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

POLITICS

» by tffhthewriter April 21, 2010, 14:07pm

Almost two years after the historical election, the Obama haters are still in full effect.

According to published reports, the Arizona House voted for a prerequisite that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate, in order to appear on the state's ballot in the event he runs for reelection.

The new provision, which will be added to a separate bill, would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be President.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.

Comment Comments 28 Tags Tags: , , ,
  • Read This
  • Will Hirsch

    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.

  • G

    Well he isn't a citizen so I guess he will have to pay off more people to run in the next election. If he's a citizen - show your birth certificate, not the false one used last time! Why is he still in office???

    Nursej Bush has a birth certificate to prove where he was born. Obama does not, and several of Obama's relatives say he was born in Kenya.

    • Jess

      you can not hold presidential office if you're not a U.S. citizen what what the heck is the problem. Why dont they check mccain and bushes birth certificate to see if they are too old or too white or too republican. Let it go people because holding all that in will have you expending too much energy like now! 2 yrs later still fighting a losing battle.

    • Samantha

      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 he hate the fact that the little troll McCain got swept by a black man. For the person he 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 proper" God has his back, and I dare you to screw with him.

  • Just_Sayn

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

  • John

    So, if the president's natural-born citizenship is at issue, why was no challenge brought in the Senate, when it confirmed the vote of the Electoral College?

  • cherie

    (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!

  • everydayjane

    What welfare? Do your research! In alot of states "welfare" has not existed since Clinton was in office. Remember "welfare reform?" I live in Georgia and here there is no such thing as welfare. And for states that it exists, people were already heading to the welfare line before Obama got in office...

  • Suzanne Keyes

    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.

  • SicknTired101

    I STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND AFTER ALL THE PROMISES BARACK OBAMA HAS BROKEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN YOU PEOPLE REFUSE TO LET THE TRUTH SPEAK FOR ITSELF AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS PUPPET. YOU BACK UP YOUR FIGHT BY CALLING SOMEONE RACIST AND A HATER WHEN YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY DO YOUR RESEARCH AND STOP BEING SO BLIND. OBAMA IS BOWING DOWN AND SERVING THE SAME EXACT BANKER ELITE BUSH DID BUT SINCE HE IS THE SAME COLOR AS YOU, YOU OVERLOOK IT. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ELITE WANT YOU TO DO. OBAMA IS THE ULTIMATE PUPPET!!! YOU CAN'T TELL ME ONE SINGLE THING HE HAS DONE SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE THAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO WHILE HE WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. AND EVEN BETTER THEN THAT I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU "SHEEP" OR "SERFS"(AS THE ELITE THINK OF YOU) TO NAME ME ONE THING OBAMA HAS DONE THAT HAS EVEN HELPED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PERIOD!? AND THIS IS COMING FROM A BLACK MAN BEFORE YOU CALL ME A RACIST. SO BLACK PEOPLE I ASK THAT YOU WAKE UP SOON AND REALIZE YOU ARE STARTING TO LOOK VERY IGNORANT IN SHOWING YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS MAN. AND THE SAD PART IS YOU SEEM TO BE PROUD OF IT!!!!!!!!!

  • Granite

    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.

  • Holman

    Why keep prolonging this debacle? Can't anyone fathom that if Pres. Obama was not a citizen it would have been reported long before his historic election? I am sick of Idiots that dislike a few policies, so they resort to inane tactics to illustrate their disapproval! Focus on what is PERTINENT and imagine what that will entail! This rhetoric takes away time and money. Apparently, idiots aren't knowledgeable of this Fact! And it doesn't matter if you put your rant in capital letters or not, the only pertinent fact is if Pres. Obama wasn't a citizen, that would have been confirmed a long time ago! And since it comes from a black man ( the rant), can only be categorized as Crabs in a Barrel! Black people always possess the trait to keep other Blacks down. Why? Because, doing so allows them to feel better about themselves! ( Just as any other individual)

  • Don

    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.

  • John Smith

    Don,
    Tell me how, if you cl*****ify yourself as 'poor', that Obama's health are wil cost you $2500 more. How much do you make? We will never meet, I have no idea who you are, so i feel comfortable in asking you that.

    Because I smell bullshyt in your statement, sir. Everything Obama does (almost) involves tax increases on people making MORE than a certain amount, not the 'poor'

  • Diamond

    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

  • SicknTired101

    @ HOLMAN
    I SEE YOU COULDN'T COME UP WITH ONE SINGLE FACT THAT I CHALLENGED YOU TO. WHY IS THAT?! THAT CRAB IN THE BARREL AND TRYING TO MAKE MYSELF FEEL BETTER ***** DOESN'T PROVE ANY OF THE TWO FACTS THAT I SAID YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVE. KEEP THINKING OBAMA ACTUALLY HAS YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART. YOU REALLY THINK THE PEOPLE THAT HE IS BOWING DOWN TO (BANKER ELITE) DON'T OWN THE MEDIA THAT SURROUNDS HIM?? THEY TELL YOU AND SHOW YOU WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO SEE AND BELIEVE AND JUST LIKE THE IGNORANT SHEEP YOU ARE YOU BELIEVE IT. POINTLESS CONVERSATION. GO GOOGLE BILDERBERG, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, OR TRILATERAL COMMISSION AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONVERSATION.

  • Samantha

    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.

  • Don

    To diamond,
    Thank you for pointing out that Obama is bi-racial. He is not 'black'. There is a term for this. He is mulato. Michelle is black and his daughters by definition are quadroons. It is refreshing to see an actual fact in these coments and not just accusations. I also noticed that you mentioned '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!!!!' What exactly has he done that is positve? The economy is worse. The stock market is worse. Unemployment is worse. The deficit is worse. Our international relations are worse with China, North Korea, Isreal, the United Kingdom, Iran etc. Studies even show race relations in the US are worse. Please tell me just what is better.

  • Granite

    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.

  • Don

    re. Granite,
    I stand corrected on the level of the Dow. However, dividends are off by over 20%. I do realize that unemployment lags but my frustration lies in the fact that the administration has done little or nothing to improve it. We currently have over 4 million unemployed and it is growing 400,000 with each new report. The vast result of the stimulous bill was temporary jobs ( for construction contracts etc.). The country needs permanent jobs in the private sector. Any government hiring may create a job but it also increases the deficit. BTW- how do you explain the fact that Obama has increased the deficit by 300% in 14 months? It took Bush 8 years to raise the deficit to 25% of what it is now.

  • Granite

    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.

  • Granite

    Re the deficit. If I remember right, the stimulus package was worth about $1 trillion. The TARP (Remember the TARP?) was worth about $700 billion. The TARP was p*****ed under Bush. All the $1.7 trillion counts under Obama even though Bush was responsible for about 40% of it.

    In the stimulus package about 30% was in the form of tax cuts. Sadly, this did not work well. Tax cuts are beloved by Republicans, but the problem was that people did not spend the money; they saved it--which is great long-term but did not give the immediate boost that was required.

    The stimulus did not only fund short-term jobs. It gave billions to the states so that they did not have to fire teachers and policemen. The fact that a child can attend a cl***** with 20-30 other students is better for the long-term health of the economy than if a child has to attend a cl***** with 40-60 students.

    Repairing roads and bridges gives short-term stimulus, immediate fast stimulus to the economy, and it has a long-term benefit, better infrastructure.

    I agree with you on making long-term jobs, but that is a long-term problem.

    Part of the Bush deficit was the approximately $600 billion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. In one case someone from the Bush administration sent $12 BILLION (yes, that is BILLION) dollars to Iraq in the form of freshly-printed, shrink-wrapped $100 bills. Not one bill was ever seen again.

    Yes, the unemployment rate is too high. But it could have been a lot higher. During the great depression the unemployment rate reached 25%. That is what we were facing. It could have been just as bad.

    The trouble was, it wasn't enough. There should have been an even larger deficit. That is what China did, and it worked.

  • Don

    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.

  • Granite

    You said: "Additionally Obama has implemented 16 tax increases. These are definitely stiffling the economy. Only tax cuts spur the economy and job creation."

    If I cut Sam and Bill's taxes by a dollar each and I raise Rockefeller's taxes by two dollars, that is not raising taxes, it is only shuffling them around. The $300 million tax cut in the Stimulus was a $300 million tax cut.

    Re the figure you gave was was for wage and administration only? Really. I got the impression that it was the total cost of the Stimulus divided by the jobs created.

    Re making signs being a waste of money. It gives money to sign-painters.

    Re $26 million to save a field mouse. George Bush sent $12 BILLION dollars to Iraq in the form of freshly printed, shrink-wrapped US $100 bills. And the twelve BILLION was never seen again.

    Re: The roads and bridges not being the Fed's job. It is the states' job, and the money was given to the states.

    Re the states suing. That is normal, states sue all the time. If they win, fine. But, if they don't win, that is the law. In other words, the us government has the right to try out an approach that it thinks is constitutional. If it is wrong, the approach is scrapped, that happens all the time. A good example would be the line item veto.

  • Don

    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.

  • Granite

    Re 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.

    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.

  • Granite

    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.