Monday, September 30, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/30/2013

When it comes to politics, numbers are always confusing whereas you have to be very careful in determining their source. As for myself, I always doubt them regardless of origin, because both major parties always present biased statistics.
I mention this today because of the impending government shutdown which will surely occur, unless it doesn’t. However, what I hear most often is that regardless of right or wrong, Republicans will be blamed if the shutdown actually happens. And that’s the part I simply don’t understand.
To my knowledge, the Republican leadership’s been crystal clear in its presentation of any kind of governmental disruption which they say will only address the incumbent’s new health care tax, nothing else. They claim this is the best way to make their case on legislation they find onerous, unfair, extremely poor in design and likely unworkable in implementation. 
Nonetheless, and despite the Republican's having a valid case, the majority of pundits predict that if a government actually takes place, those same Republican’s will face huge backlash and negative reaction from the public. And that’s where I get confused.
I just looked up some statistics from Rasmussen which shows that as of today, September 30, 2013, “One-out-of-two U.S. voters continues to oppose the national health care law’s requirement that every American have health insurance. Most also still don’t know if their state has a health care exchange even though those exchanges are scheduled to start signing up insurance applicants beginning tomorrow.” 
Conversely, “Thirty-six percent (36%) of likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require every American to buy or obtain health insurance, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose the so-called individual mandate. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.”
And the last time the mandate itself was specifically addressed, back on July 12, 2013, by a two-to-one margin, 56% to 26%, voters want the president to delay implementation of the individual mandate.”
So, if more than half the voting public is against the legislation now, and the problems aren’t even understood yet by millions more, what in the world are Republicans worried about? Because if it takes a shutdown to make their case, more than half the voters are quite likely to understand that. 
And especially, since practically everything important still goes on even if a shutdown happens, there’s really not very much to worry about at all.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/29/2013

Yesterday I mentioned the UN’s report on “Climate Change” that seemed to me to be out of synch with the facts, suggesting a definitive effort to support erroneous theories instead of acknowledging fifteen years of contrary, proven data.
Something, however, must have occurred overnight because the following appeared on Drudge just now:
“UN PANEL WALKS BACK CLIMATE CLAIMS - A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released this morning claims it is “extremely likely” humans are responsible for climate change. Forbes points out the “admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast” and that “IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures.”
Perhaps the cause for the change in tone was the Associated Press who “last week revealed leaked emails that showed the U.S. and other governments pressuring scientists to downplay or omit data undercutting environmentalists’ claims.”
So, once again, we have additional evidence that the warming issue is far more political than factual, predominately driven by pandering to supporters rather than the truths of the matter, which never seem to be taken into account.
Then there was another item illustrating the harm arising from governmental shortsightedness in efforts to “buy” voter support.
Recently, there’s been increasing pressure to raise the minimum wage. As a result, predominately left-leaning states like California are beginning to readily acquiesce. However, what these myopic politicians are failing to see, or choosing to ignore for short-term gain, is the long-range damage they’re instigating.
An article this morning, also on Drudge, by Miles Brundage in Slate is titled, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?”
A study by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne of Oxford University estimates “that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are “at risk” of being automated in the next 20 years.”
The authors then point out that, “This does not mean that they necessarily will be automated, but rather, it is plausible over the next two decades that existing and foreseeable AI technologies could be used to cost-effectively automate those jobs out of existence.”
Furthermore, “While the trend in recent decades has been towards a hollowing out of “middle-skill” jobs and an increase in low-paying service sector jobs and high-paying, highly educated jobs, Frey and Osborne expect that automation in the future will mainly substitute for “low-skill and low-wage” jobs.”
And then they conclude: “So who, specifically, should be worried? Our model predicts that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and labour in production occupations, are at risk. These findings are consistent with recent technological developments documented in the literature. More surprisingly, we find that a substantial share of employment in service occupations, where most US job growth has occurred over the past decades (Autor and Dorn, 2013), are highly susceptible to computerization.”
So, what the study shows is that while low wage jobs are the most susceptible to automation replacement, that doesn’t mean the transfer will undoubtedly take place although it easily can. And what that means is, employers choices will likely boil down to cost as the most important criteria.
Consequently, logic says that the more workers have to be paid to perform automatable tasks, the higher the likelihood of automation becomes. And, I guess, that’s the problem with the whole issue of how to best keep vulnerable workers employed. Because if the answer requires that logic be applied, politicians as group are absolutely and unequivocally unqualified to respond.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/28/2013

Reading headlines about the UN climate change report issued yesterday, I was really surprised as well as confused when I saw that the “experts” dismissed a slowdown in global warming.
The expert’s conclusion was: "Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," according to  Qin Dahe, co-chair of the working group that wrote the report.
But, then I read on to find that, “Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, rising only 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade according to data from the U.K.’s weather-watching Met Office, a trend current models of the world’s climate have been unable to predict.”
Beyond that, “[R]ecent reports have stressed that climate models have failed to accurately predict global temperatures. A study in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told, 3 were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming.”
What’s more, “On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.”
In that regard, climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told at the time, "It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models."
Another scientist Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, "was even blunter, saying, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.”
Additionally, “Many governments had objections over how the issue was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted altogether.” In reply, Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report said “An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years."
So, it seems the farce continues, which isn’t surprising considering the money involved. AlGore alone has made many millions on the scam, while the administration has made this fiction a cornerstone issue of the incumbent's platform.
But, the worst part for me, and the only reason I have a whit of interest in the subject at all, is that I’m paying three or four times more for a gallon of gas than I should all because of the administration's erroneous beliefs and promotion of very questionable data, based far more on political persuasion than actual fact. 
However, since the guy at the top has no problem in turning the nation’s foreign policy control over to the Russians, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that he permits bogus climatologists to kill our economy as well.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, September 27, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/27/2013

I remember asking a very simple rhetorical question a few years ago, which is finally getting answered in headlines. How in the world, I asked, can a street-corner political hack successfully lead the largest free nation on the planet? The obvious answer, which couldn’t be clearer to all but the blindest misguided zealots, is that he can’t.
And no matter the spin, biased reporting or parsing of verbiage the facts are now speaking clearly for themselves.
Once again, Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal listed perfect illustrations in her column: “A Small President on the World Stage." 
Ms. Noonan writes that: “[A} continued decline in admiration for the American president. Barack Obama's reputation among his fellow international players has deflated, his stature almost collapsed. In diplomatic circles, attitudes toward his leadership have been declining for some time, but this week you could hear the disappointment, and something more dangerous: the sense that he is no longer, perhaps, all that relevant. Part of this is due, obviously, to his handling of the Syria crisis. If you draw a line and it is crossed and then you dodge, deflect, disappear and call it diplomacy, the world will notice, and not think better of you. Some of it is connected to the historical moment America is in. 
But some of it, surely, is just five years of Mr. Obama. World leaders do not understand what his higher strategic aims are, have doubts about his seriousness and judgment, and read him as unsure and covering up his unsureness with ringing words.”
Now, while Ms. Noonan has, as usual, succinctly defined and presented the case today, she could have written precisely the same premise five years ago. Because other than proving in action his total incapability to handle the job of POTUS, absolutely nothing has changed. 
In that regard and furthering the case, is an opinion from Daniel Henninger, also in the Wall Street Journal, as follows: “Let ObamaCare Collapse An established political idea is like a vampire. Facts, opinions, votes, garlic: Nothing can make it die.”
Mr. Henninger then goes on to suggest:“But there is one thing that can kill an established political idea. It will die if the public that embraced it abandons it. Six months ago, that didn't seem likely. Now it does.”
And to me that’s the rub. Because if a long career in sales taught me anything it’s that you can talk, and push, and reason, and plead, and promise, and vow, but if folks don’t readily buy your product, its dead on arrival. 
To this day, I remember clearly a campaign I put together to support the sales of equipment from one of the largest manufacturers in the world with state-of-the art, competitive financing. And after months of research, trail runs, experimentation, meetings and feedback from personnel at every level of the client’s organization and insuring every single based was touched, I held a final kick-off meeting. 
We all sat around a conference table in the client’s office viewing the information, materials and paraphernalia designed to implement this sales-aid program, head and shoulders above anything the industry had ever seen before. And that’s when I turned to this wizened old professional sales executive directly across from me and asked, ”Well. What do you think?”    
He replied, “Frankly, It’s the best program of its type I’ve ever seen presented. But, if the dogs don’t eat the food, there’s nothing I can do about it.”
I mention this because that manager, and Mr. Henninger, are absolutely right. The administration can tout it’s health care tax till its blue in the face, but if folks don’t willingly sign up in droves it’s over and done with. So, this isn’t the time to guess, suppose or predict results. Only time will tell how many dogs ate the food, and that’s all that counts.
That's it for today folks.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/26/2013

Just read some eye-openers illustrating how far America’s place in foreign respect has sunk, thanks to the incumbent’s bungling approach.  
Chris Stirewalt of writes that, “Some coverage was given to the fact that the president of the United States wanted to have a handshake and a photo with the new Iranian president, whom the administration now calls ‘moderate.’  And President Hassan Rouhani said ‘No thanks.’ So again – in America, on this supposed mission to change the way Iran operates – Rouhani does not want to even shake the hand of the man who is the head of the country he's supposed be ‘moderating and mellowing’ about. " 
Then Rouhani told Charlie Rose: “Well, after all, we're speaking of two countries who have had no relations for 35 years.  So clearly to begin talks requires prep work. When completed, it is possible to have a meeting.”
Fox News, Bret Baier, opined: “Prep work?  For a pull aside/handshake/photo?  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the U.S. was dissed with the world watching.”
And then I found this on Drudge: “Following his UN speech, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani hosted a private dinner party, which was attended by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has a history of cozying up to controversial world leaders.”
So, the President of the United Sates of America gets brushed off with a lame excuse while a two-bit street corner radical is invited to dine privately with a newly elected world leader. Although it took me half a page to present the case, I think it clearly speaks for itself. 
And now we come to major mismanagement item number two for today, also from, saying: “The Internal Revenue Service is unable to account for $67 million in spending related to the implementation of ObamaCare, according to an IRS watchdog report released Wednesday.”
A report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said ”the money was part of a $488 million fund established to cover implementation costs between 2010 through 2012.” And that “The $67 million in unaccounted-for spending was associated with "indirect" implementation costs, which can include providing employees with workspace and information technology support.”
Now, here’s the critical part: The report concluded that the IRS "lacks complete information regarding the full cost of [Affordable Care Act] implementation. This lack of complete information on ACA implementation costs limits the IRS’s ability to accurately report to stakeholders the total resources it applied to the ACA implementation and fully estimate the resources needed in the future for this effort," the report states.”
As for me, I’m certainly not surprised whereas government’s never been able to administer anything properly at all. Bureaucracies simply aren’t the place to go to get things done. But, as a practical matter, what today’s items clearly point out is a horrendous fault in what politics have become.
If you take a step back and look at the reasons for the terrible shape not only health care, but the entire economy is in as well, it all boils down to political partisanship at the core.
Simple logic and basic probability both make it practically impossible that virtually all Democrats believe the incumbent's health care tax is a good law. Conversely, it’s unlikely all Republicans think the reverse. Yet, that’s how they vote, pro or con, along party lines regardless of what’s at stake.
In the meantime, however, we the citizens are whipped back and forth, forced to accept the results, victims of others desires for power and personal gain, regardless of the immense cost to us all.   
And one thing I’m certain of, regardless of the eventual outcome of the health care tax dispute. With very few exceptions, no politicians, and especially the one at the top, really give a good GD about our health care or anything else regarding us, never have and never will.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/25/2013

Reading about Lois Lerner’s retirement decision yesterday, the first thought I had was the probability of her doing so to make an immunity deal with Representative Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Now today, lo and behold, according to the, “she’s negotiating through her lawyers about possibly gaining immunity to testify again in the committee’s investigative hearings.”
So far, “The Committee has not made any offer of immunity to Ms. Lerner. The Committee has, however, indicated a willingness to listen to any offers from her attorney about what she would testify to if it was offered.”
Consequently, this may be the kind of break Congressman Issa’s been looking for and a significant step toward unraveling the administration’s continuing attempts to stonewall their use of the IRS to stifle tea party opposition.
Meanwhile, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is filibustering in an attempt to delay, defuse or defund the incumbent's new health care tax. In response, according to Rebecca Kaplan of CBS News on-line: Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: “Downplayed the significance of Cruz's speech after arriving at the Capitol Wednesday morning.” Saying “He raised some money with the tea party folks. That's what it's all about."
However, aside from the fact that Reid is just about the lowest type of life-form there is and nothing more than a self-serving political hack, the odds are that this time he’s in so far over his head he’s going to wind up looking even worse than usual.
I believe that to be true because as I’ve been suggesting for a long time now, it doesn’t really matter how much Dem’s hype, promote, and distort facts about the health care tax, as a practical matter its abominable legislation which taxpayers will likely reject themselves in backlash.
In that regard, here’s an example from Avik Roy, a Forbes contributor who writes that “Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.”
Mr. Roy’s analysis contains significant interesting details, so I’ve included a link: FORBES- Rise By 99% For Men, 62% For Women
Therefore, when you add in today’s chinks in the armor, the administration seems to be losing significant ground on numerous fronts. Which means that perhaps more and more folks are finding out that effective leadership calls for more than just a big mouth. And since vocal cords are most Dem’s only asset, it looks like the real world’s now drowning them out. 
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/24/2012

The Republican party got two extremely helpful breaks today, both bolstering their chances for electoral successes in the next two years.
Lois Lerner, who presided over a partisan IRS program targeting conservative organizations announced that she’ll retire on Monday.
That suggests to me the probability that this might be the first step toward distancing herself from the administration, paving the way for making a deal for leniency in return for politically damaging testimony disclosing White House efforts to harm, derail or deter tea party related organizations.
Time will tell, of course, but this seems a very strong probability whereas otherwise she could have simply continued to ride the situation out, remaining on paid leave from her job.
In item two, Willy’s agreed to help the incumbent “sell” his new health care tax.
However, the monumental problems surrounding this unmanageable legislation go far beyond anything that can be solved by words. As each day goes by, new issues arise clearly demonstrating huge flaws in design along with inabilities of implementation.
What’s even worse is the likelihood that government itself will wind up significantly involved in day to day operations, which is practically a solid guarantee of failure. While nothing government run ever works right, this particular tax is so complex and huge in size, the chances of operational success over time are likely close to zero.
Consequently, since Hillary has no performance record of her own, her success is firmly tied to Bill’s, which means that the negative backlash from the tax he’s now touting will also attach to her. So, that weakens her position as Dem frontrunner in the next presidential campaign.
Therefore, as I’ve been suggesting for many other reasons to date, if the Republicans simply use their heads they should be able to figure out that day by day, step by step, if left alone their inept competition will keep on eliminating itself.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, September 23, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/23/2013

Much of the headlines regard the health care tax football being kicked around between the Senate and House, and whether or not enough support exists to force a government shutdown.
As for myself, I think Republicans would do best by backing off, let the law take effect, then sit back and watch as the Democrat party self-destructs. Because the legislation itself is likely not only the very worst ever written, the public’s yet to really face how much it’s going to cost them. And when the tax bills actually come due is when I think the roof will come off.
Here are a couple of examples of things not fully grasped yet by the tax-paying public
Chris Conover, a Forbes Contributor via Drudge reports that when campaigning the incumbent promised: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” 
The truth, however, is that “Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law."
Consequently, “Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.”
And then, CBS DC on-line via Drudge reports that, “Alabamians hoping to find health insurance through a new federally developed insurance marketplace won’t get any details before October, when the insurance options are scheduled to go online.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports it is working on completing the list of health insurance plans that will be made public Oct. 1, when people can begin signing up for coverage that will start Jan. 1. That gives the uninsured a three-month window to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s mandate for individuals to have health insurance by Jan. 1 or face penalties at tax time in April.”
Now, it seems to me in view of the preceding articles, what everyone seems to be missing is how the world’s changed for most tax-paying citizens. Because in the past, most individuals prepared their taxes either by themselves, or with the help of professionals. Then they filed their forms, paying amounts owed or getting refunds. However, I doubt there was very much discussion with others about these kinds of private matters.
Today, though, there is the internet, Facebook, Twitter, as well as all kinds of websites with all kinds of information, with the media also providing detailed information about how folks can group together on common causes. 
And that’s why I think that if the tax law is left alone to enact without changes, the public will certainly know it’s the Dems' that caused it. And then, they’ll form larger groups that can communicate and rebel together, forcing the IRS to deal with an insurmountable collection problem, which will likely lead to a restructuring, repeal or major adjustment of the legislation.
However, for Republicans the benefits will be greater than that, because for years to come folks will remember what was done to them by the Democrats, taking their revenge out at the polls all over the nation every chance they get.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/22/2013

Not very much “new” in the news today. Lot’s of talk about the threat of a government shutdown due to squabbles over the looming health care tax, debt limit increase and even the long-delayed Keystone pipeline.
The possibility of a shutdown itself got me to thinking. Because other than folks like myself, who make a concerted effort to stay abreast of current issues, I’m not sure that the vast majority of the population would even be aware if a shutdown took place.
As a practical  matter, somewhere around 70% of government spending is locked in one way or another, leaving only 30% subject to any kind of suspension or delay at all. Of that remaining amount, although items selected would surely be those gaining the greatest public attention pro or con, it’s doubtful there’d be any real harm invoked at all except for those directly affected by the timing, such as delayed decisions or the need of an immediate governmental response. 
My research shows that the last time the government did shut down was in 1995, when the following scenario took place, according to the Starr Report in the Washington Post:
“Monica Lewinsky began her White House employment as an intern in the Chief of Staff's office in July 1995. At White House functions in the following months, she made eye contact with the President. During the November 1995 government shutdown, the President invited her to his private study, where they kissed. Later that evening, they had a more intimate sexual encounter. They had another sexual encounter two days later, and a third one on New Year's Eve.”
So, if I had to guess about what the biggest ramification might be should another shutdown take place now, I’d have to think there’s a probability the incumbent might run off with his caddy and hide out on the links till the coast was clear. Because he just doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of guy who’s interested in girls.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/21/2013

Rather than accepting the slew of slanted gibberish spewed daily by the administration about how well the nation’s doing economically, I looked the subject up.
Jim Puzzanghera of the Los Angles Times  writes that, “A lack of economic stability highlighted by a soaring national debt, combined with a lack of trust in government by the business community, helped drop the U.S. two notches to seventh in a ranking of national global competitiveness.”
Mr. Puzzanghera notes that, “For the fourth straight year, Switzerland topped the list, which was released Wednesday by the World Economic Forum. Also beating the U.S. in the 2012-13 rankings of 144 national economies were Singapore, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.”
While the numbers keep declining, however, I thought sadder still was the cause, whereas it can be so easily corrected, yet the administration refuses to let that happen.
According to the report “the biggest weakness was the U.S. macroeconomic environment -- a combination of the nation's budget deficit, savings rate, inflation, government debt and credit rating. The U.S. ranked 111th in that category in the aftermath of the growing national debt and the decision by Standard & Poor's last year to cut the U.S. credit rating.”
Furthermore, and even worse, “The business community's distrust of government also lowered the U.S. rankings. For example, the U.S. ranked 54th in public trust of politicians, and 76th in both wastefulness of government spending and burden of government regulations.”
So, here we have further hard evidence of willful government action to purposefully stifle economic growth while refusing to curb strangling debt. And in that way, those wishing for free enterprise and formerly traditional economic growth, are being hampered and held back by parasitic ideology and its stagnating effects.
In that regard, some further calculations additionally demonstrate the imbalance socialistic practices impose, financially and otherwise, on those who bear the costs.
Robert Pear of the New York Times wrote on September 17th, that according to the Census Bureau: “In 2012, the  percent of people uninsured was 15.4 percent, equaling 48 million, not statistically different from the estimate of 48.6 million in 2011.”
Consequently, boiling the entire health care debate down to simple arithmetic, without all the political rhetoric piled on and endless biased speeches, I calculated that in our population of 313.9 million people, 265,900,000 are somehow or other already insured.
What that says to me is, that if 85% of the population has to suffer the consequences of the ruination of the finest health care system in the world to create parity with the 15 % needing help, there’s something extremely wrong with that. In fact, the entire premise is upside down.
However, if you now tie together both of todays observations it quickly becomes very clear that any way you want to measure it at all, when government attempts to disrupt free enterprise, adds overbearing laws and inserts itself in issues where it clearly doesn't belong, the results are disastrous to all by any measure you choose.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, September 20, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/20/2013

On Wednesday, I mentioned several left-leaning contributors whom frequently appear on Fox News, providing alterative viewpoints to the network’s generally conservative slant. The point was my sense that quite often the argument’s presented by those in opposition are done simply as if disagreement itself is the objective, even if what’s presented by them is illogical or makes no sense at all.
The name Kirsten Powers was on my list, whereas she often appears to argue against conservative views.
In that regard, I happened to see her yesterday on Sean Hannity’s show where she was debating Pat Buchanan on the subject of the imminent health care legislation, about to take effect on October 1st.
Buchanan’s theme was the growing number of elements of the legislation that cannot be implemented, either because they’ve proven to be inoperable, unwieldy, unthought out, impractical or are simply unfair. His suggestion was rewriting the act itself, or delaying implementation until the imperfections can be repaired or ruled out.
Ms. Powers, on the other hand, kept insisting that no judgments of the laws effectiveness could be made now, because implementation hadn’t taken place yet. Therefore the only way to determine how the legislation works is to employ it, faults and all.
To me, this argument ranks equally with that of Nancy Pelosi’s original premise that if you want to know what's in the law, pass it.
I mention this subject again today because I believe it represents more than just a differing opinion on legislation. What it illustrates to me is an immature, uneducated, irrational point of view based upon politics alone. Because what Ms. Powers perceives is an argument founded on differing ideological views, while the real issue is a law effecting the health care needs of virtually every citizen in the nation which at the moment simply doesn't work and likely won’t in the future.
Consequently, the objective should be to fix it first or throw it out, not saddle the nation with horrendous problems simply because of political positioning. Which brings me back to Wednesday’s point of how oblivious to common sense or unconcerned about their lack of intelligence folks like Ms. Powers have to be to willingly sound like total dolts on national, prime time TV.      
Along the same lines and further proof of the new laws flaws, according to the Wall Street Journal: via Fox News: “The Cleveland Clinic, cited by President Obama in his health care law pitch, will fire 3,000 employees and cut $330 million from its budget, due to ObamaCare. Touting the then-stalled bill in 2009, Obama visited the Cleveland Clinic using it as an example of a system that worked well because “patient care is the number one concern, not bureaucracy.”
The clinic is the largest employer in Northeast Ohio with about 39,000 workers and is now blaming ObamaCare after it was forced to cut $330 million from its budget. A spokeswoman for the clinic said the clinic is being forced to cut back to prepare for increased costs and decreased revenue under the health care reform law. 
As for the incumbent himself, four years ago he said, “The Cleveland Clinic is an example of health care that "works well. And part of the reason it works well is because they've set up a system where patient care is the number-one concern, not bureaucracy, what forms have to be filled out, what do we get reimbursed for. And those are changes that I think the American people want to see.” 
However, now it’s four years later, and employees at the clinic say they are worried they won’t be able to provide patients care at all anymore if they are laid off.”
Additionally, also according to the Wall Street Journal: “More glitches for ObamaCare. The government's software can't reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage, according to insurance executives and people familiar with the program... If not resolved by the Oct. 1 launch date, the problems could affect consumers in 36 states.”
So, here we are one day closer to the worst piece of legislation ever enacted. And through it all, the same theme keeps recurring. For this administration politics trumps every other aspect of life, which is why they’ll go full speed ahead when it’s more than likely even they know what a disaster they’ve created.
But I think they’ve made a huge mistake. Because there's almost no doubt the law will be a major disaster that in time will fall apart at the seams. Which means the majority of the voting public will remember the debacle for years to come. Consequently, the incumbent’s short term gain will cost his party long term losses they may never recover from.
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/19/2013

Two issues today, both long-standing topics of discussion. 
As mentioned previously, while the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard was tragic beyond depth, gun ownership wasn’t the cause, mental instability was. Consequently, were guns not available, its likely the shooter would have used other means for achieving his goals. 
Nonetheless, anti-gun zealots are opportunistically attempting to take advantage of the event to further their case for weapon surrender. However, the immediate public reaction indicates the complete reverse.    
According to Wilson Dizard of Aljazeera via Drudge: Just days after the incident, “gun owners continued to stock up on firearms at shops bordering the capital. And most shoppers were of the same mind: Shooting tragedies are a problem that federal gun laws can't solve.”
A Maryland lawyer, Richmond T.P. Davis, put it quite well saying, “You can't legislate away evil.” 
In Maryland a new law tightening gun control is set to come in on October 1, which has been sending the state's gun enthusiasts to stores in droves to stock up before the deadline.
One buyer, James Alexander, stated: “No legislation will ever stop what happened in Newtown or any other place. It's sad, it's unfortunate, and I feel very bad for the kids and families that were injured by it. But you're not going to be able to change the fact that gun bans don't stop that from happening."
And that’s the whole point, because guns aren’t the problem and never were. It’s the lunatics, disturbed, and criminal elements that need to be curbed.
For topic two, there’s an article from The Times of India also via Drudge, reporting that Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.”
This is seriously disturbing global-warming alarmists because, “Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium.”
And although: “The comparisons have sparked a furious exchange of views between observers who believe the planet could be on the brink of another period of cooling, and scientists who insist there is no evidence that temperatures are about to fall," Giuliana DeToma, a solar scientist at the High Altitude Observatory in Colorado, put it best by admitting "we do not know how or why the Maunder Minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one."
At the same time, “Many solar experts think the downturn is linked to a different phenomenon, the Gleissberg cycle, which predicts a period of weaker solar activity every century or so. If that turns out to be true, the sun could remain unusually quiet through the middle of the 2020s.”
In the end though, is this summation. “But since the scientists still do not understand why the Gleissberg cycle takes place, the evidence is inconclusive. The bottom line is that the sun has gone unusually quiet and no one really knows why or how long it will last.”
So, while I’ve been typing my digits off for several years now having no climatology knowledge at all, I nonetheless arrived long ago at the same place as all these distinguished scientists have now. Because, when it comes to predicting the weather, no one on earth can even tell you whether or not it will rain tomorrow, much less further into the future. And if these esteemed scientists really were able to accurately predict future events, they’d surely be at the race track or Vegas instead of their labs.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/18/2013

Scanning Drudge this morning a headline caught my eye from “Illegal immigrants chain themselves to White House fence.”
My curiosity stemmed from the subject itself, because I’ve never understood how “illegals” are here at all. From my understanding of the illegality, those without standing must either be deported or thrown in jail. But that certainly isn’t the case today, because undocumented aliens are everywhere.
The Times article by Stephen Dinan reports that the incumbent has actually “set records for deportations, removing about 400,000 people a year from the country, in order to be able to argue to conservatives that he is serious about enforcing immigration laws.”
However, Mr. Dinan goes on “He says he has tried to focus those deportation efforts on criminals and repeat-immigration violators, leaving most rank-and-file illegal immigrants in little danger of being deported.”
Furthermore, “A new report Monday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse suggests the administration’s deportation efforts are increasingly missing their mark.”
So, here we have another case where the administration does what’s best for itself, regardless, ignoring laws while giving lip service and photo op’s to appease their base. Which leads me to wonder why neither group never seems to care about their nation or its laws at all.
In a similar vein, there are some others I wonder about as well.
For TV news, I frequently tune in Fox, and their business channel too, among many others. Quite often, to offset their conservative tendencies, they invite others to present what they promote as a fair and balanced approach to reporting and discussion. Frequent contributors include Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, and Geraldo Rivera.
For the most part, I find Fox itself to take what seems  to me as a straightforward approach, usually seeming direct, to the point, with little, if any, extreme bias or slant. Nonetheless, the network has a reputation as being harsh on liberal matters and often, strongly anti-administration.
Consequently, I get the sense that those who see themselves as the opposition to the Fox image often present arguments simply for the sake of doing so. Even when Fox staff presenter’s premises are precisely on point and correct. And therefore, simply in order to espouse a differing view, opposing contributors spout some of the most incredible, babbling, nonsensical blather I’ve ever heard.
And that brings me to my point for today. Because I’m sure these contributors receive compensation for their appearances, which is all well and good in a capitalistic society. But I wonder just how much its worth to permit yourself to be made to consistently look like and sound like an abject moron on national TV. And I know they have to be selling out for the money involved, because nobody on this planet, or any other, could actually be that dumb and survive.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/17/2013

Yesterday’s massacre at the Washington Navy Yard has naturally caused heated exchanges on gun control, both sides of the issue fervently stirring up their forces in attempts to reinforce their positions on the issues involved.
My perception of gun control itself, comes down to fundamental arithmetic. 
Without a shred of doubt, this event, as well as the mass shooting at Fort Hood, are extremely tragic indeed. At the same time, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population is currently 311.6 million people. Within that group, according to the New York Times, “the gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s.” If my math is correct that means 109,060,000 still presently own guns, bringing the probability of shootings like the two in question to .00000002 percent.
Consequently, while still greatly appreciating the depth of the tragedies that took place, I’ve got to believe there’s a better way to deal with those kinds of problems than depriving an innocent third of the population of the ability to arm themselves if they choose.
On the other hand, the incumbent took the tragedy as an opportunity to lead into other points. Instead of waiting for a more appropriate time, after briefly addressing the event itself, he quickly moved on to deliver a pre-planned daily political droning, in this one bashing Republicans for a whole list of reasons. The public, though, is not only not buying his bullying as often, surveys show less and less are even listening any more. 
According to, “The public is not convinced that the economy is on the mend. Only one-third say the economic system is more secure now than in 2008, and 52 percent say they disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, according to a Pew Research Center poll.” 
Furthermore, “Despite job growth, the unemployment rate remains high at 7.3 percent. Though the rate has fallen, one of the reasons is because some people have dropped out of the labor force and no longer are counted as job seekers. The share of unemployed workers who have been unemployed for more than six months is more than double what it was in 2007 before the recession began. And the income gap between the very rich and the rest of the population is the biggest since 1928.” 
As the incumbent went on to bash “Mitt Romney’s ineffective opposition to Obama’s 2010 health law. All the networks, including MSNBC, eventually abandoned coverage of the president’s remarks and returned to breaking news from the scene.” So, even his closet media allies are getting bored.
Apparently, viewers of the speech concurred, whereas, “As measured by Bing Pulse, Republican, independent and Democratic viewers of “Special Report with Bret Baier” agreed with National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson that President Obama’s speech Monday was poorly timed. Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume’s comments that the remarks were “so small and so petty and so beneath the office of the president” drew 18,500 votes in one minute.”
And there may be far more dissatisfaction among the public than that, especially regarding the new health care tax. 
A Fox News poll released this morning, indicates that “Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed were “concerned” about their health care under ObamaCare, with 43 percent saying they are “very concerned.” Fifty-four percent of respondents want to take the health care system back to 2009.
Fifty-eight percent of voters disapproved of how the incumbent’s handling health care, including 33 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents, and 83 percent of Republicans.
So, while the incumbent's drumbeat continues and his constituents keep getting buried deeper in words of success, statistics and facts keep indicating something else. But, I think the public’s far better off when the incumbent is spending all his time speaking, because it’s when he’s actually doing something that he’s a real threat to their health, well-being and livelihoods.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, September 16, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/16/2013

On Friday, I mentioned that upon hearing economist Larry Summers being a top contender as new Fed chairman I did some research to refresh my biographical knowledge of him.
What came through very definitively is that while being extremely bright, highly experienced and unquestionably credentialed, he’s also known for thinking independently and standing his ground. Those qualities could very well make it highly likely he’d move very rapidly toward slowing down the Fed’s current policy of pumping the economy with low to no-cost funds that are now providing large, highly-rated borrowers huge sums almost for free.
So, what happened over the weekend is that powerful leftists became concerned that if Summers were appointed, a more rational monetary approach could very well cause the Fed to begin really thinking about what it was doing. And, in that case, the central bank would move away from helping the administration artificially cloud the economy’s weak condition as its doing now, but in the far more important long run allow money-market rates to stabilize.
However, since this administration continually puts image, appearance and self-serviance far above anything else, no matter, Mr. Summers has withdrawn his name for consideration for the position.
And although he claims withdrawal was of his own choosing, I still believe I was right on Friday when the results of my homework suggested he might be perfect for the job, but would not be appointed to it. Because if there’s something that’s absolutely consistent about this administration, it’s the fact that if anything's good for the nation, they’ll find a way to undo it regardless.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/15/2013

The incredible costs to the nation of the current administration keep piling up an amazing pace. After losing image, prestige and strategic gains in the Middle-East by colossal blunders in Syria, it now looks like Iran will also benefit from the incumbent's reliance on Russian help.  
According to Reza Kahlili of the, “Russian President Vladimir Putin has accepted Iran’s invitation to visit Tehran to work out a strategy for the Islamic regime’s nuclear program, Fars News Agency reported Saturday. The West believes the Iranian program is a front for developing nuclear weapons.”
Apparently, Mr. Putin has now firmly established himself to Iranian leadership “as a strong opponent to America and the West — especially after his successful political play on averting a U.S. missile strike on Syria.” Which is why he was “approached by Iran to protect the Islamic regime in the face of continued pressure by the West over its illicit nuclear program.”
So, obviously, Iran now believes Putin can buy them the time they need to complete their nuclear program unencumbered, thanks to America’s now proven decision to relinquish its position as any kind of viable threat, military or otherwise. 
Consequently, the incumbent can now create and try to sell any kind of excuse he chooses to distort his complete and utter inaction in the region, but the facts clearly illustrate something else. The U.S. no longer has any real power to regain its position of strength, and short of taking full military retaliation, must now rely on Russia to maintain peace in that part of the world. Which to me seems like asking Jessie James and Bonnie and Clyde to protect all the banks from robbers.  
Then there was another article about another of my favorite subjects, AlGore.
Barbara Hollingsworth of via Drudge reports that: “A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.”
Ms. Hollingsworth continues: “In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.
The former vice president also warned that rising temperatures were “a planetary emergency and a threat to the survival of our civilization.”
But as it’s turned out, however, “Instead of completely melting away, the polar icecap is at now at its highest level for this time of year since 2006. Satellite photos of the Arctic taken by NASA in August 2012 and August 2013 show a 60 percent increase in the polar ice sheet, more than half the size of Europe, despite “realistic” predictions by climate scientists six years ago that the North Pole would be completely melted by now.”
So, as usual, AlGore’s proven to be nothing more than a self=serving promoter who pushed his global=warming scam as far and as fast as he possibly could. And that’s something I can clearly understand because as Barnum stated long ago, suckers are born every minute.
Which brings me back to the incumbent. Because in his case I can see how Chicago-style politics have certainly helped him gain personally from all the steps he’s taken here on his own behalf. But, what I don’t understand yet is how he’s going to profit from turning the Middle-East over to Vladimir Putin, who’s highly unlikely to pay anything back to him at all. Unless, of course, personal/political image is more important than power and cash. 
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/14/2013

According to Anne Gearan, Colum Lynch and Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post, via Drudge: “The United States and Russia agreed Saturday on an outline for the identification and seizure of Syrian chemical weapons and said Syria must turn over an accounting of its arsenal within a week.
The agreement will be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution that could allow for sanctions or other consequences if Syria fails to comply, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said.
Kerry said that the first international inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November, with destruction to begin next year.”
So, now there's a path to a solution of the Syrian crisis caused by the incumbent’s chemical weapons remarks two years ago made without thinking, and all it cost was the loss of the U.S.’s image, influence, prestige, and reputation in the Middle-East as well as among most other foreign nations. And at the same time, in order to save the incumbent’s personal image, elevated Vladimir Putin to a level as world statesman he couldn’t earn by himself if he lived to be three thousand. 
And then while the Syrian fiasco gathered all the headlines, according to Union leaders met with the incumbent and Joe Biden in the White House, to see if a special deal could be worked out for favorable treatment regarding the new health care tax. 
However, results released Friday night explained that “the White House said the Treasury Department had issued a letter "making clear that it does not see a legal way for individuals in multi-employer group health plans to receive individual market tax credits as well as the favorable tax treatment associated with employer-provided health insurance at the same time."
Additionally, “Although the White House did not specify exactly what it might do instead, if anything. It said only it would work with various plans to create "new, high-quality, affordable options" for everyone.”
On the other side: “Spokesmen for ranking House member Orrin Hatch of Utah and Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan issued a joint statement saying,“There has been far too much special treatment for politically-favored friends of ObamaCare.  But when it comes to employers and taxpayers picking up the health care tab for labor unions – it appears that is a price that is simply too high. Perhaps even this Administration recognizes that there are limits to them stretching the law to reward their friends.”
But the most important part of the situation to me is that: “The AFL-CIO just passed a resolution blasting ObamaCare as “highly disruptive,” and the administration has been trying to convince the unions to lower the volume on their complaints about the law’s implementation.”
So, here we we have growing evidence of the administration's total incompetence, regarding just about every aspect of effective decision-making that exists, foreign or domestic. Which brings me back to my recurring question about just how ignorant do you have to be to still support these abject failures, and even stranger, why would anyone do it at all? Because, throughout recent history, Democrat politicians have never, ever, helped anyone but themselves.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, September 13, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/13/2013

At the moment, the administration's so far over its head in problems there seems nowhere to turn. Major foreign policy’s been relinquished to Vladimir Putin, Iraq’s been lost to Iran and Al Qaeda, while US overseas influence hasn’t been lower than at present since 1970. Forty-three years of effort, expenditure, investment and success in the Middle-East have been squandered away for absolutely no logical reason.
Here at home, although unemployment's reached a new low this week, two states didn’t submit data at all, which likely accounts for the drop. At the same time, while implementation of the new health care tax faces significant start-up problems, the largest unions and most fervent incumbent supporters now demand the legislation be rewritten whereas the costs are so high they fear losing significant numbers of members to health care exchanges. 
Then, while the political implosion continues, since the Fed’s getting a new chairman I did some research on one of the candidates, Larry Summers.
Wikipedia shows that he was “on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan in 1982–1983. He also served as an economic adviser to the Dukakis Presidential campaign in 1988.”
But what interested me most were some of his thoughts over time. Such as a 1991 interview where he said, "There are no... limits to the carrying capacity of the earth that are likely to bind any time in the foreseeable future. There isn't a risk of an apocalypse due to global warming or anything else. The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit, is a profound error and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs."
His bio goes on to note that “Summers also has been authoring a column for the Financial Times. Upon the death of libertarian economist Milton Friedman, Summers wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times entitled "The Great Liberator" arguing that "any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites." In it Summers wrote that even though Friedman's contributions to monetary policy had been highly lauded, his most important contribution may have been "in convincing people of the importance of allowing free markets to operate.”
After reading the preceding, I looked up Mr. Friedman and found that he was “an economic adviser to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.”
Among years of developing economic premises one called “The Methodology of Positive Economics," written in 1953 argues that economics as a “science should be free of value judgments for it to be objective. Moreover, a useful economic theory should be judged not by its descriptive realism but by its simplicity and fruitfulness as an engine of prediction. That is, students should measure the accuracy of its predictions, rather than the 'soundness of its assumptions.”
Therefore, interpreting his opinion it seems to me he believed that results are the only measure that counts regarding any kind of economic idea or theory, while “assumptions” have no value at all till proven. Which is the exact opposite of the position taken by the present administration that has permitted the entire economy to stagnate by employing theories of redistribution that do not now, or in the future ever work in reality.
I mention this because while just about everything the administration touches has turned out a colossal failure, it seems to me that left alone someone like Larry Summers might actually be a good choice for the economy. And therefore, extremely beneficial in helping turn things around. However, if nothing else, the administration's extremely consistent, which suggests that some one else will get the job.
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/12/2013

While often using this forum to vent, extremely beneficial emotionally, it also provides opportunity to observe, study, research and learn, leading to familiarity with much of the subject matter.
Therefore, simply because he’s one of the most important topics discussed worldwide on a daily basis, I’ve discovered far more about the incumbent than I ever cared to. In fact, were he not POTUS my interest in him would be zero.
Writing about him a couple of years ago, basic logic suggested that an inexperienced amateur having no valid credentials couldn’t possibly succeed at leading the most successful, powerful nation that ever existed. His constituents, however, strongly supported by an accommodating media, continued to promote and enhance a glowing, flawless image.
And then, as time ticked by, real-world situations arose, calling for effective decisions and solutions which one by one proved to be beyond the scope of the incumbent’s experience and capabilities. By now, so many former totally supportive individuals, groups and factions have been let down, disappointed or harmed, very few, if any remain fervent, while popularity polls have reached all-time lows, likely falling further.
In that regard, even ardent admirer, Maureen Dowd has turned anti, writing about the latest fiasco in Syria this way: “Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support.”
Similarly, Carl Cameron of reports that also primarily because of Syria, “At this point, immigration reform feels forgotten. Government funds run out in 18 days; the House put off a stopgap funding vote this week; the automatic sequester spending reductions are supposed to go from $85 billion to over $100 billion next year, but nobody’s talking about it. Uncle Sam hits the debt limit and must borrow billions more next month. But Dems won't negotiate. And, oh yeah, Dems want to re-legislate the Voting Rights Act.
None of it is moving, but the House is taking the last week of September off and both chambers plan a one-week break in October. They shouldn't count on it. But we shouldn't expect much if they stick around, either.” 
So, here we have our nation losing its influence, respect and ability to protect its interests in the Middle-East for the first time since 1970 due to incompetent, unqualified leadership, while simultaneously unraveling here at home. Which brings me back to my original point for today: Who in the world having a semblance of  a brain could expect anything else from one having not even a shred of experience, prior similar success, or valid credentials?
Along the same lines of one’s having no idea of what’s needed to professionally perform leadership roles, believing impossibly unrealistic promises instead, another saddening event took place yesterday.
According to Paul Joseph Watson, editor and writer for, “David Petraeus walked to his first day of his new job as a visiting professor at The City University of New York (CUNY).” 
Mr. Watson reports that “Petraeus seemed unaffected as students hurled insults, labeling him a “war criminal,” a “scumbag,” and a “fascist.” 
One protester yelled, “You’ve got blood all over you! I can smell you!” “You disgusting imperialist!” 
Furthermore, “The ambush was organized by an organization calling itself the Ad Hoc Committee, a group of CUNY students attempting to drive out “Death Squad” Petraeus and eliminate the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program.”
So, here we have one of the nation’s most highly successful, decorated heroes who didn't choose the battles he fought, instead serving where he was directed, being harassed, abused and insulted by a group of totally selfish, spoiled to the core wusses and wimps.
What’s even worse is these screaming examples of the ultimate in parasitic behavior don’t even know or care about the sacrifices made by those in uniform to preserve the very rights that permit the self-same leeches to freely speak and protest.
Which leads me to ask if this gang of dimwitted banshees would act the same way if the general were still in uniform, standing tall and bearing his weapon.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/11/2013

Critically important day today in American history. One to never be forgotten. And I think every citizen would best serve themselves and each other, if they remember 9/11 not only on its anniversary, but all other days as well.
While that tragedy is now twelve years behind us, terrorism, conflicts and wars still go on. So last night the incumbent gave another speech, this like all his others, predominately double-talk.
However, while there are countless opinions about the speech itself,  I remain focused on its intent, which I still believe has nothing really to do with Syria, or anything else in the Middle-East. 
Because what we have here is a street-corner politician who simply got called for shooting his mouth off without thinking. And instead of stepping up like a man and taking his lumps, he’s now scrambling to find any way he can to blame somebody else.
Nonetheless, rather than go into lots of details, because there are thousands of others voicing their thoughts on the subject, I’ll only address the chemical warfare issue itself.
Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal yesterday morning gave a vivid description of the effects of chemical warfare, and what she expected the incumbent to say last night: 
”He will attempt to be morally compelling and rhetorically memorable. He will probably, like Susan Rice yesterday, attempt to paint a graphic portrait of what chemical weapons do—the children in their shrouds, the suffering parents, what such deaths look like and are. This is not meaningless: the world must be reminded what weapons of mass destruction are, and what the indifference of the world foretells.”
Now, while that simple description presents a vivid picture of the horrors the incumbent claims chemicals will do, what does he think happens to those that are targets of the warheads in the nuclear rockets he wants to use?
Moving along to another subject, this is another where  the incumbent’s plans seem to have gone awry. Because while breaking the back of the nation’s economy seeking to redistribute the wealth of the rich, much like the mistakes in his new health care tax and failure to recognize global cooling, this result too was one hundred eighty degrees off the mark.    
According to Paul Wiseman of myway website via Drudge, “The gulf between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America is the widest it's been since the Roaring '20s. 
The very wealthiest Americans earned more than 19 percent of the country's household income last year - their biggest share since 1928, the year before the stock market crash. And the top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings last year. 
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. And it grew again last year, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.”
So, all the effort to strip the “rich” of their assets and level the economic field has not only failed completely, the gulf between them and other classes is the widest its been in 85 years.
And that brings me back to the very same issue I mention about the incumbent quite frequently. This is a nation built by free spirited individuals having the strongest entrepreneurial skills. Which means they have talents and abilities that are incredibly huge. So, the way to gain from them in any way is to befriend and help them, because those who don’t are destined to lose. 
But the oddest thing about the current situation is that the one who thinks he’s the smartest in the room, economically speaking isn’t even in the same area code as his competition.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

BloggeRhythms 9/10/2013

John Nolte of Breitbart on-line via Drudge, handily summed up the incumbent's Syrian self-inflicted image-destructor, writing that “Monday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry made what an administration official called a "major goof" with a never-going-to-happen hypothetical that suggested Syria could avoid American airstrikes by surrendering their chemical weapons. Even the State Department walked Kerry's statement back.”
However, as the article further points out, “But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately seized upon Kerry's flub, and now a member of the Russian parliament is gloating over Putin's checkmate of Obama.”
Now, ordinarily reading something like this about any other administration, I’d shake my head, mutter a few words to myself about government ineptitude and promptly forget about the whole subject altogether.
But, considering who’s involved in this one, when I first heard Putin’s name I immediately suspected some kind of deal that was underhanded. Especially because I remember the incumbent making what he thought were private comments to the Russian leader, about doing things together after this past election. So, I said to myself, what if he made a clandestine phone call to Putin, saying he’d put himself in an embarrassing corner and needed some help?
Naturally, I have nothing to go on except for suspicions of the players involved, both of whom always put their own personal interests first. So, for today I’ll leave it here, but keep watching for what kind of favors Putin gets down the road.
Moving on, I can certainly see that a Syrian solution might be a very bad break for the administration, whereas now domestic miscues will likely get more attention than they have. Such as the one today pointed out by Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard who writes: “There are also new taxes affecting West Michigan industry, in particular, that took effect this year," says a local reporter.
There's a new 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers. According to some reports, Kalamazoo based Stryker has laid off more than a thousand people because of it--and owes the federal government upwards of $100 million dollars this year alone. Late last week a Stryker spokesperson told me that Obamacare will cost the company fully 20 percent of its total research and development investments.”
And its “little” things things like this that often go unnoticed by the general public. But if you add the damage being done to medical device manufacturing to the health care tax debacle, this administration is quickly turning the best medical system the world’s ever seen into the equivalent of a backward third-world nation.
Which brings me to another item that suggests folks are tiring of hourly speeches, countess pages of droning, fabricated rhetoric, and wondering more frequently where the “beef” is. Such as the following from Nile Gardiner of the UK’s Telegraph.
Mr. Gardiner's a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. As a former aide to Margaret Thatcher, he has served as a foreign policy adviser to two US presidential campaigns, appearing frequently on American and British television’s Fox News Channel, BBC, and Fox Business Network.
He writes that: “The scale of the challenge for Mr. Obama is encapsulated in a new poll released by Fox News (conducted by both Democratic and Republican pollsters), which shows the president’s approval rating falling to 40 percent, the lowest level of support in his presidency (on par with December 2010). Obama’s disapproval stands at 54 percent, the highest negative rating he has received since taking office.”
And here’s his sad conclusion, “Frankly, President Bush’s record is looking better by the day, as a flailing Obama struggles to stand tall on the world stage while tripping over his own shoelaces at home. At least, with Obama’s predecessor in the White House, the United States was backed by its allies and feared by its enemies. The same cannot be said today.”
Since there’s nothing I can add to that one which says it perfectly for itself, I’ll say;
That’s it for today folks.