Main Menu

Birther bills attempt to rewrite Constitution

At least some of them do. This one from Nebraska says:

The affidavit shall be sworn or affirmed before a notary public and shall contain statements substantially as follows: I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth. On the day I was born, both my birth mother and birth father were citizens of the United States of America.

That bill just tries to come up with some language to exclude Barack Obama based on the facts of his birth. There is nothing in the Constitution about parents.

Perhaps the birthers want to the force the issue so that the courts will decide who’s eligible to be president. Bad move because they will lose.

,

58 Responses to Birther bills attempt to rewrite Constitution

  1. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 4, 2011 at 1:25 am #

    Can’t wait to find out who the GOP nominee is so blue states can pass a law that discriminates against him or her being placed on their ballots

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 4, 2011 at 2:48 am #

    Well, they’re laying the groundwork…

    It’s looking like 2012 will see the BEST. FAIL. EVER.

    We’ve got about a year to prepare ourselves (everyone make sure to lay in ample popcorn supplies!) and then people are going to have standing to challenge these laws and other people are going to have standing to challenge President Obama’s access to the ballot and then the judges will start ruling and the cases will start going down in flames and the birthers will go apoplectic. We could call it ‘BIRTH-GEDDON 2012: The Revenge of the Constitution’. It will be epic – with a cast of tens of people and a budget of whatever Orly & Co. can rack up on PayPal (if they’re lucky it will cover the fines… ;-)) – coming soon to a courthouse near you…

  3. avatar
    obsolete February 4, 2011 at 3:11 am #

    I have plenty of popcorn, Slartibartfast as it will be so sweet when the birthers reach their deepest levels of despair and paranoia as one state after another allows Obama on the ballet, and one judge after another dismisses their stupid cases and the sanctions start piling up! Fun times….

  4. avatar
    dch February 4, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    The bill also require the parent’s Long Form BC and affidavits to prove of their citizenship at the time of the candidate’s birth!

    I think they should roll that back nine months and have “at the time of conception” so we don’t have any future presidents having split loyalties in the womb!

  5. avatar
    JoZeppy February 4, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    One would think that these brilliant state legislators have access to real attorneys before they introduce this garbage? Too cheap to ask a lawyer if there bill is remotely constitutional just means the state will be stuck paying laywers to defend it in court (unless they actually listen to the lawyers that will tell them there is no point in defending it).

  6. avatar
    Black Lion February 4, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    WND Keeps Up Whining That Gibbs Didn’t Answer Question That Wasn’t Asked
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    WND keeps up its record of complaining that Robert Gibbs didn’t answer a question that wasn’t asked with a Feb. 1 article:

    Barack Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has let pass an opportunity to explain what the president believes about state legislatures whose members are working on requirements for presidential candidates to be required to document their eligibility under the U.S. Constitution.

    The question was going to be raised at yesterday’s press briefing by Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House. However, Gibbs declined to recognize Kinsolving, and dozens of other reporters on hand, for any questions.

    […]

    He also wanted to ask whether placing at the head of the Democratic National Committee Paul Gaspard, “a Saul Alinsky-inspired ACORN operative,” was representative of the president’s national tone.

    As we’ve previously noted, Kinsolving has not explained why a right-wing hack like himself working for a so-called “news” organization whose only real mission these days is to destroy a sitting president by any means necessary (treason, anyone?) is entitled to ask questions every day of the White House press secretary, no matter how biased or stupid.

  7. avatar
    JD Reed February 4, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    Sen. Mark Chuirstiansen can be reached by emial at his leigslative office:

    mchristensen@leg.ne.gov

  8. avatar
    The Magic M February 4, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    > unless they actually listen to the lawyers that will tell them there is no point in defending it

    Since the bills were doomed to fail from the beginning, it’s not unreasonable to think that passing them, let alone successfully defending them in court, was never the motivation.

