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