Tuesday, May 5, 2015

BloggeRhythms

There’s some intimation in news stories that contributors to the Clinton Foundation may be getting cold feet. Negative press has them reconsidering new donations, and even perhaps, requesting a refund of cash given in the past.
 
Whether those rumors are true or not remains to be seen, however, each day brings new revelations of questionable activity regarding hints of influence peddling. One appeared yesterday in the Washington Post, via Chris Stirewalt, titled “Bubba took more than two dozen trips on uranium deal billionaire’s jet”
 
“Clinton has also gained regular transportation, borrowing [Frank Giustra’s] plane 26 times for foundation business since 2005, including 13 trips in which the two men traveled together. The numbers on Clinton’s use of the plane, never previously reported, were provided by a spokeswoman for Giustra.
 
Regarding the uranium mining deal, “Clinton has said that he was aware of Giustra’s pending purchase while in Kazakhstan but did not discuss it or do anything to help its progress. … Giustra said it was ‘beyond ludicrous’ to suggest that Clinton engaged on the deal, in part because the former president has very little interest in business. ‘You have to understand something about Bill Clinton. He doesn’t care about that stuff,’ Giustra said. ‘His eyes would glaze over.’”
 
Then, the Washington Post also reported that, “A few weeks after returning from Kazakhstan in 2005, Giustra attended his first meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. There, he was introduced to the leader of another country where he had business interests: Álvaro Uribe of Colombia. … The Colombia connections of the Clintons and their patron, Giustra, were evident in June 2010. Bill Clinton and Giustra had flown in together on the businessman’s jet, while Hillary Clinton had arrived for an official visit as secretary of state. The three dined together in Bogota. The next morning, Bill Clinton met privately with Uribe at the presidential house. A few hours later, Hillary Clinton held her own meeting with the Colombian leader. In a subsequent televised interview, she announced that she was inclined to support a much-sought-after free-trade deal with Colombia — a reversal in position since her 2008 presidential campaign.”
 
As far as coincidences go, which is what the Clinton’s would have you believe, if the two mentioned above truly are, they should be listed in Ripley’s Believe it or Not! as two of the biggest ever recorded throughout history.
 
The next item also comes from Chris Stirewalt’s column yesterday, as follows:
 
“The Hill: “Democrats on and off Capitol Hill are linking the recent violence in Baltimore to a dearth of government programs aimed at elevating poverty. They’re calling for broader government commitments to education, workforce training, summer jobs programs and other initiatives aimed at fighting unemployment, while hammering the Republicans’ new budget proposal for cutting those same measures. ‘There are a whole constellation of problems here, but there are some systematic underlying problems that should be addressed by government, both at the local level, the state level, the federal level,’ Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ program.”
 
At the same time, however, while Democrats were trying to excoriate Republicans for even thinking about cutting budgets, Charles Krauthammer added a dose of reality to the argument on “Special Report with Bret Baier,”  saying “Baltimore has the second highest per capita on spending on students in the country and it has awful schools. If you want to blame it on a political ideology it is the ideology of liberals who want to throw money at the problem.  We know the war on poverty did not succeed and who think[s] you throw more money at education, it’s going to work. It will not.”
 
So, it seems that most often Democrats do fine in speechmaking, throwing barbs at their rival party, and tossing blame at others whenever possible. Yet, their biggest hurdle to overcome isn’t even the Republicans. Their problem is those pesky facts that keep cropping up to refute most of their arguments.
 
In that regard, while those same Democrats keep harping on Republicans as elitists, racists and caring only about big business and themselves, Rush threw in another idea yesterday, supported by factual evidence.  
 
Rush opined, “I guess we could start calling ourselves the Rainbow Party.  We've got Rubio and Cruz.  We've got a woman. We have an African-American.  We have two Latinos.  And it doesn't count, it doesn't matter, it may as well not be the case because none of that matters to the Drive-By Media.  I mean, folks, if they were consistent, we would all have to now vote for Ben Carson.  He's black, he has worked and lived in Baltimore. Voting for anybody else would be racist, at least according to the media and the rest of the Democrat Party.”
 
And that pretty much sums it all up perfectly.
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment