Skip to comments.Candidates share views on Obama 'birther' movement [Kansas]
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’s very disturbing, though, that because of papers like The Hutch News refusing to correct their published statements when called on it, even the candidates don’t know that Obama’s BC has been amended and therefore has no legal merit until a special procedure is taken to determine the value of the document - a procedure that can’t be done except when the BC is actually presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body.
IOW, Obama has no legal birth age, birthplace, or parents. None of that has ever been legally determined. There is not a soul on earth who can LEGALLY say how old he is, where he is born, or who his parents were unless there is a DIFFERENT document which says those things and has legal veracity.
IOW, unless he has a BC from someplace besides Hawaii, he has NO legal documentation.
There is NO WAY he “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009, as required by the 20th Amendment.
The fact that none of the newspapers will print that fact is disturbing.
Barack is one slick catfish! He refuses to release the one piece of evidence that tells us who his birth parents are and what hospital he was born in!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Bump for later read
It only adds to the mystery.
Curiosity and doubt used to be ingrained, in every “journalist” -—
Now, the political correctness in the newsroom has castrated any real “investigative journalism” -—
Unless the target is a conservative, of course!
She follows "I guess since it is an issue.." with "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.
So if Obama assured the Democrats that he was eligible, that would settle the issue for the entire country, right?
I know that is a concern, and I certainly understand that is a concern.
And you probably appreciate that it is a concern, and you also believe that it is a concern, and you think that it is a concern, and...
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.
You are wrong about that, but that's not unusual when you rely on your feelings instead of searching out facts.
Very unimpressive, not that the rest of those candidates sound much better.
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?
The mainstream press conistently misrepresents the question. The question is whether he is a natural born citizen. Whether he is a US citizen is a totally different matter. He can be a citizen of the US without being a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen means that BOTH of his parents were citizens of the US at the time of his birth. According to his autobiography (his own words) they were not. Therefore he is not eligible to be POTUS.
I wish that the media would write accurately when discussing this.
If the son of Adolph/Mao/Stalin isn't eligible, then why would the son of British Kenyan?
Not our president! Ineligible!
“You can not expect a politician to go out on a limb, on this one.”
I don’t expect politicians of either party to `go out on a limb,’ period. Ever.
Like the man said: they’re yellow.
I was taught in high school what a natural born citizen was, and that only a natural born citizen could be President. Have our schools really fallen that far?
Everything before 1965 was destroyed...Are we sure that Stanley Ann had a passport before 1965? She was very young.She didn’t need a passport to move to Hawaii. She didn’t need a passport to move back the WAshington to go to school. She wouldn’t have needed a passport to go to Canada where some people think that POTUS was born. She wouldn’t have needed a passport until she married Soetero and moved to Indonesia.
In all the reading I have done about this family, I have never heard that they traveled to other countries when SA was growing up. People in 1961 just didn’t travel all over the place at a drop of a hat. We didn’t have charge cards to finance such things: you had to have cash.
If she didn’t travel to Kenya she would have no need for a passport.
The rule of law is a hill we will all die on, if we don’t find a way to get some of it. And that’s what this is about. These candidates are all saying they trust that the government did this and that.
Anybody at this point who says, “I trust that the government.....” is way, way too naive to represent me. They just don’t get it.
I have seen government, media, and law enforcement either turn a blind eye and refuse to investigate crimes, or else commit the crimes themselves - at every level.
No way in heck will anybody get me to believe that this is not a serious issue. Without the rule of law what difference does it make who we elect or what they say they’ll concentrate on? Without the rule of law - without laws being enforced - the whole legislative branch is a total waste of time.
If these people don’t understand that, then they don’t have even a basic grasp of how our Founders framed this nation, how it is supposed to work, or why.
It’s depressing to even think about this. How I ache for people who get it and who aren’t afraid to stand above the crowd and tell the world that they get it - and then actually lead as if they get it.
Article says the ‘65 record is a renewal, meaning she must have had a passport before that. Why?
“Madam of the Swamp” Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond-Secretary of the DNC, sent out TWO...count ‘em..TWO different Documents of Certification for the “Won’s” eligibility.
Something STINKS in the swamp and they’re covering their asses with the media’s help.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
This is true.. How ever this reminds me of the movie, the final conflict with Sam Niel as the devils son. Where no body does anything to uncover who or what he is. And if they do well in the movies case they come to a horrible end.. With reality they just get destroyed in the press.. So I agree a bit... It is a risky position.
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?
I agree with you.
That is the way it should be handled!
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.
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.
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?
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.
They still don't get it. The problem is "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".
That -— or his father was Frank Marshal Davis, the Communist!
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.
Way out in yonder land, someone or some people know the truth, question is, will they come forward??
Well done, Birther morons and thanks for handing the country back to her enemies.
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.
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.
Thanks. As with everything about this odd family, it just gets curiouser and couriouser.
What's your point?
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?
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?
What is odd is that she gave a bogus address for her father on her application. Actually, she gave her mother’s address, but used her father’s name. I think that’s odd. Does that represent a rift between her and her mother? Does that represent that she didn’t KNOW his address? These people seem to play fast and loose with addresses. The newspaper birth announcement listed an address for the young couple where they NEVER lived. They are/were odd, and I’m sure that everyone who ever knew them would attest to that. In fact, they already have many times over.
Except he has no supporting evidence he is and refuses to show any; unless, of course, it’s made up.
Well, it’s a non-issue if someone just says,
“I advocate ALL records-—birth, medical, and educational-—of ANY candidate for president must be entirely open and public.” There. Case solved.
For what it’s worth , the passport records indicated that they were not original, but a renewed one. The original would have been issued around 1961 . Approximately the time obama was born and Ann was thought of having gone to Kenya. The release of a renewed record only adds more questions to the issue. We still don’t know if she was in Kenya or hawaii when barry was born.
I guess you’re in the camp that thinks it’s fine to spit on the Constitution.
Glad you’ve made your position clear, anyway.
Yep -- and not a thinking Constitutionalist in the bunch.
Why is it so hard to answer honestly by saying that they have seen no evidence that he is a natural born citizen.
Anyone who spends a little time reading butterdezillion’s comments on FR - and she has a blog, too - will see that your assessment is entirely, 100% wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Link to one of butter’s excellent comments today, and the comment itself (more good discussion on the thread):
Duration of pregnancy, birth weight, and legitimacy are the 3 items required in the medical portion of the CDCs Standard Birth Certificate for 1961. Everything required by the standard BC was also required by Hawaii law so no BC could be legally complete unless it contained those items.
Those items arent even printed on the long-form BCs, much less the COLBs, so Obama probably thought he could just add it to complete the BC and nobody would ever know. But the HDOH Administrative Rules say that any non-typo amendment made to the birth certificate has to be noted on any BC they print - including the abbreviated BC (COLB).
Thats why Obama had to make a forged COLB even though he could have a genuine one printed any time. The genuine COLB would have note that he added the birth weight in 2006. And he would have a 2006 BC#, because the BC was only completed when that birth weight was added.
And that missing birth weight is doubly problematic because it would have been so easy to resolve if Obama had actually been born in Hawaii. They had 30 days after the birth to get the baby to a doctor so that medical information could be added to complete the record. Youve noted that as far as we can tell SAD was in Seattle 2 weeks after the birth. Its still possible that she had the baby in Hawaii and then immediately traveled to Seattle. But if they went to the trouble of applying for a Hawaii BC for him I would think theyd have the baby examined so the BC could be completed - unless the child COULDNT be examined by a Hawaii doctor because the baby wasnt IN Hawaii, even during the 2 weeks before SAD was in Seattle.
Based on all the responses the HDOH has given, adding a birth weight is the only amendment that fits the responses. And it fits with other observed phenomena which I am not at liberty to reveal at this point.
I wont reveal exactly what responses the HDOH have given which lead to this conclusion, because if the HDOH destroys the embedded transaction record for Obamas file as they have destroyed other original evidence such as the original hand-written birth index for 1961 (or at least they claim it no longer exists), then the responses Ive got on an external drive may be the only evidence left of what was REALLY done with his file. That is the danger when the fox guards the henhouse.
The fox IS guarding the henhouse and we all know it. Thats why its so outrageous that this passport FOIA response refers to records they imply may have been destroyed, even though such records are required to be permanent. At this point I think most of us realize that every government office is capable of breaking laws on Obamas behalf, just as (so far) the Social Security Administration, Selective Service Administration, HDOH, and State Department have all apparently done - corrupting every official record that may exist for Obama.
Regarding Obamas doctor in Chicago, his doctor at the time the amendment was made was David Scheiner, a Columbia University grad who protested the healthcare reform bill because it didnt totally nationalize healthcare.
His partner is Quentin Young, one of the founders of the Democratic Socialists of America, which under the counsel of Francis Fox Piven (co-author of the Cloward-Piven Plan to overthrow America) morphed into The New Party in order to unite with the dems in an effort for the communists to take over the democratic party. Obama was a signed member of The New Party. As you probably know, Neil Abercrombie was also thick with the DSA. Quentin Young was at the party at Bill Ayers house where Obama was inducted into the Chicago political scene.
So no, I dont believe that it is hyperbole to refer to Obamas communist doctor. The communists in Chicago were all thick with each other, and that includes Obamas doctor and his medical partner.
Based on the list of documents that can be used to furnish missing info on BCs and the clues given by the HDOHs own responses, I am almost certain that a page from a medical record was used to make this amendment.
We know that Obama used SOME kind of record to get into kindergarten, get his drivers license, get a passport, etc. He didnt have anything from Hawaii or Washington so it had to be from somewhere else. My suspicion is that Obama has a valid BC from wherever he was really born - whether that is Canada or Kenya. That BC was probably used to create a medical history for him which is in his medical file. By transferring the birth weight info from a Kenyan (for instance) BC to a medical file Obamas doctor can launder the info so its original source is not known.
If you look in Dreams youll see that the details of Obamas parents getting married, where they lived, etc are all very blurry. But there is one reference that is very concrete: the reference to Obamas birth weight. If Obama and/or Ayers knew a birth weight for Obama it was from some other document besides the Hawaii BC if that was the item Obama amended. That would be evidence that there is a non-US birth certificate that SOMEBODY (specifically Obama, Ayers, and probably Scheiner & Young) has known all along.
A worthy party would demand proof and not let the opposition paint them as fools for asking.
It’s never been out of line in the past to expect the birth certificate and much, much more.
“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.”
Hawaii law provided for legitimation - that is, when unmarried parents got married they could get a whole new birth certificate made up to replace the original which was then destroyed - with the new one being exactly as if they had been married when the child was born.
And Obama says in his books that the facts regarding that marriage were murky. There was no embarrassment at acknowledging that SAD was pregnant outside of wedlock. In fact, one of the only decent things Obama ever did was to empathize with Bristol Palin’s plight because his mom had been in the same situation. So it doesn’t seem like that would be something he’d be afraid to reveal.
And the HDOH has actually given other clues regarding an amendment that Obama made to his BC. If the HDOH has answered requests accurately, it just about has to be his birth weight that he added to the BC to complete it in 2006. What he has to hide is that he wasn’t seen by a Hawaii doctor within 30 days of birth to have an estimate of the birth weight submitted by the doctor so the BC could be completed. The obvious question anybody who saw that amendment noted on his COLB would be “Why did it take 45 years for him to get a birth weight added to his BC, if he was really born in Hawaii?”
And especially since he has also claimed (apparently, on White House stationery with a raised seal) that he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. If his birth weight was only added to the record to make it complete in 2006 then it totally blows away his claim of being born at Kapiolani.
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.