Based on historical experience, Americans are realizing what has been lost in the absence of President Reagan’s leadership.

Many short-sighted influence peddlers had their hands in Americas “cookie jar”. They hated Reagan, and the last thing they wanted was for Americans see the success of his management strategy. They feared that Ronald Reagan’s successful use of an outside auditing firm to manage the federal budget would become so profound; that, his chief executive style of spending and control policies would reflect too well on the Republican Party, and thus the true potentiality of the successfulness of the democratic process, and true representation would inevitably be so much more realized by all, and much to President Reagan’s credit. Also, the positive impact on the US economy of having a balanced federal budget, for what would have been a significant duration, would today be entered into our history books and touted as a highly beneficial impact on the vigorous US economy. Those acclaims, otherwise would still be today’s economic news. That is a hypothetical scenario of what could have been the condition of the American economy today. Hypothetically, the future of America’s economy can be returned to sound economic footing if Mc Cain and Sara Palin get elected and bring in the consensus of the American public to stop the waste in Washington.

They are our only real chance to turn hypothetical into reality.

I don’t want hypothetical fantasy to be the reality of Americas future. Hypothetical doesn’t gain us respect internationally. Hypothetical doesn’t create an economic powerhouse of a democracy for the world to look up too.

So the biased media and the money grubbers hated Ronald Reagan’s legacy for his highly respectable executive management style in the Oval Office. They were thinking/saying, hey, our propaganda is more powerful than the Reagan constituency. We can / will, keep interjecting our media bias into the public domain by referring to his economic agenda as, “Reaganomics”, and in a short time this negative stereotype of Reaganomics will become instilled into generations of Americans.  With our the use of our powerful influence and control of America’s telecommunications system, we’ll weaken the conservatives, and continue to get inconceivably wealthy off of the US treasury.

The first thing President Clinton did when he came into the office of the presidency was to give seventy billion dollars to the American media. That should be illegal, as it is highly improper for a US president to passively or preemptively give a huge chunk of our US treasury dollars to the national media, where is least of all needed by the American people.

This monetary conflict of interest, this impropriety, is an a secret guarantee incentive for the national news media to continue to use direct and subliminal control of news and information. They do this by continuing to infuse a biased stereotype in their news broadcasting. I don’t believe it is appropriate for democrats in Washington to expect taxpayers to tolerate a Propaganda Pedaling Bribery Superfund. Is that supposed to be some kind of executive super privilege? So President Clinton’s very first action as president was to do his worst to adversely impact the benefits of Ronald Reagan’s Legacy, by tossing $70,000,000,000.00, that’s seventy billion dollars, out of our treasury to the media dogs.

That is seventy billion with a big B. Now that we’re having a rainy day, what in the heck can our overstuffed fat media pundits do for us. They can’t, or don’t lend money to Americans or other banks. I guess that is just tough luck for America’s future generations. I see the same scenario repeating itself if our propaganda peddling media succeeds in leading our young American voters down Barak Obama’s path toward the final destruction of the United States Treasury and economy. Why shouldn’t I believe that is what an Obama Presidency would entail? Neither he or his Vice Presidential running mate, Joseph Biden have uttered a word about discretionary spending, budget reform, or budget cutting.

John Mc Cain and Sara Palin have made budget reform and budget balancing their pledge to the American people. In order to do so they need our help to elect a republican (conservative) majority to the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. That is what Ronald Reagan kept saying he needed when he ran for office, and he was always right.

I fear that the previous scant reporting about the seventy billion dollars Clinton passed out to the US news media could seem puny. For lack of proper and ethical news reporting, the big media networks will as easily help us overlook, and forget who is really responsible for the barren monetary future our nation’s children, which we may have to face as a result of yet more, large giveaways from “our” treasury.

The spending policies of the Bush administration may have little, if no effect on the US economy. With the American media’s “instilled” financial conflict of interest, and for their lack of being inclined to make news headline of the issues, where their integrity is certainly in question. How less likely will seven “hundred” billion dollars, much less seventy billion dollars from the US treasury will be made the real news story. Seventy Billion from the US treasury into their pockets was huge and alarming news. A mere excerpt of Clinton’s action was made mention during news casts for a day or two, leaving the impression, and tone, that this was something that was supposed to happen.

I hope this is convincing enough to Americans as it is for my-self. As I know, the United States can ill afford another big time liberal spender as Bill Clinton was. 

How adversely will Obama be willing to act as Bill Clinton had? The more harm he can do to the US treasury deficit, all the greater the harm the impact of the treasury deficit will have on the US economy, and thus, Obama and the liberals, will blame the resulting economic downfall on the Bush administration’s past economic policies after he, Obama, hypothetically, and if history repeats itself, depletes the U.S treasury as it seems he intends too. After all, Clinton did it, and it was as if no-one would be the wiser. 

OBAMA, should have as much authority over spending, (pillaging), as did Bill Clinton? !!

I cannot imagine a more frightening scenario than allowing another clintonian protothype “left wing liberal” democrat, into the office of the presidency to do his worst to undermine, the however positive, effect the Bush administration’s economic policies could have. No matter what, with the help of his propaganda pedaling media cronies, he can, would, will, blame the ensuing US economic chaos on the past economic policies of the Bush administration, (and the conservatives would/will lose face), for the lack of a better, more impartial, and less corrupt information source.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of Obama being in charge of a position with such great authority and influence over America’s economy, and the U.S. Treasury. 

How many days, in truth, did Obama spend in that church he attended, listening to hate speeches about the United States. 

I believe he really doesn’t care about the deficit. It seems that the liberal spenders, and perhaps some wayward conservatives don’t care, and no matter how deep the US treasury deficit gets they somehow just keep grabbing more and more, filling their pockets, and even stealing money from the treasury.  

Oh, well, I suppose we all should believe George Clinton isn’t bad or evil. Should we assume that giving 70 billion dollars to the national media wasn’t and evil act, even though it was one of the single most profound actions taken, that brought the United States treasury ever so much deeper into its insolvent deficit. 

Thus, the continuing depletion of the US treasury undermines, and is continues threatening the very fabric of the nation’s economy as a whole. Ronald Reagan kept telling everyone this fact over, and over and over again, but, President Reagan’s message somehow remained muted, porimarily on account of the carelessness and bias of the US national news media.  This greed, is in conflict of interest with the needs of the American public.

The entire world began to look up to President Reagan, and started to have respect and admiration for the United States on account of his leadership. All we kept hearing from the liberals and the over gratified American national news media in daily newscast, was unrelenting propaganda and the redundant stereotypical terms of:

“Reaganomics”, Ronald Reagan…a warmonger, …warmonger.

The media bias is less obvious today.

President Reagan always touted the Heritage Foundation for providing the forum and means he needed to help him become as inspired as a conservative representative as he was. I believe the Gipper did a weekly radio addresses at the Heritage Foundation, if I am not mistaken.

There is a whole bastion of information for patriotic and aspiring conservatives at the heritage foundation website. Town Hall and www.heritage.org are my favorite websites.

Sorry if I fail to keep the focus of my writing on the title of this piece, but one thing leads to another, and the overkill spending of taxpayer dollars in Washington is quite alarming. 

The Heritage foundation has been around many years, and we need this conservative forum to stand strong as an armor bearer against the big money upstarts like Move On org, whom, with the monetary assistance of the New York Times, placed an attack ad against General David Petraeus, an attack ad which was purely an assassination of David Petraeus’es character, while he, and our soldiers put their lives at risk serving and protecting our nation. In comparing the two organizations, it is the Heritage Foundation that has a very large membership. Move On is very small in comparison. Move On has the financial backing of a couple big time spenders. The Heritage Foundation has the consensus of a very large membership. Move On is small, and gets national attention only because of irregular and unusually large donations of a few very wealthy people, who are more interested in gaining national recognition than influencing policy.

Ronald Reagan told us that we need the Heritage Foundation, and again I must say that he was, is, and always will be, RIGHT.

Come one, Come all! Come to where the flavor is. Come to Schwarzenegger Country.  I bought some Schwarzenegger and I found that they really, really, had no flavor at all. Apparently, the executives of Schwarzenegger and Co. were more interested in making whoopee than producing quality cigars. So as a result, the California Corporation is going bankrupt while Arnold Shwarzkof and his crones walk away with huge pension payouts. Meanwhile, California will have to deal with the consequences of Shwarzkof’s negligence for decades, because his alter ego republican, Quaid, would rather let California's cigars get plowed under. Mr. Arnold believes that drilling oil off the California coast will have no impact on the flavor, or the price of cigars for over a decade. The preverbal and scripted assumption is, that the price of cigars and widgets won’t be affected. That is, the prices won’t come down. If Mr. Arnold and his genius buddies are so smart, then I suppose that they have statistics and forecast scenarios that reflect how sitting on their hands and ours, will keep the price of cigars and widgets from rising in the next decade.

WHAT IF AVERAGE AMERICANS BECAME ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE MINERAL WEALTH THAT THE POWER MONGERS IN WASHINGTON HAVE BEEN HOARDING FOR DECADES.   OH YEA! BIG BROTHER LEFTY FREDDY IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE EVIL OIL INDUSTRY AND SAVE AMERICA FROM ENERGY STARVATION. DON’T YOU BELIEVE THE FRIENDLY LEFTY FEDDY CLUB?  THEY WANTS TO BE YOUR HERO! ?

I clicked that link before I even read it.  "The Mc Cain Story, The Real Saga" is merely a long diatribe written by someone whom is brooding merely because Mc Cain got recognized and he didn't.  So Mc Cain failed to flatter him, so what.  Someone who writes a column merely because he thinks everyone wants to hear him wine about how purportedly undisciplined Mc Cain was is hardly worth pause. Oh and Mc Cain gets all the recognition and glory. Gee, how controversial! Perhaps our Nation needs complainers, and doom and gloom soothsayers, to lead her.

Nevertheless; I see the error of my way. My father was a Major in the USAF and he passed away when I was 14. So when I see a leader like Ronald Reagan or a Prospective leader like John Mc Cain, I envision them to be a fatherly image and as a result I became a little over protective by resorting to insults. I apologize for loosing perspective with the insult I used. Instead of insulting you, I should have taken a more productive approach through persuasion. You re-asserted that you are a Veteran. Well I’m merely an Air Force Brat. I should have started with saying, Thank-you for serving for our country.”  That is Ronald Reagan’s style of persuading people. I’m sure Mc Cain has matured a great deal since his caviler days in the Navy. 

Do you support Obama? Having admitted using Cocaine and Marijuana when he was young; it seems to me that Obama has created a bit of discipline controversy on his own.

Obama’s plans for dismantling our national defense, and raising all manner of taxation, in my book is nothing less than a plan to turn America into a communist totalitarian regime. He could attain absolute power like Vladimir Putin’ while using the media to convince everyone we are free. What kind of leader would stop fuel production, cut military spending knowing all the well this will bring our economy to a screeching halt as it nearly is. It is a recipe for the defeat of the strongest military, economy, and democracy in the world. I am set in my belief. I am willing to listen / read articles that may change my points of view; however, I was an avid supporter of President Reagan.

He had oil imports down to merely 30%. George Bush is no Ronald Reagan and John Mc Cain is starting to share Reagan’s reputation as a maverick. We must place issues in a manner of priority.