BloggeRhythms 1/31/2013

In keeping with noted patterns and trends of the administration, another one was reinforced this morning whereas the Associated Press via Drudge reported that the incumbent let his jobs council quietly expire this week without renewing its charter.

 

Made up of representatives from the business world, intended to provide first-hand expertise and advice, the council only met four times in total and not once in the past twelve months.

 

I mention this because it further indicates to me that the incumbent has no understanding, nor seemingly any interest, in how the nation’s economy works. And like many others who place costly social issues at the top of the list with no knowledge of how to afford them, sooner or later find out that they’ve broken the bank.

 

In the present case, while the economy shrank by 0.1 percent from October through December of last year, the first quarterly drop since 2009, the incumbent pushed congress to increase the debt limit again.

 

So, what the forgoing indicates to me is that the only two things he knows regarding finance is how to borrow and spend, and evidently believes that this can go on forever. What’s more, he not only does absolutely nothing to really stimulate economic growth, he permits biased anti-business supporters to stifle whatever attempts are made to increase productivity via taxation, over-regulation and promotion of too-costly union labor wherever they can.

 

Therefore, when you couple all the forgoing together with the developing trends of top producers leaving high-taxation states; I have to keep believing that my recurring themes of the incumbent eventually presiding over nothing will actually come to pass. The only thing I’ve yet to figure out is, where all those who used to drive the economy, and therefore the nation, will all decide to go.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/30/2013

Three different news items today confirm my continuing belief that, sooner or later, the fiscal policies of the administration will either sink the nation’s economy completely or stimulate some form of revolt by the financially successful now carrying the entire fiscal burden on their backs. And this takes no particular predictive skill on my part, nor access to anything more than what’s reported in the daily news.

 

An article by Joshua Rhett Miller on Fox News.com is headed “For millionaire athletes, states with highest tax rates may not make the cut.”

 

In it, John Karaffa, president of ProSport CPA, a Virginia-based firm representing nearly 300 professional athletes, primarily in basketball and football stated that, “They’re going to have an exodus of people. I think they’ll see some [leave California] for sure. They were already a very high tax state and it’s getting to a point where folks have to make a business decision as well as a lifestyle decision.”

 

I’ve mentioned Phil Mickelson in this regard before, however in his case, California's increase of the top bracket to 13.3 percent from 10.3 percent cost Mickelson roughly $1.8 million of his $60 million income for 2012.

 

And then, according to the Associated Press reported on CNBC News “The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter. The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts.”

 

In regard to the dismal  economic news, Noel Sheppard, Associate Editor of NewsBusters on-line via Drudge, quoted Rick Santelli of Squawk Box, also on CNBC, saying "We are now Europe."

 

Mr. Santelli went on, "[W]hen you act like Europe, you get growth rates like Europe, and our discussions with economists sounds like we're in Europe. They have the same discussions constantly. They’re always doin’ the right thing. They’re always thinking they know better. And this is the kind of growth. We have become Europe. We are now Europe."

 

Steve Liesman, also of CNBC retorted, “We reduced federal spending, government spending by 15 percent. Which part of that’s not Europe don’t you get?”

 

“And why do we need to reduce government spending?” asked Santelli. “Because we run trillion dollar deficits for crying out loud.”

 

Item three regards Rick Perry, Republican governor of Texas, who yesterday called for changing the constitution of his state, the nation's second most populous, to allow the return of tax money to the people who paid it when the state brings in more than needed.

 

So, to me, what the preceding illustrations point out is that when highly successful, productive, folks get pushed too far they don’t sit still, they react. And when they feel they’re being used or abused somewhere, they move to someplace else. And, since folks like these are attractive to leaderships that are smart, incentives are created to draw them in, as shown by Texas in this case.

 

Thus, although I have no idea as to what the ultimate solution will be for those who carry the non-productive half of the nation on their backs, I’m absolutely certain there will be one. And conversely, since the combination of those in government and the deadbeats they foster as constituents not only have practically no common sense, business sense nor will to work at all, my bet is they’re going to wind up in wastelands all by themselves and broke as well.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/29/2013

Frankly, I had some trepidations about yesterday’s entry. Because although I’ve often brought up questionable acts on the part of the Clinton’s, especially Bill, my ending seemed a bit harsh to put in public writing when I wrote: “But Hillary’s body count is only four in Benghazi. Therefore, it seems to me that perhaps she really did an excellent job if the basis for measurement is her cost in American lives.”

 

But reading an article just now by Breanna Edwards of Politico on-line, I concluded that perhaps I needn’t have been concerned at all because she quoted South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham’s opinion given to Greta Van Susteren Monday on her show “On The Record.”

 

The Senator said “He wasn’t impressed with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony at the Benghazi congressional hearing.” And that she “got away with murder in my view. She said they had a clear-eyed view of the threats. How could you have a clear-eyed view of the threats in Benghazi when you didn’t know about the ambassador’s cable coming back from Libya?”

 

So, I guess, by comparison my thoughts were right in line with someone having far better input and information than I had.

