A GOP lawmaker will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to require any candidate running for president to file a copy of his or her birth certificate with the Federal Election Commission.
“It’s the right thing to do and it’s long overdue,” Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), the bill’s sponsor, wrote in an email to The Hill. …
Posey’s bill, first introduced in March 2009, would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. It would require a presidential candidate’s principal campaign committee to include a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate with the committee’s statement of organization.
The bill would also require that a candidate for president establish that he or she is a citizen eligible to serve as president by providing documents proving he or she has been a U.S. resident for 14 years, and that he or she is at least 35 years of age.
Incidentally, it is my view that federal legislation such as what Congressman Posey proposes to do (though I doubt it would get past Mr. Obama’s desk, but that’s another story) would have zero effect on current State-based initiatives, because each initiative targets different sections of law.
Furthermore, it might actually be more helpful to have the Federal Election Commission be “carbon-copied” on the same documentation that various States are purporting to require at their level.
With some inspiration from DrKatesView’s recent posting, and with an alleged FOIA request confirming Mr. Obama Sr.’s citizenship status (something that was not altogether obvious from the now-released alleged birth certificate), remember Politico’s Ben Smith saying the following?:
Trump’s mother, it should be noted, was born in Scotland, which is not part of the United States. His plane is registered in the Bahamas, also a foreign country. This fact pattern — along with the wave of new questions surrounding what he claims is a birth certificate — raises serious doubts about his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
I had also posted recently that WND reported that Mr. Trump’s mother had become naturalized three years prior to Donald’s birth.
If Mr. Smith was being serious in his observation about Mr. Trump’s mother, then why couldn’t he be just as serious about Mr. Obama’s father who, as it currently appears, never became a naturalized American citizen (perhaps likely because he wanted to retain his Kenyan/British citizenship, for whatever reason, such as never intending to stay within the United States)?
Maybe releasing further background documentation by Mr. Obama would raise these questions even further regarding his past? After all, in this 2012 presidential campaign season, being fit for the presidency isn’t solely about presidential eligibility. And, at this point, all questions are legitimately on the table.
Maybe the birth certificate was just the tip of the iceberg.
There can be no doubt that Donald Trump trumped Mr. Obama on the birth certificate. Nobody else has come out anywhere near the way that The Donald has — and forced Mr. Obama’s hand on the issue:
…Indeed, Mr. Trump positioned Mr. Obama in such a manner that the latter was faced with just two unpalatable choices: 1) Keep the birth certificate under wraps, allowing suspicion to grow and possibly undermine his re-election chances, or 2) cave in to pressure and, by doing so, elevate Mr. Trump (supposedly a clown, remember?) to his level.
In choosing the second of the two options, Mr. Obama thinks he at least has taken away the whole raisond’etre of the presumed Trump candidacy, and perhaps he has. Unfortunately, he also unwittingly has proved one of Mr. Trump’s main critiques of his presidency – that Mr. Obama is weak. Anyone who has listened carefully to Mr. Trump these past weeks has heard him say over and over again that Mr. Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, that other world leaders (especially China and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) are taking advantage of him, that he is far from the tough, strong leader America needs in these dangerous times. Nothing Mr. Obama has done in response to Mr. Trump has disproved this notion – indeed, quite the contrary.
It is not only the president whom Mr. Trump has made to appear a fool. At his gloating news conference from a tarmac in New Hampshire where he took deserved credit for forcing the president’s hand, Mr. Trump also threw a harsh light at the entire media establishment. He ridiculed them for failing to hold the president to the same standards they apply to everyone else (including Mr. Trump), basically saying to reporters: “I’vejustdonethejobyoushouldhavedonethreeyearsago. You’rewelcome.”
