Have you noticed what little media attention is being given to the Libyan murders is concentrating on the "he said, she said, they said" drivel about the statements by Susan Rice and Obama that now have been proven to be lies? Also, have you noticed that they're avoiding the fact that four U.S. citizens were murdered, while being watched by people that are supposed to protect them? If not, you should. If they'd allow a U.S. Ambassador to be murdered, your chances of being murdered by a terrorist group are greatly increased. They'd rather see you die than admit they're feckless political hacks that should be in jail.
I was wandering around the internet and this story appeared about Gen. Carter Ham. Apparently, during the events that led to the murders in Libya, he was relieved of command because he wanted to send assistance. Since he knew what happened, and said Obama lied about giving a clear directive to secure the people in Benghazi, I'm betting he's feeling remorse about ignoring all the orders and sending help anyway. What could they do? Relieve him of his command?
This puts Obama and Patraeus in a new light. One, or both, intentionally allowed terrorists to murder U.S. citizens. That's criminal and they should be prosecuted.
In Case You've Wondered
My blog is where my wandering thoughts are interspersed with stuff I made up. So, if while reading you find yourself confused about the context, don't feel alone. I get confused, too.
If you're here for the stories, I started another blog: scratchingforchange.blogspot.com
One other thing: sometimes I write words you refuse to use in front of children, or polite company, unless you have a flat tire, or hit your thumb with a hammer.
I don't use them to offend; I use them to embellish.
jescordwaineratgmail.com
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Bots are on a Rampage
The bots have been visiting my site quite a bit over the last few days. I don't know if it's a particular post that gets their attention, or if they roam in packs and I just happen to appear as the weakest prey.
Paul McCartney and Turkey
Sir McCartney thinks we shouldn't eat turkey. I think he should go back to the U.K. and retire.
Monday, November 19, 2012
My Health, Retirement and Irony
The government is going out of its way to make sure I stay healthy and live for a long time. I guess this is good, but it's also ironic they're going out of their way to make sure I don't have any retirement resources until I'm much older. Otherwise, they want me to live a long time, pay a lot of money towards retirement and not get any of the benefits.
I have a solution to what appears as wasted money. How about we just come up with an age that is the final age we live? Say 75 years old. If you go before that, so be it. If not, you have a big party, everybody says goodbye and you get a shot that lets you peacefully pass on.
Now, this plan would be good, except it should only apply to members of the private sector. Bureaucrats and politicians would go at 40, which I consider a generous effort on my part, since it's 2 1/2 years past the halfway point of the private sector. They produce absolutely nothing and demand what I consider an exorbitant amount of my labor to satisfy their destructive agenda. Giving them more than half a life is more than generous.
I know you're wondering how this applies to the military. The solution is simple. If the military member is a combat officer, they get the 75 year cutoff. Those that are bureaucratic paper pushers, or only have an administrative position, they get the 40 year cutoff.
How about the local and state public sector? Those that serve a function that actually has a real meaning, such as repair crews, get the 75 year cutoff. Those that only exist to create, or push another piece of paper go at 40.
Of course, my solution would have to be retroactive. Otherwise, if agreed upon, those bureaucrats and politicians beyond the age of 40 would have to go immediately. It's nothing personal, and best. They're way past the point of doing anything even close to productive, and their retirement burdens need to be lowered through attrition. I know we'll have to help their survivors, but in the future, nobody that is basically useless will ever reach the retirement age. Think of the money saved and how many double dippers would never be allowed the cushy pensions that the private sector never receives.
Are you thinking: "How will our country ever survive without all those politicians and bureaucrats?" If so, the answer is: Not only would it survive, it would flourish and I doubt seriously there would be many people that would aspire to be a politician or bureaucrat. That's a good thing. After all, they're just warts on the ass of progress anyway.
I know some reading may be, or have a family member past the age of 75. Anyone 45, or older, gets a fifty year grace period to decide whether they want to protest the rule, or not....as long as they're not a politician or a bureaucrat.
I have a solution to what appears as wasted money. How about we just come up with an age that is the final age we live? Say 75 years old. If you go before that, so be it. If not, you have a big party, everybody says goodbye and you get a shot that lets you peacefully pass on.
Now, this plan would be good, except it should only apply to members of the private sector. Bureaucrats and politicians would go at 40, which I consider a generous effort on my part, since it's 2 1/2 years past the halfway point of the private sector. They produce absolutely nothing and demand what I consider an exorbitant amount of my labor to satisfy their destructive agenda. Giving them more than half a life is more than generous.
I know you're wondering how this applies to the military. The solution is simple. If the military member is a combat officer, they get the 75 year cutoff. Those that are bureaucratic paper pushers, or only have an administrative position, they get the 40 year cutoff.
How about the local and state public sector? Those that serve a function that actually has a real meaning, such as repair crews, get the 75 year cutoff. Those that only exist to create, or push another piece of paper go at 40.
Of course, my solution would have to be retroactive. Otherwise, if agreed upon, those bureaucrats and politicians beyond the age of 40 would have to go immediately. It's nothing personal, and best. They're way past the point of doing anything even close to productive, and their retirement burdens need to be lowered through attrition. I know we'll have to help their survivors, but in the future, nobody that is basically useless will ever reach the retirement age. Think of the money saved and how many double dippers would never be allowed the cushy pensions that the private sector never receives.
Are you thinking: "How will our country ever survive without all those politicians and bureaucrats?" If so, the answer is: Not only would it survive, it would flourish and I doubt seriously there would be many people that would aspire to be a politician or bureaucrat. That's a good thing. After all, they're just warts on the ass of progress anyway.
I know some reading may be, or have a family member past the age of 75. Anyone 45, or older, gets a fifty year grace period to decide whether they want to protest the rule, or not....as long as they're not a politician or a bureaucrat.
Pause For Some Logical Thinking
Susan Rice, according to the current string of false statements, only repeated what she was allowed to know.
Okay, let's look beyond this and analyze other members involved:
Obama knew. While those that told him didn't tattoo it on the back of his hand for proof; he was told. No matter how he tries to get out of this, it's the truth and anyone that believes otherwise must really spend more money on their substances.
Hillary Clinton knew. She heads the Department of State and has the security clearance.
Now, let's get to the logical part: Since the current story is that flunkies briefed Susan Rice with her talking points, can you actually believe such flunkies have security clearances and can operate without oversight from either the President or the Secretary of State?
I didn't think so. Now, no matter what you see on television, at the least, the President and the Secretary of State have deliberately misled you on the murders of four U.S. citizens in Libya. Take it how you want it. If you're comfortable with such things, I caution you to the fact they're both overseas bargaining for treaties that could change your life forever. If you're not concerned, you're as dumb as a box of rocks.
Okay, let's look beyond this and analyze other members involved:
Obama knew. While those that told him didn't tattoo it on the back of his hand for proof; he was told. No matter how he tries to get out of this, it's the truth and anyone that believes otherwise must really spend more money on their substances.
Hillary Clinton knew. She heads the Department of State and has the security clearance.
Now, let's get to the logical part: Since the current story is that flunkies briefed Susan Rice with her talking points, can you actually believe such flunkies have security clearances and can operate without oversight from either the President or the Secretary of State?
I didn't think so. Now, no matter what you see on television, at the least, the President and the Secretary of State have deliberately misled you on the murders of four U.S. citizens in Libya. Take it how you want it. If you're comfortable with such things, I caution you to the fact they're both overseas bargaining for treaties that could change your life forever. If you're not concerned, you're as dumb as a box of rocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)