BloggeRhythms

Sometimes it’s hard to determine whether politicians live in an alternative, fictional world or simply lie without compunction to advance or protect themselves and/or their particular party. Because, the two story's below present a picture suggesting that Democrat rhetoric might have been dreamt up by Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland.

 

Yesterday, CBS/DC Philadelphia reported that Vice President Biden spoke at the the House Democratic Caucus retreat in Philadelphia, saying, “To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country.” 

 

“And they’ve been really tough for our party,” he went on, “Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel]. They’ve been really tough for our party. But together – and together — we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain.” Then he added that Democratic policies have been successful where Republican positions have failed.

 

“What we know is that middle-class economics works,” he said. “That’s pretty rare where you have two visions, a vigorous debate, and then you test who’s right. And the record shows that we were right.”

 

The president followed, adding, “I’m not giving up the last two years, standing on the sideline. There is no economic measure by which we are not better off,” urging that Democrats must tell that story.

 

Earlier, NY Representative, Steve Israel said House Democrats are “absolutely unified on three essential messages going forward. And it’s middle class, middle class and middle class.

 

Israel acknowledged that Democrats talked a lot about the middle class in last fall’s elections. But world calamities distracted voters, he said, and Democrats failed to show that their economic policies would directly benefit working-class families.”

 

Now, just four days earlier, January 26th, in the bastion of liberalism and publication of record for the Democrat party, the hallowed New York Times, Alicia Parlapiano, Robert Gebeloff, and Shan Carter collaborated on an article titled; “The Shrinking American Middle Class.”

 

The authors state that, “Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen.”

 

They continue with, “Here, we walk through the trends in some detail. There is no universal definition of middle class, of course. Some definitions are based on occupation or wealth; others take regional cost of living into account. We have chosen a simple one starting at about 50 percent above the poverty level for a family of four ($35,000) and topping out at six figures of annual income ($100,000), adjusting for inflation over time. We realize many households making more than $100,000 consider themselves middle class, but they nonetheless are making considerably more than most households — even in New York or San Francisco.”

 

Within the details, some very distressing additional information is found, further refuting the braggadocio of delusional Democrat politicians. “ Younger households have borne the brunt of the slowdown. Those headed by people aged 30 through 44 are more likely to be lower income — and less likely to be middle income — than in 2000. 

 

Education matters more than it used to. In the 1970s, high school graduates who did not have a four-year college degree were well represented among the middle and upper class. They no longer are, as high-paying, blue-collar jobs have become rarer. College graduates have not suffered as much, though they are also less likely to be high income than they were in 2000.”

 

Which means that the core of the Democrat party, blue collar America, has fared worse than most in the downturn, but that’s not the very worst because, “Fully half of black households were lower income in 2013, while 43 percent of Hispanic households were; both numbers have risen 5 percentage points since 2000. Asian households, by contrast, are slightly less likely than white households to be low income.”

 

Therefore, with a 5% rise in their numbers, the black and Hispanic groups continually focused on in Democrat rhetoric, especially that of the president, have not only not been helped, they’ve been significantly harmed economically. 

 

As far as those who are doing better, the results indicate a two-edged sword, whereas, “In recent years, the fastest-growing component of the new middle class has been households headed by people 65 and older.” Which on the surface looks like a good trend, until you dissect the reasons because, “Today’s seniors have better retirement benefits than previous generations. Also, older Americans are increasingly working past traditional retirement age. More than eight million, or 19 percent, were in the labor force in 2013, nearly twice as many as in 2000.”

 

Thus, some senior’s financial well-being results from retirement income benefits established and begun before many of today’s Democrat politicians were even born, while the economic downturn Democrats caused is forcing 8 million of them to remain in the work force because they have to.

 

In summation, “The share of the American population that is middle income has been shrinking for several decades. Until fairly recently, that was because more people were entering a higher-income bracket. Now it’s for the opposite reason. Until 2000, the reason was primarily because more Americans moved up the income ladder. But since then, the reason has shifted: There is a greater share of households on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.”

 

So, perhaps, it might do Joe Biden and company well if next time, before making a speech, he did some homework in advance. But, considering who his audience is, that might just be a waste of time. Because it’s quite obvious that to them, facts don’t matter now and, obviously, never did.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Fox News reports today that “President Obama called for an end to ‘mindless austerity’ on Thursday as he announced his desire to end ‘sequester’ spending cuts in his budget for 2015. The across-the-board cuts, agreed to by both parties, have been in effect since 2013.

 

At the House Democratic Conference in Philadelphia Thursday, Obama proposed $74 billion in added spending, about 7 percent, that would be split about evenly between defense programs and the domestic side of the budget.

 

He also needled Mitt Romney by saying, “We’ve got a former presidential candidate on the other side who suddenly is just deeply concerned about poverty. That’s great!  Let’s go!  Come on!  Let’s do something about it!”

 

What’s interesting about Obama’s challenge to Romney is that it’s his own policies that are the major cause of the poverty rolls increasing. And on top of that, his anti-business beliefs curb or eliminative the nation’s major source of revenue production, the economy, leading to the lowest work force size since Jimmy Carter, while the national debt already stands at $18 trillion.

 

Additionally, Obamacare has many tax increases, fines and penalties and has the unintended consequence of causing many people's health insurance premiums and deductibles to rise, taking hard-earned money out of many of their pockets needlessly.

 

Furthermore, all these changes to health care and taxes, along with more proposed changes, businesses are afraid to hire or expand because they do not know what rules or regulations are coming next.  

 

Then, successfully lobbying Congress to increase the top federal income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, has caused people to work less and businesses to expand less because more of their money is taken from them.

 

At the same time, unemployment benefits have now been given to people for 99 weeks, incenting them to stop looking for jobs and lose interest in returning to the work force afterwards.

 

His most prominent tax cut support was the reduction in the employee portion of payroll taxes from 7.65 percent to 5.65 percent for one year. However, while the idea behind the cut was to stimulate spending by putting more money in the hands of workers, by announcing that the cut was temporary, the administration informed workers that they should save the money, because taxes would increase the next year. Thus it never reached the economy.

 

And then, instead of structural reform, the administration proposed new restrictions on employers, helping unions to reduce employer flexibility. Therefore, at a time when many countries are improving their scores on indices of economic freedom, the United States is losing ground.

 

David Barker in usnews.com/opinion, put it this way, “While Obama's rhetoric is less harsh than FDR's, he has given business cause to worry. He has talked of "fat cat bankers," wealthy people and Wall Street executives "makin' out like bandits," the "unchecked power" of insurance companies, suggested that "now's not that time" to make profits and bonuses, and said that his goal after the BP oil spill was learning "whose ass to kick."

 

In summation, combined with new regulations on the healthcare and financial industries and constant talk of higher taxes on "the wealthiest," this rhetoric convinces businesspeople that if they invest and succeed, their profits might be taxed or regulated away. While probably the most serious shortcoming in Obama's economic strategy is the lack of a long term plan to reduce government debt.

 

On another subject, the Wall Street Journal reports that, “Gov. Scott Walker [R-Wis.] won a national following among conservatives for taking on pubic-sector unions in Wisconsin. Now, as he gears up for a presidential campaign, he also is talking about part of his profile that could prove equally important, his faith as an evangelical Christian. Given a Republican field that could include a dozen or more candidates, Mr. Walker’s newly hired political team believes that he has a chance to draw support from three of the party’s core groups, tea-party activists and business supporters who like his stance on fiscal issues, as well as the community of evangelicals."

 

What this indicates is, that on top of a rousing start to his probable presidential run Governor Walker’s also gaining strength in the party segment that’s refused to support unappealing candidates, perhaps causing losses of close elections. However, by adding this group to his backers, he’s making himself one of the strongest contenders and certainly someone to watch.   

  

On the other hand, Fox News says, “Among Democratic contenders for their party’s nomination, Clinton still dominates -- although her numbers continue to slip. She now comes in at 55 percent among self-identified Democrats, down from 62 percent last month and a high of 69 percent in April 2014.” 

 

Which means that Bill Clinton’s wife continues to lose ground even though she’s not running against anybody else. And therefore, she might wind up losing the presidential nomination to an empty chair, just like the one Clint Eastwood talked to at the last Republican convention.  

 

Nonetheless, if moveon.org, the organization that boosted Obama and funded by Soros, has it’s way, another candidate will surely enter the Democrat race for the White House.

 

According to the Washington Times: “The ‘Run Warren Run’ campaign, comprised of members from the groups MoveOn.org, Democracy for America and Ready for Warren, is planning more than 200 ‘organizing house parties’ in 46 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam to try to develop ideas for how they can convince her to run.” And, thus, with two years left, the fun has even started yet in the world of presidential politics.

 

That’s’ it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Assorted items in the recent news provide a sharpening picture of just how ineptly the current administration has performed since inception.

 

To begin,  Jack Farchy in Moscow for the Financial Times reports that “Russia was stripped of its investment grade credit rating for the first time in a decade on Monday night, as Standard & Poor’s cut it to “junk” in the latest blow to the Russian economy.”

 

Mr. Farchy writes that, “It’s the economy, stupid. The Russian economy is facing a perfect storm of tumbling oil prices (energy accounts for more than two-thirds of Russia’s export revenues) and western sanctions that have locked companies out of global capital markets. 

 

“Although the rate of decline may have slowed somewhat since the central bank allowed the ruble to float freely in November (meaning it would not automatically spend its reserves to support the currency), Moscow will probably need to spend more reserves to support struggling companies and to fund a budget deficit in the year ahead.”

What’s  most striking about Russia’s current situation is that the US has been in conflict with that nation since the end of World War II. And today for the first time, the US has a clear opportunity to prevail without any type of real conflict, military or otherwise because Russia’s economy might very well continue to implode.

 

And what’s the primary cause of Russia’s pending fiscal demise? Nothing but the tumbling price of oil. 

 

And what’s the saddest and most infuriating aspects of today’s prevalence for the US? This could have been begun six years ago, had it not been for the administration's support of environmentalists in a fictitious battle against global-warming. Fears that don’t exist now and never did, but have hampered the production of domestic oil. Which also means that Russia would not have had the chance to make advances in Iran, Cuba or the Ukraine. However, politics triumphed over rationality, responsibility and honesty, as always for the Obama administration.

 

Moving on to another item where politics not only forces erroneous decision making but also makes politico’s themselves look like imbeciles or arrogant intellectual elitists, Fox News.com reports that “The White House claimed Wednesday that a potential prisoner swap between the Islamic State and Jordan is different from last year's trade of five Taliban prisoners for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because the Taliban are only an "armed insurgency." 

 

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said "it's all semantics," but he wasn’t even close, or perhaps was just being polite. Because the White House’s scrambling excuse was a blatant insult to any human being with an IQ higher than their shoe size. 

Along the same lines, regarding policy in the Middle-East, William Kristol  wrote a concise analysis in weeklystandard.com/blogs regarding the current deterioration of relations between the US and long-time, devoted ally Israel. There’s too much information to concisely relate here, so here’s a link: White House ratchets up criticism of Netanyahu

And then, somehow or other, I missed the data posted back on December 30th by several sources, that some 87 percent of people who just signed up for Obamacare are getting financial assistance to lower their premiums, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That’s a jump from 80 percent during the last open enrollment period. The department did not say how much it was offering to new Obamacare enrollees or what the total bill to taxpayers would be. 

 

Which means that the overwhelming number of those signing up are being subsidized by the shrinking population of individuals actually paying taxes. Another example of the slowly creeping redistribution of wealth that underlies socialism until the goose is dead and nations wind up looking like North Korea, Cuba or Biafra. 

Additionally, Tami Luhby  of CNN Money writes that, “Some 3 million to 6 million Americans will have to pay an Obamacare tax penalty for not having health insurance last year, Treasury officials said Wednesday. It's the first time they have given estimates for how many people will be subject to a fine.”

 

However, whereas the IRS is in charge of the tax collection, those inept bozo’s will likely wind up giving out 6 million refunds to deadbeats who never paid in a dime.

 

Reader, ChickenWang6 opined: “I believe we can all now acknowledge that ACA benefits nobody but those with pre-existing conditions who now enjoy both coverage and premiums that are subsidized by healthy people that now overpay.

 

“It's a zero sum game.

“We can ignore the extreme delays and costs overrun of the ACA site...attributed to general Government incompetence.”

And finally, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell report in washingtontimes.com that, “Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.”

While reports say that Bill Clinton’s wife is willing to testify before the House Benghazi committee, she may have some real concerns because, as noted by Mike Allen, “Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell Politico.”

Mr. Allen goes on, “The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.”

However, it’s just as likely that with the Benghazi issue to contend with she now needs more time to prepare her story and perhaps, even rethink her candidacy. Because, with so much more lurking in the woodwork about other negatives in her closet, running for president may be just a bit more than a former president's wife with no real credentials or accomplishments of her own can handle.  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, it was reported that, “Taiwan's Foxconn Technology Group, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer, will cut its massive workforce." The company told Reuter's Michael Gold and Yimou Lee "as the Apple Inc supplier faces declining revenue growth and rising wages in China.

 

”Under its flagship unit, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd, the group currently employs about 1.3 million people during peak production times, making it one of the largest private employers in the world.”

A company representative, Louis Woo, said, “Even if technology is improving, the price will still come down. We've come to accept that, our customers have come to accept that."

Woo went on to state that, “Automation will be key to keeping labor costs under control in the long-term, as the company pushes to have robotic arms complete mundane tasks currently done by workers. But he noted that company chairman Terry Gou's previously stated goal of 1 million robots was "a generic concept" rather than a firm target.”

While focused on a specific company, Foxconn, the gist of this situation confirms the point made here numerous times over the past four years. Politicians forcing the minimum wage increasingly higher in today’s technological environment are causing businesspeople to accelerate plans for replacing workers with automation wherever possible. 

 

In Foxconn’s case, if the chairman’s concept comes to pass, a million employees will lose their jobs while the company significantly reduces overhead yet maintains, or perhaps increases, productivity, a win/win result for the organization and huge loss for laborers.  

Unfortunately, these are the kinds of things that happen when short-sighted, ignorant politicos involve themselves in issues they know nothing about in their attempt to  garner votes.  

Reader, “S“ commented, “Foxconn in the light of their increasing manpower costs have been switching to more automated manufacturing for their products. The result of bringing in a machine that will take over the jobs of one, two, three or more people is that they lay off those people that are replaced by the machines." 

 

On another topic, Fox News.com reported that, “Before heavy snows began falling, officials shut down roads and public transportation across New York City, New Jersey and on Long Island. Amtrak suspended train service and air traffic slowed to a stop. Schools along the East Coast on Monday canceled Tuesday classes.

 

However, the actual snowfall did not match the predictions, with 10 fewer inches than forecast falling in New York and New Jersey.”

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said on WABC-TV on Tuesday, "I was being told as late as 9 o'clock [Monday] night that we were looking at 20-inch accumulations in most of New Jersey. If, in fact, that is what would have happened, having these types of things in effect were absolutely the right decision to make. We were acting based on what we were being told."

In New York, Andrew Cuomo said pretty much the same thing, as did NYC Mayor, Bill de Blasio.

Commenting on the issue, Rush said, “Now, the weather guy is apologizing and blaming his models. The same people that tell us their models 50 to a hundred years out on climate change can be trusted.”

Therefore, if this blizzard miscue doesn’t verify and underline the fact that global warning or climate change extremists, such as the president and sidekick Kerry, have no valid basis for their claims, it’s hard to imagine what does. 

 

Because, as always has been the case throughout history, whether using a crystal ball or the most sophisticated state-of-the-art technology, not only don’t “experts” know what the long-range climate outlook will be, they can’t even predict the next day's weather accurately.  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

While American Sniper keeps setting box-office records, Michael Moore continues rants against it. He was the first to speak out against the film on Twitter last week by calling snipers “cowards.”

 

Pondering how far from reality Moore’s comment was brought back memories of Bill Cosby’s early routine about American history, which began like this: "Suppose way back in history if you had a referee before every war, and the guy called the toss. Let’s go to the Revolutionary War."

[Referee speaking] "British call heads. It’s tails. What do you do, settlers? . . . Settlers say that during the war they will wear any color clothes that they want to, shoot from behind the rocks and trees and everywhere. British team must wear red and march in a straight line."

And since, Cosby’s routine was almost precisely the way that war was fought, if Moore had been around back then he’d likely want to give America back to the British due to cheating by the patriots. 

Back on January 25th, and several other times in the past two years, I’ve mentioned Scott Walker as an example of what the nation needs as a president. Especially because he not only talks a good game, but he’s played one as a highly successful Republican Governor of Wisconsin, a blue state that’s had a Democrat governor for the 30 years before him.

 

Then, yesterday Rush picked up on that same theme, as follows: “

 

Scott Walker has shown the Republican Party how to beat the left.  Scott Walker has the blueprint for winning and winning consistently and winning big in a blue state with conservative principles that are offered with absolutely no excuses. The left, the Democrat Party, threw everything at Scott Walker trying to destroy him.  They did everything they could.  He not only withstood it all, he survived and triumphed over all of it.  They broke rules. They got close to breaking laws. They were threatening his family personally, and he remained undeterred.”

 

Rush added, “And Scott Walker is one of the men who has shown everybody how to defeat the unions and their policies, and it's always been amazing to me that he, in terms of the party, has basically been operating in a bit of a bubble all by himself.”

 

An example of what Scott Walker said is, “There's a reason we take a day off to celebrate the 4th of July and not the 15th of April. Because in America we value our independence from the government, not our dependence on it.”

 

And, “We weren't afraid to go big and to go bold.  Maybe that's why I won the race for governor three times in the last four years.  Three times, mind you, in a state that hasn't gone Republican for president since I was in high school more than 30 years ago.  You see, I think that sends a powerful message to Republicans in Washington and around the country.  If you're not afraid to go big and go bold, you can actually get results.

 

"We've cut taxes.  We reduced taxes by $2 billion for the hardworking taxpayers of our state.  In fact, we lowered taxes on employers, on individuals, on property.  Our property taxes are lower today in Wisconsin than they were four years ago.  How many governors can say that?  We're gonna keep lowering taxes because we understand it's the people's money, not the government's money.”

 

However, one of the key points, if not the most important, is that Governor Walker possesses something that almost every other Republican candidate does not. Huge success in a current position that prepares him for the presidency. Because all that has-been's and wannabe’s can offer is endless talk, promises and theoretical prophesies.  

 

Which brings us to another major mistake made by the current administration, whereas according to Fox News.com, the “army has decided to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl — who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners — with desertion.” One more glaring example of governmental ineptitude beyond comprehension.

 

In closing, I can’t write about the next item or today’s entry would go on for another two pages. So here’s a link to an interesting story from Drudge: REVEALED- Russian oil company tied to U.S. 'green' effort.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A friend forwarded an email regarding comments made by Mychal Massie about his dislike for both the Obama’s. His distaste has significant impact because of his credentials as an influential black intellect, communicator and successful business owner. 

 

Professionally, he’s former chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk-radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, he’s also respected as the writer of “The Daily Rant“ and a talk show host in Los Angeles.”

 

Recently, on Twitter someone tweeted him, "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's?  It seems personal, not policy related.  You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

 

Mr. Massie’s reply was quite long and detailed, however, a couple of paragraphs clearly demonstrate the crux of his feelings toward the couple, as follows: 

 

“The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.  I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas.  As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.”

 

The summation succinctly closed his case, “Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders.  He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”

 

While Mr. Massie’s interpretation and description of the Obama’s ideology is quite well thought out, and certainly descriptive, there’s a high degree of probability that he gave them both far too much credit. Because it’s just as likely that the president's rationale is more in line with Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals than any deep-rooted Communist leanings. Such as the following examples:

 

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. 

 

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.

 

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. 

 

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 

 

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.

 

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

 

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 

So, it’s just as likely that the Obama’s didn’t even bother to learn, assimilate and adhere to any sophisticated political philosophy, but took a far simpler route instead to gain and maintain control of their vaunted positions as head of state and spouse. Merely follow Saul Alinsky’s lead, outrun and confuse your enemies while keeping control of the mass of “have-not’s,” and you wind up a winner for certain.

 

Nonetheless, one has to admit that while the president may not be very good at his job, he often provides some very amusing grist for writer’s mills, such as this item from Breitbart this morning. “On Sunday, President Barack Obama released an anti-oil drilling environmental video shot aboard Air Force One–an aircraft that has a 53,611 gallon fuel capacity.”

 

And this one from wesley69, a Breitbart reader, “How he can claim credit for the latest economic rebound due to the rise of US oil production, yet be opposed to fossil fuels shows his total and complete hypocrisy.”

 

And that’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Chances for presidential nomination improved significantly for both, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, in Iowa yesterday.

Barnini Chakraborty reported in FoxNews.com that “Donald Trump slammed potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, telling a sold-out crowd Saturday at the Iowa Freedom Summit there is “no way” they would win.”

Trump went on, “The last thing we need is another Bush,” the real estate mogul and sometimes-conservative pundit told the crowd, which erupted in applause. “He’s very, very weak on immigration. His brother gave us Obama – because Abraham Lincoln coming back from the dead could not have beaten Obama.” 

He added, “And Mitt? No.”

The obvious reason that both candidates odds for success are now much higher stem from the fact that aside from his TV hosting, there's a host of business ventures that Trump hasn’t gotten right. Entities of his from real estate to gambling casinos to airlines have wound up in bankruptcy or default, turning ownership over to creditors. Clearly indicating Trump's inability to operate or predict outcomes successfully.  

There's another candidate who did extraordinarily well in Iowa, however. Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, who delivered a fiery speech on Saturday. Several articles report that he wowed the conservative crowd arguing for small government and presenting his own credentials.

Offering a preview of a national campaign built on his record of defying teachers’ unions and fiscal successes in his state, he presents another quality the nation surely needs, operating under budget guidelines and returning tax revenue to citizens, making him someone to keep one’s eye on. 

Carly Fiorina, former Silicon Valley chief executive who ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate in California in 2010, directed a barb at Bill Clinton’s wife, saying: “Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled around the globe. But unlike her, I actually accomplished something.”

New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie a lone moderate, cautioned against requiring a candidate to pass conservative litmus tests, saying, “If that’s the standard we hold each other to, as a party we will never win another national election.”

And in that regard he’s on the mark which even the vaunted icon, Ronald Reagan, knew to be correct. 

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Still quite early in the game, many politico's are gearing up for their expected presidential runs in 2016. One of them, Jeb Bush, has begun setting the stage for an important campaign issue of his: immigration reform.

On washingtonpost.com, Philip Rucker reports that in a speech in San Francisco yesterday, “Bush drew loud and sustained applause when he called for immigration reform that would provide a path to legalized status for undocumented immigrants living in the United States."

What was most interesting, as is quite often the case, were some of the comments following the article. Because they reveal the thoughts and concerns of many intelligent and well-versed readers. Today, one of them wrote about a very common opinion among “conservative” Republicans.   

DanDaily1 opined about Mr. Rucker’s writing that, “Bush drew loud and sustained applause when he called for immigration reform that would provide a path to legalized status for undocumented immigrants living in the United States."

Mr. Daily’s conclusion was that, Bush’s statement, “Is doublespeak for "we like obama's immigration policy. That did it for me, I'll not support another RINO Bush!”

However, Mr. Daily either didn't continue reading after the first sentence of Mr. Bush’s immigration position, or didn't grasp the intention. Because, Mr. Bush then said, “We have a history of allowing people to come in legally to embrace our values and pursue their dreams in a way that creates prosperity for all of us. No country can do this like America. Our national identity is not based on race or some kind of exclusionary belief. Historically, the unwritten contract has been, come legally to our country, embrace our values, learn English, work and you can be as American as anyone else.”

Therefore, Mr. Bush certainly realizes that immigration isn't an open door policy, which the current president fosters, but needs to be changed to enforce rules and regulations which are presently being ignored and over-ridden. And since that should be the case for any president, it doesn’t make Mr. Bush a RINO, it simply makes him an intelligent and realistic candidate.

Moving on, according to foxnews.com, the president still “stood by” Josh Earnest’s earlier explanation that he should not meet with his Israeli counterpart when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes here next month to address the House. Because “This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don’t give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome” of democratic elections abroad.

However, “the Obama administration reportedly is fuming over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress in March regarding the Iranian threat, with one unnamed official telling an Israeli newspaper he will pay “a price” for the snub.

In this case, anyone closely following the evolution of the president’s disclosing his dislike for Israel, and seemingly especial distaste for Mr. Netanyahu, would certainly not be surprised at this latest happening. As far back as March 2010  Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem reported in telegraph.co.uk that “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday.”

And, that “snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.”

Which means that Mr. Netanyahu certainly recognizes that the best chance his nation has to preserve its long-standing close relationship with the US is to maintain his ties in Congress. Because, the current administration isn't likely to cooperate at all.

And finally for today, on Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, “[Charles] Krauthammer was asked by fellow panelist Steve Hayes how he would allocate his money if he was given $100 to go Las Vegas and bet on who will be the nominee. Krauthammer put the most money, $40 on Rubio, with $30 going to Jeb Bush, $15 to Scott Walker, and the remaining $15 on booze.”

Mr. Krauthammer added that, “he’s [Rubio] my underestimated dark horse candidate who threads his way, young, energetic. He’s got a program and I think if he runs against Hillary, the contrasts say the vigor, the energy that Kennedy-esque idea will be a major one.”

In this case, while Mr. Krauthammer’s highly respected as a political scholar and analyst, hopefully he’ll give his conclusion some more serious thought. Because, regardless of Rubio’s apparent assets, the nation can’t rebuild in a timely manner should another inexperienced senator wind up in the White House, regardless of how attractive his platform may sound. As we all well know by now, presidential quality administrative capability simply isn't something one can gain on the job. 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Really bad day for Democrats yesterday; exposed, outmaneuvered and shown-up in several very important instances.

Elana Schor on politico.com, headlined her article: “Republicans outfox Democrats on climate votes.”

After the sub-heading, “The GOP accepts the notion of climate change - but not the way Democrats wanted them to,” Ms Schor writes: “Senate Republicans head-faked Democrats on climate change Wednesday, agreeing in a floor vote that the planet’s climate was changing, but blocking language that would have blamed human activity

“In a complicated maneuver that was the first politically perilous test for Senate Republicans, the new majority party split up the votes that Democrats had hoped would force the GOP into an awkward roll call on whether they believed in the science behind climate change — just hours after President Barack Obama slammed Republicans in his State of the Union address for dodging the issue.”

Which means that, after six years of feeling quite comfortable with control of the Senate, things may be changing for complacent Democrat members. Because if yesterday's maneuver was a sign of things to come, they’re in for a very upsetting next two years.

In issue two, israelnationalnews.com’s Gil Ronen reports that, “A senior Israeli official delivered an uncommonly harsh attack on US President Barack Obama's administration Thursday evening, following the American report that alleged that Mossad Head Tamir Pardo had warned US senators against further Iran sanctions, in contradiction of Israel's official stance.

"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior Israeli source told Channel 2 news.

“He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what was attributed to him.”

In fact, the exact opposite of the Obama administration's falsehood is true, whereas, “Mossad Head Tamir Pardo met on January 19, 2015, with a delegation of US senators,” Mossad said in a statement. “The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the prime minister's approval. At the meeting, the Head of Mossad stressed the extraordinary effectiveness of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran for several years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.”

However, none of this should be any surprise to anyone paying attention since way back when the president attended Reverend Wright’s church in Chicago, listening to sermons condemning Israel and all its people. Add to that reports such as the the one from israelnationalnews.com on October 26th, 2014, and the picture becomes far clearer, whereas: “The Heinz Foundation, headed by the wife of Heinz heiress Mrs. John Kerry, AKA Teresa Heinz Kerry, has been caught having donated $50,000 to the “Conflict Kitchen,’ a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania soup kitchen that serves up food on a platter of anti-Zionism.

“The soup kitchen recently came up with the gimmick of serving “Palestinian food,” whatever that means, in leaflets with quotes that support both terrorism and the idea that Israel should not exist.” 

In yesterdays case, a senior source added, “Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules. Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret meeting must not leak out.”

Moving to item three, Cheryl K. Chumley writes in washingtontimes.com that, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is a black police officer, “didn’t pull any punches in his assessment of the Rev. Al Sharpton — who vowed to keep fighting for justice for slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, despite the feds’ decision to drop a civil rights investigation — and characterized him on national television as less than intelligent and unworthy of respect.

“The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, got it right,” Sheriff Clarke said, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “Officer [Darren] Wilson has been exonerated. The thing I want to know is how does he get his reputation back?

“I don’t expect anything intelligent to come out of the mouth of Al Sharpton,” Sheriff Clarke said, “We know he is a charlatan. Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from. The police officer is owed a lot from him, Eric Holder and the president of the United States.”

Which is why, perhaps, Sharpton hasn’t been seen in the White House lately, and maybe there will be some repercussion from the embarrassment he’s caused the administration's leadership. Such as a demand for the $4.5 million in unpaid taxes he owes the IRS.   

And lastly, “Charles Krauthammer said on "Special Report with Bret Baier" Thursday that the resignation of Yemen's president and leadership is a "huge geopolitical gain for Iran.

"What comes after, for us, is bad news," the syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor said. "This is a country that Obama touted as a great success. It all hinged on the government, now destroyed and deposed.

Krauthammer added that the Iranian influence now spreads throughout the region from Iraq to Syria and now Yemen, "That's why this is a double attack on us," he said. "It's a loss of an ally against Al Qaeda. and it's a huge geopolitical gain for Iran extending its influence over Arab states."

So, it seems that consistency may be this administration’s most prevalent asset, because it virtually doesn’t matter what the issue is or where it arises, at home or abroad. History has now demonstrated with the passage of time, that regardless of the subject, this administration is always, always, on the wrong side.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, I mentioned having never watched a speech delivered by the president, preferring to read transcripts later undistracted by hype, smoke and theatrics. I also find him to be extremely boring. And then today, another transcript, this one from El Rushbo, explains why he too didn’t tune in to the State of the Union sideshow. He had an aide annotate a copy of the rhetoric and dissected the verbiage as follows, just like I do.

 

Rush set the stage by saying, “Of all people, a man who arrives on the scene in 2008 as unique, unlike anyone who's ever been in politics, soaring speeches. I mean, rhetoric and speeches that cause people to be glued to their TV sets. No matter where he went he was hailed as a great orator, and he was said to captivate people and hold a crowd and have them mesmerized in the palm of his hand.

 

“And now look.  Look at how far Obama has actually fallen, just in that measure alone, how many people have no interest in listening to what he has to say.  And that was it for me.  I literally had no interest, because I knew what was gonna be said, and more than that, I knew how it was going to be said.  I knew that I was gonna be insulted. I knew the things I believe in are gonna be insulted, with a gloating air  about it, and I just didn't want to put up with it.”

 

Farther along, Rush noted that, “The Democrat Party just got shellacked in the midterm elections, and the midterm elections are real.  The results in the midterm elections are real.  Half of the senators who voted for Obamacare are gone one way or the other.  The Democrat Party is near the bottom of the barrel in terms of the last two midterm elections and the number of seats they lost.  And yet, because of image and a poll which shows the economy way up, why do you think that poll exists? That's the gasoline price.  And Obama had nothing to do with the gasoline price coming down.  I understand he's gonna try to take credit for it, but that's the kind of stuff I didn't want to watch last night.  I don't want to have my intelligence insulted.”

 

Then Rush added some thoughts regarding the truth about conditions in the nation, saying, “Here's some reality: Six years of Barack Obama policies, and the president goes out in State of the Union show and claims the middle class is desperate for help.  Honeymoon?  Somebody want to explain how this works to me?  We've got a guy who's been in office six years. He cares about the little guy and he's been plastering the rich, they think. (The rich are getting richer under Obama, by the way.)  But the little guy thinks Obama's out there looking out for them, free this and free that.

 

“And six years into his eight-year presidency, the president does a State of the Union speech making the case the middle class is desperate for help.  Why is the middle class desperate for help?  Six years into this guy's presidency, why hasn't he dealt with it prior to now?  If his presidency is so cool, if his presidency's such a success, why does the middle class need any help, much less desperate help?  Somebody explain that to me.”

“And then there was this.  He said the verdict is clear, middle class economics works, expanding opportunity works, and these policies will continue to work as long as politics don't get in the way.  What verdict is in?  That more Americans are out of work than ever before?  That food stamp usage is at record levels year after year? That the deficit, the national debt is $8 trillion higher than it was when Obama took office? That careers have been sacrificed for part-time jobs because of Obamacare?  What verdict is clear?  What middleclass economics is working?”

Then, a few minutes ago, an article from the Wall Street Journal via Fox News.com Chris Stirewalt confirmed that Rush, and myself, certainly weren’t the only ones having no interest in the president’s delusional hogwash, as follows:   

“WSJ: “President Barack Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address drew the lowest television viewership for any such speech in the last 15 years, according to new data from Nielsen. The president’s Tuesday address was watched by 31.7 million viewers across 12 broadcast and cable networks that carried the speech live, despite a two-week campaign style tour and a social media blitz to drum up interest…And it’s the second-smallest State of the Union audience since Nielsen started collecting the data in 1993.”

Rush’ transcript is really quite interesting and well worth reading, so here’s a link: 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/01/21/why_i_didn_t_watch_the_obama_state_of_the_union_show 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

While the president delivered his State of the Union address last night, the major headline on Drudge this morning is: "The Patriots used underinflated footballs on Sunday night."

 

And that pretty much sums up the degree of interest most people would have in hearing another delivery of veto threats, new ideas in redistributing wealth, increased taxation and an upside-down interpretation about how well things are working in the US and around the world. It’s likely that the only ones tuning in to the drivel were the media, politicians, or students required to write essay’s about the topic.

 

In other news, a major example of double-standards appeared on.breitbart.com today, whereas, “A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway."

 

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.”

 

Furthermore, “Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.”

 

And lastly, “The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.”

 

So, here in the year 2015, the world's wealthiest executives are gathering in one of the planet’s most exclusive resorts to discuss issues they claim are of the most importance to civilization. And yet, the major topic, global-warming doesn’t even exist.

 

At the same time, these same individuals not only pay top dollar to advisors and specialists that protect every cent they earn or possess, if they didn’t they’d be mentally certifiable and broke on top of it. 

 

Which brings us to women and opportunity, a favorite subject for forum’s like these. Yet, after every meeting, confab and discussion that have taken place over many, many years, the statistic regarding women executives stays pretty much the same, and these top guys in business obviously don't hire them.

 

Nonetheless, although women seem to continue having problems gaining significant numbers at the top of the earning charts, one of them; Bill Clinton’s wife seems to have beaten the odds.

 

According to nycnews.net, “This week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to deliver two speeches in Canada for events sponsored by the Toronto-based Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).”

 

In this case, it seems that Bill’s wife is remaining consistent with long-held family traditions regarding the types of organizations they tend to relate to, perhaps having a lot in common with them, as follows:  

 

“The bank has been subject of many corruption investigations and a class action lawsuit for its link with the corruption energy firm Enron and also for its role in the subprime mortgage crisis. On Wednesday, Clinton will deliver speech in Winnipeg and Saskatoon as a part of the Global Perspective speaker’s series that are sponsored by the Bank. 

