Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Forget Tea Party Candidates, We Need Birther Candidates (Vanity)

Posted on 12/08/2012 8:13:39 AM PST by kreitzer

The GOP-e was shaken by the Tea Partyers a couple years back, but fought back and succeeded in pushing the Tea Partyers/Palin backers out of the convention and nominating their man Romney. But the Tea Partyers had some success, like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Who's to say a few well placed Birther candidates couldn't have some success? If we could field a few Birther candidates who promise to make the ineligibility of the current Commander-in-Chief a central issue, even if only one of them gets through the system it will be a 100% gain for conservatives. Simply focus on what the Founders meant by the term 'natural born citizen.' They would have to primary in Republican races in deep red districts to have a chance. This is achievable and 2014 will be here soon. I know I would donate to that candidate. It's time to start now!


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; gop; gope; gopelite; naturalborncitizen; obama
You never know what could happen.
1 posted on 12/08/2012 8:13:43 AM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
With due respect what makes you think, and where are your credentials, that your opinions on who is a Natural Born Citizen is the correct interpretation?

Right now, Mark Levin and Fred Thompson say that Marco Rubio is eligible.
2 posted on 12/08/2012 8:24:10 AM PST by Perdogg (Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) for President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Just make it white, male landowners only .. let the pc bubble burst, fight to the death and we might regain some semblance of constitutional intentions.

We are hopelessly entangled in



infringements.

3 posted on 12/08/2012 8:28:47 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer; All

Guess what the Birther candidates is going lose.. The Tea Party candidates has a 50% chance of winning. I like those odds..


4 posted on 12/08/2012 8:29:32 AM PST by KevinDavis (And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Not trying to be negative or anything but a lot of people that would have voted GOP otherwise did not because of the pro-life stand on abortion. Several people actually told me they didn’t vote GOP for that reason that would have if the abortion issue had not come up. I am like everybody here that support pro-life stands against abortion but if the GOP wants to win they will have to stop talking about social issues like this.

Another reason we couldn’t win is that people were more concerned about money than they were the state of the country. You had the entitlement class such as Welfare leeches. If the Welfare get-something-for-nothing class gets any hint that their checks are in jeopardy they will never vote GOP. We also had the elderly. The elderly are entitled IMO to their benefits because they paid in and should get their checks long before the Welfare group. Elderly people that worked their entire lives should never be put out in the cold. At least they contributed to society. Most of them voted Democrat because of that. They were conned by the Democrats into believing that we would stop their benefits.

The country has gone so far down the toilet that the majority can’t tell the difference between right and wrong anymore. I’m not sure a conservative with moral values will ever win again because of the moral state of the majority.

If Romney, being a moderate, couldn’t win because his VP was pro-life, how can we expect a conservative win?


5 posted on 12/08/2012 8:32:11 AM PST by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yea, um, I defer to the Supreme Court on that one. Methinks they got more say on precedent than Mark Levin. From Minor vs. Happersett:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.


6 posted on 12/08/2012 8:34:00 AM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
That was in dicta, not part of the case. Sorry.
7 posted on 12/08/2012 8:37:09 AM PST by Perdogg (Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) for President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

>>> With due respect what makes you think, and where are your credentials, that your opinions on who is a Natural Born Citizen is the correct interpretation?

His credentials are not only irrelevant, but unnecessary.

Congress tested John McCain’s eligibility status in 2008 with a very specific 2 part test... Place of birth AND citizenship of BOTH parents.

The reason congress called into question McCain’s eligibility was due to concerns over whether or not the place he was born in Panama was considered US Soil or not.
So why then did they also question the citizenship of both his parents?

Point being, CONGRESS (specifically democrats) already KNOW the correct definition and application of NBC.

Your defense of us not applying the same standards to Obama, in light of the FACT that we now have a legal investigation by Joe Arpaio concluding that Obama’s online BC is a forgery, seriously calls into question your motives.


8 posted on 12/08/2012 8:39:51 AM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Well, we had a birther candidate (Trump) but he chickened out. It will take someone who is willing to risk losing, because in the end, most candidates lose.


9 posted on 12/08/2012 8:40:39 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Who's to say a few well placed Birther candidates couldn't have some success?

Um ... just about anybody ... so long as you're talking about offices higher than county clerk ...

Add up the voters who go Democrat anyway, those who aren't going to be swayed by birtherism, those who are going to actively be turned off, and those who are going to be turned off by the other opinions such candidates will probably voice, and you can pretty much expect to lose.

10 posted on 12/08/2012 8:40:57 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
I will say that the anti-birther nonsense from “conservatives” probably kept more voters at home than the mythical hispanic voters lost by the GOP. Rubio is not eligible...and that is just what he has revealed so far
11 posted on 12/08/2012 8:44:28 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Illegal Aliens do not pay Social Security...Employers do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
We Need Birther Candidates

Hey, how about some Truther candidates too? Maybe some candidates who think the moon landing was faked for good measure.

12 posted on 12/08/2012 8:49:19 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

It’s a definition. What’s yours? Or what’s that of the credentialed Mark Levin? And what’s it based on?


13 posted on 12/08/2012 8:53:41 AM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Are you kidding? This is a sure fire way to lose an election. Birtherism is a fringe idea on the Right, much like Trutherism on the Left. Conservatives let out a collective groan when we’re checking our email, and crazy Uncle so-and-so has forwarded us an email about this stuff. Obama is in; he’s not getting removed on loopholes. The only way to win is ideas.


14 posted on 12/08/2012 9:12:18 AM PST by nagelbett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

We need X-Mil vets returning from Sandpile who have a grudge against the Traitor-in-Chief.

They have experience in dealing with Quisling Muzzies.


15 posted on 12/08/2012 9:13:34 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Absolutely not. This is a fringe, silly, issue. No, no and no again. Let the GOP be relegated to the dustbin of history but NOT Conservatism. This will kill Conservatism faster than Boehner is trying to. Give us Tea Party candidates, not Orly “I’m a nut” Taitz candidates.

Good grief.


16 posted on 12/08/2012 9:34:44 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

“If we could field a few Birther candidates who promise to make the ineligibility of the current Commander-in-Chief a central issue, even if only one of them gets through the system it will be a 100% gain for conservatives.”

Huh? Is Hussein going for a third term in 2016? Hillary is a NBC as far as I know, and I don’t see any other Demonrat illegals or foreigners eyeing up a run in 2016. If zero runs in 2016, we need a right-wing coup d’état, and that being said, we probably need a coup before 2016.


17 posted on 12/08/2012 10:03:11 AM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN

“If Romney, being a moderate, couldn’t win because his VP was pro-life, how can we expect a conservative win?”

Romney did not win precisely because he was a lefty- he offered no real distinction between himself and President Zero. If there had been a choice instead of an echo, then maybe things would have been different.

“if the GOP wants to win they will have to stop talking about social issues like this.”
Those are the fundamental right-and-wrong issues. Those are the sort of issues where it is not enough to say “I support x or y”- you have decide whether or not it is important enough to kill over x or y. If those issues are conceded, then any GOP ‘victory’ is anything but. An open sewer is still an open sewer even if its checkbook balances. There are some things more important than money, power, political expediency, or even personal safety.


18 posted on 12/08/2012 10:36:49 AM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

“we probably need a coup before 2016.”
Today sounds about right. Actually, it should have been January 2009.
It seems no one has the stones for it anymore and would rather watch football or text on their IPhone. The rest of the world laughs at us. We are so pathetic and weak. The military would rather fight middle east savages than the domestic enemies running/ruining our country. I am very afraid for my children.


19 posted on 12/08/2012 10:41:11 AM PST by kneehurts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

I agree with your second paragraph but if you can’t get the votes there is nothing to compromise. Get the votes and make changes after from the inside. Don’t lie, just avoid those issues. If you can’t win the immoral women and the elderly you will continue to lose. Minorities will always vote for the side that will give them handouts. Personally, I believe that abortion is murder but apparently the majority of women don’t. The GOP will forever lose those votes because the immoral left just plain don’t give a d**n.

Like I said, this country has tipped to the dark side. If the conservatives can’t win they can’t make changes.


20 posted on 12/08/2012 11:06:54 AM PST by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Or what’s that of the credentialed Mark Levin? And what’s it based on?

I say the Great One's famous temper and admiration for Sen. Rubio are his reasons.

21 posted on 12/08/2012 11:31:56 AM PST by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Birther candidates? We already have two that I’m aware of: Rubio and Jindal.


22 posted on 12/08/2012 11:48:27 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Until SCOTUS stops evading the NBC issue there is no definition of NBC sufficiently clear to get Barry removed. Therefore it doesn't make sense to run “birther” candidates. Also, there is no agreement among constitutionalists as to what NBC means, although there is plenty of bloviating by folks insisting on their own definition.

It is agreed by the general public that Barry would have to have at a minimum been born in the US to be eligible. I expect that most sane citizens would agree to removal of Barry if it could be proved that he knowingly lied about where he was born or claimed to be foreign born to fraudulently obtain educational benefits.

IMO, the most promising scenario that has a hope of unseating Barry is first, the indictment of those that forged his BC...followed by indicting those who put the forgers up to it...leading eventually back to Barry, of course. Proof that Barry's BC is forged is not proof that he was not born in the USA, but it would be a start!

This has been Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s approach. Don't overstate your evidence. He says he has evidence that the BC is forged, but cannot yet prove who did it. Sgt. Friday could not have put it better. Just the facts, Ma'am. One step at a time.

See:

“BREAKING! Sheriff Arpaio - FULL STEAM AHEAD with BHO Investigation; Surprises Coming”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2966793/posts?q=1&;page=51

23 posted on 12/08/2012 12:57:54 PM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN

“If the conservatives can’t win they can’t make changes.

If you have to win by moving to the left, then nothing was won.


24 posted on 12/08/2012 1:22:30 PM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

Well, then they will never win. It’s a long way from the far right to the loony left.


25 posted on 12/08/2012 3:02:39 PM PST by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN

Never is too strong a term. It might be awhile, granted. Long term, the right wins. Natural law cannot be broken forever. It will still have to be fought for, though.

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.” - Jefferson Davis


26 posted on 12/08/2012 3:15:44 PM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Forget Tea Party and Birther candidates, we need socialist candidates. We put them in office, things get real bad and thus we demonstrate how bad socialism is. (sarcasm)


27 posted on 12/08/2012 4:48:02 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Rubio TeaParty???

NDAA. Libya. RINO Neocon.


28 posted on 12/08/2012 9:26:18 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
The 2 attempts at birther conventions were both cancelled due to nonexistent ticket sales. Several organized, well publicized birther protests turned out dozens. Birther support, much like their “evidence”, is a myth. Without pimps like Farah and Corsi, it would have already died.
29 posted on 12/08/2012 10:21:07 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
"Unlike my mum Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was." - Obama in Dreams From My Father

The WH PDF.

Both can not be true. One or the other is a lie.

Is this the evidence and myth you refer to?

30 posted on 12/09/2012 6:31:06 AM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Who's to say a few well placed Birther candidates couldn't have some success?

Reality says it would have any success. The birther movement is limited to a small corner of the Internet's lunatic fringe. Have you ever seen a birther rally that wasn't pathetically small? Remember the "Birther Summit" that failed miserably?

31 posted on 12/09/2012 11:10:48 AM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN

Sorry my interpretation is that Romney lost.

Actually.

Sure he has plenty of qualifications, but who actually likes him?

Romney lost because he made Obama seem reasonable. And Obama was already in-house.

Stop talking about Romney! He won’t run again (if he does he will be clobbered) so now we need a new candidate.

I propose Sarah Palin get off her standing on the sidelines, and really jump in this time.

How about it, Palin?


32 posted on 12/09/2012 11:17:10 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kleon; Tex-Con-Man; RIghtwardHo; nagelbett; Longbow1969; x; KevinDavis

Ok, I understand I won’t change your minds. But something to ask yourself; How has being anti-birther advanced the conservative cause? You really think taking the msm’s approach to birthers helped us this election? You think we somehow did better than we would have otherwise? The GOP allowed for the Senate to vote on McCain’s eligibility and does’t even have the guts to ask if Obama was a citizen of Indonesia as a child, or how he paid for Harvard. Good luck with writing out checks to the “ask no question of our Lord Obama” GOP in 2014 and beyond. Hope Weeping Boehner works out well for ya’ll.


33 posted on 12/09/2012 1:31:17 PM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

I don’t like Boehner any more than you do, so let’s not go there. And being anti-birther hasn’t helped the ‘conservative cause’ any more than being pro-birther has. Heck, maybe the guy was born in another country. The point is that it doesn’t matter. Can you imagine any scenario where Democrats and the media collectively say, “Wow, we were really wrong about that guy! Maybe he shouldn’t be president after all”? Neither can I. And that’s why it doesn’t matter. I am fully convinced that if irrefutable evidence came out tomorrow that Obama was a non-American, that our media and Democrats would work hard to cover it up, label it a non-issue, and mock whoever mentioned it. And that’s why I’m saying it doesn’t matter. Obama won - twice - because a large chuck of the populace has become stuck on stupid and doped up on the euphoria of ‘free’ handouts. Our battle is not to oust Obama; if he weren’t in, some other lib would be. Our job needs to be to reclaim the soul of America.


34 posted on 12/09/2012 3:08:05 PM PST by nagelbett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Ok, I understand I won’t change your minds. But something to ask yourself; How has being anti-birther advanced the conservative cause?

Being "anti-birther," as you call it, is nothing more than insisting that we conservatives adhere to our own conservative values of 1) understanding and sticking with reality instead of fantasy, 2) being truthful, and 3) respecting the Constitution and the law.

Not as we would like for it to be. But as it actually is.

Aside from that, we are fortunate that a larger percentage of conservatives are not birthers because if they were, it would give lots of ammo to the liberals and the media to (rightly) paint conservatives as uninformed, undiscerning, and (if I might say so) conspiracy-theorist nutjobs.

35 posted on 12/09/2012 10:17:28 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

I think it goes without saying that we don’t need that.


36 posted on 12/09/2012 10:18:46 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; kreitzer
"Right now, Mark Levin and Fred Thompson say that Marco Rubio is eligible."

Mark Levin and Fred Thompson also believe that the current Dauphin of France Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy is eligible to be our Commander in Chief.

Mark Levin and Fred Thompson are clearly clueless on this issue.

37 posted on 12/11/2012 10:27:12 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Not to mention, Mark Levin and Fred Thompson ALSO believe the current King of Thailand, Bhumibol_Adulyadej, is eligible to be our Commander in Chief since he too, was born in the U.S.


38 posted on 12/11/2012 12:56:39 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

>Forget Tea Party Candidates, We Need Birther Candidates (Vanity)<

.
We’re about a year late on this.

Isn’t it ironic that the the greatest nation in the history of minkind was brought down by a foreigner because Congress and SCOTUS did not have the courage to apply the Constitution that they had sworn to defend and uphold?


39 posted on 12/11/2012 4:01:36 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

>Forget Tea Party Candidates, We Need Birther Candidates (Vanity)<

.
We’re about a year late on this.

Isn’t it ironic that the the greatest nation in the history of minkind was brought down by a foreigner because Congress and SCOTUS did not have the courage to apply the Constitution that they had sworn to defend and uphold?


40 posted on 12/11/2012 4:03:11 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

>Forget Tea Party Candidates, We Need Birther Candidates (Vanity)<

.
We’re about a year late on this.

Isn’t it ironic that the the greatest nation in the history of minkind was brought down by a foreigner because Congress and SCOTUS did not have the courage to apply the Constitution that they had sworn to defend and uphold?


41 posted on 12/11/2012 4:03:43 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Ironic and predictable (applies to pubs and dems):
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” -Cicero


42 posted on 12/11/2012 6:52:22 PM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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