BloggeRhythms

Remarkable start to the day this morning as Dana Blanton @foxnews.com, headlined her column: “Fox News Poll: Clinton up by 6 points, 89 percent say 'hot-headed' describes Trump” 

Ms Blanton went on to write: “Donald Trump has had a few rocky weeks on the campaign trail, and it shows in the latest Fox News Poll.  Just over half of Republicans would rather have someone besides Trump as their nominee, and his support in the presidential ballot test has dropped seven points since May.   

“Democrat Hillary Clinton is up 44-38 percent over Trump in a head-to-head matchup.  Earlier this month, Clinton had a three-point edge (42-39 percent).  In May, Trump was up by three (45-42 percent).  Clinton’s current lead is just inside the poll’s margin of sampling error.” 

And then, at the very same time, the following was found on Drudge: “The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead. 

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.” 

So, here we have continuing evidence that as far as the polls are concerned, there is absolutely no reason to trust the results they produce. Because they obviously have no true sense of voter’s preferences whatsoever and haven’t for many years now. And in Trump’s particular case, neither pollsters nor media “experts” have any idea of exactly who his base is comprised of, making their commentary, polls and projections simply worthless.

Aside from the poll results, however, there is mounting proof that if nothing else, Trump has truly rattled the cage of the POTUS. To the extent that while speaking in Ottawa yesterday, the president seemed to be babbling.

Rebecca Shabad’s headline @cbsnews.com, read: “Obama goes on "rant" about Donald Trump's populism"

According to Ms Shabad, “President Obama went off on his own rant Wednesday at a trilateral press conference in which he disputed the idea that Donald Trump is a populist and that the presumptive GOP nominee instead promotes "nativism" or "xenophobia." 

After reporters asked a series of questions of Mr. Obama, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mr. Obama decided he had something else to say in Ottawa -- he addressed the common theme of populism raised during the event. 

"I'm not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that's been popping up is populist," Mr. Obama said, referring to Trump. 

“Without identifying him by name, Mr. Obama dismissed Trump as someone "who has never shown any regard for workers, who has never fought on behalf of any social justice issues" and who has worked against providing economic opportunities. 

"They don't suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes," he said. "That's not the measure of populism; that's nativism or xenophobia...or it's just cynicism." 

While the POTUS’s mincing of words may not be particular meaningful to the majority of the voting public, his rant may be indicative of something else entirely.  

Because when he stuck his two cents into the Brexit vote, by addressing a subject that was none of his business, he likely added to the size of the “Remain” side’s loss. And now, by inserting himself into the upcoming election here, he might very well cost Bill Clinton’s wife some needed support by incenting many whom would have backed her to move over to Trump.

And then, Rush posted this on Facebook today:

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife and an article found @dailymail.co.uk/news.

The story covers author Jerome Corsi whose new book, Partners in Crime: The Clintons' Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit, will be published in August. 

Mr. Corsi writes: “The Clinton Foundation is 'a vast, criminal conspiracy' and 'a slush fund for grifters' with thousands of honest people who are victims after contributing their hard-earned money to what they believed would be used for philanthropic causes. 

“In truth, the money that was donated to help earthquake victims in India and Haiti and HIV/AIDs sufferers in the Third World has mostly enriched the Clintons and their friends through scams spanning the globe, 

“The Clinton Foundation is 'a philanthropic foundation the Clintons appear to use as a personal piggy bank', writes Corsi, a political commentator and author known for his two New York Times bestsellers, The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command, which both criticized the Democratic party and presidential candidates.”   

It is Mr. Corsi’s contention that some of the funds raised have been used to pay off those with first-hand knowledge of Bill's long history of errant sexual behavior. And that he secretly established 'pass-through' bank accounts to hide kickbacks from Clinton Foundation donors and sponsors that only enrich the Clintons themselves. 

Mr. Corsi describes the Foundation as another Clinton 'get-rich-quick-and-often' scheme, involving a “massive a 'pay to play' bribery scheme in which seven-figure charitable donations and six-figure speaker's fees were sought in return for favorable policy decisions engineered by a secretary of state running the Clinton Foundation via a private e-mail service – in direct violation of national security laws.” 

Some example offered include: “In 2001, Clinton had to pay the Arkansas Bar Association $25,000 for lying under oath that he 'did not have sex with that woman', Monica Lewinsky. 

“He had to pay Paula Jones $850,000 three years earlier to drop the sexual harassment lawsuit. 

“Their legal bills in defense of Whitewater affair and the Lewinsky scandal were estimated to be as high as $10.6million.” 

The story is quite long, seems well-researched, is extensively detailed and reads in part like a paperback novel: Here’s a link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3659123/Slush-funds-pay-personal-consultant-Huma-Abedin-luxe-Caribbean-holiday-daughter-Chelsea-payoffs-silence-Bill-s-sex-accusers-Hillary-used-donations-Clinton-Foundation-personal-piggy-bank.html

And naturally, when all of the negatives regarding both Clinton’s are considered, the ongoing question needs to be asked once more: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are  you guys reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Britain’s Brexit vote took many by complete surprise. Primarily because the major media was completely unaware, or purposely misleading, about voter sentiment throughout most of that nation. The same held true for the majority of Parliament, up to and including Prime Minister David Cameron, who’s now resigned because he was unable, or unwilling, to grasp the sentiment of the majority of his people. 

The preceding is noteworthy today, because this same Brexit vote more than likely offers a clear prediction of what will take place in the U.S. when voters go to the polls this coming November. And that's because both nations run parallel as far as key voter sentiment is concerned. The majority's upset about lack of jobs, extremely high unemployment rates, loss of national identity to globalization , and particularly, unbridled illegal immigration.

In specific regard to the media, however, two articles today illustrate clearly how particular bias and promotion of a self-serving agenda frequently misleads the public in general.

Gary Langer @abcnews.go.com, headlined his article yesterday: “Clinton Opens 12-Point Lead on Trump as Two-Thirds See Him as Biased (POLL)”

Langer went on: “Hillary Clinton surged to a broad advantage against Donald Trump in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, capitalizing on Trump’s recent campaign missteps. Two-thirds of Americans see him as biased against groups such as women, minorities or Muslims, and a new high, 64 percent, call Trump unqualified to serve as president. 

“These and other doubts about Trump have produced a sharp 14-point swing in preferences among registered voters, from +2 points for Trump in mid-May, after he clinched the GOP nomination, to +12 points for Clinton now, 51-39 percent. That snaps the race essentially back to where it was in March.” 

Then, on the very same day, Anthony Salvanto @cbsnews.com, posted a column titled: “Poll: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton in tight races in battleground states” 

According to Mr. Salvanto: “Battleground states are called battlegrounds for a reason: They're often close, and 2016 looks like no exception.” 

The text says: “Hillary Clinton holds narrow leads over Donald Trump across a number of key states of Florida (up three points, 44 to 41 percent); Colorado (Clinton 40 percent, Trump 39 percent); Wisconsin (Clinton up 41 percent to 36 percent) and North Carolina, which has flipped back and forth between the parties in the last two elections, where it's Clinton 44 percent and Trump 42 percent.” 

So, two major media outlet's present two completely different polls resulting in two completely different conclusions. One shows Trump being eclipsed, the other having in him almost a virtual tie at this point. 

All of which goes to illustrate that the presidential race’s outcome is total unknown at present. And, if the Brexit vote is the indicator that many believe it truly is, when November finally rolls around the actual vote results will likely be the complete reverse of what the major media is trying to sell to their shrinking base of readers at present. 

On another subject, the economy, one needn’t be a sophisticated financial analyst to grasp the horrendous cost to the nation caused by misguided environmentalist ideology and inane rhetoric. Because, here we are as a nation in the midst of self-inflicted economic stagnation and buried in debt caused specifically by political pandering and an anti-business mentality at the top of the Democrat party.    

Proof of the premise can be found in an article by Scott Mayerowitz,  AP Business Writer @ap.org, who headed his column today: “Heading out of town: Independence Day travel to break record“ 

According to Mr. Mayerowitz: “A record 43 million Americans are expected to travel this Independence Day weekend, with the overwhelming majority driving, according to AAA, a car lobbying group and one of the nation's largest travel agencies. This tops the joint record set last year and in 2007. 

“Lower gas prices, strong consumer confidence and a generally healthy domestic economy have led more families to take trips this summer. 

“AAA estimates that U.S. drivers have saved $20 billion on gasoline so far this year compared to the same period last year. Gas prices as of June 20 were 46 cents per gallon below prices from a year ago. 

"We are well on our way for 2016 to be a record-breaking year for summertime travel," said AAA President and CEO Marshall Doney.” 

Interestingly, until last year when gas prices began tumbling, thanks to fracking, the travel and business drought coincide precisely to the period during which Obama presided over the U.S. Which means that had he not pandered to environmentalist drivel, the chances re the nation;s economy would have been amidst a major recovery by now, while the huge national debt would likely have shrunk considerably.  

It also means that whatever safeguards these same lunatic environmentalists wished to see in place would not only have been affordable, they’d have plenty of money and time to simultaneously search for alternative sources of fuel and energy. However, liberal logic never extends that far. Because their immediate reaction is always to kill the goose, whether or not there’s a viable solution to the incredible level of damage they invariably cause due to unearned self-importance and world class absences of basic knowledge. 

And then, a friend sent this one: 

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

In his dogged personal effort to interpret and promote his ceaseless discovering's of Bill’s wife’s offenses, Judge Andrew Napolitano @foxnews.com, this morning dropped another bombshell, as follows: 

“The discovery of a potentially damning email that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over to the State Department is of "critical importance."

“On "Mornings With Maria," Judge Napolitano explained that the email was from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin to the then-secretary of state and her inner circle, saying that they had been hacked and they were temporarily disabling State Department security features to accommodate Clinton’s private server.” 

The judge said this directly contradicts Bill’s wife’s repeated claims that she never jeopardized national security secrets and that her emails were never hacked. Adding that: “U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan suspected that Clinton was not being forthcoming in releasing all her work-related emails, so he had her swear "under penalty of perjury" that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department. 

"That is a code phrase for 'I think you're lying to me,'" the judge explained. 

Equally important, he said "that if the Justice Department declines to indict Clinton for political reasons, many FBI investigators and Justice Department prosecutors could rebel and leak details of the investigation. 

"If FBI agents resign and leak on the eve of the election or the eve of the DNC, does President Obama have a Watergate-like, Saturday Night Massacre on his hands?" 

“The "Saturday Night Massacre" refers to Richard Nixon's 1973 firing of a special prosecutor and the resignation of his attorney general during the Watergate scandal.” 

Thus, this is the lingering issue continuing to smolder just outside Bill’s wife’s current presidential campaign. It’s uncertain conclusion may also very may be the reason that Sander’s hasn’t conceded to her as yet. Because, if she’s indicted or otherwise damaged by FBI detail leakage, someone will certainly have to replace her as a candidate. A position Sanders certainly qualifies for, considering his primary election performance. 

It also calls for the asking of the continuing question once more: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?    

That’s it for today folks.   

   

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Attempting to find a brief, concise, readily understandable recapitulation of the Brexit vote and what it means to voters in the U.S. proved quite difficult. Most articles were far too complex, containing long dissertations on economics and rapidly changing world relationships among those in the European Union to translate into future expectations here. 

The research, however, led to two paragraphs in an article @nytimes.com, by Patrick Healy that seemingly serve as the basis for reasonable projections regarding the politics involved. 

Mr. Healy wrote: “The American electorate has tilted this year toward presidential candidates who make them feel as much as think, but Mrs. Clinton and her allies hope that voters will reflect on the vote in Britain and opt for the steadiness and predictability that she promises.

“I don’t think the average American who has a retirement account right now is thrilled about Donald Trump’s support of Brexit,” said Thomas R. Nides, who was a deputy secretary of state under Mrs. Clinton. “Hillary Clinton understands we always need to change — but change that doesn’t cause unintended consequences for the average American.” 

In this case, it’s uncertainly understandable that Nides is likely quite shaken and thus, in typical Clinton fashion, has chosen to resort to fear tactics rather than dealing squarely with the reality of what’s actually taken place. 

As  a practical matter Brits voted to get a huge, costly, antiquated bureaucratic mass off their backs, returning responsibility for their economy and their nation’s borders back to their own population. Considering the magnitude of what’s happened, logic dictates that the equilibrium will be temporarily shaken during the process. Any other result would be impossible, whereas a new structure has to be constructed form top to bottom. Up to and including replacing the Prime Minister. 

Thus, the time to determine the ultimate sensibility of the Brexit vote is in the medium-range future, after at least 6 months to a year has passed, allowing things to settle. Which means that the Clinton representatives response is typical of Bill’s wife’s history where substance has never mattered, and the answers always been to talk loudly whether one understands a whit about the subject or not.      

On a similar matter, senseless gibberish, back on June 18, according to capradio.org, the AP reported: “President Barack Obama says climate change is the biggest threat to U.S. national parks.

“Obama says meadows are already drying out at Yosemite National Park in California, where he spoke Saturday after spending the night in the park with his wife, Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha.” 

Claiming he was greatly upset by the drought, the POTUS tweeted: “@POTUS at @YosemiteNPS “We’ve got to do a lot more” on climate change. “There’s such a thing as being too late.” 

Now today, eight days later, Ada Carr @weather .com, writes: “At least 24 people have died and a federal disaster has been declared in West Virginia after heavy rains flooded several towns, prompting search and rescue operations. Both Virginia and West Virginia have declared states of emergency due to the devastating event that has been described as "complete chaos." 

"Roads destroyed, bridges out, homes burned down, washed off foundations," said Greenbrier County Sheriff Jan Cahill. "Multiple sections of highway just missing. Pavement just peeled off like a banana. I've never seen anything like that." 

“West Virginia climatologist Kevin Law told USA Today that this is the third-deadliest flooding event on record for the state. A November 1985 flood that killed 38 ranked second-worst, and the 1972 Buffalo Creek flood that killed 125 was the worst in state history, the report also said.”

So, either the POTUS’s prayers have been heeded and a miracle’s occurred of biblical magnitude, because waters pouring down at an incredible rate. Or perhaps it’s simply a matter of where the location is and the time of year. Because on both counts, Yosemite and West Virginia, Mother Nature’s doing what she’s always done throughout time and history. 

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

FoxNews.com’s Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne write today that a leading IT official who oversaw computer security at the Defense Intelligence Agency told Fox News: “A 2010 decision temporarily disabling State Department security features to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s private server effectively laid out a "welcome mat" for hackers and foreign intelligence services. 

"You're putting not just the Clinton server at risk but the entire Department of State emails at risk," said Bob Gourley, former chief technology officer (CTO) for the DIA. "When you turn off your defensive mechanisms and you're connected to the Internet, you're almost laying out the welcome mat for anyone to intrude and attack and steal your secrets." 

“He was referring to revelations from new court-released documents in a lawsuit by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch. They show the State Department temporarily turned off security features in 2010 so that emails from then-Secretary of State Clinton's personal server would stop going to the department's spam folders.  

“Gourley, who has more than two decades of cybersecurity experience and is now a partner with strategic consulting and engineering firm Cognitio, noted the Russians did breach the State Department system at some point – though it’s unclear when, and whether disabling the security functions in 2010 played a role. 

“He said, though, that when the Russian presence was detected in 2014, there were indications “they had been there for quite a while … [and] also hacked into unclassified systems in the White House.” He said the Russians would have tried “everything possible to get in.” 

At the same time, while the FBI is investigating Bill’s wife’s emails practices and whether the server was compromised by a third party: “This week, the head of WikiLeaks Julian Assange told a British television network that he was in possession of Clinton emails that have not yet been released, indicating the system was compromised. 

“In an interview with British Television Network ITV, Assange said he has Clinton emails that are not public, and there is "enough evidence" for criminal charges, including regarding the Clinton Foundation, though he claimed she was too protected by the Obama administration for an indictment to go forward. 

"There's very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation," Assange said.

Therefore, despite Bill’s wife’s claims that she’s not a material participant in the FBI’s ongoing investigation, the facts of the matter indicate the complete reverse. And if the leaked information to date regarding the results reported is anywhere near being accurate, the ongoing question needs to be asked once more: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?    

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, it was mentioned here that many recent events, such as the Brexit vote in the UK, were serving to bolster Trump’s campaign, whereas he’s been on the right side (no pun intended) of most of those issues. In response, a long-time friend responded via email that he believed too much credit had been assessed in the public’s favor, as follows:

My friend's response: “This may sound elitist but I think you are giving a sizable majority of the American public too much credit. 

“(you need to be more of a Democrat) Most of the public does not care about or understand Hillary's transgressions. 

“For decades the Democrats  have resorted to labeling Republicans as Racist, Anti Gay, Anti Woman and on and on. Yet with hardly any evidence to support those claims the sheep buy into it because the press says its so. Trump realizes this. That is why he dumbs down his speeches- with little substance. So far it has worked. 

“Only an indictment of her will force them to notice.” 

The subject’s been brought up again today, whereas the response to my friend this morning seemed an appropriate summation of the current state of the Trump campaign. 

“What’s Trump’s bringing about is a coalition of all those who’ve been misled, harmed or taken advantage of by years of political self-serviance. The voter frustration crosses party lines, is huge in the numbers affected and has resulted in Trump’s amassing more votes to date than any candidate in political history. Including Reagan and Kennedy. That’s why he defeated 16 others in the primary’s. 

“So, while you may be absolutely correct in regard to historical voter performance, Trump’s approach has been to focus on the major issues in a way that traditional candidates either can’t or won’t. And it’s the economy, jobs, border security, foreign policy and particularly illegal immigrants and the Iranian deal that are the key hot buttons involved at present. 

“Compounding the problem for his competitors so far, is that they have no way to determine who Trump’s supporters are because they are so widespread and diverse. Which in its own way should be extremely difficult, if not impossible for Clinton to deal with. Because an unidentifiable voter base is virtually impossible to reach in mass numbers. Just ask the 16 other Republican’s that he’s already turned inside out.” 

Rush too, yesterday, opined on Brexit, comparing the event to earlier attempts to bring Britain more in line with Europe.   

Rush said: “Let's go back to 1990, October 30th, 1990. It's in London, in Parliament, Margaret Thatcher, during a debate on rejecting a move toward a more closely united Europe. Do you know what it was costing the UK every year to be a member of the European Union? It was something to the tune of $18 million a year. Had to pay 'em $18 million a year for privilege of membership in the European Union. 

Farther along, Rush said: ‘Here's Margaret Thatcher, two bites warning her nation about turning British power over to Europe. 

"THATCHER: The president of the commission, Mr. Delors, said at press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community. He wanted the commission to be the executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No. 

 

"RUSH: Very similar. Here's the next one. 

"THATCHER: Perhaps the Labor Party would give all those things up, easily. Perhaps they would agree to a single currency, to total abolition of the pound sterling. Perhaps being totally incompetent with monetary matters they'd be only too delighted to hand over the full responsibility as they did to the IMF, to a central bank. The fact is, they have no competence on money, no competence on the economy, so, yes, the right honorable gentleman would be glad to hand it all over. And what is the point? In trying to get elected to Parliament only to hand over your sterling and to hand over the powers of this house to Europe. 

And then, in his conclusion, Rush brought the comparison to the current U.S. into focus, as follows: 

“RUSH: We mentioned this quote of hers yesterday. What's the point of even having a British Parliament if you are gonna cede your own sovereignty to some gigantic European association, and especially if you're ceding it to a bunch of incompetents who don't know what they're doing. And that is patently obvious. They don't know what they're doing. They are guided by sleeves and emotion. Whatever is on their sleeve, the emotion on their sleeve, they're guided by it.” 

And, in its own way that’s what’s transpiring here at home. Trump has brought governmental incompetence and its ramifications to the forefront. Exposing self-serving politicians for what they are. Which is something other candidates can’t do themselves. Because they’re all part of the same fraternity, regardless of party affiliation. 

Thus, if he can keep that “outsider” image growing, he’ll keep attracting those that are fed up with government altogether, which is more than his current competition, or anyone else, will be able to overcome at the polls.  

And then, a Facebook friend posted this one: 

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

As mentioned her yesterday: “Documents obtained by The Associated Press as part of a lawsuit involving the Obama administration showed at least 75 meetings with longtime backers of her political efforts, the Clinton Foundation or other interests that were either not included on her official calendar or whose names were not disclosed.” 

In that regard, Julian Hattem @thehill.com, writes: “There were at least 114 nongovernmental officials who attended those meetings and meals with Clinton, the AP found. 

“On Friday, State Department spokesman John Kirby would not defend the discrepancies, citing both the AP's lawsuit and the passage of time. 

“Regardless of the ongoing litigation I am not in a position — nor should I be expected to — to speak of the scheduling habits of a previous secretary of State,” Kirby told reporters. “I’m not able to do that.” 

“It’s a case of ongoing litigation and I’m simply not able to discuss it further.” 

Therefore, it seems that quite subtly, the State Department has backed somewhat away from their usual knee-jerk response to immediately support Bill's wife, or downplay the questions asked by the press. 

Now, whether or not that indicates an eventual cutting of ties, or perhaps, the following of a change in orders from the White House obviously remains to be seen.  

However, if this is truly the beginning of an abandonment of Bill’s wife, the ongoing question needs asking again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Trump may very well be the luckiest politician that ever existed. Because without having any experience, campaigning talent, or proven capabilities, he’s being handed the presidency of the United States by his opposition.

In a major surprise yesterday, British voters decided to leave the European Union reflecting a significant, and growing, rebellion against governmental controls, creeping socialism and the ramifications of forced immigration.

Despite there being major differences between Britain’s governmental structure and that of the U.S., the many similarities often indicate a parallel in the two nations political environment. Such as that indicated when Tony Blair turned his nation’s economy around for the better, by modeling his government upon American conservative philosophy, although he and his party were basically socialists. Blair’s contention was that in order to provide all that was needed by his population, first you had to build a strong economic base to provide the needed financial wherewithal.

And now today, primarily the working sectors of the UK have stated at the polling booths that they’ve had enough of others, such as the European bureaucrats within the EU, deciding the flight  of their economic and social destiny’s.

In the case of U.S. politics today, the framework is almost identical to that of the UK. An overbearing government has stifled economic growth, over-regulated substantially, ignored the needs of those in the work force, while permitting unbridled, uncontrolled immigration. 

Which means that if Trump can just take a patient approach, let the administration's horrendous performance speak for itself without need for his embellishment, and let the populace’s fear, disgust and rebellion against illegal immigration continue to fester, his chances have now greatly improved toward a win in November.

Another issue helping Trump considerably is that yesterday the Supreme Court deadlocked on the POTUS’s immigration plan to shield millions of illegal’s from deportation. The decision effectively killed the plan for the rest of his presidency.

It has been Trump’s contention all along to end to the programs anyway, since he has vowed to deport the roughly 11 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally. And now, the nation’s highest court agrees with him.

While the SCOTUS decision is distressing to the POTUS as a political point, his personal image took a pounding too. Whereas back in April he warned British voters they would be at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S. if they left the EU.  

That same mentality was echoed by Bill Clinton’s wife who also backed a “remain” vote in April.

Those sentiments were rebuked by Trump in May, when he promised that “leaving the EU would not put Britain at the back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”

All in all, another unforced administration error resulting in more points scoring in Trump’s favor. 

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

While not necessarily of major damage at this point, another case of potential unethical procedure has arisen which casts suspicion on her behavior, as follows: 

According to mcclatchydc.com: “The AP review of Clinton's calendar — her after-the-fact, official chronology of the events of her four-year term — identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors and loyalists, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were either not recorded or listed with identifying details scrubbed. The AP found the omissions by comparing the 1,500-page document with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day's events. The names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton were missing from her calendar, the records show. 

“The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror other more detailed records of her daily meetings. At a time when Clinton's private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the "risk of the personal being accessible" — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered elsewhere.”

Thus, the basis for significant distrust among voters continues to increase with the passage of time, fed by mounting documented evidence. And with more than four months remaining until November, it’s surely probable that the negative impact will expand. 

Which naturally leads to the ongoing question once again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

    

That’s it for today folks.     

  

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday was huge for Trump, some believing that the speech he delivered forms the basis for a powerful campaign ahead. Provided he can maintain the advantage and momentum gained. 

One such influential observer was Rush who said on his show: “Well, I have to tell you, my email is overflowing with people calling Trump's speech a home run.  People are saying, "Finally! It's about time somebody started telling the truth about Hillary Clinton, and it's not you.  Finally somebody that's an official Republican starts telling us what we already know!" People are jazzed by this, according to my email and other feedback that I'm getting. We've got all the audio sound bites coming. Of course, I, as a powerful, influential member of the media, had a transcript of the speech before it was given.” 

Rush believes that the major gain stems from Trump’s neither being part of the Republican “establishment,” nor hamstrung by the relationships and protocols of traditional party representatives. Which means he can take the gloves off when attacking Bill Clinton’s wife.  

 

Rush put it this way: “It happens it was a speech given on the prompter today down at SoHo, one of Trump's hotels that he owns.  So Trump basically said things about Hillary Clinton that you just don't hear Republicans saying.  You've heard them before.  You've heard them on this program, of course.  You've probably heard similar things that Trump said in other areas.  But you just do not hear Mitt Romney say this, for example.  You wouldn't hear the Bush family talk this way about Hillary.  You wouldn't. You just wouldn't hear it.  

“You wouldn't hear fellow establishment types talk about this, 'cause it's too close to home for all of them.  But Trump can say this stuff as an outsider. He can say this stuff as a nonmember of the elite or the establishment, and it's gonna be interesting to see, because while everything Trump said about Hillary has been said before by people -- and, of course, we have the Peter Schweizer book, Clinton Cash, which Trump quoted from extensively.  You don't see things like that happen, either.” 

Now, naturally, one would expect a Conservative icon such as Rush to attempt to present the best picture possible of any Republican candidate. And even more so considering his long-held contempt and hatred for both Clinton’s, as far back as can be remembered. However, Rush’s assessment of Trump’s significant gain was confirmed by none other than national political correspondent for left-leaning National Public Radio, Mara Liasson.  

   

According to Joel B. Pollak @breitbart.com: “[Trump] delivered a 41-minute address from his skyscraper in New York, attacking his Democratic rival for corrupt deals while at the State Department, and responding to her own sharp attack on his economic policies the day before. 

“Liasson writes that while the Clinton campaign was already disputing the particulars of Trump’s argument, he had made the case against Clinton in a way Republicans have been unable to do, and which the media have refused to allow. In so doing, she says, he may have helped unify the Republican Party behind his candidacy, while setting aside two weeks of missteps: 

“This speech should quiet some of the angst inside Republican circles about the quality of the campaign Trump is running (or not running). Opposition to the Clintons is one of the strongest strands in the GOP’s DNA — and now that decades-long animus seems to have found a focused champion in Donald Trump. 

“It’s the speech Republicans have been itching to hear, in a crystallized way, since the 1990s. Trump gave them exactly what they wanted and likely quelled some fears about his candidacy. They might not be totally behind him, but Republicans are virulently opposed to her.” 

Thus, a major steps been taken toward party unity which the “establishment types” can now choose to support or ignore. However, whatever path those elders decide to follow, Trump’s now put major responsibility for the results in November’s presidential election squarely on their shoulders, where it belongs.   

At the same time, according to FoxNews.com: “Rebellious Democrats shut down the House's legislative work on Wednesday, staging a sit-in on the House floor and refusing to leave until they secured a vote on gun control measures before lawmakers' weeklong break. 

“Exasperated Republicans were forced to recess while cutting off cameras that showed the protest. But in an unprecedented step, C-SPAN used live video feeds from one lawmaker's Periscope account and another's Facebook page to transmit words and images from the House chamber. 

“More than 200 Democrats led by Georgia Rep. John Lewis demanded a vote on measures to expand background checks and block gun purchases by some suspected terrorists in the aftermath of last week's massacre in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 people in a gay nightclub.”

While those “rebellious” Democrats were on the floor of the House, a Facebook friend was posting the following:

Which leads to the obvious question of what gets banned next, and clearly confirms it’s the maniacal ideology that needs to be stopped, not the method employed to inflict it.   

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

In another example confirming the potential effectiveness of Trump’s making Clinton history a major factor in his campaign, Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne @FoxNews.com, write today about another looming problem for Bill's wife. 

“Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition Wednesday with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, a source with the group told Fox News.

“He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited "reasonable suspicion" Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law.”

“The next Clinton aide to testify is Huma Abedin. In an earlier deposition, lawyers for senior Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server. 

“According to a transcript of that deposition which Judicial Watch released, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano.  

“I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up.” 

Thus, it seems that the invoking of Constitutional protection while testifying by one aide, coupled with an attorney’s continued objections to another witnesses’ replying on the same subject, indicates the likelihood of wrongdoing of some kind. Which certainly appears to be a future source of ammunition for Trump’s arsenal aimed at Clinton’s continuing illegalities and untruthfulness, a steadily growing target.  

It also reinforces the continuing question: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?      

That’s it for today folks.       

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

An item @foxnews.com, this morning portends what to look forward to as the presidential race begins to heat up. “Hillary Clinton once again delivered a hard-hitting speech on Donald Trump Tuesday, hammering his business record and even warning he would throw the economy back into recession if elected – to which Trump responded, “How can Hillary run the economy when she can't even send emails without putting entire nation at risk?”

Trump’s response, however, is quite mild at this point. Considering that the administration’s performance regarding the economy provides enough ammunition to build an entire campaign around that can potentially shred Bill Clinton's wife all by itself.

For example, what’s even worse for her than her lack of knowledge regarding the economy, was that while she was spouting total gibberish yesterday, she was not helped at all by Fed Chair, Janet Yellen who said: "Considerable uncertainty about the economic outlook remains. The latest readings on the labor market and the weak pace of investment illustrate one downside risk -- that domestic demand might falter."

According to Paul Handley, @Washington (AFP): “Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen warned Tuesday that the US economy faces "considerable uncertainty" from slower domestic activity and from a possible British vote to break with the European Union. 

“Pointing to dragging hiring and business investment recently, and to the risk that a pro-Brexit vote will send shock waves through global markets, Yellen signaled that the Fed has become less optimistic about US growth over the short term and will proceed with great caution on plans to raise interest rates. 

“She said in testimony to the Senate Banking Committee that US growth has picked up noticeably in the second quarter from the sluggish pace at the beginning of the year. Nevertheless, she said economic growth has been uneven and clear downside risks remain a threat.” 

Which means that, if Bill’s wife continues to focus on the economy, something she knows zip, zero, nada about, she’s not just shooting herself in the foot, she’s going to blow both of them off completely.

And if that isn’t enough ammunition for Trump today, illegal immigrants were the focus of a devastating article by Caroline May @breitbart.com, which exposes the administration in another major fabrication delivered to the public.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) charges: “The Obama Administration ‘grossly misrepresented’ the number of crimes the criminal aliens it released from custody in FY 2014 subsequently committed by nearly tenfold. 

“According to FAIR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request on FAIR’s behalf reveal that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE released in FY 2014 committed 13,288 additional crimes.” 

As a result: “The number of subsequent convictions contained in FIOA documents is far higher than the 1,423 additional offenses ICE reported to the House Judiciary Committee last July. 

Additional crimes committed included: “[H]omicide, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, vehicular homicide, domestic violence, DUI, burglary and assault. 

Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, said in statement: “Rather than end dangerous politically-driven policies that have put a total of 85,000 deportable criminal aliens back onto the streets in the last three years, ICE tried to hide them by providing grossly inaccurate information to Congress and the American people.” 

While these two major campaign issues provide Trump with virtually golden opportunity’s politically, even more fodder arrived in a story that is the basis for today's update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

According to Pete Williams and Ken Dilanian, @nbcnews.com this morning: “Bloomberg first reported Tuesday that the Clinton Foundation had been penetrated, citing three people familiar with the matter. 

“A hacker using the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" also released a new trove of documents Tuesday apparently taken from the DNC during a hack last week. Crowdstrike, the firm brought in by the Democrats to deal with the hack, was one of the firms attributing it to Russian intelligence agencies, which Russia denied. 

"The attackers used advanced intrusion techniques to avoid detection and discovery. They were looking for information on policy, political campaigns and strategies, foreign policy plans," Crowdstrike said in a statement.” 

Aside from the new evidence of significant incompetence on the part of Democrats regarding their technological capabilities, particularly in the area of protecting vital information, the next paragraph illustrates the magnitude of their vulnerability.     

“The cyber attack against the Clinton Foundation comes after Guccifer, a Romanian hacker who first exposed Clinton's private email address, said in May that he also gained access to the former Secretary of State's "completely unsecured" server. The hacker, Marcel Lehel Lazar, pleaded guilty in a U.S. court to related charges that same month.” 

While Guccifer’s hacking success is not new to the voting public, the continual addition of illustrations of managerial failure keep amassing. To the extent that, over the passage of time, when added to all of the other Clinton shortcomings, the huge mistakes in this area alone will likely become a hurdle far too large to jump or otherwise avoid. 

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

That’s it for today folks.        

Adios