after an ammendment to set the effective date of the bill for 2013 was defeated 10-8. Watch for further updates shortly.



John DiStaso's Granite Status: House panel recommends 'Birther' bill be killed - Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011

So let's update
*
    * Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive.*
    * Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
    * Connecticut - Died in committee
    * Georgia - Died in committee.  Not officially dead but on life support, barely breathing.
    * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
    * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
    * Indiana - Died in committee.
    * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
    * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
    * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
    * Montana - Died in committee.
*    * Nebraska - Still alive.
    * Oklahoma - Still alive. A bill got through the House last year in Oklahoma but did not get to the Senate
    * Tennessee - Still alive.
    * Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.*


----------



## GStarz

Toro said:


> New Hampshire is dead.  The vote to kill it in committee was 18-0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEDNESDAY UPDATE: The House Election Law Committee has voted the so-called "Birther" bill inexpedient to legislate. The vote was 18-0 and came after an ammendment to set the effective date of the bill for 2013 was defeated 10-8. Watch for further updates shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John DiStaso's Granite Status: House panel recommends 'Birther' bill be killed - Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011
> 
> So let's update
> *
> * Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive.*
> * Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
> * Connecticut - Died in committee
> * Georgia - Died in committee.  Not officially dead but on life support, barely breathing.
> * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
> * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
> * Indiana - Died in committee.
> * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
> * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
> * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
> * Montana - Died in committee.
> *    * Nebraska - Still alive.
> * Oklahoma - Still alive. A bill got through the House last year in Oklahoma but did not get to the Senate
> * Tennessee - Still alive.
> * Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.*
Click to expand...


HOLY SHIT, ARE YOU A LIAR, SKIPPY! i mean, you are an off the chart liar. besides, why would someone spend all day here, every day, denying the citizenship issue is an issue and the laws will become law if they were right about both in the first place?!

This is spin and a little red meat for weepy libs who got America's collective boot kicked so far up their asses it will take surgery mankind does not yet possess to remove it.

World Net Daily's info disputes yours, skippy. they're legit and can be seen at white house briefings. you hunch over your keyboard all day long in lieu of an occupation like a no-life troll trying to lie these issues into non-existence. People should go to world net daily. Not only do you not count for lying, but you're an asshole for it, too.

A Free Press for a Free People


----------



## DiveCon

GStarz said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Hampshire is dead.  The vote to kill it in committee was 18-0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEDNESDAY UPDATE: The House Election Law Committee has voted the so-called "Birther" bill inexpedient to legislate. The vote was 18-0 and came after an ammendment to set the effective date of the bill for 2013 was defeated 10-8. Watch for further updates shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John DiStaso's Granite Status: House panel recommends 'Birther' bill be killed - Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011
> 
> So let's update
> *
> * Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive.*
> * Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
> * Connecticut - Died in committee
> * Georgia - Died in committee.  Not officially dead but on life support, barely breathing.
> * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
> * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
> * Indiana - Died in committee.
> * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
> * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
> * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
> * Montana - Died in committee.
> *    * Nebraska - Still alive.
> * Oklahoma - Still alive. A bill got through the House last year in Oklahoma but did not get to the Senate
> * Tennessee - Still alive.
> * Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOLY SHIT, ARE YOU A LIAR, SKIPPY! i mean, you are an off the chart liar. besides, why would someone spend all day here, every day, denying the citizenship issue is an issue and the laws will become law if they were right about both in the first place?!
> 
> This is spin and a little red meat for weepy libs who got America's collective boot kicked so far up their asses it will take surgery mankind does not yet possess to remove it.
> 
> World Net Daily's info disputes yours, skippy. they're legit and can be seen at white house briefings. you hunch over your keyboard all day long in lieu of an occupation like a no-life troll trying to lie these issues into non-existence. People should go to world net daily. Not only do you not count for lying, but you're an asshole for it, too.
> 
> A Free Press for a Free People
Click to expand...

so, please detail what he "lied" about in that post?


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Hampshire is dead.  The vote to kill it in committee was 18-0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEDNESDAY UPDATE: The House Election Law Committee has voted the so-called "Birther" bill inexpedient to legislate. The vote was 18-0 and came after an ammendment to set the effective date of the bill for 2013 was defeated 10-8. Watch for further updates shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John DiStaso's Granite Status: House panel recommends 'Birther' bill be killed - Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011
> 
> So let's update
> *
> * Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive.*
> * Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
> * Connecticut - Died in committee
> * Georgia - Died in committee.  Not officially dead but on life support, barely breathing.
> * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
> * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
> * Indiana - Died in committee.
> * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
> * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
> * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
> * Montana - Died in committee.
> *    * Nebraska - Still alive.
> * Oklahoma - Still alive. A bill got through the House last year in Oklahoma but did not get to the Senate
> * Tennessee - Still alive.
> * Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOLY SHIT, ARE YOU A LIAR, SKIPPY! i mean, you are an off the chart liar. besides, why would someone spend all day here, every day, denying the citizenship issue is an issue and the laws will become law if they were right about both in the first place?!
> 
> This is spin and a little red meat for weepy libs who got America's collective boot kicked so far up their asses it will take surgery mankind does not yet possess to remove it.
> 
> World Net Daily's info disputes yours, skippy. they're legit and can be seen at white house briefings. you hunch over your keyboard all day long in lieu of an occupation like a no-life troll trying to lie these issues into non-existence. People should go to world net daily. Not only do you not count for lying, but you're an asshole for it, too.
> 
> A Free Press for a Free People
Click to expand...


lol

Skippy is slowly melting down.  Hilarious.

Nearly 80% of USMB doesn't trust your extremist hack "news" site, Skippy, I'm sorry to say.

Now, if you have anything to refute what I'm saying, other than a prelude to your head exploding, feel free to add it.  In this thread, I've linked to most of the conclusions in that post, Skippy.  Do your best.  See if you can do it without referencing extremist web sites.


----------



## Montrovant

Sheldon said:


> GTardz contribution to this thread: All the information in this thread, including direct links to the bills themselves and statements from the bills' authors and sponsors and analysis of each states' legislature count, is all wrong. But I am incapable of explaining specifically why. So for objective coverage, see WND.



I just thought this should be repeated   In fact, I may requote this post again later lol.


----------



## Toro

Birfer Rep Mark Hatfield of GA, after getting his bill killed in committee, is revamping the bill in an attempt to get it resubmitted this session.


----------



## Toro

In Nebraska, by the end of today, each senator nominates one bill as a "Priority Bill," each committee gets to nominate two bills, and the Speaker gets to nominate 25.  The Senator who sponsored the bill, LB654, Mark Christensen, did not choose LB654 as a priority bill.  That does not mean the bill is dead, but if the Speaker does not nominate it, the odds of it passing are low.

Thanks to Welsh Dragon at Fogbow.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_introducer.php?Introducer=68


----------



## Sheldon

The hearing on the Nebraska bill, LB 654 ( Nebraska Legislature - Legislative Document ), is going on today. I was just looking through the bill and found something interesting on page 5:





> (6)
> (a) Each candidate for President or Vice President of
> the United States shall (i) attach documents as indicated in each of
> the three requirements in the following subdivisions, some of which
> require multiple documents, (ii) state in the affidavit which
> required documents are attached that meet such requirements, and
> (iii) include in the affidavit, statements substantially as indicated
> in this subsection as applicable.
> 
> (b) Requirement number one: One of the following in
> subdivision (i) or (ii) of this subdivision:
> (i) A certified copy of my first original long-form birth
> certificate issued shortly after the time of my birth; or
> *(ii) Only if the document described in subdivision (i) of
> this subdivision is not obtainable under the laws of the state that
> issued my birth certificate, then both documents described in
> subdivisions (A) and (B) of this subdivision:
> 
> (A) A certified copy of my certification of live birth
> which includes the names of my birth parents who are listed on my
> first original long-form birth certificate issued shortly after the
> time of my birth; and
> (B) A sworn and acknowledged affidavit by me stating that
> my parents names contained on my certification of live birth are the
> same birth parent names as contained on my first original birth
> certificate;​*



Hawai'i no longer issues long-forms. Full stop. So it seems subdivisions A and B of the first requirement would apply to Obama.


The quoted part says there's three requirements. The other two requirements are the mother's and father's birth documentation or naturalization papers showing they were both citizens at or before the time of their kid's (candidate's) birth, which are described on page 6 and 7 in similar language to the quote. That provision would be an additional requirement to be on the ballot that I don't see in Article 2 Sec 1. Seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. I doubt those extra requirements are going to stay in.


HTML text of the bill:
*LEGISLATIVE BILL 654*


----------



## geauxtohell

I actually hope at least one birther state bill does pass only to watch the birther's best intentions go down the drain as another one of their goofy ploys blows up in their faces.

Birther tears = success.


----------



## DiveCon

Sheldon said:


> The hearing on the Nebraska bill, LB 654 ( Nebraska Legislature - Legislative Document ), is going on today. I was just looking through the bill and found something interesting on page 5:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (6)
> (a) Each candidate for President or Vice President of
> the United States shall (i) attach documents as indicated in each of
> the three requirements in the following subdivisions, some of which
> require multiple documents, (ii) state in the affidavit which
> required documents are attached that meet such requirements, and
> (iii) include in the affidavit, statements substantially as indicated
> in this subsection as applicable.
> 
> (b) Requirement number one: One of the following in
> subdivision (i) or (ii) of this subdivision:
> (i) A certified copy of my first original long-form birth
> certificate issued shortly after the time of my birth; or
> *(ii) Only if the document described in subdivision (i) of
> this subdivision is not obtainable under the laws of the state that
> issued my birth certificate, then both documents described in
> subdivisions (A) and (B) of this subdivision:
> 
> (A) A certified copy of my certification of live birth
> which includes the names of my birth parents who are listed on my
> first original long-form birth certificate issued shortly after the
> time of my birth; and
> (B) A sworn and acknowledged affidavit by me stating that
> my parents names contained on my certification of live birth are the
> same birth parent names as contained on my first original birth
> certificate;​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i no longer issues long-forms. Full stop. So it seems subdivisions A and B of the first requirement would apply to Obama.
> 
> 
> The quoted part says there's three requirements. The other two requirements are the mother's and father's birth documentation or naturalization papers showing they were both citizens at or before the time of their kid's (candidate's) birth, which are described on page 6 and 7 in similar language to the quote. That provision would be an additional requirement to be on the ballot that I don't see in Article 2 Sec 1. Seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. I doubt those extra requirements are going to stay in.
> 
> 
> HTML text of the bill:
> *LEGISLATIVE BILL 654*
Click to expand...

DOH

looks like we can scratch that off the list as an actual birfer bill
since what Obama has already shown would be enough to fullfil the requirements


----------



## Toro

Sheldon said:


> The hearing on the Nebraska bill, LB 654 ( Nebraska Legislature - Legislative Document ), is going on today. I was just looking through the bill and found something interesting on page 5:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (6)
> (a) Each candidate for President or Vice President of
> the United States shall (i) attach documents as indicated in each of
> the three requirements in the following subdivisions, some of which
> require multiple documents, (ii) state in the affidavit which
> required documents are attached that meet such requirements, and
> (iii) include in the affidavit, statements substantially as indicated
> in this subsection as applicable.
> 
> (b) Requirement number one: One of the following in
> subdivision (i) or (ii) of this subdivision:
> (i) A certified copy of my first original long-form birth
> certificate issued shortly after the time of my birth; or
> *(ii) Only if the document described in subdivision (i) of
> this subdivision is not obtainable under the laws of the state that
> issued my birth certificate, then both documents described in
> subdivisions (A) and (B) of this subdivision:
> 
> (A) A certified copy of my certification of live birth
> which includes the names of my birth parents who are listed on my
> first original long-form birth certificate issued shortly after the
> time of my birth; and
> (B) A sworn and acknowledged affidavit by me stating that
> my parents names contained on my certification of live birth are the
> same birth parent names as contained on my first original birth
> certificate;​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i no longer issues long-forms. Full stop. So it seems subdivisions A and B of the first requirement would apply to Obama.
> 
> 
> The quoted part says there's three requirements. The other two requirements are the mother's and father's birth documentation or naturalization papers showing they were both citizens at or before the time of their kid's (candidate's) birth, which are described on page 6 and 7 in similar language to the quote. That provision would be an additional requirement to be on the ballot that I don't see in Article 2 Sec 1. Seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. I doubt those extra requirements are going to stay in.
> 
> 
> HTML text of the bill:
> *LEGISLATIVE BILL 654*
Click to expand...


The bill's sponsor, Sen Mark Christensen, didn't even show up.  Apparently, he had four other hearings at three different committees this afternoon.  So I guess this isn't a priority for him.  An aide said it would be OK if the bill didn't come into force until after 2012.


----------



## Toro

This is a little old, but the AZ Secretary of State questions AZ bill HB2544



> But what worries Ken Bennett, the current secretary of state, is that he also would have to be furnished "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.'' Without that, he said, the measure would bar him from including the candidate's name on the ballot.
> 
> "I don't know that's on MY birth certificate, for goodness sakes'' said Bennett, who was born in Tucson.
> 
> Potentially more problematic, he said, is that each state has its own system of recording births. And Bennett, who is a Republican like all of the measure's 41 sponsors, is not sure that its even possible to get an "original'' birth certificate.
> 
> For example, he said, people seeking birth certificates from many states, often for passports or other documentation, are instead furnished with a "certificate of live birth.'' That usually takes the form of a state official certifying, under oath, that there are documents on file proving a specific person was born on a specified date.
> 
> That's not all, Bennett said, pointing to the requirement for the birth certificate to have the names of the attending physician and the signatures of witnesses.
> 
> "If you were delivered at home with a midwife, does that mean you are no longer qualified to be the president of the United States?'' he asked. "If there aren't any signatures of witnesses in attendance, you're no longer qualified?''
> 
> And what, exactly, is a "long form birth certificate,'' he asked.
> 
> "Is that a standard term of art that means the same thing in all 50 states?'' Bennett continued. "And is it even available in all 50 states?''
> 
> Officially speaking, the legislation crafted by Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, does not mention Obama. And Burges, who first sponsored a slightly different version of the measure last year, said it's not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she doubts he was born in Hawaii as he claims, or that he can show he is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> "With what's happening throughout the world, that we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable,'' she told Capitol Media Services when she introduced the first measure.
> 
> Burges managed to get the measure through the House last year. The bill died in the Senate.



Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Remember that a birfer bill already died in the AZ Senate.

Here is HB2544



> A.  The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice&#8209;president.  Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
> 
> B.  The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:
> 
> 1.  An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.
> 
> 2.  A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America.
> 
> 3.  A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.
> 
> C.  If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state.


----------



## Sheldon

> "With what's happening throughout the world, that we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable,'' she told Capitol Media Services when she introduced the first measure.




I think the LAST thing we need is candidates who are certifiable! 

cer·ti·fi·a·ble/&#716;s&#601;rt&#601;&#712;f&#299;&#601;b&#601;l/Adjective
Officially recognized as needing treatment for a mental disorder.


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> This is a little old, but the AZ Secretary of State questions AZ bill HB2544
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what worries Ken Bennett, the current secretary of state, is that he also would have to be furnished "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.'' Without that, he said, the measure would bar him from including the candidate's name on the ballot.
> 
> "I don't know that's on MY birth certificate, for goodness sakes'' said Bennett, who was born in Tucson.
Click to expand...


My secret fantasy is for the idiots in Arizona to pass this, and for a judge to rule that it violates federal election law and is non-applicable to federal elections, but still applicable to state elections and a bunch of Arizona legislators who supported this have to scramble to find their "long form birth certificate", are unable to do so, and disqualify themselves from being on the ballot.

As I said, birther tears are delicious.


----------



## Toro

Another article on LB654, the Nebraska birther bill.



> Christensen's bill not only would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide a certified long-form copy of their birth certificates to Nebraska's secretary of state, it also would require candidates to provide copies of their parents' long-form birth certificates.
> 
> In order for a person to qualify to be a presidential candidate in Nebraska, the bill would require an affidavit in which the candidate swears, "On the day I was born, both my birth father and my birth mother were citizens of the United States of America."
> 
> Under that requirement, six other U.S. presidents besides Obama, whose father was born in Kenya, would have been ineligible for office: Jefferson, whose mother was born in England; Andrew Jackson, whose parents were born in Ireland; James Buchanan, whose father was born in Ireland; Chester Arthur, whose father was born in Ireland; Woodrow Wilson, whose mother was born in England; and Herbert Hoover, whose mother was born in Canada.
> 
> Christensen said in prepared testimony that it is not clear what the nation's founders meant by the phrase "natural born citizen."  ...
> 
> Christensen's aide, Dan Wiles, said the senator does not want his bill "to be perceived as an attack" on Obama. He said Christensen assumes that Obama "most likely" was born in the United States, and he would be willing to delay implementation of his measure until after Obama's 2012 re-election bid.



'Birther' bill gets airing before committee


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> Another article on LB654, the Nebraska birther bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christensen's bill not only would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide a certified long-form copy of their birth certificates to Nebraska's secretary of state, it also would require candidates to provide copies of their parents' long-form birth certificates.
> 
> In order for a person to qualify to be a presidential candidate in Nebraska, the bill would require an affidavit in which the candidate swears, "On the day I was born, both my birth father and my birth mother were citizens of the United States of America."
> 
> Under that requirement, six other U.S. presidents besides Obama, whose father was born in Kenya, would have been ineligible for office: Jefferson, whose mother was born in England; Andrew Jackson, whose parents were born in Ireland; James Buchanan, whose father was born in Ireland; Chester Arthur, whose father was born in Ireland; Woodrow Wilson, whose mother was born in England; and Herbert Hoover, whose mother was born in Canada.
> 
> Christensen said in prepared testimony that it is not clear what the nation's founders meant by the phrase "natural born citizen."  ...
> 
> Christensen's aide, Dan Wiles, said the senator does not want his bill "to be perceived as an attack" on Obama. He said Christensen assumes that Obama "most likely" was born in the United States, and he would be willing to delay implementation of his measure until after Obama's 2012 re-election bid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Birther' bill gets airing before committee
Click to expand...


Yeah, this one will get smacked down too as the SCOTUS has already ruled on the merits of one's parents having to be American citizens to be considered "natural born".

If you think about it, that would mean that no American is "natural born" as somewhere along the family tree, your ancestors were born elsewhere and if they couldn't have "natural born" children, then their children also couldn't have "natural born" offspring.

Birthers are really pretty stupid.


----------



## Toro

Updates:

Texas and Tennessee have hearings scheduled next week but the birfer bills are not scheduled.

In Oklahoma, two birfer bills have already been killed but one, SB91, is still alive.  It has been heavily amended and is awaiting its third reading.  Third readings must be finished by March 17.  I'll track this one down later. 

In Georgia, the birfer bill requires a third reading by March 16.  There are no meetings of relevant committees and subcommittees scheduled as of yet.


----------



## Toro

The Oklahoma birfer bill, SB91.



> An Act relating to identity and eligibility of candidates; requiring proof of identity and eligibility to hold office for certain candidates; requiring documents to be available for public inspection; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.
> 
> BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
> SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 5-111.2 of Title 26, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
> 
> A. Each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any federal, state, county, municipal or judicial office, or for the nomination of a recognized political party, in any general, primary, or special election shall, at the time of filing the Declaration of Candidacy, provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office sought to the lection board at which the Declaration was filed.
> B. The Secretary of the State Election Board shall promulgate rules to specify the documentation required to provide proof of eligibility to hold the office sought. The requirement to provide proof of identity may be satisfied by production of a document specified in Section 7-114 of Title 26 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
> C. Copies of documents provided pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
> 
> SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2011.



http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2011-12 FLR/SFLR/sb91 sflr.pdf

At first blush, this doesn't look like much like the typical birfer bill.

Edit - Here is Section 7-114, Title 26.



> §26-7-114. Procedure for determining eligibility.
> A. Each person appearing to vote shall announce that person&#8217;s name to the judge of the precinct and shall provide proof of identity, whereupon the judge shall determine whether the person's name is in the precinct registry. As used in this section, &#8220;proof of identity&#8221; shall mean a document that satisfies all of the following:
> 1. The document shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued, and the name substantially conforms to the name in the precinct registry;
> 2. The document shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued;
> 3. The document includes an expiration date, which is after the date of the election in which the person is appearing to vote. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to an identification card issued to a person sixty-five (65) years of age or older which is valid indefinitely, as provided in Section 6-105.3 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
> 4. The document was issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma or the government of a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation.
> Provided, if the person presents a voter identification card issued by the appropriate county election board, such card may serve as proof of identity without meeting the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this subsection.
> B. 1. If a person declines to or is unable to produce proof of identity, the person may sign a statement under oath, in a form approved by the Secretary of the State Election Board, swearing or affirming that the person is the person identified on the precinct registry, and shall be allowed to cast a provisional ballot as provided in Section 7-116.1 of this title.
> 2. False swearing or affirming under oath shall be punishable as a felony as provided in Section 16-103 of this title, and the penalty shall be distinctly set forth on the face of the statement.
> Added by Laws 1974, c. 153, § 7-114, operative Jan. 1, 1975. Amended by Laws 1990, c. 331, § 14, eff. July 1, 1990; Laws 2009, c. 31, § 2, eff. July 1, 2011 (State Question No. 746, Legislative Referendum No. 347, adopted at election held on Nov. 2, 2010).



http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html


----------



## WorldWatcher

Toro said:


> This is a little old, but the AZ Secretary of State questions AZ bill HB2544
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what worries Ken Bennett, the current secretary of state, is that he also would have to be furnished "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.'' Without that, he said, the measure would bar him from including the candidate's name on the ballot.
> 
> "I don't know that's on MY birth certificate, for goodness sakes'' said Bennett, who was born in Tucson.
> 
> Potentially more problematic, he said, is that each state has its own system of recording births. And Bennett, who is a Republican like all of the measure's 41 sponsors, is not sure that its even possible to get an "original'' birth certificate.
> 
> For example, he said, people seeking birth certificates from many states, often for passports or other documentation, are instead furnished with a "certificate of live birth.'' That usually takes the form of a state official certifying, under oath, that there are documents on file proving a specific person was born on a specified date.
> 
> That's not all, Bennett said, pointing to the requirement for the birth certificate to have the names of the attending physician and the signatures of witnesses.
> 
> "If you were delivered at home with a midwife, does that mean you are no longer qualified to be the president of the United States?'' he asked. "If there aren't any signatures of witnesses in attendance, you're no longer qualified?''
> 
> And what, exactly, is a "long form birth certificate,'' he asked.
> 
> "Is that a standard term of art that means the same thing in all 50 states?'' Bennett continued. "And is it even available in all 50 states?''
> 
> Officially speaking, the legislation crafted by Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, does not mention Obama. And Burges, who first sponsored a slightly different version of the measure last year, said it's not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she doubts he was born in Hawaii as he claims, or that he can show he is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> "With what's happening throughout the world, that we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable,'' she told Capitol Media Services when she introduced the first measure.
> 
> Burges managed to get the measure through the House last year. The bill died in the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> Remember that a birfer bill already died in the AZ Senate.
> 
> Here is HB2544
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A.  The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice&#8209;president.  Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
> 
> B.  The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:
> 
> 1.  An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.
> 
> 2.  A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America.
> 
> 3.  A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.
> 
> C.  If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Does this mean the daughter of Jessica Higgins, born on the front lawn of the house can never grow up to be President?  She wasn't born in a hospital and there was no attending physician at birth.


................................... Very said for her.




Mother gives birth on lawn ... on her own - Orange County Register

>>>>


----------



## Toro

From Rep Mark Hatfield, sponsor of HB401, the Georgia birfer bill.  Allegedly.



> From: mhatfield@wayxcable.com
> Reply-To: mhatfield@wayxcable.com
> To: ##########
> 
> *Please understand that I am dealing with recalcitrant leadership which will not allow the bill to move through the committee process. We are trying to get the bill dislodged from subcommittee, and this proposal was made in an attempt to get the House leadership to allow the bill to be considered. *The bill would not be required to stay in this form, but we have to try something to get the bill moving. *If we don't get some movement right away, the bill will be dead for the year. *You don't need to convince me that Obama needs to be subject to a law requiring proof of eligibility; I believe it wholeheartedly and have been actively advocating for it for years. Your efforts would be better spent contacting the leadership of the Georgia House and demanding that the bill be allowed to move. Nothing short of massive public outcry is going to get their attention it seems. I would appreciate your efforts and continued support of the bill.
> 
> Please pass this information on. I don't need people on my own side throwing me under the bus! Thanks!
> 
> Rep. Mark Hatfield
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



Video: GA House Bill HB401 presidential eligibility bill will be changed to protect Obama from having to comply in the 2012 presidential election | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

It appears that the Georgia Republican leadership is not going to let this birfer bill out of committee.

Allegedly.


----------



## Toro

The Nebraska bill is killed in committee.



> A Nebraska bill introduced in response to a flap over President Barack Obama's citizenship and requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship with a birth certificate won't get out of committee, the panel's chairman said Thursday.
> 
> The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, didn't appear in person before the Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee but said in written testimony that he didn't want his proposal to be perceived as a political attack on the president. An aide said the bill was strictly intended to guarantee that presidential candidates are confirmed as eligible for office.  ...
> 
> *State Sen. Bill Avery, who chairs the committee, said the Nebraska bill, LB654, would die there.*  ...
> 
> Several lawmakers on the panel questioned the bill's purpose, and noted that federal appellate courts might simply refuse to hear the case after lower courts ruled.
> 
> The proposal would "be obligating us to a court challenge, where we'd have to spend thousands of dollars," said state Sen. Scott Price of Bellevue. "You want the state to have to defend this, with the hope that the Supreme Court might make a ruling."



Neb. legislative committee kills bill requiring birth certificates for presidential hopefuls :: The Republic

It's good to see that the sane wing of the Republican Party is winning out.

So let's review the status of the state bills.


** Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive.  Barely.*
* Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee. Not officially dead but on life support, barely breathing.
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
** Oklahoma - A bill is still alive but it appears that the signature items of the typical birfer bill - i.e., long-form birth certificate, two parents that are citizens, etc. - have been expunged. 
* Tennessee - Still alive.
* Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.*


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> You're desperate to do what you can to keep pubic momentum from getting behind this issue.



lol

Quite the momentum.  The birfers are oh-fer so far.

I think nine birfer bills were introduced into state legislatures last year.  None passed.  Thus far, birfer bills have failed in nine other states.  Thus, the birfers are 0-18 over the past two years.


----------



## Sheldon

Allen v Soetoro
American Grand Jury (Federal Court, TN Middle District; 3:2009mc00215)
American Grand Jury (Federal Court, NY Western District)
Ankeny v Daniels
Barnett Keyes et al v Obama et al
Berg v Obama et al
Berg v Obama
Beverly v FEC
Brockhausen v Andrade
Broe v Reed
The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouris et al v Obama et al
Cohen v Obama
Connerat v Browning
Connerat v Obama (09003103SC)
Connerat v Obama (09005522SC)
Constitution Part v Lingle
Cook v Good et al
Cook v Simitech et al
Corbett v Bowen
Craig v US (Dismissed)
Craig v US (Pending)
Dawson v Obama
Donofrio v Wells
Ealy v Sarah Obama
Easterling v Obama (Not docketed by court)
Essek v Obama
Fitzpatrick v Obama
Greenberg v Brunner
Hamblin v Obama, (Obama & McCain)
Hamrick v Fukino
Herbert v Obama & US
Herbert v US, John Roberts, et al
Herbers v US, Obama, John Roberts
Hollander v McCain
Hollister v Soetoro
Hunter v US Supreme Court, et al
In re John McCain's Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in PA (Pennsylvania Supreme Court)
Jone v Obama
Judy v McCain
Kerchener et al v Obama et al
Keyes v Bowen
US v LTC Terrence L Lakin
Lightfoot v Bowen
Marquis v Reed
Martin v Lingle (HI Supreme Court)
Martin v Lingle (HI District Court)
Martin v Bennet
Meroni et al v McHenry County Grand Jury Foreman, et al
Morrow v Barak Humane Obama
Neal v Brunner
Neely v Obama
Patriot's Heart Media Netword v Illinois Board of Elections
Patriot's Heart Network v Soetoro
In re Paul Andrew Mitchell (Federal Court; PA Eastern District)
Purpura v Sebelius (Pending)
Rhodes v Gate
Rhodes v MacDonald
Robinson v Bowen
Roy v Fed. Election, (Obama & McCain)
Schneller v Cortes
Sorensen v Riley (Obama & McCain)
Spuck v Secretary of State (Ohio State Court)
Stamper v US
Stumpo v Granholm
Strunk v Patterson (029641/2008)
Strunk v Patterson (029642/2008)
Strunk v NY State Board of Elections
Strunk v US Department of State (FOIA)
Sullivan v Secretary of State (NC State Superior Court)
Sullivan v Marshall
Superior American Grand Jury (DC District Court; 1:09-mc-00346-RCL)
Taitz v Obama
Thomas v Hosemann (Federal Court; HI District Court)
Thomas v Hosemann (Federal Court; Miss. District Court)
Terry v Handel
Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz


----------



## Toro

In an attempt to get his bill to pass, Mark Hatfield of Georgia has proposed that his bill not take affect until 2013 and remove the dual citizenship requirement. 

Reality Check Radio Blog: Is Mark Hatfield a Flip Flopper?

Birfer Queen, Moldovian-American Orly Taitz, posts on her blog the email I posted a few entries back.

Help Rep. Hatfield | Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire


----------



## Toro

A few amusing items I dug up.  Okay, I ripped them off Fogbow.

Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers is the author of the birfer bill, SB1091, in that state.



> Apparently Sen. Mae Beavers has also introduced a birther bill designed to find whichever criteria is not on President Obama's legal birth certificate and make that a requisite for running for President in the United States.
> 
> Unfortunately for Sen. Beavers, she made the mistake of going on an internet radio show without doing her homework (its a recurring theme in the interview, that she doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to know what the hell she is talking about).
> 
> She knows that its important that President Obama have a long form birth certificate, but what is that exactly? Beavers deflects "you're asking me to get into a lot of things that I haven't really looked into yet."
> 
> Legal Eagle Beavers also apparently hasn't made it past Article II of the Constitution and seen the requirements of states in Article IV:
> 
> RC: Well, I think it says that any state is required to accept the documents from another state. So that basically means that Tennessee has to accept a valid birth certificate from Hawaii or Montana or any other state. It means that states
> can't go adding requirements to these sort of documents. A birth certificate proves the place of birth, and the short form birth certificate does that.
> 
> MS. BEAVERS: I just have to take your word for it, because I don't know any of that.​



Nashville for the 21st Century: What, Me Study?

And



> Last month, Tennessee state Sen. Mae Beavers introduced SB 1091, a bill that would require presidential candidates to present a long-form birth certificate in order to qualify for the ballot in the Volunteer State. Beavers, a Republican, is in good company: Nearly a dozen states have now introduced similar legislationpart of national campaign mounted by the birthers, those conservatives who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. To date they haven't had much luck; a bill proposed in Arizona looked the most promising but was scuttled in committee; on Wednesday, New Hampshire GOPers knocked down a similar proposal.
> 
> It's a far-fetched goal, and it turns out that Beavers, who recently discussed her bill on Reality Check, a radio show devoted to debunking birther legislation, still has some research to do. From the transcript:
> 
> RC: What are the specific requirements in the bill?
> 
> MB: That they have to have the long form birth certificate.
> 
> RC: What is the long form birth certificate?
> 
> MB: Now, you're asking me to get into a lot of things that I haven't really looked into yet.​
> ... Beavers went on to state more clearly, "I'm not entirely sure what long form means." She seemed genuinely surprised by the news that not all states even print long-form birth certificates anymore.



Birther Bill Author: What's a Long-Form Birth Certificate? | Mother Jones


----------



## Sheldon

That's classic. Jebus bless all of Birtherstan.

"My bill requires a long form. What a long form is, I don't know."


----------



## mudwhistle

Sheldon said:


> That's classic. Jebus bless all of Birtherstan.
> 
> "My bill requires a long form. What a long form is, I don't know."



A form longer then a short form.


----------



## gekaap

mudwhistle said:


> A form longer then a short form.



Okay, so what's the definition for a "short" form?


----------



## Toro

gekaap said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A form longer then a short form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so what's the definition for a "short" form?
Click to expand...


A form shorter than the long form.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A form longer then a short form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so what's the definition for a "short" form?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A form shorter than the long form.
Click to expand...

hey, that works for birfers and troofers


----------



## Toro

Birfer goes crazy!



> Tell GA speaker of the House to move Presidential Certification bill through the committee now with effective date 2012 or *face charges of treason and aiding and abetting treason against people of the United States of America* for allowing usurper Barack Hussein Obama on yet another ballot without a valid Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form Birth Certificate



Tell GA speaker of the House to move Presidential Certification bill through the committee now with effective date 2012 or face charges of treason and aiding and abetting treason against people of the United States of America for allowing usurper Bar

rofl

Yeah, that'll win the House Speaker over!


----------



## Toro

The Oklahoma birfer bill has PASSED the Senate!

BUT...

... it was amended to strip most of the birfer stuff out!



> I move to amend Senate Bill No. 91, Page 2, Line 10 1/2, as follows:
> By inserting a new SECTION 2 to read as follows, by renumbering the subsequent section and by amending the title to conform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Submitted by:
> 
> _______________________
> Senator Ralph Shortey
> 
> Shortey-CD-FA-SB91
> 3/15/2011 7:09 PM
> 
> 
> SECTION 2.     AMENDATORY     26 O.S. 2001, Section 20-102, as amended by Section 24, Chapter 485, O.S.L. 2003 (26 O.S. Supp. 2010, Section 20-102), is amended to read as follows:
> Section 20-102.  A.  Candidates for the nomination for President of the United States shall file with the Secretary of the State Election Board.  Such candidates shall be members of political parties recognized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and shall have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and shall have raised and expended not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for said the office.  The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public.  The candidates shall further be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board.  *A candidate shall present a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:*
> 
> 1.  An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, *or a certified copy thereof*;
> 2.  An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;
> 3.  An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad; or
> 4.  An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States.
> 
> Copies of these documents shall be made by the State Election Board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
> ...



http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/c...MENTS/Senate/SB91 (3-03-11) (Shortey) FA1.doc


----------



## WorldWatcher

Toro said:


> The Oklahoma birfer bill has PASSED the Senate!
> 
> BUT...
> 
> ... it was amended to strip most of the birfer stuff out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I move to amend Senate Bill No. 91, Page 2, Line 10 1/2, as follows:
> By inserting a new SECTION 2 to read as follows, by renumbering the subsequent section and by amending the title to conform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Submitted by:
> 
> _______________________
> Senator Ralph Shortey
> 
> Shortey-CD-FA-SB91
> 3/15/2011 7:09 PM
> 
> 
> SECTION 2.     AMENDATORY     26 O.S. 2001, Section 20-102, as amended by Section 24, Chapter 485, O.S.L. 2003 (26 O.S. Supp. 2010, Section 20-102), is amended to read as follows:
> Section 20-102.  A.  Candidates for the nomination for President of the United States shall file with the Secretary of the State Election Board.  Such candidates shall be members of political parties recognized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and shall have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and shall have raised and expended not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for said the office.  The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public.  The candidates shall further be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board.  *A candidate shall present a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:*
> 
> 1.  An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, *or a certified copy thereof*;
> 2.  An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;
> 3.  An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad; or
> 4.  An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States.
> 
> Copies of these documents shall be made by the State Election Board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/c...MENTS/Senate/SB91 (3-03-11) (Shortey) FA1.doc
Click to expand...



Interesting, they allow people born in Puerto Rico to run for President but will be rejecting people born in Guam.


>>>>


----------



## Toro

The GA bill, though not officially dead, is now being read its last rites.



> The sponsor of a birther bill that has stalled in the Georgia House made a last-ditch effort Tuesday to get a vote on the proposal.
> 
> Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, failed in his attempt to get the powerful Rules Committee to amend a bill setting the date for Georgias presidential primary. He tried to add language from House Bill 401, which would force presidential and vice presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before landing on the Georgia ballot.
> 
> The attempt would have led to a Crossover Day vote on Wednesday, the last day for a measure to pass from one chamber for review in another. The primary bill is up for a vote on Wednesday, but without any amendments.



Birther bill sponsor tries, fails to get vote *| ajc.com

We'll have the obituary tomorrow.

So let's update.  Only three birfer bills are still alive.  The Oklahoma Senate passed a bill but effectively neutered all the birfer points.
*
* Arizona - One bill died in committee, another bill still alive. Barely.*
* Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee. 
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
* Oklahoma - Passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
** Tennessee - Still alive.
* Texas - Still alive but unlikely to pass due to internecine politics within the Texas Republican party.*


----------



## GStarz

It's hilarious and and annoyingly pathetic, both, to watch Skippy Toro continue to bump his own imaginary propaganda endlessly while desperately trying to shout lies in the apparent hope that the very act of repetition will turn those lies into manifest reality so Obama - get this - _won't_ have to turn over his citizenship records - like that makes a lot of sense unless Obama is holding the office of president illegally. Georgia is not dead, just re-routed in committee, as are most he has cited. 

You are The Asshole, Skippy. You are The One.


----------



## gekaap

GStarz said:


> It's hilarious and and annoyingly pathetic, both, to watch Skippy Toro continue to bump his own imaginary propaganda endlessly while desperately trying to shout lies in the apparent hope that the very act of repetition will turn those lies into manifest reality so Obama - get this - _won't_ have to turn over his citizenship records - like that makes a lot of sense unless Obama is holding the office of president illegally. Georgia is not dead, just re-routed in committee, as are most he has cited.
> 
> You are The Asshole, Skippy. You are The One.



Obama already released his birth certificate.  I know that you know this.


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> It's hilarious and and annoyingly pathetic, both, to watch Skippy Toro continue to bump his own imaginary propaganda endlessly while desperately trying to shout lies in the apparent hope that the very act of repetition will turn those lies into manifest reality so Obama - get this - _won't_ have to turn over his citizenship records - like that makes a lot of sense unless Obama is holding the office of president illegally. Georgia is not dead, just re-routed in committee, as are most he has cited.
> 
> You are The Asshole, Skippy. You are The One.



lol

GTardz in his long, slow meltdown as his dreams slip away before his eyes.  Maybe you should go back to the "Obama is Satan" meme.  

"Re-routed through committee" = having the committee ignore your bill, the sponsor pledge to not have it apply until 2013, and The Queen Birfer threaten the speaker with treason for not pushing it forward.


----------



## Toro

Speaking of Georgia, Mark Hatfield, the sponsor, failed tonight to get his birfer bill through the legislature tonight.



> A last-minute effort to pass a so-called "Birther Bill" at the Capitol appears to have failed Wednesday.
> 
> The bill would require that candidates for president and vice-president prove their citizenship.
> 
> Critics said the bill would have embarrassed the state and they say it was inspired by claims that question President Barack Obama's citizenship.
> 
> The bill is likely dead for this legislative session.
> 
> The bill initially had 94 signers, but that number dropped to 65 as co-sponsors deleted their names.
> 
> The measure would force candidates for president and vice president to certify their citizenship with the Georgia secretary of state's office before going on the ballot in the state.
> 
> Democratic state Representative Glenn Baker of Jonesboro said he did not fully understand the bill's ramifications when he signed it and quickly removed his name.
> 
> Representative Mark Hatfield is the bill's main sponsor and he tried and failed to get a vote on the measure before the deadline for legislation to pass from one chamber to the other.
> 
> The measure could potentially be attached to other legislation, but that's not likely to happen.
> 
> The House speaker sent signals days ago that he did not favor a vote on the bill.



'Birther Bill' Stalls at the Gold Dome


----------



## GStarz

If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.



Yeah, Gunny is an anti-conservative liberal.  

rofl

Your power of deduction is amazing 

The Wisdom of GTardz, a compilation


Obama might be the devil
Its a done deal that Obama isnt running in 2012
Barack Obama was born in Kenya because Michelle Obama said he was a Kenyan
The birfer state legislators have scores of constitutional and legal experts advising them
45% to 60% of all Americans are birfers
Everyone knows that Rasmussen is the most accurate pollster
12 is nearly half of 50
Gunny is an anti-conservative liberal

Outstanding


----------



## Sheldon

GStarz said:


> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.


----------



## random3434

GStarz said:


> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.



So I take it this is your last post then? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## random3434

This is a sticky too, meaning the USMB is also run by Blood Type O Aliens! 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/90944-extraterrestrial-infiltration.html


----------



## Dot Com

GStarz said:


> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.



Ummm.....conservatives out-number librals here from what I've seen & I dare you to call Gunny a libral to his face LOL.


----------



## GStarz

When you have a place in which several hard-core liberals are admins, and maybe one admin is conservative, if you define John McCain as a conservative, then the issue of the board's bias and prejudice illustrates itself. It isn't rocket science. 

Or to put in ways guys like Toro will understand, "Fucking duh".


----------



## random3434

GStarz said:


> When you have a place in which several hard-core liberals are admins, and maybe one admin is conservative, if you define John McCain as a conservative, then the issue of the board's bias and prejudice illustrates itself. It isn't rocket science.
> 
> Or to put in ways guys like Toro will understand, "Fucking duh".



Hahahahaahaha, I think that is the funniest post of the day!


CW, Pixie and of course Gunny are 


*Hard Core Libs!!!!!!!!!! *


----------



## random3434

Echo Zulu said:


> GStarz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I take it this is your last post then? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...


I guess you DO like it here after all, since you're back and posting...........................


----------



## Toro

Echo Zulu said:


> GStarz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a place in which several hard-core liberals are admins, and maybe one admin is conservative, if you define John McCain as a conservative, then the issue of the board's bias and prejudice illustrates itself. It isn't rocket science.
> 
> Or to put in ways guys like Toro will understand, "Fucking duh".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahaahaha, I think that is the funniest post of the day!
> 
> 
> CW, Pixie and of course Gunny are
> 
> 
> *Hard Core Libs!!!!!!!!!! *
Click to expand...


The Wisdom of GTardz - If you're not a birther or don't believe Obama might be Satan, you're a liberal.


----------



## Toro

Echo Zulu said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GStarz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I take it this is your last post then? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you DO like it here after all, since you're back and posting...........................
Click to expand...


I didn't think GTardz would last more than a few months.  Usually, when confronted, the delusional strident ideological extremists melt down then take their ball and go home.


----------



## GStarz

It isn't complicated. I call it like i see it. When a propaganda thread of the most intellectually dishonest sort is made into a sticky, that's all I need to know about the board itself.

I never said I was finished here. I said I was _essentially_ finished.  It's interesting to see - and entirely telling -  that while liberals are mocking my view on this - which is what liberals do since if they had their shit together they would be conservatives - _the true, manifest conservatives are not. _That's all the confirmation I need as to the extreme slant of the board itself.


----------



## Sheldon

GStarz said:


> It isn't complicated. I call it like i see it. When a propaganda thread of the most intellectually dishonest sort is made into a sticky, that's all I need to know about the board itself.
> 
> I never said I was finished here. I said I was _essentially_ finished.  It's interesting to see - and entirely telling -  that while liberals are mocking my view on this - which is what liberals do since if they had their shit together they would be conservatives - _the true, manifest conservatives are not. _That's all the confirmation I need as to the extreme slant of the board itself.





Seek help.


----------



## Toro

GStarz said:


> It isn't complicated. I call it like i see it. When a propaganda thread of the most intellectually dishonest sort is made into a sticky, that's all I need to know about the board itself.
> 
> I never said I was finished here. I said I was _essentially_ finished.  It's interesting to see - and entirely telling -  that while liberals are mocking my view on this - which is what liberals do since if they had their shit together they would be conservatives - _the true, manifest conservatives are not. _That's all the confirmation I need as to the extreme slant of the board itself.



It's not a propaganda thread.  It is a thread tracking the progress of birther laws in the various states.  You are free to add any information you see fit, including anything that contradicts information that has been posted.  But instead, all you do is rant and rave, go off half-cocked, make unsubstantiated statements, and say everyone should read WorldNetDaily.


----------



## del

GStarz said:


> If anyone thinks this site is not run by anti-conservative liberals, the undisputed proof that it is run by anti-conservative liberals is in the fact that this piece of liberal propaganda shit thread has been deemed important enough - with the "unbiased' "Bifer" label - to be made a _sticky_. Yeah, _that's_ the sign of a fair and balanced message board, alright. This place is a lost cause. Conservatives should find another outlet and let the liberals here circle jerk to another pathetic election disaster like 2010.



bite me, wanker.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
> 
> A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are
> 
> Oklahoma
> Tennessee
> Missouri
> Arizona
> Hawaii
> Texas
> Indiana
> Montana
> Connecticut
> Nebraska
> Maine
> 
> Wikipedia has the first 10.
> 
> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sheldon supplied Maine.
> 
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.
> 
> Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
> 
> On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
> 
> Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
> 
> Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> Format Document
Click to expand...



What is your problem wth a state doing this? As I said your problem?


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
> 
> A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are
> 
> Oklahoma
> Tennessee
> Missouri
> Arizona
> Hawaii
> Texas
> Indiana
> Montana
> Connecticut
> Nebraska
> Maine
> 
> Wikipedia has the first 10.
> 
> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sheldon supplied Maine.
> 
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.
> 
> Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
> 
> On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
> 
> Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
> 
> "I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
> 
> Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> Format Document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is your problem wth a state doing this? As I said your problem?
Click to expand...



Since we all know the laws are targeting one man (Obama), and anyone with both eyes shut can still see it, there could be a legal challenge they such a law would be considered a "No Bill of Attainder", those laws being barred under the Constitution.

I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states, which would require *ANY* candidate for elected office (President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative, Governor, State Legislature, Councilman, Mayor, Dog Catcher, etc...) that they be required to submit verifiable documentation that they meet the requirements set forth for that position.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates.  This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states.  Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
> 
> A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country.   Those states are
> 
> Oklahoma
> Tennessee
> Missouri
> Arizona
> Hawaii
> Texas
> Indiana
> Montana
> Connecticut
> Nebraska
> Maine
> 
> Wikipedia has the first 10.
> 
> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sheldon supplied Maine.
> 
> HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
> 
> Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it.  I think that merits investigation.
> 
> Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list.  It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
> 
> Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> Format Document
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your problem wth a state doing this? As I said your problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we all know the laws are targeting one man (Obama), and anyone with both eyes shut can still see it, there could be a legal challenge they such a law would be considered a "No Bill of Attainder", those laws being barred under the Constitution.
> 
> I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states, which would require *ANY* candidate for elected office (President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative, Governor, State Legislature, Councilman, Mayor, Dog Catcher, etc...) that they be required to submit verifiable documentation that they meet the requirements set forth for that position.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Talk to someone who gives a shit about who it's targeting, I don't care if obama has the necessary documents then there nothing to fear.



> I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states



Since I live in one state I do not think a law in another state should be a law in my state. If I wanted to live in Califorina I would move there. If I wanted to live in Texas I would move there, therefore their laws are theirs not mine or my state..


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Talk to someone who gives a shit about who it's targeting, I don't care if obama has the necessary documents then there nothing to fear.



Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the question.



> Since I live in one state I do not think a law in another state should be a law in my state. If I wanted to live in Califorina I would move there. If I wanted to live in Texas I would move there, therefore their laws are theirs not mine or my state..




Didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.  Each state would have it's own law based on criteria determined by that states legislature.  The point being that no one who is not qualified should be elected for ANY elected position and not just the President.

The sad part is that we Republicans have already elected to persons who did/could have held the Office of the President who some claim might not be Natural Born Citizens.  (Chester Arthuer and Charles Curtis).

Sorry you didn't get that.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to someone who gives a shit about who it's targeting, I don't care if obama has the necessary documents then there nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I live in one state I do not think a law in another state should be a law in my state. If I wanted to live in Califorina I would move there. If I wanted to live in Texas I would move there, therefore their laws are theirs not mine or my state..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.  Each state would have it's own law based on criteria determined by that states legislature.  The point being that no one who is not qualified should be elected for ANY elected position and not just the President.
> 
> The sad part is that we Republicans have already elected to persons who did/could have held the Office of the President who some claim might not be Natural Born Citizens.  (Chester Arthuer and Charles Curtis).
> 
> Sorry you didn't get that.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




> Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the question.



It's not an opinion but a fact. I don't care who is being targeted, if obama has the required documents then he has nothing to fear.



> Didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.



Here is exactly what you said:


> I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states


----------



## Toro

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's not an opinion but a fact. I don't care who is being targeted, if obama has the required documents then he has nothing to fear.



But that's not the issue.  He has the documents.  Obama has already presented his birth certificates in Hawaii.  The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.

For most of these birther bills, they are politically motivated and directed specifically towards President Obama.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion but a fact. I don't care who is being targeted, if obama has the required documents then he has nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the issue.  He has the documents.  Obama has already presented his birth certificates in Hawaii.  The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.
> 
> For most of these birther bills, they are politically motivated and directed specifically towards President Obama.
Click to expand...




> But that's not the issue.  He has the documents.



Great he will be able to produce the long form when the time comes and his shouldn't be a problem.



> The government of Hawaii said they were okay.



The Hawaiian government said they did not have it, then they said they had it, now they say they can't find it.



> The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.



Horseshit the long form if there is one exist in every state, if not in paper form it will be on micofilm or filed in a computer. Wich can be repoduced to paper form.,


----------



## random3434

GStarz said:


> It isn't complicated. I call it like i see it. When a propaganda thread of the most intellectually dishonest sort is made into a sticky, that's all I need to know about the board itself.
> 
> I never said I was finished here. I said I was _essentially_ finished.  It's interesting to see - and entirely telling -  that while liberals are mocking my view on this - which is what liberals do since if they had their shit together they would be conservatives - _the true, manifest conservatives are not. _That's all the confirmation I need as to the extreme slant of the board itself.



*Welcome Back Pubes! We've missed ya! *


----------



## Toro

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The Hawaiian government said they did not have it, then they said they had it, now they say they can't find it.



The Hawaiian government has stated that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have produced a certificate of live birth, which is an official document in the state.  That is good enough for the state of Hawaii.



> Horseshit the long form if there is one exist in every state, if not in paper form it will be on micofilm or filed in a computer. Wich can be repoduced to paper form.,



It does not exist in Nebraska.  It does not exist in Missouri.  There are links earlier in this thread testifying to this.

A few bills have been amended to allow any official documents as verification for citizenship, such as the amended bills in Missouri and Oklahoma, which means that the short-form would be accepted.  I have no problem with that.


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## WorldWatcher

> Didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is exactly what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Yep, that's what I said.  No where did I say that the Federal government should pass a law mandating it on the States, nor did I say one State passes a law that mandates requirements to be followed in another State.


I said, as  you correctly quoted, "I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states".  The means that there are 50 States and that each State should *pass it's own law* that requires (and here is the rest of the idea you clipped out)  candidates for any elected office from President to Dog Catcher submit documented evidence that meet the qualification criteria for that State.

The requirements for Federal Office are spelled out in the Constitution, the requirements for State or Local positions are laid out either in the State Constitution or in Statutory Law.  Since each state may have different criteria such as filing deadlines and other factors for State/Local office - it would be up to each State to write their own law.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

worldwatcher said:


> didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is exactly what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> i support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep, that's what i said.  No where did i say that the federal government should pass a law mandating it on the states, nor did i say one state passes a law that mandates requirements to be followed in another state.
> 
> 
> I said, as  you correctly quoted, "i support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states".  The means that there are 50 states and that each state should *pass it's own law* that requires (and here is the rest of the idea you clipped out)  candidates for any elected office from president to dog catcher submit documented evidence that meet the qualification criteria for that state.
> 
> The requirements for federal office are spelled out in the constitution, the requirements for state or local positions are laid out either in the state constitution or in statutory law.  Since each state may have different criteria such as filing deadlines and other factors for state/local office - it would be up to each state to write their own law.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


humm......


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> worldwatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is exactly what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, that's what i said.  No where did i say that the federal government should pass a law mandating it on the states, nor did i say one state passes a law that mandates requirements to be followed in another state.
> 
> 
> I said, as  you correctly quoted, "i support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states".  The means that there are 50 states and that each state should *pass it's own law* that requires (and here is the rest of the idea you clipped out)  candidates for any elected office from president to dog catcher submit documented evidence that meet the qualification criteria for that state.
> 
> The requirements for federal office are spelled out in the constitution, the requirements for state or local positions are laid out either in the state constitution or in statutory law.  Since each state may have different criteria such as filing deadlines and other factors for state/local office - it would be up to each state to write their own law.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> humm......
Click to expand...



I hope I've helped you with correcting your misunderstanding regarding the simple statement.


Is there anything else I can do for you this morning?


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government said they did not have it, then they said they had it, now they say they can't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government has stated that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have produced a certificate of live birth, which is an official document in the state.  That is good enough for the state of Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit the long form if there is one exist in every state, if not in paper form it will be on micofilm or filed in a computer. Wich can be repoduced to paper form.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not exist in Nebraska.  It does not exist in Missouri.  There are links earlier in this thread testifying to this.
> 
> A few bills have been amended to allow any official documents as verification for citizenship, such as the amended bills in Missouri and Oklahoma, which means that the short-form would be accepted.  I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...


Every state as I said has a long form birth document, they are not going to discrad that information they keep it for historical purposes.  When you live in a regional that has had a few court houses burned down you will know what I mean. And the south has had a number of them burned to the ground and some records were saved some weren't


----------



## random3434




----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government said they did not have it, then they said they had it, now they say they can't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government has stated that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have produced a certificate of live birth, which is an official document in the state.  That is good enough for the state of Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit the long form if there is one exist in every state, if not in paper form it will be on micofilm or filed in a computer. Wich can be repoduced to paper form.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not exist in Nebraska.  It does not exist in Missouri.  There are links earlier in this thread testifying to this.
> 
> A few bills have been amended to allow any official documents as verification for citizenship, such as the amended bills in Missouri and Oklahoma, which means that the short-form would be accepted.  I have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state as I said has a long form birth document, they are not going to discrad that information they keep it for historical purposes.  When you live in a regional that has had a few court houses burned down you will know what I mean. And the south has had a number of them burned to the ground and some records were saved some weren't
Click to expand...



Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records. Certified copies are issued by the state as an official, legal testament to the person being born there. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, states must accept as valid the records of other states.


----------



## MaggieMae

GStarz said:


> When you have a place in which several hard-core liberals are admins, and maybe one admin is conservative, if you define John McCain as a conservative, then the issue of the board's bias and prejudice illustrates itself. It isn't rocket science.
> 
> Or to put in ways guys like Toro will understand, "Fucking duh".



The mods are quite balanced, with two more (by my assessment) leaning to the right than the left. I would invite you to stick around longer so that you'd figure that out all by your lonesome, but I really would prefer that you take your sack of shit to one of those boards you seem to think would welcome your idiocy.


----------



## MaggieMae

GStarz said:


> It isn't complicated. I call it like i see it. When a propaganda thread of the most intellectually dishonest sort is made into a sticky, that's all I need to know about the board itself.
> 
> I never said I was finished here. I said I was _essentially_ finished.  It's interesting to see - and entirely telling -  that while liberals are mocking my view on this - which is what liberals do since if they had their shit together they would be conservatives - _the true, manifest conservatives are not. _That's all the confirmation I need as to the extreme slant of the board itself.



For the most part, the conservatives here are genuine, and they know how to present their arguments in actual debatable language on major issues of the day, unlike the loons who glom onto one wedge issue as if the rest of the adult world really gives a shit. I don't agree with much of the conservative ideology, because I've been around the block a few times over my lifetime and know that a lot of it doesn't work in the real world. But I also can recognize people who think they know it all just because of the crap they read on the Internet, and nothing else. That would be people like you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government has stated that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have produced a certificate of live birth, which is an official document in the state.  That is good enough for the state of Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not exist in Nebraska.  It does not exist in Missouri.  There are links earlier in this thread testifying to this.
> 
> A few bills have been amended to allow any official documents as verification for citizenship, such as the amended bills in Missouri and Oklahoma, which means that the short-form would be accepted.  I have no problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state as I said has a long form birth document, they are not going to discrad that information they keep it for historical purposes.  When you live in a regional that has had a few court houses burned down you will know what I mean. And the south has had a number of them burned to the ground and some records were saved some weren't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records. Certified copies are issued by the state as an official, legal testament to the person being born there. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, states must accept as valid the records of other states.
Click to expand...




> Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records.



It will not be the state of Hawaii releasing the long, it will be obama.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldwatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, that's what i said.  No where did i say that the federal government should pass a law mandating it on the states, nor did i say one state passes a law that mandates requirements to be followed in another state.
> 
> 
> I said, as  you correctly quoted, "i support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states".  The means that there are 50 states and that each state should *pass it's own law* that requires (and here is the rest of the idea you clipped out)  candidates for any elected office from president to dog catcher submit documented evidence that meet the qualification criteria for that state.
> 
> The requirements for federal office are spelled out in the constitution, the requirements for state or local positions are laid out either in the state constitution or in statutory law.  Since each state may have different criteria such as filing deadlines and other factors for state/local office - it would be up to each state to write their own law.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> humm......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I've helped you with correcting your misunderstanding regarding the simple statement.
> 
> 
> Is there anything else I can do for you this morning?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Oh confused one noticed I under lined your confused statement. I hope I helped you out of your state of confusion

and think they should be enacted by all 50 states


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> GStarz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't complicated. I call it like i see it. When a propaganda thread of the most intellectually dishonest sort is made into a sticky, that's all I need to know about the board itself.
> 
> I never said I was finished here. I said I was _essentially_ finished.  It's interesting to see - and entirely telling -  that while liberals are mocking my view on this - which is what liberals do since if they had their shit together they would be conservatives - _the true, manifest conservatives are not. _That's all the confirmation I need as to the extreme slant of the board itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a propaganda thread.  It is a thread tracking the progress of birther laws in the various states.  You are free to add any information you see fit, including anything that contradicts information that has been posted.  But instead, all you do is rant and rave, go off half-cocked, make unsubstantiated statements, and say everyone should read WorldNetDaily.
Click to expand...


You're asking the impossible of a wild-eyed reactionary who is not interested in factual information that just gets in his way, and asking him to seek out anything other than rants and raves already written and/or said by others of his ilk ain't gonna happen.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to someone who gives a shit about who it's targeting, I don't care if obama has the necessary documents then there nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.  Each state would have it's own law based on criteria determined by that states legislature.  The point being that no one who is not qualified should be elected for ANY elected position and not just the President.
> 
> The sad part is that we Republicans have already elected to persons who did/could have held the Office of the President who some claim might not be Natural Born Citizens.  (Chester Arthuer and Charles Curtis).
> 
> Sorry you didn't get that.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion but a fact. I don't care who is being targeted, if obama has the required documents then he has nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say that a law from one state would apply in your state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is exactly what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support laws, and think they should be enacted by all 50 states
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If any residency law is to be enacted for the President of the United States, all states would have to be on board. He is what he is: President of the *United States* (plural). 

If some states want to try to push through some state regulation which would bar a presidential candidate from being on their ballot, depending on the wording, it very well could be a clear violation of existing Constitutional law for qualifications, and yes, if one of those states is successful in making it a state law, it *will* be facing a law suit brought before the USSC.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion but a fact. I don't care who is being targeted, if obama has the required documents then he has nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the issue.  He has the documents.  Obama has already presented his birth certificates in Hawaii.  The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.
> 
> For most of these birther bills, they are politically motivated and directed specifically towards President Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great he will be able to produce the long form when the time comes and his shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government of Hawaii said they were okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government said they did not have it, then they said they had it, now they say they can't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit the long form if there is one exist in every state, if not in paper form it will be on micofilm or filed in a computer. Wich can be repoduced to paper form.,
Click to expand...


Obama is *NOT* going to produce his long-form (MEDICAL) birth certificate. You people need to just accept that, take your marbles and move on. It isn't going to happen. Your only option is to not vote for him when he runs for reelection.


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state as I said has a long form birth document, they are not going to discrad that information they keep it for historical purposes.  When you live in a regional that has had a few court houses burned down you will know what I mean. And the south has had a number of them burned to the ground and some records were saved some weren't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records. Certified copies are issued by the state as an official, legal testament to the person being born there. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, states must accept as valid the records of other states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will not be the state of Hawaii releasing the long, it will be obama.
Click to expand...



You should think before you type.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> humm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I've helped you with correcting your misunderstanding regarding the simple statement.
> 
> 
> Is there anything else I can do for you this morning?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh confused one noticed I under lined your confused statement. I hope I helped you out of your state of confusion
> 
> and think they should be enacted by all 50 states
Click to expand...



Since when does "be enacted by all 50 states" mean "be enacted by one state and applicable in the rest"?

One of two people is having problems understanding the English language as written and it's not I.

However I did politely clarify the meaning for you.  Do you have such a difficult time either letting it die or simply stating that you didn't understand to begin with?


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I've helped you with correcting your misunderstanding regarding the simple statement.
> 
> 
> Is there anything else I can do for you this morning?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh confused one noticed I under lined your confused statement. I hope I helped you out of your state of confusion
> 
> and think they should be enacted by all 50 states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since when does "be enacted by all 50 states" mean "be enacted by one state and applicable in the rest"?
> 
> One of two people is having problems understanding the English language as written and it's not I.
> 
> However I did politely clarify the meaning for you.  Do you have such a difficult time either letting it die or simply stating that you didn't understand to begin with?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




> Since when does "be enacted by all 50 states" mean "be enacted by one state and applicable in the rest"?



OH let me help you in your confused state of mind.
One state creates a law and becomes the testing ground in the courts to see if it's constitutional or not. Roe vs. Wade being one of them. The NFA being another.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records. Certified copies are issued by the state as an official, legal testament to the person being born there. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, states must accept as valid the records of other states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai'i is one of many states that does not *release* long-form birth certificates from their records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will not be the state of Hawaii releasing the long, it will be obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should think before you type.
Click to expand...


The suggest would work if you followed your own suggestion.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh confused one noticed I under lined your confused statement. I hope I helped you out of your state of confusion
> 
> and think they should be enacted by all 50 states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when does "be enacted by all 50 states" mean "be enacted by one state and applicable in the rest"?
> 
> One of two people is having problems understanding the English language as written and it's not I.
> 
> However I did politely clarify the meaning for you.  Do you have such a difficult time either letting it die or simply stating that you didn't understand to begin with?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when does "be enacted by all 50 states" mean "be enacted by one state and applicable in the rest"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH let me help you in your confused state of mind.
> One state creates a law and becomes the testing ground in the courts to see if it's constitutional or not. Roe vs. Wade being one of them. The NFA being another.
Click to expand...


Roe v. Wage was a case based on denial of rights (i.e. privacy) not an election criteria case, I have no idea what NFA is.

So back to elections.  Each state has it's own laws regarding elections filing deadlines, criteria, processes, etc...  So what your saying is that if Arizona requires it's candidates to provide documentary proof that they meet qualifications under Arizona law, that Virginia will be required to have the same qualifications to hold a similar office in Virginia based on Arizona law?  I would say you are incorrect.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the issue.  He has the documents.  Obama has already presented his birth certificates in Hawaii.  The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.
> 
> For most of these birther bills, they are politically motivated and directed specifically towards President Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great he will be able to produce the long form when the time comes and his shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawaiian government said they did not have it, then they said they had it, now they say they can't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government of Hawaii said they were okay.  But a bunch of people who are ideologically and politically opposed to him are trying to discredit his Presidency by demanding to see not just the birth certificate that was accepted by the state of Hawaii, but a long form birth certificate, which BTW does not exist in many states, including states where bills are being presented requiring a long-form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit the long form if there is one exist in every state, if not in paper form it will be on micofilm or filed in a computer. Wich can be repoduced to paper form.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is *NOT* going to produce his long-form (MEDICAL) birth certificate. You people need to just accept that, take your marbles and move on. It isn't going to happen. Your only option is to not vote for him when he runs for reelection.
Click to expand...


Fine he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. But he will not be allowed on the ballot for 2012. And it has happened before.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Election and Political Law

Top Five Vetting Priorities
Individuals who are interested in a presidential appointment are well-advised to focus attention on the following top five major vetting issues during the early stages of their candidacy.

5. Medical, Family, and Personal Issues
All candidates for public office are required to undergo a physical examination in order to ensure that they will be able to withstand the physical rigors of service. Specialized follow-up may be necessary where a candidate&#8217;s medical history includes serious or chronic health conditions. Investigators who conduct personal background checks routinely seek information from neighbors, family members, and professional contacts regarding any evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, or other medical conditions that might impede a candidate&#8217;s ability to serve or compromise the interests of the United States. 
Mental health counseling for bereavement, marital issues, or other life circumstances is no longer subjected to extensive scrutiny. A spouse or partner&#8217;s medical history may be relevant to certain positions, such as ambassadorial posts. Absent a special circumstance, however, the mental and physical health of a candidate&#8217;s children or other family members is generally outside the scope of the vetting inquiry.

http://www.cov.com/files/Publicatio... Presidential Appointment Vetting Process.pdf


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Election and Political Law
> 
> Top Five Vetting Priorities
> Individuals who are interested in a presidential appointment are well-advised to focus attention on the following top five major vetting issues during the early stages of their candidacy.
> 
> 5. Medical, Family, and Personal Issues
> All candidates for public office are required to undergo a physical examination in order to ensure that they will be able to withstand the physical rigors of service. Specialized follow-up may be necessary where a candidates medical history includes serious or chronic health conditions. Investigators who conduct personal background checks routinely seek information from neighbors, family members, and professional contacts regarding any evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, or other medical conditions that might impede a candidates ability to serve or compromise the interests of the United States.
> Mental health counseling for bereavement, marital issues, or other life circumstances is no longer subjected to extensive scrutiny. A spouse or partners medical history may be relevant to certain positions, such as ambassadorial posts. Absent a special circumstance, however, the mental and physical health of a candidates children or other family members is generally outside the scope of the vetting inquiry.
> 
> http://www.cov.com/files/Publicatio... Presidential Appointment Vetting Process.pdf



The candidates who won the presidential primaries prior to the election of 2008, were fully vetted by the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA. So were the Vice Presidential nominees. I guess you're saying you have no faith in those entities to do their jobs.


----------



## Toro

In Arizona, two birther bills died in committee, but that hasn't stopped the birthers from trying yet again.  



> PHOENIX (AP) -- Arizona lawmakers want to revive legislation to make President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates show their birth certificates to prove their eligibility to run as natural-born citizens.
> 
> ... The action by Arizona lawmakers comes after versions of the legislation died earlier in the 2-month-old regular session.
> 
> Now, as House and Senate committees near a deadline to consider legislation originated by the other chamber, proponents want to attach proposals onto unrelated bills Tuesday in the House and Wednesday in the Senate.



News from The Associated Press

USArmyRetired has more here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ma-moves-to-revive-dead-eligibility-bill.html

In Arizona, there is a "strike-everything" amendment 



> A &#8220;strike everything after the enacting clause&#8221; amendment (also referred to as a &#8220;strike everything&#8221; amendment or simply a &#8220;striker&#8221 proposes to delete the entire text of the existing bill and substitute new language, essentially making it a completely different bill, possibly on an entirely different subject. These amendments are sometimes used to allow legislators to circumvent the deadlines on introduction of new legislation, deal with an issue that arises after the deadline or revive a bill that has previously been defeated.



FAQs

Last year, the birthers tried to pass their laws after they died in committee using strike-everything amendments but failed.

EDIT - Here is the striker.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/proposed/h.1157-se-burges.pdf


----------



## Toro

The two bills in Arizona are HB 2177 and SB 1577.  HB 2177 has been amended.  This is the amended bill.

Format Document

The Senate Government Committee met today at 2pm and were to discuss SB 1577.  However, as of 8pm, the Senate's web site does not show an amended bill, unlike HB 2177.  But there may be a delay in posting the amendments.

Format Document

All the amendments.

http://www.azleg.gov/StrikeEverything.asp


----------



## Toro

The Arizona birfer bill passed in the Senate committee today!  It will now go to a vote.  It was voted upon and approved in the Arizona House last year but died in the Senate committee.  Now it has passed in the Senate committee.

The House version requires a long-form birth certificate.  I don't know if the Senate version does.



> Legislation that would require proof of U.S. birth from presidential candidates is intersecting in Arizona with the question of whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship.
> 
> The proposed legislation on documentation requirements for candidates asks for information on the citizenship of a candidate's parents. Tea party backers said Wednesday they believe people are only natural-born citizens if their parents are citizens.
> 
> "The term 'natural-born' has nothing to do" with location of birth, said Jeff Lichter of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party.
> 
> A Senate committee on Wednesday endorsed the bill after deleting the provision on citizenship of a candidate's parents, but it remains in a version approved Tuesday by a House panel. ...
> 
> They've added a provision to require that all candidates for public offices in Arizona provide an affidavit and "necessary documents to show" that they meet the qualifications.



Ariz. 'birthers' see tie to birthright citizenship


----------



## Toro

Time to update.  

Arizona's SB 1577 is similar to HB 2177 and does require a Presidential candidate to submit a long-form birth certificate, which is a necessity for a bill to be considered a birfer bill.  The original Senate birfer bill died in committee, but in Arizona, a bill can be reintroduced as a "strike-everything bill" whereby a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill is gutted and "filled" with the new bill.  SB 1577 originally dealt with schools but was struck and re-introduced as a birfer bill.

The Tennessee birfer bill is HB 2065 in the House and SB 1043 in the Senate.  The House State and Local Government Subcommittee will discuss the bill on Wednesday, March 30.  

So here is the tracker

* *Arizona - Still alive.  Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.*
* Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee.
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
* Oklahoma - Passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
** Tennessee - Still alive.  Subcommittee to hear the bill on March 30.
* Texas - Still alive.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Donald on the view, and woopie blows a gasket.


----------



## Sheldon

Toro said:


> Time to update.
> 
> Arizona's SB 1577 is similar to HB 2177 and does require a Presidential candidate to submit a long-form birth certificate, which is a necessity for a bill to be considered a birfer bill.  The original Senate birfer bill died in committee, but in Arizona, a bill can be reintroduced as a "strike-everything bill" whereby a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill is gutted and "filled" with the new bill.  SB 1577 originally dealt with schools but was struck and re-introduced as a birfer bill.
> 
> The Tennessee birfer bill is HB 2065 in the House and SB 1043 in the Senate.  The House State and Local Government Subcommittee will discuss the bill on Wednesday, March 30.
> 
> So here is the tracker
> 
> * *Arizona - Still alive.  Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.*
> * Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
> * Connecticut - Died in committee
> * Georgia - Died in committee.
> * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
> * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
> * Indiana - Died in committee.
> * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
> * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
> * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
> * Montana - Died in committee.
> * Nebraska - Died in committee.
> * Oklahoma - Passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
> ** Tennessee - Still alive.  Subcommittee to hear the bill on March 30.
> * Texas - Still alive.*



I thought TX was off the list because the two-thirds to pass would need to include Senate democrats?


----------



## Toro

I haven't put TX as officially dead, but I'll check.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Donald on the view, and woopie blows a gasket.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m4LCc7Mim4&feature=related




Well that shoots one Presidential campaign in the foot.  I hearby officially predict that...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Woopi will never get elected President of the United States.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald on the view, and woopie blows a gasket.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m4LCc7Mim4&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that shoots once Presidential campaign in the foot.  I hearby officially predict that...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Woopi will never get elected President of the United States.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Woopie for president and rosie as her running mate.
OMG we will be missing the days of obama.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Woopie for president and rosie as her running mate.
> OMG we will be missing the days of obama.




The question is how would we know the difference?






>>>>


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> Time to update.
> 
> Arizona's SB 1577 is similar to HB 2177 and does require a Presidential candidate to submit a long-form birth certificate, which is a necessity for a bill to be considered a birfer bill.  The original Senate birfer bill died in committee, but in Arizona, a bill can be reintroduced as a "strike-everything bill" whereby a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill is gutted and "filled" with the new bill.  SB 1577 originally dealt with schools but was struck and re-introduced as a birfer bill.
> 
> The Tennessee birfer bill is HB 2065 in the House and SB 1043 in the Senate.  The House State and Local Government Subcommittee will discuss the bill on Wednesday, March 30.
> 
> So here is the tracker
> 
> * *Arizona - Still alive.  Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.*
> * Arkansas - Bill introduced into the House but is unlikely to pass given that Democrats control both chambers
> * Connecticut - Died in committee
> * Georgia - Died in committee.
> * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
> * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
> * Indiana - Died in committee.
> * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
> * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
> * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
> * Montana - Died in committee.
> * Nebraska - Died in committee.
> * Oklahoma - Passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
> ** Tennessee - Still alive.  Subcommittee to hear the bill on March 30.
> * Texas - Still alive.*



Texas and Arizona still alive. No surprises there. And Obama wouldn't win those states anyway, if you can still even call them "States" at least as far as the "United" part goes.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Donald on the view, and woopie blows a gasket.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m4LCc7Mim4&feature=related



Because The Donald keeps trying to convince us he's the "smartest guy in the room."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald on the view, and woopie blows a gasket.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m4LCc7Mim4&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because The Donald keeps trying to convince us he's the "smartest guy in the room."
Click to expand...


The little snarky comment, because Donald asked openly for obama to produce his brith certificate. He never said obama didn't have one, he said he thinks obama is hiding something.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald on the view, and woopie blows a gasket.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m4LCc7Mim4&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because The Donald keeps trying to convince us he's the "smartest guy in the room."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The little snarky comment, because Donald asked openly for obama to produce his brith certificate. He never said obama didn't have one, he said he thinks obama is hiding something.
Click to expand...


Trump says that about himself all the time. Anyone who has to SAY he's great usually isn't. With greatness also comes class. He's also making a fool of himself by intimating that he'll run for president. What's he going to do when he has to do a financial disclosure? The "smartest guy in the room" would avoid doing that, especially if he was one of the richest people in America, and especially Trump who has had more than a few questionable and failed ventures from which he profited anyway.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because The Donald keeps trying to convince us he's the "smartest guy in the room."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The little snarky comment, because Donald asked openly for obama to produce his brith certificate. He never said obama didn't have one, he said he thinks obama is hiding something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump says that about himself all the time. Anyone who has to SAY he's great usually isn't. With greatness also comes class. He's also making a fool of himself by intimating that he'll run for president. What's he going to do when he has to do a financial disclosure? The "smartest guy in the room" would avoid doing that, especially if he was one of the richest people in America, and especially Trump who has had more than a few questionable and failed ventures from which he profited anyway.
Click to expand...


Yet still it doesn't make his question any less valid.


----------



## Toro

More updates, thanks to Welsh Dragon at Foxbow.

Tennessee bill HB2065 died in committee today.  There is still a Senate version that can go over to the House but this bill was defeated.

The Arkansas bill officially died in committee.
*
* Arizona - Still alive. Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.*
* Arkansas - Died in committee
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee.
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
* Oklahoma - A bill passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
* Tennessee - House bill died in committee.
** Texas - Still alive.*


----------



## Toro

The Tennessee bill is officially dead.



> The bills that came crashing down Wednesday were the requirement for all presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates as a condition to having their names on the Tennessee ballot, and the proposal to create a legislative committee to review federal laws and regulations, and recommend which ones should be nullified.
> 
> The birth certificate bill failed on a voice vote in the House State and Local Government Subcommittee. Rep. Rick Womick, R-Rockvale, sponsored the legislation, saying it was inspired by constituents who doubt that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.
> 
> Womick said he believes the president is a U.S. citizen but wanted to put the matter to rest - apparently by having the president of the United States prove to Tennessee lawmakers what the U.S. Supreme Court already has decided in rejecting several lawsuits challenging Obama's birth record.
> 
> House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner questioned whether the bill is constitutional since the federal government is in charge of federal elections. Womick said the measure was constitutional. The constitutional issue might be a moot point since the bill was scuttled, but that issue alone could have kept the state tied up in court at considerable expense for some time.



Editorial: Two misguided bills crash in Nashville » Knoxville News Sentinel

The Oklahoma House has passed a birther bill but it does not ask for a long-form birth certificate specifically.  It asks for an original birth certificate.

Bill Information

On a more amusing note, even though the Arizona bill - which passed the House Rules Committee yesterday - would not allow a short-form birth certificate, it would allow a certificate of circumcision!



> The Antenori floor amendment to the Government Reform Committee amendment
> inserts language regarding a presidential candidate who does not possess a long form
> birth certificate. A candidate would be able to include two or more of the following:
> 
> *a) baptismal or circumcision certificate*
> b) hospital birth record
> c) postpartum medical record
> d) early census record.
> 
> Additionally, a candidate would also be able to submit a notarized affidavit from two or
> more persons who witnessed the candidates birth.



http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/adopted/2177antenori1028.pdf



Well done, nutters!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> More updates, thanks to Welsh Dragon at Foxbow.
> 
> Tennessee bill HB2065 died in committee today.  There is still a Senate version that can go over to the House but this bill was defeated.
> 
> The Arkansas bill officially died in committee.
> *
> * Arizona - Still alive. Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.*
> * Arkansas - Died in committee
> * Connecticut - Died in committee
> * Georgia - Died in committee.
> * Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
> * New Hampshire - Died in committee.
> * Indiana - Died in committee.
> * Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
> * Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
> * Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.
> * Montana - Died in committee.
> * Nebraska - Died in committee.
> * Oklahoma - A bill passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
> * Tennessee - House bill died in committee.
> ** Texas - Still alive.*



When you say no longer a birfer bill does it still deal with proof of citizenship?


----------



## Toro

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When you say no longer a birfer bill does it still deal with proof of citizenship?



It is no longer a birfer bill IMO if a short-form birth certificate will do.


----------



## Zona

So Obama wont win in a landslide in 2012?  Uh oh.  Now we are seriously in trouble.  lol

Dram on haters.  Here is how this is going to go down.  This burfer crap will die out and of course Obama will win in 2012. OF COUSE HE WILL WIN IN 2012...in case you missed it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say no longer a birfer bill does it still deal with proof of citizenship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no longer a birfer bill IMO if a short-form birth certificate will do.
Click to expand...


All fluff and no substance. What is the need of doing this if they are not going to require the long form? This is starting to make the Kennedy killing look like a weekend picnic. It smell like shit all the way to the top and the states are supporting it.


----------



## Toro

Zona said:


> So Obama wont win in a landslide in 2012?  Uh oh.  Now we are seriously in trouble.  lol
> 
> Dram on haters.  Here is how this is going to go down.  This burfer crap will die out and of course Obama will win in 2012. OF COUSE HE WILL WIN IN 2012...in case you missed it.



It's way too early to say who will win in 2012.  However, Intrade have the odds of Obama being re-elected at 60%.


----------



## Toro

The Arizona Senate has passed a birfer bill!  It now must pass the House and be signed by the governor.

Arizona Senate approves 'birther' bill

So let's review.

* *Arizona - Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.  Bill has passed the Arizona Senate and will be voted on in the House.*
* Arkansas - Died in committee
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee.
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.  The governor is a Democrat.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
* Oklahoma - A bill passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
* Tennessee - House bill died in committee.
** Texas - Still alive.*


----------



## Ravi

Is it even constitutional for a state to decide if their citizens can vote in a national election?


----------



## Toro

The Arizona birfer bill states that if you don't have a long-form birth certificate, a short-form birth certificate won't do but a certificate of circumcision will.

*EDITED - I had posted the wrong link.  Here is the bill.*



> 1.  A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.  If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:
> 
> (a)  Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.
> 
> (b)  Hospital birth record.
> 
> (c)  Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.
> 
> (d)  Early census record.



http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.htm&Session_ID=102

Note it doesn't say "other documentary evidence created shortly after birth," as I had put originally.  My mistake.  Sorry.

Thanks to World Watcher.


More here.

Arizona's Senate-Approved Birther Bill Could Force Presidential Candidates to Provide Documentation Describing What Their Penis Looks Like to Get on Ballot - Phoenix News - Valley Fever


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> The Arizona birfer bill states that if you don't have a long-form birth certificate, a short-form birth certificate won't do but a certificate of circumcision will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subpart CEvidence of U.S. Citizenship or Nationality
> 
> ...
> 
> (a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant's place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.
> 
> (b) *Secondary evidence of birth in the United States. If the applicant cannot submit a birth certificate* that meets the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, *he or she must submit secondary evidence* sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Department that he or she was born in the United States. *Secondary evidence includes* but is not limited to hospital birth certificates, baptismal certificates, medical and school records, *certificates of circumcision*, other documentary evidence created shortly after birth but generally not more than 5 years after birth, and/or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts of the birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
> 
> More here.
> 
> Arizona's Senate-Approved Birther Bill Could Force Presidential Candidates to Provide Documentation Describing What Their Penis Looks Like to Get on Ballot - Phoenix News - Valley Fever
Click to expand...


What the hell is in the water in Arizona? They recently passed a law that allows students to carry guns on campus. Oh goodie. Now they want to do gender testing as evidence of citizenship? I guess Jews never relocate to Arizona anymore, or so they think. My brother wasn't circumcized until he was 13. What if he was born in Kenya? Would his circumcision record override any evidence of that? 

Thomas Frank, who wrote the book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" needs to write another one: "What's the Matter With Arizona?"


----------



## Toro

The Arizona House has passed the birfer bill!



> The Arizona Legislature has become the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.
> 
> House Bill 2177 got final approval Thursday night from the House. It will be transmitted to Gov. Jan Brewer, who will then have five days to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law.
> 
> If Brewer chooses to veto the bill, Republican lawmakers could attempt an override vote. The bill would become law if two-thirds of legislators supported the override.
> 
> "It's essential that we bring back the integrity to the office," Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said during a recent debate on one of the so-called "birther" measures.
> 
> HB 2177, sponsored by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona secretary of state with documents proving they are natural-born citizens.
> 
> Those documents can be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.



Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.



> Gov. Jan Brewer hinted Friday she might veto legislation designed to give the Arizona secretary of state the final say of who gets to run for president here.
> 
> Brewer told Capitol Media Services she is still reviewing the measure given final approval late Thursday, which spells out what documents have to be presented by political parties to get their candidate on the ballot. The legislation requires the secretary of state, as chief elections officer, to deny ballot status to those who do not submit the required paperwork.
> 
> Backers, led by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, say they are just trying to protect the integrity of the electoral process. But Brewer, who was secretary of state for six years before becoming governor, said the wishes of the state legislators who support the measure may be irrelevant.
> 
> I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I dont know if we regulate federal elections, she said.
> 
> Seel conceded he is doing something no other state has tried. And he said there are court rulings that could be interpreted to conclude that his measure gives too much authority to the secretary of state.
> 
> But well let the courts decide that, he said, anticipating the likely legal challenge. ...
> 
> Brewer would not directly answer the question of whether she believes Obama was born in the United States. But she said there is evidence to believe he is.
> 
> Its been stated by the governor (of Hawaii), Linda Lingle, who I spoke with directly, that he was born in Hawaii, she said.



Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

If she vetoes it, she will likely do so believing that the bill is unconstitutional.  She wouldn't be the only one.  Her Secretary of State thinks it may be.



> what worries Ken Bennett, the current secretary of state, is that he also would have to be furnished "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.'' Without that, he said, the measure would bar him from including the candidate's name on the ballot.
> 
> "I don't know that's on MY birth certificate, for goodness sakes'' said Bennett, who was born in Tucson.
> 
> Potentially more problematic, he said, is that each state has its own system of recording births. And Bennett, who is a Republican like all of the measure's 41 sponsors, is not sure that its even possible to get an "original'' birth certificate.
> 
> For example, he said, people seeking birth certificates from many states, often for passports or other documentation, are instead furnished with a "certificate of live birth.'' That usually takes the form of a state official certifying, under oath, that there are documents on file proving a specific person was born on a specified date.
> 
> That's not all, Bennett said, pointing to the requirement for the birth certificate to have the names of the attending physician and the signatures of witnesses.
> 
> "If you were delivered at home with a midwife, does that mean you are no longer qualified to be the president of the United States?'' he asked. "If there aren't any signatures of witnesses in attendance, you're no longer qualified?''
> 
> And what, exactly, is a "long form birth certificate,'' he asked.
> 
> "Is that a standard term of art that means the same thing in all 50 states?'' Bennett continued. "And is it even available in all 50 states?'' ...
> 
> Officials in Hawaii released a short-form version of the birth certificate when the issue first arose before the 2008 election.
> 
> When that failed to satisfy critics, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the state's health director, issued a statement saying he has "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.''
> 
> Bennett seems satisfied.
> 
> "I think he was born in Hawaii,'' he said. "I personally believe he is a U.S. citizen.''



Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As does at least one constitutional scholar.



> It wouldnt hold up for a nanosecond, said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nations leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. Im not even sure if its intended seriously. ...
> 
> Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.
> 
> Its an interference with federal supremacy. Its not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president, said Tribe. ...
> 
> Political commentators expect that if Gov. Jan Brewer allows the law to take effect, the courts will immediately challenge it.
> 
> I think this is going to go on a rapid trip up the Appeals ladder, said Richard Parker, a public policy lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I dont think the Justice Department is going to let this sit idly by. Its way too off-the-rails.
> 
> Which raises the question: Why bother with legislation that is practically begging for a costly lawsuit -- especially in a state like Arizona, where lawmakers have been grappling with a budget deficit so extreme that Gov. Jan Brewer proposed to eliminate health insurance for more than 160,000 of the poorest and sickest Arizonans just two weeks ago.
> 
> Frustrated Arizona Democrats say the bill is just one more attempt to placate the states radical right-wing conservatives at the expense of serious legislative action.
> 
> Its particularly targeted to appease conspiracy theorists and to target one president, said state Rep. Ruben Gallego (D), who did not support the bill. This is absolutely not a good allocation of resources, our time and our emotions.



Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> The Arizona House has passed the birfer bill!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona Legislature has become the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.
> 
> House Bill 2177 got final approval Thursday night from the House. It will be transmitted to Gov. Jan Brewer, who will then have five days to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law.
> 
> If Brewer chooses to veto the bill, Republican lawmakers could attempt an override vote. The bill would become law if two-thirds of legislators supported the override.
> 
> "It's essential that we bring back the integrity to the office," Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said during a recent debate on one of the so-called "birther" measures.
> 
> HB 2177, sponsored by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona secretary of state with documents proving they are natural-born citizens.
> 
> Those documents can be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president
> 
> However, Governor Brewer may veto it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Jan Brewer hinted Friday she might veto legislation designed to give the Arizona secretary of state the final say of who gets to run for president here.
> 
> Brewer told Capitol Media Services she is still reviewing the measure given final approval late Thursday, which spells out what documents have to be presented by political parties to get their candidate on the ballot. The legislation requires the secretary of state, as chief elections officer, to deny ballot status to those who do not submit the required paperwork.
> 
> Backers, led by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, say they are just trying to protect the integrity of the electoral process. But Brewer, who was secretary of state for six years before becoming governor, said the wishes of the state legislators who support the measure may be irrelevant.
> 
> I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I dont know if we regulate federal elections, she said.
> 
> Seel conceded he is doing something no other state has tried. And he said there are court rulings that could be interpreted to conclude that his measure gives too much authority to the secretary of state.
> 
> But well let the courts decide that, he said, anticipating the likely legal challenge. ...
> 
> Brewer would not directly answer the question of whether she believes Obama was born in the United States. But she said there is evidence to believe he is.
> 
> Its been stated by the governor (of Hawaii), Linda Lingle, who I spoke with directly, that he was born in Hawaii, she said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> If she vetoes it, she will likely do so believing that the bill is unconstitutional.  She wouldn't be the only one.  Her Secretary of State thinks it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what worries Ken Bennett, the current secretary of state, is that he also would have to be furnished "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.'' Without that, he said, the measure would bar him from including the candidate's name on the ballot.
> 
> "I don't know that's on MY birth certificate, for goodness sakes'' said Bennett, who was born in Tucson.
> 
> Potentially more problematic, he said, is that each state has its own system of recording births. And Bennett, who is a Republican like all of the measure's 41 sponsors, is not sure that its even possible to get an "original'' birth certificate.
> 
> For example, he said, people seeking birth certificates from many states, often for passports or other documentation, are instead furnished with a "certificate of live birth.'' That usually takes the form of a state official certifying, under oath, that there are documents on file proving a specific person was born on a specified date.
> 
> That's not all, Bennett said, pointing to the requirement for the birth certificate to have the names of the attending physician and the signatures of witnesses.
> 
> "If you were delivered at home with a midwife, does that mean you are no longer qualified to be the president of the United States?'' he asked. "If there aren't any signatures of witnesses in attendance, you're no longer qualified?''
> 
> And what, exactly, is a "long form birth certificate,'' he asked.
> 
> "Is that a standard term of art that means the same thing in all 50 states?'' Bennett continued. "And is it even available in all 50 states?'' ...
> 
> Officials in Hawaii released a short-form version of the birth certificate when the issue first arose before the 2008 election.
> 
> When that failed to satisfy critics, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the state's health director, issued a statement saying he has "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.''
> 
> Bennett seems satisfied.
> 
> "I think he was born in Hawaii,'' he said. "I personally believe he is a U.S. citizen.''
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> As does at least one constitutional scholar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldnt hold up for a nanosecond, said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nations leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. Im not even sure if its intended seriously. ...
> 
> Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.
> 
> Its an interference with federal supremacy. Its not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president, said Tribe. ...
> 
> Political commentators expect that if Gov. Jan Brewer allows the law to take effect, the courts will immediately challenge it.
> 
> I think this is going to go on a rapid trip up the Appeals ladder, said Richard Parker, a public policy lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I dont think the Justice Department is going to let this sit idly by. Its way too off-the-rails.
> 
> Which raises the question: Why bother with legislation that is practically begging for a costly lawsuit -- especially in a state like Arizona, where lawmakers have been grappling with a budget deficit so extreme that Gov. Jan Brewer proposed to eliminate health insurance for more than 160,000 of the poorest and sickest Arizonans just two weeks ago.
> 
> Frustrated Arizona Democrats say the bill is just one more attempt to placate the states radical right-wing conservatives at the expense of serious legislative action.
> 
> Its particularly targeted to appease conspiracy theorists and to target one president, said state Rep. Ruben Gallego (D), who did not support the bill. This is absolutely not a good allocation of resources, our time and our emotions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
Click to expand...


Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?


----------



## Toro

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona House has passed the birfer bill!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona Legislature has become the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.
> 
> House Bill 2177 got final approval Thursday night from the House. It will be transmitted to Gov. Jan Brewer, who will then have five days to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law.
> 
> If Brewer chooses to veto the bill, Republican lawmakers could attempt an override vote. The bill would become law if two-thirds of legislators supported the override.
> 
> "It's essential that we bring back the integrity to the office," Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said during a recent debate on one of the so-called "birther" measures.
> 
> HB 2177, sponsored by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona secretary of state with documents proving they are natural-born citizens.
> 
> Those documents can be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president
> 
> However, Governor Brewer may veto it.
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> If she vetoes it, she will likely do so believing that the bill is unconstitutional.  She wouldn't be the only one.  Her Secretary of State thinks it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> As does at least one constitutional scholar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldnt hold up for a nanosecond, said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nations leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. Im not even sure if its intended seriously. ...
> 
> Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.
> 
> Its an interference with federal supremacy. Its not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president, said Tribe. ...
> 
> Political commentators expect that if Gov. Jan Brewer allows the law to take effect, the courts will immediately challenge it.
> 
> I think this is going to go on a rapid trip up the Appeals ladder, said Richard Parker, a public policy lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I dont think the Justice Department is going to let this sit idly by. Its way too off-the-rails.
> 
> Which raises the question: Why bother with legislation that is practically begging for a costly lawsuit -- especially in a state like Arizona, where lawmakers have been grappling with a budget deficit so extreme that Gov. Jan Brewer proposed to eliminate health insurance for more than 160,000 of the poorest and sickest Arizonans just two weeks ago.
> 
> Frustrated Arizona Democrats say the bill is just one more attempt to placate the states radical right-wing conservatives at the expense of serious legislative action.
> 
> Its particularly targeted to appease conspiracy theorists and to target one president, said state Rep. Ruben Gallego (D), who did not support the bill. This is absolutely not a good allocation of resources, our time and our emotions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?
Click to expand...


I did.  What's the matter with you?


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona House has passed the birfer bill!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona Legislature has become the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.
> 
> House Bill 2177 got final approval Thursday night from the House. It will be transmitted to Gov. Jan Brewer, who will then have five days to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law.
> 
> If Brewer chooses to veto the bill, Republican lawmakers could attempt an override vote. The bill would become law if two-thirds of legislators supported the override.
> 
> "It's essential that we bring back the integrity to the office," Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said during a recent debate on one of the so-called "birther" measures.
> 
> HB 2177, sponsored by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona secretary of state with documents proving they are natural-born citizens.
> 
> Those documents can be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president
> 
> However, Governor Brewer may veto it.
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> If she vetoes it, she will likely do so believing that the bill is unconstitutional.  She wouldn't be the only one.  Her Secretary of State thinks it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> As does at least one constitutional scholar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldnt hold up for a nanosecond, said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nations leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. Im not even sure if its intended seriously. ...
> 
> Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.
> 
> Its an interference with federal supremacy. Its not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president, said Tribe. ...
> 
> Political commentators expect that if Gov. Jan Brewer allows the law to take effect, the courts will immediately challenge it.
> 
> I think this is going to go on a rapid trip up the Appeals ladder, said Richard Parker, a public policy lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I dont think the Justice Department is going to let this sit idly by. Its way too off-the-rails.
> 
> Which raises the question: Why bother with legislation that is practically begging for a costly lawsuit -- especially in a state like Arizona, where lawmakers have been grappling with a budget deficit so extreme that Gov. Jan Brewer proposed to eliminate health insurance for more than 160,000 of the poorest and sickest Arizonans just two weeks ago.
> 
> Frustrated Arizona Democrats say the bill is just one more attempt to placate the states radical right-wing conservatives at the expense of serious legislative action.
> 
> Its particularly targeted to appease conspiracy theorists and to target one president, said state Rep. Ruben Gallego (D), who did not support the bill. This is absolutely not a good allocation of resources, our time and our emotions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?
Click to expand...



Pssst - None of the three links for the sourced material go to the huffy puffy.



>>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona House has passed the birfer bill!
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president
> 
> However, Governor Brewer may veto it.
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> If she vetoes it, she will likely do so believing that the bill is unconstitutional.  She wouldn't be the only one.  Her Secretary of State thinks it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics
> 
> As does at least one constitutional scholar.
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst - None of the three links for the sourced material go to the huffy puffy.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>>
Click to expand...


The last link he used does
Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The last link he used does
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say



I stand corrected for that post as I missed the one at the botton and didn't see it until later.


However that does not excuse your post where you imply all were "huffy puffy" posts which would be incorrect as 3 of 4 were not.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last link he used does
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected for that post as I missed the one at the botton and didn't see it until later.
> 
> 
> However that does not excuse your post where you imply all were "huffy puffy" posts which would be incorrect as 3 of 4 were not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Did I say all the links were from huffy puffy?


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last link he used does
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected for that post as I missed the one at the botton and didn't see it until later.
> 
> 
> However that does not excuse your post where you imply all were "huffy puffy" posts which would be incorrect as 3 of 4 were not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say all the links were from huffy puffy?
Click to expand...



Did you question the information as coming from huffy puffy without acknowledging that most of the links were to other news sources?

Yes you did.


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected for that post as I missed the one at the botton and didn't see it until later.
> 
> 
> However that does not excuse your post where you imply all were "huffy puffy" posts which would be incorrect as 3 of 4 were not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say all the links were from huffy puffy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you question the information as coming from huffy puffy without acknowledging that most of the links were to other news sources?
> 
> Yes you did.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I mentioned huffy puffy because it was the first link I clicked on.


----------



## MaggieMae

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last link he used does
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected for that post as I missed the one at the botton and didn't see it until later.
> 
> 
> However that does not excuse your post where you imply all were "huffy puffy" posts which would be incorrect as 3 of 4 were not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Next time, use a link from WND or NewsMax, would ya? These guys only speak Birferese.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last link he used does
> Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected for that post as I missed the one at the botton and didn't see it until later.
> 
> 
> However that does not excuse your post where you imply all were "huffy puffy" posts which would be incorrect as 3 of 4 were not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time, use a link from WND or NewsMax, would ya? These guys only speak Birferese.
Click to expand...


Maybe before you post about a specific comment you should read a little further in the thread and see the retort from the individuals involved in the discussion. I did not identify all the links as huffy puffy, I dentified the last link which is the first link I clicked on as huffy puffy.


----------



## Dot Com

Howz Orly doin these days? LOLOL


----------



## Toro

Looks like Louisiana wants to join the party.



> A pair of Republican state lawmakers have filed legislation to require future presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship by providing "an original or certified copy" of their birth certificate in order to qualify for the Louisiana ballot.
> 
> House Bill 561 by Rep. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, appears to be the latest attempt to capitalize on the widely discredited theory, popular in some conservative circles, that President Barack Obama was not born on American soil.
> 
> The bill, co-sponsored by state Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require candidates who want to appear on presidential primary or general election ballots to include an affidavit attesting to the candidate's citizenship that would be accompanied by a birth certificate "that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
> 
> Seabaugh's bill will be debated during the two-month regular session that gets underway April 25.



Presidential candidates would have to show birth certificates under Louisiana proposal | NOLA.com


* *Arizona - Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate committee as a strike-everything bill.  Bill has passed the Arizona Senate and will be voted on in the House.*
* Arkansas - Died in committee
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee.
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* Louisiana - Bill to be introduced in the upcoming session.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill.  The governor is a Democrat.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
* Oklahoma - A bill passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
* Tennessee - House bill died in committee.
** Texas - Still alive.*


----------



## Toro

The Arizona Secretary of State says that the Hawaii COLB would meet the standards of the proposed Arizona birfer bill.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/906109624001


----------



## del

as louisiana goes, so goes arkansas


----------



## Toro

This would be good enough, according to the guy who would be responsible for enforcing the AZ birfer bill.


----------



## KissMy

Sheldon said:


> Good call on the thread.
> 
> I want to do Missouri. It's just a great example of how birfer politics operates.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, some Republicans in their legislature introduced HRJ 34, a proposed state constitutional amendment, and what they called "the voters' bill of rights". Here's the relevant part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to have only qualified candidates placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall determine that each person is qualified for the office he or she seeks, according to the law, before placing his or her name on the ballot. *For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidates birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted.* Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall verify the qualifications of any elected officeholder who was previously placed on a Missouri ballot. Should any elected officeholder fail to provide the required documentation or birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall turn the matter over to the attorney general who shall within twenty days file suit to obtain the required documentation.
> 
> *Missouri Legislature Wants To Vet Obama BC: HJR 34 | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the jump, if you click on the link to the bill's text, you see it's been withdrawn. Why? Because the authors of the bill realized that Missouri ONLY issues COLBs. That bill would have excluded any Missourian from being on their own state's  ballot for President! There's not enough bandwidth for the number of lol's I want to post because of that.
> 
> 
> So there's a new bill that's been introduced.
> *Missouri House of Representatives*
> 
> 
> HTML text:*http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.htm*
> 
> The relevant sentences are bolded. What's different? This one, which has yet to be heard, makes no distinction about an "official birth cerfiticate" and a COLB, like the debacle above. All that's listed is "proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each candidate", which means Obama's COLB and, say, driver's license would be good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Birfers, the gifts that keep on giving.
Click to expand...


Missouri used to issue a noterized negative of the birth certificate like pictured below. It looks just like mine. Now they issue COLB like other states do.


----------



## Dot Com

Toro said:


> The Arizona Secretary of State says that the Hawaii COLB would meet the standards of the proposed Arizona birfer bill.
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/video/906109624001





del said:


> as louisiana goes, so goes arkansas



You two are funny.


----------



## KissMy

Below is what Hawaii issued for a birth certificate before they switched to COLB like most other states. COLB is all you can get from most states now days.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> This would be good enough, according to the guy who would be responsible for enforcing the AZ birfer bill.



I listen to the video, and all I have to say is he misspoke and should review the new law before making anymore comments. Kind of reminds me of the sheriff in Arizona who misspoke about longhner and the cause of the shooting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> Below is what Hawaii issued for a birth certificate before they switched to COLB like most other states. COLB is all you can get from most states now days.


As of March 15, 2011 hawaii still issued the long form BC


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> The Arizona Secretary of State says that the Hawaii COLB would meet the standards of the proposed Arizona birfer bill.
> 
> azcentral.com video: Obama birth certificate faces Arizona scrutiny in 2012


This is a little confusing. Here is what I understand to be the full text of the law change. I don't see anything about penis shape or baptismal certificates in it. Unless there is something written elsewhere, the SoS is correct.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf

What a laughable waste of time. The birfers are going to be very upset.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Ravi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona Secretary of State says that the Hawaii COLB would meet the standards of the proposed Arizona birfer bill.
> 
> azcentral.com video: Obama birth certificate faces Arizona scrutiny in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little confusing. Here is what I understand to be the full text of the law change. I don't see anything about penis shape or baptismal certificates in it. Unless there is something written elsewhere, the SoS is correct.
> 
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf
> 
> What a laughable waste of time. The birfers are going to be very upset.
Click to expand...



Look at the date on the lower left side.  Its dated 4/8/10, that is not this years legislation.


>>>>


----------



## Ravi

WorldWatcher said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona Secretary of State says that the Hawaii COLB would meet the standards of the proposed Arizona birfer bill.
> 
> azcentral.com video: Obama birth certificate faces Arizona scrutiny in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little confusing. Here is what I understand to be the full text of the law change. I don't see anything about penis shape or baptismal certificates in it. Unless there is something written elsewhere, the SoS is correct.
> 
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf
> 
> What a laughable waste of time. The birfers are going to be very upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the date on the lower left side.  Its dated 4/8/10, that is not this years legislation.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

That could be it but I understood they just resubmitted the same bill again this year. Do you have a link to the law signed the other day?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Ravi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little confusing. Here is what I understand to be the full text of the law change. I don't see anything about penis shape or baptismal certificates in it. Unless there is something written elsewhere, the SoS is correct.
> 
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf
> 
> What a laughable waste of time. The birfers are going to be very upset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the date on the lower left side.  Its dated 4/8/10, that is not this years legislation.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That could be it but I understood they just resubmitted the same bill again this year. Do you have a link to the law signed the other day?
Click to expand...




Format Document


>>>>


----------



## Ravi

Ah...then perhaps the SoS is incorrect or else he knows it will never stand up in court.


----------



## Toro

Ravi said:


> Ah...then perhaps the SoS is incorrect or else he knows it will never stand up in court.



The Arizona House passed a bill last year but never got out of the Senate.

Two bills died in the Senate committee this year as well, but in AZ, you can re-introduce a bill with a "strike-everything amendment," which allows a bill to bypass the committee process.  In a strike-everything amendment, they take one bill, remove all the provisions of the bill then stick in a totally separate set of provisions.  The birfer bill that got through the House was originally, I believe, an education bill.


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Below is what Hawaii issued for a birth certificate before they switched to COLB like most other states. COLB is all you can get from most states now days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of March 15, 2011 hawaii still issued the long form BC
Click to expand...


Is that the one parents receive at birth? Or is that an official copy you can request at any time? Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?

Just wondering, because my brothers long form birth certificate burned in his house fire.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Below is what Hawaii issued for a birth certificate before they switched to COLB like most other states. COLB is all you can get from most states now days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of March 15, 2011 hawaii still issued the long form BC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the one parents receive at birth? Or is that an official copy you can request at any time? Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> Just wondering, because my brothers long form birth certificate burned in his house fire.
Click to expand...


Notice the date of birth and the date at the bottom of the document.


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of March 15, 2011 hawaii still issued the long form BC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the one parents receive at birth? Or is that an official copy you can request at any time? Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> Just wondering, because my brothers long form birth certificate burned in his house fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice the date of birth and the date at the bottom of the document.
Click to expand...


