Tuesday, September 1, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Today’s underlying theme concerns “trust,” and the complete disregard for it among politicians and those surrounding them.  
 
Bernie Quigley @observer.com via Drudge writes that: “There is on the edge of the spectrum a thought awakening that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012, might get back in the race.” Mr. Romney stayed out this time around, because he and Jeb Bush ”represented a similar center of establishment principles and would appeal to the same donor base.”
 
Mr. Quigley goes on, “As Mr. Trump rises, and the Real Clear Politics current average has him ahead of the pack in New Hampshire at 28.3 percent, he rises at the expense of Mr. Bush, who is at 9 percent in the same poll. As the “establishment” candidate, Mr. Bush is suddenly being viewed as circling the drain—the frantic call goes out to Mr. Romney to enter and save the day.
 
Mr. Quigley then opines that: “They will not get Mr. Romney now. Because Mr. Romney actually is “exceptional.” And it is quite unlikely after this summer that Mr. Romney could unseat Mr. Trump anyway. Mr. Trump, like Bob Dylan or Sarah Palin, is a full-bore cultural phenomenon. They appear every 60 years or so and change everything. They shatter the orthodoxies of the establishment when it is high time that they find change. Republicans actually have the advantage and the jump on the century that this metamorphosis occurs first in their camp, although it is beginning to spread to the Democrats who have pressed Howard Schultz, chairman and CEO of Starbucks, to join the Democratic primary.”
 
Reading the preceding paragraph, one gets the sense that for all the rest of the Republicans the game is over, whereas Trump is presented as not only a “phenomenon,” but one who will be a “metamorphosing” change for the better that the party dearly needs.
 
And then, at the very end, readers find this: “Disclosure: Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is the publisher of Observer Media."
 
The next issue is just as amusing, regarding the POTUS’s Alaskan visit where yesterday he delivered a typically forceful speech about the perils of global-warming, melting glaciers and icebergs, and the horrors of rising temperatures.  
 
And now, one day later, and in the same place, Alaska, FoxNews.com reports that, “President Obama will ask Congress Tuesday to speed up the construction of new icebreaker ships in order to protect U.S. interests and resources in the Arctic, amid growing concern that the U.S. has ceded influence to Russia in the strategic waters.
 
“The proposals will be made on the second day of Obama's three-day trip to Alaska, during which the president has focused largely on climate change. The president's agenda called for him to travel to Seward, Alaska, where he planned to hike to Exit Glacier and tour Kenai Fjords National Park by boat.”
 
The POTUS is evidently concerned because, “Russia's activities in the Arctic have grown after Moscow submitted a claim to the United Nations Aug. 5 for 463,000 square miles of the Arctic sea shelf, extending more than 350 nautical miles from the country's shore. The Arctic is believed to hold up to 25 percent of the world's untapped oil and gas supplies, and the U.S., Russia, and Canada are among the nations trying to assert their jurisdiction over the region.”
 
And here’s the unbelievably hypocritical part: “Despite the immense stakes, the Obama administration acknowledged in a fact sheet about the president's proposal that the U.S. Coast Guard's icebreaker fleet is inadequate to handle a possible challenge from Moscow. Currently, the U.S. has just two working icebreakers, compared to Russia's 40. The New York Times, citing a White House fact sheet, said that Obama would also push up the expected acquisition date for a new icebreaker to 2020 from 2022.”
 
Which leads to a question regarding the POTUS’s presentations to the American public. Which one’s are we supposed to believe? Those delivering the fabrications his patrons paid for, or the ones actually containing the truth? 
 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, also from foxnews.com.
 
“The State Department released thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton's emails Monday night that a department spokesman said contained 125 messages with material now considered classified.
 
“State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the emails in question were "subsequently upgraded" to classified. He stressed that none of the emails was considered classified at the time.
 
“However, the sheer number of emails that have been redacted stands as the latest example of how much sensitive material was contained in Clinton's email transactions.’
 
While the timing of classifications can be quite confusing, and the State Department is still trying diligently to protect it’s former secretary, Weekly Standard columnist Steve Hayes explained key issues to viewers Monday on Fox News’ "Special Report with Bret Baier."
 
Although the State Department said Monday that “150 of the emails set to be released are being censored or redacted because they contain information that has since been deemed classified,” Mr. Hayes says that will become "a huge problem" for Clinton.
 
"They're saying now, this stuff is still so sensitive that we can't make it public now. Well, surely it was more sensitive when she was serving as Secretary of State, and when the information was presumably much more contemporaneous. That's a huge problem for her, there is no good explanation for it, and I continue to think that's why we're not hearing an explanation from her."
 
And then, at the same time, while she denies her knowledge of email technology, claiming to be unaware of any potential security breaches stemming from the use of her own server, a paragraph at the end of an article by Fox News Chad Pergram and Ed Henry, and also The Associated Press, indicates she’s far more computer-savvy then she’s fervently claiming to be.
 
The paragraph says: “The emails also contain a joke from Clinton about using multiple email addresses on her server. In a May 2010 email to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, Clinton says Rice should "please feel free to use (whatever my current address may be!) anytime." Fox News, citing independent research data, reported in March that Clinton appeared to have established multiple email addresses for her private use, and possibly the use of her aides, under the domain of “clintonemail.com."
 
Which means that there’s now glaring evidence that Bill’s wife knew far more about email, servers and current technology than she continually claims. And that leads to the obvious conclusion that she intentionally avoided usage of departmental resources for personal purposes. As did General Petraeus, convicted of leaking classified information, and leading 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

No comments:

Post a Comment