 

“The bank has made various multi-million dollar settlements with the US Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of wrongdoing. But for those settlements, the bank never admitted to wrongdoing. Both a Clinton spokesperson and a bank spokesperson have not said anything whether Clinton was getting paid for the speeches. Clinton is known for getting $200,000 or more for earlier speeches.”

 

So, perhaps the Clinton plan calls for amassing enough cash that, in the event that Bill’s wife doesn't run for president for any reason, they’ll be able to build and pay for a White House of their own in Harlem or Chappaqua.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Not much in the news again today, except the fact that the president will deliver another daily speech, this one the State of the Union.

 

As for myself, I’ve never watched any of the president’s speeches, reading the transcripts later instead. That way, I can take my time, get a better understanding of what was said, and not be bored by all the theatrics and drama played out for the camera. Furthermore, while his fans may claim that he’s a spectacular speaker, in the few instances where I’ve actually listened for a couple of moments, he sounded like every other politician to me, so why bother tuning in?

 

However, while thinking about the subject of political rhetoric and public speaking regarding the president, his most recent Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, came to mind. Because, as boring as the president is, Earnest is in a category all by himself, coming across as someone totally unfamiliar with almost every topic the press tries to discuss with him. Which is why, I looked his credentials up on Wikipedia, as follows.

 

“Immediately following college, he worked in the 1997 Houston Mayoral Election for Lee Brown. Earnest served as a congressional aide to U.S. Congressman Marion Berry from 2002-2003 after working on Michael Bloomberg's first mayoral campaign. He then joined Senator Obama's presidential campaign as Obama's Iowa Communications Director. He also later served as Obama's Texas Communications Director during the primaries. He then served as the principal deputy press secretary to Jay Carney, replacing Bill Burton, occasionally filling in during press briefings and hosting West Wing Week, the president's "video diary" of the week.”

 

So, here’s a guy without any serious experience, basically a political flunky performing menial tasks at best, until he reached the White House with no substantial background at all. Which goes far to explain why, when facing a highly professional, seasoned, and often brilliant White House Press Corps, Earnest looks like a deer caught in the headlights while sounding like some kid who didn’t understand yesterday's homework assignment. His responses are all stutters and double-talk. 

 

For comparison, I then looked up Jay Carney, who I didn’t care a whit about either, but knew that he at least was reasonably intelligent as he scrambled around daily trying to justify the president’s latest mistakes to the press.

 

In Carney’s case, also from Wikipedia, “After being hired as a reporter for The Miami Herald in 1987, Carney joined Time magazine as its Miami Bureau Chief in 1989. Carney worked as a correspondent in Time's Moscow Bureau for three years, covering the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. He came to Washington in 1993 to report on the Bill Clinton White House.

 

He has written and reported about the presidency of George W. Bush, and was one of a handful of reporters who were aboard Air Force One with President Bush on September 11, 2001. Carney later won the 2003 Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency.

 

Carney was Time's Washington Bureau Deputy Chief from 2003 to 2005, and Chief from September 2005 until December 2008. He was assigned to the magazine's Washington Bureau in that tenure while also being able to write about politics and national affairs. Carney has also worked for CNN (another TIME Warner division) as a special correspondent.”

 

Now, looking at the president’s performance in office to date, there’s not really very much he’s done well at all. But, at least, he gave himself a chance to save some face with the press corps by having someone with Carney’s knowledge and experience to represent him there. Which makes one wonder why, at this point, would that same president send an unqualified Chihuahua into a cage full of seasoned pit bulls? He either enjoys putting himself in challenging positions simply for the competition, or was out on the golf course the day Valerie Jarrett hired Earnest.  

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Slow day for other news as the nation celebrates the birthday of Martin Luther King. Aside from the president seeking to further tax the few at the top who currently pay all the nation’s bills, and articles about the Seahawks and Pat’s going to the Super Bowl, there’s not very much else at all. 

 

Bill Barrow of the Associated Press, did however post an article about Senator Ted Cruz’s views about Republican chances in the 2016 presidential election.

 

According to Mr. Barrow, “Sen. Ted Cruz urged archconservatives on Sunday to help nominate a Republican from their own ranks in 2016 or risk losing a third consecutive national election. The unspoken message: someone like him.

 

“Cruz called GOP nominees like Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008 and Bob Dole in 1996 "good, honorable and decent men" but not conservative enough. All lost their bids for the presidency.”

 

What’s most interesting about the senator’s perspective is that he seems to have completely missed the point that aside from political philosophy, what the past six years have demonstrated crystal clearly is that managerial and administrative experience and success in government are far more important than practically anything else regarding the presidency.

 

Therefore, whether the senator chooses to accept the premise of job qualification as a factor or not, individuals such as Jeb Bush and even Chris Christie are hugely more prepared for the presidential role than he is. In fact, considering the horrendously poor job performed by a novice at present, the idea of a Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and a complete neophyte, Ben Carson, is beyond ridiculous whereas the position of POTUS is light years beyond their current vocational knowledge.   

 

Furthermore, Senator Cruz used Ronald Reagan as an example of a “bedrock conservative who battled the establishment of his day.” Yet, what the senator didn’t mention or perhaps, isn’t aware of, as pointed out by Mr. Barrow, is that Reagan, while "animating conservatives, also attracted Democrats from the middle, fashioning a series of compromises with Democrats and moderate Republicans on taxes, budgets, immigration and Social Security, among other issues."

 

So, what we have here is another pure politician, Senator Cruz, who may indeed be very well intentioned, perhaps believing that he himself is prepared to take on the most difficult administerial position in the world. However, as we’ve all now seen far more clearly than any of us would prefer, the job calls for considerably more than daily deliveries of hot air.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Not much of interest in the news today, aside from the president’s latest push for raising taxes on the “rich.” His address on Tuesday night will call for $320 billion in tax increases over 10 years. 

 

According to Fox News.com “The centerpiece of the president's tax proposal is an increase in the capital gains and dividends rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year to 28 percent. The top capital gains rate has already been raised from 15 percent to 23.8 percent during Obama's presidency.”

 

He also wants to “close what the administration is calling the "Trust Fund Loophole," a change that would require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they're inherited. Officials said the overwhelming impact of the change would be on the top 1 percent of income earners.”

 

Naturally, Republicans are opposed to the measures, which should add fuel to the pending fires of disagreement between the factions in the coming weeks and months ahead. Primarily because, if economic stimulation is really the president's goal, the proposed changes do absolutely nothing toward that objective while inhibiting investment as well. 

 

Then, there's an update on the issue regarding this year’s Academy Awards. 

 

According to myway.com as reported by the AP, via Drudge: “Responding for the first time to the firestorm of criticism over the lack of diversity in this year's Oscar nominations, film academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs says the all-white acting slate inspires her to accelerate the academy's push to be more inclusive. She also hopes the film industry as a whole will continue to strive for greater diversity.”

 

This year, all 20 of this year's acting contenders are white and there are no women in the directing or writing categories. 

 

One of the critics, the Asian Pacific American Media Coalition “issued a statement Friday saying the nominations balloting "obviously reflects a lack of diversity in Oscar voters as well as in films generally." And that, “the responsibility for diversity in film should be industry-wide. It behooves Hollywood — as an economic imperative, if not a moral one — to begin more closely reflecting the changing face of America."

 

What’s most interesting about the issue, though, is that Ms Isaacs is: “The first black president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and obviously, female as well.

 

Furthermore, as Ms Isaacs explained, “Each branch comes up with its own criteria for excellence and each nominates its colleagues, all voting is individual and confidential.” Which means that, “only directors can suggest best director nominees and only actors can nominate actors. But the entire academy membership can submit suggestions for best picture.”

 

The Academy itself has 7000 members and, “There is not one central body or group of people that sit around the table and come up with nominations. It really is a peer-to-peer process."

 

Therefore, looking at the composition of voting rules and a sizable, independent membership, instead of a situation based on racial discrimination or conspiratorial motivation as suggested by rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton, isn’t it perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason this year’s nominees won was because they deserved to on merit alone.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A couple of articles buried on Drudge this morning, provide an idea of the financial aspects involved in liberal Democrats causes. The items are worth mentioning simply because it is those same Democrats that continually claim it’s Republicans whose interests stem primarily around enriching themselves and their compatriots.  

 

Richard Johnson asks in the New York Post’s pagesix.com: “Ever wonder how lowly paid lawmakers leave office filthy rich?”

 

In answer, Mr. Johnson writes, “Sen. Dianne Feinstein is showing how it’s done.

 

“The US Postal Service plans to sell 56 buildings — so it can lease space more expensively — and the real estate company of the California senator’s husband, Richard Blum, is set to pocket about $1 billion in commissions.

 

“Blum’s company, CBRE, was selected in March 2011 as the sole real estate agent on sales expected to fetch $19 billion. Most voters didn’t notice that Blum is a member of CBRE’s board and served as chairman from 2001 to 2014.”

 

Now, naturally, “This feat of federal spousal support was ignored by the media after Feinstein’s office said the senator, whose wealth is pegged at $70 million, had nothing to do with the USPS decisions.

 

When the national debt is $18 trillion, a billion seems like small change.”

 

Item two comes from Christine Vestal of Stateline.org and swtimes.com, as follows: “Under the Affordable Care Act, millions of low-income adults last year became eligible for Medicaid and subsidized health insurance for the first time. Now states face a huge challenge: how to deal with an onslaught of able-bodied, 18- to 64-year olds who haven’t seen a doctor in years.“It took a lot of time and effort to enroll everyone, particularly those who were new to the system,” said Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “The next big step, and the biggest unknown, is finding out exactly how this newly insured population will use the health care system.” 

 

Ms Vestal goes on: “The newly insured, most of them young adults, have different needs. Though not as sick as existing Medicaid beneficiaries, the newcomers are more likely than the general population to have undiagnosed and untreated chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.The starkest difference between the new population and the old one, however, is that the new enrollees have much higher rates of drug and alcohol addiction and mental illness.Of the estimated 18 million adults potentially eligible for Medicaid in all 50 states, at least 2.5 million have substance-abuse disorders. Of the 19 million uninsured adults with slightly higher incomes who are eligible for subsidized exchange insurance, an estimated 2.8 million have substance-abuse problems, according to the most recent national survey by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration”

 

“As a result, the number of Medicaid enrollees receiving addiction services is expected to skyrocket over the next two years.

 

“Eight million people have signed up for exchange insurance policies and 7.2 million have enrolled in Medicaid since last year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Because Medicaid enrollment is continuous, those numbers are expected to rise substantially this year and next.” 

 

And now comes the staggering information regarding the upcoming costs of those now eligible for free or subsidized medical coverage: “Under the ACA, states have the option of expanding Medicaid to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,670 for an individual). The federal government will pay the entire bill for 2014 through 2016, and then it will pay a declining share over the following three years, and 90 percent thereafter. So far, only 27 states have taken up the option, but several Republican-led states are considering it, potentially adding millions more adults to the Medicaid rolls this year. Fourteen percent of the low-income adults who are newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA have drug and alcohol addictions, compared with 10 percent in the general population.”

 

Because the new Medicaid population is dominated by young, single men — a group at much higher risk for drug and alcohol abuse — Medicaid enrollees needing treatment could more than double, from 1.5 million before last year’s Medicaid expansion to about 4 million in the next five years.”

 

So, here we have a situation that, in concept, makes considerable sense from a purely humanitarian perspective. However, at the present time, and with no indication of any change in the foreseeable future, only half the nation's population is financially productive. And therefore, the earning segment of the society is carrying the burden of all the others.

 

Add to that a current $18 trillion dollar debt, and one has to wonder just how long the concept of incredibly costly socialism can go on. Because while there's certainly no doubt that, in theory, supporting those who can’t sustain themselves certainly sounds like the noble thing to do. 

 

However, in today’s cases we clearly see that while socialists have no problem redistributing the wealth of those who have it, when it comes to themselves, a senator like Feinstein also rakes in a billion for self via her husband, which ranks her right up next to the Clinton’s in attaining personal gain from public office.   

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios