Thursday, October 29, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Skipped the Republican debate last night, and from the news recaps afterward, missed nothing of substance, but apparently a war went on between the candidates and moderators.
 
Terence P. Jeffrey @cnsnews.com, summed the situation up by writing that “former Attorney General Ed Meese said the leaders of the Republican National Committee who allowed CNBC to moderate the debate should be condemned.
 
"After 15 minutes it was clear that this was not a debate, but a verbal shooting gallery set up by CNBC, with the targets the Republican candidates and the shooters their biased antagonists from the press,” said Meese. 
 
“Ted Cruz accurately described what was going on,” he said. “Whoever selected the ‘moderators’ should be fired and the RNC leaders who allowed it should be condemned.” 
 
The three moderators for the debate were CNBC’s John Harwood, Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla. 
 
The most important occurrence, however, was the beginning of the public realization that similar prior governing skill is critical to the position of POTUS. Liz Peek @foxnews.com, reported that Jeb Bush had a poor night. But, that “contrasted to the success of others – like John Kasich, Chris Christie, Rubio and Ted Cruz – whose governing or legislative backgrounds informed and bolstered their arguments. Because the debate delved deep into economic policies, this was the first time that the lack of political experience of outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina was a handicap. 
 
While, Rubio certainly isn’t qualified for the position either, as mentioned here quite frequently, as far as the other three outsiders go, the POTUS job doesn’t come with training wheels. Which has been proven time and again by the huge mistakes made by Obama. 
 
On another favorite topic, the global-warming farce, Marc Morano @climatedepot.com, reports that the head of a congressional committee on science has issued subpoenas to the Obama administration over a recent scientific study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade. 
 
“Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a prominent congressional skeptic on climate change, issued the subpoenas two weeks ago demanding e-mails and records from U.S. scientists who participated in the study, which undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind the planet’s recent warming.” 
 
While warming supporters complained the actions, Rep. Smith, said the subpoenas were not “harassment” but “appropriate constitutional oversight.” 
 
In a statement released by his office, Rep. Smith rightly explained that: “This scandal-ridden administration’s lack of openness is the real problem. Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.” 
 
As far as “data-alteration’s” concerned a similar article appeared at the same time. This one by Marc Morano also @climate depot.com. 
 
Mr. Morano writes that according to Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since January 1997. Yet for 224 months since then there has been no global warming at all. With this month’s RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) temperature record, the Pause sets a new record at 18 years 8 months. 
 
Some interesting supporting facts include the following: 
 
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.
And finally: “To meet the IPCC’s central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.” Which is impossible.
 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
 
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano titled his article @foxnews.com  today: “We cannot allow Hillary Clinton, 'midwife to chaos' and a public liar, to be our next president.”
 
Extremely well-written, clear and concise, the Judge’s piece explains in detail the events and timeline regarding the Benghazi attack. And especially, Bill Clinton’s wife direct responsibility for what took place.
 
A link to the article follows, whereas it’s well-worth reading not only regarding the Judge's opinion, but his organized recap of the situation and historical perspective.   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/29/cannot-allow-hillary-clinton-midwife-to-chaos-and-public-liar-to-be-our-next-president.html
 
A couple of paragraphs provide insight into how the Judge formulated his opinion, as follows:
 
“The FBI agents surely heard Clinton mislead Congress when she answered a hard question about arms going to rebels by saying “I think the answer is no” and again when she answered a question about arming private militias by saying it may have been considered but wasn't “seriously” considered. And they heard her directly commit perjury when she was asked whether she knew about our country's supplying arms to Libyan rebels directly or indirectly and she answered, “No.”
 
“How could she answer "no"? She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it. How could she answer "no"? The FBI and CIA advised her -- in documents that are now public -- that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives. How could she answer "no"? This reached a crisis point when some of those operatives used their American-made weapons to murder U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
 
“She later angrily dismissed questions over this cover-up by arguing, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
 
“The difference it makes goes to the heart of the American electoral process. Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar who, for personal political gain, midwifed terror and chaos in a country that was our ally and whose words and behavior have continually demonstrated that she is utterly unworthy of belief?”
 
Which, once  again, leads to the question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment