Sunday, June 26, 2016

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

No comments:

Post a Comment