For at least a year now, Birthers have been claiming that the Democratic National Convention failed to certify Obama's constitutional eligibility in 49 or 50 states. JB Williams made the claim in his September 10, 2009 article "The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie" But it's not until three-fourths of the way through another article that Williams admits "not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing."

WorldNetDaily has also advanced this claim, first by Bob Unruh last year, then by Drew Zahn shortly thereafter, and resurrected again by Bob Unruh last week.

Here also is a link to an old PJ thread on the subject with a lot of good material by thorswitch.

But which states' nomination forms *have* actually been seen? And given the recent twist on the claim, which states' state party nomination forms have been seen? I actually have a copy of Georgia's, myself. And how do the 2008 Democratic forms compare to the 2004 forms? Basically, what actual documentation has been produced to substantiate this Birther claim?

idunno Loren. New video on this topic.



That video is from ppsimmons. That's the Hickory Hammock Baptist Church.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsimmons

Did he make that video in a few hours? How is it that he links to "original WND article" which is only dated "Posted: September 25, 2010, 10:10 pm Eastern"? The video was uploaded September 26 and has over 26k views so far.

He says:



Another comment from ppsimmons:


God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4WsG9H8eh0


There are no rules about anything anymore. Churches can say and do anything. Corporations can buy elections and judges. Well... they can! Look at the West Virginia case.

I'm gonna calm down now else I'll end up grumpy.

This crap has been going around forever.

If the state required a certain form I'm sure their wishes were complied with. It is and has been much ado over nothing, IMO. I will admit I've paid little attention to it since it first popped up quite some time ago, but my opinion has not changed.

If I'm wrong and there's "something" to it, someone enlighten me.

It's more about the timing and the frequency of certain birther topics. I am trying to avoid the tinfoil hat, but it seems to me that the birther effort is getting more organized. It's about the smears. It's about painting the President as UnAmerican. As UnChristian.

I imagine Floyd Brown and Joey Farah are at the helm. I imagine Vallely and the second string are helping.

It's not that I think there's anything "to" it. Not substantively, that is.

The Birther factual claim I'm interested in here is the assertion that in forms filed in 49 states, the DNC didn't certify its nominees as Constitutionally eligible. They say this, despite admitting that they haven't inspected all 50 states' documents, and despite not posting online more than a handful of actual certifications.

In short, while Birthers love to toss around the number 49, how many states' documents have they actually shown to say what they claim? Is this, in fact, nothing more than another case of Birthers making up a big claim, and then never bothering to substantiate it with documents they claim to possess?

NBC used to have a bunch of states on his site, but the images went away. NBC -- can you bring them back?

Try:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/ ... ification/


nbc has other posts. put DNC into his search engine and a bunch will pop up.

For me this question goes along with the other great skipping of checking out a document:

No Birther ever has ever tried to view Obamas birth certificate as was (and on request probably still would be) available at the DNC and election commitee in 2008 and get a second opinion from the real paper rather than discussion at indefinite length the validity of pictures presented on the internet (aka Factcheck.org).

Will have to find the graphics again. Sorry.

I would like this issue more thoroughly looked into also, especially after the guy at OCRegister's comments claiming Hawaii's Dem Committee REFUSED to certify Candidate Obama.

Butterbutt has a whole communication with HDC:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/page/4/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37528165/2000 ... Candidates


I was gonna email HDC, but I get the sense that they don't want to deal with birther stuff and maybe don't even have a good explanation for the "discrepancies" Butterbutt thinks she's found.

My personal opinion?

They all knew perfectly well where he was born and just used whatever form they had as a template (DNC one) and being proud of their "son" rushed their certification out without considering the potential ramifications in whackjob birtherstan. It never occurred to them that they needed more of a statement than the DNC used in 2004.

I tend to agree. Here on Earth, certain things are taken at face value (N.b., not the same as "taken for granted"). It is not inappropriate for Very Important Things to be taken at face value -- they just have a higher face value, if you will.

It was widely known among Obama's friends, associates, family, and people generally in his life and past that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This also made him over 35 in 2007-2008.

All the examples we've seen of state ballot statutes, and of state party org certification standards, proceed based on some sort of affirmation, in some cases over a signature made 'under penalty of perjury' or other oath-like language.

Some of these, for candidates for President, quote the requirements from Article II in detail, others only partially, and some not at all, resting on "I swear I meet the qualifications" or the like.

As Meroni has discovered, the system has been comfortable with this approach for a long time. For all the RW talk of common sense -- THIS is supremely commonsensical. As I've noted previously:

• Most people don't want to run for office. It's not like it's a huge boon -- this isn't Burma
• It's expensive, you give up your privacy, it's hard work, and the pay is usually much less than the private sector
• Most people that are willing to do that are interested in a number of things, but one is usually a kind of lawyerly civic-mindedness -- if not outright liberal values like "helping people"
• People who fit that description -- while it is famously true that politicians are liars -- have not typically wanted to make their start in politicking by violating such a basic and easily checked fact as age and citizenship.

The whole business is just ridiculous. It wouldn't be the end of the world if some jurisdictions started requiring stiffer checking of certifications -- but let nobody think it would prevent an Obama being elected (of course) -- OR prevent a birther movement from following.

Obama's certification was handled as 'business as usual,' for very good reason, with abundant historical precedent; and now the whiners, racists, BS-artists, troublemakers, zealots, and ratfuckers are just being crybabies.

Here's what will happen in 2011-2012, assuming Obama runs for reelection: Some people or groups will challenge Obama's candidacy (somewhat as Meroni has done) during the prescribed window for such challenges, in one or many jurisdictions. I don't know of any jurisdiction where the proof of citizenship will have been required, so most of those will be disposed the same way as Meroni's -- objector has burden of proof, objector has made no credible claim of any violation ... dismissed/denined. It will only get interesting (in a Fogbow-get-more-popcorn kind of way) if there is a requirement to prove citizenship somewhere, and Obama's provided documentation is challenged. In those cases, the original COLB will be provided the electoral officials and/or court, affidavits in support will proceed from Hawaii, and the end result will be the same ... dismissed/denined. NONE of which will satisfy the hardcore birthers whatsoever.

Other wrinkles, all equally entertaining, could be a Vatellite onslaught, with the aim of effectively overthrowing jus soli/Wong Kim Ark/Ankeny in the SCOTUS; or getting objections raised in Congress when the Electoral College results are read out (if Obama wins).

No matter HOW agonizing and aggressive such efforts may become, and no matter HOW definitively and absolutely they are dismissed/denined, NONE will satisfy the hardcore birthers, and we'd be in for another 4 years of cynical, treasonous, seditious claptrap.

Ew. Now I have to go shower.

Look at the two statements, it almost looks as if they accidentally removed a part, causing the remainder to form a strange sentence.

I noticed that, too. As if someone took the actual letter and "redacted" parts of it. While it could be a screw up, I also wouldn't put it past the birfers, who seem to think that a forged document will somehow magically prove their delusions.

It looks like a sentence was cut. The most logical explanation is a cut and paste error. In both cases the include national document was the same and stated the Qualifications of the Candidate.

See here

A minor mystery at best, which also explains why the sentence never ran that well in the 2008 document

It shouldn't have. Don't forget, after all, what the political landscape *was* in late August 2008. Phil Berg had only filed the first Birther lawsuit a week earlier, and nobody was taking it seriously. Skepticism over Obama's birth had attracted measurable levels of support online since it's inception in June, but it hadn't really spread beyond disgruntled Hillary fans and really fringey right-wing blogs. Even WorldNetDaily had just dismissed it as baseless earlier in the month. FactCheck had published its photos of the COLB a week earlier, and even if anyone at the DNC was paying attention to the proto-Birthers at that stage, no one had reason to believe they would be an ongoing nuisance.

McCain hadn't chosen the gift that keeps giving, yet, either. And the campaign to turn Obama into a foreign-agent-terrorist hadn't started.

I look upon birferism as a natural extension of Palin's disqualification campaign, picked up by the low-IQ hate-filled xenophobic morons who are her most ardent supporters.

Here is what I have:
DNC CA 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52583180/Dnc- ... atic-Party
DNC CA 2008 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19949541/SACC ... NCCERT2008
DNC HI 2008 http://www.scribd.com/doc/32614591/2008 ... tion-Obama
DNC HI 2008 http://www.scribd.com/doc/52582735/Hawaii-Response
DNC SC 2008

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52583761/Sout ... -Qualified
DNC TX 2008 http://www.scribd.com/doc/52581599/TX-SOS-DNC-CERT2008

DNC-RNC-HI-2000-2004 http://www.scribd.com/doc/52581915/2076 ... ep-and-Dem

RNC TN 2008 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19949608/TN-2 ... nation-Doc

Interesting, thanks. I hadn't looked closely at these before (though obviously others here have).

It's quite clear to me, though IANAL, that:

• California's regulations do not require that the nominating paper certify the candidate's eligibility (in fact it appears CA does not require a nominating paper at all)
  
  • Obama's 2008 nominating paper to CA does not certify the candidate's eligibility
• Hawaii's regulations DO require that the nominating paper certify the candidate's eligibility
  
  • Obama's 2008 nominating paper to Hawaii DOES certify the candidate's eligibility

In layman terms, the purposes of these papers are to make clear to the state electoral authorities whom the major party has nominated. These clearly do that.

To state the obvious: the two sets of nominating papers are both accurate; they do not contradict each other.

I found this story and it is very interesting.

Please read. It's kind of long.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... tisan.html

It's morning.

Birfadoodledoo.

Thank you for the link, Top. Only problem is, it's swill full of birfer lies and misrepresentations.

It's not "interesting" at all from my perspective. It's tedious bullshine.

Why do you find it interesting?

So you want us to slog through a long post on a Birther blog that starts out with the 3 citizen category nonsense at the top? Why not give us a synopsis and tell us why you think it is relevant? BTW, tell the author it is the "Democratic" party not the "Democrat" party.

I find it interesting that Hawaii left out the Constitutional wording to certify Obama eligible for Article 2 Section 1. I wonder why they did that or was it just a error? The wording was inserted for Gore and Kerry on their forms.

Please show us the Constitutional requirement to have any of the parties (RNC/DNC/Green Party ,etc) to require that such letter contain the exact words you are looking for?

been there. done that. got the T-Shirt. Ain't going again.