BloggeRhythms

A variation on an old axiom came to mind while reading the news today. You can take the boy out of Chicago, but you can’t take Chicago out of the boy.

 

In keeping with Windy City tradition, CNN reports that, “The Justice Department will bring criminal charges to Democratic senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey.”

 

The senator’s been “accused of illegally receiving gifts from two fugitive businessmen in exchange for pushing their interests in Congress.”

 

However, while politicians are often accused of underhanded activities the Menendez case is quite suspicious whereas, “While the federal investigation has been ongoing, the timing of the charges is curious. Menendez has been one of the top Democratic critics in Congress of the Obama administration's negotiations and forthcoming deal with Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions. Earlier this year, the New Jersey Democrat said the White House's talking points on the Iran deal were "straight out of Tehran."

 

What this situation illustrates clearly, is that although when it comes to governance, or anything having to do with successfully fulfilling the responsibilities of office, the current administration may truly be clueless and incapable. But, nonetheless, its never forgotten that just like former Mayor Daley, according to Wikipedia, his “ways may not have been democratic, but his defenders have argued that he got positive things done for Chicago which a non-boss would have been unable to do.” So, I guess, "positive" accomplishment depends on your particular point of view.   

 

As far as today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife is concerned, there may be some Democrats sensing blood in the water, because according to Chris Cassidy at bostonherald.com: Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is emerging as the first major potential Democratic presidential primary threat to Hillary Clinton, as he hits New Hampshire today for a two-day swing to raise 
money for the local party and meet with Granite State activists.

 

“There’s room for a Hillary Clinton alternative,” said Democratic strategist Scott Ferson. “He’s not Scott Walker to Jeb Bush, but if it turns out that 
every other word in her private email is ‘Benghazi,’ there’s an opportunity for someone else.”

Nonetheless, Bill’s wife isn’t the only Democrat that’s proven to be unqualified for the positions they’ve failed at or been entrusted with responsibilities they're incapable of fulfilling competently, as reported by Charles Hurt in the Washington Times about the current secretary of state.

“Mr. Kerry fancies himself a shrewd statesman on the global stage. But, in truth, history only remembers him for his failure to beat former President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

“Unless, of course, he strikes a deal with Iran that leads to the annihilation of Israel. Then he will finally be remembered for something else.”

So, if nothing else, at least the administration is remarkably consistent. Because regardless of the position involved, or the capabilities required to perform professionally, there hasn’t been anyone meeting acceptable standards yet. From the top on down. 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Seems that more and more often lately, these daily entry’s have begun with the comment that today wasn’t a good one for the administration. And ditto for this one.

 

CNSNews.com’s Ali Meyer reports that, “The labor force participation rate hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013.

"Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent, the same rate it was in February.” At that time, Jimmy Carter was president.

 

In the February just past, “92,898,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 12,369,000 Americans have left the workforce.

 

“Of the 157,002,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,297,000 had a job, and 8,705,000 did not have a job but were actively seeking one -– making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 8,705,000 job seekers were 5.5 percent of the 157,002,000 Americans actively participating in the labor force during the month of February. Thus, the unemployment rate for that money was 5.5 percent.”

 

That rate however, has reduced dramatically not because of economic improvement, but rather that those who’ve given up the search for jobs are no longer counted in the calculation.

 

Those aware of the administration's cosmetic change in the “rate” calculation, such as businesspeople and investors, have not been fooled by the maneuver, which is likely why the Dow Jones average has dropped 251.90 points, equaling 1.39% as of this moment.

 

Along the same lines, we come to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt asks: “How does Hillary Clinton think that she will get away with blowing off reporters even as she attends public events that are part of her still-unregistered presidential campaign, including a weekend shindig for her controversial family foundation? Or even more overtly political events and not answer for a mounting list of questions about her decision to evade federal rules about her emails as Secretary of State?”

 

Mr. Stirewalt believes that, “She is counting on a complicit press. And she is likely to be largely obliged.”

 

However, though Mr. Stirewalt has an excellent handle on the inside workings of politics, he may be too close to the forest to see many of the trees on this one. Because, knowledgeable voters no longer rely on the press for information. In fact, most major print media are losing audience so rapidly they're seeking other alternatives to stay in business, especially those on the so-called “left.” 

 

In that regard, and realizing that Fox News isn’t the most unbiased information source either, their latest poll, taken “just before the email scandal broke, found that 61 percent of voters thought the foreign donations to Clinton’s family foundation represented a conflict of interest. Only 44 percent of respondents said they would describe Hillary as honest, down 10 points from last year and just 1 point better than President Obama.”

 

So, although it’s still two years until the next presidential election, and no sharp knives have appeared to do Bill Clinton’s wife any real damage yet, any viable Republican candidate still has an edge. Because she’s slowly but surely sinking all by herself with no apparent way to right her ship, whereas aside from being female, she has no other accomplishments to present.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Most days, these commentary’s end with the latest news regarding Bill Clinton's wife. Today, however, with her presidential aspirations coming apart at the seams, she rates the top of the column.

 

Ravi Somaiya, writes in nytimes.com, “The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act requests for government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

 

“In its requests, the AP asked for her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department’s decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents. The oldest request, the news organization said, was made in March 2010.”

 

AP’s general counsel, Karen Kaiser, said, “We believe it’s critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters. In this instance, we’ve exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action.”

 

At the same time, according to Carol D. Leonnig in washingtonpost.com, “A House investigative committee issued subpoenas late Wednesday afternoon to the State Department, seeking a deeper look into former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton’s nearly exclusive use of personal e-mails to do her official business during her tenure, the committee confirmed Wednesday.

 

“The House Select Committee on Benghazi, which first discovered Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail based on a home server in its inquiry into a fatal 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, is asking for all e-mails related to the attack from all Clintonemail.com accounts and any other staff members’ personal accounts.”

 

While some on the Democrat side believe that these highly damaging revelations are purposefully being leaked by the Clintons in order to deal with them now and get them out of the way, others, particularly the far left, see an opportunity to strongly promote an alternative candidate, such as Elizabeth Warren.

 

There are also rumbles of AlGore dusting off his resume and entering the race, while it wouldn’t surprise this writer at all if Chucky Schumer came out of Bill’s wife’s shadow should she evaporate, candidate-wise.   

 

On another issue, one of the arguments made while defending Obamacare before the Supreme Court yesterday was that no alternative existed for those who’d lose coverage, should the law be overturned. And, therefore, for that reason alone, no changes should be made.

 

Nonetheless, as usual, that premise proved to be incorrect, because according to Sharon Begley at Reuters.com, “Last weekend, leaders of the National Physicians Alliance, which supports the Affordable Care Act and works to improve access to medical care, met in Washington to discuss how to work with community organizations to arrange healthcare for people who might become uninsured.”

 

The comments came from, Dr. Jeff Huebner, who chairs the group's policy committee and added, “The ideas include finding organizations that make referrals to free clinics, encouraging patients to check if they qualify for Medicaid or other state programs, and if they can't get insurance then find a regular source of care that accepts payment on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.”

 

While Dr. Huebner and “other physicians are also scheduling Obamacare patients for preventive screenings, completing lab work, and writing prescription refills,” the doctor also said, “I would advise patients in this boat to schedule a visit with their primary care provider as soon as they can" to set up "transition plans." 

 

In summation so far then, between the president and his purported successor, yesterday didn’t go too well. But adding insult to injury, if little things truly do mean a lot, the last item may portend other disappointments in the offing.  

 

Laurie Hanna for Mailonline at dailymail.co.uk, writes that, “The committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize has controversially demoted its chairman for the first time in the 114-year history of the award. Thorbjoern Jagland, a former Norwegian prime minister of the Labour Party, has chaired the five-member panel since 2009 but was ousted after his right-wing opponents won a majority on the prestigious panel.

 

“Mr Jagland had attracted criticism after overseeing a number of controversial of awards, including ones made to Barack Obama in 2009 - less than a year after the U.S. president took office - to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in 2010 and to the European Union in 2012.” 

 

What’s most interesting though is that, “No serving chair has ever been ousted since the awards were first made in 1901, even with shifting political majorities.”

 

So, one has to wonder if, perhaps, Bibi Netanyahu has been placing calls to the Peace Prize Committee, suggesting that they reconsider the award they granted in 2009 and also require a monetary refund based on contradicting information regarding the recipient.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today, there’s considerable talk about the impact of Bibi Netanyahu's address to Congress yesterday morning.

 

Aside from the huge impact of his words, establishing him as one of the most eloquent and knowledgably world leaders, severe blows must now be absorbed by the president, his administration and a significant number of Democrats in Congress. Because the Israeli Prime Minister presented a first-hand analysis of the current status in the Middle-East, citing Iran’s involvement in terrorism and unrest throughout the region along with its future plans for causing destruction, in direct opposition to what's being sold by the Obama administration..

 

However, the Prime Minister’s speech did more than just heighten awareness of the flaws in the president’s attempts to enter a peaceful relationship with Iran. It also shed considerable light on the positive job House Speaker, John Boehner’s, been doing for the past few months, while being constantly criticized as a “RINO,” and one who’s not a supporter of Republican, and especially Conservative, causes.

 

Nonetheless, while the Prime Minister received a significant number of standing ovations throughput his remarks and in show business terms, “brought down the house,” it must be remembered that it was Speaker Boehner’s idea to invite him here in the first place.

 

Even Rush’s reaction was one of awe and admiration: “Wow.  Holy cow.  Just wow.  Man, what have we been missing for the last six-plus years, what could have been?”

 

Rush further explained that, “Nothing focuses the mind and heart like moral, ethical, and legal clarity.  And today in the House of Representatives chamber at the United States Capitol, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave an historically important speech. A speech that any previous American president could have and maybe would have made, a speech to rally and save Western civilization.” 

 

In comparison, Rush said, “People elected Obama in 2008 with the belief that speeches and words and intelligence could tame the world's tyrants and make them once again love the United States, which they had only recently begun to hate because of George W. Bush.  Well, after six years of Obama's speeches and persuasion and ego and arrogance, the world is on fire.  It is less safe than when Obama arrived on the scene.”

 

And now, to further illustrate today's subject: John Boehner’s capabilities and intentions regarding Republican ideology. The speaker was also chastised for not immediately taking steps to repeal Obamacare.

 

In that regard, Fox News.com reports today that, “Congressional Republicans are proposing long and short-term alternatives to ObamaCare as the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments Wednesday in a case that has the potential to unravel the health care law.

 

“The plaintiffs, four Virginia residents, argue that Americans who bought insurance through the federal ObamaCare exchange are not entitled to subsidies because the law says only those who bought policies in state exchanges are eligible.

 

"At least 5.5 million Americans last year bought insurance on the federal exchange and received the subsidies.

 

"Both sides in the case -- known as King v. Burwell -- generally agree that if the high court decides that millions of recipients are no longer eligible, they likely will no longer be able to afford insurance under ObamaCare and exit the system.”

 

However, should that happen, several Republicans have put together stop-gap solutions and long term alternatives much more favorable to the general public. So, here again, Speaker Boehner was correct in not succumbing to a knee-jerk reaction to repeal Obamacare being pushed by radical Conservatives.   

 

And now, today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, written by long-time friend and supporter Ron Fournier on nationaljournal.com, and suggests that, “Perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton shouldn't run for president.

 

“Maybe she should stay at the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, where the former secretary of State could continue her life's work of building stronger economies, health care systems, and families. Give paid speeches. Write best-selling books. Spend time with Charlotte, her beloved granddaughter.

 

“Because she doesn't seem ready for 2016. Like a blast of wintry air in July, the worst of 1990s-style politics is intruding on what needs to be a new millennium campaign: Transparent, inspirational, innovative, and beyond ethical reproach.”

 

Mr. Fournier then wrote that, “Transparency isn't the only issue. Clinton exposed confidential and potentially dangerous information to a nonsecure, commercial email system. She gave Chinese spies a better shot at reading her emails than U.S. taxpayers.” and, “Two weeks ago, we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from the Obama administration and Clinton aides that no donations were made during her tenure as secretary of State were proven false.”

 

He summed up the article this way: “Due respect, Clinton's problem isn't a lack of staff. It's a lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency.”

 

And that defines both Clinton’s absolutely perfectly. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Israel’s Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, addressed a joint session of Congress this morning, presenting his disagreement with the administrations pending nuclear limitation deal with Iran. The speech began at approximately ten minutes past 11, lasted about forty minutes, drew numerous standing ovations and blew the roof off the House chamber with sustained applause from attendees.

 

Putting aside the specific thrust of the speech, preventing Iran from developing nuclear capability, but looking instead at the reaction of those in attendance, the administration’s decision to boycott the event will likely result as one of the biggest mistakes its ever made, among some colossal whoppers.

 

Some Democrat Congress members made the same error, which means it’s likely they too will have considerable explaining to do to their constituents whereas there was absolutely no logical reason, other than political bias, not to attend.

 

Mr. Netanyahu began by trying to defuse some of the political edge  preceding his speech by praising the president for all he has done to support Israel. He specifically cited several instances when he’d called for help, such as seeking more missile interceptors during Israel’s military operations against Hamas, saying “I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.” 

 

He also lamented the furor that surrounded his visit, saying, “I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention. I want to thank you Democrats and Republicans for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.” That too, drew a sustained a standing ovation. 

 

The substance of his presentation concerned the pending Iranian deal which places a time limit on that nation’s nuclear activities, allowing free reign to develop weaponry in ten years or so and that, “That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; it will all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons. Iran has proved time and time again it cannot be trusted.” And “could cheat its way to a nuclear bomb. But worse, could develop a bomb by sticking to the deal," which “doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves its path to the bomb." 

 

So, by laying out the threat to Israel, and doing so from the perspective of a nation in such close proximity to a potential nuclear armed enemy, Mr. Netanyahu built a case for his position. But, more importantly, did it in such away as to make it appear nonsensical not to attend his speech. If for no other reason than to hear from a person directly involved in the situation every day of his life.    

 

Which means that whether in agreement with the Prime Minister or not, he made all those choosing not to attend look like the politically motivated, self-serving lot that they now more obviously are.

 

And now for today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, which concerns the breaking story that when secretary of state she used a private email account for official business, a practice prohibited by law.

 

Fox News.com’s Chris Stirewalt writes: “Consider this: When Hillary Clinton made the choice to dodge the rules and exclusively use a private email account for official business as secretary of state, she knew that today would come. But she must have determined that the bad press she would get for being secretive and unaccountable would be worth the advantages of secrecy and control.” 

 

While her staff argues that by “providing copies of the emails to other officials that the government already has Clinton is in the clear," Mr. Stirewalt asks, “Then why the private account? And what was left out of the document dump the Clinton campaign unloaded on the government? Are there emails about the debacle in Libya? Are there emails to unsavory individuals or groups? And the questions will go on and on. An audacious, premeditated decision to skirt sunlight laws and accountability measures is hardly the thing that Clinton needs at a moment when doubts about her ethics were already mounting.”

 

So, if things continue happening at the rate they currently are, it appears that the Democrats might need another presidential candidate in 2016. And as for Republicans, it looks like the only ones that can beat them are themselves. Because, as the Iranian deal and the Clinton news shows today, the only Democrats that aren't totally incompetent are self-serving and untrustworthy wannabee’s. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

This morning, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed AIPAC, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

 

As one having little interest in speeches, regardless of speaker or topic, preferring to judge people by their actions not words, I tuned in to this one -finding it both brilliant and extremely well-delivered.

 

The Prime Minister began by addressing his appearance tomorrow before Congress, explaining that “my speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both." 

 

He then told the loudly cheering audience that they were there to demonstrate that "reports of the demise of the Israel-U.S. relation is not only premature, they're just wrong." And that, “You're here to tell the world that our alliance is stronger than ever. And because of you, and millions like you across this great country, it's going to get even stronger in the coming years." 

 

Citing several examples, the Prime Minister then made the point that the Israeli/U.S. relationship has been a long and extremely solid one wherein several major disagreements have occurred in the past. Yet, all of the issues have been resolved over time while the relationship itself between the two nations has grown increasingly stronger throughout. Much like occasional “family disputes.”

 

Thus, what came through the Prime Minister’s presentation, and was very diplomatically handled, was the recurring point that the bond between the two nations for so long a time has shown that despite the “disputes” along the way the partnership had endured and grown regardless. And that, over time, Israel has developed into a nation which though quite small, today has far more capability than ever before to defend itself militarily. 

 

So, what the Prime Minister really told the world between the lines is that, he’s well aware of the current dislike of his nation by the Obama administration from the top on down. However, his nation’s relationship with America’s citizens and its Congress are as solid as ever before and growing stronger. And that with two years to go until this administration’s replaced by another, as far as Iran is concerned, if Obama won’t protect Israel, Israel can and will do it themselves. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Israeli Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, arrives in the U.S. to address Congress on Tuesday at the invitation of House Speaker, John Boehner. The event has the White House irate, because the administration believes the invitation is a slight, mocking their attempts at patronizing Iran and its nuclear build-up.

 

In that regard, Bradley Klapper of the Associated Press writes that Secretary of State, John Kerry said, “Our hope is that diplomacy can work. And I believe, given our success of the interim agreement, we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future."

 

Nonetheless, Mr. Netanyahu, “will press his opposition to a diplomatic accommodation of Iran's program” in his speech, saying “he is making the address out of concern of Israel's security.” And that, “I will do everything in my ability to secure our future," describing himself as "an emissary" of the Jewish people.

 

Speaker Boehner said on CBS' "Face the Nation: “Iran's nuclear ambitions were a threat well beyond the region. We're not going to resolve this issue by sticking our heads in the sand.” Continuing that, “Netanyahu can talk about this threat, I believe, better than anyone. And the United States Congress wants to hear from him, and so do the American people."

 

On the administration’s side national security adviser, Susan Rice, described the timing and partisan manner of Netanyahu's visit as "destructive" for the U.S.-Israeli relationship. She of course, is best remembered for still believing the Benghazi attack was the work of a spontaneous crowd, instead of Islamic militants.

 

One of the most powerful supporting commentaries came from William Kristol on weeklystandard.com who compared Mr. Netanyahu to several world statesmen in times of crisis.

 

Mr. Kristol writes that Netanyahu “is an Israeli patriot and nationalist. But he also appreciates the historic role and accomplishments of the great nation-states of the West. History—the history of the Jewish people, but not only the Jewish people—is always on his mind. He is inspired by the example of Ze’ev Jabotinsky—and also of Winston Churchill. He appreciates the legacy of David Ben-Gurion—and also of Harry Truman.”

 

Then, he compared Mr. Netanyahu to Winston Churchill in detail, writing, “When Netanyahu walks to the podium of the House of Representatives on March 3, he’ll undoubtedly have in mind an earlier speech given by a foreign leader to a joint meeting of Congress. On December 26, 1941, Winston Churchill addressed Congress, though in the smaller Senate Chamber rather than in the House, as so many members were out of town for Christmas break.

 

“Churchill enjoyed the great advantage in December 1941 of having an American president who, after Pearl Harbor, was a clear and unambiguous ally in the war for the West. Netanyahu has no such advantage. So it might be hard for him to say, as Churchill did, that here in Washington he had “found an Olympian fortitude which, far from being based upon complacency, is only the mask of an inflexible purpose and the proof of a sure, well-grounded confidence in the final outcome.”

 

And then, Mr. Kristol came to his point which sums up the critical importance of the event by noting: “But Netanyahu won’t be speaking only to the Obama administration, which has, after all, made clear its lack of interest in listening to Netanyahu and whose allies won’t be there to listen. He’ll be speaking to the American people. 

 

“The prime minister of Israel, speaking on behalf of not only his country and millions of Jews, but on behalf of the West itself, will command the world’s attention as he declares his refusal to appease the enemies of Israel and the West. Both Jabotinsky and Churchill, both Ben-Gurion and Truman, would appreciate the moment.”

 

Now, naturally, it will be up to individuals the world over to determine for themselves how strongly Mr. Netanyahu's thoughts and words will affect them. And also, whether they agree with him or not. But, regardless of what any listener might opine, it’s really striking to consider that an empty dress like Susan Rice could ever be mentioned on the same page as Winston Churchill, regarding their thoughts on world events.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios