BloggeRhythms

Not much going on in the news. More debates, more primary's and it’s anyone’s guess as to who’ll wind up as either party’s presidential candidate. Particularly because the FBI may play a major role on the Democrat side, by incarcerating their front-runner. And now it looks like the top Republican may be headed for court himself. On charges of fraud and misrepresentation at the sham, Trump University. 

Ian Tuttle @nationalreview.com, writes: “First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) 

“Cue lawsuits. Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits — two class-action lawsuits filed in California, and one filed in New York by then-attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who told CNN’s New Day in 2013: “We started looking at Trump University and discovered that it was a classic bait-and-switch scheme. It was a scam, starting with the fact that it was not a university.”

Mr. Tuttle continues: “Meanwhile, Trump — who maintains that Trump University was “a terrific school that did a fantastic job” — has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested a protective order from the court “to protect her from further retaliation.” According to court documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He’s already brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general’s office. But it’s not working. Trump himself will have to take the witness stand in San Diego federal court sometime during the election season — and because of the timeline of the cases, a “President Trump” would be embroiled in these suits long after November.”

So, it will be interesting to see, if Trump is elected, cops entering the Oval Office and cuffing him. Perhaps right under a painting of Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceeding. 

On another issue mentioned here often, Justin Fox @bloomberg.com, headlined his column today: “Why aren’t more Americans working?”

The article’s most interesting because it encapsulates the direct relationship between politics and the American economy, particularly when seeking votes undermines job markets and whole classes of lesser skilled workers. Such as raising minimum wages despite the incentive that provides toward automation replacing people. Or, protecting unionized teachers via tenure, leading  the quality of education to worthlessness.  

Mr. Fox writes: “If you're looking for something to blame for the declining employment-to-population ratio, robots and workers abroad seem to be likelier culprits. Employment in manufacturing, which has been strongly affected by automation and overseas competition, fell from 17.3 million in February 2000 to 12.3 million last month. That's a lot of lost jobs for an economy to replace. Then there are the other possible causes that I trotted out last time:

“Maybe the U.S. system of unemployment insurance and job retraining and placement is busted. Maybe the perverse incentives built into the Social Security Disability Insurance program are keeping people who could work out of the labor force. Maybe the U.S. educational system is doing an especially poor job of preparing people for work. Maybe increasing geographic divergence in employment in the U.S. is leaving job seekers stranded far from jobs. Maybe poor child-care options are keeping American women at home. Maybe U.S. corporations, under pressure from capital markets, are spending so much money on share buybacks that they’re underinvesting in labor.”

So, obviously, the free market has responded to legislation by adapting its practices to preserve its enterprises and income opportunities. However businessmen didn’t cause the demise in work opportunity, or force independence from employment. Politicians did. Almost all of them members of the Democrat party.    

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

Originally, Washington Free Beacon reported back in April 2015, that Bill’s wife’s campaign “has made payments totaling six figures to Clinton this election cycle, according to a review of its expenditures.” Suggesting that funds were being siphoned off personally by the candidate.

And then, although the Clinton campaign didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment before publication, it later contacted the Beacon after the story was published, “and said the amounts listed were in-kind contributions to the campaign from Clinton.

“Those are in-kind donations from Hillary Clinton, not payments to her. Sorry for the slow response,” said campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin. 

“The campaign said the FEC requires in-kind contributions to be posted under expenditures and contributions even though no money is being disbursed from the campaign.” 

So, the point the Beacon was attempting to make is that although Bill’s wife had previously claimed that she and Bill were “dead broke” when he left the White House, the two have since amassed millions of dollars in wealth.” 

However, what’s also evident by the need for personal funds is that, perhaps donors aren’t coming through as expected this time around. A major concern.

On another issue, it was mentioned here a day or two ago that Bill had trouble focusing in an argument with a heckler during a campaign event. Now, today, Steve Guest @dailycaller.com writes: “While stumping for Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton attempted to boast on behalf of his wife, praising her for establishing sanctions on Iran, but instead he got confused and said “Iraq.” 

“During a campaign rally Thursday night in Baton Rouge, La., the former president said, “She got those sanctions on Iraq, which required China and Russia to sign off so everybody would enforce them. Even I didn’t think she could get them, but she did. 

“In all fairness, who really knows what Bill Clinton is talking about anymore?” America Rising asked. 

Thus, the go-to guy may have finally run out of steam, leaving his wife to campaign on her own. Which is like Popeye running out of spinach. And we all know what that means. It also leads to the continuing 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