He's at it again.
Meddling.
Carter has perfected the art of meddling in foreign affairs. In the latest episode Carter met with the leader of the Hamas terrorist organization - a group that attacks Israel daily, calls for the total destruction of Israel, and carries out terrorist attacks against the United States.
Carter has too much free time. Can we put him back in charge of the peanut farm and prohibit him from opening his mouth or leaving the farm. Come to think of it, Carter's mother said Billy was the smart one of the family and now we know why she said it.
Carter has been friends with every international thug and communist dictator since he left office. He must suffer from a rejection complex since Ronald Reagan wiped the political floor with him in 1980. Since then Carter has harbored a grudge against the American people and goes out of his way to blame America for all the world's ills. We make mistakes and irritate people, but Carter's Lefty view is grossly distorted.
During his four years in the White House the country was in a terrible fix. High unemployment, high rate of inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices and long lines at the pumps and odd-even gas days are just brief reminders of those days of "malaise".
In international affairs Carter was even worse, if that is possible. He messed up Iran and created the problems we have today with that country. Carter was weak, indicisive, timid, unwilling or unable to delegate the small matters to subordinates so he could work the big issues.
Today Carter is a metaphor for the Democrat Party. Weak on national security, timid, apologetic for America's dominate role in the world, wishing to surrender power and influence to international organizations composed of thugs, muggers, thiefs, criminals, dictators, and professional America haters, the latest Carter-ites fight for control of their party. Whether it is Obama or Clinton the result will be much the same. A weak national security, a surrender of American independence, a white flag in the face of terrorism, and a reduction of free trade will highlight any Democrat administration.
Not to mention higher federal taxes for everyone.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Salaries
Should the federal government regulate the salaries of private individuals?
Some people are suggesting the feds should look at the salaries CEOs earn and move to limit the amounts paid to CEOs.
Obama and Clinton and McCain have darkly hinted at some type of action by the feds to limit these salaries.
I say the feds should perhaps, and only perhaps, look at CEO salaries after the federal government has done the following things:
1. Balanced the federal budget and paid off the national debt.
2. Placed Congress - House and Senate members - on the same Social Security system that most Americans are forced to use and eliminated the special retirement system Congress established for itself.
3. Enacted terms limits for Congress to a period not to exceed 12 years of total service.
4. Limited the salaries of lawyers to no more than $100 per hour not to exceed $200,000 a year of total salary for any lawyer since the Chief Justice of SCOTUS makes less than $200,000 per year. AND, Lawyers cannot accept more than 10 percent of the proceeds of any lawsuit since the victims shall receive 90 percent of all compensation. However, the $200,000 limit applies to this also.
4. No Hollywood actor, director, producer, writer, or other person involved in the celebrity business shall receive more than $50,000 for any movie deal and shall not receive more than $200,000 in any year. All profits above these levels must be given to the federal government.
5. No baseball, football, basketball, soccer, race car driver, tennis player, golfer, or other person in the sports entertainment business including owners, stockholders, adminstrators, or others, shall receive more than $200,000 per year as salary.
6. No stockbroker, investor, hedge fund owner, broker, banker, union boss, retired politician, university employee, foundation employee, media personality (of all types) or other person in the United States shall be compensated more than $200,000 a year in total compensation from ALL sources.
After all of the above happens for a period of ten years, then Congress may look at the pay of corporate America.
Some people are suggesting the feds should look at the salaries CEOs earn and move to limit the amounts paid to CEOs.
Obama and Clinton and McCain have darkly hinted at some type of action by the feds to limit these salaries.
I say the feds should perhaps, and only perhaps, look at CEO salaries after the federal government has done the following things:
1. Balanced the federal budget and paid off the national debt.
2. Placed Congress - House and Senate members - on the same Social Security system that most Americans are forced to use and eliminated the special retirement system Congress established for itself.
3. Enacted terms limits for Congress to a period not to exceed 12 years of total service.
4. Limited the salaries of lawyers to no more than $100 per hour not to exceed $200,000 a year of total salary for any lawyer since the Chief Justice of SCOTUS makes less than $200,000 per year. AND, Lawyers cannot accept more than 10 percent of the proceeds of any lawsuit since the victims shall receive 90 percent of all compensation. However, the $200,000 limit applies to this also.
4. No Hollywood actor, director, producer, writer, or other person involved in the celebrity business shall receive more than $50,000 for any movie deal and shall not receive more than $200,000 in any year. All profits above these levels must be given to the federal government.
5. No baseball, football, basketball, soccer, race car driver, tennis player, golfer, or other person in the sports entertainment business including owners, stockholders, adminstrators, or others, shall receive more than $200,000 per year as salary.
6. No stockbroker, investor, hedge fund owner, broker, banker, union boss, retired politician, university employee, foundation employee, media personality (of all types) or other person in the United States shall be compensated more than $200,000 a year in total compensation from ALL sources.
After all of the above happens for a period of ten years, then Congress may look at the pay of corporate America.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Politics
They continue to fight.
Clinton and Obama are in a mad slug fest.
I like it.
Obama is in the act of perfecting the extraction of his foot from his mouth. Never underestimate a Lefty and what a Lefty like Obama will say to a closed audience (San Francisco, where the only people who have guns are the police and the criminals and the police are never around when law abiding people need them) of like minded people.
Obama insulted and slurred the working people of Pa. by calling them clingers to their religion and to their guns when times are tough. Well now. What are people to do when times are tough - stay away from church and sell their guns?
Obama displays a typical (to use one of his words) elitist, snobby, and condescending attitude toward working people. No surprise there. Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer, a snob, who talks down to most Americans because he sees Americans as too stupid to recognize what is best for them similar to what Jane Fonda said from a Vietnam rice field long ago - that Americans should fall to their knees and thank God for Communism. She said that just before rushing back to America on her jet. I always wanted to know if it was so good in Vietnam, why didn't she stay and enjoy it working in the rice fields for 12 hours a day? Hmmmmmmmm?
Anyway, I see nothing new in Obama or his ideas. I see worn out liberal/socialist cliches that should be composting in the ash heap of history instead of heard daily on the talking heads shows.
As to Clinton, she regurgitates the same old lines. She is dull. She reminds me of an old East German Communist Party hack singing "Yes, we have no bananas today."
Gosh, just think. One of these two may actually become President.
Then what?
Clinton and Obama are in a mad slug fest.
I like it.
Obama is in the act of perfecting the extraction of his foot from his mouth. Never underestimate a Lefty and what a Lefty like Obama will say to a closed audience (San Francisco, where the only people who have guns are the police and the criminals and the police are never around when law abiding people need them) of like minded people.
Obama insulted and slurred the working people of Pa. by calling them clingers to their religion and to their guns when times are tough. Well now. What are people to do when times are tough - stay away from church and sell their guns?
Obama displays a typical (to use one of his words) elitist, snobby, and condescending attitude toward working people. No surprise there. Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer, a snob, who talks down to most Americans because he sees Americans as too stupid to recognize what is best for them similar to what Jane Fonda said from a Vietnam rice field long ago - that Americans should fall to their knees and thank God for Communism. She said that just before rushing back to America on her jet. I always wanted to know if it was so good in Vietnam, why didn't she stay and enjoy it working in the rice fields for 12 hours a day? Hmmmmmmmm?
Anyway, I see nothing new in Obama or his ideas. I see worn out liberal/socialist cliches that should be composting in the ash heap of history instead of heard daily on the talking heads shows.
As to Clinton, she regurgitates the same old lines. She is dull. She reminds me of an old East German Communist Party hack singing "Yes, we have no bananas today."
Gosh, just think. One of these two may actually become President.
Then what?
Global Warming to Climate Change to ....?
Have you noticed the shifting of the global warming jargon? What was previously called "global warming" suddenly became "climate change." Why did the greenies and weenies from the left and their fellow travelers in the media switch to the all inclusive term "climate change?"
Perhaps it was the glaring inconsistency of any evidence of global warming that forced the true believers to shift their terminology to the more ominous "climate change."
Now we are suppose to think climate is a static element of our world and any change of cooling or warming or too much wind or too many storms or too much rain or the lack of rain in some areas portend a dangerous and new threat to the very existence of our planet.
What a scam!
Climates change and will continue to evolve whether man and his puny lives are here or no. I still think (not feel) solar activity, or the lack thereof, is a major factor in life on Earth since solar radiation determines the amount of heat Earth receives. And there is nothing we can do to alter that fact despite the arrogant attempts by the scam artists to convince us otherwise.
So just chill out, Ok.
Perhaps it was the glaring inconsistency of any evidence of global warming that forced the true believers to shift their terminology to the more ominous "climate change."
Now we are suppose to think climate is a static element of our world and any change of cooling or warming or too much wind or too many storms or too much rain or the lack of rain in some areas portend a dangerous and new threat to the very existence of our planet.
What a scam!
Climates change and will continue to evolve whether man and his puny lives are here or no. I still think (not feel) solar activity, or the lack thereof, is a major factor in life on Earth since solar radiation determines the amount of heat Earth receives. And there is nothing we can do to alter that fact despite the arrogant attempts by the scam artists to convince us otherwise.
So just chill out, Ok.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Political Season
It continues unabated.
The political season, that is. The Democrats especially have a nasty primary fight raging and by all indications their contest will continue until the convention. I look for a mean-dirty-knock down-free-for-all since the Clintons are unwilling to concede anything to that upstart Barack H. Obama.
Obama has been riding in front in delegates and positive PR. This is despite the negative news around Obama's long time association with Rev Wright, the bigoted pastor of Obama's church, and Obama's mentor. Mrs Obama has not helped matters with her comments about "not being really proud" of the country that nourished her, educated her at the best schools, and elected her husband to the US Senate. Additionally, sending aid and relief to millions suffering from the tsunami disaster did not make Mrs Obama proud nor did the liberation of 50 million people from the cruel regimes of the Taliban and Saddam.
As for the Clintons they continue their perfected art of lying. And they are good at it as any observer can tell.
As to the politics there is little policy difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Both are neo-socialists and demand more government control over American lives, more taxes, more intrusion in the free market system (what is left of it), more money for their special interests, and less free trade. Free trade is a net plus for Americans - consumers and businesses.
I wonder why our nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for the highest political office. Surely there are thousands of bright, hardworking, honest, informed, and loyal Americans who would make better decisions than the current crop of opportunists.
What do you think?
The political season, that is. The Democrats especially have a nasty primary fight raging and by all indications their contest will continue until the convention. I look for a mean-dirty-knock down-free-for-all since the Clintons are unwilling to concede anything to that upstart Barack H. Obama.
Obama has been riding in front in delegates and positive PR. This is despite the negative news around Obama's long time association with Rev Wright, the bigoted pastor of Obama's church, and Obama's mentor. Mrs Obama has not helped matters with her comments about "not being really proud" of the country that nourished her, educated her at the best schools, and elected her husband to the US Senate. Additionally, sending aid and relief to millions suffering from the tsunami disaster did not make Mrs Obama proud nor did the liberation of 50 million people from the cruel regimes of the Taliban and Saddam.
As for the Clintons they continue their perfected art of lying. And they are good at it as any observer can tell.
As to the politics there is little policy difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Both are neo-socialists and demand more government control over American lives, more taxes, more intrusion in the free market system (what is left of it), more money for their special interests, and less free trade. Free trade is a net plus for Americans - consumers and businesses.
I wonder why our nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for the highest political office. Surely there are thousands of bright, hardworking, honest, informed, and loyal Americans who would make better decisions than the current crop of opportunists.
What do you think?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Global "Cooling"
In the past 24 hours I have heard two reports about how the world temperature has fallen drastically in the past 12 months. The four major monitors of temps (of which NASA is one) claim a decrease of 0.65 to 0.75 degrees during the past year. They say the drop is enough to offset all the global warming of the past 100 years. Perhaps this explains why the snow cap on the North American land mass is thicker than at any time during the past 50 years.
The sun's activity or lack of activity seems to be the culprit just as some of us laymen suggested previously. Who know for sure since there are billions and billions of variables.
Perhaps Al Gore can start an insulation business, hmmmmm?
The sun's activity or lack of activity seems to be the culprit just as some of us laymen suggested previously. Who know for sure since there are billions and billions of variables.
Perhaps Al Gore can start an insulation business, hmmmmm?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
"Super" or "Stupor" Tuesday?
Well, it came and went just like everything else. What some people called "Super Tuesday" other people called "Stupor Tuesday." And what do Americans have to look forward to after this past tuesday?
On one side we have John McCain. On the other side Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sparring for domination of the Democrat Party, the party of the New and Old Left, and the party of numerous Washington special interests.
So it appears voters will be forced to decide between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. McCain is the "Dole Syndrome" candidate. That is, it is McCain's turn to lead the GOP in the national election of 2008 just as it was Dole's turn to lead the party in 1996 because Dole had put in the time and effort in the party trenches. His reward was the candidancy. History repeats itself in 2008.
On the other side there is little policy differences between Clinton and Obama. With Obama comes a smile and cheerfulness. With Clinton voters get the same issues, the same policies and ideas, but with a brooding negativity. Whereas Obama is a new face, voters are familiar with the bobbing head of Clinton. Obama promises to surrender Iraq to al Queda ASAP while Clinton promises to take more time to surrender. (Why doesn't a media type ask Obama and Clinton what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East after we surrender?) Both candidates promise higher taxes, more federal interference in our lives, more socialized medicine, more federal control of education and of other aspects of our lives.
As to McCain who knows what policies and ideas he will espouse. Perhaps it depends on how he feels each day. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts - cuts that fueled the econonic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals. McCain now says he wants to make the tax cuts he opposed permanent. McCain opposed securing our borders and supported with Teddy Kennedy giving million of illegals amnesty (a rose by any other name is still a rose), and authored a law gagging political speech. And McCain has bought into the Global Warming scam which in itself is enough to oppose him, but only if there is a more logical choice (there isn't).
What is a voter to do?
McCain or Clinton/Obama?
Voters must determine which candidate will do the least amount of harm to the nation - always a critical factor in my voting.
More to come.
On one side we have John McCain. On the other side Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sparring for domination of the Democrat Party, the party of the New and Old Left, and the party of numerous Washington special interests.
So it appears voters will be forced to decide between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. McCain is the "Dole Syndrome" candidate. That is, it is McCain's turn to lead the GOP in the national election of 2008 just as it was Dole's turn to lead the party in 1996 because Dole had put in the time and effort in the party trenches. His reward was the candidancy. History repeats itself in 2008.
On the other side there is little policy differences between Clinton and Obama. With Obama comes a smile and cheerfulness. With Clinton voters get the same issues, the same policies and ideas, but with a brooding negativity. Whereas Obama is a new face, voters are familiar with the bobbing head of Clinton. Obama promises to surrender Iraq to al Queda ASAP while Clinton promises to take more time to surrender. (Why doesn't a media type ask Obama and Clinton what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East after we surrender?) Both candidates promise higher taxes, more federal interference in our lives, more socialized medicine, more federal control of education and of other aspects of our lives.
As to McCain who knows what policies and ideas he will espouse. Perhaps it depends on how he feels each day. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts - cuts that fueled the econonic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals. McCain now says he wants to make the tax cuts he opposed permanent. McCain opposed securing our borders and supported with Teddy Kennedy giving million of illegals amnesty (a rose by any other name is still a rose), and authored a law gagging political speech. And McCain has bought into the Global Warming scam which in itself is enough to oppose him, but only if there is a more logical choice (there isn't).
What is a voter to do?
McCain or Clinton/Obama?
Voters must determine which candidate will do the least amount of harm to the nation - always a critical factor in my voting.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
