BloggeRhythms

If nothing else, what the Orlando tragedy illustrates crystally clear is that, regardless of the issue, politicians immediately draw lines, take sides and quickly demonize their rivals as being absolutely wrong on any subject, regardless.

Which is why, as a result, the general public always suffers because there's rarely, if ever, a middle ground acceptable to both major party’s.

In the Orlando shootings, Fox News reports that: “In back-to-back speeches Monday, Donald Trump doubled down on his call for a Muslim immigration ban while decrying what he described as a "deadly ignorance" that is hurting the country -- and Hillary Clinton renewed her call for an assault-weapons ban while vowing to stop "lone wolf" terrorists.”

As a practical reality, however, neither candidate’s approach makes very much sense. Should there be better screening, more latitude given to law enforcement and major steps taken to secure the nation’s borders? Absolutely. But, banning an entire faith is not only inane, the premise is impossible to accomplish. 

On the other side, not only would an assault weapons ban not have been a real deterrent to the tragedy, but when it comes to terrorism it’s the ideology that’s the danger, not the method employed. The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The four coordinated September 11th attacks by Al-Qaeda used airplanes as weapons of mass destruction, while the Boston attack occurred when two pressure cooker bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. Thus, using Bill Clinton’s wife logic, pressure cookers and airplanes should be banned as well as guns.

Along the same lines: “On Monday, President Obama said investigators believe the gunman was not directed by external extremist groups, instead saying the shooter “was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated over the Internet.” Which makes no sense whatsoever. Because at this point in time, and perhaps forever, no one will really know what the gunman found on the Internet, where, when or how or from what location. 

On another subject, John Sharp @al.com/news via Drudge,  writes about Senator Jeff Sessions who’s emerged as one of Trump's fiercest supporters. He was the first senator to endorse Trump and his hardline immigration approach, including deportation of all undocumented immigrants and a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.

After explaining the preceding about Senator Sessions, Mr. Sharp relates that: “The White House is considering a plan to relocate thousands of illegal immigrant children to the home state of U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, causing some to question whether presidential politics is at play. 

“Sessions has for years has led the opposition to immigration policies supported by President Barack Obama. The plan would send the children to Baldwin County, across the bay from Sessions' home in Mobile County.” 

Reading the article, paying particular attention to the White House relocation plan causes one to wonder why that would be in any way a retaliation to the Senator. Because, every chance the POTUS gets, he claims to the public that immigrants, illegal or not, are the salt of the earth and should be treasured as such by everyone in the nation.     

So, if that’s the case, why would he want to give a despised rival the pleasure of those beloved immigrants company?

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

Josh Gerstein @politico.com, informs us that: “A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday. 

“Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up. 

“However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.” 

Today though, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the situation far clearer by writing in an order: “The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential."  

Reader, Charles Forbin, summed the development up this way: “I hope Biden has cleared his schedule for this fall, because it looks like he may be running for President...” 

Which naturally leads again to 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