Sunday, May 31, 2015


An article from CBSDC/AP about "The legendary Bob Schieffer," says he's "calling it a career Sunday as he hosts his last “Face the Nation.” He, "joined CBS News in 1969 and in that span he covered the White House, State Department, Pentagon, Capitol Hill, anchored the “CBS Evening News,” and hosted “Face the Nation” the past 24 years."
While unfamiliar with Mr. Schieffer's work, his observation regarding today's viewing public caught  the eye, as follows: "We now don’t know where people get their news, but what we do know is they’re bombarded with information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most of the information is wrong and some of it is wrong on purpose.”
Therefore, the first thought arising is that if "We now don’t know where people get their news," how do they know it's wrong?
Yet, what's far worse, and incredibly, overbearingly, arrogant is his high-handed belief that "It is our job to try to cut through this mall of information and tell people what we think is relevant in what they need to know. That is the job of the journalist and I have to say it’s harder and harder.”
While pompously opined, and overtly insulting to the viewing public, as Schieffer's misguided comments were, it did clearly explain why Fox News continues setting records, as does the Internet, while the mainstream media is losing audience in droves.  
Reader, I am a somewhat regular watcher of face the nation, not so much that I expect to be informed but I am interested in what one of the five corporate media outlets thinks you should believe."
And then he added a quote from Mark Twain, made many, many years ago, but still quite true today: "Those that don't read the paper are uninformed. Those that do are misinformed."

Along the same lines of publishing pap having no real current value, but filling pages of space because media outlets obviously think they have to, the following appeared on today, written by John McCormick
According to a new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, "Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has expanded his early lead in Iowa, while former Florida Governor Jeb Bush continues to face headwinds and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida shows upside potential in the state that hosts the first 2016 presidential nomination balloting.
"Walker is backed by 17 percent as the state enters a busy summer of candidate visits, a planned straw poll, and campaigning at the Iowa State Fair. Tied for second are Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 10 percent, with Bush and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee next at 9 percent each."
Then, farther along in the text, Mr. McCormick relates that, "Walker shouldn't count on an Iowa win just yet, especially with such a large and unsettled field. Four years ago, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and then-Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann sat atop the Iowa Poll at 23 percent and 22 percent. Romney ultimately finished a close second in Iowa, while Bachmann ended up sixth and exited the race the following morning."

Thus, as previously noted, whereas the current status of poll ranking is actually meaningless, why bother to type and print it at all?

Which brings is to today's update on Bill Clinton's wife.

A couple of weeks ago it was proposed here that a scathing critique of former presidents, particularly "W" Bush by Maureen Dowd, was likely written to stem considerable criticism of her continual attacks and demeaning of Bill Clinton's wife. And now that some time has passed, Ms Dowd has returned to slamming her once again. 

Ms Dowd's column on today is titled, "Hooray for Hillarywood?"
Ms. Dowd asks, "Is Hollywood really ready to give a 67-year-old woman a leading role in a big-budget production?
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign has echoes of various classic movies: “Single White Female,” with Hillary creepily co-opting the identity of the more trendy Elizabeth Warren; “My Fair Lady,” with Hillary sitting meekly and being schooled on how to behave by tyrannical Pygmalions (Iowa voters); “The Usual Suspects,” with Hillary’s hoodlums, Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock, vying to be Keyser Söze; and, of course, “How to Steal a Million,” a caper about a heist plotted by a couple that doesn’t need the money."
And then, Ms Dowd gets to her real point, suggesting, "Hollywood is mostly united behind Hillary, with a few Bernie outliers and Elizabeth dreamers. But it’s a forced march."
So, the underlying problems continue to abound among loyal Democrats, many of whom aren't pleased at all by having Bill's wife foisted upon them. Which means, that once again there very well might be a true alternative to her who hasn't stepped up yet. Such as the one last time around who crawled out of the woodwork unexpectedly and went on to win the presidential election twice, instead of her.
Are you listening yet, Mayor. Bloomberg?
And finally, the following which was posted by a friend today on FB.

The Blue Street Journal's photo.

That's it for today folks.


Friday, May 29, 2015


The common theme for today's items is numbers. And what they add up to doesn't bode well for present and future hopes for Democrats in general.
Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer, reports: "The U.S. economy shrank at a 0.7 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, depressed by a severe winter and a widening trade deficit."

Noting that, "steady job gains are expected to fuel modestly healthy growth for the rest of 2015," Mr. Crutsinger explained that the problem was, "The harsh winter, which kept many consumers home and businesses closed."

Farther along in the article he added that, "Last quarter's contraction marked the first since a 2.1 percent annual drop in the first three months of 2014, a slump that was also due in part to severe winter weather."
As far as the future's concerned, Mr. Crutsinger writes, "Yet the outlook has brightened considerably since winter. Most economists expect lower gas prices eventually to accelerate consumer spending, the main fuel for the economy."
So, summing things up, the most significant blame for the nation's poor economic performance is severe winter weather, while the hope for the future rests with declining gas prices which will spur the economy back to good health.
By taking another step in analyzing the nation's economic problems, though, it becomes obvious that, if not directly caused by the administration, and particularly the president, things would certainly be better then they are without his direct interference. Because, much of those economic problems result from overregulation, taxation and penalties stemming from "global warming," which the past two "harsh" winters confirm doesn't even exist.
Additionally, compounding the economic problems, rising oil prices resulted from caps on domestic drilling and obstacles placed on attempts to become self-reliant in fuel production, causing citizens to spend far more than necessary on gas for their cars.
Therefore, it doesn't take much pondering to conclude that without the considerable political pandering and payback's extended to supporters, the nation would be in far better shape than it is at present. 
On the same subject, economic performance,'s Nelson D. Schwartz, writes that, "While cloudy, the economic outlook is not necessarily dark. Unemployment has been falling steadily, and experts think it could fall to about 5 percent by the end of the year, from 5.4 percent now. The jobless rate stood at 8 percent a little over two years ago."
However, the trap Mr. Schwartz falls into, or perhaps realizes but goes along with nevertheless, is that dismal unemployment hasn't changed much at all. What's different is that the administration changed the criteria for publication of the monthly results, particularly omitting those who've given up searching for suitable work.
As reported by "The U-6 rate dipped in April to 10.8 percent, the lowest level since August 2008." The U-6 rate is defined as "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." In other words, the U6 rate includes everyone who wants a full-time job but doesn't have one.
Which leads into another employment trend mentioned here quite often. Because while politicians, especially liberals, try to garner votes by appearing to help minimum wage workers by raising hourly wages, they're actually forcing business-owners to automate as fast as possible. 
In that regard, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Martin Ford has written a new book, “Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future.”
According to Mr. Ford, "Over the past 20 years, we’ve seen plenty of blue collar jobs outsourced to machines — from auto assembly to customer service. Now, as computers, equipped with artificial intelligence, increasingly take over “information jobs,” tasks that were once reserved for skilled, college-educated white collar professionals are vulnerable."  
Selecting a particular vocation as an example,"Mr. Ford explains, "There is already a big impact on pharmacies. You have massive machines in hospitals that automate the whole process internally — and you’ve also got smaller machines about the size of a vending machine that are being deployed in pharmacies, so it’s already having a big impact."
And then he goes on to project an aspect of automation that should concern every employee performing a routine task. Because every single one of them is vulnerable no matter the industry. "Right now, it may be true that a lot of pharmacists still have their jobs because we have laws and regulations that require them to be there. It takes a great deal of training and education to be a pharmacist, but what they do is fundamentally routine and it’s really geared toward producing a very consistent reliable result and that’s the kind of work that’s ideally suited to automation.”
Which brings us to today's update on Bill Clinton's wife, who will likely be affected although the item's more about Bill himself.   
Deborah Sontag writes on "To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Petra Nemcova, a Czech model who survived the disaster by clinging to a palm tree, decided to pull out all the stops for the annual fund-raiser of her school-building charity, the Happy Hearts Fund."
Planning the event, Ms Nemcova wanted it to be spectacular and therefore, invited Bill Clinton to attend and speak.
As a result, “The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium,” said the former executive director, Sue Veres Royal."
And then not surprisingly, "The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia." 
Press officers for Ms. Nemcova and for the Clinton Foundation said on Thursday that the foundation had not solicited the donation and that the money would be used for projects in Haiti, as yet undetermined.    
While the foundations response that the use of the funds had not yet been determined seems typical for a personal slush fund, another comment came from Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University, who told Ms Sontag, "This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate. The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.”
Thus, here we have a double-whammy, whereas the story appeared in The New York Times, the Democrat paper of record that would bend over triple before exposing one of their favorite politicos. And then, a masters program director at Columbia, another liberal bastion denigrating Bill, although he used a mild rebuke, "distasteful."
So, while many pundits believe that  all the negativity surrounding the Clinton's at present will either be forgotten in time and ignored by the presidential campaign, and others are certain that the Clinton base will treat the exposures as Republican propaganda, the underlying facts remain what they are. And, with over a year to go, it remains to be seen what else is out here that hasn't been mentioned by Clinton foes yet.
That's it for today folks.

Thursday, May 28, 2015


On a slow news day so far, today’s items reflect an underlying theme regarding the current dismal state of the Democrat party, and its agenda.’s Chris Stirewalt pointed out Wednesday that, “An appellate court smacked down an administration bid to get President Obama’s executive amnesty program up and running while a suit from 26 states seeking to block the measure works its way through the courts.”
Mr. Stirewalt further relates, “But that’s just one piece of the heavy docket on Obama’s legacy projects. In the final years of the Obama era, courts will be passing judgment on the president’s priorities.”
Mr. Stirewalt goes on to use an article from the Washington Post to examine how Obama’s legacy is in legal jeopardy: “President Obama’s second-term agenda, it seems, is in the hands of the courts. Same-sex marriage. Obamacare. Climate change. And now immigration. And in many cases, there is significant doubt about whether his signature initiatives will stand legal scrutiny.” And why? Because he was unable or unwilling to work through Congress and opted to push the limits of executive power.”
With the president’s woes as a foundation, another article by Mr. Stirewalt adds to the deepening Democrat hole the party has willingly dug for itself, by supporting Bill Clinton’s wife as their only real presidential candidate for 2016.
Regarding Bill’s wife’s continual avoidance of most of the press, Mr. Stirewalt wrote on 5/27/15, “But those who suggest that Clinton is making a mistake in not opening up herself to the press and public suppose that she could somehow answer the questions before her. She can’t talk about how her erstwhile foundation employee was trying to profit from the Libya war she sold. She can’t explain what her husband’s unreported consulting firm was doing. She can’t explain the specifics of a Russian uranium deal she helped get approved that profited one of her patrons. She certainly can’t stand by her prior claims of why she established a secret server for emails or talk at much length about the process for reviewing those she ordered destroyed.”
However, Mr. Stirewalt’s column was written early yesterday, before another new Clinton  story broke, this one from Malia Zimmerman on who writes: “The Clintons, already under scrutiny for accepting foreign donations to their family foundation and keeping them secret from the Obama administration while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, have received money from another controversial source: the Federacion Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
“Soccer’s governing body, which donated between $50,001 and $100,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative and partnered with the former president’s foundation on other projects, is entangled in an international corruption investigation spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Justice, which spans countries from Qatar and Russia to Switzerland and the United States.

“The DOJ announced charges against nine FIFA officials and five other corporate executives in a 47-count indictment unsealed Wednesday, which includes allegations that over the last two decades, its executives were involved in racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud.”

And then, we come to one of the most brazen political falsehoods ever uttered.  

Yesterday, “Hillary Clinton pointed out the absence of American’s confidence with the direction of the country and said her presidency will “restore faith and confidence and optimism in the future of the country we love.”

Parsing her sentence, there are two misrepresentations that can quickly be seen. First and foremost, the reason the nation’s moving in the wrong direction is not only that her party has led it there, but she herself was a willing participant in that leadership for four of the past six years. Which can only mean that she believes the Democrat party's wrong, yet she remains a major part of it. 

Her second premise is not only false, it’s patently insulting to her political base. Because, in order to have offered the idea that someone personally involved in the cause of a significant number of the nation’s problems can now fix what she broke, she obviously assumes that her constituents are too dumb to see the truth. And, unfortunately for half the nation, that seems to be the case.

Once again, a reader, Derbydoll wrote an accurate summation: “Surviving ten years of scandals and incompetence isn't nothing. That should qualify her to be president of France.”

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, May 27, 2015


Today’s items begin with an article by Julia Preston on, reporting that “A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.
“The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.”
What’s most interesting, though, is the reply from the White House. Spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine. “Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law. The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority, and they are the right thing to do for the country.”
However, in actuality, the premise that protecting illegals would “bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe,” is so far beyond ridiculous, it’s unbelievable that anyone would be moronic enough to say it in public. Or, for that matter, anywhere else.
But what’s more astonishing about the whole scenario is that, somehow or other, everybody seems to forget that the first word in illegal immigration is ”ILLEGAL.” And until that changes -or if it remains the same as at present- all the talk about anything other than deportation is promoting a premise that’s clearly, and by definition, against the law. Case closed.
The next subject is along the same lines, because while the doubletalk regarding immigration is political gibberish, the State Department’s, Marie Harf, is being promoted. And when it comes to babbling pap that has no ties to reality, this lady’s an expert at it.
Fox News reports that, “From suggesting combating ISIS with jobs to dismissing questions about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's conduct as "rumor," spokeswoman Marie Harf has woven a rich tapestry as the voice of the State Department.”
However, where she’s going is something she’s perfectly suited for. Which is very likely as to why she was chosen because, “The department announced late Tuesday that starting June 1, Harf will be moving out of the briefing room and beginning a "new role" as senior adviser for strategic communications to Secretary of State John Kerry.”
While having no plan to listen to either of them, as always, reading about their commentary should be extremely amusing. The only real question about both of them, though, would be calling either one a  responsible “communicator.” Because while both of them talk incessantly, I wouldn’t describe either as communicators. However, I doubt that the title “BS Artist” is acceptable for members of the Department of State. 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Sarah Westwood reports in, that “Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court.

“The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state."

While “Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians, “the “racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation's chief diplomat.”

What’s quite important about this situation is that, whether the case has merit or not, it’s implications add fuel to the fire regarding the questionable honesty and integrity of the Clinton family.

And even more dire for Bill’s wife’s presidential campaign, is that with a year and a half to go, no Republican candidates have really brought the subject of her personal problems up as yet. Which implies that what they’re holding back is likely to be extremely difficult, or worse, to contend with when they do closer to the election.

Furthermore, the model for sinking her candidacy already exists, because that’s what Obama, Soros, and did last time around in 2008. Mayor Bloomberg are you listening?

That’s it for today folks.


Tuesday, May 26, 2015


An article on today by Howard Kurtz, begins: “David Letterman’s Top Ten List may now be history, but Fox’s Top Ten List could shape the Republican presidential campaign.
“By announcing this week that only the 10 candidates polling highest in recent national surveys will make it to a Cleveland debate stage in August, Fox News has set a bar that will make it difficult for the also-ran’s to get political traction.”
Although I don’t ever pay much attention to Mr. Kurtz, the headline struck me because I don’t understand the purpose of debates either. Thus, I’ve never watched one.
As a practical matter, political candidates are in the news 24/7 for about two years before the debates take place. Therefore, anyone needing the debates to learn about them is either extremely dense, or has not paid attention until then and is probably unlikely to vote at all. 
When it comes to policy proclamations, if new ideas are mentioned in the heat of a debate, that would indicate lack of prior planning in the past and the instantaneous change would suggest intellectual instability.
Furthermore, what the US needs is a skilled, accomplished and tested leader in a comparable role, not just someone who can spout eloquently in theoretical situations such as a "debate."
And lastly, one of the greatest debaters of all time, perhaps the best ever, was Ronald Reagan. But so was Barrack Hussein Obama at times. So, I rest my case about debates.
Regarding Obama, Michael Goodwin today wrote on’s Opinion, that “The stirring speeches of yesteryear inspired us then, and still do. In times of grave danger, great leaders rallied their nations with appeals to duty and visions of victory.

“With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God,” FDR said after Pearl Harbor.

“We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job,” Winston Churchill said in 1941.

“I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!” Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in his D-Day address to Allied troops.

And then, “There is Barack Obama. After the Islamic State won major battles in Iraq and Syria last week, he said: “I don’t think we’re losing.”

Mr. Goodwin concludes by stating that, “Obama has put himself at odds not just with that history, but with the very concept of national leadership. Nowhere has his failing been as obvious as in the fight against Islamic terrorism.”

The comparisons to former world statesmen was pleasing to see because, for the past four years now this blog’s contained the same kind of analogies. Which means that others are finally waking up, and if enough do the same, next time there actually might be a capable, well-experienced POTUS in the oval office. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. It comes from the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, who writes that, for him, three “boomer” president's are enough. 
Mr. Kristol opines that, “None of the three most recent presidents had much to show for himself by way of accomplishments, personal or professional or political, when he ran for office. Each could in fact be said to have had more in the way of disqualifications than qualifications for office. Yet Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all became president.”
As far as Bill’s wife is concerned, Mr. Kristol writes: “Last week, Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin convened a focus group of Iowa Democrats to discuss Hillary Rodham Clinton. They were Ready for Hillary. Indeed, they were enthusiastic about the prospect. But when Halperin asked them to name an accomplishment of Hillary as secretary of state, they couldn’t come up with one. Nor, for that matter, could they have named an accomplishment of Hillary as senator. Nor as first lady. Nor as Arkansan.
“So Hillary Clinton would fit right in. She would be a worthy successor to the boomer presidents who have stood at the pinnacle of American politics for almost a quarter century. Hillary’s would be the echt-boomer presidency. She would be our second affirmative action boomer president (after Obama), our second boomer legacy president (after Bush), and our second reflexively dishonest boomer president (after her husband).”
What’s most remarkable about Mr. Kristol’s summation is that he points out two well-known, widely accepted truth's regarding Bill Clinton’s wife. She has no accomplishments to her name, and is recognized as a "reflexive” knee-jerk liar. Yet, she’s first choice at present for Democrats to be their president. So, what exactly, does that say about them and their expectations of their own? And, especially, about themselves, if that’s the best that they can do or offer.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, May 25, 2015


While the president says ISIS takeover of the Iraqi city Ramadi is a "setback," he doesn't think the U.S. is losing to the militant group.
Yet, according to, quite surprisingly,  “Top congressional Democrats and Republicans agreed Sunday that President Obama is not winning the fight against the Islamic State, with one of his top House supporters acknowledging a “stalemate” at best.
“The criticism from Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was not unexpected following the Islamic State last week taking over the Iraq city of Ramadi, then pushing into the Syrian city of Palmyra.
“Clearly ISIS has gained momentum … as we’ve seen the ground that they have gained both in Iraq and Syria,” Gabbard, an Army combat veteran who has criticized Obama for not calling Islamic State “Islamic extremists,” told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Therefore, for the first time, both sides of Congress seem in agreement, something quite rare for the past six and a half years.
Once again,  reader’s comments are worth noting.
Bill242 opined: “Obama Built that!”
Texasnotea added: “Breaking News.........Fox Noise is moving to the cartoon channel”
bybyamericanpie replied to Texasnotea ”so the liberals can understand it?”
At the same time, author John Podhoretz wrote a column on, titled, “ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s legacy falls apart.’”
Mr. Podhoretz’s take on why the Iranian nuclear deal is so important to the president is that, “Deep into the seventh year of his tenure, Barack Obama is thinking about his post-presidential legacy. We know this because he’s telling us so.
“And who can blame him? After the failure of the Arab Spring, the collapse of Libya, the failure to act on his self-imposed “red line” in Syria, Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine and the terrifying rise and forward march of ISIS, the only unmitigated positive on his foreign-policy spreadsheet remains the killing of Osama bin Laden.”
In conclusion, Mr. Podhoretz adds, “Look, the guy will need something impressive to fill the exhibition space at his brand-new presidential library in Chicago.” And, sad as that observation is, it happens to be true.
Which brings us to the topic that the president thinks is the most important of all. Far more critical than terrorism, the economy, health care or unemployment: gobal warming.
An article from via Drudge, begins: “The Cannes Film Festival's closing film on Saturday was a call to arms to tackle climate change featuring the scientific pioneer who spent decades in Antarctica proving the existence of global warming. 
"I used to be pessimistic, but I think people are changing," said Claude Lorius, the 91-year-old French scientist whose groundbreaking research on ice cores proved the link between greenhouse gases and global temperatures.”
“His story is told in the documentary "Ice and the Sky", featuring footage from his earliest missions in the 1950s through to the present day. 
The story says, “Lorius carried out 22 expeditions -- some lasting as long as a year -- in Antarctica, where he helped pioneer the drilling and examining of ice cores, gathering climatic data going back more than 400,000 years.” 
And then, the point was made that caused the mention here in the first place. “One of his key insights, described in the film, came from drinking whisky one day with colleagues. Watching ice crack in the glass made him realise he could extract ancient air bubbles from the ice samples they were collecting.” 
Lorius told reporters after the screening, "I'd already had a bit to drink, otherwise I wouldn't have had this brilliant idea, this brainstorm. It took many years to put the ideas into practice." 
However, had Lorius stayed sober, perhaps he might have noticed that there’s been no “climate change” for the past eighteen years. And, if he’s not too plastered to get to a window and open it, he’d find that the Polar vortex is now cooling the planet, while the Northeastern US hasn’t really seen spring yet. 
Also, while climate change articles generally draw numerous readers comments. This one, so far has interested no one. Zip, zero, nada, kaput. 
Another article, this from describes the alternating periods of global warming and cooling, attributed to (weak) variations in the energy emitted by the sun resulting from the Earth’s position, corresponding to significant fluctuations in the composition of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 
Then, it quotes the same, Claude Lorius, as saying, “Naturally, it would be impossible to attribute this yo-yo effect to human activity: "Fluctuations in CO2 levels are regulated by the oceans through a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes. Living organisms do play a role in climatic changes. For hundreds of thousands of years, the temperatures and the concentrations of aerosols and greenhouse gases have varied between relatively constant minimum and maximum levels. The Earth’s climate is naturally self-regulating, varying between these two well-defined stable states.” 
However, after confirming Earth's natural self-regulating, Lorius still says, “But we must admit that current greenhouse gas levels are unprecedented, higher than anything measured for hundreds of thousands of years, and directly linked to man’s impact on the atmosphere. The conclusions reached from a study of glacial archives lend credence to the assertion that the planet has warmed considerably throughout the 21st century, with potentially dire consequences on water supplies, agriculture, health, biodiversity, and in a broader sense, the man’s living conditions.” 
And, after all that, Dr. Jeff Masters, commented, ““It’s Memorial Day weekend, the traditional start of the U.S. summer season, and millions are wondering what kind of weather the next three months will bring. Signals point toward a cooler- and wetter-than-average summer across much of the U.S. this year, with unusual heat mostly limited to the far West and Alaska.” 
Thus, once again, reality proves that after all is said and done, Mother Nature is never going to be figured out by anyone, even Obama and his cohort billionaire and major contributor,Tom Steyer.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, an insight into reality that if it weren’t so important to the nation, would be very, very funny.
According to, “Apparently, Hillary Clinton (wasn’t) even ready for the 10 a.m. phone call.”
“Information obtained from her emails released by the State Department Friday revealed that Clinton missed President Obama’s first daily intel briefing after the 2012 terrorist attacks on Benghazi.
“I just woke up,” the former secretary of state wrote at 10:43 a.m on Sept 15, 2012.”
And this is the woman who claims, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” However, that might be hard to do in bed, sleeping with the covers over her head, so she can’t even attend a critical meeting to learn what actually happened in Benghazi from the president of the US.
But, what difference does it make to her? After all, only four American lives were lost, including U.S. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens. 
That's it for today folks.

Sunday, May 24, 2015


Air Force General, Richard Meyers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared  this morning on Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.
A subject covered was the pending deal with Iran, which had significant importance because from 2001 through 2005,  the general was the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council during the earliest stages of the War on Terror, including planning and execution of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
When asked his thoughts about the deal, the general‘s answer was quite carefully worded, never once sounding negative toward the president, yet clearly an agreement he found fault with.
The general then provided an example of similar deals gone bad in the past, causing his concern. Such as the one in 1994, where the United States and North Korea signed an agreement freezing North Korea's operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors. The agreement also called for the United States to supply North Korea with fuel oil pending construction of the reactors.
As it turned out, the US lived up to it’s part, delivering as promised. However, North Korea did not, becoming a significant nuclear threat and constant concern not only to South Korea but the rest of the free world, as well.
In that regard, the general expressed his thought that the North Koreans would have promised to do anything to get the needed oil, yet had no intention of shutting down their nuclear weaponizing at all. And in the case of Iran, he believes the same is true, and they’ll say anything to get the crippling economic sanctions lifted as soon as possible.
However, there may be indications that the president is having second, or third, or fourth thoughts about the Iranian nuclear deal, because he’s slowly but surely seeming to back off his unilateral stance to let that nation weaponize. It also appears that Congress will now likely have a say in the matter.
On the same show this morning, Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso, said Congress will be permitted a final review of the Iranian deal. Which also implies that the POTUS realizes the magnitude of the mistake he’s making by believing Iranian promises they really don’t intend to fulfill. And, therefore, he probably wants Republicans to kill the deal for him now, saving political face by ducking his mistakes once again.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Lisa Lerer, Matthew Lee and Jack Gillum report on via Drudge, that “Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on her private email account about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that was later classified "secret" at the request of the FBI, underscoring lingering questions about how responsibly she handled sensitive information on a home server.
“The nearly 900 pages of her correspondence released Friday are only a sliver of the more than 55,000 pages of emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department, which had its plan to release them next January rejected this week by a federal judge.”
Whereas the judge has now ordered the agency to conduct a "rolling production" of the records, the Republican-led House committee investigating Benghazi will likely keep the issue of how Bill’s wife used a personal email account while serving as the nation's top diplomat alive indefinitely.
“Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said that the released emails were incomplete, adding that it "strains credibility" to view them as a thorough record of Clinton's tenure.”
So, if nothing else, today’s items reconfirm the amazing consistency of Democrat president's and presidential candidates. Because for both, continually being wrong and/or dishonest and working diligently to avoid being blamed for it seems to be an ingrown common characteristic.
That's it for today folks.

Saturday, May 23, 2015


There's a suspicion among many, that POTUS’ strategy for political survival quite often employs Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals which provided lessons to future community organizers. 
Mr. Alinsky’s "Rule #8" states: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new."
Evidence of keeping enemy’s confused, as well as significant numbers of his ordinarily strongest supporters, seems quite evident in the president’s push for his current trade agenda. The measure has now gained Senate approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations. It took a coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats for passage.
Paul Kane, addressed the president's abandonment of former supporters, writing, “Obama’s aggressive push for the trade agenda has upended his relationship with his long-standing allies in the labor movement, as well as anti-corporate liberal activists who strongly supported his 2008 and 2012 elections. It sparked sharp exchanges, played out in the national media, with a liberal icon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), leading to one of Obama’s normally closest allies, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), to question whether he was being sexist for singling her out for criticism."
Further evidence of party affiliation taking a back seat to practical problems within their states was seen when, “On Friday, union leaders narrowly lost their bid for passage of an amendment designed to create strict regulation of global currency markets, offered by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), whose states have been ravaged by losses of manufacturing jobs to foreign competition.”
Thus, while the ramifications of the legislation won’t be known for quite sometime to come, it’s a very safe bet that Saul Alinsky’s grinning widely under his tombstone today in Chicago.
On another matter bringing the POTUS and Republicans closer together, an article on states that, “President Barack Obama has signed legislation that gives Congress the power to review and potentially reject a nuclear deal with Iran. 
“It's a central element of Obama's foreign policy. He signed the measure without ceremony Friday at the White House.”
While done quietly on a Friday afternoon, right before a major holiday, the president’s action suggests that he he’s become quite wary that the Iranian deal is far riskier than earlier imagined. Which means he apparently now wants Republicans to share the blame if the negotiations come to naught. 
The next item concerns another issue where the POTUS took on an idea dreamt up for ideological purposes, but made no sense as a practical application at the time it was attempted because technology was nowhere near where it had to be to succeed.  
According to Michael Bastasch in, “President Obama’s promise to have 1 million electric or hybrid cars on the road by 2015 has been an abysmal failure, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg, as private and government purchases of such vehicles have only reached 31 percent of the president’s original goal.
“The U.S. bought about 24,816 electric and hybrid vehicles during Obama’s presidency, or about 7 percent of government purchases in that time,” according to government data obtained by Bloomberg. 
However, and far worse, “U.S. consumers bought about 286,814 of those models from 2009 to 2014, or 3 percent of overall sales.”
For those actually using the vehicles, “ reports that only 45 percent of this year’s hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012.” And, the auto-research group,, also found that “22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and [electric vehicles] in 2015 bought a new SUV.”
Thus, it appears that a pesky problem the POTUS has had from the start was that whether the subject was domestic or foreign policy, so many things that looked great on paper, or sounded perfect in speeches, just don’t seem to work in the real world. That's been proven over and over again, with the passage of time now that the administration's been in power for over six years and continually forced to face the dismal results.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
According to, “After months of review, the administration published messages Clinton exchanged about the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, with her colleagues and friends while she was secretary of state. Those memos contained none of the evidence to bolster critics who say she withheld security for the U.S. outpost there or deliberately misled the public about the ties between the attackers and al-Qaeda terrorists.”
Yet, after stating the preceding information, absolving Bill’s wife of fault, the article continues, “Still, on the day of its scheduled release, the State Department, at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, labeled a part of a November 2012 e-mail to her about arrests in the Benghazi killings as classified, and kept it secret. That’s a problem for Clinton because she said the private e-mail address she chose to use while secretary was never the vehicle for classified information.”
Furthermore, “The 296 e-mails posted on a department website are a fraction of more than 30,000 work-related messages Clinton turned over from her private e-mail server.” Which means that there are still a significant number of messages to be studied before any real conclusions about Bill’s wife’s action’s following the Benghazi raid can be determined completely.
Nonetheless, her presidential aspirations continue, leading Jeremy W. Peters to write in that, “Democrats express concerns not only about whether Mr. Rubio, 43, a son of Cuban immigrants, will win over Hispanic voters, a growing and increasingly important slice of the electorate. They also worry that he would offer a sharp generational contrast to Mrs. Clinton, a fixture in American politics for nearly a quarter-century who will turn 69 before the election.”
Mr. Peters then points out that, “As her supporters recall, Barack Obama beat Mrs. Clinton for the nomination in the 2008 elections after drawing similar contrasts himself.”
As a result, “Democrats will try to use Mr. Rubio’s youth and four-year career in national politics against him, depicting him as green or naïve — a liability at a time when unrest abroad is a top concern.” 
That approach not only makes sense for Democrats, but is of extreme importance to the entire nation itself. Because, if nothing else, the last six years has proven that the presidency isn’t the place for an untried, inexperienced, one-term politician to learn how to preside over the world’s most successful nation. And to bring the country back to its former position, significant leadership skills gained in a similar position are needed now more than ever. 
Reader, Chico, from California, put it this way regarding Mr. Rubio: “So we've descended so far into the abyss of personality politics that we're supposed to vote for a green, callow poster child of a Republican because his parents worked hard in adverse circumstances so he could succeed?
“Why don't we just vote for his parents?
“We have become a politically pathetic nation of distracted know-nothings if such considerations trump real policy positions in the real world.”
And that hits the nail on the head.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, May 22, 2015


