BloggeRhythms

As has become quite common by now, the government revised the results previously posted for the third quarter of the year.

Jeffry Bartash @marketwatch.com, reported yesterday that: “The economy expanded a touch slower in the third quarter than previously reported, revised government figures show, but the path of growth is still the same: The U.S. running well below the historical norm more than six years into a recovery.”

Gross domestic product increased at a 2% annual pace from July to September, according to the revision. “Previously the Commerce Department had said the U.S. grew at a 2.1% rate after a 3.9% increase in the second quarter.”

Mr. Bartash then explained that: “Historically the economy has expanded at a 3.3% rate.” Adding: “The good news: Consumers are spending money at a more rapid pace, helped by strong job creation. That’s what is mainly fueling growth since consumers account for more than two-thirds of economic activity.”

Bartash went on to include: “The bad news: Businesses have scaled back investment in response to sluggish exports, cheap oil and lower profits.” 

And that’s what prompted quoting from this article in the first place. Because it’s simply beyond rationality to try to understand how “cheap oil” can contribute to the slowing of economic growth. In fact, the reason consumers are spending money at a more rapid pace is that the cash isn’t going into their gas tanks, making it available for spending elsewhere on other things. Bartash himself wrote that in the paragraph above where he presented “the good news.”

Thus, this article doesn’t appear as if it was written by an impartial economic analyst. It seems much more like words coming from a Democrat flak, shilling for the White House.

On another recurring issue, in June, NOAA widely publicized a study refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. Taking the other side, Texas Republican, Lamar S. Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has tried diligently to obtain all communications from NOAA surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process. 

After issuing a subpoena for the information, Smith then sent a letter on December 1^st, offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements. However, he hasn’t received any cooperation from NOAA, causing him to state: “Despite what some critics claim, the subpoena is not only about scientists. Political operatives and other NOAA employees likely played a large role in approving NOAA’s decision to adjust data that allegedly refutes the hiatus in warming. … The Committee needs to understand the full context of NOAA’s decision-making process.”

Chairman Smith then continued his efforts without receiving much, if any, real response from the NOAA. At the same time, Judicial Watch may once again succeed as the stimulus for the agency’s acquiescence, much like its role in obtaining release of Bill Clinton’s wife’s emails. The foundation announced yesterday, that it “filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models.”

Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, said: ““We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration.  The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored.”

After a complaint was served on the agency on December 8, less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee. That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

This isn’t the first time that Judicial Watch has met with success on the same issue. Previously investigating alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration, in 2010, the foundation obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The documents related to a controversy erupting in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

So, what we have here is a major step toward exposing the administration’s fostering manipulation of climate data in order to confirm their point regarding global-warming. But, with all those billions of bucks involved in the scheme, it’s certainly should be no surprise that they’d lie, cheat and steal. What’s more, if the climate study grants were taken away, countless numbers of “scientist’s” might have to go out and actually work for a living, like the rest of us.

On another subject, according to POLITICO via Drudge, there's no limit on the number of candidates on the main stage for the next Republican debate. However, “calculations based on only the national polling available as of Tuesday, the prime-time stage would include Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, former Gov. Jeb Bush and Gov. Chris Christie. The early state polling wouldn't change the lineup as of Tuesday, according to POLITICO calculations of Iowa and New Hampshire polls.”

Which means that there are still a couple of candidate’s who actually know how to govern still in the race for the White House. Bush and Christie are the only one’s having any kind of proven success in office, while the only thing the other four wannabes’ can deliver is carloads of unrealistic promises and roomfuls of hot air. And, hopefully, as time goes on the voting public will recognize the difference between theoretical BS and reality, and then select a candidate who actually knows what he's doing.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

On top of yesterday’s dreadful news regarding the nation’s continually poor economic performance, significantly lower growth than previously reported, and an economy running well below the historical norm more than six years into a recovery, Bill’s wife called for a decade-long investment of $2 billion per year for Alzheimer's research, which her campaign called a fourfold increase over last year's $586 million.

While it’s doubtless that the idea sounds noble, and certainly would be appreciated by those affected by the disease, with the nation already carrying $20 trillion in debt, where does she think these additional funds will come from? Which means she’s approaching the problem from the wrong end. 

Because, the only way to cover the additional funds Bill's wife seeks is to vote a Republican into the White House. That would get the nation’s economy back where it belongs and raise the GDP to 4 or 5%, or more. Creating jobs, raising incomes, increasing tax collected and in turn, reducing the national debt. And that would provide the funds for all kinds of research, Alzheimer’s included.  

Leading to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The holiday season doesn’t seem to be turning out very merry for the administration. In fact, it might do them some good if they ask Santa to bring them a way to keep Fox News, and many Internet sources, from presenting the truth about them.

Today, FoxNews.com reports that: “Under changes in the newly signed spending bill, people from those countries who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan in the past five years must now obtain visas to enter the U.S.” 

As a result, top Tehran officials “complained the changes violate the terms of the nuclear deal, which says the U.S. and other world powers will refrain from any policy intended to adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.” 

In reply to Iran, Secretary of State, John Kerry, “suggested in a letter to his Iranian counterpart that the administration could help the country get around new visa restrictions passed by Congress.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., reacted in a statement to FoxNews.com: “Instead of bending over backwards to try to placate the Iranian regime, the White House needs to be holding it accountable for its recent missile tests, its continued support for terrorism, and its wrongful imprisonment of Americans.” 

What’s truly remarkable about the situation, is that Iran has clearly indicated it has no real intention of living up to the meaningless nuclear agreement the POTUS and Kerry have concocted. Yet, those two, and Valerie Jarrett have spent most of their time trying to avoid having to deal with the U.S. Congress and the majority of the voting public, who are firmly against the deal.

However, today’s revelation regarding Kerry’s actions to aid Iran is another significant step toward insuring that a Republican will win the presidency next November. No matter which one of them wins the party’s nomination     

And then, adding to Democrat's woes, a week after the Paris climate summit ended, Jon Austin @express.co.uk, authored an article today, titled:“Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA”

Now that the summit’s over, and billions have been allocated to preventing global-warming, Mr. Austin reports that: “Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialization where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.”

“Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect. 

“However, aerosols which are also given off by burning fossil fuels, actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.” 

Obviously, NASA waited until after the POTUS’s climate scheme was applied in Paris to announce: “The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate. As a result, a NASA spokesman said, "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.” 

Which means that at present, even NASA admits they haven’t enough information  to make an informed decision on global-warming at all, or if it really does damage.

Reader, WilberSmedley, summed the situation up precisely, writing: “In other words: They still don't have freaking clue about anything.” 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

An item on FoxNews.com regards Charles Krauthammer telling viewers Monday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that “Hillary Clinton should be a little more careful when discussing videos she alleges are radicalizing jihadists.  

“It wasn’t only a lie but a particular lie on the part of Hillary,” Krauthammer said, “Given her history, she ought to be a little bit careful about talking about incendiary American videos that are radicalizing jihadists.”  

“Alluding to the Obama administration's bungled attempts to blame an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi because of a video, Krauthammer pointed out that Clinton's video strategy is “not working” and "she ought to quit at two."  

As far as lying in general is concerned, the public seems to believe she has little to no credibility at all, regardless of the subject she’s addressing. According to the Wall Street Journal: “In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News October poll, Mrs. Clinton was rated poorly for being “honest and straightforward,’’ with 50% of registered voters giving her low marks, including 40% who gave her the lowest possible rating.” 

And that’s based on her current campaigning, which doesn’t cover the past that included the Whitewater scheme, the questionable overnight futures trading income, Vince Foster’s untimely demise, the missing IRS files, flying into Bosnia under sniper fire untruths, being named after Edmund Hillary who didn’t become world-famous until six years after she was born, and the Travelgate scandal. To name just a few that will be surely be pursued by her Republican opponent as the presidential campaign heats up in the future. 

Bringing up the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

In what may be a very strong indication of the POTUS’s concern that he’s viewed as having failed at the job, he's now hidden behind race as a reason for his decreasing popularity.   

Julie Hirschfeld Davis, @nytimes.com, titled her article today: “Obama accuses Donald Trump of  Exploiting Working-Class Fears.” 

While choosing Trump as his target likely stems from Trump's current lead in Republican presidential polls, the POTUS’s verbiage indicates concern about growing disappointment and unrest with his performance in office. Ms Davis writes: “He also described his view of the anxiety on which Mr. Trump has capitalized, arguing that some voters who voice fears about his presidency and doubts about where Mr. Obama’s loyalties lie are reacting to the fact that he is the first black president.”

Thus, while covering a wide range of topics in the interview, seemingly pleased with his personal performance regarding all of them, something still obviously troubled the POTUS. 

Which is why, after presenting the best picture of his record that he could, he dismissed those in disagreement as racist. A glaring acknowledgment of failure on merit alone, and certainly far below the dignity expected of one elected to the U.S. presidency twice.

Times reader Paul R, from California commented quite accurately: “Obama lost his credibility on terrorism when he lied about it to get re-elected. He said our "enemies were on the run" and Benghazi was a spontaneous riot. He refused to call Major Hasan act terrorism, and he called ISIS the JV team. No one else did that to Obama. Those are self-inflicted credibility wounds. If his political opponents have fertile ground, it's his own fault.” 

In another story about politics, “Senator Lindsey Graham suspended his presidential campaign today. While he really had no real chance of election, he brought the extremely important subject of foreign policy to the Republican contest. And for that, he deserves considerable credit. 

In a video message, Graham stressed that “the centerpiece of my campaign has been securing our nation” and maintained he has brought needed attention to that issue,” as follows:

“I got into this race to put forward a plan to win a war we cannot afford to lose and to turn back the tide of isolationism that was rising in our party. I believe we have made enormous progress in this effort.” 

Most importantly, Graham said: “[W]hen he entered the race, no other candidates would join him in calling for more U.S. troops to confront the Islamic State. Today most of my fellow candidates have come to recognize this is what’s needed to secure our homeland.”  

Which is why, in the next administration, he could very well wind up as Secretary of State or Defense.  

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, having more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He appears frequently on Fox News, primarily as a staunch Democrat, providing his side’s views versus the network's Republican leaning hosts, commentators and guests. 

The first three quarters of a piece by Schoen, on FoxNews.com this morning, praised Bill’s wife extensively. In his opinion, “she executed a masterful strategy Saturday night. She managed to handily beat the two men on either side of her who represent the progressive left of the Democratic party and at the same time position herself as a leader for the entire country, including a significant portion of Republicans who fear a Donald Trump presidency as much as any Democrat. In fact, her one- liner about Donald Trump turning into perhaps the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS gave everyone pause – as it should.” 

Then, at almost the end, Schoen got to the real truth, as he finally acknowledged: “O’Malley did bring up an issue that may haunt Clinton the most: Benghazi. In a veiled swipe at her, he noted how Ambassador Christ Stevens was not provided the proper support and tools to help Libya transition into a thriving democracy – a clear reminder of his untimely death. No doubt this foreshadows what will be in all likelihood a major line of attack from the Republicans and stands to really hurt her going forward.” 

After that, he wrote the undeniable clincher: “Even with Hillary Clinton’s strong attempt at bipartisan appeal on Saturday evening, the question remains whether she’ll be able to pull it out if the Republicans nominate a strong, establishment candidate who doesn’t have her baggage.” 

However, Schoen may not have to worry about Bill's wife freight-train load of baggage. Because, there's a very good chance that FBI Director, James Comey, may bring charges against her before next November, taking her out of the race altogether, and perhaps...finally sending her to the slammer.

Leading to the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios