BloggeRhythms

As the administration pushes hard for its deal with Iran, some more pesky news showed up today. This time on yahoo.com, as follows:

 

“Two Iranian destroyers, sent to the Gulf of Aden to protect commercial ships, have reached the entrance of Bab el-Mandab, a strategic strait between Yemen and Djibouti, Iran's navy said Thursday.

 

“In another sign of tensions between Gulf rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, the Saudi charge d'affaires was summoned to the foreign ministry in Tehran to hear a "strong protest" over Saudi military action which prevented an Iranian plane from landing in Sanaa.”

 

So, the way things are going at present, it seems that when the date in June comes for the “deal’s” closure, Iran’s leaders will have to declare a temporary ceasefire in their warring efforts across the Middle-East so they’ll have time to sign it.

 

In further bad news for the administration, Paul Bedard writes in washingtonexaminer.com that, “The media limps in dead last among institutions younger voters trust to "do the right thing," according to a new and massive Harvard University survey.

 

“In the school's Institute of Politics poll of over 3,000 18-29-year-olds, a tiny 12 percent said they believe they do the right thing. A whopping 88 percent said "sometimes" or "never." Just 2 percent said they trusted the media to do the right thing "all of the time," and 39 percent said "never."

 

“The poll is the latest nail in the media's coffin, a downward spiral that has resulted in fewer younger Americans reading traditional media and especially traditional platforms such as newspapers and magazines.”

 

Making the matter even worse for the White House, “For American voters, MSNBC is the least trustworthy source of news in U.S., while Fox News is the most trusted, according to a new Quinnipiac survey.

 

“The poll, which was conducted from February 26-March 2, found that 29 percent of 1,286 registered voters ranked Fox News first when asked to compare the trustworthiness of coverage offered by organizations including NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC and CNN.

 

"The days of the three major network newscasts being the voice of leverage and trust are over," Quinnipiac's Tim Malloy told the Washington Examiner's media desk.

 

“In comparison, CNN scored 22 percent of the vote, while NBC News and CBS News each came in at 10 percent and ABC News registered at eight percent.

 

“MSNBC came in dead last, with only seven percent of the vote.

 

“Further, Fox News came in first place with survey respondents who were asked to name the network whose coverage they trust a "great deal."

 

“Eighteen percent of respondents said they trust CNN a "great deal," while 14 percent said the same for ABC News, NBC News and CBS News.

 

“Only 11 percent of respondents said they trust the coverage offered by MSNBC a "great deal."

 

Thus, it’s not only getting harder and harder for the left to promote their failing ideology themselves, but it also appears that their allies in the medias don’t have much of an audience remaining either. And with poster boys like Brian Williams, it really isn’t too hard to guess why that's happening.

 

On other subjects, two quick quotes from Rush yesterday on Facebook.

 

“Samuel Alito, a justice, United States Supreme Court, during oral arguments, had a question yesterday. He said, "Why not let four lawyers marry one another?" This did not sit well with the same-sex marriage crowd.”

 

And, “According to the Heritage Foundation, since 1965 American taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs -- three times what we have spent on all the wars in our history -- and Obama says the Republicans are responsible for Baltimore because they have stood in the way of funding!”

 

Which leads one to ask, what on earth did the Democrats really do with all that money?

 

Thinking about today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and their foundation, brought back memories of another president, Richard Nixon, and his association with banker and businessman, Bebe Rebozo.

 

According to Wikipedia, “John Dean, Nixon's lawyer, testified before the House Judiciary Committee he was ordered to covertly direct government agencies to punish a journalist who called  Rebozo "Nixon's bagman." Rebozo was investigated for accepting covert payments of $100,000 from Howard Hughes on behalf of Nixon.

 

“Journalist Jack Anderson speculated that Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox had been fired because he had started to investigate Rebozo's role in Nixon accepting covert payments.”

 

While the Clinton Foundation financial transacting is huge by comparison, it seems to function the same way Bebe Rebozo did. Laundering payoffs under the guise of legitimate enterprise. 

 

A major reason for suspicion can be gained from an article found yesterday by Sean Davis on sodahead.com claiming, “The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

 

Mr. Davis writes: “After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”

 

But then, Mr. Davis produced the following chart showing exactly the opposite. 

 

 

Looking at the major expenditures, salaries, benefits, travel and “other expenses,” it would be interesting to see who that 77% of the budget was spent on. Any guesses?

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The Democrat party in general, and the administration in particular, would be far better off if they could find a way to overcome a continually nagging problem known as reality. Because, it seems that just when they’ve sold the public a story intended to prove or embellish their point, facts get disclosed indicating the opposite.

 

Today, several articles prove the point clearly and concisely.

 

Just as negotiators meet to try to finalize an acceptable deal with Iran, critical to the president's legacy, CNN’s Barbara Starr, Jim Sciutto and Jamie Crawford, write that, “A U.S.-flagged ship was recently intercepted by an Iran Revolutionary Guard naval patrol, the U.S. Navy revealed to CNN Tuesday.

 

“The incident occurred on Friday when four Iranian naval vessels surrounded the U.S.-flagged Maersk Kensington in the Strait of Hormuz. 

 

“The episode came ahead of an encounter Tuesday in which Iran Revolutionary Guard patrol boats fired shots at a commercial cargo ship and then intercepted the vessel, the Marshall Islands-flagged M/V Maersk Tigris, which was also crossing the Strait of Hormuz.

 

“A senior U.S. military official told CNN that "the Iranians encircled the Kensington and followed the ship on its course for a period of time before withdrawing and breaking away." After that, the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet issued a notice to mariners about the incident.

 

“The crew of the Maersk Tigris container ship is "safe and under the circumstances in good spirits," Danish shipping company Maersk said Wednesday in an emailed statement to CNN. 

 

“Maersk said they are still unable to "establish or confirm the reason" for the seizure, and remain in close dialogue with the Danish Foreign Ministry.”

 

So, it looks like, as far as the Iranian deal is concerned, that their navy either didn’t get the memo regarding an end to aggression, or isn’t planning to stop business as usual in their region anyway.  

 

Another item, although about Lois Lerner’s lost emails, doesn’t bode well for Bill Clinton’s wife either.

 

Fox News reports that, “The Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration notified the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday that they have recovered thousands of Lois Lerner emails that were not previously produced to Congress.

 

“The inspector general recovered approximately 6,400 Lerner emails and will carefully examine them as part of the committee’s bipartisan IRS investigation.

 

“The Hill reported that around 650 emails were from 2010 and 2011, while most of them were from 2012. The inspector general has found about 35,000 emails in all as it sought to recover emails from backup tapes.”

 

The news means that the clock is ticking for Bill’s wife as well because, “The IRS also said it took the inspector general around 10 months to come up with the emails sent or received during the period affected by Lerner’s computer crash.” Which indicates that in a year or less, those searching for the emails supposedly erased by Bill’s wife will likely be found by the experts involved in that case too.

 

Then, at the same time, Joshua Green and Richard Rubin report on bloomberg.com that the, “Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations “

 

The story regards Frank Giustra, “who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board.”

 

“Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

 

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP (Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership).  “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

 

The same story appeared in the Washington Post which gave it 3 Pinocchio's.

 

On Saturday, responding to a similar story in the Times, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing Giustra’s assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.” 

 

However, on that score, “Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

 

“Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."

 

So, the beat goes on with these stories apparently meeting deep interest and having long legs. Which may be a reason New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, is holding off on endorsing Bill’s wife, saying he wants to see "a clear, bold vision" first. 

 

And that’s quite ominous for her because he’s a progressive champion who managed her successful Senate campaign in 2000, and therefore, knows her better than practically anyone. 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Looks like the Duke University intensive study absolving human activity from causing global-warming has set environmentalist alarmists spinning to react.

 

Seth Borenstein of Associated Press via Drudge headlined a story today, “Study blames global warming for 75 percent of very hot days”

 

Borenstein writes, “Lead author Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university, and colleague Reto Knutti examined just the hottest of hot days, the hottest one-tenth of one percent. Using 25 different computer models. Fischer and Knutti simulated a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and found those hot days happened once every three years."

 

The article continues,”And as climate change worsens around mid-century, that percentage of extremely hot days being caused by man-made greenhouse gases will push past 95 percent, according to the new study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.”

 

Then comes the interesting, statistical, part. “The figures that Fischer and Knutti calculated are global estimates. The margins of error, plus or minus about 13 percent with current hot days, grow larger when smaller regions are considered. However, they found Africa and South America now have the highest percentages of unusual hot days that could be blamed on human influence, 89 percent and 88 percent respectively. Europe, at 63 percent, and North America, with 67 percent, come in at the lowest. By mid-century, if emissions continue at current pace, all continents will be able blame at least 93 percent of super hot days on humans.”

 

Key points to note are the truly huge margin for error, a whopping 13%, and the fact that as part of Northern America, the U.S. has almost the lowest percentage of all hot days on the planet.

 

Most important, though, is that this study is another based on computer models, which in most cases are proving faulty at best, or worse, totally wrong.

 

Conversely, the Duke University report titled; “Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models,” says, “A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”  

 

Most importantly then, the Duke-led report being based on “1,000 years of temperature records,” did not simply “simulate” computer models, but instead applied the result of documented fact. 

 

The saddest part of the scenario, though, is that even though the case presented by the ETH Zurich study is most likely totally wrong, most people won’t even read beyond the headline. If they even notice the article at all. Which is how the global-warming farce got this far in the first place.    

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one from Alex Swoyer on breitbart.com who writes: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a dubious record: she’s gone longer than any presidential candidate in modern history without appearing on a national television news network or conducting a sit down interview with national media.”

 

After a two-minute recorded message on Twitter regarding her presidential run, she “went to Iowa by van without giving any time to the national press, and very little time – if any – to local reporters.” 

 

Researching the “2012 and 2008 primaries suggests the longest a candidate went without doing an interview with national press after a presidential bid announcement was roughly two days.”

 

So, perhaps, that’s her strategy for the entire campaign. Which would make sense, because it seems that everything she’s involved with usually seems like it might be illegal, while when she shows up and talks her poll numbers drop. And thus, staying quiet and perhaps hiding out at home, may be her best bet for still having a chance at being elected at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Josh Rogin writes in bloombergview.com that, “In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors on Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.”

That sort of commentary from the former president is quite unusual, even behind closed doors. As a rule, his respect for the importance of the presidency is such that he declines mentioning even the slightest disagreement with administrative policy. However, it seems things have deteriorated so vastly, in his opinion, that he can no longer keep his silence on the foreign policy subject. 

Bush opined that, “Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible.” Also adding that, “the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term,” suggesting that “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”  

He then “went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” 

 

Bush himself, however, signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops. But the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. In Obama’s case, his administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement, which obviously has made a huge difference that’s been almost totally negative.

Farther along in the meeting, Bush told several anecdotes about his old friend and rival Russian President Vladimir Putin that were quite insightful. Recalling that “Putin met his dog Barney at the White House and then later, when Bush went to Moscow, Putin showed him his dog and remarked that he was “bigger stronger and faster than Barney.” For Bush, that behavior showed him that Putin didn’t think in “win-win” terms.”

And then a short Bush remark described his media issues in a succinct, but accurate, nutshell: “Putin was rich, divorced his wife and loves power” Adding that, “Putin’s domestic popularity comes from his control of Russian media,” and according to Bush. "Hell, I'd be popular, too, if I owned NBC news."

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, written by none other than one of the premier liberal spokeswomen, Eleanor Clift, in thedailybeast.com.

 

Titling her column, “Behind the Man Who Outed Clinton’s Cash,” Clift begins by stating that, “Author Peter Schweizer may be a conservative, but that doesn’t mean his investigations don’t have merit, and his allegations won’t stick.”

 

Then, in a single paragraph, Clift defines the situation precisely, writing, “It’s a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won’t work, and it’s not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him? And would Common Cause, the gold standard for good-government groups, which is currently chaired by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, be calling for an independent review that would be made public of all large donations to the Clinton Foundation?”

 

Clift adds, “The Clintons have a standard template for pushing back, and they’re going to use it to make questions about their finances seem part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but character assassination only goes so far. It may work for a while, but if the data in Schweizer’s upcoming book, Clinton Cash, survives the vetting it will get from the mainstream media, Clinton will have to clean up her act.”

 

What’s truly amusing, though, is that after brilliantly summing up the significant extent of the damage the Clinton’s have wrought upon themselves by their self-serving, likely illegal, behavior, Clift couldn’t just completely desert them. She seemed compelled to add that, “Aside from actual wrongdoing, and there’s no evidence of that, this is about the appearance of conflicts of interest, and in politics, appearances are everything.”

 

Nonetheless, though, when loyalists like Clift even consider writing an article as potentially damaging to the Clinton’s as this one, the sense of political doom among those true believers must be truly awesome.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A story on nytimes.com yesterday, by Michael S. Schmidt and David E. Sanger, concerns presidential emails hacked by Russians. However, although not mentioning Bill Clinton’s wife, seems quite damaging to her, regardless. 

 

The article states that, “Some of President Obama’s email correspondence was swept up by Russian hackers last year in a breach of the White House’s unclassified computer system that was far more intrusive and worrisome than has been publicly acknowledged, according to senior American officials briefed on the investigation.

 

“The hackers, who also got deeply into the State Department’s unclassified system, do not appear to have penetrated closely guarded servers that control the message traffic from Mr. Obama’s BlackBerry, which he or an aide carries constantly.”

 

Now, several things can be implied here, without much imagination at all. Because, despite the belief of those feeling that “closely guarded servers that control the message traffic from Mr. Obama’s BlackBerry,” were not penetrated, there’s simply no way they can possibly know that.

 

And, far worse, if those same “closely guarded” servers might be vulnerable at all, then a private server, such as Bill’s wife used, is significantly more at risk. Which means that any successful hacking attempts on her equipment will likely never be known. Implying that her judgment regarding national security and decision-making are both quite poor.  

 

There’s another subject indicating poor executive administrative capability, this one not really talked very much about any more: the president’s health care tax. However, an editorial article in the Orange County Register at www.ocregister.com is titled: ”Red ink could kill Covered California.” 

 

The text states, “After two previous extensions, the open enrollment period for Covered California ends April 30. That deadline just might prove to be the tipping point for the state’s two-year-old health insurance exchange.

 

“That’s because this is the year Covered California is supposed to become completely self-sustaining.

 

“Indeed, there’s no more money coming from Washington after the state exhausts the $1.1 billion it received from the federal government to get the Obamacare exchange up and running. And state law prohibits Sacramento from spending any money to keep the exchange afloat.

 

"That presents an existential crisis for Covered California, which is facing a nearly $80 budget deficit for its 2015-16 fiscal year. Although the exchange is setting aside $200 million to cover its near-term deficit, Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee acknowledged in December that there are questions about the “long-term sustainability of the organization.”

 

Here again, however, although the article intends to address California’s budget problems, another presidential misjudgment is buried in the text, whereas, “Indeed, Covered California’s enrollment growth for 2015 was a mere 1 percent, according to a study this month by Avalere Health. That was worst than all but two other state exchanges. Meanwhile, California’s Obamacare exchange managed to retain only 65 percent of previous enrollees, the nation’s fourth-lowest re-enrollment rate.” 

 

Thus, although enrollment showed only 1% growth, 35% of enrollees, for whatever their reasons, either chose, or were forced,  to cancel. And, if that same ratio keeps up, three years from now, California won’t even need the program, whereas there won’t be any enrollees at all. 

 

And finally for today, Christopher Booker of telegraph.co.uk writes about another pin stuck in the global-warning balloon, as follows:. 

 

“Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). 

 

“But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. 

 

Rightfully proud of himself and his mission, Mr. Booker writes on that: “So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.”

 

Now, there is certainly strong evidence Mr. Booker’s gathered to support the fact that global-warming, climate-change, or whatever else zealot environmentalists wish to call it doesn’t really exist. 

 

However, if he wants to get the POTUS to agree with him, he’s going to have to raise more than $100 million for his project. Because that’s what die-hard environmentalist Tom Steyer has reportedly raised to receive the government backing he’s currently got.

 

Reader, Squidly2112 thrstr, put it this way:

 

WHY? .. you say... Here is WHY :

 

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection", says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.

 

"The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated." – Ottmar Edenhofer

 

That’s it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As 2016 draws closer, some strongly conservative Republican candidates might want to give further thought to staunch objection to same-sex marriage. And although it’s rightfully a very serious matter to significant factions of party supporters, unless some kind of grounds for an acceptable solution can be found, large numbers of open-minded voters might very well be lost to the other party.

 

According to the latimes via Drudge, “As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on same-sex marriage, a new poll shows that more American adults are believed to be in gay marriages or domestic partnerships than had been previously thought.

 

“A Gallup poll released on Friday found that nearly 2 million adults are part of a same-sex couple, of whom about 780,000 are married.”

 

What’s most important about the statistics politically is that although, “Those results are higher than findings by the Census Bureau and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention., [t]he latest relationship numbers come amid polls showing a general acceptance of same-sex marriage in recent years. A Washington Post-ABC poll released this week found that 61% of Americans said they support allowing gays to marry and 35% said they were opposed. A decade ago, opponents outnumbered supporters of gay marriage by 58% to 39%.”

 

Furthermore, “According to the latest Gallup poll, about 0.3% of adults in the United States are married to a same-sex spouse and an additional 0.5% identify as being in a same-sex domestic partnership.” Which means that all the commotion and attention are being focused on a population segment that isn’t even a drop in the bucket, and certainly not worth losing an election over without a serious discussion about how the issue might be dealt with more amenably by those on both sides of the argument.  

 

As far as the situation itself is concerned, an interesting, and quite valid comment came from hyperionxvii, who asked: “Would we even be having this conversation if it weren't for the messed up tax system and the way that businesses dole out benefits based on marital status?

 

“I mean, really, who would want a state issued marriage cert if it didn't get you all these little perks?

 

“Anyone can say they are married and have a ceremony of marriage and be married by a priest of their favored religion, all without the blessing of the state. But they can't get those little perks.

 

“So it all comes down once again, to the states power to control individuals.”

 

And that’s something to surely think about.

 

On another favorite topic for the left, Mike Sugerman, sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com, writes that, “The people who want us to use less water are part of a system that could be among the biggest water wasters in San Francisco. That system is in hot water, because of hot water.

 

“After the water is heated up, the condensated water is then discharged into the sewer system,” said Tyrone Jue of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. “This is drinking water that is being used for the steam loop.”

 

“Water is heated to make steam to heat City Hall and 170 other nearby buildings. Although City Hall reuses most of its portion, a quarter million gallons a day goes wasted. Good drinking water ends up in the sewer. It’s a system that is more than 80 years old.

 

“This system has been set up in the city for many decades, as far as this steam loop. It doesn’t rely on fossil fuels or natural gas to heat these buildings. So in that sense it’s good,” Jue said.

 

So, while significant portions of California are now dealing with man-made water-shortages and drought, brought on by self-serving environmentalists, San Francisco permits 250,000 gallons per day go to waste willfully primarily due to seriously outdated technology. Which makes one wonder exactly how much more these people will do to each other purposefully, chasing issues that exist primarily in their imaginations.   

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who appeared yesterday in New York City at the 2015 Women in the World Summit, which got some attention from Rush on his website.

 

RUSH:  “And there I am, ladies and gentlemen, living rent-free, once again, in the brains of the entire Clinton crime family.”

 

He was referring to Bill’s wife who said, ‘There are those who offer themselves as leaders who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay." 

 

Rush then asked, “You mean like Obama?  Oh, yeah!  The women on Obama's staff make much less than the men make.  You know, the Democrats start throwing these charges around, and when you examine the way they operate, they are always guilty of every charge they level at us.”

 

Farther on, Rush added: “By the way, the Washington Free Beacon has a story that the Hillary Clinton campaign confirms that the gender pay gap analysis that they did is accurate.  "The Hillary Clinton campaign has confirmed the accuracy of a Washington Free Beacon analysis that showed that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid just 72 cents for each dollar paid to men."

 

“So here she is out there at this women's conference bellyaching and moaning about how unfair it is to women out there, they're underpaid.  And it happened right in her office, and it happened right in Obama's office.  Standard, flat-out hypocrisy 101.  These people are the champions of it.”

 

According to 270towin.com, 562 days remain until the presidential election. Which makes one wonder, that with a new negative story about Bill and his wife appearing virtually daily, how many could possibly be left? And, from what we’ve seen so far, the answer is probably 561. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As has been the case for the past couple of weeks, since Bill Clinton’s wife announced her candidacy for the presidency, much of the news in the media refers to her specifically.

 

In that regard, two major theories seemed to have evolved as to why considerable major main-stream media attention is being paid to several very damaging disclosures that segment would generally ignore.

 

One idea projects that with the election a year and a half away, the media wants to get the negativity out of the way now, leaving clear sailing for the rest of the campaign. On the other hand, many believe that there may be more to the damaging stories, thus they don’t want to be surprised by backing a candidate who’ll embarrass them further down the road when it will be too late for them to recover from their mistakes.

 

There’s also another faction believing Bill’s wife isn’t far left enough, preferring Elizabeth Warren who still insists she has no interest in running, Which leaves Martin O’Malley as a very viable alternative.

 

As far as potential problems for Bill’ wife are concerned, the usually supportive Jonathan Chait in nymag.com recapped them as follows:

 

“The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

 

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

 

The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.

 

The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”

 

And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

 

Mr. Chait then opines that, “The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.”

 

On a similar subject, improprieties, Rush spoke yesterday about a release saying “the government is concerned about Bill Clinton’s activities with Saudi entities.  Now, we already had the New York Times story where they detail Hillary Clinton facilitating Russia gaining control over the uranium market in exchange for at least $3 million of donations.  Remember, there are others.  The $2.3 million donation came just from the chairman of the Canadian uranium company, but there are others again. 

 

“Among the donors to the Clinton Foundation that had a role in the uranium deal in Canada: "Frank Giustra -- $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more. He built a company that later merged with Uranium One. Ian Telfer -- $2.35 million -- Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it. Paul Reynolds -- $1 million to $5 million -- Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger." 

 

“He "[l]ater helped raise $260 million for the company." All of these people gave money to the Clintons while she's secretary of state.  So she looked the other way while all this was happening! She was paid off to look throw away (she was personally enriched, as was her husband) while Russia cornered the market, or tried to, on uranium.  Frank Holmes -- $250,000 to $500,000 -- Chief Executive of US Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011..." 

 

Rush concludes the issue by stating, “That's the New York Times. That is throat slitting.”

 

The, Rush went on to another subject, quoting a headline from the Washington Post:  "For Clintons, Speech Income Shows How Their Wealth Is Intertwined with Charity. " 

 

In this case, Rush’s point related to how cash flows through the Clinton Foundation, saying, “Stop and think of that for a second.  Folks, just two examples.  Kathryn and I are deeply involved with the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.  I have been since its founding in the mid-nineties.  We are one of their sponsors, the Rush Revere Book Series, children's books, time-travel adventures with exceptional Americans.  The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.  We have been involved in donating and or raising tens of millions of dollars for both these charities. 

 

“The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation has a pass-through of 99%.  You give a $1, and 99¢ goes to kids of Marines killed in action.  Leukemia & Lymphoma is pretty close to that.  There aren't people that went from nothing to a net worth of between $250 million to $300 million simply by having a foundation.  The Clintons don't even have a charity; it's just a foundation.”

 

Then Rush concluded by adding, “Bill Clinton, we're told that he's a funny, lovable guy, has great charisma. He's one of these guys that makes you think, when he's talking to you, that you are the only one in the room.  How many women have we heard say that? 

 

“I don't care how popular he is, Anastas Mikoyan from Kazakhstan is not giving Bill Clinton 500 grand 'cause he's a good guy.  Anastas Mikoyan or whoever is giving Clinton 500 grand because he expects somehow that Clinton is gonna be in a position someday to pay that back that's gonna be in some way favorable to Mr. Mikoyan, and largely that's the assumption Mrs. Clinton is gonna be in the White House someday.”

 

And that pretty much sums it all up precisely.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The Democrat party, and the POTUS especially, are extremely lucky that their core constituency either can’t assimilate information, or is so brainwashed, that it will swallow whatever is said to them by their chosen “leaders.”

 

Yesterday, politico.com reported that, “This Earth Day afternoon, President Barack Obama will visit Everglades National Park to use the iconic wetland as a symbol of the climate threat Clinton first flagged 15 years ago. The Everglades is about as flat and low-lying as a landscape can get; the park has a sign identifying “Rock Reef Pass: Elevation 3 Feet.” The freshwater ecosystem is also surrounded by saltwater seas and estuaries, which scientists believe are rising six to 10 times faster than the average over the past 3,000 years. Obama will argue that climate change threatens not only this unique natural jewel but also South Florida’s lucrative ecotourism industry, as well as underground aquifers that provide drinking water for 7 million people.”

 

But then, further in the text, it’s revealed that, “Climate change was not the problem that the Everglades plan was designed to fix back in 2000. It was supposed to help restore gentle water flows that had been discombobulated by levees, highways and canals, as well as pristine water quality that had been polluted by runoff from sugar fields and suburbs. The progress over the last 15 years has been slow.”

 

Which means that, once again, just like in the California drought, it’s man-made construction, pollution, along with politicians and lobbyists pursuing their own goals that are the root of the problem, not global warming (now called “climate-change”). And if the Everglades had been repaired as promised back in 2000 by Clinton, the problem might very well have been corrected by now. That's also true of the aquifers, dams and pipelines never allowed in California by the very same obstructionist environmental crowd. 

 

However, aside from the farce played out in Florida, none other then Duke University experts delivered another shot in the shorts to the POTUS’s fabrication regarding the climate.   

 

On Tuesday, a Duke University report was released, titled; “Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models”

 

The report says, “A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  

 

“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”

 

Most importantly, “The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.   

 

“The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.”

 

And here is the clincher. “The research, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, uses empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate  decade-to-decade variability.”

 

To illustrate how valid the Duke research is, the dictionary definition of “empirical is: “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.” Which means that actual, verifiable data was used, not the guesses created in a computer by self-serving alarmists whose primary goal is receiving continuing grants and stipends from biased contributors.

 

And now, today’s update on Bill Clinton's wife, a published report that speaks for itself regarding the Clinton foundation.

 

Reuters reported early Thursday that the “errors on form 990s include under-reporting or over-reporting by millions of dollars the amounts donated by foreign governments, as well as not disclosing the donations as separate from total revenue. Reuters also reported that officials may audit other returns filed by the Clinton Foundation as far back as 15 years ago in the event of more errors being found.”

 

At the moment, it’s now known that, “For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

 

“Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation's annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.”

 

So, with a year and a half still to go till the presidential election, it seems that for the Clinton’s their foundation is business as usual. Which means that, if these kind’s of revelations are being made now about the shadiness that always surrounds them, what remains to be discovered should be pretty comical as they try to dodge or disclaim it.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

News items today include the revelation that the president has known for quite some time, likely a year or more, that Iran is actually only two or three months from building a nuclear weapon, should they choose to do so. 

 

The reason cited for the subterfuge is that, by withholding the truth, the “deal” now being negotiated will look better, thereby gaining much-needed public support. And at the same time, make the agreement appear far more critical.

 

However, the real question raised by the disclosure ought to be whether or not lying to the American public for political purposes is an impeachable action of the highest level.

 

Which leads right into today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Bob Fredericks, on nypost.com via Drudge, writes about Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”

 

Mr. Fredericks writes that, ‘During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions,’ according to The New York Times, which first reported the story.

 

“Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.

 

“One example of alleged quid pro quo cited by the Times and other sources involved the State Department’s backing of a free-trade agreement with Colombia that benefited a company founded by a big donor to the Clinton Foundation.

 

“Hillary opposed the trade deal when running for president in 2008 because of the South American country’s poor record on workers’ rights.

 

“But then the company, Canadian-based Pacific Rubiales, and its founder, Clinton Foundation board member Frank Giustra, donated “millions” to the foundation, The International Business Times reported.

 

“In 2010, the State Department under Hillary lauded Colombia’s human rights record, allowing Giustra’s company to reap huge profits.” 

 

As far as lining their personal pockets is concerned, “During Hillary’s four-year stint as secretary of state, the ex-president earned about $48 million of a $105 million speaking haul amassed between 2001 and 2013.”

 

What’s just as bad is that: “More than half of the $48 million was paid by companies in China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Cayman Islands, among others.”

 

The author also writes that, “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

 

Most often, history-wise, the Clinton reaction has been to ignore the barbs and typical mud-slinging when campaigning, while responding vehemently to any suggestion that might have any semblance of truth. Which implies that Mr. Schweizer’s book might have real truth to it, because Bill’s wife reacted quickly and sharply.

 

However, the reason her reaction’s worth noting is that she uttered one of the most moronic statements imaginable: “It is, I think, worth noting that the Republicans seem to only be talking about me. I don’t know what they’d talk about if I wasn’t in the race, but I am in the race and hopefully we’ll get on to the issues.” 

 

Perhaps someone ought to tell her that she’s the only Democrat really running at present. And if there was anyone else credible the Republicans would surely be “talking about” them too. But then again, the Clintons wouldn’t allow a competitor would they?

 

And finally, another cartoon posing as a leader. Sent by a friend yesterday.

 

  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Much of today’s news items in the media are simply rehashes of ongoing story’s. However, a couple of interesting items were found in Rush’s postings on Facebook, especially since they were mentioned here earlier. And that was remindful of an old friend who believed that Rush, and several other national pundits, used this blog as a reference source frequently.

 

Yesterday, I posted statistics showing that more than 50% of the Fox audience either has “mixed” political views or is liberal. And now, today, Rush opined that, “The idea that it's only conservatives watching Fox News or listening to me, or talk radio, is a myth that liberals have constructed to portray themselves as more worldly and more sophisticated and open-minded and all this liberal gobbledygook junk.”

 

Now, while Rush’s commentary might simply be a coincidence, perhaps this blog has more clout than even I thought it does.

 

On another of my favorite topics, Rush said, “Climate change is one of the most front-and-center opportunities that statists and totalitarians have at their disposal for quelling the freedom of individual people the world over, by blaming everybody for it.  That's why it's so exciting. 

“That's why to people like Obama and the United Nations and everybody else, the whole idea that there is climate change and that it's destructive -- and, look, even if, you know, the two-degree Celsius rise, even if that were to happen over the next 50 years, it isn't catastrophic.  There'd actually be a lot of good that would come from it in various parts of the world.  But it's not happening, at least scientifically, it can't be proven.” 

Rush went on to say, “Yet here it is.  It's the greatest threat of all the threats out there.  It poses the single greatest threat to you, your family, your neighborhood, your town, your city, than anything else happening.  It's absurd.  It's just the latest, and actually it's not latest, it's just the ongoing liberal effort, like health care was, to attempt to wrest and exert as much control over individuals as possible.  That's why people like Obama and others of his ilk salivate.” 

Then Rush concluded by stating: “At the same time, the idea of a nuclear Iran is a yawner.  In fact, it's not even that.  The idea of a nuclear Iran is something that we should not fear.  In fact, we should support it -- because we're supposed to trust Obama that he knows what he's doing.”  

Now, Rush certainly posed a solid rationale for Obama’s obsession with climate change, or more specifically, the new, broader catch-all designation for “global-warming.” Yet, he missed the point regarding Obama’s reason for steadfastly pushing the bogus issue at all.

 

Back in February 2014 the New York Times wrote about Tom Steyer, as follows: “The former hedge fund manager is hoping to spend $100 million — $50 million from his personal fortune and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the election.”

 

And thus, all the climate change noise is nothing but political payback, as usual for Democrats.

 

And as far as Iran's highly likely nuclear weaponry is concerned, Obama’s doing it for Valerie Jarrett and, as often written here, his Chicago pastor, the vehemently anti-Semitic Reverend Wright who wants a clear path to Jerusalem through a decimated Israel. Therefore, rational thought and U.S. security aren’t likely even being really considered.

 

Today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife comes from a washington.cbslocal.com column in which it’s written that, “In her early campaign stops, Clinton has cast herself as above the political back-and-forth, vowing to change the harsh partisan tone in Washington. “I am tired of the mean-spiritedness in politics,” she told voters who gathered in a supporter’s living room in Claremont. “Enough with the attacks and the anger, let’s find answers together and figure out what we’re going to do.”

Which brings up the question that if she’s fed up with “the mean-spiritedness in politics,” and, “the attacks and the anger,” why did she herself start doing the very same thing in the first place?

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Marisa Guthrie in hollywoodreporter.com via Drudge, wrote about her insightful interview with Fox News' Chief, Roger Ailes.

 

While Fox has become the most successful news outlet in history, Mr. Ailes $15 billion empire is constantly derided and belittled by those on the left as a biased, fabricating, conveyor of conservative beliefs and ideology Which is why the following paragraph from Ms Guthrie’s article jumped off the page, whereas the statistics mentioned are truly surprising.

 

Ms Guthrie writes: “Interestingly, while Fox News is the go-to channel for conservatives, about 37 percent of its audience holds "mixed" views, according to a 2014 Pew study, while 14 percent are "liberal" and 4 percent are "consistently liberal."

 

What the numbers indicate is quite significant, because while 18% of the audience identify themselves as “liberal,” more than a third probably deem themselves independent. Which means that, with all those undecideds, the likelihood is that the road ahead is clear for Republicans in the 2016 presidential election. And that means, unless those Republicans, somehow or other, alienate those open-minded independents, typical Democrat volume at the polls won’t be enough to insure victory next time around.  

 

Item two concerns Donald Trump, a waste of time usually avoided here, but whom George Will spoke about on Bret Baier’s Special Report on FoxNews.   

 

As he does each evening, host Baier asked all three Special Report panelists to place their bets in the “candidate casino” on the odds of which candidates will get their respective party’s nominations. Will threw most of his chips (a total of $100) at Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, with enough left over for Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Bobby Jindal.

 

And then Will said this: “One dollar on Donald Trump in the hope that he will be tempted to run, be predictably shellacked, and we will be spared evermore this quadrennial charade of his.”

 

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

And now, today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

The New York Times, no less, reported Monday that a new book, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," is set for release on May 5.

 

The work will make new claims about donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign donors, reportedly asserting that “foreign entities that donated to the foundation -- and that gave former President Bill Clinton high-dollar speaking fees -- in turn received favors from the Clinton State Department.

 

Author Peter Schweizer reportedly claims to have found a "pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds."

 

“According to the Times, which got an advance copy of the book, Schweizer's examples include a Colombia free-trade agreement that helped a major donor and projects in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.”

 

The article struck home because the same information’s been posted here for several years now. Which means that, perhaps being a source of ideas and input, instead of posting daily updates on Bill’s wife, this author should have written the book himself.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Slow news day yesterday. However, an article from Times of Israel staff and AP via Drudge was quite informational indeed.

 

Saturday was Army Day in Iran, marked with a military parade featuring new weapons systems. There was also a truck “carrying a massive banner reading “Death to Israel.”

 

“A televised broadcast of the parade was punctuated by repeated cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

 

“Among the weapons systems paraded past dignitaries was a domestically produced version of the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile, the Bavar 373. Russia announced earlier this week that it would supply the S-300s to Iran shortly, having delayed delivery for several years.”

 

As far as U.S. reaction was concerned, “President Barack Obama said he was surprised the Russians had held back from going through with the deal for as long as they had.”

 

At the same time, FoxNews.com reports from the Wall Street Journal that, “President Obama suggested on Friday that Iran could receive significant economic relief immediately after concluding a deal to curb its nuclear program, a gesture towards one of Tehran’s key demands.”

 

Which means that there is just about no doubt remaining that the president’s agenda all along has been to let Iran fill his tribute to Chicago's Reverend Wright, by clearing the way for the reverend’s anti- Semitic “March to Jerusalem.”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. This one includes the president and comes from Rush, five or six days ago, as follows:

 

“Mrs. Clinton hasn't the slightest idea, and neither does Barack Obama and most in the Democrat Party, despite their claim they stand for the little guy, they really don't know what everyday Americans, ordinary Americans, I prefer to call 'em the people that make the country work, they literally have no idea what life is like for most of those people today.  They live in their cocoons. They tell themselves they got a great economic recovery going. They tell themselves they've got a great foreign policy going. They tell themselves that because life is great for them inside the Beltway in their little cocoon, it's good for everybody. They have no idea.

 

They have no idea about student loan debt. They have no idea of the literal panic that's out there over Obamacare. They have no idea about people being downsized from full-time work to 30 hours a week just to keep health care. They have no idea, and they don't want to understand it, and they keep making it worse. They keep flooding the market with illegal aliens hoping to be granted amnesty that will flood the ordinary American market and dilute it even more.”

 

That's about as accurate and concise as a synopsis of political demagoguery as can be found.  

 

Then, during a Republican during a party summit in New Hampshire, according to FoxNews.com, “Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began his remarks by pretending to have mistakenly read a Clinton stump speech, saying he wanted to talk about President Obama’s “great success” in the Middle East.

 

“I’m sorry, this is Hillary Clinton’s speech, not my speech,” Jindal said to laughter and applause.”

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday Jonathan Weisman wrote an article posted in nytimes.com, titled “At Global Economic Gathering, U.S. Primacy Is Seen as Ebbing.”

 

While quite well-researched, as well as well-written, despite the probably unintentional political slant, the column also illustrates how much even the most seasoned observers of economic issues have forgotten about how business actually works. Depending, of course, on how much they really knew to begin with. 

 

Mr. Weisman includes many relevant examples and references in making his point, therefore a link to his article is included farther on. However, key elements follow below.

 

“As world leaders converge here for their semiannual trek to the capital of what is still the world’s most powerful economy, concern is rising in many quarters that the United States is retreating from global economic leadership just when it is needed most.

 

“It’s almost handing over legitimacy to the rising powers,” Arvind Subramanian, the chief economic adviser to the government of India, said of the United States in an interview on Friday. “People can’t be too public about these things, but I would argue this is the single most important issue of these spring meetings.”

 

Mr. Weisman continues, “Washington’s retreat is not so much by intent, Mr. Subramanian said, but a result of dysfunction and a lack of resources to project economic power the way it once did. Because of tight budgets and competing financial demands, the United States is less able to maintain its economic power, and because of political infighting, it has been unable to formally share it either.”

 

“Experts say that is giving rise to a more chaotic global shift, especially toward China, which even Obama administration officials worry is extending its economic influence in Asia and elsewhere without following the higher standards for environmental protection, worker rights and business transparency that have become the norms among Western institutions.”

 

Now, without going into extensive or detailed financial theories, charts and data, the fundamental cause of the U.S. ”retreat from global economic leadership,” has primarily taken place over the past six years. The basic cause being the anti-business, anti-growth, attitude of the Obama administration in particular. 

 

Which is why the preceding quote regarding China, “which even Obama administration officials worry is extending its economic influence in Asia and elsewhere without following the higher standards for environmental protection, worker rights and business transparency that have become the norms among Western institutions,” is so ironically funny while tragic. Because it illustrates clearly, that that the “administration officials,” have no idea whatsoever about how the nation’s economy actually functions.

 

The administration’s approach toward free markets and business is like the Roman elite who buried enemies up to their necks in the Coliseum’s arena, then loosed unfed lions among them. However, when one buried victim bit a lion’s appendage, scaring off the beast, the crowd yelled, “Fight fair, heathen, fight fair!”     

 

In that regard, Mr. Weisman quotes Kevin Rafferty, a former World Bank official, who wrote recently in two leading English-language newspapers in Asia that, “The United States has lost its way and is rapidly forfeiting claims to global financial, economic, political and moral leadership.” He blamed the White House: “Not for the first time, Obama has shown he can talk eloquently, but does not have a political clue how to get things done.”

 

Amelia, a reader from Florida added: “Predictably, most comments herein blame Republicans. I can find an equal number of commenters who'll blame the president and his party, especially Senator Reid. The country is split about 50/50, as we've seen in many elections. We'll never get beyond this if people can't divorce their policy preferences from discussions about the dysfunction of government. They are all to blame for not working out the real problems America faces. I don't see anyone seriously addressing those issues. The president is famously aloof and simply points fingers, refusing to get to know members of congress from his own party, let alone the GOP. Real leaders, as we know, crack heads or persuade. They get things done. The GOP has put forth little substantive so far since they've been in the majority. I favor one side's policy approaches, you favor another. Both sides are to blame for this mess, but I wish the president knew how to lead instead of just campaign.”

 

So, it just goes to prove that there are still plenty of intelligent, knowledgeable, insightful people out there. Which means that with the right kind of leadership, the nation will surely bounce back to what it once was.

 

Link to Mr. Weisman's story:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/business/international/at-global-economic-gathering-concerns-that-us-is-ceding-its-leadership-role.html

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Likely because April 15th was tax day, yesterday Stephen Dinan wrote about the current condition of the IRS on washingtontimes.com, as follows:

 

“IRS customer service representatives managed to answer only about a tenth of taxpayers’ phone calls this season, and even the lucky ones waited an average of nearly 25 minutes before getting through, the agency’s auditor reported Thursday.

 

“Of the 45.6 million calls placed through early March, only 4.2 million were answered by an IRS employee, according to the IRS’s inspector general. Others went to automated lines, for an official level of service rating of 38.5 percent — almost twice as bad as last year’s 74.7 percent rating.”

 

In response, “Agency Commissioner John Koskinen has blamed budget cuts, saying he’s pulled people from answering phones and is trying to steer taxpayers to find answers online or through other automated systems, rather than expecting someone to be able to help by phone.

 

“But members of Congress, who have trimmed the IRS’s budget in recent years, say the agency is still wasting money on bum projects such as public opinion polling, or on ideological witch hunts such as trying to write rules to crack down on political activity by nonprofit groups.”

 

Thus, as far as taxpayers themselves are concerned, the IRS’s dismal performance is probably good news because logic says that if the agency is overwhelmed, the likelihood of a review, audit or any follow on the department's part is greatly diminished. 

 

The downside, though, which has been mentioned here often, is that this same agency is now responsible for administrating the president’s health care tax. Which means that while tax-wise many folks will make out fine, as far as there health is concerned they better not get ill in any way. Because the chances of getting proper service and help with their healthcare is now around 40% if the same performance statistics hold true for the currently incompetent IRS. 

 

On a similar government incapability topic, another washingtontimes.com columnist, Ben Wolfgang, writes that, “The fate of President Obama’s climate change plan now rests with three judges who heard oral arguments Thursday in a case that will decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency can move ahead with historic limits on power plant emissions.

 

“The monumental case came before a federal appeals court on the same day new data was released showing the EPA regulations could lead directly to the loss of nearly 300,000 jobs — more fuel for critics who say Mr. Obama is pursuing a radical environmental agenda at the expense of jobs and affordable electricity rates.”

 

Reading the column stirred memories of another article. This one by Marc Morano in Climate Depot back on July 9, 2014.

 

At that time, Mr. Morano wrote that, “Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, warned “I fear a global cooling,” during his keynote address to the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt it had become too radical, is the author of “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.”

 

Mr. Moore also opined that, “President Obama seems to say it is sufficient to say the ‘science is settled.’ It is a hollow statement with no content.” Also suggesting that people ought to: “Change the way our kids are being taught about this subject because if we don’t there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria.”

 

Noting that, “a cooling would adversely impact agriculture," he continued, "Let’s hope for a little warming as opposed to a little cooling. I would rather it got a little warmer.”

 

Moore added that “the U.S. has currently been cooling” and that there has been “no global warming for nearly 18 years.” He also mocked the notion that “everything is due to global warming.”

 

“If it warms two degrees, hopefully more in Canada in the North…maybe it would be a good thing if it did,” Moore explained.

 

Moore further explained that carbon dioxide is a trace essential gas in the atmosphere and is not the control knob of the Earth’s climate. Saying, “CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth.” 

 

“There are so many [climate] variables that we can’t control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. There are even variables we do not even understand that we cannot control,” he said.

 

“So it is virtually impossible to think of doing an experiment where we would be able to tweeze out the impact of CO2 versus the hundreds of other variables at work. Which is why you could never make a model that would predict the climate.” 

 

Reader JJnTX WellArmedLamb summed up the situation quite correctly by commenting that, “The sad thing is that for every article like this, there are 50 government propaganda articles and Al Gore speeches.”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, which refers to an article sent by a friend, written by Dick Morris back on May 25, 2007, when she was running for POTUS the first time around.

 

Here’s the link: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/bill-clintons-loving-wife.144695/

 

Since the article speaks eloquently and accurately for itself, 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios