GOP Texas Congressman: I don't know if Obama is a Citizen AUDIO

by TheCameraObscura | June 24, 2009 at 03:51 pm
629 views | 24 Recommendations | 38 comments

Photos

Rep. Randy Neugebauer

Rep. Randy Neugebauer

see larger image

uploaded by TheCameraObscura

What do the global warming deniers and the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists all have in common?  They're Republicans!

Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) bill aimed at casting doubt over the citizenship status of President Obama appears to be gaining momentum within the Republican Party.

The bill would require candidates for President to supply their birth certificates to the Federal Elections Commission to be eligible to run.

Speaking to the Texas-based Chad Hasty radio show yesterday, Rep. Randy
Neugebauer (R-TX) explained  how he "doesn't know" if Obama was born in the U.S. 

Q: So you believe the President is a US citizen?

(R-TX NEUGEBAUER: You know I don’t know. I’ve never
seen him produce documents that would say one way or another.


Contrary to the Congressman's wild claim, Obama has repeatedly produced proof as
has the state of Hawaii.
recommend This comment thread is now closed
3
Rhonda J Mangus

Thanks for this, TheCameraObscura! It seems to be the case that President Obama has produced a short form version of a Birth Certificate; it may not include all information from the "original", if one does in fact exist.


14
Karen Hatter

An entire network of websites online feed those who have come to be called 'birthers'.

White supremacist James von Brunn, charged in the murder of the guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C., is a birther, having posted his thoughts on the President's citizenship at a number of internet sites, including the conservative website Free Republic.

3
QueensHart

another "blame"...Of course the oppostion wants the whole truth.  We have elected someone

who is a global king wannabe.  All the signs of the deceit he got a way with are unbelievable.

He is imploding now under the pressure.  He never ran a business and he is now doing what?

I just have to post this whole article for I know you won't click and read it but some will!

My "sister" wrote it!

 

On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell, waiting to see who wins before picking a side.

Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing. (ACORN must be involved.)

Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the loon Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, "may not be as great as advertised."

 

Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to the "boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.

Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" -- peace be upon him -- "that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hilter as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's with Obama?

Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five speeds in reverse.

You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are.

More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")

 Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hilter as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's with Obama?

 

Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five speeds in reverse.



You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are.

More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")

As our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) explained, "It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling."

You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side. (It also wouldn't do much for Al Franken in Minnesota.)

LIBERALS HATE AMERICA SO THEY ASSUME EVERYONE ELSE DOES!

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran, like the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade."

If it were true that a U.S. president should stay neutral between freedom-loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama speaking in support of the protesters now? Are liberals no longer worried about the parade of horribles they claimed would ensue if the U.S. president condemned the mullahs?

Obama's tough talk this week proves that his gentle words last week about Ahmadinejad and Iran's "supreme leader" (peace be upon him) constituted, at best, spinelessness and, at worst, an endorsement of the fraud.

Moreover, if the better part of valor is for America to stand neutral between freedom and Islamic oppression, why are liberals trying to credit Obama's ridiculous Cairo speech for emboldening the Iranian protesters?

The only reason that bald contradiction doesn't smack you in the face is that it is utterly preposterous that Obama's Cairo speech accomplished anything -- anything worthwhile, that is. Not even the people who say that believe it.

The only reaction to Obama's Cairo speech in the Middle East is that the mullahs probably sighed in relief upon discovering that the U.S. president is a coward and an imbecile.

Two weeks ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was exulting over the "free and fair" national election in Lebanon, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah and voted in the "U.S.-supported coalition." (Apparently support from America is not deemed the vote-killer in Lebanon that it allegedly is in Iran.)

To justify his Times-expensed airfare to Beirut, Friedman added some local color, noting that "more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 ... this free election would not have happened."

That's what Lebanese voters said.

But Friedman also placed a phone call to a guy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- which he didn't have to go to Lebanon for -- to get a quote supporting the ludicrous proposition that Obama's Cairo speech was responsible for the favorable election results in Lebanon.

"And then here came this man (Obama)," Mr. Carnegie Fund said, "who came to them with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and dignity and economic progress and education, and this person indicated that this little prison that people are living in here was not the whole world. That change was possible."

I think the fact that their Muslim brethren are now living in freedom in a democratic Iraq might have made the point that "change was possible" and "this little prison" is "not the whole world" somewhat more forcefully than a speech apologizing for Westerners who dislike the hijab.

Obama -- and America -- are still living off President Bush's successes in the war on terrorism. For the country's sake, may those successes outlast Obama's attempt to dismantle them.

By Ann Coulter

3
Rhonda J Mangus

Karen, I hope you don't mean to imply that anyone who questions President Obama's birthplace is a White Supremacist?


2
Roy C

Said as someone who has that background in philosophy.

10
Karen Hatter

My statement is what it is, that Mr. von Brunn is a birther who shares the same belief with others and to indicate any additional implication is erroneous.

2
Rhonda J Mangus

Thanks for the clarification, Karen!


6
Karen Hatter

You're welcome, Rhonda.

However, it should be known that Stormfront, the largest White nationalist/supremacist site on the internet, has devoted numerous threads to the alleged birth certificate issue so, it is an issue that tends to rally and galvanize them.

4
Rhonda J Mangus

Karen, that may be the case.  Nonetheless, I do take issue with the fact that anyone legitimately questioning an issue can be dubbed (in this case) a 'birther' or thought to be a White Supremacist. Conspiracy is very real, falsely producing documents is common, and raising questions when in doubt is a natural occurrence of a healthy and questioning mind.

Also, and again, it does appear that President Obama has not produced an original birth certificate (long form), but instead 'produced' the short form version. I suppose, what that means (if anything) remains to be known. Let one hope that it is not what the Conspiracy Theorists believe it to be.



11
Karen Hatter

Rhonda, my first comment at the beginning of this exchange was clarified.

It is not I who has dubbed those who question the issue of the President's birth 'birthers'. Indeed, there is a group that have dubbed themselves the appellation.

I used the term 'birther' for expediency rather than writing a longer string of words to attempt to identify those raising the alleged birth certificate issue.

I did not state anywhere that anyone who alleges there are issues with President Obama's place of birth were White nationalists/supremacists.   

My previous statement highlights there is a very vocal element on the internet at that hate site and others, by the way, within the White nationalist/supremacist movement, that have also embraced that theory, making them have commonality with others that raise the same issue.

2
Rhonda J Mangus

Karen, I understand that you clarified your first comment. Again, thank you.

I thank you as well for clarifying that you used the "term 'birther' for expediency rather than writing a longer string of words to attempt to identify those raising the alleged birth certificate issue."

It is true that while you did not explicitly "...state anywhere that anyone who alleges there are issues with President Obama's place of birth were White nationalists/supremacists.",  it is my opinion that your statement could be interpreted in this way, and is the reason that I questioned it.

Thank you as well for clarifying that your "...previous statement highlights there is a very vocal element on the internet at that hate site and others, by the way, within the White nationalist/supremacist movement, that have also embraced that theory, making them have commonality with others that raise the same issue." 

Yet it remains that I do take issue with the fact that anyone legitimately questioning an issue can be dubbed (in this case) a 'birther'* or thought to be a White Supremacist. Conspiracy is very real, falsely producing documents is common, and raising questions when in doubt is a natural occurrence of a healthy and questioning mind.

And again, it does appear that President Obama has not produced an original birth certificate (long form), but instead 'produced' the short form version. I suppose, what that means (if anything) remains to be known. Let one hope that it is not what the Conspiracy Theorists believe it to be.

*Indeed, there is a group that have dubbed themselves the appellation -- what group would this be? Thanks!


10
Karen Hatter

Rhonda, any statements uttered or written are heard or understood through each individual's cognizant understanding and view of what has been presented when it was spoken or read.

In the case of that with which you take issue and have restated to me here, obviously, the legitimacy of questioning President Obama's birth certificate, would be in the eye(s) of the beholder(s) and the perceptions of those considering the issue and those known to be associated with the issue and that may possibly be a formidable challenge to address.

WorldNetDaily has been referencing 'birthers'. It seems that the term has been used as an umbrella for various elements.  

1
Rhonda J Mangus

Karen, thanks! And thanks for reminding me that "any statements uttered or written are heard or understood through each individual's cognizant understanding and view of what has been presented when it was spoken or read". 

That said, a fascinating read, The Obama Time-Line.


1
Rory Cripps

KAREN: It doesn't take much to rally and galvanize members of Stormfront does it? Ha!  Perhaps some of the questions about certain particulars of President Obam's birth records are legitimate. I certainly don't know if they are or not and I'm not taking sides here. However I'll say this: If the shoe were on the other foot, we'd  be subjected to the same outcry on the part of certain Democrats and leftist organizations-- perhaps even more so! What concerns me though is that President Obama's birth records wouldn't have become an issue  to begin with if those records were in proper order. And why was it not seen to that  his birth records were in proper order and as clear as a bell during the time that he was running for the presidency?

4
Roy C

Uh, when Obama went to live in Indonesia, his step-father adopted him and his mother became an Indonesian citizen.

This meant that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and that citizenship allowed him to go to the Indonesian schools where he was listed as an Indonesian.

Just exactly when did he retake the oath of citizenship as an American?

This argument that all republicans are birthers or its opposite, that all birthers are republicans and racists, and that anyone who has questions about this is a racist or leaning in that direction is itself racist.

In fact, the best lawyer on this is the ex-head of the democratic party of Montgomery County, an ex-assistant attorney general of Pennsylvania. His name is Philip Berg. He was for Hillary Clinton.

So, there goes the "republican argument".

Even left-leaning Camille Paglia has asked Obama to address these issues.

2
QueensHart

Yes, Thanks Roy that is a clarification and a fact. 

9
TheCameraObscura

Umm, sorry, Roy, Obama was born on American soil. As a minor he could not refute his American citizenship.

And there is such a thing as "dual citizenship."

Obama HAS addressed these issues.

3
Roy C

What hospital has a record of his birth?

No, you lose your citizenship when you are a minor and your mother renounces hers and becomes an Indonesian.

There was no dual citizenship deal involved, as far as I know. None of us are experts in this area, but the idea that this question has been laid to rest is simply not true.

Obama has spent 800,000 dollars fighting when he could just produce the birth certificate and end the fight..

9
TheCameraObscura

Roy, are you serious?  Are you actually implying the entire state of Hawaii, including the Governor, is part of some birth certificate conspiracy?  Seems to me the burden to prove this insanity rests on your shoulders.

Obama HAS ALREADY produced his birth certificate.  he has spent money fighting wacko lawsuits from wackos, such as Philip J. Berg, a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Roy, just to show there are no hard feelings, I will buy you a tin foil hat for your birthday, that is if you can prove you were born in the U.S.


4
Rhonda J Mangus

TheCameraObscura, if I may play 'butt-in-ski':) President Obama NEVER produced an ORIGINAL birth certificate (long form) to my knowledge. What he did 'produce' was a Certification of Live Birth (short form)--it simply utilizes the information from the ORIGINAL-- therein is the difference.

The link provided in my first comment above will explain the differences.





1
Roy C

Yes, even if he was born in Hawaii, going to Indonesia, having his mother become an Indonesian citizen, made him an Indonesian citizen, and allowed him to go to the Indonesian state school where he was listed as an Indonesian citizen, the only way that he would have been allowed to attend, and he was listed as a Muslim as well.

Click to see the image of his Indonesian school certificate.

This point has nothing to do with Hawaii. He has not produced his birth certificate. He has spent almost a million dollars to avoid doing that.

What he has done is produce his registration of live birth, but that doesn't mean that he was born in Hawaii.

Also, I have never changed tone or insulted anyone here about this. Why can't you simply argue the facts and the law, especially if you are so certain of being right.

Yes, the governor has placed his documents under seal. We also have not seen Obama's passport, his grades from college and law school, and other documents.

2
QueensHart

An entire network of websites online which feed those who have come to be called 'birthers'. (Karen Hatter)

There is an entire network of websites online feed those who have come to be called seekers of truth and peace and love..".birthers" for honesty....NOT RACISM AND HATE.(Queenshart)

8
Karen Hatter

O...M...G...! Enough Already!

2
QueensHart

Are you talking to me?  What makes you think you are Mother Superior here?  You constantly

reprimand if anyone says anything you do not like.  What I said is true .

O>>>M>>>>G>>>BACK ATCHA

 

4
Karen Hatter

An interesting perspective article, from December 2008, regarding the actions of elements before and after the 2008 presidential election that continued organizing around the birth certificate issue in an effort to thwart the inauguration of President Obama.

0
TheCameraObscura

Thanks Karen!

7
Karen Hatter

You are welcome, TCO.

Also of interest:

Factcheck.org, which states members of its staff have seen and held the President's original birth certificate and Politifact.com put this claim to bed last year.

This has become one of the most enduring conspiracy theories clung to by some, in conjunction with the false claim of the President being a Muslim, since Senator Barack Obama began his run for the office of President of the United States, at least two years ago.

2
Rhonda J Mangus

Karen, a link to the 'birthers' and the story of how they came to become known as such. Always enlightening -- thank you:)!




12
Karen Hatter

I find the suggestion in the FAQ by this group, The Birthers, opining African Americans might riot if President Obama were to be removed from office, racist inference and conjecture of the worst kind.

That Q&A exchange ignores the fact that President Obama was elected by a majority within many demographics in the United States, including Whites, Hispanic/Latino, young, old, women, men, socio-economics, not just African Americans yet this group offers a perception of some unstated, possible predisposition for the African American community to riot, which glaringly indicates that predisposition would be sharing the same skin color or perceived heritage. 

4
Rhonda J Mangus

Karen, I don't see this as an unreasonable question or response given the history of race relations in the United States.The Birthers are not racist and were responding to the most frequently asked questions by persons who wondered why they (birthers) did not support President Obama.

"Question: If Obama is removed won’t the African-Americans will riot?

Answer: That is always a possibility, but America has survived riots before. The real question is should America give up because of threats? The real danger is not rioting if Obama is legally removed, because the real threat to America is a possible civil war if he remains without clearly demonstrating he is a natural born citizen, especially now that both Obama and the congress are passing laws that appear to defy our Constitution. "

It would probably be helpful to readers if they read the entire FAQ Q&A at the link provided.

Given that the FAQ Q&A addresses the most frequently asked questions, it is
very likely the case that "..the fact that President Obama was elected by a majority within many demographics in the United States,..." did not arise.

How The Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well.




This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Rhonda J Mangus
First Flagged at 5:35 PM, Jun 24, 2009 by Rhonda J Mangus
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (24)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from