Thursday, July 8, 2010

Clever Legislators in Arizona Hit on New Way to Find Obama’s Birth Truth

Posted by Gordon on February 26, 2010 at 7:00am

Measure that would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president

C. F. P. Clever Legislators in Arizona Hit on New Way to Find Obama’s Birth Truth
By Jerry McConnell Thursday, February 25, 2010

I can’t speak for all of you out there reading this, but I sure do get a lot of concurrence from the readers of CFP articles regarding the absolute necessity to establish the validity of one Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” of the United States in accordance with the requirements as set down in Article 2 of the U. S. Constitution; Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly notwithstanding.

It seems that with each passing day more news is presented of cases of challenges from every corner of this country. Many of these cases have met with Judicial intransigence from the lethargic or shady decisions of many judges at many levels of our society all the way up the chain of command. But even so, there always seems to be some still pending a full hearing of even an open discussion which gives me, at least, the feeling of ‘what’s going on with this birth business’?

But as in life in these ever surprising United States, every now and then a bright light suddenly shines on a brilliant new attempt to solve a riddle or stalemate.

In the area of “Why didn’t I think of that?”, the AP authored an article that appeared in the February 23, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled, “Ariz. Lawmakers: Verify Citizenship of Candidates” in which it reported that 40 of the state’s 90 legislators sponsored a measure that would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.

The article further stated that “a state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure that was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges.” Though it was not reported, the new requirement presumably will now appear on the state ballot in the Fall 2010 election to be held in Arizona.

It is an apparent attempt by the Arizona Legislature to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.

Just imagine the consternation that will be passing through the minds of the Obama campaign organization as early as probably today on how to counter this action after they have spent close to 2 million dollars in legal fees to prevent having to disclose the information from the public.

White House officials have passed the controversy off as “politics” in an effort to discredit efforts to have Obama prove he is actually Constitutionally eligible to serve in the office of president.
While many have blamed Congress for not performing their official duties of clearing applicants prior to certification and acceptance of applications, there are equally as many who discredit them for conducting hearings in official sessions to force John McCain to produce his birth certificate prior to the presidential primaries in 2008.

In that charges of misfeasance of duty could be considered if it were to be proven that Congress deliberately neglected to perform that part of their assigned duties, such a proposition as the Arizona requirement of ballot application requirements could be extremely contentious to say the least.

Arizona will undoubtedly be in the spotlight during the upcoming months leading to the 2010 Fall National Elections, with a factious battle for a U. S. Senator seat by incumbent John McCain and challenger J. D. Hayworth, a former Arizona Congressman. Such a contest will often refer to McCain’s similar position in the 2008 proof of citizenship Congressional hearings.

Wanna bet the Obama apologizers will find a way to declare it un-Constitutional? Wouldn’t that be a ‘hoot’? The man who has thumbed his nose at the U. S. Constitution getting to use it to keep on abusing it.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obama has posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and he showed the physical copies to FactCheck and Politifact, and the facts on the document were confirmed by the officials in Hawaii and the governor of Hawaii.

This, as the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, will be sufficient to fulfill any birther law passed, since they all call for the official birth certificate.

"Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement."

And it concluded: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

mrduncan2k said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc5JE0JAqlk

FRAUD IN THE USA EXLUSIVE! Sometime between October 31, 2008, and July 27, 2009, the dates of Health Director Chiyome Fukino's two press releases, Hawaii amended Obama's birth record. A brand-new Certificate of Live Birth (not Certification) was issued to him. The DOH Director decides what goes in or gets taken out of birth records. She went on record as saying that "President Obama posted a copy of his certificate on his campaign website" even though she has refused to authenticate it for the past two years. This created a conundrum that could only be resolved by changing Obama's birth records to match what is in that online copy - which is a stone-cold forgery and Fukino knows it! That forged COLB also has its origin within the DOH: watch the video to find out the shocking truth.

Category:
News & Politics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc5JE0JAqlk&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous said...

Re: "Amended."

All this is made up. There is no proof of it, and why should an official in a Republican governor's administration do it? It would mean that the Director of Health, the Director of Vital Records, the original clerk who looked into the file, and the governor of Hawaii all are lying. And it would mean that this witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in 1961 and writing home about it is lying (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/posts). And Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, and in another interview she said that the first that her family had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.