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

Skip to comments.

Senator calls for vetting of candidates' eligibility [Coburn]
World Net Daily ^ | 2009-06-18

Posted on 06/18/2009 8:59:43 PM PDT by rabscuttle385

GOP's Coburn likes plan to require birth certificates.

BY BOB UNRUH

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says it's the responsibility of the states to make sure political candidates are eligible for the offices they seek, but he's in favor of both state and federal demands that future presidential candidates have a formal procedure to document their qualifications.

The relatively strong statement from Coburn on the issue of the eligibility of a president came in a recent letter to a constituent who contacted WND.

WND has reported on a federal plan in the U.S. House by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., that would require documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates, and Coburn confirmed he would view that positively.

"The bill requires any federal candidates' campaign committee filing with the Federal Election Commission to produce a copy of the candidate's birth certificate," he wrote. "If the bill makes it to the Senate, I will likely support it."

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


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 2008; 2012; bho2008; bho44; birthcertificate; birthcertificates; certifigate; citizenship; coburn; eligibility; hawaii; indonesia; ineligible; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nobama2012; obama; obamatruthfile; posey; potus; thekenyan; usurper

1 posted on 06/18/2009 8:59:45 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

What about TOTUS?


2 posted on 06/18/2009 9:02:49 PM PDT by jws3sticks (Zer0 and Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jws3sticks

“What about TOTUS?”
Included under the Family Plan (no health care though).

What gets my urinary tract flowing is that this would even be considered with the ongoing illegal (yup, ILLEGAL) border crossers rights being considered/enacted.


3 posted on 06/18/2009 9:12:33 PM PDT by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

So, is this the implied pass that Obama is exempt from scrutiny, as in entitlement of a grandfather clause? If so, the GOP best pack it in.


4 posted on 06/18/2009 10:35:57 PM PDT by m4629 (politically incorrect, and proud of it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m4629

Exactly! How dare they not have enough guts to demand Obama be vetted. My God - no wonder we lost.


5 posted on 06/18/2009 10:44:14 PM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl

If this legislation passes, Obama, the presidential candidate for 2012 will have to show his documentation, at least.


6 posted on 06/19/2009 12:39:07 AM PDT by TheThinker (America doesn't have a president. It has a usurper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
If the Obama Hawaii COLB is "genuine" as many Obama supporters believe it is, does anyone have a theory as to why a 46 year old sitting United States Senator would order a copy of his 1961 Hawaii birth certificate in 2007?

As we know, the Obama COLB on the internet is stamped on the back with the date of June 2007.

1. Does anyone believe that 46 year old Senator Obama lost his 1961 birth certificate in 2007---like a lot of people lose their birth certificates every year---and he ordered a new 2007 Hawaii birth certificate to replace the 1961 birth certificate he lost or misplaced?

2. Or, does any believe that Obama has always had his 1961 Hawaii birth certificate stored in a safe place, but he ordered another Hawaii birth certificate in 2007 as a backup in case he lost his original 1961 Hawaii birth certificate?

NOTE: I don't know about other people, but I don't know anyone who has two copies of his birth certificate.

3. Or better still, does anyone believe that Obama has always had his 1961 Hawaii birth certificate tucked away in a very safe place, but he still ordered a 2007 Hawaii birth certificate for the following reason:

He knew that if the public ever saw his original long form 1961 Hawaii birth certificate, the public would quickly spot information on that 1961 Hawaii birth certificate that could be very damaging to Obama's political career?

4. I'm sorry, President Obama, but I pick #3. I believe that you are a very smart person who knows where everything is. And so I believe that you would watch over your 1961 Hawaii birth certificate like a hawk, and there is no way you would lose it.

7 posted on 06/19/2009 12:44:47 AM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

obumpa


8 posted on 06/19/2009 1:40:10 AM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Yea typical Washington,
Now that the horse has escaped . . . .
Shut the barn door. . . .
9 posted on 06/19/2009 2:34:36 AM PDT by DeaconRed (RL BURNSIDE Has it exactly right-"Everything's Broken" &" Its Bad You Know". . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john mirse
John,

Very well summarized!

I just wonder how much money has been spent hiding the "Original BC" and who paid it, given Zer0's lack of means over the years of Community Organizing?

I still think he is the Indonesian Candidate for George Soros.

10 posted on 06/19/2009 6:33:22 AM PDT by jws3sticks (Zer0 and Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
If this legislation passes, Obama, the presidential candidate for 2012 will have to show his documentation, at least.

Hopefully the big O will get impeached way before then.

11 posted on 06/19/2009 8:18:06 AM PDT by m4629 (politically incorrect, and proud of it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
TOO LATE TOM! You had your opportunity to stop Zero in the electoral college. It only took one congressman and one senator to challenge the results of the election and you sat on your hands.

Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to tomorrow, January 8. The Code of Federal Regulations outlines specifically what will happen then:

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.

The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

12 posted on 06/21/2009 8:08:08 AM PDT by Rockitz (This isn't rocket science- follow the money and you'll find truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
TOO LATE TOM! You had your opportunity to stop Zero in the electoral college. It only took one congressman and one senator to challenge the results of the election and you sat on your hands.

The Code of Federal Regulations outlines specifically what happened on 8 January:

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.

The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

The people were short one senator!

13 posted on 06/21/2009 8:11:07 AM PDT by Rockitz (This isn't rocket science- follow the money and you'll find truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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