Monday, November 30, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Of all the commentary surrounding the “climate deal” now being discussed in Paris, on Fox News Sunday Carly Fiorina offered the best description yet of the proceedings: “That’s delusional for President Obama, Hillary Clinton or anyone else to say that climate change is the biggest security threat.” 

The POTUS has “made several speeches in which he has said climate change is “an urgent and growing threat,” including his 2015 State of the Union address in which he said: "No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." 

Fiorina, however, countered with: “Terrorists don’t care that we’re going to Paris, other than it provides a target. President Obama is delusional on this.” 

Oren Cass @politico.eu via Drudge, took the subject further, summing up the Paris agenda in an article titled: “Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless” 

Mr. Cass identifies what he calls the “sticking point” on which negotiations actually center as “climate finance.” 

Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives. 

Climate finance is the issue that will dominate the Paris talks because the regulations covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially un-negotiable. However, the cash is a finite objective. “Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away.” 

And then, Mr. Cass presents the situation for the U.S. by explaining that Congressional Republicans, signaling they will not appropriate the taxpayer funds that a climate-finance deal might require, stand accused of trying to “derail” the talks. Yet, he demonstrates that the Republican position wouldn’t be deemed controversial at all if explained truthfully to the pubic. 

Because, a transfer of wealth to developing countries would seem a rather uncontroversial position. "One can imagine how the polling might look on: “Should the United States fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?” Certainly, President Obama has made no effort to even inform his constituents that such an arrangement is central to his climate agenda, let alone argue forcefully in favor of it.” 

The article contains significant detail confirming the authors point that, other than political propaganda aimed at ardent constituents, the “climate deal” truly is absolutely meaningless. Here's a link: http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama/

Two additional thoughts came to mind when reading the article. 

As typical politicians go, the POTUS is truly unusual. Because while many others would have allowed logic, data and science to change their minds when proven wrong, this one stays absolutely true to those who bought and paid for his support. Regardless of whatever the truth is. 

And then, had he made his climate speech a few hours later, he might have interrupted the Sunday night football game played in a freezing, swirling, blustery early snowstorm covering the field, teams and crowd in Denver.  

On another subject, Anne D’innocenzio, AP Retail Writer via Drudge, reported that: “Change in Thanksgiving weekend spending stumps retailers.” 

The gist of the article shows how the Internet, along with barrages of standard advertising offering “deals” every day of the week, has altered shoppers schedules and budget allocations. Making “Black Friday” less significant sales-wise than ever before. 

But, what’s most amazing is that retailers are in their businesses 24/7/365, and still aren’t aware of buying habits of those that keep them open.

Thus the reports that Internet shopping is growing dramatically at the expense of "brick and mortar" stores  is remindful of the story told here before, of the man who sat down in a restaurant and saw a sign: “Watch your Coat.” And, as he sat there watching his coat, somebody whisked by and stole his lunch.    

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one from the Associated Press via FoxNews.com, as follows: 

“The woman who would become a 2016 presidential candidate met or spoke by phone with nearly 100 corporate executives and long-time Clinton political and charity donors during her four years at the State Department between 2009 and 2013, records show. 

“The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes summoned corporate executives to aid in international affairs, documents show.” 

There was a difference, though, as there usually is with the Clinton’s. “[S]he was a 2008 presidential contender who was widely expected to run again in 2016. Her availability to luminaries from politics, business and charity shows the extent to which her office became a sounding board for their interests. And her ties with so many familiar faces from those intersecting worlds were complicated by their lucrative financial largess and political support over the years -- even during her State Department tenure -- to her campaigns, her husband's and to her family's foundation.” 

A couple of examples followed, such as: “American Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten met Clinton three times, in 2009, 2010 and 2012. She saw Clinton for a half hour in October 2009, the same year the union spent nearly $1 million lobbying the government. The union also spent at least $1 million on lobbying in 2010 and 2012. 

“Weingarten's union endorsed Clinton's 2016 presidential bid in July, and Weingarten is on the board of Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Clinton in 2016. The union has also given $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.” 

“PepsiCo Inc. CEO Indra Nooyi also had at least three scheduled contacts with Clinton. In February 2010, Nooyi and General Electric Co. CEO Jeff Immelt met Clinton as part of the State Department's efforts to secure corporate money for an American pavilion in China's Shanghai Expo in May of that year. Nooyi talked twice with Clinton by phone in 2012, a year when PepsiCo spent $3.3 million on lobbying, including talks with State Department officials. 

“PepsiCo's foundation pledged in 2008 to provide $7.6 million in grants to two water firms as a commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton charity also listed a PepsiCo Foundation donation of more than $100,000 in 2014, the same year the soda company's foundation announced a partnership under the charity to spur economic and social development in emerging nations.” 

While the amount of money reportedly given to the Clinton’s foundation may often seem staggering, in their behalf it should always be remembered that they’re extremely generous. In 2013, their charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges, and spent $9 million on direct aid, equaling 6.42% that they gave away willingly. 

Since most similar organizations give away approximately 75% of their revenues, that leads to the ongoing question:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  
 
That's it for today folks. 

Adios

Sunday, November 29, 2015

BloggeRhythms

In a very intelligent effort to evaluate the feelings of those most greatly affected by the Syrian refugee tragedy, Ben Carson traveled to the region and asked them directly.   

In that regard, FoxNews.com reported this morning that after finishing his tour of Syrian refugee camps in Jordan Saturday, he suggested that the “camps should serve as a long-term solution for millions, while other refugees could be absorbed by Middle Eastern countries.” 

Carson reached that conclusion, he told the Associated Press, because: “I did not detect any great desire for them to come to the United States. You've got these refugee camps that aren't completely full. And all you need is the resources to be able to run them. Why do you need to create something else?" 

He further told the Associated Press that all the refugees needed is “adequate funding. They were quite willing to stay there as long as it takes before they can get back home." 

So, here is another situation where most of the people involved on all sides have totally different feelings and objectives than the POTUS and his administration. The vast majority of the American population doesn’t want the refugees to come here, and the refuges themselves don’t want to be sent here either. But, that’s what happens when you don’t accept any input from others and make all the decisions by yourself. Everybody loses. 

On another troubling subject for the POTUS and his party, FoxNews.com also reported that: “The fate of a network of alternative “co-op” health plans started under ObamaCare remains uncertain going into 2016, after half of them collapsed amid deep financial problems. 

“The co-ops are government-backed, nonprofit health insurers propped up with over $2 billion in taxpayer loans. Twelve of the 23 co-ops established under the Affordable Care Act, though, have gone or are expected to go under by the end of the year, leaving customers who used them scrambling for coverage and taxpayer money at risk.” 

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding answers on what’s being done, but the administration’s offering few predictions on the program’s future other than to say no more money will go toward new co-ops. As to whether that future will crystallize next year, a top federal health official said: “It’s impossible to say right now.”   

Fox News was told: “As the dust settles, we see the people who are being hurt the most are those whose health care was being provided by these artificially affordable plans. Now, they will have to face the nightmare of HealthCare.gov or one of the crumbling state exchanges for a new plan for which premiums are averaging double-digit increases.” 

What’s most remarkable though, is the cavalier attitude regarding the potential loss of significant taxpayer’s dollars. Kevin Counihan, insurance marketplace CEO at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, described the co-op failures and other changes as simply “inevitable” in the health care industry. 

“Things change,” Counihan told Fox News. “There is a natural ebb and flow to this business. You see this in start-ups in all industries, and it’s also true in health care.” 

However, typical start-ups are funded by willing and well-informed investors who clearly understand the risks they’re taking. They also have the opportunity to reap the rewards of success gained by the businesses' they fund, which is why they take the risk in the first place. But, all that U.S. taxpayer’s receive from the health care tax, is a significant increase in the amounts they’re required to pay to the government. Another lose/lose combination fraught upon the citizens who pay the bills for everyone else in the nation. 

On another subject, Trump said again on Saturday that he didn’t mock a New York Times reporter with physical disabilities. This time calling for an apology from the newspaper and saying the reporter is taking advantage of the allegation to a “horrible degree.” 

What’s most amazing about the gall displayed in this one is that at a campaign rally in Sarasota, Fla. he said: “I don't mock people that have problems, believe me.” Yet, the incident was recorded on tape and shown in news broadcasts live and in color all over the nation. Which raises the question of how long is even his adoring public going to keep accepting this kind of insult to their intelligence from this very wealthy empty suit?   

Which brings us to today's update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Robert Jonathan @inquisitr.com, writes: “Perhaps lost in the coverage of the Paris terrorist attacks on Friday the 13th, and its aftermath was Hillary Clinton’s claim that taking in lots of Wall Street money was appropriate after the devastating 9/11/2001 terrorist attack in New York City.

“According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ analysis, lawyers and those working in the investment industry are currently among the top sources of Hillary Clinton campaign contributions of so-called “hard” money.”

However, once again, the facts don’t mesh with Bill’s wife’s excuse and  explanation. 

In this case, The Washington Free Beacon  reports that: “The Wall Street connection predated the World Trade Center attack.” The article states that, she also received more than $1 million in Wall Street donations for her 2000 campaign for U.S. Senate. “That made her the third-largest recipient of Wall Street money of any member of Congress or congressional candidate running in that entire election cycle, which concluded 10 months before 9/11,” the International Business Times declared.” 

The Wall Street issue came up in the recent Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa, when presidential rival Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator, accused the former Secretary of State of being compromised by the cash that she rakes in from corporate interests. Moderator John Dickerson also called attention to the six-figure paydays that Clinton regularly received for speeches at financial institutions. 

What’s also very interesting, are the reactions of media outlets that are usually very supportive of Bill and his wife. 

Vanity Fair noted: “The remark drew immediate reactions, ranging from confusion over the connection Clinton was trying to make and shock at the gall of using the attacks to save her from a tough critique.”

And even the ordinarily reliable New York Times asserted: “Predictably, Twitter exploded with demands to know what campaign donations from big banks had to do with New York’s recovery from 9/11. Answer: little to nothing.” 

Campaign rival, Martin O’Malley declared: “I thought [it] was a pretty disgraceful moment, when she tried to put out a smoke screen, invoking 9/11 to hide the fact that she’s taken millions in contributions from the big banks on Wall Street, not to mention all the hundreds of thousands in speaking fees.”

Which brings up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Saturday, November 28, 2015

BloggeRhythms

The POTUS and other world leaders are moving toward the two-week U.N. conference starting Monday, in Paris. At a press conference “alongside French President Francois Hollande, Obama cast the climate summit as a global statement of solidarity.”

Viewing the details presented by foxnews.com, serves to indicate why many of the nation’s attending are so strongly focused on the global-warming issue. The president’s goal is to “direct $3 billion – including $500 million in the near-term – for the U.N. Green Climate Fund, which would help developing nations deal with climate change.”

However, those other nation’s objectives became somewhat clearer when, “Secretary of State John Kerry rattled European officials when he was quoted earlier this month in the Financial Times saying any agreement was “definitively not going to be a treaty.” 

French President Hollande bristled at the notion that a deal would not be legally binding and was quoted saying if that’s the case, “there won’t be an agreement.” Which illustrates clearly what the other attendees real goal is.

On another issue, according to theguardian.com/us, Reuters reports that: ”Donald Trump’s support among Republicans has dropped 12 points in less than a week, marking the presidential hopeful’s biggest decline since he started leading the field in July, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

“Trump is still in the lead, with 31% of people surveyed naming him as their preferred candidate in a rolling poll over five days that ended on 27 November. However, that number was down from a peak of 43% on 22 November.” 

The reason given  for the sharp drop in popularity is the comment made following the Paris attacks on 13 November in which 130 people died. He told an NBC News reporter that he would support a plan requiring all Muslims within the United States to be registered to a special database, which his critics likened to the mandatory registration of Jews in Nazi Germany. 

What’s most important here, is that while sounding somewhat sharper this time, he says similar things frequently. Therefore, the difference may be that with people now paying more attention to the presidential campaign in general, more of them will start actually listening to what he says more carefully.   

Reader, wardropper, presented an interesting comment regarding Trump’s capabilities, as follows: 

“Piffle.
My cat could show us how to escape the clutches of the self-serving PC political caste without losing its dignity.
We would lose a lot more than dignity if we let this fool anywhere near the White House.
Can you imagine him actually negotiating with other world leaders...?
"Mr. President, what makes you think your foreign policy will work where others have failed?"
"Because I say so."
Thanks, but no thanks.”

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

For many years now,  a major complaint about both Clinton’s, Bill and his wife, has been that neither has any real conviction or strongly held political belief. Instead, they try to ascertain their constituent’s preferences and adapt to whatever those may be. Because it’s power and money that’s important to them, not the issues.

While there have been many indications over time, illustrating their wavering positions and changes of mind, for the first time to this writer’s knowledge, a shift took place in the very same interview. 

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton admitted Tuesday that her recent use of the term "illegal immigrants" was "a poor choice of words," and pledged to stop using the word "illegal" when referring to immigrants. 

"That was a poor choice of words. As I've said throughout this campaign, the people at the heart of this issue are children, parents, families, DREAMers. They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected," Clinton said during a Facebook Q&A with Noticias Telemundo, an NBC-affiliated Spanish-language network. 

In response to a question from immigration rights activist Jose Antonio Vargas on Facebook, Clinton added, "I've talked about undocumented immigrants hundreds of times and fought for years for comprehensive immigration reform." 

So, in the very same interview, Bill’s wife told  an audience what she thought they wanted to hear, and finding possible negative reaction, changed her position midstream. However, while that might be difficult for an amateur, for an experienced chameleon like Bill’s wife, changing position’s as natural as breathing.

Which brings up the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

And finally, as far as the state of the nation currently goes, here’s a few indications of  where we stand.

Q: How can you tell it’s midnight at an American airport?

A: When you see the 8:00 PM flights taking off.

Q: What do Americans call electronic devices that go five years without need of repair?

A: Imports

Q: How can an American be certain that the car just purchased is actually new?

A: When it’s recalled by the factory. (That works for VW’s too.)

That's it for today folks.

Adios



Friday, November 27, 2015

BloggeRhythms

The Obama administration warned states over the Syrian refugee crisis Wednesday, telling them in a letter they do not have legal authority to refuse the refugees it’s permitting into the nation. What’s more, states that do not comply may be subject to enforcement action. 

The letter, from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), also told state resettlement officials that they may not deny benefits and services to refugees based on their country of origin or religion. 

While the administration began forcing unequivocal acceptance of refugees by the states, FoxNews.com reports that “A man who reportedly vowed to celebrate "self-government" on Thanksgiving caused a security lockdown by climbing over the White House fence as the first family celebrated the holiday. 

“The man, identified by police as Joseph Caputo, was immediately apprehended and taken into custody pending criminal charges, the Secret Service said in a statement. The incident took place about 2:45 p.m. EST. 

“Witness Victoria Pena of Houston, said Caputo was standing with other people visiting the White House compound when he rushed toward the fence carrying what appeared to be a binder. 

Pena said: “[S]ecurity personnel and guard dogs ran toward Caputo and he lay on the grass awaiting them.” 

However, the real question is, what could possibly have happened had the intruder been an armed terrorist or hiding some kind of bomb? Yet, this same administration still wants the states to assume immigration risks, while it cannot even assure the safety of the POTUS’s own supposedly fully-secured residence. No one could make a dumber decision than that one.  

At the same time, Catherine Herridge, also at FoxNews.com, writes that: “With as many as 1000 active cases, Fox News has learned at least 48 ISIS suspects are considered so high risk that the FBI is using its elite tracking squads known as the mobile surveillance teams or MST to track them domestically.  

“There is a very significant number of people that are on suspicious watch lists, under surveillance," Republican Senator Dan Coats said.    

“Coats, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, would not comment on specifics, but said the around the clock surveillance is a major commitment for the bureau. "The FBI together with law enforcement agencies across the country are engaged in this. It takes enormous amount of manpower to do this on a 24-7 basis.  It takes enormous amount of money to do this." 

Thus, the question still remains as to why there is so much pressure from the administration to immediately begin accepting immigrants when they must surely know by now, from their own experience, that rushing into this presently uncontrollable activity is a far beyond ridiculous  risk.  

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

FoxNews.com also reports: “The Republican National Committee keeps building its cash advantage over its Democratic rivals, strengthening the party’s position going into the election year – with the latest monthly reports showing the DNC with a major debt, while the RNC has accrued a $20M war chest. 

“The Republicans announced last week that they had raised $8.7 million in October, which they say broke a record for presidential off-year fundraising record.  

With figures showing the Republicans now have over $20 million cash on hand, with only $1.8 million in debts owed, the RNC has raised a total of $89.3 million to date in the current election cycle. 

Those statistics stand in stark contrast to the DNC, that has only $4.7 million cash in hand, with $6.9 million in debts owed, putting it in the red, according to FEC figures. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Democrats have so far raised $53.2 million this election cycle, significantly less than their Republican counterparts. 

The DNC raised just shy of $4.5 million in October, but spent approximately $5.2 million. 

While having fund-raising problems, what’s even worse is that: ”The nearly $7 million in debt the DNC now has was in part due to a $2 million loan from union-owned Amalgamated Bank, The Washington Free Beacon reported.”  Thus, help from friends has been needed for a while now.

“The release of the numbers could increase pressure on DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and could hamper the DNC’s push to retake the House and Senate, while also keeping the White House in 2016.” More really good news for Republicans.

What the fund-raising results illustrate clearly, though, is that similar to the many Democrat major contributors unwilling to commit to Bill Clinton’s wife’s campaign, the same holds true for most ordinary contributors too.

And perhaps one of the major reasons that Democrats are having fund-raising problems, is that before the current POTUS took office, college graduates with science degrees worked at well-paying jobs where they asked: “Why does it work?”

Employed engineering degree holder’s asked: “How does it work?”

Those using their accounting degrees asked: “What does it cost?”

Today, all of them ask: “Do you want fries with that?”

That's it for today folks.

Adios

Thursday, November 26, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Associated Press via FoxNews.com reports that on the very quiet news day before Thanksgiving:
“President Obama on Wednesday signed a $607 billion defense policy bill despite his opposition to restrictions in the legislation that ban him from moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States and making good on a long unfulfilled campaign promise. 

“Obama has opposed provisions preventing detainee transfers since Congress first attached the measures to spending bills in an attempt block Obama's plans. The dispute has taken on added intensity this year because the White House has launched a final push to close to the prison before Obama leaves office.” 

The POTUS added that he is "deeply disappointed that the Congress has again failed to take productive action toward closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. Keeping the prison open, is not consistent with our interests as a Nation and undermines our standing in the world." 

Readers of the column overwhelmingly support Gitmo’s staying open, as do significant numbers of those in Congress, whereas “The White House and the Pentagon are preparing to send to Congress a plan outlining more precisely how it would shutter the prison and where in the U.S. might transfer detainees. The proposal, however, was not expected to overcome sizable opposition among Republicans and some Democrats.” 

However, Gitmo isn’t the only place the POTUS is bucking the tide of public opinion, including huge numbers of Democrats who have no real interest, if any at all, in his global-warming fabrications.   

A November Fox News poll of more than 1,000 registered voters, “found that only 3 percent listed “climate change” as the most important issue facing the country today, down from 5 percent in August. Americans were much more worried about terrorism, the economy and immigration than global warming. 

“Even among Democrats concern for global warming was low. The Fox poll found only 6 percent of Democrats listed global warming as their top concern, compared to 1 percent of Republicans. Men were slightly more likely than women to list global warming as their top concern, and whites were more likely than blacks to worry about warming.” 

Therefore, one has to assume that if any more taxpayer dollars are spent on this farce, that's a POTUS donation to any Republican presidential candidate running for the office. 

On another subject, Matea Gold and Robert Costa  @washingtonpost.com write about Trump, reporting that in, “his fifth month at the top of the GOP presidential field, attempts to derail him remain anemic, underfunded and unfocused — and they will probably stay that way until the Iowa caucuses in less than 10 weeks.” 

However, the article then points out that: “Most of the party’s financiers and top strategists are sitting on the sidelines. Many are reluctant to spend money against Trump after watching others fumble as they tried to handle his counterpunches. Others, citing past elections, remain confident that the race will eventually pivot away from him early next year. 

“The political network backed by the billionaire Koch brothers has no plans to take on Trump. American Crossroads, the super PAC co-founded by strategist Karl Rove, is steering clear and fixated on Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton instead. Right to Rise, the super PAC backing Jeb Bush, is not gearing up to attack Trump either. And major Republican donors, such as hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and the Ricketts family, have shown no interest in supporting the few organizations trying to undercut him.” 

Thus, it looks like the consensus of opinion is to stand back and let the political newcomer keep deriding and smearing his competitors with no real plans of his own to offer. And then when the campaign begins to take real shape several months in the future, decide then how to expose him for the unproven, blowhard he really is. 

This way, the only real risk they’re actually taking is if their timing for a hard, focused reaction comes to late. But, in the meantime, it makes absolute sense to let Trump yell, scream and blow himself out of the race, sounding like the spoiled amateur he’s always been in failing business situations, such as four bankrupted New Jersey casinos.     

Which brings us to todays update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt, quoted an item from The Hill yesterday, writing: “Snubs MoveOn.org - Clinton skipped the MoveOn.org candidate forum, opting against answering questions from members of one of the nation’s largest progressive groups.”

That decision is quite odd because Wikipedia information shows that: “Formed in 1998 in response to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton by the U.S. House of Representatives, MoveOn.org has raised millions of dollars for candidates it identifies as "progressives" in the United States.”

Additionally, some very influential Democrat supporters have been major contributors to MoveOn.org, including financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee.

All of which makes one wonder why she’d decide to turn her back on all of this. Especially because of their powerful support of the POTUS and his last two successful runs for the office. 

At the same time, showing much about her truer colors, the AP reported about “Clintons’ big money from Wall Street,“ as follows:

“The lucrative relationship between the Clinton family and the nation’s finance industry that has many Democrats concerned is detailed in an AP analysis of disclosure records since 2001: “[A] nearly 15-year period in which Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, made at least $35 million by giving 164 speeches to financial services, real estate and insurance companies after leaving the White House.”

And these Wall Streeter’s are the same ones she claims will have no influence on her at all when she institutes financial reforms. In that regard, her promises are wearing thin with liberal activists who say her financial reform proposals are too weak and her record is too tainted by millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the financial sector.

That's the reason Bernie Sanders is running ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, warning voters: “The truth is, you can’t change a corrupt system by taking its money.”

Bill’s wife was indignant at those same charges at the last Democratic debate, saying Sanders impugned her integrity by suggesting her financial reforms were weak because of her campaign donations. And for those who believe her disclaimer, there are no words to describe that level of reality avoidance.

Which brings up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

And in closing, a friend posted this on FB this morning.

A doctor from France says: “In France, the medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man's arm; we put it into another man, and in 6 weeks he is looking for work." 

A German doctor comments quietly: "That's nothing, in Germany we take part of the brain out of a person; we put it into another person's head, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work." 

A Russian doctor says boasting: "That's nothing either. In Russia we take out half of the heart from a person; we put it into another person's chest, and in 2 weeks he is looking for work." 

The U.S. doctor laughs and answers loudly immediately: "That's nothing my colleagues, you are way behind us....in the USA, about 7 years ago, we grabbed a person from Kenya with no brains, no heart, and no capabilities....we made him President of the United States, and now....... the whole damn country is looking for work." 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

BloggeRhythms

After expressing solidarity with France in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, carried out by the Islamic State and discussing more broadly the campaign against the jihadist group, Obama stated, “And next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the Global Climate Conference. What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”

Maybe it’s just me, but this gibberish sounds completely ridiculous. In the midst a world falling apart economically and terrorism rampant across the globe, this guy’s pushing a non-existent political payback scheme on global-warming for the good of major cash contributor, Tom Steyer. Even AlGore’s dire weather predictions have proven totally ridiculous for years now.

As far as uniting people for the "future" is concerned, he must be doing that somewhere than the U.S.. Because, according to the last Rasmussen Poll, only a third of Americans have any interest in the subject at all. Here are the rankings:

Very Important Issues to voters
Economy 72%
Job creation 62%
Health care 67%
Gov. spending 63%
Education 58%
Social Security 61%
Gov. ethics and corruption 58%
Taxes 51%
Small business 46%
Gun control 52%
Energy 48%
National Security 44%
Immigration 42%
Environment 37%
War in Afghanistan 26% 

The only thing lower then the warming fiction in 63% of voter's minds is the War in Afghanistan. This too, would be far less of a problem had not the administration abandoned that nation to fulfill a campaign promise without fully assessing the situation. 

However, this is very good news for Republicans. Because things like this make whoever they run for president in 2016 a shoo-in. 

What’s most remarkable, is that for a party that tends to run on poll results, the POTUS is seemingly uneducable. A Fox News national poll released Sunday also finds Democrats and Republicans united against President Obama’s plan to accept Syrian refugees -- as most voters think at least one will be a terrorist who will launch a successful attack here. The current situation has pushed the president’s job rating to a low point for the year. Forty percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing, while 54 percent disapprove. It was 45-50 percent earlier this month.” 

Even a close ally, who previously believed he could do no wrong, strongly disagreed with him again as “The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee has critical words for President Obama’s plan to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ‘This has gone on too long now. And it has not gotten better. It’s gotten worse,’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ Sunday’…. ‘I don’t think the approach is sufficient to the job.’”

In this case, it's doubtful the POTUS is burying his head in the sand, because the best place for him to do that is the deserts in the Middle-East. But that would mean putting his own "boots on the ground," wouldn't it?

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

While, as mentioned above, presidential political pandering can only help Republicans in the 2016 elections”s, Bill’s wife is creating divisiveness in her party as well. 

According to Sam Frizell @time.com today: “Among the various policy ideas and position papers put out by Hillary Clinton so far in the Democratic primary, one stands out for its bumper-sticker simplicity: If your family makes less than $250,000 a year, your taxes won’t go up. 

“But behind that simple promise is a roiling debate within Democratic circles about the future of the party’s domestic agenda.” 

Mr. Frizell explains that: “The no-new-taxes pledge is emblematic of the broader concerns about a Clinton presidency raised by the progressive side of the party. Critics say it is a crafty political move that would limit the ambition of proposals on everything from expanding Social Security to healthcare reform. It reinforces a long-running Republican argument that some would prefer to defeat head on. And, to put it simply, it makes it hard to pay for things Democrats want.” 

So, here we have further evidence of Bill’s wife adopting a platform item that conflicts with both, her former positions and significant  numbers of party members, as she tries to outflank Bernie Sanders on the left by protecting many taxpayer’s income. But, as a result, reform of many key programs can't be afforded. Which means that she’ll probably change her position again, should she receive the presidential nomination. 

However, it seems that there are many who don’t trust her at all this time around, regardless of what her promises may be. That's thanks to the availability of instant electronic information, primarily on the Web. Which calls for the ongoing question again, Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

And in closing, a friend posted this on FB this morning. Makes a good Thanksgiving reminder.



That's it for today folks.

Adios

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

BloggeRhythms

According to Catherine Herridge @foxnews.com, “Analysts at U.S. Central Command were pressured to ease off negative assessments about the Islamic State threat and were even told in an email to “cut it out,” Fox News has learned – as an investigation expands into whether intelligence reports were altered to present a more positive picture. 
 
“Fox News is told by a source close to the CENTCOM analysts that the pressure on them included at least two emails saying they needed to “cut it out” and “toe the line.” 

“Separately, a former Pentagon official told Fox News there apparently was an attempt to destroy the communications. The Pentagon official said the email warnings were "not well received" by the analysts. 

“Those emails, among others, are now in the possession of the Pentagon inspector general. The IG’s probe is expanding into whether intelligence assessments were changed to give a more positive picture of the anti-ISIS campaign.” 

As a result of what might be misleading threat assessment, there is now departmental infighting, as to who knew the truth and when they knew it. As well as how serious the ISIS threat actually was. However, regardless of the truth, the way this administration works, the POTUS likely has now got a way to cover his inaction and poor foreign-policy decision making regarding the threat from the ISIS “JV team.” And, in that regard, his squirming out from under has apparently already begun, as follows. 

“President Obama, speaking at a press conference in Malaysia over the weekend, said he expects to “get to the bottom” of whether ISIS intelligence reports were altered – and has told his top military officials as much. 

“One of the things I insisted on the day I walked into the Oval Office was that I don’t want intelligence shaded by politics. I don’t want it shaded by the desire to tell a feel-good story,” Obama said Sunday. “I believe that the Department of Defense and all those who head up our intelligence agencies understand that, and that I have made it repeatedly clear to all my top national security advisers that I never want them to hold back, even if the intelligence or their opinions about the intelligence, their analysis or interpretations of the data contradict current policy.” 

The saddest aspect of the entire scenario, though, is that upon reading about the newly discovered emails supposedly “misinforming”  the POTUS about the level of the ISIS threat, the first thing entering this writer’s mind is that the story may not even be true, but simply the manufacture of evidence to cover up massive foreign-policy incapability and ineptitude. Which, for this administration, is standard procedure. 

On another topic, a few minutes ago an a TV appeared showing Marco Rubio. The sound was off, so whatever he said went unheard. However, it most certainly was about his presidential campaign, leading to the thought that it really doesn’t matter what he said at all. Because if he had delivered the greatest pitch ever devised by man to promote his run for the Oval Office, he still has neither the experience nor credentials, to handle the job. 

He’s never governed anything in his life, knows less than zero about the nation’s military, has no skills regarding a 3.9 trillion dollar budget, and as far as the economy goes, he can’t even manage his own credit card debt. Health care reorganization is another area where he has no background, while any candidate with a mouth can tell us all that the borders need to be secured. It’s not rocket science, nor even difficult to figure out. In fact you can probably make an intelligent, well-informed  border security speech yourself.  

And by the way, the same lack of experience and valid presidential credentials apply to every Republican candidate who was never a governor or had similar governmental managerial experience. Which is why I keep repeating, the job doesn’t come with training wheels. Just look at the the nation’s position now, here and abroad, if you need further proof of what unproven, unskilled amateurs do when given the POTUS job. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Chuck Ross, Reporter @dailycaller.com, writes: “A new undercover video released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas shows Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign vice chair, Huma Abedin, assuring an undercover reporter that the Democratic presidential candidate is committed to allowing Syrian refugees to settle in the U.S. and that Republican opposition to the plan is “really scary.”  

Abedin tells an undercover Project Veritas reporter during a closed-media event held last week in New York City: “We are a country of immigrants. We welcome people, and when you listen to the Republicans, and this is my battle cry, it is really scary on the other side.” 

“The alternative … we’re going to be an isolationist country, turning everybody away. It is not OK,” Abedin continued."

Ironically, and certainly lending proof to most Republican’s feeling that immigration, especially from places like Syria, need considerable analysis before continuing unbridled, is the following:  

“In that video, filmed just after ISIS terrorists killed 130 people in Paris, the Syrian men discussed using fake passports to travel to Germany and perhaps to the U.S. And asked if they like or dislike Clinton, they said they have a favorable view of the former secretary.”   

And they certainly should have a “favorable view” of the secretary, whereas: “While the Obama administration plans to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, Clinton has said that the U.S. should accept 65,000 Syrian refugees.” 

Thus, while na├»ve, irrational idealists like Bill’s wife and Abedin, remain in their fantasy world, there’s very good news for their opposition. Because, “Many Republican presidential candidates side with the American public on the issue. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 54 percent of respondents said they opposed allowing Syrian refugees. Forty-three percent support doing so.” 

Add this probable loss of votes due to the ongoing scandals over unauthorized  email servers, the Benghazi raid, and the misclassification of funds in the Clinton Foundation and for the good of the Democrat presidential election chances, one has to ask again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?
 
That's it for today folks. 

Adios

Monday, November 23, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Josh Feldman @mediaite.com/tv via Facebook, writes that “Rush Limbaugh made a rare TV appearance on Fox News Sunday today and had a lot to say about President Obama‘s strategy against ISIS (or, as Limbaugh put it, his lack of one). 

“Limbaugh said that the president’s foreign policy is “inept and incompetent and nonexistent,” telling Chris Wallace, “Barack Obama’s number one enemy is the Republican party and the conservative movement.” He even said there are serious questions about who the president considers to be America’s real enemies."

While Rush was typically caustic regarding the POTUS, not really adding much that was new or unusual, what stood out starkly were the differences in the quality and substance of reader comments following the article. 

Reader, Josh Huber, offered a concise, accurate recapitulation of where the nation stands at the moment, and why, writing: “Obviously there are a lot of uninformed people making idiotic statements. Allow me to help out the socialists who hate Rush Limbaugh. Whose been President for the last 7 years? How many of Obamas policies have the republicans blocked. In other words, what policy has Obama not been able to force down upon the American people?”

And then, confirming Rush’s observations regarding the errors of the POTUS and his constituents, reader Steve Denton wrote conversely: “The American people's number one enemy is conservative Republicans because they're always wrong and they're just a few steps away from being fascist.”

What’s most remarkable is that while reader Denton excoriates Republicans, he’s apparently completely oblivious to the fact, or ignoring completely, that the U.S. is in the worst shape it’s been in, here and abroad, since Jimmy Cater was in office. And, most importantly, every single aspect of the situation rests on the  POTUS’s unencumbered performance for the past seven years. And, let’s not forget that Democrats controlled Congress for the two years before he took office, giving their party absolute control of the nation's policy, condition and stature for roughly the past decade.

A current example confirming just how damaging policy-making has been for the past nine years, under Democrat ideology, Pfizer will announce today a deal to buy Allergan, the maker of Botox. This would be one of the biggest ever takeovers in the health care industry. 

According to the New York Times on-line: “Perhaps most important, it would be the biggest transaction aimed at helping an American company shed its United States corporate citizenship in an effort to lower its tax bill, in this case by billions of dollars. And it could become a flash point as the presidential race heats up. 

“A deal would come as the Obama administration is trying to crack down on these kinds of deals, known on Wall Street and in Washington as corporate inversions. Last week, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service announced new rules meant to further clamp down on the benefits of such mergers. The government has already lost billions of dollars in corporate tax revenue from inversions, particularly over the last couple of years.

“Adopting Allergan’s home base of Ireland would yield significant savings for Pfizer, one of the oldest drug makers in the United States. Its history runs from producing painkillers during the Civil War to penicillin in World War II. Pfizer’s tax rate last year was roughly 26.5 percent and is expected to be about 25 percent this year. 

“Its prospective merger partner, by contrast, reported a tax rate of just 4.8 percent for 2014, though its rate this year is about 15 percent.” 

So, here we have another glaring example of politicians basing policy on irrational ideology, instead of simple business logic. Because it doesn’t matter how high these imbeciles raise the tax rates if businesses no longer choose to pay them. Thus, rather than earning billions in revenue at a reasonable rate, the government takes in zero instead. 

No wonder two trillion dollars is sitting offshore and won’t come back until a Republican administration makes corporate tax rates affordable again. Which, by the way, will also create thousands of jobs. However, close-minded Democrats will never figure that out, because win-win situations are not in their nature. For them, everyone must suffer like they do, because business success is not politically correct and therefore, must be frowned upon.   

On another subject, can’t let this go by unnoticed. As the global-warming conference in Paris draws nearer, according to CBS yesterday, “The first snow storm of the season was a record breaker, with some areas getting over a foot of snow. The snow storm was the biggest November storm in Chicago in more than 100 years.

"11.2 inches of snow fell at O’Hare Airport, the second largest November total after an 1895 storm that dumped 12 inches on Chicago. Midway recorded 5.8 inches of snow."

Which means that if the POTUS plans to attend the global-warning fiasco, and tries to leave from his home town, he may find that even Air Force 1 is grounded due to frigid weather and have to phone his climate-change warning speech in.   

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

This one's more personal in nature, but certainly indicative of the duplicitous nature of both Clintons and their typical reaction to any and all negativity towards them. 

Sunday night on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Juanita Broaddrick, who famously accused Bill Clinton of rape, is now speaking out against Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president. 

Ms Broaddrick said, “Shame on you, Hillary, that’s disgusting,” regarding Bill’s wife’s attempt to run for high office in part on women’s issues. Adding, “Hillary. It’s time to be truthful.”  

Ms Broaddrick’s ire stemmed from what she claims is Bill’s wife’s “complacency in covering up her husband’s alleged sexual crimes and indiscretions.” 

“I think she has always known everything about him. I think they have this evil compact between the two of them that they each know what the other does and overlook it. And go right on. And cover one for the other,” she said. 

“She recalled a personal meeting with Hillary in 1978, in which, Broaddrick believes, the future First Lady strongly implied the alleged rape victim must stay silent about her traumatic experience. 

“Broaddrick said she “almost died” two months ago when she saw a Clinton campaign ad in which Hillary insisted all women must be sided with if they accuse men of sexual assault.” 

So, in this case, while not directly related to the typical qualities ordinarily assessed in determining a candidate's fitness for the office of POUTS, it certainly adds to the suspicions of fabrications accredited to both Clinton’s. Of which there are countless numbers.  

In that regard, most polls show that more than half of the voting public believe Bill’s wife is dishonest, leading to the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Sunday, November 22, 2015

BloggeRhythms


FoxNews.com reports that today, at a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the POTUS said: “the U.S.-led coalition ‘will not relent’ in the fight against the Islamic State and was confident the terror group would be defeated, insisting the world would not accept the extremists’ attacks on civilians in Paris and elsewhere as the “new normal.”

ISIS was quite likely shaking in its boots, greatly concerned about the warning, ranking it right up there with some of his other promises made in the past. Such as: 


“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” 

“I will sign a universal health-care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” 

“We’ve got shovel-ready projects all across the country that governors and mayors are pleading to fund. And the minute we can get those investments to the state level, jobs are going to be created.” 

“[T]oday I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay – and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.” 

And the biggest whopper of them all: “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.” 

On another favorite subject, you’ve got to hand it Matt Drudge. The following photograph was featured above the headline of his lead story this morning, titled:”Global Warming Summit”  

 

Rick Callahan of the Associated Press reports: “A deep freeze set in across the Midwest on Sunday with low temperatures forecast in the single digits and a few below zero, turning the season's first major snow into ice that made some roads treacherous to travel. 

The POTUS’s home-town Chicago, could see a low of 9 degrees early Sunday and around 20 degrees at noon when the Chicago Bears take on the Denver Broncos in an NFL game at Soldier Field. O'Hare International Airport had recorded 7 inches of snow by midday Saturday, which forced the cancellation of hundreds of flights. 

What was supposed to be a few inches of snow on Friday turned into a deluge that blanketed parts of Sioux Falls, South Dakota had fourteen inches of snow in the southwest quadrant of the city by Friday evening, the National Weather Service office said. 

The numbers shattered the previous snowfall record for Nov. 20, which was measured at 3.8 inches in 1975. 

And then, aside from the continual barrage of empty promises, the POTUS took another step in his continuing drive to help Republicans, by vowing yesterday that his country will be a welcoming place for millions fleeing violence around the world "as long as I'm president." 

Josh Lederman @myway.com reports that at a learning center in Malaysia, the POTUS met with boys and girls wearing crisp white and black uniforms and neckties as they sat at tables and worked on painting and puzzle projects. 

“Obama said the youngsters "represent the opposite of terror, the opposite of the type of despicable violence we saw in Mali and Paris." 

However, as all those around him who are responsible for security clearances of immigrants attempting to enter the nation agree, no method exists to perform sufficient background checks. Making any kind of entry a monumental risk at present. But that’s what happens when ideological politics outweigh everyday common sense.  It also presents an opportunity to  repeat a paragraph from above: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.” 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

In an article/video @theamericanmirror.com via Drudge, Kyle Olson focused on Bill’s wife adopting a phony southern accent when campaigning in Memphis, Tennessee yesterday. 

Mr. Olsen wrote: [A]nd Huma Abedin didn’t forget to pack the candidate’s fake southern accent. It took Clinton only about 50 seconds to unpack it before a crowd at LeMoyne-Owen College. 

And then, Mr. Olsen continued to focus on the accent itself, writing: “About a month ago, Clinton was campaigning in Hoover, Alabama in — miraculously — the accent made an appearance. 

"She said at the Alabama Democratic Conference: “You know, when my husband became president thanks to a lot of you in this room, I remember after that election in ’92, him sayin’ to me, ‘It’s so much worse than they told us. The debt in our country has been quadrupled in the prior 12 years, the deficits had exploded. And so he had to roll up his sleeves and work hard.”

However, by stressing the accent instead of the context of the words themselves, Mr. Olsen missed the glaring point. Which is that, by presenting what her husband inherited debt-wise as a major obstacle, Bill’s wife opens the door to exposure of what the administration she worked for has done to the nation too. And compared to 1992, which she apparently thought was horrendous then, her party has increased the debt astronomically. 

So, in the last analysis, it really doesn’t matter what she sounds like; southern, northern, middle-western, or even Hawaiian, the nation’s in horrid financial condition and she and her party put it there and are directly responsible for the miserable shape it's in. 

Which brings up the ongoing question: That even though Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz are Democrats too, they’re far more capable than she is. And thus must be asked, are you guys reading this? 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios