Kansas officials are deranged.

And here I thought Ohio was badCheck out Kansas.

Kansas officials plan to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon to weigh whether President Barack Obama is a citizen and should appear on the state’s November ballot.

The Kansas Objections Board will be considering a challenge filed by Joe Montgomery, a Manhattan resident, who Monday objected to Obama being on the ballot. He claims the president is not an American citizen since his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Kenya. The all-Republican board — which consists of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer and Attorney General Derek Schmidt — has the power to remove Obama from the ballot in his mother’s home state.

It’s not how you play the game, it’s whether or not you win.

Michaelyn lives in Kansas.  Rally to me, heathens!  We’re going to go rescue her.

  • otocump

    I…what…how? How does this keep happening?

    • DyslexicDNA


  • Loqi

    I’ve got an idea!
    Kansas, in exchange for Michaelyn, we’ll give you Michele Bachmann and a fourth round pick in next year’s draft.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd JT Eberhard


  • http://pzer0.com Dan

    The only reason Kansas exists is so that people from Ohio can feel superior… I say this as someone who was born in Ohio. Why is it that my home state and places like Kansas are seldom in the news for *good* things?

    • http://inaweofeverything.blogspot.com/ Matt Prorok

      Neil Armstrong. John Glenn. 23 other astronauts. Granted, it could be argued that this indicates that something about Ohio makes people want to flee the Earth. But these heroes are one of the reasons, few though they may be, that I’m proud to call Ohio home.

  • http://inaweofeverything.blogspot.com/ Matt Prorok

    Really? “His father didn’t have birthright citizenship”? That’s the challenge?

    I could beat that argument. And I’m not a lawyer, or incredibly well-versed in the law. I’ve simply read the 14th Amendment:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    • DuWayne Brayton

      Not that it is relevant to Obama, but one must be a U.S. citizen by birth to be eligible to be president. A naturalized citizen is disqualified. This amendment was specifically passed to prevent states from claiming citizenship rights only apply to those a given state might wish them to apply to and no one else.

  • Sri

    Are they trying to say that the woman we believe to be his mother isn’t his biological mother? Because that is the only way the non-U.S. citizen crap can work. Here’s the pertinent section from our own immigration laws saying that, even if he had been born in Kenya as the conspiracy mongerers say, it wouldn’t matter because he still would’ve gained citizenship upon birth.

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

  • Glodson

    Hey, if you can’t win the vote, try to rig it so that a choice is removed from the ballot despite the massive amount of proof counter to the claim that Obama isn’t an American citizen.

  • Randomfactor

    If Kansas can get along without the sitting President being on the ballot, so be it.

    Kansas really didn’t need those Electoral College votes or Congressional representation anyway. Maybe in 2016 we’ll let them come back in the union.

    Bleeding Kansas, anyway.

  • HeathenNTX

    Since 1968, Kansas has voted Republican. The only reason I can think of that they would need a ruling like this, this time is that there could be some concern that voters might turn around and vote against Romney in enough force that Kansas would effectively be voting for Obama through the electoral college. Here’s hoping anyway :)

  • Sam Grover

    UGH. One of the guys that testified about this very topic when they did it in Georgia is running for state rep. for MY neck of the woods. John Sampson for CO district 25. He’s an ass too, IMO. UGH.


  • http://ripeningreason.com/ Bix

    Well, I guess this means the Chester Arthur administration is retroactively illegitimate, since his father was Irish.

  • Alex

    Is it time to change the demonym for residents of this benighted state to “Kansassholes?”

  • stop2wonder

    If these idiots go through with it and get Obama thrown off the ballot, they should all be brought up on charges of election fraud, abuse of office, and maybe even treason, for attempting to rig a presidential election.

    Ample evidence has been supplied for Obama’s natural soil born citizenship by the person certified to provide that information. Them choosing to be willfully ignorant of it, or ignoring it, should be brought up on charges.

  • Christoph

    I don’t expect it to have an impact on the electoral outcome (neither in that state, nor federally) whether or not Obama appears on the Kansas ballot.

    That allows me to stand back and find a bit of humor in this at the ignorant hicks who are seriously having a debate on whether or not the incumbent president is eligible after already being in office for four years. The farther this joke goes, the funnier. The best punchline would be all of the people responsible getting convicted of fraud and going to jail, the outcome invalidated and the state having to repeat its election with egg on its face.

  • Pingback: Kansas officials are on the case.

  • John Horstman

    Whatever, Kansas. Arizona was challenging Obama’s right to be on the ballot BEFORE it was cool.

  • Stevarious

    Doesn’t that mean that all the first dozen or so presidents were illegitimate, since they (and their parents) were all born British citizens?

  • Anonymous

    A natural born citizen is simply one who gained their citizenship through birth (either jus soli or jus sanguinis) rather than through naturalization.
    In 1862, the US Attorney General wrote:
    … our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
    Since 1795 (with the removal of the Naturalization Act of 1790), the legal category of “natural born citizen” has not existed, and there has been no basis to assume that anyone who gains citizenship through birth is not a “natural born citizen”.
    Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court, 1874:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    United States vs Wong Kim Ark, Supreme Court, 1898:
    The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
    Perkins vs Elg, Supreme Court, 1939:
    The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship mean the same thing and declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
    At the time that Chester A. Arthur ascended to the presidency in 1881, his father was a citizen of Ireland, and not of the US. No-one thought that this disqualified him from being a “natural born citizen”.

    • Otrame

      Yeah, but old’ Chet was white.

  • middlepathish

    There have been 60 or so attempts to do this since 2008. They all get thrown out. The birthers dont understand that you have to go through a substantial vetting process when you decide to run for president. The FBI, CIA, DHS, Social Security Administration, and on and on. They all determined that Obama was legitimately eligible to be sworn in as commander in chief of the United States of America. Running for president isnt some cracker-jack city council race. One thing I can say about them is, good thing their parents were anti-choice.