“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

AZ Governor Disappoints America, Vetoes Presidential Eligibility Bill

Listen to the author read this article Get Adobe Flash player

Gina Miller

With all the anti-American, anti-Constitutional sewage that has come out of the Obama administration, not to mention its lawsuit attack on her state concerning Arizona’s illegal alien crackdown law, you would think Arizona Governor Jan Brewer would be up for a fight to hold the fraud-in-chief in the White House accountable to the American people.  I’m sorry to say, she is not.

I was completely disgusted to read on Monday that Gov. Brewer vetoed an overwhelmingly-passed bill that would require future presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president.  It was the first such bill passed in the nation, although there are similar bills pending in 15 states, according to Bob Unruh, reporting at WorldNetDaily.

The bill passed by a very wide margin in the Republican-controlled House (40-16) and Senate (20-9), but that did not stop the supposedly Republican governor from issuing her veto.  The reasons she gave for the veto were flimsy, at best.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer meeting with President Barack Obama in June 2010 in the wake of SB 1070, to discuss immigration and border security issues. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

As Bob Unruh writes,

“Brewer’s veto message failed to address the reason for the bill: the uncertainty over whether Barack Obama is a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as the Constitution requires for presidents.

‘I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,’ she said. ‘In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president … to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’ among other records. … This is a bridge too far.’”

A bridge too far?!  I read the bill, HB 2177, and it is in no way a “bridge too far”!  It simply demands that presidential candidates prove their constitutional eligibility to hold that office—you know—as the Constitution requires!

What she’s talking about in the baptismal and circumcision records is the list of alternative documents that could also be used to help prove a candidate’s natural born citizen status, in the event he could not produce a long-form birth certificate or certified copy.

Come on, now!  Does Gov. Brewer honestly believe many, if any, American candidates for president would have a hard time producing an actual or certified copy of his birth certificate?  Does she really think there will be a large number people forced to resort to their baptismal or circumcision records?  I don’t think so.  However, we’re talking about the highest office in our nation.  Don’t you think it’s a worthy goal to make candidates follow the requirements of the very Constitution they would swear to uphold if they were elected?

As to her objection that she does not like the idea of “one person as the gatekeeper” to determine the legal eligibility of candidates, the bill stipulates that the Secretary of State would be the one to make the determination based on the submission by the candidate of all his vital records.  Now, I say she could have easily told the Arizona Congress to amend the bill to add a couple of more people to create an “eligibility committee,” but she didn’t.

If we think back to the 2008 presidential election, at that time, Jan Brewer was the Arizona Secretary of State.  It was she who was responsible for making sure candidates were eligible before being allowed on the ballot.  Is she projecting her own failings concerning Barack Obama getting on the ballot in Arizona in 2008?  Did she possibly exercise “arbitrary or politically motivated” behavior in allowing him on, as she claims to fear someone else in her former position might do?

What’s really behind her reason for the veto?  Could it be intimidation from this wretched and wicked communist administration?  Could it be the same reason that courts all across the country will not give any American citizen “standing” to force Obama to prove that he is actually legal to hold the office of president?  With burning disgust, I certainly do wonder.

It is even to the point that because of Obama’s desperation to avoid revealing the truth of his past that we now actually have a political prisoner in LTC Terry Lakin!

Countless millions of us in America know there is something incredibly wrong with Obama’s past that he would work like the devil to hide it.  I have heard people speculate that he wants to hide his Marxist background, but that is nonsense!  He has shown his ugly communist face since Day One in our White House.  He is in no way hiding his Marxist past, because he’s living it out, right now in the present.  That is not the reason he is hiding his history.

Since the American people, who in theory employ the president, are at present powerless to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution, which he uses as toilet paper, it must fall to the states to pass legislation that will force him to prove he’s not some communist plant.  If he does not show all of his papers, he must be given his walking papers.  Hit the road, Jack, and don’t ever come back!

As WND’s Bob Unruh reports, presidential eligibility bills are pending in 15 states.  These include Louisiana, where if passed, the bill, HB 561, would not be vetoed, but signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal.

Mr. Unruh writes about co-author of the legislation, Rep. Alan Seabaugh, giving his reasons for drafting the bill,

In Louisiana, House Bill 561 would [require] the candidates to ‘prove’ they ‘meet the requirements for president of the United States prescribed in Article II Section I of the Constitution.’

Seabaugh told the New Orleans [Times-Picayune] newspaper he’s concerned that of all of the eligibility cases brought to court, attorneys representing the president have prevented any from reaching the stage in which evidence could be obtained.

‘Not one of them has ever been decided on the merits,’ Seabaugh told the newspaper. ‘As an attorney, that’s offensive to me.’”

Pennsylvania is yet another state with similar legislation pending.  As Mr. Unruh continues,

In Pennsylvania, it’s House Bill 1350. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of the 12th legislative district in Pennsylvania said the bill is a matter of the law – and who must follow it.

‘This legislation is intended to send the message that even those candidates who are running for our nation’s highest office are not above the law,’ he said in his announcement about the plan. ‘Final passage of this legislation will provide additional levels of both trust and verification that anyone seeking elected office in Pennsylvania is just as much an American citizen as the voters supporting their candidacy.

‘Requiring all candidates for the offices of president and vice president to submit valid proof of natural born citizenship documentation in exchange for statewide ballot access is a fundamental and long-overdue check and balance that must be implemented to further ensure that the Oval Office is never occupied by anyone other than a natural born American citizen,’ he said.”

So, we’re certainly not without hope here of forcing Obama to either put up or shut up for the 2012 elections.  There’s strength in numbers, and I’m glad to see other states that have leaders with the guts to take on this common-sense issue.  As Mr. Unruh writes,

“Such bills appeared this year in New Hampshire, Montana, Iowa, Maine, Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas. Some efforts are conclusively out of the running this year, and in some states plans already are being made for next year, which still would give states time to impose a requirement for the 2012 election. Others still could be resurrected in the legislative process.”

Squealing Obamatons have railed against this kind of legislation, saying that it is only meant to target Obama.  To them I say: you got that right, Jackson!  We the people are sick to death of this anti-American mystery man spitting on our country and our Constitution and pretty much every thing else we hold dear here in America.

It’s time for someone to put a stop to his hellish nonsense by preventing him from getting a second term, and since the courts are too dishonest to allow discovery, it’s up to the states to stop him from getting on the ballot, if he is unable to prove that he’s a natural born American citizen.

The stakes could not be higher for our country, and although Gov. Jan Brewer may be squeamish about holding Obama accountable, there are plenty of state leaders who are not.

Gina Miller, a native of Texas, is a radio commentator and disc jockey. She also works with her husband installing and repairing residential irrigation systems and doing landscaping on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


39 Responses to “AZ Governor Disappoints America, Vetoes Presidential Eligibility Bill”

  1. I think anyone running for President should have to produce their identy and creditials. As a public servant, they should have to show anything the people ask for pertaining to eligibility, education and reputation. I find it hard to believe that we have gone this long without a bill like this.
    She is a flake, Gina. How disappointing. Happy Easter to you and Dakota Voice!
    He is risen!

  2. I just honestly think the electorate is now telling these politicians that they are more deeply concerned about the economy, the debt and jobs rather than seeing someones proof of circumcision. Also, Brewer is getting a lot of pressure from business conservatives in Arizona who have seen their businesses suffer because tourism and other things are way down ,since her earlier comments and laws passed. She is realizing that her job is to take care of her state and not demand to see Obama’s circumcision documents, because that won’t help their money woes in the least..

  3. “Fringe conspiracy theorists”? Sorry, pal, but half the nation is not “fringe.”

  4. “Fringe conspiracy theorists”? Sorry, pal, but half the nation is not “fringe.”

