Presidential candidates would have to show birth certificates under Louisiana proposal

The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune ^ | April 15, 2011 | Jan Moller

[john mirse]

It’s nuts that this type of legislation is controversial. Should be a done deal.

******

If we get lucky----the governor of Arizona doesn't seem to be able to make up her mind to sign or NOT to sign the bill---and Arizona passes its landmark presidential eligibility law by the end of next week, I think it will help Louisiana lawmakers to pass its own presidential eligibility bill.

But if Arizona fails to pass such a bill, then I think it will be very difficult for Louisiana to pass its own presidential eligibility bill.

[Fantasywriter]

What is the principle difference between a commifascist and a hardcore marxist? Is it that the former is more hellbent on controlling every aspect of a person’s life, and executing or reeducating dissidents? Is redistributing the wealth so preeminent an issue with marxists that controlling and decimating the population takes second place?

[bgill]

I was recently sent a letter requesting a BC from my job where I’d been working for the past 12 years. Hey, if they could fire me because of those issues, then we should be able do the same with the usurper.

[bgill]

IIRC, it was Smith (truth or whatever) who claimed that when he got the Kenyan BC that the record book appeared to have had the pages taken out and put back in incorrectly. Or something to that effect. Where did we get this info from?

[bgill]

Here’s hoping Arizona does NOT pass the eligibility bill. Yeah, I said NOT. Because it gives him a free pass on the NBC TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS issue. He and BOR can wave the COLB in front of the cameras and he’s on the ballot because golly gee whiz HI swears they don’t issue long forms anymore.

[john mirse]

”THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”

******

As most of us know, the statement above was on the Democratic Party's "Official Certification of Nomination" that it sent only to Hawaii in 2008.

The Party, as I recall, sent a different version to the other states.

At the time, many of us publicly asked why the Democratic Party sent one version to Hawaii while sending another version to the other 49 states.

As I understand it, the answer to that question is still not clear even today. And the Democratic Party seems conspicuously mute on the controversy.

My point is this: If Hawaii can require the "Official Certification of Nomination" above from the Democratic Party before it would allow Obama to be placed on Hawaii's presidential ballot in 2008, then why can't ALL states, like Louisiana and Arizona, also demand that the Democratic Party send them the same document in 2012 before they allow the Democratic Party nominee, Obama, to be placed on its ballot?

Just some thoughts on this notification document:

1. There doesn't seem to be any question of Constitution problems, because Hawaii had no problems with demanding such a notification document in 2008.

2. The Democratic Party representative who signs it would be crazy to sign it under penalty of perjury until he was positive beyond a shadow of a doubt---for instance, he personally saw and touched the nominee's official state long form birth certificate---that the Democratic Party nominee was "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:” as stated in the "Official Certification of Nomination" document that the Democratic Party sent to Hawaii after the Democratic Party 2008 national convention.

3. As I see it, it would be a very good idea that state election officials---especially if no state is able to pass a presidential eligibility law this 2012 campaign season--- demand that political parties provide an "Official Certification of Nomination" with the statement above included before officials allow a political party to place its nominee on the 2012 presidential ballot.

[melancholy]

Isn’t what you describe - what’s happening - called Fabianism?

You're right.

The Communists have been wiggling out of one name to the other to make it difficult for ALL the people to understand WHAT they are doing.

Lest we forget, the old Communist superpower controlled by the COMMUNIST PARTY was called Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR)! If they weren't doing anything to be ashamed of, why the deception?

The RATS are no better; however, some of their elderly are Conservative Democrats and becoming an endangered species.

The Democraps/Progressives/unions/fill in name du jour should be called what they’re, COMMUNISTS NOT SOCIALISTS.

We the people should Define and know our enemies in order to defeat them. Communists, Islamics, Media and anti-Americans in general should be confronted as often as possible. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with squat!

[melancholy]

What is the principle difference between a commifascist and a hardcore marxist?

Communists are for wealth distribution to themselves and their institutions such as the main threat to them, their armies. There is no "private sector" to speak of. They may give the people a trickle but the harsh life, corruption and no freedoms are the norm.

The Fascists are more or less the same except that they let the private sector flourish and help them with good regulations that make them grateful to the government like GE here.

The combination of business in bed with big government is disastrous to the people who will get the trickle, the harsh life, mega corruption and certainly, no freedoms.

All this crap came from the idealistic Marxism, which is so idealistic it can't work without an idealistic population and no population is.

I'm no scholar on the subject but this is my understanding. I invite other FReepers to weigh in and correct me.

One thing I won't be corrected on, they're all terrible and full of bloodshed, either to take people over and rule them for long periods or to get rid of any of this systems.

Communists don't give an inch, you have to force them to.

[ilovesarah2012]

As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the “family hospital” in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.)

The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

[SatinDoll]

It doesn’t matter; the Canal Zone was never U.S. sovereign land. We leased it from the Republic of Panama. And I’ve seen McCain’s birth certificate from Panama.

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for spelling all that out. It was fascinating and informative to read. A person can learn a lot from hanging around FR...providing they listen to the right people. ;)

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[2harddrive]

A good law, BUT a liberal judge would just rule 1) that the “Certification of Live Birth” is just as good as a Birth Certificate, and, 2) No one in the State has standing to dispute it, anyway! Believe me!