Death of a Birther...bill

The following words are incredibly painful for me to utter, but I must. Well done, Gov. Brewer. I don't think much of you, but this is one thing you got absolutely right. Vetoing that ridiculous, ill-considered "birther" bill was the only sensible thing to do. You have saved your state hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars in litigation costs. The litigation could well have been endless since the bill allowed any state citizen who disagreed with the Secretary of State's determination of any individual candidate's qualifications to be on the ballot.

Not to mention that the standards of proof required by the plain language of the bill would have left many U.S. citizens unable to qualify for the Arizona ballot, myself included. I don't have anything like a "long form" birth certificate. My only and original birth certificate lists the bare minimum information. I have no idea what hospital I was born in. I certainly don't know of any witnesses, except the two we can all guess were there. I don't have any baptismal or circumcision records. I seriously doubt I could track down any medical records from my birth many decades ago. (It's not polite to ask how many decades ago, but I will tell you I am eligible to run for president.) Rest assured, if I had wanted to get on the ballot as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate and the Secretary of State of Arizona told me my official, certified birth certificate from Massachusetts wasn't good enough, I would absolutely have pursued every legal avenue to challenge that decision. And I don't even want to be president. I'm guessing somebody who really does want to hold that office would fight even harder and longer than I would.

Even before Brewer vetoed the bill, though, the sitting Secretary of State in Arizona had already indicated that he was going to read the bill's requirement that the birth certificate include the name of the hospital, doctor, witnesses, etc. as an "if applicable" section. The Secretary also stated that the certificate issued by the Obama campaign lo so many years ago would have sufficed, assuming he got a properly signed, certified copy instead of just a photocopy. Which, of course, is the only sensible answer. Because it's a legal, valid birth certificate. Good enough to get him a US passport and security clearance at the highest levels.

Can we please now put an end to all this birther nonsense? The President has shown us a birth certificate, the only kind he can get now from Hawaii. It's properly signed and certified. It says he was born in Hawaii.  What possible reason is there for any thinking, rational person to conclude a signed, certified official document from the state of Hawaii isn't sufficient proof of a person's place and date of birth?