  5. Happy Easter to you, too, Judy!

  6. Happy Easter to you, too, Judy!

  7. Bottom line, Brian. It’s not about the circumcision of Obama. It’s about upholding the Constitution and what it has to say about the elegibility to run for President. A person needs to be actually born here in the USA as you already know. But saying it one more time can’t hurt anything. We don’t want someone from another country running ours. The economy has nothing to do with this issue.

  8. To prove your citizenship via a baptismal or circumcision document is ridiculous. I was born here in the USA to US parents who were children of US citizens. How about just going with a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Being circumcised does not qualify you to being a US citizen. There are many Intact US citizens. I would of vetoed that bill too. How about passing a bill to outlaw circumcision since that is a human right violation. If girls can be protected under law from genital mutilation (religious or cosmetic), boys should be protected also.

  9. Only to the radically extreme fringe does the vast majority of this country seem “fringe.”

  10. You apparently have not read the Arizona bill. Baptismal and circumcision records are part of a list of alternative documents that could be used if a candidate absolutely could not provide an original or certified copy of his long-form birth certificate. In that rare and unlikely event, he would have to present AT LEAST two of those alternate documents–certified–and the Secretary of State would have to be able to determine with certainty that the candidate is eligible.

    You also appear to be ignorant about the difference between male circumcision (which is in no way a “human rights violation,” and can be argued to be good hygiene) and barbaric female genital mutilation, which actually removes a functional part of the female sex organs. Big difference–no comparison.

  11. Male circumcision or called ‘ the bris’ by Jewish people, which is where it came from, started as aa ancient, religious procedure. The Jews believed it was a pact with God to show they followed His wishes. They believed that man is born physically imperfect and by removing the foreskin, they were fulfilling God’s desire for man to gain perfection as much as is possible and that God had given man the tools to do so..

    Some uncircumsized men do get infections, but 99% don’t with basic cleaning so having foreskin isn’t a true hygiene problem. Ear lobes get infected also and we don’t whack them off. Basically and honestly, there is no reason to cut off part of a man’s genatalia.

    I would think removing part of a man’s genatalia without his consent is indeed a human rights violation and a rather cruel one based on a stone aged religious belief

  12. Actually, it was God who made that convenant with the Israelites, and not only is it not a human right’s violation (how ridiculous!), it really IS better, hygienically–not comparable to an earlobe, either. Although the Jewish people were given the covenant, it is not something “required” according to the New Covenant, after Jesus fulfilled the law, but many people, Christian and otherwise, do it for their baby boys.

    It’s awfully silly that we’re talking about this.

  13. I think it’s silly too. The fact of the matter is, this is one state who won’t participate in the battle to KNOW if Obama is legal or not. Show the proof any way you can people!! I personally don’t think there is any or it would have been shown a long time ago.

  14. Well it is silly and it isn’t. Having foreskin is not a true ‘health risk’ in any sense, so I must ask you, do we really think it is right to cut off part of a man’s genitalia, without his permission, so he willjust have better hygiene. OH MY !!!! Our underarms aren’t very hygienic either !! Surely it can wait until age of consent and let us guys decide what is best for our genitals , particularly if it isn’t atrue ‘ health risk’. Why can’t ourselves we decide such things ?

    Can’t you just hear all the babies crying ” Don’t cut off part of my wanger ” :-0

  15. If the parents did that then by the time you were an adult, do you really think you would make an appointment with the good ole Doc to have the procedure done?

  16. HAAA!!! And, the baby boys say, “You can’t TOUCH THIS!”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcVllWpwGs

  17. What the heck does this have to do with Gov. Brewer and constitutional eligibility to hold office?!

  18. From the WH insider, the Soetoro aka Obama team is concerned about the states and their efforts to ensure constitutional eligibility for office. They (the White House) were going to do something about it. What the “something” was I don’t know, maybe Brewer found out. Though my initial reaction is to wonder why she turned spineless, I guess we can’t really be too hard on her unless we know what she faces.
    Speaking of spineless, can anyone say Congress? Why haven’t they said one word about this?

