Today’s items illustrate that, articles published by a variety of authors on different topics often have a great deal in common. In this case, what’s quite obvious is that many who hold high office might very well be significantly out of touch with the general public.
This morning, Alex Swoyer @breitbart.com, wrote up the current state of the recycled trade agreement, recently voted down by House Democrats.
Mr. Swoyer quoted Congressman Paul Ryan, who said, “We’re not considering the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There isn’t a trade agreement yet to consider. It’s not a deal, it’s still being negotiated.”
Ryan went on, “What we’re considering in Congress is what we call Trade Promotion Authority, which is to give America the ability to go and negotiate a trade agreement and complete negotiations of a trade agreement, then bring the trade agreement to Congress for an up-or-down vote . . . [TPA determines] whether or not we have the ability to go and negotiate, complete negotiations and get a trade agreement.”
However, history shows that Ryan’s explanation might not be quite true whereas, “recent research and reports by Breitbart News prove that in the past 40 years, any trade deal where the president had fast-track trade authority ended up being passed, meaning Congress didn’t stop it.”
Additionally, “Experts disagree with Ryan and have suggested the TPP – which would be fast tracked through TPA – would essentially extend NAFTA, which cost more than five million American jobs to be taken overseas and given to foreign workers.”
What seems most obvious here, however, isn’t specifically the trade agreement itself, which might very well have positive long-term benefits to American workers. Yet, many of the problems arise simply because not only doesn’t a significant portion of the public understand the mechanics of the agreement, the Republican’s attempting to push the legislation through are doing virtually nothing to help them learn what’s needed for proper evaluation.
Therefore, what the situation clearly illustrates, is either a disconnect with the voting public, or a purposeful attempt to mislead them. And until that public receives full, in depth information and clear explanations of how, where, when and why jobs are created, the Republican's who ran on promises to turn the economy around sound, act and perform just like the conniving Democrats they accused of doing exactly the same thing.
And if that’s truly the case, voters will remedy the situation in November 2016.
The next issue, also illustrates public opinion trends indicating disagreement with one generally having the highest level of public trust and respect; Pope Francis.
An article by Nicole Winfield, Rachel Zoll and Seth Borenstein of the AP via Drudge, says, “In a sweeping environmental manifesto aimed at spurring concrete action, Pope Francis called Thursday for a bold cultural revolution to correct what he described as a "structurally perverse" economic system where the rich exploit the poor, turning Earth into an "immense pile of filth.
“Francis framed climate change as an urgent moral issue in his eagerly anticipated encyclical, blaming global warming on an unfair, fossil fuel-based industrial model that harms the poor most.”
In this case. while detailing Pope Francis's philosophy, describing his ideas for potential solutions, it isn’t the article itself that is surprising. The shock comes from the numerous reader’s comments, Virtually all of them expressing disagreement. And even more astounding, the level of disrespect for the Holy Father’s opinion with many suggesting that the issue is none of his business.
Therefore, as has has been suggested here quite often, if high-profile persona’s aren’t paying attention to the Web and its steadily increasing reach among the public, there are likely to be some painful surprises in store for them in the future. Because the public no longer needs “leaders” to selectively provide information, guidance or direction in decision-making. There’s virtually no subject in the world anymore that literate individuals can’t research on their own.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
In this case, while not directly about her and not really new information as such, it nevertheless certainly confirms her untrustworthiness, apparent disregard for anyone but herself, and her tendency to insult the public’s intelligence.
Ian Hanchett @breitbart.com writes: “Representative Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said that Hillary Clinton told Sidney Blumenthal to keep the emails to her coming and that this proves Blumenthal’s correspondence with Clinton was not “unsolicited” on Wednesday’s “America’s Newsroom” on the Fox News Channel.”
Gowdy stated, “he [Blumenthal] was sending emails to Secretary Clinton far before the attack in Benghazi, all the way back to 2011. So, the whole lead-up to the attacks in Benghazi, Blumenthal was sending emails to Secretary Clinton that he never vetted, he doesn’t know anything about the sources.”
Nonetheless, though, what’s most interesting is that, once again, it seems that money’s involved. Because, according to Gowdy, “The memos were written by Tyler Drumheller, who may have had a financial interest. And anytime someone has a financial interest, then you need to look at the material, or their objective in the outcome, their interest in the outcome with scrutiny. She couldn’t do it and he couldn’t do it. So, how did they vet the information that was being passed on to our top diplomat?”
So, another day and another chapter in the story. Which makes one wonder how long this type of negativity can go on. It also piques the question, regarding Republican candidates in general. Because while none of them have really disparaged Bill’s wife to date, they surely have ammunition of their own, that likely will make matter’s worse for her. Which leads to the recurring question asked here: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment