Skip to comments.White House slams latest 'birther' move
Posted on 04/21/2010 11:27:28 AM PDT by pissantEdited on 04/21/2010 11:29:49 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state's ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.
(Excerpt) Read more at ac360.blogs.cnn.com ...
McCain isn’t a natural born citizen either. He was born outside the United States but not on a military base. Odd that, with all the possible candidates from both parties, the contest ends up being between two who are not eligible for the office.
Regarding your #2 answer, I must disagree with part of it. One Kenyan birth certificate was a forgery; the other does NOT have significant problems. NOT ONE ASPECT of it rules out the possible legitimacy of the document. If you want the full story, see this thread (and set aside a week for reading it):
The proposed AZ law does not specify that the certificate be long-form.
In the end it does not matter because the short form COLB is an abstact that would be subjected to verification against the long form birth certificate and the dingbats in the White House know it.
Oh, it matters, quite a bit. There's no federal standard for Birth Certificates, and no distinction between so called "long-forms" and "COLBs." Whatever the individual state deems legal, and is accepted by the the Federal government, as, for example,by the DOS for passport apps, or by the SSA, for social security application, will stand -- and those include the COLB, which is now being issued in multiple states in lieu of the vaunted "long form," as official proof of birth, since the info on the COLB is abstracted, officially and legally from the so-called "long form."
States can set any standard they wish for state and local elections, but no state will be able to dictate standards higher than the Federal government's standards, for a Federal election.
Right. It applies to future POTUS candidates and only applies to Arizona. It’s not retroactive to the 2008 campaign, only future ones.
The White House has it’s panties in a twist because Arizona exercised it’s 10th Amendment Constitutional right. The White House took this move personally, which calls into question the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship. There might not have been any other fuss made over it if the White House had kept their yap shut.
The rest of the Obama trolls seem to be missing. What is it about this thread?
You’d probably get booted out. The Tea Party movement is trying to kick out anybody who believes in the Constitution -http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2493742/posts .
Looks like the Tea Party is heading down the road of fake conservatism that the GOP is.
That is BS, She had her shot (several) and completely blew it.
It’s not just about Orly. Anybody else claiming that Zero is ineligible is persona non grata at some Tea Parties. I myself have been given grief by a “fellow” protestor for the sign I carried advocating that he be removed from office.
I hear ya. But the Arizona requirement will be very hard to blow by legally. Moreover, the MSM will be forced to explain why the Arizona delegation to the Demrat Pres. Convention is missing. The so-called Roll Call is a traditional event. When they skip over Arizona even some otherwise braindead Dems will notice.
You could say the dems will send a delegation anyway. That could happen, but those delegates must be state certified. Without that, they have no legal standing. And it will provide one more example of how The Marxist Onada doesn’t give a fig about any law that gets in the way of or does not advance his agenda.
A very substantive reply. Not.
Call people trolls, don’t address the subject at hand, and run away. Nothing changes on these threads, does it?
natural born means he wasn’t delivered through a c section... you birthers are amazing... /sarc
Maybe Stanley got one of those little black 'honeys' pregnant at that bar where Grandpa and Mr. Davis used to hang (literally) out. Then once the baby was born, they had Stanley 'claim' it was hers (and the grandparents put a birth announcement in the paper to make it look good).
Consider that Stanley didn't hang around too much and left the grandparents to 'raise' Barack. The marriage to Obama Sr. seems to have been only to have been a way to make it look good, and hide any question of who the father was.
Marxism loses in the end. Not to mention in the beginning.
Why seek something yet run away from it at the same time?
No, the thread topic was actually the Lucas Smith document. Later I’ll look up a post that explains why the two got confused (hint: Orly). The Smith document had NOT been ruled out by the end of that thread and it is still possible that it is real. It can’t be proved authentic but nothing about it rules that possibility out. If I find the comment, I’ll post a link to you.
It might be a good idea if you would at least try to make sense. Just sayin’.
If you go up thread (here’s the page link to be able to do that):
...you will see the full explanation. The BC (Mombasa) Smith provided has not been discredited.
Are you sure about that? Apparently, you are wrong.
Section 7211. Minimum Standards for Birth Certificates
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Commissioner of Social Security and others, to promulgate regulations establishing minimum standards for birth certificates.