All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.



Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!

7/28/2015

Trump and Joe

I like what Donald Trump is doing politically.

I like what Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing in Arizona.

I'll even go farther than saying I like them.  America would be better as a nation if more men would do what they are doing and take a stand for and speak out plainly about what they believe.

There seems to be an effort in the MSM to lump Don and Joe in the same boat.  I think that its meant to discredit Trump by association.  The two issues they have in common is illegal migration and the other is the birther issue. 

On illegals Joe is facing a different problem than Don.  Don gets to talk about big picture policy stuff.  Joe has illegals running around that he is responsible to round up and enforce various laws against.  For Don the problem is theoretical.  For Joe its immediate in its application.  Donald isn't going to have federal officers pointing guns at him and raiding his office in retaliation for his opinions.  Joe had that happen last week.

I find it disturbing that federal law enforcement is more concerned with cops who are enforcing immigration law than they are with cops who do more aggrieves things against civil rights, like no-knock warrants on non-violent suspects, SWATTING etc.  You'd think a black president would be more sensitive to the civil rights of Afro-Americans (heck any Americans) than illegals.  Not this one.

Joe has done more to legally investigate the birther stuff than anyone else I've heard about.  Yet he's never had the whole case presented in a court.  I doubt he ever will.  The MSM wants to paint him as some sort of kook for even considering that there may be evidence that Obama isn't legit.

Some time ago Trump said that he didn't know if O was qualified to be president.  That doesn't make Don a nut job.  It makes him honest.  Nobody knows beyond a reasonable doubt if O constitutionally qualified to be president.  Nobody.*

So why even bring it up?

Its about trying to smear, in some way or fashion a man who is doing well politically.  The only reason Donald is doing as well as he is, is because he is questioning the narrative that the MSM and both political parties are pushing. 

Americans know they are being sold a bill of goods.  The people doing the selling hate anyone drawing attention to the con job that is going down.  We are going to see more efforts to paint Trump as out of touch or kooky as time goes on.  They did the same thing to Regan.

If the Donald can do the same thing Regan did, and keep the tone light hearted while keeping the truth in the spot light, he'll get himself elected.



*If Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's biological father, then BHO is not constitutionally disqualified as a natural born citizen.  In that case, the other birther issues become moot.

11 comments:

  1. Susan1:24 PM

    Regarding the BC, there is another person, a woman. Orla Falani or something similar? I think she is a dentist by trade. But the judges refused to take the cases, to even HEAR them because they were terrified at how they would have to rule. Would YOU want to be the judge who upended the election of the first actual minority president?? I don't know as I would have had the guts either.

    I think Joe and the others had valid evidence that should have been put through a court trial. That is why we have our system. If it is found to be phony evidence, then we can mock it out of the public arena and get on with life.

    Obama has brought this all on himself, with his sealed records and refusal to be honest with this country. Like McCain's military records, if they are not ashamed of their past, why are the records of both men sealed? It would not surprise me at all if Davis is his father. Problem there is, supposedly that guy is a deviant pedophile.

    This issue might seem tiresome to some folks Res, but until a definite resolution happens, there is no closure to it.

    Did you happen to see his presser in Ethiopia? Where he just happened to "casually" state that he thought he could win a third term, would love a third term but it is against the law.

    So I think we kinda know now where that little dogie is moseying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I didn't see that. It doesn't surprise me a bit. He acts like he is king now. Why would he ever leave his throne?

      IMO Obama is ineligible due to (his own claim) the fact that his father was not a citizen of this country. The definition of "natural born" means having two citizen parents. It doesn't have anything to do with his birthplace. That issue has been debated and settled in the senate. The issue of a Hawaiian birth certificate (fake or real) doesn't matter.

      Obama himself voted on this very issue when he was serving in the US Senate as it applied to John McCain's eligibility to run for POTUS.

      Delete
    2. WaterBoy3:38 PM

      Darn good thing that Reagan and the Republicans didn't get their way back in 1986 when they tried to repeal the 22nd Amendment, then...else Clinton, Bush, and Obama might all have gone for the three-peat.

      Here's some context for Obama's remarks. And here's the speech; people can listen and decide for themselves what he meant.

      Delete
    3. WaterBoy3:51 PM

      Res Ipsa: "IMO Obama is ineligible due to (his own claim) the fact that his father was not a citizen of this country. The definition of "natural born" means having two citizen parents. It doesn't have anything to do with his birthplace."

      Incorrect. It was adjudicated in both state (Indiana, Georgia) and Federal courts that individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

      This is the entire basis of the problem with so-called "anchor babies", where illegal immigrants cross the border to give birth in the U.S., establishing citizenship for the baby and justification for the parents to remain in the U.S. to take care of them.

      If two Mexican parents can have a baby born on U.S. soil as a natural-born citizen, why wouldn't American/British parents work the same way?

      This is why the BC must be attacked; it's the only avenue available to disprove U.S. citizenship.

      Delete
  2. This is how you do it . . . just keep dropping the idea into the American subconscious, here and there, a little at a time. When the time comes, folks will be primed to accept it without question and it will make good sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Susan3:57 PM

      That was about 85% of his 2008 campaign Rabbi B. He would make his sly little comments about "my face doesn't look like the others on our money so it might scare people a bit".
      He also made a comment about how regular people like his grandma were frightened of black men and he could certainly understand that.
      All calm and friendly like. Then there was the Obama president elect seal on his lectern at every campaign stop. That actually did get some mention, but it got brushed aside.

      Then there were all his comments about what he planned to attack when he got elected. Like the EPA, coal powered electricity, and a whole host of other things.

      If one paid attention to him, he laid himself out perfectly well and put it all in the open. His muslim faith and all the rest of it. God has a habit of working that way. He doesn't work in a sneaky fashion. He doesn't need to. He gave us all plenty of warning, then He allowed Bible prophesy to be fulfilled.

      Bill Ayers liked to blow things up in his youth. Well he found and constructed himself a perfect human time bomb, and it is currently blowing the economy to bits along with the social fabric of our country.

      Delete
    2. WaterBoy4:08 PM

      It is the nature of those in power to want to retain that power. Eisenhower also wanted a third term.

      It's also highly hypocritical (and unsurprising) that Congress voted to pass an amendment to restrict the Presidency to two terms...yet won't pass one similarly restricting themselves. Considering that there were limitations in the original Articles of Confederation, and that several Founding Fathers thought they were a good idea, they never found their way into our current Constitution and members of Congress ever since have been able to avoid restricting themselves.

      Delete
    3. "It's also highly hypocritical (and unsurprising) that Congress voted to pass an amendment to restrict the Presidency to two terms...yet won't pass one similarly restricting themselves."

      Precisely. No one should be allowed to make a career out of serving in the congress etc. Volunteer your time, accomplish what you can and move on with your life. No re-elections to worry about, or maybe just one at most.

      Bring your good ideas and work to implement them. You know what they say about politicians, diapers, what they both need, and for what reason.

      Delete
  3. Susan7:08 PM

    WaterBoy, IIRC the reason Congress changed the rules and term limited a President is because they were tired of getting their fannies handed to them by none other than FDR. He died during I think it was the start of his 4th term IIRC.

    Then there was all the commie staff in the White House during his administration too. McCarthy had the right about that one.

    Now that we have had Obama, I am very glad they did that. Maybe God inspired them because He knew what was eventually coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WaterBoy7:22 PM

      You are correct; before FDR, it was traditional to only serve two terms at most. Both Washington and Jefferson bowed out after two, and they set the status quo until Roosevelt came along.

      However, there is something to be said for the 'will of the people'. If somebody comes along who follows the Constitution and manages to get the country back on track, why shouldn't We The People be allowed to elect that person to a third term to keep it going in the right direction, rather than being forced to choose a second-rate option who is liable to derail it?

      Not saying that any of the former two-timers have fit the bill, so far...it's just a hypothetical.

      Delete