Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Birther Bill Losing Supporters"
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 3/3/11 | April Hunt

Posted on 03/03/2011 7:19:13 PM PST by jamese777

Some Georgia lawmakers couldn’t backpedal fast enough Thursday on a “birther” bill supported earlier this week by a majority of House members.

First to block out his name with a heavy black marker on House Bill 401 was John Meadows, chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

A steady stream of legislators followed all day. By 5 p.m., at least 23 of the original 93 backers were gone from a proposal requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates prove they were born in the United States. Among them was the bill's lone Democratic supporter, Glenn Baker of Jonesboro.

Seventy sponsors is still a sizable chunk of the 180-member chamber, but is an abrupt about-face from just 48 hours before. Why?

“We’ve got state problems we’ve got to take care of,” said Meadows, R-Calhoun, who said he heard complaints from constituents.

Many of those removing their names said they hadn’t read the bill and disagreed with how far it goes in making a candidate prove eligibility. Others simply said they’d been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom.

(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; antipatriots; certifigate; chickens; cowards; georgia; naturalborncitizen; spineless; traitors; yellow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

1 posted on 03/03/2011 7:19:16 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jamese777

There has GOT to be more here than meets the eye...


2 posted on 03/03/2011 7:24:50 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I suspect the Democrat party bosses ordered their minions to remove their names so they tucked their tails between their legs and did.


3 posted on 03/03/2011 7:25:55 PM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Must have slithered out after the vote....spineless, ya know.

They spit on our Constitution and WE pay THEIR salaries.

I, for one, won’t forget this.


4 posted on 03/03/2011 7:25:59 PM PST by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Either some political blackmailing is going on by Obamabots, or this is more BS reporting from the AJC.

The final sentence is most encouraging.

Still, the proposal is far from dead, despite the flight of so many co-sponsors. An elections subcommittee is scheduled to take the issue up at its next meeting, which has not yet been set.

5 posted on 03/03/2011 7:27:13 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
-George Orwell
6 posted on 03/03/2011 7:27:13 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

The smallest amount of common sense says that. ALL OF US have to produce a BC when we do major purchases or registrations in our life. NOBODY spends a million bucks to keep it sealed. I say forget the BC. I want to know one thing:did Barak (last name) apply to Columbia as a US resident or foreign student?


7 posted on 03/03/2011 7:30:11 PM PST by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

Or why did Illinois take away his (and her) law license?


8 posted on 03/03/2011 7:40:30 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elpadre

I suspect the Democrat party bosses ordered their minions to remove their names so they tucked their tails between their legs and did.


There was only one Democrat among the co-sponsors. All the rest are Republicans.


9 posted on 03/03/2011 7:48:11 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
I guess no one is talking about why this bill was introduced. And no, it isn't totally about Obama.

In most states the Secretary of State is the final authority over who can and cannot appear on statewide ballots.

Up to the 2008 Presidential election cycle there was no legal guidance as to what kind of proof the candidates had to submit. In 49 of the 50 states the Secretary of States received a letter form the DNC with the phrase “conditionally qualified” included. Previous copies of similar letters had similar phrases.

The 50th state, Hawaii, did not have the phrase.

So now we have a question - why did Hawaii have lower requirements than the other 49 states?

Now the various state legislatures are trying to come up with the same criteria nation wide.

Wonder why or whom forced the change in mind?

10 posted on 03/03/2011 8:50:56 PM PST by Nip (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Or all the rest are spineless.


11 posted on 03/03/2011 9:02:01 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

Hey, they were told to take their names off. God knows our leaders have become a nation of slaves, just doing the massah’s bidding. Easier than thinking, easier than being free, easier than preserving for our kids what our parents delivered to us through their blood, sweat, and tears.

These people are not worthy of any trust placed in them.
They do what they’re told by the massah.


12 posted on 03/03/2011 9:22:33 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

This is fascinating. I am not a “birther.” I have, however, said right along that for Obama to spend so much time and effort to keep his long form birth certificate hidden away in Hawaii, and to allow all this speculation and tumult, means that he is hiding SOMETHING he doesn’t want the world to see.
Oh, I think he was born in the US, and that he is a “citizen,” but something on that certificate isn’t what we he has lead the world to believe.

And now, this bill comes along, and is being introduced to a goodly number of State Legislatures. Why? because it MAKES SENSE. There’s no reason why candidates for national office should HAVE TO PROVE they meet the Constitutional qualifications to fill the office — including that they are a natural born citizen, by submitting a certified, official copy of their long for birth certificate.

That’s common sense! And now, more than TWENTY Legislators have ceased to SUPPORT this common sense, obviously necessary legislation?? And ALL BUT ONE are Republicans?? My response is: (1) What do the Democrats have on you? OR (2) How much did the Democrats pay you? OR (3) Why didn’t you tell us from the start you are a RINO?

This legislation should PASS — and it shouldn’t even be close. It is IRRESPONSIBLE of ANY Republicans to vote against it (and it’s simply silly to expect ANY Democrats to be responsible enough to vote for it). Folks in these members districts ought to be burning up their phone, fax and email lines pitching a fit to find out what in Sam Hill is WRONG with them!


13 posted on 03/03/2011 9:23:32 PM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity
Why exactly wouldn't any state want to validate the candidates?

You would think they have to as a fiduciary responsibility at a minimum from the state level...

14 posted on 03/03/2011 9:25:18 PM PST by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Don’t get discouraged. The OP is an Alinksy propagandist, and he’s been trying to discourage us from the beginning. Also, bear in mind the Atlanta Urinal is as far left as they can get, so naturally they put the worst possible spin on it. Even so, they had to admit the bill still has a lot of sponsors.

I have a friend who is very active in the state GOP. I’ll contact him tomorrow, and I bet he’ll have a positive take on it. I’ll let you know what he says. My prediction is that the Urinal is whistling past the graveyard. We shall see.


15 posted on 03/03/2011 9:37:04 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Photobucket
16 posted on 03/04/2011 12:19:54 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

I hope you’re right. I worry about the GOP, fearful that folks like Rove etc will try to push their own contempt for the rule of law onto the state and local leaders as well. As somebody noted, it is republicans who took their names off the list, after somebody told them to do it. If the GOP controls the campaign money maybe they can be the master of even the state and local people. I don’t know.

Regarding that rag, I agree with your assessment, from what I’ve seen. I e-mailed this Jim Galloway asking him to correct his inaccuracies and he never responded in any way. I think if I found an honest journalist I would die of a heart attack. Sadly, I don’t think I’m in any danger of dying that way anytime soon. Despicable.


17 posted on 03/04/2011 12:25:02 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I wouldn’t even count on the Urinal and Constipation to get the number of defections right. I read elsewhere there may have been far less. In any event, the number of sponsors and the number who will vote yes on a bill are not the same. There are usually far more yes votes than sponsors. As I said, the OP has worked relentlessly to undermine eligibility efforts. [No bias in the Urinal’s title, btw, is there? /s] He pounced on a heavily slanted piece from a leftist fish-wrap in hopes of unsettling some of our minds. Lets see to it that it’s a FAIL.


18 posted on 03/04/2011 12:57:44 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher
I am not a “birther.”

Oh, yes you are!

It's your skepticism that makes you a Birther, not what you do or do not believe.


19 posted on 03/04/2011 5:42:45 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
I say forget the BC. I want to know one thing:did Barak (last name) apply to Columbia as a US resident or foreign student?

Either Zilch was a US citizen a defrauded Columbia by claiming he was a foreigner or he is a foreigner and he rightfully was admitted to Columbia as a foreign student. These are the only two choices.

20 posted on 03/04/2011 5:47:44 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
they’d been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom

That is a scary statement. I am hopefully the remaining lawmakers have more character and will stand up to the bad guys.

21 posted on 03/04/2011 6:24:33 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Obama and the left are making a mockery of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped. There is now no question that obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. IF the public finds out that congress allowed a foreign national to become President all their jobs could be gone. obama would have to provide proof that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at his birth to be eligible to be President. obama is not nor ever can be the President of the United States.
22 posted on 03/04/2011 7:34:18 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Excellent post.

It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.

IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.

23 posted on 03/04/2011 8:03:50 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Here is a report with the same dateline:

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

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. > >

This report comes from Ballot Access News. The other (i.e.: the one posted by the SP) comes from one of the most leftist fish-wraps in the country, with a well deserved reputation for inaccuracy and over-the-top bias.

Hmm...which one am I going to believe.

Decisions, decisions.

(Hint: it helps to see which report the OP, a leftist liberal, pounced on. He is a liar himself, so...take it from there.)

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/03/03/second-georgia-bill-requiring-birth-certificates-for-presidential-candidates-has-88-co-sponsors/


24 posted on 03/04/2011 8:10:03 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Go defend your Messiah someplace else, we’re all booked up here.


25 posted on 03/04/2011 8:13:46 AM PST by McGruff (Is it time to Drill Baby Drill yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

I haven’t spoken to my friend yet. It’s near the top of my To Do list. You might have a look at the news item I posted in 24. It’s too soon to say with one-hundred-percent certainty, but it’s beginning to look like the Urinal’s reputation for shoddy, inaccurate reporting will emerge from this intact.


26 posted on 03/04/2011 8:19:44 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Go defend your Messiah someplace else, we’re all booked up here.


Don’t try to kill the messenger.


27 posted on 03/04/2011 8:32:04 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
So it looks as if there are TWO bills competing for the attention of the Georgia Legislature ... and by backing off one of the bills the defecting Republican legislators mean to imply that they are backing up the other?

Call me suspicious, but it would appear that this is a parliamentary device to avoid choosing either bill by tossing the matter into committee. Of course it also possible that the Democrat seeking eligibility legislation designed his bill as a smoke bomb. Clever.

Going back to the SCOTUS vigil now.

28 posted on 03/04/2011 8:33:47 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Excellent post.
It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.

IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.


A way around that is for formal investigations of the issue to take place in states with small and next to no minority populations. Obama was on the ballot in Idaho, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire and Utah, just to name a few as well as New York, DC, and California.
Idaho politicians have nothing to fear from a minority backlash.
Unlike you, I think that when Michael Steele, also an African American was Chairman of the Republican Party, that would have been the perfect time to challenge Obama’s eligibility.


29 posted on 03/04/2011 8:36:19 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

If it turns out that only four out of ninety-odd sponsors backed off, that’s really not a big or newsworthy story. Unless you’re a leftist shill.


30 posted on 03/04/2011 8:40:58 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped. There is now no question that obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. IF the public finds out that congress allowed a foreign national to become President all their jobs could be gone. obama would have to provide proof that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at his birth to be eligible to be President. obama is not nor ever can be the President of the United States.


Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “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.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.
No court, including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Barack Obama is ineligible due to not having two US citizen parents. Another appeal making that very claim, Hollister v Soetoro is being heard in conference at the Supreme Court of the United States today. We should have the Justices’ decision on whether four of them think that this issue raises enough serious constitutional issues that it should be heard by the full Court, on Monday or Tuesday of next week.


31 posted on 03/04/2011 8:48:59 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

I hate to say but I believe these bills are mostly symbolic with content such as that above. If they do get through and passed, which would be a major step forward, they will then get challenged in Federal court. My guess is they would be thrown out due to states having ‘different standards’. We have already seen this approach with the immigration laws.

I think states should beef their penalties for perjury and fraud related to the current requirements. Some states already require the local or national party to ‘certify’ their candidates as Constitutionally eligible before they can be placed on the ballot. I am not sure if Georgia is one of these, but Hawaii was. And the local party refused to provide certification. But Nancy P and the DNC did and they saved the day.

So states that already require a formal ‘sign-off’ of eligibility should simply put a specific and harsh penalty on those that provide the formal ‘sign-off’. You would see a lot more hesitation of putting a name on the ballot if someone specific may go to jail. It has worked for businesses! SBX makes CEO and CFO crazy for paperwork in todays world. Why? Because they may personally go to jail for bad paperwork. So what is good for business leaders should be good for politicians.

In my view if someone want to do legal action at a grass roots level the key starting place is in the those states that already do require sign-off. You will find Democratic party leader, almost all, if not all at a state level, that have ‘signed-off’ legally, in their state, on the edibility of the 2008 Democratic ticket. These are really the only people who could be held directly accountable. Of course, most were only going through the motions. They would not really be part of a cover-up. But, it is they that signed on the dotted line. They are ultimately responsible. That is were the legal action should be. To much of the activity has started out at the wrong level.


32 posted on 03/04/2011 8:49:31 AM PST by bluecat6 ("They question our heritage but not the accuracy of our story.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
I think that when Michael Steele, also an African American was Chairman of the Republican Party, that would have been the perfect time to challenge Obama’s eligibility

Alan Keyes was/is a birther. His support among the conservative base is probably roughly equivalent to that of Steele...meaning not much. If Steele would have pushed birtherism, he would have been run out of the party before the end of his chairmanship term.

33 posted on 03/04/2011 8:50:50 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

You made a slew of excellent points. It sounds like a winning strategy to me.


