Why We Need “Birther Laws”
By D. Bouchard (Dave from Atlanta)
Columnist for Fellowship of the Minds
I want to commend Eowyn and friends for the excellent work they have done regarding the electoral process in Hawaii. By happy coincidence, this week I did some cursory research on the so-called “birther laws,” such as the one proposed in January of this year by the Arizona House of Representatives. Several other states also began the process of implementing similar laws, including my own state, Georgia.
Just for clarity, a state “Birther Law” – a derisive term coined by the liberal media — is a law that requires that all presidential candidates submit proof or affidavits of their “natural born” citizenship directly to the state government in order to be allowed on the state ballot for election to the presidency. The proposed law would replace the current method of relying on Political Party Committees to provide “certification documents” to certify their party’s candidate within that state. An example is the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s Certification of Nomination discussed in Eowyn’s September 20th post, “Hawaii Democratic Party Did Not Certify Obama’s Eligibility.” In effect, through the new “birther law,” the state will verify a candidate’s “natural born citizenship” instead of have the political parties dictate those terms.
Thus far, I have been unable to find any “birther laws” that actually have been finalized. Whereas most of the readers of this site would find the implementation of a “birther law” in any state to be a much-needed way to prevent the presidency from being usurped, as we suspect Obama had done (assuming that his long-form birth certificate, should it ever surface, would prove him ineligible), it appears that media ridicule and public pressure may have caused the various state houses from finalizing the proposed laws.
In Texas, the proposed law was deemed “racist” presumably because of Obama’s racial heritage. In Arizona, among the many comments made in the media about the proposed law was a claim that it was “a waste of the taxpayers’ money.” However the most common reaction to the proposed laws is ridicule – a tactic straight out of the Alinksy handbook, Rules for Radicals, which was liberally employed by Obama mouthpiece, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. “Fringe” and “wingnuts” are the mocking terms most commonly used against anything “birther,” including the proposed state presidential eligibility laws. In fact the term “Birther Laws” was coined in the media as a way to tar those laws with the same derision directed at so-called “Birthers” – Americans who seek the truth about Obama’s birth and his many other concealed documents.
Arizona first drew attention to itself in January 2010 when it proposed legislation that would require any presidential candidate to submit proof of citizenship before being allowed on the state ballot. The measure passed the state house in April and was handed on to the state senate. Unfortunately, the bill was not brought forth for a vote during the legislative session. In essence, the Arizona Senate let the measure die.
In Georgia, a bill proposed by Rep. Mark Hatfield suggests that each presidential candidate running in Georgia would be required to file an affidavit swearing that he or she is a natural born citizen of the United States. The proposed bill was introduced too late in the legislative session to be considered in 2010. Providing that its sponsors have the backbone to withstand media ridicule, the bill could be reintroduced in January 2011.
Inspired by Arizona, a similar measure also was introduced in Texas in 2009 and again in 2010. The proposed legislation would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to prove their citizenship to the Texas secretary of state before their names are added to the ballot. Again, that proposal will not be considered until the Texas legislature reconvenes in January 2011.
On a national level, a similar effort proposed in Congress by GOP Representative Bill Posey of Florida has the support of eleven House Republicans but needs a great deal more if it is to move forward. Hopefully we will see a revival of this effort after the November elections deliver majority control of the House of Representatives (and perhaps also of the Senate) to the Republican Party.
As conservative patriots and citizens of this country, and based on Eowyn’s work, we essentially have a 2-fold issue:
- The first is how we can deal with what has already occurred? Is there a way that we can somehow remove Obama from office by proving the 2008 electoral process had been tainted by fraud or malfeasance?
- The second issue is how we can prevent the same thing from occurring again in 2012?
When I first heard of Arizona’s proposed “birther law,” my thoughts were something along the lines of “Well, at least Obama won’t be able to pull the same stunt again in 2012 because I seriously doubt that he could win if he is excluded from Arizona’s ballot. Plus if Arizona passes this law, other states will surely follow suit.”
Now that Arizona’s and other states’ proposed “birther laws” seem to be still-born, I fear there is nothing to prevent the Master of Deceit from doing the same thing again two years from now.
As we all know, the Constitution of the United States of America states that the person holding the office of the presidency must be a “natural born citizen” — a requirement unique to the presidency, but not for any other political office, such as senators or representatives. The Founding Fathers, therefore, introduced the natural born citizenship requirement for a reason. Most constitutional scholars believe that what the Founding Fathers feared most was that America’s highest office — the presidency — could be usurped by a foreign power. That was why the Founders instituted the “natural born citizen” stipulation, by which they meant a presidential candidate must not just have been born in U.S. territory, but both of whose parents are U.S. citizens at the time of the baby’s birth.
No matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because, by his own admission, his biological father, Barack Obama, Sr. was not a U.S. citizen but, rather, a British subject as Kenya was a British colony in 1961 when Obama Jr. was born. Eowyn’s and others’ work all point to a deliberate manipulation of the presidential candidate certification system in 2008 in an effort to override precisely that “natural born citizen” requirement so as to engineer a constitutionally ineligible Obama into the Office of the President.
It is painfully apparent that we need additional safeguards in place at the State and/or Federal level. Now doubt, when and if any of these pending measures are brought up again for debate, they will face the same public ridicule that we have already seen. Our political representatives are only human, and they want to remain in office so that they can pass meaningful legislation. The only way to combat the media ridicule and so inject some steel into the backbone of politicians is through a massive outpouring of public support for “birther laws.” If our representatives know we are behind them, they will have the fortitude to face down media ridicule because they have the confidence from knowing they are representing the will of the people.
A republic without the rule of law devolves into tyranny or anarchy. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land and is more precious than any man, office, or institution. One way to ensure and protect the Constitution’s integrity — no matter the mockery from the Obama White House and the complicit media — is to approve and enact legislation requiring state governments, not political parties, to certify that presidential candidates indeed meet the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement.