… Answer: They are all cowards, Democrats and Republicans alike, who had an opportunity to question Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States, but did not.
Now, as political activists, members of the media, and potential candidates begin to jockey for position ahead of the 2012 presidential campaign, the question of Obama’s eligibility once again takes center stage. Was Obama eligible to run in 2008? No, he failed to meet the “natural born citizen” standard required under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Knowing in his own mind that he was ineligible to serve, did that knowledge in any way deter him from running? No, the Obama narcissism is such that he actually believed he was capable of leading the world’s only remaining superpower. Finally, did his ineligibility in any way deter those who purchased the office for him? No, those who supported his candidacy were so anxious to place control of our government into the hands of a totally inexperienced and totally incompetent puppet that the only thing that concerned them was his ability to read flawlessly from a teleprompter.
But now, under the old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” members of Congress and the state legislatures are taking steps to erect insurmountable roadblocks to an Obama rerun. During the 111th Congress, Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced HR 1503, as follows:
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, HR1503 had little chance of receiving serious consideration. The bill was assigned to the House Administration Committee where it was allowed to die a quiet death. However, with Republicans now in control of the House, it is expected that a similar bill will pass the House and move on to the Senate where Harry Reid and other Democrats will have to explain to the American people why they oppose the idea of the president and vice president having to show that they are, in fact, eligible to serve.
However, if Democrats are able to block passage of the bill in Congress, Obama will have an even tougher hurdle to cross. At least ten states are considering legislation requiring candidates for president and vice president to prove their qualifications in order to have their names appear on the Primary and/or General Election ballots. The most interesting of these are Arizona HB2544 and Nebraska LB654.
Arizona HB2544, Section A, in addition to requiring the national political parties to provide the Arizona Secretary of State with written notice of the names of their candidates for president and vice president, would require the candidates themselves, within ten days, to submit an affidavit stating their age and citizenship, along with documents proving: a) their status as natural born citizens, b) their age, and c) their 14-year U.S. residency requirement.
Under Section B, the Arizona bill would require candidates to submit:
a) an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the name of the hospital, the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance, b) a sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America, and c) a sworn statement that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for at least fourteen years.
Finally, under Section C, the Arizona bill provides that, “If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state.”
Nebraska LB654 would require candidates for president and vice president to provide: a) a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, showing that the candidate was born within a state or territory of the United States and that the candidate will be at least 35 years of age prior to the inauguration date, and b) documentary proof, as required by the Nebraska secretary of state, showing that the candidate meets the residency requirements for the office as prescribed by the United States Constitution. In addition, Nebraska law would require candidates to execute a sworn affidavit, reading substantially as follows:
“I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth. On the day I was born, both my birth mother and birth father were citizens of the United States of America.”
Other legislative proposals… Connecticut SB391, Georgia HB37, Indiana SB114, Maine LD34, Montana HB205, Oklahoma SB91and SB384, Texas HB295 and HB529… are similar in nature.
They require candidates for president and vice president to provide proof of age and natural born citizenship in the form of a certified long form birth certificate, as well as proof of at least fourteen years U.S. residency.
Indiana SB114 also places a responsibility on the state chairmen of the major political parties, requiring that the party chairmen certify that each nominee of his/her party for president and vice president meets the constitutional qualifications, and that a certified copy of each nominee's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the nominee meets the qualifications, accompany the state chairman’s certification.
Georgia HB37, in addition to requiring proof of age, 14-year U.S. residency, and natural born citizenship, provides Georgia citizens with statutory “standing” to challenge the documentation. HB37 provides that, “Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates by the Secretary of State…”
A third Oklahoma bill, SB540 additionally invests all registered Oklahoma voters with standing to sue a presidential or vice presidential candidate, requiring proof of citizenship.
The weakest of the thirteen legislative proposals is Missouri HB283. Current law provides that, “Not later than the twelfth Tuesday prior to each presidential election… within seven working days after choosing its nominees for president and vice president of the United States, whichever is later, the state committee of each established political party shall certify in writing to the secretary of state the names of its nominees for president and vice president of the United States.” HB283 would add the words: “Such certification shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each nominee.”
Under the revised Missouri statute, requiring that candidates provide only “proof of United States citizenship,” Obama could qualify as a candidate for president if he can provide proof of either naturalized or “native born” citizenship. Inasmuch as his father was not a U.S. citizen he would still be unable to prove “natural born” citizenship, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Texas HB295 prohibits the Texas Secretary of State from certifying a candidate for president or vice president unless the candidate has provided an original long form birth certificate indicating that the candidate is a natural born U.S. citizen. Texas HB529 prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented:
(1) the candidate's original birth certificate indicating the name of the hospital and the physician of record, or (2) for a candidate whose birth was not documented in the manner required by Subdivision (1), a document certifying the candidate's birth in the United States.
Taken together, the ten states will control 112 electoral votes in 2012, thirty-eight votes in the State of Texas alone. Of the ten, Obama carried only Connecticut, Indiana, and Maine in 2008 with a combined total of 22 electoral votes… not enough, under normal circumstances, to cause him to lose reelection in 2012. However, with one or more of those ten states standing in his way, causing him to reveal once and for all who he is and his citizenship status, the chances of his reelection would be almost nil. The American people would finally learn exactly what is so important about his background that would cause him to spend some $2 million keeping it from them.
Obama will finally have brought us the “hope and change” he promised in 2008… “hope” that the final two years of his bogus presidency will pass quickly, and sufficient “change” in our state laws to prevent a total fraud from ever again ascending to the Presidency of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Authors Note ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Assume for one moment that a giant fifty-foot tidal wave was speeding across the North Atlantic, headed for the east coast of the United States. And let’s assume that, in spite of the fact that it was there for everyone to see, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Congress, the media, and all those who were in a position to know, ignored it as if it wasn’t happening and didn’t tell anyone about it… not even those who live within ten miles of the coast. How surprised and how outraged should we be?
I suggest that we would be about as surprised and outraged as the people will be when they are finally made aware that no one in the political world, Republican or Democrat, no one in Congress, and no one in the mainstream media has taken note of the political tsunami that is about to roll over Barack Obama at the hands of state government.
At least ten states are now considering legislation that would require all candidates for president and vice president to provide proof of their age, their residency status, and their claim to “natural born” citizenship, as a condition of having their names appear on the Primary and/or General Election ballots in those states. Because of the Kenyan nationality of the man he claims as his birth father, Obama cannot meet that test. As a British subject at the time of his birth, Obama’s father passed on his British citizenship to his son, automatically, by descent. If the Democratic Convention is unwise enough to re-nominate him, and if only one of the ten states adopts such a law, Obama’s dreams of a second term will be forever dashed.