Tuesday, March 31, 2015


Scott Clement and Peyton M. Craighill headlined an article on washingtonpost.com: Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran.“ Clearly trumpeting public support for the deal currently stalled in Switzerland. However, just like everything else the liberal press slants to favor the administration, the details present something quite different.
The article begins by claiming that, “By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.”
But then, the next paragraph reveals that there’s much more to the story, as follows: “But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.
“Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.”
Thus, it would be a far better indication of true public opinion if instead of asking how Americans feel about “a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions,” the question posed was how those same respondents felt about loosening sanctions in return for a nuclear weapon development pause of only twelve months.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Yesterday, after the day’s entry was published, Chris Stirewalt’s FoxNews.com column addressed some of the problems now faced by Bill Clinton’s wife’s due to erasing emails that perhaps contain information requiring public disclosure.
In that regard, a reader posted the following information.
“44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.”
So, depending on whether or not Eric Holder, or his successor as Attorney General, follows up as required by law, there’s a reasonable chance that Bill’s wife will have to run a part, or all, of her presidential campaign in stripes from the slammer, meeting with her staff only on visitor’s day.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, March 30, 2015


If nothing else, the administration has proven undoubtedly over the past six years, that it is totally incompetent. Knowing virtually nothing about national governance regardless of the issue involved. Be it the economy, health care, taxation, education, welfare, national security, border enforcement or anything else, such as the disastrous errors made in foreign policy from the Middle-East to Cuba. 
However, the current fiasco taking place with Iran is almost beyond belief, whereas the mistakes made to date would be laughable if the subject wasn’t so seriously critical. In that regard, its been obvious for quite some time now, that the administration has deemed the Iranian deal as a cornerstone of its “legacy.” And even though the reason doesn’t seem logical, that’s the corner the president’s painted himself into.
But even though the U.S. is now bending itself over almost double to get the deal done, Iran senses there’s more to be had, so yesterday they backed away further from closure. Which means that they now not only have a clear path to nuclear weaponry, if they hold off for a few more days, John Kerry will probably agree to build the weapons for them.
An extremely important aspect of Iranian nuclear weaponry development is the threat it poses to neighboring nations, many of which are now scrambling to protect themselves equally. And since certainly, Israel is particularly concerned for the future, who stepped up to offer her support? None other than Bill Clinton’s wife.     
Today, FoxNews.com posts that, “Hillary Clinton reportedly is calling for improved ties between the U.S. and Israel, as tensions deepen between the Obama administration and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following his party’s election win earlier this month.
“The Algemeiner reports that Clinton, in a phone call with Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said “we need to all work together to return the special U.S.-Israel relationship to constructive footing, to get back to basic shared concerns and interests.” 
Upon reading Bills wife’s comments, some research this morning of material posted on the web shows the following from her term as Secretary of State under Obama. 
“March 2010: Obama follows up on his threatening language about settlements by deploying Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, where Biden rips into the Israelis for building bathrooms in Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish capital. Hillary Clinton then yells at Netanyahu for nearly an hour on the phone, telling him he had “harmed the bilateral relationship.” David Axelrod calls the building plans an “insult” to the United States. When Netanyahu visits the White House a week and a half later, Obama makes him leave via a side door.”
“December 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rips into the State of Israel, stating that it is moving in the “opposite direction” of democracy. She said that Israel reminded her of Rosa Parks, and that religious people not listening to women sing – a millennia-long policy among some segments of the Orthodox – reminds her of extremist regimes, adding that it seemed “more suited to Iran than Israel.“
“February 2012: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells David Ignatius at the Washington Post that the possibility he worried about most was that Israel would strike Iran. The Post then adds, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” The goal: to delay any potential Israeli strike.”
“December 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum on US-Israel Relations, where she says that Israelis have a “lack of empathy” for Palestinians, and that the Israelis need to “demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds.”  
As far as Leon Panetta is concerned, Politico wrote in October 2014, he told them, “he would “absolutely” support Hillary Clinton if she ran for president, adding, “What the hell else do you want?” when listing his former cabinet colleague’s attributes for the White House.
“She is somebody that I’ve seen who’s dedicated to this country. She’s smart, she’s experienced, and she’s tough. What the hell else do you want?” 
Politico reader neemer5 summed up her self-serving, inconsistent flip-flopping approach this way: “In the end, it will be ineffective. A true leader would stand up to the President in a situation such as national security, and if she felt strongly about it, she would have resigned over those differences. So by standing by and allowing Obama to screw us over foreign policy-wise, she's no better.
“Just like her position on gay marriage. She announced her support just a year ago. But she said she'd been secretly supportive for decades. That's now how it works. Staying silent over a civil rights issue is just as bad as being against the issue. It's self-serving. She's the queen of putting herself before country.”
So, as usual, for Bill Clinton’s wife, opportunism outweighs virtually everything else, including documented personal history. Thus if the facts negatively affect her current need, she simply changes them as always.
That's it for today folks.

