BloggeRhythms

Today’s items begin with an article by Julia Preston on nytimes.com, 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 washingtonexaminer.com, 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 moveon.org did last time around in 2008. Mayor Bloomberg are you listening?

That’s it for today folks.

Adios