BloggeRhythms 3/7/2012

Found an article buried (no pun intended) on Drudge just now by Fabiola Sanchez of myway on-line, regarding the recent death of Hugo Chavez.  

 

Apparently, Venezuelan General. Jose Ornella told The Associated Press of his concerns that along with Vice President Nicolas Maduro they both think “some sort of foul play was involved in Chavez's cancer.”

 

The general said that, “I think it will be 50 years before they declassify a document (that) I think (will show) the hand of the enemy is involved.” And also that, although “The general didn't identify who he was talking about, but Maduro suggested possible U.S. involvement on Tuesday. The U.S. State Department called the allegation absurd.”

 

I mention this today because in spite the administration’s ineptitude in most foreign policy issues, they may be getting some positive results in spite of themselves.  Because if a guy like Bin Laden can be blown away in the middle of the night when no one was to even know where he was, that can set many of our enemies to thinking they might be next.

 

And now, if these Venezuelan guys are serious about suspecting us, and not just blowing some political hype, we’re likely making them nervous too.

 

Plus the fact that even Senator Rand Paul, who spent thirteen hours yesterday worried about some drone potentially taking out folks right here in their own homes, makes me believe that we’ve got a weapon with some really scary clout.

 

So, if you add up all these little disassociated events and begin to weave them together, I think it adds up to some pretty potent stuff with which to get our enemies attention. And the best part of it is, the administration’s involved for once. And even though they’re vehemently opposed to decision-making or anything else requiring thought, they may have unwittingly backed into a winner this time by default.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/6/2013

This is one of my favorite kind of days. As mentioned yesterday, Dem’s are worried that a Republican controlled House will prevent the incumbent from fulfilling his legacy, a main target of which is global warming.

 

And then while scrolling through Drudge just now I came across an article by Stephen Dinan of Inside Politics  in The Washington Times which says: “An unusually chilly March day and the snowstorm it spawned have shut down much of official Washington on Wednesday — including a hearing House Republicans had called to examine global warming.

 

“Postponed due to weather,” read the notice from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee sent in the morning.”

 

And then there was a piece in France 24, International News noting that “US filmmaker and long-time Hugo Chavez supporter Oliver Stone hailed the late Venezuelan leader as a "great hero" on Tuesday, saying he will "live forever in history. I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place. Hated by the entrenched classes, Hugo Chavez will live forever in history," he added in a statement released by his publicist. 

 

Additionally, “Actor and activist Sean Penn, another Hollywood friend to Chavez, also paid tribute saying the world's poor had lost a "champion" and America had also lost "a friend it never knew it had."

 

Chavez was also mourned by Michael Moore for all his humanitarian efforts.

 

But then, however, there was an link to a story much more likely the truth from Criminal Justice International Associates (CJIA), a risk assessment and global analysis firm in Miami which estimated in a recent report that the Chávez Frías family in Venezuela has “amassed a fortune” similar to that of the Castro brothers in Cuba.

 

According to Jerry Brewer, president of CJIA, “the personal fortune of the Castro brothers has been estimated at a combined value of around $2 billion.”

 

“The Chávez Frías family in Venezuela has amassed a fortune of a similar scale since the arrival of Chávez to the presidency in 1999,” said Brewer in an analysis published in their website.

 

Brewer said that Cuba is receiving about $5 billion per year from the Venezuelan treasury and in oil shipments and other resources.

 

“We believe that organized Bolivarian criminal groups within the Chávez administration have subtracted around $100 billion out of the nearly $1 trillion in oil income made by PDVSA since 1999.”

 

And then to top it all off, I read an excerpt from Zef Chafets’s new book, Roger Ailes: Off Camera, in which the Fox News head said while thinking about vice presidents he had known: “I have a soft spot for Joe Biden. I like him. But he’s dumb as an ashtray.”

 

So, there we have it, and just like this week’s been so far, we keep getting buried in BS 24/7/365 by scads of folks in the news who are somehow misguided, ill-informed, uneducated or perhaps simply stupid. But fortunately, there are others out there who dig for the truth and make sure it gets reported. And I’d love to keep writing more about it but I have to go now and get ready to shovel my car out, because global warming didn’t get to my block and we're in for another blizzard tonight.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/5/2013

Found an article on Drudge just now by Peter Foster, of the The Telegraph’s Washington office that set me to thinking.

 

The column concerns, Vali Nasr, a university professor who in 2009 worked second to Richard Holbrooke, “special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan” for the incumbent.

 

In his new book, The Dispensable Nation: America Foreign policy in Retreat, Mr. Nasr writes of ”profound disillusion” with a “Berlin Wall of domestic-focused advisers erected to protect Mr. Obama.”

 

Nasr apparently describes the incumbent as a “dithering" president whose controlling tendencies and extreme risk-averse attitude to foreign policy has damaged US interests in the Middle East. He also claims there are “damaging divisions between the White House and the State Department,” while Mr. Foster adds that “diplomats around the world wait to see if John Kerry, the new US secretary of state, can persuade Mr. Obama to greater engagement on Syria, Egypt and the wider Middle East.”

 

Now, while I ‘m no expert on foreign policy in any way, shape, or form by any measure, I do read a lot and absorb considerable information which seems to me to be consistent with Mr. Nasr’s opinion. And it also appears to me that many proven experts concur that our Middle-east withdrawals leave a void that soon will be filled by the return of hostile forces we’ve worked hard to dispel while spending considerable sums to maintain a fragile peace that now will be at risk when we're gone.

 

However, I don’t think there are any complex issues regarding presidential plans, strategies or positions taken overseas. I also don’t believe there's any way that any kind of sophisticated foreign policy can be formulated, implemented or enforced at all, simply because the guy at the top hasn’t a shred of ability, knowledge or grasp of the situations because there’s not a thing in his experience to draw on. 

 

So, to me the simple question is: How in the world can a guy who’s only preparation for the job he holds was street-level politicking in Chicago and delivering endless speeches likely written buy someone else, suddenly become an expert in foreign affairs, international warfare and decision making regarding what’s needed to maintain peace between hostile populations and nations fighting battles begun thousands of years ago?

 

The simple answer is: He can’t. Period.

 

Consequently, the issues at hand here can be added to all the others that are suffering from the same causation which boils down to having someone at the helm of the most complex nation on earth who’s totally unprepared and unskilled for the job he holds and hasn’t even tried to improve or learn at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/4/2013

Warren Buffett spent three hours this morning on CNBC's Squawk Box, talking in Nebraska with Becky Quick with long distance questions from Joe Kernan in New York as well.

 

As usual, Buffett was his folksy, casual, conversational self talking about a host of issues regarding the state of the economy and offering his sagely advice. And while I truly doubt there’s anyone else on earth you could find who has more business savvy, or has proven to be a greater financial success, some of his commentary today had me truly confused. 

 

He very clearly made the point that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, is still buying stocks, even though prices have increased and that, "Anything I bought at $80 I don't like as well at $100. But if you're asking me if stocks are cheaper than other forms of investment, in my view the answer is yes. We're buying stocks now. But not because we expect them to go up. We're buying them because we think we're getting good value for them."

 

He said stocks are not "as cheap as they were four years ago" but "you get more for your money" compared to other investments. He added, "The dumbest investment, in my view, is a long-term government bond."

 

Now, I sat there scratching my head, and then went back to carefully read my own entry from just last Thursday, February 28th, when I wrote about smart investors stock sell-offs and said, “I mention this today because of an article in Newsmax Wires, Money News, headlined, “Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why.”

 

The opening line was, “Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast."

 

Then it goes on, "Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

 

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

 

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.” 

 

Now, in Buffett's suggestion to Ms. Quick this morning, there was no qualification I heard as to business type, avoiding consumerism or anything else. He simply addressed the subject of stocks and his opinion that they’re still a good buy in his eyes.

 

So, although Mr. Buffett prides himself on picking winners for the long haul, and staying with what he’s bought without worry about short term hiccups or blips, it seems to me a significant mind-change in less than a week is pretty mercurial. 

 

And that’s when it struck me that perhaps that’s the difference between Buffett and everyone else. Because, sensing when to buy, sell or hold is an art form all by itself. And if stock trading strategies at his level change almost instantaneously, it really doesn’t matter what advice he gives to anyone else. Because by the time you try to digest what he’s said, and implement the plan yourself, he’ll be long gone and on to something new.

 

In the meantime, however, the best part of my morning came during a commercial break whereupon I flipped the channel to Fox and read a blurb saying that in a few minutes they'd be visited by Donald Trump, who was coming to discuss his TV show which really made me laugh.

 

Because here I was watching a real multi-billionaire talking freely and trying to deliver whatever sage advice he could to help others share and learn from his good fortune. As opposed to a phony fraud who’s been reduced to hosting some inane waste of TV time, because apparently everything real he’s touched has turned to zilch.

 

So, to sum it all up, I think its great that you can sit back in your own home and be exposed to someone like Warren Buffett providing valuable business insight likely not available anywhere else for those who truly want to better themselves. And at the same time, there’s another choice where folks can relax and listen to pabulum having no value at all. 

 

And, to me that’s what’s so great about our society overall. Because when you boil it all down, most often your personal success or failure directly depends on yourself and precisely what you choose to do with your effort and time, having absolutely nothing to do with anyone else at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/3/2013

Sitting in my favorite tavern last evening, I overheard a young man and woman to my left bemoaning their financial situations whereas they’ve now received a couple of months of paychecks.

 

Both seemed to be just now realizing that due to the economy’s state, they’d not received raises in compensation. And between higher payroll taxes and costs of Obamacare their net take-home pay has taken a serious hit. 

 

Without going into more detail to get to my point, what struck me most about their commentary, was toward the end when the young woman opined that she was giving serious thought to trying to find a way to leave her job and collect unemployment or welfare, because for what she had to do to earn less and less, it simply wasn’t worth it.

 

I mention the preceding because a few minutes ago I came across an article from the Washington Post on-line by Scott Wilson and Philip Rucker, via Drudge titled “Stymied by a GOP House, Obama looks ahead to 2014 to cement his legacy.” 

 

And when I read the text, I had to sit back, scratch my head and wonder what galaxy these Dem’s are actually from because here’s some of what followed.

 

“Obama has committed to raising money for fellow Democrats, agreed to help recruit viable candidates, and launched a political nonprofit group dedicated to furthering his agenda and that of his congressional allies. The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.

 

“The president understands that to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “To have a legacy in 2016, he will need a House majority in 2014, and that work has to start now.”

 

Now, as far as "legacy's" go, I haven’t the faintest clue as to why anyone would bother with three out of four of the items on the incumbent’s list to begin with. 

 

The proposed gun legislation is worthless, and will likely do zip (no pun intended) to reduce deaths or crime whereas the perps involved don’t obey the strictest of laws now, and certainly won’t in the future.

 

As far as immigration goes, the reasons the Republicans are anti an open door policy’s because it’s absolutely wrong and therefore, somebody has to stand up and say so.

 

Climate change is nothing more than an evolutionary process that’s gone on for millenniums, is beyond man’s control, and isn’t really doing any proven harm according to significant numbers of credentialed experts. And as an aside, the incumbent’s own State Department said just yesterday that something as huge as the Keystone pipeline was environmentally okay with them. So there’s nothing here for a “legacy” here either.

 

And then of course there's my favorite of all which I’ve saved for last: the economy. Because if you searched the globe, turned over rocks, scraped bark off trees or interviewed the lowest scoring kids in nursery school you couldn’t find anyone who knows less about economics or finance than those responsible for it right now at the top. 

 

However, although I’m quite certain there will be a legacy here anyway, I’m not sure it’s one anyone would want talked about. Unless there’s some kind of pride involved in setting the greatest economy the world’s ever seen back to the stone age. But considering that ruination seems to be an underlying goal in just about everything this administration touches, maybe it’s just me that has all the priorities upside down. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/2/2013

Looks like the incumbent took a shot in the jockey shorts yesterday because, according to Devin Dwyer of ABC News on-line via Drudge, the Keystone pipeline got a major  step closer to opening since, “The State Department, conducted a study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, and suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.

 

The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed.  It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”

Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still  likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.”

Now, this to me is really very good news because the State Department report suggests that the “proposed 875-mile pipeline, would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska.” And that should mean a significant drop in the cost of fuel, and as disappointing to the incumbent that that would be, would probably boost the economy significantly.

However, although regular readers know the pipeline's been a hot button of mine for a very long time now, whereas it’s delay’s a purposeful plan to depress the economy and get our nation to look and suffer economically like Europe, because it’s unfair that we have access to many natural resources and they don’t, that’s not why I’m writing it up.

Because, as I read along and absorbed all the good news the article contained, I was, naturally, quite pleased. And then I reached a sentence saying, “Environmental activists have been lobbying Obama hard to block the plan — some recently chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest.” And while reading that line I started to laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair. Because I could just picture these clowns hanging from fences over something that more than likely will have no negative impact on them, or anyone else in this millennium or the next.

Which led to my next question to myself, which was “Where do these loony tunes really come from and what do they really want?” I asked that because I can’t envision anyone with so little to do, and so little else going on in their lives that they’d hang themselves from a fence because they’re worried about environmental impacts that have proven minimal if they ever existed at all. 

So, I’m going to stop typing now and head down to D.C. and look for that fence. Because I happen to own a bridge that connects Brooklyn to Manhattan in  NYC, and it’s span is way up in the air so it’s just about pollution free. And that means it’s a really safe to march, whereas it’s environmentally pure. Therefore these fence-huggers can buy it from me ASAP as a safe place to protest whatever they want. But I won’t take a check or finance a loan, so I sure hope they can come up with the cash and then I can leave town immediately.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/1/2013

Yesterday’s entry turned out to be quite a long dissertation on signs in the economy indicating things aren’t nearly as stable or encouraging as many in the Dem party, and the administration, would like us to believe. The writing turned out to be much longer than I expected, but was necessary, I think, to make my point.

 

And now today, although I’ve been avoiding mentioning the “sequester” because I think it’s a farce, a couple of articles on the subject serve to underline my ongoing thoughts that when it comes to the economy this particular batch of Dem’s haven’t the slightest clue as to what they’re doing.

 

My first input comes from Politicker’s,  Colin Campbell, via Drudge in a story headlined, “Mayor Bloomberg: Don’t Panic About the Sequester.”

 

On his weekly WOR radio show with John Gambling, the mayor said about the sequester's fiscal threat, “It depends on how long. If it lasts a few weeks, no. If it does, yeah. We get 10 or 12 percent of our budget from the federal government, not all of that is going to be cut back, but there would be effects–not good effects. But in the context of, ‘Is anything going to change tomorrow? Are we going to run out of money tomorrow?’ I’m sure I’ll get that question at the [next] press conference. No.”

But his next commentary is where I believe he made the most powerful point: “We are spending money we don’t have. It’s not like your household. In your household, people are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t spend money you don’t have.’ That is true for your household because nobody is going to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money. … Our debt is so big and so many people own it that it’s preposterous to think that they would stop selling us more. It’s the old story: If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And that’s a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more money.”

 

However, although I certainly concur that our lenders are stuck and its highly unlikely, if not impossible, that they’d force a default, there still comes a time when overwhelming debt and demands of repayment break the borrower’s financial back. And I suspect it’s that expectation that caused Buffet, Paulson and Soros to begin backing away from U.S. investments. Because they know the entire economy will sink unless the debt's addressed and corrected.

 

Then, following on to this dismal projection, another piece, this one by Michelle Jamrisko, of Bloomberg.com via Drudge regards the same topic, but from a different direction.

 

“Consumer spending in the U.S. rose in January even as incomes dropped by the most in 20 years, showing households were weathering the payroll-tax increase by socking away less money in the bank. 

 

The slump in incomes in January was the biggest since January 1993 and followed a 2.6 percent jump in December. 

 

The expiration of the payroll tax cut in January, coupled with climbing gasoline prices, are trimming discretionary income and may damp household purchases in the first quarter.” 

 

And here’s what I think is most relevant about this one. “Congress and President Barack Obama allowed the payroll tax to return to its 2010 level of 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent at the start of the year, which means an American who earns $50,000 is taking home about $83 less a month. 

 

The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline at the pump rose to $3.78 on Feb. 27, little changed from the previous day’s rate that was the highest in more than four months, according to AAA, the biggest U.S. motoring group.”

So now, if you put the three preceding items together, looming fiscal strangulation due to debt, lower take-home pay reducing consumer spending, the economy's backbone, along with suspicions of the nation’s financial weakness devaluing securities of major corporations in the eyes of extremely savvy investors, you don’t get a very promising picture.

However, as I’ve been mentioning for quite some time now, none of the preceding is at all surprising. Because it’s exactly what should be expected when the nation’s not being led in any way shape or form, and the guy at the top is totally clueless about anything other than making meaningless speeches about fiscal issues he doesn't understand whatsoever.

 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios