Phoenix, AZ – There's nothing in the legislation that actually mentions Obama. But the bill to require presidential contenders to prove birth in the United States only arose during the 2008 campaign. Those questions have not gone away even after the release of a ``certificate of live birth'' issued by the state of Hawaii, testimony from that state's governor that he was present at Obama's birth, and contemporary newspaper birth announcements. Sen. Frank Antenori said he has no problem with the concept of requiring proof. But he said Wednesday the version that passed the House, which requires production of a long-form birth certificate, is far too restrictive.
(There are a lot of people, I've come to find out recently, that don't have birth certificates. Or there was a fire and their birth certificate was lost. And they basically have other forms of proof like a baptismal certificate, a post-postpartum medical record for the mother or the baby, or an affidavit from two people that witnessed them being born like an uncle or a cousin who were there.)
In fact Antenori said the federal government provides passports and even top-secret security clearance for those who do not have birth certificates but can produce some of the documents on the list -- documents he added to the House-passed bill as acceptable proof of eligibility to run for president. Antenori said Obama himself shares some of the blame for the controversy by failing to come forward prior to the election with documents.
(He, for some reason, played games with that. And that created a lot of the 'black helicopter' theories that maybe he wasn't born in the United States. So if he had just done it in the beginning and gotten this over with, we wouldn't be having this issue.)
The altered version of the legislation gained preliminary Senate approval Wednesday. After a final roll-call vote, the House will have to decide whether to accept the changes. For Arizona Public Radio this is Howard Fischer.