Now, I know we should all focus on the economy and other key issues in this upcoming election, but this birther issue does get under my skin.  First of all, it’s beyond absurd.   Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural born citizen” who is eligible for the presidency.  Even Andrew Breitbart thought this whole charade was a losing issue.  No one cares! No one cares because the narrative these people are trying to push is not grounded in reality.  It is something akin to an Alex Jones “theory”, who feels that al-Qaeda is an arm of the U.S. intelligence network, or a person who has watched Three Days of the Condor, The Manchurian Candidate, and The Parallax View one too many times.  No doubt shady stuff occurs in Washington, but birthers are so ludicrous it makes me want to hug them in empathy.

My first taste in blogging was for Western Journalism, which reports heavily on the subject.  I cannot bash the folks at Western Journalism too much, since some of them are very professional and cordial, but as the months progressed; I found myself unable to be associated with an organization that peddles, excuse me, this gross propaganda concerning Obama’s eligibility.  It’s been three years folks.  If you haven’t been able to convince the base, the heavyweights in the conservative media, and the American people, you probably don’t have the “explosive find” which you regard as the holy grail of political malfeasance.

Furthermore, like liberals, birthers get agitated, petulant, and downright nasty when people dismiss them and their ideas.  It is a temper tantrum on steroids. An excerpt from a piece on Western Journalism detailed the open letter Breitbart’s Senior Staff released surrounding their legitimate vetting of Obama which, needless to say, didn’t bode well with this writer.

Andrew Breitbart was never a ‘Birther,’ and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’”

Reading this makes me want to ask in bemused wonder:  How old are you?  (I could, of course, ask the same question of Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levine, Neal Boortz, or Glenn Beck – who are clearly much older to a man.)  But seriously, how immature – or insecure, at least – must one be to be so concerned with what the cultural elites think of them?  Young Ben Shapiro (twenty-eight, and reportedly the youngest nationally syndicated writer in the country) went to Harvard Law. One wonders if he had been president of the Law Review if we would have ever seen one of his publications…but I digress.  Joel Pollak…sure enough, went to both Harvard and Harvard Law – just as I had expected.

While I must congratulate the two on emerging from that milieu with any non-collectivist values, it seems that neither of them escaped with a penchant for identifying and confronting the Alinsky staple of marginalization…or, they accept the practice so fully that they simply can’t bear the thought of being on the receiving end thereof.  Well, grow up, boys!  If what Media Matters says about you is a concern (and it clearly is), then perhaps you should choose another line of work.

I think someone misplaced their pacifier.

The real comical element about this whole movement is that there is no concrete legal definition of the term “natural born citizen.”  They have no cornerstone.  I’ve always thought that the term applied to any citizens born on American soil.  Indeed, I would stand corrected. Byron York wrote a great piece in The Washington Examiner since the rude resurrection of this issue thanks to Donald Trump, who Geogre Will aptly called a bloviated ignoramus last Sunday.  York wrote:

The Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but it does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen.

The law uses the phrase “citizens of the United States at birth” and lists categories of people who fit that description.

First, there are people born inside the United States. No question about that; their citizenship is established by the 14th Amendment.

Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.

Since they are all “citizens of the United States at birth,” the question is, does that also mean they are “natural born citizens” in the constitutional sense?

Birthers believe a natural born citizen is a person born to two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time.  Hence, the reason why birthers have Marco Rubio, the crown prince of the Tea Party movement, in their crosshairs if he should ever be chosen as Romney’s running mate.

Well, according to Theodore Olson, Bush’s former solicitor general:

“My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen…[Olsen] defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father served in the U.S. Navy there. Even though the area was under American jurisdiction and both McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens, some Democrats alleged McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain won the case, if not the presidency.

The law is really quite lenient, especially for those born outside the United States. If a child were born today in, say, Kenya, to a Kenyan father and an American citizen mother who had lived in the United States for at least five years, at least two of them over the age of 14 — that child would be a “citizen of the United States by birth” and be eligible for the White House.

However, this hasn’t stopped people like Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, who vociferously pushes the birther issue and has gone on record to say Rubio is ineligible for the VP slot due to his parents not being citizens at the time.  Washington lawyer Matthew McGill, who York cites in his column, states  ”I am not aware of anyone who has contended that someone could be born in the United States and be a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment and nevertheless still not be a natural-born American citizen…if he is born in the United States, his parentage is not of consequence.”  No to mention that there is incontrovertible proof that Rubio was born in Miami, Florida.

In the words of John Adams, “facts are stubborn things.” Barack Obama is eligible for president, he is the president, and now we must focus all of our efforts in voting him out of office come November.  We have no time to theorize absurd notions about the “origins of his birth.”  This is time to get serious about the fate of our republic and our economy and we have zero time for sophomoric conspiracy theories whose footnote page is no longer than a kindergartner’s book report.  However, this is a free country.  You have every right to keep your opinions, no matter how insane, but I intend, along with other serious conservatives, to do everything possible in order to restore honor and dignity to the White House.  It’s game time and birthers have come unprepared.  They’re still coming down from their Paxil binge.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/why-romney-t-quit-trump-101346115.html

Never mind that twelve days prior to this latest Yahoo News hit piece, Ben Shapiro of Breitbart’s Big Government discovered that: “the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

On that same day Joel Pollack, also of Breitbart’s Big Government, revealed the existence of a pamphlet stating: “Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

The existence of this pamphlet reveals why people like Donald Trump still question the place of obama’s birth.

So the smug, “holier than thou” attitude openly displayed by Walter, Chalian, Klein, Coolidge & Pham in their attack on Trump for simply answering questions about the “birther” issue posed to him by members of the “progressive” Party Pravda is entirely misplaced. Trump simply used his influence and the power of his prestige to pressure obama into showing some proof of birth. Why this was and is such a monumental hurdle for the “most transparent administration” in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy to overcome raises more questions. If there is nothing for obama to hide, why is money being spent to fight revealing said records? Especially when that money could be directed to his re-election campaign? Is obama hiding his college records because they’ll reveal that he enrolled in multiple academic institutions as a foreign exchange student? Again, for the “most transparent administration” since the Big Bang, a simple request to reveal college records is more difficult a climb than Mount Everest?

For Walter, Chalian, et al to express such disdain for Romney’s candidacy because he wants to avoid alienating Trump’s supporters (their assessment) reveals the hollowness of the entire misguided attack.

Wanting to avoid alienating voters is exactly why obama refuses to distance himself from the likes of Bill Maher, whose indefensible, pathologically misogynistic attacks on Conservative women go beyond the pale. obama’s afraid to alienate Maher’s viewers, just as he’s afraid to alienate other members of his extreme, fringe leftist base. Without a mass turnout of his “tax the rich” “government’s job is to take care of us” “occupy whatever” supporters, obama cannot win in November and he knows it. So do his whimpering, obedient suck-ups in the “progressive” Party Pravda.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/why-obama-cant-quit-maher/

Trump trumped?

All but two candidates have declined Trump’s invitation to the Newsmax/ION debate that he is to host:

• Mitt says no
• Bachmann and Perry say no
• Huntsman and Paul say no

Bachmann and Perry join a growing list of candidates that don’t see Trump as a serious political figure and have doubts over his ability to deliver a presidential debate.

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul had previously declined the invitation to the December 27th event and only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have accepted.

Remaining to respond to the request is Gary Johnson. So the tens of Americans that will try to find the debate on the fledgling ION network will either be treated to a 90 minute 3-way between Newt, Huntsman and Trump or Gary Johnson will jump into the fray to make it.. a four way?

The former governor of Massachusetts has not yet commented on his reason for declining to attend.

Considering the size of IONs viewership and the holiday scheduling of the debate, viewership of the event is expected to be light. Newsmax’s choice to use a reality television star to host the debate has caused Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul to decline the invitation and choosing disgraced former CNN news chief Eason Jordan as a producer has also soured the appeal of the event.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum  are the only candidates to so far accept an invite to the December 27th GOP debate, but  with Mitt dropping out even more may decide that that the event is not for them.

Much of the recent bluster has been about the moderator – Donald Trump, but he’s not the only poor choice Newsmax and ION have made. Former CNN News Division Chief Eason Jordan will be one of the producers of the event.

Mr. Jordan was pressured to resign from CNN in 2005 after making statements that our troops in Iraq were deliberately targeting and killing journalists. At the World Economic Forum, Mr. Jordan said “he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) who was on the “Will Democracy Survive the Media?” panel with Mr. Jordan.

CNN then furiously spun the comments as having been misconstrued and “taken out of context” by a few bloggers. In the end, Mr. Jordan’s tenure at CNN came to an end.

That’s only the most recent of Eason’s mis-steps. His time in CNN’s Baghdad bureau was tarnished by his cover-up of Saddam’s violent and murderous acts against Iraqis and his own bureau’s staff – all so that he wouldn’t lose his position at the bureau.

Eason is no great model of integrity. Add on Trump and you have a debate more fit to be a circus side-show than a Presidential event.

I don’t blame Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul one bit for passing on this debate. I won’t be watching either – and I haven’t missed one yet.

This phenomenon is quite discouraging on many different levels. One of the side effects of the media treatment is that most conservatives don’t speak with any level of righteous indignation in press conferences and interviews, fearing the media criticism that would follow. The result of this is when a Republican speaks with appropriate anger towards Democrats and the media, he or she seems to gain quite a following.

 Donald Trump burst on the scene in early 2011 announcing that he was considering running for president as a Republican. The most interesting thing about this prospect was Donald Trump’s past liberalism, his large campaign donations to numerous Democrats, and most recently, his having supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. But despite these should-be debilitating facts, Trump still managed to gain some traction.

The massive news coverage was garnered based on the billionaire’s constant focus on the obscure issue of President Obama’s birth certificate, with few actual rational criticisms. As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said in jest regarding Trump’s focus on the “birther” issue and liberal history, “I want to see the original long form certificate, with embossed seal, of Donald Trump’s Republican registration.”

Eventually Trump’s charade was up and he admitted he wasn’t going to run for president after all. Trump was getting absolutely slaughtered in polls versus Obama, but that wasn’t the reason he declined to run; he never had any intention to run at any point. The whole event was a massive publicity stunt. So, why did Trump ever get support from a portion of voters on the right? This is likely because of Trump’s directed anger at Obama, China, and OPEC.

It’s no secret that Republican voters love to talk about how great America is and how they believe in American Exceptionalism. When they see foreign powers rising as America falters, its a natural reaction for them to focus their disdain at them. Trump’s tough talk on China gave his supporters a personal sense of patriotism to see a strong figure “stand up” for his country. This is in spite of the economic and diplomatic damage that would’ve been caused by a trade war with China. Americans have also grown tired of Obama’s assault on domestic oil drilling, which has raised oil prices, killed American jobs, and made us even more dependent on the ever hostile Middle East for our energy supply. This issue is another reason why some Republicans supported Trump. Trump wanted to confront OPEC and cuss them out, as he put on display in a speech. It doesn’t matter that the result of this action would’ve at best been no result and at worst, raised oil prices, the reason it got him support was because Americans don’t like OPEC.

Trump’s next idea that some conservatives supported was making foreign nations pay us for our troop presence in their respective countries as well as Iraq paying us back for the war in oil. The silver lining to this idea is that at least some on the right have inadvertently admitted that we can’t afford to have all our troops in so many different countries. It also admits that the Iraq war wasn’t really worth the blood and treasure so we want our money back in the form of a resource, so we can at least financially break even. Republicans liked these ideas because: they generally like an expansive foreign policy with hundreds of bases abroad and cheaper oil prices; and they don’t like excessively large deficits. Now the unfortunate part of the proposals, that apparently didn’t matter to the Trump supporters, were that: 1) Our troops would effectively be international mercenaries instead of being used to uphold their oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. And 2) In the case of the Iraq War, you can’t really force payment for a service that was never requested. Iraq didn’t ask us to attack them and occupy them for 8+ years, thus we can’t just take $2+ trillion worth of their oil reserves. The analogy I like use to describe this idea is: I’m your neighbor and I decide you need some yard work done, despite us not having discussed this. So I go out and mow the lawn, rake and bag the leaves, edge your driveway and etc. My wife and kids are unhappy that I’ve been busy all day and spent money we had planned for other things buying the supplies to do your yard work. So then I decide to take your microwave, toaster, and other household appliances for my efforts.

As you can see, its a pretty good thing that Trump is gone from the presidential scene. Unfortunately, other charlatans parading as conservatives appear to have taken his place. Newt Gingrich for example has been the latest candidate to take his turn surging in the polls. Newt’s sudden popularity is the latest example of the short attention span of the average American voters. Newt is without a doubt a smart guy, I don’t think anyone questions that. But I have to stop myself from committing unspeakable acts every time I hear the platitude that Newt is, “the smartest man in the room”. As Ann Coulter has said, she thinks that Newt is the person who started the rumor that Newt Gingrich is the “smartest man in the room”.

Newt admitted he didn’t see the housing bubble coming (doesn’t have a firm grasp on economics) and has supported an individual healthcare mandate (in his defense he says the Heritage Foundation did as well, which is correct, and this is a chief reason that I don’t blindly take Heritage’s word on issues). Newt has also supported Cap N Trade and he thinks that FDR is one of the nation’s greatest presidents, the New Deal was a success, and that FDR belongs on Mt. Rushmore.

Newt in the past few years has also urged the US to take military action against North Korea. More recently, in the Heritage Foundation’s Foreign Policy debate, Newt came out in favor of conditional amnesty. So how does one with such a terrible record get increasing support among conservatives? The “lack of other alternatives” answer may have some merit, but I think its because of how Newt takes on the media and Obama.

Newt is to debating as what Ronald Reagan was to addressing the American people. Newt’s skill in the debates is that he can offer many simple policy solutions in the 60 seconds he has to answer. Newt possesses quick wit and has bashed the media in interviews/debates, which has contributed to his recent success. Apparently humor and expressing anger at unpopular entities can take you far. So far that they may actually be able to make people who pride themselves on being unemotional on policy issues, unlike their liberal counterparts, and have them forget all of Newt’s storied and terrible past, which is exactly what Newt would like. Newt is quite adept at warding off criticisms of himself in debates by lashing out at the moderators and refocusing criticisms at President Obama instead of at himself or other Republicans. Newt’s strategy of not attacking other candidates has been successful in that he has largely avoided criticism coming from the others in return. The result of this “good-natured” tactic is that the top two Republican front runners are the two with the most political baggage.

Perhaps Newt has genuinely changed and supports none of those ideas currently. But, given that he’s supported a number of terrible ideas in the past, can we trust his first judgment? If President Bush came back and said, “Wow guys, I’m sorry about Iraq, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the $5T in debt I added; I’ve had an epiphany and I’ve seen the error of my ways”. That would be great, but his ability to admit mistakes years out of office isn’t really good for anything. We still have all his policies and their lasting effects as constant reminders to stay vigilant even during Republican administrations. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Can we trust that Newt, even if he no longer supports Cap N Trade + Individual Mandates, won’t have an equally terrible idea that he’ll push and get passed that we’ll be stuck with?” Personally, my answer to the question is no, because I, to quote The Who, “Won’t get fooled again.” Regardless of your own answer to the question, please make sure its not because you fell for the tough talk.

‘Time To Get Tough: Making America #1 Again’

(Great Title, btw)

In the book he reveals that he was/is so serious about challenging Barack Obama for the Presidency that he had the Financial Disclosure documents required to make that run prepared. He is worth an estimated $7 Billion which is much more than most people would have thought, Trump is routinely believed to have inflated his net worth in the past. $3 Billion of his net worth is the ‘Trump’ Brand itself.

Good for him, as a New Yorker would say, He’s done well for himself, I’m happy for him.

Now as to him running, presumably 3rd Party, and ensuring Barack Obama’s Re-Election…

I’ve long said that if Trump runs I will found, manage, spearhead and crush him with a Grass Roots Campaign that I will call:

4/11 Barbers for Truth

I’ve selected the color of 4/11 Barbers for Truth to approximate the odd color of Mr. Trumps variegated locks.

4/11 Barbers for Truth will, once and for all, get to the truth about Mr. Trump’s hairline(s).

1. Where do they truly begin?
2. How many of them are there?
3. Has Melania ever seen him after a shower?
4. How much of the Federal Budget will be dedicated to Hair Products?
5. How has he managed to avoid the wind all these years?

I promise you that is only the beginning of the questions we will pursue as vigorously as he avoids windy, rainy days.

Personally, I think he’s just doing what ‘The Donald’ does best; Pimping the Trump Brand.

But it is possible that he thinks a Run for the White House would Burnish the Brand even more. If he runs he will find out that 4/11 Barbers for Truth will be more cutting on his reputation than he can imagine… Edward Scissorhands ain’t got nothin’ on us.

I implore Mr. Trump not to force our hand.

What do you guys think?  Is The Donald’s hair piece too tight?  Or does he have a point?  For context, you can find the Jon Stewart video he’s talking about right here.

Let us know in the comments below.  Or maybe you can go by Trump’s office and tell him yourself.  It’s not like he seems to be busy or anything.

Does China manipulate their currency? Yes, they certainly do. Do we manipulate our currency? Yes, we certainly do. Is the federal reserve endlessly printing money economically beneficial or does it have a brief minor stimulative effect before damaging an economy long term? Most people would agree that its the latter. So if us doing it has negative effects on ourselves, how does China do it to their long term benefit?

China also gets talked up by President Obama as a nation that has invested in “green energy” and that if we don't also invest in green energy, we'll fall behind them. First, China does have a fair amount of factories producing green energy products; and not coincidentally GE has exported a large number of jobs there (yes, that’s correct, our President's chief economic adviser has outsourced thousands of jobs overseas). China also actively builds as many coal power plants as it possibly can. According to the BBC, China is the world's worst polluter; this is not a nation we should always take our cues from. In 2007, a study released by the World Bank has shown that 760,000 people die yearly from pollution related illnesses. But back to green energy briefly, I don't want to insinuate that I hate green energy, because I don't. What I hate is paying billions yearly to companies that produce products that don't work or people don't want. If green energy had such great potential, why do companies need the government to invest in it, wouldn't investors be lining up to make money in such a terrific venture? I am still curious what the realistic expectations from when solar/wind has been sufficiently explored; as far as I know, they aren't expected to be a main source of energy, just complimenting main energy sources. My next question is, why don't we let China dump tons of money into green energy, and if they come up with a product that works, our companies will begin improving on their methods and creating a better product. If not, and so far green energy has been a money sink, then the joke is on them; they've wasted billions of dollars in mal-investments.

Another fear is that China's military is growing stronger and has started to use advanced technology. China spent $100 billion last year on their military budget, the US by comparison is proposing a national defense expenditures of over $950 billion. In terms of money spent, they won't overtake us for a long while. At the moment, China has no bases outside of its borders and hasn't expressed plans to do so. If in the event this does happen, one can expect conservative talk radio to be paranoid and abuzz for weeks, but in my opinion this offers us an opportunity. China has been pressuring North Korea to quit threatening everyone with nuclear war, being as they are in the region, they have quite an interest in stability. If China is dumb enough to ever want to put military bases in locations that we currently police, we can give them the reins to the costly burden we currently carry. If they want to spend tens of billions to put bases in the Korea's and such, we should not only let them, we should encourage them. If needed we can pull the “rope a dope” and fund insurgents to bog them down, however we should be grateful we've found an idiot willing to pay the full cost of an expensive liability that yields no tangible benefits.

Lastly, another of Trump's main issues was the trade war with China. Trump proposed a 20% tariff on Chinese imports. Now, if our goal was to stick it to them, that would be one way of doing it. The problem though is that the goods purchased here by our lower income citizens would cost 20% more, a burden which they cannot afford. Worse, as was caused by the Smoot-Hawley tariff under Hoover, a trade war would likely ensue and China would put a 20%+ tariff on their imports; harming not only our companies but our diplomatic relations. So the best analogy I can think of to this whole 20% tariff on Chinese goods would be comparing it to the Middle Eastern punishment for thievery, which is cutting off the thief's hand. Except when the enforcer went to cut off the thief's hand, he accidentally cuts his hand off as well. Actually its a bit worse than that, because the Great Depression saw the harmful consequences of protectionism and trade wars, so really it'd be more like the enforcer seeing an instructional video of what to avoid doing when severing hands, and still screwing it up anyway.

Do not conclude from this writing that I am a fan of China. As a libertarian, I despise a collectivist state that crushes the individual and China assuredly is that. It is natural for Americans to resent China, as they see our nation's power and prominence transfer to China, in a tragic “changing of the guard” ceremony. But trade agreements only work if they are beneficial to both nations, and our trading with China is mutually beneficial. Spiting them will only cause diminished prosperity in both nations and besides, you don't really want to get on the bad side of your main creditor/a rising power. As Calvin Coolidge once said, “Don't expect to build up the weak by tearing down the strong”. China's rise doesn't have to be America's fall. Be skeptical of all governmental action, foreign and domestic, but don't let irrational fears cause irrational actions.

O’Donnell criticized the network that employs him for continuing to host Trump’s “The Apprentice”. On O’Donnell’s MSNBC show, “The Last Word”, he said, ““NBC has created a monster and it is called Donald Trump,” and he continued by calling the Donald “the most deranged egomaniac in the history of the NBC Entertainment division”. O’Donnell brought up the tired assertions that Trump is a birther and called the Trumpster’s actions sleazy.

Where WaPo comes in is in it’s attempt to raise O’Donnell to media hero status for having said such brave things against the NBC star.

After his very public broadside against his employer, he waited for a reaction. And waited. But there were no angry calls from NBC executives, no take-him-to-the-woodshed meetings at 30 Rock, MSNBC’s home. “We didn’t get a single call” from the brass, O’Donnell says, a sly smile breaking across his lips.

The non-reaction bespeaks either the network’s tolerance for self-embarrassment or O’Donnell’s critical importance to MSNBC.

Wow. The experts at creating straw men to knock them down, the Washington Post (you’ve seen the ridiculous “5 myths” crap from them right?), is now putting the absolute failure of a commentator that is Lawrence O’Donnell on a pedestal because NBC didn’t respond to him criticizing Trump??

The Washington Post is quickly becoming supermarket tabloid material. News Flash WaPo, EVERYONE is already criticizing Donal Trump. It was a show boat move on his part. He never intended to run. We all got that months ago.

Granted, the Post did publish it on Friday when everyone’s busy doing everything other than reading news. It still doesn’t hide that absolute bias that lives within the halls of the Post.

Much ado about nothing. That is the best way to sum up the last few months where Donald Trump is concerned.

Following the lead of Mike Huckabee over the weekend, today The Donald announced that he would not be running for office.

On our April 14 episode of “The Plain, Hard Truth BlogTalkRadio Show” we discussed Donald Trump and his possible run for office. In this conversation we discussed whether or not he was a serious candidate or if this was just another way to strum up publicity for his next reality show.

I said that it is really hard to take someone seriously whose tag-line is, “You’re Fired!” I also said it was hard to take someone seriously who has as much money as Donald Trump has, yet his hair looks the way it does!

On to the more serious note and purpose of this article- you have got to be kidding me! We have wasted precious time talking about this man who is just another narcissistic, pompous jerk. Why in the world would you talk the way you have talked for months now if you are not going to run?

Please don’t get me wrong- I was never a fan of having “The Donald” on the ballot. In fact, it is a great big answer to prayer that he will not be running for President.

I guess there is one thing Donald Trump accomplished for us- Obama’s birth certificate. As I stated in my article, “Mr. Obama FINALLY Presents His Birth Certificate“, I believe Mr. Trump being so vocal and insistent on this issue forced Obama’s hand. Just to re-state the obvious from my previous article, this birth certificate could very well be a fake. At this point it’s a mute point. My only real question that remains in this issue is why did it take so long?

Now that I think about it, maybe that was “The Donald’s” goal all along. Maybe he just used the free publicity to force Obama’s hand on this issue. Donald Trump had absolutely nothing to lose in this. He said the things publicly that many of us wish our elected officials would say.

The one thing Donald Trump had going for him is that he was not afraid to say what he was thinking. I think this is one of the main reasons why he had a bit of a following- those hoping he would indeed run for President. If only all of the other candidates running for office would follow in his footsteps, say what they mean and mean what they say rather than playing political games, this country would be in much better shape!

One thing we can say for certain- Donald Trump was not playing politics. I guess the more appropriate term would be he was playing America!

Maybe that’s the title of his next reality show- “The Apprentice: Playing America For A Fool“!

Or will it be, “The Apprentice: The Search For The Birth Certificate“.

Tune in to your local NBC station this fall season!

So any bets on who may be next to throw in the towel?

Considering the fact that NBC shows a blatant bias towards the Obama administration in it’s propaganda reporting today, this could be an attempt to keep Trump from continuing to expose Obama’s dysfunctional, anti-Capitalist policies on the National stage also. While some GOP candidates do carp about certain Obama policies, they also carry with them a moderate-leaning political correctness that the country is flat out tired of, especially among conservative Americans sick of staring at trillions of dollars in deficit spending and the ignoring of our Constitution. The fact is that Trump tells it like it is, and this is very distressing to the Obama administration that needs to keep Americans uninformed as to how the Democrat’s current Socialist agenda will “transform” America into nothing more than a third rate country, due to the massive amounts of debt we are racking up today. Now Obama and his Democratic minions in Congress want to raise the debt limit again and further push America towards $15 trillion dollars of debt. How stupid is that people? Say that out loud, ” $15 trillion dollars of debt.” Is that stupid and irresponsible or what?

I hope that Donald Trump keeps making his voice heard on the national stage, whether it is as a candidate or President or not. Here is my suggestion for Mr. Trump, based on the business/money aspect of this situation. Take NBC,s $60 million, and make  Fox or another major network  pay you for a solid amount of air time to keep on expressing your thoughts on how to fix this country. Make sure your voice will be heard on a steady basis no matter what decision you make. If you are dead serious about your desire to right this sinking, progressive ship called America, then put up the money and run for President and while your at it show NBC and the rest of the puppets that no amount of money will buy you out of this upcoming election. Either way, we need to hear your voice, and not just on your TV show. I believe Donald Trump is a true American Patriot at heart, and we need all the Patriotic voices we can muster up.

Trump says no to presidential run-  http://www.theblaze.com/the-wire/6808933/trump-says-no-to-presidential-run/