Apparently four years and two birth certificate releases later, there are still people who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in this country, which would legally bar him from being president. And now, the birther brain trust – backed by such sophisticated political minds as Donald Trump and Orly Taitz – is trying to codify their nonsense into actual laws.
In February, the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would would require “certain proofs” of citizenship for a presidential candidate to appear on the state’s ballot. The bill would require long term birth certificates as well as early baptismal and/or circumcision records. The bill was vetoed by Jan Brewer, who was shocked by the legislation despite the many controversial bills she has signed in the past. ”I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona Secretary of State,” Brewer wrote in her veto decision. “This is a bridge too far.” The bill originally passed by a small margin, and there was no attempt to overturn the veto.
Apparently, Kansas’s Board of Elections did not agree with the Arizona governor. Just last week, Kansas finally decided to put President Barack Obama on ballot. That’s right – Kansas Republicans were contesting the incumbent president’s qualifications to even appear on the ballot. The Kansas Objections Board delayed officially adding Obama’s name to the ballot based on high-profile birther protests, but ultimately conceded after the executive branch sent a copy of the already released long-form birth certificate.
Unbelievably, that’s not the end of the issue. Orly Taitz, the denist/lawyer turned career birther, is suing to get the president’s name off of the ballot. A Kansas judge has granted Taitz an October 3rd hearing, in which the courts will decide whether or not to move forward with the lawsuit to overturn the Objections Board’s September decision. Taitz and other objectors are claiming that they were not allowed to testify or present the relevant evidence, and the original objector was intimidated from doing so.
What is this “evidence?” It isn’t just the same racist paranoia that has fueled the birtherism since 2009 – this “evidence” has a sexist element too. According to the objection filed against Obama’s eligibility, citizenship comes “primarily” from the father, making Obama not “primarily” a US citizen. Actually, citizenship comes from having one parent who is a US national for Americans born overseas, or from being born on US soil. Of course, Obama meets both of those requirements, an this idea of citizenship being passed down through the father’s lineage has no basis in the Constitution. But the motto of the birther movement seems to be, “Why let facts get in the way of some good old fashioned bigotry?”
Apparently Joe Montgomery, the Kansas resident who submitted this objection has withdrawn it, citing threats against him and his family. Taitz, who is not a Kansas resident, could not testify to the aforementioned citizenship theory, and was granted a hearing when she posited that Montgomery did not legitimately withdraw his objection but did so “under duress.”
For how much longer will courts and television news alike keep humoring these people living in an alternate reality? And why is anyone pretending that this “movement” is anything but a bunch of desperate, unrepentant racism? Birthers are now suing states to remove an incumbent president’s name on the ballot based upon a provably false allegation. They are inventing citizenship specifications where none exist. And no amount of facts, vetoes, or negative rulings will deter them.
Perhaps if the president is reelected the birthers will deflate and fade back into the woodwork – but don’t count on it if judges keep hearing their cases and news programs keep inviting them on as “political analysts.”