I guess state just Xeroxes a copy of the birth document onto their official bond paper & notarizes it?

If this is the case then Obama could have put this to rest already. He is having a lot of fun with this political football or has something to hide. The news paper birth announcements confirm he was born in Hawaii so I believe he was born there. There may be a problem with his fathers status at the time of his birth. It looks like the birthers & the states have hit a wall as far as making Obama prove presidential eligibility beyond the official certificate of live birth.

The fact that Obama lived in Kenya for the formative years of his life would have more sway over his loyalties than his fathers status at birth.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the one parents receive at birth? Or is that an official copy you can request at any time? Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> Just wondering, because my brothers long form birth certificate burned in his house fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the date of birth and the date at the bottom of the document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess state just Xeroxes a copy of the birth document onto their official bond paper & notarizes it?
> 
> If this is the case then Obama could have put this to rest already. He is having a lot of fun with this political football or has something to hide. The news paper birth announcements confirm he was born in Hawaii so I believe he was born there. There may be a problem with his fathers status at the time of his birth. It looks like the birthers & the states have hit a wall as far as making Obama prove presidential eligibility beyond the official certificate of live birth.
> 
> The fact that Obama lived in Kenya for the formative years of his life would have more sway over his loyalties than his fathers status at birth.
Click to expand...


obama's gran mother could have reported the birth to the newspaper, and obama still could have been born aboard. The ad just says obama was born doesn't give a specific place of birth.


----------



## Ravi

KissMy said:


> \ Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?


No.

Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
Click to expand...


They are lying






oh and notice the race of the father
at the very bottom. BLACK


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are lying
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree...WorldNutDaily is lying with that obviously faked birth certificate.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I agree...WorldNutDaily is lying with that obviously faked birth certificate.
Click to expand...


Hawaii is lying the long form is still being isued at least it was on March 15 2011, So this documen is fake and obama's is real? Actually it look just like my gran son BC who also was born in Hawaii in 2008


----------



## rdean

Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health

In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18).

What does the right care about "laws"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rdean said:


> Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health
> 
> In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18).
> 
> What does the right care about "laws"?



Law was created in 2010 when obama BC became an issue. Just because the govenror was a rino doesn't mean a thing to an idiot like you.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree...WorldNutDaily is lying with that obviously faked birth certificate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawaii is lying the long form is still being isued at least it was on March 15 2011, So this documen is fake and obama's is real? Actually it look just like my gran son BC who also was born in Hawaii in 2008
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a fake posted online by some loon who got it from a "friend". And a poor fake at that.


----------



## Toro

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh and notice the race of the father
> at the very bottom. BLACK
Click to expand...



Confirmation bias.



> Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).



Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of March 15, 2011 hawaii still issued the long form BC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the one parents receive at birth? Or is that an official copy you can request at any time? Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> Just wondering, because my brothers long form birth certificate burned in his house fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice the date of birth and the date at the bottom of the document.
Click to expand...


So? If the person him/herself wants a copy, they can get one, along with others *with a proven* need to know. 

Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health

Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They are lying*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh and notice the race of the father
> at the very bottom. BLACK
Click to expand...


You just proved my ongoing point that whatever Obama produced, you and your ilk would accuse him of lying or say that it was a forgery.


----------



## MaggieMae

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the one parents receive at birth? Or is that an official copy you can request at any time? Is it still possible for any Hawaii citizen to get an official notarized copy of their long form Birth Certificate?
> 
> Just wondering, because my brothers long form birth certificate burned in his house fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the date of birth and the date at the bottom of the document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess state just Xeroxes a copy of the birth document onto their official bond paper & notarizes it?
> 
> If this is the case then Obama could have put this to rest already. He is having a lot of fun with this political football or has something to hide. The news paper birth announcements confirm he was born in Hawaii so I believe he was born there. There may be a problem with his fathers status at the time of his birth. It looks like the birthers & the states have hit a wall as far as making Obama prove presidential eligibility beyond the official certificate of live birth.
> 
> The fact that Obama lived in Kenya for the formative years of his life would have more sway over his loyalties than his fathers status at birth.
Click to expand...


Pre-teen years are considered "formative" years? Holy crap, not in my family!  Oh but nevermind. According to you loons, he spent the majority of his adult years carousing around Muslim countries and learning how to secretly establish caliphates that he could adopt for America, and once he got here conspired with Bill Ayers and George Soros to git er done. Yup, according to Alex Jones, it's been a 40-year CIA plot.


----------



## KissMy

MaggieMae said:


> Pre-teen years are considered "formative" years? Holy crap, not in my family!  Oh but nevermind. According to you loons, he spent the majority of his adult years carousing around Muslim countries and learning how to secretly establish caliphates that he could adopt for America, and once he got here conspired with Bill Ayers and George Soros to git er done. Yup, according to Alex Jones, it's been a 40-year CIA plot.



Why do we waste time & money on Pre-K, kindergarten, or even grade school if kids don't learn until they are teens? Is this just day care? I remember lessons from my Kindergarten.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They are lying*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh and notice the race of the father
> at the very bottom. BLACK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved my ongoing point that whatever Obama produced, you and your ilk would accuse him of lying or say that it was a forgery.
Click to expand...


What it proves is hat Hawaii still isues the long form BC. OBAMA HASN'T EVEN PRODUCED THAT. But I am sure you would question the document if this was a bush issue


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Here's the request form, there is no where on it to ask for a copy of the original long form.
> 
> http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh and notice the race of the father
> at the very bottom. BLACK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmation bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The argument is hawaii doesn't issue the long form anymore it's a lie they do. and Confirmation bias from wiki is your argument? the bias shoes don't just fit your oppents feet they fit your's also.


----------



## KissMy

If Obama is not eligible, Joe Biden will just step in & rubber-stamp everything Obama did. Hilliary will run in 2012 & she has a higher approval rating than Obama. I say let it ride. Let Democrats get full credit for the disaster they created during their 6 years of power since they took over congress in 2006 until they are ran out of DC in 2012.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> If Obama is not eligible, Joe Biden will just step in & rubber-stamp everything Obama did. Hilliary will run in 2012 & she has a higher approval rating than Obama. I say let it ride. Let Democrats get full credit for the disaster they created during their 6 years of power since they took over congress in 2006 until they are ran out of DC in 2012.



True but do we want another 4 years of obama or clinton?

Side note everything obama signed into law would have to be made null invoid


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh and notice the race of the father
> at the very bottom. BLACK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmation bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument is hawaii doesn't issue the long form anymore it's a lie they
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Quite a few states don't either. And soon enough it will all be done electronically.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Side note everything obama signed into law would have to be made null invoid



Probably not true for two reasons.


One is called the "Officer Doctrine" which the Supreme Court would apply in this case.

Secondly, the President is not required to sign a bill passed by Congress for it to become law.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Side note everything obama signed into law would have to be made null invoid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not true for two reasons.
> 
> 
> One is called the "Officer Doctrine" which the Supreme Court would apply in this case.
> 
> Secondly, the President is not required to sign a bill passed by Congress for it to become law.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine? are you joking?

false if he was elected through fraud any law sgned by him would not be protected by the constaitution. His election would be unconstitutional through fraud and fraud makes any contract invalid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmation bias.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is hawaii doesn't issue the long form anymore it's a lie they
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't. Quite a few states don't either. And soon enough it will all be done electronically.
Click to expand...


Hawaii is lying to you. Do you know anyone or have a family membner who was born in Hawaii? I do


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Side note everything obama signed into law would have to be made null invoid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not true for two reasons.
> 
> 
> One is called the "Officer Doctrine" which the Supreme Court would apply in this case.
> 
> Secondly, the President is not required to sign a bill passed by Congress for it to become law.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> false if he was elected through fraud any law sgned by him would not be protected by the constaitution. His election would be unconstitutional through fraud and fraud makes any contract invalid.
Click to expand...


Research "Officer Doctrine", the SCOTUS would likely apply it.


Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not true for two reasons.
> 
> 
> One is called the "Officer Doctrine" which the Supreme Court would apply in this case.
> 
> Secondly, the President is not required to sign a bill passed by Congress for it to become law.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> false if he was elected through fraud any law sgned by him would not be protected by the constaitution. His election would be unconstitutional through fraud and fraud makes any contract invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Research "Officer Doctrine", the SCOTUS would likely apply it.
> 
> 
> Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


The  Corporate Officer Doctrine would not apply sorry.
An official must satisfy detailed statutory and constitutional requirements before he can claim lawful authority to exercise governmental functions.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=c6472f8b7cb87e820d95acfcc6d3feca




> Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?


Yes and no

The President - the bill is sent to the President for review.


1.A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session. 
2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.") 
3.If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.
http://www.votesmart.org/resource_govt101_02.php


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false if he was elected through fraud any law sgned by him would not be protected by the constaitution. His election would be unconstitutional through fraud and fraud makes any contract invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research "Officer Doctrine", the SCOTUS would likely apply it.
> 
> 
> Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The  Corporate Officer Doctrine would not apply sorry.
> An official must satisfy detailed statutory and constitutional requirements before he can claim lawful authority to exercise governmental functions.
> 
> https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=c6472f8b7cb87e820d95acfcc6d3feca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no
> 
> The President - the bill is sent to the President for review.
> 
> 
> 1.A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.
> 2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")
> 3.If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.
> Project Vote Smart - GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law
Click to expand...



It's not the "Corporate" Officer Doctrine, you should have read a little farther: "The de facto officer doctrine prevents such uncertainty by precluding challenges to official actions on the ground of defective title in the acting official."


So no, the President is not required to sign bills passed by Congress.  Thank you.

>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Research "Officer Doctrine", the SCOTUS would likely apply it.
> 
> 
> Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  Corporate Officer Doctrine would not apply sorry.
> An official must satisfy detailed statutory and constitutional requirements before he can claim lawful authority to exercise governmental functions.
> 
> https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=c6472f8b7cb87e820d95acfcc6d3feca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, a simple question, does a bill passed by Congress have to be signed by the the President to take effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no
> 
> The President - the bill is sent to the President for review.
> 
> 
> 1.A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.
> 2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")
> 3.If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.
> Project Vote Smart - GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the "Corporate" Officer Doctrine, you should have read a little farther: "The de facto officer doctrine prevents such uncertainty by precluding challenges to official actions on the ground of defective title in the acting official."
> 
> 
> So no, the President is not required to sign bills passed by Congress.  Thank you.
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




> It's not the "Corporate" Officer Doctrine, you should have read a little farther: "The de facto officer doctrine prevents such uncertainty by precluding challenges to official actions on the ground of defective title in the acting official."



You should have read the first sentence which was this

NOTE: THE DE FACTO OFFICER DOCTRINE: THE CASE FOR CONTINUED APPLICATION.




> An official must satisfy detailed statutory and constitutional requirements before he can claim lawful authority to exercise governmental functions.



https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=c6472f8b7cb87e820d95acfcc6d3feca



> So no, the President is not required to sign bills passed by Congress.  Thank you.



YES AND NO 
2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.") 
THANK YOU


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is hawaii doesn't issue the long form anymore it's a lie they
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. Quite a few states don't either. And soon enough it will all be done electronically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawaii is lying to you. Do you know anyone or have a family membner who was born in Hawaii? I do
Click to expand...

 IMO, you're either a liar or easily lied to...no real difference. If long forms were so common they'd be everywhere and not just posted as second hand evidence on sites like WorldNutDaily.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. Quite a few states don't either. And soon enough it will all be done electronically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii is lying to you. Do you know anyone or have a family membner who was born in Hawaii? I do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMO, you're either a liar or easily lied to...no real difference. If long forms were so common they'd be everywhere and not just posted as second hand evidence on sites like WorldNutDaily.
Click to expand...


I have a grand son who was born in the year 2008 at Tripler Army Medical Center the long form I showed is the long form Hawaii uses. They lied to you.


----------



## rdean

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health
> 
> In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18).
> 
> What does the right care about "laws"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law was created in 2010 when obama BC became an issue. Just because the govenror was a rino doesn't mean a thing to an idiot like you.
Click to expand...


liar


----------



## rdean

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii is lying to you. Do you know anyone or have a family membner who was born in Hawaii? I do
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, you're either a liar or easily lied to...no real difference. If long forms were so common they'd be everywhere and not just posted as second hand evidence on sites like WorldNutDaily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a grand son who was born in the year 2008 at Tripler Army Medical Center the long form I showed is the long form Hawaii uses. They lied to you.
Click to expand...


Army base.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rdean said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, you're either a liar or easily lied to...no real difference. If long forms were so common they'd be everywhere and not just posted as second hand evidence on sites like WorldNutDaily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a grand son who was born in the year 2008 at Tripler Army Medical Center the long form I showed is the long form Hawaii uses. They lied to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Army base.
Click to expand...


Hawaii Birth certificate


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rdean said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawai&lsquo;i State Department of Health
> 
> In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18).
> 
> What does the right care about "laws"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law was created in 2010 when obama BC became an issue. Just because the govenror was a rino doesn't mean a thing to an idiot like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liar
Click to expand...


I'll start with an easy one

Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records. 
Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records. | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records


----------



## rdean

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law was created in 2010 when obama BC became an issue. Just because the govenror was a rino doesn't mean a thing to an idiot like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll start with an easy one
> 
> Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records.
> Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records. | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
Click to expand...


You should read your article:

*Republican Gov.* Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.

------------

It's not a NEW law.  They are simply saying, "Ignore the dumb asses who won't stop bothering us".  Consider carefully whether you "identify".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rdean said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll start with an easy one
> 
> Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records.
> Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records. | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read your article:
> 
> *Republican Gov.* Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
> 
> ------------
> 
> It's not a NEW law.  They are simply saying, "Ignore the dumb asses who won't stop bothering us".  Consider carefully whether you "identify".
Click to expand...


When yo ignore something aren't you closing off access to it?


----------



## Montrovant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll start with an easy one
> 
> Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records.
> Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records. | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should read your article:
> 
> *Republican Gov.* Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
> 
> ------------
> 
> It's not a NEW law.  They are simply saying, "Ignore the dumb asses who won't stop bothering us".  Consider carefully whether you "identify".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When yo ignore something aren't you closing off access to it?
Click to expand...


The point is that access is already closed.  The bill simply allows officials to ignore repetitive requests for information, at least according to the article you posted.

So, no, they aren't closing off access, they are keeping the agencies from having to respond to repeated requests after they have been denied.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read your article:
> 
> *Republican Gov.* Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
> 
> ------------
> 
> It's not a NEW law.  They are simply saying, "Ignore the dumb asses who won't stop bothering us".  Consider carefully whether you "identify".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When yo ignore something aren't you closing off access to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that access is already closed.  The bill simply allows officials to ignore repetitive requests for information, at least according to the article you posted.
> 
> So, no, they aren't closing off access, they are keeping the agencies from having to respond to repeated requests after they have been denied.
Click to expand...


Do you have proof there were repeated calls from one single person or group, or was one call from millions of people enough?


----------



## Montrovant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When yo ignore something aren't you closing off access to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that access is already closed.  The bill simply allows officials to ignore repetitive requests for information, at least according to the article you posted.
> 
> So, no, they aren't closing off access, they are keeping the agencies from having to respond to repeated requests after they have been denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have proof there were repeated calls from one single person or group, or was one call from millions of people enough?
Click to expand...


I am merely explaining what is said in the article that YOU POSTED.  If you are now going to start arguing with your own links, I'm not sure there's any reason to respond to you or bother reading your posts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that access is already closed.  The bill simply allows officials to ignore repetitive requests for information, at least according to the article you posted.
> 
> So, no, they aren't closing off access, they are keeping the agencies from having to respond to repeated requests after they have been denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof there were repeated calls from one single person or group, or was one call from millions of people enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am merely explaining what is said in the article that YOU POSTED.  If you are now going to start arguing with your own links, I'm not sure there's any reason to respond to you or bother reading your posts.
Click to expand...


HO so you don't have proof of repeated calls form one person or one group?


----------



## geauxtohell

Brewer vetoed the birther bill.

True to my word:

I salute Governor Brewer for doing the right thing and vetoing a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional and reflected on her state in a negative light.

I didn't think she would do that. I stand corrected.

Kudos, Gov. Brewer.

Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus


----------



## bigrebnc1775

geauxtohell said:


> Brewer vetoed the birther bill.
> 
> True to my word:
> 
> I salute Governor Brewer for doing the right thing and vetoing a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional and reflected on her state in a negative light.
> 
> I didn't think she would do that. I stand corrected.
> 
> Kudos, Gov. Brewer.
> 
> Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus



News day for the libs the breath a sigh of relief obama doesn't have to show a document he doesn't have in Arizona.


----------



## geauxtohell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer vetoed the birther bill.
> 
> True to my word:
> 
> I salute Governor Brewer for doing the right thing and vetoing a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional and reflected on her state in a negative light.
> 
> I didn't think she would do that. I stand corrected.
> 
> Kudos, Gov. Brewer.
> 
> Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News day for the libs the breath a sigh of relief obama doesn't have to show a document he doesn't have in Arizona.
Click to expand...


He wouldn't have had to show it anyways.  This law was clearly unconstitutional and would have been overturned in a heartbeat.  

Brewer just saved her state the embarassment of having a Federal Judge tell the house and senate that they are a bunch of fucking morons.


----------



## xsited1

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer vetoed the birther bill.
> 
> True to my word:
> 
> I salute Governor Brewer for doing the right thing and vetoing a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional and reflected on her state in a negative light.
> 
> I didn't think she would do that. I stand corrected.
> 
> Kudos, Gov. Brewer.
> 
> Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News day for the libs the breath a sigh of relief obama doesn't have to show a document he doesn't have in Arizona.
Click to expand...


The Obama Administration has been putting a lot of pressure on Arizona.  I guess they finally got the upper hand.  This proves to me that Obama will run in 2012.  I had originally thought it would be Hillary, but it's Obama all the way now.


----------



## Toro

The House voted 40-16-4 and the Senate voted 20-9-1.  Voting was along party lines with a few Republican abstentions.  The veto can be over-riden with a two-thirds majority.  That means the law can still be enacted if the birfers can again get 40 votes in the Senate and 20 in the House.  However, the scuttlebutt is that the Republican moderates were against the bill and would not have voted for it if Brewer would have allowed it to pass.  This gives them cover in the primaries.  If the birfers try to over-ride the veto, the moderates will vote against the over-ride and kill the bill.

Kudos to governor Brewer.


----------



## Toro

Here is what governor Brewer had to say.



> As for her decision to veto this bill, Gov. Brewer said in part: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates' this is a bridge too far. This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."



Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus



The sane wing of the Republican party came to the obvious realization that if a certificate of circumcision is good enough, so is a COLB.


----------



## xsited1

Toro said:


> Here is what governor Brewer had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for her decision to veto this bill, Gov. Brewer said in part: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates' this is a bridge too far. This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus
> 
> 
> 
> The sane wing of the Republican party came to the obvious realization that if a certificate of circumcision is good enough, so is a COLB.
Click to expand...


The State of Hawaii certified Obama's birth.  Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not doesn't matter.


----------



## KissMy

xsited1 said:


> The Obama Administration has been putting a lot of pressure on Arizona.  I guess they finally got the upper hand.  This proves to me that Obama will run in 2012.  I had originally thought it would be Hillary, but it's Obama all the way now.



That is fine with me. I think Obama will be easier to beat than Hillary. I know many women wrote in Hillary last time around. White women over 40 are the largest voting demographic in the USA & I think they prefer Hillary over Obama.

Gallup Poll: Hillary Clinton's Popularity Hits Near-Record High


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> The House voted 40-16-4 and the Senate voted 20-9-1.  Voting was along party lines with a few Republican abstentions.  The veto can be over-riden with a two-thirds majority.  That means the law can still be enacted if the birfers can again get 40 votes in the Senate and 20 in the House.  However, the scuttlebutt is that the Republican moderates were against the bill and would not have voted for it if Brewer would have allowed it to pass.  This gives them cover in the primaries.  If the birfers try to over-ride the veto, the moderates will vote against the over-ride and kill the bill.
> 
> Kudos to governor Brewer.



This isn't over yet.


----------



## Ravi

geauxtohell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer vetoed the birther bill.
> 
> True to my word:
> 
> I salute Governor Brewer for doing the right thing and vetoing a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional and reflected on her state in a negative light.
> 
> I didn't think she would do that. I stand corrected.
> 
> Kudos, Gov. Brewer.
> 
> Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News day for the libs the breath a sigh of relief obama doesn't have to show a document he doesn't have in Arizona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have had to show it anyways.  This law was clearly unconstitutional and would have been overturned in a heartbeat.
> 
> Brewer just saved her state the embarassment of having a Federal Judge tell the house and senate that they are a bunch of fucking morons.
Click to expand...

Yes, kudos to her! I am also impressed that she vetoed the guns on campus bill.


----------



## Montrovant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof there were repeated calls from one single person or group, or was one call from millions of people enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely explaining what is said in the article that YOU POSTED.  If you are now going to start arguing with your own links, I'm not sure there's any reason to respond to you or bother reading your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HO so you don't have proof of repeated calls form one person or one group?
Click to expand...


Of course not!  Why would I have anything of the sort?  As I said, I was speaking about what is said in YOUR LINK!  Are you truly this dense, or is it all a joke?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely explaining what is said in the article that YOU POSTED.  If you are now going to start arguing with your own links, I'm not sure there's any reason to respond to you or bother reading your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HO so you don't have proof of repeated calls form one person or one group?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not!  Why would I have anything of the sort?  As I said, I was speaking about what is said in YOUR LINK!  Are you truly this dense, or is it all a joke?
Click to expand...


Here's what I think happen they had so many calls form different people and groups they sealed the record from all to view. So again I say the bill created that day hid a lie and killed the American apple pie.


----------



## KissMy

October 31, 2008 STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO


> There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obamas official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
> 
> Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
> 
> No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.



July 27, 2009 STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.


> I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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.


----------



## geauxtohell

KissMy said:


> October 31, 2008 STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
> 
> 
> 
> There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obamas official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
> 
> Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
> 
> No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 27, 2009 STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
> 
> 
> 
> I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Wow.  That would imply that certain people on this thread are talking out of their ass.


----------



## geauxtohell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The House voted 40-16-4 and the Senate voted 20-9-1.  Voting was along party lines with a few Republican abstentions.  The veto can be over-riden with a two-thirds majority.  That means the law can still be enacted if the birfers can again get 40 votes in the Senate and 20 in the House.  However, the scuttlebutt is that the Republican moderates were against the bill and would not have voted for it if Brewer would have allowed it to pass.  This gives them cover in the primaries.  If the birfers try to over-ride the veto, the moderates will vote against the over-ride and kill the bill.
> 
> Kudos to governor Brewer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't over yet.
Click to expand...


It will never be over for you dumbasses.

It doesn't matter.  The rule of law will prevail.  You won't get your way simply by throwing a fit about the matter.


----------



## MaggieMae

I'd like to thank Toro for keeping track of all the bills. Well done!!


----------



## KissMy

geauxtohell said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> October 31, 2008 STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
> 
> 
> 
> There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obamas official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
> 
> Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
> 
> No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 27, 2009 STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
> 
> 
> 
> I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  That would imply that certain people on this thread are talking out of their ass.
Click to expand...


Yes they are!

MSNBC interview of Dr. Chiyome Fukino


> The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate  described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth"  absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it  twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
> 
> Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files  and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. 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. She later put out another public statement in July 2009  after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
> 
> "It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that," Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle  who was backing John McCain for president  would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. "Why would a Republican governor  who was stumping for the other guy  hold out on a big secret?" she asked.


----------



## Toro

MaggieMae said:


> I'd like to thank Toro for keeping track of all the bills. Well done!!



Thanks. 

Actually most of it comes from fogbow. I started out doing it by myself but I found someone else who does a much better job than I, so I just pilfer most of this stuff now from him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

geauxtohell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The House voted 40-16-4 and the Senate voted 20-9-1.  Voting was along party lines with a few Republican abstentions.  The veto can be over-riden with a two-thirds majority.  That means the law can still be enacted if the birfers can again get 40 votes in the Senate and 20 in the House.  However, the scuttlebutt is that the Republican moderates were against the bill and would not have voted for it if Brewer would have allowed it to pass.  This gives them cover in the primaries.  If the birfers try to over-ride the veto, the moderates will vote against the over-ride and kill the bill.
> 
> Kudos to governor Brewer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't over yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will never be over for you dumbasses.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  The rule of law will prevail.  You won't get your way simply by throwing a fit about the matter.
Click to expand...

Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
Federal Rules of Evidence 
NOTES TO RULE 1002


The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.

Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002




Has anyone seen (in an official capacity) this supposed Long Form issued in March of this year or does it only exist at WND?


>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen (in an official capacity) this supposed Long Form issued in March of this year or does it only exist at WND?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I'll ask again

Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? Or the original birth certificate?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
Click to expand...


Laughing at federal rule?


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing at the law?
Click to expand...

No at you and your constant and perhaps willful ignorance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing at the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No at you and your constant and perhaps willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


Why did you edit my post?


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing at the law?
> 
> 
> 
> No at you and your constant and perhaps willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you edit my post?
Click to expand...

I didn't...I quoted it. You must have edited yourself before the cut off time.

Makes no difference though...the rule or law you've referenced has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's birth certificate or the birth announcement.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules.

The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.



Application of the rule requires a resolution of the question whether contents are sought to be proved. Thus an event may be proved by nondocumentary evidence, even though a written record of it was made. If, however, the event is sought to be proved by the written record, the rule applies. For example, payment may be proved without producing the written receipt which was given. Earnings may be proved without producing books of account in which they are entered. McCormick § 198; 4 Wigmore § 1245. Nor does the rule apply to testimony that books or records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter.
Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.


Federal Rules of Evidence (LII 2010 ed.)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No at you and your constant and perhaps willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you edit my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't...I quoted it. You must have edited yourself before the cut off time.
> 
> Makes no difference though...the rule or law you've referenced has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's birth certificate or the birth announcement.
Click to expand...


Here it is. EXPLAIN?



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing at federal rule?
Click to expand...


----------



## Toro

Bigreb

you are demonstrating why it is pointless for Obama, or anyone, to release his BC. No matter what evidence is released you won't believe it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> Bigreb
> 
> you are demonstrating why it is pointless for Obama, or anyone, to release his BC. No matter what evidence is released you won't believe it.



No I'm not you keep repeating the same old worn out shit. He has not produced one item that is valid. You are proof that you will believe anything the governmnt tells you to believe.


----------



## Toro

You are being unreasonable. Asking for the original newspaper is not a reasonable request. It demonstrates your mindset. You won't believe no matter what. The SoS of AZ says he thinks the birfer bill is unconstitutional in a video and you respond that you don't think he really means it. You, like most birfers, have closed your mind so there is no reason to release it because you have demonstrated that you are not willing to believe anything that contradicts your narrative.


----------



## Ravi

Did I stutter the first time?


----------



## Montrovant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb
> 
> you are demonstrating why it is pointless for Obama, or anyone, to release his BC. No matter what evidence is released you won't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not *you keep repeating the same old worn out shit*. He has not produced one item that is valid. You are proof that you will believe anything the governmnt tells you to believe.
Click to expand...


I don't know if I've ever read a statement that better qualifies as the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb
> 
> you are demonstrating why it is pointless for Obama, or anyone, to release his BC. No matter what evidence is released you won't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not *you keep repeating the same old worn out shit*. He has not produced one item that is valid. You are proof that you will believe anything the governmnt tells you to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if I've ever read a statement that better qualifies as the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...


Nothing I mentioned is worn out because, it's not listen to it's not been addressed without an insult. Just because you don't want to hear it does not make it worn out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toro said:


> You are being unreasonable. Asking for the original newspaper is not a reasonable request. It demonstrates your mindset. You won't believe no matter what. The SoS of AZ says he thinks the birfer bill is unconstitutional in a video and you respond that you don't think he really means it. You, like most birfers, have closed your mind so there is no reason to release it because you have demonstrated that you are not willing to believe anything that contradicts your narrative.





> You are being unreasonable. Asking for the original newspaper is not a reasonable request.



Thats an unreasonable? As I have posted before anyone can create a newspaper article on the internet. If that clipping is real there should be an original. Has anyone produced it?
As I have pointed out anyone can submit a birth notice to the news papers. It has never been the respondsibility of the hospital to do that.


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> Bigreb
> 
> you are demonstrating why it is pointless for Obama, or anyone, to release his BC. No matter what evidence is released you won't believe it.



Bingo.  Which is why we've said all along:  This isn't about the birth certificate.  

Obama is smart enough to know it.


----------



## geauxtohell

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't over yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will never be over for you dumbasses.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  The rule of law will prevail.  You won't get your way simply by throwing a fit about the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden
Click to expand...


Good luck with that.  It will still be struck down as unconstitutional. 

Birthers = perpetual losers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

geauxtohell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never be over for you dumbasses.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  The rule of law will prevail.  You won't get your way simply by throwing a fit about the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  It will still be struck down as unconstitutional.
> 
> Birthers = perpetual losers.
Click to expand...


That is debateable


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't over yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will never be over for you dumbasses.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  The rule of law will prevail.  You won't get your way simply by throwing a fit about the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden
Click to expand...


lol u mad


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never be over for you dumbasses.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  The rule of law will prevail.  You won't get your way simply by throwing a fit about the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol u mad
Click to expand...


Yes I hate it when a Constitutional mandate is thrown to the side.


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  It will still be struck down as unconstitutional.
> 
> Birthers = perpetual losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is debateable
Click to expand...



Zero for seventy-four. Ohfer, cracker, ohfer.

You chimps have suffered patriotic beat-downs on all fronts and both sides of governments all across this glorious nation. Sucks being such a loser, donut?


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the veto can be over ridden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol u mad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I hate it when a Constitutional mandate is thrown to the side.
Click to expand...


If you supported Arizona's bill, you hate the Constitution. Just admit it. I bet you wish the Confederacy had won, doncha?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol u mad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I hate it when a Constitutional mandate is thrown to the side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you supported Arizona's bill, you hate the Constitution. Just admit it. I bet you wish the Confederacy had won, doncha?
Click to expand...


citizenship is a mandate of the Constitution. We can't use word of mouth now the country is too big and Hawaii is to corrupt, the documewnt obama uses has too many holes and errors on it to accept it.


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I hate it when a Constitutional mandate is thrown to the side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you supported Arizona's bill, you hate the Constitution. Just admit it. I bet you wish the Confederacy had won, doncha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> citizenship is a mandate of the Constitution. We can't use word of mouth now the country is too big and Hawaii is to corrupt, the documewnt obama uses has too many holes and errors on it to accept it.
Click to expand...

And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?

Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.


----------



## Toro

Governor Brewer's rightful veto of the clearly unconstitutional AZ birfer bill is unlikely to be over-riden by the legislature.



> Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday shot down an effort by the Arizona Legislature to require presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.
> 
> In her veto letter, Brewer said House Bill 2177 "creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."
> 
> The House and Senate could override the governor's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, but on Monday, such a move appeared unlikely.
> 
> House Speaker Kirk Adams shook his head wearily when asked Monday evening if lawmakers would attempt to override the veto. "No," he said. He added that legislative researchers found that the last time a governor's veto was overridden was 50 years ago.
> 
> The bill's sponsor, Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said pursuing an override would be as much about defying the governor as it would be supporting the bill's intent.
> 
> "Overrides are a real difficult monster," said Seel, who called the governor's decision to veto the measure "unfortunate."



Brewer vetoes 'birther' bill

Unsurprisingly, the birfers are now attempting to recall the governor.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/recalljanbrewer/

Here is the governor's veto.

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0418birther-bill-veto.pdf


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you supported Arizona's bill, you hate the Constitution. Just admit it. I bet you wish the Confederacy had won, doncha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> citizenship is a mandate of the Constitution. We can't use word of mouth now the country is too big and Hawaii is to corrupt, the documewnt obama uses has too many holes and errors on it to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?
> 
> Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.
Click to expand...


As of 2007 yes they are.
If my post have to many holes come bucko lets discuss them


----------



## Toro

So let's review.


* Arizona - Two bills died in committee but passed through the Senate as a strike-everything bill. Voted and passed by both chambers but was vetoed by the governor.
* Arkansas - Died in committee
* Connecticut - Died in committee
* Georgia - Died in committee.
* Hawaii - Died in committee. Not really a birfer bill. Clever Hawaii legislators were trying to profit from the birfer nonsense by charging people $100 for birth certificate requests.
* Indiana - Died in committee.
* Iowa - Died in committee. Can be carried over into next year. Doesn't appear to really be a birfer bill.
** Louisiana - Bill to be introduced in the upcoming session.*
* Maine - Not really a birfer bill.
* Missouri - Still alive but effectively no longer a birfer bill. The governor is a Democrat.
* Montana - Died in committee.
* Nebraska - Died in committee.
* New Hampshire - Died in committee.
* Oklahoma - A bill passed in the Senate but no longer a birfer bill.
* Tennessee - House bill died in committee.
** Texas - Still alive.*

I've read that Bobby Jindal said he'd sign a birfer bill.  I wonder if the Louisiana governor is a natural born citizen.  Weren't his parents not citizens when he was born?  By birfer standards, doesn't that mean he can't be President?

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/gov_jindal_will_sign_birther_b.html


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> citizenship is a mandate of the Constitution. We can't use word of mouth now the country is too big and Hawaii is to corrupt, the documewnt obama uses has too many holes and errors on it to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?
> 
> Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of 2007 yes they are.
> If my post have to many holes come bucko lets discuss them
Click to expand...


Are you kidding? You are one of the most obtuse, dense, barely-literate, functionally-retarded posters here. I'm not sure you can tie your shoes. Do you even wear shoes? Are they velcro? There is no point in "discussing" with you. I learned that long ago.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?
> 
> Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of 2007 yes they are.
> If my post have to many holes come bucko lets discuss them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? You are one of the most obtuse, dense, barely-literate, functionally-retarded posters here. I'm not sure you can tie your shoes. Do you even wear shoes? Are they velcro? There is no point in "discussing" with you. I learned that long ago.
Click to expand...


Do your best I'm waiting.


----------



## Sheldon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of 2007 yes they are.
> If my post have to many holes come bucko lets discuss them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? You are one of the most obtuse, dense, barely-literate, functionally-retarded posters here. I'm not sure you can tie your shoes. Do you even wear shoes? Are they velcro? There is no point in "discussing" with you. I learned that long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your best I'm waiting.
Click to expand...


Waiting for what, the south to rise again?


----------



## Toro

For the record, there are 54 Republicans, 46 Democrats and 4 Independents in the LA House.  There are 22 Republicans and 17 Democrats in the Senate.


----------



## elvis

Nothing runs like a Toro.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? You are one of the most obtuse, dense, barely-literate, functionally-retarded posters here. I'm not sure you can tie your shoes. Do you even wear shoes? Are they velcro? There is no point in "discussing" with you. I learned that long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do your best I'm waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waiting for what, the south to rise again?
Click to expand...


prove me wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

elvis said:


> Nothing runs like a Toro.



Thats John Deere


----------



## Toro

elvis said:


> Nothing runs like a Toro.



I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## elvis

When Toro doesn't think something is true, does he call TS?


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> For the record, there are 54 Republicans, 46 Democrats and 4 Independents in the LA House.  There are 22 Republicans and 17 Democrats in the Senate.


AND Bobby Jindall says he won't veto it if it passes.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii is lying to you. Do you know anyone or have a family membner who was born in Hawaii? I do
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, you're either a liar or easily lied to...no real difference. If long forms were so common they'd be everywhere and not just posted as second hand evidence on sites like WorldNutDaily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a grand son who was born in the year 2008 at Tripler Army Medical Center the long form I showed is the long form Hawaii uses. They lied to you.
Click to expand...


No, I think YOU'RE lying. Do you mean to tell us that after months on end of trying to prove your point you're _just now_ informing us that you have a copy of your grandson's long form? Then why haven't you performed your copy/paste magic and shown it to us?

Look, nobody is denying in the first place that "long forms" exist. It's just that as a matter of privacy, the State of Hawaii does not dole out copies to anyone who is not an immediate member of the family.  

And you people are just too stupid to realize that since you're the ones causing such a rift among the Republicans/conservatives/whatevers, that is POLITICALLY advantageous to President Obama, and therefore you will NOT be seeing a copy of his long form birth certificate. It would be tantamount to showing his Ace in the Hole!!


----------



## MaggieMae

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read your article:
> 
> *Republican Gov.* Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
> 
> ------------
> 
> It's not a NEW law.  They are simply saying, "Ignore the dumb asses who won't stop bothering us".  Consider carefully whether you "identify".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When yo ignore something aren't you closing off access to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that access is already closed.  The bill simply allows officials to ignore repetitive requests for information, at least according to the article you posted.
> 
> So, no, they aren't closing off access, they are keeping the agencies from having to respond to repeated requests after they have been denied.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has gotten a little tired of it too.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002



Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed, but of course Berg et al. immediately said they "could have been cut and pasted." So there ya go. As I've said, even if Obama produced the original live birth certificate with completed medical information thereon, and signed by the OBGYN, you assholes would say it's a forgery. Even if said OBGYN testified before the USSC, if it ever came to that, there would be those who would say he committed perjury. 

It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is so that he could be disqualified BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002



Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed, but of course Berg et al. immediately said they "could have been cut and pasted." So there ya go. As I've said, even if Obama produced the original life birth certificate with completed medical information thereon, and signed by the OBGYN, you assholes would say it's a forgery. Even if said OBGYN testified before the USSC, if it ever came to that, there would be those who would say he committed perjury. 

It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed, but of course Berg et al. immediately said they "could have been cut and pasted." So there ya go. As I've said, even if Obama produced the original life birth certificate with completed medical information thereon, and signed by the OBGYN, you assholes would say it's a forgery. Even if said OBGYN testified before the USSC, if it ever came to that, there would be those who would say he committed perjury.
> 
> It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds.
Click to expand...




> Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed



I said originals with the newspapers? And one more time if you missed it. The state would not have issued any birth notice since it gave the address of residency it would have violated the right to privacy.



> It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds



It seem's those desputing any argument against the document of birth are the ones using race as their defense are you a racist?


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules.
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> 
> 
> Application of the rule requires a resolution of the question whether contents are sought to be proved. Thus an event may be proved by nondocumentary evidence, even though a written record of it was made. If, however, the event is sought to be proved by the written record, the rule applies. For example, payment may be proved without producing the written receipt which was given. Earnings may be proved without producing books of account in which they are entered. McCormick § 198; 4 Wigmore § 1245. Nor does the rule apply to testimony that books or records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter.
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
> (a) General provision.
> 
> The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
> 
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence (LII 2010 ed.)



I fail to see your point in posting any of that^. It isn't as though this thing was being debated in open court. It isn't, it hasn't, and it won't. The USSC has already deemed that Phillip Berg's myriad "exhibits" attempting to "authenticate" his case were not provable.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules.
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> 
> 
> Application of the rule requires a resolution of the question whether contents are sought to be proved. Thus an event may be proved by nondocumentary evidence, even though a written record of it was made. If, however, the event is sought to be proved by the written record, the rule applies. For example, payment may be proved without producing the written receipt which was given. Earnings may be proved without producing books of account in which they are entered. McCormick § 198; 4 Wigmore § 1245. Nor does the rule apply to testimony that books or records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter.
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
> (a) General provision.
> 
> The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
> 
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence (LII 2010 ed.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see your point in posting any of that^. It isn't as though this thing was being debated in open court. It isn't, it hasn't, and it won't. The USSC has already deemed that Phillip Berg's myriad "exhibits" attempting to "authenticate" his case were not provable.
Click to expand...


It was about the birth notices if there isn't an original then they are not valid documents. As I said anyone can mcreate a newspaper article for any year they want to.


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> You are being unreasonable. Asking for the original newspaper is not a reasonable request. It demonstrates your mindset. You won't believe no matter what. The SoS of AZ says he thinks the birfer bill is unconstitutional in a video and you respond that you don't think he really means it. You, like most birfers, have closed your mind so there is no reason to release it because you have demonstrated that you are not willing to believe anything that contradicts your narrative.



For one thing an "original" newspaper, one that would satisfy these kooks, wouldn't even exist. Once the first COPY came off the press and gone through a quick perusal to make sure everything was placed where it should be, there would have been thousands run off after that. And the only people I know who would have saved newspapers just for the heck of it going all the way back 48 years would be hoarders. Maybe BigRebel's next journey should be to join one of those teams that go in and clean up piles of garbage from people's homes and he'll find one there with years of rat shit all over it.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sheldon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you supported Arizona's bill, you hate the Constitution. Just admit it. I bet you wish the Confederacy had won, doncha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> citizenship is a mandate of the Constitution. We can't use word of mouth now the country is too big and Hawaii is to corrupt, the documewnt obama uses has too many holes and errors on it to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?
> 
> Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.
Click to expand...


And a *conservative* US Supreme Court has thrown out "evidence" how many times because...?


----------



## Toro

Governor Neil Abercrombie says



> As for Obama's roots in Hawaii, Abercrombie told Hawaii News Now he first laid eyes on baby Barack Obama a few days after he was born. Abercrombie said Obama's parents introduced their newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii where Abercrombie was going to college with the president's father.
> 
> "We not only saw him and were with them, but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings. And of course over the years then as he was raised by his mother and his grandparents we of course saw him frequently because he was with his grandfather all the time," Abercrombie added.



Trump, Abercrombie spar over "birther" issue - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home


----------



## Toro

Senator McCain praises Governor Brewer for vetoing the birfer bill.

John McCain praises Gov. Jan Brewer for veto of 'birther bill' - latimes.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being unreasonable. Asking for the original newspaper is not a reasonable request. It demonstrates your mindset. You won't believe no matter what. The SoS of AZ says he thinks the birfer bill is unconstitutional in a video and you respond that you don't think he really means it. You, like most birfers, have closed your mind so there is no reason to release it because you have demonstrated that you are not willing to believe anything that contradicts your narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing an "original" newspaper, one that would satisfy these kooks, wouldn't even exist. Once the first COPY came off the press and gone through a quick perusal to make sure everything was placed where it should be, there would have been thousands run off after that. And the only people I know who would have saved newspapers just for the heck of it going all the way back 48 years would be hoarders. Maybe BigRebel's next journey should be to join one of those teams that go in and clean up piles of garbage from people's homes and he'll find one there with years of rat shit all over it.
Click to expand...




> For one thing an "original" newspaper, one that would satisfy these kooks, wouldn't even exist. Once the first COPY came off the press and gone through a quick perusal to make sure everything was placed where it should be, there would have been thousands run off after that



OH so the original wouldn't exist now? Do you know how weak the left argument is? They have used those newspaper clipping as stronge evidence of obama's birth in Hawaii.  Anyone could create a newspaper clipping from any period of time they choose to.
So that concels the newspaper clipping as evidence of obama's citizenship.


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> Governor Brewer's rightful veto of the clearly unconstitutional AZ birfer bill is unlikely to be over-riden by the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday shot down an effort by the Arizona Legislature to require presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.
> 
> In her veto letter, Brewer said House Bill 2177 "creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."
> 
> The House and Senate could override the governor's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, but on Monday, such a move appeared unlikely.
> 
> House Speaker Kirk Adams shook his head wearily when asked Monday evening if lawmakers would attempt to override the veto. "No," he said. He added that legislative researchers found that the last time a governor's veto was overridden was 50 years ago.
> 
> The bill's sponsor, Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said pursuing an override would be as much about defying the governor as it would be supporting the bill's intent.
> 
> "Overrides are a real difficult monster," said Seel, who called the governor's decision to veto the measure "unfortunate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brewer vetoes 'birther' bill
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the birfers are now attempting to recall the governor.
> 
> Recall Governor Jan Brewer of AZ
> 
> Here is the governor's veto.
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0418birther-bill-veto.pdf
Click to expand...


This is incredulous. It's like some_thing_ is hovering way overhead and sprinkling idiot dust over parts of the country, which drifts southward with intensity.


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:
			
		

> Brewer vetoes 'birther' bill
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the birfers are now attempting to recall the governor.
> 
> Recall Governor Jan Brewer of AZ
> 
> Here is the governor's veto.
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0418birther-bill-veto.pdf



I think those folks who will attempt to override need to do some serious homework as to how the framers of the Constitution dealt with the subject of state involvement in attempting to impeach a president (which of course is what the clear intent is). This is a fascinating transcript of the debate among the founders:

The Constitution and and Impeachment


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> citizenship is a mandate of the Constitution. We can't use word of mouth now the country is too big and Hawaii is to corrupt, the documewnt obama uses has too many holes and errors on it to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?
> 
> Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of 2007 yes they are.
> If my post have to many holes come bucko lets discuss them
Click to expand...


You mean you've ignored the entire discussion in this 350+ thread and all the others where you appear with your exhaustingly repetitive garbage?
 Why am I not surprised?


----------



## MaggieMae

Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?"

1 - Think he was
2 - Think he wasn't
3 - Unsure

ALL
67%
24%
10%	  	 	  

Democrats
84%
12%
4%

Republicans
47%
37%
16%        

Independents
69%
21%
10%


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the special-ed crux of your conspiracy. The state of Hawai'i is all in on it. A Republican governor could have knocked Obama out of the race, but didn't because...?
> 
> Your posts have too many holes and errors for me to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of 2007 yes they are.
> If my post have to many holes come bucko lets discuss them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean you've ignored the entire discussion in this 350+ thread and all the others where you appear with your exhaustingly repetitive garbage?
> Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...


I repeat because people refuse to listen and will repeat until it has been proven wrong.



> You mean you've ignored the entire discussion in this 350+ thread and all the others where you appear with your exhaustingly repetitive garbage?



Posting this is not a valid argument^^^^^^


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
> 
> "Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?"
> 
> 1 - Think he was
> 2 - Think he wasn't
> 3 - Unsure
> 
> ALL
> 67%
> 24%
> 10%
> 
> Democrats
> 84%
> 12%
> 4%
> 
> Republicans
> 47%
> 37%
> 16%
> 
> Independents
> 69%
> 21%
> 10%



And the majority of people on earth at one time thought the earth was flat, how did that theory work out?


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen the original newsprint copy of the birth notices? If not they do not exist.
> Federal Rules of Evidence
> NOTES TO RULE 1002
> 
> 
> The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
> 
> And would also apply to the document obama uses as a birth certificate.
> 
> Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed, but of course Berg et al. immediately said they "could have been cut and pasted." So there ya go. As I've said, even if Obama produced the original life birth certificate with completed medical information thereon, and signed by the OBGYN, you assholes would say it's a forgery. Even if said OBGYN testified before the USSC, if it ever came to that, there would be those who would say he committed perjury.
> 
> It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said originals with the newspapers? And one more time if you missed it. The state would not have issued any birth notice since it gave the address of residency it would have violated the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seem's those desputing any argument against the document of birth are the ones using race as their defense are you a racist?
Click to expand...


I call 'em like I see 'em. But by the way, the newspaper was not violating privacy if the birth announcement was approved by the parents for publication. You see along with a birth, like any other hospital procedure, there are a slew of releases and waivers the parent or guardian must sign, one of which is authorizing public announcements. D'oh...


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> Governor Neil Abercrombie says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Obama's roots in Hawaii, Abercrombie told Hawaii News Now he first laid eyes on baby Barack Obama a few days after he was born. Abercrombie said Obama's parents introduced their newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii where Abercrombie was going to college with the president's father.
> 
> "We not only saw him and were with them, but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings. And of course over the years then as he was raised by his mother and his grandparents we of course saw him frequently because he was with his grandfather all the time," Abercrombie added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump, Abercrombie spar over "birther" issue - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home
Click to expand...


Abercrombie lies. Wait for it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are copies of the TWO newspapers where the birth announcement was placed, but of course Berg et al. immediately said they "could have been cut and pasted." So there ya go. As I've said, even if Obama produced the original life birth certificate with completed medical information thereon, and signed by the OBGYN, you assholes would say it's a forgery. Even if said OBGYN testified before the USSC, if it ever came to that, there would be those who would say he committed perjury.
> 
> It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said originals with the newspapers? And one more time if you missed it. The state would not have issued any birth notice since it gave the address of residency it would have violated the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be so nice, if ya'll would just admit that the reason you want to see his birth certificate is BECAUSE HE IS *BLACK*. and you want to see him disqualified for any reason you can conjure up in your pathetic little minds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seem's those desputing any argument against the document of birth are the ones using race as their defense are you a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call 'em like I see 'em. But by the way, the newspaper was not violating privacy if the birth announcement was approved by the parents for publication. You see along with a birth, like any other hospital procedure, there are a slew of releases and waivers the parent or guardian must sign, one of which is authorizing public announcements. D'oh...
Click to expand...


Well explain this why is the Star-Advertiser in Hawaii explaning how you can submit a birth  announcement to the paper if the hawaian state government does it?

To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.

Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.

Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.

Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being unreasonable. Asking for the original newspaper is not a reasonable request. It demonstrates your mindset. You won't believe no matter what. The SoS of AZ says he thinks the birfer bill is unconstitutional in a video and you respond that you don't think he really means it. You, like most birfers, have closed your mind so there is no reason to release it because you have demonstrated that you are not willing to believe anything that contradicts your narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing an "original" newspaper, one that would satisfy these kooks, wouldn't even exist. Once the first COPY came off the press and gone through a quick perusal to make sure everything was placed where it should be, there would have been thousands run off after that. And the only people I know who would have saved newspapers just for the heck of it going all the way back 48 years would be hoarders. Maybe BigRebel's next journey should be to join one of those teams that go in and clean up piles of garbage from people's homes and he'll find one there with years of rat shit all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing an "original" newspaper, one that would satisfy these kooks, wouldn't even exist. Once the first COPY came off the press and gone through a quick perusal to make sure everything was placed where it should be, there would have been thousands run off after that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH so the original wouldn't exist now? Do you know how weak the left argument is? They have used those newspaper clipping as stronge evidence of obama's birth in Hawaii.  Anyone could create a newspaper clipping from any period of time they choose to.
> So that concels the newspaper clipping as evidence of obama's citizenship.
Click to expand...


They would have to have a very old standard typewriter to match the print. Add those conspirators to the hundreds of others who would have been "in on it."


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
> 
> "Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?"
> 
> 1 - Think he was
> 2 - Think he wasn't
> 3 - Unsure
> 
> ALL
> 67%
> 24%
> 10%
> 
> Democrats
> 84%
> 12%
> 4%
> 
> Republicans
> 47%
> 37%
> 16%
> 
> Independents
> 69%
> 21%
> 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of people on earth at one time thought the earth was flat, how did that theory work out?
Click to expand...


Have you noticed you're the only one arguing your case here?


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
> 
> "Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?"
> 
> 1 - Think he was
> 2 - Think he wasn't
> 3 - Unsure
> 
> ALL
> 67%
> 24%
> 10%
> 
> Democrats
> 84%
> 12%
> 4%
> 
> Republicans
> 47%
> 37%
> 16%
> 
> Independents
> 69%
> 21%
> 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of people on earth at one time thought the earth was flat, how did that theory work out?
Click to expand...


They had no proof otherwise, stupid.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said originals with the newspapers? And one more time if you missed it. The state would not have issued any birth notice since it gave the address of residency it would have violated the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> It seem's those desputing any argument against the document of birth are the ones using race as their defense are you a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call 'em like I see 'em. But by the way, the newspaper was not violating privacy if the birth announcement was approved by the parents for publication. You see along with a birth, like any other hospital procedure, there are a slew of releases and waivers the parent or guardian must sign, one of which is authorizing public announcements. D'oh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well explain this why is the Star-Advertiser in Hawaii explaning how you can submit a birth  announcement to the paper if the hawaian state government does it?
> 
> To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.
> 
> Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.
> 
> Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.
> 
> Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
Click to expand...


Your point? The entry in the newspaper doesn't HAVE to include a photograph or other pertinent information. And how long does it take for a PDF authorization to go from the hospital to the newspapers? Or even snail-mail? And it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DATE THE CHILD WAS BORN for it to be included. Grasping at straws. This is truly pathetic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call 'em like I see 'em. But by the way, the newspaper was not violating privacy if the birth announcement was approved by the parents for publication. You see along with a birth, like any other hospital procedure, there are a slew of releases and waivers the parent or guardian must sign, one of which is authorizing public announcements. D'oh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well explain this why is the Star-Advertiser in Hawaii explaning how you can submit a birth  announcement to the paper if the hawaian state government does it?
> 
> To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.
> 
> Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.
> 
> Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.
> 
> Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point? The entry in the newspaper doesn't HAVE to include a photograph or other pertinent information. And how long does it take for a PDF authorization to go from the hospital to the newspapers? Or even snail-mail? And it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DATE THE CHILD WAS BORN for it to be included. Grasping at straws. This is truly pathetic.
Click to expand...


The point as I said if the hawaiian government submit birth notices to the paper, (which has been the argument since the clipping first surfaced) Why are they giving direction on how to place an notice of birth with the paper?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
> 
> "Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?"
> 
> 1 - Think he was
> 2 - Think he wasn't
> 3 - Unsure
> 
> ALL
> 67%
> 24%
> 10%
> 
> Democrats
> 84%
> 12%
> 4%
> 
> Republicans
> 47%
> 37%
> 16%
> 
> Independents
> 69%
> 21%
> 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of people on earth at one time thought the earth was flat, how did that theory work out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had no proof otherwise, stupid.
Click to expand...


Where's your proof stupid?


----------



## Sheldon

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
> 
> "Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?"
> 
> 1 - Think he was
> 2 - Think he wasn't
> 3 - Unsure
> 
> ALL
> 67%
> 24%
> 10%
> 
> Democrats
> 84%
> 12%
> 4%
> 
> Republicans
> 47%
> 37%
> 16%
> 
> Independents
> 69%
> 21%
> 10%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of people on earth at one time thought the earth was flat, how did that theory work out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed you're the only one arguing your case here?
Click to expand...


Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.

But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sheldon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of people on earth at one time thought the earth was flat, how did that theory work out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed you're the only one arguing your case here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
Click to expand...


The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.

The announcement is a fake.


----------



## Montrovant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed you're the only one arguing your case here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
Click to expand...


I would guess that the reason people feel the newspaper birth announcements are compelling evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is that to believe otherwise is to believe this conspiracy started all the way back at his birth.  Most people probably find it hard to stomach that idea.

Of course, it could be proven that the birth announcements WERE submitted by the Hawaii government and you still wouldn't believe, since your conspiracy theory is based on the idea the Hawaii government is in on it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would guess that the reason people feel the newspaper birth announcements are compelling evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is that to believe otherwise is to believe this conspiracy started all the way back at his birth.  Most people probably find it hard to stomach that idea.
> 
> Of course, it could be proven that the birth announcements WERE submitted by the Hawaii government and you still wouldn't believe, since your conspiracy theory is based on the idea the Hawaii government is in on it.
Click to expand...


Why do people keep saying the conspiracy started all the way back at his birth? Who said that newspaper clipping was created in 1961? It could have been created in 2007. Anyone can create a newpaper article for any year they choose to. If it's a conspiracy it started in 2007.



> Of course, it could be proven that the birth announcements WERE submitted by the Hawaii government and you still wouldn't believe, since your conspiracy theory is based on the idea the Hawaii government is in on it



Not possible Hawaii state government would be violating it's on Constitution by filing an addressto a private citizen in a newspaper.
And I have poste tfrom a Hawaii newspaper how people are to submit birth announcements o them, and it's not through the Hawaii state government.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well explain this why is the Star-Advertiser in Hawaii explaning how you can submit a birth  announcement to the paper if the hawaian state government does it?
> 
> To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.
> 
> Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.
> 
> Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.
> 
> Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point? The entry in the newspaper doesn't HAVE to include a photograph or other pertinent information. And how long does it take for a PDF authorization to go from the hospital to the newspapers? Or even snail-mail? And it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DATE THE CHILD WAS BORN for it to be included. Grasping at straws. This is truly pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point as I said if the hawaiian government submit birth notices to the paper, (which has been the argument since the clipping first surfaced) Why are they giving direction on how to place an notice of birth with the paper?
Click to expand...


Huh? There are instructions for everything. And I mean EVERYTHING, everywhere, especially when a government office is involved (state or federal). You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed you're the only one arguing your case here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
Click to expand...



Not according to WND.


"The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.

"We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; *we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System,*" a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.

The operator said, "This is how we've always done it.""

<<SNIP>>

"The unanswered question, since the Obama announcement carried an address and no name, was whether the state provided addresses at one time and stopped, and didn't provide the name, or whether the information was obtained in some other fashion. Or was there another procedure to transmit information different from what now is released through the Certification of Live Birth that state officials say is the only document they now provide?

Likewise, the Honolulu Advertiser, which ran a Barack Obama birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Sunday Advertiser, relies on the state-issued certification, rather than reporting from hospitals.

*The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.

"If we published it, it came from the state," she said.*"​


Read more: Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed you're the only one arguing your case here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
Click to expand...


Of course you THINK it is because you only read what WND and other get-Obama bloggers tell you. However, others are just as determined to keep pace with all THOSE lies and embellishments and debunk them all with unequivocal facts, including the newspaper "conspiracy."

Pen spills ink, makes mess (updated) | Obama Conspiracy Theories


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WorldWatcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to WND.
> 
> 
> "The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.
> 
> "We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; *we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System,*" a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.
> 
> The operator said, "This is how we've always done it.""
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> "The unanswered question, since the Obama announcement carried an address and no name, was whether the state provided addresses at one time and stopped, and didn't provide the name, or whether the information was obtained in some other fashion. Or was there another procedure to transmit information different from what now is released through the Certification of Live Birth that state officials say is the only document they now provide?
> 
> Likewise, the Honolulu Advertiser, which ran a Barack Obama birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Sunday Advertiser, relies on the state-issued certification, rather than reporting from hospitals.
> 
> *The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
> 
> "If we published it, it came from the state," she said.*"​
> 
> 
> Read more: Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace
Click to expand...


He lied

From the web site of Star-Advertiser No mention of the state Department of Health.

And one more time if the state government released any private information of a private citizen it would violate the state Constitution.

HOW TO GET LISTED



To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.

Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.

Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.

Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding. This is the first time I've seen someone argue the validity of the birth announcement.
> 
> But what else is left when you're representing a 0-74 record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you THINK it is because you only read what WND and other get-Obama bloggers tell you. However, others are just as determined to keep pace with all THOSE lies and embellishments and debunk them all with unequivocal facts, including the newspaper "conspiracy."
> 
> Pen spills ink, makes mess (updated) | Obama Conspiracy Theories
Click to expand...


Again lie 
From the web site of Star-Advertiser No mention of the state Department of Health.

And one more time if the state government released any private information of a private citizen it would violate the state Constitution.

HOW TO GET LISTED



To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.

Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.

Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.

Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birth announcement is a fraud it was not submited by the hawaiian government to the newspaper. Now why would anyone produce an article and say it was submited by the government when it isn't true? The birth announcement was one of the biggest pieces of evidence trying to prove obama was born in Hawaii. Chip away all the bullshit an you will finally get to the truth.
> 
> The announcement is a fake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you THINK it is because you only read what WND and other get-Obama bloggers tell you. However, others are just as determined to keep pace with all THOSE lies and embellishments and debunk them all with unequivocal facts, including the newspaper "conspiracy."
> 
> Pen spills ink, makes mess (updated) | Obama Conspiracy Theories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again lie
> From the web site of Star-Advertiser No mention of the state Department of Health.
> 
> And one more time if the state government released any private information of a private citizen it would violate the state Constitution.
> 
> HOW TO GET LISTED
> 
> 
> 
> To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.
> 
> Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.
> 
> Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.
> 
> Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
Click to expand...


You obviously didn't bother reading the link I just gave you because you wouldn't have had time. You're obsessed and need to get a life. Until then, buh bye crazy person.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you THINK it is because you only read what WND and other get-Obama bloggers tell you. However, others are just as determined to keep pace with all THOSE lies and embellishments and debunk them all with unequivocal facts, including the newspaper "conspiracy."
> 
> Pen spills ink, makes mess (updated) | Obama Conspiracy Theories
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again lie
> From the web site of Star-Advertiser No mention of the state Department of Health.
> 
> And one more time if the state government released any private information of a private citizen it would violate the state Constitution.
> 
> HOW TO GET LISTED
> 
> 
> 
> To get your listing in our birth announcement column that runs Fridays, please complete and submit a Star-Advertiser birth announcement for, which can be downloaded at Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business - Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Hawaii Newspaper, a copy of your child's birth certificate and a color picture of your child. Announcements will be run until the child's first birthday.
> 
> Mail the items to Birth Announcements, Today section, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 7-210, Honolulu, HI 96813. Or e-mail pdf copies of the signed announcement form and the birth certificate, along with a high-resolution (300 dpi) color jpeg of the baby's picture to features@staradvertiser.com.
> 
> Entries missing essential information cannot be used and mailed photos cannot be returned.
> 
> Hawaii's Ohana - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't bother reading the link I just gave you because you wouldn't have had time. You're obsessed and need to get a life. Until then, buh bye crazy person.
Click to expand...


and you didn't bother looking at the information cut and pasted from the web site of the Star-Advertiser. Read it.
Why do I need to re-read the same old stuff I have read in the past? It's a lie or the Star-Advertiser is lying about how they accepot birth announcements on their own web site.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

ok boys and girl riddle me this
Why is the home of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI on the same birth announcement as obama's birth announcement?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3551214-post268.html
lovely home for one that was built in 1977

2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
I'll wait. I have an idea but I will wait to see what the nuts have to offer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

How about this boys and girls

The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow


----------



## Toro

Missouri birfer bill, SB282.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/billpdf/commit/SB0282C.pdf

Republicans hold majorities in both chambers but the governor is a Democrat.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Toro said:


> Missouri birfer bill, SB282.
> 
> http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/billpdf/commit/SB0282C.pdf
> 
> Republicans hold majorities in both chambers but the governor is a Democrat.




First pass through on reading it, I don't see much of a problem.  I wouldn't classify it as a "birther" bill.  IMHO, I think it is a much better written than the Arizona law and overcomes that law's shortcomings.

1.  It recognizes the sovereignty of jurisdictions outside the state in matters that occur in that jurisdiction.  (Lines 8 and 9.)  It does not mandate what document must be provided (only that it be official and verifiable), and it doesn't mandate irrelevant information on the document to be submitted, only that the document be issued by the controlling authority at the time of birth.  (A very important point as birth records can be amended after birth by a different authority - such as when a birth certificate is reissued later in life because of adoption.

2.  It places the burden of proof on the individual to obtain such documentation from the location which had jurisdiction at the time of birth (Line 11).  That to me is a good thing, they basically say you want to run for office, provide an official document(s) from where you are born.  If their is an issue, it's between you and them.

3.  Since the documents will be then outside the control of the originating jurisdiction, they are free to deem them as public records and make them available for public inspection if they so choose.

4.  I appreciate the fact that the provide a clear, measurable definition of how they status of "natural born citizen" is to be evaluated by the Secretary of State removing ambiguity and political partisan ship from the equation.  I can see some people having issues with it because it permits jus soli or jus sanguinis to be operative independently.  You can be a citizen at birth based on soil or you can be a citizen at birth by blood and either will qualify.  (For example children born to military personnel overseas receive derivative citizenship at birth from the parents not because birth on United States soil.  And no, foreign military bases are not considered U.S. Soil.)  But at least it gives a clearly defined standard, one that might eventually be challenged in federal court - but actually that's OK with me as it would then force a final definition of NBC.

5.  The 1996 reference is a little obscure to me, but maybe it's important under their laws for some reason.

6.  I doesn't allow for measuring citizenship because your parents decided to get the tip of your pee-pee wacked off.  That's a plus.  ​



"115.399.  
1.  Not later than the twelfth Tuesday prior to each presidential election, or
2 notwithstanding any prior laws to the contrary, in the year 1996 and thereafter, within seven
3 working days after choosing its nominees for president and vice president of the United States,
4 whichever is later, the state committee of each established political party shall certify in writing
5 to the secretary of state the names of its nominees for president and vice president of the United
6 States.  Such certification shall provide verifiable evidence of identity and of proof of status
7 as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee and the origins of such
8 evidence.  Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available
9 by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth, and shall be kept and
10 maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter
11 610.  The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee.  As used
12 in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and
13 citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or
14 having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it
15 existed at the time of the nominee's birth."​

>>>>


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ok boys and girl riddle me this
> Why is the home of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI on the same birth announcement as obama's birth announcement?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3551214-post268.html
> lovely home for one that was built in 1977
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
> I'll wait. I have an idea but I will wait to see what the nuts have to offer.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow



I don't know. There was a Tsunami that hit Hawaii in 1960 We need to see if these 2 houses were damaged around that time.

"Fifty houses at Kuliouou, an eastern suburb of Honolulu, were flooded, and $250,000 in damage was done."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok boys and girl riddle me this
> Why is the home of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI on the same birth announcement as obama's birth announcement?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3551214-post268.html
> lovely home for one that was built in 1977
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
> I'll wait. I have an idea but I will wait to see what the nuts have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. There was a Tsunami that hit Hawaii in 1960 We need to see if these 2 houses were damaged around that time.
> 
> "Fifty houses at Kuliouou, an eastern suburb of Honolulu, were flooded, and $250,000 in damage was done."
Click to expand...


In context with house the built date is when it was first built. If it was damaged or rebuilt it would have a rebuilt date , but the built date will still be the same. It's like a birth date for a home. Then  again the date of the birth release would be 1961 and would not affect the newspaper


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok boys and girl riddle me this
> Why is the home of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI on the same birth announcement as obama's birth announcement?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3551214-post268.html
> lovely home for one that was built in 1977
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
> I'll wait. I have an idea but I will wait to see what the nuts have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. There was a Tsunami that hit Hawaii in 1960 We need to see if these 2 houses were damaged around that time.
> 
> "Fifty houses at Kuliouou, an eastern suburb of Honolulu, were flooded, and $250,000 in damage was done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In context with house the built date is when it was first built. If it was damaged or rebuilt it would have a rebuilt date , but the built date will still be the same. It's like a birth date for a home. Then  again the date of the birth release would be 1961 and would not affect the newspaper
Click to expand...


They demolished the original site and built another house as the property record reflects.

Honolulu Internet Permit System - Building Permit (pre 1999)

Yet another myth busted.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=3553885


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. There was a Tsunami that hit Hawaii in 1960 We need to see if these 2 houses were damaged around that time.
> 
> "Fifty houses at Kuliouou, an eastern suburb of Honolulu, were flooded, and $250,000 in damage was done."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In context with house the built date is when it was first built. If it was damaged or rebuilt it would have a rebuilt date , but the built date will still be the same. It's like a birth date for a home. Then  again the date of the birth release would be 1961 and would not affect the newspaper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They demolished the original site and built another house as the property record reflects.
> 
> Honolulu Internet Permit System - Building Permit (pre 1999)
> 
> Yet another myth busted.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=3553885
Click to expand...

Try again
937 - A 18TH AVE is a single address dueplex type housing
and
937 18TH AVE is a single adress one house dewlling
the address in the birth announcement reads 937 18TH AVE not 937 - A 18TH AVE 
and what about the other house?


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In context with house the built date is when it was first built. If it was damaged or rebuilt it would have a rebuilt date , but the built date will still be the same. It's like a birth date for a home. Then  again the date of the birth release would be 1961 and would not affect the newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They demolished the original site and built another house as the property record reflects.
> 
> Honolulu Internet Permit System - Building Permit (pre 1999)
> 
> Yet another myth busted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again
> 937 - A 18TH AVE is a single address dueplex type housing
> and
> 937 18TH AVE is a single adress one house dewlling
> the address in the birth announcement reads 937 18TH AVE not 937 - A 18TH AVE
> and what about the other house?
Click to expand...

KissMy already explained it. In 1957 the original house was built. One house. In 1964 a bigger, two story house was built. Until 1964 there was one house, therefore there was no designation of *A*.

 

You wouldn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii if it had been televised on national television with Ronald Reagan presiding over the birth.


----------



## Ravi

It was a single house built in 1957. The second house didn't exist until 1964 so no designation of *A* was needed, or even possible, in the birth announcement.

Believe it or not I was once a mail man and I saw this type of thing often.



edit: oh darn, you deleted your post so I guess it sank in.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They demolished the original site and built another house as the property record reflects.
> 
> Honolulu Internet Permit System - Building Permit (pre 1999)
> 
> Yet another myth busted.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again
> 937 - A 18TH AVE is a single address dueplex type housing
> and
> 937 18TH AVE is a single adress one house dewlling
> the address in the birth announcement reads 937 18TH AVE not 937 - A 18TH AVE
> and what about the other house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KissMy already explained it. In 1957 the original house was built. One house. In 1964 a bigger, two story house was built. Until 1964 there was one house, therefore there was no designation of *A*.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii if it had been televised on national television with Ronald Reagan presiding over the birth.
Click to expand...


He gave two address 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE 
was 937 - A 18TH AVE a multi house dwelling? was it built before 1961? was it in the birth announcement?

So when they recovert it into a single family dwelling?
937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
Bedrooms: 7 
Bathrooms: 2.5 
Sqft: 2,568 
Lot size: 10,001 sq ft / 0.23 acres 
Property type: Single Family 
Year built: 1965 
Parking type: Garage - Attached 
Cooling system: -- 
Heating system: -- 
Fireplace: Yes 
Last sold: July 01 1985


----------



## Ravi

Ravi said:


> It was a single house built in 1957. The second house didn't exist until 1964 so no designation of *A* was needed, or even possible, in the birth announcement.
> 
> Believe it or not I was once a mail man and I saw this type of thing often.
> 
> 
> *
> edit: oh darn, you deleted your post so I guess it sank in.
> *


I guess not.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow



Use Google Mapping. It looks like an apartment building, to me.

For this address: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use Google Mapping. It looks like an apartment building, to me.
> 
> For this address: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI
Click to expand...


You can use the direct link to the house I provided.
Smallest aprtment complex ever?

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2420-Kaululaau-St-Honolulu-HI-96813/593941_zpid/


----------



## KissMy

The mother ship came down & abducted baby Obama from his grandmother's arms in Kenya. They then genetically altered him with alien genes to make him powerful like them but it lightened his skin color. The mother ship came back to earth in Hawaii & accidental destroyed those missing houses & left the Obama Alien in Hawaii to destroy the planet. They had to leave him with a white mother to explain away the lighter skin color. He must be stopped at all cost. I know people who have pictures of this happening so I know it is true.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use Google Mapping. It looks like an apartment building, to me.
> 
> For this address: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use the direct link to the house I provided.
> Smallest aprtment complex ever?
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
Click to expand...



Dude, you have already been debunked through Hawaiian property records. Give it up. The house was demolished and a new one was built.


----------



## blackyb

All states need to pass those birth certificate laws and the way things are anymore scrutinize that as close as anything could be. This may have got the U.S. in some problems that we are going to have to pay for by those who were supposed to be watching this highest office seemed to be texting or watching something on their computers other than their jobs. Some of those who were supposed to be watching out for this country failed to do this in a big way and they now are made to fail to do this by ones in the White House who have friends that are not fit to serve the public in any capacity.


----------



## KissMy

blackyb said:


> All states need to pass those birth certificate laws and the way things are anymore scrutinize that as close as anything could be. This may have got the U.S. in some problems that we are going to have to pay for by those who were supposed to be watching this highest office seemed to be texting or watching something on their computers other than their jobs. Some of those who were supposed to be watching out for this country failed to do this in a big way and they now are made to fail to do this by ones in the White House who have friends that are not fit to serve the public in any capacity.



Well if your sock puppet is trying to say Obama & others are screwing up this country then I am with you all day long. But if you are trying to say he is a foreigner that is not eligible to be president because he has no birth certificate, then you are wrong all day long.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use Google Mapping. It looks like an apartment building, to me.
> 
> For this address: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can use the direct link to the house I provided.
> Smallest aprtment complex ever?
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you have already been debunked through Hawaiian property records. Give it up. The house was demolished and a new one was built.
Click to expand...


Two address were used in the so called debunking, or am I missing something? 

one was for an apartment which was not the address in the paper. When was that house built? 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE

The address will still be there and will not change.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can use the direct link to the house I provided.
> Smallest aprtment complex ever?
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you have already been debunked through Hawaiian property records. Give it up. The house was demolished and a new one was built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two address were used in the so called debunking, or am I missing something?
> 
> one was for an apartment which was not the address in the paper. When was that house built? 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE
> 
> The address will still be there and will not change.
Click to expand...

 You are seriously retarded.


----------



## boedicca

The number 1 book on Amazon today:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303384435&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Where&#39;s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (9781936488292): Corsi Jerome: Books[/ame]


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Two address were used in the so called debunking, or am I missing something?
> 
> one was for an apartment which was not the address in the paper. When was that house built? 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE
> 
> The address will still be there and will not change.



OMG Dude, you can't be that stupid! Both houses are still on the same large L sape plot of land at 937 18TH AVE.

The front house was built first with the address of 937 18TH AVE and was built in 1957.
The rear 2 story house was built in 1964 & given the postal address of 937-A 18TH AVE.
Below is a screenshot of this Zillow Link of 937 18TH AVE plot map showing the plot highlighted in green & outlined in red.




Below is a screenshot of the same location & orientation from this Zillow page link of the same property with the same plot outlined in red. Can you not see 2 houses in the outlined property. The one next to the street was built first in 1957 & has the address of 937 18th Ave. The one in back was built in 1964 & has the address of 937-A 18th Ave.




937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 has 2 address & 2 houses on the same property. First built in 1957. Second was unit A built in 1964.


> 937 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1957 1 0
> 937 - A 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1964 2 0


----------



## Toro

boedicca said:


> The number 1 book on Amazon today:
> 
> Amazon.com: Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (9781936488292): Corsi Jerome: Books




And Trump leads in the Republican primaries...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two address were used in the so called debunking, or am I missing something?
> 
> one was for an apartment which was not the address in the paper. When was that house built? 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE
> 
> The address will still be there and will not change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG Dude, you can't be that stupid! Both houses are still on the same large L sape plot of land at 937 18TH AVE.
> 
> The front house was built first with the address of 937 18TH AVE and was built in 1957.
> The rear 2 story house was built in 1964 & given the postal address of 937-A 18TH AVE.
> Below is a screenshot of this Zillow Link of 937 18TH AVE plot map showing the plot highlighted in green & outlined in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is a screenshot of the same location & orientation from this Zillow page link of the same property with the same plot outlined in red. Can you not see 2 houses in the outlined property. The one next to the street was built first in 1957 & has the address of 937 18th Ave. The one in back was built in 1964 & has the address of 937-A 18th Ave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816 has 2 address or 2 houses on the same property built in 1957 one was unit A.
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1957 1 0
> 937 - A 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1964 2 0
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


OMG is right your link is to Kaimuki not Honolulu the address is 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI 96816
937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow

This is your link
Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow


----------



## Ravi

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two address were used in the so called debunking, or am I missing something?
> 
> one was for an apartment which was not the address in the paper. When was that house built? 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE
> 
> The address will still be there and will not change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG Dude, you can't be that stupid! Both houses are still on the same large L sape plot of land at 937 18TH AVE.
> 
> The front house was built first with the address of 937 18TH AVE and was built in 1957.
> The rear 2 story house was built in 1964 & given the postal address of 937-A 18TH AVE.
> Below is a screenshot of this Zillow Link of 937 18TH AVE plot map showing the plot highlighted in green & outlined in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is a screenshot of the same location & orientation from this Zillow page link of the same property with the same plot outlined in red. Can you not see 2 houses in the outlined property. The one next to the street was built first in 1957 & has the address of 937 18th Ave. The one in back was built in 1964 & has the address of 937-A 18th Ave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816 has 2 address or 2 houses on the same property built in 1957 one was unit A.
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1957 1 0
> 937 - A 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1964 2 0
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yep and if they build a third dwelling on that parcel it will be 937B 18th Avenue and birferreb's head will explode.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OMG is right your link is to Kaimuki not Honolulu the address is 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI 96816
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> This is your link
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow




Kaimuki is a neighborhood name. In Honolulu.

OMFG you are amazing!


----------



## Ravi

The thriving community of Kaimuki is located east of Manoa and Makiki,  inland from Diamond Head on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. It is one of  Honolulu's oldest neighborhoods, providing an eclectic mixture of  established businesses and new trendy shops and restaurants. The area  has managed to retain its historical charm while making room for new  exciting business growth. Its unique character and prime location make  Kaimuki a wonderful place to live, work and play.

About Kaimuki, Hawaii


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two address were used in the so called debunking, or am I missing something?
> 
> one was for an apartment which was not the address in the paper. When was that house built? 937 18TH AVE and 937 - A 18TH AVE
> 
> The address will still be there and will not change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG Dude, you can't be that stupid! Both houses are still on the same large L sape plot of land at 937 18TH AVE.
> 
> The front house was built first with the address of 937 18TH AVE and was built in 1957.
> The rear 2 story house was built in 1964 & given the postal address of 937-A 18TH AVE.
> Below is a screenshot of this Zillow Link of 937 18TH AVE plot map showing the plot highlighted in green & outlined in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is a screenshot of the same location & orientation from this Zillow page link of the same property with the same plot outlined in red. Can you not see 2 houses in the outlined property. The one next to the street was built first in 1957 & has the address of 937 18th Ave. The one in back was built in 1964 & has the address of 937-A 18th Ave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 has 2 address & 2 houses on the same property. First built in 1957. Second was unit A built in 1964.
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1957 1 0
> 937 - A 18TH AVE - Detached Dwelling (detached from property line on all sides) (Last update in 2000) 1964 2 0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG is right your link is to Kaimuki not Honolulu the address is 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI 96816
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> This is your link
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow
Click to expand...


Why don't you click on the L shaped property valued at 930K in my link & see what the adress is?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG Dude, you can't be that stupid! Both houses are still on the same large L sape plot of land at 937 18TH AVE.
> 
> The front house was built first with the address of 937 18TH AVE and was built in 1957.
> The rear 2 story house was built in 1964 & given the postal address of 937-A 18TH AVE.
> Below is a screenshot of this Zillow Link of 937 18TH AVE plot map showing the plot highlighted in green & outlined in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is a screenshot of the same location & orientation from this Zillow page link of the same property with the same plot outlined in red. Can you not see 2 houses in the outlined property. The one next to the street was built first in 1957 & has the address of 937 18th Ave. The one in back was built in 1964 & has the address of 937-A 18th Ave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816 has 2 address or 2 houses on the same property built in 1957 one was unit A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG is right your link is to Kaimuki not Honolulu the address is 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI 96816
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> This is your link
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you click on the L shaped property valued at 930K in my link & see what the adress is?
Click to expand...

It shows one house on that address your L shape red line is dividing one house in half.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG is right your link is to Kaimuki not Honolulu the address is 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI 96816
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> This is your link
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you click on the L shaped property valued at 930K in my link & see what the adress is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shows one house on that address your L shape red line is dividing one house in half.
Click to expand...

Nope...if you look at it without the line it is clear there are two buildings.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/937-18th-Ave-Honolulu-HI-96816/603748_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you click on the L shaped property valued at 930K in my link & see what the adress is?
> 
> 
> 
> It shows one house on that address your L shape red line is dividing one house in half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...if you look at it without the line it is clear there are two buildings.
> 
> http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/937-18th-Ave-Honolulu-HI-96816/603748_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}
Click to expand...


Click on the one that says 930k L shape lot
You will see 669k 774k

Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows one house on that address your L shape red line is dividing one house in half.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...if you look at it without the line it is clear there are two buildings.
> 
> http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/937-18th-Ave-Honolulu-HI-96816/603748_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Click on the one that says 930k L shape lot
> You will see 669k 774k
> 
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow
Click to expand...

Yep...and you can clearly see two houses with different roofs, just like zero lot line homes.


----------



## Toro

birferreb's going to any length to prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, improbability be damned!


----------



## Ravi

Click on the next one up and you will get the same picture referring to 941 18 Ave. That is the house next door that you claim is being cut in half. Click on the next one up and you will find yet a different house with a different address.


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> birferreb's going to any length to prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.


I wish he'd go over there and get to the bottom of the mysterious lot with two homes on it. Maybe he could buy one...what would be cooler than a birfer living in one of those houses!


----------



## Ravi

Look at the satellite view on google maps. You can clearly see they are two different buildings.

937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI - Google Maps

(You'll have to zoom in all the way when you click on the link)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> Look at the satellite view on google maps. You can clearly see they are two different buildings.
> 
> 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI - Google Maps
> 
> (You'll have to zoom in all the way when you click on the link)


They look connected to me. and there's just one driveway in a fenced in yard.


----------



## Toro

Ravi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> birferreb's going to any length to prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish he'd go over there and get to the bottom of the mysterious lot with two homes on it. Maybe he could buy one...what would be cooler than a birfer living in one of those houses!
Click to expand...


lol

I owe you rep for that...


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the satellite view on google maps. You can clearly see they are two different buildings.
> 
> 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI - Google Maps
> 
> (You'll have to zoom in all the way when you click on the link)
> 
> 
> 
> They look connected to me. and there's just one driveway in a fenced in yard.
Click to expand...

Nope. Get the little walking dude out and walk the fence line...both properties have different fencing. And you'll be able to see the space between the two buildings and that each has its own mail box.

Jebus, my eyes hurt from all that.

btw, Zillow is not infallible or even a good source. I checked my house on it, it had the lot size wrong and said no bedrooms and baths! My aunt's it said had 3 bedrooms but she only has two.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this boys and girls
> 
> The address of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Wailelich of 937 18th AveHonolulu, HI 96816
> It to is a lovely home for one that was built in 1966
> http://www.alextheberge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
> 937 18th Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816 - Zillow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use Google Mapping. It looks like an apartment building, to me.
> 
> For this address: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use the direct link to the house I provided.
> Smallest aprtment complex ever?
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
Click to expand...


Try the Google map of the address. Yours doesn't look accurate, plus it says "no photographs of property available" so what does that mean since there is a photo of some building taken from above? The one Google shows is a long, two-story structure with a patio all the way around, and it could easily be a duplex. Frankly, I trust Google for accuracy over some blogger called "zillow."


----------



## MaggieMae

KissMy said:


> The mother ship came down & abducted baby Obama from his grandmother's arms in Kenya. They then genetically altered him with alien genes to make him powerful like them but it lightened his skin color. The mother ship came back to earth in Hawaii & accidental destroyed those missing houses & left the Obama Alien in Hawaii to destroy the planet. They had to leave him with a white mother to explain away the lighter skin color. He must be stopped at all cost. I know people who have pictures of this happening so I know it is true.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use Google Mapping. It looks like an apartment building, to me.
> 
> For this address: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie of 2420 Kaululaau StHonolulu, HI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can use the direct link to the house I provided.
> Smallest aprtment complex ever?
> 
> 2420 Kaululaau St, Honolulu, HI 96813 - Zillow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try the Google map of the address. Yours doesn't look accurate, plus it says "no photographs of property available" so what does that mean since there is a photo of some building taken from above? The one Google shows is a long, two-story structure with a patio all the way around, and it could easily be a duplex. Frankly, I trust Google for accuracy over some blogger called "zillow."
Click to expand...


google map is not current. The house in question is from the link I first provided.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the satellite view on google maps. You can clearly see they are two different buildings.
> 
> 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI - Google Maps
> 
> (You'll have to zoom in all the way when you click on the link)
> 
> 
> 
> They look connected to me. and there's just one driveway in a fenced in yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Get the little walking dude out and walk the fence line...both properties have different fencing. And you'll be able to see the space between the two buildings and that each has its own mail box.
> 
> Jebus, my eyes hurt from all that.
> 
> btw, Zillow is not infallible or even a good source. I checked my house on it, it had the lot size wrong and said no bedrooms and baths! My aunt's it said had 3 bedrooms but she only has two.
Click to expand...


From my link the one that is selling the is one house one address.

Just did mine it was just about right. Did the one I built and damn I am pissed off sold it was t early.


----------



## MaggieMae

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...if you look at it without the line it is clear there are two buildings.
> 
> http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/937-18th-Ave-Honolulu-HI-96816/603748_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click on the one that says 930k L shape lot
> You will see 669k 774k
> 
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...and you can clearly see two houses with different roofs, just like zero lot line homes.
Click to expand...


Well...I can see what all of this_ really_ means: There were TWO Obama babies, twins, one born in each house. So now the birther investigators will need to decide which twin is the evil one masquerading as President of the United States. Does he have 666 birthmark somewhere on his body and that's why the medical birth certificate won't be released? I say YES!!!! [slapping forehead] Stay tuned!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Click on the one that says 930k L shape lot
> You will see 669k 774k
> 
> Honolulu Hawaii Homes for Sale & Honolulu Real Estate - Zillow
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and you can clearly see two houses with different roofs, just like zero lot line homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...I can see what all of this_ really_ means: There were TWO Obama babies, twins, one born in each house. So now the birther investigators will need to decide which twin is the evil one masquerading as President of the United States. Does he have 666 birthmark somewhere on his body and that's why the medical birth certificate won't be released? I say YES!!!! [slapping forehead] Stay tuned!!
Click to expand...


Really? Never thought of that thanks.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They look connected to me. and there's just one driveway in a fenced in yard.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Get the little walking dude out and walk the fence line...both properties have different fencing. And you'll be able to see the space between the two buildings and that each has its own mail box.
> 
> Jebus, my eyes hurt from all that.
> 
> btw, Zillow is not infallible or even a good source. I checked my house on it, it had the lot size wrong and said no bedrooms and baths! My aunt's it said had 3 bedrooms but she only has two.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my link the one that is selling the is one house one address.
> 
> Just did mine it was just about right. Did the one I built and damn I am pissed off sold it was t early.
Click to expand...


Your link is wrong, as the property record shows.

As does the telephone book:



> *Alvin K Shiraishi*
> 
> 
> 937 18th Ave, Apt A
> 
> Honolulu, HI 96816-4185


Free People Search | WhitePages



> *Robert H Moody*
> 
> 
> 937 18th Ave
> 
> Honolulu, HI 96816-4185


Free People Search | WhitePages


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Get the little walking dude out and walk the fence line...both properties have different fencing. And you'll be able to see the space between the two buildings and that each has its own mail box.
> 
> Jebus, my eyes hurt from all that.
> 
> btw, Zillow is not infallible or even a good source. I checked my house on it, it had the lot size wrong and said no bedrooms and baths! My aunt's it said had 3 bedrooms but she only has two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my link the one that is selling the is one house one address.
> 
> Just did mine it was just about right. Did the one I built and damn I am pissed off sold it was t early.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link is wrong, as the property record shows.
> 
> As does the telephone book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Alvin K Shiraishi*
> 
> 
> 937 18th Ave, Apt A
> 
> Honolulu, HI 96816-4185
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free People Search | WhitePages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Robert H Moody*
> 
> 
> 937 18th Ave
> 
> Honolulu, HI 96816-4185
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free People Search | WhitePages
Click to expand...


still have not proven when apt a was built because apt a is not the address on the birth notice., but enough I'll give you the house but still waiting on proof about the BC being accepted by the state registrar of 1961 Nor have you debunked how the birth noctices are given to the paper. You can't do that because from their own web site they give direction on how people can do that. And was proven a lie when the guy from the paper said they have always gotten the notices from the department of health, when their web site says other wise.


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the satellite view on google maps. You can clearly see they are two different buildings.
> 
> 937 18th Ave Honolulu, HI - Google Maps
> 
> (You'll have to zoom in all the way when you click on the link)
> 
> 
> 
> They look connected to me. and there's just one driveway in a fenced in yard.
Click to expand...


Here is a satellite image from Bing & this time I left a gap in the red line at the houses so you can see they are separate.






Here is the same property from a different satellite angle.


----------



## Ravi

bigrebnc1775 said:


> still have not proven when apt a was built because apt a is not the address on the birth notice., but enough I'll give you the house



From 1957 to 1964 there was one dwelling on the property, as the link  KissMy found shows. Therefore the address on the birth record in the  newspaper was valid.



> but still waiting on proof about the BC being accepted by the state registrar of 1961


The legal definition of file:

to put (a legal document) on public record

As I said earlier, this is just stupidity on your part and I have no doubt if Obama's birth certificate said Accepted you would be arguing out of the other side of your mouth.



> Nor have you debunked how the birth noctices are given to the paper. You can't do that because from their own web site they give direction on how people can do that. And was proven a lie when the guy from the paper said they have always gotten the notices from the department of health, when their web site says other wise.


What it says on their website now is immaterial to what was done in 1961.

The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".

The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proven when apt a was built because apt a is not the address on the birth notice., but enough I'll give you the house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From 1957 to 1964 there was one dwelling on the property, as the link  KissMy found shows. Therefore the address on the birth record in the  newspaper was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but still waiting on proof about the BC being accepted by the state registrar of 1961
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal definition of file:
> 
> to put (a legal document) on public record
> 
> As I said earlier, this is just stupidity on your part and I have no doubt if Obama's birth certificate said Accepted you would be arguing out of the other side of your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor have you debunked how the birth noctices are given to the paper. You can't do that because from their own web site they give direction on how people can do that. And was proven a lie when the guy from the paper said they have always gotten the notices from the department of health, when their web site says other wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What it says on their website now is immaterial to what was done in 1961.
> 
> The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
> 
> The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.
Click to expand...




> The legal definition of file:
> 
> to put (a legal document) on public record



To file is not to accept. You file the document with the health depart one day and the document goes through the process until it get to the state registrar to be accepted with his signature.

There are two dates on the long form  with the document was submitted meaning fil and one for when it was accepted by the state registrar.



> The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
> 
> The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.



It's quitew clear what was said. Since you have already gave a thanks on the othe post from another thread I will not post the link

The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.

"If we published it, it came from the state," she said."

"The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.

"We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.

The operator said, "This is how we've always done it.""

But from there web site that would be a lie.

Nor would a government boidy violate there own state Constitution of invation of privacy of a private citizen, by submitting the home address in a newspaper.


----------



## Montrovant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proven when apt a was built because apt a is not the address on the birth notice., but enough I'll give you the house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From 1957 to 1964 there was one dwelling on the property, as the link  KissMy found shows. Therefore the address on the birth record in the  newspaper was valid.
> 
> The legal definition of file:
> 
> to put (a legal document) on public record
> 
> As I said earlier, this is just stupidity on your part and I have no doubt if Obama's birth certificate said Accepted you would be arguing out of the other side of your mouth.
> 
> What it says on their website now is immaterial to what was done in 1961.
> 
> The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
> 
> The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal definition of file:
> 
> to put (a legal document) on public record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To file is not to accept. You file the document with the health depart one day and the document goes through the process until it get to the state registrar to be accepted with his signature.
> 
> There are two dates on the long form  with the document was submitted meaning fil and one for when it was accepted by the state registrar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
> 
> The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quitew clear what was said. Since you have already gave a thanks on the othe post from another thread I will not post the link
> 
> The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
> 
> "If we published it, it came from the state," she said."
> 
> "The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.
> 
> "We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.
> 
> The operator said, "This is how we've always done it.""
> 
> But from there web site that would be a lie.
> 
> Nor would a government boidy violate there own state Constitution of invation of privacy of a private citizen, by submitting the home address in a newspaper.
Click to expand...


So, let me make sure I understand you correctly.  The Hawaii state government would not violate the privacy of a private citizen (ignoring for a moment the fact that this is not necessarily any such violation), but that same state government would be involved in a conspiracy to cover up Obama's citizenship status?  Is that really how you want to argue this?  

Hawaii can't be trusted!  Democrat state, the government there are all liars!  They are part of the birther conspiracy!
But they would never dream of violating privacy, since they are such an honest, upstanding government!

Do you see the contradiction there?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Montrovant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1957 to 1964 there was one dwelling on the property, as the link  KissMy found shows. Therefore the address on the birth record in the  newspaper was valid.
> 
> The legal definition of file:
> 
> to put (a legal document) on public record
> 
> As I said earlier, this is just stupidity on your part and I have no doubt if Obama's birth certificate said Accepted you would be arguing out of the other side of your mouth.
> 
> What it says on their website now is immaterial to what was done in 1961.
> 
> The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
> 
> The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To file is not to accept. You file the document with the health depart one day and the document goes through the process until it get to the state registrar to be accepted with his signature.
> 
> There are two dates on the long form  with the document was submitted meaning fil and one for when it was accepted by the state registrar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
> 
> The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quitew clear what was said. Since you have already gave a thanks on the othe post from another thread I will not post the link
> 
> The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
> 
> "If we published it, it came from the state," she said."
> 
> "The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.
> 
> "We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.
> 
> The operator said, "This is how we've always done it.""
> 
> But from there web site that would be a lie.
> 
> Nor would a government boidy violate there own state Constitution of invation of privacy of a private citizen, by submitting the home address in a newspaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let me make sure I understand you correctly.  The Hawaii state government would not violate the privacy of a private citizen (ignoring for a moment the fact that this is not necessarily any such violation), but that same state government would be involved in a conspiracy to cover up Obama's citizenship status?  Is that really how you want to argue this?
> 
> Hawaii can't be trusted!  Democrat state, the government there are all liars!  They are part of the birther conspiracy!
> But they would never dream of violating privacy, since they are such an honest, upstanding government!
> 
> Do you see the contradiction there?
Click to expand...




> So, let me make sure I understand you correctly.  The Hawaii state government would not violate the privacy of a private citizen (ignoring for a moment the fact that this is not necessarily any such violation



Releasing the full address would be an invation of privacy, just like the refuseal to release obama's birth certificate.

Now which has more important information Your home full address
or a document showing which hospital you were born?



> Hawaii can't be trusted!  Democrat state, the government there are all liars!  They are part of the birther conspiracy!
> But they would never dream of violating privacy, since they are such an honest, upstanding government!



For political resons hawaii cannot be trusted


----------



## washamericom

how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
(way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.


----------



## washamericom

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They demolished the original site and built another house as the property record reflects.
> 
> Honolulu Internet Permit System - Building Permit (pre 1999)
> 
> Yet another myth busted.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again
> 937 - A 18TH AVE is a single address dueplex type housing
> and
> 937 18TH AVE is a single adress one house dewlling
> the address in the birth announcement reads 937 18TH AVE not 937 - A 18TH AVE
> and what about the other house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KissMy already explained it. In 1957 the original house was built. One house. In 1964 a bigger, two story house was built. Until 1964 there was one house, therefore there was no designation of *A*.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii if it had been televised on national television with Ronald Reagan presiding over the birth.
Click to expand...


i would ravi


----------



## Toro

washamericom said:


> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.



Actually, DiveCon (RIP) gets credit for coining the term "birfer."

Are there going to be any more birfer laws coming from the states?  You will be able to know the true patriots are by whom proposes birfer bills!


----------



## Ravi

Last I heard, Florida is still considering one.

I am ashamed of my state.


----------



## Toro

Ravi said:


> Last I heard, Florida is still considering one.
> 
> I am ashamed of my state.



Won't happen with a week left in the session but I wouldn't be surprised if one is introduced but destined to fail to cynically pander to the nutter wing of the party.


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, DiveCon (RIP) gets credit for coining the term "birfer."
> 
> Are there going to be any more birfer laws coming from the states?  You will be able to know the true patriots are by whom proposes birfer bills!
Click to expand...


do you have any extras (birfer laws).?? since you don't have birf certificates in canada _or _quebec, could we use the money to buy wire coathangers and lint ?? i actually gave up lint for lent. have you been to iran lately ??
how a bout a scarlet "B" for birfir.

in closing, stay high my friend, congratulations on the sticky.


----------



## washamericom

Ravi said:


> Last I heard, Florida is still considering one.
> 
> I am ashamed of my state.



come to vermont ravi ! you would fit right in. we have a real live socialist senator and everything. (actually, bernie is fearless and a great gentleman, i just can't figure out his politics, vermont used to be a nice conservative state)


----------



## Obamerican

washamericom said:


> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.


Your web site looks like a sixth grader put it together.


----------



## Sheldon

This was a great thread.


----------



## Toro

Sheldon said:


> This was a great thread.



It'll be interesting to see if the birfer issue continues into next year's sessions.


----------



## washamericom

now that we have established that "president" obama is a total fuckin' fake... now what ?? should we go ahead and take him down ??

harper... i think _you_ might be ukelele !!!


----------



## washamericom

Obamerican said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.
> 
> 
> 
> Your web site looks like a sixth grader put it together.
Click to expand...


thank you, it has not been easy...


----------



## Sheldon

Ravi said:


> Last I heard, Florida is still considering one.
> 
> I am ashamed of my state.



Yeah but one of your hockey teams is pretty good and the Marlins are moving into a new stadium next year, and you guys haven't had a hurricane or shark attack in awhile.

 Always look on the bright side of life!


----------



## washamericom

the wall is crumbling now, associated press, subpoenas and law suits, loretta fuddy.

IF i were drinking with the president today in ireland, where his "roots" are, i would ask him "i can see how you drummed up the bin laden thing... and how you keep wonderfully ahead of the news cycles, with distractions and inventive and refreshing "wag the dog" tricks... 
    all of that i can see, but, how were you able to manipulate all of that bad weather that's dominated the news ?? should we be worried about climate control in the future ??". 
      i would ask him, and then i would step back and simply stare at him, in bumusement and puzzle.


The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. According to The Huffington Post, Lee will essentially be responsible for building up Obama&#8217;s online presence as he prepares for his reelection bid, and squashing any negative stories:

LOL


----------



## Toro

Hey wash

How was Beijing?  Did you say "hi" to Ming for me?


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> Hey wash
> 
> How was Beijing?  Did you say "hi" to Ming for me?



didn't get to rub elbows with the elite, i'm not an important canadian like you, i wish...
saw some great shows though... i'd love to meet the hu jintao, maybe next time, i'm still busy trying to help take down _*our*_ president. what you up to ?? did i miss anything ??


----------



## Toro

washamericom said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey wash
> 
> How was Beijing?  Did you say "hi" to Ming for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't get to rub elbows with the elite, i'm not an important canadian like you, i wish...
> saw some great shows though... i'd love to meet the hu jintao, maybe next time, i'm still busy trying to help take down _*our*_ president. what you up to ?? did i miss anything ??
Click to expand...


The Canucks are going to win the Stanley Cup!  For two months, the whole country shuts down while we watch hockey, so I have no idea what's going on.


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey wash
> 
> How was Beijing?  Did you say "hi" to Ming for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't get to rub elbows with the elite, i'm not an important canadian like you, i wish...
> saw some great shows though... i'd love to meet the hu jintao, maybe next time, i'm still busy trying to help take down _*our*_ president. what you up to ?? did i miss anything ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canucks are going to win the Stanley Cup!  For two months, the whole country shuts down while we watch hockey, so I have no idea what's going on.
Click to expand...


canadians do it rocky hockey style !! is this 25 or 26 ??  you can get me the autograph from the molson brothers...?? and explain canadian and canadien for the people. you were going to send me getty lee's last record.. hoser ?? takoff.


----------



## whitehall

Here's the deal. A former KKK member Chief Justice of the supreme court appointed by FDR wrote the modern "separation of church and state" doctrine and democrats have taken it to it's most extreme ends. Kids can be arrested for carrying Bibles on school grounds and government thugs sledge hammer the Ten Commandments off a court house wall that had been there for fifty years. There is a federal court order to bulldoze a Korean war monument because a single agnostic is offended by a 40 ft Cross. My point is that it wasn't a modern day KKK member that wrote the requirement that a president be born in the USA. It was the Founding Fathers. Somehow the democrat party seems to think it doesn't matter and the candidate can wave around a copy of a B.C. and everyone needs to "don't worry -be happy" because it's a democrat. The issue is important because it's a freaking Constitutional requirement for the most important job in the freaking world. It shouldn't require a state law.  If there is any doubt about where the candidate was born the B.C. should be examined by a panel of document examiners. For God's sakes Obama told Harvard that he was born in Africa and there is no record of his mother in a Hawaii hospital on the day he was born. It's not absolute evidence but doesn't it cast enough of a doubt to examine the B.C. instead of relying on some hack from Hawaii to verify it?


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> Hey wash
> 
> How was Beijing?  Did you say "hi" to Ming for me?



i'm back... how's the president of obama doing ??


----------



## KissMy

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, DiveCon (RIP) gets credit for coining the term "birfer."
> 
> Are there going to be any more birfer laws coming from the states?  You will be able to know the true patriots are by whom proposes birfer bills!
Click to expand...


My friend birfered all over his new 4 wheeler this weekend because he drank to much while we were deer hunting.


----------



## washamericom

KissMy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, DiveCon (RIP) gets credit for coining the term "birfer."
> 
> Are there going to be any more birfer laws coming from the states?  You will be able to know the true patriots are by whom proposes birfer bills!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My friend birfered all over his new 4 wheeler this weekend because he drank to much while we were deer hunting.
Click to expand...


i remember my first beer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

its so comforting knowing this guy is running our country.

President Psycho


----------



## Montrovant

9/11 inside job said:


> its so comforting knowing this guy is running our country.
> 
> President Psycho



It's comforting knowing that tomatobubble.com is there to psychoanalyze our president from afar!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

the troll has come to shit in this thread now i see.


----------



## SAYIT

9/11 inside job said:


> the troll has come to shit in this thread now i see.



Do you do your posting from the bathroom, Princess? All your posts are steeped in shit and farts.


----------



## KissMy

SAYIT said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> the troll has come to shit in this thread now i see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do your posting from the bathroom, Princess? All your posts are steeped in shit and farts.
Click to expand...


He is a shit flinger. He flings every shit 9/11 theory against the wall until he gets something to stick.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

KissMy said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> the troll has come to shit in this thread now i see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do your posting from the bathroom, Princess? All your posts are steeped in shit and farts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a shit flinger. He flings every shit 9/11 theory against the wall until he gets something to stick.
Click to expand...


so says the agent troll who skipped junior high school science classes and worships our corrupt government institutions and corporate media to no end listening to what THEY say and then being a retard and ignoring EXPERTS.you should start a comedy club with that loigc on who to listen to and who to ignore mr coincidence theorist.  your handlers sure sent you here to shit on the floor real quick.

first troll montrovent shits on the floor,then the two PAID trolls say it and kiss my come on to shit on the floor here next  to fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come toto gets a sticky thread....  O 'cause he's canadian ?? that sucks !!  no fair...
> (way to go harper!)  people don't know this, but it was our friend toro, that first coined the expression "birfer"... only our northern cousins (inbreeding) could come up with such a coup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, DiveCon (RIP) gets credit for coining the term "birfer."
> 
> Are there going to be any more birfer laws coming from the states?  You will be able to know the true patriots are by whom proposes birfer bills!
Click to expand...


Divecunt was a legenday troll  from the beginning before he had his nervous breakdrown and then had to leave.That paid troll always debated like this-You are an idiot,its not true..thats how he ALWAYS tried to refute facts.Rip? he sure isnt doing that,he is in hell right now suffering for his participation in government coverups like all the paid shills here will be doing in the future as well participating in these Obama coverups.and non paid trolls like yourself as well for particpating in them also.


----------



## washamericom

Toro ??

is he getting away with it ??


----------



## gslack

They still at it? 

Jesus guys, he'sin his 2nd term now what do you hope will come of it? Think they will recall the last 4 years, maybe set us back to 2008? Have the election again? Hey maybe they can elect Hilary next time, that would be good right.... Face it, he's here to stay. No birth certificate nonsense can change that. He's a citizen, so am I..

Stop this silliness already, it makes the country look like it has too many morons in it...


----------



## MisterBeale

Saw this video today, thought it was good for a laugh.  . .  

Birthday Czar.  Indeed.  If he had a birthday Czar, maybe they could put out a new long form certificate every year that matches the date and age he says his birth date is for the age he tells the nation how old he is now.   

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wF_n-gn-Yo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wF_n-gn-Yo[/ame]


----------



## Toro

This is the thread of Epic Birfer Fail.


----------

