BloggeRhythms

An article by Jay Akbar @dailymail.co.uk via Drudge, presents a strong indication of what will occur in the U.S. elections in November 2016. 

Mr. Akbar writes: “France's far right National Front party is expected to make huge gains in Sunday's regional elections after seizing upon the Paris terror attacks and Europe's migrant crisis. 

“The anti immigration, anti EU party will lead the first round of votes in six out of 13 regions, a survey by Ipsos pollsters predicted. 

“National Front, which does not currently govern any regions, has become increasingly popular since controversial politician Marine Le Pen, 47, took over as leader from her father in 2011.” 

At present, “National Front is predicted to win the north and south east, and possibly two or three more regions,” which means “President Francois Hollande's party, who govern most regions as well as the nation, may be ousted.” 

While this trend will almost certainly reflect in other European nations, particularly the U.K., the move toward the “right” isn’t even truly political. It’s simple common sense. 

For some incredibly nonsensical reason, those on the left refuse to acknowledge the rise of unbridled terrorism, making the avoidance of facing the issue a political cornerstone. The problem this creates for them is that, regardless of how hard they attempt to avoid confronting the facts, terrorists are increasingly committing violent acts within the borders of those nations readily providing them access.   

As a result, what those on the left have also done by permitting terrorist activity to fester within their nations, is to elevate the voting public’s fears to a level where anti-immigration and gun rights have become key leadership issues. To the extent, that so long as the anti-terror rhetoric is presented often and loud enough, lack of other necessary leadership credentials hardly matter by comparison. 

Which is why untried, untested, and completely unqualified candidates presently have real opportunities to gain leadership of nations, while totally lacking otherwise required credentials and necessary successful experience. As can be seen in the top four candidates for the presidency of the U.S., none of whom have ever governed anything at all.     

A FB friend posted the following, regarding the subject. 

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

An article by Dan Merica, @cnn.com yesterday, confirms and underlines the left’s misguided paranoia as far as gun ownership is concerned, including more meaningless drivel from Bill’s wife.  

 

Mr. Merica writes: “[O]n Friday, the FBI and other government officials confirmed that the [San Bernardino] shooting rampage was being investigated as a terrorist attack.” 

At that time, during a press conference at the end of a swing through Iowa, Bill's wife responded to a CNN question, saying: "I don't see any conflict at all between going after the terrorists with everything we have got... and doing more on gun safety measures. I know that we can save lives and we shouldn't be conflating the two." 

Conversely, Marco Rubio, said the push for gun control after the attack is "just typical of the political left in America." 

"I mean they didn't even know any of the facts about this and they immediately jumped on it as an opportunity to push their gun control agenda even though no gun laws would have prevented this from occurring. We need terrorist control." 

However, while Senator Rubio is totally accurate in his response, he’s also one of the major beneficiaries of Bill’s wife’s knee-jerk reaction to gun-control questions. Because, as stated at the start of today’s entry, increasing gun-control attempts will be a significant reason for leftist political losses all over the world, including right here in the U.S.A.  

Which also 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