Balloon Festival, Anderson SC
Anderson, South Carolina, is a small city of about 183,000 people in northwest South Carolina, near the Georgia border, in an area we call “The Upstate.” For a lot of my life, Anderson was not far from where I lived, and one of the places to eat and shop. It’s convenient to the recreational opportunities of Lake Hartwell and I have friends there.
Anderson County went for John McCain (66%) over Barack Obama (33%) in the 2008 election, so it’s no liberal stronghold.
Anyway, I did a double take when the Anderson newspaper, the Anderson Independent, popped up as I was trolling the Internet for media coverage of all things Obama conspiratorial. On March 9, 2011, the Independent carried an article on the so-called “birther bills” in nearby Georgia. This is what they said about those questions on Obama’s birth place:
Since the “birther” questions started in 2008, this particular conspiracy theory has been discussed, disputed, delivered with stern expressions by talking heads and eventually debunked so many times that another wingnut theory sprung up about where it all began: with Hillary Clinton. Apparently Clinton was so desperate to win the primary, her only recourse was to cast doubt on Obama’s citizenship. Who comes up with this stuff?
Yes, folks, they said “wingnut!”
Then the paper gave the bad news to potential presidential candidates from South Carolina (listen up Lindsey Graham):
According to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Vital Records division, a computer-generated long-form in our state includes much of that information but does not provide (or require) witness signatures, the time of birth, a specific hospital (only the city) or the name of the attending physician. Thus, if Georgia’s legislation passes,no South Carolina natives need apply to run on the Georgia ballot for president or vice president.
The Anderson Independent is owned by the E.W. Scripps Company.
In light of the above, I think you should retract the statement you made yesterday: “I rather doubt that President Obama or the Democrats would challenge the bills, should any of them become law. It would look bad and raise doubts. Much easier to comply with them.
The bills are only an impediment to Obama in birther imagination”
These bills cannot and should not be complied with by Obama or any other candidate.
LOL! Great article Doc. Thanks for finding & sharing this one.
I suspect that the majority of these bills will be overturned way before the ’12 election kicks off.
I’ve a feeling these GA crackers are pretty serious about punting the old boy out of office but I know that you HOPE the majority of these bills will be overturned way before the ’12 election kicks off….but hasn’t the election already started? These bills will be part of an effort by the majority of the states to put on end to the Obama tragedy. Hopefully Obama realizes that he was never cut out for President, turns over the reigns to Hildee and relo to Hawaii and start his career as a Golf Pro/Teleprompter Instructor.
Ah the good old teleprompter crap again. Do you think this little smear makes the previous president look a bit smart? You have to dumb down the current president so that you can make the last mess look good. The fact is even with a teleprompted Junior couldn’t speak correctly. Reagan made extensive use of teleprompters how often did you make fun of him for it?
Never…remember nothing was an issue until President Obama did it….The teleprompter, the rules regarding eligibility, anything. I guess Westie would prefer Simple Sarah and her writing her thoughts on her hand…
Who is “Hildee”?
Is that some new term for HRC? Do these people not understand how are laws work and that the VP takes over if the President for some reason cannot serve? Must be a bitter PUMA posting in this infantile rant. Hey, the election was 2 years ago. Get over it already. What a pathetic and lame post.
It’s just the old southern strategy all over again try to make black people seem like an inferior race.
Westie says: “These bills will be part of an effort by the majority of the states to put on end to the Obama tragedy.”
Funny, I thought the will of the voters was what should decide if Obama is reelected or not.
More proof that birthers are anti-democracy.
Well, it’s not like Obama was going to get any electoral votes from Georgia anyway.
I think perhaps Westie means turning the reins over at the end of his first term.
Now that the blog is in repeated through the Before Its News web site, expect folks to see our site for the first time, drop a comment, and go back to wherever they usually hang out. It’s probably not worth the effort to reply to them unless you see multiple comments.
Supposing the GA bills passes in something like its present form, which is pretty speculative, I would not expect it to be overturned before the 2012 election, because I think the only possible situation for overturning it would be a candidate suing to force the SoS to put his name on the ballot.
And however ridiculous the law might be as it winds up passing, I would guess that only a candidate who found he couldn’t comply with it would challenge it. And, as is being repeatedly pointed out, that candidate would not necessarily be Obama.
> turns over the reigns to Hildee
Hm, I thought you birthers considered it a bad an unconstitutional thing for the president to behave like he was a monarch. And here you go asking for the president to determine his successor? What Constitution was it again you’re claiming to uphold? I’m starting to believe North Korea is a likely answer.
I want to respond to this but it makes so little sense I really wouldn’t know where to begin.
The federal government can challenge any state law that interferes with federal powers. They are challenging the Arizona immigration law, because it attempts to set immigration poilcy, which is a federal power. This law attempts to impose new requirements for Presidential eligibility, such as hospital birth and parental citizenship, which are federal matters. The feds could challenge it as soon as it were passed into law. Other states could possibly challenge it as well, since it would impose obligations on them and discriminates against their citizens who might want to run for President
Do these laws apply to primaries as well as the general election? If so, any that pass could be challenged by Obama or any other candidate during the primary season.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t, since you have to win the primaries in order to be on the ballot for the general election. There would be no other way around that.
The issue of telepromters is ridiculous. But our previous President was President Bush. No he did not speak well, but like my youngest son I believe he has difficulty with reading and processing speach. That is in no way a test of intelligence. Did I vote for President Bush? No. Do I think he governed in a wise manner? No. His policies speak for themselves. But, if we want to cultivate a more sane political environment we have to begin to discuss issues in a logical fashion.
Some do.
This is hilarious. They are so blinded by hatred of Democrats in general and President Obama in particular that they have failed to see that these laws could block some of their own candidates. Well, it’s not like we didn’t tell them this. lol
So far not one of the bills has even made it out of committee. And in case you hadn’t noticed, Georgia’s bill has already lost a sizeable number of its “cracker” co-sponsors.
Then again, too many of them operate with the mentality of IOKIYAR.
They would probably not care and assume that their side can just bully its way to thwart their own laws. From their perception of reality, laws exist only to protect themselves and to persecute their opponents with some invisible mystery “escape clause” should the tables ever be turned.
I was thinking the same thing, G. They will just make excuses why their people shouldn’t be held to the same standards as they want Democrats held too; happens all the time with those hypocrites.
Excellent point!
I’m guessing that it would be challenged by a group of candidates – likely including President Obama – before the primaries (unless it didn’t apply to the primaries in which case I doubt there would be standing… [birther]OH! MY! GOD! It’s a conspiracy! Those traitorous judges! [/birther]).
It seems to me that the Republican point of view is that the Democrats should follow the spirit of the law while they only follow the letter of the law (more or less… if they feel like it, anyway…).
If Obama is running unopposed within his own party, he won’t be worried about primaries. The GOP candidates will — they will be fighting tooth & nail for the nomination. Georgia has an early primary (Super Tuesday, early February), and for the Republicans a winner-take-all primary system, It’s a state that is much more important to the GOP politically than the Dems.
I’ve pointed out in other posts that Newt Gingrich’s original birth certificate, if available to him, would show a different long name. Of course, Georgia is pretty much Gingrich’s base — if he can’t carry that state, he’ll be out of the race. (if he enters it, of course).
So at a minimum, Gingrich has to submit a birth certificate (probably different than the current certified form issued by his home state) + adoption records. He’s an old guy, so that means digging up court records from the 1940’s. And that’s just one candidate.
Now it may occur to all those Republicans that they don’t want to alienate the birther crowd by challenging the law….. or it may occur to some that a legal challenge is exactly the ticket to distance themselves from the birthers. In any case, they can all be reasonably sure that down the line, Obama would be able to produce whatever document Georgia wanted if necessary. (After all, Hawaii has a Democratic Governor who happens to be an old family friend — if it came down to it, a law could be pushed through the Hawaii legislature to provide a procedure to get a certified photocopy of the original on file.) Obama could quite safely sit out the Georgia primary, so he doesn’t really have to worry about the ballot issue until after the Democratic convention in September.
This is all speculative, of course, but it is in Obama’s political interest to simply sit things out and let the GOP candidates jump through Georgia’s hoops first, and enjoy the fun. If polling shows Georgia safely in the GOP column for the presidential election, it doesn’t really matter in any case …. Obama is going to be focusing on the states he can win.
The other thing about the current version of HB 401 is that it requires that all documents submitted become part of the public record. I also get the feeling that documents submitted don’t get returned.
Pennsylvania (where Newt was born) also doesn’t issue the “long form” any more. If he’s got one or two “long forms” in his personal records, would he really want to submit them knowing they’re not going to be returned?
Gingrich has already disclosed a number of sordid and potentially embarrassing aspects of his past, like his mom’s teenage pregnancy, the abusive behavior his natural father & stepfather, etc. — that’s why it’s easy for me to find the stuff on the internet — but this certainly could be a deterrent for a candidate who has something in their family history that they would prefer not be made public. I realize that the opposition goes digging around anyway…. but that doesn’t mean that it should all become public record if someone prefers to keep some aspects of their family history private.
Does HIPAA prevent any of these things from being made public?
HIPAA only applies to disclosures made by “covered entities,” basically medical providers and insurance companies.
I would think employers too.
I’ve followed college sports, and quite a few athletic departments haven’t disclosed the nature of an illness or injury because they weren’t released to do so by the student-athlete. I’m not sure if this is due to HIPAA or perhaps some other law in my state.
I think it might be up to the candidate.
If there are a dozen states with such laws that differ, it’s going to be a nightmare for the respective staffs of candidates to sort out what kind of documentation is needed. I saw a list of potential 2012 Republican candidates for President, and a bunch of them were born in states which don’t issue “long forms”. One in particular (Bobby Jindal) was born in a state that apparently issues what they call a “long form” but is a computer printout. The BC (from a Congressional candidate who released the image) I saw from Louisiana is pretty long, but I didn’t see a doctor’s name or any of the original signatures.
http://cenlamar.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/screen-shot-2010-07-14-at-9-01-57-pm.png
I meant that it might be up to the candidate to decide how many and which documents to submit. Of course it gets troubling in Georgia’s case because it would be up to the Georgia Secretary of State to adjudicate if the information submitted is adequate for the purposes of the law, which is vague about the standard for “what’s enough proof”. If it were simply a birth certificate (photocopied, abstract, typed), I think it would be a simple issue of authenticating it like the State Dept or a court of law would do. As it is, it seems like the bill’s author read every birther conspiracy and figured out how he could craft a bill that would create extra work for a candidate born in Hawaii.
I’m wondering how it’s going to shake out if HB 401 is altered like the bill’s author claims it will be. I heard they’ll push out the effective date to 2013 and get rid of the multiple-citizenship language.