BloggeRhythms

Buried among all the article links on Drudge, and not found mentioned in any of the major media as an especially newsworthy event, is a Reuters column reporting: “A powerful U.S. lawmaker on Wednesday demanded Secretary of State John Kerry provide an explanation of a $1.7 billion claim settlement paid to Iran just as Tehran released American prisoners last month.” 

Within the column, are a couple of truly astounding disclosures. “Republican Ed Royce, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote that the timing of the settlement and the administration's failure to brief Congress "has led some to express concern that the payment represents a de facto 'ransom' for the release of American hostages." 

And then, aside from the fact that, once again, the administration ignored Congress, the structure of the payout is incredible on its own, as follows: “On Jan. 17, the State Department said the United States and Iran had settled a longstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest.” 

So, not only did the Iranians get their funds back, which many feel is undeserved, American taxpayers threw in another $900 million on top of that. Which isn’t even “deficit spending,” it’s much more like gross negligence in office, to put it politely. Or beyond moronic, to be more blunt. 

On a similar aspect of fiscal-mismanagement and absence of economic knowledge, socialist politico’s, such as Sanders and Bill Clinton’s wife keep pushing for higher minimum wages, less working hours, more worker benefits and longer medical and maternity leaves. 

At the same time, unions continue attempting to organize labor, taking as much as possible from employer's coffers. However, while all this backward thinking takes place among the fiscally naive regarding the future, managements are quickly changing the playing-field, primarily because they’re being forced to, by self-serving union leeches and short-sighted politicians. 

Leanna Garfield @techinsider.io via Drudge, writes today, about the Locus robot that “can zip around a clothing warehouse larger than the size of six football fields. It can also work for 24 hours, without a break for lunch or a salary.

"The bots work alongside humans and do all the normal grunt work. Warehouse workers usually walk 12 to 16 miles each day. With the robots, they don't have to. 

"The robots now meet the human workers in the middle of the warehouse. As soon as someone completes an order online, the bot's system knows exactly where to go in the 275,000-square-foot warehouse. 

"Since the robots are able to move faster than humans without tiring, Welty says the system will boost warehouse productivity by up to 800%. The bots will also not be subject to human error, which means that they can get the order right nearly every time. 

"As a way to increase productivity and speed, many online retailers have been using robots, conveyor belts, and cranes to fulfill orders for the past decade. Amazon has exclusive rights to Kiva Systems' robots, but Welty says Locus' robots are smaller, and more lightweight and versatile. 

At the same time, in another article, Ms Garfield adds: “The Japanese lettuce production company Spread believes the farmers of the future will be robots. 

"So much so that Spread is creating the world's first farm manned entirely by robots. Instead of relying on human farmers, the indoor Vegetable Factory will employ robots that can harvest 30,000 heads of lettuce every day. They'll plant seeds, water plants, and trim lettuce heads after harvest in the Kyoto, Japan farm.  

"The use of machines and technology has been improving agriculture in this way throughout human history," J.J. Price, a spokesperson at Spread, tells Tech Insider. "With the introduction of plant factories and their controlled environment, we are now able to provide the ideal environment for the crops." 

Now, the argument here isn’t that the technological revolution in labor is specifically the fault of socialist politicians, because that isn’t so. However, demanding more pay for the same labor, and continually seeking worker benefits with no commensurate employer income is certainly accelerating increasing interest in automation wherever possible. 

And therefore, the same politico’s would be doing far more for their constituents if they sought to help them increase their value, by forcing teachers to teach instead of merely seeking tenure while using wages as an incentive for employees to increase their worth in the human marketplace.   

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

Yesterday, a comment from Rush covered both Democrat contenders, but applies to the grossly distorted image their party has presented for years which is truly a fiction of media hype and misinformation.

Rush said: “You look at Ted Cruz, you look at Marco Rubio, you look at Dr. Ben Carson. You have two Hispanics and an African-American getting 60% of the caucus votes. Over on the Democrat side, two bedraggled, worn out old white people were the choice. And we sit here, we continue to have to listen to all this garbage that the Republican Party is where you find a lack of diversity and closed-minded bigotry.” 

And then, as an absolute truth and verification of Rush’s thought, an item on FoxNews.com, illustrates clearly who Bill’s wife really represents and how her allegiance has been bought and paid for. 

Regarding a $675,000 speaking fee paid to her by Goldman Sachs, “Clinton went on to say that she accepted the Goldman money after she left the State Department in 2013, when, as she put it, "I wasn't committed to running" for president.” 

Additionally: “An Associated Press analysis of public disclosure forms and records released by her campaign found that Clinton made $9 million from appearances sponsored by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity firms and real estate businesses.”

This from the woman who's out there every day "fighting" for the needy. Yeah, right!

Going further in regard to her clearly questionable behavior, is Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, now senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. In that role, he’s ordinarily taken a neutral political approach to subjects discussed, clearly explaining the legalities involved in a way that viewers can understand them in layman’s terms. 

However, for some time now, he’s demonstrated significant disgust for Bill Clinton’s wife, her conduct in the past and particularly, her use of her private email server when secretary of state.     

To begin his column yesterday, the judge wrote: “Clinton, of course, is the heiress to the mightiest Democratic political apparatus in the land. Hence the question: What do the Iowa Democrats know that caused thousands of them to flee from her? 

“They know she is a crook.” 

And then, in closing, he offered the following summation: “Let’s be as blunt about this as the FBI will be: Causing state secrets to reside in a nonsecure, nongovernmental venue, whether done intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage. 

“And there is more. When asked about the consequences of Clinton’s brazen exposure of state secrets to anyone who knows how to hack into a nonsecure computer, an intelligence operative winced as if in pain when he remarked that the nation’s then chief diplomat surely compromised the “sources, methods, and lives” of her colleagues. 

“Even Democrats who see Clinton as a symbol of their long-time wish for a progressive female in the Oval Office are beginning to recognize that anyone who has jeopardized American lives for political gain is unworthy of their votes, unworthy of their trust and unworthy of public office.” 

Which brings up 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