America needs a leader

Recently on Facebook, I lamented about the need for a GOP presidential candidate for 2012 that offers more encouragement for individual liberty and entrepreneurship. I received several comments back that current domestic economic climate began under the previous president. Some of that is true. Medicare Part D is probably the biggest disappointment. But now, we see the rundown of the United States and the promotion of the third world. Most recently, the admission of the head of NASA that his primary role - as directed by the president - is to make the muslim world feel good about themselves. Forget about putting man in space outside of earth orbit, requiring increases in scientists, etc.

Following is an excerpt from President Reagan's first State of the Union speech in 1982. He makes no apologies for US economic supremacy. Young people may feel it is silly to invoke Reagan. I feel he belongs in the tier of Washington and Lincoln. When reading many of his speeches, they are inspiring.

To view the State of the Union in perspective, we must not ignore the rest of the world. There isn’t time tonight for a lengthy treatment of social or of foreign policy, I should say a subject I intend to address in detail in the near future. A few words, however, are in order on the progress we’ve made over the past year re-establishing respect for our nation around the globe and some of the challenges and goals that we will approach in the year ahead.

At Ottawa and Cancun, I met with leaders of the major industrial powers and developing nations. Now some of those I met with were a little surprised I didn’t apologize for America’s wealth. Instead I spoke of the strength of the free marketplace system and how that system could help them realize their aspirations for economic development and political freedom.(my emphasis) I believe lasting friendships were made and the foundation was laid for future cooperation.

Compare the texts of the first SOTU speeches from Reagan and Obama and you will see 2 totally different philosophies. When you examine the application, you see the difference in the outcomes played out in our economies.

Reagan in 2012!!

Proof of citizenship

This is tongue-in-cheek for the people in California that can't understand this.

Today I had to go visit my bank. I had done a mistake on my online access and so I went in to the local branch to have them correct my boo-boo.

Can in you imagine this? The first thing the customer service rep asked of me after explaining my mistake was for my DRIVER'S LICENSE. And to make matters worse, I gave it to her - no questions asked.

Really, I expected her to ask for identification and if she didn't ask I was going to show it to her anyway.

So what is so bad about aliens ANYWHERE within the borders of the United States expected to show proof of legitimate presence. If CITIZENS are expected to show ID, why not aliens? If they are here legally, they should not be a problem to display proper credentials.

The US government has got to get control of this issue.

That was then, this is now

Twenty-eight years minus one day, another President gave his first State of the Union speech. Similarly, the United States was in an economic recession. At that time, unemployment was over 10%, inflation and consumer interest rates were above 15% each. In his speech, President Reagan outlined his plan to bring the country out of that recession.

The cumulative national debt had just exceeded one trillion dollars. More than 200 years were needed to accumulate that level. (We have now crossed $12 trillion and see no end in sight for its continued growth.)

Reagan listed 3 keys to reducing budget deficits. First, encourage economic growth. Second, Lower interest rates and third, control federal spending. He was very adamant about NOT raising taxes as an attempt to lower the deficit. He felt that would encourage federal spending (and the Democrats in charge of Congress did not lower spending) and would discourage private investment.

He also referred to recent meetings with foreign leaders. He said how they were surprised that he (Reagan) did NOT apologize for American wealth and its strength of the free marketplace.

These policies DID turn around the national economy then.

Now, 28 years later, another President stood before Congress with a similar economic situation. Fortunately, we do not experience the devastating interest rates we did then. Unfortunately, he is taking just the opposite approach. Considering that Reagan's plan worked - and it did - Obama's plan will probably will not succeed. Our international standing will fall, as it already has started.

I believe Obama may very well be a one term president.

Presidential reading material

As reported today (11/25/2009) on Drudge Report, this picture shows the President leaving the White House carrying a copy of GQ magazine - with a picture of himself on the cover!! Maybe he just uses it as a cover for very important top secret files. HA!

This man really has no clue of his position in the world.

The government is upside down

Is it just me or does anybody else notice how topsy turvy the Obama administration is?


First, I see that the Justice Dept. will not pursue the prosecution of illegal marijuana use. We can debate the criminality of such behavior. Is it wise to tell the public that even though "we the government know that marijuana use is illegal according to the law, we are letting you know that we will not prosecute you." Would that not possibly encourage more illegal behavior?


Second, the government has also quietly said they will not pursue pornographers. There is an obvious linkage between pornography and sexual crimes.

What are we telling the criminals?? You go ahead and do what you do and don't fear the government.


Thirdly, the government IS going after highly paid executives in the banking industry and those businesses that have taken bailout money from the government. The "pay czar" is limiting the income of those individuals. Why could not the government see this coming? Companies get government assistance, start to make a profit again and then reward their employees accordingly. There were no ties initially linking pay and performance when the money was distributed. Now they change the rules AFTER the fact. The debate can go on about whether these companies performed the expectations the government originally had for them. Some may very well may not performing as hoped. But there were no expectations put in writing. (That we know of, since the government is not being very open about the details of how the money has been spent.) The government is possibly going after other businesses in the same fields as the original recipients.


I have hard a time accepting the fact that the government can say how much an individual can earn from a private business. This type of government interference is directly contrary to free enterprise. Earn as much as you can for the work you do. This witch hunting the government is involved in is just plain un-American.


In essence, the current administration is saying that criminal behavior is okay, but legal activity that the government deems wrong will be controlled. This is all wrong!

compare the protesters

It is quite humorous to see what is happening in Pittsburgh this week. Aside from the official events planned for the G-20 Summit, watching the planned protests and police response is very interesting. The city has been boarded up, fenced up, and locked down to control or limit the activities of protestors of the event.


The fear is that violence – whether planned or spontaneous – may spawn destruction or threaten the safety of the summit participants. The ACLU is there defend protester rights. Watch the videos and observe the number of law enforcement officers in the scene and the force they have available to maintain peace.



Now compare that to the march on DC back on 9/12. Protesters everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of participants. Yet, in all of the videos and photos how many police officers were present and how much firepower did they have available? What about all of the tea parties and health care protests around the country? What was the level of police presence? Significantly lower than that in Pittsburgh.

Yet the liberals in control of Congress are more fearful and willing to label conservative protesters as more dangerous to the peace of our country. They say blood will flow in the streets. It takes the Speaker back to the violence of the 1970’s.

I attended a tea party in Fort Wayne, Indiana earlier this year. Hundreds of participants, yet I did not see any police presence. I heard some were there, yet invisible. But this is very demonstrative of the expected behavior of protesters by the police. They don’t fear the conservatives. They are peaceful, yet vocal. They just want to live in peace, trusting that the government will protect them from enemies of that peace, both foreign and domestic.

This is objective proof that conservatives are not the people that the government needs to fear.

Post Office is dissed by the President

Since I am currently an employee of the U.S. Postal Service, the President made an overwhelming proof that government should not be involved as a competitor as a provider of health care services.



The post office cannot compete with UPS and Fedex because of many factors. One, Congress likes to meddle in post office operations. Two, postal management is raised from within and possess little competitive business experience. Three, postal unions have an inordinate influence in basic business decision making. Four - and my last point, but not THE last point - is the general attitude of government employees that job is not directly tied to customer satisfaction.

I tried my best to do my best at work, but one out 700,000 can only do so much.

Federal government dictionary

The federal government uses a dictionary that only they write...they make up the definitions.

When the average American sits down at the kitchen table to see how far this week's paycheck will go. We define "pay as you go" as pay until the money runs out. Seems logical. Can't spend what you don't have.

But in the Washington dictionary PAYGO has a very different definition. It says that you can only spend a dollar in a new appropriation that has been deleted from a different appropriation. Deficit spending is still very much active. The president tries to make it sound like he's spending responsibly, when in fact the annual deficit of the federal budget continues.

The unfortunate problem is that the federal dictionary does not come in printed form. Otherwise somebody may be held accountable. Remaining unprinted allows for a flexible definition. Always changing. Always changing. Always changing.

Inspiriration of Hope

It's been 30 LONG years since Ronald Reagan became a candidate for the Presidency before finally winning. It really seems hard to believe it was that long ago. At that time the economy was literally in the toilet. Double digit unemployment, double digit inflation on goods and services, and double digit rates on home mortgages. In the nation of Iran, Americans were being held hostage.

Candidate Reagan brought a refreshing attitude of self-reliance. He encouraged Americans not to depend on the government, but depend on self and family. Even though he said that government was the problem, there was an appropriate place in America for government. He moved well beyond class division. He lowered income taxes for all Americans, resulting in increased revenues for the government. He embraced economist Arthur Laffer's curve when nobody else would.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush seems to think that Republicans should get over their sentimentality of Reagan. I think that is so wrong! We need to bring back Reagan and introduce him to a new generation. A generation that never has had the privilege of knowing him.

Below is a Reagan speech spliced together from several other speeches. It is obvious of what was made, but it sure does address the problems of today's current events. Sit back and enjoy this.

Photos of Americans torturing

It is very odd that President Obama has reversed a previous decision to publish photos regarding supposed torture of detainees by Americans. During the presidential campaign last year he was all for it. Now he opposes it. Why??

The public rationalization for this turnaround is rationalized that American soldiers may be put closer to harm apparently caused by Muslim indignance. True - some Muslims may be upset and motivated to cause Americans harm based on these photos. But I don't think that the President is really that concerned about military personnel safety.

But the President does think that it is appropriate to show the remains of dead soldiers as they are returned to the United States. No need to worry about shaming them is the apparent mindset.

I believe he is more concerned about his appearance next month in Cairo, Egypt. It is anticipated to be a major speech to Muslims. How can he maintain his high international approval if photos are published of Americans torturing Muslims?? This is a decision of self-concern instead of military protection.

Similarity is AMAZING!!!!!

Had to delete some potentially bad language on the first pic.