  19. Right-e-o, Steve!

    I’m firmly convinced that Ms. Brewer was persuaded to see the error of her ways IF she signed that bill into law. Do you suppose she was told to “remember Wisconsin,” or some such threat?

    “We’ll bring the mindless, Marxist, ‘college student’/union member/all around loser/rental mob protesters to tear down your state capital if you sign that bill.” Oh, surely that didn’t happen!

    Yeah, right.

  20. Right-e-o, Steve!

    I’m firmly convinced that Ms. Brewer was persuaded to see the error of her ways IF she signed that bill into law. Do you suppose she was told to “remember Wisconsin,” or some such threat?

    “We’ll bring the mindless, Marxist, ‘college student’/union member/all around loser/rental mob protesters to tear down your state capital if you sign that bill.” Oh, surely that didn’t happen!

    Yeah, right.

  21. Actually, according to a Fox News poll taken this month, the number of registered voters who think Obama was not born the United States is 24% which is slightly higher than the 20% that believe in witches.

  22. Well it is also about the pure nuttiness of our elected officials to actually put things like ‘ show us you got trimmed ‘ and you can run for President. Think about the absurdness of that. Wonder what our founders would say if we wanted to put that in the Constitution as one of the qualifications of being President is being able to show that you got a part of your penis hacked off. It is about citizenship somewhat, but what silly small people to put such things and wordage in our bills and/or
    Constitution. Doubt Jefferson or Washington or Adams all had long forms, so lets just ask them whether or not they felt a doctor should testify that he circumcised them at birth.

    The Health Dept of Hawaii has said over and over that it has the long form , so it isn’t about citizenship. It is about spreading fear about Obama, unless you think the Hawaian Health Dept. is in on this continual 50 year conspiracy.

  23. I see your point and kind of funny, but yes, if it were truly a health risk and it was really needed. Not many would volunteer to have open heart surgery either if they saw it, but when it’s needed it’s ” cut me baby “

  24. Obama is the legal and official President of the U.S. sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The majority of Americans know this. Why should Obama relent to a silly request by a bunch of people who won’t vote for him and many of which think he is the Devil. He has better things to do.

  25. Hilarious and cute. Darn. just reminded me again that I have and will never have rhythm. Have a good, good religious weekend of Easter Gina. I have always liked it more than Christmas

  26. Happy Easter to you and your family, too, Brian!

  27. the do have to. The FBI checks every candidate for their eligibility. Obama passed (as did McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone btw). The story is a waste of time

  28. Constitutional eligibility is not “silly.”
    Your’e drifting out to sea again Brian, who thinks he’s the “Devil”, and what does that have to do with the article?

  29. According to an AOL poll 81% of Americans think Obama should reveal his birth certificate and other sequestered records. I don’t know where Obama was born, quite possibly it was in the US, but why will he not allow release of the long form, which Hawiian officials insist exists? Why has he doggedly protected his academic records from being released?

    We really know very little about this man save what we have been told in his two ghost-written memoirs.

  30. “Circumcised men are up to 60% less likely to get HIV, and now the World Health Organization and the UNAIDS program recommend adult surgery to slow the AIDS pandemic.” –WebMD

    A twenty-five year study by the American Academy of Pediatrics also found a 50% reduction in other common sexually transmitted diseases among circumcised men (and their sexual partners). It simply cannot be said that circumcision is a useless barbaric practice without provable benefit.

    I believe that many individuals that oppose circumcision do so because of its religious connotations. I have found that the people that I have known with strong anti-circumcision beliefs also tend to be politically liberal, atheist or agnostic and, hypocritically, pro-abortion.
    (I am not speaking of you, Brian. I have had discussions of the issue in some of my classes, with med students and with other professors over the years, so I have a pretty good sampling from which to make my generalizations.)

    I know that this is off-topic, Mr. Ellis. Thanks for your indulgence.

  31. Online polls like that AOL 2009 poll, where respondents volunteer to vote, are totally meaningless. They are measures of “get out the vote” not how the general public feels.

    To say you don’t know much about Obama implies a willful disregard for masses of information in the press over the last 3 years. Read Firstbrook’s book: The Obamas, or that new one about Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham just to name a couple. Read back issues of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin newspapers. The Chicago Tribune has published many articles.

    All this “don’t know” stuff is just because you don’t WANT to know. I would recommend the recent New York Times article on The Psychology of the ‘birther’ myth and perhaps you will understand your feelings a little better.

  32. “… masses of information in the press over the last 3 years…”

    I am not interested in what his spin-machine has cranked out “in the last three years.” I want to know from primary sources just who this man is that is attempting to destroy…er, excuse me, “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. You conspicuously refuse to address his successful attempts to deny Americans information about his life. Why is this?

    The New York Times? Seriously, does anyone believe anything they have to say anymore?

  33. Most folks get their news from a recognized group of media organizations whom they have come to trust for accurate reporting over time. Birthers don’t think that way, and tend to get their information from tabloids, conservative advocacy sites and birther blogs — that is, people who think like themselves. Certainly the question “who do you trust?” is front and center in the difference between birthers and non-birthers. 30 years ago, the birther movement would have been impossible because fringe view had no way to go mainstream. Today, unfiltered information, dressed in professional looking wrappings, hawk every imaginable viewpoint.

    In your view, Obama is denying Americans to primary documents. In my view the birthers are exhibiting a morbid curiosity for details just because they don’t like Barack Obama. Nobody ever demanded such things of presidents before. These demands say more about the birthers than Obama.

    When Barack Obama first released his birth certificate, denial of it grew the birther movement. When Dr. Fukino of Hawaii stated she had seen the documents, the birther movement grew with stories of her “coded language” and lies. When newspaper announcements corroborated Obama’s birth, birthers flared up again to deny that. Every time a new document comes to light, two new birthers are created to deny what they have and ask for more. You folks are demanding 45-year-old KINDERGARTEN RECORDS for goodness sakes. Do you have any idea how silly you folks look to normal people?

    Yeah, I know…traitor, libtard, shill for Obama, in denial, etc, etc. I don’t know why I bother.

  34. Most folks get their news from a recognized group of media organizations whom they have come to trust for accurate reporting over time. Birthers don’t think that way, and tend to get their information from tabloids, conservative advocacy sites and birther blogs — that is, people who think like themselves. Certainly the question “who do you trust?” is front and center in the difference between birthers and non-birthers. 30 years ago, the birther movement would have been impossible because fringe view had no way to go mainstream. Today, unfiltered information, dressed in professional looking wrappings, hawk every imaginable viewpoint.

    In your view, Obama is denying Americans to primary documents. In my view the birthers are exhibiting a morbid curiosity for details just because they don’t like Barack Obama. Nobody ever demanded such things of presidents before. These demands say more about the birthers than Obama.

    When Barack Obama first released his birth certificate, denial of it grew the birther movement. When Dr. Fukino of Hawaii stated she had seen the documents, the birther movement grew with stories of her “coded language” and lies. When newspaper announcements corroborated Obama’s birth, birthers flared up again to deny that. Every time a new document comes to light, two new birthers are created to deny what they have and ask for more. You folks are demanding 45-year-old KINDERGARTEN RECORDS for goodness sakes. Do you have any idea how silly you folks look to normal people?

    Yeah, I know…traitor, libtard, shill for Obama, in denial, etc, etc. I don’t know why I bother.

  35. If I may. Obama is the legal President of the U.S. confirmed and sworn in by the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. He is thus not under any obligation to reply to an individual(s) who claims he should respond by showing them a document that the primary source known as the Dept of Health, says exists. I would say it behooves us to go past the internet and go out and investigate ourselves.In America doesn’t that fall on the accuser and not the accused ? I believe the way our government is set up is that the Congress is the only body right now that can demand to see such documents of a President or risk impreachment. I kind of prefer the Constitution

  36. Yeah, Brian. We kind of prefer the Constitution, too. That’s why it’s such an outrage that this fraud has been allowed to slither into our White House unchallenged.

  37. I don’t know why you bother, either.

    You are ignorant of our intentions and attribute our “sources” to tabloids. Sorry, pal, but you really have drunk the Obamaton kool-aid.

    Presidents of the past have most certainly had their pasts examined, and you are willingly blind to “believe” that Obama, or whatever his name is, has exposed his own past.

    That online image is not an original long form birth certificate (and you probably know it but simply won’t admit it). No one has see his actual birth certificate, but as I’ve said, if his father is who “Obama” claims, then his father was a foreign national, thus excluding Obama from natural born American citizen status.

    This whole deal did not grow out of the fact that “we don’t like him,” even though we despise his anti-American, communitarian, “one world order” polices–this began before the election when many of us demanded to see his credentials, which were denied to us while the “powers that be” turned their wicked heads the other way and shooed him in.

  38. Where did you see that the FBI checked Obama’s credentials?

    I’ll answer that for you. There is no evidence that ANYONE in “authority” checked that guy out in any way. None.

    You would do well to jump from the sinking ship of communism while you still can.

  39. Let’s get one thing straight, Brian! According to Article II, Section I of the Constitution, only a “natural born citizen” is qualified to be President of the United States. For your information, a “natural born citizen” is NOT merely someone who is a citizen who was born in this country (as many assume). It is more than mere “citizenship”; rather, it is that citizenship that most Americans have acquired naturally at birth and requires two elements: 1) birth on American soil and 2) parents who were BOTH citizens at the time of the birth. It does not depend on special laws of naturalization that can create citizenship for adults or children who may or not have been born here, or who may have had both, one or even no American citizen parent. The fact that he was “sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” does not make him the “legal and official President of the U.S.” In fact, it means NOTHING other than that he committed treason when he took that oath if he was not really qualified for the office. What law school did you attend and since when is the law determined by what “the majority of Americans know…”.? Merely being ELECTED does not mean he was ELIGIBLE

    Even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii or some other state, he CANNOT be a natural born citizen if his father was a British national (Kenya then being part of the British Commonwealth) which he has asserted and no one denies. Do you see why the long-form birth certificate (not the joke “Certification of Live Birth, which has never been authenticated as a genuine certifed copy) posted on the internet is essential? Long-form birth certificates list, among other things, the names, birth dates and birth places of both parents (unless the father is un-named) as well as the signature of the doctor and name and address of the birth hospital. Actually, because his long-form BC has never been produced (and probably never will be!), I don’t pretend to know who his real father is But assuming his life story is true, his father’s nationality made him a dual citizen at birth and NOT a natural born citizen; therefore he is NOT eligible to be President. As a self-proclaimed Constitutional law lecturer, he certainly was aware of his ineligibility when he ran for office. There was and is no logical reason to withhold his long-form BC if he has nothing to hide! Candidates for office must PROVE their eligibility. Citizens should not have the burden of disproving their qualifications when no reliable documentation has been offered.

    After a Presidential election, electors are elected and their votes are then transmitted to Congress from the 50 states and DC and are counted and otherwise vetted for eligibility and other issues by Congress before being accepted as valid. If Congress does a poor job of vetting eligibility or if the Courts refuse to entertain eligibility lawsuits, an unqualified person may end up serving as President. He may or may not be removed from office by Congress or the Courts. But eventually, as they say, the truth will surface. What a joke it will be when finally “realize” that the man was a fraud and took the Presidency as an imposter. Nothing is more important in a constitutional republic than obeying the rule of law. Article VI of the Constitution states that “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land”. You cannot cover up and ignore the Constitution, since it is the “supreme law of the land” As far as your “silly request” reference, let me explain something to you clearly – our elected officials do not OWN their offices, they are public servants that work for and serve us, the people, who are their sovereigns, NOT the other way around. As public servants they must obey their oaths of office to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution. When they breach their oath of office or violate the Constitution they must be removed and/or prosecuted for their crimes.