Complaint's been received, saying yesterday’s entry was far too long. Nonetheless, the point was too important to leave out the huge amount of information available on the subject’s covered. Furthermore, those readers feeling that critical points require too much effort to absorb, likely aren’t interested in the subject anyway, therefore not reading it at all.
As far as today’s items are concerned, the first regards NJ Governor, Chris Christie, who probably doesn’t stand a chance of becoming president but made two quite valid points a couple of days ago.
Appearing on The Kelly File, the governor said of Marco Rubio, “As far as Marco goes, as I’ve said before, I like Marco a lot, I think he’s a very good guy, a very bright guy, but I really believe the next President of the United States has to be a governor. You need to have the experience governing. We’ve had the experience of a one-term U.S. Senator going to the White House and I don't think it works well.”
As far as regular readers of these entry’s know, the same things been mentioned here very often over the past four years. That's as long as this blog’s been in existence. Especially because the job of POTUS not only requires vast managerial experience in similar circumstances, it doesn’t come with training wheels.
The governor's also correct on the next one, regarding many Democrats who've unified against the National Security Agency since the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The governor said, those Democrats, “want you to think that there’s a government spook listening in every time you pick up the phone or Skype with your grandkids. They want you to think of our intelligence community as the bad guys, straight out of the Bourne Identity or a Hollywood thriller. And they want you to think that if we weakened our capabilities, the rest of the world would love us more…Let me be clear: all these fears are baloney.”
In this case, the governor went as far as he probably could without causing more blowback then the subject was worth at this point. Yet, he really didn’t go far enough, whereas this is another typical leftist kneejerk complaint, made without rational consideration or intellectual processing. Because the world has changed dramatically since 9/11, and the US is certainly vulnerable to foreign, or perhaps even internal, attack. And anyone who doesn’t understand the risks to us all is either abjectly delusional, or a typical liberal, take your pick.
The next subject combines a news item concerning several former presidents, as well as today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Matthew Daly of the Associated Press on wrcbtv.com via Drudge, reports that “On a voice vote, the House Oversight panel backed a measure Tuesday to limit taxpayer dollars for expenses, including travel, incurred by ex-presidents who earn more than $400,000 a year.
“U.S. taxpayers paid a total of $3.5 million last year in pensions and benefits to the four living former presidents, including $1.3 million for Bush and $950,000 for Clinton, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Most of that money was for sprawling office space in Dallas and New York, respectively.”
As far as income earned after leaving office is concerned, “The oversight committee acted just days after Hillary Rodham Clinton reported that she and her husband earned more than $30 million combined in speaking fees and book royalties since January 2014. The earnings put the couple in the top one-10th of 1 percent of all Americans.” Earnings derived from more than $25 million in speaking fees and Bill's wife earning more than $5 million from her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices."
However, although “W” Bush earned at least $15 million for more than 140 paid speeches, that’s the total since he left office in 2009. That amounts to $2.5 million per year averaging $107,142.86 per appearance. On the other hand, Bill Clinton takes in $200,000 per speech lately, while his wife demanded as much as $225,000 for a speech this fall at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, according to her office.
When one adds together the $2 billion in extortion received by the Clinton Foundation as down-payments for expected favorable treatment should she win the presidency in 2016, and the $5 million for her failing book, “W’s” speech income is chump change by comparison.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment