BloggeRhythms

The POTUS delivered nothing really new, in his prime-time remarks last night from the Oval Office, regarding the attack in San Bernardino. He did, however, once again highlight his goal of disarming honest, law-abiding citizens.  

Greg Jaffe @washingtonpost.com, summed up the 15 minute talk as follows: “His decision to speak on the terrorist threat from the Oval Office, just days after the deadly attack in San Bernardino, Calif., reflects a broad concern in the White House that the American people, distracted by the overheated cacophony of the campaign season, are not listening to him. Or at least they are not hearing what he has to say.”

In that regard, two readers offering’s reflect the majority of those commenting on what the POTUS had to say.  

Reader emmalulu wrote: “It's not that the president isn't heard - he had a prime time Oval Office address and every word he utters is covered in all media. Oh, we hear him. We just don't agree. There is a big difference. 

Ned La Tourelle added: “It is rather difficult to be heard, when one is not saying anything.” 

And then a FB friend summed the gun-control issue up this way:

On another issue, the gains made by France’s far right party, National Front, were mentioned here yesterday. And then, this morning, across the ocean the Associated Press via foxnews.com, reports: “Venezuela's opposition won control of the National Assembly by a landslide, trouncing the ruling party and altering the balance of power after almost 17 years of socialist rule.

“The opposition coalition won at least 99 seats in the incoming 167-seat legislature, electoral authorities announced after midnight Sunday. The ruling socialist party won 46 seats. The 19 remaining races remain up for grabs, but if enough are won by the opposition it could give the coalition a two-thirds supermajority needed to strongly challenge President Nicolas Maduro's grip on power.” 

The depth of voter dissatisfaction was reflected by a turnout of a stunning 74 percent. “[A]s Venezuelans punished Maduro's government for widespread shortages, a plunging currency and triple-digit inflation that has brought the economy to the edge of collapse.”

“The opposition victory deals a serious setback to the socialist revolution started almost 17 years ago by the late Hugo Chavez, who until his death in 2013 had an almost-magical hold on the political aspirations of Venezuela's long-excluded masses.” 

Most importantly, as an indicator of underlying similarities to voter trends in the U.S, the Venezuelan results were also, “a major blow to Latin America's left, which gained power in the wake of Chavez's ascent but more recently has been struggling in the face of a region-wide economic slowdown and voter fatigue in some countries with rampant corruption.” 

Additionally: “Last month, Argentines elected a conservative businessman over the chosen successor of Cristina Fernandez, who was a close ally of Chavez. In Brazil, President Dilma Rousseff is battling impeachment over a corruption scandal in her long-ruling Workers' Party.”

Therefore, the negative reactions to socialism in general around the globe, for a widening variety of reasons, indicate clearly that the same results ought to be expected here in the U.S. Which goes to further prove, that even unqualified presidential candidates have a chance at winning the Oval Office. So long as they don’t sound sound like Democrats.   

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

David E. Sanger @nytimes.com,  writes: “Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the Islamic State had become “the most effective recruiter in the world” and that the only solution was to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militant websites, videos and encrypted communications. 

“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hour-long speech and question-and-answer session at the Saban Forum, an annual gathering at the Brookings Institution that focuses mostly on Israel’s security issues.” 

Then, responding to a question, she referred to using the “nuclear option” against Iran, usually interpreted as using a nuclear weapon. Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court, was in the audience and publicly corrected her. 

Bill’s wife responded, “Oh, the military option, thank you, Justice Breyer. He’s a careful listener,” reiterating that she meant a military option to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 

Reporter Sanger added that, “It was a rare moment: a sitting member of the court rescuing a political candidate from a mistaken comment.” 

So, here we have another illustration of the total incompetence of the leading Democrat presidential candidate. Which shows that in addition to blunders like Benghazi, illegal email servers and complete ignorance of how the nation’s economy functions, she can’t even remember how to present an accurate military reaction to one of the nation’s fiercest enemy’s.  

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

And, in closing, another FB posting from a friend. 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios