Sunday, August 31, 2014


Today’s items further illustrate the question posed here yesterday. Basically asking what else but failure could be expected from a political hack having no experience whatsoever, suddenly thrust into the position of POTUS? Then, once elected, additionally refusing input or sage advice from others, instead pursuing ideologies squarely opposite to those responsible for the nation’s unparalleled success up to the time he took office.   
In that regard, Mort Zuckerman, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of US News and World Report and publisher of The New York Daily News appeared Friday on “The McLaughlin Group, arguing that President Obama “has lost the confidence of the business community.”
Mr. Zuckerman said, “[The economy] has...grown by about 2%, 2.1%, for the last five years, which is the lowest rate of growth coming out of a recession we have had ever, since the Great Depression. And what’s more, that only took place, not because of the fact that the economic environment was that good, it's because we have a hugely stimulating monetary policy and fiscal policy. We have run up huge national debt and we have undermined the value of the dollar, and this is in my judgment not representing a good economic policy.
Zuckerman also related that the national debt would “restrict what we are going to be able to do as a country for decades,” adding that “we have a situation where we are losing the competitive edge that we had, not totally, but in many, many areas.”
The most interesting opinion ventured by Mr. Zuckerman, though, was that “he [Obama] has lost the confidence of the business community and the business world in terms of where it counts, which is investment, and new plant[s] and equipment,” because that conclusion was presented as if was news. Yet, anyone familiar with the incumbent’s philosophies is fully aware that he’s been vehemently anti-business and anti-capitalism for his entire political career.  
Moving on, another favorite subject got headlines today, this one in by David Rose, regarding global-warming.
Mr. Rose writes that, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change in 2007, AlGore said, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
“But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.
Furthermore, “It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.”
The article contains considerable additional information and is well worth reading. Here’s a link: 'Myth of arctic meltdown'... Satellite images show cap has GROWN
So, adding these two total mistakes to a foreign policy that has no strategy yet while the Middle-East implodes and ISIS threatens America, hasn’t made this a really good week for the current POTUS. But, not to worry, because it’s now become known that copies of Lois Lerner’s IRS emails certainly do exist which may take the Veteran's Administration scandal and the illegals streaming across the border out of the headlines.  
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, August 30, 2014


With each passing day, questions mount and confusion grows regarding the incumbent’s seeming indifference on one hand, and contrary actions on the other, toward events occurring here and throughout the world. Even the usually steadfast major media are now among the sizable list of those finding fault with his job performance.
While the answer to the incumbent’s behavior, however, is really quite simple to grasp, serious analysts continue to make the same mistakes. Whereas they treat the various issues on their merits, analyzing each in terms of its individual substance, looking for the best and most logical approach to solution. But, that’s not how this particular administration works.
Those at the top of the U.S. government now aren’t seasoned, experienced, professional executives steeped in knowledge regarding the various and sundry aspects of optimizing the status and performance of the nation to their best ability. They are simply a bunch of political hacks, driven by goals of success at the polling booths attempting to insure longevity for their party, and especially themselves. Which means that loyalty to those who voted them into office is far more important than anything else. Unless, the cost of that loyalty becomes too costly to repay, due to changes in circumstances.   
Therefore, by taking a step back and assessing various current situations from a purely political viewpoint, the picture becomes abundantly clearer.  
For example, the AP now reports that, “Obama in June said that by the end of the summer, he'd announce what steps he had decided to take to fix the nation's immigration system in the absence of a legislative fix from Capitol Hill. But Obama backed away from that deadline on Thursday, and the White House on Friday acknowledged it was possible the decision would slip past the end of summer. It was unclear whether any delay would be a mere matter of weeks or could push the announcement past the November elections.
As a practical matter, Paul Bedard of the The Washington Examiner noted that, “The Obama administration has released a huge majority of illegal immigrant children who poured over the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year into dozens of tony counties without notifying the public, while deporting just 280, according to new reports. 
The Health and Human Services Department released a list of 126 counties 29,890 of the kids were placed into, sometimes with their parents who are also in the United States illegally. 
Those counties include some of the most exclusive in the nation, including the Washington suburbs of Fairfax and Loudoun in Virginia and Howard and Montgomery in Maryland. Fairfax received 1,023.”
Thus, while thousands of illegal aliens entered the nation across a border left purposefully open to appease a significant voting block of supportive Hispanics, the backlash from a far larger and growing group of concerned citizens throughout the country now seems to be taking precedence as November draws nearer. Yet, nowhere in that scenario does the safety or well-being of the nation itself come into consideration at all. All that counts is the number of potential votes.  
On another issue, Jim Angle of writes that, the Wall Street research firm S&P IQ  predicts that 90 percent of employer-provided insurance plans will disappear because, “companies will really be hard pressed to justify why they would continue to have to spend the kind of money they spend by offering insurance through corporate plans when there's an alternative that's subsidized by the government.
Analysts predict this historic change because the penalty for not offering insurance -- $2,000 per worker -- is much less than the cost of providing it. For a worker making only $15 an hour, typical employer coverage for a family costs $15,000 or $16,000, that's more than half of that worker’s annual wage," explained health care economist John Goodman, "So lots of employers,” he argued, will “find it attractive to send their low income employees to the exchange.”
Therefore, in order to provide health care coverage to the 15% of the population previously uninsured, the health care tax will now cost millions of formerly covered workers half their annual incomes. And that’s because politics overrode common sense, while nothing but an expectation of additional voters ever entered the picture from the outset.
And what’s even more ridiculous and irrational is that while analysts predict that as ObamaCare takes hold, it will mean the end of employer-provided insurance, former Obama adviser Zeke Emanuel argued that, “"It's going to actually be better for people. They'll have more choice. Most people who work for an employer and get their coverage through an employer do not have choice."
Which is like saying to someone who’s lost the use of a needed company car that “Now you can go out and buy that Rolls Royce you’ve always dreamed about.” 
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, August 29, 2014


In a press conference this morning the incumbent took a strong and defiant stance against the growing ISIS threat, vowing to prevent the terrorist organization from harming the homeland and its people.
The government raised its terror threat level Friday from "substantial" to "severe," the fourth highest of five levels, in response to events in Iraq and Syria, where ISIS militants have seized a swath of territory. A senior government official said, “that means that a terrorist attack is highly likely, but there is no intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent."
The incumbent also said, the "root cause" of the terrorist threat is "Islamist extremism." And that, the recent killing of U.S. journalist James Foley is clear evidence that ISIS's fight in Iraq and Syria "is not some foreign conflict thousands of miles from home that we can hope to ignore."
The danger that ISIS poses now is a "greater and deeper" threat to the nation’s security than the country has ever known. This is in part because ISIS is not simply seeking refuge in a country but ruthlessly seeking its own terrorist state and expanding.
Furthermore, he also said he will soon announce plans to stop would-be jihadists from traveling to Syria and Iraq and to make it easier to take their passports away, and that the nation also needs to do more to stop current fighters from returning from the Middle East and to deal decisively with those who already have returned.
While the leader’s comments were strong, decisive and presented a strategic basis for dealing with a growing terrorist threat, they did not, however, do much to assuage the fears and trepidations of many U.S. citizens. Because the words were delivered by the incumbent British Prime Minister David Cameron and referred to his approach for his nation and citizens.
As far as the U.S. is concerned its POTUS has long been reluctant to enter into the Syrian conflict. He told reporters Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for confronting ISIS on a regional level. Which points out a glaring difference in statesmanship between an accomplished leader such as PM Cameron and a floundering political hack from Chicago.  
AP reports that, “The president is interrupting a weekend trip to return to D.C., tonight. The White House says Obama has changed his plans for Friday and will return to Washington late in the evening after fundraisers in Rhode Island and New York. He had planned to spend the night in New York. Presidential aides say the change in plans was not related to any current events and was the president's personal choice.”
And what that means is, his planned New York golf date must have cancelled and was replaced by one back home in DC. 
On another subject, Sharon Cotliar  of reports that, “After not quite three years as a special correspondent for NBC News – and with just a little while until she and husband Marc Mezvinsky are expected to become parents – the former first daughter is now leaving that position, she tells PEOPLE in a statement, "to continue focusing on my work at the Clinton Foundation and as Marc and I look forward to welcoming our first child."
Its far more likely, though, that what really happened was that NBC looked at its shrinking revenues and said we can no longer afford the $600,000 we’re paying this woman to do pretty much nothing at all. What’s more, its beginning to look like her mother may not even be electable, whereas every day brings a drop in her poll numbers and the presidential election’s still more than two years away. So why pay for access to someone who won’t even make it to the White House?
As far as the loss of Chelsea’s income goes, if she’s in a financial bind she can always go to dad who, Wealth-X says: “Is founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation and a former U.S. president. Financial news site 24/7 Wall Street estimates his net worth at around $38 million. However, the value of his circle of influence is $227 billion.” Therefore, he’d probably advance her a low-interest loan.
That's it for today folks

Thursday, August 28, 2014


Two major problems for virtually all politicians are a constant urge to talk incessantly on one hand, and to continually underestimate the voting public’s ability to think for themselves on the other. One couldn’t find a better example of the overwhelming need to fill the atmosphere with hot air than the incumbent himself.  
There are many times, though, where simply standing by silently as events pan out would be a far better political strategy than verbally shooting from the hip, one of which is taking place now.
Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa of The Washington Post report that, “Both political parties are in a state of high anxiety about the possibility that President Obama will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country, fearing that White House action on the issue could change the course of November’s midterm elections.”
Democratic candidates in nearly every closely fought Senate race have criticized the idea of aggressive action by the incumbent, understanding full well what a mistake it would be.
Nonetheless, Senior Republicans have their own worries about a “September surprise” on immigration, knowing their own “party’s tendency to erupt at such moments — including government shutdowns and impeachment threats — and that the GOP brand is even more tattered than the Democratic one.”
The article’s authors conclude that, “A conservative uprising against the administration would pose little risk for safely entrenched Republicans in the GOP-controlled House. But any move toward impeachment hearings against Obama or another government shutdown would cause serious problems for Republicans in key Senate races. They must appeal to independents who already are suspicious about the party’s ability to govern.”
However, in this situation, world events and crises being what they are and terrorist threats rising continually in number, size and scope, its highly unlikely that anyone intending to vote is unaware of the risk uncontrolled illegal entry poses.
Therefore, the best approach Republicans can take is to let the incumbent proceed on his own uncontested by them. Thereby permitting common sense and the law of averages do the electioneering for them when terrorism crosses the border unchecked and unbridled as it is now.
On the same subject, reports that, “Maricopa Co., AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio said that he believes ISIS knows the southern border is not secure and that it is “common sense” that they will exploit the lack of border security on Wednesday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Hannity.”
When asked, “Do you believe ISIS terrorists can cross that border and already have crossed that border?,” the sheriff responded, “Of course, anybody can cross the border. They look at CNN and Fox, and everywhere else ... you're trying to tell me they don't know all the politicians running for office saying ‘the border must be secured?’ They know it's not secured. So why not utilize that 2,000 mile border to sneak across? That’s just common sense. So, let's hope that we can do something, especially in foreign countries, and stop them from reaching the U.S. border.”
And what’s worse is, that if terrorists didn’t know how porous the border is, thanks to all the discussion in the U.S. media, they surely do now. Even if the White House itself doesn’t know or care about the problem they themselves have created. 
Lastly, Emily Smith writes in the New York Post’s Page 6, via Drudge, that “NBC News president Deborah Turness had to apologize after infuriating top execs and talent by announcing the network news organization had been asleep for 15 years.”
Turness, who came from Britain’s ITV News last year, said in a New York Times interview on Sunday, “NBC News hadn’t kept up with the times in all sorts of ways, for maybe 15 years . . . I think the organization had gone to sleep.”
As a result, “Tom Brokaw, managing editor and anchor of NBC’s “Nightly News” from 1982 until 2004, Turness’ predecessor Steve Capus (NBC News president from 2005 to 2013 and now executive producer of “CBS Evening News”) and CNN chief Jeff Zucker “are apoplectic” over Turness’ remark.
One network insider fumed, “Turness is making enemies. Her ‘asleep’ comment is incredibly disrespectful to many of NBC’s top journalists, especially Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, and her predecessors Steve Capus, Andy Lack, Neal Shapiro and Jeff Zucker.”
Another NBC source added, “The comment caused uproar inside NBC. Several people inside NBC News, including execs who report to Turness, complained. It offended everybody who preceded Turness as far back as Neal Shapiro.”
Now, obviously, those responsible for putting the network to sleep would certainly be offended by the opinion presented publicly in the Times, therefore their outrage is to be expected. But, the major thing that all their clamor can’t change is that as a media outlet, NBC’s going backward. And her description of the organization, its offerings and talent, is absolutely right.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014


Two issues in the news today will likely prove to have significant benefit for the Republican party and its candidates in upcoming elections.
Coral Davenportaug reports in The New York Times that, “The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
What that means is tighter restrictions on businesses and commerce in general for a nation that hasn’t fully recovered yet from the last recession. Additionally, making things worse, there are no presently viable alternatives for fuels, such as coal, that can be obtained as replacements, further driving up costs for millions of citizens.
Therefore, the Democrat party as a whole will suffer at the voting booths at the Congressional level as a result.
At the same time, Caroline May Breitbart of Breitbart writes that “The White House has indicated that President Obama will take some kind of executive action on immigration at the end of summer, but the administration has been tight-lipped about the specifics of such a move.
Reports have indicated that the executive action could provide legalization for some five million undocumented immigrants already in the United States – something Lisa Navarrete, adviser to the president of La Raza, explained to Breitbart News in a Tuesday interview would be welcome but really the “floor” number of what her group is looking to accomplish.”
In this case, the reality is that uncontrolled entry to the nation by illegal aliens raises the unfortunate probability that enemies and/or terrorists have already entered the nation, or are in the process of doing so. Which means that the odds of some kind of threat, such as a bombing, chemical or biological attack have increased significantly. 
And therefore, it will also be the Democrat party that is standing by quietly for the most part while this happens, that will take the blame when tragedy occurs.
Which means that if the Republicans want to be assured of electoral victory’s, all they need do is keep their distance and leave the incumbent and his party alone. Because, the self-destruction they’re presently committing virtually guarantees landslide defeats for them this coming November at the polls.   
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Reading the news today, regarding situations here at home as well as those taking place around the globe is remindful once again of the film, The Candidate
Made in 1972, the satirical comedy-drama starred Robert Redford, and is recapped in Wikipedia as follows:
“Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle), a political election specialist, must find a Democratic candidate to oppose California U.S. Senator Crocker Jarmon, a popular Republican. With no big-name Democrat eager to enter the unwinnable race, Lucas seeks out Bill McKay (Robert Redford), the idealistic, charismatic son of former governor John J. McKay (Melvyn Douglas).
On election day, McKay wins. In the final scene, he escapes the victory party and pulls Lucas into a room while throngs of journalists clamor outside. McKay asks Lucas, "Marvin ... What do we do now?" The media throng arrives to drag them out, and McKay never receives an answer.”
And that’s precisely what the nation faces now. An administration that from the very top and throughout, hasn’t an iota of an idea how to do its job or handle any aspect of its responsibilities.
This morning, Dana Mattioli, David Benoit and Julie Jargon of the Wall Street Journal reported that, “Investor Warren Buffett is helping finance Burger King Worldwide Inc.’s planned takeover of Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons Inc., according to people familiar with the matter, in a surprise twist that thrusts the billionaire into a debate over U.S. taxes.”
The investment would also place Buffett, known for championing American companies and for advocating that wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes, “into an uncomfortable position at the center of a spirited debate over U.S. tax policy.”
Structured as a so-called inversion, it would move the new company's headquarters to Canada. However, these deals that can help companies sidestep taxes, also have drawn stiff opposition in Washington. 
That opposition, though, is not surprising because the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S., which combines national, state, and city-level tax rates, is nearly 40 percent, highest across all 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries. Canada's rate is just over 26 percent.
Furthermore, Miami-based Burger King, founded in 1954, presently has more than 13,000 locations in nearly 100 countries, significantly increasing its presence in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. Therefore, there’s far more to this story than just an American business suddenly deciding to move for tax consideration purposes although they’re certainly quite considerable.
Yet, if the administration actually applied some business sense to taxes instead of taking a purely, and incorrect, politically motivated approach, not only would Burger King likely keep its headquarters here, another two trillion dollars held overseas by other entities would probably also come quickly back as well. And as far as Buffet's concerned, regardless of what he professes, follow the money to really know what he thinks.     
On another issue involving finance, The Blog in the Weekly Standard by Jeryl Bier says that, “The federal government issued sixty contracts from 2009 to 2014 in efforts to build, the federal insurance marketplace. According to a report issued today by the inspector general (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the government had already paid out just under half a billion dollars by February 2014, five months after the beginning of open enrollment. The government is already under obligation for another $300 million, and the estimated value of the sixty contracts totals $1.7 billion.”
Yet, according to the United States Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 48.0 million people in the US (15.4% of the population) who were without health insurance. However, according to Gallup polling data, back in 2008 14.8 percent of Americans lacked health insurance coverage. then. Therefore, if enrollment numbers stay as they are,  $1.7 billion taxpayer dollars will be spent to insure .006 percent of the population. Which means there has to be a better way of addressing the issue than this ill-thought out fiasco called Obamacare.
Along the same lines, Daily Caller reports that,: “Americans who underestimated their income for 2014 when they applied for health insurance might see their tax refund reduced or eliminated completely. The Obama administration is warning taxpayers that they need to provide updates about changes in income. Taxpayers who make use of tax credits to help pay health insurance premiums are at serious risk, since if income increases unexpectedly during the year, the tax credit could not only dry up completely, but instead reverse, leaving taxpayers with an additional bill.”
The tax situation isn’t surprising though, because with the government trying to find $1.7 billion to pay for, every nickel counts.
But losing major business enterprises to foreign nations and burgeoning problems in the health care tax aren’t the only issues haunting the administration today because, Judicial Watch tells Fox News that “the Department of Justice has suggested the “lost” e-mails may still exist on backup computers. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says DOJ attorneys told him the federal government backs up all computer records to ensure the continuity of government in event of a catastrophe.”
Therefore, this clearly illustrates the fact that Judicial Watch and House Oversight Committee Chairman Darryl Issa have been absolutely right in not abandoning their quest to obtain IRS documents that surely exist. No matter how many suspected perpetrators tell them otherwise under “oath.”
Which all leads to a final comment from Charles Krauthammer, on “Special Report with Bret Baier,”  who was talking about Iraq and Syria, but his words pretty much cover every issue the administration’s involved in.  
“You wonder...whether this administration, that can’t even get its story straight in one day, can conduct an operation of that delicacy and complexity, military, diplomatic and political. The president simply can’t decide…I think this really ought to make us think twice about whether we can entrust a man of this lack of decisiveness.”
And that pretty well sums it all up.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, August 25, 2014


The most consistent aspect of the current administration is its lacking of firm policy development in almost every aspect of governance, especially so in foreign affairs. And that serious shortcoming arose again over the past few days regarding Syria.
Until now, and especially when the incumbent was away honing his golf skills for the past two weeks, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, and Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, have said all options regarding Syria remain on the table. Which would certainly include airstrikes and perhaps, even boots on the ground.
Further confirmation of Chairman Dempsey’s belief came Thursday when he said that  ISIS must be targeted in Syria to be defeated.
But now, the incumbent’s back in the White House, instead of walking the fairways, and must have told General Dempsey to tone it down. Because, according to  CBS News DC the general spoke to reporters on board a military plane traveling to Afghanistan on Sunday and said, “that he believes the Sunni insurgent group formerly known as ISIS is not currently plotting or planning attacks against the U.S. or Europe.”
Therefore, for this administration, and especially its head, once again politics trumps reality. Even when the nation’s security is at risk as believed by its Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense.    
The next item concerns former New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg and another of his pet projects.
While in office, Bloomberg inserted himself in a considerable number of issues regarding city dwellers personal behavior and choices, including bans on sodas larger than 16 ounces, chain restaurant menus without calorie counts, sales of flavored tobacco products and trans-fats in restaurants.
His continual intervention earned him the name “Nanny” Bloomberg, with one of his ongoing goals, even after leaving office, gun control.
In that regard, back on last April 15th Jeremy W. Peters of The New York Times wrote that, “Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence, an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association.”
Mr. Peters went on to point out that “The considerable advantages that gun rights advocates enjoy — in intensity, organization and political clout — will not be easy to overcome. Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent millions of dollars trying to persuade members of Congress to support enhanced background check laws with virtually nothing to show for it.”
However, Bloomberg may have even bigger hurdles to overcome now, because on Sunday in The Washington Times, Kelly Riddell wrote that, “Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.”
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, offered this explanation: “It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect. The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic — they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course — and yet you have these incredible numbers.”
Furthermore, “A July study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. Meanwhile, homicide and other violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.”
So, once again, we have a misguided former politician who’s made his mind up to push his beliefs and ideologies on the general public, although the facts and statistics indicate something entirely different.
And in former mayor Bloomberg’s case, as has been suggested here several times in the past, he has a solution to gun control most others don’t. Because, if he were to use his wealth to provide everyone with armed bodyguards like he has, most weapons in the hands of the public wouldn't be needed at all.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, August 24, 2014


Maureen Dowd wrote one of the best analyses of the incumbent’s current job performance to date than any seen in a very long time in her Op-ed column in The New York Times this morning. The sarcastic piece is titled, “The Golf Address.”
Ms Dowd lists several of the nation’s problems in a paragraph, as follows: “ISIL brutally killing hostages because we won’t pay ransoms, rumbles of coups with our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan, the racial caldron in Ferguson, the Ebola outbreak, the Putin freakout — there’s enough awful stuff going on to give anyone the yips.”
Written from the incumbent’s perspective, it begins, “FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.
I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun.”
The article’s brilliant and well-worth reading, so here’s a link: 'SO HELP ME GOLF'
Regarding the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., Andrew Johnson addressed the issue in The Corner in National Review Online by quoting Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke.
Sherriff Clarke believes that, “Attorney general Eric Holder and Missouri Democratic leaders need to apologize to the law-enforcement community for impugning officers’ motives in light of the unrest in Ferguson, Mo.” And also that, Holder, Governor Jay Nixon, and Senator Claire McCaskill made the situation in Ferguson worse with their “irresponsible, inflammatory” comments about the city’s police force and its supposed problem with race relations.”
The sheriff “argued on Fox News on Friday that the trio was “insinuating that our law-enforcement officers across the United States engage in some nefarious or systematic and cultural attempts to violate people’s civil rights. I thought that was a slap in the face to every law-enforcement officer in America who puts on the badge and the uniform everyday to go out and risk their lives in service to their community.”
Clarke, a black man himself, “specifically called on Holder to either further explain himself or apologize to law enforcement for “adding hot sauce to this volatile situation.”
So, here we have another case where the administration’s first reaction is to politicize a situation before learning the facts involved or the actual circumstances. But even worse, by bringing the weight of the Attorney General and the Justice Department, along with that of the White House to bear, the chances for the office involved to receive fair legal treatment is all but impossible now.
And although the purpose of presenting the status of the case isn’t an attempt to side with law enforcement, but rather to advance the premise that the determination should be made through proper channels of the legal system, due to the heavy-handedness of the administration the public will likely never know the real truth of the matter. Which in itself is criminal. 
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, August 23, 2014


There seems little doubt that the burgeoning conflict in Iraq will lead to a third Iraq war, likely to spread to Syria as well. Needless to say, the horrible shame of the conflict is that it could have been avoided had political pandering not outweighed sound foreign policy practices.
On the same subject, but from a different aspect, Governor Mike Huckabee was asked on Fox & Friends this morning what steps he might have taken regarding the situation, were he the POTUS.
Paraphrasing the governor’s response, he suggested that the root of the problem can be traced to preclusion of the nation’s development of its own wealth of natural resources, particularly the drilling for oil due to excessive, and likely unnecessary, regulation.
Limited ability in domestic oil production forced acquiring billions upon billions of dollars from providers in the Middle-East, who not only gained immense wealth from the windfall, but also cannot, or will not, defend themselves against terrorist threats. Therefore, nations such as Saudi Arabia not only enrich themselves as suppliers, but rely on us for their defense.
In conclusion, the governor suggested that, had we not needed oil importation the whole picture of Middle-Eastern involvement on the part of the U.S. would be quite different. And in all probability, the oil-producing nations there would have taken far less of our dollars, while also having to develop the means to protect themselves without us.   
The governor’s comments resonated strongly with me, whereas I’ve been presenting the exact same scenario here for the past four years. 
While the situation in Iraq continues to grow in complexity, the incumbent is still vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard. He did, however return to DC for a couple of days, which had all the talking heads and media pundits speculating about the reason for his visit. Most thought there’d be some breakthrough announcement about the conflict’s in Iraq, or Israel, or perhaps, even a Supreme Court  justice retirement and replacement. However, whatever the reason was, all were sure the news would be huge.
As it turned out though, all the speculation had been wrong whereas nothing of major importance surfaced at all, as recapped by Rush on his show, as follows:   
RUSH: We now know, ladies and gentlemen, why Obama went back to Washington, left Martha's Vineyard, split from the vacation. Major Garrett had the details on CBS This Morning. 
GARRETT:  In addition to golf, the president's vacation scorecard includes three dinners out, two beach days, one bike ride, a jazz concert, and a fundraiser for Senate Democrats. Not to mention a five-hour bachelor party Monday in the Washington home of former White House chef Sam Kass. 
Thus, it looks like the most significant part of the return to DC was a party for a former chef. Which seems in keeping with how the incumbent typically spends taxpayer’s money. Because, compared to previous wastes of funds, such as Cash for Clunkers, the GM bailout, Operation Fast and Furious, Solyndra and Obamacare this jaunt was cheap. According to Judicial Watch the two day extra trip only cost $1.1 million.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, August 22, 2014


As mentioned yesterday, not only are the failed policies and decisions made regarding Syria and Iraq now vividly coming to light, but the U.S. is now quite likely to have to return to conflicts not only won, but proudly handed back to its enemies.
In that regard, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel addressed the ISIS uprising at a press conference, saying, “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded.” and, “beyond anything that we’ve seen.”
Then he warned: “So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready.” To which, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that it would require escalating the conflict and striking targets inside of Syria.
Which means that, regarding foreign policy, by placing political goals above reality the U.S. not only wasted nine years of hard-fought gains but has allowed a foe to grow into a world-wide threat.
As far as being wrong is concerned, Rush provided another example yesterday on another subject, saying “The Washington Post is back at it. They have another column, and it's written by a cop, and CNN is so mad about it, they have posted a piece on this column in the Washington Post!”
The subject was the situation in Ferguson, Missouri about which Sunil Dutta, a 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department wrote, “Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line. If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.” He then “cautions against arguing, insulting, or screaming at officers,” saying “and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?”
Dutta went on, “If you believe an officer is violating your rights or bullying you, don't challenge him then -- save that for lodging a complaint later. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.”
Now, Rush got to his point, by sarcastically noting that, ”It took no time for the anger over his message to explode," and no wonder! Have you ever heard anything so outrageous? When a policeman tells you to do something...? Everybody up 'til now, I guess, thought it was a suggestion. You're under no obligation to obey the guy! You don't have to do a damn thing!”
Rush went on, “When an officer tells you to lay down, you don't have to. You can rush the guy. What are people thinking? There literally is outrage over what this LAPD cop wrote in the Washington Post, and it's this line, right here: "Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."

On the other hand though, while its quite politically correct to berate and denigrate cops, especially for those on the left, maintaining law and order is a necessity in a civilized society. Nonetheless, for those who very strenuously object to police procedures, I suggest that the next time they’re held-up, robbed, raped, physically threatened or abused in any way, instead of screaming their head's off or dialing 911, they contact a reporter from CNN for help.

On a similar subject, Paris Achen, courts reporter for The Columbian in Vancouver, WA, writes that, “Clark County's prosecutor said Tuesday he will dismiss a firearms-related charge against a Vancouver man who said he was merely taking Vice President Joe Biden's advice on how to defend his property from car prowlers. Instead, the man will be prosecuted for obstructing a police officer.
Jeffrey C. Barton, 53, made international news when he told journalists: "I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air."

The reference was to Biden saying in February of 2013 that  Americans don't need to own semiautomatic weapons because a couple blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders, and now dubbed the "Joe Biden defense." One of the very few Democrat ideas that actually works. 
On another matter, Emmarie Huetteman and David Montgomery of the New York Times write that “Gov. Rick Perry of Texas warned Thursday that militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and other terrorist groups may have already slipped across the Mexican border.” 
What’s odd about the Governor's comment is that he’s stating it now. Because that premise has been mentioned here quite often over the past four years and is so obvious that anyone with an iota of common sense could readily see it. Except, of course, for folks continually vacationing, unaware of problems facing the nation and spending the majority of their time with political allies on the golf links.   
Then, yesterday, Charles Krauthammer opined on Fox News, "Special Report with Bret Baier" about the controversy surrounding the idea of putting American troops on the ground in Iraq, saying "It’s about a war on these people which doesn’t mean boots on the ground. It means supporting the existing troops on the ground who are doing a reasonably good job."

However, Krauthammer added, “the Obama administration is trying to push for doing nothing.”

What was the most interesting factor about Krauthammer’s thoughts, though, wasn’t so much what he said, but the knee-jerk reaction of what sounds like a typical leftist reader.

RedStatesQuitMooching wrote: “The US probably needs to help the people fighting ISIS, but I'm always amazed how eager Republicans are to engage in war.”

To which, kevintg replied: “WW I- Woodrow Wilson (D) WW II-F.D.R (D) Korean War Harry S Truman (D) Viet Nam J.F.K. (D) and who is eager to engage in war there tardakins!”

So, here again we have unequivocal proof of how prototype leftists consistently disparage others without knowledge of historical record or possession of supporting facts. Which is a major reason why we’re likely on the verge of returning to war in the Middle-East. Because, had the situation there been treated strategically instead of by political pandering, ISIS wouldn’t have the unbridled opportunity they now possess.

That's it for today folks.


Thursday, August 21, 2014


An item today in Chris Stirewalt’s column on, sadly illustrates how pathetically bad the administration’s performance has been in foreign policy, and is apparently getting worse.
Mr. Stirewalt writes, “With President Obama facing increasing pressure to respond more forcefully to Islamist militants in the wake of the beheading of American journalist James Foley, the White House leaked word that the president had authorized a failed rescue mission to save Foley and other Americans hostages.”
Thus, if the best example the incumbent can offer to demonstrate how hard they're working to battle militants is a failed rescue attempt, why would any enemy on the planet continue to fear what once was the most respected nation but now a mere shadow of its former self?
Perhaps a major part of the answer is that eight minutes after wrapping up a press conference on the subject, the incumbent was “at a nearby country club for a round of golf with former NBA star Alonzo Mourning and a Wall Street donor.” Consequently, its quite obvious to one and all, and most certainly to the nation’s enemies, where the incumbent's priorities lie.
Even the usually reliable New York Times took what may have been a cheap shot by heading an article on the story about the golf-loving president’s response to the killing, “Obama, outraged over beheading, vows to stay on course.” However, after the headline was quickly mocked, it was also quickly changed. 
Paralleling the tragic slaying of journalist Foley is another item on Fox, noting that, “A senior U.S. official also told Fox News that military planners are weighing the possibility of sending more American forces to Iraq.” Which would mean that, after politicizing the troop withdrawal instead of recognizing the situation in Iraq as it was, not only will U.S. troops be back on the ground there, but forced to be fighting to recapture ground already won and willingly forsaken.
Foreign policy, though, isn’t the only disappointing subject in today’s news.    
Terence P. Jeffrey of writes that, according to the Census Bureau, 109,631,000 people living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012 equaled 35.4 percent of all those living in the that time.
Adding those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits to those taking welfare benefits, totaled 153,323,000 people getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012. 
Therefore, whereas 309,467,000 people were  living in the the end of 2012, 49.5 percent of the population were receiving benefits of some kind.
Furthermore, “In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.”
So, for someone who campaigned on creating opportunity for all, it seems his objectives may have been misunderstood. Because while job markets have shrunk and working people have seen their incomes significantly reduced, government benefit recipients have greatly increased. 
Which means that, a nation of formerly self-reliant souls for the most part, have now been transformed into parasites, no longer capable of supporting themselves. And what’s most remarkable is that took only six years to turn the nation’s philosophy and work ethic upside down.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014


Most headline stories today concern the mushrooming unrest across the Middle-East, along with almost constant coverage of the shooting death of black 18-year-old Michael Brown by white police Officer Darren Wilson in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson.
At the same time, while getting far less attention, several news items indicate a steadily growing displeasure with the incumbent’s policies. To the extent that they now seem to be negatively affecting Ron Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago and former White House Chief of Staff.
Bill Ruthhart in his Clout Street column in the Chicago Tribune writes that, Karen Lewis the Chicago Teachers Union president, said that though “she has not yet decided whether she will challenge the mayor in February’s city election, she sounded at times like someone intent on running.”
Emanuel suggested that sharp dissatisfaction Chicago voters showed toward him in a new Chicago Tribune poll “is tied to a sluggish economy, making no mention of his controversial decision to close dozens of schools or the city’s struggles with street violence.”
When “asked why his slogan of “Moving Chicago forward” has not resonated with the majority of Chicagoans who disapprove of the job he’s doing, Emanuel pointed to a lack of jobs for many in the city and said there is a need to “understand and appreciate there is tremendous stress economically on middle class and working class families.”
And there’s the rub. Because Chicago’s economy is a reflection of the dismal economic condition of most major cities across the nation. Which means that Emanuel's unable to grow his own town due to the anti-business stance formulated and enforced by the very administration he was a key part of. Translating to a vivid description of the phrase of being “hoisted with one’s own petard.” Because if that significant weakness wasn’t apparent, it’s highly doubtful that Ms Lewis would consider challenging a fellow Democrat at all.
In another example of self-destruction, yesterday I mentioned that “Obamacare is increasing the cost of providing health insurance to workers, according to a report released Monday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A majority of businesses surveyed by the New York Fed expect the health-care law to increase the cost of their coverage, and the median respondent estimates a boost by 10 percent in 2015.” Meaning that in one way or another, employees cost of health care coverage is quite likely to go up.
Then today Fox News reports that “To help pay for President Barack Obama's health law, Congress enacted a 2.3 percent tax on the sale of medical devices used chiefly by doctors and hospitals, such as pacemakers and CT scan machines.”
The tax took effect in January 2013 and, for the first six months of that year, the IRS estimated it would collect $1.2 billion from it. However, an audit by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration said the IRS collected only $913 million — 24 percent less than the estimate.
Since the tax is projected to generate $29 billion over the coming decade, a 24 percent shortfall, if sustained, would be significant.
The IRS estimated receiving between 9,000 and 15,600 returns for the first two quarters of 2013, but received only 5,107 returns, “suggesting that thousands of companies either don't know about the requirements or are simply ignoring them.”
A majority of Congress is on record supporting repeal of the tax, but there’s no consensus on how to make up the lost revenue without adding to the budget deficit.
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee put it best, saying "Everything from this ill-conceived tax's structure to its implementation has been a disaster. It is no surprise that 79 senators went on the record to repeal this job-killing tax."
So, here we have several isolated incidences of deep dissatisfaction with the current administration’s fiscal policies, most of which negatively affect significant segments of the population. Therefore, when you add them all together, even formerly staunch supporters like Ms Lewis in Chicago thinks things need to be changed within her party in order to get better.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014


If nothing else, the incumbent’s consistent. While doing nothing about most things most of the time, whenever he does get involved he’s usually on the wrong side of the issues involved.
Today, Chris Stirewalt led his column off by writing, “Democrats are not happy. They’re divided over the ongoing military intervention in Iraq, a dispute made more difficult by the fact that Americans increasingly see the U.S. as obliged to subdue the Islamist militants there. And on the home front, the party is tearing at itself over the unrest in Ferguson, Mo. where local and state Democratic leaders are dropping the hammer on increasingly violent protests to the outrage of liberal activists.”
And as for the incumbent's response, Stirewalt notes that the incumbent, who’s in D.C. “for a two-day vacation from his vacation, took essentially the same attitude to both current crises, saying that the individuals involved needed to work things out on their own and that the federal government would be judicious in its involvement.”
Which leads to the questions of what was he vacationing from and why did he bother to come back to do nothing?
When the incumbent is in the White House, however, time has proven that he’s done serious harm to practically every group and constituency that has faithfully supported him throughout. 
In that regard, Drudge reports that last week, Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), penned an op-ed claiming that an EPA environmental protection plan would “have a dramatic impact on the American economy but only a minimal effect on global carbon emissions.”
While the IBEW represents more than 700,000 members, Hill’s column follows a statement in June from United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil Roberts, (also reported here) who warned the EPA proposal could result in thousands of lost jobs for coal miners, electrical workers and others.
"Our initial analysis indicates that there will be a loss of 75,000 direct coal generation jobs in the United States by 2020,” Roberts said, adding: "And no one -- no one -- can point to a significant reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions that is guaranteed to come from this rule.”
The key point, though, is Hill’s claim that the EPA plan is a “classic example of federal tunnel vision—focusing on a single goal with little heed for the costs and dangers." He then predicted that  the plan would kill roughly “52,000 permanent direct jobs in utilities, mining and rail and at least another 100,000 jobs in related industries” – losses that would fall particularly hard on rural communities.”
In response, the EPA which is notorious for plunging into situations it knows, or cares, little about “argues that the proposal could ultimately shrink electric bills and address the “costly effects” of global warming.” Therefore, by using the word “could” they’re stating they’re unsure about ultimate savings, if any. While further pursuing a global-warming threat that’s proven to not even exist.
On a separate issue, according to “A June report by the Center for Immigration Studies disclosed that all of the nation's job growth since 2000 went to immigrants, both legal and illegal. The study showed a strong climb in the number of illegals in the workforce, compared with native-born citizens of all races.”
The national unemployment rate rose to 11.4 percent for blacks, versus an overall jobless rate of 6.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The June rate for African-Americans was slightly lower, at 10.7 percent, and it was 11.5 percent in May.
At the same time, Peter Kirsanow, an African-American Republican who is a member of the Civil Rights Commission cites that, “In many low-skilled or unskilled occupations, in large swaths of the country, illegal immigrants have supplanted blacks — throwing lots of blacks out of work.”
Furthermore, “University of California economist Gordon Hanson testified that blacks lost more than 1 million jobs to illegals between 1960 and 2000. Yale University professor Gerald Jaynes testified that immigrants had supplanted African-Americans in many industries that had employed blacks for decades — including agriculture, construction, and meat-packing.”
Nonetheless, “Ninety-five percent of the blacks who voted in 2008 did so for Obama — and 93 percent did the same four years later, according to the Federal Election Commission. By contrast, 67 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008, while 71 percent did so in 2012.”
Therefore, the key to the incumbent’s protection of, and desire for, illegal aliens flooding here is simply a matter of self-serving politics as usual because “They want 11 million more votes down the road, because illegals would be beholden to the Democratic Party if they are able to pull this scheme off," Herman Cain told Newsmax.
Anita MonCrief, board member of the Black Conservatives Fund, summed it up this way. "Hispanics are the new black. Gay is the new black. Anything but black is the new black. Our concerns don't matter. We're such a ready and secure vote — it's always there — that there's no need to do anything for African-Americans,  There's no recourse."
Then there’s this one from the Daily Caller that speaks for itself. “Obamacare is increasing the cost of providing health insurance to workers, according to a report released Monday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A majority of businesses surveyed by the New York Fed expect the health-care law to increase the cost of their coverage, and the median respondent estimates a boost by 10 percent in 2015.”
And finally, from Chris Stirewalt once more, who asks: “Why did the federal government give $10 million in taxpayer money to develop San Francisco’s Mission Bay transit?” 
In 2012, then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “cheerfully” announced that the federal government would shell out stimulus funds for street additions, highway off-ramps, bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and transit additions in Mission Bay, where “millionaires” reside. Thus, giving the funding responsibility to U.S. taxpayers.
For the answer, Mr. Stirewalt says, “As always, follow the money — and the lobbying. And no surprise, the trail leads you to the West Coast mansion of liberal Billionaire Tom Steyer, the Democrats’ top funder in the 2014 elections…Steyer raised money for President Obama and donated to Pelosi while Pelosi pushed for the federal money that profited Steyer — and that Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital, lobbied on.”
Thus, once again we have a self-serving environmentalist, who also happens to be a huge investor in foreign coal development because, according to The New York Times, “even after his highly public divestment, the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come. Over the past 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China, records and interviews show.”
So, for this administration, and the whole Democrat party, it doesn’t matter a whit what they say, promise or promote. Their basic mission now, as always, is to find voters either dumb enough to swallow whatever their sold or having the lowest self-esteem and worth to consistently be bought for next to nothing.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, August 18, 2014


An article on reported that the incumbent “is currently antagonizing” war-weary voters with the air strike actions taken in Iraq. However, the position the incumbent should take on that one is: “So what?” Because his job isn’t about pleasing constituents, he’s responsible for the safety, security and well-being of the United States. 
Therefore, if his supporters aren’t pleased with the circumstances of war-torn allies, he needs to educate them about what’s at stake. Because their personal dissatisfaction with “war” didn’t stop terrorists from destroying the World trade Center, and isn’t going to deter from their loudly proclaimed attempts now to bring as much harm to the U.S. as possible.  
On a similar subject, CJ Ciaramella of the Washington Free Beacon writes that, “Monticello, New York, Democratic Mayor Gordon Jenkins—a member of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns—was arrested Thursday on bribery charges, the latest in a long string of legal and ethical foibles by Jenkins.”
While “Bloomberg has pledged to spend $50 million this year to build a “grassroots” network of activists supporting his cause, according to the New York Times, Jenkins is one of many members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns to partake in illegal activity.”
Jenkins and Monticello Building Inspector James Snowden were arrested late last week, according the Daily Freeman. The charges included “bribe receiving” and “endangering the public health”; the mayor “was also charged with intimidating a witness, a felony, in connection with an incident in Fallsburg.”
Which means that, perhaps, Bloomberg does have a valid point. Because if one can commit all those felony’s listed without using weapons, guns may actually be totally unnecessary for elected crooks. 
Then, Curtis Kalin of writes that, “Billionaire hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer attempted to explain why there is still a sizable portion of Americans that does not buy in to global warming alarmism by, basically, generalizing virtually all of America as not “super sophisticated.
Speaking at a climate conference hosted by the American Renewable Energy Institute, Steyer said: “I think if you were to go around to most of the — what I would think of as super-sophisticated people who think about politics and policy more than five minutes a month — we are doing really well.…
“And the question in the United States of America is how are we doing with everybody else, which is the 99.5 percent of the people whose lives are very busy and complicated and pressing and they don’t have a lot of time to think about the things that don’t immediately impact themselves and their family.”
In this case, statistics show that less than one percent of the population believes that climate-change is a concern at all. Which likely is why his cause is getting so little attention. However, in Steyer’s second comment, he answered his own question. Because, “people whose lives are very busy and complicated and pressing and they don’t have a lot of time to think about the things that don’t immediately impact themselves and their family.”
Therefore, since climate-change has practically no effect on them presently, especially because it doesn’t exist, only those gaining by “selling” the cause along with some on the lunatic fringe pay an iota of attention to the fraud.   
Some research done just now showed that, Holman W. Jenkins of The Wall Street Journal, wrote back on Feb. 28, 2014 that: “Surely, some kind of ending is upon us. Last week climate protesters demanded the silencing of Charles Krauthammer for a Washington Post column that notices uncertainties in the global warming hypothesis. In coming weeks a libel trial gets under way brought by Penn State's Michael Mann, author of the famed hockey stick, against National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, writer Rand Simberg and roving commentator Mark Steyn for making wisecracks about his climate work. The New York Times runs a cartoon of a climate "denier" being stabbed with an icicle.”
Mr. Jenkins surmises that “These are indications of a political movement turned to defending its self-image as its cause goes down the drain. That's how thoroughly defunct, dead, expired is the idea that humanity might take charge of earth's atmosphere through some supreme triumph of the global regulatory state over democracy, sovereignty, nationalism and political self-interest, the very facts of political human nature.”
Then Mr. Jenkins sums the situation up perfectly, “Let's restate more accurately a plan recently announced by Thomas Steyer, a California hedge-fund billionaire whose idea is to make the coming midterms about climate change: He would spend $100 million to flog an issue voters don't care about, to defeat Republicans whose defeat would have no impact on climate change, in order to replace them with Democrats whose election would have no impact on climate change.”
One can’t state the conclusion better than that.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, August 17, 2014


Maria Bartiromo appeared on Fox & Friends this morning. While sitting back casually, discussing the topics for her own show today, Sunday Morning Futures, she made two extremely significant points quite succinctly.
When asked what she thought the reason was for gasoline prices decreasing in the U.S., despite the conflicts in the Middle-East, she replied that due to technological development, such as fracking, as well as the inevitability of the opening of the Keystone XL pipeline, the nation will be an oil exporter by 2020 in addition to meeting its own needs domestically.
Therefore, not only isn’t the Middle-East’s oil as important here as it was, but neither is Russia’s which she now feels is a major concern for Europe, but not the U.S.
She then went on to note that New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, just returned on Thursday from a trip to Israel, where he wanted to see the status of the conflict with Hamas for himself. Her observation regarding the visit was that Cuomo had an interest in the situation, going there to view it first hand, while at the same time, the incumbent was vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, playing lots of golf.
So, here we have two quite significant issues, each seriously affecting the nation and its citizens. And while both are heading toward the best solutions possible under the circumstances, the solutions are occurring in spite of the roadblocks placed there continually by the incumbent and his administration. 
After hearing Ms Bartiromo’s comments some further research showed the Governor’s agenda.
According to Kenneth Lovett of, Cuomo was in Israel for 28 1/2 hours, squeezing in eight events, six of which had public components.
On Wednesday, he “and a delegation of New Yorkers met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin, had pizza with students from New York studying in Israel and toured the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the Christianity’s holiest sites.
Then he hosted a dinner on a balcony of the King David Hotel for Jerusalem’s mayor and the U.S. ambassador to Israel. An orange moon hung over the city.
On Thursday, he huddled with Israel’s defense minister, and visited, in the coastal city of Ashdod, one the nine locations of Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. The delegation then headed south toward Gaza, eventually meeting up former Israeli President Shimon Peres and automatic-weapons-toting Israeli soldiers, including two born in the U.S.”
Therefore, although staying in Israel only a short while, the governor crammed a significant number of important events and visitations into his trip. 
On seeing the tunnels first-hand, Cuomo “marveled,”I thought they were hand-dug tunnels that went several yards right across the border. These are tunnels that go miles.”
Which is probably the same perspective the incumbent gets when finding his golf ball in a huge sandtrap.
And now, today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal obtained her contract and related documents related to a scheduled October 13 speech at a University of Nevada Las Vegas Foundation fundraiser.
According to an article in the Journal, “The documents show that Clinton received $225,000 to speak at the fundraiser, a discount from her initial $300,000 asking price. But the fee was only the first of Clinton's many stipulations.”
She insists on staying in the ‘presidential suite’ of a luxury hotel of her staff's choice, with up to five other rooms reserved for her travel aides and advance staff. Also reportedly requiring the Foundation provide a private plane which cannot be any private plane; “only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 "or larger" will do the job.”
Furthermore, “It is agreed” that she will be the only person on the stage during her remarks and also requires that she have final approval of all moderators or introducers. 
Additional requirements to her standard speaking contract state that she has to stay at the event no longer than 90 minutes and will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people. There is no press coverage of video or audio taping of her speech allowed, with the only record being made by a stenographer whose transcript is given to her and the stenographer's $1,250 bill to be paid by the UNLV Foundation.
So, there is apparently quite a  long list of requirements to be met for those wishing to hire Bill’s wife to speak. However, since after paying all that money, all the customers get is 90 minutes of hot air nobody really wants to hear any way, wouldn’t it be easier and certainly far more pleasant, to just mail her a check, get credit for the donation and tell her its OK if she just stays home.  
That’s it for today folks.