Saturday, August 8, 2015


All art and screenshots not original to this blog used via the Fair Use Act.


Well, we told you it would happen: Fox is back at it, attacking Trump.

To take the he said / she said out of it, recall that Fox struck at Trump first with a series of questions which were patently designed to take down the GOP front-runner, while handing Jeb Bush, in particular, softball questions. Their biases and prejudices were clear and well-understood by an enraged Republican audience which made its collective fury known all over the internet. 

The problem for Fox, from a business  standpoint,  is that Trump leads all GOP candidates more than 2-to-one, now, so Fox basically spat in the eye of its own audience, which was the motivation for this boycott, which from this past Thursday and Friday's Neilson ratings numbers, may indeed be catching on.

Thursday and Friday saw Fox on a precipitous  decline with Friday's ratings numbers being the worst Fox has seen in ages.

Before the TPFA-organized Fox News Turn Right boycott 2 years ago, Fox was posting ratings about 15% - 20% higher than they have remained, more or less, ever since.

On average, the numbers have averaged at 

O'Reilly 2.5 

Kelly 2.3

Hannity 1.5 

They got a huge boost from the debate, and a bump from the skirmish thereafter. When we last reported, the boycott seemed to have been a wash. Addressing numbers only up to Wednesday of last week, we did not count on a delayed/roll-on effect. Certainly the idea of a boycott was picked up all over Twitter. 

Now look at Thursday's numbers:

O'Reilly 2.3

Kelly 2.1

Hannity (rises) 1.6

The arrow appears to be pointing down not from the debate, but from their 12-month average. It's a huge fall so soon after the debate, where O'Reilly was getting well over 3.2 and Kelly close behind

Now for the one that shocked even us. Look at Friday:

O'Reilly 1.9

Kelly 1.6

and the proof that the boycott is probably responsible is that most people on Twitter said they would remain loyal to conservative Hannity while turning off RINOs O'Reilly and Kelly, Hannity remains identical at his normal average of 1.5  

Hannity 1.5

So tuning into Hannity and turning off O'Reilly and Kelly appears to be exactly what is happening.

We think the boycott may be kicking in (we'll keep you apprised), and good for you for standing your ground and breaking old habits to teach Fox a lesson: don't piss off the audience that makes you rich. 

Now, Fox gets nasty again, believe it or not.

When asked in other interviews about Kelly, Trump answered other interviews honestly about his feelings for Fox's Megyn kelly's extremely abrubt announcement of her virtually immediate vacation, feeling that seething audience antipathy to Kelly everywhere on the internet perhaps in some way precipitated Kelly's "vacation". This is an absolutely logical and reasonable speculation to make. But because of that, backstabbing and ungracious Fox News is back at attacking the presidential front-runner that Fox's own audience favors, and doing it with, in our opinion, the kind of hateful, dismissive and poisonous tone that  Megan  Kelly manifest that so angered Trump supporters in the first place.

So, heedless of any programming common sense, Fox is blasting away at Trump with a preposterous lack of grace and decorum - really, just coming across, IMO, like a very large and well-financed internet troll. They have basically reduced themselves to that level. That is not how you please your audience that by a huge margins adores Trump and hates the attacks.

When Fox CEO Roger Ailes told Newsweek in September of 2011 that he was taking Fox away from the core conservatives and making it more mainstream, he tacitly admitted that Fox skews the news according to the audience they wish to grab - there is no other way to interpret what Ailes said. That, then, proves that Fox is not "Fair and balanced", nor does it really make it objective journalism any more than CNN or MSNBC. Without perhaps realizing it, Ailes admitted that Fox News was nothing more than entertainment, arranged to play for a certain audience. It is the job of entertainers please the audience. This is not a revelation 15 years into the new millennium. And when an entertainer or entertainment company enrages its own audience with a seeming purpose, then that entertainment company plainly has an agenda. The agenda appears to anoint hopeless loser Jeb Bush and somehow try to damage Donald Trump whose polls continue to leave his closest rivals in the double-digit dust and the rest already-forgotten in the single digits. This makes Fox as much the mainstream media as CNN or MBC or ABC or any other left-wing outfit, all of whom are trying in vain to damage Trump while his voter poll numbers show that he has broken through the  stratosphere and is now leaving all competition behind. The way Fox is behaving, it looks like Fox's audience is going with Trump and leaving Fox in the single-digits, too, along with the candidates Fox appears to favor.

Fox and all the of the media seem to have forgotten that Republican voters now have the internet. Fox and the mainstream media also seem to have forgotten that Republican voters  generally poll as above-average in education and intelligence and if forced to choose between TV networks hostile to their opinions or the man who they are very firmly convinced is the best candidate to fix America, they are going with the latter; they are sticking with Trump.

Need we say it? Boycott Fox until Fox decides to wake up and smell the coffee.



well, you can't be 100% all the time and..... it isn't our fault.

If you were watching TPFA-friendly accounts on Twitter, you likely saw dozens of Tweets with retweet numbers just like this. Some of these people have tens of thousands and some even have hundreds of thousands of followers, almost all Conservatives. That means hundreds of thousands of Conservatives got the message. Hundreds of thousands at least. Add others with large followings, picking up on the idea with their own original boycott art, and make that certainly millions.

Unlike the Fox News Boycott from 2 years ago, this one is a wash. Indeed, Fox ratings' numbers are slightly up this week!

Gleeful, malicious dorks sadistically high-five-ing this particular instance of a lack of Fox News boycott success will blame us and an imaginary perception that this group is not effective. (liberals love a Fox News whose CEO promised Newsweek in 2011 that he was taking Fox to the left, that mocks birthers, bashes Trump and never asks where the missing Benghazi survivors are) Well, we'll put up here for new readers a few screenshots to show if this blog and group is effective or not. But there is the problem and the problem lies not with us. The problem, and I mean this, lies with Conservative Fox news viewers who, when given the choice, watched Fox anyway instead of turning it off, as they did two years ago. 

Many people with staggering follower numbers - over 100,000 and more -  picked up on this boycott, creating their own art and Tweeting like mad and still the majority of Fox News viewers tuned in. 

How does one reconcile this with the fact that almost every U.S. conservative frets endlessly about the fact that Fox News has gone too far to the left? The seeming fact is IMO, that with such a scandalous eye-candy feud between Fox and Trump, conservatives did not show the self-discipline to turn off Fox, and wound up rewarding Fox News, literally, for bashing Trump, because you just put extra advertising dollars in Fox's bank account by tuning in. 

There was plethora of advertising for the boycott in the form of people retweeting to hundreds of thousands of people. Everyone is furious at Megan Kelly. But conservatives tuned in anyway, IMO, because the basic, short-thinking instinct to watch a delicious scandal overrode the responsibility to help their nation. To help the Nation, people must make Fox turn back to the right in it's content and presentation approach, and that only happens when they send Fox a message by turning Fox off during an organized boycott.

Whose fault is the lack of boycott success? Not ours. Not the people who retweeted. The fault lies with literally every conservative this week who heard about the boycott, agreed with the need for Fox to turn right, and watched Fox anyway. If that is you, blame yourself, and don't come whining to us the next time Fox bashes a birther, attacks Trump (they will again, you know it), ignores Obama's forgeries and lawbreaking, shows it could not care less about the missing Benghazi witnesses or anything else. We organized the boycott, many patriots online with huge follow numbers got the word out and you people rewarded Fox anyway by turning in and telling Fox that destroying conservatives is the best way for Fox to make more money.

Shrug. We did our part. If a RINO news network is what you want, then keep watching Fox in its present form and a RINO news network is what you are going to get. Forever. And all the bitching won't help if you are bitching and turning in to Fox at the same time.

File this under "Y" for the "You can lead a horse to water" department. 

Since trolls will try to diminish this blog and group while pretending to be conservative and saying this blog and group are somehow generally ineffective (while the attackers demonstrate no accomplishment of their own), let's take a short walk down memory lane. Once again, don't blame us for organizing a boycott which went nowhere this time around. Blame the people who bitch and whine about Fox News not being conservative enough and tuned in to Fox during the boycott, anyway.




"Curiouser and curiouser", said Alice, redux.
You may remember our last Fox news Boycott, two years ago, that made mainstream media everywhere. Here we go again, but this time the need for a Fox News Boycott is more pressing than ever.


Firstly, in the interest of disclosure, this group and blog officially supports Donald Trump for President whole-heartedly. However, that does not change the objective reality that a news organization like Fox that claims to favor the Republicans as an audience should obviously not try to undermine in a debate the candidate who, in polls, has been favored overwhelmingly by that very same audience. That is called spitting in the eye of the people who pay your bills and salaries. That is called grossly unprofessional - even horrendously unethical, IMO - media misconduct. And for that, Fox needs a good, hard spanking until their ratings are red and sore for a month.

Remember, ratings equal how much Fox can charge advertisers to run their commercials on Fox. As Fox ratings slip, so, too, do their profits, and that is what boycotts are all about: for an audience or consumer group to refuse to give money to a company until the company does what they want the company to do. That - and this - are the very definition of a legal boycott. And our last boycotts hit Fox hard, to an astonishing overall 22% ratings drop  and if you recall, we proved it to you with links to industry-standard rating reports and percentage calculators ( a minor detail the mainstream media accidentally overlooked as a couple of them tried to make the ridiculous case that there was no cause and effect between the boycott demanding Fox turn right and the drop in ratings numbers, obviously hoping that you, the conservative viewer, would never wake up and realize you have real power as to how the news is reported). 

Remember this from 2 years ago?


Look at the facts: in 2011, Fox bigwig Roger Ailes told Newsweek he was taking Fox to the "lucrative political center". If you are on the right and move to the center, it means, literally, you are going to the left. Obviously.  Now that's gross on two levels.... 

1. It means that Fox is skewing how they report the news to fit a certain audience desire and that is not news, that is called 'entertainment". Most news agencies also do that, but nevertheless it is, in its worst form, called Propaganda and nations have fallen because of the type of shenanigans Fox is pulling.

2. It means that using money as an excuse, Ailes  and Fox the Corporation are, IMO, once again totally stabbing in the back the millions of desperate conservatives who need their voice to be heard. This is true betrayal, IMO, in the worst possible form. It's disgusting. It reeks of, IMO, a personality so seared of conscience that it would walk on the faces of those who made him and his organization wealthy and hear their awful cries of audience desperation, in the manner of a sadist, as a happy song. At best it is cold-blooded indifference. Either way, it's disgusting beyond words.

Some obvious past betrayal by Fox of its own audience;

1. Handling Benghazi, otherwise known as Watergate to the tenth power on steroids, as a casual subject. Fox got somewhat with the program after our first Boycott, suddenly racing to do 'Specials". Those specials included talking to the co-authors of the Book 13 Hours, about Benghazi, written by a rabid liberal with the 3 co-writers who were on the ground at the Benghazi annex - the only three apparently allowed by Obama to speak - with Fox News giving those witnesses particular credibility even though their conclusion was that Obama and Hillary did nothing wrong regarding Benghazi. What about the other 30 witnesses who have mysteriously remained silent after 2 1/2 years, also remaining unidentified to Congress by the Obama administration?  It is obvious that Fox seems quite pleased with the mystery and silence of the 30 Benghazi witnesses  and it seems as though silenced is how Fox News feels they should remain, because Fox has done not one thing on the issue of the silenced witnesses, including asking in a substantive way what happened to 30 American witnesses whose testimony could bring down a sitting, communist-raised, anti-American President.

2. The Birthers appear to be correct: law enforcement has determined without a doubt that Obama's birth certificate is a fake - and a felony. No question. A felony. Absolutely. For sure. Does Fox give the chief law enforcement investigator, with the third-largest constituency of its kind in America - over 5 million people - and 50 years law enforcement experience, who also himself worked as a federal agent for 30 years, Joe Arpio, who has a law enforcement staff of approximately twice the number of employees at Fox News - 3,500 law enforcement specialists - and who used to be called "America's Sheriff" by Fox itself, even two minutes to even tell the facts of Obama's criminal forgery to the public? No. Fox anchors instead, seeming almost to a one, go off on screeds defaming the "birthers" and in so doing once again spit in the eyes of the audience that made Fox successful in the first place. Horrible, disgusting behavior by ingrate Fox. Absolutely, 100% off-the-chart awful.

3. Sean Hannity is probably the only true conservative Fox has ever had in its prime time lineup (and even he is pretty squishy on any issue that could inflict any actual political or legal damage to the Obama Presidency, such as ignoring the missing Benghazi Witnesses, Obama's felony forgery, HRes36, HRes422 and HRes198, all of which he has ignored for years). So what does Fox do? Despite strong ratings (and profit, which they claim is their reason for moving left) they move Hannity to a time closer to the Witching Hour, 10:00 PM EST, and put in his 9 PM EST slot Megyn Kelly, who has in our opinion, proven time and again that she has little in common with her Fox News audience, who often admit that they only tune in to Fox because they have nowhere on TV to turn. 

That desperation from the audience, in-turn, has apparently resulted in an unconscionable take-them-for-granted attitude by Fox toward its own audience, and is well represented by this Twitter exchange with Fox News reporter James Rosen 2 years ago. Several Tea Party Fire Ant patriots were warning Fox of another boycott if they continued to betray its core audience. Rosen responds, in essence, "If we go away because of your boycott, you will have no one to love you." IMO, Rosen's message amounts to the kind of words you expect from a cruel, pathological manipulator, and represents, ultimately, it seems, all of the Fox News Corporation's obvious thinking from the top down.

Now Fox tries to sandbag Donald Trump, the double-digit, hands-down favorite in every poll among the audience that pays Fox News' bills via their viewership, with a hatchet job which, thankfully, Trump was able to seemingly effortlessly  knock down with each cheap, drive-by attack Fox apparently believed it could sell to the viewers as being in the service of the public good. 

Enough. The time has come, once again. BOYCOTT FOX NEWS AND SPREAD THE WORD EVERYWHERE! And remember: do not tune in to Fox to "See how the boycott is going." that defeats the whole purpose. Turn their prime-time lineup off. Clear off. All the way, for 4 days.WE WILL KEEP YOU APPRISED HERE OF HOW THE BOYCOTT IS GOING THE MOMENT THE RATINGS NUMBERS ARE AVAILABLE, probably two-to-three days after the boycott begins. 

Make a difference, once again. Fox needs to re-learn the lesson from 2 years ago it has obviously forgotten. Send a signal to cruel, arrogant and manipulative Fox News decision-makers: "We're mad as hell and we aren't going to take it, anymore." 


Sunday, August 2, 2015


All Quotes and images used via the Fair Use Act

Update: It's great to be acknowledged by the next President Of The United States! Also, continued thanks to the growing number of patriots who liked and retweeted next-POTUS Trump's Twitter MT!

Update: For 15 hours we allowed the issue of Ted Cruz's eligibility issue to take too strong a place in this memo. Yes, we have the conclusive evidence that Cruz is not eligible, but have moved it to the bottom of this post, beneath our support for Donald Trump for President, where it belongs.

Back to the memo.....


Regular readers know we don't make sour predictions.  We have a terrific investigation, activist and prediction record. Way, way up at the top. Indeed, we help make the news, as you know from our Benghazi Select Committee and HRes 422 (to sue Obama) campaigns: they  got huge, effusive praise from the Representatives who authored the bills. When we boycotted Fox News to move back to the right, viewership at Fox dropped 22%. As you know, we proved it with published rating numbers and a degree of detail and specificity you never find anywhere else, including two online percentage calculators so you could see the absolute proof for yourselves.  When I publicly, on Twitter, challenged Newsweek's David Freedlander to prove why he said in a Newsweek article about us that our boycott had little impact, promising him a retraction if he could explain his evidence which countered ours, he made a series of smarmy exchanges and then ultimately blocked my account - without ever answering the question. (that boycott made news in just about every mainstream online outlet there is, including significant video reports)

Media is my business and we have only ever gotten one prediction wrong, ever, out of dozens due to momentary lapse in judgement born of hopeful optimism: in tat instance, we just didn't think any burgeoning news outfit could be, frankly, in our opinion, so completely and shamelessly full of it. No one is 100% all the time.

Ours is a terrific record- we challenge anyone to prove otherwise (are you listening, David Freedlander?) So listen up  We know what we're talking about.

The media is freaking out in blind terror at Donald Trump, who is every liberal's worst nightmare, because he takes on the liberals and GOP establishment like a bunker buster, and like Reagan before him, there seems  to be no way to stop his skyrocketing popularity. 

Trump represents - indeed is - what the liberal elite though they had locked out of the White House for all time: another Ronald Reagan. Only this Reagan is on media steroids and is wearing NYC-made brass knuckles under his boxing gloves. No self-conscious warrior,  he. While Reagan would settle for a technical knock-out, Trump is exhibiting the same behavior that made him essentially the biggest player in the toughest city on earth: leaving his opponents unconscious and in critical condition on the mat. And that is what republican voters want. They are sick and tired of being derided by the media, mocked by Obama, and utterly betrayed by tearful GOP House Speaker Boehner whose eyes glisten with love at Obama. 

The GOP voters are also sick of a timid GOP Congress afraid to throw Boehner out on his ear as he so truly deserves. GOP voters want a fighter. Now, at long last, they have a fighter.  They have Donald Trump, who is a true political heat-seeking missile: precise, relentlessly on-target and devastating upon impact.He's also a RELIABLE fighter because the fight is enthusiastically in his blood, not something he needs to muster.

If Trump displayed similar fighting acumen for the leftist cause, the media would fall on its collective knees and laud him as positively Aristotelian in his empirical, common-sense arguments.
Trump is the twenty-first century moment when Reagan said, angrily, "I paid for that microphone!" Only one choice in this election does not say "manufactured In China" on it's base, and that's Donald Trump.

Sure, there are  differences between Reagan and Trump. But Trump, in our judgement, and at the risk of committing a conservative political sin, comes out way ahead in the comparisons between he and the pre-presidency Reagan at the time Reagan first ran for President:

They say Trump, unlike Reagan or others, has never governed or presided over an economy. But being nn essentially self-made billionaire, his personal worth at $10 billion is larger than the GDP of most nations.  And he made that money using the same prowess so desperately  needed in our next President: an ability to make hard choices which turn into good news. Most politicians lack the skill to operate successfully with reality-based solutions. By being bold and gigantically talented in the area of decision-making, Trump has credentials that no other candidate can touch where it matters to being President: making smart  executive decisions in an imperfect world. 

While Reagan and Trump were both involved in show business, Reagan was an actor. Trump's much more current TV popularity is due to a different quality, one which lies right at the heart of the US Presidency. Trump's wildly popular "Apprentice" is a reality TV show predicated on one talent: that of executive decision-maker. The President of the United States is the chief executive decision maker of this nation. That's not my opinion - that is the job title description! No other candidate can hold a candle to Trump as a proven decision-maker. 

And Trump is the ultimate non-establishment candidate, and that's perfect. If the current GOP establishment had the Founding Fathers under its thumb, there would plainly be no United States of America today.  

The US is plagued by disasters that Reagan himself could never have imagined: ISIS beheadings; a president who is plainly anti-American and anti-Christian; Mexican drug cartels murdering willy-nilly; harvesting of baby body parts while liberals who advocate such a thing try to paint a sweet bunny face on a ghoul. Not to mention an economy so wrecked by Obama that it positively dwarfs the "malaise' that arrogant and pedantic Jimmy Carter whined about. The usual politicians won't cut it.

Trump also has an astonishing skill which makes politicians look tight, wooden, and therefore only partially competent: he speaks without a teleprompter or prepared speech. Leftist and center media, terrified of Trump, have tried to paint his speeches as "rambling". They are not rambling. They are merely unstructured, and that is a huge, huge difference. Trump holds his audience with a tight grip, and that because he is unafraid to speak truths so desperately needed to be spoken. Rambling speeches to not get wildly enthusiastic responses, as Trump's do. Rambling speeches to not result in positively soaring poll numbers, as have been shown by Trump. Rambling speeches do not get you to the top of a business in a city where a middle finger is regarded with respect as an honest display of opinion. And rambling speeches do not make you the number one television draw for over 10 consecutive years. Once again, the media is lying because that's all they can do to try to stop Trump's popularity. The facts, you see, side with him.

In less than a week from this writing, Trump will have his first debate. And while Trump would never need my advice,  I offer it here, and you can call it a prediction, if you want, because we're good at that, and these 'suggestion/predictions", in the manner of kicking false modesty down the stairwell, come from a blog that gets it right. 

Here are scripted responses, which are this blog's prediction to what will be close to what Trump says if the opportunities arise, as he might phrase them. We hope so, anyway. As the red meat gets the thunderous ovations, it will put Democrat strategists into a tailspin in this uncertain new landscape, and in such situations, democrats, already phony to the gills, will be certain to put out mistake after awkward mistake, like the Bill and Hillary ad about Hillarycare which was perhaps the worst political media message in the history of the art. It's always good to have an opponent used to being on top who suddenly who cannot keep his balance, because the falls are a wonder to behold.

TRUMP RESPONSES, in green, predicted and hoped-for.

1. START by saying, 

"First off, I'd like everyone to watch what every expert in politics is anticipating - the other candidates mostly attacking me, because I am leading by double digits in the polls. You can even play at home: count how many times the other candidates attack me instead of touting their accomplishments. Maybe they won't do it, but it will be interesting to see if that's what happens."

This should, in theory, make the opposition too timid to recite many of their well-prepared attack lines lest they prove Trump right - and therefore knowledgeable and even more appealing. If and when they do, say

"Funny how they are not attacking each other. Only me, because they know, as my poll numbers show, that I am the only viable candidate on this stage that the republican voters really want, because I don't just talk, I get things done."

2. MARRIAGES:  Trump should counter anything about his marriages with the comparison to Reagan and say 



"But democrat Bill Clinton has been married as long as you have been, congressman/Mr Moderator, and he lost his law license for perjuring himself while testifying about having sex with a young girl in the most hallowed office in this nation, a lie which cost Bill Clinton his law license for the rest of his life. Long-lasting marriages are nice, but they are no litmus test for what makes a great President, here or anywhere else, congressman/Mr Moderator."

2. ATTACKED FOR BEING A "BIRTHER". Come on full-bore with both barrels blazing and leave no one standing when the smoke clears. 

"Look, the fact that Obama posted a fraudulent birth certificate, which I understand is a felony, by the way, is the biggest non-secret in Washington DC, and the only reason Obama is getting away with it is because every congressman on this stage lacks the guts to say it. (pause for huge, huge applause while the liberal moderators freeze in terror) They all act like timid little mice. Arizona law enforcement has the evidence and has flown to Washington to give the evidence in hard copy form to every congressman on this stage and even then they refuse to do the work the people pay them to do. Why would voters want any one of a bunch of lazy, dull, frightened people to be President? I opened my mouth with no congressional power whatsoever and Obama, feeling the heat, immediately put up a fake birth certificate after spending millions of dollars to avoid the issue. All of the rest of you together on this stage, with all the power of congress you posses, could not even do that. Results like yours are pathetic. Why hire someone like you guys for the job of president if you are totally incompetent as congressmen? And that's what you are. Incompetent. You have let Obama get away with scandal time after time, year after year, because you lack courage and competence. Don't blame me for being a so-called birther. The birthers have been proved to be essentially right. The wrong ones are the media moderating this debate and these congressmen so scared of their own shadows that they are letting  Obama get away with a felony and leaving the mystery behind it unexplained to a frustrated voting public."

If someone says the birth certificate was verified by Hawaii dept of health.

"Have you seen that place? It looks like a cinder block shack in a third-world country. It's in an area of Hawaii that embraced people like Obama's infamous communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis AND YES, A VIDEO FROM THE PAST HAS SURFACED WHICH PROVES FROM OBAMA'S OWN MOUTH THAT DAVIS WAS HIS MENTOR. The only person who handled the original birth certificate, Loretta Fuddy, died in a mysterious plane crash. If I had to choose between the expertise of Arizona law enforcement after a two-year investigation or the friends of Frank Marshall Davis quoting a dead woman who never directly spoke of the authenticity of the document, I am choosing Arizona law enforcement, obviously. Obama's posted birth certificate is a fake, and it's a felony, and Obama must questioned in a select committee about that felony. And these supposedly brave congressmen on this stage who want to be your president don't have the guts to do the most basic job on a politic gift given to them on a silver platter. It's pathetic and it's wrong for the American people who deserve better. It's really disgusting the degree to which these congressmen are so cowardly and irresponsible. I'm serious. It's terrible."

Author: This goes back to something I have said for years: term limits and low salaries are the dumbest things conservatives should demand of congress because they are really only crafting absurdly bad "Help Wanted" ads by telling talent that otherwise commands millions to give it all up so they can get a tiny fraction of their salaries and get savaged by the press. Only losers would apply and for the most part, only losers do. To attract the proper talent we need to pay congressman top money - millions - but contingent on performance, like in the real world, and let them make a career out of that

You know: budget balanced, salary: $1 million per year. $10 billion budget surplus, Salary: $2 million per year. Deficit? Salary: $250,000.00 for that year. You know - like the real world.

Otherwise our laws will continue to be written by harassed loser idiots who don't have a clue how to make it in the real world. My idea/plan - I call it mine because in all the years I have said it, no one has so much as repeated it -  would see congressmen from the right and left fall all over themselves to work together for the good of the nation because they would want the money it would get them. It's as simple as that.  And we would get the laws we want because this nation still skews center-right, and conservative solutions are the ones that lead to the best actual real-world results, for which the congressmen would get paid more. The democrats would come to us for a change, because their self-interest would lie in practical conservative solutions that work, not the failed socialist policies that appeal to certain liberal constituent districts. 

Apply a market-based capitalist solution to how and how much congressmen get paid and we would be done and gone with the Charlie Wrangles and Nancy Pelosis for good because genuine, talented competition, like Trump, would engage the elections as candidates and those current congressional losers and their ilk could never hold a candle in an election to people capable of mature, professional accomplishment.

"My not being a politician is a good thing. At least in this day and age, it is. (to other candidates) Look at all of you. Seriously. I'm sure some of you are good people and all that, but how have you helped the country? How have you helped the Republican party? Obama won a second term. We have Obamacare, which is a terrible blight. It took a dedicated group of online activists (the Tea Party Fire Ants) over a year to get enough of you to co-sponsor a Benghazi select committee or there would not even be that and no hope for justice for the Benghazi slain, murders for which it appears Obama and Hillary we partially very responsible. The economy is a disaster. Those things are why your poll numbers in the republican congress are so low: the democrats bash you out of blind partisanship and the republicans bash you out of frustration because you aren't doing what they want you to do while you take their money. I know. I hear it all the time. Republican voters WANT you to hold impeachment hearings on Obama because he has broken so many laws. Republican voters WANT you to looking into Obama's fake birth certificate and show that you have the courage to stand for something instead of hiding under your desks from the press. I hear it by the thousands everywhere I go.They want you do do anything and everything you can to fix this country now that you have both Houses of congress and do those things and many more and you aren't doing anything except complaining and you guys have the nerve to now run for president. You could have only complained more effectively if you stayed in the congressional minority. Now you have no excuses and you STILL aren't doing anything. And when it comes down to it, what do many of you cite as your big selling point? You try to sell your desirability as a congressman on the fact that you are small business owners! Well, if that is the conclusion, I suggest people  vote for a big business owner who knows how to get things done and forget about the ineffectual, small potatoes who have proven as congressmen that they are not the material needed to be congressmen, let alone President of the United States."


"You see, this is why nobody trusts the press anymore. It used to be people tuned into guys like Cronkite because even though he was liberal, he had the decency to tell the truth. You don't tell the truth. You learned journalism on the knees of lying, socialist teachers in college. You guys lie. The rest of the people up here will go on defense and try to curry your favor and split the difference on your lie and hope you don't beat them up anymore. I can buy and sell jerks like you, wholesale. If I was a mean person I could pull strings and ruin your careers in a heartbeat, or investigate and publish the skeletons you all have in your closets. But I have never done those kinds of things because I believe in being an honest, fair player. But if you think I am going to stand here and listen to unaccomplished jerks like you lie about me and take it the way the others will, then you are living in a dream world. What you just said was a lie and you know it, and if this had been a Grand Jury you'd be in prison for perjury, seriously. Here is the truth to correct the lie you just said and maybe when I am done you should go back to journalism school."
(then correct the lie)


Do not tell how much you have done, and all that. say simply

"That's the dumbest question I have ever heard. How can they trust me to be president? Don't ask me, ask them. I am leading by double digits in all the polls. Seriously. Thank you for the stupid question."


"I have never been called a racist in my life until I started to run for president. Now it's another lie the left uses to stop me. Do I think Obama should be impeached for breaking so many laws? Absolutely, of course,  and it doesn't help me in the election because Obama won't be running. It's about doing what's right. It's about the rule of law. It's about setting a standard of conduct for future Presidents. You impeach a black president the same way you do a white President, and if anyone disagrees with that, then in my opinion THEY are the racists - the anti-white racists, and that includes white liberals who sometimes appear to me as though they despise themselves, like sick mental patients who engage in self-harm. The Klu Klux Klan started among the DEMOCRATS in the south. For decades a KKK clansman OFFICER who was a DEMOCRAT congressmen,  was embraced by people like Obama and Hillary Clinton while the press, like you, never said a word. SENATOR ROBERT BYRD. Did you, mister journalist, ever call out Byrd and rightfully say he was not suited for office, as you should have, because he had been an officer in the klu klux klan, an organization that for decades routinely murdered blacks in the Jim Crow days?  IF RACISTS EXIST, THEY EXIST AMONG THE DEMOCRAT ELITE WHO UNJUSTLY DEFAME THE REPUBLICANS WITH NO EVIDENCE OF RACISM AMONG CURRENT REPUBLICANS WHATSOEVER. And if you find a white Republican  racist you can hold up as exhibit A, be sure to show pictures of Hillary smiling and enjoying the company of KKK officer Robert Byrd, because those pictures exist, so don't pull that racism crap on me, because I will feed it right back to you, which is the proper direction it should be going."

Journalist: Did you just imply that I am a racist?

"No, I implied that you are lying, dishonest journalist, in my opinion, who plays the race card for the advantage of his own political ideology instead of simply reporting the news, which is supposed to be your job, and in my opinion trash like you has no business moderating a serious presidential debate. Go back to your lousy, dishonest socialist kindergarten and allow the American people to make their choices based on what honest, serious, no-nonsense grownups say. Thank you for the question."

In Conclusion

I have followed and admired Trump's honest, brassy, no-nonsense style for years. While I rarely watched The Apprentice (I have seen parts of it perhaps three or four times - I watch TV to ESCAPE watching that kind of thing), I am now nevertheless a fan. This blog concludes that Trump should be the next President not because it is a fan of Trump, but rather this blog is a fan of Trump because it has concluded Trump should be the next President.

We don't know what Reagan would say if Reagan were alive, today. But it seems much too easy to imagine that where he is now, he gets that Irish twinkle in his eye, cracks a rugged smile and gives an approving thumb's up every time Donald Trump hits the campaign stage.


We are already getting anti-Trump flack from Ted Cruz supporters. While we love Cruz as a real conservative fighter,  CRUZ IS NOT ELIGIBLE. For real. So once again it takes this group and blog, the Tea Party Fire Ants and Benghazi-Truth, to lead the national discussion and clarify the facts with irrefutable evidence. You know, we do this too much considering we don't get paid for it. 

Cruz' father did not become a US citizen until 2005. 

In 2008 the US House passed a resolution, S. RES. 511, defining Natural Born Citizen to clarify the issue regarding then-candidate John McCain. This is from the GOV archive itself, so let there be no argument about it:
It specifically cites the applicant must be born to TWO U.S. CITIZENS who were U.S. citizens at the time of the applicant's birth. TRUMP SHOULD SAY THIS, TOO, ACCORDING TO THAT RESOLUTION OBAMA HIMSELF SIGNED, S. RES. 511, OBAMA, HIMSELF, WAS NEVER ELIGIBLE, EITHER! THEREFORE EVERY LAW OBAMA SIGNED IS MOOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. If Trump says that, he will rock the world, and the facts are right here. 

Additionally, while the resolution cites other Presidents not being born on US soil (in fact, the Founding Fathers, actually, who were eligible as citizens at the time the Constitution was written, an exclusion allowed for in-writing in the Constitution, read it yourself), the resolution qualifies McCain because of the fact that the US Panama Canal base on which he was born was regarded as US-owned soil. All of this is in-line with writings of this Nation's Founding Fathers in terms of obvious intent. 

IMPORTANT. Research it: The only time "Natural Born" is known to have existed as a term before or during the writing of the U.S. Constitution is in Emerich de Vattel's 1758  Law Of Nations, a then-contemporary work during the lead-up to the birth of this nation, a writing which was widely quoted by our Founding Fathers, who plainly drew their term "Natural Born Citizen" from Vattel's book. 

Book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
"The natives, or 
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

IMO, by the way, many of Cruz' supposed fans are in fact false flag liberals who know the facts and hope to later crush Cruz on his eligibility and wind up with a democrat president. That would be if Trump did not lead Cruz by double-digits in the polls, which he does.

STOP WITH THE CRUZ SUPPORT. THE MAN IS NOT ELIGIBLE. And - AGAIN, THIS IS TRUE -  Obama has never been eligible, either, and he cannot claim ignorance, because he signed S. RES. 511 himself as a Senator and being the obnoxious wise-guy we all know he is, obviously knew he was pulling a fast one. Impeach Obama, immediately.

Sorry. No matter how you slice it, Cruz is not eligible.