Miscellaneous Trump and “Birther” Links

I do not want to turn CHT into all Trump and/or “birther” all the time, so instead of doing separate posts I have been compiling links. Here they are below, some with commentary.

Tom Piatak discusses “Trump and Trade” here.

Trump meets with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus about a possible 2012 run.

David Limbaugh on Trump taking it to Obama.

Trump explains why he is now pro-life. (I don’t doubt that Trump will stick to a rhetorical pro-life position, because he knows he must to win the nomination, but this is not a particularly convincing explanation.)

Trump second in new national poll.

Trump second in New Hampshire.

Trump sent private investigators to Hawaii to investigate Obama. (This needs to happen. Hopefully a private citizen like Trump who has the ability and willingness to throw some money around can help us get to the bottom of the murky Obama narrative. Since the MSM refuses to do their job, someone needs to.)

More later.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

17 thoughts on “Miscellaneous Trump and “Birther” Links

  1. Kirt Higdon

    Yeah – Trump is now pro-life. Proof positive, were any more needed, that’s he going to go all out for the Repub nomination. And of course, the political pro-lifers, the house slaves of the Repub party, will take him at his word. It will be between Trump and Gingrich for the “family values” vote.

  2. Bruce

    I have never been a fan of Donald Trump. I believe he is an egomaniac and if he was elected president of the USA he would erect a huge neon sign outside the ” Trump White House. ”
    I think he loves attention and craves personal recognition.

    I am glad he has the guts to directly challenge Obama at the most basic level. None of the prominent Republican politicians are brave enough to ask the obvious questions of Obama that millions of citizens without a voice have been SCREAMING for the last two years.For whatever reason, Donald Trump is now speaking for all of us.
    Why haven’t Romney,Palin, Gingrich,Pawlenty,Santorum,Giuliani,Paul and all of the other Republican candidates ????

  3. Bobby

    I think the main reason no one else has challenged Obama’s BC credibility is there’s basically nothing in it for them. There seems to be a directive to the MSM & present/former political pundits this shouldn’t be challenged due to the upheaval to our process/system if proven correct. Trump is pompous enough to either enjoy the challenge or have the charisma to spin it off even if proven wrong. Finding out the truth at this stage is almost a lose/lose situation for the entire nation with what it would mean here at home & abroad. Think of all the laws signed, the civil unrest this would invoke & the failure of a most basic premise in our political process exposed to the world. I’m a birther through & through & firmly believe Obama is a bastard child political prodigy of the left only for the reason he was chosen for his bulletproof position, that being race. If a highly decorated officer such as Stanley McChrystal can go down for insubordination due to a Rolling Stone’s article off the cuff remarks that serves notice the authority in hand will not tolerate this guy being challenged. I truly believe the memo has been passed around in political circles to “let it go” just as it has in our justice system to strike any challenge from the docket by anyone in public service or otherwise. Trump might be one of the few anyone wouldn’t approach to keep this quiet knowing his star power & penchant for the limelight, it would drive him more. I personally would love to see this impostor exposed but I ask myself at this stage of the game, “is it worth it”? If for no other reason I hope Trump takes this to a higher level just to call Obama’s bluff to see if he’ll withdraw from the upcoming election. As gifted of an excuse maker as he is he could use any of a dozen reasons to withdraw as a hero to the left. I think “birthers” are unique. They stand on one basic premise & are undeterred by the resounding accusations of implied ignorance that there’s no way a man could ever be elected without the proper credentials. My one reply, “show us the evidence”..

  4. Thaddeus

    Actually, I think Trump might be angling for a position as the VP candidate, and that, I think, would be an ideal fit, setting the stage for his own presidential bid a few years down the pike.

    Traditionally, the role of the VP candidate in a campaign is to be the attack dog, going most aggressively after the opponent. This could be Trump proving that he can do this better than anyone else can.

    On the other hand, the idea of Trump in any kind of second-place role may be difficult to envision. However, politics is different than money, and he may (possibly rightly) think that a run as VP would establish him politically, enough to the point that the presidency would be his after his running mate completes his term.

  5. RedPhillips Post author

    “Finding out the truth at this stage is almost a lose/lose situation for the entire nation with what it would mean here at home & abroad. Think of all the laws signed, the civil unrest this would invoke & the failure of a most basic premise in our political process exposed to the world.”

    If some explosive information was to come out, it would destroy the credibility of the MSM forever. I’ll take those consequences.

  6. Bobby

    Excellent point Red but with all due respect we all know, “then & only then” would the MSM do their job finally. They would start digging like rats for the entity/entities responsible for the cover up & hail themselves as heroes for “following up on the story” that certain Americans had found questionable.

    FTR, regardless of collateral damage to our reputation I would gain great satisfaction to find justification of my deep rooted suspicions.

    I truly feel all MSM has a backup plan in their vault of deceit if the truth ever does surface..

  7. Bobby

    One more thing while this is fresh on my mind. Sorry, I’m just passionate about what is taking place now.

    This is how I think all of this would unwind:

    This would hit the short link wires first, AP, Reuters, carry over to media outlets like AOL & CNN, FOX & the entire MSM would have “breaking news” with their anchors carrying a full evening breakdown on “how this could occur” & “what happened in the process”. They would spin this ten different ways but never admit negligence in their past reporting or philosophy.

    There would be immediate bickering in the little people forums on the internet of “I told you so” vs. “this is a right wing conspiracy” & the masses would become a little unglued.

    We’d probably have small breakouts of unrest in certain areas divided by racial demographics which would be front & center by the MSM covering their lack of responsibility, the story would shift “toward the people’s outrage” & exacerbate instead of control.

    The FBI would probably give Sharpton/Jackson a call to calm the masses & we would be at a pivotal point once again in our racial divide.

    The politicos would call for an immediate Congressional hearing to make a determination of “what went wrong” & indeed file a motion of impeachment against the office. This hearing would put the Warren Commission to shame with the jockying of who could get out the door fastest & CTA.

    Then we would have the question of what to do next/immediately as this has never been an issue before. Who takes over office then? Biden should be declared ineligible as well as the president under a false pretense of guidelines. Does Boehner accept the position then? It would be chaotic & not one single Constitutional atty. could answer the question. We’d have to leave it to Congress which would almost be laughable at that point. Who would trust their judgment?

    I could go on & on about the possible scenario of what would follow & the damage to our system but this would be the coup de gras to not only our political process but our belief system as well. The failure would be of monumental proportion of which all but ironically the birthers would have to bear. Poetic justice indeed..

  8. Badbob

    Keep in mind that the following link is based on an anonomous posting. But, whoever wrote it painted a clearer possible scenario than I’ve seen yet.

    WARNING; Nude Photo Links – Second Paragraph
    Purported Images of Obama’s Mother

    But photo viewing is not required to read the text

    RE; Trump is Right, Obama is Hiding Something Big



    Other Recommended Reading:

  9. RedPhillips Post author

    Badbob, I think Obama may be hiding something, but there is way too much speculation in the link above.

  10. Kirt Higdon

    Newsmax.com is now reporting that Donald Trump has stated that he will run as an independent if he does not get the Repub nomination. Color me extremely unsurprised as I predicted that very move in another topic in this forum. While I have seen no polling stats to back this up, I intuitively suspect that much of Trump’s support comes from ex-Palinites as her support has dwindled as it becomes increasingly evident that she will not run, while his support has risen sharply. They’re both big-mouth celebrity messianic types and Trump is filthy rich to boot. What more could a Repub ask for? BHO’s strategists’ main problem these days must be how they can continue to encourage these developments without making it obvious what they are doing.

  11. RedPhillips Post author

    “BHO’s strategists’ main problem these days must be how they can continue to encourage these developments without making it obvious what they are doing.”

    Yeah, I’m sure that’s what’s going on, since the planning and coordination is SOOOOO…… obvious. Nothing says calculated political ploy like hysterical liberals at the New York Times and “conservatives” at Fox all denouncing the same person. Obama strategist fingerprints all over those Beck and O’Reilly denunciations. Only a fool couldn’t see that.

  12. Kirt Higdon

    “Nothing says calculated political ploy like hysterical liberals at the New York Times and “conservatives” at Fox all denouncing the same person.”

    I rest my case and BTW, please don’t throw me in the briar patch.

  13. RedPhillips Post author

    Kirt, I have never understood your stake in this. Why do you care what birthers think or do? I can understand the argument that it is a distraction or that it hurts the image of conservatives to pursue the issue. But those objections aren’t, by themselves, where you are coming from. You are emotionally invested, as is obvious from our discussions, in dismissing birthers. So just humor me and answer a question.

    Let’s say for the sake of the argument that there are two possible reasons why Obama won’t just release the long form. 1.) There is something on it he doesn’t won’t us to see (and for the sake of simplicity I will include in this the option that it doesn’t exist) or, 2.) It exists, and there is nothing on it he wishes to hide. He is just playing political games and wants to make conservatives look bad (and for the sake of simplicity I will include here the option that he just resents the fact that it is an issue for him).

    What is your hunch about the likelihood of either explanation? My hunch, and that is all it is, is that explanation one is more likely than the alternative. I don’t dismiss the second explanation out of hand, it is entirely plausible, I just think the first explanation is more likely especially given all the other records he is suppressing. I vacillate but I would put my hunch at somewhere around 60:40.

    So just humor me and tell me where you fall on explanation one vs. two. The reason I ask is because I read you as saying you aren’t really interested in knowing the truth. That what the birthers are pursuing is largely irrelevant. I have a hard time comprehending this attitude, so I’m wondering if what you really believe is that explanation one is highly unlikely. Please just humor me by answering my question.


  14. Kirt Higdon

    The two explanations are not 100% mutually exclusive. There could be something he doesn’t want us to see AND he is playing games. But unless the something he doesn’t want us to see would make him consitutionally ineligible to be President, I don’t see its relevance to the present time. I certainly can’t imagine anything that would sway an election. So it’s not that I lean toward either explanation one or two, I don’t think either makes a difference.

    In this thread, incidentally, I have not even mentioned the birther issue up to now. That’s your obsession, Red. I’ve been speaking of Trump. You badly mischaracterize the media reaction to him as one of hysteria and denunciation. Fox has given lots of favorable commentary, including just this morning when I saw a guest introduced as a Demo consultant state that Trump was the candidate most feared by BHO and the Dems. All the Fox hosts sagely agreed. Reminds me of six or so months ago when the Libs were frothing at the mouth at any mention of Sarah Palin’s name only to sheepishly confess once you called them on it, that they would love to see her as the Repub nominee. Fox is dumping Beck, so his reaction to Trump can hardly be attributed to them. Fox has also hired Trump for a regular slot. Whatever the reason for this (co-option, bandwagon jumping, or just a ratings quest), it doesn’t amount to hysteria or denunciation.

    As far as the other networks are concerned, they’ve been giving the Donald lots of free publicity which he has taken maximum advantage. On CNN this morning, there were cheerful upbeat reports that the Donald is now tied for first place among the Repubs, followed by commentary that he must be very happy about that. My conclusion is that either the media wants Trump as next president or figures that he will make the Repubs easier to beat. Given that he is openly blackmailing the Repub establishment and primary voters with threats of an independent candidacy, I think the second explanation is more likely.

  15. RedPhillips Post author

    “But unless the something he doesn’t want us to see would make him consitutionally ineligible to be President, I don’t see its relevance to the present time. I certainly can’t imagine anything that would sway an election. So it’s not that I lean toward either explanation one or two, I don’t think either makes a difference.”

    What if the info on the long form proved that the COLB he has already released is fraudulent? Would that be relevant? Would that sway an election? I certainly do not know that it does, but it is possible.

    But if something not that explosive but significantly at variance with the current narrative were to come out why couldn’t it possibly sway an election? It is possible that one significant revelation could cause the whole house of cards to come crashing down. This is how these things often work. Consider Tiger Woods. For years he was tomcatting around and no one knew about it. Then he has a mysterious crash on Thanksgiving and within a couple of weeks we know about 13 or whatever mistresses.

    “You badly mischaracterize the media reaction to him as one of hysteria and denunciation.”

    My New York Times reference was a reference to the much discussed Gail Collins column. Perhaps it was wrong to characterize it as hysterical. Dismissive and condescending might be a better characterization. But Fox has done a lot to distance itself from Trump’s birtherism. O’Reilly spent a whole segment last night shilling for the COLB. Greta Van Susteren went after Trump on her show. Hannity had Anne Coulture on to dismiss Trump. I’m not sure of the timing of Trump’s hiring for the Fox morning show, but I think it predates his embrace of birtherism.

    I don’t know that Fox orchestrates what its hosts say, but O’Reilly’s shilling definitely had the feel of deliberate distancing from birtherism. Whether that was to protect Fox as a whole or O’Reilly personally, I don’t know.

    What I do know is that Fox is hurting itself with a niche of its base. There is no reason Fox and its hosts shouldn’t take the unimpeachable “openness” position and simply ask for Obama to release his records including but not limited to his long form BC. The only reason anyone would criticize the openness position is if they are invested partisans in the debate, either leftist Obama shills or squeamish conservative taint phobics.

  16. RedPhillips Post author

    BTW Kirt, have you followed the Social Security # issue? Would using a false SSN and/or a fraudulent a draft registration be a game changer?

    We know the following for fact because the draft registration was obtain by a FOIA request. The SSN on Obama’s draft registration card is a Connecticut #. There may possibly be a benign explanation for this, but there may not be. Is the SSN Obama used when he registered for the draft valid? Was the draft registration fabricated after the fact? Are you the least bit curious to know the answer to this? Where is the press on this potentially explosive issue?

    If you’re not curios about this then you are what I called the press, deliberately incurious.

  17. Kirt Higdon

    Red, I’m not sure what you would consider something significant enough to sway an election and bring the whole house of cards crashing down, especially since you and others are now defining birtherism as “he must have something to hide”. (Doesn’t everybody?) I look for historical precedents for this sort of thing and as far as I know there are none. Do you know of even a single case of a presidential candidate, let alone an incumbent president, being derailed by some revelation from his youth or infancy? If you do, please share it with us and I’ll even settle for an example from a foreign country.

    Also if there are enough people out there awaiting an “explosive revelation” to decide their ballot to sway an election, I should have met at least one of them. I haven’t; have you? Every person I’ve encountered to whom Obama’s remote background makes a difference is a die-hard partisan one way or the other. Hell, it’s hard enough to get rid of somebody even with conclusive proof of present misconduct.

    But I’ll concede one thing; if there is any swing vote, it can only swing against Obama. No one will vote for him merely because of the absence of explosive revelations from his youth or infancy. This of course gives him a third reason other than the hiding something or game playing you have already suggested for not engaging his birther critics. Defense against an ever multiplying host of vague allegations will simply give many of them greater currency and credibility. He can only lose this fight by engaging in it.

    But if he leaves it as a Republican primary issue, he wins. Romney, who up until a few days ago was Repub front runner, has “defended” Obama. Trump is in full birther attack mode. Pressure on others to take sides will be enormous. BHO couldn’t be in a better position if he had set this up himself, but he didn’t have to. He just let Obama derangement syndrome do the work for him. To win he just has to keep out. Too bad he didn’t apply this principle to something that really matters to the country – like the Libya war.

    On the subject of Fox, I watched Hannity interviewing Trump last night until the obsequious cordiality reached the point where I was about to puke. Fox may well be playing both sides of the controversy and they are certainly not going to ban regular guests like Ann Coulter from the network just because she disagrees with Trump. To the extent they keep the controversy going and stoke both sides of the fire, they are helping BHO by dividing Repubs.

    As far as whether or not I am curious about BHO’s SS# and draft registration, I’m mildly curious but the “issue” means nothing to me and I suspect nothing to most others. The US already elected and re-elected a draft dodger and a child of privilege national guardsman. I doubt that they would hold it against BHO that he was (maybe) a registration dodger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>