Nebraska has joined several other states in introducing a "birther" bill

OK, rahl, tell us all: just exactly what EVIDENCE is written in Obama's Certificate of Live Birth that suggests it is PROOF of ANYTHING? Who is listed in this COLB who can testify that it is valid, or accurate? Nothing! Nobody! And Obama refuses to clear this up to the American people even though he could do this in fifteen minutes. On top of everything else, he deliberately hides all of his immigration and school records, and he can't, and won't explain why and how he was supposedly born in Hawaii but has a Social Security number from CONNECTICUT!

This COLB is nothing but an uninformative piece of worthless paper, produced in total negligent carelessness, and thrust on the people of the United States by the State of Hawaii. It proves NOTHING. Gonna put me on ignore?

 

Hahaha.. Most states use the computer generated COLB these days..

Babies didn't have to have social security numbers in 1961.

 

And we are back to the grand conspiracy theory aren't we?

 

Why don't you talk about yourself? We people of Nebraska are not and never were.

 

What idiocy.

First of all- no previous Presidents have provided any evidence they were born in the U.S.- none.

Such outrage- all of the sudden- for the only President who has provided evidence he was born in the U.S.

We have previous Presidents would not have qualified under your 'rules'- my favorite is Dwight Eisenhower- his birth certificate was issued 50 years after he was born, attested to only by his brother who was 3 years old when he was born. No doctor, no witnesses- nada.

But suddenly you find that the Constitution has a provision saying that a candidate must provide proof that you find sufficient to be President. Poor Ike- apparently he didnt know about that part of the Constitution.

Apparently your interpretation of the Constitution is so little understood that for the last 200 years no President before President Obama bothered to provide proof of his eligibility.

Note to Day of Condor: President Obama proved he was eligible in the exact same way as every previous President and was elected and confirmed exactly the same as every previous President- and is our legally elected President. That you can't accept this is your problem.

 

The Certification of Live Birth is a legal document produced by the State of Hawaii. That you cant understand why states should accept documents produced from other states is your problem.

And of course, once again- President Obama hasn't hid his school records or immigration records.

I am still amazed that 2 years after his election there are people like yourself still looking for some reason, any reason that this man can't have been elected. We have more evidence of his eligiblity than for any previous president.

 

reading fail, I said born in home with a mid wife. I am not talking about this law and Obama, I am talking about how this law could potentially effect others. Sometimes the Obama derangement syndrome clouds vision to the point that when people try to look at broader picture, folks call BS on points made that don't apply to Obama when the points were never about Obama in the first place.

Oh and your final sentence is a constitutional 10th amendment fail.

 

I was speculating about how the law could potentially discriminate against other people who should be eligible. Laws govern more than just one person.

 

So any sort of paper work SANFU makes a citizen otherwise qualified to run, ineligible?

Not to mention that election officials in states are not and have never been governed by the federal government, and to suggest they need to be is probably a 10th amendment issue.

 

Posting this here for its relevancy:

The Supreme Court of California voted 6-0 Wednesday (Feb. 2, 2011) not to review the Appeals Court decision of Alan Keys’ case against Barack Obama, according to the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Keyes v Bowen had been previously rejected by the California Third District Court of Appeals last October.

Keyes had sued California Secretary of State Bowen because she did not “verify” the qualifications of Barack Obama to be on the ballot. The California courts had previously said that presidential qualifications are the province of Congress.

The Appeals Court said:

“[T]he presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines.”

Note the Supreme Court ruled 6-0 to not review this case.

Expect similar results for Nebraska and Arizona laws.

 

If this is so (not that I agree) then what federal entity guarantees we don't wind up with another Barry Sotero Obama situation?

We have a president entirely by virtue of a few unknown Hawaiian Dept. of Health officials, without a single verifying outside agency or official making sure that what they say is so.
How is that a better system than making candidates confirm (to certain states that have made it an issue) they are what they claim to be?

Clearly we have a dysfunctional system in this regard.

 

cause the government has all kinds of extra money to hire an extra records checking department in all election boards?

Good thing we are spending the nations money on important issues of governance.

 

Yes. Because it takes so much money for a candidate to present his evidence of constitutional eligibility to the appropriate official.
How much does a Xerox copy and a stamp cost, anyway?

 

more, costs more. Its not the stamp or even the copy, its the "appropriate official" that will be the expense.

 

IF such an official, or agency, does not already exist. And suddenly, you worry over the cost of employing a single person in a trillion dollar government?

Too absurd to comment on.
Think of it as an investment, that a future Obama will not have to spend in millions of dollars to law firms to frighten off people bringing law suits trying to get to the bottom of the truth of his story.

 

Or a future Dwight Eisenhower?

 

No we're not. If by now, Obama has not plastered his original birth certificate onto this head amidst all the publicity, any reasonable adult will assume he simply cannot. And if Arizona, Nebraska and other States will require him to produce original, long form birth certificate to get onto a ballot, what's a poor shyster to do? LoL, that's right. The original, long form birth certificate will conveniently be stolen from Hawaii's vital records office. Or, something like that.

 

Good for them.

 

We have always made changes in the law as necessary to accommodate the current situation. People whine about Obalmy having to show us his birth certificate because nobody ever asked a White president to do it. It was never a problem before but from now on we'll require every president to prove s/he meets all the requirements of being a president. Such is the progression of law.

 

WHY ARE YOU NOT CONTRIBUTING MONEY TO GET THAT FRAUD OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE? EVERYBODY COMPLAINS BUT NOBODY'S HELPING REMOVE THIS POTENTIAL TYRANT.

Retired Commander Kerchner has filed a lawsuit to remove Obalmy from office. He could use a little financial assistance. This man is an American Hero; we need to help him help us.

http://tinyurl.com/ObamaCantBePresident

 

This is entirely redundant.

Do you guys honestly believe that an entire party and all federal officials involved don't bother to check a candidate's legitimacy regarding citizenship by birth?

If you seriously think that is the case, then you might want to consider moving to another country, because if the system is that fraudulent on such a basic level, then there's no telling what else they would be fraudulent about.

 

His lawsuit has been dismissed. Exactly why would anyone send him money for a lawsuit that has already been dismissed?

Oh and he is not a hero- he is a nutcase.

 

You may be on to something...

 

President Obama has disclosed a certified copy that has been authenticated by officials of the State of Hawaii; and which would be admissible as an exception to the rules barring hearsay evidence in any action in which such issue was relevant. However, the original record is not discoverable by legal process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or through exterritorial subpoena power. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878 ).