Arizona House Votes To Have Obama Show Birth Certificate In 2012 Election

No, the title was correct in the first place. Even before he'd put any policies in place, the racist rabble were screaming about his birth certificate. God, Republicans talk about the Dems being poor losers. Guys, you lost, and big time. There was a good reason too. Bush was, hands down the worst president in our history and it saddens me that my children had to live, and continue to live with the fall out from his disastrous presidency. Torture, War for no reason (well, not for the stated reason), Obscene profits for the rich, program cuts on a m*****ive scale for the poor. God what a waste of air. While Obama is obviously a politician first and foremost, at least he's trying to do what can be done, given our obstructionits republican congress critters and the m*****ive amounts of money being pumped into the right wing owned media propaganda machine.

» by Will Hirsch 4/21/10, 21:29:pm view profile | Reply

Tell "Bush" to show he really won the election!

» by Just_Sayn 4/21/10, 23:20:pm view profile | Reply

(disclour i am not a good speller) Okay Obama, I fell in love with the idea of have a president that looks like me. But now that he is in the office it appears that he has done no better than Bush. Health Care Reform what the hell happen to our right as free people. If he was going to do something about the insurance companies he should have come up with a way to give us a rebate off the money we pay into insurance and don't even us but maybe once or twice maybe 3 times a year. I am not a hater I am a observer and what I have observed is he is doing things that are hendering us. People we need to open our eyes... Pay attention, to whats really going on!

» by cherie 4/22/10, 00:10:am view profile | Reply

As can be seen in the photo above, a Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated do*****ent that anyone in the Hawaii DOH could manufacture. It would look genuine whether or not it was. A Birth Certificate from that era would be a form with old-fashioned typing, pen-and-ink signatures and impressions from a metal seal, very difficult to counterfeit convincingly.

If Obama has a BC, and not just a CLB, let him show it. It's not a matter of racism or hatred, just common sense. It would certainly put to rest all the rumors.

» by Suzanne Keyes 4/22/10, 00:45:am view profile | Reply

You said: "A Birth Certificate from that era would be a form with old-fashioned typing, pen-and-ink signatures and impressions from a metal seal, very difficult to counterfeit convincingly."

Yes, the Certification of Live Birth is computer generated, laser-printed do*****ent. That is because it is a new birth certificate, not the original or a copy of the original. Hawaii has adopted the short-form birth certificate, like many states, and it does not send out the original anymore. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). But the facts on the Certification--that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961--were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. And Hawaii does not allow a birth certificate or a certification to say 'born in Hawaii" on it, as Obama's does, unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii.

» by Granite 4/22/10, 03:46:am view profile | Reply

It amazes me when I read much of theuninformed garbage on the internet here. People speak of the right owned media. The left has owned the major networks for decades. This has been proven time and time again. People claim the Republicans were obstructionist. They had 0% power to stop anything until the Scott Brown election and couldn't be obstructionist. People claim Bush hurt the poor (of which I am one). Obama's health care will cost me a bare minimum of $2500 more per year indefinitely. Finally, people claim Bush stole the election. They forget that a leftist Florida Supreme court made a ruling without a case being in front of it and the SCOTUS simply reversed this. Also the was never even 1 count in Florida when Gore was ahead in the tally. Not even 1! I freely admit Bush was a poor president, but Obama is worse. If you're looking for the worst president in history, Jimmy Carter (while being a good hearted man) was clearly the most incompetant.

» by Don 4/22/10, 08:09:am view profile | Reply

why do they wait until Obama is in office to try and pas this bill. I hate to quickly jump to idea racism promoting this but they wait until (1) bush is out of office to put this plan into motion (2) there is a first bi-racial president in office. Finally they wait until 2 years after the election to actually try and efforce this bill. All I know is that Barack Obama and his administration has done more positive things for the United states in 2 years than Bush did during all 8 years of his presidency!!!! SMH

» by Diamond 4/22/10, 10:30:am view profile | Reply

It would be easy to prove that President Obama was born in Kenya if he had been. If his mother gave birth in Kenya there would a a P*****port on file for her to gain entry in Kenya. Why have they not presented any proof that his mother was in Kenya during the time of his birth. Because they know this is BS. Stupid White folks hate the fact that the little troll McCain got swept by a black man. For the person who stated that several of Obama family members said he was born in Kenya is a liar and truth is not in you. All of you Pres Obama haters " No weapons formed against him will prosper" God has his back, and I dare you to screw with him.

» by Samantha 4/22/10, 13:57:pm view profile | Reply

Re: "The stock market is worse.'

That's not true. On the day Obama was sworn in, the Dow was at 8228. It closed yesterday at 11192. The unemployment rate is worse, of course, but then it always lags. The deficit is of course worse, but then if it not been a major deficit, the unemployment rate would be even worse that it is.

» by Granite 4/22/10, 15:49:pm view profile | Reply

Re: Don.

If I remember correctly, the stimulus was about a billion dollars. Just before the stimulus there was the TARP. Remember the TARP? That was worth, if I remember right, about $700 billion dollars. The TARP was p*****ed under George W. Bush.

Also, about a third of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. Republicans love tax cuts, so the stimulus had about $300 billion worth of them. Unfortunately people didn't spend the money fast enough, so it had little effect. The reason for putting much of the money into fixing roads and bridges was that (1) they needed to be fixed, (2) that was a way to get the money into the economy as fast as possible. (Unfortunately, it wasn't fast enough.)

Sadly, they did not try really radical but probably highly effective measures--like say giving people a tax holiday on the tax deductions from their salary for a period of time equal to say $300 billion.

This graph may amuse you. It shows the deficit as a % of GDP from 1940 through 2009 and early 2010. (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html). Let me remind you that the last Republican vice president said something about "deficits don't matter," and that Reagan was a proponent of what was called 'supply side economics," meaning that tax reductions would not cause deficits but would stimulate the economy.

Sadly, the Bush tax cuts did not do much to stimulate the economy.

» by Granite 4/22/10, 16:38:pm view profile | Reply

Re. Granite,
You are correct that in times of crisis it is permissible to run a deficit. I am refering to those difict items that are not emergency based. The Reagan deficits were not due to the emergencies of the day: they were due to the military. Additionally Obama has implemented 16 tax increases. These are definitely stiffling the economy. Only tax cuts spur the economy and job creation.
Re. the States. You just seem to focus on teacher cuts. What about the bloated administrations? As afar as teachers go, there could be cuts if we ejected all illegal immigrants. The cost of covering illegals cost each tax payer $338 per year. Apply this to the deficit instead. This would also allow a cut of 12-13% of teachers who are being paid to educate 'criminals'. What about ancillary services the states provide not essential to society. NJ just closed all rest stops at a savings of millions. These cut can and must be made. Also re. cl***** size, bigger cl*****es does not always mean poorer education. In college I attended cl*****es with over 500 students in them with a 3% failure rate. Think of the money this would save.
Re. jobs cost. The figure I gave was for wage and administration only. There are no costs for materials or tax credits included. There are signs accross the country (state made and stimulous paaid for) that tout the stimulous. In Colorado they cost $400,000. Making these signs was a waste of stim. funds. What about $8 mill for a Kennedy library, 26 mill to save a field mouse in San Francisco etc? Projects like these ammounted to $175 billion in the stim bill and created 0 permanent jobs. I aggree with you that roads and bridges are a good thing. But once again this is not the Feds job. The Federal authourity has limits as outlined in ammendment 10 of the constitution. If the states do them it is cheaper, creates more jobs, and is legal. The problem right now is the federal spending is a run away train heading off a cliff. The administration of the HC bill will require 16,000 new IRS employees and countless other beaurocracies. None of these costs were included in the CBO *****ysis of the costs. The fed gov is overstepping its authorities and consequently 23 states are suing for its nullification.

» by Don 4/24/10, 09:48:am view profile | Reply

Just read your post.
I'll concede the sign painting point if you can find anynew sign painters that were hired for the work. In Colorado there wasn't even 1.
I never disputed the fact that GWB wasted money. The question was whether the stimulous bill wasted money and it uncatagorically did.
Re. roads and bridges you are correct. The $ was given to the states, but the money was supposed to be used for new job creation not infrastructure maintanance. It simply facilitated states not living within there means and created few if any permanent jobs like it was supposed to be used for.
I do understand your point on state lawsuits. Are you aware of the last time that many states went against a federal mandate? It was the cause of the civil war in the 1800's. The line item veto was qushed by a relatively few number of states. This amounts to 46% of the states. Never in the history of the country has a mandate like this been made.

» by Don 4/27/10, 18:37:pm view profile | Reply

Re the Civil War. Take a deep breath. When people sue each other that means that they are taking a peaceful way of resolving their differences. No one has said, because no one is stupid enough to say, "if we lose this case we will pull out of the Union."

I am reminded of a group of states that for a time fulminated about leaving the Union after losing a Supreme Court Case. It was the New England states after losing Dredd Scott, but wiser heads prevailed.

Now the 46%. It makes perfect sense when a law comes along and says 'you [the state] must pay a portion of this,' to sue to prevent having to pay. That may be a constitutional issue, but it is for sure a money issue, and if you win, you save money. *****ody, least of all Obama, blames those states for trying to win this, and if they do win, guess what, it only kills a tiny part of the Health legislation. The rest of it, the part about increasing insurance coverage by 35 million people, goes right ahead.

Some say that there is another part of the act that may be unconstitutional, the part about requiring everyone to have health insurance (actually, there are some exceptions, such as Christian Scientists do no have to have it because they don't believe in medicine.0

This MAY win. but it is unlikely since already there are laws requiring workers to have unemployment insurance. Also, if a government can draft us, it can require us to have insurance.

But, in the unlikely event that this also were to be stuck down by the Supreme Court, the rest of it would go right ahead, increasing coverage by 35 million, making health insurance portable among employers, forbidding insurance companies from barring coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

I'm not sure what you are getting at on saying that the money given to the states was for jobs and not for infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects make jobs, and you get a side benefit--the roads and bridges fixed. And the legislation never said that it was designed to create permanent jobs. It was a stimulus package; its intent was to stimulate the economy so that jobs were not lost and retailers like Walmart and Sears did not suffer gigantic losses in their annual revenues. If they had had those kind of loses (and they didn't, their revenues have been increasing), Wall Street would have gone down the tank even more, folks would have lost more on their 401ks, and they would have spent even less, and the cycle would have gotten worse.

Re wasting money. If you have to do this kind of thing fast, and you do, then someone is inevitably going to slip a few special projects into the bill. It cannot be perfect, too bad.

But it wasn't like the $200-odd billion in no-bid contracts that were signed in one year in the late Bush administration.

» by Granite 5/4/10, 21:48:pm view profile | Reply