BloggeRhythms

Cindy Boren @washingtonpost.com, writes: “When Donald Trump looks at America, he sees a country that has gone soft, but that’s not all. He also sees pro football, a sport that is now the national pastime, going soft, too. 

“In a rally attended by about 2,000 people Sunday in Reno, Nev., he hit that theme and others and placed a lot of blame on the game’s referees, saying they just throw to flags to impress their wives, who are watching at home. While he admitted that he still loves New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, the game now is just unwatchable for him.” 

He also said, ““It’s a Sunday, who the hell wants to watch these crummy games?” 

In answer, I can tell him, me for one. And according to the NFL, 17.6 million others per game on average this year. Quite a lot more than the 2000 who came to his rally in Reno. Just this weekend, the rest of us watched three of the best, most exciting games of this season, one of them played outside in a temperature of 3 below zero all day long. 

Rick Porter @http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com via Drudge reports: “The opening of the NFL playoffs brought big numbers across the board. CBS’ prime-time telecast of the Cincinnati-Pittsburgh game drew an 8.8 rating in adults 18-49 and 27.51 million viewers, lapping the rerun-heavy slates on the other networks several times. 

“The afternoon game (Kansas City-Houston) on ESPN and ABC earned a 16.2 household rating in the overnight metered markets, up 23 percent from the Saturday afternoon wild card game last year.” 

Although it’s true that there are boring events here and there during the season, that’s primarily because there are now so many teams and games there’s a bit of watering down of talent. Yet football still remains one of the few true contests left in sports. 

However, since this argument can’t really be settled by words on paper, I have a suggestion for Trump. Instead of sitting on the sidelines critiquing those in the NFL as soft, why not suit up, play a few games as linebacker, wide receiver or even quarterback? Show us all how the game should be played by a really “tough” jock. 

But until then, instead of sounding like the ultimate whiny, wimpy couch-potato who’s obviously never been in the trench himself, he ought to do something he’s never tried before: suiting up or shutting up. In the meantime, if he really wants to see an out of shape, old sack of air with nothing but a motor-mouth, and whose clothes don’t fit, he ought to buy himself a really wide full-length mirror.  

On another subject, FOX Business Network will host its second Republican presidential primary debate on Thursday, January 14 at the North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center in North Charleston, South Carolina. 

While having no intention to watch it, the same question keeps arising regarding debates in general. Because I’m simply unable to understand their worth. 

For example, in this case we have several leading candidates who haven’t a shred of experience of anything close to presiding over the largest economy in the world. Then there are the other elements of government administration in general which can’t be managed properly or effectively simply because someone has a way with words, or can shut down dissenters with glib quips and barbs. And what about overseeing management of the military or foreign policy decisions?   

In fact, we presently have the best illustration of someone who talks as if he was the best POTUS the nation’s ever seen and is still campaigning every chance he gets. Yet he’s taken the nation back to the stone-age in every functional aspect of governance there is, both at home and across the rest of the world.  

On the other hand, if the major mass of voters had appropriate managerial capability, or any similar experience themselves, they would simply imagine presidential candidate's as individuals seeking employment for a position requiring particular skills and talents. And then, the first thing they’d require would be a resume that could be confirmed, illustrating success in a similar position.  

Which brings us to a practical reality. Because, would an enterprise such as Microsoft or Apple hire a president who could only talk about computer software in theoretical terms. Or would they demand that candidates demonstrate proven,  practical, successful knowledge of running similar enterprises profitably and effectively? I think we all know the answer to that one. 

Even Burger King wouldn’t hire a manager who never flipped a burger themselves. They'd want someone who’d been through the trenches successfully, or else their more experienced employees would soon neutralize the newcomer, taking every advantage possible for themselves.   

Would Warren Buffet turn his highly successful conglomerate over to someone with four years of experience in a far lesser post or perhaps even none?  You can bet a billion of your own that he wouldn’t even consider that thought for a New York minute.

So then, how can citizens under the most highly sophisticated system of governance on the planet, turn the job over to anyone who hasn’t at least been a successful governor of a large state and still expect fulfillment of unproven promises? Because it’s one thing to shoot one’s mouth off on the campaign trail, and another to demonstrate the proven skills of successful government management experience for at least two terms in office.  

Which means that for most “debaters” on Thursday, including all those neophytes at the top, all they’ll produce is another couple of hours of worthless hot air without an iota of provable substance in office.  

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

Much like what happened the last time she ran for president, it seems that time and exposure are taking their toll again, regarding Bill’s wife. The longer she campaigns and voters actually see and hear her, the less they like her. And as today’s update illustrates, the whole Democrat party is shrinking, as well. 

Chris Cillizza @washingtonpost.com/politics writes: “Consider two polls conducted by the Wall Street Journal, NBC and Marist College in Iowa and New Hampshire that were released Sunday. In Iowa, Clinton has 48 percent, Sanders has 45 percent, and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley has 5 percent. In New Hampshire, it’s Sanders in the lead with 50 percent, with 46 percent for Clinton and 1 percent for O’Malley. 

“Clinton and her team are very aware of the peril inherent in their present situation. She has launched an aggressive attack on a 2005 Sanders vote in favor of giving immunity from liability lawsuits to gun manufacturers, a strategy clearly designed to take some of the shine off the senator from Vermont in the eyes of Iowa liberals.” 

What’s most interesting here, is that a couple of months ago it was Bill’s wife in a runaway, according to the mainstream media. However, that old bugaboo of her tendency to fade with time, seems to be showing up again.  

In retaliation for her slide, on CBS’s “Face the Nation, Bill’s wife said yesterday, “I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote, which the National Rifle Association hailed as the most important in 20 years, points at a clear difference. It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.” 

Her problem here is that the whole Face the Nation audience is probably about eight people when she’s the guest. And of those, six don’t trust her. 

As far as her whole party goes, likely due to the current POTUS’s performance in office, Nick Gass @politico.com reports that: “The share of Americans identifying as a Democrat dropped to a record low in 2015, according to the latest Gallup results published Monday, in the latest indication that Americans' attachment to either political party is at or nearing historical lows.”

What’s even worse for Bill's wife is that: “Overall, 42 percent over the course of the last year identified as independents, a slight drop from the 43 percent who identified as such in 2014. While Democrats maintained a small advantage over Republicans — 29 percent to 26 percent — the Democratic share is at its lowest in Gallup history.” 

Which means that independents will have huge impact next November and they are not known as being socialists in the slightest. So by trying to move left of Sanders, instead of moving toward higher voter appeal, she’s actually moving closer to the exit door. 

Bringing up the ongoing question 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

BloggeRhythms

FoxNews.com reports that “President Obama will keep an empty seat next to the first lady on Tuesday when he gives his State of the Union address, to represent victims of gun violence, according to the White House.”  He announced the symbolic gesture Friday when talking on the phone with fellow supporters of more stringent gun-ownership laws. 

The first thought springing to mind regarded the old philosophical thought question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Because, since there probably won’t be anyone watching the POTUS's speech, who’ll know about the empty seat?  

In a similar event, Fox’s  Chad Pergram reports that: “One can only imagine the torrent of political theories that filtered through the Capitol this week when Rep. Steve Israel -- a New York Democrat,  top lieutenant to House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and potential candidate to succeed her or House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer down the road -- unexpectedly announced his retirement from Congress.” 

What’s most interesting to me is that, apparently, he’s been my Congressman since 2001. And except for a phone message every couple of years around election time, which I always hang up on without listening, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard his name anywhere else. So, this is just like the POTUS’s empty seat speech. Unless others read the article about his retirement, who'll even notice that he’s gone? 

On another subject, yesterday on Fox’s "The Journal Editorial Report," James Freeman pursued a thought mentioned often here recently, adding some details. 

 

According to Mr. Freeman, the two-year decline in the price of oil equates to a reduction of 70% in costs to consumers, adding up to $2.9 trillion in savings for them. As a result, he believes those now available funds will certainly be spent on other things, driving the economy into a probable boom. Especially, he noted, that the closer November comes, more and more will realize that the POTUS’s departure is actually near, building consumer confidence even further.  

Another panelist, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, differed somewhat. Believing that people will keep their savings much longer. She cited economist Milton Friedman’s theory, that if people believe that things are getting better permanently, they’ll readily spend. If not, they’ll keep or hoard their savings. Which means that they’ll have to be convinced for a longer time before beginning a boom in the economy. 

However, since it’s very likely that as the electoral campaign heats up, and the prospects of a Republican winning the White House increase steadily, the odds are, in this writer’s opinion, that Mr. Freeman will be proven right. 

After seven years of being forced to spend the equivalent of extorted funds for fuel, seeing prices come back to normal will free consumer’s to getting their budgets back to normal too. Thereby permitting the purchase of all those things they weren’t able to afford under the POTUS’s regime and his misguided obsession for eliminating fossil fuel. 

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

Aside from the pressures of eventual charges possibly arising from the FBI’s investigation of illegal use of her private email server, the ongoing Benghazi committee hearings and suspicions regarding whether the slush fund called the Clinton Foundation is actually a charitable organization, another setback arose today for Bill’s wife. 

FoxNews.com reports: “President Obama will not endorse a Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential primary race, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday. 

"That's not our job,” McDonough said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “That's the job of the party to make those decisions and then they'll take a look at the agendas and the positions of those candidates." 

In this case, the decision might truly be a matter of protocol, the POTUS not wishing to be involved until primary voters have made their choice regarding a presidential candidate. 

On the other hand, since Bill’s wife was a member of his cabinet, it would lead to the belief that he’d surely want to endorse her candidacy, having chosen her himself for the position. 

Therefore, it’s just as likely the POTUS either likes someone else for the job, or doesn’t want to tie his name to her at all. 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

BloggeRhythms

According to FoxNews.com this morning, the POTUS wants to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. in 2016. His decision stems from increasing international pressure for the U.S. to do more to shoulder the burden of the refugee crisis in countries like Lebanon and Jordan, and nations across Europe. 

On the other side, though, “U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced concerns about whether the government can properly vet applicants, particularly from war-torn Syria where effective background checks are difficult to conduct.” 

At the same time, “officials at the state level also have tried to fight back against the administration’s plans, and revived their concerns after the two latest arrests.”

What’s most interesting here, is that when it comes to immigrants the POTUS is willing to accept significant risks, because he surely knows that the current system is unreliable and incapable of effectively insuring the proper screening of those flocking here now. Exposing the nation to dangers of all kinds. Yet, he employs everything in his power to disarm upstanding citizens of the Constitutional right to bear arms.

That’s very similar to the ancient Roman method of burying dissenters in the earth in the Coliseum arena up to their necks, and then releasing hungry lions to descend upon them. Stripping those who disagreed of any chance of protecting themselves against predators.  

On the other hand, however, his actions are taking huge tolls in the eyes of the public, intimating that there will be significant payback from voters in November.

Dana Blanton @FoxNews.com writes about a poll released Friday, showing considerable displeasure on a host of issues. 

“The the worst rating is on ISIS:  65 percent think the administration has mostly failed on dealing with the Islamic extremist group, while 23 percent say it has mostly succeeded.  

“In addition, 58 percent of voters feel the White House has mostly failed to make the country safer (34 percent say succeeded).  That’s a significant change from how voters felt the first time Fox News asked in June 2012.  At that time, 55 percent said mostly succeeded and 32 percent said mostly failed.  This is the only area that shows such a shift since 2012.” 

While more than 8 in 10 Republicans responded negatively on the issues tested and Democrats being mostly supportive, more than half of independents say Obama has mostly failed in each instance. 

On major issues, 26 percent of voters say the administration has mostly succeeded on handling illegal immigration, while 62 percent feel the opposite. 

By a 53-41 percent margin, voters say the administration has mostly failed on improving health care.  

On keeping his “most transparent administration ever” promise:  59 percent feel he’s “mostly failed” on running a transparent administration. 

Thirty-four percent think the White House has mostly succeeded on improving the country’s image, while 60 percent say mostly failed. 

Thirty-one percent say Obama has improved race relations, while 59 percent think he’s mostly failed on this too.  

The number feeling optimistic about the economy has dropped to 49 percent, down from 58 percent a year ago.  “And most voters, 76 percent, continue to rate economic conditions negatively (43 percent “only fair” and 33 percent “poor”.) 

“Only 28 percent would describe the country as “strong and confident” right now (71 percent disagree). 

“Currently, 42 of voters approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 53 percent disapprove.  A year ago it was 42-52 percent.” That’s a huge drop from his highest job rating, coming in the weeks after his first inauguration: “65 percent approved and just 16 percent disapproved (January 2009).  Obama’s record low was 38 percent approval in September 2014. “ 

The poll itself, was based on “landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from January 4-7, 2016.  The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.” 

What the poll results clearly indicate is, that while the administration and the continually supportive major media, keep touting that major progress and greatly revised thinking is occurring due to the POTUS’s efforts toward socialism, the public clearly doesn’t agree with them. Thus, although he won’t be there to his party's losses across the board this coming November, he’ll surely be remembered as the cause.    

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife and another undercurrent developing.

A story @politico.com reveals that: “[E]ight batches of Clinton emails released thus far by the State Department-- with an additional limited release expected later this week -- illustrate another priority during her years as Secretary of State: tending to wealthy supporters who backed her campaigns and family foundation.” 

While that kind of activity from Bill’s wife is no surprise at all, the latest email batch discloses specific detail about the party’s involved, as follows: 

“While handling diplomatic issues, she took time to meet with billionaire George Soros, now one of her presidential campaign's top donors. She gave briefings to mega-donor and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, sent birthday wishes to billionaire Haim Saban, and lunched with supporter and philanthropist Jill Iscol. 

“After a day of meetings with the Czech, Tunisian and Pakistani foreign ministers, Clinton flew to New York for the birthday party of her friend Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the clothing line Esprit who has given more than $400,000 to Bill and Hillary Clinton's campaigns. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl MIlls helped Mack McLarty, once Bill Clinton chief of staff and now a major donor, get into a U.S.-China event where he could promote his business interests, another e-mail in the latest batch revealed.” 

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group that sued to obtain Clinton's records, said the emails offer "further confirmation that fundraising and politicking was something that was among her significant duties and responsibilities as she saw it. It comes up time and time again and she has a demonstrated record of providing access in exchange for campaign contributions." 

What’s most important here, is that there’s still almost a year until the presidential election, allowing plenty of time for rival Republicans to develop a strategy for employing the newly disclosed information to their advantage. Coupling that factor with the FBI’s ongoing investigation of the use of a private email server for these types of transactions and communications, doesn’t bode well for Bill’s wife’s political future either. 

Leading 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

BloggeRhythms

It’s truly amazing how hard the major media works to put a positive spin on results in order to support liberal agendas.  

Today, Sho Chandra @bloomberg.com headed his article: “Payrolls Surge, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5% as Workforce Grows,” noting that employers added 292,000 workers in December, while: “The jobless rate held at 5 percent as people entering the labor force found work.” 

And then Mr. Sho got into the details, writing: “At the same time, worker pay disappointed, rising less than forecast from a year earlier. The average workweek for all workers held in December at 34.5 hours.” While before the health care tax average work-weeks were 40 hours or more.

And then, the labor force participation rate, which shows the share of working-age people in the labor force, increased to a four-month high of 62.6 percent, up a tenth of a point from 62.5 percent. 

However, for all of 2015, the highest labor participation rate was 62.9 percent in January: the lowest was 62.4 percent in September, and that 62.4 percent was the lowest in 38 years. Going back to when Jimmy Carter was president. 

As far as the jobless rate of 5% is concerned, the formula now omits the underemployment rate. Changed by the Obama administration for reporting purposes to omit part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and those who want to work but have given up looking. If those categories were still included, the actual rate would be 9.9 percent, roughly doubling the cosmetic statistic currently presented. 

At the same time, according to The Pew Char­it­able Trusts: “Im­mig­rants make up 13 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion and 17 per­cent of the work­force.”

As far as immigrant effect of the work force is concerned: “At the na­tion­al level, im­mig­rant work­ers are dis­trib­uted dif­fer­ently across in­dus­tries than their U.S.-born coun­ter­parts." However: "Im­mig­rants are more likely than U.S.-born work­ers to hold jobs in six of the 13 ma­jor in­dus­tries ex­amined, in­clud­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing and ad­min­is­trat­ive ser­vices.”

So, in conclusion, while the media try’s it’s best to put the administration in its very best light, the dismal economic news directly affects huge sectors of the working public who are losing ground consistently. Which means that, despite the slanted headlines, it’s very likely the voting public will demonstrate their employment frustrations at the polls next November.  

On the bright side, however, according to Sam Ro @businessinsider.com, writes: “Goldman Sachs rethinks its stock market outlook because of something that hasn't happened in at least 48 years.” Referring to the continuing drop in the price of oil.

Goldman Sachs' David Kostin said that their S&P 500 has been lowered by $3, because: "Energy is the leading driver of our reduced profit outlook."    

Mr.Kostin went on: "We expect Energy will post a $2 per share loss in 2015 EPS, the first time that [last-twelve month] Energy EPS has been negative since our data series began in 1967. The write-down in Energy company assets has exacerbated the earnings hit from the 35% fall in Brent crude oil prices in 2015 following a 48% plunge in the commodity price in 2014."

However, while the falling prices for oil may be distressing to Mr. Kostin, Goldman Sachs and even the S&P 500 average, the price reduction certainly provides good news for practically everybody else.

Thanks to lowers cost of fuel, consumers now have more to spend on other things. Be it housing, shopping, entertainment, or any other pleasure or necessities, increased available funds will now drive the rest of the economy. 

And, as often mentioned here, as far as national security’s concerned, Russia, Iran, Syria and even Venezuela are feeling the loss of billions of dollars in oil revenues, crimping their spending on aggression significantly. 

So, while things may be troublesome for Goldman Sachs, all the rest of us have gained considerably from oil’s dropping price and will keep doing so.  

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

Anita Kumar @mcclatchydc.com writes: "At least 1,340 emails that Hillary Clinton sent or received contained classified material, according to the State Department’s latest update from its ongoing review of more than 30,000 emails. 

"The State Department released a new batch of 3,007 pages of Clinton’s emails after 1:30 a.m. Friday in response to a court order. Of those, 66 contain classified information. 

"None of Clinton’s emails was marked as classified during her tenure, State Department officials say, but intelligence officials say some material was clearly classified at the time. Her aides also sent and received classified information."

That supposition seems to be confirmed @hotair.com via Drudge, by Ed Morrissey who writes: “Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.”

Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary’s claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.

In keeping with Joe Biden’s telling television station WVIT in Connecticut yesterday that he plans to stay "deeply involved" in the campaign, reader rbj commented, "No longer inadvertent. This is intentional, with full knowledge of the law.

“Biden as the reluctant warrior is more and more probable now. Hillary is not liked by the federal bureaucracy."

Which also leads once again to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 191 points yesterday, the almost 2% percent drop occurring after China’s regulator said its suspended a circuit-breaker rule that shut the nation’s exchanges twice already this week. China’s stocks plunged 7 percent after the central bank cut the yuan’s reference rate by the most since August. 

In that regard, Matt Clinch @cnbc.com, writes about billionaire financier George Soros who is now warning of an impending financial markets crisis. 

“Speaking an economic forum in Sri Lanka's capital Colombo, he told an audience that China is struggling to find a new growth model and its currency devaluation is transferring problems to the rest of the world, according to media. He added that a return to rising interest rates was proving difficult for the developing world.” 

With global currency, stock and commodity markets under fire in the first week of the new year, almost $2.5 trillion was lost in the value of global equities to date in 2016.

What’s most interesting about the situation, is that so many people, including experts at every level of investment, and particularly those  dealing in equity’s are expressing shock and surprise regarding what’s happened. Yet, the financial calamity really shouldn’t be confusing to any investor who has even a basic understanding of risk. 

While not involved in security’s of any kind, my own career involved the financing and leasing of equipment, used in all types of businesses all over the nation. And rule number one was to never finance any organization of any type, without fully understanding what the business does specifically, who management is, the business plan for the future, and why the equipment was presently needed. And most importantly, precisely how the acquisition would be paid for as demonstrated by financial history, along with bank and other lender references.

In the case of China’s market collapse, those investors taken by surprise and losing heavily are in basically similar positions to any other kind of frivolous lender. And if all they’ve done is ride along a rising market tide, the losses now faced are well-deserved. Because, evidently they did nothing to educate themselves, evaluate probabilities or monitor the funds at risk, although China itself has been projecting slower growth and downturns for quite some time now.

Which confirms PT Barnum’s phrase:  "There's a sucker born every minute"   

In a surprising, but politically adroit step, top Democrats including party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz are now joining in. Urging the administration to act “immediately” to penalize Tehran, according to FoxNews.com. 

Schultz and six other House Democrats, wrote in a letter Wednesday to the POTUS: “The United States and our allies must take immediate, punitive action and send a clear message to Iran that violating international laws, treaties, and agreements will have serious consequences.”

Urging the administration to act on the sanctions “without further delay” and issuing a stark warning about the risk of holding back in light of the nuclear deal, they wrote: “Inaction from the United States would send the misguided message that, in the wake of the [nuclear deal], the international community has lost the willingness to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its support for terrorism and other offensive actions throughout the region.” 

So, what we have here is clear evidence that even the most ardent POTUS supporters certainly realize what a horrendous mistake the nuclear deal is. And although their party loyalty is generally unshakable, those same consistently pandering loyalists to the POTUS, Kerry and Valerie Jarrett are very aware that this deal will cost them dearly next November in elections nationwide.    

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

This morning, Rush questioned Bill’s wife campaign message by asking: “Why is Mrs. Clinton, as her campaign says, trying to fix what's broken?  How is anything broken?  The Democrats have had seven years now, into our eighth year of doing exactly what they want to do.  Why isn't she running around promising to continue this?  Remember George H. W. Bush, when he ran in 1988 promised the Reagan years were so great that his campaign was, "My presidency will be the third Reagan term."  Well, why isn't Mrs. Clinton saying that? Why is she running around promising to fix this, the economy's broken.  How can it be broken?  What tragedy?  I'll tell you, these people are so convoluted and deluded and deranged, it's dangerous.”

While Rush’s point is well-taken regarding the incoherency of Bill’s wife’s message, most of what she says is confusing, inaccurate or simply untrue. Which may be why, according to FoxNews.com: “Vice President Joe Biden says he regrets not running for president "every day" but that he made the right decision for himself and his family.”

The Vice President then went on to “tell television station WVIT in Connecticut that he plans to stay "deeply involved" in the campaign. Possibly indicating that he’s still around, should things turn far worse for Bill’ wife. Leading to the continuing question: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.    

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, the point was made here that the POTUS’s fixation with gun control has significantly increased the sale of weaponry. So much so, that 2015 saw the highest gun sales in history. 

Now today, Austin York @cbsdfw.com  reports that: “A north Texas gun seller is praising the presidents speech, not because of the message… but because of what it will do to his bottom line. 

“Adam McGuffy is a manager at Mister Guns in Plano and says President Obama has always been good for business. 

“Obama is the best gun salesman since Samuel Colt. Every time he opens his mouth and tries to limit gun purchase, it has the complete opposite effect.” 

“He says many get worried about more restrictions and flock to his and other gun stores to stock up. 

“The last time he made a speech after the San Bernardino incident, our sales that day had doubled.” 

On another issue reflecting Democrats continual misjudgments, Quentin Fottrell @marketwatch.com, writes about what may turn out to be a primary reason for a significant Republican sweep in next November’s elections.

What no Democrat candidate can overcome is that: “Americans are starting 2016 with more job security, but most are still theoretically only one paycheck away from the street.” And that’s because the economy itself is flat due to the anti-business, over-regulating polices of the POTUS’s administration.

As a result of the economy not expanding as it has in the past: “Approximately 63% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair, according to a survey released Wednesday of 1,000 adults by personal finance website Bankrate.com, up slightly from 62% last year.” 

The findings are strikingly similar to two other reports, one by the U.S. Federal Reserve survey of more than 4,000 adults released in 2014. “Savings are depleted for many households after the recession,” it found. Among those who had savings prior to 2008, 57% said they’d used up some or all of their savings in the Great Recession and its aftermath. And another survey of 1,000 adults released last year by personal finance website GOBankingRates.com found that most Americans (62%) have less than $1,000 in their savings account (although that doesn’t include retirement or other investment accounts).

“But while unemployment is falling (5% in November 2015 versus 5.8% in November 2014) and the Affordable Care Act has given an estimated 16.4 million people access to medical care, the amount of wealth held by the middle class is shrinking. The share of income held by middle-income families has plunged to 43% of households in 2015 versus 62% in 1970, according to a report released last month by the nonprofit think tank Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.”

Adding another dimension to the dismal financial condition American’s find themselves in, reader Don DeVan commented: “Also not mentioned is the huge negative financial impact the illegal invasion is having. 93 to 94 million have dropped out of the workforce because they can't find jobs, largely because they can't compete with illegal labor. Send them back and watch employment - and savings - become great again!”

Therefore, while social issues certainly resound with the voting public, there’s little wealth left to redistribute when no one’s accumulating any. Except for the very few at the very top. 

Which means that it’s extremely likely that more than 60% of the electorate would like their incomes and economic opportunity increased. And there isn’t a Democrat on earth that can provide that for them. Because its not only conflicts with Democrat goals, but they don’t know how to do it and don't care to.

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

Tuesday on the "Laura Ingraham Show" radio program, Joe DiGenova, a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, said Clinton's "biggest problem right now" is the open FBI investigation into the contents of her private emails. 

"They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff. And, it's going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days." 

"It's going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they're not going to be able to walk away from it," DiGenova said. "They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that's just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives." 

Noting that Bill’s wife has yet to be interviewed by the FBI, a step he said will likely occur before agents make their findings public, he “warned the decision to charge Clinton personally with a crime lies with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, "putting the Obama administration in a difficult political position. 

"I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable," DiGenova said. 

And then Mr. DiGenova made a critically important point, that may force the administration’s compliance: "The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information. The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges." 

Yet, even if the assumedly biased former Reagan attorney is incorrect and no charges are filed, another article today suggests other problems Bill’s wife faces. In this case, her lack of capability and talent. 

Stephen R. Soukup @http://thehill.com/blogs, writes: “Clinton has two major weaknesses as a candidate – presuming, of course, that voters can and will overlook her apparent dishonesty.  First, she has to build her own winning coalition of voters, being unlikely to reproduce Barack Obama’s and entirely unable to resurrect that which put her husband in the White House nearly a quarter century ago.  Second, and more importantly, she must overcome her own record of foreign policy failure, which is obviously tied to Barack Obama’s record and, less obviously, to George W. Bush’s record as well.” 

So, what this all adds up to is that even if she isn’t found guilty of breaking the law as indicated by the evidence, she’s simultaneously incompetent and ineffective, bringing 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

BloggeRhythms

According to FoxNews.com, “President Obama on Tuesday will formally announce plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America's gun laws via executive action‎, going around Congress and fueling allegations of executive overreach.”

Republicans accused the president of going too far, already threatening to fight the new measures by withholding DOJ funding. As a practical matter though, the executive actions don’t seem to be much more than fulfilling the long-time administration goal of narrowing a gun show loophole.  

On the other hand, however, what’s far more interesting is that by making gun ownership a target (no pun intended,) the POTUS and his cohorts seem to be a primary stimulant to gun sales nationwide as people worry that their gun rights will be taken away.

Stephen Gutowski @freebeacon.com, writes that: “The FBI processed a record number of firearms-related background checks last year, indicating that more guns were sold in 2015 than in any previous year in American history.

“More than 23 million checks were processed through the National Instant Background Check System in 2015, an all-time record.” 

Whereas gun purchasing statistics are huge and growing, perhaps instead of demonizing gun owners, the administration ought to examine what’s driving the buying frenzy. Because it seems that a major reason that citizens desire weapons is concern that their government can’t, or won’t, protect them in a constantly more threatening world.   

In the second half of 2015, terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California drove gun and ammunition sales higher than ever. According to Mr.Gutowski: “Some dealers reported seeing their business triple in the wake of the attacks, cautioning that the spike was drying up supply in some areas.”

Along the same lines, concerning citizens feeling the need to protect themselves, a friend sent some information this morning regarding Juval Aviv. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard and the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. 

To his credit: “Aviv predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on 'Fox News', stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him, saying that in a week he wanted Aviv back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred. 

“Aviv also gave intelligence to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said that they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments... I think we all know what happened, right? 

“Congress has since hired Aviv as a security consultant.

Aviv predicts that the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months. "Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try hijacking a plane again as they know the people on board will never go down quietly again. Aviv says that our airport security is a joke 'that we have been reactionary' rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.” 

Most importantly worth considering is Aviv’s theorizing that, “Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. He says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. Instead, they like to use suicide, as it's cheap, it's easy, and it's effective and they have an infinite abundance of young, ignorant, fanatic militants more than willing to 'go see Allah'.” 

Thus, “the next level of terrorists over which America should be most concerned will not be coming from abroad. They will instead be 'home grown' meaning they will have attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U.S. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them. 

“So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for its intelligence. Instead, we need to follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's  hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U.S. Government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake. 

“He stresses the importance of having a plan that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel. He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.” 

And then, Aviv gets to the most important question for everyone, asking: “Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? 

My friend then suggested: “If you believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send it to every concerned parent or guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever and whomever. Nothing will happen if you choose not to do so, but in the event it does happen, I promise this particular email will haunt you."

In conclusion, my friend warns: “Don't be in the category of saying, "I should have sent this to...," but I didn't believe it and just deleted it as so much trash."

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, which comes from a former avid supporter who worked in the Clinton administration.

Kirsten Powers, now a columnist for USA Today, Newsweek and The Daily Beast, and a contributor on Fox News, began her career as a Democratic Party staff assistant with the Clinton-Gore presidential transition team in 1992. Followed by an appointment as Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs in the Clinton administration from 1993-1998, she subsequently worked in various roles including press secretary, communications consultant and party consultant, according to Wikipedia. 

Considering her background, which assumedly provides her an inside perspective regarding what transpires in the Clinton camp, her predictions carry significantly more weight than others. Including the following from Fox News Sunday, where she explained why it was her view that former President Bill Clinton’s past now being raised could be a problem for his wife's campaign. 

According to Powers, the Bill Cosby situation shows that attitudes across the country have changed about allegations of rape and that could be problematic for Hillary Clinton’s bid. 

“I think that what was once referred to as Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions, which now sounds like something that people wouldn’t say today, are going to become problems for Hillary during the campaign,” Powers said.  “The conventional wisdom says this has all been hashed out, and nobody cares about it anymore, but I think if we look at the Bill Cosby situation, we can see the country has definitely changed in terms of how we look at these issues, and these are serious allegations, and her role in them as well.” 

So, what Ms Powers current conclusions seem to indicate, is that even the most ardent supporters are tiring of having to contend with the inappropriate, self-serving and likely illegal propensities of both Clinton’s. 

Added to that is the nation’s present unwillingness to be as forgiving as in the past of lewd and lascivious behavior and those supporting it. Which 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