New Proposed Laws Threaten Obama's 2012 Re-Election Prospects

[GStarz]

Here is a report with the same dateline:

< < Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors
March 3rd, 2011

Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors

Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit &#8220;original documentation&#8221; for candidates who appear on that party&#8217;s presidential primary, and also for the party to submit &#8220;original documentation&#8221; for its nominee in November.

The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires &#8220;A certified exact copy of the candidate&#8217;s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate&#8217;s date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate&#8217;s birth; the names of the candidate&#8217;s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate&#8217;s birth.&#8221; However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.

HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a &#8220;misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.&#8221; Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news

Pay no attention to Skippy (AKA Toro, a name he probably chose after the lawnmower manufacturer who constructed the device he uses to earn his allowance), you get it. He seems to think that a small preportion of people taking their names off as co-sponsors somehow suggest that the bill will not pass. These people are under tremendous pressure and possibly threats. But all it takes is one bill to pass.

You see how Skippy is pinning his hopes on no bills passing, as though to admit what mother Jones news has already inferred: if Obama has to produce the records he's finished, because he is already holding the office illegally.

Thanks for your post. Keep up the patriotic good work. One of those bills will pass - with so many co-sponsors in each one, the law of averages demands it. And then we shall see!

 

[USArmyRetired]

Here is a report with the same dateline:

< < Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors
March 3rd, 2011

Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors

Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit &#8220;original documentation&#8221; for candidates who appear on that party&#8217;s presidential primary, and also for the party to submit &#8220;original documentation&#8221; for its nominee in November.

The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires &#8220;A certified exact copy of the candidate&#8217;s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate&#8217;s date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate&#8217;s birth; the names of the candidate&#8217;s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate&#8217;s birth.&#8221; However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.

HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a &#8220;misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.&#8221; Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news

You're a little behind things. There are now 68 sponsors of this bill as the saner members of the Republican caucus realize that they don't want to associated with the nutters.

On December 12th, 1963 Obama also GAINS Kenyan Citizenship but loses nothing. In fact, his "losing British citizenship" has been another lie propagated by Factcheck and others.

Here is short of facts:
1. Obama is born a British Subject in 1961. It matters not where he was born - he is a British Subject due to decent.
2. Obama gains Kenyan Citizenship in December 1963 due to decent clause of Kenyan Constitution. His status as British subject is NOT changed.
3. Obama loses his Kenyan citizenship in 1982 but has 2 years to reclaim it. (BTW, this holds for Indonesia as well).
4. Between November 1982 and November 1984 Obama can reclaim Kenyan Citizenship or Indonesian Citizenship. He takes trips to both Kenya and Indonesia during that timeframe either in 1981 or 1983.
5. If Obama took no action to renew or reclaim his Kenyan Citizenship after reaching age 21 then it is the Kenyan Citizenship that expires at age 23. The British status is completely unaffected.
6. Social Security numbers starting with 999 are associated with Obama at addresses he lived at while at Occidental. 999 SS# are commonly and and as a standard used as temporary numbers for foreign national students for paperwork requiring a SS#.

For details of Kenyan Citizenship:

The Constitution of Kenya - Chapter 2 - The Executive

Leo Donofrio, who is up and blogging again, captured it accurately here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...gus-fact-regarding-obamas-kenyan-citizenship/

The document that is needed to renounce British Citizenship is here:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf

Without it, we have a (current) British dual citizen in the White House. James Madison is likely not pleased.

 

[mnbasketball]

if Obama served knowing he was unqualified after all the damage he has dome to this country,

Man that is a good one, everyone who uses his brain new that Bush wasn't qualified and they elected him for a second term, and if you want to talk about DAMAGE TO THIS COUNTRY, all I can say is BRING IT ON.

 

[BluesMistress]

This is a variation of the Jim Crow Laws - in this case, if you can't beat Obama at the ballot box, then try to have his name removed from the ballot!

That is really funny since objecting to the legitimacy of the nominating petitions of an incumbent is Exactly how Obama got on the Chicago ballot in his first state senate race.

"On December 26, Obama campaign volunteer Ron Davis filed objections to the legitimacy of the nominating petitions of incumbent state Sen. Palmer, and to those of Askia, Ewell and Lynch"
Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toro]

Here is a report with the same dateline:

< < Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors
March 3rd, 2011

Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors

Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit “original documentation” for candidates who appear on that party’s presidential primary, and also for the party to submit “original documentation” for its nominee in November.

The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires “A certified exact copy of the candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s birth.” However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.

HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a “misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news

You're a little behind things. There are now 68 sponsors of this bill as the saner members of the Republican caucus realize that they don't want to associated with the nutters.

On December 12th, 1963 Obama also GAINS Kenyan Citizenship but loses nothing. In fact, his "losing British citizenship" has been another lie propagated by Factcheck and others.

Here is short of facts:
1. Obama is born a British Subject in 1961. It matters not where he was born - he is a British Subject due to decent.
2. Obama gains Kenyan Citizenship in December 1963 due to decent clause of Kenyan Constitution. His status as British subject is NOT changed.
3. Obama loses his Kenyan citizenship in 1982 but has 2 years to reclaim it. (BTW, this holds for Indonesia as well).
4. Between November 1982 and November 1984 Obama can reclaim Kenyan Citizenship or Indonesian Citizenship. He takes trips to both Kenya and Indonesia during that timeframe either in 1981 or 1983.
5. If Obama took no action to renew or reclaim his Kenyan Citizenship after reaching age 21 then it is the Kenyan Citizenship that expires at age 23. The British status is completely unaffected.
6. Social Security numbers starting with 999 are associated with Obama at addresses he lived at while at Occidental. 999 SS# are commonly and and as a standard used as temporary numbers for foreign national students for paperwork requiring a SS#.

For details of Kenyan Citizenship:

The Constitution of Kenya - Chapter 2 - The Executive

Leo Donofrio, who is up and blogging again, captured it accurately here:

CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama&#8217;s Kenyan Citizenship. « Natural Born Citizen

The document that is needed to renounce British Citizenship is here:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf

Without it, we have a (current) British dual citizen in the White House. James Madison is likely not pleased.

lol. Yeah.

And this has what to do with the Republicans defecting from the GA bill?

 

[kaz]

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires all states to accept the legal documents of another state as valid
many states issue the short form as proof of citizenship
all these laws will have to accept that or be found unconstitutional

Sorry, you lost me. Any State that passes the law is not saying they won't recognize the documents of another State, they are saying they want the document. If they were to say they would not recognize Hawaiian Birth Certificates as valid then they would be in violation of the The Full Faith and Credit. But they are not saying they don't recognize the documents, they are saying they want the documents.

I'm not in favor of the birther movement, i think he is an American citizen and he followed the rules as they were in 2008. I have no problem with States requiring more documentation though in future elections

 

[mnbasketball]

If you were born in the usa are you auotmaticlly a citizen? - Yahoo! Answers

If you are born in this country you are a citizen except for rare exceptions, like a son of a diplomat, or an ememy combatant.

 

[mnbasketball]

they can have whatever it was that passed muster for the orignal state, they don't get the right to demand what they want.

 

[Toro]

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires all states to accept the legal documents of another state as valid
many states issue the short form as proof of citizenship
all these laws will have to accept that or be found unconstitutional

Sorry, you lost me. Any State that passes the law is not saying they won't recognize the documents of another State, they are saying they want the document. The Full Faith and Credit says they recognize the documents, it does not say they don't need the documents.

That's not what the bills are saying. The bills are saying they must have a long-form birth certificate. In at least two bills thus far - NE and MO - that would have disqualified candidates from either of those states from running as President since neither produces one.

Other bills are saying that both parents have to be natural born citizens, which is obviously making up constitutional law.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No worries, the left will call you a racist and that will be that. Case closed... Obama runs in '12.

 

[DiveCon]

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires all states to accept the legal documents of another state as valid
many states issue the short form as proof of citizenship
all these laws will have to accept that or be found unconstitutional

Sorry, you lost me. Any State that passes the law is not saying they won't recognize the documents of another State, they are saying they want the document. If they were to say they would not recognize Hawaiian Birth Certificates as valid then they would be in violation of the The Full Faith and Credit. But they are not saying they don't recognize the documents, they are saying they want the documents.

I'm not in favor of the birther movement, i think he is an American citizen and he followed the rules as they were in 2008. I have no problem with States requiring more documentation though in future elections

right, but they will have to accept what the state issues or be in violation
that is my point
the state of HI issues the short form as proof of birth
they MUST accept that or the law will be found unconstitutional

 

[DiveCon]

This is a variation of the Jim Crow Laws - in this case, if you can't beat Obama at the ballot box, then try to have his name removed from the ballot!

now this is just retarded
this has nothing to do with the old democratic jim crow laws

 

[The T]

No worries, the left will call you a racist and that will be that. Case closed... Obama runs in '12.

I wonder if the left will call the Right rascist if Herman Cain runs?

 

[The T]

This is a variation of the Jim Crow Laws - in this case, if you can't beat Obama at the ballot box, then try to have his name removed from the ballot!

now this is just retarded
this has nothing to do with the old democratic jim crow laws

Give the poster his due...he's stupid.

 

[kaz]

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires all states to accept the legal documents of another state as valid
many states issue the short form as proof of citizenship
all these laws will have to accept that or be found unconstitutional

Sorry, you lost me. Any State that passes the law is not saying they won't recognize the documents of another State, they are saying they want the document. The Full Faith and Credit says they recognize the documents, it does not say they don't need the documents.

That's not what the bills are saying. The bills are saying they must have a long-form birth certificate. In at least two bills thus far - NE and MO - that would have disqualified candidates from either of those states from running as President since neither produces one.

OK, but Hawaii does have a long version. If a candidate from NE or MO were denied, they could reasonably argue it's unconstitutional. The Full Faith and Credit doesn't say though that Arizona or other States have to accept Hawaii's procedures for issuing docs, it says they must recognize the docs. The short version is an abbreviation of the full document, it's not the full document. To argue they have to accept the short version when the short version is short for a long version isn't there.

Other bills are saying that both parents have to be natural born citizens, which is obviously making up constitutional law.

I doubt that, but if they are then it's flagrantly unconstitutional and any lawyer would know that and the legislatures are made up of lawyers, which is why I doubt that.

 

[DiveCon]

No worries, the left will call you a racist and that will be that. Case closed... Obama runs in '12.

I wonder if the left will call the Right rascist if Herman Cain runs?

he will be an "uncle tom"
or a self hating black

 

[GStarz]

Sorry, you lost me. Any State that passes the law is not saying they won't recognize the documents of another State, they are saying they want the document. The Full Faith and Credit says they recognize the documents, it does not say they don't need the documents.

That's not what the bills are saying. The bills are saying they must have a long-form birth certificate. In at least two bills thus far - NE and MO - that would have disqualified candidates from either of those states from running as President since neither produces one.

OK, but Hawaii does have a long version. If a candidate from NE or MO were denied, they could reasonably argue it's unconstitutional. The Full Faith and Credit doesn't say though that Arizona or other States have to accept Hawaii's procedures for issuing docs, it says they must recognize the docs. The short version is an abbreviation of the full document, it's not the full document. To argue they have to accept the short version when the short version is short for a long version isn't there.

Other bills are saying that both parents have to be natural born citizens, which is obviously making up constitutional law.

I doubt that, but if they are then it's flagrantly unconstitutional and any lawyer would know that and the legislatures are made up of lawyers, which is why I doubt that.

On your first point, about the long form, right. Hawaii said they have a long form, and while they would not confirm the details, which only fueled the fire, they confirmed categorically that it does exist. What Obama defenders always skip over is the fact that Obama himself could put this to rest in a heartbeat with a quick telephone call. The common sense view is that it's faster and less expensive to the tax payer to have Obama make a phone call to release the records than having lawyers fight disclosure on the public dime, which is what Obama is currently doing and has been doing for 2 years.

The idea that everyone must accept the short form or be in violation of the constitution is simply absurd. I like all these armchair constitutional scholars citing SCOTUS verdicts in advance and the rest of it. No one here is well-placed enough to say what the legislators is doing is unconstitutional. If they were, they wouldn't be mouthing off here.

As far as demanding both parents be citizens, I think there is one or two laws demanding that, but that law is probably designed to force the issue of definition to the SCOTUS which has thus far not had the cajones to deal with it. That would be a good thing for everyone.

Blaming the "Birthers' for this is utter bullshit. The person to blame is obama for dragging this out, or demanding people forget all about it. That's, at best, scumbag arrogance. And of course, at worst, he's hiding facts that could lead him to a prison term of a million years for taking control of the executive branch of the United States of America while knowing he did not have the constitutional authority to do so.

 

[GStarz]

This is a variation of the Jim Crow Laws - in this case, if you can't beat Obama at the ballot box, then try to have his name removed from the ballot!

That is really funny since objecting to the legitimacy of the nominating petitions of an incumbent is Exactly how Obama got on the Chicago ballot in his first state senate race.

"On December 26, Obama campaign volunteer Ron Davis filed objections to the legitimacy of the nominating petitions of incumbent state Sen. Palmer, and to those of Askia, Ewell and Lynch"
Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT point! That's the first time I've heard that. bravo!

 

[rightwinger]

No worries, the left will call you a racist and that will be that. Case closed... Obama runs in '12.

I wonder if the left will call the Right rascist if Herman Cain runs?

Is that Godfather Pizza dude?

 

[GStarz]

Here is a report with the same dateline:

< < Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors
March 3rd, 2011

Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors

Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit “original documentation” for candidates who appear on that party’s presidential primary, and also for the party to submit “original documentation” for its nominee in November.

The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires “A certified exact copy of the candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s birth.” However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.

HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a “misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news

You're a little behind things. There are now 68 sponsors of this bill as the saner members of the Republican caucus realize that they don't want to associated with the nutters.

On December 12th, 1963 Obama also GAINS Kenyan Citizenship but loses nothing. In fact, his "losing British citizenship" has been another lie propagated by Factcheck and others.

Here is short of facts:
1. Obama is born a British Subject in 1961. It matters not where he was born - he is a British Subject due to decent.
2. Obama gains Kenyan Citizenship in December 1963 due to decent clause of Kenyan Constitution. His status as British subject is NOT changed.
3. Obama loses his Kenyan citizenship in 1982 but has 2 years to reclaim it. (BTW, this holds for Indonesia as well).
4. Between November 1982 and November 1984 Obama can reclaim Kenyan Citizenship or Indonesian Citizenship. He takes trips to both Kenya and Indonesia during that timeframe either in 1981 or 1983.
5. If Obama took no action to renew or reclaim his Kenyan Citizenship after reaching age 21 then it is the Kenyan Citizenship that expires at age 23. The British status is completely unaffected.
6. Social Security numbers starting with 999 are associated with Obama at addresses he lived at while at Occidental. 999 SS# are commonly and and as a standard used as temporary numbers for foreign national students for paperwork requiring a SS#.

For details of Kenyan Citizenship:

The Constitution of Kenya - Chapter 2 - The Executive

Leo Donofrio, who is up and blogging again, captured it accurately here:

CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama&#8217;s Kenyan Citizenship. « Natural Born Citizen

The document that is needed to renounce British Citizenship is here:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf

Without it, we have a (current) British dual citizen in the White House. James Madison is likely not pleased.

Outstanding! I just checked all that out. You're 100% right across the board. Superb post! Keep up the great work! Really impressive!