Whether he will be a serious candidate or not, Mr. Trump has proved three things beyond shadow of a doubt: One, he can move public opinion. The day before Mr. Obama at last released his birth certificate, a USAToday poll found that just 38 percent of Americans thought Mr. Obama “definitely” had been born in America, doubt certainly driven by Mr. Trump’s one-man campaign. Two, he can bully the most powerful man in the world. And three, the media in the United States are a joke, completely uninterested in doing their due diligence by vetting Mr. Obama’s background, though anyone remembering the Dan Rather fiasco will recall that they were happy to invent things about George W. Bush. …
Just in case you missed it, here’s FoxNews’ coverage of the entire Trump/Obama presser over the alleged birth certificate:
The eligibility issue was (yet still is) such a big issue that Facebook was getting updated every second about it.
Naturally, there are still questions about the newly-released alleged document, but not so much because the detractors of this issue think that, essentially, “enough will never be enough,” but rather the timing of it. That is, after the Administration confirmed that it had, in fact, been fighting against any background documentation from being released, Mr. Obama himself requested the sought-after document “just like that,” as it were (and from the linked PDF, it appears it took all of 48 hours to receive copies of the document).
Another timing issue: it’s now being reported that an FOIA request against Mr. Obama’s father allegedly reveals that, besides Mr. Obama Sr. being a polygamist and eventual illegal alien, further documentation appears to show that Mr. Obama (the son) was born in Hawaii.
As an aside, I’m curious — why hadn’t the more strident so-called “birthers” placed FOIA requests for Mr. Obama Sr.? And the results of this request have been revealed a day after Mr. Obama posts his alleged long-form birth certificate?
Fascinating — check out my posting [you may have to right-click on the link and open in new tab/window] from August 10, 2009 that lists all of the documentation for presidential candidates going back a couple of decades. So, why won’t Mr. Obama follow suit and just release them? Free the docs!
Anecdotal evidence out of Texas — via a video from NBC affiliate KETK — suggests that Mr. Obama continues to have a character issue — and explains why folks aren’t easily moved by the release of the alleged document.
And last but by no means least is the complete Fox Business segment concerning the alleged birth certificate. This, in my opinion, is an excellent video as it contains lots of relevant, relatively unbiased (assuming you don’t mind things being questioned) information and data regarding recent events:
As Dr. Crowley mentioned towards the end of the video, I, too, am looking forward to Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book to be released — WorldNetDaily continues to report that the birth certificate, per se, is apparently just the tip of the iceberg regarding Mr. Obama.
Karl Denninger, owner of The Market Ticker and profiled on SeekingAlpha.com, released the following video yesterday comparing the scanned image that the Associated Press published versus the PDF file that is currently located on WhiteHouse.gov:
Mr. Denninger raises some interesting questions about the respective documents. Feel free to comment/link in the Comments section with further information.
The push-back on the alleged image the White House produced this morning has begun in earnest, this time in “snarky” form from TheSmokingGun.com.
Here are the key “snark-astic” questions the site poses:
• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?
• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant in box 19a?
• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?
• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?
• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers, however, it is spelled “Ukulele.”
The site is apparently trying to get “ahead of the game” in terms of the scrutiny that this new online image will obviously produce.
But what about Susan Nordyke’s certificate, born one day after Mr. Obama? One can clearly see differences (click image for larger picture):
Susan Nordyke's birth certificate
Bryan Keith Nixon, an associate creative director for an Atlanta-based advertising agency, pulled up the White House-released image in Adobe Illustrator. This is what he found (click on image for larger view):
The layers that compose the White House-released PDF of Mr. Obama's birth certificate (Bryan Keith Nixon)
And attorney Leo Donofrio responded to today’s news by saying that his prediction of a long-form birth certificate has been fulfilled to the potential detriment of certain legal questions, such as parental citizenship (last three paragraphs):
They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.
If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.
The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.
Very interesting stuff. The White House recently castigated evangelist Franklin Graham for even questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility. And as has been reported here and other places, individuals such as Donald Trump and Dr. Jerome Corsi have respectively been performing their own investigations into Mr. Obama’s past.
And, apparently “just like that,” Mr. Obama allegedly releases his long-form birth certificate. This is after dozens of lawsuits over more than two years requesting for Mr. Obama to reveal this type of information.
If he had been able to produce it all this time, why didn’t he do so from the beginning?
BirtherReport.com found the following video of LA State Senator A. G. Crowe further explaining his thoughts on his State’s recently-introduced eligibility bill:
GeorgetownJD forwarded me information on SCR11-003 out of Colorado (click on the link, then select “Senate Concurrent Resolutions 001-004″ from the drop-down menu, click “Go,” and then click on history for SCR11-003).
It is a State constitutional amendment that, if passed by the legislature, would be a referendum whereby Coloradans would vote, in a majority, for the amendment.
If the referendum were enacted, then any public officer elected in Colorado would have to provide proof of citizenship (the bill provides for a number of options) and, if they fail to do so, their position would subsequently be deemed vacant.
In Oklahoma, SB91 is said to be on the precipice of being passed by the House (it has already passed that State’s Senate).
Great news: OK house majority leader Dan Sullivan and Kris Steel released Presidential certification bill SB 91 for the full vote of the House on Wednesday. This bill is expected to pass easily and become law within 5 days
The bill’s research analysis:
The CS for Engrossed SB 91 requires each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any election to provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office sought and requires candidates for the nomination for President to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board and directs that copies of such documents be made available by the Board for public inspection.
If passed, the law would become enacted as of November 1, 2011.
As HotAir in the above link notes, the Governor signed AZ’s immigration bill last year, but she doesn’t want to sign a bill that would enforce eligibility this year.
Lead America “down a path of destruction?” Really? Enforcing Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 would do that? How so, exactly?
She disagrees with the types of evidence that the bill allows to demonstrate eligibility? Funny — the bill’s main sponsor said recently that they crafted the requirements after DoD top secret clearance requirements.
The Secretary of State is too partisan? What — political parties (who are currently allegedly tasked with determining their own candidates’ eligibility) aren’t?
A “distraction?” By whom, and from what?
If we were discussing federal — or even State — confiscation of firearms, would it be a distraction to talk about legislation protecting the Second Amendment?
Who, exactly, is the dear Arizonan Governor trying to impress?
Don Fredrick, author of The Obama Timeline (now in paperback), continues to impress with its ever-expanding tracking of Mr. Obama. I’ve linked to him since shortly after starting TRSoL.
From Mr. Fredrick, a new milestone has been hit:
The Obama Timeline has now reached 3,400 pages and over 20,000 online references!
Since mid-2008 I have read more than 20,000 articles and condensed their information into The Obama Timeline. The Timeline is updated on a daily basis, with all new text highlighted in yellow. Spend a few minutes per day reading that new information, and avoid the hours of effort necessary to place it there!
If you have friends or relatives who have not yet accessed the Timeline, please tell them about it. The more the facts are known, the more difficult it will be for the mainstream media to bamboozle the voters in 2012.
This evening, the Andrea Shea-King BlogTalkRadio show will be interviewing attorney Gary Kreep regarding Drake v. Obama. According to her posting, on May 2, the 9th US Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments for the case. More background information can be found here and here.
Ambassador Alan Keyes once again does a fabulous job of describing the eligibility issue:
Donald Trump responds to Greta van Susteren regarding Karl Rove and eligibility:
Trump is also interviewed by Anderson Cooper:
Franklin Graham is also questioning Mr. Obama, and the White House said they didn’t like his “preposterous” statements:
Trump has some things to say about Robert de Niro and praises Franklin Graham:
Louisiana State Senator A. G. Crowe quite graciously and presciently responds to CNN’s Randi Kaye over his State’s eligibility bill:
Lone GOP Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom was interviewed on WABC 770AM in New York City and thinks that whatever information — such as Mr. Obama’s father — can be found on the long-form birth certificate is what Mr. Obama doesn’t want known (MailOnline coverage):