    Some of them may only try to gain points from the birther audience, others may actually believe they can hurt Obama by dragging such an issue to court.

    Over at motherjones.com, some (birther) people already voiced their opinion that taking such a law to court would be a “PR nightmare for Obama”. So you can see where the motivation is coming from.
    However it’ll be a Republican nightmare if Obama produces another Hawaiian COLB and the state refuses to accept it. Then they’ll have a new nation-wide issue of “how come the Republicans don’t know the Constitution or deliberately chose to ignore it?”.
    So in my opinion, these bills actually becoming law is handing the elections to the Democrats on a silver plate. 🙂

  9. avatar
    Sef February 4, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    JoZeppy: One would think that these brilliant state legislators have access to real attorneys before they introduce this garbage?Too cheap to ask a lawyer if there bill is remotely constitutional just means the state will be stuck paying laywers to defend it in court (unless they actually listen to the lawyers that will tell them there is no point in defending it).

    Don’t you know that the birther legislators have Mario & Orly on retainer? No need to check with anyone else who’ll tell them something they don’t want to hear.

  10. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    dch: The bill also require the parent’s Long Form BC and affidavits to prove of their citizenship at the time of the candidate’s birth!I think they should roll that back nine months and have “at the time of conception” so we don’t have any future presidents having split loyalties in the womb!

    What about the case of identical twins? Does each have split loyalties, or do the loyalties get divided between them? Who decides which twin gets to be the American?

  11. avatar
    sfjeff February 4, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    I am wondering about who would have standing to file suit against these laws?

    I am thinking any voters, since this potentially could eliminate the candidate for their party- anyone have ideas there?

    What about the Voting Rights Act? I am not as familiar with this as I would like, but would that come into play at all?

    Personally, I don’t think any candidates will have to file anything- I think citizens of the states will file suit immediately to have these laws dismissed.

  12. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: One would think that these brilliant state legislators have access to real attorneys before they introduce this garbage?

    Asking their Attorney General’s opinion would make sense or another legislator with a law degree offering an opinion, if these birthers really cared. For any other attorney, birther bills represent future billable hours. It’s not up to an attorney to make a judgement call for a client on possible, future challenges to laws unless pressed by the client which I wouldn’t see happening because this is political and birther showboating regardless of the actual outcome.

  13. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    sfjeff: I am wondering about who would have standing to file suit against these laws?I am thinking any voters, since this potentially could eliminate the candidate for their party- anyone have ideas there?What about the Voting Rights Act? I am not as familiar with this as I would like, but would that come into play at all?Personally, I don’t think any candidates will have to file anything- I think citizens of the states will file suit immediately to have these laws dismissed.

    I would think primarily it would be candidates, the DNC and (hah!) the RNC.

  14. avatar
    US Citizen February 4, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: What about the case of identical twins? Does each have split loyalties, or do the loyalties get divided between them? Who decides which twin gets to be the American?

    On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, one is British.
    On Tuesdays, Thursdays….. 😉

  15. avatar
    ASK Esq February 4, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    I think we should all do whatever we can to make sure Bobby Jindal is at least on the GOP ballot in 2012.

  16. avatar
    Greg February 4, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    I had an interesting conversation with someone in Senator Christensen’s office. He talked a lot about the 25% of Americans that weren’t sure Obama was born in Hawaii. And how no court case has specifically defined NBC. He even tried to quote Breckenridge Long’s article about Charles Evans Hughes. (I pointed out that since Hughes was a Supreme Court Justice and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Long is best remembered for denying visas to fleeing Jews he might not be the better of the two sources and since he explicitly premised his argument on Hughes being born before the 14th Amendment it might not apply to someone born a century after it’s passage.)

    Obviously, this bill is targeted directly, and solely, against Obama. The guy I was talking to even started out by saying, “There’s a lot of doubt out there about ‘him.'” I asked Inge meant Obama and he said, “of course!”

    We ended the call, I had to get back to work, by agreeing that there was nothing wrong with “vetting” the eligibility of the candidates. He told me that they weren’t saying their bill was perfect (duh) but it was an attempt to address the divisions in our society.

  17. avatar
    Greg February 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Polish Consulate

    Check out the FAQs. Even if your parents are US citizens, and you were born in the US you will still be Polish if your parents were Polish.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    Greg: . . . but it was an attempt to address the divisions in our society.

    Address or solidify?

  19. avatar
    Sean February 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    ASK Esq: I think we should all do whatever we can to make sure Bobby Jindal is at least on the GOP ballot in 2012.

    I agree.

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy February 4, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Greg: Polish ConsulateCheck out the FAQs. Even if your parents are US citizens, and you were born in the US you will still be Polish if your parents were Polish.

    Actually, if you have ONE parent that is a citizen, you are a citizen, unless within 6 months of your birth, your parents notify the Polish consulate that you opt out of your child’s citizen (and the child can opt back in at age 18).

    Both of my parents are citizens, I was born in the US, but I am a dual citizen. My wife is 25% Polish, but we’ve never looked into whether she could be a citizen, but nonetheless, my daugther, also born in the US, to two US citizen parents, is a Polish citizen by birth right through me.

    Oh, and except for the parents ability to opt at when the child is born, the only way to renounce Polish citizenship is by application to the President of Poland….and he rarely gives permission (and there is no appeal). So there are probably untold thousands of people who are Polish citizens, who don’t even know it.

  21. avatar
    Sean February 4, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    Isn’t this edit cute?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzdQ1UWNCNQ

  22. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    JoZeppy: Actually, if you have ONE parent that is a citizen, you are a citizen

    This is true of most countries today. Also, a great many countries consider you to still be a citizen even if you naturalize in another country. Only a specific renunciation at a consulate (which may not necessarily be accepted) causes loss of citizenship. Here is the Canadian law http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce.asp

    While I haven’t seen data, I am going to guess that very few naturalized US citizens formally renounce their birth citizenship. In fact, none that I know personally have done so.

    So, the effect of this law is to make ineligible just about anyone with a foreign born parent. In some cases, even a foreign born grandparent woould disquallify you, If that is the author’s intent, they should be honest about it.

  23. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 4, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    sfjeff: I am wondering about who would have standing to file suit against these laws?

    The candidates would have standing to challenge the law if denied a spot on the ballot. But laws like the Nebraska bill are never going to get passed in the first place — it will simply die in committee. Just because a handful of idiots have managed to get themselves elected to a job that pays $1,000 per month — see http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/articles.php?article=III-7 — doesn’t mean that the entire legislature is composed of idiots.

    The Nebraska birther bill cited above has been referred to the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee — the sponsor of the bill is not even a member of that committee, so he’s got no clout in pushing it through. The chairman of the committee is a guy named Bill Avery, who has a Ph.D in political science and taught at a state university for more than 30 years, is a former member of the Democratic National Committee. Other committee members include the daughter of immigrants (Lydia Brasch), and a lawyer with a Georgetown J.D. (Paul Schumacher), These folks aren’t just anybody’s fools. The birther bill is going nowhere other than the office shredder.

  24. avatar
    Keith February 4, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    JoZeppy: One would think that these brilliant state legislators have access to real attorneys before they introduce this garbage?Too cheap to ask a lawyer if there bill is remotely constitutional just means the state will be stuck paying laywers to defend it in court (unless they actually listen to the lawyers that will tell them there is no point in defending it).

    The Arizona Secretary of State, at least, is trying to explain it to them, but I suspect the Attorney General is raring to go.

    Arizona has so many other things it could be spending its money on.

  25. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 4, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Can’t wait to find out who the GOP nominee is so blue states can pass a law that discriminates against him or her being placed on their ballots

    Romney, Jindal, Rubio, for starters.

  26. avatar
    Mary Brown February 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    I am a Nebraskan and just want to share a bit with everyone. Nebraska is the 10th largest state in area and has a population of about 1,800,000. Mr. Christensen’s district is in southwest Nebraska along the Kansas border. It includes 7 counties with a total population of 33,000. There are very few residents who are not white. Over half the population of Nebraska resides in 3 counties: Douglas, Sarpy and Lancaster. These counties include Omaha and suburbs and Lincoln and suburbs. Thus, the rest of the state, including District 44, is very sparsly populated. Several years ago the Legislature tried to resegregate the schools in Omaha. They wanted to have white, Hispanic and African American schools. While Nebraskans as a whole are conservative, they are not given to flights of fantasy. Those of us who live in the more urban counties and areas do not have any control over these people. They can be really different. We have a one-house legislature here so all the Representative are Senators. Life can be very interesting here.

  27. avatar
    G February 4, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    Mary Brown: I am a Nebraskan and just want to share a bit with everyone. Nebraska is the 10th largest state in area and has a population of about 1,800,000. Mr. Christensen’s district is in southwest Nebraska along the Kansas border. It includes 7 counties with a total population of 33,000. There are very few residents who are not white. Over half the population of Nebraska resides in 3 counties: Douglas, Sarpy and Lancaster. These counties include Omaha and suburbs and Lincoln and suburbs. Thus, the rest of the state, including District 44, is very sparsly populated. Several years ago the Legislature tried to resegregate the schools in Omaha. They wanted to have white, Hispanic and African American schools. While Nebraskans as a whole are conservative, they are not given to flights of fantasy. Those of us who live in the more urban counties and areas do not have any control over these people. They can be really different. We have a one-house legislature here so all the Representative are Senators. Life can be very interesting here.

    Thanks for sharing. Very interesting environment over there… It always reminds me that unfortunately, there seems to be huge perception problems in how the world is viewed between urban, suburban and rural areas and unfortunately, very few try to understand the concerns of the other…

  28. avatar
    sfjeff February 5, 2011 at 3:51 am #

    Just a reminder- according to the article that I read Christenson proposed his legislature based upon emails he received from 3 or 4 concerned citizens.

    Among other things he hadnt bothered to check the details with Nebraska’s Secretary of State. Apparently according to Nebraska’s own website, they don’t have an option to order a copy of an original birth certificate. So it appears no Nebraskan candidates would be eligible in Nebraska.

    Seriously, it really seems like every time a state legislator takes up the birther cause, whatever he says or does seems so incredibly stupid that rational people shy away from them like they used to from people who talked to themselves(pre-cell phone days).

  29. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    sfjeff: Among other things he hadnt bothered to check the details with Nebraska’s Secretary of State. Apparently according to Nebraska’s own website, they don’t have an option to order a copy of an original birth certificate.

    Exactly the same in Arizona.

  30. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    The Crazy is on fire in my home state. Can I get some national support for Southern Arizona to split and become the 51st state please?

    Legislator would let Arizona nullify Fed laws it finds invalid

    Home
    Legislator would let Arizona nullify fed laws it finds invalid

    * Story
    * (92) Comments

    Legislator would let Arizona nullify fed laws it finds invalid

    Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:00 am | Comments

    Font Size:
    Default font size
    Larger font size

    *
    *

    PHOENIX – A proposal at the Legislature would let the state nullify federal laws legislators believe are invalid.

    The measure offered by Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, would set up a committee of 12 lawmakers to review federal laws and regulations to determine which are “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution.”

    A majority vote that Congress or a federal agency exceeded its authority would trigger referral to the Legislature, which would have 60 days to make a final decision. Ratification of the panel’s recommendation would mean the state and its residents “shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order.”

    Klein said SB 1433 is not challenging the fact that Arizona is part of the United States, at least not exactly.

    “We’re not seceding,” she said. “We’re looking at nullifying laws coming from the federal government that are mandates that are not constitutional.”

    The measure is one of more than a dozen introduced this session to challenge or limit federal authority. Issues range from requiring federal agencies to register with local sheriffs before coming into a county to declaring the right of Arizonans to have guns, produce carbon dioxide and even create their own nuclear fuel free of federal regulation.

    SB 1308 and HB 2562 setting up interstate compacts to honor each other’s birth certificates, segregating children who are considered U.S. citizens from those who are not;

    SB 1309 and HB 2561 defining Arizona citizenship, part of the move to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants;

    SB 1328 saying Arizonans do not have to comply with a federal law or rule if they allow a federal employee or member of Congress not to comply;

    SB 1391 creating an interstate firearms freedoms act guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms free of federal regulation;

    SB 1393 declaring the state has exclusive right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions;

    SB 1394 protecting the right to emit carbon dioxide from human-caused activity;

    SB 1545 allowing the production of nuclear fuel in Arizona free from federal regulation;

    SCR 1016 requiring approval from the legislatures of half the states to increase the federal debt;

    HB 2077 requiring any federal agency coming into a county to conduct official business to first register with the sheriff;

    HB 2471 barring the appropriation of any state funds to comply with a federal mandate unless the federal government provides a report to show the mandate is constitutional;

    HB 2472 allowing the state to acquire federal property by eminent domain unless the federal government first got legislative permission to obtain the land in the first place;

    HB 2537 permitting the House speaker and Senate president to sue over or defend last year’s SB 1070 imposing new state laws on illegal immigration;

    HB 2544 requiring presidential candidates to provide certain proof of citizenship before they can appear on the ballot in Arizona;

    HCR 2015 calling for a constitutional convention to adopt an amendment to require consent of three-fourths of the states to increase federal debt;

    HCR 2022 proposing a constitutional convention to require a balanced federal budget.

  31. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    Sorry, my cut/paste was not very accurate in that post.

  32. avatar
    Mary Brown February 6, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    The crazy people have arrived. They long for the wild west and have some illusion or delusion that it was a great time to live. I suppose if you were a person with the most guns you could do what you wanted. Just ask the Native Americans. Just ask the people north of Los Angeles who had their water rights stolen. Just ask folks about range wars. In other words, a landscape full of individuals willing to use the power of the gun and superior strength to get what they wanted. Only now, it is the power of individuals in state government who have power to get what they want at the cost of their society. Do these idiots know how dangerous nuclear fuel production is? Do the authors of this idiocy think their neightbors will go along with lax regulation. The authors must think the consequences of a failure stop at Arizona borders. These people represent the worst in western American culture not the best.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 6, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    Mary Brown: The crazy people have arrived. They long for the wild west and have some illusion or delusion that it was a great time to live.I suppose if you were a person with the most guns you could do what you wanted.Just ask the Native Americans.Just ask the people north of Los Angeles who had their water rights stolen.Just ask folks about range wars.In other words, a landscape full of individuals willing to use the power of the gun and superior strength to get what they wanted. Only now, it is the power of individuals in state government who have power to get what they want at the cost of their society. Do these idiots know how dangerous nuclear fuel production is?Do the authors of this idiocy think their neightbors will go along with lax regulation.The authors must think the consequences of a failure stop at Arizona borders. These people represent the worst in western American culture not the best.

    The “good old days” the right speaks of never existed
    http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/01/06/john-oliver-searches-for-glenn-beck-and-bill-oreillys-good-old-days/

  34. avatar
    JD Reed February 8, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    Looky at what Btterdezillion posted on a blog of the McCook (Neb.) Daily Gazette in response to the bill introduced to require the long-form birth certificates of a candidate’s parents.

    “And HI Governor Neil Abercrombie told Mike Evans that his people had gone into the hospitals with a search warrant and had not found any birth certificate. (the link to the audio and the transcript of the conversation are at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/201…”)

    Over a long adult lifetime, I had always thought of a search warrant as a criminal investigatory tool. Never heard of one being used in a civil matter. So I consulted on-line definitiions of “search warrant,” and this is what I found:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/search-warrant
    search warrant: (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law )

    “A court order authorizing the examination of a place for the purpose of discovering contraband, stolen property, or evidence of guilt to be used in the prosecution of a CRIMINAL action.
    A search warrant is a judicial document that authorizes police officers to search a person or place to obtain evidence for presentation in CRIMINAL prosecutions. Police officers obtain search warrants by submitting affidavits and other evidence to a judge or magistrate to establish probable cause to believe that a search will yield evidence related to a CRIME. If satisfied that the officers have established probable cause, the judge or magistrate will issue the warrant.

    http://legaldefinition.us/search-warrant.html
    (Law Depot)
    “Search warrant: An order signed by a judge that directs owners of private property to allow the police to enter and search for items named in the warrant. The judge won’t issue the warrant unless she has been convinced that there is probable cause for the search — that reliable evidence shows that it’s more likely than not that a CRIME has occurred and that the items sought by the police are connected with it and will be found at the location named in the warrant. In limited situations the police may search without a warrant, but they cannot use what they find at trial if the defense can show that there was no probable cause for the search.”

    More evidence of birthers just making things up.

  35. avatar
    G February 8, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    JD Reed: Looky at what Btterdezillion posted on a blog of the McCook (Neb.) Daily Gazette in response to the bill introduced to require the long-form birth certificates of a candidate’s parents.

    Notice how BZ has to cling to the quickly debunked, discredited and recanted Mike Evans story…

  36. avatar
    Majority Will February 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    More birther stupidity in the Comments Section:

    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-tong-birther-0208-20110208,0,2717905.story

    ‘Birther Bill’ Unworthy, Reckless Legislation

    By WILLIAM TONG
    The Hartford Courant
    February 8, 2011

    Excerpt:

    The birther bill, in contrast, is a reckless and seditious game of pandering to political extremes. What if the president were required to produce his original birth certificate in Connecticut? Would he not be required to do the same in the 49 other states? And would there be a 50-state spectacle of proofs and challenges, 50 separate and distinct ways to cast doubt on the duly elected president? To breed such baseless and unnecessary doubt as to the legitimacy of our president would do great violence to the republic and the security of our nation.

    The birther movement is about much more than birth certificates. It is part of a troubling racial and cultural agenda. No one asked for original birth certificates from George W. Bush or William J. Clinton. But today, Barack Obama is president. Piyush Amrit Jindal is the governor of Louisiana, Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley is the governor of South Carolina and Marco Antonio Rubio is a U.S. senator from Florida. I, too, have had the chance to serve, as the first Asian American elected to the legislature. Each of us was born in the United States, each to at least one parent who was not a U.S. citizen. But if we were born today, some of our elected leaders would deny that we are even Americans, which is, for certain, all that I have ever been.

  37. avatar
    Keith February 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    Majority Will: More birther stupidity in the Comments Section:

    The commenters continue to be blind to what Rep. Tong said and attack him for what he didn’t say..

    He said he never looked for, and was never asked for his ‘original’ papers. He didn’t say he had never been required to produce a birth certificate.

    This stuff is just absurd.

  38. avatar
    Majority Will February 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Keith: This stuff is just absurd.

    Yes, it is.

    And it never ceases to amaze me to see the same birther b.s. repeated ad nauseam from armchair legal experts who copy and paste from World Nut Delirium or some other birther cesspool who couldn’t tell their butts from a hole in the ground if their lives depended on it.

  39. avatar
    The Magic M February 9, 2011 at 4:36 am #

    > More birther stupidity in the Comments Section

    And more birther lies. This one guy writes that in West Hartford, it states on their website you have to bring your long-form BC to enroll.
    Funny thing, the truth is far from that (assuming he mean UConn).

    First, that prerequisite only holds if you were born in Connecticut.

    Second, the website distinguishes “full size” from “wallet size”. I’m not sure if “full size” means “long form”. At least http://townclerk.hartford.gov/Vital%20Records/vital%20records%20new.htm seems to indicate the only difference is the actual size, not the contents.

  40. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 9, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    Keith: The commenters continue to be blind to what Rep. Tong said and attack him for what he didn’t say.. He said he never looked for, and was never asked for his original’ papers. He didn’t say he had never been required to produce a birth certificate.This stuff is just absurd.

    During the election season I had the chance to meet Rep Tong. He was a real nice guy and we chatted a little bit. Its good to see him come out against these kinds of bills

  41. avatar
    Welsh Dragon February 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    I listened to the public hearing on the Maine birther bill this morning and it it turns out it’s not a birther bill after all!

    Sponsor, co-sponsor, SoS & Deputy SoS all said it wouldn’t apply to presidential candidates – I think because it applies to primaries and Maine doesn’t have presidential primaries!

  42. avatar
    nc1 February 10, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    G: Notice how BZ has to cling to the quickly debunked, discredited and recanted Mike Evans story…

    How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

  43. avatar
    The Magic M February 10, 2011 at 4:54 am #

    > How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

    That’s a logical fallacy. “Because some four-legged animals are dogs, it suffices to prove an animal has four legs to prove it’s a dog.”
    Or in your words:
    “Because some recanted testimony was in fact true, every recanted statement must be true, therefore what Mike Evans originally said must be true.”

  44. avatar
    nc1 February 10, 2011 at 5:04 am #

    The Magic M: > How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?That’s a logical fallacy. “Because some four-legged animals are dogs, it suffices to prove an animal has four legs to prove it’s a dog.”Or in your words:“Because some recanted testimony was in fact true, every recanted statement must be true, therefore what Mike Evans originally said must be true.”

    Listen to both of his testimonies (posted on You Tube) and judge for yourself – which one sounds more truthful and which one sounds as if he was trying to give the proper answer.

  45. avatar
    Scientist February 10, 2011 at 7:06 am #

    nc1: How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

    In recent times? Almost none. The Feds have been extremely effective at putting Mafiosi (the correct plural form) behind bars.

    It is a simple fact that Evans never spoke to Abercrombie about anything related to birth certificates. Prove that he did. Show me that when he “called Neil’s offiice” he was put through to the Governor. Go on, I dare you.

  46. avatar
    Majority Will February 10, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    nc1:
    How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

    You’re a paranoid, deranged troll. Go stuff yourself and your irrelevant, nonsensical trolling b.s. back down your feces filled rabbit hole in Birtherstan.

    Birther idiot.

  47. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 10, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    nc1: How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

    You watch too many movies if you’re trying to base your logic off of something you saw in a movie

  48. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 10, 2011 at 8:55 am #

    nc1: Listen to both of his testimonies (posted on You Tube) and judge for yourself – which one sounds more truthful and which one sounds as if he was trying to give the proper answer.

    Lets see the interview where he claims the governor said there’s no birth certificate. Its a common salesman trick to say you spoke with the office of someone in power so that it gives you some authority. Say for instance you want to talk to a EVP in a company. You’ll first call the President’s office, even if you only get his admin and talk a while you then go to the person you wanted to talk to, say you spoke with the president’s office and was referred over to him. This puts an imperitive on the EVP to talk to you because you might have spoken to his boss. He never says in the interview that he specifically spoke to Abercrombie

  49. avatar
    G February 10, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    nc1: How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

    As everyone else has said, you watch too many movies and are just clinging to your paranoid delusions. You’d prefer to believe someone’s debunked lie over the truth because it reinforces your own fantasies. You are a sad, sad fool. I have no sympathy for you because you continue to be wrong all the time by your own choice.

  50. avatar
    obsolete February 10, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    Since Mike Evans is a radio host, what a bombshell story he would have if he went public over being threatened “Mafiosi” style to remain silent, whether it was by the Obama administration or Abercrombie.
    It would lead all news networks and bring down the guilty party. His safety would be assured after going public. Maybe a Pulitzer and/or a movie contract in his future.

    I wonder why he hasn’t gone public with such claims yet?

  51. avatar
    Greg February 10, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    nc1:
    How many Mafiosos have been freed because witnesses recanted original testimony?

    I don’t know, how many?

    However, I can tell you that 266 innocent people were convicted on bogus original testimony and later exonerated by DNA evidence.

    And this isn’t even eyewitness testimony, it’s hearsay. “The governor told me…” do you know why the courts don’t allow hearsay evidence?

  52. avatar
    Majority Will February 10, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Greg:
    I don’t know, how many?However, I can tell you that 266 innocent people were convicted on bogus original testimony and later exonerated by DNA evidence.
    And this isn’t even eyewitness testimony, it’s hearsay. “The governor told me…” do you know why the courts don’t allow hearsay evidence?

    For the weak minded birther, hearsay, innuendo, rumor and repeated lies are proof positive that their paranoia and hatred motivated fantasies are justified.

    Pathetic idiots.

    This unbalanced birther fool actually said that was is not said is more telling than what has been said.

    Her vast, tortuous, subterranean birther rabbit hole must reek of desperation and sewer gas.

  53. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Greg: I don’t know, how many?However, I can tell you that 266 innocent people were convicted on bogus original testimony and later exonerated by DNA evidence. And this isn’t even eyewitness testimony, it’s hearsay. “The governor told me…” do you know why the courts don’t allow hearsay evidence?

    I heard Tony Bologna put the pressure on Betty Spaghetti and she cracked

  54. avatar
    Majority Will February 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    I heard Tony Bologna put the pressure on Betty Spaghetti and she cracked

    I heard it was Shelly McEggs that cracked. Right before Hormel spilled the beans.

  55. avatar
    Black Lion February 10, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Another article showing how the GOP in a subtle way “winks and nods” at the birther faithful….Plus look at the birthers that show up in the comments…You have to think that they scan the internet to post their discredited nonsense on every possible site….

    GOP lawmaker makes birther joke at CPAC
    By Michael O’Brien – 02/10/11 11:45 AM ET

    A Republican lawmaker made a subtle “birther” jab at President Obama during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

    Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), a freshman member of Congress who was born in Puerto Rico, joked that he had a birth certificate to prove his American heritage.

    “I am fortunate to be born American, and I have the birth certificate to prove it,” Labrador said at a speech at the opening session of this weekend’s conservative gathering in Washington.

    The joke is an allusion to some critics’ suspicion that Obama was not actually born in the United States, and thus, under the U.S. Constitution, is not legally eligible to be president. Obama has produced a copy of his birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, a U.S. state.

    Most Republicans have been largely reluctant to question Obama’s birth status. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he doesn’t doubt Obama.

    Still, last Congress, several Republicans sponsored legislation meant to force presidential candidates to produce a legal copy of their birth certificate — a move interpreted as a bow to birthers.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/143237-gop-lawmaker-makes-birther-joke-at-cpac

  56. avatar
    misha February 10, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    Black Lion: Another article showing how the GOP in a subtle way “winks and nods” at the birther faithful

    Of course. They believe it will help discredit Obama, and cause his defeat in ’12.

    “Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), a freshman member of Congress”

    His family is big in dog breeding.

  57. avatar
    Mary Brown February 10, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    What about courage Mr. Evans? You talk about patriotism and the horrors of this administartion and an illegal President. Yet, you lack the courage to go public. The words liar and coward come to mind.

  58. avatar
    Steve February 10, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    misha: Of course. They believe it will help discredit Obama, and cause his defeat in ’12.“Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), a freshman member of Congress”His family is big in dog breeding.

    Many birther families are big on inbreeding.