Sunday, March 29, 2015


Charles Krauthammer once again neatly summed up the pending Iranian “deal” by telling viewers Friday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that the idea that a possible US nuclear deal with Iran is going to solve challenges in the Middle East is “delusional,” but that it is driving the Obama administration’s foreign policy.
According to Mr. Krauthammer, "the so-called “legacy deal” will only inflame chaos overseas,” and “The reason that the Saudis didn’t tell us about what they were doing in Yemen is because they are opposing Iran and they can see us handing the region over to Iran in the nuclear negotiations.” 
Part of the potential “chaos” Mr. Krauthammer predicts can already be seen to be taking place as noted in an article by Haitham El-Tabei on yahoo.com who writes that, “Arab leaders agreed on Sunday to form a joint military force after a summit dominated by a Saudi-led offensive on Shiite rebels in Yemen and the threat from Islamist extremism.
“Arab representatives will meet over the next month to study the creation of the force and present their findings to defence ministers within four months, according to the resolution adopted by the leaders.”
Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, told the summit in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh: “Assuming the great responsibility imposed by the great challenges facing our Arab nation and threatening its capabilities, the Arab leaders had decided to agree on the principle of a joint Arab military force."
Now, there are certainly many who believe that the unrest in the Middle-East should be handled by the nations directly involved and therefore, the U.S. has no place intervening, militarily or otherwise. However, it was only a couple of years ago that, rightly or wrongly, America had a significant presence in the region and possessed major influence on social and political events occurring there. And now, today, with chaos throughout the area, the U.S. can’t even prevent Iran from developing nuclear weaponry while the rest of the nation’s scramble to try and save themselves from the coming devastation. Which means that everything fought for and achieved has not only been given away, U.S. foreign policy has gone completely backward.  
And now, today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
As can be seen by the weak economy, failed foreign policy and an inability or lack of desire to protect the nation’s borders, among many other shortcomings, the current administration surely hasn’t the capability to govern adequately at all. Instead, self-serving political maneuvering is its only forte, and always has been.
In that regard, Bill’s wife has not only never been part of the administration's in-crowd, she’s seemingly disliked overtly.
And that’s why, more than probably, the State Department, “released a letter that Secretary of State John Kerry sent to the department's inspector general earlier this week, asking for the review and calling it critical to "preserve a full and complete record of American foreign policy" and for the U.S. public to have access to that information. Among the questions he outlined were how best to retain records in light of changing technology, the agency's global presence and increasing demands from Congress.”
At the same time it was announced that, “The full trove of Clinton emails will be published on a website after they are reviewed. She says they contain no classified information. The State Department says emails pertaining to a congressional panel's examination of the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, will be released in advance of the others.
“Kerry also didn't mention Clinton specifically, but noted that officials were "facing challenges regarding our integration of record-keeping technologies and the use of nongovernment systems by some department personnel to conduct official business."
So, at present, while there’s no solid indication of any specific action toward Bill’s wife, its more than likely that this is only the first step in setting her up for further investigation in the future. And that would certainly be consistent with the president’s idea of the nation needing “new blood in Washington,” as well as his immense dislike of his former rival for the position of POTUS.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, March 28, 2015


Looks like the deal being worked out in Switzerland will pave the way for Iran to begin building a nuclear arsenal, if it hasn’t already. There are stories about the negotiation all over the media and web, so there’s no need to repeat them here.
However, in pondering about how the administration is giving away the store, and a considerable part of the world’s safety, another thought comes to mind. Because had the president been in office at various other times throughout history, it’s highly likely that the North would have lost the Civil War, both World Wars, l & 11, or sat by and watched Russia prevail in the Cold War. Adding those losses to unbridled illegal immigration, means that at present, owners would probaly be addressing their slaves in Russian as well as Spanish across the U.S.
Along the same lines, it’s expected that Marco Rubio will soon launch his presidential campaign, joining Ted Cruz in the race. Both are bright, articulate, well-meaning candidates that deliver inspiring rhetoric. Neither, however, has an iota of the managerial skills and experience required in heading the United States, or any other nation for that matter. And what’s most important is that, if nothing else, the past six years have shown is the damage that can result when the POUTUS is an unskilled, untested amateur chief executive.   
Speaking of unskilled amateurs brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Politico states that: “Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department. 
David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request, while also informing the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.

“Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton.”
While the email erasure is no surprise, it’s something anyone with an iota of knowledge about the Clinton's would surely expect, it will be interesting to see what comes next. Because, one of these days, someone like Representative Gowdy might actually step up and take action against this self-serving pants suit.
On the same subject, Bill Clinton’s wife, Aaron Blake writes in washingtonpost.com, about, “Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code.
The words are: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over-confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, and out of touch.
So, although it seems that by precluding use of those words, the volunteers intend to aid, assist and protect Bill’s wife from the media, they may instead be harming her. Because it’s said that any kind of press is good in the long run. And therefore, if you prohibit the use of those words listed above, no one will be able to write about her at all.
That's it for today folks.

Friday, March 27, 2015


In a strong indication of what seasoned Democrats must surely be thinking, Harry Reid announced his planned retirement at the end of his current term in office. He said he’d been contemplating retiring from the Senate for months and wasn’t bothered by his demotion to minority leader after Democrats lost the majority in November’s midterm elections.
However, the truth probably lies somewhere else. Because Reid, and many other Democrats, must surely sense that their party has been significantly harmed over the past six years, and the mid-term elections clearly demonstrated that voters are well fed up with most of them. So, it’s best to get out gracefully, before the 2016 Republican sweeping landslide.
What’s also interesting is that Reid made his announcement on the same day that Adam Kredo, on freebeacon.com wrote from Lausanne, Switzerland that, “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.
“U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.”

Furthermore, “Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.

“This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.”

Therefore, the president has moved the U.S. closer to Iran while creating a wider gap in relations with Israel, something desired long before he was ever elected POTUS.

In that regard, at the same time Ari Yashar, Matt Wanderman report in israelnationalnews.com via Drudge: “In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.
“But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

“The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu's March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities.”

The authors add further confirmation of the administration’s motives by nothing that, “Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel's sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.”

In conclusion then, while the president’s shift in Mid-East policy may come as a surprise to many unaware of his Muslim tendencies, there’s really nothing shocking about it. And the only ones who presently ought to be embarrassed by their naiveté are the Jews in the U.S. who lined up in droves to vote for him.  

And that brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and this blog’s first advertisement:

That's it for today folks.

Thursday, March 26, 2015


Dan Lamothe writes in washingtonpost.com, “Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who slipped away from his patrol base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was held in captivity for five years, has been charged with desertion and misbehaving before the enemy, Army officials said Wednesday, setting the stage for emotionally charged court proceedings in coming months.”
There may be even more to come, whereas after nearly 10 months of debate about whether Bergdahl should face charges and about the circumstances of his recovery, an independent review by the Government Accountability Office says "President Obama also broke the law by authorizing the release of five Taliban detainees held by the United States in exchange for Bergdahl without consulting Congress."
At the time of the prisoner swap, June 1, 2014, National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, defended the decision on ABC’s “This Week,” saying Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.”
Regarding the current desertion allegations, she said again that Bergdahl, “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”
Rice also said that “assurances relating to the movement, the activities, the monitoring of those detainees [released in exchange for Bergdahl] give us confidence that they cannot and, in all likelihood, will not pose a significant risk to the United States. And that it is in our national interests that this transfer had been made.”
For Rice, however, this isn’t the first time she’s been accused of being wrong on the facts in the middle of a controversy. Most notably in the days after the deadly Sept. 11, 2011, attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, which she steadfastly claimed was a “spontaneous response” to an anti-Islam video.
Which is why, perhaps, Wall Street Journal Editorial Report panelist Jason Riley remarked on Saturday that he can’t understand why she still has a job at the White House and that, “she is either giving the president bad advice or she is deliberately misleading the public, whether it's on this issue or the Benghazi video.”
On another issue, Michael W. Chapman headlined an article on CNSNews.com: “Gallup: Concern About Environment Down – Americans Worry Least About Global Warming”
Mr. Chapman writes that, “Americans concern over environmental issues such as water and air pollution and extinction of species is down from last year, and the data show that of all green issues, Americans worry the least about global warming (or climate change), according to Gallup.
“As part of its annual Environmental survey, which Gallup has done for more than two decades, the surveyors on March 5-8” found that for “global warming or climate change,” some 34% worried about it a “great deal” in 2014 but that went down to 32% in 2015.”
Furthermore, “When Gallup broke the data down by political party, Republican versus Democrat, it found that only 13% of Republicans worry a “great deal” about global warming in 2015 while 52% of Democrats worry a “great deal” about the issue.”
Which goes to prove that when government pays for their existence in one way or another, people worry about what they’re told to,  or at least, say that they do.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015


Over the past few months, frequent mention’s been made here about the significant decline in audience regarding left-leaning media outlets. Former favorites such as CNN and MSNBC, along with liberal talk formats have all had audience setbacks.
The subject arose again yesterday, when Rush on his website posted remarks made by a Democrat congresswoman from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore.
The congresswoman said, “I think that a lot of us are really frustrated about our so-called messaging.  It is really difficult to fight against, I think, Republicans having 24-hour, seven-day a week opportunity to talk to folks through, you know, Fox News and through programs like Rush Limbaugh. They're very, very well-funded venues.
An astounded Rush responded: “So Fox News, they got a lot of donors.  And the Rush Limbaugh Show, a lot of donors.  And it's hard for us to compete with all of those donors.  I don't have a single donor.  I've never had a donor.  We don't deal with funding that way.  It's absurd.”
Now, of course, Rush’s comeback was valid and accurate, but he left his reply short of the mark. Because while not having “donors,” what he and Fox do have is “sponsors.” And the reason they have sponsors is because the businesses paying for mention know that the audience draw is huge.
On the other hand, the reason the “messaging” spewed by leftist outlets doesn’t get heard is that most people don’t want to listen to it, as shrinking audience numbers prove.
So, much like everything else the left tries and fails at, they perceive this issue upside down.  It isn’t the “funding” that causes people to listen to what’s broadcast, it’s the value and quality of what’s broadcast that creates huge audience. Which in turn leads to popularity that “sponsors” will readily fund and clamor for more.  
On another issue, this one the Iranian deal heating up, its time to recall subject matter mentioned here many times in the past. 
The Daily Caller reported in May 2012 about Ed Klein’s writing about Obama and explaining that; “The first area was Obama’s identity — just who was he? 
“Obama was steeped in Islam but knew nothing about Christianity,” Klein says. 
Klein then asked Chicago’s Reverend Wright if he converted Obama from being a Muslim into a Christian. 
Klein says, the reverend “said, I don’t know about that. but I can tell you that I made it easy for him to come to an understanding of who Jesus Christ is and not feel that he was turning his back on his Islamic friends and his Islamic traditions and his understanding of Islam.”
At the same time on newsmax.com, Ronald Kessler reported from Washington, D.C. that, “The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was like a second father to Barack Obama and helped shape his political philosophy, author Ed Klein tells Newsmax based on his interview with Wright.
For his book “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House,”  Mr. Kessler says, Klein interviewed Wright for three and a half hours. Wright told him of Obama’s secret efforts to keep him quiet during the presidential campaign. But the more significant material spotlights how important Wright was to Obama’s thinking even before the future president began going to Wright’s church in 1988.”
The second area was Obama’s political philosophy. Wright introduced Obama to Black Liberation theology.
Mr. Kessler writes that, “As noted in my story "Media Blackout on Rev. Wright Started in 2007," for three months during Obama’s primary campaign, the mainstream media ignored Newsmax stories reporting on Rev. Wright’s hate-filled sermons; his denunciations of America, whites, and Israel; and the fact that he gave an award for lifetime achievement to Louis Farrakhan.”
In that regard, Ed Klein adds: “Everybody says Obama sat there for 20 years listening to the Rev. Wright spew his anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-American tirade in church. The fact of the matter is that his relationship with the Rev. Wright goes back further than his membership in the church and sitting and listening to the Rev. Wright.”
Which means that, by excluding mention of Obama’s past history regarding “America, whites and Israel,” all the talking heads, the media, and certainly those in government are omitting the likely core rationale: Obama’s fundamental wish to weaponize Iran and abandon Israel.
In closing, there’s no story today about Bill Clinton’s wife. Because, just like her, the subject’s getting repetitive, boring and certainly, not worth the keystrokes.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015


Grasping at every straw that can be found to support its reversal of the U.S. relationship with Israel, the administration now accuses Israel of “spying.”
What’s most interesting about the issue, however, are the details of the situation. Because the claim being made is that sensitive information involved about the nuclear talks between Iran and the United States was turned over to members of Congress, according to the the Wall Street Journal.
The paper also reported that: “The insider details came from “confidential” briefings from U.S. officials as well as from “informants, diplomatic contacts in Europe and eavesdropping.
“Citing “current and former officials,” the paper said the “spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal.”
So, here we have a nation, Israel, fearful of having to face a nuclear armed enemy in the not too distant future. And what did they did do on the own behalf, if the spying allegations prove truthful? They provided information to a branch of the U.S. government that the president and his cohorts refused to disclose about the pending agreement permitting Iran to weaponize itself.
And apparently, Israel was correct in its analysis, because House Speaker Boehner provided the forum from which Israel’s Prime Minister could present his case. 
On another subject, thanks to Mother Nature, there hasn’t been very much said by global warming alarmists lately. Which means perhaps, their tongues have frozen to the roofs of their mouths. 
In the real world, though, CBS Local Weather, Boston says, “Enough is enough. For the past eight weeks or so (starting around Jan. 23) we have experienced the harshest New England winter stretch ever recorded in our long and weathered history. This is not an exaggeration. Records haven’t just been challenged, they have been smashed, obliterated. We all deserve and NEED a break.
After the snowiest and coldest February ever recorded, March came in like a polar bear and looks to be going out the same way.”
While the average temperature this March is 31.8 degrees, “this weather pattern isn’t going anywhere fast.” Atmospheric conditions responsible for the record breaking cold and snow will likely remain for many more months. 
The story concludes by noting that, as the sun gets higher in the sky, spring and summer temperatures will get warmer, but overall, the next several months have a much greater chance of being below normal than above and likely be the case into this summer and perhaps into next winter as well. Which is exactly what many knowledgeable meteorologists expect for the entire nation due to the polar vortex.  
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, that now includes her family too.
FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt reports that, according to the Washington Post, “another potential complication for Hillary: her brother Tony Rodham’s involvement in a Haitian gold mine embroiled in controversy over potential environmental damage and the belief that the project will primarily benefit foreign investors.
“Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative — an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.”
Thus, if nothing else, the Clinton’s are remarkably consistent. Which means that if you ever really have to find them, simply follow the money and without a shadow of a doubt, that’s where they will always be.
On a similar subject, someone who knows the pair quite well, Dick Morris claims that the “Clinton’s can’t type,” in  his column, thehillarydaily.com.
According to Morris, “The Clintons have figured out every which way to avoid disclosure of what they want to keep private. So don’t expect a smoking gun in Hillary’s emails.
Look, instead, to Huma, Cheryl, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines — if they still exist.”
Now, in reading Morris’ suggestion about looking to the four individuals named, and considering the subject being the Clinton’s, one wonders if his comment “if they still exist” refers to the emails or the people.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, March 23, 2015


Yesterday, on CNN's “State of the Union,” Senator John McCain said President Obama’s “letting his personal issues with newly re-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affect his decision-making and shared policy goals."
After stating that, “It’s time that we work together with our Israeli friends and try to stem the tide of ISIS and Iranian movement throughout the region, which is threatening the very fabric of the region,” the senator, “called out Obama and told him: “Get over your temper tantrum, Mr. President.”
Democrat Rep. Steve Israel, was also a guest on the show. He suggested everyone drop the drama and get back to the fundamentals, saying, “What counts is, are we providing Israel with the critical security equipment technology that they need? And on that, we are.”
Now, according to Wikipedia, Congressman Israel’s religion is Judaism. Yet, he’s perfectly content in the knowledge that the president of the U.S. is doing his best to insure that Iran continues its progress toward nuclear capability focused on wiping the Israelis nation off the face of the earth. So, with friends like the Congressman, Israel doesn’t need enemies.
It might help the Congressman, however, if he read yesterday’s column by Michael Goodwin @ nypost.com, which began as follows:
“First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.
“He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast. 
“Now he’s coming for Israel. It is a clear and glaring double standard.” 
Farther along, Mr. Goodwin writes: “Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries. 
“The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?”
The article includes considerable valuable information, so here’s a link: GOODWIN- Israel, Beware
However, since Congressman Israel's from NYC, it's possible he attended a public school. Which would explain why he is apparently unable to read or assimilate and analyze even the simplest information.    
Today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife comes from Michael C. Schmidt in today’s nytimes.com.
The roughly 300 emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account that were turned over last month to a House committee investigating the Benghazi attack showed no evidence that Bill’s wife issued a “stand down” order to halt American forces responding to the violence in Benghazi, or took part in a broad cover-up of the administration’s response, according to senior American officials.
But they did show that her “top aides at times corresponded with her about State Department matters from their personal email accounts, raising questions about her recent assertions that she made it her practice to email aides at their government addresses so the messages would be preserved, in compliance with federal record-keeping regulations.
“The emails have not been made public, and The New York Times was not permitted to review them. But four senior government officials offered descriptions of some of the key messages, on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.
“A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said she and her aides had used their email accounts appropriately, while a spokesman for the Republican-controlled House committee declined to comment.”
Thus, since the 300 emails are but a small sampling of the thousands in question, it’s certain far more investigation will be conducted. And perhaps to save time, the same inquiry panel can be asked to look into foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation by nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Brunei.
In fact, as history’s proven, when it comes to the Clinton's, investigation into questionable activities seems to be a full-time occupation for many of those in government.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, March 22, 2015


Truly horrendous results can occur when people become so intent on reaching a particular objective that they lose all perspective and rationality, sometimes ignoring everyday common sense. Or perhaps, they really don’t lose anything, simply not caring about who they harm while pursuing goals of their own.
And that seems to be the case regarding John Kerry and Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who seem to be on different planets regarding the current status of U.S. negotiations with Iran, as reported in timesofisrael.com via Drudge this morning.
“Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.
“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.”
In contrast, “Kerry was more circumspect, as he spoke to reporters after six days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne. The talks, made “substantial progress,” he said, but “important gaps remain.
“We have an opportunity to get this right,” Kerry said, as he urged Iran to make “fundamental decisions” that prove to the world it has no interest in atomic weapons.”
However, while Kerry was pursuing the preposterous premise that there was a possibility that Iran would wake up and see the light, acquiescing to changing their nuclear ambitions, Khamenei expressed a totality different reality altogether. 
“Khamenei warned against expectations that even a done deal would mend the more than three-decade freeze between the two nations in place since the Iranian revolution and siege of the American Embassy, proclaiming that Washington and Tehran remained on opposite sides on most issues.”
But, what’s even more astoundingly irrational is how far the administration has been pushed already, whereas its original objective was preventing Iran from developing any kind of nuclear capability at all. Yet, “As the current round wound down this week, officials told The Associated Press that the United States and Iran are drafting elements of a deal that commits the Iranians to a 40 percent cut in the number of machines they use to enrich. The Obama administration is seeking a deal that stretches the time Tehran would need to make a nuclear weapon from the present two to three months to at least a year.”
So, this “deal” has gone from complete nuclear abandonment by Iran to an arrangement whereby that nation can develop nuclear weaponry in as short a timeframe as 12 months. Which brings us back to the original premise of today’s subject that suggested perhaps” the administration really doesn’t lose anything, simply not caring about who they harm while pursuing goals of their own.”
A couple of clever comments followed the article;
Tony Mah wrote: “Modern American Democracy = 4 welfare recipients and 1 tax payer voting on who buy's dinner.
Mike Hopkins added; “The government won't allow new peaceful nuclear facilities here in the US. Maybe they should be pushing solar and wind for Iran instead of agreeing to a nuclear program.”
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Scott Walker, appearing on Fox News this morning, provided some interesting insight into his approach for making his case as a probable presidential candidate. And, its well worth noting because his rationale ought to be extremely hard for many others, especially one as unqualified as Bill Clinton’s wife, to prove their capability to perform the role of POTUS.
Paraphrasing governor Walker he very matter-of-factly pointed out how critical it is for the nation to have someone at the helm that has hands-on, proven success in a significant governing role. The governor's thought makes perfect sense because, anyone even mildly aware of what the past six years has cost the nation and its citizens due to the inexperience and incapability of the current incumbent is likely too dumb to vote.
The governor also noted that speechmaking and promises have very little to do with effective management skills in a similar role, reiterating that anyone claiming to have the required capabilities should be required to prove it. Adding that, the nation needs leadership that moves forward, not old retreads recycling outdated rhetoric.
So, in a few short examples, the governor eliminated just about everyone who hasn’t been a governor, thoroughly tested under fire and come successfully through the process currently. And if that doesn’t eliminate Bill’s wife, and a slew of other blowhard wannabee’s, the electoral system is truly broken.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, March 21, 2015


Thursday, March 19th, the president of the US directly addressed the Iranian public via a taped video message. The unprecedented action drew considerable response, with one of the most insightful coming from Rush.
Rush began, “You know, folks, that election in Israel, the victory, Benjamin Netanyahu, that has really confounded Obama.  Do you know what Obama did?  He recorded a video address to the people of Iran and blamed the hardliners in both of our countries, he's telling the people of Iran, for all the mess that's going on in the Middle East.  It's unprecedented.”
And then, Rush referred to Obama’s conversation with President Rouhani on September 27, 2013 wherein Obama was told: “Iran’s supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.”
Obama’s comments led to Rush’s simple but truly profound question: “If the Ayatollah Khamenei here has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, then why are we talking to them?  What is there to worry about?  What the hell are we negotiating?  If the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop nuclear weapons, then what are we talking to them about?  No, I'm not asking it rhetorically.  I'm being serious.  Why are we negotiating?  This doesn't make any sense.  And even if the Ayatollah Khamenei had issued a fatwa against, there's no such thing as a fatwa against nuclear weapons.  You issue a fatwa against infidels.  A fatwa is against your enemy.” 
Farther along in the broadcast, Rush said, “So I checked the e-mail during the break.  "Rush, what is your problem?  What is so bad about Obama addressing the people of Iran?"  Okay.  It's not that Obama was addressing the people of Iran.  It's that he was telling the people of Iran that the biggest problem in our two countries coming to an agreement is hardliners in his country, America.  And then we find out he won't even tell us what the final details of any agreement are, because it's gonna be classified, we're not allowed to know what the deal is.
And it’s in this aspect of Rush’s response that he seems to have left out a major point. Because, it’s widely reported that Obama’s livid with Prime Minister Netanyahu for addressing the joint congressional session, and thereby going directly to the American people to make his case right before an Israeli election. Yet, Obama’s a national leader too, and it seems quite clear that he’s doing exactly the same thing with Iran that the Prime Minister did here. And therefore, likely gave Obama the idea in the first place. Which means, all Obama's noise is self-serving political pap as usual.
On the same subject Charles Krauthammer said, “This is unusual in American history, a president addressing a serious adversary, enemy of the U.S., where the leader leads chants of 'death to America.' If only he would address as warmly the Israelis as he does the Iranians and their leaders.”
Next we have another Obama project that’s not doing very well at all. Jeffrey H. Anderson reports on weeklystandard.com: “When the Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2010 without a single Republican vote, the CBO said that the unpopular overhaul would lead to a net increase of 26 million people with health insurance by 2015 (15 million through Medicaid plus 13 million through the Obamacare exchanges minus 2 million who would otherwise have had private insurance but wouldn’t because of Obamacare). 
“Fast-forwarding five years, the CBO now says that Obamacare’s tally for 2015 will actually be a net increase of just 17 million people (10 million through Medicaid plus 11 million through the Obamacare exchanges minus 4 million who would otherwise have had private insurance but won’t, or don’t, because of Obamacare.
“In other words, Obamacare is now slated to hit only 65 percent of the CBO’s original coverage projection for 2015.”
According to the official website obamacarefacts.com: “As of March 2015, the net cost of ObamaCare is projected at $1.207 trillion over the 2016 – 2025 period,” a truly staggering number. Which leads to the question of what commercial entity on earth could reach slightly more than half of its projected target and remain in business? For those who really don’t know, the answer is absolutely none. 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton and his spouse.
Kevin Sullivan and Rosalind S. Helderman on washingtonpost.com, write about money received by the Clinton’s foundation from highly questionable sources.   
In response: “The Clintons’ defenders have dismissed concerns about the donations as political sniping, saying the test of the foundation is not where it gets its money but how it spends it.”
Now, that reply, while obviously presented because no reasonably plausible explanation exists, is unbelievably moronic when one thinks about it. Because it goes even further than a Machiavellian end that justifies the means.  
However, taking these intellectual dwarfs by their word, what they’re really saying is that if Willie Sutton, Bonnie and Clyde or Josef Stalin were he an American, donated some of their ill gotten wealth to charity they’d be readily acceptable as candidates for the presidency of the United States. And in the Clinton world that would probably be quite true.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, March 20, 2015


For quite some time now, Rush has made the point that among many other issues for politicians and government leaders, the “peace process” is a never-ending career endeavor unto itself which they really don’t want to solve. Because, if peace actually were to occur, what would politico’s replace it with as a goal? And what would be left for the thousands involved in the matter at every level do? 
Yesterday, Rush explained it all, as follows:
A caller said: “Late nineties I saw an interview on CNN with Larry King and Benjamin Netanyahu. There had just been a bombing in Israel, I think 12 people perished on a bus. And Larry King asked the following question, he said, "Do you think this latest bombing will hinder the peace process?" And it looked like Benjamin Netanyahu was just caught in the crosshairs for a second, and he's like, excuse me?  He says, "Well, do you think that this latest bombing will hinder the peace process?" And Netanyahu picks up his face again, he said, "Yes, I definitely think 12 people being blown up is gonna hinder the peace process."
Rush responded: "Yeah, that's interesting, because your memory there of Larry King's question makes the exact point. The Middle East peace process, it's its own world. The Mideast peace process is like a location.  It's like a state.  It has certain realities.  It has job opportunities.  It has objectives, none of which are publicly stated.  It has its own inertia.  And it is immune to actual, real-world events.  It has no relationship to reality.  It's a career.  It's a major at various universities, or could be. 
When you're 10 years old and your parents say, "Little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?" 
"Well, Dad, I want to go to the Middle East peace process, and I want work there."
"You want to work at the Middle East peace process?  Why is that, little Johnny?" 
"Well, because it seems like it's gonna be around forever, Dad, and there's a lot of money there, and I'd be on TV a lot." 
"By God, little Johnny, you know, you got a point there.  Well, what happens in the Middle East peace process, little Johnny?"
"Oh nothing, Dad, that's the great thing, nothing ever happens.  It just is.  It just is, Dad, it's just there.  I mean, nobody ever fails there, and nobody ever succeeds.  It's just always everything's on the come, Dad." 
"Little Johnny, how do you know the term 'on the come'?  Where did you --"
"Never mind, Dad.  I just want to go to the Middle East peace process." 
And that is a brilliant analysis of precisely what’s gone in the Middle-East for as long as most of us can remember. And will likely continue quite long into the future because, just as little Johnny concluded, “nobody ever fails there, and nobody ever succeeds.”  
As far as the president’s concerned, aside from the growing dislike for his courting of Iran, he’s got another major problem here at home. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has begun a campaign to block Obama’s climate change agenda in statehouses and courtrooms across the country, arenas far beyond Mr. McConnell’s official reach and authority.
According to nytimes.com’s Coral Davenport, “The campaign of Mr. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is aimed at stopping a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations requiring states to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
“Mr. McConnell contends that the Obama administration has bypassed Congress and stretched the boundaries of existing law to impose climate change regulations — and that he intends to step outside of Congress and use creative legal methods to push back.
“The E.P.A. is bypassing Congress and the American people by unilaterally proposing these crippling regulations that would wreak havoc on our economy and are clearly unprecedented,” he said. “I have used and will continue to use all of the tools available to protect families and jobs, whether that be in Congress, or outside of the legislative process.”
As far as the issue itself is concerned, nothing’s changed much in the mind’s of the public which puts climate change, along with the quality of the environment, second from the bottom of a list of 15 issues Americans rated in Gallup's last survey. Which means that Senator McConnell’s proposal’s likely to receive significant public support across the nation.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Thursday, that “the Clinton Foundation raised millions of dollars from individuals with ties to foreign governments and state-owned companies while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, according to a published report. 
“[M]ore than a dozen such individuals, along with their foundations and companies, gave between $34 million and $68 million in the years after Clinton became America's top diplomat in 2009.” 
Donors include Victor Pinchuk, a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament whose foundation gave $8.6 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013. Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the Saudi royal family and a former ambassador to the U.S. who gave an undisclosed amount in 2013 and 2014. And, Venezuelan media mogul Gustavo Cisneros, who owns one of that country's largest television stations. He gave between $500,000 and $1 million, at various times, including during Clinton's State Department tenure. 
“Another donor, a London-based businessman with ties to Bahrain's state-owned aluminum company, was acquitted on bribery charges last year. His foundation donated between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation.”
What’s truly ludicrous, though, is what a Clinton Foundation spokesman said, repeating prior claims that the donors did not give to the foundation with the expectation of political access.
I hope that anybody believing that one gives me a call because I own a bridge connecting NYC to Brooklyn. And since I’m willing to sell it for a very attractive price, if they buy it and put a toll booth on it they’ll make back their investment in no time flat.
That's it for today folks.

Thursday, March 19, 2015


FoxNews.com reports that, “The White House could soon look to the United Nations to pressure Israel into a peace deal with the Palestinians, a move sure to inflame tensions between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Historically, the U.S. has helped Israel resist U.N. intervention in peace talks for years. However at present the Obama administration’s reportedly weighing “a shift in that approach after Netanyahu's Likud Party won big in Tuesday's election, positioning him for a third consecutive term as prime minister.”
The prime minister told the Israeli news site NRG that he believes, “Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel."
His promise, right before Tuesday’s election, that he’d not permit a Palestinian state to be created under his watch if re-elected may very well be the issue that stimulated a landslide win for him by Israeli standards.
And, if that’s the case then any pressure applied by Obama, via the UN or otherwise, will not only likely be rejected by the prime minister and Israel, but cause further distrust of the U.S among most other nations around the world. So, here’s another case where the president's personal agenda and overbearing pettiness trump foreign policy realities and the most basic common sense. 
Next, today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Amanda Becker wrote a lengthy piece on  Reuters.com about the current status of the email controversy surrounding Bill’s other half. And although the column contained information similar to many others, one paragraph stood out, as follows:
“Democratic strategist Ben LaBolt, a former spokesman for President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign, said that the email controversy has been a "galvanizing call for the Clinton campaign-in-waiting to build an organization," by hiring top political communicators who can defend her record. Clinton, who ran for the White House in 2008 and lost to Obama, is expected to announce as early as April that she plans to seek the White House in 2016.”
The verbiage that caught this readers eye is, “hiring top political communicators who can defend her record.” Because, other than travelling more than any other secretary of state in history for no visible purpose, the bungled response to the Benghazi attack, and now the foreign payments to the Clinton Foundation and her email abuse, what “record” is there?
Some further research shows a recent article from The Washington Post saying, “Last night, Diane Sawyer asked Hillary Clinton a question that should’ve come as no surprise: What significant things did she accomplish during her four years as Secretary of State? What’s surprising is that Hillary didn’t even attempt to answer the question. She just changed the subject. 
The New York Times noted that, “It was a simple question to someone accustomed to much tougher ones: What was her proudest achievement as secretary of state? But for a moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing recently before a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan, seemed flustered.”
In summary, on her watch, there was not just Benghazi, but the unraveling of Iraq, a failed “reset” with Russia, constant clashes with Hamid Karzai, and  China’s persistent bullying of its neighbors and its own people. 
And what’s most interesting is that, since it’s two years until the next presidential election, real criticism from opponents in both major party’s hasn’t even started yet. Which means it’s no wonder that Democrats are quite worried about their assumed presidential candidate, though very few will publicly admit that at present. 
That's it for today folks.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015


Another bad day for our president and his favored nation, Iran. Despite all the meddling by the administration in attempts to sway the Israeli election against Bibi Netanyahu, Netanyahu still prevailed.
FoxNews.com reports that, “Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began working Wednesday to form a coalition government with nationalist and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties after his conservative Likud scored a resounding and surprising victory following a fractious election campaign.”
Official results reported in Israeli media show that Likud “won at least 29 seats in the 120-member Knesset, five more than Herzog's centrist Zionist Union. No other party had more than 14 seats, and a party or coalition must have at least 61 seats to form a government. A key bloc that could sew up Netanyahu's premiership is Kulanu, another centrist party lead by former government minister Moshe Kahlon that was projected to earn 10 seats in the latest figures.”
An interesting result of the election, however, is that the results caused White House spokesman Josh Earnest to finally say something that’s absolutely true for once. He said “Obama was confident strong U.S.-Israeli ties would endure far beyond the election regardless of the victor.” The only question remaining is which election he was referring to, yesterday’s in Israel or 2016 in the U.S., because his comment applies to both.
Next, former Vice President, Dick Cheney, in an interview for the April issue of Playboy, repeatedly tore into the president on a wide array of issues, including the racially charged riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and foreign policy.
Throughout Mr. Cheney’s comments a very clear picture emerges of how the nation’s lost ground economically, militarily and especially in it’s standing with just about all other nations around the world over the past six years.
However, aside from foreign policy, Mr. Cheney’s expertise lies in the energy area, as former CEO of oil giant Halliburton.
In that regard, he said, “We’ve had enormous success, a lot of it due to the private sector, in terms of becoming self-sufficient on energy. That is a huge development for the United States, affecting our situation globally. Yet Obama is doing everything he can to shut down the coal industry. Unilaterally, Congress rejected the carbon caps, so he is doing it through the Environmental Protection Agency by executive authority. We will not build the Keystone Pipeline. We ought to develop our capacity, support the European gas market for U.S. exports. The Baltics should not have to get 100 percent of their gas from Russia. You can put a real cramp in Vladimir Putin’s economy and activities, and his eagerness to create problems for us in Europe, if we would take advantage of what we’ve got by way of our capacity to produce gas.”
What the preceding illustrates is something frequently addressed here. Because, one doesn’t have to be a highly successful oil magnate to understand the benefits to the nation of increased oil production, energy independence and assistance to allies in need. Any dunce can see that clearly. But when the nation’s security, welfare and economic strength mean less than political ideology, you wind up with the Obama administration.  
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015


Stephen Dinan writes on washingtontimes.com that, “The government paid out $124.7 billion in potentially bogus payments last year, the government’s chief watchdog said Monday, blaming a controversial tax credit for the poor as well as increased bad payments in Medicare and Medicaid.”
When the Social Security Administration admitted last week that its rolls are filled with names of more than 6 million folks who are listed as 112 years of age or older, the Government Accountability Office said “Social Security has trouble maintaining the Death Master File, and other agencies have difficulties in getting the information to update their own files and halt payments to those no longer alive to collect benefits.”
Most interesting, however, was a particular case showing how being improperly listed on the Death Master File can cause nightmares. Judy C. Rivers, a woman who has twice been erroneously listed, was denied for jobs, rejected for apartments and forced to live in her car.
While it took Ms Rivers four years to clear up enough of the problems that she was able to be approved for a credit card again, Social Security’s inspector general said a 2008 investigation found more than 20,000 people were wrongly listed in the death file.
GAO investigators report that Social Security paid out a little more than $8 billion in improper payments last year with the supplemental security income program having a 9.2 percent error rate. The retirement benefits program had a much smaller error rate of four-tenths of a percent.
“The biggest problems, however, came at Medicare, whose basic fee-for-service program paid out $45.8 billion in improper payments, or nearly 13 percent of its outlays, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which botched 27.2 percent of its payments, for a total of $17.7 billion.”
The reported losses are staggering, and no private business of any kind could survive after committing even an iota of similar financial mismanagement. However, this administration has no qualms about placing the health and welfare of citizens in the hands of some of the basest incompetents walking the earth, giving them financial control of the health care tax.  
Today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife comes from Ian Hanchett in breitbart.com, who writes: “National Journal Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director, Ron Fournier, said that Democrats are “scared to death” over the scandals regarding donations to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s emails on Monday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel. 
Echoing the point often made here, “Earlier, Fournier said that the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of Chinese donations is “a big issue. There’s a lot of other ways the Chinese government, and the Saudis, and the [Qataris] — there are other ways that they can help the world if that’s what they want to do. They’re giving their money to the Clinton Foundation for a reason. They want something out of it. So I know, what I really want to see in these e-mails is any e-mail that mentions the Foundation and mentions one of the donors.”
And, much like yesterday’s entry here, Fournier also commented on James Carville, however, in a different context regarding Bill’s wife’s emails. 
Apparently, Fournier argued that “what Carville did is give up the goods. What he admitted was that this was not a matter of convenience, which is what the Secretary said. He admitted that the reason she did this was so she didn’t have to comply with the oversight of the House, and –and with the natural laws of transparency. He gave up the goods. He sold her out.”
So, here we have someone quite well connected to what goes on in DC, and particularly, the Democrat party. And if someone like Ron Fournier's projecting trouble ahead for Bill Clinton’s wife, you can safely bet that he’s most probably right about it.
That's it for today folks.

Monday, March 16, 2015


Not much in the news today, aside from speculation that the pending nuclear deal with Iran will be bad for just about everyone in the world, except those at the top of the Obama administration.
In the meantime, Bill Clinton's wife seems to be garnering almost all of the headlines. 
In what may be another barb aimed at Bill’s wife, Corinna Zarek senior adviser for Open Government in the White House Office of Science and Technology along with Melanie Pustay, the director of the Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice, wrote an op-ed in USA Today about  a”transparency push” the Obama Administration is making.
The joint article says that, “Agencies have released records either in full or in part for more than 90% of requests processed for disclosure. The most commonly cited FOIA exemptions were those that protect personal privacy, while the exemption related to national security on average accounted for only 1%.”
That information seems to directly refute Bill’s wife and staff statements that only half or less, of her emails while secretary of state contained disclosable or personal information.
On the same subject Bloomberg reports that, “Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina told an Iowa public affairs show that, as a former tech executive, she finds Hillary Clinton's assertions about her private e-mail account and server ‘humorous.’ ‘I mean, she talked about Secret Service [agents] guarding the server: The concern is not that the server will be physically stolen,’ 
Fiorina told The Insiders with a laugh on Sunday. ‘The concern is the server will be hacked.’”
While Bill’s wife lack of knowledge about the technology involved really is pretty funny, it isn’t a joke when someone responsible for the nation’s security doesn’t know what she’s doing. However, her having her server physically guarded is remindful of the guy who read the sign in the diner saying: “Watch your coat. “ So, while he sat there doing that, someone sneaked up and stole his lunch off the table.
Other Democrat contenders, however, got some good news regarding Bill’s wife yesterday.
According to The Hill: “James Carville said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would be a waste of time for any Democrat to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. ‘I’ve had maybe three people come up to me and say, ‘Well, I’m for somebody else other than Hillary.’ To which, Carville’s reply is: “Of course, Senator [Jim Webb] and Governor [Martin O’Malley] can say anything they want. But, in terms of the party, every poll that you see shows … 86 percent of the Democrats say they’re going to vote for Hillary.”
Carville’s opinion helps Democrat contenders on one hand, because he’s so often wrong. While on the other, lately polls haven’t done very well prediction-wise either. 
That’s it for today folks.