Wednesday, July 8, 2015

BloggeRhythms

A couple of articles today, buried among the more important world events taking place, speak volumes about the hypocrisy and elitist attitude of the supposedly egalitarian POTUS and his spouse. 
 
According to investmentwatchblog.com via Drudge, “Michelle Obama unveiled her ‘modest’ remodel of the White House State Dining Room on Tuesday.”
 
Thus, while the nation continues to stall economically and the national debt has reached $18.2 trillion, the remodel cost taxpayers a mere $595,000.
 
What's also quite interesting is that the last time the room was changed was because, “Hillary Clinton did so in 1998.”
 
Additionally, what most voters likely don’t know, but was also noted in the same article, is that additional funds have been spent on “this year’s more dramatic remake of the Old Family Dining Room and the unveiling of the Obama china service.”
 
Which reinforces the point that it’s always nice to have free rein with other people’s money.
 
On another issue, the POTUS’s global warming farce took another shot across the bow today. This one from a prominent scientist.
 
Michael Bastasch @dailycaller.com writes that Dr. Ivar Giaever a Nobel Science Laureate who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month, “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.”
 
Mr. Batasch reports that, “In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming.
 
“Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.
 
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.”
 
When a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s School of Engineering and School of Science, Giaever received the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on quantum tunneling. However, he “said he was “horrified” about the science surrounding global warming when he conducted research on the subject in 2012.”
 
Giaever was so convinced of his global-warming doubts, that in 2011 he left the American Physical Society because it officially stated that “the evidence is incontrovertible … [g]lobal warming is occurring.” The Society also pushed for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
 
“Global warming really has become a new religion,” Giaever said.
 
“Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”
 
As has often been repeated here, Giaever also argued that “there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.
 
“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said.
 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who has proven to know very little about how the nation’s economy actually works. But, her approach differs from Professor Giaever who believes, as stated above, “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”
 
In Bill’s wife’s case, she applies the same illogic as the current POTUS who prefers when the facts don’t support the argument, to simply change or distort the facts.    
 
In that regard Emma Roller @nationaljournal.com writes about Bill’s wife saying in a speech, “There seems to be a pattern here, and we cannot afford to go back to the failed economic policies of the past. We have to be committed to electing a Democrat who will build on what works with actual evidence ... so that we build shared prosperity that everybody benefits from."
 
Her comments raise at least two questions right from the start. If by past, she means the last six years, she’s absolutely correct in saying, “There seems to be a pattern here, and we cannot afford to go back to the failed economic policies of the past.” However, if she isn’t talking about the recent past, what Democrat is she referring to?
 
Then, according to Ms. Roller, “On income inequality and immigration reform, there is a yawning chasm between Republicans and Democrats, especially in Iowa. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 70 percent of likely Republican caucus voters say the government should not pursue policies to reduce income inequality, while 91 percent of their Democratic counterparts said the government should pursue such policies.”
 
Which brings us back to Bill’s wife, who claims to want to “build shared prosperity that everybody benefits from." Leading to the question of how does an economy grow when productive people and entities share what’s theirs with those who aren’t and don’t care to be?
 
Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are you reading this?
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment