Birther Bills Summary

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5496

Quote:

Georgia joins Texas, 9 other states challenging Obama's birth
By ERRIN HAINES
© 2011 The Associated Press
March 1, 2011, 6:30PM

ATLANTA — Georgia is the latest state to propose legislation that questions whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S., joining 10 other states who have measures that want more proof before his name is put on the 2012 ballot.

Even though Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship, his birth certificate has been made public and courts have rebuffed challenges, the so-called "birther" issue hasn't gone away.

Georgia Rep. Mark Hatfield, a Republican, said he still doesn't know if Obama is eligible to serve as president, and 92 of his GOP colleagues and one Democrat support the bill introduced Monday.

"Most people feel it's an issue to a significant enough portion of our population that it needs to be addressed by the state," Hatfield said. "It is, in a sense, a response to ... the sitting president and his inability or unwillingness to release his original birth certificate."

more here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7452037.html

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:49 am

Would she be an NBC??? She ran for VP twice once with :mrgreen:

Ralph Nadar :mrgreen:

in 2000

Winona's Story...

Quote:

BIOGRAPHY OF WINONA LADUKE

Winona LaDuke is proud of who she is. She is an American. But her pride stems more from her affinity to her Native American heritage than the fact that she was born within US borders. LaDuke is an Anishinaabeg, of the Mississippi Band of Anishinaabeg, located at White Earth reservation in Minnesota.

It all began once upon a time in 1959. LaDuke was born in Los Angeles, California. Her father is an Anishinaabeg and her mother, a Russian Jew. Winona LaDuke, however, was not raised in sunny California. She grew up in the small town of Ashland, Oregon, a point that she emphasizes because her upbringing is constantly misconstrued.

Let's see - Born in LA but Father was a member of a SOVEREIGN tribe giving him dual citizenship for his life. Mother was a "Russian Jew" - no indication of naturalization of citizenship - single citizen of USSR at the time. So she could be Russian?? definitely Asishinaabeg... and NBC???

But she ran unchallenged for VP twice. You would think that a Native American Woman in this country at the time of 2000 would be harassed by the right especially since she is VERY active in the Native
American Rights Movement. Some consider this group another Commie, Pinko, Fag front... -xx

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:52 am

SuEdB wrote:

Examiner wrote:

Someone please tell me if I'm mistaken (like you wouldn't), but isn't all this hoo-haa over these eligibility bills just a ... well ...hoo-haa?

The problem is that ... someone has to object by filing suit to block enforcement ...

Exactly right. I think ALL the proposed laws we've seen would be ruled unenforceable by a court. But someone is going to have to go to court to get that ruling, if one of them is actually enacted.

And then someone is going to have to pursue it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, I reckon.

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:29 am

Foggy wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

Examiner wrote:

Someone please tell me if I'm mistaken (like you wouldn't), but isn't all this hoo-haa over these eligibility bills just a ... well ...hoo-haa?

The problem is that ... someone has to object by filing suit to block enforcement ...

Exactly right. I think ALL the proposed laws we've seen would be ruled unenforceable by a court. But someone is going to have to go to court to get that ruling, if one of them is actually enacted.

And then someone is going to have to pursue it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, I reckon.

Unless the state realizes it is being taken for a financial and political ride on the Taxpayer's Dollar. The state can decline to appeal and save the cash for both the state government and the feds as EVERYONE (well anyone with a whit of sense) knows how this will turn out. My qualifier is that the state I live in allows the Attorney General to file suit without the support of the state government, but obligating the state to pay for the the boondoggle. It allows for an independent AG, so we can throw is ass out into the snow next election for wasting our money both on a state and federal level. #-o

bob · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:31 pm

Examiner wrote:

My impression from reading all of what you've written is that states are compelled by the full faith and credit clause to accept any official document from any other state. So it really doesn't matter how they enumerate what they want on the birth certificates -- and the birth certificates really are the crux of most of them -- if a state issues a BC that says, "Examiner was born here, so deal with it," they have to accept it.

There's a case out of 10th Circuit (forget the name) all about accepting birth certificates. In that case, someone had a sex-change operation and legally had the data for "sex" amended on the birth certificate. But some state (I want to say Oklahoma) had a state law saying it would not recognize any birth certificate where the data under "sex" had been amended. The federal courts told the state to suck it, and accept the amended birth certificate as valid.

And one of the stories on Donofrio's site is an interesting twist: the U.S. State Department refused to accept as valid a California "delayed registration" birth certificate (the U.S. State Department said there was insufficient evidence of birth within the United States). This person is suing the federal government to force it to issue a U.S. passport.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:57 am

Thorswitch has a great post on the birther bills. I found it via Addie's blog today.

Quote:

Some of these bills also include clauses requiring that the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates provide proof that their parents were both American citizens at the time of the child’s birth and an affidavit from the candidate stating he has never held or was eligible for dual citizenship. Of course, neither of these are actually requirements to be President. The only requirements are that the person is over 35 years old, has resided in the US for 14 years (and, unlike some of these bills seems to indicate, it’s not 14 consecutive years, just 14 years total) and is a natural-born Citizen.

Some birthers will argue that in order to be a natural-born citizen, one must be born to two citizen parents and have never held (or been eligible for) dual citizenship, neither of which is true. The Constitution only has two kinds of citizenship – natural-born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens have to go through a process to obtain their citizenship, whereas natural-born citizens are citizens automatically. Several court cases have established that anyone born within the US is automatically an American citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. It’s one of the reasons why anti-immigration politicians are trying to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

As for the issue of dual citizenship, it has no effect on whether someone is a natural-born citizen or not. All the US cares about is someone’s citizenship status under American law. Our laws do not care who else might claim you as a citizen, and with very good reason. Imagine that Moammar Gadhafi (to pick a random leader who might do something crazy) were to decide he didn’t want to see Sarah Palin become the President of the United States, so he declares her a Libyan citizen, making her a dual US/Libyan citizen. Would that stop her from running for President? According to some of these bills, it just might, as she would be unable to swear that she had never held dual citizenship, but in reality, it wouldn’t have any effect at all on her eligibility, because the US is only concerned with who our laws deem to be a citizen. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if the UK, Kenya or Mars considered Obama to be a dual citizen. As far as the US is concerned, he is a US citizen, and that’s all that matters.

haha!

See the rest here:
http://thunderhaven.net/2011/02/25/the- ... her-bills/

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:17 pm

As far as I can follow ... given my limited capacities ... almost all of these bills are failing.

Hell, Loren may have slain one of them all by hisself.

But, umm ... yeah. What if none of them pass? I'd almost like to see one, especially one with the "two citizen parents" thingy, get enacted. That way, there will have to be a constitutional challenge, and in a perfect world, we'll get a ruling from the Supremes. I have no doubt at all how they'd rule.

I swear to you, if one of these were to go to the Supremes, I definitely WILL file a Fogbow amicus curiae brief, which will rock this great nation, and all our legal experts will be welcome to participate. At least, that's what happened in my dream. Who knows more about eligibility than we do? Nobody, that's who.

Life will be more boring if none of these bills pass, and I haz a frown thrown down on boring. [-X

Also, if none of them pass, what's the birfers' Plan 642? What will they try if not a single state has a birfer law?

ducktape · **Posted:** Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:21 pm

Foggy wrote:

Also, if none of them pass, what's the birfers' Plan 642? What will they try if not a single state has a birfer law?

Silly, they'll declare that it's an even-bigger conspiracy than they do now, and they'll put up more PayPal buttons to fight it!

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:30 pm

Don't worry Foggy, birther bills or no birther bills it'll soon be the primary season that it'll probably bring a new swath of lawsuits. After all they managed 74 last time, surely they can manage say another 10 this time to keep us amused and of course there's always Orly's senate run!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

If one passes, and he still gets on the ballot, they will scream everyone was bought off and institute grand juries.... Again.

Frankly, if none pass, I expect them to rally meeelyons to file objections in every state... Hell, they may anyway.

Highlands · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:43 am

realist wrote:

If one passes, and he still gets on the ballot, they will scream everyone was bought off and institute grand juries.... Again.

Perhaps they'll let CJ be Jury Foreman this time.

Adelante · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:51 am

By the way, folks -- our new friend Toro is doing an excellent job over at US Message Board -- Take a bow, Toro =D>

verbalobe · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:42 am

Adelante wrote:

By the way, folks -- our new friend Toro is doing an excellent job over at US Message Board -- Take a bow, Toro =D>

I'll say.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:52 am

What becomes clearer and clearer is that:

- All the bills with provisions that might happen to exclude Obama (no dual citizenship, hospital records, witnesses, doctor, no COLB, etc), would be unconstitutional.

- A bill that IS constitutional (say, simply requiring that the SoS exercise some oversight in assuring that 'proof of qualification' has been rendered, as opposed to simply an oath or affidavit by the candidate or party chair) WOULD allow Obama.

Try as they might, they can't dream up a single qualifying restriction or level of proof that would impede Obama in the slightest, AND that would stand up to legal challenge.

What do we learn from this, campers?

BHO IS QUALIFIED AND ELIGIBLE!
What do the birfers learn from this?

THE CONSTITUTION SUCKS!
Yes folks, that there is the color (and sound) of batshit.

Toro · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:52 am

Adelante wrote:

By the way, folks -- our new friend Toro is doing an excellent job over at US Message Board -- Take a bow, Toro =D>

Thanks. But the credit goes to the people here since much of my info comes from Fogbow. Welsh Dragon in particular has done some great work.

I've challenged birfers to put their money where their mouth is. I've shown the birfers how to make money if they are correct. You can go over to Intrade.com and sell futures on Obama not being the Democrat nominee for any reason, not just birther reasons. The price of an Obama contract is currently 90 cents and it pays out a dollar if Obama is the nominee. If Obama is not the nominee, it expires worthless. If you believe that Obama isn't a citizen and will get found out, then you sell the Obama contract for 90 cents. If the birfer is right and Obama is not the nominee, the birfer pays nothing and keeps the 90 cents. If Obama is the nominee, he pays $1. Effectively, the upside is 90 cents and the downside is 10 cents since you'd sell the future for 90 cents and pay out a dollar if you are wrong. If I were certain about something, as these birfers are, I would be selling this futures contract all day. Thus far, I know of no birfer willing to take this seemingly lopsided bet in their favour.

Toro · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:03 pm

Here is something from the Greatest News Source in the History of the Interwebs [/sarcasm]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270085

Adelante · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:16 pm

That makes two of us, but they let us take the occasional bow, anyway.

Toro wrote:

Thanks. But the credit goes to the people here since much of my info comes from Fogbow.

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:32 pm

Toro wrote:

Here is something from the Greatest News Source in the History of the Interwebs [/sarcasm]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270085

Yes, it is. It's WND's summary of the bills.

You know if (when) one of these bills does get passed, we know it will be shot down. We know these bills are unconstitutional. But the damage will still be done.

It will be more about "what's he hiding" thing.

Even though a lot of the bills ask for documentation that doesn't even exist (like the ones requiring witness signatures, etc.), it will still be viewed by some as a cover up.

Left media better get ahead of that. They better explain over and over that the morons are asking for stuff that doesn't even exist in many cases.

grrr.

Show them for what they are.

Compare these bills with the voter literacy bills of the past. The Jim Crow laws. Show what this really is about.

But do it well. Cuz when they don't, it hurts more than it helps.

BFB · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:50 pm

mimi wrote:

Toro wrote:

Here is something from the Greatest News Source in the History of the Interwebs [/sarcasm]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270085

Yes, it is. It's WND's summary of the bills.

You know if (when) one of these bills does get passed, we know it will be shot down. We know these bills are unconstitutional. But the damage will still be done.

It will be more about "what's he hiding" thing.

Even though a lot of the bills ask for documentation that doesn't even exist (like the ones requiring witness signatures, etc.), it will still be viewed by some as a cover up.

Left media better get ahead of that. They better explain over and over that the morons are asking for stuff that doesn't even exist in many cases.

grrr.

Show them for what they are.

Compare these bills with the voter literacy bills of the past. The Jim Crow laws. Show what this really is about.

But do it well. Cuz when they don't, it hurts more than it helps.

Of course they ask for things that don't exist .. that way, when bills get shot down, they have their built-in "coverup" excuse. When you think about it -- although I doubt they're capable of it -- it's pretty shrewd. By adding crazy-ass things that will never see the light of day, for whatever reason, they self-perpetuate the mythology.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:45 pm

Toro wrote:

Here is something from the Greatest News Source in the History of the Interwebs [/sarcasm]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270085

So, "Georgia Peach" Hatfield is telling me that I can't vote for the candidate of my choice. I can only vote for the "approved" candidates - seems like a trim to my voting rights - again, please pass the Konstitutional Mustard w/horseradish (thanks). Since only the government can "approve" a candidate, the government is now telling me who I can and cannot vote for. Sounds awfully COMMIE PINKO FAG & FASCIST to me... :((

Write In Bill Bowman for something - hell Anything - Hell of a good guy!

Old Georgia Peach is trying to ban write-in candidates from the ballot.

Am I reading this wrong????

Edit: add last 2 lines and minor word/what grammar I remember editing.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:57 pm

mimi wrote:

Thorswitch has a great post on the birther bills. I found it via Addie's blog today.

Thanks Mimi (and Addie for the link]

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:53 pm

SuEdB wrote:

Old Georgia Peach is trying to ban write-in candidates from the ballot.

Am I reading this wrong????

Scared of an Alaska repeat in his balywick ?

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6640

Adelante wrote:

That makes two of us, but they let us take the occasional bow, anyway.

Toro wrote:

Thanks. But the credit goes to the people here since much of my info comes from Fogbow.

It takes courage to put yourself out there for the fight. Nice work Toro.

Toro · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:20 pm

kimba wrote:

Adelante wrote:

That makes two of us, but they let us take the occasional bow, anyway.

Toro wrote:

Thanks. But the credit goes to the people here since much of my info comes from Fogbow.

It takes courage to put yourself out there for the fight. Nice work Toro.

Oh, I'm just obstinate and abrasive by nature.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:47 pm

Toro wrote:

kimba wrote:

Adelante wrote:

That makes two of us, but they let us take the occasional bow, anyway.

Toro wrote:

Thanks. But the credit goes to the people here since much of my info comes from Fogbow.

It takes courage to put yourself out there for the fight. Nice work Toro.

Oh, I'm just obstinate and abrasive by nature.

I admire those traits in Obots... =D>

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Birther Bills Summary

Who is online