“Birthers are living rent free in Obama’s head:”

Eligibility Allegedly at Issue in White House
02.04.2011 · Posted in Activism, Eligibility, POTUS

Blogger “Ulsterman” has posted another alleged communication from the same former White House insider, this time claiming to detail that conversations are going on related to the eligibility issue. In short, as one commenter — “MJ” — to the posting said, “Birthers [are] living rent free in Obama’s head:”

…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.

Commenter “Christina” helped Ms. Jarrett out a little bit by providing a current listing of States considering eligibility measures:

“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”.

Hey Valerie one or two states? Try 11.

11 states now developing eligibility proof demands for 2012

Connecticut, SB291 require “that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot.” That is needed to make sure the candidate “is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.”

Georgia, HB37 not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.

Indiana, SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution’s requirements for the president.

Maine, LD34 require for all candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It states, “A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s driver’s license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.”

Missouri , HB283, require that certification for candidates “shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship.”

Nebraska, LB654, the certification for candidates would “include affidavits and supporting documentation.”
That paperwork would need to document they meet the “eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” It requires an affidavit that says: “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.”

Montana’s plan that candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election officials’ to do their duty.

Oklahoma, SB91 would require “proof of citizenship for certain candidates” and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access. It demands an “original” birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.

Pennsylvania working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.”

Texas House Bill 295 A bill filed for the Texas Legislature that would require candidates’ documentation. It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”

Arizona Bill within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

Of special interest from the above listing is Georgia’s HB 37 language regarding “standing” (or, the right to bring a question before the Court of competent jurisdiction) by common citizens regarding eligibility:

Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates by the Secretary of State using the procedures provided in Code Section 21-2-5.

Again, there are some who oppose those of us who question the President’s eligibility. However, if the question is so “crazy” or otherwise irrational, why is it that nearly a dozen States are taking the issue seriously enough to craft legislation to enact enforcement of the constitutional presidential eligibility clause? Further, why would the Hawaiian House consider a measure allowing any concerned citizen to request a birth certificate from its vital records department if all of this is a ruse?

phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com