BloggeRhythms

A recurring question arising for the past seven and a half years has been the pondering of what the POTUS’s true agenda really is. Because, time after time, issue after issue, it seems as if he represents something other than the United States best interests. 

And now, today an article By Josh Rogin @washingtonpost.com, raises that uncertainty once again, whereas: “The Obama administration is determined to use its final six months in office to take a series of executive actions to advance the nuclear agenda the president has advocated since his college days.

“President Obama announced his drive to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them in his first major foreign policy speech, in Prague in 2009. In his first years, he achieved some successes, such as the New START treaty with Russia, the Nuclear Security Summits and the controversial Iran deal. But progress waned in the past year as more pressing crises commanded the White House’s attention. Now, the president is considering using the freedom afforded a departing administration to cross off several remaining items on his nuclear wish list.”

Undoubtedly on the surface, a plan to reduce nuclear weaponry around the world, among all those having the capability, is certainly a highly sensible and worthy goal. However, buried in the plan is the administration’s desire to “to cut back long-term plans for modernizing the nation’s nuclear arsenal, which the Congressional Budget Office reports will cost about $350 billion over the next decade. Obama may establish a blue-ribbon panel of experts to examine the long-term budget for these efforts and find ways to scale it back.”

Which suggests there will be a move toward unilateral disarmament here in the U.S., while hostile foes across the globe are developing weaponry as quickly as possible. And that raises the question again as to why any dedicated leader would willingly put his nation and people at that kind of risk without being forced to.

Bringing us quickly to today’s several updates on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

First, a friend sent this one yesterday.

Next, Gregory Holyk @abcnews.go.com, writes: “A majority of Americans disapprove of the FBI's recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while secretary of state, and a similar number in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the issue leaves them worried about how she'd handle her responsibilities as president if elected. 

“Reaction to the decision is highly political, with partisanship factoring heavily in people’s views. Yet Democrats don't back Clinton up on the issue nearly as much as Republicans criticize her, and independents side more with Republicans. 

“Overall, 56 percent disapprove of FBI Director James Comey's recommendation not to charge Clinton, while just 35 percent approve. Similarly, 57 percent say the incident makes them worried about how Clinton might act as president if she were elected, with most very worried about it. Just 39 percent feel the issue isn't related to how she'd perform as president.” 

So, while Director Comey’s intent may have been to finalize the issue, whereas it was a distraction to the upcoming election in November, by doing so he might very well delivered a huge setback as a result. Because, in reaction to his clear description to Congress of certainly actionable offenses, voters themselves will now address the issue he diligently dodged, by delivering a guilty verdict of their own. 

In confirmation of voter dislike for Director Comey’s refusal to hold Bill Clinton’s wife responsible for her breaches of the law, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds “[m]ost voters have difficulty swallowing President Obama's superlatives for Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail last week and now rate she and Donald Trump equally when it comes to their preparedness for the White House.” 

According to the survey, just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with Obama's statement that "there has never ever been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton." Sixty-five percent (65%) disagree with the president's statement. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided. 

“Not surprisingly, just five percent (5%) of Republicans and 15% of voters not affiliated with either political party agree with the president's high praise of the likely Democratic presidential nominee. But even Democrats aren't convinced: 42% of voters in Clinton's and Obama's party agree with the statement, but 36% do not, with another 21% who are not sure.” 

In a significant change: “When given the choice, 41% of all voters think Clinton is better qualified to be president, but just as many (40%) say that of Trump. A sizable 19% are undecided. 

“That's a noticeable shift in Trump's favor from April when 50% said Clinton is qualified to be president, but only 27% felt that way about the billionaire businessman.” 

Which is a highly probable indication that, with the passage of time and the growing realization of Bill’s wife unfitness for any office, much less the presidency of the U.S., her favorability will more than likely continue to sink. Leading, of course, to the election of a Republican president. Even if that turns out to be someone as unqualified for the office as Trump. 

It also leads to the continuing 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