 

Another noteworthy item appeared on Fox News on-line today saying the “State Department has closed the office working on shutting the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. A final acknowledgement that the Obama administration will not spend its political capital this term on closing the military prison.”

 

I mention this because it’s one more campaign promise dropped by the incumbent who’s stock in trade is a series of endless speeches and words that most often don’t come to pass. And I guess that’s a very good thing, because not only is Guantanamo an excellent place to isolate terrorists, but each of POTUS' initiatives actually enacted costs the tax-paying part of the public a significant fortune, thus his failures are pretty good for all the rest of us.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/28/2013

Friday’s Hillary’s last day as Secretary of State and apparently politicians on both sides of the aisle are applauding her tenure and praising her accomplishments. 

 

As for me, I honestly didn’t think she did very much at all for the past four years except travel extensively which I assumed was her way of avoiding Bill while taxpayers picked up the colossal tab for her and her entourage.

But, then again, since I really didn’t pay much attention to her, I could have been wrong and perhaps she really did accomplish something. So this morning I Googled her job performance and found an interview on Real Clear Politics from yesterday January 27, 2013, citing an interview in which Ed Wallace asked Brit Hume, both of Fox News, what he thought about her tenure.

Wallace began by saying “Here's some of the points that have been brought up, some of her accomplishments. She helped assemble the bombing campaign in Libya to topple Muammar Qaddafi. She helped assemble the coalition that imposed the toughest sanctions ever on Iran. And, she established diplomatic ties with Burma.”

Then Wallace went to ask, “Brit, how do you rate Hillary Clinton's performance, record as our top diplomat?”

I include Hume’s reply in total because I absolutely couldn’t do better myself if I tried for six months. Here’s what he said:

“I think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. They do not add up to a case for greatness, after all, the groundwork on Burma had been done by the previous administration. And the administration properly followed through on it. You look across the world, now at the major issues. Are Arabs and Israelis closer to peace? How about Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs? Have they been halted or seriously set back? Has the reset with Russia, which she so famously introduced with the photo-op in Moscow with the reset button, have they lead to a new and more cooperative relationship? Is there a Clinton doctrine that we can identify that she has articulated and formed as secretary of state?
 

He went on to ask,”Are there major treaties that she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion? I think the answer to all those questions is that she has not. And those are the kinds of things that might mark her as a great secretary of state. She has certainly been industrious. She has visited 112 countries. Her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dignified. She does her homework. There have been no gaffes or blunders. So I think she has been a capable and hard working secretary of state, but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.”
 

So, thanks to Brit, there we have it. And if you boil it all down it still seems to me that, except for excessive traveling, she really didn’t do much at all. And considering the huge number of bucks our nation pays to keep peace in the world, she probably could have achieved the same results by setting up conference calls with foreign recipients, telling them to shape up or we’ll cut them off financially.
 

But, then again, I guess there’s a bright side to her tenure after all. Because the body count in Arkansas was somewhere around fifty questionable deaths of folks close to Bill’s administration as I recall. But Hillary’s body count is only four in Benghazi. Therefore, it seems to me that perhaps she really did an excellent job if the basis for measurement is her cost in American lives.
 

That’s it for today folks.
 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/27/2013

Yesterday’s subject regarded a “typo” in an article about VP Biden and gun control. I mentioned it since it was a pretty slow day for news, but mainly because mistakes of all kinds and Biden seem to be natural partnerships.

 

Then, just a few moments ago, quickly scanning items on Fox News on-line, my eye skipped to the end of the first paragraph in the following item:

 

“Senators say bipartisan immigration reform will include citizenship path:

 

Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said Sunday the bipartisan legislation on immigration reform to be announced this week will include a one-step, comprehensive bill that includes a path to citizenship for the estimated the 11 people living illegally in the United States.”

 

Now, if the article’s correct, and there are only 11 illegal aliens in the nation, it seems to me an awful lot of time, verbiage and money's being spent on a much smaller issue than I was led to believe it was. In fact, a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates the “annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level.”

 

Since that works out to be $20.545 billion per person per year for the 11 already in residence, I now have absolutely no doubt as to why these folks keep trying to sneak in here.

 

But all kidding aside, the reason I wrote this subject up today is that I think those who take responsibility for reporting news and informing the public ought to at least review their work instead of disseminating it without carefully checking for errors, typos and words simply left out. 

 

However, folks today read less and less, preferring broadcast media instead. So perhaps that’s why writers concerns about quality and accuracy fall more and more than by the wayside, because there are so few left to impress.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/26/2013

Not much in the news today of interest at all. But an article on ABC News on-line regarding gun control caught my eye.

 

In this case though, it wasn’t the column itself that I found interesting, because the text was just more of the same old, same old, about VP Biden and his efforts to ban assault weapons along with a push for mental health checks for those wishing to buy guns in general.

 

At the end of the piece (no pun intended), however, was the following sentence: “An ABC News/Washington Post poll released yesterday found 53 percent of Americans favored Obama’s gun control plan favorably, 41 percent unfavorably.”

 

Now, I don’t know about you, but I would simply assume that those favoring anything at all, regardless, would do so favorably. In fact, I’m pretty sure that if they favored something unfavorably, it’s likely they’d also find it unfavorable.

 

But, considering that this issue revolves around the VP, I could be wrong because language-wise he’s a lot like Archie Bunker, who spent an entire TV career run with his foot in his mouth.

 

And I certainly understand that it was a writer who posted this story, and absolutely not Biden himself. But it occurred to me that perhaps close proximity to the VP is catching, intellectually, resulting in diminishing skills.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/25/2013

An article by Daniel Harper of the Weekly Standard on-line via Drudge, describes part of Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed gun control bill as follows:

 

"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.

 

Now, I can understand the need for special consideration regarding protection in the case of the POTUS and perhaps even the VP. There may be others too, whose positions put them in harm’s way at times. But, basically politicians are plain, everyday people who choose to run for office and certainly aren’t different than anyone else. In fact, the majority of them are basically useless.

 

Consequently, if those who hold official government positions are concerned with their personal safety and worry about the risks involved, instead of putting themselves in a special class above all others, I suggest they resign their posts and go find safer jobs.

 

Because as sure as I’m sitting here typing, I know my life and physical well-being is certainly as important as theirs. In fact, if I had to choose between keeping myself safe versus one of them, there’s no way on earth any of them would have a prayer of my acquiescence on weapons.

 

So, perhaps there’s a chance here to really fix the system as it should be, by denying special treatment to all those holding office lower than POTUS. And in that way, maybe a cleansing will take place where above all else, we’ll wind up with officials who realize they’re of no more importance than any other citizen of the U.S., and judging by their job performance, probably far less.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/24/2013

I’ve mentioned before that there are often times where predictions of mine pan out, and today’s one of those instances.

 

However,  to set things straight, I’m not suggesting I’m clairvoyant or have some kind of extrasensory talent. My procedure’s much simpler than that. I read lot’s of information daily, from a variety of sources, and then I digest what I’ve read, take the time to think it all through and then, try to intelligently conclude where it leads.

 

In that regard, one of my hot button issues lately has been taxation in California. Primarily because I think that state's a forerunner of what will soon happen to the entire U.S. And as reported today on Fox News.com, by  William La Jeunesse: “California expects to net $5 billion to $7 billion annually by increasing the tax rate on households making more than $250,000 a year -- and which already  pay 62 percent of state income taxes.”

 

But, what I think is far more important, and a confirmation of my predictions of the last few months, is that as each day goes by, more and more revenue-producing, high-taxpaying- businesses and individuals are leaving the state in droves.

 

Consequently, I also believe that when it all sorts out, Jerry Brown and his cohorts will be governing a state whose population’s contrived of welfare recipients, unidentifiable illegal aliens, unionized semi-literate teachers, some farmers and the homeless wandering San Francisco unbridled. However, huge Silicon Valley employers, manufacturers of all types, and almost any other business producing decent revenue, thusly paying everyone else’s freight and subsistence, will simply keep abandoning his venue because it makes absolutely no economic sense whatsoever to stay there.

 

To give you more detail on the exodus presently heating up, I’ve included a link to Mr.La Jeunesse’s concise, well-written piece on the subject:  California residents, businesses consider bailing on Golden State over taxes.

 

In conclusion then, as I’ve been expecting for quite some time now, a tax revolt’s stating to take place in various locations around the nation, and those producing the revenue that drives the economy are getting quite fed up. Especially so because socialism has never worked and can’t because its basis is flawed.

 

Consequently, in one way or another, those promoting that system are going to wind up at the head of the longest line of losers the world’s ever known while all the brightest, best and financially successful will be long gone. And although precisely where they’ll all head is still basically unknown, one things absolutely for sure: they’re far too smart to stick around where they are right now.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/23/2013

In a short article in Daily Mail’s, Mail on-line, “Tiger Woods said today that the reason he left California in the mid-Nineties was because the state's taxes were too high.”

 

During a press conference at Torrey Pines Golf Course in La Jolla, California, Woods said: “I moved out of here back in ’96 for that reason.”

 

Now, I don’t know if the trend will continue of high-profile high-earners speaking out more often, but I sense they likely will because the press is finally beginning to take notice. Even though it’s not yet the main stream media in the U.S. 

 

But what the celebrity reaction to tax issues means to me is, more and more of the public, especially those who don’t care about politics or read any kind of fine print about government at all, will probably pay some attention to this particular subject now that names they know, admire, respect and adore are coming forward. 

 

And as more of that happens, I think public negativity will begin to snowball. Especially when every-day folks start to learn more about where the tax dollars already collected have gone. How they’ve been misspent, wasted, outright lost or unaccounted for while arrogant, spoiled, unqualified, incompetent politicians scream for more from those who earned it. 

 

So, while the administration continues down the wrong economic paths in almost all cases, at least there’s a better chance now that their financial fuel supply from increasing taxes might finally begin to shut off. 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/22/2013

They say timing is everything, proven by today's topic.

 

Yesterday I mentioned Nancy Pelosi's quote illustrating Democrat’s fixation on raising taxes: "We're talking about looking at the tax code, putting everything on the table from the standpoint of closing loopholes - and we know that we can do that - special subsidies for big oil, for example, $38 billion right there. But again, not to take things in isolation, just to say, OK, well, how much more revenue can we get as we go forward?"

 

She continued: "I mean, the president had said originally he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue. He took it down to $1.2 as a compromise. In this legislation (fiscal cliff) we had $620 billion, very significant, high-end tax - changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent. But that is not enough on the revenue side."

 

Now, today I read an article on Drudge by Richard Pollack, a reporter for the for The Washington Examiner, which says that the “Federal Aviation Administration officials grounded Boeing's fleet of 787 Dreamliner commercial jets last week due to unexplained battery fires, one of President Obama's favorite green energy technologies got another black eye.”

 

According to Mr. Pollack, “Technologists and safety experts had long warned of problems with the lithium ion battery when in 2009 the president began betting billions of tax dollars that it should be the green power of choice for cars, trucks, and even aircraft. Small lithium ion batteries are widely used in consumer electronics, but powering vehicles like a car or an aircraft is a much greater challenge. The 787, for example, has to generate 1.5 megawatts of electrical power, enough to light up several hundred homes.”

 

The reporter then listed many examples of lithium ion battery failures including: “Before the Dreamliner's troubles, a Chevrolet Volt caught fire during its crash tests by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in May 2011. (However), the agency gave the Volt a clean bill of health after an investigation.”

 

Electric truck manufacturer Smith Electric Vehicles warned potential investors that the lithium ion batteries "on rare occasions have been observed to catch fire or vent smoke and flames" in the firm's prototype military truck, while fires were also reported in Apple and Dell laptop computers in 2005 and 2006.

 

Despite these incidents, Mr. Pollack says, “Obama has poured federal subsidies on the lithium ion battery industry with mixed results. The first grant was for $249 million under the Obama economic stimulus program in December 2009 to A123 Systems, a lithium ion battery manufacturer. But A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy last October and has since been bought by a Chinese company.”

 

Obama also “toured the LG Chen lithium ion battery plant in Holland, Michigan in August 2011. The South Korean company got $151 million in federal subsidies, but it has yet to produce a single battery and furloughed its workers last fall.”

 

Then there was Ener1, “an Indianapolis-based lithium ion battery maker, received $118.5 million in federal money in 2009, but filed for bankruptcy last year.”

 

Additionally, “The president awarded $529 million to electric car company Fisker, which utilized lithium ion batteries supplied by A123. At least two battery fires have been reported in Fisker vehicles, all of which have been recalled.” Which was followed by, “Obama issued a $465 million loan guarantee to Tesla Motors. The lithium ion battery in a Tesla reportedly burst into flames last year after not being recharged for a long period of time.”

 

So, here we have case after case where taxpayers funds are being quietly wasted and misused by the carload while Democrat leaders loudly scream for more from those who produce them. 

 

To me, this kind of abuse of power would be despicable even if the nation’s fiscal footings were sound. But to waste billions of hard-earned dollars at a time like this, where every dime counts and the national debt’s gone through the roof, is abuse of power to the nth degree and perhaps ought be considered criminal.  

 

Thus in closing I have to reiterate yesterday’s point that as illustrated by the migration away from high-taxing states, I expect much greater retaliation from those paying the nation’s losses caused by governmental ineptitude, poor judgment, arrogance and flat-out incompetence. And while I currently have no clue as to what form a tax rebellion will take, I think when it finally comes it’s going to be a huge one.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/21/2013

Today’s subject's a confluence of several recent topics, indicating trends I believe have been developing in the background for quite some time now. It also concerns, one of my hot button issues: Taxes

 

A headline on Fox News.com states: Teed off: Golf star Phil Mickelson may bolt California over taxes. It then goes on “For golf legend Phil Mickelson, the low 60s makes for a great score on the links — and a lousy tax rate in his home state of California.”

 

According to Fox, “Mickelson said ‘drastic changes’ are ahead for him due to federal and California state tax increases that have pushed his tax rate to what he figures adds up to “62, 63 percent.”

 

He went on that he’d talk more about his plans, including perhaps moving out of California or even retiring altogether, “before his hometown Farmers Insurance Open, the San Diego-area event that begins Thursday at Torrey Pines.” 

    

"It's been an interesting off-season," Mickelson, 42, said Sunday after the final round of the Humana Challenge. "And I'm going to have to make some drastic changes. I'm not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes."

 

Mickelson, earned roughly $60 million in 2012, thus the tax increase amounts to more than $1.8 million.

 

Phil’s announcement is, I think, quite similar to actor Gerard Depardieu whom I mentioned several weeks ago because he renounced his French citizenship and moved to Russia after the French government tried to raise already high taxes on the rich.

 

So, if you take these two examples of high-earners and add their relocation plans to those who’ve already quietly left California and places like France in droves due to governmental efforts toward socialization, I believe the growing trend toward anti-tax migration is well underway.

 

However, as I sit here typing about the obvious reactions of the financially successful, incredibly dense politicians not only don’t see how they’re shooting themselves in the foot tax-wise, they keep reloading their own guns to do it again and again. Because a blurb also on Fox News says “Senate Democrats plan to draft a budget blueprint that calls for significantly higher taxes on the wealthy, oil and gas companies and corporations doing business overseas, reopening a battle over taxes Republicans had hoped to lay to rest with the “fiscal cliff.”

 

And then Lori Montgomery  of the Washington Post adds that “For nearly four years, Senate leaders have ducked their legal duty to craft a comprehensive budget framework. Now, however, Democrats see the budget process as “a great opportunity” to pursue additional tax increases — and to create a fast-track process to push them through the Senate, Senator Charles E. Schumer  said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

 

Following that, Susan Jones of cnsnews.com notes that on Friday, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," asked Nancy Pelosi if the "revenue side" of the fiscal cliff is finished, which in Democrat code means higher taxes.

 

Pelosi replied, "We're talking about looking at the tax code, putting everything on the table from the standpoint of closing loopholes - and we know that we can do that - special subsidies for big oil, for example, $38 billion right there. But again, not to take things in isolation, just to say, OK, well, how much more revenue can we get as we go forward?"

 

She then went on to say that "I mean, the president had said originally he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue. He took it down to $1.2 as a compromise. In this legislation (fiscal cliff) we had $620 billion, very significant, high-end tax - changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent. But that is not enough on the revenue side."

 

Now, bringing all the preceding verbiage together, what I continue to see is a steady, perhaps even growing, Democrat focus on stripping the “wealthy” of assets in any way they can for redistribution which is an ideal that’s never worked and never will. 

 

But aside from the fallacies of their fiscal shortsightedness, what’s even more confounding is that while evidence mounts higher right under their noses that not only are they on the wrong track, the train’s are deciding to either run someplace else or stop altogether. And that’s why, as I’ve been predicting for some time now, Democrat leaders are soon going to be heading the longest line of worthless deadbeats the world’s ever seen, because all the producers have had enough and are packing to leave town.

 

And, in closing, I guess that’s why, according to a new poll, Jeffrey M. Jones, of Gallup politics via Drudge writes that, “President Barack Obama averaged 49.1% job approval during his first term in office, among the lowest for post-World War II presidents. Only Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had lower job approval averages.”

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/20/2013

Browsing Drudge this morning, a link to CBS News, New York, on-line caught my eye. The headline read: "Pundit: If Anyone Scares The New York City Democrats, It’s Joe Lhota."

 

Lhota was formerly head of  the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and today’s the first time I’ve come across him, but after reading the article I certainly agree with the CBS conclusion. Because although  he’s a “Republican in a heavily Democratic city. He’s fiscally conservative, but he is pro-choice and favors marriage equality. He said he would perform a same-sex marriage if asked.”

 

The article went on to explain that he was first deputy mayor under Rudy Giuliani and that “He is a frank, law and order kind of guy who minces no words. Take the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk program (where Lhota said) “Anyone who says we should eliminate stop-and-frisk really is putting the city in danger.”

 

“He has equally strong views about taxes. They should be reduced or eliminated.”

 

And finally, the concluding quote was “Lhota is also known for bluntly speaking his mind. After Hurricane Sandy, for example, he called Mayor Michael Bloomberg an idiot.”

 

So, here it seems we have a guy who isn’t afraid to make a point and to me sounds much like Rudy himself, whereas he'll step out of the party line if in disagreement.

 

And that’s the part I think is so important.

 

Because so much of politics today is mired under tons of social and non-governmental issues causing highly qualified candidates to lose elections at every level due to influences that have nothing to do whatsoever with their ability to get the job done. However, many of those having little or no ability to function at all, yet stick to the strict party line, have very good chances of winning regardless.

 

Now, in this case, Rudy himself proved that the mayoralty can be won by a scrappy, competent candidate who frankly speaks his mind. And that ‘s obviously what’s scaring Democrats in NYC. But beyond that point, I hope Mr. Lhota illustrates to other Republicans around the nation, and especially those in DC, that if you use common sense while maintaining an open mind, you have a far greater chance of winning elections and serving the greater good.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/19/2013

I’ve written about gun control several times over the past few weeks, particularly concerning the attempts of politicians, liberal pundits and celebrities to use the tragic Newton Connecticut shootings to support their belief that the public be stripped of arms.  

 

And though the subject is certainly critically important, my perspective wasn’t the issue itself. My intent was illustrating the various ways high profile types continually seek to use these kinds of tragedies primarily to benefit themselves. 

 

A perfect example of such is all the promotion and hoopla made over new legislation that will likely do nothing to solve the root causes of violence at all. Yet, this beating of anti-gun drums garnered huge media attention nationwide, from the White House on down, although the legislation finally proposed is actually quite feeble when you get to the fine print. 

Along the lines of self-aggrandizement, however, I mentioned a suburban newspaper in New York a few days ago, The Journal News, that disclosed thousands of gun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties by posting their addresses on interactive maps.  

 

And then today, according to Jim Fitzgerald of the Associated Press, apparently some unnamed but displeased gun owner or group reacted as follows: “The addresses of some Journal News staffers were posted online, and threats were called in to the newspaper's offices. The newspaper hired armed guards in response.”

 

Although the paragraph was buried halfway through Mr. Fitzgerald's article, I found it really interesting that those who were so quick to expose where gun owners lived in order to make anti-weapon headlines, now apparently feel the need for self-protection's perfectly acceptable when their own safety and well-being's involved. However, I think their height of hypocrisy is incredible and wonder why they don’t want to face potential personal harm unarmed although they think everyone else should.

So, let’s chalk this one up right next to the incumbent and the governors that want to ban gun ownership by peaceful civilians while they themselves have Secret Service or state police protection 24/7/365. Because if you ever wanted to find a more blatant example of self-serving elitism, I doubt you’d find it if you searched for years. 

 

But then again, just like the arrogant dolts at the Journal News, if I were one of them I’d seek protection too. Because they certainly earned the animosity of a huge group of gun-owning members of society and who knows, maybe one of them's going to actually use one in their case.

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/18/2013

Scanning items on Drudge this morning, the following five links were listed. I didn’t read the stories involved, because a realization crossed my mind that I wanted to post which doesn’t really require all of the incident’s details. But, here are the headlines:

 

VIDEO: Woman Thrown on Subway Tracks During Vicious Attack

 

Woman With Baby Brutally Stabbed Inside Bed Bath & Beyond Store

 

SHOCK: Robber Beats Clerk With Hammers

 

Woman's face slashed by razor at mall

 

Girl, 14, vanishes after video of her being beaten at school goes viral

 

Considering the preceding incidents, and in keeping with the vows of the incumbent’s and Governor Cuomo, among others, to end violence, I guess we now have a whole new group of weapons to ban in order to keep us all safe.

 

I don’t know if more folks ride subways than own guns, but I’m sure that however many millions riders there are, they’re all going to be pretty displeased when New York’s governor closes the transit system. Because the trains, and perhaps the tracks too, are obviously lethal weapons. And, goodness knows, we can’t have that kind of threat looming in a big metropolis like NYC.

 

Then of course we’ll all have to give up things like steak, chops, veal and whatever else we eat that requires cutting, as well as anything else that calls for use of a knife, such as whittling, because of the dangers involved from sharp cutting edges.

 

Carpenters and builders too will have to find a new way to construct domiciles or do repair work. And none of us will any longer be able to hang pictures, or judges bang gavels, or blacksmith’s shoe horses, whereas hammers too are obviously too dangerous in the hands of the greater public.

 

I guess we’ll also start seeing millions of long bearded men along with women braiding the tresses in their armpits, because razors too can no longer remain available whereas their users can’t be trusted not to wield them in malls.

 

And lastly comes the most difficult weapon to deal with because everyone on the planet has fists. So I guess the only option is to pass a law requiring one and all to either keep their hands in their pockets at all times or else they’ll lose them, which might not be so bad in the long run.

 

Because if politicians had to obey the “no hands” resolution they could no longer raise them to vote in session. And if there were no votes, there would soon be no laws to deal with, and we could all go back to life as it should be. Without  the bozos in office blowing everything out of proportion and making life miserable for everyone else.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/17/2013

Scrolling headlines on Drudge just now, I came across an article written by Matthew Balan, of mrc NewsBusters on-line, concerning the administration's persistence in pursuing gun control.

 

Ordinarily, I’d not mention this subject again, because I’ve already stated opinions on various aspects of the issue. However, in reading the article I was flat-out amazed at what it said.

 

Apparently there’s some guy, Bob Schieffer, on CBS news who went ballistic (pardon the pun) over what he thinks is one of the greatest presidential speeches he’s ever heard, referring to the incumbent’s message regarding gun control. And in praising the verbiage he compared the incumbent’s agenda to Lyndon Johnson's push for civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

 

Schieffer went on to say that, “This is a turning point in this country, and the President is going to have to do more than just make a speech about it. This is one of the best speeches I've ever heard him deliver, but it's going to take more than that from the White House. He's going to have to get his hands dirty. He's going to have to get in there and – and work this problem until he gets it done. But unless we figure out a way to make sure that something like Newtown never happens again, we're not the country that we once were. I think we still are. I think there's hope. I think something's going to happen here.”

 

After reading the preceding, I looked Schieffer up out of curiosity, and although I know it’s the epitome of wrong to judge books by their covers, this guy looks pretty much like I expected he would. A beat-up, gray-haired old goat who’s a grandmotherly type. And he’s precisely someone who really ought to consider carrying weapons himself, because I doubt he’d be able to fend off Pee Wee Herman, much less any serious physical threat.

 

But coming back to Schieffer’s bubbling enthusiasm over the plan to disarm the public, I then looked up the numbers regarding how many citizens possess firearms and here’s what I found on wiki.answers.com.

 

“Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Remove those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns.”

 

The following statistics were also included:

A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun.

 

A 2007 Small Arms Survey estimates there are 88.7 guns per 100 Americans (#1 in the world for guns per capita)

 

A 2010 estimate from the NRA states "Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually."

 

So, what this guy Schieffer is pleased about is that with 43-55 million households in the nation having at least one gun, disarming them because of one tragic shooting by a deranged person is comparable to  Lyndon Johnson's push for civil rights legislation in the 1960s. And I didn’t do the arithmetic, but it seems to me that as a percentage of the gun-owning population, those perpetrating shootings such as the most recent one are less than half a millionth of one percent.

 

In conclusion then, as I’ve said several times recently, although the shooting was indeed a tragedy of major proportion, it likely had nothing to do with the weapons involved. And were there no guns, in this case of a disgruntled, deranged youth there might have been a fire, or bombs or acid instead. Therefore, what really needs to be resolved are the problems of unstable perpetrators which will never be accomplished by disarming law-abiding citizens.

  

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

 

PS. Here’s a link on another subject you might like:US taxpayers giving $4B to foreign firms for green energy projects, study says

BloggeRhythms 1/16/2013

Today’s item comes under the heading of simple curiosity. While scanning the headlines on Drudge just now, I came across one saying “Massachusetts governor proposes massive new tax-hike plan.”

 

Written by Galen Moore, Web Editor of the Boston Business Journal, the article reports that “Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday laid tax and fee increases and new taxes on the table, including more than doubling the state's gas tax.”

 

Details of the governor’s plan include: Raising the gas tax from 21 cents to 51 cents per gallon. Raising the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 7.75 percent. Raising the state income tax to 5.66 percent from 5.25 percent. Levying a vehicle miles-traveled tax at 2.4 cents per mile. 

 

Additionally, new emissions-based vehicle title and registration fees could raise $175 million while a payroll tax on workers in regions with transit service could raise $140 million to $207 million.

 

The subject intrigued me because in the last few months I recall reading about Republican governors in state after state where the stories all seem to be about balanced budgets in those venues, lowered taxes, increasing business revenue and opportunity along with decreasing unemployment.

 

There are a few duds in the bunch, such as Christie in New Jersey, but they seem to be few and far between.

 

So, I guess I have to ask the question as to why voters want to do themselves in financially, lower their standards of living, and sit quietly back while misguided liberals redistribute their income and assets. Because from Gerry Brown in California to Cuomo in New York, and now Patrick in Massachusetts there couldn’t be more proof that voting for Democrats is practically fatal economically for anyone striving to do well for themselves.

 

But the worst thing of all isn’t simply the continual financial drain these Democrats cause on their constituencies, it’s their refusal to learn from their perpetual economic mistakes and insistence on repeating the same fiscal errors. And the proof of that is, every one of their venues is either stagnant or shrinking businesswise, which is why they keep needing to raise taxes. 

 

Now, I guess you could say then, that these governors seem to be quite dim intellectually speaking. However it doesn’t seem to matter very much to them at all. Because, just like the incumbent in the White House, somehow or other they’ve amassed groups of supportive voters even dumber than they are. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/15/2013

Came across poll results for January 7-10 on Gallup Politics via Drudge just now showing that “20% of Americans mentioning the federal budget deficit as the top problem, compared with 18% mentioning dissatisfaction with some aspect of government or government leaders, and 16% naming jobs or unemployment.”

 

Gallup further notes that “Now, the "dissatisfaction with government" percentage is as high as it has been since the Watergate days of 1974, although the precise ways in which these open-ended questions have been coded has changed somewhat during that time. The percentage mentioning the deficit as the top problem is as high as it has been since 1996.”

 

Scanning lower on the list of issues I found that “Guns and Gun Control” concerned only 4% of those polled.

 

So, what this says to me is that although guns are indeed a serious problem, 96% of the population doesn’t see the issue as critically important to them. However, politicians seeking headlines as usual, are using the recent tragedies to divert focus from the miserable job they’re doing in running the nation.

 

What’s even more interesting than that is, if you look closely at the tightening gun control legislation, even that being touted in New York as the toughest country-wide, it really doesn’t do much at all. And, in fact, if those laws already on the books were enforced as they should be, the new ones don’t add much protection or change by comparison.

 

But, in the end, what I think the poll really shows is that try as they may, it’s getting harder for incompetents to hide their faults and misjudgments. And in that regard, voters are now beginning to see what huge errors they’ve made. All of which says to me, as I’ve been noting often lately, I don’t think the next four years are going to be an easy ride for anyone now holding office of any kind.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/14/2013

While Wyatt Incumbent is out facing down all the gunslingers, showing them who’s the fastest draw in the D.C. corral, I came across some little noticed information from David Shepardson of The Detroit News, via Drudge.  

 

According to Mr. Shepardson, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said today at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit that “As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported. We're going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep (in China). There's another one that's going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion."

 

I thought Mr. Marchionnes’ announcement interesting because I hadn’t seen very much information about the auto bailouts for quite a while. So I looked Chrysler’s current financial status up to find that, according to Peter Schweizer of The Washington Times, “Chrysler and Chrysler Financial received a total of $12.4 billion and repaid $9.5 billion, resulting in a net loss of $2.9 billion.”

 

So, what that means is that while the incumbent’s now threatening to shut down payments to veterans and Social Security recipients if the debt limit isn’t quickly raised by Congress, another $2.9 billion has been lost due to his bailout of the auto unions. And, as for me, I think there’s something terribly wrong in that.

 

But if nothing else, what today’s news proves is that if you don’t care about anyone but yourself, and don’t even think twice about abusing power, you don’t need guns at all to steal money hand-over-fist from the folks who earned it.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/13/2012

According to Philip Rucker of The Washington Post, a George Soros backed liberal think tank, The Center for American Progress, "is recommending 13 new gun policies to the White House - some of them executive actions that would not require the approval of Congress - in what amounts to the progressive community’s wish list.”

 

The CAP proposals include universal background checks, banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and modernizing data systems to track gun sales and enforce existing laws.

 

CAP President Neera Tanden said. “There’s nothing here that interferes with the rights of people to have a gun to protect themselves. But we have daily episodes where it seems that guns are in the wrong hands, and that’s why we think it’s important that the president acts.”

 

Now, I totally agree with Ms. Tanden that in fact, there’s nothing here that isn’t something the government should have been doing all along. Background checks make absolute sense, and when it comes to assault weapons and sophisticated ammunition, other than criminals or the military, I don’t understand why anyone would need them at all. 

 

However, I still doubt very much that any law change is going to really matter very much as far as the real problem’s concerned. Because the crooks and the loonies don’t care about laws now and I don’t see how or why that will change no matter what kind of legislation’s enacted. So thusly, this whole exercise is likely a waste of verbiage and time. 

 

Then again, if the administration truly wants to begin really trying to control weapons, a good place to start might be by locking AG Eric Holder up. Because, lest we forget, it was his lunatic plan as recapped by the LA Times that “A federal operation dubbed Fast and Furious allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, has lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which have been linked to crimes, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.”

 

So, in the end as usual. if you want to find the root cause of virtually any major problem in our nation, if the first place considered is the administration you’ll likely be correct more often than not. And what I’ll never, ever, understand is why folks as dumb as this group in office is would rather keep embarrassing itself instead of simply shutting up and quietly collecting paychecks from us while they can.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/12/2013

Several news items this morning regard expected difficult times for presidential cabinet post candidates such as Kerry and Hagel. 

 

Reading the stories, I paused to consider why these two nominees seem so individually distasteful to me and the possibility that selections are made with the express purpose of irritating those disagreeing with the incumbent’s view of policy matters. And that’s when it hit me that it isn’t these particular two names that inflame me, it's simply that there’s no one in the Dem party I agree with at all.

 

For example, in considering who might be picked for any cabinet post or front-line responsibility position, who is there to choose from? Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Emanuel, Schumer, Gillibrand, Cuomo, Jesse Jackson Jr.? Since the list of incompetent frauds goes on and on and on, I guess the only thing to do is close your eyes, hold your nose and pray that nothing requiring brains at the cabinet level occurs for the next four years.

 

Moving on from there, I found a story on a different subject but I think also related to the nation’s  current condition. Because according to Joshua Rhett Miller of Fox News.com's headline, “Millions noticing paychecks lighter today, due to payroll tax hike.”

 

What Mr. Miller addresses is that while recent news coverage continually pounded verbiage regarding the fiscal cliff,  a two-year cut on payroll taxes which fund Social Security quietly ended. He notes that “The tax has risen back up to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent, costing someone making $50,000 annually about $1,000 per year and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500.”

 

So, what that means is anyone earning a paycheck is affected, which has now surprised lot's of unaware folks such as a young lady, Gabriella Hoffman, who put it quite well. "Any tax increase is not good for young people. What it does is diminish your hard work and you’re slapped on the wrist. This administration is punishing people who are making money. They don’t like the concept of free enterprise. They think these problems will be solved in Washington by taking away more of people’s incomes.”

 

Mr. Miller’s whole article’s a good one, so I’ve included a link: 

                                           

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/11/lighter-paychecks-to-hamper-many-americans-amid-uncertain-economic-times/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2Hmo9o0Lo

 

If nothing else then, I believe today's items demonstrate that folks are now just beginning to grasp what they’ve done to themselves in the last election. And my bet is there’s going to be blowback. Because too many people have gotten hoodwinked. So, although I’ve no idea whatsoever as to what the eventuality will be, I don’t think this rides going to be anywhere as smooth as the incumbent expected and it hasn't even really started yet.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios