BloggeRhythms

Most reportage this morning relates to a major explosion in Manhattan, which has not developed far enough at this point to discuss with any certainty of what actually took place.

While the rest of the news is quite sparse, what little there is doesn’t seem to be boding well for the Democrat presidential campaign. Kyle Olson @theamericanmirror.com, wrote yesterday: “If the Ohio crowds for one of Hillary Clinton’s top surrogates are any indication, it’s time to panic.

“Bernie Sanders drew only 150 fans at a rally in Akron on Saturday, according to WKSU.” 

“The turnout was a little better in Kent. Attendance figures were not immediately released, but it appeared to be a few hundred at Kent State University. 

“A third event in Canton, Ohio was canceled. The campaign did not give a reason for the cancellation, according to the Akron Beacon Journal. 

“Given the poor attendance in Akron, it was likely due to low RSVPs.” 

Although voter disinterest certainly indicates displeasure of one sort or another in the U.S., other news reflects dissatisfaction with the administration in other nations, as well. 

In Venezuela, according to yahoo.com, “embattled President Nicolas Maduro has warned world leaders at a Non-Aligned Summit that his country was being lashed by a US economic war aimed at toppling him.”

However, what portends worse is that Cuban President Raul Castro who spoke at the same event, “echoed the charge, despite his country's thawing relations with the United States.”

Thus, it seems that while the POTUS has spent much of his time in office attempting to gain favor with other nations around the globe, he’s received very little in return for his efforts. Which leads to the natural question as to why he won’t expend a similar amount of effort right here at home where it’s not only needed, it’s his job.

Nonetheless, it’s become apparent that despite all the support from the MSM and their obvious liberal bias in reporting, likely voters are having their own say. 

Mary Kay Linge @nypost.com, reports today: “Donald Trump is gaining support among African-American voters — whose enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is eroding, a tracking poll released Saturday revealed.

“Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday. 

“Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent.” 

“Clinton’s nearly 20-point crash began Sunday, said Dan Schnur of USC. Sunday was the day Clinton was recorded collapsing while entering a Secret Service van at a 9/11 event. 

“For the week, the poll found a 6-point rise for Trump. The Republican is now at 47.2 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 41.2 percent. 

“It’s the largest shift we’ve seen in a one-week period since we began polling in July,” Schnur said.” 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, by Peter Hasson, reporter & Associate Editor @dailycaller.com, which indicates likely campaign problems ahead for her. And plenty of new ammunition for Trump. 

Mr. Hasson writes: “Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.” 

“The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.”

As far as the spending allocations are concerned, $34.8 million was  spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits. 

“Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.” 

While Mr. Hasson’s article refers only to expenses, according to financial statements prepared by the outside accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the foundation took in $337,985,726 in 2014. 

Further research led to the American Institute of Philanthropy‘s, charitywatch.org whose chart regarding charity ratings follows: 

Program %	Cost to Raise $100	Efficiency Rating
90-100%	$0 - 4	A+
80 - 89%	$5 - 11	A
75 - 79%	$12 - 15	A-
72 - 74%	$16 - 19	B+
68 - 71%	$20 - 26	B
65 - 67%	$27 - 30	B-
61 - 64%	$31 - 33	C+
56 - 60%	$34 - 37	C
50 - 55%	$38 - 40	C-
36 - 49%	$41 - 59	D
0 - 35%	$60 - 100	F

Thus, simple arithmetic illustrates that in the Foundation’s case, a microscopic .01538% went to charitable donations (5.2/337.9) which is truly “deplorable” and far beyond inefficient.

And since it’s also the basis for serious government investigation, as well as a major opportunity for Trump to harvest, the ongoing question needs asking again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?     

That's it for today folks.  

Adios