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
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
It only adds to the mystery.
Cowards!
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.
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.