BloggeRhythms

A few days ago it was noted here that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seemed at odds with both the incumbent and his bumbling stooge, John Kerry, whereas they were trying to pressure him into a truce with the terrorist organization, Hamas. At the time, Mr. Netanyahu was quoted as telling them "not to ever second guess me again."

 

It now seems that the outburst reflected greater problems brewing beneath the surface of what appears to be a serious deterioration of the relationship between Israel and the U.S., which has been dwindling since the incumbent first took office in 2008.

 

Ari Yashar of Arutz Sheva israelnationalnews.com via Drudge, reports today that, “An Israeli defense official confirmed the reports to Walla! on Thursday, saying "the US delayed a shipment of Hellfire missiles to the Israeli airforce." He added "apparently it was (done) on the background of national tension" with Israel.” Furthermore noting that, “Obama has been at odds with Israel over the defensive operation in Gaza, making various attempts to press Israel into accepting a truce with the adamant terrorist organization of Hamas.”

 

While a new five-day ceasefire has come into effect as of Wednesday at midnight, the incumbent called Netanyahu shortly ahead of when it came into effect to push for a "sustainable" ceasefire and, “according to US officials cited in the Wall Street Journal report, the Wednesday night phone call between Obama and Netanyahu was "particularly combative."

 

Therefore, considering how tenuous the relationship between the two nations have become, and in view of the fact that the incumbent's never really been friendly to Israel at all, the summation in a comment from a reader of the article succinctly describes the situation that now exists.

 

Yosef Shomron writes: “American Jews who voted for Obama now owe their fellow Jews in Israel yet another apology for voting the way they did. Shame.”

 

Foreign policy, though, isn’t the only aspect of government that the incumbent’s inexperience and arrogant stubbornness has harmed significantly. A new report today from Fox News confirms once again that the botched health care tax was a misguided endeavor the administration never should have tried to take on at all, as follows:     

 

“[The National Business Group on Health] reported Wednesday that companies desperate to avoid a 40 percent ObamaCare ‘Cadillac tax’ are finding ways to shift the costs to workers. The so-called “Cadillac tax,” now four years away, will affect health plans that spend more than $10,200 per worker… Meanwhile, employers are shifting workers into plans with higher deductibles, just as ObamaCare does in the health care exchanges, and using health savings accounts to help defray the costs.”

 

While the tax was originally intended to take effect sooner, unions and other groups convinced officials to delay it until 2018, reducing the anticipated income from $137 billion to $80 billion over ten years. However, many analysts predict it will be far less than that.

 

Therefore, since projected revenues will now be reduced by almost 60%, requiring replacement with revenue from someplace else, such as higher deductibles from individual participants, that leads to a very obvious and most basic of questions that it seems the health care tax’s designers never asked, which is: When dealing with the sharpest money-managers on the planet, successful U.S. business employers, what other result would anyone with more than a tenth of a brain expect? 

 

But perhaps, there’s another answer when projections and predictions don’t turn out as they should. It seems that an environmentalist made some predictions regarding global-warming that weren’t quite true. Then, when a group refuted his findings, he sued them for libel because they had the nerve to question his altered facts, as follows, from Fox News:

 

“News outlets, advocacy groups and fellow think tanks are jumping to the defense of a conservative-leaning D.C. policy center and publication being sued for libel by a scientist who didn't like what they had to say about his work on global warming.

 

Michael Mann, a prominent professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has long been a target of climate change skeptics for his work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades, and has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data.”

 

The reason this occurrence is important is that it looks like the professor has now pushed his case too far. As a result, some very heavyweight groups are presently joining the defendant which could very well lead to exposing how many environmental “experts” manipulate data that’s been refuting their claims for years.  

 

While  the professor’s case is against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review and others, “on Monday, The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press -- along with 26 other groups including The Washington Post, Bloomberg and Fox News -- filed an “amici curiae,” or “friend of the court,” brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals.”

 

Whereas an amici curiae itself is a brief submitted to a court to raise additional points of view to sway a court’s decision, those who now oppose the professor have immense influence amongst themselves. 

 

And lastly, William Douglas of McClatchy Washington Bureau www.bnd.com points out that, “Potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s lead over a crowded prospective Republican field has narrowed and her support has slipped below 50 percent, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.”

 

Mr. Douglas reports that, while she remains ahead of potential Republican rivals, “recent gaffes by the former secretary of state have helped close the gap.”

 

Examples cited show that she, “leads Christie 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent of voters undecided. In April, she led 53-42 with 5 percent undecided, and in February she enjoyed a 58-37 lead against the governor with 6 percent undecided.”

 

Her cushion against Jeb Bush eroded to 48 percent to 41 percent with 10 percent undecided. Down from 55-39 with 6 percent undecided in April. While against Rand Paul, her lead has shrunk to 48 percent to 42 percent with 10 percent undecided from 54-40 and 6 percent undecided in April.

 

Which means that with more than a full two years left before the election, and hard campaigning not even begun yet, her lead keeps shrinking due simply to damage she’s doing to herself. 

 

And perhaps that has to do with things like her waffling on her disagreements with the incumbent while secretary of state.

 

Charles Krauthammer, put it this way: “This is such a blatant display of Clinton inauthenticity,” he said. “It's breathtaking. She did finally appear to say something that she believes and then, of course, retracted it. Remember. With these people, meaning the Clintons, do you ever know if they are saying something sincere?”

 

Of course the answer to that one is simple. Because its certain that all the Clinton’s are absolutely sincere, and precisely accurate, when any one of them provides an address for where to send the checks.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios