BloggeRhythms

Giving the recent SCOTUS decisions some more thought last night, confirms the earlier sense that while two rulings look like Republican losses, they weren’t. And the third was a tremendous, outright, win for them as well.

 

As opined here before, it’s quite likely that Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, understand full well that Republicans at present have no viable alternative to the health care tax’s authorizing federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges, but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces.

 

Therefore, to give Republicans additional time to develop a more favorable plan, such as permitting cross-border shopping for coverage, the justices left the tax unchanged for now.

 

As far as legalizing gay marriage across the nation is concerned, with favorability growing in public opinion, the usually conservative leaning justices support of legality also helps Republicans. By taking the issue out of discussion for the upcoming presidential contest in 2016.  

 

And then, by curbing the EPA’s further encroachment into environmental issues without proper preparation, the court strongly backed Republican potions on the subject. In summation, making the week a 3 time Republican win –two by subtle default, and one by outright victory.

 

Aside from the legislative errors highlighted by the SCOTUS decisions, the administration once again illustrated its complete incapability to understand how the nation’s economy works. Especially regarding fundamental business operations. 

 

In today’s case, another headline grabbing POTUS edict, will more than likely harm far more American workers than it will ever help.

 

FoxNews.com reports that, “President Obama unveiled a long-awaited plan to drastically expand the number of people eligible for overtime pay, in a move that he said would ensure "hard work is rewarded" -- but that critics warn could hurt job growth at a fragile time.

 

Under the proposal, salaried workers who earn nearly $1,000 per week would become eligible for overtime pay. 

 

“The rule from the Labor Department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, from the current $455 a week to $970 a week by next year. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week, up from the current $23,660 a year.

 

"We've got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded," Obama wrote in an op-ed in The Huffington Post. "That's how America should do business. In this country, a hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay."

 

However, while the presidential rhetoric may elate many in the category affected, their long range employment may now be quite endangered. Because businesses don’t succeed due to how hard workers endeavor, profits result from increasing sales while maximizing profitability from operations.  

 

Which means that, in an age of rapidly advancing technology, business managers will now redouble their efforts to replace as many routine jobs as possible with automation. Hiring as few people as possible. And whereas expensive gadgetry, such as robotics, may have seemed too expensive before, increasing labor costs now make them far more attractive. Well worth the investment, especially since their cost can be paid out over time, via equipment financing arrangements expensed much like payroll. 

 

Thus, here’s another case where the POTUS would be far better off if he stayed away from subjects he knows very little about, instead pursuing more pastimes to his capability level, such as trying to play golf in as many top-rated places as possible.  

 

On another favorite Democrat subject, according to AFP, “Robert Redford told the United Nations on Monday that negotiations on a global deal to tackle climate change could be the world's "last chance" to save the planet.

 

"This December, the world must unite behind a common goal," said the American actor and producer.

 

"Because look, this is it. This is our only planet, our only life source.

 

"This may be our last chance."

 

What’s interesting here, is that in the actor’s plea there wasn’t one iota of information. Instead, the audience got four sentences that contained absolutely nothing whatsoever but gibberish. Which is pretty much what the global-warming argument is all about anyway.

 

772 reader comments followed the article, not one in agreement that a scanning of many of them disclosed.

 

As an example, ZigZ wrote: “Before the SUV, Coal fired electric plant, factory production,...Earth experienced 5 major Glacial Periods, or ice ages, in known Earth history. Some argue 9. Fewer point to 13. All agree on 5. Glacial Periods are separated by cleverly named Interglacial Periods defined by intermingled global warming and cooling trending to or from a Glacial Period. A far more compelling argument could be made that Earth covered with ice is the natural state than temperatures from the 1980s are. Earth will survive with or without humans.”

 

However, the problem here for global-warming alarmists is that ZigZ’s rationale stems from historical record, supported by facts and data. Two categories that knee-jerk zealots absolutely refuse to acknowledge.    

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one including extortionist-in-training, daughter Chelsea.

 

Philip Rucker and Rosalind S. Helderman report @washingtonpost.com, that, “When the University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame, one name came to mind: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

“But when the former secretary of state’s representatives quoted a fee of $275,000, officials at the public university balked. “Yikes!” one e-mailed another.”

 

So turning to the next best option, the university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton’s brief appearance Feb. 24, 201, “on behalf of her mother’s presidential campaign and family’s global charitable empire.”

 

The fee covered her speaking for 10 minutes, participating in a 20-minute, moderated question-and-answer session and a half-hour posing for pictures with VIPs offstage.

 

“As with Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches at universities, Chelsea Clinton made no personal income from the appearance, her spokesman said, and directed her fee to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.”

 

Which means that, if historical percentages apply, $9,750 went to the “foundation,” while $55,250.00 went into the Clinton coffers. Not bad for an hour of the kid's babble.

 

Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Many story's over the weekend, and this morning, concern banks in Greece and the country's stock exchange shutting down all week as that nation’s financial crisis deepens. Among controls put in place is a daily €60 limit on withdrawals from cash machines, which will reopen on Tuesday.

 

As the crisis escalates, indications arise that Russia may be offering aid to the nation. Which would also provide an inroad into a common market member on the European continent. That event would be extremely upsetting not only in Europe, but in the US as well. Which provides a not directly obvious, but certainly applicable example of the horrendous errors arising from political pandering to special interest groups by the POTUS and his administration.

 

Over the course of the past year or so, the significant drop in the price of oil worldwide severely curtailed Russia’s income. Therefore, were the price to remain at low levels, or decrease further, Vladimir Putin would have far less financial capability to expand militarily and/or politically beyond Ukraine and its current costs.

 

The POTUS, however, and his environmentalist extremists, have done all they can to limit drilling for oil in the US, while also continuing to block the Keystone pipeline. Those actions not only facilitate oil prices rising again, but instead of helping to neutralize a world powers potential aggressiveness, they’re aiding and abetting the hostile activity. Either due to naiveté, or worse, intentionally.   

 

Despite the significant anti-energy thrust of the administration, some gains were made today in the other direction. FoxNews.com reports that, “In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit power plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the cost of the regulations. 

 

“The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 vote Monday that the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.” 

 

The ruling should make Senator Mitch McConnell smile again.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife

 

As mentioned here before, Bernie Sanders, has seen his crowds swell and is gaining ground in the polls. One survey last week showed him within 8 percentage points of Clinton.

 

His platform is self-described socialism, including rallying against the “billionaire class,” pledging to make large corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and improving the lot of the lower and middle classes by providing free college; guaranteeing workers vacation time, sick leave and family leave; and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.”

 

An article today by John Wagner and Anne Gearan @washingtonpost.com about Sanders is interesting not so much because of the text, but due to readers comments.

 

Max17 wrote: “We need higher corporate taxes so you and I can pay more for goods and services to cover them.”

 

And then, following the same article, another reader comment illustrates how little people actually know about what goes on in the nation, yet voice opinions regardless.

 

blbixler commented, “The most important thing in the coming election is to make sure the White House stays Democratic. We need to make sure the next Supreme Court nominations put the court back in balance. Whoever looks like the surest win gets my vote.”

 

Obviously bibixter either didn’t know, or didn’t grasp the fact, that in the last few days the SCOTUS has voted in favor of the president, and Democrat ideology, on two of the most important issues coming before it in many years. Gay rights and Obamacare.

 

Therefore, although in today’s political environment, party affiliation doesn’t seem to matter much to SCOTUS judges, Democrat beneficiaries of favorable decisions don’t seem to understand that they’ve won. Which pretty much sums up their knowledge levels in general. 

 

Perhaps a well-versed Democrat can help teach them about what’s going on in the world. Leading to the daily question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today’s subjects originate from items presenting a different slant on current events than that presented in the mainstream media or knee-jerk reactions from the majority among politically biased audiences. 

 

To begin, Adam B. Lerner wrote @politico.com that Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, took his first trip with the president on Air Force One. They were “headed to Charleston, South Carolina, to mourn the nine African-American men and women killed at their church last week.”

 

Mr. Lerner opines that, “The change in Air Force One hangouts following the midterms provided a marked contrast to the middle of the Obama presidency; from September 2011 until February 2013 not a single Republican lawmaker joined the commander in chief aboard the plane, despite a litany of possible trips.”

 

Scanning reader comments following the article shows a significant number of apparent Republicans to be quite upset with the speaker. Calling him a sellout, turncoat, RINO, typical self-serving politician, and any number of similarly disparaging appellation's.

 

Nonetheless, above all, Speaker Boehner’s known as a seasoned, well-versed politician who may very well be taking the sage advice of Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II (1974). Michael said, "My father taught me many things here — he taught me in this room. He taught me — keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

 

The president himself may be doing the very same thing, whereas farther along in the article, Mr. Lerner noted that, “Obama has never been known as much of a schmoozer, but in recent months he has treated fellow lawmakers from both parties to trips aboard Air Force One with him as a way of currying favor and engaging in discussions with a captive audience.”

 

So, here as usual, we have two opposing politicians very likely being totally dishonest with each other.

 

Then, as the smoke continues to clear after the SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage and the health care tax, it appears that while court justices are supposed to be far above all others in fairness, honesty and integrity, they too may simply be following the money like everyone else in government.

 

Lawrence Hurley @reuters.com reports that, “A total of 379 businesses and groups representing employers across various sectors signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief backing gay marriage. In the healthcare case, trade groups representing hospitals and health insurance companies filed court papers backing the Obama administration over the healthcare law. 

 

“In the marriage case, some of the nation's biggest companies, including Procter & Gamble Co , American Airlines Group Inc and Johnson & Johnson, joined the brief urging the court to rule in favor of gay marriage. Wall Street's biggest names, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Morgan Stanley, also signed on.”

 

Furthermore, in his majority opinion in the marriage case, Justice Anthony Kennedy “echoed some of the concerns raised by employers about how same-sex marriage bans meant that gay employees in committed relationships are treated differently from opposite-sex couples on issues such as workers' compensation benefits and health insurance.”

 

In the Obamacare ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts explained in detail how the law was intended, as he said, to "improve health insurance markets, not destroy them."

 

He then went so far as to cite a brief filed by America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group representing companies such as Aetna Inc and Anthem Inc .

 

Additionally, “The American Hospital Association, which represents more than 5,000 hospitals and other healthcare providers, also signed a brief backing the law. Shares in various hospital operators, including HCA Holdings Inc and Community Health Systems Inc, surged on news of the ruling.”

 

Therefore, forgetting the party politics, considering the lobbying power and immense wealth of American big business, what chance at judicial fairness could the average taxpaying citizen possibly have? 

 

Obviously, the answer is “zero.“ 

 

Reader, der kritiker, put it this way: “Of course, we have the best politicians and government big business can buy! 

 

While all the hubbub took place regarding the SCOTUS decisions, another issue quietly missed its calendar target and is headed back to further negotiation. 

 

George Jahn, @Associated Press.com reports that, “A senior U.S. official acknowledged Sunday that Iran nuclear talks will go past their June 30 target date, as Iran's foreign minister prepared to head home for consultations before returning to push for a breakthrough.”

 

Therefore, the increasingly unpopular efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear capabilities continue to fail, despite top administration representatives trying to paint a far rosier picture.Which goes to illustrate how today’s access to information among the general public is far greater than ever before in the nation’s history. 

 

People now have the capability to learn about practically anything they choose to inform themselves about, such as today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Sarah Westwood, @washingtonexaminer.com, writes that, “Secretary Clinton's failure to turn over all Benghazi and Libya documents is the reason why we have been calling for an independent, third party review of her server," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., a member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, told the Washington Examiner.

 

"Her unusual email arrangement with herself allowed for Secretary Clinton to pick and choose which emails she deemed work related, and now we know that she failed to be honest and forthcoming with those emails to both the Select Committee and the State Department that were subpoenaed," Westmoreland added.”

 

So, despite significant efforts by those supporting Bill Clinton’s wife to downplay investigation into her actions as Secretary of State, the attention and scrutiny isn’t going to go away any time soon. Which leads to the continuing question: “Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Many storys in the news concern the aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of gay marriage.

 

In that regard, Chris Stirewalt once again encapsulated the issue for Republican’s in his Friday column. His thoughts also echoed conclusions reached here, as to how the recent SCOTUS decisions not only don’t harm Conservative's, they actually help them.

 

Mr. Stirewalt writes, “Had the court rejected the case and restored same-sex marriage bans struck down by lower courts, the Republican 2016 field would have been in a quandary. With a socially conservative base but a general electorate that has shifted dramatically on the subject in the past decade, GOP contenders would have been obliged to take positions on 31 state bans that were resurrected by the court.”

 

Furthermore, “The list would have included swing states Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and each candidate would have had to take a position on the subject. No good answers – either flip-flop or be called an extremist.”

 

In summation, Mr. Stirewalt rightly concludes that, despite the disappointment and objection’s among both conservatives and libertarians, “there is enormous relief among GOP strategists that this issue is mostly off the table for 2016.”

 

In regard to Bill Clinton’s wife, Mr. Stirewalt opined, “No matter who the Republicans nominate, Hillary Clinton will declare them to be extremists on the subject of gay marriage. But as of today, the Supreme Court has declared the issue moot.

 

“What was left unsaid, of course, was that [Obama] and Clinton are among those who used to run against same-sex marriage but have since changed their tune. … In fact, they jumped on-board well after gay marriage attained overwhelming majority support among Democrats. Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2012, and Clinton in 2013, half a decade after a majority of Democrats already supported it in public polling.”

 

While the POTUS has taken the SCOTUS rulings as significant wins for himself, and of course, his party, his self-congratulatory chest-thumping is apparently only pleasing to his already ardent supporters. As for the rest, the majority of the voting public still dislikes his health care tax.

 

The recent average of all major polls shows that from 5/19/15 – 6/14/5, 43.6% favor the tax, while 51.4% oppose it. A negative difference of 7.8%

 

As to be expected, Charles Krauthammer had something to say on the gay marriage decision, comparing it to “the invention of the right to abortion.”

 

A Krauthammer reader, acrscout, commented @foxnews.com: “And isn't it curious how many of those college students who spit on soldiers and called them "Baby Killer", when they came home from Vietnam, now endorse Abortion on demand? 

“Apparently to the liberals, children dying under aerial bombing is a crime, but kids dying under the scalpel is a "choice", and a legitimate choice at that.

“So why do we continue listening to ANYTHING liberals have to say?”

 

Therefore, leaving the politics out of it completely, one has to conclude that a significant portion of the public doesn’t think at all. Or, is otherwise completely unable to use whatever limited intellect they may possess before expressing opinions that make not a scintilla of sense.

 

Which brings us to today’s updates on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

The first is from Daniel Halper’s, the blog, @weeklystandard.com, as follows: As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton was staunchly opposed to recognizing same-sex marriage. She expressed that sentiment clearly in this 2002 interview with TV host Chris Matthews

 

"Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of so much in this country," liberal host Matthews started. "People come here, a lot of immigrants. The New York Times recently began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just straight people getting married, but gay people who want to announce their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?"

 

Clinton delivered a one-word response: "No."

 

Next, comes another item from Chris Stirewalt yesterday @foxnews.com, reporting that, “A crack has emerged between Hillary Clinton and her former team at the State Department. Her process for culling the emails was demonstrably flawed and now further open to charges of wrongdoing. The choice to destroy 31,000 emails looks increasingly suspect. The campaign may hang Blumenthal out to dry on this, but this becomes a stickier web all the time. Prosecutors know the way to win is to divide the suspects, and that may be what congressional investigators are doing.”

 

In this case, while taking considerable flak from Democrat’s, it may very well turn out that Darryl Issa’s pursuit regarding the State Department under Bill Clinton’s wife’s watch was justified. Because now, in his place, Trey Gowdy’s apparently making real progress in proving some level of wrongdoing.  

 

Yet, the past coming back to haunt Bill’s wife may only be one aspect of her problems, whereas, it seems there are plenty of Democrats who don’t care for her presently either.

 

Hunter Walker @businessinsider.com, wrote about a dinner taking place in the 10,000-seat Patriot Center at George Mason University, which Virginia Democratic Party Communications Director, Stephen Carter, said sold "over 2,000 tickets and raised over $1 million." 

 

Which means that, 8000 seats are still available, and is probably why the sponsors are “currently giving away free tickets to an event featuring Hillary Clinton on Friday night.”

 

“Clinton is headlining the party's annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Friday evening. Though the event is raising money for the Virginia Democrats rather than her presidential bid, it is considered an important campaign appearance for Clinton.” 

 

While tickets for the event are being sold for $30 and $125, on Friday afternoon, some Virginia Democrats received an email advertising "FREE TICKETS" to the dinner. “The email was given to Business Insider by a source. It contained a promotional code to get $30 tickets to the event for free.”

 

As a representation of reader comments, many exhibiting distaste for vacillation and hypocrisy, Obamaroid_Ointment wrote: “Jefferson-Jackson Day, Virginia Democrats have an annual event honoring a slave owner & a Confederate Army general. Who knew?”

 

All of which means the following question is gaining importance: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Major events occurring throughout the world today. Supreme Court rulings, Iranian nuclear deal nearing its deadline, while gay marriage becomes legal across the nation.

 

The 6-3 SCOTUS decision to uphold the Obamacare authorization of federal tax credits for eligible Americans in the 34 states with federal exchanges, had Rush quite upset yesterday.

 

He said, “There's no way to spin this Obamacare ruling, folks. It's just a disaster. I think many of us are witnessing now the complete corruption of Washington, DC, meaning the objective has been to corrupt the government -- and success appears to be, at this moment in time, in hand.”

 

Although Rush's been extremely disappointed with the Republican control of Congress, because he feels they haven’t accomplished much to date, in this case he’s almost surely overreacted.

 

The fact of the matter is, congressional Republicans have no viable alternative to the tax credit relief benefit. And therefore, the ruling gives them time to create one. Which means that, when all the smoke clears, Rush and other loudly upset conservatives will realize that Chief Justice, John Roberts and Judge Anthony Kennedy likely did them a favor. And perhaps, being Republicans themselves, may have done it for that very purpose. 

 

At the same time, the clock’s winding down on the Iranian nuclear deal. However, the Ayatollah’s getting louder in demands that directly conflict with the POTUS plan for the agreement.

 

Ali Akbar Dareini of Associated Press via Drudge writes that, “Speaking Tuesday night in comments broadcast on Iranian state TV, Khamenei said demands that Iran halt the research and development portion of its nuclear program constitute "excessive coercion."

 

"We don't accept a 10-year restriction. We have told the negotiating team how many specific years of restrictions are acceptable," Khamenei said. "Research and development must continue during the years of restrictions."

 

"Lifting sanctions can't depend on implementation of Iran's obligations," he said.

 

“Khamenei also said he rejects any inspection of military sites or allowing Iranian scientists to be interviewed. Iran's nuclear scientists have been the target of attacks. And that, “The Americans' "goal is to uproot and destroy the country's nuclear industry. They want to keep up the pressure and are not after a complete lifting of sanctions."

 

When made aware of Khamenei’s statements, “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday the negotiations would not be affected by the Iranian leader's remarks.

 

"This is something that's been going on throughout the negotiations," Kerry said. "It is not new. We are not going to be guided by or conditioned by or affected or deterred by some tweet that is for public consumption or domestic political consumption."

 

Reading  what Kerry had to say, brought back thoughts of studying high school history. Particularly Neville Chamberlain, who became Britain's prime minister in 1937. In his case, rather than challenging acts of aggression by Nazi Germany, he sought ways to pacify Adolf Hitler, signing the Munich Pact in 1938, which gave parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany.

 

Due to Chamberlain’s apparent underestimation of Hitler's ambitions, in March 1939 Hitler violated the Munich Pact by invading Czechoslovakia. Later that month, Britain and France agreed to protect Poland. And then, after Hitler's forces entered Poland that September, Chamberlain officially declared war on Germany; shortly after the invasion.”

 

Thus, it seems that whereas Kerry’s squarely aligned with the POTUS regarding the senseless Iranian nuclear, both are absolutely dedicated to proving that its true that history always does repeat itself.  

 

And then, on the same day, David Martosko, US Political Editor For Dailymail.com,  writes that, “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that gay marriage is the law of the land.”

Reader OO-OO, posted the perfect comment regarding this compete waste of time: “Good decision, can we move on now? Far too much energy being spent on rights of this minimal populace.”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

According to foxnews.com, “The State Department cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that were released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, officials said Thursday.”

 

The emails predate Benghazi, “but consist of more in a series of would-be intelligence reports passed to her by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, the officials said.”

 

In this case, the situation itself certainly doesn’t sound very important at all, and not worth repeating, However, a seemingly trivial erasure of an 18 1/2 minute Nixon-Haldeman taped conversation of June 20, 1972, led to Watergate. And then, Nixon’s eventual resignation of the presidency.

 

In the scheme of things, though, it may turn out that while years of questionable behavior in office may pose problems for Bill’s wife’s, basic policy may be the factor that increasingly threatens her presidential candidacy.  

 

wmur.com/politics reports that: “Clinton leads Sanders, 43 to 35 percent, in a new WMUR/CNN Granite State Poll, which was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center from June 18 to 24. The poll included 360 likely 2016 Democratic primary voters and has a margin of error of 5.2 percent, meaning Sanders is close to being in a statistical dead heat with the frontrunner.”

 

Which leads to the daily question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

In closing: a friend on FB posted this:

 

 
     That’s it for today folks.    Adios

BloggeRhythms

Several items today, major and minor. All reflecting considerable political rift’s across the nation.

 

Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer writes that, “As Obama was speaking at a White House event honoring LGBT Pride Month on Wednesday, an accented voice rang out from the crowd. Obama wasn't amused.”

 

A heckler was protesting deportations under the Obama administration, to whom the POTUS responded, "Shame on you. Listen you're in my house ... it's not respectful."

 

When the interruption persisted, Obama asked for the heckler to be removed from the East Room.

 

The president’s comment isn’t quite true though. Because, as he well knows, the house he’s living in isn’t his. It belongs to the American people. What’s more, in a year and a half, or less, he’s going to be evicted.

 

On another issue, Democrats whine, moan and complain that Congressional Republicans keep pursuing many lingering disputes without genuine cause. Yet, much of the reason for prolonged investigations stem from the purposeful withholding of pertinent information by those involved in wrongdoing. 

 

FoxNews.com reports today that, “The lead government watchdog for the IRS revealed Thursday that computer evidence was erased during the investigation into the agency's targeting scandal, months after the IRS was told to preserve documents.

 

“J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that IRS employees erased computer backup tapes shortly after officials discovered thousands of emails related to the tax agency's Tea Party scandal had been lost.” 

 

While as many as 24,000 emails were lost because 422 backup tapes were "magnetically erased" around March 4, 2014, George said those tapes "likely contained" 2010 and 2011 emails to and from former IRS official Lois Lerner, who has emerged as a central figure in congressional investigations. He said they will "most likely never be recovered." 

 

In this case, only time will eventually tell as to whether or not corroborating evidence will surface to prove the Republican’s suspicions regarding deliberate Democrat efforts to stem growth of political opposition. Nonetheless, the most important revelation from the email erasure is that the Republicans have been justified in their investigation from the very beginning.     

 

Then today, the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare subsidies in states that did not set up their own health care exchanges. The decision was 6-3. 

 

However, as explained yesterday in Chris Stirewalt’s column, the ruling more than likely helped the GOP. Because, if they were found illegal, “GOP congressional leaders are likely to push legislation that maintains subsidies long enough for affected to Americans to transition to a new system.”  

 

In Mr. Stirewalt’s probably correct analysis, “Voting on such proposals could be politically tricky for the senators running for president, including [Marco Rubio,] Ted Cruz of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky…. The governors expected to run, including New Jersey's Chris Christie, Ohio's John Kasich and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker could get tripped up by constituents who look to them to create a state exchange in the absence of their ability to access subsidies through healthcare.gov. This would be political kryptonite in a Republican presidential primary.”

 

What still is most remarkable about all the attention the  president’s health care tax keeps receiving is that nationally, only 10.2 million people have signed up in total under the program. That includes 8.7 million people receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.

 

Furthermore, of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges. Which means that all the noise, arguments and endless discussion regards only 2% of the US population, while the other 98% aren’t effected, program-wise, whatsoever. Except for the employed half of the public having to pay for it all. 

 

Then, moving on, there were a few pithy points from Rush’s website yesterday, such as: “We are giving the Iranians nuclear technology. We are going to enable the Iranians to ramp up their entire nuclear apparatus and eventually to include weapons. But in the United States, the objective is to get guns out of the hands of the NRA, which Obama and his buds consider to be conservatives.”

 

As preposterous as the preceding circumstance is, the next one is completely ridiculous as well. 

 

This observation from Rush, regarding a Georgetown law professor, has to be read carefully. Because its impact is profound while the premise is inflammatory as far as equalizing race relationships is concerned.

 

Rush said, “This guy is all upset because the phrase, "Black lives matter" came along and then somebody said no, it's, "All lives matter" and this professor Paul Butler said, no, no, no, no, that's racial subordination. You're subordinating black lives to secondary status again. It's, "Black lives matter," and you can't change that to, "All lives matter" because if you do you're just again saying that black lives don't matter as much. Professor, criminal law, race relations,Georgetown. And you are paying this institution 20, 30 grand a year to have your kids learn this type of drivel.”

 

And then, Rush’s delivered a long thesis on the current disputes regarding the Confederate flag, which also includes today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Because, Democrats are now loudly chastising Republican’s about racial discrimination, demanding that all symbolism of the Confederacy, including the flag of course, be banned from any kind of public view.

 

Yet, while the Clinton’s proudly embraced the flag in the 90’s, their identification with the Confederacy in Arkansas is now completely ignored by the mainstream media. Leading to the continuing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

One has to wonder if the administration truly has a dedicated, organized plan to undermine the nation, or is simply the most ignorant group of mental dysfunctional’s ever amassed in a single endeavor. 

 

Following continually huge mistakes in foreign policy, particularly in the Middle-East, according to FoxNews.com this morning, the Obama administration is now going to “allow families of U.S. hostages to pay ransom -- and even allow the U.S. government to play a facilitating role.”

 

While prohibition of the U.S. government’s directly paying ransoms, or making other concessions to terrorists, will remain in effect, terrorists will now have significant incentive for kidnapping with the hostage policy overhaul taking place.

 

Now, for any Americans travelling abroad, it’s open season everywhere all year long...and they’re the trophies.

 

Along the same lines of either acting without thinking or blatantly placing themselves above all other citizens, Paul Bedard @washingtonexaminer.com writes about another presidential insult to basic intelligence, as follows:

 

“President Obama's decision to take his Earth Day speech attacking climate change "deniers" to Florida, home of two GOP presidential candidates, cost taxpayers $866,615.40 just for the flight of Air Force One.

 

“Taxpayer watchdog Judicial Watch revealed Wednesday that the Air Force provided documents showing the flight expenses of flying the jumbo jet 4.2 hours to Miami. He was then helicoptered 20 minutes to the Florida Everglades for his speech.”

 

And then, Adam Vaughan @theguardian.com reports that: “Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US – study 

 

“Global warming in northern Europe and the eastern US could be partially offset in future winters because of the sun entering a weaker cycle similar to the one which enabled frost fairs to take place on the river Thames in the 17th and 18th century, according to new research.

 

“The sun has been in a period of high activity for the past few decades. But scientists believe there is now as much as a 20% chance of a weaker period of activity, known as a grand solar minimum, occurring in the next 40 years.”

 

In response, a reader, Daley, commented: “The trouble with this topic is that it is very polarized. Those with government funding object to the findings of those with industry grants ... and vice versa.

 

“In this circumstance and given the large amount of "noise in the data"it is difficult to reach conclusions one way or the other. For instance present interpretations of 'global warming' the decrease in arctic polar sea ice AND the increase of antarctic sea ice are interpreted as evidence for rise in global mean temperatures.”

 

Therefore, according to reader Daley, proponents of “global-warming’s” threats to the planet employ evidence of both, melting and  freezing of ice, as proof of their conclusion. Which makes it extremely difficult to argue with.    

 

Another reader, willys36NEW, considered the coming freeze and asked, “So. . . how many SUVs do we need to put on the road to adjust this?”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife,. This one about one of her closest associates.

 

According to an article in Washington Free Beacon, “Hillary Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills held several outside roles, including a board position with a UAE-funded university in Abu Dhabi, while working as chief of staff and counselor at the State Department, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.”

 

“After joining the State Department in the beginning of 2009, Mills continued to serve as general counsel for New York University for several months. She also sat on the board of the “NYU in Abu Dhabi Corporation,” the fundraising arm for the university’s UAE satellite campus. The school is bankrolled by the Abu Dhabi government and has been criticized by NYU professors and human rights activists for alleged labor abuses.

 

“Mills resigned both positions in May 2009, according to a university spokesperson. Although she did not receive a direct salary from the Abu Dhabi board, she collected $198,000 over four months from NYU.”

 

However, while Ms Mills employer’s, dates of employment and compensation are a matter of record, it seems that anyone or thing, needs further explanation if Bill Clinton’s wife is involved in any way at all. 

 

In this case, “While the State Department told the Free Beacon that Mills did not start working as Clinton’s chief of staff until May 24, 2009, internal agency documents indicate she began months earlier.

 

“Mills is identified as Clinton’s chief of staff in several U.S. diplomatic cables prior to May 2009. One confidential dispatch published by Wikileaks described a Feb. 5, 2009 meeting in Washington between Haitian President Rene Preval and Secretary Clinton.”

 

So, here we have another instance where one of the simplest things in any organization, finding the date of an employee’s hiring, turns into something resembling espionage because a Clinton’s involved. Which leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

And in the Mayor’s case, there are some concerned about his physical stature for the role of POTUS. Which is why I suggest that to counter their argument, he should simply stand on his wallet.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Most political rhetoric is self-serving. Tailored toward specific audiences and rarely of any real value. Yet, as inane as most campaign speeches are, some are so insulting to basic human intelligence, one has to wonder about the intellectual capacity of a candidate willing to utter absolute nonsense on purpose.    

 

Today, Ariel Cohen wrote @washingtonexaminer.com about former governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley’s speech at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco. 

 

O’Malley said: "A single American life is worth more than all the guns in the United States. How many senseless acts of violence do we have to endure as a people before we stand up to the congressional lobbyists of the National Rifle Association? How many more Americans have to die?"

 

Having practiced what he preaches, when he was Maryland’s governor, he “instituted laws banning assault weapons and high capacity gun magazines that "exist only to inflict human casualty." He also implemented strict licensing rules cracking down on the gun-permitting process, to ensure maximum safety. Because of his actions, the National Rifle Association gave O'Malley an "F rating."

 

As far as actual results are concerned: Currently in Baltimore records show that “from mid-April to mid-May, 31 people were killed, and 39 others were wounded by gunfire. Twice, 10 people were shot on a single day. As of Friday, the deadly burst has pushed the city’s homicide count to 91, 21 above last year at the same time. In the District, 40 people had been slain as of Friday, not including four people found dead Thursday in cases police said are being investigated as homicides but are awaiting a ruling by the medical examiner.”

 

Furthermore, “Although the annual figure has fallen to the low 200s, the city remains among the top tier in per capita murders, ranking fifth in 2013, behind Detroit, New Orleans, Newark and St. Louis.”

 

Therefore, what the governor, and just about every other gun-control advocate, doesn’t ever consider in their arguments is that disarming law-abiding citizens not only doesn’t reduce crime or eliminate murder, it increases the likelihood of both. Because criminals will never surrender their weapons until caught. Leaving unarmed citizens as completely vulnerable victims.

 

On another issue, while Texas Senator Ted Cruz may not have the skills or experience required to serve as POTUS, his article @breitbart.com this morning accurately sums up the hotly contested trade promotion authority legislation.

 

The senator writes, “Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.”

 

And then, he hits the nail on the head, by opining, “There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.”

And that pretty much says it all.

 

Which brings us to today’s updates on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

By AMERICA’S Jorge Ramos and Gabrielle Tudin, wrote on fusion.net that since Lincoln Chafee threw his hat in the ring, “the 62-year-old has taken a vocal stance against Clinton’s 2002 vote for the Iraq War.”

 

Ramos asked him, “Do you think that disqualifies her from running for the White House?” Chafee answered. “It’s a huge mistake. $6 trillion, over 4,000 dead Americans. I think it’s a disqualifier.”

 

Chafee himself was the only Republican senator voting against authorizing the use of force in Iraq 2002, saying. “I did my homework, I didn’t vote for it. I didn’t see the evidence of weapons of mass destruction.”

 

As far as Chafee's campaign is concerned, at present he doesn’t appear to possess a real chance of election as POTUS. But, he’ll certainly serve as another voice that’s anti-Bill’s wife, adding to her problems of shrinking voter support.

 

In that regard, Bill Curry, former White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut wrote an article on salon.com stating flatly: “Hillary Clinton is going to lose: She doesn’t even see the frustrated progressive wave that will nominate Bernie Sanders.”

 

Mr. Curry’s article is quite long, detailed, providing many examples supporting his premise. And then he went on to note that when Obama campaigned, saying . “Yes we can,” few bothered to as: “Do what?”

 

However, “After eight years of Obama, I’m not sure Clinton can run that race, or that anyone can. I don’t think she can enlist Wall Street oligarchs and recruit an army of dewy-eyed volunteers. Above all, I don’t think she can spout populist rhetoric without any policy specifics to back it up. Clinton insiders also ingratiate themselves to reporters by dishing about her need to seem more authentic. Someone should tell them it’s hard to seem real when you won’t tell people what you really think.”

 

And, if that isn’t enough negativism for one day, on nypost.com, “Clinton Cash’ author Peter Schweizer “demolishes Hillary’s self-defense.”

 

According to Mr. Schweizer, only two choices describe her character, leading him to ask: “Grave incompetence or brazen dishonesty?” Which he surmises, "are the only two conclusions one can reasonably come to after reviewing Hillary Clinton’s stunning Sunday interview on local New Hampshire TV.”

 

The rationale for his conclusion is explained in his interesting article. Here's a link:

 

http://nypost.com/2015/06/22/clinton-cash-author-demolishes-hillarys-self-defense/

 

Which leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Passage of time has not boded well for the vast majority of past government administrations. However, the one currently holding office may eventually be historically recorded as having done virtually nothing successfully whatsoever.

 

FoxNews.com reports today that, “MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who claimed the authors of ObamaCare took advantage of what he called the "stupidity of the American voter," played a much bigger role in the law's drafting than previously acknowledged, according to a published report.”

 

Despite the administrations claims that Gruber played a minor role in development of the president’s health care tax, the Wall Street Journal cited 20,000 pages of emails sent by Gruber between January 2009 and March 2010.

 

According to the WSJ article, Gruber was “frequently consulted by staffers and advisers for both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the Affordable Care Act. Among the topics that Gruber discusses in the emails are media interviews, consultations with lawmakers, and even how to publicly describe his role.”

 

Officials Gruber contacted by e-mail included "Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president; and Ezekiel Emanuel, then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.”

Nonetheless, many receiving the benefits of the tax strongly support its existence, as evidenced by comments following the article, such as that from wilcoxwilber, who wrote: “surgeon's fee for shoulder repair  $11,000.  My cost $0.” 

 

Farther down, wilcoxwilber added, “Physical therapy on my shoulder would cost me $240 a visit--I've had 26 visits since March. My out of pocket cost--$0”

While the strong support, and unquestioned appreciation, of the recipients receiving free services is readily understandable, those taxpayers footing the bills offer a very different perspective.

In that regard, sandman 007, replied, “That's a problem, because there's no incentive to shop around and get it for $120.”

Along the same lines of questionable administration and support, another article reports that the Iranian parliament has a completely different view of the pending nuclear deal with the US than the POTUS.

According to thegatewaypundit.com: “With some lawmakers chanting “Death to the America,” Iran’s parliament voted Sunday to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program.”

The current  talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions. However, “Of 213 lawmakers present on Sunday, 199 voted in favor of the bill, which also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. The bill must be ratified by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a law.”

Thus, in this case, any rational individual has to wonder why this “deal” is being considered by the administration at all. Because it seems that, while the vast majority of citizens in both nations are opposed to passage of any nuclear accord, the only plausible gain is the POTUS having an international treaty on his record. 

 

Yet, in what’s likely the not too distant future, the most logical guess is that Iran will violate its part of the bargain, no matter. Which leads to the fundamental question as to why any rational POTUS would desire the deal in the first place.

And then there’s additional news on another Obama pet project; global-warming.

An article from Television Writer at ap.org, says, “The Weather Channel is looking beyond cold fronts and summer showers with a project featuring the voices of 25 prominent people talking about the need to take action on climate change.”

The network says, "The Climate 25" series is about science, not politics. But its message is unmistakable, and is consciously designed to reach people who may be doubters about the causes of global warming.”

While the channel has, obviously, taken a very strong stand supporting the validity of global-warming for reasons of its own, others from the same entity possess a very different point of view.   

“John Coleman, a former TV meteorologist and a co-founder of The Weather Channel, is a widely quoted climate change skeptic and claimed there are others like him who work now at the network who are afraid to speak up because it would cost them their jobs.

"They certainly have the right to have an editorial perspective," Coleman said. "I feel it's stupid, scientifically wrong and it's a great disservice. But there is freedom of speech."

Neil Katz, vice president of digital content, “noted that while Coleman played an important role in The Weather Channel's start, he's had nothing to do with the station in several decades.”

 

Nonetheless, whether at the channel or not, Mr. Coleman’s dissenting opinion is surely of the same value, or maybe moreso, than anyone else quoted in the article.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

As often noted here, Bill Clinton’s wife has no real competition in her run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Yet, the simple passage of time sees her popularity shrink virtually daily. The reason’s being, she has no real platform, nor required job capabilities. 

In that regard, according to AP, “Democratic strategist Maria Cardona posed the idea Sunday that frontrunner Hillary Clinton could lose critical early-state nomination races in Iowa and New Hampshire to socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

“Cardona, a self-described Clinton supporter, said on ABC’s This Week that no one should be surprised if Sanders wins both races.”

Therefore, it seems that apologists are setting the stage for potential upsets for their ordained heir to the throne who seems to possess a growing drawback. Nobody except a cadre of hardcore supporters likes her very much. 

Which is likely why Ms Cardona concluded that, “This could be a sign of just how worried Clinton’s camp is about Sanders, who has garnered huge enthusiasm among the left-wing base of the party.”

Then, an additional problem seems to matter little to Bill’s wife who, despite burgeoning concerns about her ethics and honesty, continues to pursue money above all else.

Brent Scher’s article today on freebeacon.com is headlined: “Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor”

Mr. Scher writes, “Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700-a-plate luncheon on Friday at the Beverly Hills home of a man who was investigated by the Senate for hiding $68 million in assets in an offshore tax haven.

“Peter Lowy, who was born in Australia but is a U.S. citizen, is chief executive officer of the Westfield Group, one of the world’s largest owners of shopping malls. The company was founded by his father, Frank Lowy, and is controlled by the Lowy family.”

So, as the negativity surrounding Bill’s wife continues unbridled, it appears she has no concerns or compunctions about further enriching her campaign, family foundation or herself. Which leads to the continuing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Several items today indicate the incurring importance of the Internet, and its ability to disseminate news and information immediately to people all over the world. Most certainly, across the US.

 

On the political scene, it seems that Bernie Sanders may not be just a sideshow for Democrats, but now has a growing number of voters taking his campaign seriously.

 

Tina Daunt writes @hollywoodreporter.com that about 300 people turned out for Sanders’ two events in California on Saturday.

 

Sander’s audience was “Hollywood Dems’ most progressive faction, with activists deeply disappointed in Obama, who they supported, and unwilling to sign on to a Clinton presidential campaign. In the former Secretary of State, they see another moderate waiting to happen.”

 

However, what’s most interesting are the reasons for the candidates growing popularity, described as follows:

 

“Since declaring his candidacy last month, Sanders has pointedly rejected the usual stump speech ambiguities. His style seems to declare that when you’re clearly on the attack, you don’t need room to maneuver. He has declared himself against free-trade agreements and the Keystone XL pipeline. He wants higher taxes on corporations and investors’ capital gains to finance universal healthcare and free college educations for all qualifying students. He has introduced legislation to require paid leave and vacation time for every American worker.”

 

When considering Sanders position regarding the economy, although it's typically leftist in philosophy, it demonstrates a  naiveté about capitalism among those leftists that is truly incredible. Because if you tax businesses and stock-holding individuals close to, or completely, out of existence, who’s going to pay for all the social programs he wishes to pursue? Healthcare, college tuition and paid vacations don’t come for free in this nation, or anywhere else.  

 

Similarly, the Pope’s new push against global-warming has some major flaws in implementation. Because it too has major realities to contend with that are not easily overcome. And in fact, may not be achievable at all.

 

Christopher Booker @telegraph.co.uk writes that, “the last desperate throw by the EU and the US to achieve a world agreement next December to “halt climate change” is not going to succeed, not just because the “science” on which it is based is so increasingly questionable, but because the emerging powers of the East, led by India and China, are simply not prepared to go along with it. If the West wishes to commit economic suicide, so be it. In their own national interest, they are not willing to follow.”

 

Thus, this case is much the one made by Bernie Sanders. Although the Pope’s underlying objectives may have huge appeal to those in agreement, too many leaders feel their nation’s survival is far more important at present. 

 

Which brings us to today’s updates on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

FoxNews.com reported on Friday that, Veres Royal, was initially mentioned in a May 29 New York Times article as, “a former charity executive who helped expose a questionable $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation [who] is now being threatened by her old bosses with a lawsuit seeking tens of thousands of dollars, FoxNews.com has learned.”

 

While the potential lawsuit concerns matters between Ms Royal and the charity, to be determined in time, one of her comments casts additional doubt on the Clinton’s foundation, and its true purpose.

 

According to Fox: “However, Veres Royal said she was appalled not only by the 2014 Clinton donation but by details she had not known before the Times report was published -- most notably that the $500,000, which was supposed to go to causes in the ravaged country of Haiti, still had not been earmarked for any particular project by The Clinton Foundation.”

 

So, where did the money go?

 

At the same time, new information’s surfaced regarding Bill’s wife’s actual performance, versus her recent presidential campaign promises.

 

A new watchdog report says: “Harassment complaints at the State Department nearly tripled during the years Hillary Clinton and now-Secretary John Kerry have been in charge.

 

“The report, released Thursday, detailed a jump in formal complaints, from 88 in 2011 to 248 in 2014. 

 

The Office of Inspector General report said: “With a continuous increase in harassment inquires each fiscal year, the current staff risks not being able to sustain current work performance levels.”

 

And finally, “According to the data, 38 percent of formal complaints involved alleged sex discrimination or reprisals. Forty-three percent of the complaints involved promotions and unfair hiring issues.”

 

So, recurring informational releases continue to demonstrate how greatly things have changed for political candidates. Because, as related often here, the former guidelines about the public’s short-term memory simply don’t work anymore. In today’s computer environment, what’s captured electronically remains virtually forever. And therefore, things said and done in the past are easily retrievable when needed. Such as Bill’s wife vacillating tendencies and lack of true accomplishment.

 

Which leads to the recurring question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A top item posted on Drudge today, is headlined, “Rep. Kinzinger: Drudge and ObamaTrade.com spreading misinformation.” 

 

The article, by Nick Gass @politico.com, caused some preliminary research, regarding politician’s current approval numbers in general.

 

According to realclearpolitics.com, the president’s public approval rating is 43.7%, while 51.4% disapprove of his performance. The numbers equate to a 7.7% negative spread in the statistics.   

 

At the same time, congressional job approval is currently 17.2%, while disapproval amounts to 73.8%. Which means that 82.8% of the public are apparently unhappy at present with those holding office in the House and Senate.

 

As far as the public’s negativity toward those in congress is concerned, comments by Representative Adam Kinzinger in the story mentioned above, seem to provide explanation for why such a low opinion of politicians in general exists, regardless of party.

 

This week, Congressman Kinzinger “blamed misinformation from sites like ObamaTrade.com and other sites like Drudge Report that pass along those links for distorting information about trade legislation, including bills on trade promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the massive trade deal that has yet to be finalized.

 

“If you look at Drudge, if you look at Obamatrade[.com], people are saying, you know, ‘Paul Ryan has said it’s in secret and you’ve got to pass it to find out what’s in it.’ Well that’s not true,” Kinzinger told WROK-AM on Wednesday. “What he was saying is, we have to pass TPA so that TPP even exists and so that we have an opportunity to read it and vote on it.”

 

However, the fact of the matter is, particularly regarding Drudge, his website offers no opinions, thoughts or verbiage of any kind from him at all. The site posts nothing but links to a wide variety of other sites where the story’s themselves are located.

 

And, therefore, if the congressman has a problem with “misinformation” he feels is being is foisted on the public, he needs to address those actually writing those articles, because it certainly isn’t Matt Drudge. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

 

Two day’s ago, Wednesday, Chris Stirewalt wrote on FoxNews.com, that, “Driven substantially by her falling trustworthiness, Clinton finds herself in trouble compared to three months ago in Quinnipiac University’s swing-state poll. Clinton does best on Florida (not good news for either of the favorite sons running there) but in all three, the results are fairly consistent.”

 

Mr. Stirewalt continues, “Take Ohio. In March, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was trailing Clinton by 9 points. This week, it’s down to 1 point.  Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker trailed in a head-to-head matchup by 11 points. Now it’s 4 points. Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul improved by 6 points and 5 points, respectively. And the state’s Gov. John Kasich went from a 1-point deficit in January to a 7-point advantage today.”

 

The most interesting point, though, comes from Mr. Stirewalt’s analysis of why Bill’s wife’s poll numbers are dropping as they are, as follows: “Some of this is a result of Clinton’s policy changes and efforts to identify herself as a partisan figure and a very liberal one at that, but another part is that voters increasingly distrust her. But the net effect is to damage her standing with general-election voters.”

 

The key consideration here, is her vacillation on key policy issues in which she readily changes positions in an attempt to gain voter appeal. Yet, what that strategy also illustrates clearly, is that she has no real fundamental beliefs at all. Getting elected is all that counts for her. Much like it was for her husband, whose presidential philosophy was also determined by the vacillating tides of public opinion.

 

And therefore, considering the lack of true substance to her candidacy, the daily question must be asked again: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Very little new in the news today. However, Pope Francis’ pleas on climate-change gained headline attention in the press.

 

What’s most interesting about the global-warming discussion is that proponents on both sides of the matter claim it’s a scientific issue. Yet the “science” remaining debatable between the sides, isn’t plausible whereas, by definition: science is a systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area as well as knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

Nonetheless, in this case, both sides claim to have irrefutable evidence supporting their positions.

 

Therefore, what’s been obvious from the start of discussion regarding climate-change is that the subject has always been purely political, having nothing to do with factual reality whatsoever. 

 

As far as today’s news is concerned, FoxNews.com reports that, “The Obama administration and congressional Democrats welcomed Pope Francis' call for sweeping action against climate change Thursday, but the pontiff's message was swiftly dismissed by GOP lawmakers.”

 

The president said, “I welcome His Holiness Pope Francis's encyclical, and deeply admire the Pope's decision to make the case - clearly, powerfully, and with the full moral authority of his position - for action on global climate change."  

 

Republican’s though, both Catholic and non-Catholic, were open in their disagreement. Such as Joe Barton, Texas Rep. and senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, who said, “I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't consider him an expert on environmental issues.” That comment was echoed by a number of other Republicans. 

 

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, while not directly mentioning Francis, was quoted as saying he “believes the climate is always changing, but it's not clear what role humans have in it."

 

Consequently, since as far as politicians are concerned, there is no confirming science from opponents on the global-warming issue, the debate is likely to continue far into the future.

 

At the same time, a reader posted a comment illustrating the staggering costs involved to management, although he was quite pleased from an employee’s perspective. 

 

wilcoxwilber wrote: “As an indirect result of being stopped by the EPA for polluting, we got a 70% raise in our pay and added 115 new jobs.

How is that possible?--to effectively treat and handle our waste we needed to grow the size of our plant (115 new jobs)  and attract (higher wages) more employees.

Why do you simpletons FIGHT the growth of industries?”

 

In this instance, it’s quite apparent that wilcoxwilber has no understanding of the perils to businesses caused by adding non-productive overhead, which increases costs while producing no additional revenue. But far worse, unless his employer finds a way to cover the additional expenses, such as higher prices to customers, the entire entity will go out of business. So not only isn’t this situation the “growth” of an industry, the only winner is the EPA and its government coffers. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Yesterday, Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal told lawmaker’s he was paid more than $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation. FoxNews.com reports that the importance is that “the figure is far higher than initially reported.”

 

Brock responded in a statement that, “Despite the fact that the conclusions of nine congressional committee reports and the findings from an independent review board don't support his political agenda, Chairman [Trey] Gowdy keeps doubling down and expanding his taxpayer funded fishing expedition in the hopes of undermining Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign. This week's spectacle is the latest proof that he is failing."

 

Brock’s reply is certainly one that should be expected, complete denial until proven otherwise. Yet, what certainly wasn’t mentioned by him is that, up until now, information's been purposefully withheld from the committee. And therefore, there’s been no evidence to consider in the past.

 

As far as the bigger picture’s concerned, time is proving that slowly but surely the evidence mounts indicating that the original suspicion’s regarding Bill Clinton’s wife were well-founded. And consequently, the longer the investigations continue, moving toward 2016, the greater the obstacles to her presidential win become. Which leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios