Posted on 02/08/2010 9:40:03 AM PST by Shellybenoit
Joseph Farrah's speech at this Tea Party Convention this week brought the "Birther Movement" back into the forefront at least for a few days. At the convention Farrah said that the "Birther movement" was a key part of the Tea Party agenda, a thought that seemed to be rejected by most of the people at the convention. After his speech Andrew Breitbart and Farrah had a heated conversation about the speech and Brietbart's correct assertion that the birther argument is "not a winning issue.” (read more about their spat at Hot Air)
I guess I can be considered a "reformed birther," When I first started seeing the evidence during the campaign it made sense to me. That was until I saw the Barack Obama birth announcements that ran in local Hawaiian news papers. For those to be fake, Obama's mom would have to have seen into the future known he was going to run for president, and planted those announcements in 1961. The only other explanation was that someone at the DNC performed one of those Star Trek maneuvers, when they fly toward the sun to pick up speed, circle the sun and come back in the past. Since neither of those were rational explanations, right after the 2008 conventions, I published an anti-Birther post and took all of the other birth certificate stories of this site.
A story in today's Daily Beast caused me to remember where I first learned of the controversy surrounding the president's birth from disenfranchised Democrats, the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass), former Clinton supporters who did not support Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
Back in 1961, it was still frowned upon to have a child out of wedlock.
So it makes sense that Yid With a Lid would become a Squasher now.
I'll stay a Birther, todah.
The blog writes:
In the early summer of '08, message boards on sites like PUMAParty.com began lighting up with the ultimate reversal-of-fortune fantasy—that their party's nomination could be overturned on constitutional grounds. "Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President!"The Puma Party blog post by SShelton referenced there is dated 7/9/2008.
Well, as an early-birther I bring other evidence: Our own mighty Free Republic 'Long Thread' covering the topic as fully as any other sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2040486/posts
That thread started on 7/3/2008, and I do recollect that it was not the earliest of mentions of the topic of Obama's eligibility -- I think that goes back to May 2008 and maybe earlier.
The root of the Long Thread is a blog article in the IsraeliInsider blog: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12956.htm, that dates also to 7/2/2003 and references the questions as to the COLB which had been posted at the Daily Kos a few days prior.
For the Squashers to blame the Birthers on the Pumas is pure historical revisionism.
No, but up to this point the birth issue was met with resistance. Let’s elect conservatives who can pursue it. The people are getting nowhere with this and our elected officials are just as corrupt and refuse to address the issue. What do you recommend? File more suits to be tossed out of courts. Many people have never heard of this, and cannot comprehend that we would allow an illigitimate person to occupy the white house. They watch the MSM and believe what they are told.
I dont believe it is a non-issue. I think there will be a time and place for it. The Tea Party Movement is not the time or place.
The same lame arguments over and over from the afterBirthers
Agreed and the SSN question is a small part of the documentation we should be able to see. That was the gist of point...school records, passports, even his senate (IL) records are closed.
The author is not familiar with Hawaiian law at the time. The grandparents could have easily vouched for his Hawaiian birth without the birth taking place in Hawaii. The motivation would have been US citizenship, and is not far-fetched.
'Could have happened' and 'did happen' are two different claims, but for an office of this importance should require further scrutiny.
He’s hiding in plain sight.
He has very carefully left no paper trail at all. What little there is has pages missing.
There is a reason for it, but its hard to get any journalist interested. Knock on a few doors. Talk to people who knew his grandparents; what were they like? Talk to people who knew his mom. What was she like?
What citizenship did he claim in college? No one knows. What passport did he travel on when he went to Asia? No one knows. Who paid for Harvard? Who wrote his books? Actually, that one we pretty much do know, but no one is interested.
What did he do during all those years that no one can account for? You know, that big empty space where his resume is supposed to be? There is a very interesting story in there somewhere but again, no one is interested.
They can put 3000 newsies in Wasilla digging through Sarah’s laundry, and sealed records of O’s opponents magically unseal themselves. But O’s paper trail remains untouched and untouchable.
Dead letter.
Tea Party is toast.
And Farah is hungering so much for pride in the ultimate expose’ that he might forget about how overdoing it would be self defeating. Of the historic tributaries to the new Tea Party, natural American birth skepticism was certainly one. But if Farah can’t be persuaded to soft pedal that in favor of more universally winning issues (and Bummer certainly provides us with a bounteous quantity of same) then Farah will, regretfully, have to be ostracized from the Tea Party if the Tea Party is not to be neutered.
Too late.
It’s already been tainted.
This “toast” is bubbling and boiling and making whistles screech, but no thanks to Farah now.
My belief still stands. Conservatives are being set up to look like fools with our association with the lunatic fringe.
Not that I am saying anyone, yourself included, is part of that group. Everyone has the right to self-identify their spot on the “Birth Certificate Continuum”
I really don’t see how it makes birthers look like kooks to simply ask to see validation of the one requirement to be President. It is beyond bizarre to me. Both things that people compare birthers (hate that term) to truthers. Two totally different things.
Loser arguement!
Moving the argument on to the Rats’ ground is a danger. They will of course trumpet how umpty-ump court decisions have purportedly made it a no go, and that is a mighty knee jerk reflex getter in greater America that understands little or nothing about legal mechanisms. We have many issues to nail Bummer’s hide to the wall with that have no such danger. Farah can wait for his scoop until we have President Palin.
I agree. I don’t think that is a “winning issue”, but that is beside the point. Even if it is not a “winning issue”, that doesn’t mean I have to swallow hard and recant the undeniable & inconvenient truth: BO is hiding his past and BO has not proven his eligibility. If we don’t give a d__n who becomes president then change the constitution; if we do, then don’t ever EVER shy away from enforcing it.
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.