BloggeRhythms

Today’s common theme is numbers, and how statistics and basic mathematics consistently produce the truth while politicians usually don’t.

 

The first item came to mind due to a cartoon posted by a friend on Facebook.

 

In this case, the POTUS as usual, employed two horrific events to make different points, although except for the reversal of who shot who, both situations are precisely the same.

 

However, by using the second example to press his continual attempts at taking guns away from ordinary citizens on totally false premises, the POTUS caused conducting some research to derive actual weaponry statistics. The results follow.

 

According to Gun Violence Archive 2015, a non-profit corp. providing free public information on-line, there were 33,833 gun-related incidents so far this year. Deaths amounted to 8,630.

 

Statistically, the total U.S. population is 319 million people, 111,650,000 of them owning guns, equaling 35%. Thus, the annual  percentage of the population involved in gun incidents equals .00010606%, while those involving shooting deaths equals .00000071% 

 

Therefore, much like the health care tax which is in the process of ruining the greatest health care system in the world on behalf of the approximately 5% of the population in need of assistance, more than 99% of upstanding citizens owning guns are being continually harassed to surrender their weapons. Which is why this legislation has never passed and won't, because it clearly shouldn’t.

 

On a similar topic, and one often mentioned here, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. climatologist, author, and former NASA scientist writes on his website that, “When President Obama visits Alaska this week to campaign for a new international agreement to fight global warming climate change, Alaska will be experiencing colder than normal weather and forecast summer snows, as seen in this WeatherBell.com graphic of forecast total snowfall by Friday:

 

“NOAA’s official average temperature product for Alaska, even after they’ve made innumerable and controversial adjustments, shows cooling from the 1920s to the late 1970s, then sudden warming associated with the Great Climate Shift of 1977:

 

“This shift was due to a natural reversal of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a 60 year cycle which affects the atmospheric steering currents in Alaska, determining whether cold polar air or warm Pacific air tends to win out as the two air masses continually battle for control over Alaska weather.” 

 

Dr. Spencer concludes by stating that: “Alaskans are used to tremendous extremes in weather throughout the year. The tree stump evidence by itself suggests it was warmer there 1,000 years ago than today. 

 

“Yet, President Obama will no doubt wax eloquent about how all weather and glacier changes in Alaska (1) have been brought on by humans, and (2) are bad. I’m sure this is what’s taught in schools now, and many will believe it. 

 

Dr. Spencer concludes by stating, “But don’t you believe it.” However, it'll also be pretty amusing to see the POTUS standing there in a fur-collared coat in summertime up to his knees in Alaskan snow-flakes making a pitch for his global-warming agenda.      

 

Along the same lines, Kerry Picket, reporter, @dailycaller.com writes that: “ABC News ran a news special in 2009 called Earth 2100, a program warning its viewers about the dangers of climate change.

 

“Describing dangerous temperature levels and dropping agricultural production, the news package brings in The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who says, “There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.”

 

And here’s the conclusion reached by those “experts” back in 2009: “The doomsday predictions for 2015 go further and include $12.00 for a gallon of milk and $9.00 a gallon for gasoline, if there is any gas at all that is left.” And that sounds like it was predicted by AlGore, who‘s yet to be accurate about anything at all,  but still rakes in millions promoting his carbon swap frauds.

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

 

According to foxnews.com/politics, “Clinton remains the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, the first state to hold a primary vote. And Sanders is the pick for 30 percent, according to the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll released Saturday.”

 

However, only three months ago according to the then most recent Iowa Poll, Bill's wife was leading the Democratic field with 57 percent, followed by Sanders at 16 percent.

 

Which means that if her drop-off remains constant at 20% over the past 90 days, by November 2015 her Iowa favorability will equate to 17% while Bernie should rise to 30. And then, by February 2016 numbers-wise, she’ll be under water. Bringing up the daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today’s items present examples that cause one to wonder if those in politics ever truly think about what they say. Or are they simply a group comprised of the dumbest folks on earth.

 

Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman Friday @nytimes.com, wrote about presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. Their article claimed that “he had one clear chance to make waves within the Democratic National Committee, and he seized it, delivering a fiery speech on Friday.”

 

In his speech, “He urged Democrats to draw a sharp contrast with the discourse among the Republican presidential candidates. “Silence and complacency in the face of hate is not an honorable option,” he said, alluding to Donald J. Trump’s divisive remarks about immigration and women. “We must stand before the American people and show them we have a better way.”

 

Reading O'Malley's rhetoric, the first question that comes to mind is “a better way” to what? Because, after the Democrats destroyed the last two years of “W” Bush’s two years in office with their congressional majority in both houses, the next six years under a Democrat president have been a total disaster in every aspect of governance. From the economy to foreign policy, to health care, employment, environmental overbearance, and without doubt, immigration the nation is its worst shape since the Carter administration of the ‘70’s.

 

Therefore, it’s suggested that Mr. O'Malley either find a better speech writer, or if he prepares his own material, do some homework first before he talks.  

 

Along the same lines, reacting without thinking, yesterday after a column @politico.com disclosed that three top fundraisers left Jeb Bush’s campaign, a reader posted the following comment. 

 

Adam Sinclair, Retail Solar Advisor at Sungevity, wrote: “Jeb is a horrible candidate. He has no chance. He is already doomed bc he literally has the exact same dumb people that his father and brother had advising them! 17 of 21 foreign policy advisors are bush 43 advisors! These are the same people who brought us two wars!

 

Reading what reader Sinclair thinks, one has to ask what he expects of a fundraiser whereas, Bush senior was elected once, and “W” twice. In “W’s” case, the maximum allowed by law. If Sinclair believes that three presidential wins out of four are the result of “dumb” advisors, he’s either tougher than Jeb’s campaign management. Or more likely, dumber than a tree-stump himself. 

 

On another matter, obviously the POTUS believes that if something works, don’t fix it. That became apparent when in defending his nuclear deal: “President Barack Obama on Friday compared tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iranian nuclear deal to a family feud and said he expects quick improvements in ties between the longtime allies once the accord is implemented.” 

 

Which is exactly the same way Nancy Pelosi sold the failing health care tax when it was in trouble. By suggesting that to really find out what was in it, Congress first had to pass it. And now, we all know how that disastrous tax turned out. 

 

As far as today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife is concerned, a story @washingtonpost.com by Dan Balz and Philip Rucker also illustrates how political types ignore, or alter, undeniable evidence establishing falsity regarding their comments and/or claims. 

 

The article’s authors write in regard to Joe Biden that: “People love him,” Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper said. “But I think it would take one incredible sales pitch to convince the people right now who are energized about Bernie Sanders to move away from him or the people who are gung-ho about ­Hillary to move away from her.”

 

Then, in the very next paragraph, it’s written that, “A new poll released Saturday night showed Clinton on a dangerously downward trajectory in Iowa, whose caucuses will kick off the nominating contest. She leads Sanders there 37 percent to 30 percent, according to the Des Moines Register-Bloomberg Politics poll, with Biden in third with 14 percent.”

 

So, not only aren’t those “people who are gung-ho about ­Hillary” willing to move away from her, they’re obviously doing that right now. While her “dangerously downward trajectory” indicates that her slide gets worse with every passing day. Which means that, in keeping with today’s subject, the next time Party Chairman Pepper mentions Bill Clinton’s wife’s staying power with her supporters, he ought to look the numbers up first before shooting off half-cocked.

 

It also leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today, Dick and Liz Cheney in an article @wsj.com titled, “Restoring American Exceptionalism” explain the inherent dangers in the Iranian nuclear deal from an American historical perspective that is well worth reading. 

 

The article encapsulates the growth of America into a nation that, per the Cheney’s: “has guaranteed freedom, security and peace for a larger share of humanity than any other nation in all of history. There is no other like us. There never has been.”

 

And in tracing the history and events that led to the attainment of that lofty and extremely responsible position, the Cheney’s illustrate why and how our nation has now reversed its former stance. Including, losing it’s way completely in the past six years of the Obama administration while before his election: “For the better part of a century, security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on America’s military, economic, political and diplomatic might. For the most part, until the administration of Barack Obama, we delivered.”

 

As far as the present is concerned, the Cheney’s opine that, “Allowing the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium and agreeing to the removal of all restraints on their nuclear program in a few short years virtually guarantees that they will become a nuclear-weapons state, thus undermining the fundamental agreement at the heart of the NPT. President Obama is unraveling this international structure as part of an agreement that provides a pathway for the world’s worst state-sponsor of terror to acquire nuclear weapons.”

 

Aside from the well-thought out rationale for rejecting the Iranian deal and reinforcing sanctions, the historical performance of the U.S. as the world’s premier guarantor of “freedom, security and peace for a larger share of humanity than any other nation in all of history,” is very well worth reading. Here’s a link 'Obama has dangerously surrendered nation's global leadership'

 

With little else of significance in today’s headlines, here are a couple of daily updates on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

A FoxNews.com article reports that, “The polls paint part of the picture, with the latest Quinnipiac poll showing her with her worst "favorability" rating yet. But the audiences at her campaign stump speeches really tell the story.”

 

Richard Viguerie, a longtime conservative media strategist, “blames the energy lag on Clinton’s political “baggage” and her demeanor, which he claims has never been “warm and fuzzy." Adding, "I hardly see any liberal enthusiasm for [Clinton], and they are concerned she could even drag down the entire ticket.” 

 

Iona College political science professor, Jeanne Zaino, adds: “I think you see a certain amount of exhaustion amongst Democrats and a certain amount of Clinton fatigue. While “the drip-drip of email revelations have "taken their toll" and it is reflecting in the crowd sizes as well as poll numbers.”

 

Regarding the numbers specifically, “On Thursday at Case Western Reserve University in the battleground state of Ohio, Clinton spoke to a crowd of an estimated 2,800 people in an outdoor “commit to vote” rally. while her biggest crowd, of 5,500 people, was for her New York City kick-off rally which she hasn’t matched since."

 

Drawing an estimated 1,800 to a Virginia fundraiser in June, she’s held “grassroots organizing and town hall events more conducive to smaller crowds. Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College Poll, says this is likely designed that way, "because she is very good in small venues and not so much in big ones." 

 

Examples include her choice to “unveil her college affordability plan to an audience of about 600 at Exeter High School in New Hampshire on Aug. 10. On Aug. 6, she jazzed up an estimated 300 supporters in a packed nightclub in Denver, and on Aug. 18, held a town meeting in a Las Vegas community center that drew an estimated 300.”

 

In her defense, Michael Cohen, a Boston Globe columnist, disagrees with the idea of low turnouts for her, saying the “enthusiasm gap” is a creation of media boredom during the dog days of summer. “I don’t think it much matters what is happening in August,” he told FoxNews.com. “I think it’s hard for anyone to get excited about politics right now. All of a sudden people are saying she is in trouble and I just don’t see any evidence of that.”

 

However, the facts say something else, entirely whereas “Sanders, who runs to the left of Clinton, has drawn well over 100,000 people combined at his summer rallies as of mid-August. In a pair of appearances in Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles in August alone, he attracted an estimated 55,000 people.” And even Trump “drew some 30,000 people at a pep rally in Mobile, Ala., on Aug. 21.”

 

So, it ain’t the doldrums or heat of summer that’s her problem, it’s her tired old recycled self that nobody really cares about, as reflected in the following article today, “America is so in Play,” by Peggy Noonan about Trump’s rise, including his ever-changing stance on immigration. 

 

What was quite interesting was a comment from reader David Mcmahon who posted a comment about Bill Clinton's wife, as follows: ‘What a find. Mark Levin finds clip of Hillary ranting about illegal aliens.”

 

According to Jeff Dunetz on May 7, 2015, “Two days after she made a policy speech about illegal immigration saying that a comprehensive immigration bill must include a path to "full and equal citizenship," the RNC YouTube site posted an audiotape (see below) of a 2003 interview with radio host John Gambling where Hillary Clinton says she is anti-Illegal immigrant and that people should stop hiring them.  

 

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," she declared in the interview.

 

She also railed against businesses that hire illegals: "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants." She complained about seeing illegal immigrants  "in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx – you’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work."

 

Then, at present, Ms. Clinton, reportedly told an audience on Tuesday:

 

“This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake, today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one." Then she added: “When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.

 

“She even went so far as to say that, given the opportunity, she would make executive orders granting amnesty for illegal immigrants that go further than the one President Obama made a few months back.”

 

Here’s a link to the article: http://bit.ly/1JCzK20

 

Thus, with vacillation like that, purely for electoral purposes, the openings certainly remain for a Democrat contender and lead to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Very slow news-day, either due to the August doldrums or simply because there isn’t very much going on worthy of noting regardless of what month it is.

 

Despite the lack of anything meaningful to report, the media of course needs to keep filling its airtime. And in that regard, Fox News’  Doug McKelway, led off a newscast at 10AM this morning seeming to confirm a point made here a couple of days ago.

 

At that time it was noted that Trump’s going after Fox’s Meghan Kelly after the Republican presidential debate was likely a major mistake. Because, if nothing else, Fox is an ally needed by any Republican contender and therefore, no sane candidate would purposefully upset the network’s chief, Roger Ailes. Yet that’s what Trump seems to have done. It was also surmised here that any retaliation against Trump would be done quite subtly, using stealth instead of outright attacks and vituperation.

 

And now, today, Mr. McKelway led off the 10 O’clock newscast with a segment highlighting Trump’s major “flip-flops” over the years. Since the show was live, the items went by too quickly to note them specifically, however a similar list was found on-line at  thelibertarianrepublic.com in an article by Josh Guckert from July 17, 2015, as follows:

 

Top 7 Biggest Donald Trump Flip-Flops

 

First on the list was his change from libertarian to a hard-liner on drugs.

 

Then, “In 1999, Trump stated that though he “hate[d] the concept of abortion,” that he was “very pro-choice,” and that he would not even ban partial-birth abortions. Trump later stated that after consulting with doctors that he would be in favor of banning partial-birth abortions. Yet, “Today, Trump states that he is “pro-life,” with exceptions for rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger."

 

Also in 1999, he “called for a one-time 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts of over $10 million in order to pay off the national debt. Trump’s rhetoric at the time was eerily similar to that of the Occupy movement, as he stated that, “By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan. The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes.” Then, “In 2000, he indicated that he was opposed to a flat tax.”

 

“In 2011, he indicated support for the Bush Tax Cuts, stating that President Obama would be “taking away a lot of incentives from a lot of people that produce a lot of taxes” if he were to allow them to expire. A few months later, he proposed a four-bracket tax system which contained rates of 1%, 5%, 10% and 15% and eliminated the corporate income and estate taxes. Needless to say, this is a marked shift from his prior position.

 

“In 2000, Trump indicated that while he “generally oppose[d]” gun control, he was in favor of bans on assault weapons, waiting periods and background checks. He also criticized Republicans on the topic, as he stated that they “walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.” But now, “Trump states that he is staunchly against gun control, that “the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege,” and that he “do[es] not support expanding background checks.”

 

In 1999 and 2000, Trump expressed a staunch desire for the US to adopt universal healthcare, stating “If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over . . . So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care, I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.” Trump continued on to say, “I think it is. . .an entitlement to this country, and too bad the world can’t be, you know, in this country. But the fact is, it’s an entitlement to this country if we’re going to have a great country.”

 

Yet, although it’s unclear as to what Trump’s current plan is, he’s made his staunch opposition to ObamaCare well-known. He has suggested a market approach,by “increasing competition between insurance companies. Competition makes everything better and more affordable.”

 

In 2000, Trump favored privatization of Social Security, but in 2011 he “spoke out against any modifications of Social Security, saying that “We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can’t make one for themselves. Social Security is here to stay. To be sure, we must reform it, root out the fraud, make it more efficient, and ensure that the program is solvent.”

 

And here are really huge reversals that likely will come back to haunt him in the future:

 

“Trump has a long history with Hillary Clinton, donating to her campaigns in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, as well as donating a six-digit sum to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton even attended Trump’s 2005 wedding, and Trump once called her a “fantastic Senator.” He had similar praise for Jeb Bush in 2000, saying “He’s exactly the kind of political leader this country needs now and will very much need in the future. . .He’s bright, tough, and principled. I like the Bush family very much. I believe we could get another president from the Bushes. He may be the one.”

 

But, in a complete, and seemingly ridiculous reversal, now that he thinks he has a chance at the White House, today, “Trump calls Hillary Clinton “the worst Secretary of State in the history of our nation” and says that she would be “a terrible president.” On Jeb Bush, he referred to him as “pathetic” for his support of Common Core, and said that his immigration policy is “baby stuff.” He has also said that in regards to Bush facing Clinton, “Jeb Bush will never take us to the promised land. . .No matter what you do, it’s not going to happen.”

 

So, here we have a guy who says whatever he thinks is expedient at the time, yet lacks the consistency and focused dedication required to handle the most difficult managerial position in the world. And, most importantly, the job of POTUS requires someone with successfully proven similar experience in a similar position, such as governor of a large state. Not one who believes that glib answers are the key to properly meeting the needs of more than 318 million citizens.   

 

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

 

Steven Shepard @politico.com titled his article today, “Can Hillary overcome the 'liar' factor?”

 

Mr. Sheppard writes: “[O]ne of the more troubling aspects of Clinton’s honesty-driven slide in the polls is her strikingly low numbers among white voters. Some Democrats had hoped Clinton’s candidacy could reverse Obama-era losses among whites, particularly white women. But crosstabs provided by Quinnipiac upon POLITICO’s request indicate Clinton faces steep challenges there, too.

 

“Among all whites, only 26 percent said Clinton is honest and trustworthy. Just 3-in-10 white women said she is honest and trustworthy — including only 34 percent of white women with a college degree, a constituency crucial to repairing Democrats’ numbers among whites.”

 

White among white independents, only 21 percent said she’s honest, young white voters are also a big challenge: Just 22 percent said Clinton is honest and trustworthy, versus 73 percent who said she isn’t.

 

By comparison, Bill Clinton, won 44 percent of white voters in his 1996 reelection campaign, according to exit polls, en route to capturing 49 percent of the vote overall. But by 2012, the Democrat’s share of the white vote had tumbled to 39 percent.

 

The honesty issue is critical point because, in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, "exit polls showed voters for whom honesty and integrity were a driving factor overwhelmingly preferred George W. Bush. Gore, on the other hand, was the overwhelming choice of voters who valued experience and intellect.”

 

Thus, whereas honesty and integrity are critical issues to voters in addition to experience and intellect, and Bill’s wife is questionable on all of them, the ongoing question remains: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today’s another in which, when all is said and done, simple logic will provide answers to events that experts and pundits will overthink, over-explain, and will ultimately be incorrect. 

 

Greg Robb @marketwatch.com reports that: “The U.S. economy grew at a faster 3.7% annual pace in the second quarter, up from the initial estimate of growth at a 2.3% clip.”

 

Business investment was stronger than expected with Corporate profits rising an estimated 2.4% in the second quarter after declining by 5.8% in the first.

 

Looking at the dramatic increase, and then trying to determine the cause, likely doesn't require an advanced degree in economics. Because the glaring change that’s taken place, has been the significant reduction in the price of oil.

 

Which brings up the same conclusion reached in these daily entry’s for the past four years. Imagine how well the nation would have done since 2008, had not the administration pandered to zealots who strangled an economy battling a global-warming farce that did not even exist. 

  

On another subject, a new Quinnipiac University National Poll shows Joe Biden “running strong in head-to-head match-ups against Republicans in key swing states.”

 

While the poll shows Bill Clinton’s wife polling better than Biden in the Democratic primary race, Biden attained a slight edge against leading GOP contenders.

 

Tim Malloy, assistant director of the poll, said in a statement: "Note to Biden: They like you, they really like you, or they like you more than the others.” Biden leads Republican front-runner Donald Trump, 48-40 percent, and Jeb Bush, 45-39 percent.

Bill’s wife also edges those candidates, but not by as much. Against Trump it’s 45-41 percent; and Bush 42-40 percent. However, the poll showed, “her worst favorability rating yet – with only 39 percent holding a favorable view of her, compared with 51 percent who don’t.” But, things could get much worse. Because with still more than a year to go, familiarity with her has always led to growing dislike.   

And then there was another story that is very hard to understand, involving Trump.

According to the Des Moines Register: “Trump’s top hire in Iowa got busted in emails trashing his now-boss. In messages written as recently as last month, new Trump national co-chairman, Sam Clovis, who abandoned the struggling campaign of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry this week to work for Trump, calls the New York billionaire “a cancer on conservatism” and a man with “no foundation in Christ.” Clovis said in one message that as a veteran he was “offended by a man who sought and gained four student deferments to avoid the draft and who has never served this nation a day — not a day — in any fashion or way.” 

 

Clovis admitted to what he’d written,  but said “he had become convinced of Trump’s merits and sincerity after he got the chance to “look [Trump] in the eye and ask him the tough questions.” Thus, the translation of what actually happened is that Clovis, like most others in politics, must have gotten his price from Trump and obviously took the money like any hooker would.

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

FoxNews Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asks whether Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years. “From failed operations in Libya and Syria to unsecured email on her private server, “What if Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people? What if the American people do care about all this? What will they do about it?” 

 

Now, one would certainly assume that the Judge’s query is rhetorical. Because it’s doubtful there’s any voter naïve enough to believe that there’s an iota of sincerity in the power-hungry, money-driven machine Bill married. Yet, the judge certainly raised some very unnerving questions which one can only hope that the American people will do the right thing about. Long before election day arrives.

 

Which leads to the daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios

 

PS: A FB friend posted this this morning.

  

Reader, Jennifer Decker, commented: Oh, come now. That's disrespectful to the horse

BloggeRhythms

While pundits run around in circles, trying to explain the huge drop in stock prices, the answer’s actually quite simple: the Obama economy is finally reflecting the negative effect it should have years ago. And had it not been for zero interest rates, the stockmarket wouldn’t have increased like it has in the first place.

 

Though the reasons for the economy’s weakness are numerous, a couple of glaring statistics provide a quick picture. Wages haven’t risen in years, the work-week’s been shortened, the unemployment calculation's been changed to hide the long-term unemployed while roughly half the population’s receiving some kind of government assistance or other. At the same time, the nation itself is in in debt for over $18 trillion.

 

One current positive ought to be the rapidly declining price of oil, which ordinarily would stimulate consumer spending. However, the price is dropping for all the wrong reasons. Especially the fact that nobody wants or needs the oil because half the country has nowhere to go. They haven’t got jobs and therefore, don’t have to commute and certainly can’t afford to travel for vacations.  

 

On another subject, “Fox News CEO and Chairman Roger Ailes on Tuesday called for Donald Trump to apologize for his "unprovoked attack" against host Megyn Kelly, after the Republican presidential candidate made a series of disparaging comments about "The Kelly File" host on Twitter the previous evening.

 

"Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should," Ailes said in a statement. "We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we're certainly not going to start now."

 

There are several interesting aspects to this one, because one would have to be pretty shortsighted to take on the premier network in supporting Republican candidates. Furthermore, Roger Ailes is one of the most highly respected media giants in the world who could sink Trump and his campaign in a heartbeat. Therefore, this is like a student dearly in need of a passing grade to stay in school and calling the teacher grading his paper a moron before his test was reviewed.

 

And, what’s even worse for Trump is that Megan Kelly’s a female who took his attack like a professional of any gender. Trump, on the other hand, came across like a spoiled little girl having a hissy fit because somebody insulted her dress. That kind of behavior belongs in a schoolyard catfight, far beneath someone seeking the position of POTUS. Which goes to indicate Trump’s in over his head and doesn’t know how to act in an arena he reached by mistake.     

 

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

 

Yesterday, FoxNews.com reported that it was found “that The State Department does not appear to have submitted legally required information regarding Hillary Clinton's secret computer server to the Department of Homeland Security during her term as secretary.”

 

“All federal government agencies are mandated to submit a list of systems, vulnerabilities and configuration issues to DHS every 30 days. The department then performs a "cyberscope audit" to ensure security, a responsibility the agency has had since 2010.” 

 

“FoxNews.com learned of the lapse as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request submitted June 11. It is not clear if State Department officials in charge of compliance with the DHS audits knew of their boss's server, which has been shown to have included "top secret" information in emails. 

 

“And now, today, One of the emails that triggered the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s server contained classified intelligence from three different agencies, Fox News has learned – which could mean the State Department violated a President Obama-signed executive order by authorizing its release.”

 

So, another day’s gone by and the situation worsens for Bill’s wife, who may wind up sinking below Joe Biden’s poll results all by herself and due to her evasive conduct before he even enters the race. Which leads to the daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

 

PS: A FB friend posted this this morning.

 

 

BloggeRhythms

Several interesting items today confirm that persistence counts. Especially for those having the benefit of being on the right side of the arguments. 

 

To begin, for a very long time now it’s been opined here that the vast majority of those on the left continually foster and endorse political theory’s and positions that have very little, if any, relationship to reality. One favored farce has been, until recently, the promotion of global-warming which hasn’t occurred in the past eighteen years. 

 

And now, today, a better and clearer reality can be seen of the economic damage obliquely caused to the nation by the left’s attempts to stem the use of fossil fuels.   

 

Clifford Krauss and Rick Gladstone report @nytimes.com that: “Oil, the lifeblood of many countries that produce and sell it, appears to be rapidly turning into an ever-cheaper economic curse.”

 

In terms of cost, a year ago, the international price per barrel of oil was about $103. Today it’s below $40.00. 

 

As a result, “In oil-endowed Iraq, where an Islamic State insurgency and fractious sectarian politics are growing threats, a new source of instability erupted this month with violent protests over the government’s failure to provide reliable electricity and explain what has been done with all the promised petroleum money.”

 

Then, “In Russia, a leading oil producer, consumers are now paying far more for imports, largely because of their currency’s plummeting value. In Nigeria and Venezuela, which rely almost completely on oil exports, fears of unrest and economic instability are building. In Ecuador, where oil revenue has fallen by nearly half since last year, tens of thousands of demonstrators pour into the streets every week, angered by the government’s economic policies.”

 

Furthermore, “Even in wealthy Saudi Arabia, where the ruling family spends oil money lavishly to preserve its legitimacy, the government has been burning through roughly $10 billion a month in foreign exchange holdings to help pay expenses, and it is borrowing in the financial markets for the first time since 2007. Other Arab countries in the Persian Gulf that are dependent on oil exports, including Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain, are facing fiscal deficits for the first time in two decades.”

 

Therefore, if the administration had not pandered to lobbyists and major donators, such as Tom Steyer’s millions, and instead allowed oil drilling to continue offshore, many major enemies would have been significantly thwarted eight years ago. Even ISIS wouldn’t have grown as fast as it has. However the administration’s total ISIS miscalculation is another story altogether.

 

Reader Larry, summed the current situation up perfectly, writing: “Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran....it's about time they felt some of the pain. Political instability? Who cares, they are no friends of ours under any circumstances. Lower energy prices will stimulate economic development of all kinds and that can only be good for people everywhere. People with jobs and money have no time for political unrest.”

 

Another indication’s of things to come involving persistence were noted by Jeff Zeleny and Peter Morris, @cnn.com, who wrote: “Vice President Joe Biden received President Barack Obama's "blessing" to make a 2016 bid for the White House, according to a senior Democrat.”

 

In that regard, the next evidence of persistency will likely be the POTUS steering Soros and his billions, along with the  moveon.org machine toward supporting his Veep's candidacy. 

 

And then, further evidence of the value of not giving up, despite the clamor from those continually attempting to thwart their efforts, arose today regarding Lois Lerner who has now been found, just like Bill Clinton’s wife, to possess another email account address.

 

Stephen Dinan @washingtontimes.com writes: “Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said it was stunning the agency was just now admitting the existence of the address.

 

“It is simply astonishing that years after this scandal erupted we are learning about an account Lois Lerner used that evidently hadn’t been searched,” he said, accusing the IRS of hiding Lerner-related information throughout — including the existence of the backup tapes of her official email account, which the agency’s inspector general easily found once it went looking for them.”

 

Now, it certainly isn’t known what Lerner will say regarding her obviously having misled Congressional investigators, especially Darryl Issa who headed the committee. However, if she were an astronaut, she might utter something like: Houston, we have a problem. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife and the results of a new survey by rasmussenreports.com.

 

According to Rasmussen, its “latest national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Clinton should suspend her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination until all of the legal questions about her use of the private e-mail server are resolved. Nearly as many (44%) disagree. Nine percent (9%) are undecided.

 

“Forty-five percent (45%) of all voters - but only 18% of Democrats - now consider the national security questions raised about Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State to be a serious scandal. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of likely voters consider the matter an embarrassing situation, while nearly as many (23%) say it’s no big deal.”

 

However, an additional statistic indicates the probability of growing problems for her because: “Even one-in-four Democrats (24%) agree that the front-runner for their party’s nomination should suspend her campaign for the time being. But that compares to 73% of Republicans and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”

 

And therefore, if 46% of unaffiliated voters think today that her campaign should be suspended with over a year to go until the election, she’s in a world of trouble vote-wise. But what’s far worse is that as additional evidence surfaces of misuse of emails, voter mistrust can only grow, especially among those not beholden to her.

 

Which leads to the daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Several short but extremely salient points today.

 

Yesterday in a Fox News interview, Mike Huckabee raised a significant point, observing that those in Congress supporting the highly questionable Iran nuclear deal are going to eventually have to face their constituent voters. And since the deal is highly unpopular across the nation, by blindly following the POTUS, they very well may be on their way out of office.

 

On another issue, as of this moment the Dow industrial average has lost over a thousand points this morning. Which means that the significant dependence on foreign markets by major corporations is coming home to roost. While at the same time, the U.S. economy which has long been bolstered by federal funds pumped into the system instead of solid industrial growth, has no solid base to offset the weakness in foreign trade. All of which benefits Republicans who will get votes from independents next November, whether they deserve those votes or not. 

 

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

 

On Sunday, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that she is “indeed the focus of a Justice Department probe.”

 

Calling the argument that the investigation is about her private email network when she was secretary of state “ridiculous," Mukasey told Fox News: “The FBI doesn’t investigate machines. It investigates people.” And, "It is not a political witch hunt."

 

Leading to the daily question which Joe Biden may already be answering: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

An article today, by Jonathan Weisman @nytimes.com, is a cause for scratching one’s head in confusion. Mr. Weisman writes that: “In his most comprehensive effort to assure wavering Democrats, President Obama wrote in a letter to Congress that the United States would unilaterally maintain economic pressure and deploy military options if needed to deter Iranian aggression, both during and beyond the proposed nuclear accord.”

 

Addressed to N.Y. Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler, it’s also aimed at other Democrats with concerns about the deal

 

Now here’s the really confusing part: “Obama pledged to increase missile defense funding for Israel, accelerate co-development of missile defense systems, and boost tunnel detection and mapping technologies. He also vowed to increase cooperation with Israel and Persian Gulf allies to counter Iran’s efforts to destabilize Yemen, its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its efforts to preserve the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

 

However, while all of the steps described by the POTUS make absolute sense, why not take them anyway without an agreement and keep the sanctions in place. Because the sanctions are obviously working at present and the odds of bringing them back in the event of an almost guaranteed Iranian default are likely lees than zero.

 

Which means that, as suspected here all along in the past, the POTUS has another agenda in play. Because even he knows that this deal is nothing but a huge giveaway to Iran, and a major threat to rest of the Middle-East. Particularly Israel immediately, and then the U.S. later on. 

 

Another subject continues the article addressed yesterday by David A. Fahrenthold @washingtonpost.com titled: “Republican candidate Donald Trump’s platform: Because I said so.”

 

In essence, the article pointed out that except for trying to sound tougher than other Republican presidential contenders regarding illegal immigration, Trump’s platform on everything else is basically repackaged hot air. 

 

Furthermore, when pressed for specifics as to how his ideas would be implemented, Trump most often answers that he knows how to do it, and therefore doesn’t have to go into details and should just be trusted because of who he is. Which is exactly the same way that Obama and Nancy Pelosi misled the voters about Obamacare, one of the worst program ever foisted on the American public. 

 

On another topic: “Trump has contemplated expensive new plans. To fight the Islamic State, for instance, he has advocated a military campaign aimed at removing the oil out from under the militants’ territory. 

 

“Take back their wealth. Take back the oil. . . . You bomb the hell out of them and then you encircle it, and then you go in” with an oil company, Trump has said. “Once you take that oil, they have nothing left. And it’s so simple.” 

 

However, what the military genius left out, or didn’t contemplate, is that after you “bomb the hell out of them,” you have also more than likely destroyed the wells. And if you didn’t, how do you transport the oil through bombed out pipelines? Perhaps a cup at a time with a ladle and an empty bottle.    

 

What he said that does sound sensible, though, is calling for “a 25 percent tariff on all goods imported from China if China wouldn’t stop unfair trade practices.” He has also called for increased tariffs on imports from Mexico in order to pay for his wall. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, China is presently going through an economic reversal and in all likelihood will clean up its own act if it wants to survive financially. While in Mexico's case, he’s going to need their help in handling the outpouring of illegals he’s proposing. Making tax increases probably unlikely at present. 

 

And finally, he did suggest something truly valid by also threatening “American companies with tariffs if those companies wanted to shift U.S. jobs overseas.”

 

Trump said, “I would call up the head of Ford, who I know. If I was president, I’d say, ‘Congratulations. I understand that you’re building a nice $2.5 billion car factory in Mexico and that you’re going to take your cars and sell them to the United States, zero tax,’ ” Trump said during his campaign announcement. “So I would say, ‘Congratulations. That’s the good news. Let me give you the bad news . . . we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax.’ ”

 

Thus, while the tariff would be a good idea for many reasons, it still doesn’t offset the problems inherent in electing an inexperienced amateur at national governance. Especially one who’s gone bankrupt four time in business ventures while saving his real estate entities from the same fate thanks to a bailout pact agreed upon in August 1990 by some 70 banks. 

 

The bailout allowed Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed. Sounds pretty much like the way Obama’s running the whole debt ridden U.S. he’s ruined economically. Except Obama got his bailout money from the biggest bank of all, the Federal Reserve.  

 

On the other side, Josh Lederman and Ken Thomas @myway.com, write about Joe Biden, saying his meeting yesterday with Elizabeth Warren “was the latest sign that the vice president is seriously considering entering the race, and that he's increasingly discussing it with Democratic leaders outside of his small cadre of longtime advisers.

 

The authors believe this is, “extremely important because Warren, a vocal advocate for economic fairness and Wall Street reform, has notably refrained from endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders or the other candidates. She retains the vocal support of many in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, making her endorsement one of the most highly sought in the primary.”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who according to Amy Chozick @nytimes.com, “had planned to spend the last two weeks of August on vacation, unwinding and fund-raising on the exclusive shores of Long Island. But, as it turns out, this is no time for a vacation.

 

"Amid concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s softening poll numbers and her exclusive use of a personal email server as secretary of state, she will interrupt her Hamptons stay next week to travel to the Midwest and try to shift attention back to her campaign message by unveiling new policy positions.”

 

What’s interesting here, is that Bill’s wife advocates helping those in need, including plans leaning toward income redistribution. Yet, after her emergency campaign trip: “She will then return to the Hamptons, where she and former President Bill Clinton are renting a beachside estate in Amagansett that costs $100,000 for a two-week stay, and will attend several $2,700-per-person fund-raisers hosted there by her wealthy friends.”

 

Ms Chozick goes on to note that, “With questions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email persisting — a federal judge said Thursday that the practice did not comply with government policies — and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. considering seeking the Democratic nomination, the late-August doldrums have proven anything but.” 

 

Leading to the daily question which Joe Biden may already be answering: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today's headlines suggest panic in the streets, because the Dow industrials lost 530.94 points on Friday, closing at 16459.75, which is classified as “correction territory,” defined by a 10% decline from a recent high. Similarly, the S&P 500 dropped 64.84 points, while the Nasdaq Composite fell 3.5%, or 171.45 points, to 4706.04. 

 

While the Dow’s more than 1,000-point drop for the week was the largest since Oct. 10, 2008, U.S. oil prices also briefly dropped below $40 a barrel on Friday, a level not seen since the financial crisis.

 

What’s most interesting, however, is that although many are greatly upset by their losses, one currency investor calling it "a race to the bottom, the results seem to be having significantly positive effects for the nation as a whole. Because, according to news reports, “First China, then Vietnam, then Kazakhstan removed their pegs, exacerbating a rout in emerging-market currencies to reach record lows. Malaysia’s ringgit weakened to a 17-year low, the worst developing-nation performance this month after Russia’s ruble. Colombia, where oil is the biggest export, also saw its peso weaken to an all-time low.”

 

And, therefore, America strengthened itself versus other nations lacking the resiliency, substance or basic underlying economic strength to sustain, or fund, further potential threats against the U.S..   

 

Additionally, weak manufacturing data out of China was the latest bad news wreaking havoc in financial markets this week. The devaluation of the yuan has sparked global growth concerns that hit almost every global asset class, finally reaching what had until now been a bastion of stability: the S&P 500. Which means that, except for those U.S. entities or individuals invested in China in any way, the probability is that a long range benefit has been gained here for the nation as well. 

 

On another subject, whereas Trump gained additional headlines by staging a rally in Alabama, attracting a huge turnout, it seems to be time for his opponents to begin publicizing his record. Because the major advantage Trump has now, is that he’s not a politician. And therefore, he’s currently beholden to no one and can say whatever he pleases. Most of which is plain, every day common sense. His only problem is that his ideas can’t be implemented or others would have done so already, while logic clearly demonstrates that he certainly can’t fulfill his promises either.

 

A recap of Trump’s objectives was found in an article by David A. Fahrenthold @washingtonpost.com titled: “Republican candidate Donald Trump’s platform: Because I said so.”

 

On the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump would build a long, impenetrable wall. In the rest of the country, he would pressure the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to “self-deport” — and, if they don't, round them up to deport en masse. Later, Trump says, “the good ones” could come back.” While a significant number of voters would certainly agree with that, perhaps a huge majority, logistically at this point, it’s impossible to accomplish.

 

“He wants to repeal “Obamacare.” He has called global warming “bull----.” He wants to end the Common Core education program and renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran.” And all other Republican candidates continually agree with that and say so themselves. Except, perhaps, Ron Paul. 

 

“But, at other times, he sounds more like a Democrat: Trump, for instance, rejects GOP plans to overhaul Medicare.”

 

He also claims that he’s going to make the economy “sing,” and that  under his leadership there will be more jobs. Yet, even when pressed, he doesn’t say how except that he’s Trump, and therefore it must be true.  

 

He also want’s to curb parts of the Environmental Protection Agency, citing “clean-air enforcement as an area where regulators have become too burdensome," while, "more growth would make up for lower tax rates.” And, here as well, all other Republicans promote the same thing, as do a recently growing group of Democrats, including some allowances in oil drilling restrictions directly from the POTUS himself. 

 

“In his 2011 policy book, “Time to Get Tough,” Trump called for eliminating the income tax on corporations entirely: “A zero percent corporate tax would create an unprecedented jobs boom,” he wrote.” Which is patently ridiculous. Because while workers would flourish significantly, the nation would be unable to pay its bills or provide any services.

 

Mr. Fahrenthold’s article moves on to cover additional topics, such as foreign policy, oil importing and banking and finance, which will be covered here tomorrow. But for today, the answer Trump provides as the reason he can do whatever he proposes is because, “he’s Donald Trump.” Perhaps his bankers should be consulted on that one.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. This one coming from the Washington Examiner’s Sarah Westwood, who reports that, “State Department officials have uncovered 17,855 emails sent between a former Hillary Clinton spokesman and reporters that the agency long claimed did not exist.

 

“The trove was among more than 80,000 emails belonging to Philippe Reines, a Clinton aide, that were discovered on his State Department account, officials said in court filings Aug. 13.

 

“In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Gawker Media in 2013, the State Department said it had no responsive records. Gawker was seeking official correspondence between Reines and reporters from 33 news outlets.”

 

Thus, after two years of denials, almost 18 thousand “lost” emails have suddenly reappeared, much like in 1966 when Bill’s wife claimed no knowledge that the Clinton White House illegally obtained FBI files on adversaries. Yet, it was proved that she did and they were used to smear others politically. And, thus, the beat goes on as history repeats itself.

 

Which leads to the ongoing daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Another day’s arrived, and additional information’s leaked to the press regarding the Iranian nuclear giveaway by the POTUS and his administration.

 

Details reported by the Associated Press, say: “The so-called side deal, labeled "Separate arrangement II," says Iran will "provide to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]" photos and videos of locations and environmental samples, "taking into account military concerns." Which means that, to all intents and purposes, Iran has significant, if not complete, control over information provided in regard to its nuclear weaponry development in the future.

 

In that regard, and has often been mentioned here, the reasons for Iran’s receiving such favorable treatment from the administration is that the POTUS, and those closest to him, likely have a different agenda than what’s in the best interests of the U.S., and certainly its ally Israel.

 

Additional confirmation of the administration’s actions came from presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson who “wrote in a recent op-ed piece for The Jerusalem Post that a speech this month by Obama in support of his Iran nuclear deal was “replete with coded innuendos employing standard anti-Semitic themes.”

 

Telling “Fox News Sunday” that on a recent visit to Israel he “couldn’t find a single person there who didn’t feel that this administration had turned their backs on Israel., he added that, “All you have to do … is go to Israel and talk to average people on all ends of that spectrum.”

 

The doctor, “like most Republicans, does not support the deal, in part because they think it would put Israel in greater danger of a nuclear or non-nuclear attack by Iran.”

 

However, it isn’t just the extremely unfavorable Iran deal that has upset voters, as evidenced by traditionally Democrat leaning Jeff Greenfield in an article @politico.com’s magazine who tilted an article: “Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression—even if Hillary wins.”

 

Mr. Greenfield writes that, “Barack Obama took office in 2009 with 60 Democrats in the Senate—counting two independents who caucused with the party—and 257 House members. Today, there are 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, the worst showing since the first year after the Reagan landslide. Across the Capitol, there are 188 Democrats in the House, giving Republicans their best showing since Herbert Hoover took the White House in 1929.”

 

The author goes on to opine that the preceding is only “the tip of the iceberg. When you look at the states, the collapse of the party’s fortunes are worse. Republicans now hold 31 governorships, nine more than they held when Obama was inaugurated. During the last six years the GOP has won governorships in purple and even deep blue states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio. In the last midterms, only one endangered Republican governor—Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania—was replaced by a Democrat. (Sean Parnell in Alaska lost to an independent.) Every other endangered Republican returned to office.”

 

Moving on to state legislatures, “In 2009, Democrats were in full control of 27 state legislatures; Republicans held full power in 14. Now? The GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold full power in just 11. In 24 states, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature—giving them total control over the political process. That increased power at the state level has already led to serious consequences for Democrats, for their political future and for their goals.”

 

Summing the situation up, Mr. Greenfield writes: “Wait, you are asking: Don’t Democrats, with the demographic wind at their backs, have a good chance of holding the White House? Doesn’t the Senate map give them a real shot at retaking the Senate? Don’t national polls show that the GOP is far more unpopular than the Democratic Party?

 

“Yes—and a third term for Democrats along with a recaptured Senate would clearly affect Obama’s political legacy. Even with those victories, however, the afflictions of Democrats at every other level would ensure enduring political trouble.”

 

Thus, after reading what the national statistics clearly confirm, the real question becomes why top national Democrats continue pursuing goals and objectives that most of their own constituents around the nation obviously don’t agree with. And the answer to that one is, today’s politicos, are not only totally out of touch with their supporter’s wishes, they only represent themselves and the most free-spending lobbyists. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, whose troubles are growing exponentially.

 

Reuters reports today that, “For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

 

“But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account.”

 

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

 

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

 

Which means that evidence arising that she willfully and unlawfully possessed, concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed classified material is a distinct possibility. And in that case, much like the sentence given to David Petraeus to serve two years on probation and to pay a $100,000 fine, she may be criminally charged as well.  

 

And that leads to the ongoing daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Democrat politicians may now have to wake up to the insanity of continually voting along party lines, instead of using their heads and actually trying to grasp the ramifications of critical issues facing the nation they’re supposed to be representing.

 

Today, FoxNews.com reported that, “Capitol Hill opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal was stoked Wednesday by a bombshell report that Tehran will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect one of the country's most controversial nuclear sites."

 

Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, summed the situation up succinctly by stating, “Allowing the Iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites, particularly a notorious military site, is like allowing the inmates to run the jail."

 

Therefore, what’s going to be far more interesting to see, is that since there’s very little doubt that the Iranians have no intentions of maintaining their side of the bargain, what Democrats voting in favor of the deal will do when Iran violates the terms. 

 

The good news then, is for the Republicans. Because their opposition may not recover at the polls from the mistake of following a misguided leader for many years into the future, if ever.  

 

On another issue, Republican political consultant Karl Rove appearing on Fox News this morning opined that now isn’t the time for Joe Biden to enter the presidential race. Rove’s rationale was that Biden lacks the organization, support groups and infrastructure to mount a strong campaign against Bill Clinton’s wife who, in Rove’s opinion, will continue to maintain a commanding lead. If, however, Biden jumps in right before the election, he’d have a better chance of victory, says Rove.

 

And then, a few minutes later a new Quinnipiac swing-state poll.viewed on-line shows that, “Vice President Joe Biden runs as well or better than Hillary Clinton against top-tier Republicans. Among general election voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, Biden looks like a better bet.” 

 

What’s more, “The veep beats Donald Trump by a commanding 10 points in Ohio, double Clinton’s margin in the same matchup. Biden also wins against former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla., and comes within shot of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., in Biden’s native Pennsylvania. Overall, the poll shows Biden in a similar position to Clinton and could be just as strong a contender for Democrats.”

 

And, extremely importantly, “Even better news for Biden? His trustworthiness rating hangs around 60 percent in the three states… about the same percent of voters who do not trust Clinton.”

 

Now, in reality, the poll indications are likely quite well-known to the always well-informed Mr. Rove. Thus, one can only surmise that his trying to dissuade a Biden run is because he’d prefer to have the eventual Republican candidate run against the badly weakened wife of Bill Clinton. Which in its own subtle way is a further indication of Joe Biden’s electability, and Rove’s fearfulness of him.

 

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

Most of the items in the news surround the brewing probability of Bill’s wife’s mishandling of information that should never have been sent to, kept or viewed on a private server in her home. And even, worse, maintained by a mom-and-pop outfit that stored them in an old bathroom closet in a downtown Denver loft.

 

The story’s regarding the potential of dereliction can be found all over the web from news agencies, critics, pundits and others. However, what’s most interesting today are a couple of reader’s comments following two of the reports.  

 

Byron Tau and Robert McMillan @wsj.com wrote that, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday that emails on the private server she used when she was secretary of state contained material that is now classified, the clearest explanation thus far of an issue that has roiled her bid for the presidency.

 

At the same time, the campaign sought to play down the disclosure by saying the material had been retroactively classified out of an abundance of caution by U.S. intelligence agencies.”

 

In response, reader John Williams, wrote:

 

“Recent interview with Bill Clinton:

 

“Question to Bill Clinton : What's the ideal breakfast setting ?

 

“Answer : You're sitting at the kitchen table and your daughter is on the cover of the Wheaties box , your mistress is on the cover of  Playboy , and your wife is on the back of a milk carton.”

 

And then, after an article titled, “Government Inquiry Into Clinton Emails Likely To Widen, by Carrie Johnson @npr.org, D SR posted the following:

 

DELETING HILLARY █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.

 

Which leads to the ongoing daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks. 

 

 Adios