BloggeRhythms

Scouring today’s news, it’s astonishing that virtually no mention’s being made in the major media of the POTUS’s new ramp-up in the Middle-East. With the exception of one article found from the Associated Press on FoxNews.com.

 

According to the AP, “The United States is ramping up its support for Syria's opposition with a pledge of nearly $100 million in fresh aid.

 

“Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the additional assistance Saturday at the Manama Dialogue security conference in the Gulf island nation of Bahrain.

 

“The U.S. says the new funds bring to nearly $500 million the amount it has pledged to the opposition since 2012, and will support local and provincial councils, civil society activists, emergency services and other needs on the ground inside Syria.”

 

While spending another $100 million of taxpayer’s funds as if it was chump change is despicable on its own, the fact that the POTUS is now sending troops abroad is even more heinous. Because if he had not withdrawn U.S. forces simply to fulfill an inane campaign promise, there would be no ISIS or Syrian threats in the first place. 

 

Thus, the most important question that remains is: When will the POTUS and his party be held accountable for the horrible job in foreign policy they’ve done and its billions in unnecessary costs? And, who's going to do it?

 

Whereas there’s very little else of consequence being reported today, here’s the daily update on Bill Clinton’s wife.   

 

Chuck Ross @dailycaller.com, writes that, “Emails released by the State Department on Friday show that Hillary Clinton’s longtime friend Sidney Blumenthal reached out to her on behalf of a former United Kingdom diplomat who was interested in “setting up secret channels between insurgents and governments.”

 

“Clinton was receptive to the idea which came via Blumenthal from Jonathan Powell, former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff.

 

“It is also unclear whether Blumenthal was paid by Inter Mediate to lobby Clinton. Clinton’s emails have revealed that Blumenthal did reach out to Clinton on behalf of companies that he had financial stakes in. One of those companies, Osprey Global Solutions, was interested in providing private security services in Libya after the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Blumenthal and the company were in favor of arming insurgents to accomplish that overthrow. Clinton also entertained the idea of arming insurgents, her emails show.”

 

In this case, while the emails confirm that highly sensitive issues were addressed with an individual, Sidney Blumenthal, who was not to be contacted at all, the transmissions reinforce the fact that Bill’s wife did indeed use private emails accounts for things specifically prohibited. Confirming once again that fact fabrication, even when testifying in Congress is second-nature to her. 

 

Which is probably why the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes, put his money where his mouth is on yesterday’s "Special Report with Bret Baier.”

 

At the end of each Friday’s show Bret Baier conducts his “Candidates Casino,“ where his three guests each place “bets” on those in the presidential race, dividing $100 in “chips” among them.

 

Yesterday Mr. Hayes bet $50 on Bill Clinton’s wife, and the other $50.00 on a Democrat candidate yet to be determined. 

 

When asked why he didn’t think Bill’s wife deserved a higher probability, as did the others, he responded that he believed that sooner or later her lies and incapability's would catch up to her. Although, he's aware that at present, no one in the media seems to believe it matters.

 

Which leads to the ongoing question, while there’s still time: 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

Either Charles Krauthammer’s been inside the beltway too long, or more likely, is too theoretically centered to grasp the fact that the presidency is far more a managerial task than a purely political position. And if the past seven years haven’t shown him clearly that an unskilled speechmaker simply cannot handle the myriad responsibilities required of a POTUS, the doctor has truly become a victim of swallowing his own misguided eloquence.

 

On Thursday’s “Special Report with Bret Baier” Krauthammer said that “the GOP presidential candidates who voters would want to go up against Hillary Clinton are Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Tea Party-favorite, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.”

 

Praising them as the “most dynamic” candidates making up the GOP field, Krauthammer saud: “They really handle themselves. With dexterity on the stage in the way that nobody else did. I think it’s likely that one of those two will be the one who come up against the outsider and then we’ll see.”

 

Then he came back towards semi-rationality, by adding that Cruz considers himself “as an outsider” but “[h]e’s got some political experience. The others have none and that I think is the big difference.” Which means that somewhere in his highly-educated brain, even Krauthammer realizes that experience is an absolute necessity, although he picked the wrong talent requirement by ignoring the need for governance accomplishment.

 

On a similar point, Peggy Noonan @wsj.com titled her opinion column today: “The Not Ready for Prime Time Bush”

 

The column itself was much of the same old Noonan stuff, concluding with her conviction that Jeb Bush’s campaign is basically cooked. However, a reader,  Erv FleiahmN, posted a comment that was better than the Noonan article, and confirms a critically important point about what’s needed to qualify for the job of POTUS. 

 

Reader Erv Fleiahm wrote: “Although Jeb got the worst of the sound bites he is correct.

 

“So, if the other guy robbed a bank it justifies you to rob a bank. That is the McCain answer given by Rubio.

 

“Rubio is being paid to be my Senator and he is not doing the job.

 

“What are the actual statistics for Rubio? What were they before he became a candidate?

 

“Rubio wants to be President. What has he done as a Senator to demonstrate leadership?

 

“Do you think Hillary is going to let this go by if she is the candidate? She will unleash an attack on Rubio on this and his questionable dealings. It already has begun.”

 

“This will be an issue,” declared Craig Smith, a top adviser for the Ready for Hillary super PAC, echoing the views of many supporters and detractors alike. “When you run for president, voters and the press have an insatiable appetite for people’s histories, what they’ve done, who they are. … It raises questions about his judgment, about the kind of people he would bring with him into government, into a campaign.”   

 

Which is why, if Republicans don’t wake up and stop playing games by promoting “outsiders” and unqualified motor-mouths who’ve never governed, they’re going to get decimated next November by whatever Democrat runs for the presidency. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, which illustrates why both Clinton’s have always ranked gamesmanship and insider dealing above governing capabilities and straightforward job performance.  

 

Lee Fang @/theintercept.com, headed his column today: “Television News Network Lobbyists Are Fundraising for Hillary Clinton”

 

Mr. Fang writes: “The giant media companies that shape much of the coverage of the presidential campaign have a vested stake in the outcome. From campaign finance laws that govern how money is spent on advertising to the regulators who oversee consolidation rules, the media industry has a distinct policy agenda, and with it, a political team to influence the result.

“The top fundraisers for Clinton include lobbyists who serve the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC.

 

“CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is represented on Capitol Hill by Steve Elmendorf, an adviser to Clinton during her 2008 campaign, who is also known as “one of Washington’s top lobbyists.” He’s lobbied on a number of issues important for media companies like CNN, including direct-to-consumer advertising policy.

 

“Elmendorf, according to disclosures, has raised at least $141,815 for Clinton’s 2016 bid for the presidency.

 

At the same time: “Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, which includes cable networks NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, has a number of lobbyists on retainer who are working to raise cash for the Clinton campaign, including Justin Gray, Alfred Mottur, Ingrid Duran and Catherine Pino.

 

In that regard: Les Moonves, president and chief executive of CBS, memorably said: “Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS.”

 

Aside from the huge sums of cash involved, another advantageous aspect of Bill’s wife media relationships can be seen by the fact that: “Critics have complained that corporate news networks have promoted establishment candidates at the expense of outsiders. FAIR, a media watchdog group, reported in June that “Meet the Press,” NBC’s marquee political program, mentioned Clinton 16 times in the first 17 episodes of the year while failing to invite or discuss Bernie Sanders once. Sanders has no lobbyist bundlers and no Super PAC supporting his campaign.”

 

Which means that in order to level the playing field, Democrat presidential contenders need to have media relationships and connections of their own. 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.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Skipped the Republican debate last night, and from the news recaps afterward, missed nothing of substance, but apparently a war went on between the candidates and moderators.

 

Terence P. Jeffrey @cnsnews.com, summed the situation up by writing that “former Attorney General Ed Meese said the leaders of the Republican National Committee who allowed CNBC to moderate the debate should be condemned.

 

"After 15 minutes it was clear that this was not a debate, but a verbal shooting gallery set up by CNBC, with the targets the Republican candidates and the shooters their biased antagonists from the press,” said Meese. 

 

“Ted Cruz accurately described what was going on,” he said. “Whoever selected the ‘moderators’ should be fired and the RNC leaders who allowed it should be condemned.” 

 

The three moderators for the debate were CNBC’s John Harwood, Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla. 

 

The most important occurrence, however, was the beginning of the public realization that similar prior governing skill is critical to the position of POTUS. Liz Peek @foxnews.com, reported that Jeb Bush had a poor night. But, that “contrasted to the success of others – like John Kasich, Chris Christie, Rubio and Ted Cruz – whose governing or legislative backgrounds informed and bolstered their arguments. Because the debate delved deep into economic policies, this was the first time that the lack of political experience of outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina was a handicap. 

 

While, Rubio certainly isn’t qualified for the position either, as mentioned here quite frequently, as far as the other three outsiders go, the POTUS job doesn’t come with training wheels. Which has been proven time and again by the huge mistakes made by Obama. 

 

On another favorite topic, the global-warming farce, Marc Morano @climatedepot.com, reports that the head of a congressional committee on science has issued subpoenas to the Obama administration over a recent scientific study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade. 

 

“Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a prominent congressional skeptic on climate change, issued the subpoenas two weeks ago demanding e-mails and records from U.S. scientists who participated in the study, which undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind the planet’s recent warming.” 

 

While warming supporters complained the actions, Rep. Smith, said the subpoenas were not “harassment” but “appropriate constitutional oversight.” 

 

In a statement released by his office, Rep. Smith rightly explained that: “This scandal-ridden administration’s lack of openness is the real problem. Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.” 

 

As far as “data-alteration’s” concerned a similar article appeared at the same time. This one by Marc Morano also @climate depot.com. 

 

Mr. Morano writes that according to Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since January 1997. Yet for 224 months since then there has been no global warming at all. With this month’s RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) temperature record, the Pause sets a new record at 18 years 8 months. 

 

Some interesting supporting facts include the following: 

 

• Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

• The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

• The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

• Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.

And finally: “To meet the IPCC’s central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.” Which is impossible.

 

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

 

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano titled his article @foxnews.com  today: “We cannot allow Hillary Clinton, 'midwife to chaos' and a public liar, to be our next president.”

 

Extremely well-written, clear and concise, the Judge’s piece explains in detail the events and timeline regarding the Benghazi attack. And especially, Bill Clinton’s wife direct responsibility for what took place.

 

A link to the article follows, whereas it’s well-worth reading not only regarding the Judge's opinion, but his organized recap of the situation and historical perspective.   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/29/cannot-allow-hillary-clinton-midwife-to-chaos-and-public-liar-to-be-our-next-president.html

 

A couple of paragraphs provide insight into how the Judge formulated his opinion, as follows:

 

“The FBI agents surely heard Clinton mislead Congress when she answered a hard question about arms going to rebels by saying “I think the answer is no” and again when she answered a question about arming private militias by saying it may have been considered but wasn't “seriously” considered. And they heard her directly commit perjury when she was asked whether she knew about our country's supplying arms to Libyan rebels directly or indirectly and she answered, “No.”

 

“How could she answer "no"? She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it. How could she answer "no"? The FBI and CIA advised her -- in documents that are now public -- that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives. How could she answer "no"? This reached a crisis point when some of those operatives used their American-made weapons to murder U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

 

“She later angrily dismissed questions over this cover-up by arguing, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

 

“The difference it makes goes to the heart of the American electoral process. Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar who, for personal political gain, midwifed terror and chaos in a country that was our ally and whose words and behavior have continually demonstrated that she is utterly unworthy of belief?”

 

Which, once  again, leads to the 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

Ever since Republicans gained Congressional majorities, hard-core conservatives have complained that very little has been accomplished by them, legislatively.

 

Although the complaining is unwarranted -because while it’s extremely difficult to institute legislation in the face of a likely presidential veto- significant Democrat efforts have been neutered or stopped completely.

 

However, yesterday progress was made that, although not likely to succeed fully, should please conservatives because of the effort being extended.

 

Stephen Dinan @washingtontimes.com, reports that: “House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz began [an] impeachment process against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on Tuesday, accusing him of misleading the public and destroying documents that were sought under a congressional subpoena.

 

“Among the specific charges leveled by Mr. Chaffetz and 18 of his fellow Republicans on the committee were that Mr. Koskinen, appointed by President Obama in December 2013 after the targeting scandal broke, misled Congress when he said he had turned over all of former IRS senior executive Lois G. Lerner’s emails and that he oversaw destruction of evidence when his agency got rid of backup tapes that contained the emails.”

 

While it is unclear how far the resolution will go in Congress, when added to the administration's  rampant health care tax problems, the mistakes made in the Middle-East, the stagnant economy, weak job market and Bill Clinton’s wife’s Benghazi misjudgments, it appears that things are really looking up for Republicans next November. 

 

On another subject, while the media is making huge issues regarding their perceived overthrow of the Republican establishment by outsiders like Trump and Carson, and even Fiorina, the real situation in voter preferences may be completely different.  

 

Chris Stirewalt @foxnews.com, reports today that, “As the latest poll on the race shows, only 28 percent of Republican voters said their minds were made up about their candidate choice. That’s not surprising. At this point in the 2012 cycle –96 days before the Iowa caucuses – there had already been six debates. Republicans need more input from their prospective leaders.”

 

Which means that although things may stay the same right through election day, the odds are that things will likely change dramatically over the course of the next twelve months.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, found in an article @newsweek.com, by Elliott Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Mr. Abrams titled his column: “What the Hillary Hearing Revealed About Her Competence”

 

Regarding his own experience with Secretaries Haig, Shultz and Rice, he writes that he found that they did not bring teams with them, “but rather cobbled them together mostly from the available resources in the Department.”

 

However, he goes on, “Secretary Clinton’s case was different: she brought a team with her, consisting largely of people from her years in politics. Shultz’s closest aide, for example, was Charles Hill, a career Foreign Service officer. Haig’s was Jerry Bremer, also a career officer. This is possibly of significance because it may have explained why Stevens did not seek to get around the denial of his request for more security. He may simply not have had the relationships that would have been required to do this when the Secretary’s closest aides were political allies rather than career officers.”

 

“Given the situation in Libya, it is extraordinary to [Abrams] that no one thought to let the Secretary know that Amb. Stevens was saying he was in danger out there due to inadequate security–indeed saying that the Department’s own standards were simply not being met. And this was at a time when there had been an assassination attempt on the British ambassador.

 

“Stevens’s request was denied by the Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy. It appears that Kennedy never raised this with Clinton, and that no one in Clinton’s close team raised it with her. Perhaps none of them knew about it.

 

“But she says no one ever told her. As we know, she was exchanging emails on Libya with Sidney Blumenthal—but not with Chris Stevens. Putting politics aside, that is a bureaucratic failure, an indictment of the management and information system she established in the Department.”

 

So, here we have another expert, Mr. Abrams, illustrating that much like Bill’s wife’s attempts at revising health care during Clinton's presidency while knowing nothing at all about it, she made the same kind of errors as Secretary of State. A position that proved to be far above her competency level as well.

 

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.

 

Adios

 

PS: Here’s an item posted by a FB friend. 

 

BloggeRhythms

One of the most revolting revelations imaginable, appeared in an article this morning by Missy Ryan and Greg Jaffe @washingtonpost.com, as follows:

 

“President Obama’s most senior national security advisers have recommended measures that would move U.S. troops closer to the front lines in Iraq and Syria, officials said, a sign of mounting White House dissatisfaction with progress against the Islamic State and a renewed Pentagon push to expand military involvement in long-running conflicts overseas.

 

“The debate over the proposed steps, which would for the first time position a limited number of Special Operations forces on the ground in Syria and put U.S. advisers closer to the firefights in Iraq, comes as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter presses the military to deliver new options for greater military involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.”

 

So, only  a few weeks after deciding to deploy ground troops to Afghanistan,  the POTUS will now likely authorize troops in Syria as well. Which goes to establish that the pullback from the Middle-East was a huge mistake in the first place. All because political pandering always outweighs what facts might indicate to the contrary for this administration.

 

And what's worse, is that had U.S. forces been left where they were when the POTUS took office, Iraq would likely be stable, ISIS wouldn't even have come into existence, while Iran and Russia would surely have had second thoughts about their attempts to expand in the region. All of which goes to establish that the administration’s mistakes were far beyond incompetent. 

 

On another issue, a new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows Republican Ben Carson leading nationally with 26 percent, to Trump's 22 percent. Another indication that Trump seems to be waning, likely because his blustering style has no substance.

 

However, in what might be an even stronger indication of Trump’s wearing thin on the public, yesterday Rush said: “Ted Cruz is a dark horse candidate out there. He does not have in his record any statement like Trump does of having supported certain things the Democrats have done. Cruz is inarguably a thoroughbred conservative.”

 

Thus, by indicating that Trump isn’t truly a Conservative, Rush may be paving the way for Trump toward the exit. Something the party really needs if it expects to win a national presidential election.

 

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

 

Although her column was written about Matt Drudge, Susan J. Demas, political columnist for MLive.com, today demonstrated that Democrats may indeed live in an imaginary world of their own making. 

 

Demas writes that: “Drudge's motivation seems clear: He's utterly terrified at the prospect of President Clinton. He doesn't see anyone else sufficiently leading the charge, so he must speak out. 

 

"She's old and she's sick," Drudge declared desperately, slamming the media for "propping" her up.

 

“A few weeks later, Clinton testified before the hostile, GOP-led Benghazi Committee without breaking a sweat — something noted even by conservative pundits. That would seem to lay to rest any fears about her health and stamina.”

 

However, as far as appearing before the Committee “without breaking a sweat” is concerned, many news outlets reported: “Hillary Clinton stumbled at the Benghazi hearing today on Capitol Hill. As the hearing moved well past its tenth hour, Clinton had a serious coughing fit that prevented her momentarily from being able to speak.”

 

Drudge himself posted a headline: “Hillary Health Warning: Coughing Fit." And he tweeted: "Last time she showed up with prism glasses from blood clot, vertigo. Today obvious anti-anxiety meds, hypothyroid meds."

 

Then, refuting the “without breaking a sweat” gibberish further, Representative Jim Jordan showed an email Bill’s wife sent her own family, in which she said officers were killed in Benghazi by a group like al Qaeda.

 

“You tell the American people one thing. You tell your family an entirely different story,” Jordan said. While on the night of the attack, she had a phone call with the president of Libya where she told him Ansar al-Sharia was claiming responsibility.

 

The next day, Jordan said, she told the Egyptian prime minister something “significant,” where she acknowledged they knew the attack in Libya had nothing to do with any video.

 

“We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” Jordan read out from Clinton’s email. “It was a planned attack. Not a protest. Let me read that one more time. We know, not we think, not it might be, we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with a film. It was a planned attack. Not a protest. State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth, but that’s not what the American people got. Again, the American people want to know why. Why didn’t you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?”

 

So, if this is what Demas thinks is positive imagery for Bill’s wife, and Democrats in general, what could she possibly imagine as harmful? Because the picture presented at the hearing was that of an incompetent, ailing individual who fabricates in her own interest. And, unfortunately for her, it’s highly probable the voting public will see right through her deceptions as well.

 

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. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A few days after Joe Biden announced he wasn’t going to seek the Democrat presidential nomination, he appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes." Sunday.

 

According to the Associated Press via FoxNews.com, Biden said: “I've said from the beginning, 'Look, I like Hillary. Hillary and I get along together. The only reason to run is because ... I still think I could do a better job than anybody else could do."

 

Thus, while declaring that he had taken himself out of the running, he took the opportunity to tell viewers that he still thinks he’s better suited to the presidency than Bill’s wife is.

 

This comment came after noting earlier at the at the White House event where he announced his decision that, as far as bickering in Washington politics is concerned: “I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies." That statement directly refuted Bill’s wife statement to that effect during the Democratic presidential debate earlier this month. 

 

"That wasn't directed at Hillary," Biden told "60 Minutes.” That was a reference to Washington, all of Washington."

 

So, for a guy who claims he has no interest in running for president, he’s appeared in public twice since his announcement. And both times threw harpoons at Bill’s wife for no visible reason. Unless he suspects, as do many other others, that her problems regarding her trustworthiness and honesty are far from over with a year left to go. 

 

On another issue, although  the Iran nuclear giveaway hasn’t been in the headlines recently, an article today shows that except to the administration and Democrat legislators that follow in lock step, this deal still makes no real sense whatsoever.   

 

Valerie Richardson @washingtontimes.com, reports that, “Headlines about the GOP Senate’s failed battle to stop the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action had all but disappeared when Iran launched an Oct. 11 test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Suddenly foes of the deal were back in the news, accusing Iran of breaking the agreement.”

 

In that regard, on Oct. 21 a letter was signed by 11 Democratic senators stating that: “There must be no ambiguity in our willingness to enforce Iran’s obligations under UN resolutions and the JCPOA,” 

 

According to the article: “The episode exemplifies a worst-case scenario for Democrats as they head into next year’s election, namely that Iran will give Republicans ample “I-told-you-so” opportunities by breaking the agreement, violating other international sanctions or keeping the issue in the public eye with recurring acts of aggression or anti-U.S. rhetoric.”

 

Since Iran's’ actions were certainly to be expected by anyone possessing half a brain, the only remaining question is: What else would any rational politician, regardless of political affiliation, truly think was going to happen?

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, written by Mark Halperin @bloomberg.com, and presenting conclusions about her candidacy that sound delusional.  

 

Halperin writes: “But October has been good to Clinton: a glittering debate performance, the decision of potential rival Joe Biden not to run (greatly simplifying her path to the nomination), the vanquishing of Republicans during her daylong Benghazi hearing, and a solid turn at the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner Saturday night. All have improved Clinton’s odds of cruising into the White House twelve months hence, and have thrown into sharper relief some of the advantages she has had all along.”

 

Halperin’s conclusions notwithstanding, it’s not certain that Biden won’t show up again, depending on what Bill’s wife’s emails contain as they continue to be released to the public. As far as Benghazi goes, Republicans will likely bury her. Especially now that she’s been shown to be a liar. It’s just too early for them to waste the ammunition. And, as far as competition within her party goes, none of the other contenders had a chance in the first place.  

 

However, what’s even more ridiculous is Halperin’s concluding by writing: “But don’t be surprised if reports soon surface mirroring what happened almost exactly eight years ago, when Clinton asked top advisers to secretly begin planning her vice presidential selection process—and her presidential transition. Republicans would surely see those steps as wildly premature, but given all of Clinton’s advantages now, she may consider it simply prudent planning.”

 

Apparently, Halperin doesn’t recall that eight years ago, this guy, Barack Obama, came out of nowhere to bounce her completely out of the race. Which means that whether her planning is “prudent” or not, her current problems, compounded by what happened last time she ran, make the odds significantly lower. While at the same time offering opportunity to qualified others, such as: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today, @nytimes.com, Jonathan Martin and Matt Flegenheimer titled their article: “Bush at 91: Irritated and Invigorated by ’16 Race”

 

The column describes the thoughts and feelings of the senior Bush, regarding his sons current presidential campaign while providing many examples of both senior and “W”s” performance in office.

 

While the article itself is quite informative, the vast majority of the 626 comments that follow are truly astounding. Even for the kind of die-hard leftists one would expect to be reading this symbol of leftist ideology.

 

After seven years of continual economic deterioration, loss of world status, military dysfunction, porous borders, huge increases in unemployment, ruination of the formerly world’s finest medical system and the loss of the respect of almost all other world powers, these irrational ideologues have the simple-mined audacity to find or create ways to blame the Bush’s for what the current administration has done.

 

The only way to really appreciate the depth of the incontrovertible hatred that the left has for success, is to read the column, and particularly the reader comments, yourself. Here’s a link: Bush at 91- Irritated and Invigorated by '16 Race 

   

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, also from nytimes.com Op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd, as follows:

 

“Hillary Clinton is never more alluring than when a bunch of pasty-faced, nasty-tongued white men bully her.

 

“And she was plenty alluring during her marathon session on Thursday with Republican Lilliputians, who were completely oblivious to the fact that Hillary is always at her most potent when some Teanderthal is trying to put her in her place.

 

“Trey Gowdy and his blithering band of tea-partiers went on a fishing expedition, but they forgot to bring their rods — or any fresh facts.

 

“It was a revealing display of hard-core conservatives in their parallel universe, where all their biases are validated by conservative media. They crawled out of the ooze into the sea of cameras, blinking and obtuse. Ohio’s Jim Jordan, bellowing. South Carolina’s Gowdy, sweating. Alabama’s Martha Roby, not getting the joke. And Indiana’s Susan Brooks, allowing that “most of us really don’t know much about Libya.”

 

“Hillary acted bemused, barely masking her contempt at their condescension. She was no doubt amazed at what an amateur job they were doing at character assassination.”

 

Then, in the second half of her column, Dowd lays out a recap and timeline of mistakes and missteps by Bill’s wife. Evidently in an effort to demonstrate what she thinks the committee should have done in presenting its case. 

 

Yet, in the overall, Dowd totally missed the point that in one short exchange of the nine hour ordeal, Bill’s wife was shown to have lied about the Benghazi tragedy from the very start, along with all those in the White House, defrauding the American people. Considering that this is the core of the case, and will likely lead to serious consequences down the road for Bill’s wife and others involved, what else does this rambling incompetent, Maureen Dowd, or anyone else have to know?

 

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

Trump’s odds for election just increased significantly.

 

According to Fox News Latino, in the Central American nation of Guatemala, a former comedian and television personality named Jimmy Morales is poised to become the country’s next president.

 

“Morales – a self-proclaimed centrist with a strong conservative streak – holds a commanding lead in the polls over his challenger, former first lady Sandra Torres, going into Sunday's run-off election.

 

“Morales has painted himself as an anti-politician, frequently starting his stump speeches with a rowdy, and comedian-like shout of “How are you doing, Guatemala?” Which makes sense, given that his biggest claim to fame before being on the cusp of the presidency was a skit television show called “Moralejas” (“The Moral of the Story”) that he starred in with his brother Sammy.”

 

Therefore, as far as Trump’s concerned, if the nation of Guatemala can elect a comedian president, why can’t Americans elect a bad joke?

 

Staying with the subject of jokes, here’s another one that’s not funny either. Hollie McKay @foxnews.com, reports: “The federal government awarded over $5 billion to help states set up ObamaCare exchanges, with the vast majority – $4.6 billion – going to 16 states and Washington, D.C. 

 

“But, according to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, much of that money has not been accounted for – and yet not returned, either.

 

“So where did those taxpayer dollars go? That’s the billion-dollar question.”

 

About $4.6 billion was given to 17 recipients, including California, New York, Washington state and Kentucky. But the GAO found that so far, just $1.4 billion of that has been spent on IT projects, and a total of $3 billion has been “spent or drawn down,” though not all the spending is detailed.

 

“That, then, leaves at least $1.6 billion unaccounted for. Yet only three states returned any portion of the money – a total of just over $1 million was given back.”

 

As a practical matter, the missing funds won’t be as serious a problem as might have been. Because with enrollment numbers down significantly and continuing to decrease, far less money will be available to government to mismanage or steal. But, in the meanwhile, it looks like the POTUS's health care tax is another huge joke on the American people.

 

On the same day, yesterday, Alexander Hendrie @atr.org/watchdog, reported that: “Obamacare Exchanges Fail to Detect Counterfeit Documents”

 

According to the article: “As part of its review, GAO tested application and enrollment controls on the federal exchange and two state exchanges (California and Kentucky). Ten fictitious applicants were created to test whether verification steps including validating an applicant’s Social Security number, verifying citizenship, and verifying household income were completed properly.

 

“In order to test these controls, GAO’s test applications provided fraudulent documentation:

 

“For each of the 10 undercover applications where we obtained qualified health-plan coverage, the respective marketplace directed that our applicants submit supplementary documentation… we provided counterfeit follow-up documentation, such as fictitious Social Security cards with impossible Social Security numbers, for all 10 undercover applications.”

 

The report noted that all ten applications remained enrolled on Obamacare even though fraudulent or insufficient documentation was provided. While, “[f]or all 10 of these undercover applications, we maintained subsidized coverage beyond the period during which applicants may file supporting documentation to resolve inconsistencies.”

 

As a result, each applicant received the Obamacare premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction subsidies, without being properly verified. The ten applicants received a total of $2,300 in tax credits per month.

 

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

 

Yesterday’s update included the thought from Rudy Giuliani, that Bill’s wife is either totally incompetent and unfit for office, or she’s simply a liar, take your pick. However, after giving Rudy’s opinion some further consideration, he should have concluded that she's actually both.  

 

As far as the mainstream-media’s reaction to Bill’s wife congressional testimony is concerned, she seems to be getting a pass. Certainly no surprise. Even though Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, caught her in a flat out lie regarding her telling her family, along with diplomats, that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda affiliated attack. 

 

Aside from that, there also wasn’t very much made of her obvious fabrication of the truth by other Republicans either. Which, after some additional thought, leads to the conclusion that perhaps their strategy is to let the situation simmer a while. Whereas in time, further damaging evidence will likely arise. 

 

Since that’s the probable case, by waiting until closer to the election to use the ammunition she provided them with her now proven lies about Benghazi, it will be too late to replace her with a viable candidate. Paving the way to a Republican presidential landslide in November 2016. 

 

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.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

This morning, K.T. McFarland @FoxNews.com, produced the most well-written encapsulation of Bill Clinton’s wife I’ve ever come across in the press. 

 

Ms McFarland wrote, that in yesterday’s hearing regarding the attack in Benghazi: “She didn't mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul. 

 

“It was chilling.

 

“We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi she lied about what happened.

 

“She stood over the flag-draped coffins of four dead Americans and blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack.

“She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes and swore she would bring the videomaker to justice. But she was lying .

 

“She knew they died from a planned terrorist attack from an Al Qaeda-like group. That's what she told her family and foreign leaders according to newly released emails.

 

“Why? Because the Obama administration had an election to win eight weeks later, and a terrorist attack that killed four Americans didn't fit into that plan.”

 

“President Obama asked voters to reelect him because he had killed Usama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was on the ropes. Qaddafi was dead and the Libyan war a success. The wave of war was a receding. President George W. Bush's War on Terror was over because Obama and Clinton had won it.

 

“A terrorist attack that killed Americans at Benghazi did not fit into that campaign narrative, so it had to be retold and spun into a different story. It wasn't radical Islamist terrorists, but a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in reaction to an obscure  Internet video.”

 

What likely came through to viewers who applied an objective eye to Bill’s wife’s performance under the circumstances of yesterday's high-level Congressional interrogation, is how smoothly and matter-of-factly her answers were given. Considering how the facts conflicted with her testimony, fabricated answers rolled off her tongue as a perfectly natural, often applied, reaction to questions that would unnerve almost anyone else, regardless.

 

Therefore, what came through in the end was that, aside from having no professional qualifications meriting the U.S. presidency, she’s totally untrustworthy as a human being, as well. 

 

As far as the daily update on Bill Clinton’s wife is concerned, on Fox Business channel this morning, Rudy Giuliani offered two choices regarding her testimony. According to Rudy, she’s either totally incompetent and unfit for office, or she’s simply a liar, take your pick. As far as he's concerned, he believes she's the worst Secretary of State to serve in the past 100 years.

 

Which brings up 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

Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin report today, at nytimes.com, that: “While some prominent Biden admirers say they will now support her, others are expressing reluctance, and several are resisting – citing concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s electability, the threat of the investigation into her email practices as secretary of state, or a lack of enthusiasm for a veteran combatant in the country’s political wars.”

 

The important factor here is that while the Democrat presidential campaign has now heavily swung in Bill Clinton’s wife’s favor, there's still a long time to go until November 2016. Thus, considering Biden supporter’s reluctance to quickly change their allegiance to her it’s good to remember what political scientist, Larry Sabato, said yesterday, about the election still being a year away. What you can count on, he said, is things will change again, and again and again before election day. 

 

On another subject, much like Kevin McCarthy recent interview error, Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt‘s made a gaffe that Democrat readers are capitalizing on this morning, by titling his article: “Can Gowdy deliver the goods?”

 

Significant numbers of Liberal readers are up in arms because they claim Stirewalt’s words prove that Fox, and all of it’s staff, are Republican lackeys and always have been. Yet, what’s unusual is that so many Fox haters consistently read what’s published there. While competitive news outlets are shrinking practically out of existence.

 

In the same column, Stirewalt reports that: “For the first time since June, Donald Trump is not the frontrunner in Iowa, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll. The survey puts Ben Carson 8 points ahead of Trump among likely Iowa Republican caucus goers. In the last Q poll in Iowa, which was taken six weeks ago, Carson trailed Trump by 6 points. At the end of June the two men were tied at 10 points apiece.”

 

What the new poll statistics seem to indicate is that Republican dearly desire a non-politician as their presidential candidate. But, at the same time, Trump’s grating, blustering approach without substance to back it up may be wearing thin with them. Therefore, it may be time for successful Republican governors to educate voters that their states are outside the Beltway too.

 

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

 

FoxNews.com reports that: “Hillary Clinton, responding to controversy over the contents of her recently released emails, revealed to the House hearing Thursday investigating the Benghazi attack that she did not actually have a computer in her office while secretary of state -- and generally did not use email to conduct government business.

 

"The puzzling comments before the Benghazi congressional committee came even as she lamented that diplomacy is still being conducted in a 19th-century way.”

 

At the same time, the left-leaning New York Times published an article illustrating a very clear, and documented time-line of her extensive email use, which refuted her testimony to the House committee. 

 

Here’s a link to the Times story: NYT-  How Emails Story Has Changed

 

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.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As far as Joe Biden’s potential run for POTUS is concerned, he certainly sounds more and more like a candidate with every passing day.  Yesterday was no exception, as reported by Eric Bradner and Kevin Liptak @cnn.com. 

 

What was most important about what the VP had to say, was that he sounded like he expected a presidential endorsement if he entered the race. And at the same time, he downplayed the importance of the role of Secretary of State, as follows from the article:

 

“The Vice president sought to subtly one-up Clinton in several ways Tuesday. He noted that Obama offered him a choice between the jobs of vice president and secretary of state. He said he'd traveled 1.1 million miles on behalf of the United States -- topping the 1 million that Clinton has said she traveled during her four years in the Obama administration. And he said Obama tapped him, not the secretary of state, as the closer with foreign leaders.

 

"I will get sent to go to speak with Putin or speak to Erdogan or go speak to whomever and it's because the secretary of state -- and we've had two great secretaries of state -- but when I go they know that I'm speaking for the president," Biden said.”

 

Thus, while Biden’s message is clear, should he enter the race it seems quite clear that he expects to have the backing of the POTUS. Which when combined with the mounting evidence of Bill’s wife incompetence, make her current poll results totally immaterial in the long run.

 

Along the same lines, but in the other party, it looks like Jeb Bush may finally be waking up. 

 

On Tuesday, according to Maeve Reston and Ashley Killough, also from cnn.com, “he leveled his most blistering critique to date, with a National Review op-ed accusing the real estate magnate [Trump] of echoing "the attacks of (liberal filmmaker) Michael Moore and the fringe left" on national security issues.

 

Bush wrote, "Let's be clear: Donald Trump simply doesn't know what he's talking about," adding that Trump's "bluster overcompensates for a shocking lack of knowledge on the complex national-security challenges that will confront the next president."

 

While Jeb’s statements are absolutely correct regarding Trump, they also should go a long way toward making concerned supporters feel better about his lack of aggressiveness to date. “Polls have shown very little excitement about his candidacy in any sector of the Republican base. That fact is not only evident in polls, but also in interviews with voters on the ground in early states who often describe Bush as lacking dynamism, enthusiasm and energy.”

 

However, while known as one who builds campaigns slowly and methodically, this new wake-up call has finally gotten Jeb to react with the kind of strength that made him a highly successful Florida governor for eight years. Giving him a considerable edge against a blowhard having no gubernatorial skills whatsoever, but also only a cheap-shot artist who couldn’t make money even when playing poker as the house in the casinos he bankrupted.

 

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

 

What’s most important about the following referenced article is that it was written by Amy Chozick and appeared in the liberal bastion nytimes.com, as follows:

 

“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday that it had secured the endorsement of more than 50 current and former African-American mayors.” 

 

According to Ms Chozik, Bill’s wife met briefly with Mayor Ivy R. Taylor of San Antonio before a campaign rally in San Antonio last Thursday. And, in the meeting, Mrs. Taylor expressed her support and said she would help the campaign however she could, according to a person briefed on the meeting.

 

“But after the campaign included Mrs. Taylor on its list of mayoral endorsements on Monday, the mayor’s office released a statement saying that she had also met with Carly Fiorina, a Republican presidential candidate.”

 

And then, in a similar occurrence: “Shortly after The Texas Tribune reported the mix-up with Mrs. Taylor, another Democratic official on the list who is also African-American, Tommy Calvert, a commissioner in Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, said he had also been erroneously included on the campaign’s Texas endorsement list.

 

“He told the Tribune that he had expressed to three separate campaigns staff members that he was not endorsing Mrs. Clinton. “I don’t know how there could be any confusion,” he said.

 

“But on Monday, after it was reported that he had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Calvert wrote on Facebook, “While I appreciate her service and her candidacy, I have not endorsed anyone in the presidential election.” 

 

Therefore, if the most important quality needed by a POTUS was consistency, it looks like Bill’s wife would outdo all other presidential candidates. Whereas she hasn’t changed an iota from her very beginnings in politics. Unfortunately for her, however, what she’s absolutely consistent at is fabrication and misleading the public on a regular basis. 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.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

According to nytimes.com’s Michael R. Gordon, the top U.S. military officer arrived in Iraq on Tuesday to take stock of the campaign against the Islamic State and to confer with senior American commanders and Iraqi officials.

 

“The officer, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who took over this month as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is making his first overseas trip since assuming the post, and as Iraq and the American-led coalition there are trying to bolster their fight against the militants.”

 

This is quite interesting because, now that his term is almost over, perhaps the POTUS is ready to address the errors he’s made in foreign policy. Especially in the Middle-East. And if that’s the case, troops will probably return to Iraq, whereas they never should have been drawn down in the first place. Which means that the decisions made by this White House, including force reduction in Afghanistan, were purely political. While the cost to the U.S. in national safety, image and world standing have been astronomical.  

 

Along the same lines, A reader, yale u, posted this photo in the comments following another article about Joe Biden in the Washington Post.

 

 

On another subject, Trump’s gone after Jeb regarding September 11th, intimating indirectly that “W” Bush was at fault in leaving the nation vulnerable to the four hijacked plane attacks. He also claimed that had he been president, he would have prevented the occurrences.

 

In this case, here’s a guy who used student deferments, rather than joining the military and serving in his nation’s defense when given the opportunity many years ago, spouting off about defending the nation now as its president. Seems to be somewhat inconsistent, to say the least.

 

And as far as managerial skills and things he feels he could accomplish are concerned, his airline, football team and vodka brands were all failures. Making his current argument a little shaky, as far as capabilities are concerned.

 

As for his other interests go, Time magazine carried this recap:

 

“In 1990, the banking institutions that backed his real estate investments had to bail him out with a $65 million "rescue package" that contained new loans and credit. But it wasn't enough, and nine months later the famous developer was nearly $4 billion in debt. He didn't declare personal bankruptcy, although his famous Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, N.J., did have to file for it (bondholders ended up taking a 50% stake in the investment). Trump's economic troubles continued through the early '90s, while he was personally leveraged to nearly $1 billion. In 2004, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts also filed for bankruptcy. The company was only a small portion of Trump's real estate empire, but he did still have to personally cough up $72 million to keep it afloat. In 2009, the same company (by then renamed Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc.) filed for bankruptcy again. Yet during all of this, no one ever told Trump, "You're fired!" Probably because no one could.”  

 

So, to put things in perspective, Trump’s claiming he could have prevented foreign nationals from executing a clandestine plot against the nation which they spent years developing. Yet, in his own case, he failed frequently, including four casino bankruptcies right across the river in New Jersey. Which makes one wonder if Trump has any managerial skills at all, considering that his major wipeouts were in gambling, where he was the “house.”

 

Additionally, when 9/11 occurred, “W’ had been in office for all of nine months, following Clinton who was an anti-terrorist washout altogether for the prior eight years. Up to and including failing to capture/kill Osama bin Laden when the opportunity was handed to him.

 

Which means that Jeb better get his act together and show this colossal bag of wind up for what he truly is: a zero with a megaphone.

 

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

 

Wesley Pruden on politics@washingtontimes.com, titled his satirical article today: “Hillary as first prisoner in chief”

 

Mr. Pruden writes: “There’s a precedent that makes Hillary tremble, too. Gen. David Petraeus was found guilty of using smaller government secrets as thrilling pillow talk and he got 20 years, suspended for good behavior, and fined $100,000.

 

“Intoxicated with such feelings, the voters might award the presidency to the Clintons again. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says a jailbird can’t be president. It might not be convenient, but a lot of folks would applaud a president in a striped shirt with a number. Feminists could learn to bake a cake to take it to her, with a file inside, on visiting day. 

 

“She might draw a prison close to Washington. There’s a nice ladies’ reformatory at Alderson in West Virginia, with attractive brick buildings surrounded by grass and trees, and a view of the Allegheny Mountains. It’s known as “Camp Cupcake.” Martha Stewart served her time there.”

 

Of course, much of Bill's wife future depends on what happens when she testifies before Trey Gowdy and his congressional committee. But, regardless of that outcome, by now many, if not most, voters have her number. And apparently, the Department of Corrections may have one waiting for her too.

 

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.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

According to the washingtonpost.com, in regard to his committee investigating Benghazi, Trey Gowdy “has told Republican colleagues to ‘shut up talking about things that you don’t know anything about. And unless you’re on the committee, you have no idea what we have done, why we have done it and what new facts we have found’ …He added that his position on the committee’s purpose has remained consistent: ‘Four dead Americans is more than enough work for me. She’s [Clinton] a witness. She was the secretary of state. You have to talk to her. But we have already talked to 50 people not named Clinton. We’re going to talk to another couple of dozen not named Clinton.’”

 

In this case, Chairman Gowdy is absolutely right. He’s already seen what happens when an unthinking politician like Kevin McCarthy give Democrats ammunition by misstating the Benghazi’ committee’s objective, suggesting it was designed to implicate and defame Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Therefore, if Republicans truly desire to have the truth come out, their best and most promising alternative is to let the committee run its course without outside comment. In fact, that probability was reinforced yesterday, according to the following item.  

 

Fox News reported today that, “Gowdy said [on CBS] Sunday that the 12-member bipartisan committee has acquired [Amb. Chris Stephens’] emails from that time…Gowdy said Stevens even joked in an email that maybe he and others at the Benghazi outpost ‘should ask another government to pay for our security upgrades because our government isn’t willing to do it.’”

 

Thus, it’s hard core evidence that will establish what actually took place regarding Benghazi. And the more that Republicans interfere by spreading unfounded rumors, the more they weaken the Benghazi committee’s influence, and by doing so weaken themselves and their whole party as well. 

 

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

 

It seems that even without knowing what the results of Bill Clinton’s wife’s Benghazi committee’s testimony will be, Democrat contributors have formed conclusions regarding her presidential candidacy. 

 

According to USA Today: “Hundreds of wealthy Democrats who raised money for President Obama’s re-election have not yet joined the top fundraising ranks of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign…Just 76, or less than 10%…”

 

And therefore, if 90% of top Democrat fundraisers may be unsure of offering their support to Bill’s wife, the ongoing question must be raised again. 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

It now looks like another hostile nation has figured out how to solve its fiscal problems. According to a FoxNews.com headline: “North Korea reportedly willing to sign peace treaty with US to end conflict.”

 

While North Korea rejected the idea of resuming talks to abandon its nuclear program on Saturday, it said it would welcome negotiations for a peace treaty with Washington.

 

“North Korea’s foreign ministry made the statement one day after President Obama and South Korean President Park Geun-hye said they were ready to open talks with Pyongyang on sanctions if they were serious about dissolving its nuclear program, according to Reuters.”

 

There certainly should be no surprise in North Korea’s decision to reach a peace agreement, because Iran has set the example for them to follow. They won’t have to change a thing, while using their own inspectors to present false information on their continuing nuclear weaponry program. However, the U.S. will give them billions anyway, including the repeal of current sanctions, the same way that Iran duped Kerry and Obama. North Korea better hurry though, because the gravy train stops running in November 2016.

 

On another matter, Eugene Scott @cnn.com writes that “Jeb Bush said Donald Trump discusses foreign policy like a reality show star and that support for the Republican front-runner will eventually wane. 

 

On CNN’s “State of the Union," Bush also said he has little confidence in Trump's ability to appropriately handle America's nuclear weapons, telling Jake Tapper: “I have grave doubts, to be honest with you." 

 

Bush went on: "He's not taking the responsibility, the possibility of being president of the United States really seriously. For him, it looks as though he's an actor playing a role of the candidate for president. Not boning up on the issues, not having a broad sense of the responsibilities of what it is to be a president. Across the spectrum of foreign policy, Mr. Trump talks about things as though he's still on 'The Apprentice.'"

 

Reading Jeb Bush’s analysis is remindful of the 1972 satirical comedy, The Candidate in which Robert Redford plays the fictional Bill McKay, the idealistic, charismatic son of former California governor John J. McKay.  

 

On election day, McKay wins. In the final scene, he escapes the victory party and pulls his manager Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) into a room while throngs of journalists clamor outside. McKay asks Lucas, "Marvin ... What do we do now?" The media throng arrives to drag them out, and McKay never receives an answer.

 

And that’s precisely what would happen to the U.S. if the electorate gave the election to Trump.

 

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

 

Newt Gingrich wrote a column posted @washingtontimes.com today, titled: “Are more lies the answer for Hillary.”

 

Gingrich notes that: “She is lagging in some state polls behind Sen. Bernie Sanders, a candidate who, when he announced, was considered to be among the least plausible nominees the party could find.

 

“Part of the reason for Mr. Sanders‘ success is undoubtedly his ideological appeal to the hard-left of the Democratic Party. But Hillary’s collapse likely has much more to do with the fact that she keeps lying, and that she keeps getting caught, than it does with Bernie’s charm.

 

“In a recent Quinnipiac poll, the word most mentioned by respondents in association with Hillary Clinton was “liar.” The runners-up were “dishonest” and “untrustworthy” — offered by a combined 394 people. The next most common term, “experience,” was offered by 82.”

 

What’s remarkable is that while the article says nothing new, and isn’t really very interesting, written by a political hack, 162 reader comments follow, all of them appearing to be negative toward Bill Clinton’s wife. 

 

And therefore, since that seems to be the case in most articles on the subject, one has to wonder just how long the major media can keep distorting the truth for her. Because, while Sanders may not be electable as POTUS, huge numbers of people prefer him anyway.

 

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.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

According to Josh Lederman @associatedpress via Drudge, a letter circulated by one of Joe Biden's closest friends and top advisers,  former Sen. Ted Kaufman, describes a "campaign from the heart" that Biden would wage and says a decision isn't far off.

 

The “letter smacked of an unambiguous indication Biden was all but green-lighting a presidential campaign. Several individuals familiar with the letter say it was circulated with Biden's blessing. The individuals weren't authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity.”

 

Therefore, it seems that various parts of a well-planned scheme for  a Biden presidential run are coming together. Including support from the POTUS. By waiting until after the first presidential debate was over, the Biden campaign now has a much better picture of what they’ll be dealing with. And from what’s transpiring, it appears that the major contenders will be easier to deal with than imagined.

 

Bernie Sanders supports unattainable socialist views that any rational voter would understand is fiscally irrational, while he offers absolutely nothing to the working half of the nation that supports all the rest.

 

As far as Bill Clinton’s wife is concerned, she’s attempting to go further left than Sanders, which not only makes no sense but probably won’t even matter. Because if Biden actually runs the POTUS will likely withdraw any support from her, clearing the path for potential criminal charges regarding her unauthorized email servers.

 

In the meantime, Sanders looked more like an ally than a competitor when addressing the email controversy with CNN anchor Anderson Cooper at the Democrat debate this week.

 

When Bill’s wife reiterated her contention that she had done nothing wrong and that it was time to move on from the matter, Sanders agreed. “The secretary is right,” Sanders said. “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

 

Bill’s wife thanked Sanders as the two shook hands.

 

In this case, it appears that not only didn’t Sanders plan to confront a rival with serious questions about her conduct as Secretary of State, but also raised the issue of whether he himself is fit to serve as POTUS. Because, at this point, her guilt or innocence hasn’t been proven by the results of an investigation. And until that outcome is known, all anyone has is her word that no laws were broken.

 

Therefore, if Sanders is willing to support  a rival simply because she’s a member of the same political party, one has to wonder how lax he would be in other circumstances where the nation’s security might be vulnerable. Which goes to further prove once again why old time political hacks like Sanders accomplish just about nothing, yet have been in political office for 34 years. For them, it’s all about patronage.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, all of which is covered by the preceding commentary. And 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