BloggeRhythms

Michael R. Blood, Amanda Lee Myers and Eric Tucker of the Associated Press via Drudge, headlined an article today: “Pious California killer showed no outward signs of violence” 

The writers described the suspected San Bernardino gunman as follows: “With a young wife, infant daughter and government job, Syed Farook appeared to have arrived at a sweet-spot in life. Friends knew the 28-year-old by his quick smile, his devotion to his Muslim religion and earnest talk about cars he would restore. 

“They didn't know the man authorities say was busy with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, building homemade bombs and stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammunition for a commando-style assault Wednesday on a holiday party of his co-workers that killed 14 and injured.” 

While there is continuing coverage of the tragedy available throughout the media, little is being mentioned about extremely serious national exposure to terror from others who haven’t assimilated at all.

In this case, Farook appeared to others as an average American citizen, well-liked and smoothly functioning within his community, along with his wife and child. However, there are others presenting the same threats, or worse, having easy access of entry to the U.S. due to the administration’s laxity in securing the borders.    

According to a report leaked to Breitbart Texas by a source within the CBP, speaking on the condition of anonymity, the number of individuals being caught or turning themselves in to Border Patrol agents from 2010 through July 2014 originated from more than 75 different countries. 

Additionally, according to the DHS, roughly 11 million illegal immigrants have entered the U.S. based on data supported by independent organizations that study illegal immigration, including Pew Research Center (11.3 million estimated) and the Center for Migration Studies (11 million estimated.) 

Therefore, if an American citizen deciding to turn on his country can do what occurred in California this week, not only is the risk of harm from unchecked illegal’s astronomical, what kind of administration would willingly expose the nation to that kind of obvious threat. And why?  

On another issue, Howard Schneider and Jason Lange @yahoo.com via Drudge, wrote about the greatly anticipated November jobs report, derived from Reuters, as follows:

“Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, speaking the day before a key employment report, said on Thursday the U.S. economy needs to add fewer than 100,000 jobs a month to cover new entrants to the workforce, setting an implicit floor for the jobs growth policymakers want to see.

"To simply provide jobs for those who are newly entering the labor force probably requires under 100,000 jobs per month," with anything above that helping "absorb" those who are unemployed, discouraged or had dropped out of the labor market, Yellen, who was speaking before Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said in a question and answer session.” 

However, the number presented by Yellen, is significantly lower than that previously applied as an indication of a healthy job market.  

Reader JasonV, put it his way: “Lies and more lies. 5pct unemployment my #$%$. It's closer to 15pct if not higher. We have a labor participation rate lower than that of Jimmy Carter. If that is the case how do they come up with these numbers? I'm ready for an administration who will actually be honest for once.” 

(For reader Jason Vs sake, the actual number released this morning turned out to be 9.9%, roughly twice the newly derived government formulation applied to make the statistic look far better.)  

Nonetheless, Lucia Mutikani @yahoo.com quoting Reuters, offered the quite common liberal media interpretation of the actual results, released at 8:30AM this morning. “U.S. job growth increased solidly in November in a show of the economy's resilience, which most likely paves the way for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates this month for the first time in nearly a decade. 

“Nonfarm payrolls increased 211,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. September and October data was revised to show 35,000 more jobs than previously reported. 

“The unemployment rate held at a 7-1/2-year low of 5 percent, even as people returned to the labor force in a sign of confidence in the jobs market. The jobless rate is in a range many Fed officials see as consistent with full employment and has dropped seven-tenths of a percentage point this year.” 

While the distorted numbers result from a change in reporting data used, which omits all those out of work for more than four weeks. “The labor force participation rate, or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job, rose to 62.5 percent from a near 38-year low of 62.4 percent. The last time the labor force participation was as low as 62.5 percent was in October 1977.” 

The labor force participation rate itself is a broad measure of joblessness that includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.  

What’s even more dismal is that Federal Reserve Chair, Janet Yellen, has now further explained that, “[T]he drop in the labor force participation rate since 2008 can be attributed to four factors: a greater number of retiring Baby Boomers as well as an increase in the disability rolls, an increase in school enrollments and general "worker discouragement." 

Therefore, although the growth of school enrollments may indicate that more individuals are attempting to prepare for their futures in the business world, the other three categories illustrate significant underlying weakness in the nation’s economic outlook. All of which reflect on anti-business policies of the current administration. And in other words, as usual this administration is painting a far rosier employment picture than actually exists and is simultaneously cooking the books as far as the real results are concerned. 

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

An item from WashEx posted by Chris Stirewalt @foxnews.com this morning, relates that: “At a campaign event in New Hampshire on Thursday, a woman in the audience asked Hillary if believing all [sex abuse] ‘survivors’ meant believing Bill’s accusers as well, including Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Hillary’s response: ‘I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.’” 

Bill’s wife’s answer was remindful of late July, 1998, when Monica Lewinsky turned a blue dress of hers over to Kenneth Starr's investigators after signing an immunity agreement.  

Addressing a blood sample taken from Bill Clinton on August 3, the FBI later reported its conclusion that Clinton was indeed the source of the semen on the dress "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."

According to http://law2.umkc.edu: “When news of the the existence of the dress surfaced in published reports in early August, politicians and commentators alike agreed that the blue dress proved Clinton lied when he denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.  Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called the evidence "very critical."  Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pa) agreed that it would be "the most powerful kind of corroboration" of an affair.  A George Washington law professor, Jonathan Turley, appearing on "Meet the Press" said of the semen stain: "No one will be able to spin him out of that."

And here we are, 17 years later, and as far as the Clinton’s are concerned the issues may be different, but their conduct remains perfectly consistent.

Back in 1998 the FBI concluded that Bill lied when he got caught in an illicit situation. And today, that same organization, the FBI, will soon pursue his wife for lies she told under oath, regarding her illegal handling of highly classified government information on an unauthorized email server. 

While these two situations are really a very small drops in the bucket of both Clinton’s highly suspect activities in general, they once again raise the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

That's it for today folks.

Adios