Posted on 08/01/2010 7:36:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There's been much in the news lately regarding the "birther movement," or more specifically, whether the Big First congressional candidates believe President Obama is a legitimate U.S. citizen.
The controversy began when the Hutchinson News withdrew their endorsement for Tracey Mann, following radio comments in which Mann said Obama "needs to come forth with his papers and show everyone that he is an American citizen."
The Hays Daily News asked all six Republican candidates to weigh in on the matter.
Here are their responses:
Jim Barnett: "First of all, there are many important issues facing our nation. When I see President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come up with policies like cap and trade, and cram Obamacare through, I wonder what planet they're coming from. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary that he is not a United States citizen."
Sue Boldra: "I guess since it is an issue, and because much of what has happened in Congress has been behind closed doors... maybe, just to quell everyone's controversy, perhaps he ought to just show it... I think it's a non-issue. When I was teaching government, that was one of the roles of the political party, was to make sure the candidates presented are acceptable and eligible. I assume during the vetting process he would have assured the party of that. I know that is a concern, and I certainly understand that is a concern. But on the other hand, I always felt too, that if his mother is a Kansan then he would be (a citizen) by original birth."
Marck Cobb: "I feel confident that both the party elements and also the government verified the requirements of office before permitting anyone to be sworn into office. Therefore, I do not question that issue. You can always add the caveat that if you have factual evidence that there is fraud committed, then certainly you're entitled to present that evidence and proceed with the legal routes, which would be impeachment, basically, if it can be confirmed. But I believe the government has done their duty to make sure they have met the requirements. I think the issue has been somewhat resolved. If I understand it, they've taken back their statement, which I think is an example of just being a little shallow and inexperienced. And you need to have the ability to have that strong voice with your background of experience if you're going to be able to convince others that you know what you're talking about."
Tim Huelskamp: "I believe Barack Obama is a citizen, and I oppose him on the basis of his liberal radical agenda. And we will take on his agenda and the agenda of Speaker Pelosi. I think it's a real non-issue and at this point that some candidates in this race want to focus on that instead of taking on his push on Obamacare and... another $10 trillion of debt the president is proposing, I think it's a distraction. I've heard them twice, both of them -- Tracey Mann and Sue Boldra -- both express concerns about the citizenship issue, and I think, again, that's a distraction... If they're going to focus on that, I think the bigger issues get lost."
Tracey Mann: "It's not an issue. We need to be focusing on Republicans taking control of the House so we can cut spending, create jobs, and get our country back on track. Those are the important issues we're facing right now."
Rob Wasinger: "I think, if you watch the video from the Elkhart forum, I was the only candidate that said that we need to keep our focus on fighting President Obama's socialized medicine, his cap and trade proposals, his new consumer financial protection reform bill that's the most sweeping financial reform legislation that has come before the Congress since the Great Depression. All of the other candidates, I think, thought that the birther question was a legitimate question. I do not think it is. We could spend two, three years fighting to see Obama's birth certificate, and be no further toward our goal. We've got to fight him on his agenda. I mean, I'm not happy about the fact that President Obama is the president, but he is. If he signs something, it becomes law and affects us. So we've got to fight him on the merits of his agenda and not waste our time on red herrings."
It means that every Republican candidate from now till November will have to field birth certificate questions. And it means they're going to have to come up with vague answers that alienate the least number of voters.
Sad that candidates cannot even take a stand on the fundamental issue of following the rules, or the “rule of law.”
The battle is already over if (since) we are willing to let those oppposed to constitutional government constantly redefine the battleground, and fight over the “issues” in the context they determine.
Losers, all.
Your belief is incorrect. Go look at the pdf's of the document for yourself. If you had done so, you would know that it is a renewal application filed in 1968 to renew a passport originally issued in 1965. There is no evidence she every held a passport before 1965.
because Obamas family in Kenya says Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama was there when Obama was born
Not a single member of his family has stated this.
and government officials in Kenya state Obama was born there.
One or two members of Kenya's parliament, who have no direct knowledge of his birth, have made off-hand remarks to this effect in political speaches. Given that these poeple have no special access to information about his birth, I don't see why you would assume they knew what they were talking about.
Nope. The original passport in question was issued in 1965, and the pdf posted above is form 1968. Back then, a passport was good for 3 years, and then could be renewed for two years.
If thats true, she had a passport before she gave Birth to our Natioinal nightmare.
The evidence suggests otherwise.
What evidence?
Yeah well how convenient that the documents that could put that to rest one way or the other are missing. Do you think they are missing because they could support your and Obama's position?
To a conspiracy theorist, the absence of evidence supporting the conspiracy is always viewed as part of the conspiracy itself.
Which is why Obama loves this issue and wouldn't want it to go away. Birthers are working for his benefit.
Yep. Nothing makes Democrat candidates smile more than watching their Republican opponents squirm under the spotlight on the birth certificate issue while they attempt to give stuttering, mealy-mouthed answers they can hopefully back-pedal away from.
No wonder Ken Buck called birthers "dumba**es".
The 1968 passport renewal application that was recently made public pursuant to Apuzzo's FOIA request.
That suggests nothing other than that a passport was issued to SAD in 1965. How do you think it suggests no passport was issued prior?
Chris Strunk is the author and recipient of the FOIA request as posted at Apuzzo.
And to law enforcement it's known as "obstruction of justice".
Yes, but we know it couldn't have been issued persuant to a renewal application, since in those days passports could only be renewed once.
How do you think it suggests no passport was issued prior?
It means that she filed an initial passport application in 1965. Given her age, that is suggestive, though I admit not conclusive, evidence that it was her first passport.
ROFLMAO....get real she was a virgin too I suppose? If they only showed her 1971 application that means she didn't have one before then? Why are the only documents missing the ones that could prove she did or did not have a prior passport and whether Obie was on her passport or not? Coincidence? NO IT IS A CRIME.
And for a govt attorney to state that they might have been destroyed is an outright falsehood unsupported and lacking by a citation of the administrative rules concerning destruction because the rules state retention is mandatory for 100 years. Documents are missing and a coverup is feebly attemped but has the Department of State reported it as a crime and started and investigation? WHY NOT? is everyone corrupt or incompetent in the Obama administration? Magic Bullet all over again.
If they think their will not be a Warren Type Commision with uncorruptable investigators (this time)they are mistaken. They are buying time to implement their plans they cannot hide forever unless they can control everything. That is apparently their plan.
The US and Hawaiian governments are not believable, you know it and I know it and more and more people every day are realizing it.
Exactly --
She turned 18 in November of 1960, so it's highly unlikely she applied for a passport before 1961. It is also highly unlikely she applied for a passport between 1961 and 1965, since her 1965 application is not a renewal.
It is, of course, theoretically possible that she applied for her first passport in 1961, that it expired in 1964, and then she applied for a new in 1965, but that scenario seems pretty implausible to me, though I agree it cannot be conclusively ruled just yet.
If they only showed her 1971 application that means she didn't have one before then?
Of course not, since it is established that she traveled abroad before then.
Why are the only documents missing the ones that could prove she did or did not have a prior passport and whether Obie was on her passport or not?
All that is aknowledged to be missing are her passport applications. The government has not stated that the records showing when and where she was issued passports are missing. Unfortunately, Apuzzo did not ask for these records in his FOIA request. He only requested her applications.
The ObamaConspiracy webmaster has requested these records, and I suspect they will be released in due time, and I'd be willing to bet quite a sum that they will show the 1965 passport was her first.
Coincidence? NO IT IS A CRIME.
So which law is being violated, exactly?
And for a govt attorney to state that they might have been destroyed is an outright falsehood unsupported and lacking by a citation of the administrative rules concerning destruction because the rules state retention is mandatory for 100 years.
Please provide a citation for the rules you mention so I can read them for myself. I don't believe they say way what you think they say.
If they think their will not be a Warren Type Commision with uncorruptable investigators (this time)they are mistaken.
We'll see who's mistaken, but I'm not putting my money on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.