The Trump Rebellion
 

The Trump Rebellion
For this weekend I was originally going to write on five reasons why Obama will be reelected in 2012. Why the gloomy prediction? Well, for me at least, it’s primarily because this current crop of GOP hopefuls gets me about as excited as watching Joy Behar doing an interpretive dance in Borat’s thong to The Doors’ classic hit “Riders on the Storm” (the extended version) while smoking a cigar with spinach in her teeth.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I don’t like certain—or many—aspects of the various conservative contenders who are starting to jockey for position; it simply means that I think Obama the Swiffer would dust them with his billion dollar Chi-town based voter fraud fueled spin machine. That’s all.
So, what caused me to change the topic for this week’s screed? Well, I saw The Donald open up a can of verbal whup ass on Obama on Hannity last Thursday and Friday night. It was extremely convincing in that he had refreshingly solid, no-BS answers for the multifaceted debacles “the worst president ever” has entrenched us in and explained how he sees himself as the crap-cutting dealmaker to pull us out.
And it seems that I’m not alone in finding DT’s comments compelling. According to every poll out there America really digs what Donald is doing, and he’s either tied or ahead of the GOP wannabe pack. Trump is even polling better than Barack in the new Biden/Michelle Obama poll. It’s a madhouse, folks. A madhouse.
Another thing that makes me hopeful that Donald can trump Obama in 2012 is that David Plouffe, the White House’s chief ploofer, says that Trump has “zero chance” at becoming president. This translates to me as they’re shaking in their taxpayer-funded wingtips over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and are praying to God (or whoever the hell they pray to) that Trump doesn’t run.
I was at my favorite cigar bar in Miami this past week when one of my good conservative Cuban aficionados asked me if I could really vote for Trump, to which I said, “Uh … yeah. I voted for McCain. I still haven’t forgiven myself. Pray for me.”
Here are my buddy’s problems with Trump:
1. He’s arrogant. My answer: Well, if he is, it’s not without cause.
He’s insanely successful. There’s nothing wrong about being right. (like I am with my parenting book. I believe it’s the best book in the world on raising righteous and rowdy girls, and my nation- changing kids prove it. It’s a fact, Jack. No need to be bashful.) As far as Trump is concerned, his business accomplishments are legendary. Why shouldn’t he be proud? BHO’s main claim to fame, before Soros put the first affirmative action president into the White House, was ACORN.
2. He’s an adulterer. As a Christian and a conservative I’m supposed to shun Donald because he’s an adulterer, to which I say, according to the biblical maxim … well, aren’t we all? I believe Jesus said that if you look lustfully at a woman it’s the same as if you shagged her. One comedian put it succinctly by telling the sanctimonious who condemn those who’ve literally wandered from their marital vows by saying, “He that hath an empty hand, let him throw the first stone.”
3. Trump is not serious, and this is just a publicity stunt. Yeah? Well, it’s a value added punking as he is saying all the things to Obama and his ilk that Americans want someone with a big prime time megaphone to say.
I think the Trump Rebellion is dee-licious. It’s injecting attitude and information, not via some tepid politico but via a mogul who has had enough of Barack’s bunkum, who gets the socialistic game Hussein is hoisting on us, and who hates countries who hate and use us. Trump is probably the only one with the money (or who could get the sufficient cash) to go up against this Soros-funded reelection hell machine.
So, is The Donald the perfect candidate? Look, Spanky, no one is perfect.
Jesus was the only perfect person to schlep this rock. However, comb over be damned, I’d vote for Trump right now. My perfect candidate, however, would be an amalgam of several candidates, a combination of Donald Trump with Mitt Romney’s hair, Newt Gingrich’s grasp of American History, and Mike Huckabee’s heart. Bam! That’s gold. Pure gold.
Anyway, if DT does not take on BHO he sure as heck has shown the boys and girls looking on that you can take BHO on and not be McCain McNice about it, and giddy Americans will line up behind you because they are pig sick of how Obama is destroying our great land.
http://townhall.com/columnists/dougg...bellion/page/2

Donald trump is the only one showing any leadership thus far. He is bringing the fight to Obama in a way that none of the sissy Republicans have done.

I am no fan of "The Donald", the same guy that has a democrat as a handler but I am giving him his just dues.

I really wanted someone with balls to look this President in the eye and say, "I'm not afraid of you...game on"!

Looks like Trump is our best hope to jar the idiot in the White House and the incompetent Republicans. Karl Rove must be wetting his pink underwear.

Trump Slams Karl Rove
President George W. Bush and his key political adviser Karl Rove are responsible for the election of President Barack Obama, potential GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump contended during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning. Trump was responding to comments Rove made about his own allegations questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate.
Rove, in an appearance on another Fox show, Greta Van Susteren’s “On The Record,” said Trump’s embrace of the issue has made him a “joke candidate.”

“Let him go ahead and announce for election on the ‘The Apprentice,’” Rove said. “The American people are not going to be hiring him and certainly the Republicans are not going to be hiring him in the Republican primary.”

Shooting back, the real estate mogul maintained there were real questions about Obama’s birth and added that he was “very upset with Bush because Bush had a really a bad period of time and he gave us Obama and Karl Rove was Bush.”

“I don’t expect that he’s going to love me, but Bush gave us Obama,” Trump said. “In all fairness to John McCain and Sarah Palin, nobody could have won. You could have brought back Abraham Lincoln, he couldn’t have beaten Obama at that time, because of what Karl and Bush had done.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Trump Slams Karl Rove

Originally I had little use for the birther controversy and even less use for Donald Trump.

I am glad that Trump is taking on some hard issues (free trade and Obama's fraud) but I get the impression his role is to be a safety valve to bleed off people who like those issues or to discredit those issues.

It's nice that Trump is talking up the birther issue, not because Obama was born in Africa, but because his Cert. Of Live Birth is a couterfeit fraud and Obama has been caught using other people's social security numbers.

I've heard Trump's statements on the Birther issue. He has added no new facts to the discussion and has ignored many important facts already known, notwithstanding his claim that he has investigators in Hawaii who "can't believe what they're finding." Bold talk, but it means nothing if he does not produce facts at some point.

I have grudging admiration for Trump but in my heart I've seen too much fakery to consider him anything but a diversion. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that I'm right.

Karl Rove is a joke. He's a confirmed GOP elitest. I must say that for him to be so shrill and hysterical over Trump and the birther issue is a good thing. The ruling elites of both political parties seem to fear this issue.

Trump Needs to Shift to Second Gear on Birth Certificate Challenge
By Carol A. Taber | April 19, 2011

According to the typical liberal media narrative, those of us who have questioned President Obama’s life documents are kooks. Nuts. Creeps. “Birthers.” When Donald Trump raises issues with the birth certificate, members of the left, right, and center assume that he’s doing so for political reasons and that there’s no real story. They use the Old Jedi Mind Trick: “nothing to see here … move along.”
There’s only one problem. There’s something to see here.
There has been an enormous amount of misinformation with regard to Obama’s life documents from well-meaning grassroots activists (some of whom are too trusting or inexperienced to know how to vet information properly) to media personalities (who are often sloppy and/or ignorant of the facts involved) to agenda-driven snake oil salesmen (who are using grassroots ire to fundraise or sell their books) to outright disinformation supplied by the Obama Administration itself. But just because there are many people who confuse the life documents issue doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
In fact, there are two.
For over two years, I have been privy to private investigators’ files, have seen private investigations of other private investigations, have done my own research — and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are two crucial problems with President Obama’s life documents. First, the registration number on Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” (which, as Trump recently explained to an incredulous Meredith Vieira, is not a long form birth certificate) is out of sequence to other birth certificates issued on the very next day in Hawaii to a pair of twins named Nordyke (certifications of live birth and birth certificates carry the same registration number).
Second, according to a private investigator, Susan Daniels, whose work was validated by at least two other investigators I’m aware of, the Social Security number that Obama used for approximately 25 years was issued with a Connecticut-based number, though neither Obama nor anyone in his family lived in that state at any point during their lifetimes. Bill O’Reilly claimed on his April 14, 2011, show that Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., lived in Connecticut “for several years”, but when I called O’Reilly for verification of his source(s), I was put into a voicemail and received no return call. As of this writing, it appears that O’Reilly’s Mailbag Segment on Obama’s Social Security number has been scrubbed by Fox News from the podcast of the show, along with some viewer mail on the subject.
Contrary to Mr. O’Reilly’s claim and according to private investigations, after Obama Sr. left Hawaii, he lived in Cambridge, Mass, which he left for Africa in 1965. Obama Sr. never worked or took classes in Connecticut, and no one has ever proven or even given a reason for his living in that state. We know that 1977-79 was the period when Obama’s Connecticut-based Social Security number was issued because private investigators have tracked down the dates when the Social Security numbers directly above and below Obama’s number were issued. Both of these numbers were issued to Connecticut residents. But from 1972 until his death in a car crash in 1982, Barack Obama Sr. was in Kenya. During this period he was never in America. We reach this conclusion because Obama Sr.’s addresses have been tracked and can be seen in several private investigator data bases.
So it appears Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the application for Obama’s Social Security number, as Mr. O’Reilly suggested. But then again, this is the same O’Reilly who also announced on his April 14th show that, although Obama’s birth certificate has not been made public, Hawaii officials have it on file. This about-face conflicts with his 2008 statement that he’d actually seen the birth certificate and that’s how he knows Obama is legitimate. “We have a copy of it,” he said at the time. (NB: such a possession would have been illegal.)
Not only have these issues been ignored or derided by the press, any attempt to answer these questions has been stymied at the state level. Obscured by countless charges and counter-charges, and under the cover of stealth legislation, Hawaii has changed the law and the language with regard to the release of birth certificates, making it very difficult if not impossible to establish the veracity of any charges with regard to Obama’s. One can only surmise that if fraud has indeed occurred, a cover-up of that fraud was the goal — and accomplishment – here.
But we need not allow state governments, or anyone, to cover up the Obama birth certificate conundrum. There is something we can do. We can ask states to adopt legislation that requires candidates to make public their long form birth certificates in order to be placed on the presidential ballot, and in accordance with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Arizona has already attempted something along these lines, but Arizona’s law doesn’t go far enough: it permits forensics testing only on secondary documents — which is to say, if a long form birth certificate is not submitted, there will be no forensics testing on it. Instead, states must pass bills requiring forensics testing of any and all life documents submitted to them, if questions arise about them.
In order to push for such legislation, we all must shift into second gear. Instead of asking “where is the birth certificate?,” we must now demand that whatever documents are released on a candidate’s life, such documents must be subjected to forensic testing. Anyone who’s concealed his documents (and hired lawyers to fight efforts in court to reveal his place of birth), as Mr. Obama has, appears not trustworthy; his actions alone demand forensics testing for any document he produces as proof of his “natural born” status. As Ronald Reagan famously put it, “Trust, but verify.”
To date, no such total verification has taken place and thus secrets remain hidden. Instead, sloppy reporting and careless statements, including one made by the Republican National Committee (whom I also called to verify their sources and have received no return call), have been based on second-hand reporting rather than on investigative fact checking. And Obama has something to hide. If he didn’t, Obama’s attorney, Bob Bauer, would not be sending bullying letters to other attorneys promising sanctions, court costs, etc., if the birth certificate case were pursued against them (see threatening letter here). Obama wouldn’t be spending money to defend against these lawsuits if there were no problems — he’d be releasing his documentation pronto. For his trouble, Bob Bauer has been promoted to White House Counsel. Clearly, Obama’s life documents — which remain sealed from public view — pose a problem for him, and the behavior of his inner circle proves it.
This is something that Mr. Trump seems to know instinctively. He has been unafraid in his pursuit of Obama’s birth certificate. He has suggested an investigation of Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie, who brashly promised that he would release Obama’s birth certificate when he took office, only to say — after having dug into the birth records — that he didn’t know he wasn’t allowed to release such a thing. After Mr. Trump’s perfectly reasonable suggestion, Abercrombie has been quiet.
Trump has stated that he has investigators on the ground in Hawaii checking on the birth certificate firsthand, and has stated that they “can’t believe” what they are finding. Trump may understand that deception has already occurred here — when Obama released his “Certification of Live Birth” in 2007 as if it were a valid birth certificate, it appears he meant to deceive the public. Trump’s refusal to back off the birth certificate issue has the elites frowning, the base in an uproar, and Obama on his heels.
Meanwhile, the Republican establishment continues to shrink from the once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity Obama has handed them by his concealments. Frightened to attack Obama’s “character,” they instead insist on attacking his policies — the same failed strategy that McCain (and they) have already tried. The Obama campaign and presidency, day after day, assassinated Bush’s character (and now others) and lied continually, full of guile, about Obama’s policies and political beliefs at the same time, and they continue this practice even today.
Why? Because it’s effective. The vast majority of Americans already agree with Republicans on the major issues — health care, “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the stimulus package, the deficit — policy arguments which Republicans have lost to Obama because they refuse to pull out the big guns. Were the Democrats thinking about beating Nixon on policy when they went after him on Watergate? The Republicans seem willing to allow Obama to waltz to a second term, unchallenged in this terribly important Constitutional issue, and Americans care deeply about their Constitution, simply out of spinelessness.
Trump has a spine, which is why he is gaining momentum and has pulled way ahead of the pack. Now we must convert that momentum into action. Instead of passing judgment about who is crazy or sane on the issues of the birth certificate and the Social Security number, we must ask Obama to show his hand, and we then must forensically test whatever he has, or he must fold. Forensics testing is not an outlandish idea; as distasteful as this analogy might be — a sordid affair vs. a serious Constitutional issue — forensics testing of a blue dress a few years ago revealed another set of lies of a young U.S. president, also attempting to defraud the public.
Because of the irregularities and unanswered questions outlined above, certainly the American people have a right to know whether the birth record that supposedly establishes the eligibility of their president is un-tampered with. And they also have a right to know whether the social security number that he has been using is genuinely his or stolen. Use of another person’s social security number is a felony.
In the interests of full transparency and disclosure, in the interests of protecting the Constitution and the integrity of our elections, we need to force Obama and all other presidential candidates to show us their birth certificates before they join any presidential campaign and demonstrate they are eligible to serve us. Anything less is a deep betrayal of our most basic democratic ideals.
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/trum...challenge/?utm

Comments
 

Fox news had a sign language interpreter, for the deaf, on yesterday and she said Trump is really easy to interpret because he is so straight forward. He says what he means. He isn't a politician. He is a businessman. Politicians waltz all around the issues and the interpretation often leaves the deaf scratching their heads and laboring to understand what is said and what the actual position of the politician is.

Trump isn't my idea of a Presidential figure based on his lifestyle and morals. In my youth I had good old fashioned Christian values and morality instilled in me. Although I will admit that later in life I did some foolish, unmentionables, as time passed I believe I drifted back into the values again. Trump is too much bluster and braggadocio. He will never get his "Macho Man" positions through our Congress. They're all the same - tell 'em what they want to hear then renege once elected ! Remember George H.W. Bush, read my lips, no new taxes ? Obama, I will close Guantanamo ?

Mitt Romney comes closest to my impression of a Presidential figure. Smart, successful, happily married to the same woman, experienced, proven, good appearance. I can't fully understand why he doesn't have more appeal. Maybe he's for the older citizens ! But I feel that he would do the best job of straightening the mess out, at least fiscally.

On the matter of Obama's social security number, I'm trying ot recall what I read about his registering for the draft which is mandatory and carries a very heavy fine for anyone that doesn't.

Anyone who thinks Donald Trump is a true conservative is a fool.
We NEED a campaign for liberty candidate.
Ok, Dr. Paul, probably DOESN'T stand a chance by the laws of second chances not coming often in politics. BUT. His ideas have firmly changed the political climate in America, and we need a Constitutionalist and Patriot, not another Corporatist Zionist stooge.

Trump shunned.
 

Well folks, Chris Wallace said on Fox news that he will not interview Donald Trump. I was certainly curious about that expecting some sort of a personal attack on Trumps character. But it was different ..............................

When prompted for an explanation Wallace said: Back years ago The Donald eventually pulled the same stunt, declaring but not following through. Then a few years later he did it again. Wallace said he was burned before by The Donald and it won't happen again. Until such time as Trump names an election committee, Wallace won't interview him. Trump, therefore, isn't banned, only temporarily ignored until he shows some seriousness.

Wallace went on to imply that Trump is only engaged in some publicity gathering. It seems that he is now promoting some more show biz, or entertainment. Wallace said he won't be helping Trump to obtain more free publicity to promote his endeavors.


We will see. Time will tell. But I don't think I need to waste any more time speculating about Trump occupying the Oval Office. *( Or his current wife being the first lady ). **( That's not a cheap shot. I am an old fashioned American who likes his first ladies to be role models that I can respect for their intellect, morals, character. Like Barbara Bush and Laura Bush for example ).

Can you back up that Zionist stooge charge? I've got a feeling you call a lot of people Zionist stooges based on your particular agenda. Please enlighten us, tell us how Trump is a Zionist stooge.

Trumps bio-data!
 

Here is the Trump Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

He certainly is a colorful character. In and out of bankruptcy multiple times. Seems to have always landed on his feet and survived.

The polls have him in several positions for Presidency. Anywhere from 5Th place to top contender.

Trump videos
 

He sure got them going in Las Vegas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/blogs/...tive-laced-sp/



He makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately even Fox news created a mis-impression reporting about his expletive laden speech. It isn't really that bad.

I could never vote for Trump. The man is a loose cannon, has a massive ego, has no political experience, and has supported Democrats as recently as two years ago, some of whom with rather large donations to their campaigns. I've watched The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice, and I don't like the way he conducts himself on those shows. He may be saying all the right things right now, but he has way too many negatives for him to ever have my support. And the F-bombs don't help either.

Dropping those F bombs was a calculated move in from of all WOMEN! He read that audience correctly.

I have not decided whether I like Trump enough to support him or not. I would NEVER underestimate the man. He's no loose cannon, he has more experience in real time negotiations and foreign policy than anyone in this regime today. He is smart, shrewd calculating and ruthless. He will probe, expose and exploit each and every weakness an opponent has.

Right now, he has correctly assessed that republicans are bored by their candidates, tired of republican caving in, chasing bipartisan support, and going along to get along. The republicans are insipid. This is the weakness in the republican party. As Mark Steyn said, the republican candidates are nice chaps who know how to give a good concession speech.

Trump hasn't even said he was going to run. IF he does, you are going to see the entire campaign encapsulate the principles of capitalism v. the principles of communism.

What do you mean?

For whatever reason, Trump knew that those women would be receptive to his comments. And they were.

The public is so angry that saying the "F" word is the least of what they're saying in their homes and to their friends. Many are just happy that someone with a microphone is speaking out in sentences that they've said themselves. All these people who have chastised Trump for his choice of words are sill thinking the talk of twenty years ago, that time has passed. People want hard words for hard times, and Trump knows that. He's sized up the audience and giving them what they want. He may change a bit in days to come if he feels the wind blow another direction, but who knows. When he finally comes up to the plate with bat in hand and proclaims he's part of the players for the office we'll see if he feels it's worth it.

I first heard of Trump's use of words the other day from condescending bubble heads on CNN and MSNBC who were sniggering over the idea that Trump might run for president. They're not getting the discontent in this country over Obama's wayward stewardship of the presidency.

On the other hand, I don't believe Trump would be a good fit for president. Schwarzenegger learned the hard way that big talk from an entertainer isn't necessarily transformed into legislation enacted. As possible with Trump, the guvernator was elected by a public very weary of the status quo. And what did the public get in return? More of the same.

So, what Republican candidate could capture the American imagination? King George's second term came about as a fear of Democrats, Obama was elected because Republicans became arrogant over Bush's second win to assume a mandate. Will the public be disgusted enough with all the damage Obama and his minions have wrought to elect a Republican as president? Or can the Republican party even field a capable , believable contender? Or will they put up a loser who guarantees Republican defeat?

We'll see.

For the record, I despise the two major parties equally, most of the other parties seem to me to be villages full of fringe lunatics.

I first heard of Trump's choice of the f-bomb the other day from condescending bubble heads on CNN and MSNBC who were sniggering over the idea that Trump might run for president. They're just not getting the discontent in this country over Obama's wayward stewardship of the presidency.

On the other hand, I don't believe Trump would be a good fit for president. Schwarzenegger learned the hard way that big talk from an entertainer isn't necessarily transformed into legislation enacted. As possible with Trump, the guvernator was elected by a public very weary of the status quo. And what did the public get in return? More of the same but less effectual. He alienated politicians on both sides of the isle who shoved it all back up his ass.

So, what Republican candidate could capture the American imagination? King George's second term came about as a fear of Democrats, Obama was elected because Capitol Hill Republicans became insufferably arrogant over Bush's second win to assume a tone deaf mandate. Will the public be disgusted enough with all the damage Obama and his minions have wrought to elect a Republican as president? Or can the Republican party even field a capable , believable contender? Or will they put up a loser who guarantees Republican defeat and Obama's second term?

We'll see.

For the record, I despise the two major parties equally and most of the other parties seem to me to be full of fringe lunatics and village idiots.

Well what I see is a public that is fed up with the "politically correct" crap. Trump threw that concept in the trash and the public responded. Whether he's a good candidate or not may not be as important as the response he received when doing it.
What the others running in the race need to take note is the response of the people to what Trump is saying and they need to recognize that the public is fed up with dickering around the issues. They want straight talk and issues addressed that relate to all the people, not just the liberal lefts "cuddly nanny takes care of you" stuff. The public is really fed up.

So you're saying women like hearing the F-bomb?

I still want to know what Trump's "special investigators" found out about the birth certificate when they went to Hawaii. The last thing Trump said about them was "you wouldn't believe what they've been finding" or something to that effect. Next thing you know Obama's releasing the long form COLB and suddenly Trump doesn't have anything to say about that "investigation" any more. I wouldn't be surprised if he made up that whole story.

I think it's the hair.

I believe this.

However, the two parties have a monopoly between themselves all sown up for alternate terms of power.

How do we get the worthless sons of bitches of both parties to bow to the public will? They all seem to be way out of touch, I don't think they are picking up on the message. Will it eventually take torch light / pitchfork processions on Congress to drive the point home?

How about that California gerrymandering which keeps current seats in power, such as Feinstein and Boxer as well as all those parallel dimensional deek sockers in Sacramento?

For whatever reason, THESE women at THIS time was receptive to what he was saying.

Expletives are a way of emphasizing a point, the point here is that the REAL F word is FED UP. Which is F U to neophytes. Trump said what they have said and expressed exactly how they feel. Women have long ago stopped being wilting flowers with innocent shell shaped ears.

Well I appreciate your explanation, but I still can't understand how a professional person like Trump can use the F-word in a public speech, especially when addressing women. I don't know why women would see this as anything other than inappropriate and vulgar, but I guess we just see this differently.

"Comb over clown". That's a good name for him, RIM.