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