Thursday, December 31, 2015


Happy New Year to all!

With 2016 arriving tomorrow, the POTUS is still delivering Christmas gifts to Republicans. Helping to significantly increase their odds of attaining the presidency, along with more state governorship's, next November.

Neil Munro writes: “As the nation prepares to ring in the New Year, President Barack Obama is preparing a colossal new executive action that could print-up work permits for a huge number of foreign white-collar graduates every year, above and beyond the levels set by Congress.

“This executive action, which directly bypasses Congressional lawmakers, is likely to reverberate across the presidential race, as GOP voters look to choose a nominee they believe will most effectively roll back the President’s still-expanding agenda.  And it will certainly raise new security concerns as it covers categories of immigration utilized by migrants from the Middle East and nearby regions. 

“The 181-page rule focuses primarily on giving work-permits to foreign college-grads who will compete against Americans for white collar jobs, despite the large number of American graduates now stuck in lower-wage positions and struggling to pay off college debts. The rule will also make each foreign graduate much cheaper for U.S. employers to hire than many U.S.-born college grads.” 

The new policy creates a large economic incentive for U.S. employers to hire foreign college-grads instead of new American college-grads because the policy will allow U.S. employers to hire foreign college graduates at very low salaries. 

“The foreign graduates will gladly take those low-wage white-collar jobs because the new policy allows them to get deferred payments from the federal government — valuable permanent work-permits that are the first step on the golden pathway to Green Cards and citizenship. 

“That means employers must pay more money to hire American college-grads than they would to hire foreign college-grads. That puts a huge disadvantage on American graduates because they need higher salaries to pay off their expensive U.S. college debt.” 

While the damage done to young Americans is glaringly obvious, one has to wonder why, even for a consistently irrational chief executive, he would purposefully continue to harm his own fellow citizens and his party as well. Because for every new vote his party might get in the future should those foreigners gain the right, the party will lose at least one American whom was replaced by the action. And perhaps their families too. Consequently, from an American citizen's point of view, everybody loses, particularly the POTUS. 

On another continuing issue demonstrating major Democrat misjudgment, and the POTUS in particular again, Allister Heath, writes about the world-changing events of a positive nature occurring due to the significantly slumping price of oil.  

“Manufacturers’ costs have also slumped, facilitating investment and creating jobs. Europe, China and India have been the great winners. In Britain, lower petrol prices have helped eliminate consumer price inflation. Take-home pay has thus shot up after years of austerity. Cheap oil has also delayed – and delayed again – the prospect of a rate hike from the Bank of England, helping borrowers but hurting savers, some of whom had already lost out from their holdings in commodity and oil firms.” 

And then, huge positive geopolitical changes are resulting elsewhere from oil’s lowering costs. “In oil-exporting Venezuela, the public has booted out the Corbynite government whose demented Left-wing policies had led to a shortage of toilet paper. In Russia, the budget deficit is likely to reach alarming levels this year, forcing the country to dip into its reserves and putting pressure on President Putin, especially given his military commitments in Syria."

At the same time, “The Gulf states face the greatest challenge to their viability. Some, such as the UAE, a close ally of the West’s fight against terror, have such large cash reserves that they ought to be able to cope with low oil prices for decades. Others, including Iraq and Bahrain, will find it much tougher; Saudi Arabia has just been forced to pass an emergency budget.” 

And then, Mr. Heath presents perhaps the most important beneficial result from the oil price drop: “If radical Islamist terror groups end up being the biggest losers, the collapse in the oil price could yet end up achieving more than sanctions or Western military intervention ever could.” He then hedges his bet a bit by adding: “[B]ut a successful uprising in somewhere like Saudi could also risk turning a bad situation into a catastrophe.” 

Reader, michael s, posted a truly brilliantly astute comment, concluding with the two following paragraphs: “Humans, with few other examples in the animal kingdom, are genetically predisposed to develop a more efficient environment. We invented the steam engine, then, the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, then nuclear power. I believe we are far more likely to outlast the world oil supply and everything oil is used for, much like we outlasted the wooden wheel and the sail.

”How vain are some, that believe they have the "final" answer to any and every problem. As if man can control the outcome to events that have yet to be discovered. Global warmers, coolers, climate change controllers, I'm talking about you.” 

In summation, the true pity of the matter is that, if not for purely political pandering to misguided partisans by the POTUS regarding drilling, these steps toward real economic recovery could have been begun seven years ago.  

