Friday, February 4, 2011

As reported 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 candidates prove their constitutional eligibility. The Nebraska bill goes a step further by requiring candidates to also submit certified copies of their parents long-form, birth certificates.

Snippet via McCook Daily Gazette; - Christensen introduces 'birther bill' -

The 14-page bill [bill embedded below], sponsored by District 44 State Sen. Mark Christensen of Holdrege, would prohibit placing presidential and vice presidential candidates on the state's ballot unless they provide a certified, long-form version of their birth certificate to Nebraska's secretary of state.

Christensen's bill would also require candidates to provide their parents' certified long-form birth certificates. If a person's birth father is unknown, Christensen said a candidate would have to file an affidavit with the state, stating that they have no reason to believe their father is not a U.S. citizen....

..."Whenever you have a large amount of citizens who have doubts, it hurts our government. It hurts the integrity of the government," Christensen said.

While Christensen said he "absolutely" believes Obama is a United States citizen [WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN], he has doubts about the citizenship of Obama's parents at the time of the president's birth.

"This (bill) would remove that doubt," he said. "I think that it hurts Americans when we think we can't trust our leaders."... -Source. 

Previous report: Via WND; - 10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands - 107 Electoral College votes controlled by Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, others - By Bob Unruh

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.

And they aren't all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met.

In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation. 

Order your copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President," autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic book when it is released this spring.

Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.

His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens."

"If we as an entity of civil government don't follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?" he said. "We need to lead by example."

WND reported just one day ago that Arizona, which had a plan to require documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates passed by the state House a year ago, had proposed a new plan.

According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.

There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.

The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support. ...continued here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965 

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].

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

10 comments:

  1. Now were talking!

    ReplyDelete
  2. it is amazing that most other reps are clueless

    ReplyDelete
  3. This ought to get it in the courts!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The lefties are going to go nuts over this one. I don't recall any of the other bills requiring the parents birth certificates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From a "White House Insider"...

    Second focus was apparently “birther” related. Jarrett expressed concern over possible newly passed eligibility requirements in states. If only one or two states clarify eligibility in order to run for office, White House will simply use those states as examples of “anti-Obama racism”. They would likely not win the electorals in those states regardless, but could use the scenario to gain sympathy and support over the challenge from other moderate states. This is the tactic Jarrett and crew have prepared. She is worried though that if more than one or two states challenge the president’s eligibility, the issue would turn against them. Measures are being taken to make certain that does not happen. What those measures are, I don’t know at this point. Oh, and while discussion over eligibility was underway, Obama sat motionless. He said nothing. That strikes me as pretty damn odd don’t you think? People are discussing whether or not you are actually eligible to run for re-election in 2012 and you don’t say a word on the subject? “He just sat there with a weird little smile and didn’t say anything.” Go ahead and print that quote word for word. Others are now willing to let their observations be more known. Concern for the country is now winning over concern for their own political interests. Finally.

    http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-obama-is-clueless-totally-clueless/#ixzz1D1Phmv2F

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama will be screwed come 2012. I can't wait!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, Nebraska just wants him to swear his parents were US citizens. A couple more lies, so what.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Come on guys we have always had a legitimate POTUS (Piece Of Trash Usurping Scumbag)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anyone who is a natural born citizen of this great country should be eligible to run for the office of President. They should, prior to being put up for election, prove that they meet all of the requirements for eligibility. Obama used a forged fraudulent birth certificate for his proof of citizenship. He should be impeached and a "the High Court" should try him and sentence his for "fraud" against the American people.

    ReplyDelete

“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)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.