BloggeRhythms

Patrick Healy  supposedly wrote an article @nytimes.com, yesterday about Bill Clinton’s wife. However, although it was quite long, it really wasn’t an article at all, it was a blatant testimonial reading like a campaign ad endorsing her.

The reason for mentioning this waste of newspaper space, though, is that in typical New York Times fashion, buried deep in the text a paragraph explained unintentionally the probable reason for Bill’s clandestine meeting with Attorney General Lynch at an Arizona airport this week.  

According to Healy: “[Bill’s wife] hopes to reassure progressives with her executive actions, which would also include new protections for undocumented immigrant parents, as well as her personnel appointments. Having women make up half of her cabinet would be historic (in recent years, a quarter to a third of cabinet positions have been held by women), and Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015.”

So, there we have it. In a classic Clinton scam, a potentially troublesome individual has been bought today with the payback being delivered tomorrow. In the form of a retention of an Attorney General. Unless they decide to renege on the deal, which might then cause some strange development to occur. Such as a mysterious, unsolvable disappearance while walking through someplace like Fort Marcy park. 

On another subject,an article by Rafael Bernaln @thehill.com, sheds very bright light on why the POTUS steadfastly supports and promotes wide open borders, as follows:

“The Democratic Party delivered a huge win to immigration activists in its party platform draft released Friday, taking a liberal stance in sharp contrast to Republican proposals.

“The party, counting on a boost in November from predicted record Hispanic turnout, called immigration a defining aspect of the American character and history."  

“The platform calls for a path to citizenship "for law-abiding families who are here," the defense of President Obama's executive actions on immigration, the end of immigration raids against children and families, due process for "those fleeing violence in Central America," and to rescind statutory bans on immigrants who modify their status in the country.”  

Maureen Meyer, director of the Washington Office on Latin America's Mexico Program, naturally lauded the platform, with her comments clearly explaining what illegals have now gained. “[T]he platform recognizes the pressing need to address the status of the more than 11 million undocumented migrants living and raising their families in the Unites States. It provides assurances that the raids that have been threatening recently arrived Central American families and which have caused fear in the immigrant community will be stopped." 

While the platform changes pave the way for millions of future Democrat votes, some truly incredible language was specifically added, explicitly mentioning Trump and his rhetoric. "Finally, Democrats will not stand for the divisive and derogatory language of Donald Trump. His offensive comments about immigrants and other communities have no place in our society. This kind of rhetoric must be rejected,” the platform reads.” 

Thus, Democrats obviously believe that their retention of political power for themselves is worth far more than the safety, well-being and lives of law-abiding American citizens. They are also willing to publicly condemn those who disagree with them. To the extent that they’ll permit themselves to look like the subversive fools they are, if they think it will give them an edge at the polls. Much like a hooker who’ll sleep with anyone, anywhere, anytime if it’ll get her another fix. 

That philosophy was further indicated by Director Meyer who said "the platform rightfully denounces statements that seeks to criminalize migrants and minority populations.” 

She was referring to the 2016 document which contrasts sharply with the 2012 version. While also “touting” the need for comprehensive immigration reform, in 2012 it was stated that undocumented immigrants should "get right with the law, learn English, and pay taxes in order to get on a path to earn citizenship." 

However, being required to perform in the same manner as any other law-abiding American citizen turned out to be “language unpopular with Hispanic and immigrant rights groups.” Which makes one wonder why all those Founding Fathers wasted their time drafting a Constitution way back in 1787.

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

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday: “Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) reiterated Clinton never sent classified material and downplayed findings from the House GOP’s Benghazi committee’s report of Sept. 11, 2012 attack. “Nothing new here,” he said to each of the findings.” 

While Becerra’s comments fell right in line with most other leading Democrats, the language they’re choosing to use in defense of Bill’s wife is pathetically weak when one considers the wording carefully. And that’s because, since they can’t find anything even remotely positive to say about her, they’re forced to present the best defense they can under the dreadful circumstances in which they find themselves mired. 

An example of the kind of box they’re in can be seen by comparing her to William Francis "Willie" Sutton, Jr., who according to Wikipedia: “was a prolific American bank robber. During his forty-year criminal career he stole an estimated $2 million, and he eventually spent more than half of his adult life in prison and escaped three times.” 

In Willie’s case, he was certainly guilty of all that he was accused of from the beginning. Which means that if you called him a crook on day one, he certainly was one. And, if you called him a crook on the last day of his life, he still was one. And therefore, there was “nothing  new here" either. He was a criminal from beginning to end, just like Bill’s wife is. 

And thus, since Becerra’s correct in his observation about her dishonesty, 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