If it's time to make a decision - the obama gets out of the USA

What is going on with the selective decisions on foreign politics. We do not interfere when muslims are slaughtering Christians in west africa. We start a face book ground swell in Egypt whose outcome is still in question. We do nothing when China massacres hundreds during a protest. We semi-attack Libya to little
to late and get involved in a civil war that we know nothing about who is doing the uprising.
And we have no way to finalize the results.
We have not interfered in Bahrain where we have physical assets in our naval ships. The Saudis have sent troops
to Bahrain to support the government there. The entire middle east is splitting between two factions of muslims.

Does it seem to you that the obama always takes the side of muslims or gets involved in racial matters???
It seems that way to me.

And where did the obama go immediately after he declared war on Libya? He went out of town. And did the obama go to congress to obtain a declaration of war before sending out ships to fight??? No way!!!

And will we accept Libya as two countries like North and South Korea??? is there any way an east Libya can
exist without the oil from west libya? I do not think so. And with the tens of BILLIONS of oil dollars that Libya's
dictator has stashed away, does it matter that we freeze his assets abroad??? Not in the least. So what will be
the possible outcome? We have to HOPE and PRAY for Libya's dictator's untimely death. Not a good bet.

With a President who can not and has never led anything, we can expect nothing from the obama except
what he has shown us already. He will protect the interests of muslims and Blacks. Definitely NOT a President
FOR ALL THE PEOPLE.

We have to wait and see. Maybe one of our missiles will get lucky find the right person. Are you feeling lucky
today???

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Over Population and ENERGY

The Japan earthquake and tsunami has shown the world that we need something new to create energy.
Recently in INC Magazine, there was an article about a little box that is being tested that takes less energy
to create more electric power. In fact, one Electric utility is currently testing this new product.

I think this company should offer their new product to Japan's electric company. They would get world-wide
coverage and - in my opinion - if it works as people are saying - this could change the face of electric
power within a decade. People could eventually purchase smaller versions and not be tied to an electric
company's "down lines" during storms. PLus they could save on their energy costs.

Sounds like an idea whose time has come and the opportunity is perfect.

Read the latest issue of INC Magazine and see what I am talking about. It is part of your near future.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and WATER

AT 7,000,000,000 PEOPLE, there is just so much fresh, drinkable water. It's about 1% of all the water on Earth. A lot of water BUT the drain of water is increasing every day as an increasing population will need more water; as more people switch from a grain diet to a meat diet; as more land need irrigation for farming. One of the largest population countries is doing a great job in managing and reducing its population. BUT no good deed goes undone - as they say. The Chinese people have acquires a taste for meat. The difference is about 45,000 gallons of water per pound of growing meat versus 1.5 gallons of water for the same amount of rice. WOW !!! BIG DIFFERENCE. And the oceans are producing at capacity now. So we now have fresh water fish farms; another drain on the limited water supply.

There is about 1.5% of all the world's fresh water in ice burgs and glaciers. Who would want to risk melting this source of water. At some point, the ocean levels would rise and that would mean millions would be force to flee lower ground for higher ground. That would cause unbelievable over-crowding and sanitation problems.

So what are we to do? For one, every country need to force a population reduction. India is the biggest population growth country and the one of poorest countries overall. Yet their population is soaring. That is an issue for another time. For now, someone needs to be prodding India to reduce their population.

The other resource for water is the ocean. Now the cost of fresh de-salted water is very expensive. When someone can figure out how to extract the pure water from the ocean and harvest the salt inexpensively, that will be the next multi-billion industry. And that will have a down side as well. That will encourage population growth.

Does anyone have abetter idea??? Hopefully someone reading this will have an idea and make it happen.
Until then, every drop of water you conserve, will prolong the remaining supply of fresh water. Thank about that when you are washing, bathing, brushing your teeth, washing you car or clothes or dishes. We can all do small bit that will add up to a huge slowing of the fresh water drain.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population

What would happen if the population increased by another Billion ??? Would the world take notice? Probably not,
as long as there was peace and prosperity.

But if you combine another Billion people and a drought lasting years over several 'major crop areas' - then you would see a world-wide calamity. There would not be enough food to feed all the people. On top of that, the food exporting countries would lose export money. Their economies would falter - maybe food riot - maybe just riots in general.

Add to that another earthquake rattling Peru or Southern California or the Pakistan/turkey area, hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation - maybe a few billion people would starve. The airports would be unaccessible, the roads would be not passible, the water/sewer systems would stop working. There would not be enough fresh water for everyone. Disease would rule the world killing billions.

All because the world has too many people and just one or two events combining to create a huge loss of life.

It's time to start reducing the world's population before these major events happen. And happen they will. It's just a matter of time before another volcano, earthquake or hurricane happens.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Cliffoprd

Over Population

Whatever happened to "natural selection" of the human species? When people living in harsh lands had little water or less food, it was OK to have a baby every year. And maybe one or two would grow up to have babies of their own. BUT What happens when you "help" to maintain that population with just enough water and food to allow those families to have almost all their babies grow up to have babies? That is a population explosion everyone can understand. Add to that today's medicine and natal care and you have the makings of a future over-population that will one day collapse on itself and take down a few neighboring countries in the process.

Take the Middle East as an example. They are populating exponentially. One country is spending enormous amounts of money they get from oil-sales to get fresh water by de-salting the ocean. Another country has turned the desert into a garden and feeding its population while exporting food. Other countries are importing food - some from oil sales and some from world food banks. There is no rational reason to have such excessive population growth. It is unsustainable and will collapse on itself at some point.

Europe has been reducing its population for decades - BUT with the immigration and the immigrants' continuing to have multiple babies per family, the population is both increasing and politically rushing towards disaster.

South America has had its over-population spurt and will soon be unable to feed itself.

What does this mean for everyone? Possible starvation. Possible no jobs for everyone. Possible a change in the structures of governments. Does any of this sound good to you?

That is why I believe we need to be taking a rational approach to curbing the world's population. Hear that India? Put a condom on it. You cannot feed your population now. India has over 50% unemployment. This is serious. Slow down your population. You are headed towards a major water and food shortage. The world can not and should not rush to your aid. Natural selection is necessary everywhere. It's nature. It's the way the planet works.
If shortage of water or food does not reduce your numbers, then disease or even war will eventually reduce the entire planet's population.

A little thought now will stave off a terrible disaster later. Limit the number of babies per family NOW!

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

over-population

Nature has a way of dampening down on "Overpopulation". When small ground mammals have extra large families, the predators somehow know to increase their babies. And this gets the population back level. When any human grouping prior to very recent times grew to large, disease always struck and reduced the human population.

Now we have used our brains to build larger cities with intricate systems of fresh water plants and food and transportation and disease control plus reduce baby mortality. All this combines to create an over-populated world.

When any disaster occurs like a hurricane or major flooding or tsunami or earthquake or prolong drought, all the structures for supplying fresh water and food disappear. This will be the way of the future. The "bread-basket" of the Midwest USA has experienced several repeating droughts. The underground lake in the Midwest is slowly being drained for irrigation. If a drought and the water table in that lake drop at the same time, the USA will be without both a food source and a multi-billion export industry. Are you prepared to last 2 or 3 years before the "bread-Basket regains its growing capacity?

Some of the things we are doing now could stave off that scenario for a year or two. But 3 or 4 years and there will be riots in the streets with people looking for food. And people will begin to migrate back to around the Great Lakes where there is plenty of fresh water.

Somehow - Someway - the world's population needs to reduce by as much as half or we will all be in dire straits.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Related articles

• China ministry: drought likely to last, threatening winter wheat (reuters.com)

over-population and US politics

Why won't the USA put a halt to over-populating? There aren't enough jobs now or in the near future for everyone. And with people coming to America 'illegally' there aren't even enough manual jobs. OK, America needs to internalize job growth. But in the meantime, there is no magic wand or enough spending to create enough jobs to make a dent in the real 20+ % unemployment. Jobs grow organically not by throwing money at them. That in and of itself should force people to limit the number of children per family. That was the result in the 1930's depression. Average family size dropped to around 0.8 to 1.2 children - not enough to maintain a population.

But over population continues. And here are some of the WHYs that I believe will keep our planet over-populating until some disaster naturally takes out hundreds of millions or billions of people - just like the plague in middle ages or the flu in the early 1900s.

There is the religious side. "Go forth and multiple" are words in every bible. But when that was written, the entire human population was at most a few million - probably much less. Today's 7,500,000,000 population has shown we have multiplied too successfully. So we will get no help in reducing the population from the religious side.

And then there is the two religious factions - Judeo-Christian and muslim; both with about 2,000,000,000 each. The difference is that the muslims are having multiple babies everywhere for political reasons and the Judeo-Christians are reducing the number of children per family. - The political implications could change the world as we know it. Either way, the population will continue to grow and the food and fresh water supplies will lessen.

Then there are the liberals who need support from poor and ethnic people to maintain their numbers in Congress. - No help here will ever be coming in reducing the population. In fact they want to increase the population for those very reasons.

And when you consider the transfer of jobs to non-USA countries and the need for employment here in the USA just to pay the taxes for both the budget deficit and social security, you begin to see that the USA has boxed Herself into a over-population corner for decades to come.

Anyone have a solution??? Would love to hear any rational solution.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and Food

At the rate the world is creating new babies and with more people living longer, the world's population will soon reach 10,000,000,000 - That's TEN BILLION people. And you say - so what!!!

All these ten billion people will need fresh water. The world is short of fresh water now at population 7,500,000,000

All these ten billion people will need food. The world is short of farm land now at population 7,500,000,000. A major drought would starve hundreds of millions of people in one year. and if the drought lasted for three or more years, the population would continue to shrink to under a billion. That means 6,500,000,000,000 (Six hundred Billion Five hundred million) people would die from starvation.

Many of these ten billion people will need fish. The world's oceans are straining to feed the world's demand now at population 7,500,000,000.

In our lifetimes, the world will find itself without fresh water, grains and fish. Forget OIL. Forget the hoax of global warming. IT'S STARVATION that will bring down all the world's countries.

Think about it. In a major flood, tornado, cyclone, hurricane, snow storm the ability to move food and have fresh water is significantly reduced for a time. Just imagine if the workers to load the ships with grain starved or the truck drivers starved or any of the transportation workers were starving and could not work. The entire world's population would be at risk. This is what will happen if we continue to be non-responsible and have more than 2 babies per family.

We need to begin to reduce the world's population BEFORE a major strain is put on the world's fresh water and food supply. While there are many things I disagree on with the way Chine treats its citizens, China is being wonderfully responsible in reducing its population with its one child per family policy. India and other over-populated countries should adopt the same policy of one child per family.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and JOBS

Have you wondered how over a hundred thousand Egyptians can protest evert day? Don't they have jobs to go to? The answer is that Egypt has over 30% unemployment. And that's for unskilled to college educated Egyptians.

When you consider the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE USA IS AROUND 20% or 60,000,000 people.
(((THAT'S SIXTY MILLION USA CITIZENS ARE UNEMPLOYED.))) - when you consider these numbers, it's a wonder that the USA does not follow Greece and Egypt in national street protests against the government's failed policies.

We know the obama will stay in Office for about 20+ months and the Senate is still obama's boys. The House's new Republicans or Tea Party representatives have to lead strongly to cut excess spending and reduced the debt by 10 Billion to 20 Billion dollars a year for several years.

If we don't, there is nothing to stop future inflation, the de-valuation of the dollar and possible the dollar being replaced by some other currency or basket of currencies as the standard unit of money.

What will that mean to the USA??? For one, the price of oil will jump by 50% to 100% or more. That one factor will severely hurt the US's economy. The airlines will either raise rates or go out of business or be nationalized. If the airline customers cannot afford to travel, the tourist industry will begin to decline. If oil doubles, the price of gasoline will triple. And that means all item that need to be transported whether by truck or train will become much more expensive. And that means consumerism will drop and that means a depression worst than the 1930's.

So you see why it is imperative that we cut the over spending and reduce the US debt in large enough amounts each year. And we need congress to stop screwing with the people and do what is right for the citizens of the United States. Congress people need to put the needs of the country above their individual needs. Congress needs to cut over spending. And do it in the very next budget.

The alternative is just too horrible to think about.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.

Over Population and JOBS

When people have more than one or two babies and when people have babies under the age of 20, the 'FUTURE WAVE" of potential job applicants increases faster than the ability of the United States or the world to create jobs.

Let's look at this in today's reality. There are fewer places to get jobs. When some employers announce future hiring of a few jobs -even a 100 new job- several thousand job applicants form lines a day in advance. To me this suggests that those people willing to work have no place to work.

It also says that there are just too many people in the job working years. WHY? Because families are having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or more babies. This shows to me that people in general have no concept of social responsibility to the community. If they did, they would not be populating like ignorant animals without any concern for their ability to provide for these "extra" children and no concern about where there children will ever find work.

When the population increases at 200,000 babies or more a week, and the current job market is at best creating between 35,000 to 150,000 jobs per month increasing the reality that new babies will never be able to find a job. Even if our economy were to create 500,000 or 750,000 new jobs per month, we would still be creating many more babies than potential jobs. The same for all countries.

So wise up my fellow American citizens and plan babies after age 25 and only have one or two babies.

And this goes for the world in general as well. Begin to reduce population now or there will never be enough jobs anywhere for anyone who wants to work.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Schools and learning

Have you ever wondered why the children of the 1950's and 1960's were so extremely smart? Think about it for a moment. The classrooms were 6 rows of 8 seats per row and mostly filled. The teachers were underpaid. The books were old. There was no free lunch for the students. Milk was distributed in the elementary grades but the students paid for their milk. The lessons were the same year in and year out. Grammar school student had hourly changes in subject matter. Tests were given every Friday and there were unannounced tests at any moment.

So how did these children learn???

For one important reason. The basics were drilled into them by rote. Math. Reading. Spelling. Geography. And in the later years of grammar school, political sciences and CIVICS. What was CIVICS. Every student had to know how our government worked. How an idea was forwarded into a bill and how a bill became a law. In fact, every student in my grammar school dreaded the final CIVICS test. WHY? Because the only way a student could graduate into high school was to pass the CIVICS test. Fail the test - no matter how good your grades and you did not graduate.

So what did the students of the 1950's and the 1950's have that student today with all their computers and "new thinking" not have? These students had to learn their lessons by rote. Repeating and repeating them until they learned to spell, read, do math, and write. It was not difficult. Just took time and the real possibility that failure was not an option.

A student studied because there was consequences if you did not meet at least a "C" in all subjects. Failing meant being held back. No one wanted that - even to "cool" kids or the "tough guys". Everyone wanted to graduate out of grammar and high schools.

And what happened. Most students graduated and were able to enter college without having to take remedial classes to "catch-up" with all the other students in college. And even those students that for whatever reason did not go on to college were able to read and do math and think logically. That is totally unlike the majority of the students of today - as proven by the world's rate of 23rd in math, science and reading out of all nations.

So the solution is simple. Get back to rote and test, test, test. Make keeping up with the rest of the students a positive social thing. Stop paying students to go to school. Stop rewarding bad behavior.

Rote is best for everyone - no matter what you want to be in life. Rote will give everyone the basics. Rote will create a baseline of minimum knowledge for all students and raise all people up.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Employment figures and the government's figuring

We all know someone who lost a job, been downsized and cannot find a job in a similar industry or salary level.

I BELIEVE the unemployment figure of 9% is just plain FAKE. First of all, i understand that it takes an increase of 150,000 new jobs to drop the unemployment level by one tenth of a percent. That's 0.1%. That would be like going from 9.4% to 9.3%.

Then the government's own figure state that only 36,000 new jobs were created. No one knows how many were full time jobs in the private sector or government jobs. BUT new 36,000 jobs is NOT ENOUGH to reduce the 9.4% level to 9.0%.
So you know someone is playing loose with the math.

Then there are the tens of millions of unemployed whose benefits have run out. These people are NOT COUNTED in the unemployment figure. With tens of millions of NOT COUNTED UNEMPLOYED, the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 17% TO 19%. With quick math the suggests that 60,000,000 are unemployed. SIXTY MILLION PEOPLE. Something is wrong here and it's our government's wasteful spending

So you see why I believe they are "fudging the unemployment numbers."

The obama stimulus failed. Admit it and let's do something different. It's crazy thinking to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. To get different results, you need to change what you were doing. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

Where are potential jobs??? In the private sector - not in creating government featherbedding or government patronage jobs at unbelievable high salaries. That's the Chicago way and it does not work for Chicago (except for the politicians in power in Chicago) and it will not work for the United States Government.

We need to foster an environment for people to become self-employed. This is where the new jobs will come from; not from government directed and funded future businesses that have not even been created yet.

The government believes you will think that more jobs are being created than actually are by creating fake and lower unemployment numbers. The government is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes." You do not let this happen in your normal life, why would you ever allow the government to do this to you now??????

Demand government cut over-spending.
Demand government reduce the spending budget - not freeze it at these high levels.
Look out for yourself or the budget will grow and the only alternative will be for the government to DE-VALUE THE DOLLAR AND REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 10 OLD DOLLARS. MAYBE EVEN REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 100 OLD DOLLARS.

WHERE WOULD YOU BE THEN??? BROKE !!!! THAT'S WHERE.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Overpopulation - How it affects your schools

Over Population costs you real money- directly - it's money out of your pocket. HOW? Because the cities have to raise your property taxes to pay for the extra teachers and new schools. Why all the extra schools and teachers?

Let's look at these three examples:

#1) When the average family has three or more children, that means there will be a future 'wave' in their local school of over-crowding of students. That has several implications. Teachers demand smaller classroom sizes. Therefore, more teachers are needed to handle extra children in small classes. Then as the student population "wave" builds up, new schools need to be built. This is paid for by local taxes - mostly real estate taxes.

#2) When children under 18 have babies, the stress on the schools is dramatic. This also increases the student population and the same scenario in number one occurs. Also, by children under 18 having babies, this also affects the generation timetable. The lower age that children begin having babies, the shorter the generation time and the more crowded the schools become. This increases the Future "Wave" of children in schools.

#3) The best scenario is that on average all families have 1 or 2 children and begin having children after age 25. WHY? This reduces the "wave" of future students on the schools and reduces class sizes and reduces the need to build more schools and helps teachers give more attention to each student in their classes.

There is a POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY to wait to have children until AFTER AGE 25 AND THERE IS A POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOME TO ALL FAMILIES. It's a WIN-WIN future.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and Freedom

When has Egypt ever rose up from the people and demanded Freedom - ever? For the last 5,000 years, the people of Egypt have been ruled by dictators. And for most of that time, most of the Egyptians were slaves, beggars or a few middle class merchants. But has there ever been an uprising for Freedom?

Think about the Magna Carter signing in 1215 AD in England. That was a first cry for Freedom that I am aware of and it was from the Princes and Lords NOT the general public. The first cry for Freedom from the public was in 1776 in the New United States of America. And again in India under Gandhi's rule over a hundred years later

So my question is: Why are the Egyptian people now in the streets? Who is really behind these rallies?

And why are so many people able to stay in the streets for so many straight days. The answer is that there are no jobs in Egypt. Is it the government's fault? Maybe some. But with the population soaring to 80,000,000+ and almost no industry, where does anyone think there will be jobs for all that want to work??? That is totally crazy thinking. The population of this country is too large for the potential business community to absorb. That goes for India and Mexico as well; and most of South America.

It is time to start decreasing the world's population before we run out of land to farm and fish in the oceans.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and Unrest in the World

When a country has run-a-way population, the strains on its economy will bring down the economy or bring down freedom. Simple rule. With too many mouths to feed and no jobs, people will just 'mill around' in the streets all day. As they say: "Idle hands are the hands of the devil."

By that I mean, if you have 15% or 20% or 25% or more young people unemployed and mostly uneducated and unskilled, you have the makings of trouble. With a group like this, it is a simple matter to focus this group on unrest. Whether it's for more food or a job, the unrest can bring down a government.

That is why a "One-Baby-Per-Woman" is a concept whose time has come. A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the strain on families to provide the basics for their child. "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will ease the need for a government to provide basic food for its population. As the population reduces, and the strain on families reduces through A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept and the country will find itself in a better financial position.

A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce unemployment.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need for food imports
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce starvation
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to destroy "old Forests" for farmland.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to build more schools
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the governments' costs in every country
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will provide for a country's stable social and economic well being

A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept is a concept the entire world needs to embrace NOW!!!.

And That's The Way I See It...
Straight Talk WIth Jay Clifford

World Population

The Earth is only so big and there are only so many acres of land to farm and there are only so many fish in the seas to catch --- to feed all the people. Face it World, there are too many people on Earth right now. We cannot feed all these people. Something has to be done or everyone will be at risk of not having enough fresh water and food.

It seems that the educated countries of the world have reduced their level of new babies. Even China has reduced it's new-born population. Now it's up to the rest of the world - specially the Middle East, Africa and South America and India most of all.

There is a reason people in those over-populated areas are always rioting and bringing down governments. They are mostly uneducated, underfeed or starving, and without jobs. Why no jobs? Because there never can be enough jobs for an over-populated world. Wake up world. The time to limit babies for everyone is now. One baby per woman and that's it.

By limiting women to one baby, the world's population will begin to reduce to a more sustainable level. With less people, there is less need for food and fresh water. With less people, there is less need to destroy "old forests". With less people, there can be jobs for everyone. With less people, every child will get more attention and less likely to commit crimes. With less people, every family can focus their money on just one child.

The people who say that we are taking the rights away from people by limiting every woman to one child, I say that is the responsibility of all people for the betterment of all the people to reduce the population in half over the next generation.

Having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or more babies is just not responsible. How can a poor family take care of all the needs of a multi-child family. On the other side, families that have the disposable income have to share the one baby per woman idea because they have the same responsibility as everyone else to work towards reducing the population.

And governments will find a one-baby-per-woman idea better for their citizens. Each country will then be able to create enough jobs for everyone. And each country will be able to feed and support education for everyone. An educated, feed and working society will be a stable society.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Can A Leopard Change Their Spots

Tuesday's Jan 25th State of the Union speech will have obama telling everyone that his beliefs,
held for his lifetime, and the legislation he pushed through with "behind-the-closed-door-bribes" was all a mistake and now he "Sees The Light" and wants to go off in a new direction.

Can you believe him? I do not think so.

He will say whatever it takes to get him re-elected in 2012 so he can have the next 4 years without worrying about re-election and without worrying how many congresspersons he 'throws under the bus' to transform the United State of America into a 3rd rate, bankrupt, socialistic country.

Yes, the country needs jobs. Yes we need a change in the direction of the political winds.
Yes, people can change - after years of "seeing the light" and from years on the psychiatrist's couch.
BUT a leopard can never change their spots.
And neither can the core values of a dedicated socialists change into a capitalist over night.

I have zero trust in the person calling himself 'obama hussein'. Can you trust this man???

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford


.

NPR Nat'l Public Radio Needs to be free

NPR or National Public Radio needs to be free.

Why Should NPR get govt money - Why should my tax dollars be used to support this radio statio? IF the station's mission is to spread FREEDOM over the world, that is OK by me. Then, this station needs to stay completely and always out of USA politics at home.

Since there is an agenda at NPR to spew one political side over another, and paid by tax money, this is offensive to me. That said, NPR needs to be OFF US PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. NPR needs to compete like every other radio station.

If this station continues to get involved in biased reporting of the US political scene, then they need to compete for their money like every other radio station and NOT GET ANY US TAXPAYER MONEY.

And that's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Making nice in politics

Since President George Bush won his election, the Democrats have issued hate on any Republican everywhere they can find something to twist to make it sound like the Republicans are doing something wrong. OK Sometimes the Republicans did some things that are wrong in my view. BUT to have ABC & CBS & NBC & NPR & EVERY TALK SHOW HOST ON THESE TV STATIONS & The New York Times & The L.A. Times spewing hate at the Republicans ALL THE TIME for years and decades while the Democrats were in power and then when the DEMOCRATS LOSE THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DID AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS TURN AROUND AND SAY - LET US MAKE NICE IS PURE BULL CRAP. The Democrats lost and now they want to change the rules that the Democrats have been playing with for decades to prevent the Republicans from using the same tactics - COME ON PUBLIC - OPEN YOUR EYES AT THIS DEMOCRATIC SMOKE SCREEN.

ONE FL congresswoman is one of the worst. Every word out of her mouth is hate with nothing about " DOING RIGHT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." And this FL Congresswoman is now calling for Republicans to watch what they say when she is one of the worst congresspersons for spewing hate.

WAKE UP PEOPLE - IT'S A POWER PLAY AND THE LOSERS ARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

And That's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

GUN LAWS

I am in favor of allowing the public to have guns - period. One Democratic Senator last week SHOT one of two intruders in his house. What's so amazing about this ??? The Democratic Senator has been openly and forcefully in favor of restricting guns from the public. What a contradiction. The man has no conviction of his words. Some might even call him "two-faced". Is this hate speech - no way - It is simply telling the truth without any added inflammatory remarks - straight truth as reported in the news and the Senator's voting record.

So let us talk about gun control - Why should mentally ill people have the right to have guns? Good question.
But who will determine who is mentally ill and is this a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.

Maybe the answer lies in the community forgetting about "political correctness" - a term that reeks of racism, uniformity and exclusion. Maybe we should think about coming together as a community - like we used to - and report "unusual activity" to the principal or law enforcement. Maybe that in and of itself could reduce the violent crimes. By taking action now to help the youth make right decisions with their lives. Maybe there needs to be more boys & girls clubs to help children learn about the making good decisions and becoming responsible for their actions. Maybe these clubs can help to foster a 'second' family for children; giving these children the structure all children need and might be lacking in many homes.

So in summary - Every citizen must be able to keep firearms per the 1776 US Constitution. Secondly, we need to spend more money on helping the youth now before they develop into criminals or gang members. In the long run, this will save money and lives.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Making hay after the horse left the burning barn

All of a sudden, the Democrats want to mix the seating in the President's State of the Union speech.
And I have to ask WHY????? WHY ??????

The only reason I can come up with is because the Democrats do not want to show the public how many seats they lost in the last election.

Come on people. Has any Democrat changed his tune??? I do not think so. They are using this mixing of Republicans and Democrats seating idea for one and only one reason. They Democratic side will be very small if they all stay together. And they are afraid to show the public that they LOST THE LAST ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE UNDERHANDED PASSING OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE AND THE WASTING OF $787,000,000,000 AND THE
CONCENTRATING OF POWER IN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN BACK-DOOR CHICAGO-STYLE DEALINGS AND BRIBINGS. AND NEVER FORGET ABOUT THE "CZARS" THAT HAVE POWER AND WERE NEVER ELECTED NOR VETTED BY CONGRESS - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE VETTED BY CONGRESS.

KEEP THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SEATING AS ITS BEEN FOR THE LAST 200+ YEARS - SEPARATED.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Healthcare's decline

Just saw a TV Commercial for United Health Care. The man has Prostrate Cancer and
who does he get for his treatment under United Health Care ???
A RN - That's right a nurse, not a doctor or a cancer specialists - a nurse.
I am not taking anything away from nurses - It's just that you would expect to be treated
for Prostrate Cancer by a cancer doctor. That is obama health care in action -
Get used to it unless the congress can rescind and replace this terrible, terrible law that
will kill jobs, make doctors quit the profession and ration health care all while increasing
costs and your federal taxes.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Black and White

At the risk of starting political straight talk, one of the 'soul' problems with the Black community began with President Lyndon Johnson and his legislation to "help" the Black people by creating WELFARE. Welfare in and of itself is not a bad thing. But the restrictions of government on who could receive welfare was the main destroyer of the Black culture and the Black family. Recipients of welfare - usually mothers - could not receive welfare IF there was a man living in the household. SO the smart thing to do in light of the free money (i.e.welfare) was to kick the Black man out of the house. This lead to a breakdown of the Black family. Any family without a father is more likely to see their children get into serious trouble with early pregnancy, drugs and gangs whatever their race.

Then along comes Jesse Jackson after Martin Luther King whose agenda is to make money while pretending to help the Black people. If he truly wanted to help the Black people he would have used his organization to help all poor people. BUT Jackson made it clear in every way, that the only way his organization could make money was to focus on Black people at the expense of all poor people. This fostered worsening race relations - putting his organization in contradiction with its stated purpose.

So what do we do about the "race" problem? We can discuss alternatives in my next blog

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

The obama thing

All people want is a government that will make it easy to plan for business growth and purchases. And with
the tax hike due Jan 1, 2011, why would anyone hire a new employee??? Add to that the obama health care
law which is raising premiums and limiting services while raising taxes now for services that will not be
available until 2014, it's no wonder that many of my clients are dropping health care completely for all their
employees. The premiums are just to expensive.

There is hope yet.

First, the tax hikes might be averted if the Democrats see the reasoning and sense of keeping taxes low.
While not raising taxes will raise the deficit at first, the economy will grow under lower tax rates and produce
increased tax revenues.

Second, there will be a call to rescind the obama health care bill. That was what the November election was
mostly about. Maybe all if it will not be rescinded. Let's hope that some major "FLAWS" in the 2000+ page
law that nobody has read nor could understand will be changed to reduce increased government employees
and costs to the tax payers.

Third, let's hope that the new House of Representatives can get some of the newly hired government
employees fired and the rest can get their salaries down to a more reasonable level. Why should
government employees with all their special health care and privileges get paid more than people in
the general public who have none of those special privileges???

There is hope that the government may yet begin to work for the people instead of cramming laws down
our throats and then expecting to raise taxes to pay for these laws. That is not how a free government
should work.

Remember Nov 2012 and vote out the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and maintain the Republican
house majority. Let's hope that the Republicans and the Tea Party can get together and put up a candidate
that can win against the obama in 2012

Who has a rational and sane thought? Let's hear from you

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.

SOCIAL SECURITY FREEZE

What am I missing???

We have and will give Haiti $1,500,000,000.00 and there is nothing to show for it. The people are still
wondering around just like before the earthquake only now they are in tents. And we want to hand out more
money while we are FREEZING SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO OUR SENIOR CITIZENS. Is that just stupid or is
there an anti-senior bias showing up in this???

And our aid to 'terrorists' countries like palistine is another several BILLION DOLLARS we are not giving to
our senior citizens.

Then there is the way we figure inflation. In my world, the following items have gone up in this year:
Bread
Milk
Eggs
Meats
Every Vegetable
Electricity
Heating oil
NAtural gas
Gasoline
Insurance premiums for auto, health, housing, and even medicare premiums
Rent
Real Estate Taxes
State Taxes
Sales Taxes
Medicines - over the counter and prescriptions
All these things make up a part of the expenses of a senior citizen as well as working people's expenses.

So why isn't the CPI (The Inflation Factor) going up???

The main reason is home prices. The second reason is home prices. And the third reason is home prices.
Home prices need to be taken out of the CPI, in my opinion.

BUT, Most seniors are living in a world where their cost of living will increase by anywhere from a minimum
of TEN PERCENT (10%) to TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%). The government thinks it's OK to FREEZE the
SOCIAL SECURITY FOR our seniors - while THEY GIVE AWAY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
TO PERKS FOR CONGRESS PERSONS AND FOREIGN PEOPLE.

That is absolutely UNAMERICAN. These congress persons need to get their priorities correct. The CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES COME FIRST WHEN HANDING OUT OUR TAX DOLLARS.

I say reduce and eliminate foreign aid and give it to our citizens.

Does anyone beside me think that China and Japan need to step up their giving and increase their foreign aid ?

The CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE THE TOP PRIORITY FOR ALL OUR SPENDING AND GIVING PLANS.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Unions - pros and cons

When the Industrial Revolution was beginning, men with dreams and guts created industries. These industries ran on large amounts of labor. People would labor 12 hours a day for 6 days a week for their pay. And if they were not always working or came in late, they were docked pay. These were part of the working conditions.

Alone came some terrible tragedies - some accidents and mostly fires. Those were the events that gave rise to unions. Mine workers, mercantile laborers and later the factory laborers. Every death showed the flaws in managements style of running a company. People were replaceable and there were more people then jobs.

The laborer had no individual power. Prime ground to develop a union. At first unions fought for better working conditions and more reasonable pay with shorter hours. These concepts came directly out of the owner's profits. And these were the underlying and opposing factions with different agendas.

Move into todays world and unions for the most part have only one objective - to grow at any cost and to demand more of anything at any cost. While the owners (Now stockholders) and management have to show the stockholders a quarterly increase in profit.

Instead of reducing the difference between the highest hourly wage earner and the highest management, CEO, labor (Read the Unions) and management are at odds in how to make the most profit.

As a wage earner, why should they care about the profits of the company? For one reason, their jobs exist because there are profits. But the resentment between the people who make the products and the people who manage the workers just is too strong for a graceful and healthy co-existence. Step in the Unions and the lawyers for management.

Sometimes the unions go on strike. Nobody wins in this case. And sometimes the company goes under in a strike. Then all the workers and management lose their jobs. Personally, I find this end result the most outrageous event. People willing to argue until the death of the company and the loss of everyones' income.

In a more 'charitable world', there would be a limit to the difference between say the highest wage earner and the CEO. And everyone would know that difference. The hope would be that upper management would want to increase the highest wage rate to allow for higher salaries for management, Just does not work out that way.
WHY? Because there are usually many more wage earners than management. Do the math and you soon begin to realize why companies want to buy other companies.

For example: two companies with 200 and 350 employees each merge. The resultant company ends up with maybe 400 employees and only a few less number of management. BUT the savings from this example is the loss of 150 jobs. That means more revenue goes to the bottom line. The consumers who purchase the products of the new combined company get no savings - just the company's bottom line.

The result are bonuses for most of the management and 150 families without their breadwinner. And now the State will provide )at taxpayer's expense) unemployment compensation and food stamps.

The union workers on average make more than non-union laborers. But at a price of the productivity of any company. The union work rules stifle cooperation between job descriptions. You hear a lot of "It's not my area" in a union shop. Or you hear, "Hey! slow down. Are you trying to ruin it for everyone!"

In the end, unions are for the most part just as bad as the managements they oppose. They use their power to get more wages when they are already getting the highest wages in their industry. CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) has the highest wages in the entire industry, yet they demand higher wages. Teachers work less hours today with fewer students and produce poorer results than teachers in the 1950's. Teachers in the 1950 made the smallest profession salaries. Today, teachers make some of the highest salaries. YET, the teacher's union wants more pay and smaller class rooms without guaranteeing any improvement in graduating more student who can read and do simple math. In these cases, the unions have outlived their usefulness.

Now consider miners. The unions have a big part to play towards increasing safety in the mines.

The auto factories of yesterday had employee wage growth that destroyed the United States auto industry. Yet until the factories closed, the unions were fighting for higher salaries and benefits. Made no sense. And it drove the auto manufactures into foreign countries to produce the cars.

In summary, unions are good when safety issues need to be increased or wages are too low. Unions hurt the workers and the economy when their members begin to make too much compared to the cost of foreign production and shipping.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

What is a Republican

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican. His platform was in part about limited government and state's rights.
And he was fiscally conservative. Right out of the frontier mid-west, the Republican party won against the "Whigs" and the Democratic parties; just like today with the Tea Party who are trying to re-establish conservative values back into politics while strengthening states rights. Limited government is another trade mark of Republicans and the Tea Party.

Why is that good? The power to tax is mighty tempting to CHEAT. Think about the recent obama health care bill.
There was not enough votes to pass it. SO what did the government with part of the 787 BILLION bail-out funds do? The government used OUR MONEY TO BRIBE CONGRESSPERSONS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE TO A YES. They did this in secret. Remember the cameras watching Senator's reed's closed door where all the Democrats were being bribed behind closed doors without any transparency. (Another major obama lie)

I'll bet a lot of the 787 BILLION (which still has Billions unaccounted for) is being used to fund Democratic November races. This is called a SLUSH FUND made up of our money being used to encourage "takers" to vote for continuing the obama 'change'. (Taking from the workers to pay for the slackers)

And what is that change looking like??? Let's see. Government now control the finance part of our economy - that's the banks and brokerages. Government now controls two car companies with more than a hint that they will allow a Chinese company to take over one of OUR CAR Companies. Imagine. We just borrowed Billions and Billions to shore up our car companies to allow a foreign company to reap the profits. And not just any foreign country. It's the country that has RIGGED IT CURRENCY SO THAT THE UNITED STATES NOW OWES CHINA BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN BALANCE OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. This is an outrage!!!

So would a Republican do any of this? No No NO!. A republican wants smaller government and less control of the economy. That way, the economy is free to grow organically the way it has since the first settlements landed here.

The Republicans want fiscal and personal responsibility of every citizen. That means every citizen needs to speak American English, pay their taxes and obey the laws. Of course Republican understand that "things" happen to people and that is why Republicans give to charity four to one compared to Democrats. (IRS statistics)

There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch. Somebody, somehow has to pay for the 'free' lunch. When you give money, food stamps, health care for 'free', somebody has to pay for it. It's only 'free' to the people who are on the receiving end. That money comes out of a general tax revenue fund.

Now if the general tax revenue fund could increase, then more money could be available for "free" items like
social security and health care. BUT, even Greece is becoming more fiscally responsible than the obama budget busting plan. Did I say "obama budget?" I must of mis-spoke. The Democrats did not create a budget this year. Why? Because they were too scared that the true numbers would scare everyone to vote out the Democrats this Nov 2 election.

So what is a Republican? Someone with Fiscal and Conservative Values who believes that the citizens know best how to grow the economy and who want to reduce the size of the government and it's budget.

Which person is the better citizen? - being a taker or the one paying taxes?

Next topic - UNIONS - pros & cons

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

What is a Liberal?

Image by Lincolnian (Brian) via Flickr

The term "Liberal" has many meanings. I would like to examine how it became to mean a 'left' political term.

In all recorded history people would form groups. One man would become the "alpha" male and one woman would become the "alpha" woman. From these two people all the descending levels of hierarchy would form. The larger the group the more levels. And as the Alpha male and female became old or died, other males and females would attempt to overthrow the Alpha male and female. OK this is fact.

Let's move along to the beginning of civilizations. From the beginning, these civilizations were built on similar hierarchy with levels of "upper class" the land owners and whose power came form the Alpha male - the newly forming middle class made up of merchants, tradespeople, farmers and artisans - and the rest of the people made up of house servants, slaves and beggars. OK there will be particular people that do not fall into one of these categories. But they are for the most part one-of-a-kind people. We are interested in generalized groups and classes of people. Were there any Liberals in this group? Probably not. Were there people who opposed the people in power? Probably yes.

Can we fix a label on those people who opposed the people above them in power, money or status. In my opinion - no.

Now let's move to around 1200 AD in England. There was a growing number of higher level, land-owners who were beginning to feel like they "deserved more latitude" in their lives and resented tithing to the king. This then, in my opinion, was a group of people who were the grandchildren who fought to gain their position. These newly rich, without having to sacrifice for their riches, were beginning to demand a bit of independence from the king. In fact, they banded together to force the King of England to sign the "Magna Carta" which guaranteed certain liberties to these grandchildren. Everyone should read the document. Go here to read it ... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html


This document set in motion the beginning of Liberalism. You are encouraged to comment on this after reading the document.

Nothing much changed until the Revolution Was between the Colonies and England. And by then, there were many Liberals who voiced their opposing opinion to independence. Yep, even back then, there were Liberals who wanted to be taken care of and not upset the apple cart for a better cause. Mostly these Liberals were well-off merchants with more to lose financially from war then to keep the 'status-quo'. Those persons who felt 'put-upon' and taken advantage of by the King of England wanted independence. So how would you define Liberal at this time period?

This class warfare would continue until today. How do you define Liberals today? Well there are no Liberals in the foxhole - at least live ones. Therefore, there are no Liberals in the active armed forces. Yes many persons in the armed forces have various ideas. But when you interview returning soldiers, you get a sense they understand why we are fighting a war today.

So that brings us to the people at home. Maybe they can define what it means to be Liberal. They say Liberal people are for helping other people. BUT Conservatives out-give charity six to one versus the Liberal population.
SO that can't be how to define Liberals.

What about religion. Seems to me that more Conservatives are church going that Liberals. The popular movement for Liberals today is to remove GOD from the populace. To me, religion should never be included in politics but it is a fact of today's political climate. To me Church and State should never mix. But I digress.

Liberals, to me, seem to be made up of several groups. The obvious group is those persons wanting a hand-out and never willing to sacrifice for the charity given to them. There are third generation families on welfare producing babies at an alarming rate. WHY? In there own words: "I tried working but why spend 40 hours a week plus commuting time when I can get more money from welfare by doing nothing." YES, Those are the exact words from an interview shown on TV a while back on several news programs.

Then there are the young people who though they may be intelligent, do not have a fully formed brain. That's a medical fact. People's brains are fully developed from age 24 to 28 and not sooner. People younger that 24 just do not have the ability to evaluate life in the same way as people in their 40's and older. So these younger people are idealistic. And many of them are stubborn so when the age, they continue to maintain their 'value-system' well into their senior years.

How does that account for the millions f Liberals who are working and living basically a 'normal' life. My opinion is that they are from mostly working class stock - semi-professional - trades - businesspeople. Can you imagine a 45 year old union worker who owes his entire life-style to the ability of a union to maintain his employment voting against the union. Never! That is why the unions today are demanding that we get rid of one of our basic "Rights" by eliminating the secret ballot. That way union people can make life hell for anyone who votes against the union. Self-serving? You bet!

But unions do have a place in today's world. It's just that senior management just keeps sucking way to much salary for the little work they preform. In my opinion, if there was a cap between the highest officer of any company with union members and the highest union paid worker, that would go a long way towards resolving the differences between management and workers. And to me that means more reduction in senior management's pay than raising worker's pay. After all there is a profit that at the end of the day needs to be made to keep the business going.

So how do we define Liberals today? They are mostly unemployed, low wage earners, under-educated with a mix of over-educated professors who have never experienced anything in the workplace, the young people and the grandchildren of people who have a comfortable life for their family and descendants.

What do you think?

Next topic - What is a Conservative

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

TEA PARTY SUCCESSES

TODAY WE ARE WITNESSING what happened in the mid-1800's when a new party called the Republicans put up an unknown candidate - Abraham Lincoln.

The TEA PARTY is now doing exactly the same thing on mostly the same issue. Smaller government and states rights. It's time the Republican party joined forces with the TEA PARTY to win over congress. Then congress can pass as many bills without any Democrats. Then congress can rescind the obama health care law and bring spending back to 2008 levels.

Heck - any manager can wring out 5% or 10% or even 15% or waste in their budget. Cut the fat. Reduce the government employee roles. Keep taxes at the same level as today. And they can do this without any reduction in
services.

OK some pet projects will be placed on hold. And some companies that do business with the government will lose revenue for a year or two. BUT the majority of government job reduction will reduce the obama patronage job bloating - a common way to maintain power in Chicago, IL.

By reducing jobs and rescinding and re-working the health care package, the United States can again get it's financial house in order. And that will be good for everyone - not just the Democrats who took bribes for their votes.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Jobs - Jobs - Where are the Jobs ?

The statistics show 9.6% unemployed. That number is unreal. My figure is more like 18% to 19%. Consider all the people who have run out of benefits. They are not figured in the unemployment figures. And people who lost great jobs are now in significantly lower paying jobs. Net result = low disposable income. With consumer sales driving one-third of our economy, this is a road to ruin.

So where are the jobs? For a quick answer look in your driveway. Is the car an American car? Come on people, if we stop buying American cars, the three car companies will go out of business. There has to be an American car choice for every foreign car available. Only snobbery is driving the foreign car market. The lose of sales in American cars is directly related to the loss of jobs. And for every car manufacturing job lost, 5 additional job -at least- are lost in supporting the car companies.

Where are jobs? They have been transferred to lower wage countries. First it was Mexico. Then Mexicans began complaining that their jobs were being transferred to China. Sure Chine has gained big time in all this transferring of jobs. But now the Chinese are complaining that their jobs are moving to Indonesia or India. Don't look away too fast. Africa is a huge source of possible low wage workers.

So where are the jobs. Back in the Clinton Presidency, he signed a bill to limit or dissolve tariffs between nations and for world wide free trade. Then our congress did nothing to create an extra tax burden on US based corporations that transfer their manufacturing operations out of the USA.

So where are the jobs? They have been exported to low wage countries.

We need to figure out how to create jobs in America. There is a sneaker company in the east coast that makes all its gym shoes in the USA. I am looking for the name of that company and I will then only buy my sneakers from that company. I strongly urge all Americans to support that company. I will identify that company's name later so you might support their products. They are competitive in style, function and price. ONLY snobbery will drive Americans to buy sneakers made in foreign countries. Look for that company name in my next blog.

Next time you buy anything, check for the "Made in _______" label. And buy an alternative product that says: "MADE IN THE USA."

And that's they way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

September 11th - Never Forget

Today I remember the 3000+ innocent people who died at the hands of terrorists muslims.

Imagine for a moment the wind rushing past you and the floors crashing down on you as you try to escape from the falling World Trade Centers Towers. You can only go so fast because there are thousands of people all trying to escape at the same time. Thousands will get out and thousands will not.

This is the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. And this attack must be avenged with the death of every terrorist in all the world or we will never be safe!

They say forgiveness relieves the soul. BUT I SAY "NEVER FORGET". Keep being angry. Keep focused on killing every last terrorists everywhere. Someday, one terrorist might explode him/herself in the midst of a crowd that you or your loved ones are in. You or they will die a horrible death and those who are affected by your loss will suffer for the rest of their lives.

E-mail me at JayClifford@att.net for a JPG you will want to have - there is no charge - virus free.

Never Forget - they attacked us - we are at war!

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

September 11, a day that lives in infamy

When I think of September 11th, I remember the shock that the entire country felt. The moment when Every Citizen wanted to strike back as one. When everyone felt they were attacked as a nation. The days lingered on and the smoke finally cleared. We were angry. And that anger still persists today but not as much as it should.

When I hear that the muslims want to build a mosque in a building that the landing gear of one of the planes that crashed into the twin towers fell through the roof, I get angry all over again. It's not just the families that are insulted by the idea of building the muslim mosque ON GROUND ZERO, it's everyone who remembers the horrible shock that the United States of America was attacked in a cowardly way.

And the name of the mosque shows that they are using the mosque as a symbol of victory over the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. muslims alway build a mosque on the grounds of their victories. Look at Jerusalem. Look at Spain. Look at Turkey. All have mosques build on the site of their victories. Now they want to build a mosque on GROUND ZERO. I say never. And all citizens must understand what they are trying to do. The muslims are trying to change the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO A MUSLIM TYPE COUNTRY WITH MUSLIM RULES AND TRADITIONS.

One group in particular should be shouting from everywhere and demanding that muslims learn to stop being cowardly chauvinists and allow women the identical freedom that men have. Isn't there a women's organization that stands for women's freedom? Why are they so quiet. Quiet will bring problems. You need to be shouting at all yourt congresspersons and telling them how you feel anoub muslim ways

Terrorists are by definition cowards. They strike from ambush. They slaughter innocents for mass effect. Terrorists need to be eliminated not jailed. They need to be hunted down like the dogs they are and killed anyway we can kill them and then bury them under their shoes.

I for one cannot understand why the unions do not stand up and say they will not block the building of a muslim mosque anywhere near GROUND ZERO.. The unions have the power. They can block any project they set out to block. Union membership needs to stand up as one and denounce the building of this mosque.

When the USA was attacked in Pearl Harbor in 1941, the nation rose to fight the enemy. We have an enemy now. It's called el quida and the government of iran. And if we have to kill others that are being used to protect the terrorists, then that is the price those people pay for not finding a way to tell the USA that the enemy is in their homes or villages. Sometimes in WAR --- and make do doubt that we are at war --- innocent people get killed. And we justify that by making sure that we kill every last terrorists.

The world cannot live in peace as long as there are terrorists. And SEPTEMBER 11TH IS A calling cry to avenge the attack on the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight talk with Jay Clifford.

obama's legacy

Nineteen months ago obama said it was Bush's deficit. But did we hear that President Bush had a Democrat congress. And only by compromising did President Bush get any law or budget past. Then, so the Bush deficit really was a Democratic deficit under a Democratic pelosi-reed congress. And the deficit nineteen months ago had quadrupled under the Democratic congress and obama.

Why does obama still blame the Bush Presidency for the problems his party created for the last 9.7 years?

Isn't it time for the no-action President to step up to the plate and forget about race, bribing congresspersons to get their votes and socialism and think how he can best serve ALL the citizens of the USA instead of offending our allies and bowing to a muslim thug-king???

The next two years with a obama President and a Republican congress will provide for grid-lock. And that's good. Just like the grid-lock under President Clinton, no more wasteful and pork spending will be passed into law. The congress will pass a bill and obama will veto it. That is the best news yet. Then the business people will think that they can start to plan for their growth instead of hoarding the cash and afraid of hiring anyone because of the terrifying possibilities that could come from a Democratic congress and a Democratic Presidency.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

obama and the Chicago Way

What is the Chicago Way. My experience shows its based on patronage. Hire as many workers as you can and tell them that their job is dependent on you getting elected. Then. constantly hire new workers in every department. Then, create new departments. All those patronage jobs are completely dependent on you getting re-elected. Lastly, raise all types of local taxes to pay for the raises these patronage workers get. And many of these workers do not have to work a full day.

In Chicago, when there were real news reporters ((unlike today's quasi-reporters)), there would be the daily exposure of workers sleeping on the job or spending their time anywhere but at work. But these reporters for some reason were slowly removed. Maybe pressure from the political officials? Or maybe the TV stations just got feed up with the constant negative reporting. Whatever the reason, there is only the political bosses reporting about corruption when it best served their interest to help get them re-elected.

Another Chicago Way is to either harass or eliminate your opponents. Being the business center of Al Capone, you get my drift.

Another famous Chicago Way is to have closed-door or back-door deals. A group of politicians meet secretly and make deals which partly do something and partly pay themselves and their friends or supporters

Does this sound familiar ??? Really think! This sounds familiar to me.

It should sound familiar. Just look at what is happening with our government. The number of government workers has significantly increased. The number of new departments has significantly increased. The wages of government workers is now greater then the public sector's wages. And there is more. There is plenty of harassment to anyone who does not abide by the obama way. And the health care system is filled with back-door deals for all types of obama supporters. Not saying that health care reform wasn't needed. It just was SOLD with bribes to many congresspersons and union people. That left out all the people who were perfectly happy with their health care programs and now are beginning to see their health care premiums go up by 10% - 14% - 18% and more. And the new taxes coming January 1, 2011 will go where??? Mostly to pay for all the bribes that were passed out to get congresspersons to vote for the health care bill. And the official governmental budgeting department now says that the health care law will cost more then they originally said. They blame the extra loss on not receiving enough accurate information from the obama camp. Information that the obama camp had before the bill was passed. That's another Chicago Way. Leave off anything or any information that gets in your way.

CONGRESS HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO USE OUR MONEY ---OUR TAXES--- TO BRIBE CONGRESSPERSONS TO PASS LAWS THAT ARE NOT IN THE BEST LONG TERM INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA.

GOD HELP US ALL !!!

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford



I

Population growth & JOBS

No one wants to admit it BUT the can support only so many people. Once a"Critical mass" is reached, some disease will lower the population 'naturally.' And if great achievements in medicine put off that time for another decade or century, then the disaster will be that much greater.

Now the Democrats want the extra population - specially the poor, needy and those wanting"Social justice" '. So they will never vote to restrict growth"

And the Republicans do not want any form of Birth_control", so they will never vote for restriction population growth.

The last thing I want to do is praise China with all its terrible Civil_and_political_rights" problems. BUT the 'one family - one child' law has kept China from a population explosion. And it will continue to shrink in population over the next century. This has allowed the children to get the parental attention they deserve; and reduces the strain on food production; and reduces all the residual needs that a growing population demands of its country.

That leaves the poor everywhere and "India" which are all growing at too high a rate. Don't get me wrong. I am not against the poor having babies. It's just that in time past, these families would only bring about 1 or 2 babies to child bearing tears and lived only 35 to 40 years. Today's medicine changes the statistics. Now when a poor family has 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or more babies, most of them grow up to child bearing age and have babies themselves.

We see it in. Teenagers are having babies who have babies as teenagers. Sometimes there are 5 or 6 generations living together. The children definitely do not get the care they need. And who pays for this? Social Services - OK yours and my Federal taxes. The over-crowding in the schools with children raised by children causes so many problems that its a blog in and of itself.

Then there is all these children wanting jobs at some time. The current estimate is about 86,000 children enter ((OR want to enter)) the job market EVERY WEEK. Even in the best of times, this is impossible. There job isn't that many jobs to go around. Worst is that most of the 86,000 new job seekers do not even have a "High school" diploma. Who wants to hire them? Walmart - Grocery stores - moving companies - political assignments - etc. Even these jobs have an upper limit.

And lastly, there is the need for fresh water and food for all these people.
We well eventually come a time when the Earth will not support this fast population growth. We need to address this today all over the world.

ANd that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Recent GAY RULINGS

This is not about civil rights in my opinion. This is about a 10% sub-set of humanity that is demanding not that we accept them but that we change the rules for the other 90% who are not gay. There was a vote. And about 7,000,000+ people voted that "MARRIAGE" is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

If gay people want to marry, let them have the wonderful ceremony, exchange rings and swear they will be faithful. Then they can apply for a 'civil' arrangement which does exactly the same thing as when a man and a woman get married.

Two last issues.
1) What does it say to the public citizens when they overwhelmingly vote one way and one official just contradicts what they voted for??? Why should anyone ever want to vote if that is allowed to happen???
2) If 2 men or 2 woman are allowed to marry, what about 3 woman and 2 men??? That allows a Mormon man to marry 8 women. Didn't we say that was just wrong in this day and age??? . Maybe (crudely) a man and his sheep
will be allowed to marry.

Once the ONE MAN+ONE WOMAN concept of marriage is destroyed, then all civil rulings will become meaningless.

And that's the way I see it.
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Coincidences or behind-the-door trading

Has anyone thought about these series of events:

1) obama meets with the President of Russia
2) Chrysler-Fiat to close the Fiat manufacturing plant in Italy
3) Chrysler-Fiat to open a Fiat manufacturing plant in Russia

Coincidences???

Seems to be a lot of negative America coincidences lately.

Does anyone know of any more?

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Space Flight for Iran

Has anyone put together the following events:
1) obama has shut down the US space program
2) NASA has been given directions to give information to the muslim community
3) iran has just announced it will put a man in space by 2019.

Coincidences???

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Being obese is OK

Ok A child that sits around all day and is allowed to eat all the time is just bad parenting.
BUT, heavy people are just normal.

Lets take a short walk down history. The early dinosaurs over 250,000,000 (That's over 250 million) years ago
were shrimps measuring about one foot tall. The Earth at that time was lush and getting 'lusher' plus there was more oxygen and CO2 in the air. All animals grew larger over time and there was plenty food for every animal.

Over the next 165,000,000 years, dinosaurs grew amazingly huge topping out around 50 tons (That's 100,000 LBs) and about 30 or 40 feet long. They just didn't go from pip-squeeks to amazons overnight. They grew to their enormous size over tens of millions of years.

Going back to the earliest human ancestors - about 5 to 6 million years ago, our ancestors were only about three feet tall. Lack of food and lack of protein was the main reason for their small size.

Then there is the commune in Sweden where everyone was over 6 feet 2 inches. They decided to only eat a macro-biotic diet. What happened? All their children were shorter than 5 feet 9 inches. Why? Lack of meat protein.

So that brings us to currant times. In the 1950s the average high school student was about 5 foot 6.5 inches
and skinny. Today's high school students average about 5 feet 10 inches and carry a lot more weight.

BUT are they obese? The news is trying to tell us that they are. My thought is that their height is evolution of the human species at work. In 5 to 6 million years we went from 3 feet to 5 feet 6.5 inches. In only 55 years,
we went from 5 feet 6.5 inches to 5 feet 10 inches. That's evolution at work. The human species is getting taller. And most of the human species are getting both prettier and more handsome.

I see second generation and third generation people of all races being taller than their parents and they are
also heavier. OK - Some of the extra weight might be a more sedentary lifestyle but for the most part its better nutrition, more meat in their diets and more available food.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

How many US citizens are really unemployed.

The latest unemployment figures tell only part of the picture. About 4,400,000 people are getting unemployment insurance. And another 24,000,000 have lost their unemployment benefits and/or stopped looking for work. Plus, many of the newly employed have taken jobs at lower pay scales.

In talking with many small businesses, they all seem to have one mind. They will not hire anyone new because of the potential obama health care costs and the very real possibility of higher taxes.

I asked what would change their minds. Mostly, they are unsure of the government's future actions. They all told me that if they rescinded the obama health care law and replaced it with a more sensible and less costly version, that would make some difference. Another thing that would help to change their collective minds is keeping taxes where they are and renewing about-to-be-expired-tax-incentives. Without these changes, they told me that they are unlikely to hire anyone in the future. Many even said they have given thought to closing down completely.

With small business hiring over half the work force, that bodes poorly for any employment gain going forward.

The future of jobs is in our hands. By voting out the people - that made these terrible laws, will soon raise taxes and possible de-value the US Dollar - in November 2010 and again in 2012. The cause of this problem can be debated later. What is needed now is a tax-break stimulus to help small, medium and large businesses feel confident enough to begin hiring. As more people are hired the economy will begin to improve. Simple to do.

The unintended consequences of just spending unwisely with pork to pay for the bribes to pass the obama health care bill will eventually bankrupt the United States Of America. No One Wants That!!!

There has to be a compromise. Someone will gain the system more than others. OK. BUT the one fact is that those people will create jobs for the unemployed and that's the compromise. Like it or not, that is the answer.

And that's the way I see it...
Jay Clifford

Tax the WHITE people to pay for obama's spending

Is it just me or did the democratic congress vote to TAX ONLY THE WHITE PEOPLE???

The new law taxes tanning salons. Who goes to tanning salons? Not black people.
Not hispanic people. Not asian people - as a rule. So who is left?

The WHITE PEOPLE. They make up 99.99% of all tanners.

obama has pushed through a law that discriminates solely against white people.

I cannot believe that this congress discriminated against white people by taxing them.

Now I do not use a tanning salon. My skin tans easily. But taxing all the white people
who use the tanning salons is just plain discriminatory.

Write into any news group and your congress representatives. TELL THEM that they have
committed an act of discrimination with the tanning tax law.

Let me hear from you on this.
They should not be able to get away with this discrimination

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.

Political Power Grab

Does anyone see that the obama administration is taking the USA through the exact
same steps that the Nazi political structure did in its grab for absolute power over its
people in the 1930's???

Whether you are on the left, center or right, we will all be losers if the obama administration
grabs any more power. Now the obama admin is hoping to control all the internet. With this
control, he can single-handedly block any news that he deems non-obama.

And what do you call that type of power??? A Dictator.

Do we want to be governed by a dictator??? No Way !!!

How do we stop this from going any further??? Good question.

The left, center and right need to learn to come together for the protection of their
individual rights and their freedom.

The founders of this Republic saw this as a possibility and put in place a balance of powers
where each side could moderate the other side. Today, we have one party and the Presidency
and the Supreme court favoring one side. And that is bad for everyone.

We need a balance in all parts of government.

Remember this blog if you fail to get congress and mostly the Presidency to stop grabbing power.

The only way to stop this is to vote out enough of one party so after elections in Nov 2010, there is a balance
between both sides of the congress. If you do not, then there will be no turning back and the USA
will be led by a dictator. And your stocks and money will be worthless.

The only thing that work's with a dictator will be 'crowny-ism'. This is the Chicago way. Bride people or
make people do what you want by threatening them with financial harm or worse. The Chicago way.

And why is this important??? Because that is where obama learned politics.

Remember, vote out the incumbents in Nov 2010 elections. Or else you will wake up after the
elections to a dictator and there will be no turning back. Don't believe me. Well the people of
Germany in the 1930's had the same choices and look what rose to power and what happened
to the world.

Does anyone still remember that over 55,000,000 people were killed in World War 11 ??? And that all
of Europe and western Russian became a prison.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Leader or Follower? - Action tells

The difference between being a leader and a follower

The oil spill and its aftermath bring out the best and worst of people. On the worst side, there is the President who said just before BP was about to cap the well and trying to take the glory for himself by saying he is responsible and the buck stops with him. Yeah and pigs fly!

He has never managed anything nor been in charge of any group of people and it shows. His lack of leadership is embarrassing to me, the people of the United States and the World.

He never seems to make a decision. He spent his entire term in the ILLINOIS congress voting: ‘Present’. Never a YES or a NO. As a US Senator, his record is about the same.

Now as President, he pushed for a health care bill using the Chicago way – The home of Al Capone and The BOSS. That’s where he learned politics. Anyone not willing to vote his way was put under intense pressure. Maybe that is not strong enough. How would you like to be in an gym’s shower room showering and have someone intensely swear at you to change your vote or you will never get anything for your district passed and they will work with the opposition to make sure you are not re-elected? That would make me angry. But some people had more savvy and requested that their district or state receive tens of millions of dollars for their vote. They knew how to work the Chicago way. And they received the “bribe”.

Only trouble is that the “bribe’ money (OK some will want to say that it was encouragement money) but the money had to come from somewhere. Where do you think the money came from? It came from you and me - from the stimulus money. That’s why there has been no new jobs created with $787,000,000,000 dollars of stimulus money.

So the politicians have learned to bribe the congress people with our own money. That’s one of the Chicago’s ways. So we have a President pushing for a bill that every poll suggested that 55% to 75% did not want. Was he a leader in this instance? No Way! He was just a stubborn man trying to get what he wanted no matter how it hurt the United States and it will hurt the United States in a terrible way now that the “real truth” of the cost of the health care bill is out.

There was no leadership here – Just Bribing.

As for leadership, you see it in the Governor of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
And you see it in the hundreds of vacationers who on their vacation are scooping up tar balls from the oil spill. You see it in the people who collected hundreds and hundreds of birds and turtles still covered with tar. They are cleaning these birds and turtles to save the environment as best as they can. And the People who roped barges together to stop the flow of oil into the wetlands. Even with Kevin Kostner with his great oil/water separator.

Leadership has its own quality. People stepping up to take charge. People forcing the government to accept doing something to at least get a “handle’ on the spilled oil and accept the equipment offered to the US to help in the clean-up. It took the President 50 days before he acted. It took people to save the birds and turtles one day to act. The difference is being able to take real responsibility in tough times and not use it for political advantage.

So many individual acts of responsibility – all need to be praised versus a President without a clue who is using this oil spill to help pass a law that will cost the American people jobs and costs all Americans more just to live in exchange for what? An empty promise?. This President should begin thinking about stepping down and letting a real leader handle the job of the Presidency. He must know it in his heart by now that he is in way over his head.

And that’s the way I see it…
Jay Clifford
JayClifford@att.net

Why are we so dependent on OIL?

Why are we so dependent on OIL?

Most of the modern world runs on oil and its by-products. Most people know that gasoline comes from ëcrackingí oil. And gasolineís primarily use is for fuel for cars. The more cars in the world, the more gasoline is needed, the more is needed and so on.

That leads to why cars run on gasoline instead of some other source of fuel. The quick history is that the earliest cars replaced a different pollution. Since the transportation prior to cars was based on the horse, the pollution was both a foul smell, tons of flies and one huge mess on all the roads. At that time, even the earliest autos with all their problems was a great improvement.

But most cars were build one at a time and expensive. Some of the best cars ran on steam. This had its own pollution and the range was limited by the size of the boiler. Still, models like the Stanley Steamer could travel fast and far, if you could afford one. Another problem faced by early auto drivers was that there were no paved roads ñ only horse trails and foot paths.

The future of the auto at that time looked bleak. Then Henry Ford figured out how to mass produce autos at a price that most people could afford. The engine he used was a gasoline engine. And while the Model T used as much oil as gasoline, they were well received. Soon the days of the horse as the only means of transportation were past. And we became an oil dependent nation and world.

And the world never looked back. Eventually roads wee built and autos became more reliable. Roads were built ñ most with bricks ñ but still an improvement over dirt horse trails, specially in wet weather. Then accessories were added and features that made driving a pleasure. Finally in the 1950ís a national highway system was completed. The car was king.

Even though a diesel engine was developed, it was many years before it came a popular choice in cars.
One factor was that few service stations offered diesel fuel. As improvements to the diesel engine were made, it now stands as the best alternative to gasoline. When you can use strained grease from a restaurant as fuel with little pollution at a greater savings than the cost of gasoline, you would think that most manufacturers would have built more diesel models. But the government helped the car industry expand.

Now, we use ethanol, a by-product of corn, Thatís why the price of bread is now so high. Much of the corn crop is sold to made ethanol. WHY? Because the government made that choice. BUT everyone knows that saw-grass, a weed that grows anywhere, can be used to produce the same ethanol for less money than using corn. But the government insists that we use corn. So itís an even swap ñ oil for corn. A no-gain transaction.

So we now used a 10% ethanol ñ 90% gasoline mixture at the ìpumps.î Itís the 90% that costs us dearly and sends billions of dollars to unfriendly countries that is the driving force behind cutting our dependence on foreign oil. Not oil completely ñ just foreign oil. That amounts to about 17% of the oil we import.

Now, with the unbelievable halting of all oil exploration (and drilling) in the Gulf, we will become more dependent on foreign oil. There is an almost perfect clean record of drilling for oil in shallow waters and on land. So why not drill for USA oil in Alaska. The people of Alaska want it. The United States needs to reduce the importing of foreign oil. But the government says no. One more bad business decision by government

The answer to both questions is poor, unfocused on the goal, management. When politics enters into a business decision, most of the time the business end suffers. Think of the post office. They have way too many employees and are bleeding money at an alarming rate. The governmentís answer? To take more money from the taxpayer to pay for jobs that are unneeded.

Then there is the railroads. And the two most corrupt of all programs: medicare and social security.
Both are bleeding and will continue to bleed until they bankrupt the USA? If medicare was handled in a private manner and people were allowed to invest 10% to 50% of their social security in fixed income treasury bonds, two things would happen. But government wants control of our money.

If private interest managed medicare, the medicare fraud would be squeezed out and those people committing fraud would go to prison. The result, more services and a savings plus a profit which could become taxable income. But the government says no.

Instead of a ëponzieí scheme which is what the social security system is based on, people could invest in both the United States and their retirement at the same time. Best of all, when a person dies, the money set aside would pass on to the family instead of being lost, as the social security system treats recipients now.

My argument here is that whatever the government touches becomes corrupt and a waste of taxpayerís money. The recent health law is an example of the most corrupt passage of a law you may ever see in your lifetime. We will begin taxing people now for services that will not be available for 3 or 4 or 5 years. Talk about cheating the citizens with their own money, this scam has beat all previous scams. And the true BUDGET-BUSTING accounting is just now coming out. When this new health care bill is in full operation, the USA will begin to slide into a time when we are spending more than the total country is earning.

The result will be either huge inflation or a deep depression.

So why oil? Because cars vans, SUVs, trucks, trains, airplanes are important to our way of life. Itís the government with itís terrible sense of doing business that will drive oil prices to skyrocket because of one terrible tragedy in the Gulf which was preventable if government was acting in our best interest from the start. But with the President using this crisis to push for Cap & Trade which will raise prices of gasoline and electricity up by a lot, instead of trying to solve the crisis, you and I can expect a lower standard of living and all things will get more expensive. And more people will be unemployed.

Just having the government throw money at people in the HOPE that they will come up with a new idea to make the USA less dependent on foreign oil or oil completely is absurd and beyond being stupid. Invention happens when it happens. No amount of government interference will speed things up or make something appear magically on schedule.

We need oil. Oil is essential to our way of life. Without oil there would be no plastics, very few medications and the world would be thrown back to a time of great disease, high unemployment reaching 50%, little food besides what you can grow, and so much more. And by limiting coal use for electricity, the cost of electricity will skyrocket while we experience several blackouts every years.

Why OIL? Because we need it.

And that's the way I see it.
Jay Clifford