Wednesday, September 30, 2015


While the story of top automaker Volkswagen’s problems continue to emerge, the cause of the company’s woes indicate that the situation may be only the tip of a worldwide iceberg for countless other manufacturers and other types of products. 

That’s because the issue stems from a business not being able to meet governement requirements far too stringent, costly, or both, which eventually caused them to either cheat or risk losing billions in sales.

As far as the details go, Andreas Cremer writes that; “Volkswagen said previously about 11 million vehicles were fitted with software capable of cheating emissions tests, including 5 million at its VW brand, 2.1 million at luxury brand Audi, 1.2 million at Skoda and 1.8 million light commercial vehicles.”

The company’s new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, said VW will tell customers they’ll need to have diesel vehicles with illegal software refitted, which some analysts have said could cost more than $6.5 billion. The company said last week it would set aside 6.5 billion euros ($7.3 billion) to help cover the cost of the crisis.

VW's 10.1 million vehicle sales for the year ranked second behind Toyota’s 10.23 million sold in 2014. Thus, for VW, the 11 million affected auto’s equate to more than last year’s total sales.

At the same time, each day brings additional news of how significantly the lowering price of oil is harming Russia, Iran, Middle-East cartels and even hostile South American nations. Which means that, if the U.S. did all it could to keep increasing production, open the Keystone pipeline, and sell oil at continually decreasing prices, within a reasonably short time major enemies would be substantially curtailed, if not economically crippled completely.  

However, not only won’t those in the totally misguided administration apply every day common sense to the nation's advantage, for political purposes they'll  sit back and watch as enemy’s gain in financial strength and major international manufacturer’s face collapse. All based on environmental projections that haven’t been correct for the past eighteen years, and surely won’t be for at least the next 10 years due to planetary cooling caused by the Polar Vortex.   

On another matter, Chris Stirewalt comes across as a pretty bright guy, and his daily column, usually contains some accurate and timely information. However today he wrote a paragraph that makes little sense at all. As follows:

Chris wrote: “No doubt (Rand) Paul has been hurt by the merciless taunts of Donald Trump, but frontrunners in 2008 and 2012 did the same to Paul’s dad and it didn’t seem to hurt him with core voters. It may have even helped him by calling attention.”

So, which point applies here? Because careful reading implies that taunting by front-running candidates is very harmful, except for when it helps.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.  
According to WashEx via Chris Stirewalt: “Clinton Foundation officials courted a Russian billionaire to join a 2012 meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, seeking the advice of State Department staff about the invitation. The well-connected charity wanted to invite Viktor Vekselberg, founder of major Russian conglomerate Renova Group, to attend the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City that year. Amitabh Desai, the foundation’s director of foreign policy, asked a top aide to Hillary Clinton if the State Department would be troubled by the invitation, according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. 
“Vekselberg, a close friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been involved in multiple corruption investigations spawned from his far-reaching commercial activities in oil, aluminum and investments. Renova Group has donated as much as $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.”

So, here we have another case of Clinton coordinated extortion. Something that seems to arise on  a daily basis. In fact, it’s become so routine it’s becoming quite boring and therefore, has to be watched even closer. Because, if familiarity with the subject inures voters into becoming comfortable and complacent with that kind of behavior, it’s possible that some of them might even vote for Bill’s wife anyway.

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

That’s it for today folks.


Tuesday, September 29, 2015


On a slow news day, came across an article by Joe Trippi. He’s the Democratic strategist and media consultant who ran Howard Dean's campaign for president and was a media advisor to Gov. Jerry Brown in 2010.

Mr. Trippi writes: “The pundits have it wrong. Unless or until Biden decides to run, Clinton doesn't face much of a challenge. And if Biden does run, Clinton is still going to be very tough to beat.”

While Mr. Trippi’s words denote confidence in his favorite presidential candidate, they’re remindful of someone mentioned here before in similar instances: Baghdad Bob, Sadam Hussein’s  Information Minister in Iraq.

Asked about America’s possible military action in Iraq, Bob said: “By God, I think this is rather very unlikely. This is merely a prattle. The fact is that as soon as they reach Baghdad gates, we will besiege them and slaughter them....Wherever they go they will find themselves encircled."

On another occasion he exclaimed: “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

And soon after that, he was picked up bodily by two U.S. soldiers and carried off his own live TV stage while still loudly proclaiming that Saddam’s forces were winning the war.

So, I guess it’s all a matter of how one interprets the facts of any given situation. 

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

According to Theodore Schleifer, “Former President Bill Clinton blamed Republicans who hope to undercut his wife’s presidential chances and a voracious political news media uninterested in substance for the furor surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private email account and server while she was secretary of state.

“I have never seen so much expended on so little,” Mr. Clinton said in a taped interview with Fareed Zakaria that is scheduled to be shown Sunday on CNN. The network released excerpts on Saturday afternoon. “

What’s most remarkable, however, is the approach the former president took, treating the gross mishandling of secure information regarding the nation’s State Department as if it was just a simple lapse of judgment.

Attempting to brush the issue off, Bill said: “She said she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion. And she’d like to give the election back to the American people. I think it will be all right. But it’s obvious what happened.”

Try as he may, though, voters apparently don’t agree with the former president as exhibited in a new Fox News poll showing: “Some 38 percent of voters view Clinton favorably, down from 45 percent in May.  The downward shift comes from the fact that half of women now rate her negatively.  Positive views among Democrats are also down since May (-11 points.)

“Overall, a record high 56 percent of voters now have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton.” 
While none of the people tested -- not the president, not the vice president and not the 2016 contenders -- garner positive ratings from at least 50 percent of the electorate, Vice President Joe Biden comes closest.  His favorability stands at 49 percent, up from 43 percent in March.

What’s also interesting is that the defense presented on his wife’s conduct in office came from a former president who was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. Which is like believing Obama’s promise that under his health care tax, you could your doctor if you wanted.

It also raises the daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.


Monday, September 28, 2015


Some new lights being shed today, on why the POTUS keeps doing all he can to prevent the curtailment of illegal immigration.
Alan Gomez, reports this morning that, according to a Pew Research Center report out today: “The percentage of people living in the USA who were born outside the country reached 13.7% in 2015 and is projected to hit a record 14.9% in 2025, the report said. The country's previous high of 14.8% was set in 1890, when waves of Irish, Italian, Polish and other immigrants were coming to the USA.”
The presidential candidates from both parties are debating the proper role of immigration in the country because the foreign-born population represents a growing share of the electorate that’s big enough to tip presidential elections. (The term "foreign-born" includes naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, visa holders and undocumented immigrants.)
On one hand, all the GOP candidates push for increased border security, while Democrats generally call for protections for undocumented immigrants living in the country and an immigration system that helps some groups of immigrants enter the country.
The clearest explanation for Democrats vision of immigrants value came from Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a group that supports immigrant rights in the USA, who said the influx of foreigners proves the USA remains a beacon of hope across the world, and politicians should accept that role for the country. 
And then Mr. Noorani made the truly critical point, adding: “The pure politics of this is that candidates from whichever party should view these numbers as the next generation of voters. They should remember that what they say now will be taken into account by future generations of U.S. citizens." Something the POTUS has counted on from the very beginning of his term in office.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Sunday, on CNN, in regard to his wife’s email scandal, Bill Clinton said: ““I have never seen so much expended on so little. The other party doesn’t want to run against her. And if they do, they’d like her as mangled up as possible.”
Then today, Ken Cuccinelli, president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia published an article on the same subject, which he began by stating: “It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.
“Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)”
Mr. Cuccinelli then went on to explain that: “According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense.]”
Mr. Cuccinelli then notes: “The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?”
Answering his own question, Mr. Cuccinelli writes: “Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.” 
Therefore, in spite of Bill Clinton’s attempt to belittle the festering situation regarding his wife, the conclusion ultimately reached by Mr. Cuccinelli indicates a different scenario altogether, as follows: “Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.”
The facts also lead to the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, September 26, 2015


For the past few days, the visiting Pope and Speaker Boehner’s resignation have been the major topics of news coverage across virtually all major media.
As far as the Pope is concerned, the topic isn’t one that can be adequately covered here. In the speaker’s case, it’s far too soon to even speculate on what the future holds regarding who his replacement will be, or what it means to the Republican party in general. Which means there’s an opportunity in the news gap to write a few words about Trump.   
An article this morning, by Jonathan Martin seems to confirm that despite his continuing lead in voter polls, there doesn’t appear to be any substance whatsoever to Trump himself.
For example, Mr. Martin writes: ”word of House Speaker John A. Boehner’s abrupt resignation reached Mr. Trump as he made his way down a hotel staircase. But he showed surprisingly little interest in what was a political bombshell.
“Well it’s a big decision that he made, it’s a great decision,” Mr. Trump said. “I think so. I think it’s good for everybody. I think it’s time, he’s been there a long time. But I think it’s time.” (After further questions, Mr. Trump grasped for an escape hatch: “What do you think?” he asked his interviewer. “You tell me.”)
Thus, in essence, in a five line paragraph, Trump said absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever.
Another example can be seen in an exchange taking place last Wednesday when: “Speaking in North Charleston, S.C., in a room that, as Mr. Rubio noted later, had scores of empty seats — Mr. Trump, 69, belittled Mr. Rubio, 44, for running up personal credit card debt.
“He’s got no money,” said Mr. Trump, who calls himself a billionaire 10 times over, “zero.”
Now, whether Mr. Rubio has any money or not notwithstanding, when it comes to presenting himself he certainly sounded far more professional in response then Trump did. Rubio said about Trump, “He had a really bad debate performance last week. He’s not well informed on the issues. He really never talks about issues and can’t have more than a 10-second sound bite on any key issue. I think he’s kind of been exposed a little bit over the last seven days and he’s a touchy and insecure guy. So that’s how he reacts and people can see through it.”
Thus, it looks like Trump got trumped by Rubio, quickly, accurately and succinctly.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and a new indication that she may be significantly losing her luster. As evidenced by some recent information about the Clinton’s foundation.
Kenneth P. Vogel and Noah Weiland write that: “The Clinton Foundation invited everyone from Pope Francis and Leonardo DiCaprio to Bill de Blasio and Janet Yellen to its showcase gathering starting Saturday in New York City, according to multiple sources familiar with the planning.
“But those invitations were among the dozens turned down by all manner of celebrities, dignitaries and donors, according to the sources, who said the controversies swirling around the foundation and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign have made some bold-faced names and donors wary of the foundation.”
As far as details are concerned: “The documents, reviewed by POLITICO, also show that the foundation had hoped to land either Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen or French economist Thomas Piketty to deliver a presentation on income inequality. Both declined, as did Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Rock legend Elton John was invited to receive an award for his efforts to fight AIDS, but he’s not coming, and neither is New York City Mayor de Blasio. He had been invited as a guest rather than as a speaker and notably has refused to endorse Clinton, despite having managed her successful U.S. Senate campaign in 2000.”
While all those declining to attend have plausible reasons, the overall trend-line is a clear indication that fear of Clinton retribution has significantly been reduced, if not eliminated completely. And, those who've declined aren’t run-of-the-mill celebrities, but are well-informed, high-profile, popular individuals.
Which also means that if those choosing to accept other alternatives to attendance indicates doubt about Bill’s wife’s electability, another question has to be asked:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That's it for today folks.

Friday, September 25, 2015


The huge news for Republicans is House Speaker, John Boehner, announcing his plan to retire at the end of October. While it’s far too early to speculate as to whether or not the speaker’s leaving will consolidate the party’s platform, it certainly should.
In fact, what’s really needed is for most of those still in the race for the party’s presidential nomination to drop out, as did Scott Walker, and let Jeb Bush go forward with all those others behind him in support.  
Which quickly brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
An article by Nicholas Confessore, held no surprises in its disclosure that: “Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly involved in arranging a new government position for a top aide that allowed the aide to begin working for a private consulting firm while remaining at the State Department, according to documents released on Thursday.
“The documents, released by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, show that Mrs. Clinton personally signed forms establishing a new title and position for the aide, Huma Abedin, in March 2012. The forms were part of a broader process in which Ms. Abedin, then Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, was transitioning to a role as a “special government employee,” which allowed her to collect salaries from the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the private firm, Teneo, which was co-founded by a former aide to President Clinton.”
This situation raises a very important issue to be considered by Democrat voters. Because it’s often reported that when asked what qualities they seek in a candidate, “consistency” always ranks near the top of the list. A very strong need is felt that party leaders must be depended upon not to waver, or change their positions or behavior later on in the future. 
And in that regard, Bill Clinton’s wife is as reliable as the sun coming up. Because she’s never, ever, changed her stripes. She’s routinely taken the path of denial, time after time, case after case throughout her public life. So, when it comes to consistency, her behavior can be bet on without fear of loss, whereas telling the truth probably doesn’t even occur to her.     
In today’s situation, Bill’s wife was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “Do you think he (Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa) had a point in raising the question of whether it was appropriate for her to be taking a State Department salary and also be paid by an outside company closely associated with your husband and by you?” 
Bill’s wife replied, “Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that. But everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.” However, as noted above, she not only was “directly involved,“ she personally signed the documents.
All of which makes one wonder again, what is it that Democrat voters see in this candidate that’s attractive? And also leads to the ongoing question:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, September 24, 2015


Chalk up another win for environmentalists and their flagship EPA, whereas it looks as if they’ve put another worldwide commercial organization out of business.
Gillian Flaccus and Tom Krisher write that: “Volkswagen comes clean about rigging diesel emissions to pass U.S. tests.”
According to the authors: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first disclosed Friday that stealth software makes VW's 2009-2015 model cars powered by 2.0-liter diesel engines run cleaner during emissions tests than in actual driving. On Wednesday, Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned and took responsibility for the "irregularities" found by U.S. inspectors — a scandal that has wiped out billions in the company's market value and raised the possibility of criminal investigations and billions more in fines.”
So, here we have another case where apparently unreasonable, unattainable, or over-reaching air-quality requirements have made it impossible for businesses to reasonably attain the standards. To the extent that a major world-wide manufacturer may be forced to close. Adding that to what’s been done to shrink the entire U.S. economy for the past seven years for similar reasons, makes one wonder when the half of the work force that’s been idled by unfounded political ideology will wake up and say they’ve suffered enough.    
On another subject, Chris Stirewalt reports that, “A CBS4 News review of U.S. Labor Department records found that Trump businesses have requested hundreds of visas in recent years claiming they were unable to find Americans willing to do even the most basic tasks. And that is particularly true at Trump’s famed Palm Beach estate called Mar-A-Lago. Every year since at least 2008, Mar-A-Lago has requested anywhere from 70 to 90 visas to bring foreign workers into the country as cooks, waiters and housekeepers. The starting pay is between $10 and $12 an hour.”
The question that gets raised here concerns what the future holds for these “foreign” workers should Trump be elected POTUS. Will he send them airplane tickets, dig them tunnels, or set up ladders to accommodate their entry to the U.S.? Because, if not, how will they ever get past his impenetrable wall between here and Mexico?   
Another item from, this one by Dana Blanton, concerns the latest Fox News national poll on the 2016 election.
Ms Blanton writes: “On the Democratic side, support for Vice President Joe Biden -- who is still considering a run -- has almost doubled since August.  But make no mistake: Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner.” 
For Republicans: “Trump stays on top with 26 percent among GOP primary voters, followed by Carson at 18 percent.  Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are next, tied at 9 percent.  All four have gained ground. After the August Fox News debate, Trump had 25 percent, while Carson had 12 percent, Fiorina 5 percent and Rubio 4 percent. “
What’s most interesting, however, is that when voters are asked to name who will win next November, without the aid of a list, a plurality says Clinton (28 percent) followed by Trump (20 percent).  However, “eight years ago, by almost four-to-one, voters said Clinton would be the next president (44 percent), followed by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (12 percent).  Barack Obama came in third at six percent (October 2007). 
Additionally, claiming that this is “fun,“ Ms Blanton goes on to note that, “when all the names are tallied by party, about the same number of voters says the name of a Democrat they think will be the next president (37 percent) as says the name of a Republican (36 percent).”
And therefore, what this article demonstrates is that this far out from the next presidential election, poll results mean just about nothing of any value. Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015


Much of today's news concerns Pope Francis’ visit to the U.S., which eliminates any need for additional comment. Other items lend very little that’s new or of major interest, providing opportunity to revisit another ongoing topic often presented here.
Kelvin Chan, AP Business Writer headed his column today: “Robot Revolution Sweeps China's Factory Floors”
Noting that: “In China's factories, the robots are rising,” Mr. Chan relates that: “For decades, manufacturers employed waves of young migrant workers from China's countryside to work at countless factories in coastal provinces, churning out cheap toys, clothing and electronics that helped power the country's economic ascent.
“Now, factories are rapidly replacing those workers with automation, a pivot that's encouraged by rising wages and new official directives aimed at helping the country move away from low-cost manufacturing as the supply of young, pliant workers shrinks.
The key factor raised by Mr. Chan is that: “With costs rising and profits shrinking, Chinese manufacturers "will all need to face the fact that only by successfully transitioning from the current labor-oriented mode to more automated manufacturing will they be able to survive in the next few years," said Jan Zhang, an automation expert at IHS Technology in Shanghai.”
An example of the many in the article encapsulates the labor situation in a company named Rapoo, as follows: “The company began its push into automation five years ago. Rapoo installed 80 robots made by Sweden's ABB Ltd. to assemble mice, keyboards and their sub-components. The robots allowed the company to save $1.6 million each year and trim its workforce to less than 1,000 from a peak of more than 3,000 in 2010.”
Two readers succinctly summed up what can be expected here in the U.S. in the very, very near future, particularly in response to the current minimum wage push by Democrat politicians. 
Doctor Evil wrote: “Coming soon to America where labor is priced higher and higher every year.”
Occam's Stubble added: “How's that $15 minimum wage workin' out for ya?”
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
According to, “Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.
“The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.
“It was not immediately clear whether all 30,000 messages Clinton said she had deleted from the server had been recovered, but one official told the Times that it had not been difficult to recover the emails that had been found so far.”
Regardless of how hard campaign representatives try to downplay the steadily growing email controversy, or the attempts at avoidance of the subject by the candidate herself, there’s littlie doubt the situation's doing major harm to her favorability.  
Margaret Talev and Arit John report that, “The findings of a national Bloomberg Politics poll released Wednesday represent a notable achievement for an as-yet undeclared candidate, suggest concerns about Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and raise the prospect of a competitive three-way race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“Clinton, once the prohibitive front-runner, is now the top choice of 33 percent of registered Democrats and those who lean Democrat, the poll shows. Biden places second with 25 percent and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is at 24 percent. The other three Democratic candidates combined are the top choice for less than 4 percent of that base.”
Adding to the good news for the vice president: “His favorability ratings are on the rise. Since the last Bloomberg poll in April, Clinton's favorability ratings have dropped 10 points, from 48 percent to 38 percent. Biden's 49 percent favorable score represents a 3-point uptick. He was the only one of a dozen national political figures and entities whose approval rating improved over the summer.”
National Journal’s Ron Fournier wrote an excellent recap of Bill’s wife situation to date. Here’s a link: FOURNIER- Come Clean or Get Out
Which leads to the ongoing question once again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That's it for today folks.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015


Not much in the news today. But the story’s in the headlines are the kind that should cause readers to scratch their heads, due to the lunacy in the details.  
Arthur MacMillan and Simon Sturdee, write the following: “Tehran (AFP) - Iran said Monday it independently collected samples at a suspect military site where illicit nuclear work is alleged to have occurred and later handed them to the UN's absent inspectors.
“The disclosure that international monitors were not physically present is likely to feed critics of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, who have poured scorn on measures used to check if Tehran's atomic programme is peaceful.
Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said: “It was done by Iranian experts, in the absence of IAEA inspectors."
Reading about Iranians inspecting their own locations, then providing the results to the UN, is so totally ridiculous it’s hard to imagine that any administration could allow such a travesty to happen. However, Republicans should be celebrating the Democrat’s self-inflicted losses, because the next story confirms the political suicide Dem’s have committed.  
Chris Stirewalt’s column includes an item titled: “New Yorkers hard on Iran deal”  
Mr. Stirewalt writes: “Support for the Iranian nuclear deal that Hillary Clinton helped set in motion as secretary of state is abysmal even in her home state of New York. Only 32 percent of registered voters in a new Quinnipiac University poll support the deal. Fifty-nine percent were opposed. This may help explain Clinton’s poor favorability rating in the Siena College poll out Monday.” 
Additionally, according to, “A Colorado nonprofit group plans to spend in the six figures to attack Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet over his support for the Iran nuclear deal, in the first major television advertisement using votes on the Iran deal to attack a vulnerable senator up for re-election. The ad, which will run Sept. 22 to Sept. 29 on Denver area ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates, pictures children counting down in various languages and then a nuclear bomb exploding, with the caption ‘A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world.’”
Since this is just the beginning, it means that between now and November 2016 voters will be buried in similar barrages of ads against the Iranian deal. And the reason that huge damage to Democrats will result, is that anyone capable of any kind of intelligent thought clearly understands that Iran has no intention of keeping their side of the bargain. And never did from the start. 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Edward-Isaac Dovere report that: “In the Clinton orbit, there’s a debate: would Biden be enough of an actual threat that they hope he stays out of the race, or would he be just trouble enough to get their stumbling candidate back into shape?"
The reason this column’s quite interesting is the next paragraph that says, “She needs to be in a fight in order to be good. The coronation was always a bad deal for her,” said the person close to her campaign.”
Now, obviously, it’s not known who the “person close to her campaign,” is. However, that “person” must either be totally unfamiliar with Bill’s wife’s past, or smoking something hallucinatory. 
Because the last time she tried to run for the presidency an unknown from Chicago had her scrambling out the door before he ever began to really campaign. In fact, he didn’t even have to “hope” before she “changed” her mind and quit.
Which brings us to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That's it for today folks.

Monday, September 21, 2015


Further evidence of the rationale behind the POTUS’s quest for open, unwatched national borders surfaced today in an article by Jessica Bliss via Drudge.
Ms Bliss writes: “Tennessee has one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country, according to Stephanie Teatro, co-executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. Already, more than 114,000, or nearly 38 percent of the total foreign-born population, are naturalized citizens and eligible to vote, she says. Statewide another approximately 75,000 immigrants are eligible to apply for citizenship today but haven't taken action.”
What the POTUS is counting on, and is proving itself to be true is that, “As the number of immigrant families continues to grow, so does their political power.
“Immigrant voters played a vital role in the recent Nashville mayoral election, as the immigrant coalition registered hundreds of new American voters, and immigrant community members reportedly turned out to the polls in large numbers, though official voter turnout demographics are not yet available.”
As a strategical political matter, although “official voter turnout demographics are not yet available,” there’s a pretty clear indication of what the statistics will be. Because, the odds hugely favor that those now gaining voting rights will almost certainly vote Democrat.
An indication of expected political leanings can be found in another article today in the same publication, The Tennessean by Adam Tamburin, as follows:
“Hundreds of rain-soaked demonstrators, some with children on their shoulders, marched down Fourth Avenue South Saturday to advocate for undocumented immigrants while Donald Trump used violent imagery to characterize them as dangerous during an event at Rocketown.
“While Trump addressed "anchor babies" and building a wall at the Mexican border, rally leaders beat on bucket drums while the crowd circled the building chanting, "Who are we? Tennessee" and "Racism has got to go."
Therefore, the Democrat party will surely continue to promote itself as the party with a heart. Presenting an image of concern for the welfare of foreigners needing aid and assistance. Yet, as has been obvious throughout the party's history, the major concern has always been high voter turnout of those they’ve paid to support them at the polls.   
On another subject, it looks as if Trump is planning to profit from his presidential campaign, already preparing to squeeze a few bucks while he can before his White House run implodes.
According to Andy Lewis, “Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a new campaign-oriented book on how to restore a “crippled” America to greatness coming Oct. 27, Simon & Schuster imprint Threshold announced.
“Per the announcement, the untitled book will touch on the “economy, big CEO salaries and taxes, healthcare, education, national security, and social issues.” Following up on the summer’s campaigning, Trump also promises to outline his “complete immigration reform” plan, including how he proposes to “secure” the border.”
While this blog really never offers any kind of advice to anyone for any reason, in this case a suggestion will be made that Simon & Schuster print as quickly as possible. Because if they don’t, they’ll have to very soon change the title to something like: “A How-Not-To on Running for POTUS” 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who over the weekend was quoted as saying, “I should have used two separate email accounts.”
While hindsight is always 20/20, Bill’s wife once again diverted her answer away from the real question. Because it really doesn’t matter how many “email accounts” she established. The issue is that she used a private server to send and receive highly classified government data and information in an unprotected location without proper authorization.
It’s also interesting that she’s presently following a pattern both she and her husband have depended upon for quite a long time now. The premise that it’s always easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask for permission beforehand. Especially when you know that what you’re doing is wrong to begin with.
However, perhaps she’ll get her comeuppance when another candidate replaces her, and those she meets later tell her, “I’m really sorry you lost. I should have voted for you.”
Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, September 20, 2015


Spending considerable amounts of time reading, thereby absorbing significant information on a wide variety of subjects provides certain insights for people like myself. One of the things that becomes obvious, is how self-serving, ego-driven, zealots take advantage of those less-informed or simply far more ignorant than themselves. Especially in the case of politicians.   
Today, Shane Ryan writes about Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders,, and Sanders' claim that “Wealth inequality is destroying the American middle class and leading to increased job loss and poverty.”
Mr. Ryan writes that Sanders "has a few favorite stats he likes to deploy to illustrate the scope of the problem, starting with the fact that in America, the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. He hammers this message home as his rabid crowds rage along: One family, the Walton’s, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent; the 14 wealthiest individuals have added $156 billion to their fortunes in the past two years, which is more than the combined assets of the bottom 130 million Americans; 56 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent; the Koch brothers, as a result of the Citizens United decision, will spend more money on the 2016 election than either Republicans or Democrats.”
However, if Sanders really cared about his constituents, he’d take his own argument and turn it around. Because those that he rails against are the one’s the nation was founded to foster. By nurturing ingenuity and capability with minimal government interference and no taxes at all. The revolutionary plan from the beginning was to permit every citizen to make the best of themselves possible. And therefore, what the successes have done is not only what the founders intended from the start, they’ve achieved fulfillment and are proof of the validity of the American Dream itself.
Sanders, however, wants to take what the successful have built and redistribute it to those who’ve accomplished absolutely nothing whatsoever to deserve it at all. 
Farther along, Mr. Ryan writes: “To Sanders, almost every other problem plaguing the country is related to this “rigged economy,” including a minimum wage of $7.25, the loss of manufacturing jobs, childhood poverty, crumbling infrastructure, college debt, racial injustice, high unemployment and incarceration rates, the death of trade unions, attacks on social security, a broken electoral system, destabilizing wars, and even the destructive march of climate change.”
Yet, what the preceding paragraph really illustrates clearly is how little Sanders audiences grasp about their nation’s own history. Because every “problem” Sanders rails against is a direct result of Democrat ideology, legislation or philosophy.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife
A couple of articles today suggest that Joe Biden’s seriously considering entering the presidential race. While that would leave considerable empty space in this blog every day, whereas Bill’s wife would likely soon drop out, it would be a very welcome turn of events.
Colleen McCain Nelson, Carol E. Lee and Peter Nicholas write that: “Vice President Joe Biden’s aides in recent days called Democratic donors and supporters to suggest he is more likely than not to enter the 2016 race, and their discussions have shifted toward the timing of an announcement, said people familiar with the matter.
“While the Biden team is still debating the best time to jump in, the vice president met Monday with his political advisers and talked about the merits of an early entry that would assure him a place in the Democratic debate scheduled for Oct. 13. They also are honing his campaign message and moving ahead with plans to raise money and hire staff, the people said.”
And then, at 10:35am this morning, Chuck Todd and Alexandra Jaffe’sMeet the Press,” wrote: Contrary to reports suggesting Vice President Joe Biden's wife remains an obstacle to his potential presidential run, sources tell NBC News that Jill Biden is fully behind him for another bid. 
“Jill Biden, sources tell NBC's Chuck Todd, is 100 percent on-board with a presidential run, despite reports indicating her hesitation is part of what's keeping Biden from jumping into the race. 
“And that looks more likely by the day, as sources have indicated Biden's been meeting with Democratic leaders during his travels around the nation over the past week to tell them he wants to do it and thinks there's room for him to make a credible bid if he does.”
So, with Biden seemingly ready to run and Bill’s wife sinking further in the polls every day, that leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, September 19, 2015


A news items today, suggests that the POTUS is continuing his campaign for dissension posed in Saul Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals. Or perhaps, is simply proving once more that his lack of leadership experience has lead to an extremely poor managerial decision 
Greg Jaffe, writes that: “President Obama, in a historic first for the Pentagon, has chosen to nominate Eric Fanning to lead the Army, a move that would make him the first openly gay civilian secretary of one of the military services.
“Fanning, 47, has been a specialist on national security issues for more than two decades and has played a key role overseeing some of the Pentagon’s biggest shipbuilding and fighter jet programs. Now he will oversee an Army that has been battered by the longest stretch of continuous combat in U.S. history and is facing potentially severe budget cuts. It’s also an Army that after a long stretch of patrolling Iraqi and Afghan villages is searching for its postwar role in protecting the nation.”
Whatever the POTUS’s motives may be notwithstanding, the nomination itself is inherently wrong. But not for what might appear to be an obvious reason; the nominees gayness. However, that’s not the flaw at all.
Regarding sexuality, Phil Carter, a veteran of the war in Iraq and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security put it this way: “My sense is that the Army is over this and has been over it for some time. The Army cares whether you can shoot straight, not whether you are straight.”
And that’s the real problem with the nomination. Because the army is all about soldiering, fighting in trenches and winning military battles on the ground, which takes hands-on experience to truly understand at all. And, unfortunately, the nominee selected is a desk-jockey whose true expertise is pushing paper, not anti-tank guns in the desert. It’s also a very safe bet that those now in uniform would rather be lead by one who headed successful invasions, than someone adept at using a stapler. 
The next item concerns the upcoming Papal visit and the Pope's stated concerns regarding global warming.
Joe Bastardi spent a 32-year career at, and is now chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm. Today,, he writes about, “Just two charts I would ask the pope to look at.”
“1.) Human progress: The amount of people, life expectancy and global personal GDP. These “hockey sticks” show that, since the advent of fossil fuels, the human condition has improved immensely.
“2.) The factual record of CO2 and temperature in the geological history of the earth.
“There is no apparent linkage, so why is CO2 suddenly the climate control knob when there were years with higher CO2 and lower temperatures?”
Mr. Bastardi concludes by writing: “I won’t go any further except to say I can’t believe his excellency, if exposed to this, would not at the very least question the positions he has adopted. It is my hope while he is here that he at least glances at other information such as this.”
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
David Mastio, headed his column “Amid controversy, slipping polls, the non-profit arm of the Clinton dynasty is no longer a safe bet.”
The text notes: “More bad news for the Clintons. With Hillary's presidential campaign slipping in the polls against Sen. Bernie Sanders and facing a potential fresh challenge from Vice President Joe Biden, six giants of the corporate world are bailing out on the Clinton Global Initiative.
“USA TODAY has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow's name is missing from the donor list as well, but the chemical company's exit is not confirmed.”
As a side-note, and perhaps the most critical indicator of Bill’s wife’s expected future: “The Obama administration is backing away as well. In 2014, the cabinet officials heading the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce, as well as key White House adviser Valerie Jarrett spoke at the conference. This year no Obama administration appointees as prominent are on the program.”
At the same time, according to “A group of prominent Democratic Party fundraisers on Friday began circulating a letter to encourage a hesitant Vice President Joe Biden to enter the 2016 race for U.S. president.
The letter, signed by nearly 50 people, calls the Obama-Biden administration a "spectacular success." 
"To finish the job, America needs a leader who is respected both home and abroad, and who understands the real challenges facing American families. In our opinion, the next president must be Joe Biden. If he announces he’s running, we’re all in. It’s a campaign we know he will win," the letter says. 
The letter makes no mention of Clinton, and leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, September 18, 2015


I mentioned yesterday, that I hadn’t watched the Republican presidential debate because I could never grasp the purpose of those kind of events in the first place. Then I came across the following comment from Rush on his website:
Rush said, “Anyway, okay.  I'll tell you here just stream of consciousness thoughts.  Overall -- and I'm gonna back all this up with detail in a moment -- the overall view of the night is that not a whole lot is gonna change because of what happened last night.  Not a whole lot.”
Then he made the most important point by exclaiming: “No, no, no, no. There's no question last night Carly Fiorina's star shown brighter than anybody. There's no question about it. But we're nowhere near the end of this.  There's still much to happen here, and none of it predictable.  So all in all, it was a good night for conservatism, provided those articulating it mean it, which is always what's up for grabs.” And thus, in conclusion, it all boiled down to a waste of time for most, except bored political junkie's.
On another subject, if there was ever any doubt as to why the POTUS wants open, unbridled borders, Kate Linthicum provided significant proof of his motives yesterday.
Ms Linthicum wrote: “Democrats have done their best to exploit the moment. On Thursday, the White House set out a new initiative aimed at the roughly 8.8 million legal permanent residents of the U.S. who are eligible for citizenship but have not sought it. The program is designed to make the process easier and less daunting for applicants.
“White House officials insisted the initiative was not politically motivated, but the political effect is clear: Most of the potential new citizens are Latino and could be expected to vote for Democrats if they become eligible.” And that says it all in crystal clear English.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, as follows:
According to Steve Guest, Media Reporter, "She “could not name her “number one accomplishment” while she was secretary of state during her first live interview of the campaign season with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Thursday.
“Clinton instead said that anyone who is interested in her accomplishments should “read my book ‘Hard Choices.'”
Mr. Guest then posted the following comments between Wolf Blitzer and Bill’s wife.
Wolf Blitzer: Carly Fiorina, she said if you want to stump a Democrat she said ask them about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as Secretary of State. If you were on that debate stage with her, what would you say was your number one accomplishment as Secretary of State?
Bill’s wife’s answer is long, but illustrates that, after speaking all those words, this empty dress said absolutely nothing about her record of accomplishments. And that’s because Carly Fiorina’s correct, there aren’t any and, other than marrying Bill, there never were.
Here’s what Bill’s wife replied to Blitzer: “You know, Wolf, I didn’t get to see all of their debate. But I saw enough of it to know that this is just the usual back and forth political attacks, the kinds of things you say when you’re on a debate stage and really don’t have much else to say. I didn’t hear anything from any of them about how they’re going to make college more affordable or get down student debt or get equal pay for equal work for women, what they’re going to do to make sure that we deal with the challenges of raising incomes for hard working people. So I don’t really pay a lot of attention to this kind of rhetoric that heats up the debate stage. They’re all trying to vie for more attention from obviously the Republican Party. I’m going to let them decide how best to do it. But if anybody’s interested, you know, there’s a long list about what I have done. And I’m very proud of it. You can read my book Hard Choices, read about how I negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. You can read about how I put together the coalition that led to international sanctions against Iran. You can read about what I did when I was First Lady, to get the children’s health insurance program or as senator working across the aisle on issues like getting better health care for our veterans. You know, this is just the silly season. I am looking forward to eventually debating on that stage whoever they finally nominate once they get around to doing that”
So, Bill’s wife rattled off a long political speech and at the end, listed a few examples of events she had very littlie to do with, yet took the opportunity to try to earn a few more bucks selling her books.
Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, September 17, 2015


Well, it’s Thursday morning, the Republican presidential debate’s over and I didn’t watch it at all. According to news reports, after the candidates presented themselves, there was much back and forth banter and Carly Fiorina did very well again. 
In summation, as far as the candidate's running at present are concerned, only a handful of those in contention have backgrounds proving their ability to successfully manage large states. Those responsibilities include: Dealing with bureaucracy’s and government unions, overseeing national guards and critically important, coordinating and working with state legislatures in the approval of state budgets and appropriations; the enactment of state legislation, confirmation of executive and judicial appointments; and legislative oversight of executive branch functions.
Virtually none of the aforementioned duty’s have been performed by senators or congressmen running at present. And certainly not by the doctor or businessman nor businesswoman. However, since the presidency requires skills and proven experience on not only what’s required of governor's, but much more, how on earth will those lacking the large state experience learn how to perform what’s needed?
The horrendous past seven years provide the answer to that one, because the position of POTUS certainly shouldn’t be one that’s learned on the job. All the glib talk and snappy put-downs in the world won’t turn the U.S. around, however, successful use of large-state governing skill sets certainly will.
Which brings us to today ‘s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, that includes two subtle indications of her significant vulnerability.
In the New York Post’s, Emily Smith, writes that, “Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner is out of work again after just two months on the job at the powerhouse public relations firm MWW.
“According to an internal memo from MWW chief Michael Kempner, Weiner was a victim of the media who left of his own accord to start his own company and “He understands that his presence here has created noise and distraction that just isn’t helpful.”
What’s most interesting is that: “Weiner, however, criticized the memo, saying he didn’t “express any of those sentiments” expressed by Kempner.” And that sounds very much like Wiener was probably fired, which indicates a lot about Bill Clinton’s wife.
Because if Kempner truly believed Bill’s wife was going to become elected president, and Wiener is married to her closest ally and confidant, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Kempner would likely do whatever was necessary to keep Wiener employed at MWW. Yet, since he fired him anyway, it looks like Kempner doesn’t think Bill’s wife is going to make it back to the White House again.
At the same time, Michael Warren notes in The Blog @weekly that Jerry Brown, who has run for president three before, spoke with Wolf Blitzer about the current Democratic field. “California governor Jerry Brown gave signs in a Wednesday interview on CNN that he may be considering running for president.”
So, here we have another case where weakness on Bill’s wife’s part is suspected. In this case by a seasoned political professional who’s done this three times before. 
All of which indicates that the ongoing question needs asking again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015


The second Republican presidential debate takes place tonight, hosted by CNN in Simi Valley, California. Which leads to the same old question often asked here: What’s the purpose of this debate or any other?
As far as voters are concerned, the only that should matter is whether or not candidates can do the particular job. And the only proof of capability that has any value is a candidate’s performance in the same position. However, since there‘s no one running who’s been a POTUS, the next, and only, measure is performance as governor of a large state which requires much of the same managerial qualities. Therefore, those not having that credential don’t really even belong in the race for the job.
Furthermore, the job of successfully running the United States is far more a test of the kind of proven managerial capability that’s needed in dealing with bureaucracy’s, foreign leaders, and the other two branches of government than glibly disparaging competitors with witty remarks and unfullfillable promises.
As far as the value of boastful talk itself is concerned, it’s remindful of a call received from a former salesman who left my employ for an  opportunity with a major worldwide corporation. A few months after he left, he called to tell me that he’d drawn up a proposal for one of the largest organizations in the nation involving millions of dollars.
The person reviewing the offering for the prospective customer told my former salesman that his offering was the best prepared he’d ever seen, covering every detail and answering every question precisely. The customer’s representative then went on to tell the salesman that he’d called to congratulate him on being so thorough, imaginative and thoughtful. Which is why the salesman called me to tell me about it, and how proud he was to have put the proposal together.
Then, when I then asked if he’d gotten the order, the salesman said “No” he’d lost it to a competitor who was even better, I immediately hung up on him. Because, until you successfully win and deliver precisely what you promised, all the talk in the world is absolutely worthless until you prove it.  
On another subject, Josh Lederman of the Associated Press writes that: “Biden lashed out directly at GOP front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday night, telling Hispanics at a reception that Trump's "sick" message of xenophobia "will not prevail."
"This will pass - the Trump stuff and that stuff that you're hearing on the other team," Biden said. Although he was greeted with chants of "Run, Joe, Run," he brushed them aside and said, "Oh, no, no, no, no." 
Biden was there because he was “also going to pay a visit today to a solar power trade show in Anaheim, California, that organizers say is the largest in North America. In tandem with his visit, the Obama administration was designating more than $120 million for new and existing clean energy projects in 24 U.S. states, the White House said.”
Reading about the huge money that’s to be spent, which certainly explains the administration’s interest in the issue, spurred some research that showed: according to Pew Research Center on July 14, 2015, as written by Jill Carle: 42% of U.S. citizens care about global- warming. Which means that 58% don’t. 
Other issues and rankings include: ISIS 68%, Iran’s nuclear program, 62%, Cyber-attacks, 59% Global economic instability, 51% and tensions with Russia at 43%. The only issue ranking lower than global-warming is territorial disputes with China at 30% 
As far as global-warming itself is concerned, back in September 2014, Barbara Hollingsworth, wrote that: “The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. 
“That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. 
“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something' when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.
“A policy is supposed to have a goal. Well, if you don’t know how the system works, that means you don’t know how to make it go toward that goal. And that’s certainly the case now, since none of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. They’ve certainly failed in the past. And so the policy is really a fool’s errand at this point.”
Yet, Biden has no problem supporting this totally unproven cause, up to and including being proud to deliver promises of $120 million tax-payer dollars.  
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and the fact that there isn’t one. Meaning that there isn’t even anything of interest to mention about her in the news today, and 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.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


At the rate things are going for the nation, unless the Republicans do something incredibly vile or stupid (which is altogether possible,) they can’t conceivably lose the next presidential election.
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner via, reports that, “The United States, ranked second in worldwide economic freedom as recently as 2000, has plummeted to 16th, according to a new report of world economies.
The Fraser Institute's annual report, Economic Freedom of the World, showed that the country's drop started in 2010, the second year of the Obama administration.
"The United States, once considered a bastion of economic freedom, now ranks 16th in the world after being as high as second in 2000," said the report issued Monday morning.”
All one has to do is search some readily available statistics to confirm the point. Such as the fact that roughly 50% of the nation’s population is currently receiving some kind of government assistance. Or that, the workforce is the smallest its been since Jimmy Carter was president in the 1970’s. Or that, the only reason that the unemployment rate appears so low is that the administration uses a different calculation today, omitting those no longer looking for jobs after four weeks. Or that, the full time work is now 30 hours instead of the historical 40 hours of the past.  
However, what’s truly incredible is that the top 10 nations offering “economic freedom” at present are Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, with the United Kingdom and Chile tied at 10. Which means that even socialism-based governments which previously were economic dwarfs now surpass the U.S. And that’s not because they’ve grown dramatically economy-wise, but instead, since 2008 has gone straight backward. Suggesting a significant voter rebellion by the huge number of citizens who have been decimated economically by this administration and want their job opportunities back.  
On another subject, while according to a new CBS/New York Times poll, Trump is supported by 27 percent of GOP primary voters nationally, Ben Carson’s at 23 percent. That’s a 3-point rise for Trump, but quite importantly, it’s also a 17-point spike for Carson since July.  
The poll results, seem to indicate that while the voting public is still trending against traditional politicians, Trump is beginning to lose ground to a more stable, confidence building, highly successful individual, Dr. Carson. 
According to Cal Thomas “Trump is a serial violator (and he’s not alone in this) of Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment,” which states that Republicans are never to speak ill of a fellow Republican. There’s a good reason for this. If Republicans trash Republicans, by the time a nominee is chosen, the party has given Democrats a slew of disparaging sound bites they can use as political ammo in the general election campaign. Not a smart move.”
While what Mr. Thomas wrote is perfectly true, regarding providing the opposition with ammunition to be used against a candidate and his or her party, it’s also not only amateurish but makes the mud-slinger look weak, unprepared with facts and/or supporting data, and totally unprofessional in competence and manner. All of which applies to Trump. 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Rudy Giuliani appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night, discussing Bill’s wife, suggested that in his opinion, she should hire an attorney.
The former mayor‘s feeling that she needed counsel stemmed from possible bribery linked to fee’s paid to Bill and the family foundation that may have been influenced by her position when she was Secretary of State.
The mayor also opined that there may have been gross negligence regarding the handling of classified materials on Bill’s wife computer server. Raising additional questions about who might have “wiped” the data, if that actually happened. And who else might have obtained information from it, such as Russia or China. 
Additionally, the mayor believes that prior contradictory statements regarding what occurred regarding the server can be used against her in court. All of which 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.

Monday, September 14, 2015


An article today by Kenric Ward via, confirms an idea proposed here for quite a long time in the past.   
Mr. Ward writes: “While President Obama wants to open the way for Iran oil exports, Texans are pushing to put U.S. crude back on the world market, too -- a move that could save American consumers billions in fuel costs.” 
Authored by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Waco, the bill has 126 House co-sponsors, including 19 Texas Republicans and Democrats, lifting a 40-year ban on exports of U.S. crude. 
Rep. Barton said. "Lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports this year would create jobs in all 50 states and increase tax revenue upwards of $13.5 billion in 2020." 
Some energy forecasters say: “Reopening global markets to American crude could save consumers up to $5.8 billion a year through lower gas and fuel prices.  
“The 1975 crude export ban was enacted when U.S. oil production was slack and gas prices were soaring. Since then, hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and new exploration have vaulted domestic output ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia.”
However, what’s just as important as the dearly needed boost to the U.S. economy, is that oil revenues are the backbone of almost all nation’s hostile to the U.S. Including Russia, Syria, Iran and even Venezuela. And therefore, dramatically reducing their income curtails their ability to wage war. Which is why it seems ridiculous for any rational government leadership not to do all in its power to drive U.S. oil prices as low as humanly possible as fast as they can.     
On another subject, this one getting very little attention from the liberal media, the POTUS’s health care tax seems to be foundering again.
Tom Howell, writes that: “President Obama will need to more than double the number of Americans enrolled in Obamacare exchange plans to reach 21 million next year, the target set in budget projections, in what is shaping up as the next major test for the health care law.”
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, as of June, 9.9 million customers bought plans through the federal portal and a handful of state-run exchanges. While that’s ahead the administration’s own estimates for 2015, it’s also less than half what the Congressional Budget Office projected for 2016.
With enrollment begining in less than two months, “Industry analysts said the CBO’s estimate for next year is “overly optimistic” and a “stretch,” and that it will take more time for the law to attract that many people onto the Web-based markets, where consumers shop for private health care plans and typically qualify for government subsidies to reduce their monthly premiums.
In typical response to the enrollment probably falling short of projections, Elizabeth Carpenter, a vice president at Avalere Health, a D.C.-based consultancy, said, “Given where things stand, the ramp-up of enrollment may be slower than initially anticipated.” Which means that while Obamacare remains extremely unpopular for most, even among those it was supposedly designed to help, taxpayers will still find their financial exposure going up. 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
David Sherfinski writes that: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has fallen below 50 percent support in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and has found herself in a neck-and-neck contest against GOP businessman Donald Trump among registered voters, according to a national survey out this week.”
Bill’s wife had the support of 42 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the Washington Post-ABC News poll, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 24 percent and Vice President Joseph R. Biden at 21 percent.
That means her support among Democrats fell 21 points since July, while Sanders’ increased 10 points and support for Biden increased by 9.
What’s most interesting though, is that while her numbers keep sinking like a rock, she still outperforms blustering, inconsistent Trump. In a potential head-to-head match-up, she leads him by 3 points among registered voters, 46 percent to 43 percent. And among all adults, she led by 12 points, 51 percent to 39 percent. 
All of which indicates that a trustworthy Democrat would likely overwhelm Trump at the polls by a landslide in November 2016. Leading 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.