BloggeRhythms

Some new lights being shed today, on why the POTUS keeps doing all he can to prevent the curtailment of illegal immigration.

 

Alan Gomez, @usatoday.com reports this morning that, according to a Pew Research Center report out today: “The percentage of people living in the USA who were born outside the country reached 13.7% in 2015 and is projected to hit a record 14.9% in 2025, the report said. The country's previous high of 14.8% was set in 1890, when waves of Irish, Italian, Polish and other immigrants were coming to the USA.”

 

The presidential candidates from both parties are debating the proper role of immigration in the country because the foreign-born population represents a growing share of the electorate that’s big enough to tip presidential elections. (The term "foreign-born" includes naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, visa holders and undocumented immigrants.)

 

On one hand, all the GOP candidates push for increased border security, while Democrats generally call for protections for undocumented immigrants living in the country and an immigration system that helps some groups of immigrants enter the country.

 

The clearest explanation for Democrats vision of immigrants value came from Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a group that supports immigrant rights in the USA, who said the influx of foreigners proves the USA remains a beacon of hope across the world, and politicians should accept that role for the country. 

 

And then Mr. Noorani made the truly critical point, adding: “The pure politics of this is that candidates from whichever party should view these numbers as the next generation of voters. They should remember that what they say now will be taken into account by future generations of U.S. citizens." Something the POTUS has counted on from the very beginning of his term in office.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Sunday, on CNN, in regard to his wife’s email scandal, Bill Clinton said: ““I have never seen so much expended on so little. The other party doesn’t want to run against her. And if they do, they’d like her as mangled up as possible.”

 

Then today, Ken Cuccinelli, president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia published an article on the same subject @nypost.com, which he began by stating: “It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

 

“Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)”

 

Mr. Cuccinelli then went on to explain that: “According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense.]”

 

Mr. Cuccinelli then notes: “The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?”

 

Answering his own question, Mr. Cuccinelli writes: “Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.” 

 

Therefore, in spite of Bill Clinton’s attempt to belittle the festering situation regarding his wife, the conclusion ultimately reached by Mr. Cuccinelli indicates a different scenario altogether, as follows: “Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.”

 

The facts also lead to the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

For the past few days, the visiting Pope and Speaker Boehner’s resignation have been the major topics of news coverage across virtually all major media.

 

As far as the Pope is concerned, the topic isn’t one that can be adequately covered here. In the speaker’s case, it’s far too soon to even speculate on what the future holds regarding who his replacement will be, or what it means to the Republican party in general. Which means there’s an opportunity in the news gap to write a few words about Trump.   

   

An article this morning, by Jonathan Martin @nytimes.com seems to confirm that despite his continuing lead in voter polls, there doesn’t appear to be any substance whatsoever to Trump himself.

 

For example, Mr. Martin writes: ”word of House Speaker John A. Boehner’s abrupt resignation reached Mr. Trump as he made his way down a hotel staircase. But he showed surprisingly little interest in what was a political bombshell.

 

“Well it’s a big decision that he made, it’s a great decision,” Mr. Trump said. “I think so. I think it’s good for everybody. I think it’s time, he’s been there a long time. But I think it’s time.” (After further questions, Mr. Trump grasped for an escape hatch: “What do you think?” he asked his interviewer. “You tell me.”)

 

Thus, in essence, in a five line paragraph, Trump said absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever.

 

Another example can be seen in an exchange taking place last Wednesday when: “Speaking in North Charleston, S.C., in a room that, as Mr. Rubio noted later, had scores of empty seats — Mr. Trump, 69, belittled Mr. Rubio, 44, for running up personal credit card debt.

 

“He’s got no money,” said Mr. Trump, who calls himself a billionaire 10 times over, “zero.”

 

Now, whether Mr. Rubio has any money or not notwithstanding, when it comes to presenting himself he certainly sounded far more professional in response then Trump did. Rubio said about Trump, “He had a really bad debate performance last week. He’s not well informed on the issues. He really never talks about issues and can’t have more than a 10-second sound bite on any key issue. I think he’s kind of been exposed a little bit over the last seven days and he’s a touchy and insecure guy. So that’s how he reacts and people can see through it.”

 

Thus, it looks like Trump got trumped by Rubio, quickly, accurately and succinctly.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and a new indication that she may be significantly losing her luster. As evidenced by some recent information about the Clinton’s foundation.

 

Kenneth P. Vogel and Noah Weiland write @politico.com that: “The Clinton Foundation invited everyone from Pope Francis and Leonardo DiCaprio to Bill de Blasio and Janet Yellen to its showcase gathering starting Saturday in New York City, according to multiple sources familiar with the planning.

 

“But those invitations were among the dozens turned down by all manner of celebrities, dignitaries and donors, according to the sources, who said the controversies swirling around the foundation and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign have made some bold-faced names and donors wary of the foundation.”

 

As far as details are concerned: “The documents, reviewed by POLITICO, also show that the foundation had hoped to land either Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen or French economist Thomas Piketty to deliver a presentation on income inequality. Both declined, as did Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Rock legend Elton John was invited to receive an award for his efforts to fight AIDS, but he’s not coming, and neither is New York City Mayor de Blasio. He had been invited as a guest rather than as a speaker and notably has refused to endorse Clinton, despite having managed her successful U.S. Senate campaign in 2000.”

 

While all those declining to attend have plausible reasons, the overall trend-line is a clear indication that fear of Clinton retribution has significantly been reduced, if not eliminated completely. And, those who've declined aren’t run-of-the-mill celebrities, but are well-informed, high-profile, popular individuals.

 

Which also means that if those choosing to accept other alternatives to attendance indicates doubt about Bill’s wife’s electability, another question has to be asked:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The huge news for Republicans is House Speaker, John Boehner, announcing his plan to retire at the end of October. While it’s far too early to speculate as to whether or not the speaker’s leaving will consolidate the party’s platform, it certainly should.

 

In fact, what’s really needed is for most of those still in the race for the party’s presidential nomination to drop out, as did Scott Walker, and let Jeb Bush go forward with all those others behind him in support.  

 

Which quickly brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

An article by Nicholas Confessore @nytimes.com, held no surprises in its disclosure that: “Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly involved in arranging a new government position for a top aide that allowed the aide to begin working for a private consulting firm while remaining at the State Department, according to documents released on Thursday.

 

“The documents, released by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, show that Mrs. Clinton personally signed forms establishing a new title and position for the aide, Huma Abedin, in March 2012. The forms were part of a broader process in which Ms. Abedin, then Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, was transitioning to a role as a “special government employee,” which allowed her to collect salaries from the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the private firm, Teneo, which was co-founded by a former aide to President Clinton.”

 

This situation raises a very important issue to be considered by Democrat voters. Because it’s often reported that when asked what qualities they seek in a candidate, “consistency” always ranks near the top of the list. A very strong need is felt that party leaders must be depended upon not to waver, or change their positions or behavior later on in the future. 

 

And in that regard, Bill Clinton’s wife is as reliable as the sun coming up. Because she’s never, ever, changed her stripes. She’s routinely taken the path of denial, time after time, case after case throughout her public life. So, when it comes to consistency, her behavior can be bet on without fear of loss, whereas telling the truth probably doesn’t even occur to her.     

 

In today’s situation, Bill’s wife was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “Do you think he (Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa) had a point in raising the question of whether it was appropriate for her to be taking a State Department salary and also be paid by an outside company closely associated with your husband and by you?” 

 

Bill’s wife replied, “Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that. But everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.” However, as noted above, she not only was “directly involved,“ she personally signed the documents.

 

All of which makes one wonder again, what is it that Democrat voters see in this candidate that’s attractive? And also leads to the ongoing question:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Chalk up another win for environmentalists and their flagship EPA, whereas it looks as if they’ve put another worldwide commercial organization out of business.

 

Gillian Flaccus and Tom Krisher write @myway.com that: “Volkswagen comes clean about rigging diesel emissions to pass U.S. tests.”

 

According to the authors: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first disclosed Friday that stealth software makes VW's 2009-2015 model cars powered by 2.0-liter diesel engines run cleaner during emissions tests than in actual driving. On Wednesday, Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned and took responsibility for the "irregularities" found by U.S. inspectors — a scandal that has wiped out billions in the company's market value and raised the possibility of criminal investigations and billions more in fines.”

 

So, here we have another case where apparently unreasonable, unattainable, or over-reaching air-quality requirements have made it impossible for businesses to reasonably attain the standards. To the extent that a major world-wide manufacturer may be forced to close. Adding that to what’s been done to shrink the entire U.S. economy for the past seven years for similar reasons, makes one wonder when the half of the work force that’s been idled by unfounded political ideology will wake up and say they’ve suffered enough.    

 

On another subject, Chris Stirewalt @foxnews.com reports that, “A CBS4 News review of U.S. Labor Department records found that Trump businesses have requested hundreds of visas in recent years claiming they were unable to find Americans willing to do even the most basic tasks. And that is particularly true at Trump’s famed Palm Beach estate called Mar-A-Lago. Every year since at least 2008, Mar-A-Lago has requested anywhere from 70 to 90 visas to bring foreign workers into the country as cooks, waiters and housekeepers. The starting pay is between $10 and $12 an hour.”

 

The question that gets raised here concerns what the future holds for these “foreign” workers should Trump be elected POTUS. Will he send them airplane tickets, dig them tunnels, or set up ladders to accommodate their entry to the U.S.? Because, if not, how will they ever get past his impenetrable wall between here and Mexico?   

 

Another item from foxnews.com, this one by Dana Blanton, concerns the latest Fox News national poll on the 2016 election.

 

Ms Blanton writes: “On the Democratic side, support for Vice President Joe Biden -- who is still considering a run -- has almost doubled since August.  But make no mistake: Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner.” 

 

For Republicans: “Trump stays on top with 26 percent among GOP primary voters, followed by Carson at 18 percent.  Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are next, tied at 9 percent.  All four have gained ground. After the August Fox News debate, Trump had 25 percent, while Carson had 12 percent, Fiorina 5 percent and Rubio 4 percent. “

 

What’s most interesting, however, is that when voters are asked to name who will win next November, without the aid of a list, a plurality says Clinton (28 percent) followed by Trump (20 percent).  However, “eight years ago, by almost four-to-one, voters said Clinton would be the next president (44 percent), followed by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (12 percent).  Barack Obama came in third at six percent (October 2007). 

 

Additionally, claiming that this is “fun,“ Ms Blanton goes on to note that, “when all the names are tallied by party, about the same number of voters says the name of a Democrat they think will be the next president (37 percent) as says the name of a Republican (36 percent).”

 

And therefore, what this article demonstrates is that this far out from the next presidential election, poll results mean just about nothing of any value. Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios   

BloggeRhythms

Much of today's news concerns Pope Francis’ visit to the U.S., which eliminates any need for additional comment. Other items lend very little that’s new or of major interest, providing opportunity to revisit another ongoing topic often presented here.

 

Kelvin Chan, AP Business Writer @abcnews.go.com headed his column today: “Robot Revolution Sweeps China's Factory Floors”

 

Noting that: “In China's factories, the robots are rising,” Mr. Chan relates that: “For decades, manufacturers employed waves of young migrant workers from China's countryside to work at countless factories in coastal provinces, churning out cheap toys, clothing and electronics that helped power the country's economic ascent.

 

“Now, factories are rapidly replacing those workers with automation, a pivot that's encouraged by rising wages and new official directives aimed at helping the country move away from low-cost manufacturing as the supply of young, pliant workers shrinks.

 

The key factor raised by Mr. Chan is that: “With costs rising and profits shrinking, Chinese manufacturers "will all need to face the fact that only by successfully transitioning from the current labor-oriented mode to more automated manufacturing will they be able to survive in the next few years," said Jan Zhang, an automation expert at IHS Technology in Shanghai.”

 

An example of the many in the article encapsulates the labor situation in a company named Rapoo, as follows: “The company began its push into automation five years ago. Rapoo installed 80 robots made by Sweden's ABB Ltd. to assemble mice, keyboards and their sub-components. The robots allowed the company to save $1.6 million each year and trim its workforce to less than 1,000 from a peak of more than 3,000 in 2010.”

 

Two readers succinctly summed up what can be expected here in the U.S. in the very, very near future, particularly in response to the current minimum wage push by Democrat politicians. 

 

Doctor Evil wrote: “Coming soon to America where labor is priced higher and higher every year.”

 

Occam's Stubble added: “How's that $15 minimum wage workin' out for ya?”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

According to foxnews.com, “Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.

 

“The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.

 

“It was not immediately clear whether all 30,000 messages Clinton said she had deleted from the server had been recovered, but one official told the Times that it had not been difficult to recover the emails that had been found so far.”

 

Regardless of how hard campaign representatives try to downplay the steadily growing email controversy, or the attempts at avoidance of the subject by the candidate herself, there’s littlie doubt the situation's doing major harm to her favorability.  

 

Margaret Talev and Arit John report that, “The findings of a national Bloomberg Politics poll released Wednesday represent a notable achievement for an as-yet undeclared candidate, suggest concerns about Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and raise the prospect of a competitive three-way race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

“Clinton, once the prohibitive front-runner, is now the top choice of 33 percent of registered Democrats and those who lean Democrat, the poll shows. Biden places second with 25 percent and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is at 24 percent. The other three Democratic candidates combined are the top choice for less than 4 percent of that base.”

 

Adding to the good news for the vice president: “His favorability ratings are on the rise. Since the last Bloomberg poll in April, Clinton's favorability ratings have dropped 10 points, from 48 percent to 38 percent. Biden's 49 percent favorable score represents a 3-point uptick. He was the only one of a dozen national political figures and entities whose approval rating improved over the summer.”

 

National Journal’s Ron Fournier wrote an excellent recap of Bill’s wife situation to date. Here’s a link: FOURNIER- Come Clean or Get Out

 

Which leads to the ongoing question once again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Not much in the news today. But the story’s in the headlines are the kind that should cause readers to scratch their heads, due to the lunacy in the details.  

 

Arthur MacMillan and Simon Sturdee @yahoo.com, write the following: “Tehran (AFP) - Iran said Monday it independently collected samples at a suspect military site where illicit nuclear work is alleged to have occurred and later handed them to the UN's absent inspectors.

 

“The disclosure that international monitors were not physically present is likely to feed critics of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, who have poured scorn on measures used to check if Tehran's atomic programme is peaceful.

 

Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said: “It was done by Iranian experts, in the absence of IAEA inspectors."

 

Reading about Iranians inspecting their own locations, then providing the results to the UN, is so totally ridiculous it’s hard to imagine that any administration could allow such a travesty to happen. However, Republicans should be celebrating the Democrat’s self-inflicted losses, because the next story confirms the political suicide Dem’s have committed.  

 

Chris Stirewalt’s column @foxnews.com includes an item titled: “New Yorkers hard on Iran deal”  

 

Mr. Stirewalt writes: “Support for the Iranian nuclear deal that Hillary Clinton helped set in motion as secretary of state is abysmal even in her home state of New York. Only 32 percent of registered voters in a new Quinnipiac University poll support the deal. Fifty-nine percent were opposed. This may help explain Clinton’s poor favorability rating in the Siena College poll out Monday.” 

 

Additionally, according to wsj.com, “A Colorado nonprofit group plans to spend in the six figures to attack Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet over his support for the Iran nuclear deal, in the first major television advertisement using votes on the Iran deal to attack a vulnerable senator up for re-election. The ad, which will run Sept. 22 to Sept. 29 on Denver area ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates, pictures children counting down in various languages and then a nuclear bomb exploding, with the caption ‘A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world.’”

 

Since this is just the beginning, it means that between now and November 2016 voters will be buried in similar barrages of ads against the Iranian deal. And the reason that huge damage to Democrats will result, is that anyone capable of any kind of intelligent thought clearly understands that Iran has no intention of keeping their side of the bargain. And never did from the start. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Edward-Isaac Dovere @politico.com report that: “In the Clinton orbit, there’s a debate: would Biden be enough of an actual threat that they hope he stays out of the race, or would he be just trouble enough to get their stumbling candidate back into shape?"

 

The reason this column’s quite interesting is the next paragraph that says, “She needs to be in a fight in order to be good. The coronation was always a bad deal for her,” said the person close to her campaign.”

 

Now, obviously, it’s not known who the “person close to her campaign,” is. However, that “person” must either be totally unfamiliar with Bill’s wife’s past, or smoking something hallucinatory. 

 

Because the last time she tried to run for the presidency an unknown from Chicago had her scrambling out the door before he ever began to really campaign. In fact, he didn’t even have to “hope” before she “changed” her mind and quit.

 

Which brings us to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Further evidence of the rationale behind the POTUS’s quest for open, unwatched national borders surfaced today in an article by Jessica Bliss @tennessean.com via Drudge.

 

Ms Bliss writes: “Tennessee has one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country, according to Stephanie Teatro, co-executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. Already, more than 114,000, or nearly 38 percent of the total foreign-born population, are naturalized citizens and eligible to vote, she says. Statewide another approximately 75,000 immigrants are eligible to apply for citizenship today but haven't taken action.”

 

What the POTUS is counting on, and is proving itself to be true is that, “As the number of immigrant families continues to grow, so does their political power.

 

“Immigrant voters played a vital role in the recent Nashville mayoral election, as the immigrant coalition registered hundreds of new American voters, and immigrant community members reportedly turned out to the polls in large numbers, though official voter turnout demographics are not yet available.”

 

As a strategical political matter, although “official voter turnout demographics are not yet available,” there’s a pretty clear indication of what the statistics will be. Because, the odds hugely favor that those now gaining voting rights will almost certainly vote Democrat.

 

An indication of expected political leanings can be found in another article today in the same publication, The Tennessean by Adam Tamburin, as follows:

 

“Hundreds of rain-soaked demonstrators, some with children on their shoulders, marched down Fourth Avenue South Saturday to advocate for undocumented immigrants while Donald Trump used violent imagery to characterize them as dangerous during an event at Rocketown.

 

“While Trump addressed "anchor babies" and building a wall at the Mexican border, rally leaders beat on bucket drums while the crowd circled the building chanting, "Who are we? Tennessee" and "Racism has got to go."

 

Therefore, the Democrat party will surely continue to promote itself as the party with a heart. Presenting an image of concern for the welfare of foreigners needing aid and assistance. Yet, as has been obvious throughout the party's history, the major concern has always been high voter turnout of those they’ve paid to support them at the polls.   

 

On another subject, it looks as if Trump is planning to profit from his presidential campaign, already preparing to squeeze a few bucks while he can before his White House run implodes.

 

According to Andy Lewis @hollywoodreporter.com, “Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a new campaign-oriented book on how to restore a “crippled” America to greatness coming Oct. 27, Simon & Schuster imprint Threshold announced.

 

“Per the announcement, the untitled book will touch on the “economy, big CEO salaries and taxes, healthcare, education, national security, and social issues.” Following up on the summer’s campaigning, Trump also promises to outline his “complete immigration reform” plan, including how he proposes to “secure” the border.”

 

While this blog really never offers any kind of advice to anyone for any reason, in this case a suggestion will be made that Simon & Schuster print as quickly as possible. Because if they don’t, they’ll have to very soon change the title to something like: “A How-Not-To on Running for POTUS” 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who over the weekend was quoted as saying, “I should have used two separate email accounts.”

 

While hindsight is always 20/20, Bill’s wife once again diverted her answer away from the real question. Because it really doesn’t matter how many “email accounts” she established. The issue is that she used a private server to send and receive highly classified government data and information in an unprotected location without proper authorization.

 

It’s also interesting that she’s presently following a pattern both she and her husband have depended upon for quite a long time now. The premise that it’s always easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask for permission beforehand. Especially when you know that what you’re doing is wrong to begin with.

 

However, perhaps she’ll get her comeuppance when another candidate replaces her, and those she meets later tell her, “I’m really sorry you lost. I should have voted for you.”

 

Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios