BloggeRhythms

This is not the forum for discussion of the tragic Orlando shootings, many others with far greater knowledge of the subject are telling the public what should be known about the event. Nonetheless, as a result of the tragedy, a new wave of objection to the public’s right to bear arms has erupted from the left, which led to the following thoughts.

According to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And that’s what gun control advocates wish to change. 

At the same time, the Declaration of Independence, established by Congress on July 4, 1776, says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

So, combining those two key elements forming the backbone of American society, here’s a premise that the vast majority of citizens might accept, yet most in government probably wouldn’t. 

Since all men are created equal in America, and many in government wish to amend the Second Amendment to prohibit the bearing of arms, if guns are to be taken from those citizens it should apply to those in government as well. Which means that those in government themselves cannot bear any form of arms, nor can anyone around them. Which includes the Secret Service, security forces, those patrolling Congress, courtrooms, or any kind of bodyguards whatsoever including those surrounding and inside the White House. In other words, no guns or armed guards anywhere for anyone in government period, up to and including the POTUS. And if that’s agreeable to lawmakers, it’s highly likely the general public will go along.

On a similar subject, elitism in politics, we now have the Koch brothers refusing to donate to the GOP as a result of Trump’s presidential candidacy. Following on the heels of Romney’s recent meeting in Utah to pout over his loss of influence on the party, as well as Speaker Ryan’s derogatory comments while still vowing to “support” Trump. And, added to that is the Bush family’s intention to skip the convention in Cleveland altogether.

What’s most disturbing here, is that while these highly influential Republicans may have their problems with Trump, there are many millions of voters who want to see their party win the White House back. And in their current posture, these self-serving, self-important idealists are likely to prevent that from occurring, whereas they’re allowing their constituency’s to splinter. And by doing that, they’re handing the presidency to the least deserving individual in the history of the office. And there’s truly something horribly wrong with that. 

However, the good news is that in the future these rats that have decided to desert the ship have now completely lost the respect of any Republican voter with an IQ higher than his or her shoe size. 

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

While the influential Republicans won’t lower themselves to help Trump defeat Bill’s wife in November, there’s still growing hope that she’ll keep beating herself as negative information continues to mount.

Hugh Hewitt @washingtonexaminer.com, headlined his column today: "When it comes to the Clinton's, always follow the money." 

Mr. Hewitt writes: “Steven Hayward of Power Line, one of the blogs that pioneered investigative blogging, put together a summary of the Laureate International Universities' facts, the most important three of which are that Bill Clinton served as the organization's "honorary chancellor" between 2010 and 2014, that he was paid $16.5 million to do so (good work if you can get it). The Department of State granted Laureate $55 million while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Go figure.

“In April of last year, Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported that Bill Clinton retired as "honorary chancellor" two weeks after Hillary launched her presidential campaign. His office noted he had travelled to 19 Laureate campuses around the globe while "honorary chancellor," an excellent way to suggest much work when perhaps there is just grifting and grafting going on.”

Mr. Hewitt closes by suggesting that, “Trump's challenge will be to somehow make America care again about the prospect of another Clinton lease on 1600 Pennsylvania and what that means when pardon time comes around, or how Bill will leverage his spouse's new gig to bring in more cash.”

So, here we have a case where the kickback is so obvious that Trump can present in a way that’s easily understandable to any level of voter. And judging by his performance to date, he almost certainly will. 

It also raises the thought that in raising that kind of money for his efforts, Bill likely needs charitable deductions on his tax returns. So, perhaps he ought to consider making donations to the Clinton Foundation as a shelter.

Bringing up 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