BloggeRhythms

It's truly amazing that in a nation where almost the entire population is able to communicate virtually instantaneously, via broadcast and mobile technology, a huge percentage of individuals can be mislead quite easily. 

Today’s example regards the horrendous state of unemployment in the U.S., and how the administration has worked to disguise the truth to most of the public.  

Back in 2012, when the job market continued to shrink and finding employment became increasingly difficult for many, the administration was continually faced with reported results showing that their economic polices had the nation going backward job-wise.   

As a result, the reporting statistic was changed to report only those who had not looked for work within the past four weeks. Additionally, those out of work for more than that, were not only no longer counted among the unemployed, they were also removed from the labor force by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.) 

Which means that the actual unemployment percentage is roughly double what’s now presented to the public, and equals roughly 9 to 9 1/2% out of work. 

Confirmation of the continuing weakness in the labor market can be seen in the labor-force participation rate, which remains at its 38-year low, with just 62.4% of American civilians over the age of 16 either working or looking for work. 

Yet, despite what should be common knowledge to business experts, and certainly media pundits, actual facts are ignored as they react positively while being hoodwinked.  

Many commentators report that they thought October's jobs report was full of good news, nonfarm payrolls dramatically beating expectations and average hourly earnings growing at what they claim is a faster rate than at any time since the Great Recession. 

However, the reason the increases in “percentages” seems so high is because the payrolls and hourly earnings are at such low levels to begin with. While at the same time, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.1 million in October and has shown little change since June. These individuals accounted for 26.8 percent of the unemployed in October. 

Nonetheless, while the administration and its media allies continue to distort reality, the probability is that those who certainly know they are out of work and don’t believe they’ll soon find it, will show their displeasure in November 2016 at the voting booths.  

At the same time, while so many are suffering economically, Javier Panzar @latimes.com, titled his column today about Nancy Pelosi: “Such is life for the fourth-richest Californian in Congress.“

Panzar writes: “The Democrat has a minimum net worth of $29.3 million, according to an analysis of her financial disclosure forms compiled by Roll Call. The Los Angeles Times is using the data and for the first time is listing every asset and liability disclosed by the 55 members of the state's congressional delegation.

“Precise figures are not required. Roll Call calculated minimum net worth by subtracting the minimum value of liabilities from the minimum value of assets disclosed. 

“The Pelosi estate on Zinfandel Lane, for example, is valued between $5,000,001 and $25 million, according to the records the congresswoman filed with the House clerk's office for calendar year 2014. A description of the property posted on its architect's website says it was inspired by Palladian villas and boasts a guesthouse and a "Z" shaped pool.” 

So, very much like most Democrat hypocrites in politics, Pelosi claims to be the staunchest advocate for those needing government to ease their suffering. However, in view of her financial status, if she were truly sincere about wanting to help those less fortunate, why not simply divide her fortune up equally and distribute it among her constituents?   

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

Yesterday, it was quoted here that Fox New’s Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote: “It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments." 

Then he concluded his article: “When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.” 

And now, today, it seems there is confirming evidence that the Judge is exactly right. Whereas, according to the Washington Free Beacon: “A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information. 

The exact language of the NDA reveals that Bill’s wife acknowledged: “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.” 

In that regard, “Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.” 

Furthermore, “The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.” 

In her defense, she’s claimed emails containing classified information were not marked as such when sent or received. Yet, the language of her NDA suggests it was her responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified. 

Beyond that, her agreement says: “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI.” 

However, according to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such. 

Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counter-terrorism official, told the New York Post in August: “TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified. It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.” 

Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008. 

“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August. 

Which means that, since the FBI is currently investigating whether Bill’s wife’s private email server violated any federal laws and according to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such, Judge Napolitano's conclusions regarding her culpability become more understandable every day.  

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