34 posted on 03/04/2011 8:53:21 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Unlike you, I think that when Michael Steele, also an African American was Chairman of the Republican Party, that would have been the perfect time to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

I quite agree.

However, this sort of activity would have been very far outside of the Steele Thought-Box. It also was (and is) the very last thing the RNC had on its collective so-called mind.

IMHO, we are fighting the ineligibility war with rebel militia. The official army has yet to join the fight. Like George Washington, we need a victory to attract more powerful support. This could be the week.

35 posted on 03/04/2011 8:57:47 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “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.” Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry, wrong again....

The formal ruling was this:

AFFIRMED

There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.

The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.

Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....

“blah, blah, blah, blah....

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.

But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.

A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....

“Hoooooosier daddy?!”

It applies here...


36 posted on 03/04/2011 9:03:13 AM PST by bluecat6 ("They question our heritage but not the accuracy of our story.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

“Birther Bill and an image of second thoughts”
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/03/the-birther-bill-and-an-image-of-second-thoughts/


37 posted on 03/04/2011 9:04:17 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Sorry, wrong again....

The formal ruling was this:

AFFIRMED

There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.

The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.

Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....

“blah, blah, blah, blah....

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.

But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.

A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....

“Hoooooosier daddy?!”

It applies here...


This lawsuit, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana” was an attempt to force Governor Mitch Daniels to decertify Indiana’s Electoral College votes for Barack Hussein Obama
on the grounds that Obama did not qualify as a natural born citizen due to his father not being an American citizen.
The original trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals which, as bluecat6 correctly points out AFFIRMED the lower court’s decision to dismiss. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to review the Court of Appeals’ decision. That ended Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana.
If Ankeny had won, that would have started a cascade of lawsuits in other states invalidating the awarding of electoral college votes to Obama. That didn’t happen.

Bluecat6 is also correct to point out that the vast majority of judges and justices do provide a legal rationale for their decisions rather than simply issuing a one word verdict such as “affirmed” or “dismissed.”


38 posted on 03/04/2011 9:18:15 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Ah. Disinformation. I hope that the legislators are aware of the inaccuracies of that rag and don’t allow themselves to be swayed by some feeling that the people don’t support bills that require documentation of eligibility.


39 posted on 03/04/2011 9:19:01 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Alan Keyes was/is a birther. His support among the conservative base is probably roughly equivalent to that of Steele...meaning not much. If Steele would have pushed birtherism, he would have been run out of the party before the end of his chairmanship term.


We’ll never know since the operative word in your post is “if.”
To compare Alan Keyes’ support as a minor party candidate operating outside the resources of the national Republican Party and only being on the ballot in 3 states to the support that Steele would have had from within the Republican Party with tens of millions of dollars of resources behind him, just doesn’t seem that equal to me.


40 posted on 03/04/2011 9:23:01 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
There isn't a conservative or even a Republican in GA who doesn't know the Urinal's shameful history and bias. It's a joke of a newspaper, and that's putting it kindly. If it weren't for its Lifestyle and Sports sections, I doubt even Dems would buy it. Put your mind at ease over the Republican delegation. They may belong to the Party of Stupid, but not even they are not that stupid. ;)
41 posted on 03/04/2011 9:24:58 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

The trouble is that the only people who can file criminal charges against people like Pelosi are political appointees who don’t want to rock the boat, or elected officials who need the smile of the media (or so they think). Part of the bigger problem we’re dealing with on the eligibility issue is something much more far-reaching and serious: the inability of the people to get justice from law enforcement. It’s like the political class gets a get-out-of-jail-free card, because only their cronies have the authority to file criminal charges.

Any bills that are passed really need to have a way for a NORMAL PERSON to initiate legal action. And that’s not just true for the eligibility issue, but for everything. What would happen if a normal person could sue government officials who change the locks on buildings in order to keep the voters’ representative from being able to participate? What would happen if citizens of Wisconsin could sue their absent legislators for work those legislators are being paid to do but refuse to do?

The political class is way too comfy, knowing that the people can’t do anything to hold them accountable to the law between elections. That’s the only way we get the crap sandwiches shoved down our throats like we’ve had for the last 2 years.

Regarding the “different standards”, that wouldn’t be a basis for throwing out the state laws because, unlike immigration, the federal government has no jurisdiction over state Presidential elections. The Constitution specifically gives the states the responsibility and authority to choose their own electoral voters. The states don’t violate the US Constitution simply by having their own standards, as long as those standards are compliant with the Constitution.


42 posted on 03/04/2011 9:29:49 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
If it turns out that only four out of ninety-odd sponsors backed off, that’s really not a big or newsworthy story. Unless you’re a leftist shill.

The fact remains that there are TWO bills floating about the Georgia statehouse, and that reconciliation IS to take place by committee. That much can be gleaned from the posted article.

As far as being a leftist shill goes, there is no need for such a role. The blatant insincerity of the official GOP in its failure to take on this fight makes it redundant. You want shills, talk to your Republican Congressman.

There is a very large element of dumb show in these "state eligibility" laws. The AG or the Sec of State of ANY state, already has the power to keep ANY candidate off ANY state ballot, pending the presentation of documentary proof of eligibility. They then have the power, right now, whether to accept that documentation or not, forcing the issue to court with the prospective candidate as plaintiff.

So state eligibility laws (none of which has been passed to date) would have the effect of forcing state officials to do their jobs. Well, I suppose that would be an improvement of sorts, but at the cost of adding another layer of litigation by those who do not want to do their jobs.

These endless circular discussions can only be ended with SCOTUS rulings: Is a "Native" a "Natural?" What then... exactly ... is a "Natural Born Citizen?" Next question: What do we do when we find out that the man, whose very name is an open question, living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn't?

43 posted on 03/04/2011 9:34:09 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

lol. Thanks for the CPR. I’m breathing much easier. lol


44 posted on 03/04/2011 9:34:50 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clock King; LucyT; warsaw44; ColdOne; Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; ...
Ping...................

I say forget the BC. I want to know one thing:did Barak (last name) apply to Columbia as a US resident or foreign student?

I agree with you.

I've been saying this for the best part of two years. If the lazy fraud's "education" records were published, the Brilliant One would collapse right in front of our eyes. 0b0z0's ego wouldn't take it and he might harm himself!

Too many things constituting a rising tide that demands explanation of an array of hidden records, which 0h0m0llah couldn't possibly do because of the non-existent records, terrible grades, fraudulent SS #s, etc.

Bottom line, the ignorant lying child won't dare run!

45 posted on 03/04/2011 9:39:09 AM PST by melancholy (Papa Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

This is not a battle that has to be fought on one field only. I would bet my house that there is disastrous—as in, career-wrecking disaster—information on Obama’s original birth records (whatever they are). Forcing him to reveal what he’s been hiding doesn’t damage any other line of attack; it only strengthens our hand overall.

It does appear that you and I disagree on this, however. How about we just leave it at that? I have become convinced over time that eligibility laws are a good front on which to wage one aspect of the battle. You think otherwise. Fine. I’ve read your arguments, and find them unconvincing. Rather than waste any more of your time, or vice versa, let’s just leave it at that. Deal?


46 posted on 03/04/2011 9:40:52 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
From the article:

Others simply said they’d been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom.

Is this a typical strong-armed communist dictatorship in Georgia of all places?

Did you hear anything from the grapevine?

47 posted on 03/04/2011 9:50:13 AM PST by melancholy (Papa Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Right now, Butter, I m betting that the SCOTUS will handle Hollister v Soetoro, because it is far simpler to rule on Article II constitutional eligibility, or to short-circuit it by ruling on the "legal name" issue, than to overhaul the fundamental compact between the states and the Federal government!

Their easiest way out this week, if they are not going to reject the matter entirely, is to remand it to a lower court for discovery. That is, they could decide in the interests of political stability, to slow this down to allow Soetoro/Obama to finish the term.

Although far from a glorious victory, that would at least clarify "Natural Born Citizenship" for future candidacies. It also would do much to claim the "public opinion," so important to many in the fight. Although, in my opinion, Soetoro/Obama's constituency is so strong that "public opinion," actually means little to him or his administration.

Vinson's ultimatum is also going to drive Obamacare to the SCOTUS, or at least to the 11th Circuit and then to the SCOTUS. This is one heck of a key week in constitutional history.

48 posted on 03/04/2011 9:52:16 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Not only is that a deal, but when one state passes your desired law, you get a free round at the VFW in Livermore Falls.


49 posted on 03/04/2011 9:53:54 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
omegadawn said:

Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped.

True. They know that should the judicial branch find him disqualified, not only are they all subject to being forced out of office via investigation or elections, the two parties will no longer be able to select "qualified" candidates of their sole choosing without the state governments stepping in.

Every candidate from here on out would be closely scrutinized for their allegiance and legal stature. Politicians will be dropping like flies.
50 posted on 03/04/2011 9:56:51 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson