It is always interesting reading liberal blogs, those that have not died off anyway.  They are not all the right wing blasting, progressive, anti American, BS that they are stereotypically made out to be.  Similar concerns are found, Libya, the debt, Japan… what will be the next stupid thing North Korea does.  And then there are the anti-Right blogs that are so determined to be anti-Right that they that they prove themselves wrong.  What’s that old game show?  “Things only a progressive would say!” he shouts out and wins a dining room set.

Arizona is largely hated.  How dare Arizona seek to uphold the law and claim that illegal immigration is actually illegal.  Granted, that’s a stretch and all, but you would be shocked at how bloggers ridicule Arizona on this issue, yet will not argue that it is illegal.  I know that is shocking, but it is true.  That is not the only thing they are angry about with Arizona.  Another shocker right?  They are angry because Arizona introduced a bill (again) requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility.  Never mind the twelve other states that are pushing similar legislation.  The reason they are angry with Arizona is because the bill contains the following specific “anti-Obama” language.

Yes, the long form and bither issue… again!  It is as if it will never go away.  Did you know that more Americans are aware of the eligibility issue and question Obama’s eligibility than there are Americans who can identify who Biden or Pelosie are?  It will not die!  Either way, as the AZ bashing goes on, the bill is demonized as it attacks Obama specifically because it is so well known that he has yet to produce a long form birth certificate.  As if that is not enough, these blogs piece together, through their complaining, a compelling argument that all states should have birther bills… even though they denounce it.

This particular tale of anti-birther woe starts with the Democratic National Committee’s Certificate of Nomination… or should I say Certificate(S)! 

Let’s play a game!  Which one of these pictures is not like the other?

The second lacks the statement of eligibility.  Rut Rho Shaggy! 

I had no idea this was even an issue (the whole Certificate of Nomination thing) and here liberal bloggers against constitutional eligibility measures in AZ are giving up the goose!  Not the brightest bunch, but enlightening old chaps, we can at least give them credit for that.  The stories get a little twisted, but the DNC defended the two DIFFERENT certificates by saying… well, nothing.

Where the stories go wayward is which forms were sent to which states.  Some claim Hawaii needed the additional statement, while others claim “some states” needed the additional adage of being constitutionally eligible to hold the office. 

Do you mean to say that not all states ensure this is verified?  Admit it!  That just went through your mind!

Apparently not!  Though the DNC are and RNC are vetted with the verification of constitutional eligibility, little is in place beyond that of taking their word for it - and so it would seem the these two committees take the word of the candidates.  Craziness I tell you!  On occasion, constitutional eligibility is made issue of.  More recently, McCain was targeted to which he provided a copy of his long form birth certificate. 

McCain’s view was if you have nothing to hide, why hide it.  But this is where it gets interesting.  Hawaii has gone on record stating that no one has been provided with verification of Obama’s birth eligibility as it pertains to him being born in Hawaii.  NO ONE!

All of this coming to light as bloggers criticize AZ for sponsoring a bill specifically requesting the long form birth certificate.  Truth be told, we could have had multiple presidents serving that were not constitutionally eligible… not just this one.  That was a joke, but there is truth in jest.   

Out of prudence, it was important to look at the RNC’s Certificate of nomination.  Yes, it contains the caveat of constitutional eligibility.  No, there were not different versions for different states.  And no, it does not have the DNC’s typo in it either.  Did you catch that?  “Though” is used for through.  This typo dates back to at least 2000.  Gore’s contained it, Kerry’s contained it and obviously Obama’s contains it… both of them.

So why has this not drawn more attention?  Well it has found its way into the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit.  (Paragraph 89 -91 and Endnote 16). 

Dismissed of course and the appeal was called frivolous.  Interestingly enough the call for discovery was denied.  It boils down to this, “I am sorry you demand to ensure the constitution has been upheld, but we are not going to go through the process of discovery in order to verify your claims against the President and the federal government.”  Nice right?  ThRough (note the r) the court there is simply no recourse. 

Remember that all of this was in liberal blogs.  I had no idea about any of this.  The blogger would write disparaging things about Arizona and go forward in presenting an excellent case as to why constitutional eligibility verification is actually needed.  Even if Obama is not a usurper, would it not be nice to definitively know that each and every president is actually eligible to be President of the United States; especially after seeing the gaping holes in constitutional eligibility verification that have been waiting to be exploited by a person who studied the constitution?  It has been the perfect storm brewing while it awaited the right opportunist. 

Not only has there not been a long form birth certificated provided to put this to rest, one has NEVER been requested.  It makes more and more sense why Obama has spent 1.5 million taxpayer dollars keeping his secrets so secretive.

My guess is that if states would pass these so called "birther bills," Obama would come up with an excuse to run in 2012.

If you are tired of this whole birther issue repeatedly resurfacing, you are in good company.  Never the less, the issue will continue to rear its ugly head until such a time it Is put to rest once and for all.  And putting it to a final rest is what Governor Neil Abercrombie wishes to do.

"It's an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office,"  he told the New York Times.  "There's no reason on earth to have the memory of his parents insulted by people whose motivation is solely political. ... Let's put this particular canard to rest."

The fact of the matter is that he is correct. However, he faces two challenges; the Hawaii Department of Health and President Obama himself.  According to the Hawaii Department of Health, only President Obama and his immediate family have the “interest” to request the long form birth certificate; which has not been done despite the controversy.  In short, standing in Governor Abercrombie’s way is the organization he now represents and the very president he seeks to protect.

Though the “certificate of live birth” has long since been made public, it did little to thwart the movement calling President Obama’s birth place into question.  The long form is being sought to be revealed to the public.  On the long form the physician’s name and signature are provided, the name of the hospital is listed, the birth weight of the child and the national origin of the parents are detailed.  The long form is in demand even though the short form holds the same legal merit.

Chris Matthews joined melee reasoning that if the long form would put an end to the debate, it makes sense to provide it.  Representatives of the president claim that he has more pressing and more important issues to tend to rather than requesting the long form birth certificate from Hawaii.  Perhaps thanking the Eagles’ coach for giving Vick a second chance was more important as well.

Here is the problem, 23% of Americans are unsure whether the president is truly a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as the president.  THIS IS A HUGE PERCENTAGE!  The overwhelming majority of people do not question the president’s eligibility, but more people are “uncertain” than believe the president is not eligible (20%).  When close to a quarter of the nation in uncertain about their own president, something is very seriously wrong.  To directly see the president not take the extra step to provide the needed “security in understanding” by disclosing his long form only serves to fuel the doubt.  Furthermore, it sends a message that the president has no desire to swing the perception of so many Americans; he could care less about them is what he is demonstrating.

It is felt (by the Obama administration) that the 20% that is confident Obama lacks the constitutional eligibility to serve as the American president will not be swayed with the release of the long form birth certificate.  This if course is not true in that most people are reasonable when presented with physical evidence.  There are those who will insist upon themselves over any such evidence, but it is by no means 100% of those who believe Obama is a constitutional fraud.  Given Obama’s decline in popularity, one would think he would take the extra step to at least attempt to end some of the doubt.

The birther issue is a byproduct of Obama’s actions to seal so much of his past from the American people he serves.  This alone was reason enough to not vote for him because a person had no way of truly knowing who and what they were voting for.

To many, the birther issue is silly and grossly unsubstantiated.  A claim that makes sense when the birthe has absolutely zero tangible evidence to the contrary of Obama’s claims.  A circumstantial case of this nature has to eventually be taken a step further.  As common a feeling as this is, a glance at what some states are doing will make you wonder.

Some states are now seeking legislation that will require all presidential candidates to fully disclose constitutional eligibility to the state before the state will allow them on the election ballot.  Why would states move in this direction based on so little factual evidence?

Me? I fall into the 23% of the uncertain due to the ambiguous nature of certificate of live birth which we all know is very easily forged.  I am not about big doubter of where he was born despite the audio tapes of his family and Kenyan officials claims that he was born in Kenya.  On the long form birth certificate, nationality of the parents is documented.  If there is an issue, it will be that his father was a legal citizen of England.  Like America, England grants birth right to the offspring of the male citizens, regardless of what nation they were born in. This of course would make him ineligible for the office.  This of course cannot be determined without the long form which Obama seeks to protect along with several other aspects of his past.

Being in the 23%, I cannot come to the point of believing the president is a legal president without him providing the access to such a document in order for an accurate determination to be made.  I cannot say that I know very many people who go through such extent to prevent access to information without something to hide.

If Obama wishes for me to believe he is eligible, he should first prove his eligibility with the long form birth certificate due to the fact the certificate of live birth in this case is inadequate to make honest determinations on despite the otherwise legal merits of the document.  Is that really asking too much?