[UPDATES] As reported here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Connecticut and Missouri are pursuing legislation that will require presidential and vice-presidential candidates prove their Constitutional Eligibility to be placed on the ballot. The Arizona Bill was defeated today with the help of three Republicans.
Update: Via Give Us Liberty; Here is the latest on the Arizona Eligibility bill, which began winding it's way through the Arizona state house today(Monday).
Arizona's House reps passed the bill on the first reading, then sent it to the Senate side where it was voted down 5-3 by the Judiciary Committee. Two republicans flipped, including Rick Martin a co sponsor. ????? Nevertheless, the bill finds itself in the Senate Rules Committee which will vote shortly, most likely this week, in order to determine whether or not to send it to the floor for the consideration of the full senate.
This bill should pass, it passed 4 readings in the 2010 session, but for a pocket veto by the senate president, a republican, it would have been given to Gov. Jan Brewer last August for her signature. Arizona's statehouse has turned redder, rather than bluer, another plus for our camp.
Arizona is not the only state working this type of legislation. Obama's got a bigggg problem. - Steve - Give Us Liberty -
Update: Via Jeff Lichter; Senate Judiciary Committee Defeats Bill 5-3 Is The Bad News; Apparent Silver Lining/Good News Is That It Can Still Be Heard In The Senate Rules Committee and It Has Found A Way Forward In The Arizona House
My quick summary of the above heading is that we were very disappointed by the above vote but are hopeful that the bill can still move forward. The two Democrats, as expected, and two Republicans whose position on the bill was unknown until the vote came out against it. One Republican, Rick Murphy of District 9 who had signed on to the bill as a co-sponsor actually FLIPPED. Long story short, it felt like we were ambushed. Jim Wise got to speak for the bill for maybe a minute which was all he needed and had prepared for and then I was about a minute and a half into my expected 5 minute statement, when I was informed from the chair that I had "30 seconds left" with an apology for not informing me at the beginning that I only had 2 minutes to speak. I had to cut short my statement on the spot which prevented me from rebutting in full what Democrat Senator Kirsten Synema had incorrectly stated in what was about 8-10 minutes that she got to speak from the bench. She spoke extensively against the 2 citizen parent requirement as part of the natural born definition and also falsely read off a list of some 6 or more actual Prior Presidents who she stated would not have ever been President because they had a foreign born parent. The truth is that you are still natural born if that foreign born parent became a US citizen prior to the future candidates birth. I never got a chance to rebut this as I was stopped just after explaining this 2 citizen parent verbage as part of John McCain's Senate Resolution 511 and Nancy Pelosi's two different Nomination Forms sent to the State Secretary of States on the same day.
I was informed afterward that the Rules Committee of the Senate "can" still hear it and that the House had finally scheduled it for a first read, which apparently also means a committee hearing there? not entirely sure???? I hope to be able to speak with Russell Pearce, the Senate President tomorrow night to discuss the issue of remaining ways forward and will also of course continue to similarly consult with Judy Burgess, the sponsor of the bill in the House.
Many thanks to Judy Flowers, Kelly Townsend, Arthur Anselmo, and Duncan Ellis for showing up at the hearing in support of the bill. Here is a 4 minute video of my interview just before the above hearing: -Jeff Lichter - 2/14/2011
Snippets via East Valley Tribune; - Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - By Howard Fischer -
On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing....
...Each of the measures would preclude a presidential candidate from appearing on the Arizona ballot unless party officials provided certain information to the Secretary of State's Office. That includes an original "long-form birth certificate" complete with the name of the hospital, attending physician and signatures of witnesses, to a sworn statement that the candidate had two parents who were citizens at the time of the child's birth.
"I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards. -snip- -Source; http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_3b599e10-388e-11e0-9ea6-001cc4c03286.html
Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Tennessee SB0366 Draft - Bill Requiring Candidates for President Prove Constitutional Eligibility - 2/10/11
Nebraska LB654 - Bill Requiring Candidates for President to Prove Constitutional Eligibility - 1/19/11
Montana HB0205 - Bill Requiring Candidates for Federal Office to Prove Eligibility - 1/10/11
HB00295I - Texas state representatives file birth certificate bill for presidential candidates
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen w/Venn Diagram-24Jan2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5
29 comments:
THOSE THREE REPUBLICANS WHOMEVER THEY ARE...ARE REALLY GLOBALISTS WORKING FOR THE NWO AND NOT THE CONSTITUTION. I WANT THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THESE TRAITORS!
This asshole is going to win in 2012....Palin doesn't have a chance Huckabee doesn't have a chance Romney doesn't have a chance(not that any one would be good I think Palin would prove to be a RINO ...regardless of whether or not the constitution says they have to prove it, it does say they must be a Natural Born Citizen, yeah so there is no law that makes someone show proof one loophole the framers left open... but how else are you going to be guaranteed a legit candidate... fuck those 3 republicans = traitors
No birth certificate required... on his fight the smears website it says he was under the jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act of 1948 at the time of his birth.... disqualified right there no need to investigate further into any birth certificate bullshit BORN A BRIT = NOT LEGIT!!!!!!!!
America has become a dictatorship,we no longer have a constitution
The federal election commission are the first people that say you are eligible and you can run for president.Everybody is in on this coverup and I mean EVERYBODY IN OR ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOVERNMENT
This will only turn up the heat on this issue by a few more degrees. Even if all the other states follow Arizona's lead, Barry has another think coming if he thinks he can pull off this stunt again.
the constitution requires that a presidential candidate must be a natural born american citizen. What is the best way to prove this????? DAMN ME!!!! IT'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH DR'S SIGNATURE.....
‘The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide’
Barack Hussein Obama II
Below is a link to a podcast with jbjd who is actively supporting citizens of various states to file complaints where election fraud took place in 2008.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/04/15/revolution-radio-judge-abbott-tdp-chair—obama-ine
You want to get the attention of Congress to impeach Obama, you have to start in the states where election fraud took place. Targeting Obama directly has proven to be not fruitful to this point.
...
MODEL CITIZEN COMPLAINTS of ELECTION FRAUD to STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL in APPLICABLE STATES
An “applicable state” for a complaint of election fraud is a state with a law saying, only candidates eligible for office may have their names printed on the ballot. In states that require ballot eligibility, swearing a candidate is eligible without ascertaining beforehand this is true, is election fraud.
So, citizens of several of these states - 6 (six) so far - who believe people swore to their state election officials Obama was qualified to have the state print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain in advance he is a NBC, are reporting the crime of election fraud to their state A’sG and requesting an investigation.
How did we find these 6 (six) states? Citizens looked up their state laws. Simple as that. When they had questions, they came back and asked. Once we confirmed an applicable state, citizens in that state needed to obtain the Certification documents submitted to election officials in the 2008 election so that we could determine who had signed the eligibility Certifications in that state. Then, citizens asked those signatories, on what documentary basis did you ascertain Obama was a NBC? With no response forthcoming, I now knew whom to name in the complaint.
More than these 6 (six) states are applicable for citizen complaints of election fraud. For example, we already know that MO and AL are applicable states. For some reason, no citizens from either of those states have come forward to initiate the process to generate a complaint.
http://jbjd.org/
What are you talking about? He's pulling off this stunt everyday. We have absolutely lost it.
Jarrett has been concerned over these "birther bills" and stated that they are taking steps to minimize their damage. Sounds like the steps are being effective.
I guess some of Ed Falcone's stolen funds have been distributed to the a$$holes in Arizona. Apparently everyone who stands up to the BS is going to be bought off or threatened.
More people need to review and sharing the info from the White Hat reports at...
http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/
Keep the faith and the pressure on. This can still be won, and perhaps easily. All it takes is one state to screw things up royally for Obama. Considering what he has done to the nation, that's fair. Obama cannot be allowed to not prove he is eligible. That would make Nancy Pelosi the sole arbiter of our nation's future under Obama. And that's impossible. Frame it like that.
Like I commented on another post here. NONE of the bills that will require an 'original long form' will pass. They are meant for 'show only.'
The only legislation that will pass are the ones that will only require a 'generic certified copy.'
And this new $100 copy that coming from Hawaii that will have the State Seal and HDOH Director signature instead of a HDOH Seal and State Registrar signature will fill the bill nicely and pass with flying colors.
Anyone else find it strange that Hawaii lawmakers would pass a law to making it 'legal' to give people a copy of Obama's BC and yet there governor recently said there wasn't even one on record, only some notation?
Republicans, Democrats, they all drink and dine on our dollar and they hate us. All of us. Heck, they even hate Obots and want to steal their dollars and votes, too.
We are being set up. You can smell it if you breathe it in deeply.
So many typos, sorry. Especially for the 'there governor' one.=(
Gross on me.
any info on why he flipped ???
bought off
wants tougher bill ?
is this bill dead or going to full vote ?
The three republicans are the ones who have committed this error. They are the ones that need to be recalled. Everybody did their jobs. Personally, the house speaker who I have defended everytime he started his crying on live tv, has disappointed me terribly. Has he seen the long form? Probably not. So, he should have said, "I don't know why this is an issue, Obama should just show it and close the subject". Instead he sided with the doubters. Do you guys really think we are ever going to see this piece of paper? I doubt it. Look what Obama is doing to the republican voters today. He is going to give the medal to President Bush. Do you really think he is what the good book state: the deceiver? Yes, and many will be fooled again.
according to his link
Murphy is not co sponsor of bill
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1526o.asp
or maybe they took his name off it after
he voted no
?
Can any law enforcement officer or cop from any department of any U.S. city arrest Barry for being a usurper or any other felony he has committed?
Are you people slow, or just challenged? Really. In the state of Hawaii, if you ask for proof of birth for a passport, they provide your certificate of live birth. This has been provided, along with the notice from the newspaper at the time, which was provided by the government at the time of birth to the newspapers, not by the parents own announcement. The 14th Amendment defines who is eligible to be President and the Supreme Court has upheld this over and over. This is a non-issue, but people who simply can't take the fact that Obama is president apparently need to grasp at straws. Do some research - don't just follow, and find another issue that makes sense...not one that is just simply made up.
In the state of Hawaii, at the time of Obama's birth, and even still today, foreign born children can easily obtain a Hawaiian COLB, which would have also triggered the newspaper announcements. Not that it matters if he was born in Hawaii.
The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II of the Constitution and it did not change what a "natural born Citizen" IS.
It is you that needs to go and do some research.
And, by the way, go peddle your Anderson Cooper lies elsewhere...
The State Department website, who oversees passports, clearly states; "Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."...
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html#step3first
I appreciate that you have done research, whether we disagree on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" or not, which by the way, the Supreme Court also differs with you. But you've got people asking for the "ADDRESSES OF THESE TRAITORS" on your blog, and after what happened in your great state, how can you keep the rhetoric ramped up like this?
"the Supreme Court also differs with you"
Again, wrong! They're evading it... ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08 )
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
I'd like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
http://theobamafile.com
funny thing
George Washington and founders risked life , limb, family, and fortune to fight the british, does any looney obot think for one minute they meant natural born citizen to put a british subject back in charge of USA after kicking their butts? If so, then obots live in delusional world
or non realty
remember in 2012
throw the rest of bums out
Also, look up the S.511 senate resolution qualifying McCain to run for the office of US president. Background information submitted by attorney Ted Olsen explained that the birth place of McCain was less important than the "natural born citizen" requirement of 2 US citizen parents. On that basis, Olsen said, McCain was eligible to be POTUS.
Call or email the AZ leftists who voted against the bill, whether you are an AZ resident or not - this affects ALL OF US!
Those who voted to table the bill were:
DEMOCRATS
Kyrsten Sinema, Steve Gallardo
REPUBLICANS
John McComisH, Adam Driggs, Rick Murphy
...Reach them by going HERE:
http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp
The Montana Bill was tabled on Monday too.
You guys are too funny....
@Anonymous
Thanks, glad we could humor you...
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
I am forced to moderate the comments at this site due to the Obama defenders constant porn spam and threatening comments.