Thursday, February 21, 2013

"...each individual is accountable for his or her own actions."

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his or her own actions." - Ronald Reagan

"I love listening to these guys lecture us about deficits. I inherited a trillion dollar deficit." - BO, still blaming Bush in 2012

I just recently finished Peggy Noonan's "When Character was King," a book about Ronald Reagan as a leader and as a person. I've always admired Ronald Reagan - he's always been my favorite president. Now more than ever, I'm bitter that I missed out on his term (I was born when Clinton was in office, I remember sitting on the floor in my living room coloring or something while my parents watched George W. Bush be elected, and now...ugh.)

There were so many things that stood out to me in this book, but probably the biggest is just how far the leadership of this country has fallen since the Reagan era and how sad it is that all the work he did is seemingly being undone under the BO administration. The contrast between Ronald Reagan and BO is mind-blowing.

Before I really knew anything about Reagan, I knew that he helped the economy and that he was strong in foreign relations. Anyone who knows anything about BO knows that he's helped decimate the economy and that he's a joke in foreign relations. Comparing these two presidents policies in these areas reveals a great deal about them

The Economy

BO has often claimed that he inherited the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. That's not true. Like BO, Reagan inherited a very weak economy from his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. His crisis was arguably worse - the Misery Index, inflation rate plus the unemployment rate, was 19.5 when Reagan took office compared to 7.5 when BO began his first term. Today it's at 9.5. Unlike BO, Reagan didn't spend his entire presidency blaming someone else for his economic troubles. He fixed it.

Unemployment and the Work Force

When Reagan took office, unemployment was at 7.4%. When he left in 1989, he had cut that by more than thirty percent, to 5.4% What's even better, though, is he did it by creating jobs. The Labor Force Participation rate (LFP), which measures the proportion of the population either looking for jobs or working, was at 63.5% when Reagan took office. By the end of his first term, when he was running for reelection, he had it up to 64.4% - an addition of 5.7 million jobs.

In contrast, when BO took office, unemployment was at 7.8%. At the end of December 2012, it was at....7.8%. This number is incredibly deceiving, though, because it's based solely on people who are in the LFP and looking for jobs. When BO took office, the LFP was around 66%. In December 2012, it was at 63.7%. As of January 20, 88,839,000 Americans ages 16 and older are not looking for work.

To sum up, while Reagan cut unemployment by more than 30% while adding 5.7 million jobs in his first term (and that's just his first term), BO has seemingly done nothing about unemployment while decreasing the work force.

Inflation

For people, like me, who struggle to understand economics, inflation is "a rise in general prices in an economy over an extended period of time." Think gas prices.

In the last year of Jimmy Carter's term, inflation had reached as high as 14.8%. The day Reagan came into the White House, it was at 12.8%. By 1983, less than two years into his term, Reagan had brought inflation down to below 4%, where it remained for the remainder of his presidency. He did this by "backing a tighter monetary supply" - not printing more money. This led to an initial recession, where unemployment reached as high as 10.2%, before providing a stable economy as described above.

Here's BO's inflation resume: When BO took office, inflation was at 0.2%. As of January, it was at 1.6%. Yep, that increased too. According to DollarTimes.com, where you can find out the value of American dollars every year compared to today (try it - it's fun), $1.00 in 1984, at the end of Reagan's first term, had the same buying power as $2.27 in 2013.

Let's use gas prices as a specific example. Under Reagan's first term, the price of gas decreased from $1.25 to $1.17. In BO's first term, gas prices rose from $2.40 to $3.17.

Taxes

In his first few months in office, Reagan enacted the Economy Recovery Tax Act of 1981, where he cut taxes across the board by 23% - including for the highest income earners. Reagan was a believer in trickle-down economics, meaning that the benefits of economic policies that benefit the wealthy in turn help everyone as the wealthy employ and invest. He cut the budgets of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development by 40%, of Commerce by 32%, of Agriculture by 24%, of Education by 19%, and of Transportation by 18%; he did increase spending in the Department of Defense because he was a firm believer in the importance of our national security (we'll get to that). Because of these policies, every income level saw an income increase, the highest tax rate on individuals went from 78% to 35%, and the country maintained an unprecedented 92 month economic boom.

