Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship
POSTED: 7:15 pm MST April 19, 2010
PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."
Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.
Hello! Can anyone tell why we DON'T ALREADY demand proof of eligibility? Of EVERYONE!? My opinion? Whatever state rep. Sinema's feelings about being a laughing stock. EVERY state has the right to demand proof of eligibility. But it you ask me, I think the entire country is the laughing stock for not forcing the settlement of the question of Obama's eligibility in the first place. These rules and laws are in place for a reason.
Whether or not Obama is in fact a natural born American is presently moot. But just you wait. If Arizona actually passes this into law the media and democratic pundits will be calling this an act of racism. Democrats have never seen a race card they didn't like to use.
Just watch. Demanding the law be observed will become a matter of racism.
Realizing that this will open me up to all sorts of criticism. I will just say that asking candidates to demonstrate that they meet the statutory qualifications for office seems reasonable and not overly burdensome. It seems like there are already some requirements to get on a ballot not sure this is that big of a deal.
ReplyDeleteIt is however a great club for the Dems and media to beat folks with.
It makes sense to make sure that candidates fulfill the legal requirements of the office. The fact that nobody has ever required it before after 220 years until an African-American named Barak Hussein Obama is running makes it racist.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, Jim, but I believe McCain had been questioned already on the subject of citizenship for having been born in the Panama Canal zone (I believe it was). Those racist bastards insisted that his military father and his wife living on the base there didn't qualify as US soil. I may have the details a bit hazy, but the point is that Barry isn't the first to be questioned in this manner.
ReplyDeleteActually....
ReplyDelete--Charles Evans Hughes' citizenship was called into question in 1916.
--Barry Goldwater's citizenship was called into question in 1964.
--George Romney's citizenship was called into question in 1968.
--John McCain's citizenship status was called into question late 2007 - early 2008, and the Senate in April of '08 approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen. No such resolution has been approved (that I know of) for Obama (not that it matters).
So. Obama was not the first. Neither was any doubt cast upon his citizenship racially motivated. Obama has himself to blame for much of his troubles, since all the questions stem from personal details offered by Obama himself in his two autobiographies. Furthermore, Obama could at any time dispel ALL questions by simply releasing his birth certificate and other documents... which he will never do, and which only gives those with questions more reason to question his eligibility.
And, for the record, a certificate of live birth is not the same as a birth certificate. AND Hawaii and other states often issued such certificates to children not born in-state. It's not a general practice today, but it did happen 50 years ago. Personal Example: both my younger sisters were born overseas. One was born in Libya, and the other is Spain. BOTH of them had to go through the naturalization process, to get AMERICAN birth certificates. Even though they were born to American parents on military bases, they both had to go through the naturalization process-- same as McCain, so I reckon this is the price children of the military must pay. My youngest sister, born in Spain, has an absolutely beautiful birth certificate issued by the Spanish government; full of script and flourishes, gold leaf and coats of arms and seals, and color-- it's like 24" x 18". But she couldn't run for president with THAT birth certificate.
No racism here Jim, just a legitimate question. And NO, I do not want to debate Obama's eligibility in this post, only Arizona's bill requiring proof of eligibility in the next and future elections. THAT, and the question of why we don't routinely require such proofs in the first place.
Considering the information in his two autobiographies, Obama should have been required to produce the needed documentation before being declared eligible. But what's done is done. Is America going to throw him out tomorrow should his birth certificate surface today. LOL! Of course not. But it's quite possible he would be barred from running for a second term.
"...it's quite possible he would be barred from running for a second term."
ReplyDeleteTHAT, or the Constitution would be changed and then men like Schwarzenegger would become eligible, as would even more dangerous folk than Obama... like George Soros.
Now THAT's a scary thought. Soros as president.
I thought I heard there were other instances. I just wasn't sure. Thanks, Eric.
ReplyDelete"Is America going to throw him out tomorrow should his birth certificate surface today."
Frankly, I don't think an "LOL" is appropriate here. Most likely, Biden would take over!
That assumes a democrat-controlled congress does anything about it... hence the "LOL"
ReplyDeleteDon't cha know? Joke's on us, the American people.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt Obama is an American citizen according to the Constitution. His mother is a natural born American citizen so that makes him a citizen regardless of where he was born.
ReplyDeleteBut he hates America and all that she stands for. I'm more concerned with why he hates his own country so much.
Obama could at any time dispel ALL questions by simply releasing his birth certificate
ReplyDeleteYou're an idiot.
should his birth certificate surface today.
You're an idiot.
Considering the information in his two autobiographies
That he was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a US citizen? You're an idiot.
But she couldn't run for president with THAT birth certificate.
Of course she could if the parents listed on it were American citizens.
Look, as I said, I don't have a problem with having to show proof of eligibility FOR ANYONE running for public office. And I stand corrected about previous candidates' instances (assuming above is true). But to continue this myth that there are unanswered questions about the President's citizenship is simply an attempt to push the idea of the illegitimacy of black president.
Sorry Jim. But YOU are the idiot for insisting anyone's concerned with the man's race.
ReplyDeleteWanna know something that's really idiotic? being over 60 years old and still a Liberal.
ReplyDeleteIt boggles the mind.
"..assuming above is true..."
ReplyDeleteWell, by all means Jim, look it up! Don't be an idiot like me. Or not, it's no skin off my back-- remain ignorant if you wish.
There's been no definitive conclusion to one side or the other but by the existing laws of 1961 Miss Dunham, by only a few months, appears to have failed to meet post age-14 residency requirements to pass U.S. citizenship on to her son. This, of course, applies only to a Kenyan birth.
There are too many conflicting reports about the place and circumstances of his birth. He needs to release his real birth records, if for no other reason than to dispel all the suspense and drama. What does it hurt him if he really was born in Hawaii? He loses nothing and gains everything, but namely, legitimacy in the eyes of ALL Americans.
And no, my sister could not run for president with her Spanish birth certificate alone. Since you weren't even sure of the veracity of the dates and names of those people who's citizenship was questioned prior to Obama, how can you possibly know the truth about whether my little sister could run on a Spanish birth certificate.
I think you're the one acting the idiot. You spout off without even bothering to research anything. Because you believe a thing to be true you call everyone else idiots for disagreeing with you. But what if you're wrong? I mean, you don't know anymore than any one of us. YOU'VE not seen Obama's real birth certificate. Or have you? Do you have access the rest of this country does not?
Well, at least we're not racists any more, right?
LOL
Wha!? Jim has that many years on him? I always figured him for a 30-something. I guess the Bible IS true... age doe NOT confer wisdom.
ReplyDeleteRegarding respect for those older than us, as well as those who disagree with us, some of what the Bible says...
ReplyDeleteRise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD.
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Lev. 19:32-33
Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers and the younger women as sister, in all purity
1 Timothy 5:1-2
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
1 Peter 3:15-16
I also rather like this T-shirt, which paraphrases a biblical passage.
======
PS: Jim, I'm not calling you "aged."
Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers and the younger women as sister, in all purity
ReplyDeleteI think I shall start posting this command before EACH time I make a comment in which I disagree with someone, as a reminder for us all...
I've not followed this issue too closely, but why can't Obama just do what we all do when we get a job and go into the closet, get that shoe box with all the important documents and bring the birth certificate to work the next day.
ReplyDeleteNo one can logically argue against a state requiring proof of eligibility to be on the ballot.
HONOLULU -- The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.
ReplyDeletesource
Obama's BC a forgery? False, says Snopes.
source
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii's health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives...
source
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.
FactCheck.org
And, again, the state has verified that Obama WAS born here...
source
AND, the Supreme Court has heard the arguments in appeals to them and dismissed the rumors as "frivolous..."
source
However, on the other side of things, Chuck Norris has questioned the "birth certificate" and its "validation" by "state officials" and the way the "Supreme Court" has dismissed as silly such claims...
source
So, there you have it: State officials, the Supreme Court and most reasonable people recognize that Obama IS a US citizen.
Chuck Norris disagrees.
Now, usually, in a Chuck VS anyone else contest, Chuck wins. But isn't that only just a joke?
(Actually, Chuck thinks Obama was born here, too.)
You're right. NO ONE can logically argue against a state requiring proof of eligibility to be on that state's ballot. And, I might add, we only need ONE state to require such proof-- provided the proof in unambiguous and beyond reproach. That is, after all, what "proof" is; unambiguous and beyond reproach.
ReplyDeleteIf Arizona fails to pass it into law, another state needs to try because, realistically, if a candidate passes muster in one state, he's good in the other 49.
Also, hailing back to one of Mark's previous comments... it was NOT enough for Obama's mother to have been an American citizen to pass on that citizenship under certain circumstances. She was married to a Kenyan who, at the time, was a British subject. If Obama were born in Kenya, he would have been born a subject of the British Crown... dual citizenship. And depending on the actions of Ms Dunham/Obama/Soetoro little Barry could have easily lost America citizenship.
To this point there is the question of how much his adoption by Dunham's second husband, and time spent overseas in foreign schools as another man's adopted son affected whatever citizenship he did or did not legally have. The left accepts the certificate of live birth (which is not the same as a "birth certificate") and so acts as though the issue is dead, and anyone who thinks otherwise is, as Jim so eloquently stated, an idiot. But I contend the real idiocy is not moving to dispel ALL questions. Only a fool accepts "indefinitive" proof, when a simple original birth certificate would kill ALL questions about Obama's eligibility.
I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but I've done enough research to realize that in Barry's case the subject is very complicated. And the questions are legitimate.
Someone on the left thought it valid enough to question McCain's natural born status for reason of eligibility, despite the complete lack of ambiguity surrounding his birth and status as an American. The Democrat-led Senate, to their credit, quickly passed a resolution declaring McCain's eligibility sure. The circumstances surrounding McCain's birth were as unambiguous as you could get. The circumstances of Obama's birth remains unnecessarily murky. Questions still exist. Questions that could be answered if Obama would simply do what every candidate should be required to do. And that is, demonstrate eligibility.
Now, most candidates' bios are as much a part of the public record as to make such proofs unnecessary. But Barack's own two autobiographies alone cast doubt on his public record. And if McCain were man enough to address the questions addressed to him, what is Obama afraid of?
Again. I don't wish to debate Obama's citizenship but it keeps coming up. I still insist that there is nothing racist-- whatever Jimbo thinks --in Arizona passing a law to require ANY candidate to prove their eligibility, but especially Obama. NOT because the state of Arizona thinks he might not be eligible, but because Arizona is tired of all the controversy and want's a black president who is, beyond all controversy, a proud American citizen.
You would think Democrats would want this too. But Democrats seem less concerned about legitimacy in regard to a president of their party, than they are about legitimate protests against their rule (the Tea Party movement) of America.
Dissent is patriotic when Democrats protest Republicans, but it's seditious-- treasonous even --when Republicans express their dissent against Democrats. Speaking specifically of the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party is heavily peppered with Libertarians and Democrats. Republicans are not a majority, but Conservatives ARE.
Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers...
ReplyDeleteEric...
I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but I've done enough research to realize that in Barry's case the subject is very complicated. And the questions are legitimate.
Nor do I claim to be an expert on this topic. However, respectfully, the Supreme Court IS an expert on the subject, I would imagine, and they find these appeals to be frivolous. I bow to their expert opinion on this matter. It's time to move on.
If his Birth Certificate has been released, why has no one seen it but people who claim to have seen it.
ReplyDeleteI admit the point is moot, but all Obama has to do is release the documents to dispel all the questions and FINALLY put this nonsense to rest. And, while I use snopes and factcheck myself on occasion, they are hardly infallible or without agenda. As with any so-called 'non-partisan' org, they cannot be accepted blindly on every issue-- just like Wikipedia. The can be authoritative, but they're not entirely infallible or without reproach.
If Dan can dismiss Perryman simply because he's read and studied other tomes that say and suggest differently than what Perryman has to say on Racism within the democrat party, no one else has to take USA Today's or Snope's word for anything either. It's not willful ignorance, it's being prudent and understanding that even the best of men with the best of intentions is still a man whose heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things.
We are too quick, IMHO, to infer infallibility on the veracity of any man's word. Especially where questions remain that could easily be dispelled...
I agree, Dan. It's time to move on. So let President Obama allow this nation to move by releasing his birth records.
ReplyDeleteIf Dan can dismiss Perryman simply because he's read and studied other tomes that say and suggest differently than what Perryman has to say on Racism within the democrat party
ReplyDeletePoint of clarification: I have NOT dismissed Perryman. I haven't read him so I can't hardly dismiss what his findings are.
What I've done is suggest...
1. That IF he is only saying that the Dems have misbehaved in the past, that this is no big surprise to me or anyone that I know of.
2. That IF he is saying that only the Dems have misbehaved and that the GOP have been saints, then he has a skewed take on history, perhaps out of holding an agenda.
3. That IF his book is written more in the style of rant than scholarly study, then we ought to take that for what it's worth.
I haven't said ANYTHING definitively about him, though, as I haven't read his books. From what I've seen so far (admittedly, very little) I'm not especially impressed that he is likely to hold anything new which I'm not familiar with, but he VERY WELL may have something new. I just don't know, yet.
Just to clarify.
On the topic of Civil Rights, Dems and the GOP, whilst I'm waiting for a trip to the library to see if they have Perryman, here's a little balance to the suggestions about Perryman's book that I've heard so far...
ReplyDeleteCivil rights historians know that both political parties — and even individual party leaders such as Johnson and Goldwater — had both moments of shame and moments of glory. Historians also know that the civil rights achievements of the 1950s and 1960s began outside the party system, with activist groups like the NAACP, the Congress of Racial Equality, the Southern Christian Leadership Council and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
If you want honest civil rights history, there are a number of terrific books and documentaries, from Eric Foner’s Brief History of Reconstruction to Henry Hampton’s documentary series Eyes on the Prize to the most recent National Book Award Winner, Kevin Boyle’s Arc of Justice.
Balance - I'm sure we can all agree, brothers - is important.
I don't disagree with that, Dan.
ReplyDeleteWithout balance, we ALL fall down. [& I say that 100% snark free]
I can sympathize with the the "birthers", it would be nice if one little piece of paper could make this whole mess go away. It's really no different than the Bush AWOL crowd. Just a bunch of people trying to take someone down with a piece of paper. Bush came forward with honorable discharge orders.
ReplyDeleteNo one can explain why Obama can't come forward with his birth certificate. Not Dan, not Obama, no one.
Do you suspect that the Supreme Court is in on this, Edwin?
ReplyDeleteThe circumstances of Obama's birth remains unnecessarily murky.
ReplyDeleteNO THEY DON'T. They simply don't. They don't.
PS: Jim, I'm not calling you "aged."
Whew! Only in the sense of a fine wine, Dan.
And, for the record, a certificate of live birth is not the same as a birth certificate. AND Hawaii and other states often issued such certificates to children not born in-state.
ReplyDeleteReally?
From the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:
Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
Wrong again, El.
I realize this is a long excerpt, but I thought it an interesting take from some on the left.
ReplyDelete"...In 1961, when Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, his father would have most likely be listed as “Arab”, not black, on his birth certificate. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was only 1/4 black, and identified himself as a Kenyan Arab. According to how the British would have recorded him in their documents back then, BHO Sr. would have been “Arab”.
Furthermore, if Hawaii’s birth certificates in 1961 were like our own birth certificates from Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York in the 1970s, then Obama’s official and original birth certificate would have been handwritten, with the religion of his parents recorded under their names. That’s what all of our birth certificates say, anyway. ”Catholic” is listed under most of our mothers’ and fathers’ names, with “Baptist” and “Episcopalian” on two of those slots.
We’ve always believed the reason Obama does not produce his birth certificate is because his father is listed as “Arab” and “Muslim” on that form, which is what he would have been recorded as in 1961 in Hawaii.
That cuts against the narrative that Obama rode to the White House, which he affirmed in his 2010 census — which is that he is black. This is how he has chosen to self-identify, and it’s the tool he used to advance himself so fast through the Democrat Party. He even had William Ayers write two books all about his racial grievances.
None of that flies if the public sees that his father was an “Arab” “Muslim”, as recorded on that birth certificate.
The public would have a very bad reaction to this, and would look upon the Lightbringer as a fraud and liar."
H/T and the rest of the post at http://hillbuzz.org/
Food for thought
That's some fine guessing by someone at hillbuzz.
ReplyDeleteEric and Dan,
ReplyDeleteAs I said, it's an interesting take, I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that it's anything but speculation. It is, however, interesting to see this kind of thing from the left.
Obama's father would not have been listed as "black" on his son's 1961 birth certificate. It would have been "negro".
ReplyDeleteActually, the father's race is listed as "African". Race information listed on the birth certificate is provided by the parents.
Wrong again, EL.
interesting take from some on the left.
Hillbuzz is "on the left"? I think you misread the site, Craig. The first clue? Using the phony adjective "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". And then it devolves from there.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIt seem to me that a group of gay Hillary supporters would actually be considered on the left. Maybe you should actually read the site.
Gay Hillary supporters? I see nothing on the site that would support that idea. Even if true, that wouldn't by itself make it any more of a leftist site than if they had pictures of Liza Minelli or Cher.
ReplyDeleteLook at the blogroll. Again, using the noun Democrat as an adjective. That's a dead give-away. Derogatory comments about the First Lady?
I don't think so, Craig.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIf you see nothing on Hillbuzz (just a hint look at the name) that indicates that the writers are not gay, then you must have trouble with the English language. If you haven't seen anything (again besides the name) to lead you to think they are Hillary supporters, then you haven't looked very deeply.
Yes, look at the Blogroll, you will note a number of Hillary sites as well as sites on both sides of the aisle.
My suggestion would be that you comment over there with your suspicions, and let them answer.
This is an aside, but Jim, hillbuzz is nominally a gay-friendly group of Hillary supporters. However, Craig, read their site, though, and you would be hard pressed to consider them traditional liberals in any way.
ReplyDeleteI find the site to be suspicious at best (as in maybe run by a bunch of conservatives pretending to be liberal) or just random nonsense at best. Really? They want to criticize the way the first lady looks in a crude manner? They want to "out" gay people? Whoever hillbuzz is, they don't seem to be serious scholars or political theorists. Just second class trolls. At least that's what it seems like to me based on a brief few visits there.
Nothing really worth considering as significant, that I can see.
"suspicious at worst" I meant to say...
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteFirst, if you have reason to suspect the Hillbuzz folks of lying, then please show us what it is. I have seen nothing that makes me think they are anything but what they say.
Second, but of course no one on the left would ever infiltrate a "tea party" and misbehave in order to discredit that movement.
Third, either provide a quote where I said that the Hillbuzz folks were "traditional liberals" or make the correction. I said that they were "on the left". Absent any evidence to the contrary it seems that "on the left" is a safe and accurate description of their political positions. It doesn't seem out of bounds that you would accurately characterize what I said. My point was (and is) that (without resorting to conspiracy theories) cannot write off criticism of P-BO at Hillbuzz as from the right. No more, no less.
Fourth, are you suggesting that the all inclusive Democrat party has no room for those who are not "traditional liberals", or perhaps they would exclude gay men.
OK, Craig, I'll concede that the site might be left leaning. And my gay-dar is not operating at 100% efficiency. But I think the "view" they put forth in that post does not hold water.
ReplyDeleteCraig...
ReplyDeleteFourth, are you suggesting that the all inclusive Democrat party has no room for those who are not "traditional liberals"
I have little patience or time for those on any side who make commentary like I see on that page. They are welcome to vote however they wish, but they don't speak for progressive people or reasonable people, from what I've seen.
That's all I'm saying.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response, but that doesn't really answer the question I asked. I undeerstand that you personally would discriminate against them and would try to prevent them from being a part of the Democrat party. But, we keep hearing about being inclusive in the big tent and all, it seems you'd like to keep the tent a little smaller. Again, I have not said that they speak for (all) progressive people, nor have I said that you should consider them reasonable. I simply said they are on the left. And as we see from Jim, he agrees that they actually are left. I would hope that it would be Reasonable to be able to agree that my original comment was accurate and move on.
Jim,
Thanks for your gracious concession. It seems that you could have saved some time by not responding to something I didn't say.