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

Chuck Ross, writes today that: “Numerous organizations had disassociated themselves from Bill Cosby even before the comedian was charged with a crime for any of the alleged sexual assaults he committed over the years. Colleges and universities have scrubbed the formerly-beloved TV dad’s name from their buildings. Others have rescinded honorary degrees given to Cosby and more have returned donations he has provided.” 

“But one organization that has yet to make a move regarding Cosby is the Clinton Foundation. As was reported earlier this year, the “Cosby Show” creator gave between $1,001 and $5,000 to the non-profit organization operated by former president Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” 

Mr. Ross continues: “Even as dozens of women came forward to accuse Cosby of sexually assaulting them over the past several decades, the charity declined to relinquish the Cosby cash. And in a particularly awkward interview in July, Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri hemmed and hawed when asked whether the Foundation would return the money. 

“It’s, you know, wealthy people giving money to help poor people. Uh, we think that’s, uh, that’s a positive thing,” she said. 

Ms Palmieri’s comment about helping the poor struck home because only yesterday it was sarcastically noted here that: “As of the latest report, in 2013, according to, the foundation took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges, spending $9 million on direct aid. That’s almost 6.5% of the income given away, leaving only 93.5% for the Clinton’s to be spent on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, “with the fattest payouts going to family friends.”  

Asked by Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin whether she saw any reason for the Clinton Foundation to give the money back, Palmieri said: “I mean, I think that you should, uh, uh, like the Foundation can also speak to this.” 

And then, Mr. Ross delivers the clincher: “Of course, there’s one explanation that could explain the Clinton’s slow response to the Cosby affair. Bill Clinton himself has been accused by numerous women of sexual assault, indecency, and harassment since the 1970s.” 

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. 


Wednesday, December 30, 2015


The highly questionable and very unpopular Iran nuclear deal received another confirmation that it ought to be reconsidered. Because yesterday, Iran seemed to intentionally flaunt it’s ability to taunt the U.S. whenever and however it can. 

A  senior defense official confirmed to Fox News, that “Iranian rockets passed within 1,500 yards of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz last week. 

“Cmdr. Kyle Raines, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, said in a statement to the Associated Press early Wednesday that Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval vessels fired "several unguided rockets" after giving only 23 minutes' notice over maritime radio that a live-fire exercise would be carried out.” 

Raines described the Iranian fleet's actions as "highly provocative.” Going on to say, "Firing weapons so close to passing coalition ships and commercial traffic within an internationally recognized maritime traffic lane is unsafe, unprofessional and inconsistent with international maritime law.” 

In the time since this past summer's nuclear deal: “Iran has conducted missile tests criticized by the U.S., as well as aired footage on state television of an underground missile base. Iran also sank a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier in February near the strait. It seized a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship and later released it in May after earlier surrounding U.S.-flagged cargo ship transiting the strait.” 

The actions seem to confirm Iran’s understanding that the “deal” was so important to the administration ideologically, that the nation could do just about whatever they wanted militarily. Thus, to prove their power over the U.S. to the rest of the world, just like typical victors in the schoolyard, they’re flaunting their power every chance they get.   

On the subject of weapons, state Senator, Charles W. Carrico Sr., a Virginia Republican, has thrown down the gauntlet with Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a brewing battle over gun rights. 

The Senator’s pushing to defund the governor’s armed bodyguards unless he revokes an order that banned firearms in most state buildings, saying: “It’s easy for someone who is surrounded by armed state policemen to tell someone else they can’t carry a weapon to protect themselves. It’s just equal treatment, that’s all I’m saying,” he told

That’s also the same argument posted here a couple of times in the past regarding the POTUS. Let him walk around unarmed without his Secret Service battalion for a while and then let’s see how he feels about the subject. There’s a very good chance he might view the issue quite differently, provided he’s still breathing. 

On another subject, Cal Thomas writes today, about the fears he senses in the public, particularly among whites, that they are losing America as they know it.   

Mr. Thomas writes: “Speaking as a member of a group that will in this century become a minority in America -- that would be white people -- I don't fear minority status. I fear that those who will soon make up the majority will not embrace the values and traditions that have built and sustained America through wars, economic downturns and other challenges to our way of life. 

“Fear can be a factor that motivates to action, or it can cause one to retreat. It seems the people who embrace and practice our historic beliefs and traditions are in retreat, fearful of being called names by the forces of political correctness. "Racist," "bigot" and "intolerant" are three words that cause many to cower, in part because of their inability to disprove a negative. 

Mr. Thomas went on, “The most effective response to people operating this cultural and political wrecking ball is to turn the tables. Whose values and beliefs have worked in the past to improve the lot of the people, and whose have failed? Traditionalists don't have to play defense. They have only to remind Americans of the mess the secular progressives have made. Having been handed by the "greatest generation" a nation with numerous opportunities and a bright future, the baby boomers and their progeny set about destroying it on the altar of self-indulgence.” 

While, as a political columnist likely surrounded by others with similar opinions, Mr. Thomas seems to be missing the bigger picture. Because the remedies for dealing with “the forces of political correctness” are occurring all over the nation presently, and have been for quite some time by now. 

There are now 32 Republican governors, which is certainly a voter rebuke of national policies. At the same time, both the Senate and House have significantly Republican majorities. 

And then there’s the most important factor of all. Those that Richard Nixon in 1969 called the silent majority, an unspecified large group of people who do not express their opinions publicly. However, those are the folks of all types, races and religions that voted all those state officials into office, and will soon deliver the White House as well. 

So, not to worry, Mr. Thomas. Grass roots voters will soon solve your problems and woes. 

On another issue, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron report “President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs. 

“But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” 

“The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill. 

“The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.” 

This situation’s interesting because it would be ludicrous to assume that a nation as electronically sophisticated as Israel didn’t know that this spying was going on. In fact, Mr. Netanyahu likely knew well in advance what U.S. reactions to his Congressional address would be, insuring his desire to deliver it. 

Furthermore, Israel’s also likely to have been providing “disinformation” due to awareness of those listening in. Because, regardless of what the POTUS and his advisors may think, Netanyahu and his nation have proven quite capable of taking care of themselves when they have to.    

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

While Bill's wife may not possess many talents or skills, blowing with the political wind as she perceives it will suit her best, she does have one resolute trait: subterfuge. 

This morning, Sarah Westwood reports that: “Government ethics officials have yet to respond to a congressional request for documents about Hillary Clinton's paid speeches. 

“Rep. Jason Chaffetz pressed the Office of Government Ethics last week for an explanation of its decision to exempt Clinton from laws compelling public officials to disclose all forms of income. 

"Earlier this year, press reports indicated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband failed to disclose millions of dollars in paid speeches over the past thirteen years under the belief they did not have a duty to report that because the speeches were delivered on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and not in the Secretary's or the President's personal capacity," Chaffetz wrote. 

“The Utah Republican cited "at least five speeches" for which Clinton routed her speaking fee to the philanthropy between 2014 and 2015. She did not list that income on her disclosure form as the law typically requires.” 

In this case, it’s curious as to why Representative Chaffetz would be concerned about Bill’s wife’s philanthropic efforts. Because their foundation is a charitable institution, established to provide world-wide financial support to those in need. 

As of the latest report, in 2013, according to, the foundation took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges, spending $9 million on direct aid. That’s almost 6.5% of the income given away, leaving only 93.5% for the Clinton’s to be spent on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, “with the fattest payouts going to family friends.” 

Which means that if Representative Chaffetz keeps pressing for documents, he might even eventually expose the foundation as a fraud. Which really wouldn’t be fair to the Clinton’s who left the White House without a dime between them, according to Bill’s wife. 

And that would mean that all those efforts expended to extort what they perceive as rightfully theirs would be exposed to loss, along with any chance at the presidential election. 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. 


Tuesday, December 29, 2015


Yesterday, it was mentioned here that the POTUS was making things far easier for a Republican to win the White House in 2016, by his continual focus on issues the voting public cares very little to nothing about.

Particularly, global-warming, where in his upcoming State of the Union address he will say: “And America is now leading by example on climate change. The Clean Power Plan will cut carbon pollution from power plants by 32 percent by 2030. We've cut our oil imports by more than half, while doubling clean energy production from wind, solar, and geothermal -- creating steady sources of good jobs that can't be outsourced.”

Yet, those who bother to watch his speech at all may quickly tune out due to lack of concern, whereas as Paul Bedard reports: “Despite the heavy media and political pressure to make global warming and climate change the top issue in the nation, it is more of a concern to citizens in 36 of 40 other industrialized nations than in the United States, according to Pew Research Center.

"Concern over climate change is especially high in Latin America, where a median of 74 percent think it is a very serious problem, followed by sub-Saharan Africa (median of 61 percent). Fewer than half in Asia (median of 45 percent) and the Middle East (median of 38 percent) express significant concerns about climate change. And Americans and Chinese, whose economies are responsible for the greatest annual CO2 emissions, are among the least concerned," said the most recent analysis of the ongoing survey.”

As far as global-warming itself is concerned, the issue certainly isn’t helped by the fact that the actions of the EPA degrade the subject by continual abuse of government power.  

Michael Bastasch writes today that, “EPA enforcement data for 2015 shows the agency opened 213 environmental cases which resulted in 185 people convicted and sentenced to 129 years in prison. EPA has been opening fewer cases in recent years to focus more on “high impact” cases."

EPA’s biggest court case this year was brought against Duke Energy for spilling coal ash into rivers in North Carolina and Virginia. The company was convicted of violating the Clean Water Act, fined $68 million and agreed to pay $34 million “for environmental projects in North Carolina and Virginia,” according to EPA. 

Yet, at the same time, “EPA has not fined or jailed anyone for the spilling of three million gallons of mine wastewater in August.” EPA workers opened up the Gold King Mine and sent a toxic plume of mine waste though rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. Toxic mine waste even went through Navajo Nation territory and resulted in farms having their water supplies shut off. 

While Republican lawmakers quickly criticized EPA for not taking any disciplinary action against contractors or employees involved in the Colorado mine spill, the Department of the Interior’s outside review of the spill incident found EPA could have avoided a blowout if it had taken precautions agency workers had used while opening other sealed Colorado mines. 

“Specifically, the Committee is concerned that the EPA’s interview did not follow best investigative practices and may have interfered with the OIG’s ongoing investigation,” the lawmakers wrote to the agency.” 

So, what we have here is further evidence that for this administration, sound bites and political posturing continually outweigh practical reality. Which means, as stated at the beginning of today’s entry, things are being made far easier for Republican candidates at every level of government in the upcoming November elections. 

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

Sarah Westwood, reports that: Thousands of Hillary Clinton's private emails will hit the Internet on New Year's Eve thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that permits the State Department to wait until the end of each month to release the documents.” 

Ms Westwood then writes: “Clinton's use of a personal server to shield her private emails from the public hobbled the early days of her presidential campaign,” adding her opinion that: “In the weeks since, her poll numbers have rebounded and speculation about whether the email controversy could cost her the nomination has largely abated.” 

However, while Ms Westwood and many other columnists, are certainly entitled to any beliefs they choose, even she had to include at the article’s very end: “Hundreds of emails are expected to be marked classified in the remaining unpublished email trove, as all monthly releases since this summer have contained classified material.” 

And that’s the problem Bill’s wife and her supporters are going to have to eventually contend with. Because, as posted by reader Strigoi following a article on the same subject, according to U.S. Code sections: 

"1. 18 USC Sec. 1924, which outlaws the unauthorized removal and storage of classified information. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to one year 

"2. 18 USC Sec. 793, this law covers national defense information and people who misuse it to injure the United States or benefit a foreign power. Those convicted of violating this law face fines and up to 10 years in prison. "

So, despite Democrats continual efforts to downplay and disclaim Bill’s wife’s use of a personal email server while Secretary of State, an usual possibility still exists, nonetheless. If elected, she may be the first president to have her office in Leavenworth, or perhaps Guantanamo Bay if it remains open. 

It also brings 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. 


Monday, December 28, 2015


Daniel Halper @the writes today about the POTUS preparing for his final State of the Union Address, to be delivered on January 12, 2016.

In an email to supporters, the POTUS wrote: “I've got 12 months left to squeeze every ounce of change I can while I'm still in office. And that's what I intend to do.” He then went into detail regarding what he’s presenting as accomplishment, writing: “When we took office, we were losing nearly 750,000 jobs a month. But over the last 69 months, our businesses have created more than 13.7 million new jobs -- the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record -- and the unemployment rate is down to 5 percent.”

However, he may be living in an alternative world,. Because the facts present a completely different story, as compiled “The highest monthly unemployment rate during President George W. Bush’s two terms was 6.3 percent. The overall average monthly unemployment rate during his 8 years in office was 5.3 percent. The tax relief President Bush signed into law pulled America out of the recession he inherited in 2001 and spurred six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation.” Job growth ended during Bush’s last two years in office, when Democrats took over Congress, no longer supporting him and his economic policies.

Furthermore, the unemployment rate is down to 5% because the formula used for reporting’s been changed to omit those out of work for more than 4 weeks. However, using the calculation same method as when “W” held office, the POTUS’s rate would be roughly double, coming to more than 9-10%.

What’s even worse, though, is that the labor participation rate is presently 62.7%. That’s the lowest it’s been since the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president and the whole economy was dead as a doornail. While at the same time, due to the health care tax, a full work-week is currently 30 hours –a reduction of 25% in wages taken from workers pockets.

Thus, this part of the speech is the same as handing Republicans a loaded weapon and aiming it at himself and his party cohorts.

The next item in the address regards the health care tax, where the POTUS will say: “For the first time more than 90 percent of Americans are now covered, and more than 17 million people have gained health insurance under Obamacare. Insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, or charge women more just for being women.”

However, with paying customers unable to afford the rising premiums, and the largest insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc., dropping out due to inability to afford the 85% of non-paying sign-ups, the programs actually headed for the scrap heap. 

And then comes his favorite topic, global-warming, where he says: “America is now leading by example on climate change. The Clean Power Plan will cut carbon pollution from power plants by 32 percent by 2030. We've cut our oil imports by more than half, while doubling clean energy production from wind, solar, and geothermal -- creating steady sources of good jobs that can't be outsourced.” 

Yet, the nation’s oil imports have shrunk due to lower demand and new drilling methods, primarily fracking, which have significantly increased domestic production. 

But, aside from reduced oil importation, while clean energy itself sounds good, it’s usage and availability is actually dismal. What’s more, “doubling” production of alternative energy doesn’t really mean much when you start with an infinitesimal amount. Two times almost zero is still almost zero.

As far as the future's concerned, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, “about 11% of world marketed energy consumption is from renewable energy sources (biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind) with a projection for 15% by 2040. 

Which means that, 25 years from now, if things go as planned for alternative sources, 85% of energy will still come from fossil fuels. 

And that sums up the heart of the POTUS’s presentation, which seems in contradiction to reality. It’s also remindful of another shady salesman, this one hustling men’s clothes who told his assistant, “Turn on the blue light, Cecil. The man wants a blue suit.” 

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

Former Virginia senator Jim Webb quit the Democratic presidential race on Oct. 20, amid low poll numbers and a minimal debate presence. However, he left open the possibility of running a different political guise. According to, he: “Now he appears to be edging closer to making good on it.”  

In a lengthy condemnation on Facebook, Webb said, among other things that “Clinton should be called to account for her inept leadership that brought about the chaos in Libya.” That “came just days before the end of the year, which his team had previously told CNN would be reasonable time for them to make a decision about an independent bid.” 

Then: “On Saturday morning, Webb used Twitter and his Facebook page to attack Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for her handling of Libya during her time as secretary of state.” 

While Webb left the race due to insignificant poll numbers, an independent run presents a totally different kind of threat to Bill's wife. For example: A recent CNN poll, forecast tight races between herself and several Republican contenders in hypothetical match-ups for the general election.  

Which means Webb’s independent run could be critical, whereas, says “In a tight race, even a small base of support could make him a factor. Ralph Nader, for instance, famously won only small percentages of the vote in many states in the 2000 presidential election, yet that arguably helped tip the Electoral College vote to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, denying Democratic Vice President Al Gore, the winner of the popular vote, the presidency.” 

So, while Webb’s reemergence might pose significant problems for Bill’s wife, it also sustains 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. 


Sunday, December 27, 2015


An article meant to simply provide some background regarding the POTUS’s vacation and regimen, somehow proved to be quite irritating to read. 

An Associated Press column via begins: “President Barack Obama is one of the most powerful men in the world. He's commander in chief of one of its mightiest military's, too.
Yet in spite of all that, Obama feels inadequate from time to time. Especially when he's vacationing in Hawaii and working out alongside strapping Marines at their gym.” 

During his annual Christmas Day visit with U.S. troops at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe Bay, the POTUS said: “The only problem I've got when I'm here is having to work out with Marines in the gym. Because I generally feel like your commander in chief is in pretty good shape, and then I get next to some guy, you know, curling 100 pounds and it makes me feel small." 

And then, farther along came the glaring dichotomy, whereas he’s “known to enjoy a daily workout whether he's at home in the White House, traveling or on vacation. He also plays golf practically every weekend in Washington when the weather cooperates, and he swings his clubs just about daily during extended vacations on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, or here in his native Hawaii.” 

Yet, he’s complaining about the shape he’s in to marines who are exercising to remain in the shape they need to be in order to personally defend their nation, whenever and wherever duty calls. He though, goes to the golf course instead. So, rather than whining about how much he wants to be like a marine, he ought to follow Charles Barkley’s advice and suit up or shut up.   

The public too, seems to be finding disagreement with the POTUS, his priorities and his opinions. 

While he continues to prioritize climate as his major concern, followed by his continual push to close Guantanamo Bay, an article, shows quite different attitudes among the public. 

“A new Associated Press-Times Square Alliance poll mass shootings and terror attacks weighed heavily on the minds of Americans in 2015, revealing that most polled believe this year was worse than 2014. 

“According to the poll, the most important events to Americans in the past year were the shootings in San Bernardino, California, as well as shootings in South Carolina, Oregon and Tennessee. 

“Close behind came the Paris attacks and atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic State extremist group.” 

So, here we have additional evidence that the POTUS, and his party, continue to push an agenda that’s had the nation going backwards for the past seven years. Every responsibility of governance; the economy, illegal immigration, national security, foreign affairs, health care coverage, and national defense has lapsed significantly. 

So, by continuing to place misguided politics above reality and the public’s wishes, the POTUS has attained the complete reverse of his goals. Because, the only one’s gaining from his ongoing misjudgments are Republicans, who are having the 2016 elections handed to them. 

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

An interesting development seems to be taking place among leading Democrat politicians.

Bill’s wife is crushing Sanders in endorsements, gaining the support of 145 members of the House, 38 of the 46 senators who caucus with Democrats, 12 governors and 17 national union groups. She also has the support of nearly the entirety of the Democratic establishment. 

Yet, many key party figures are still sitting on their hands. The POTUS, Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Gerry Brown and the huge AFL/CIO union have yet to come on board.

So, what that might mean is that perhaps the Democrat party’s major players, and most influential individuals may be paying attention to these daily entry’s and are actually reading this.

That’s it for today folks.


Saturday, December 26, 2015


Fox News’ Ed Henry and William La Jeunesse contributed to a report, saying: “The Obama administration already is facing a backlash from the Democratic presidential candidates over reported plans to launch deportation raids as early as next month.” 

The Washington Post first reported that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing to launch raids against hundreds of families who entered the U.S. illegally since last year and have been ordered to leave by an immigration judge. 

Bernie Sanders said: “I am very disturbed by reports that the government may commence raids to deport families who have fled here to escape violence in Central America. We need to take steps to protect children and families seeking refuge here, not cast them out." 

Bill Clinton’s wife campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa added that Bill’s wife “has real concerns about these reports, especially as families are coming together during this holiday season. She believes it is critical that everyone has a full and fair hearing, and that our country provides refuge to those that need it. And we should be guided by a spirit of humanity and generosity as we approach these issues." 

Just days earlier, the administration disclosed a dramatic four-year decline in deportations. They dropped from more than 409,000 in 2012 to just 235,000 in fiscal 2015. The numbers represent the fewest deportations since 2006. 

Critics pointed to President Obama’s executive actions and other policies to explain the drop. Claude Arnold, former Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in charge of Southern California, referring to those policies, said, "It's a way of doing a pseudo-amnesty without legislatively doing an amnesty.” 

And that’s really the point. Because, regardless of the commiseration and compassion anyone may feel for those coming her illegally, the nation either has laws or does not. Thus, if you want to aid illegals, change the law, don’t break or evade it. 

Furthermore, disobeying this particular legislation establishes another horrendous premise. Whereas it opens the door to ignoring any other kind of law politicians feel help their cause. And it’s a certainty that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for Constitutional clauses to become election gimmicks.  

On another issue, according to Mario Trujillo “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a handful of sensitive documents Thursday morning dealing with terrorism suspect Anwar al-Awlaki and the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”

While containing little new information, the process itself is quite revealing about how the current administration continually works. 

16 pages of heavily blacked-out emails about the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi were released. Several of them discussing the drafting of an assessment of the threat level ahead of the attack, which was being prepared for Congress in the months after four Americans were killed in the attack. 

Obviously concerned that there might be damaging information disclosed, the “document dump,” part of a “proactive disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act, took place on Christmas Eve. Which, as Ms Trujillo points out in her article; “The government and public relations firms have been known to release unflattering information around major holidays or weekends to blunt the news effect.” 

So, even on Christmas, for this administration, it’s nefarious business as usual.  

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

Amie Parnes and Jonathan Swan report: “Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is building the most expansive fundraising network in recent memory, taking its prospecting far beyond the usual Democratic strongholds on the East and West coasts. 

“Those familiar with Clinton's fundraising operation say she's tapping smaller cities to avoid running dry in California and New York, which have only so many Hollywood producers and trial lawyers.  

“Clinton’s campaign has already held fundraisers in more states than the entire 2012 general election campaigns of President Obama and Mitt Romney, who fundraised in 36 and 37 states, respectively.”

Since the “Clinton’s” and “money” are practically synonymous, it’s certainly no surprise that fundraising’s a major goal of the  presidential campaign. It would also be interesting to find out how much of what’s raised is truly spent vs. what gets kept, regardless of what’s reported. Much like the way that the “Foundation” works, accounting-wise. 

Nonetheless, as a practical matter, its doubtful that money will be a key to the coming election at all. Whereas, almost nobody alive on the planet hasn’t already learned, pro or con, all they’ll ever want to know about all three family members. And there’s no ad or event imaginable that will likely change that belief or perception.

Which means that perhaps the funds will be used for something else. Such as legal fees for defending against charges arising from using an illegal email server while Secretary of State. 

And then, speaking to supporters recently, Bill’s wife described her husband as a “secret weapon.”

Interviewed by the Des Moines Register, she also said, “Mr. Trump has “demonstrated a penchant for sexism.” That drew a response from Mr. Trump on Twitter: “Hillary, when you complain about ‘a penchant for sexism,’ who are you referring to. I have great respect for women.’ ” In capital letters he then wrote, “BE CAREFUL!” 

Asked what Mr. Trump meant, his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said: “Mr. Trump speaks for Mr. Trump and his tweets speak for themselves. And he’s very clear about what those tweets say.” 

Which could lead to a battle never seen in a presidential campaign before. Two candidates totally unqualified for the position they’re seeking. One spending inherited wealth the other extorting contributors for favors, future and past. Neither having a viable platform, and therefore using personal attacks as their major weapons. Confirming the adage: “Only in America.”  

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. 


Friday, December 25, 2015


Scanned the news this morning, just to see if anything critical was occurring on the planet. But it looks like Santa’s brought us peace and quiet, at least for Christmas Day.

Which brings up the question as to why it isn’t always this way. Because, obviously, we can do it if we want to.

A friend posted this on FB this morning.

An elderly man in Oklahoma calls his son in New York and says, "I hate to ruin your day son, but I have to tell you that your mother and I are getting a divorce; 45 years of marriage... and that much misery is enough!" 

"Dad, what are you talking about?" the son yells. 

"We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the old dad explained. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Hong Kong and tell her!"

Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. 

"Like heck they're getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this." 

She calls her elderly father immediately, and screams at him, "You are not getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, you hear me?" she yelled as she hung up the phone. 

The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay", he says, "it's all set. They're both coming for Christmas and paying their own air-fare." 

There's no update on Bill Clinton’s wife this Christmas morning, which is a present from me to everyone. However, it's rumored that the FBI may be considering giving her a matching set of bracelets.

That’s it for Christmas Day folks. 


Thursday, December 24, 2015


Jerry Markon and David Nakamura reported yesterday that the “Department of Homeland Security has begun preparing for a series of raids that would target for deportation hundreds of families who have flocked to the United States since the start of last year, according to people familiar with the operation.” 

This would be the first large-scale effort to deport families who have fled violence in Central America. More than 100,000 families of both adults and children have crossed the southwest border since last year. 

While the proposed deportations have been controversial inside the administration, discussed for several months, with DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson pushing for the moves, the pressure for deportations has also mounted because of a recent court decision that ordered DHS to begin releasing families housed in detention centers.

A doubtful Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said,  "I’ll believe it when I see it. What share is this going to be?. . . It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the number they’ve admitted into the country. If you have photogenic raids on a few dozen illegal families and that’s the end of it, it’s just for show. It’s just a [public relations] thing, enforcement theater.”

However, further into the article, the likely real reason for the administration’s change of strategy becomes far clearer, as follows:

“The raids could become a flash point on the 2016 campaign trail, where GOP presidential contenders, including front-runner Donald Trump, have made calls for stricter border control a central issue. Trump’s rise has come as he has promised to deport all undocumented immigrants and bar entry to the United States for Muslim refugees in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., policy prescriptions denounced by Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.”

So, with an administration more purely driven by a political agenda than any before it, it appears that rising public opinion against illegals is really the cause for them backing off from their goal of totally open borders. Hoping to bring millions of future Democrat voters here.  

Another recurring issue, robotics replacing humans to protect against rising payroll costs came up today. For the first time, a Chinese news channel has employed an artificial intelligence robot as a weather reporter on its live breakfast show.

An article, says, robotics progress is “raising concerns among the country's journalists as it could threaten their jobs. 

Robot XiaoIce said during her debut on Tuesday morning, “I'm happy to start my new work on the winter solstice,” although XiaoIce is actually software developed by Microsoft using smart cloud and big data. In her first two days of her work, “XiaoIce impressed many with her cute voice. She also comments on big news events on Shanghai Dragon TV.” 
“According to Microsoft, breakthroughs in text-to-speech artificial intelligence (AI) have helped XiaoIce score high points for linguistic naturalness, and hers is closer to the human voice than other speech synthesizers. Through unique emotional technology, she can make comments instantly based on weather data."

What’s truly most ironic though, is the aspect of people worrying that XiaoIce could cause traditional TV anchors and weather reporters to lose their jobs. Because, if one step further is taken, where a completely independent, intelligent, articulate woman is developed, it becomes very possible to replace one of the costliest humans on earth with a better model. And that could turn out to be Bill Clinton’s wife, one of the drivers of higher employment costs and wages that employers, and the nation, can’t afford. 

And then, yesterday on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” Charles Krauthammer said “that despite confirmation by the Ben Carson camp that its team will make personnel changes, the real problem for the campaign is Carson himself.

“His problem is not staff, I'm not sure it's organization, yes, he's collected a lot of money and gone through a ton of it with little result. The problem is the candidate. The problem is once we had the Paris attack and the attack here in the United States, it became an election dominated by terrorism… That’s not his strong suit to say the least.” 

While going on to say Carson has “fallen like a stone,” expressing skepticism the candidate can recover, Krauthammer didn’t go far enough. Because while Carson certainly hasn’t the skills or experience to handle the nation’s wartime foreign policy, neither has Trump, Cruz, Rubio or certainly, Paul. 

The closest that Republicans can come to qualified leadership are Bush, Christie, Kasich, Huckabee and even Pataki. As former governors, at least they oversaw National Guards. 
Presenting another excellent idea, a friend posted this on FB this morning. 


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

It appears that aside from the East Coast weather, things are heating up for Bryan Pagliano, the former staffer who set up the controversial private email server in the Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y. 

More than three months after invoking his Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack, Pagliano’s now at the center of a separate and ongoing investigation by the FBI into Bill’s wife’s use of a private unsecured server while she was secretary of state. 

He’s not been charged with any crime, but according to, the investigation continues into the private server which contained highly classified information while Bill’s wife was secretary of state. As first reported on Dec. 15, “a review by the intelligence community reaffirmed that at least two emails were “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s private server. The State Department had challenged the classification.” 

“As [also] first reported by The Washington Post, the Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for "computer services" prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009. Yet, even after arriving at State in May 2009, Pagliano continued to be paid by the Clintons to maintain the non-secure homebrew server, which was located in a bathroom closet inside the Clinton's Chappaqua home.” 

What’s quite interesting, and seemingly very consistent is that, “[a]s part of invoking his Fifth Amendment right, Pagliano is also invoking the so-called act-of-production privilege. Since 1984, according to a review by Fox News, the privilege has been used in 103 federal or state cases. One of which may predict history repeating itself.

“The privilege has been invoked before by a Clinton associate. Webb Hubbell, Hillary Clinton's former law partner when she worked at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, argued for an "act-of-production privilege" during the federal investigation into the collapse of Madison Guaranty, a failed savings and loan. Hubbell followed Bill and Hillary Clinton into the White House to become an associate attorney general, the third-ranking member of the Justice Department. He was convicted in 1995 and served 18 months in federal prison for his role in the failure of that savings and loan which later became known as the "Whitewater scandal."

“In addition to looking at the potential mishandling of classified material, investigators are focused on possible violations of U.S. Code 18, Section 1001 pertaining to “materially false” statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party. Each violation is subject to five years in prison.”

Since the story appears on Christmas Eve, perhaps Santa is somehow involved in this chain of events, and might be giving the nation one of the best presents ever. By setting the stage for Clinton’s and their cohorts convictions.

Which brings up the ongoing question:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That's it for today folks.