Through the fiscal cliff bill, BO raised taxes on everyone making more than $450,000, although he originally wanted to tax everyone making more than $250,000. Through that same bill, he agreed to $1 of cuts to federal programs for every $41 spent. Through the current sequestration, he's trying to raise them again. If they're not raised under the sequestration, the Department of Defense will suffer budget cuts.

Foreign Relations

Ronald Reagan was a badass. That is all.

A little backstory on that speech makes it all the more kick ass. Reagan was an adamant anti-Communist - he viewed it as the biggest threat to American security ("How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone he reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.") He'd had been trying to get the Soviets to cut back on the number of nuclear weapons for his entire presidency. Not surprisingly, they resisted.

In 1979, Reagan visited NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command). While there, he asked what would happen if the Soviets launched a nuclear missile at the US at that moment. The response was: "It would blow us away." Reagan was disturbed to know that, for all the money that was spent there, all NORAD would be able to do in the face of a real nuclear threat was tell the American people that they had approximately fifteen minutes to live.

At the time, most people thought they were pretty safe because of MAD - mutually assured destruction, that is, if the Soviets fired at the US the US would retaliate and vice versa, ergo no one fired. But Reagan didn't like that, especially when he was told that even under that policy approximately 150 million Americans would die if a nuclear war actually commenced. So he launched what he called the SDI - the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The SDI was a program to form a sort of nuclear shield to protect from a nuclear missile. It wasn't supported by American citizens - it was impossible, it wasn't necessary, it was too expensive, it would be destabilizing, it was only a bargaining chip for Reagan to get the Soviets to cut their number of nuclear weapons - and it wasn't supported in the Pentagon - because they knew it meant less funding for their projects. And it definitely wasn't supported in the Soviet Union.

The Soviets knew they were fighting a losing battle, that their totalitarian dictatorship wouldn't spread across the world. The one thing they had going for them was their ability to scare other nations with their nuclear missiles. If Reagan succeeded with SDI and gave it to other nations, as he promised to do, they lost all that remained of their power. They also knew that SDI might work and they did not want the US to beat them.

Gorbachev was the fourth Soviet president during Reagan's tenure and all his predecessors had refused to come to terms with Reagan regarding arms reductions of both countries. In 1985, Reagan gave it another go with this new president in Geneva. SDI was a major topic and, for Gorbachev, a major problem. He did not believe that Reagan would share it with the Soviets and believed it was an offense because why would the US need a shield if they didn't intend to issue the preeminent strike?

The two men got along and left the meeting without coming to terms, but they continued their discussion through a series of letters. Reagan used them to soothe away Gorbachev's concerns regarding SDI. Gorbachev responded without a public letter where he promised that "the Soviet Union would eliminate all its intermediate force nuclear weapons in Europe, would agree to a moratorium on nuclear testing and it would consider the elimination of all nuclear weapons on both sides by the end of the century...in return for one thing." This one thing, of course, was the elimination of SDI.

Reagan had a lot to gain by agreeing, publicity wise. He didn't. The Soviets, he knew, were working on building their own version of SDI and he still thought it was too important to surrender. What followed then was a series of hostage situations and tensions had risen high by the time the two men met again in Reykjavik.

In Reykjavik, Gorbachev and Reagan made immense progress. Gorbachev agreed to eliminate nuclear missiles in Europe and all ballistics missiles within ten years. They both agreed to cut nuclear delivery programs. Gorbachev said he would "seriously reduce the Warsaw Pact forces." They'd come to terms and had negotiated, in Reagan's words, "the most massive weapons reductions cut in history." Then Gorbachev said that it all depended, of course, on the end of SDI.

Reagan lost his temper. Gorbachev refused to budge. Reagan left the meeting.

Again, Reagan took a huge risk, publicity wise. This would have been "the most massive weapons reductions cut in history." He would have had respect from his supports and critics. It might have been the most defining moment of his entire presidency. Except it wasn't.

This was. The next year, he gave his famous "Tear down that wall!" speech. Four months later, Gorbachev requested another meeting. In that meeting, the came to an agreement banning all intermediate-range nuclear weapons. Reagan continued work on SDI and the Soviet Union became a non-threat.

Yeah. He was a badass.

Barack Obama is an apologist. That is all.

  • Four Americans were killed in Benghazi in a terrorist attack. BO blamed an anti-Muslim video made in the US and apologized
    • This, of course, was a terrorist attack. That nobody was ever punished for. 
    • Hell, here are his top 10 apologies as of 2009
  • He's hired Chuck Hagel as his Secretary of Defense. Chuck Hagel hates Israel. 
  • BO refuses to make any spending cuts....except for the Department of Defense.
  • BO's Soviet Union is North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. They just did a test of said nuclear weapons. North Korea just released a video game of BO in flames. BO has done nothing. 
I don't really need to sum up the differences between these two men here. The data and the policies speak for themselves. Here's a visual difference, though: Ronald Reagan, having just lost the presidential bid in 1976 to incumbent President Gerald Ford, was asked to make an impromptu speech. This wasn't hard, because he was intelligent, passionate, and knew what he was talking about. Have you ever seen BO without his TelePrompter

God bless America




Thursday, February 14, 2013

"Death is the solution..."

"Death is the solution to all problems - no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin

His name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and he was 16-years-old when President Barack Obama had him killed.

Unless you were living under a rock for the last month, or in case you only watch MSNBC and CBS, you know that in the early days of this month the Department of Justice leaked a memo that authorized the use of drones by the government to kill people who pose an "imminent threat" to the United States. This includes American citizens. The report goes on by saying that it "does not require the United State to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." On February 2, the White House won a court battle that allows it to keep the reason it targets specific Americans for drone strikes a secret.

Are you scared yet?

This brings us back to Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was killed on October 14, 2011 while eating dinner outside at a restaurant in Yemen, where he'd lived for approximately five years. He was born in America and was an American citizen. His father, Anwar al-Awaki, also an American citizen, had taken his family to Yemen to join al-Queda. He was a very prominent figure in the terrorist organization until he and Samir Khan, another American citizen, were killed in drone strikes two weeks before his teenage son. The teenage son he hadn't seen in two years because he was in hiding. Anwar al-Awaki was on an established American kill list. His son was not. So why was he killed? We don't know and, according to the courts, the White House doesn't have to tell us. We said it after Benghazi and we were ignored, but we now have proof: Barack Obama can get away with murder.

Before I move onto the real cause of concern, let me address the drones themselves a bit. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles controlled either by pilots on the ground or pre-programmed missions and drone attacks are attacks carried out by drones with missiles. The strikes didn't begin under the Obama administration; the first reported drone strike occurred in Yemen in 2002. They began in Pakistan in 2004. Under the Bush administration, there were 52 drone strikes in Pakistan. Under Obama, there have been 310. I can't find statistics comparing the two in Yemen, but since 2008, the number of strikes has decreased in Pakistan while increasing in Yemen; there were seven strikes in the first ten days of 2013.

I'm not going to talk about the hypocrisy of the Left criticizing (to put it kindly) George W. Bush for using water boarding techniques and giving Obama a pass with the drones (which is wrong: Bush's techniques never killed a terrorist; the Nobel Peace Prize winner is estimated to kill a terrorist with a drone daily.) I'm actually going to shock you here: I don't disagree with the use of drones. If drones can be used to take out terrorists abroad and American lives don't have to be risked, go for it. I'm going to focus on the what the media should be focusing on: the fact that BO can and is killing American citizens....and not just with drones.

Yep, the drones are just the start of it. I've been saying for months now that there is some underlying secret to this Obama administration, that they're not as incompetent as they seem. Isn't it strange that Obama isn't even pretending like he cares about the economy? That the only time it comes up is when there's some deadline crisis approaching? How about the fact that, although Obama claims that energy is a huge concern for this term, he's delaying the approval of the Keystone pipeline, which could provide up to 450,000 temporary jobs and could cut America's foreign dependence on oil by up to 40% as the gas prices for the month of February reach an all-time high? And how about the sudden push for all sorts of changes - gun control, women in the military, gay boy scouts - which keeps the media and American citizens pretty distracted?

Distracted is the right word. Obama doesn't want you digging deep right now because if you do, you might find out that why he's not concerned about the economy or about energy or about the citizens of the United States. You might find out about a few things and if you find out those few, you might start making connections. I'm here to help you do just.

While many Americans are choosing to remain oblivious to the impending troubles in this country, other nations aren't. Let me introduce you to the www.eutimes.net. They're not afraid to delve into some pretty wild theories and I'm going to share one with you. It's about Obama's death squads, known as the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Team, or VIPER. It's a program run by the TSA (you know, the same TSA that likes to grope little kids and old people in the airports), which reports to the Department of Homeland Security.

[We interrupt this important message with special news bulletin. This is what the DHS does. The video is long, but it's worth it. This is not an isolated case.]

Anyway, back to the death squads. A Federal Security Forces memo prepared for President Putin in early January states that over 800 of these things are being sent out across the United States in preparation for something that Russian intelligence anticipates to occur around the 22nd of February (happy birthday to me). This information was found after the ruling passed that allowed Obama to kill without a reason. In preparation for this, the DHS has ordered 200,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition on top of the 1.6 billion rounds of this internationally banned ammunition that they've already obtained in the last 9 months. This is nearly 2 billion rounds of ammunition. Compare that to the US military forces, who use only about 70 million rounds of ammunition a year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You might think this sounds absurd and I'd be inclined to agree with you if the Russian intelligence report was where this story ended, but there's more evidence to illuminate the dark underbelly of the Obama administration. Dr. Jim Garrow is a Noble Peace Prize nominee who has dedicated his life to saving orphaned baby girls in China who have fallen victim to the one child policy. He has spent over $25 million in the last sixteen years rescuing approximately 40,000 Chinese baby girls. He is the author of "The Pink Pagoda: One Man's Quest to End Gendercide in China" and is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute's Pink Pagoda schools, 168 private English-immercision schools for Chinese children, and the employer of roughly 6,300 employees. He also claims to have been told by "one of America's foremost military heroes" (whose identity he cannot reveal) that "Obama is using a new 'litmus test' in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leadrs. Get ready to explode folks. 'The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.' Those who will not are being removed." Remember General Ham, who wanted to help the Americans at Benghazi?

Then our friends at the good ol' Federal Security Forces in Russia reported on the first two victims of the Obama death squads:

  1. John Noveske - owner of Noveske Riflewords, on of the mremier makers of "assault-style weapons." He was killed in a single-car accident where he allegedly crossed the oncoming lane on a highway, went into a dirt shoulder, struck two boulders, and was ejected from his car. 
  2. Keith Ratliff - business partner of FPSRussia, the 9th most popular YouTube channel (all about guns), and the sole owner of FPS Industries, which works with customized weaponry and is a world leader in military technology (FPS = First Person Shooter). He was discovered on the side of the road with a single gunshot wound in the head.
Two 2nd Amendment activists turn up dead in mysterious ways.

I really wish I could say they were the only strange deaths, but I can't. I tried to count how many of these were caused by single bullet wounds or single car accidents, but I couldn't keep track. That's my challenge to you. 

How about Chris Kyle? How about the 31 other Navy Seals who've died in the last two years not in combat, including the majority of the men who killed Osama Bin Laden? Where are the Benghazi survivors? 

People who oppose Obama's policies are dying. Obama has been given a legal OK to kill people without giving a reason. This is bad. 

If these blogs ever just stop, please be suspicious. 

God bless America