Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Candidates share views on Obama 'birther' movement [Kansas]
The Hays Daily News ^ | August 1, 2010 | Kaley Connor

Posted on 08/01/2010 7:36:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: Kansas58
However, this is NOT the hill we want all of our conservative candidates to die on, is it?

No, but isn't there some room for honesty on this subject? It is as though the long form is the birth certificate that shall not be named.

How about this as an answer to the question posed in the article:

"I think it is a good idea for states to require that future presidential candidates provide the best available documentation of their birth. That means a long form birth certificate, hospital records, and so on. The documentation should be provided before the primaries begin. "

And in response to the obvious follow-up by a liberal reporter,

"I think that Barack Obama is a United States citizen and is the legitimate President of the United States. "

Is there a serious downside to those responses?

21 posted on 08/01/2010 9:32:35 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TChad

I agree with you.
That is the way it should be handled!


22 posted on 08/01/2010 9:56:59 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wku man

Remember the word “statesman”?

Someone who puts principle before personal gain?

That’s what we need. Current politicians are slime lower than used car salesmen or pimps.

They’re disgusting thieves and they need all money cut just like a heroin addict needs to have his/her drugs cut off.

And for the politicians, no methadone. Cold turkey.


23 posted on 08/01/2010 10:22:09 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
That is the way it should be handled!

Thanks. I hope some states actually put such a requirement into effect, with "best available documentation" specifically defined. Without the "best available" stipulation, I bet Obama would just produce a COLB.

My guess is that Obama's long form and other birth documents show that his parents were not married, and at some point he calculated that revealing his illegitimate birth would limit his political future. But of course that is just a guess, and Americans should not have to guess about this subject.

24 posted on 08/01/2010 10:24:52 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well, I see these candidates as falling for the ‘is he a citizen’ canard, rather than the real question, ‘is he a natural born citizen.’ So long as the question is about citizenship vs. natural born citizenship, the Constitutional requirement to serve as POTUS, the obfuscation serves Obama.

He could be a citizen, he could be a native born citizen, and still the question would remain: is he a natural born citizen?


25 posted on 08/01/2010 10:38:04 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You can not expect a politician to go out on a limb, on this one.

Yes, I have serious doubts concerning Obama and I am sure Obama has lied, repeatedly, about his past.

However, this is NOT the hill we want all of our conservative candidates to die on, is it?


This is the biggest Constitutional crisis of our time. I expect any and all candidates to first and foremost defend the Constitution otherwise there is no point in having a Constitution. We night as well cede our democratic republic over to BO/BS and his fellow commies if acquiesce to their usurpation of the Constitution.
26 posted on 08/02/2010 12:00:34 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How about this response:

There is little or no likelihood that any legislative or judicial body is going to overturn the last election so the prime focus of our campaign should be directed at his socialist agenda.

Nevertheless, a large number of people do have legitimate Constitutional concerns regarding an almost invisible man related to “official” birth records, citizenship, college data, transcripts, thesis, dissertations, et al that for unexplained reasons have not been made available and in fact legal blockades are in place to prevent access.

Media and democrats trying to demonize these concerns as racist or conspiracy theorists have done a poor and biased job of thoroughly researching the available concerns in the extreme depth necessary to prove or discount these concerns. Your demand for answers on this subject is autocratic and misguided, typical of today’s arrogant and biased media. If your newspaper is so shallow and unpricipled as to discount the concerns of a number of our citizens, then I don’t want or need your endorsement.


27 posted on 08/02/2010 12:26:39 AM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
...Mann said Obama "needs to come forth with his papers and show everyone that he is an American citizen."

They still don't get it. The problem is "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".

28 posted on 08/02/2010 6:35:17 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad

That -— or his father was Frank Marshal Davis, the Communist!


29 posted on 08/02/2010 7:49:45 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Article says the ‘65 record is a renewal, meaning she must have had a passport before that. Why?

That blows my theory. Could she have had a passport with Madelyn or her father? Minor children used to be included on their parents' passports. Perhaps we should be asking for the parents' travel records.

30 posted on 08/02/2010 8:44:47 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (Southeast Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: missnry

Way out in yonder land, someone or some people know the truth, question is, will they come forward??


31 posted on 08/02/2010 12:41:43 PM PDT by gulfcoast6 (GOD IS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Its a ridiculous issue and will be used to attack and defeat any Tea Party or conservative candidate since there's no safe answer.

Well done, Birther morons and thanks for handing the country back to her enemies.

32 posted on 08/02/2010 12:47:04 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Article says the ‘65 record is a renewal, meaning she must have had a passport before that. Why?

Nope. The '65 application is the one that was destroyed. The application revealed by the FOIA request was a '68 renewal, which means that the '65 application could not have been a renewal, as passports then were only valid for 3 years and could only be renewed once.

33 posted on 08/02/2010 1:33:45 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
See post 33.
34 posted on 08/02/2010 1:34:12 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

35 posted on 08/02/2010 1:56:20 PM PDT by smokingfrog (freerepublic.com - Now 100% flag free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Isn’t that interesting. She says to notify Stanley Armour Dunham in case of her death or injury and lists his location as the Bank of Hawaii.

To my knowledge, her father never worked at the Bank of Hawaii. What does that mean? And she does not even list the relationship. THat’s very odd. If she wanted to give the Bank of Hawaii as their address, why not list her mother? Perhaps she and her mother did not get along at all. I can see how that could happen.


36 posted on 08/02/2010 2:08:30 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (Southeast Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Thanks. As with everything about this odd family, it just gets curiouser and couriouser.


37 posted on 08/02/2010 2:09:57 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (Southeast Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Yes, I saw that. That's her 1968 application to renew the passport granted in 1965. The renewal was granted for 2 years, until 1970.

What's your point?

38 posted on 08/02/2010 2:46:11 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
As with everything about this odd family, it just gets curiouser and couriouser.

Well, franky, I don't see anyting odd here. She applied for a passport in 1965, then had it rewnewed in 1968. Why do you find that so curious?

39 posted on 08/02/2010 2:47:55 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Deb; pissant; ExTexasRedhead; Sparko; trlambsr; True Republican Patriot; 3IDVET; STARWISE; ...
"Its a ridiculous issue and will be used to attack and defeat any Tea Party or conservative candidate since there's no safe answer.

Well done, Birther morons and thanks for handing the country back to her enemies."

Yeah, since the Constitution was written by Patriarchal, White, slave-owning men, it has no validity in the present day, right?

40 posted on 08/02/2010 2:48:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Master Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson