Sunday, January 31, 2016


With the Iowa caucuses finally occurring tomorrow night, February 1st, it seems the topic’s dominated the news for the past few months. Resultant of all that media coverage, curiosity arose as to the events accuracy regarding actual presidential outcomes.

According to, “In six presidential cycles dating back to 1980, the straw poll winner (or co-winner) went on to capture just three caucuses, two nominations and one presidential election.”

Which means that over the past 36 years in which 9 presidential elections took place, as far as nominees are concerned, the poll’s been correct only 22% of the time. In regard to the presidency itself, the percentage drops to 11. 

Therefore, as a statistical indicator, despite the millions spent by candidates and carloads of hot air expelled, the caucuses themselves have roughly the same value as a dart-thrower wearing a blindfold.

On another aspect of the value of predictions in general, Gail MarksJarvis Contact Reporter wrote today about the horrendous start to the year for trading stock, and what the foreseeable future holds. 

The article begins: “In other words, the first month of this year looks like a bad omen for what's to come yet in 2016. But should you believe it, or worry that a bear market is on its way?” 

Statistically: “January was one of the worst in recent history, with a decline of about 5.5 percent for the Dow Jones industrial average and almost 8 percent in the Nasdaq."

“A rally during the last couple of days helped relieve losses. Still, a common Wall Street adage has to be unsettling: "As goes January, so goes the year." 

And then, Ms MarksJarvis offers some guidance, using "experts" opinions to clarify what’s transpired and what to expect.

“Because the stock market plunged so sharply early this year, investors have been wondering if this is the beginning of a monster bear market, like late 2007 to early 2009, when the stock market dropped 57 percent. Yet, many analysts say that if the current stock market plunge becomes a bear market, it probably won't be as serious as that terrifying drop because then the financial system was poisoned. Now, banks are considered healthier, although investors do worry about failing oil businesses infecting junk bond market losses. That could make lenders cautious and slow down the economy — one of the problems in 2008.

Additionally, “Some analysts recently have tried to calm investors by explaining that stocks couldn't possibly be headed into a bear market because the economy is not in a recession. They claim that all bear markets happen in recessions, not when the economy is OK.”

However, after the preceding attempt to assuage investor's fears, Ms MarksJarvis goes on to quote Standard & Poor's analyst Sam Stovall, who tracks historical data and provided the following:  

“Stovall's research suggests those analysts have the time frame somewhat misinterpreted. Stovall notes that every time there has been a recession in the U.S. since 1948, the stock market plunged months before the recession occurred. A stock market plunge of at least 10 percent predicted trouble coming in the economy. The prediction started on average 7 1/2 months before the start of the recession. 

“If you incorporate the stock market decline that occurred before the recession and the decline during the recession, the average drop in stocks has been nearly 30 percent, Stovall said.”

Thus, much like the results of the Iowa caucuses regarding eventual presidential electoral outcomes, as far as certainty goes, “expert’s” guesses at stock market performance are about as good as your average Swami’s Ouija boards. 

And then, a friend sent the following this morning:

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

On Saturday, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Bill’s wife for the presidency, the day after the State Department said for the first time “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.” 

It was also announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information. 

What’s most important here is that: “The top secret emails lent credence to criticism by Mrs. Clinton’s rivals in the presidential race of her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. It is against the law for officials to discuss classified information on unclassified networks used for routine business or on private servers, and the F.B.I. is looking into whether such information was mishandled.” 

Therefore, regardless of how willing the New York Times, or any other entity in the major media, continue to overlook the blatant snubbing of the nation’s laws by a favored leftist, this situation is far above their ability to apply their influence. And, as far as voters are concerned, the vast majority of polls indicate that regardless of the Times opinion, both the publication and their presidential choice are rapidly shrinking in appeal continually. 

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

That’s it for today folks.     


Saturday, January 30, 2016


With most headline news centered on the likely meaningless Iowa caucuses, two articles today make one wonder if the leading Democrat candidates ever actually think before they speak. And, in the event that they do intend to present what’s said, they must believe that their constituents are the least intelligent beings on earth.   

Lesley Clark, Anita Kumar and Maria Recio @, write that: “On the Democratic side, the discontent fuels the insurgent campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who vows a political revolution to fix what he says is a system skewed to favor the rich.

“I plead guilty. I am angry,” Sanders recently told an audience in Maquoketa, Iowa, pushing back against former President Bill Clinton’s critique that voters need “not anger, but answers.” 

Sanders then went on to say: “I am angry and millions of Americans are angry. We are angry that our people are working longer hours for lower wages. We are angry that our criminal justice system is broken. And we’re angry that we have a corrupt campaign-finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections.” 

However, those issues that Sanders claims “anger him and millions of others,” are the cornerstone of liberal political philosophy. What’s more, the nation is in its current disastrous condition, here and abroad, because liberals have been in control of policy-making for the past nine years. Democrats held a Congressional majority for the last two years of  the”W” Bush administration, while Obama has been at the helm for the past seven.  

Furthermore, were he empowered to introduce his own ideology, those issues he claims to find fault with would worsen significantly. Which means that not only wouldn't his presidency help those he claims are being harmed, it would hasten their economic and political demise considerably, as well.    

Along the same lines, Olaf Ekberg, headlined his article today “Bill Clinton’s voice frail, hand quivers during attacks on Sanders”
As reported by Mr. Ekberg, Clinton said, his voice quivering: “Who will do the most to make you a .part of the future that the president painted in the State of the Union, How are we going to do it and who’s the best change maker to do it? 

“It’s not close. Hillary is the best change maker to do it,” Clinton said, his hand shaking as he pointed at the audience.

Mr. Ekberg went on to state that: “The once nubile Clinton is showing his age. It’s not 1992 anymore.” 

Adding further to Mr. Ekberg's sense that the Clinton aura has waned, he wrote: “KTVO reports 350 people turned out to see the former president, but notes “many” of them were Sanders supporters who turned out to see the former president. 

“The Clinton campaign has been plagued by low turnout at events, certainly an indication of enthusiasm — or lack thereof. 

“The Globe Gazette reported there were so many people at Bernie Sander’s rally in Mason City Wednesday night, some had to stand outside in the freezing cold and watch through the windows. 

“Sam Frizell of Time Magazine appeared on MSNBC Thursday and reported Clinton also appeared in Mason City Wednesday night and couldn’t match Sanders’s crowd. 

“Clinton had 300 attend while Sanders had 1,100 — nearly four times the former president’s total.” 

Thus, while the attendance statistics reflect significant drop-offs for the former president, Sanders isn’t drawing nearly as well as his Republican rivals, either. All of which indicates that as the the two Democrat contenders vie for party support, the general voting public doesn’t seem very enthusiastic about either one.   

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

By now, most readers are fully aware of the startling news that the the intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. 

As first reported by Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne “The State Department formally announced Friday that seven email chains, found in 22 documents, will be withheld “in full” because they, in fact, contain “Top Secret” information. 

“The State Department, when first contacted by Fox News about withholding such emails Friday morning, did not dispute the reporting – but did not comment in detail. After a version of this report was first published, the Obama administration confirmed to the Associated Press that the seven email chains would be withheld. The department has since confirmed those details publicly.” 

Most damaging is the fact that: “The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redaction's, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton's personal server.” 

However, aside from the potential negative impact of this new information on the presidential campaign is that, as also disclosed later in the article, this event reflects similar Clinton misdeeds from her questionable past.   

The authors explain that, “The developments, taken together, show Clinton finding herself once again at the epicenter of a controversy over incomplete records. 

“During her time as the first female partner at the Rose Law firm in Arkansas during the mid-1980s, she was known as one of the “three amigos” and close with partners Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster. Hubbell ended up a convicted felon for his role in the failure of the corrupt Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan which cost taxpayers more than $65 million. Hubbell embezzled more than a half-million dollars from the firm.   

“Foster killed himself in Washington, D.C., in July 1993. As Clinton’s partner in the Rose Law firm, he had followed the Clinton's into the White House where he served as the Clintons’ personal lawyer and a White House deputy counsel.  

“Clinton’s missing Rose Law billing records for her work for Guaranty during the mid-1980s were the subject of three intense federal investigations over two years. Those records, in the form of a computerized printout of her work performed on behalf of Guaranty, were discovered under mysterious circumstances in the Book Room of the private White House living quarters.”  

So, here we have history seeming to repeat itself, as far as actions above the law are concerned for both Clinton’s. But, the most important aspect of what took place in the past, is that the current headlines of impropriety are causing significant damage to the Clinton campaign on their own. However, in the event that Bill’s wife escapes her present woes, it’s a certainty that political rivals will quickly resurrect her highly questionable history.
Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?     

That’s it for today folks.