Information regarding the pending Iranian nuclear deal has been sparse lately, unlikely to pick up until the deadline date for its execution, June 30, nears.
It’s also unlikely that many people will read a story Michelle Malka Grossman, breaking news editor at the Jerusalem Post linked by  Drudge this morning. The story’s well-worth viewing, however, because it indicates underlying mindsets and inclinations of Iranian military leadership. 
According to Ms Grossman, aggressive comments toward Iran made by Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Ya'alon, were misquoted and hence, misunderstood by Iranian officials who were “thrown into a fit over distorted comments.” 
While an angry response from the Iranians is certainly logical, after all, they thought themselves threatened, their immediate reaction is what makes the news item worth noting and something to be considered by those seeking to put a nuclear deal together.    
Ms Goodman writes that, “In response, Iranian Major General Rahim Safavi threatened Israel with violence, saying that "the Zionists and the US are aware of the power of Iran and Hezbollah, and they know that over 80,000 (Iranian) missiles are ready to rain down on Tel Aviv and Haifa.
"We have displayed part of our military capabilities while we have kept many of our achievements and capabilities hidden to outsiders," a comment which comes just a month after P5+1 countries agreed to a framework deal with Iran. "Our response will be crushing not just to the Zionist regime, but to any other aggressor who intends to take action against us."
And these are the people that the POTUS and his administration want to help attain nuclear weaponry. Certainly something to consider. 
On another recurring topic, the next item comes from This one’s posted because a quite appropriate reader’s comment follows.
Headlined, “Late-Season Freeze to Threaten Northeast Friday Night,” the text says, “It might feel more like late October rather than late May in the Northeast on Friday night as temperatures dip well below normal.
“Frost will threaten gardens across the region on Friday night as chilly air moves in from Canada.”
Reader, Thomas Emmert, added: “All of this cold weather must be because of global warming....I mean climate change. Ahhh screw it its Bush's fault.”
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton and his wife.
Although nothing really more than a few more coals on the fire, the story’s important because of its source,, ordinarily a reliable supporter of leftist causes. However, it appears that the burden of carrying the Clinton’s water may be turning out to be too big a task. 
Today Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger write that, “The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
“The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.”
While the money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and even Chelsea Clinton, “Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.”
As a practical matter, the fees involved and their handling are only one more case where attempts were made to sweep  potential illegalities under the rug. But, what’s even more egregious to consider is where much of those “donations” specifically came from. 
“The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Ni­ger­ian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The authors add that “the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.including “the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
“China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
“The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.”
What came next though, was something to consider for those supporting Bill’s wife for president. Because her current claim is that “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” 
Yet, according to the authors “The new data shows that a number of public education institutions paid the foundation for speeches by Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.
“Those speeches drew backlash on some campuses, as universities paid hundreds of thousands to the Clinton charity at a time of rising tuitions and slashed university budgets.”
So, as time passes and story’s regarding the Clinton’s gouging proliferate, it’s become quite obvious that self-serviance, personal gain and political power are Clinton family goals. But, nowhere that’s been seen as yet is what voters actually get for helping them achieve their aims.   
That's it for today folks.

Thursday, May 21, 2015


Six years of history proves quite conclusively that there‘s just about nothing that the administration does successfully. From the economy, to foreign policy, to immigration, the huge national debt and certainly health care, the nation’s gone continually backward. However, in one area, the president's proven to be equal, or perhaps even better than most others before him: loyalty to contributors.
In that regard, Nancy Benac on via Drudge writes that, “President Barack Obama is framing the challenges of climate change as a matter of national security that threatens to aggravate poverty and political instability around the globe and jeopardize the readiness of U.S. forces.
"Make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country," the president says in excerpts of a commencement address prepared for delivery Wednesday at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. "And so we need to act and we need to act now."
“The president in recent months has pressed for action on climate change as a matter of health, as a matter of environmental protection and as a matter of international obligation. He's even couched it as a family matter, linking it to the worry he felt when one his daughters had an asthma attack as a preschooler.”
At this stage, following a brutal winter and quite cool spring, and 18 years of no real climate change at all, one would think that the POTUS would reconsider his position on the subject,. But that’s where the “loyalty” characteristic comes in. Because we mustn't forget, Tom Steyer and his climate-oriented organization, “NextGen Climate.”
Back in 2014, Matt Wolking, House Speaker John Boehner's communications adviser, wrote a piece on the speaker's website titled "President Obama's Other Green Agenda."
Suggesting that “Obama is confusing the color green,” Mr. Wolking writes, “Turns out their pal Tom Steyer, a California billionaire, has said that the government's green energy policies offer 'a chance to make a lot of money."
Mr. Wolking went on, “Both President Obama and Vice President Biden have held political fundraisers in Steyer's $5.8 million San Francisco mansion, and he's pledged to spend $100 million on the 2014 elections in support of anti-Keystone Democrats. So let's be honest: it's not about the science, it's about the money. The obstructionists blocking Keystone have a different kind of green agenda: big campaign donations courtesy of a billionaire super-donor.”
As far as “global warming” itself is concerned, today, May 20 2015, Chris Dolce wrote on that “Spring was spoiled by snow to start this week in parts of the Upper Midwest, Plains and Rockies thanks to a late-May chill. Snow has been reported in at least seven states since Sunday, including Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
“The top snow total was in Fairplay, Colorado, where 14 inches of snow was reported. Several other locations in the Colorado Rockies also reported over six inches of snow.”
At the same time, while the POTUS was addressing a graduating class at the Coast Guard Academy, telling his audience that, “we need to act and we need to act now," on global-warming, Jeff Cox of CNBCcom wrote, “At a time when 8.5 million Americans still don't have jobs, some 40 percent have given up even looking.” 
“The revelation, contained in a new survey Wednesday showing how much work needs to be done yet in the U.S. labor market, comes as the labor force participation rate remains mired near 37-year lows.”
Similarly, Elizabeth Harrington reported on that, “109,930,090 Americans participated in overlapping programs. 
“The federal government spent $100 billion providing food assistance to Americans last year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
“The lion’s share of spending comes from the food stamp program, which gave benefits to an average 46 million Americans in 2014, at a cost of $74.6 billion, according to a testimony from the GAO’s Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Kay E. Brown before the House Subcommittee on Nutrition Wednesday.”
And while all that economic misery continues to go on, POTUS has abandoned many of his strongest supporters by joining Republicans in trying to pass a potentially job-killing new foreign trade agreement. Opposition includes, according to Heidi Przybyla on, labor, teachers, seniors, Internet freedom groups, and even Sister Simone Campbell, who makes tours on a dedicated bus to highlight social issues.
Thus, while the POTUS continues his pay-back to political contributors, the nation’s real problems are exacerbated or ignored. Which means that in order to receive presidential attention the poor, jobless and hopeless need to make significant donations to his causes, which obviously is financially impossible. Resulting in an economic Catch-22.  
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one from Mark Hosenball on, as follows:
“Congressional investigators have issued a subpoena demanding that former Clinton White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal testify next month before the House of Representatives committee investigating the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
“More than two years ago, a set of emails sent by Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state were posted on the Internet by a hacker who called himself Guccifer. Blumenthal did not work for Clinton when she was secretary of state and sent those emails as a private individual.”
Mr. Hosenball explains that, “The emails included detailed private intelligence reports on events in Libya sent to Blumenthal by Tyler Drumheller, a former senior CIA officer. Some of the emails were sent around the time of the Benghazi attacks on and discussed information Drumheller's sources gave him about the attack.
“On Tuesday, The New York Times published a handful of emails showing that Clinton had passed on some of the private intelligence reports to aides and other State Department personnel. The messages show that at least one of the private intelligence reports made its way to a recipient who appears to have been Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was killed by militants during the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks.”
So, just like water slowly dripping on a rock, evidence mounts refuting the administration’s claims regarding the Benghazi attack, as well as the part played by Bill Clinton’s wife. And although, not clearly defined as yet, may lead to her use of a private email server while Secretary of State. 
Which leads to a question regarding her upcoming testimony before a Congressional committee. Since she’s a private citizen now, will Congress have to pay her typical $200,000 appearance fee to have her show up?
That's it for today folks.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015


Complaint's been received, saying yesterday’s entry was far too long. Nonetheless, the point was too important to leave out the huge amount of information available on the subject’s covered. Furthermore, those readers feeling that critical points require too much effort to absorb, likely aren’t interested in the subject anyway, therefore not reading it at all.
As far as today’s items are concerned, the first regards NJ Governor, Chris Christie, who probably doesn’t stand a chance of becoming president but made two quite valid points a couple of days ago.
Appearing on The Kelly File, the governor said of Marco Rubio, “As far as Marco goes, as I’ve said before, I like Marco a lot, I think he’s a very good guy, a very bright guy, but I really believe the next President of the United States has to be a governor.  You need to have the experience governing.  We’ve had the experience of a one-term U.S. Senator going to the White House and I don't think it works well.”
As far as regular readers of these entry’s know, the same things been mentioned here very often over the past four years. That's as long as this blog’s been in existence. Especially because the job of POTUS not only requires vast managerial experience in similar circumstances, it doesn’t come with training wheels.
The governor's also correct on the next one, regarding many Democrats who've unified against the National Security Agency since the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The governor said, those Democrats, “want you to think that there’s a government spook listening in every time you pick up the phone or Skype with your grandkids. They want you to think of our intelligence community as the bad guys, straight out of the Bourne Identity or a Hollywood thriller. And they want you to think that if we weakened our capabilities, the rest of the world would love us more…Let me be clear: all these fears are baloney.”
In this case, the governor went as far as he probably could without causing more blowback then the subject was worth at this point. Yet, he really didn’t go far enough, whereas this is another typical leftist kneejerk complaint, made without rational consideration or intellectual processing. Because the world has changed dramatically since 9/11, and the US is certainly vulnerable to foreign, or perhaps even internal, attack. And anyone who doesn’t understand the risks to us all is either abjectly delusional, or a typical liberal, take your pick.
The next subject combines a news item concerning several former presidents, as well as today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Matthew Daly of the Associated Press on via Drudge, reports that On a voice vote, the House Oversight panel backed a measure Tuesday to limit taxpayer dollars for expenses, including travel, incurred by ex-presidents who earn more than $400,000 a year.
“U.S. taxpayers paid a total of $3.5 million last year in pensions and benefits to the four living former presidents, including $1.3 million for Bush and $950,000 for Clinton, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Most of that money was for sprawling office space in Dallas and New York, respectively.”
As far as income earned after leaving office is concerned, “The oversight committee acted just days after Hillary Rodham Clinton reported that she and her husband earned more than $30 million combined in speaking fees and book royalties since January 2014. The earnings put the couple in the top one-10th of 1 percent of all Americans.” Earnings derived from more than $25 million in speaking fees and Bill's wife earning more than $5 million from her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices."
However, although “W” Bush earned at least $15 million for more than 140 paid speeches, that’s the total since he left office in 2009. That amounts to $2.5 million per year averaging $107,142.86 per appearance. On the other hand, Bill Clinton takes in $200,000 per speech lately, while his wife demanded as much as $225,000 for a speech this fall at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, according to her office.
When one adds together the $2 billion in extortion received by the Clinton Foundation as down-payments for expected favorable treatment should she win the presidency in 2016, and the $5 million for her failing book, “W’s” speech income is chump change by comparison.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015


Today’s subject matter concerns the left and its media counterparts, attempt to discredit Republicans in any way they can, regardless that history and facts significantly prove otherwise. Two prominent examples, among others include Fox New’s Chris Wallace and once again, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
In both cases, while the scenarios posed by Wallace and Dowd seemed intended to elicit or illustrate straightforward information on serious, and quite controversial topics, their actual intention was to embarrass Republican politicians. As for Wallace, he did it by posing biased interview questions, while Dowd reconfigured history to make her erroneous point.     
Wallace kept hammering Marco Rubio on Sunday, trying to get him to state that he would have gone into Iraq anyway, even knowing what we supposedly know now about the situation. Rubio, to his credit, however, wouldn't bite regardless of how hard Wallace tried to manipulate questions intended to bait him and manufacture a trapping sound-bite.
In that regard, Rush today used the Wallace interview as a warning to all Republican presidential candidates.
RUSH: But I do want to get the into these audio sound bites of Marco Rubio. He's just one of many being peppered with this question about, "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq, would you have voted for Bush going into Iraq, should Bush have gone into Iraq, should we have gone into Iraq at all," this question that will not end, after this.”
But then, brilliant as usual, Rush turned the media tactic around. Suggesting that instead of answering loaded questions, Republicans should not respond directly, but ask for reply’s themselves.
“RUSH:  Knowing what we know now, should we have opened the consulate in Benghazi? Knowing what we know now, should we have passed Obamacare?  Knowing what we know now, should we have opened the Southern border to uninterrupted flows and levels of illegals?  Knowing what we know, that's a question or a series of 'em every damn Democrat candidate needs to get.  
“RUSH went on: Ladies and gentlemen, knowing what we know now, should George Stephanopoulos have been allowed to moderate a Republican presidential debate?  Knowing what we know now, should Candy Crowley, CNN, have been allowed to moderate a presidential debate?  Knowing what we know now, should Barack Obama have backed the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and helped to overthrow Moammar Khadafy in Libya?  Knowing what we know now, should Obama have signed Obamacare? 
“Knowing what we know now, would you have signed Obamacare?  Knowing what we know now, would you have done the stimulus deal, which was nothing more than a payoff to union workers to keep them employed so their dues could continue to flow into Democratic campaign coffers?  Knowing what you know now, would you have supported Obama's stimulus effort in general?  Knowing what you know now, would you have allowed the Southern border to be overflowing with illegal people from all over the world? 
“Knowing what you know now, would you have signed on to any of the Obama agenda?  I mean, this idea that the Republican candidates have some important question to answer, knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq?  As I said in the opening hour of the program, that is not a question that's designed to learn what any of these guys think.  It is not a question designed to learn whether they're competent or qualified to be president.  Knowing what you know now, would you have supported George Bush, should George Bush have gone into Iraq.
“And by the way, Ramadi has fallen.  "Knowing what we know now, do you support Barack Obama's decision to totally withdraw from Iraq and leave it wide open to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or whoever?"  These questions that I'm asking as alternatives will never be asked of any Democrat candidate. Hillary Clinton will never get one of these”
As far as Ms. Dowd’s condemning of the Iraq war, the truth was also recapped by Rush who reminded all that, “the truth is that every allied intelligence agency that we dealt with -- the Brits, Pakistan, you name it, every one that was on our side that we dealt with in the War on Terror all confirmed the same intelligence that the DIA had and that the CIA had and everybody else in this country, the NSA, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”
And that was reinforced by Chris Stirewalt yesterday, writing that “Of all of the questions Hillary Clinton will evade on the campaign trail this week, none are more important than those she will not answer on Iraq. Clinton holds the unique distinction in the 2016 field of having supported the unpopular Iraq policies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
"She supported Bush’s invasion and Obama’s withdrawal, and in both cases was tracking with public opinion when she started. After Bush’s war got unpopular, Clinton recanted. And one supposes that as Obama’s policy for that woe-begotten nation and its region continues to displease voters, Clinton will be tempted to recant her support for the Obama doctrine too. The fall of Ramadi to Islamist militants will no doubt hasten Clinton’s consideration of a political exit strategy.”
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton and his wife, also from Rush who replayed Bill Clinton soundbites from his archives..
“CLINTON 1998:  (Saddam’s) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.  Someday, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.  Let there be no doubt: We are prepared to act.  I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready.  The American people have to be ready as well.
“RUSH: That's 1998, in the thick of Lewinsky stuff, and he's trying to get the world prepared that we might have go take out Saddam.  And you should hear the Democrats supporting this!  Every Democrat senator is echoing this and more.  Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, they're all beating up on Saddam like you've never heard anybody beat up on Saddam.  Here's more from Clinton.  This February 20th.  This is three days later in a video message to Saddam entitled, "We'll do what we have to do."
Also from Rush: “CLINTON 1998:  Nobody wants to use force.  But if Saddam refuses to keep his commitments to the international community, we must be prepared to deal directly with the threat these weapons pose to the Iraqi people, to Iraq's neighbors, and to the rest of the world.  Either Saddam acts or we will have to.”
Rush continued, “I've got a transcript here of Clinton's remarks on December 16th, 1998, when he was facing impeachment for perjury and stuff.  Let me just read this to you very quickly.  This is Clinton.  Remarks on Wednesday, December 16th, 1998.  "Good evening.  Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.  They are joined today by British forces. 
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.  Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.  Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threat his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons." 
Clinton was warning everybody about how bad Hussein was, the weapons of mass.  "Nuclear," he said.  Did you just hear that?  Nuclear.  Yet they say, "Cheney lied and Bush lied!  There were no WMD!"  But somehow Clinton was telling the truth.  And again, the Democrats of that era -- in the Senate and the House -- oh, man, you should have heard them running to the microphones to say they'd be the first in line to vote to authorize Clinton to do this.  And then five short years later, there they are trying to undermine it when George W. Bush is doing it.”
So, it’s really no surprise that media types look for opportunities to raise themselves above the pack of wolves that populate their profession, because above all else their in a competitive business. And while a hack like Chris Wallace hosts a show that’s as much entertainment as it is news conveyance, Maureen Dowd really ought to know batter than to sink to a flashy tabloid level. That type of fact alteration is far beneath her usual performance.
That’s it for today folks.