BloggeRhythms

Didn’t watch the Republican debate last night, and from the recaps in the press this morning, missed nothing at all. 

Two points raised by Chris Cassidy @bostonherald.com, raise questions, though, that voters should certainly be able to grasped on their own. And, if debates are needed to understand those points clearly, those requiring the clarification are far too dumb to find voting booths. 

Mr. Cassidy writes: “A malfunctioning Marco Rubio crashed as he was overloaded by attacks last night from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who tried to portray the Florida U.S. senator as a Washington robot pre-programmed by political consultants during a high-stakes Republican debate. 

“See, Marco — Marco — the thing is this,” Christie said, “when you’re president of the United States … the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn’t solve one problem for one person.” 

“Four different times — often word-for-word and at awkward non-sequiturs — Rubio claimed Obama intentionally wants to make America like the rest of the world. 

“Here’s the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he’s doing,” said Rubio, repeating the line for a third time in a matter of minutes. 

“There it is. There it is,” pounced Christie. “The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody.” 

The point here is that Christie's exactly right. Rubio is “a Washington robot pre-programmed by political consultants.” What’s more, there isn’t an informed individual in the nation that doesn’t understand clearly that Obama intentionally wants to make America like the rest of the world, knowing exactly what he’s doing. However, Obama isn’t running for reelection, because he no longer can. 

Yet, the most important error made by Rubio apparently wasn’t noticed by Christie, or the author of the article.  

After the exchange, “Rubio fired back at Christie, accusing him of neglecting New Jersey to campaign during last month’s blizzard, saying the state had to “shame him into going back.” 

Christie responded: “It gets very unruly when he gets off his talking points,” missing the obvious point that Rubio’s doing precisely the same thing. Spending just as much time campaigning as Christie is. Which also means that while Rubio’s not only performing just like Christie, it seems Rubio’s constituents don’t miss him at all. Because they're not complaining that he’s gone.   

And then, another pointless exchange caused wonder at what these candidates are all about.  

Mr. Cassidy writes: “Meanwhile, front-runner Donald Trump and Bush battled back and forth over eminent domain with Bush accusing Trump of using the legal maneuver to take property for a “limousine parking lot for his casinos.” 

“He wants to be a tough guy,” said Trump. “And it doesn’t work very well.” 

“How tough is it to take property from an elderly woman?” replied Bush. 

Trump responded by shushing Bush: “Quiet.” 

Now, in this case, what exactly does Trump’s saying “Quiet’” mean? It’s not a relevant comment, has no substance and certainly makes no intelligible point. However, that's Trump’s general response to whatever he’s asked. And is also perhaps what he told those who inquired about how he bankrupted four New Jersey casino’s. 

I also get the feeling that if he “shushed” any number of other accomplished, less polite, individuals and told them “Quiet,” he’d be out shopping today. For new front teeth and a body cast. 

On another subject, Nidhi Verma @reuters.com in New Delhi via Drudge, reports that: “Iran wants to recover tens of billions of dollars it is owed by India and other buyers of its oil in euros and is billing new crude sales in euros, too, looking to reduce its dependence on the U.S. dollar following last month's sanctions relief. 

“A source at state-owned National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) told Reuters that Iran will charge in euros for its recently signed oil contracts with firms including French oil and gas major Total, Spanish refiner Cepsa and Litasco, the trading arm of Russia's Lukoil.” 

U.S. officials estimate about $100 billion of Iranian assets were frozen abroad, around half of which Tehran could access as a result of sanctions relief. India alone “owes Tehran about $6 billion for oil delivered during the sanctions years.” 

Having the world's fourth-largest proved reserves of crude oil, and expecting to quickly increase production, which could lead to tens of billions of euros worth of new oil trade, Iran's insistence on being paid in euros rather than dollars is “also a sign of an uneasy truce between Tehran and Washington even after last month's lifting of most sanctions.” 

Meaning that. not only wasn’t the nuclear deal a good one for the U.S. and the rest of the free world, Iran obviously plans to insure that the U.S. can never gain control over their assets again. Which certainly doesn’t seem to be the reaction of a nation intending to maintain its side any kind of “agreement.” 

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

In trying to explain Bill’s wife’s future planning, a glaring example unwarranted of media support and bias was found in an article by Lisa Lerer and Ken Thomas, of the Associated Press via Drudge. 

The article begins: “With victory seemingly out of reach in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is looking ahead to the next round of voting as she tries to counter the rising challenge from Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential race.” 

And then in the very next paragraph, the authors write: “Clinton hopes to use a narrower-than-expected loss in Tuesday's primary as a springboard into contests later this month in Nevada and South Carolina, with a goal of having a more heavily-minority electorate help her build the foundation for a delegate-by-delegate drive toward the nomination.” 

Thus, instead of giving Sanders his due respect, the authors go to use the piece to present Bill’s wife’s platform and strategies, stressing the issues they feel important to her successful nomination. 

However, nowhere do they mention that as recently as two months ago, a landslide win was expected of her, with Sanders not even being considered as viable competition in any sate whatsoever. Much less the two that begin the presidential campaign contest. 

Nonetheless, it’s now apparent that voters don’t seem to care very much about what the major media thinks, being certainly capable of making up their own minds. Which at present doesn’t bode very well for Bill’s wife. 

It also brings the continuing question up again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?    

That’s it for today folks.   

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Jeff Cox’s article @cnbc.com, yesterday emphasizes, underlines  undoubtedly confirms and clearly illustrates the extent to which liberals in the media bend themselves over triple to protect their failing POTUS.

Mr. Cox writes: “For more than seven years, Federal Reserve officials have touted their progress toward achieving "full employment," with the most recent target a 4.9 percent unemployment rate. 

“With Friday's nonfarm payrolls report showing that the goal has been achieved, perhaps the Fed can raise the "Mission Accomplished" banner along with a welcome mat to the world of "full employment." 

Then farther along in the article, even this evidently ardent administration supporter couldn't wiggle out from including some hard data, as follows: “Despite a bump in average hourly wages, many of the jobs are still weighted toward the lower end of the pay scale, and that comes nearly seven years into a recovery. Bars and restaurants, for instance, have added 384,000 of 2.6 million jobs created over the past year.”

Mr. Cox then quoted the POTUS - who on  Friday praised the numbers - even though the total of 151,000 new positions was well below the 190,000 that Wall Street economists had anticipated.

The POTUS said: "The United States of America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. I know that's still inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and gloom tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody." 

But then, nearing the end of the article, Cox wrote: “Even Obama, for all his partisan flame throwing, conceded "that we have more work to do," though he mainly focused on "softness in the global economy" that was making it rough on U.S.-based multinational companies. 

And finally, Cox got to the truth by admitting at the very end of his slanted piece: “The president may have bragged about the unemployment rate's decline below 5 percent, but he knows the number doesn't tell the full story. The decline in the jobless rate has accelerated due to a generational low in labor force participation. Though the one-tenth point drop in January came with a slight rise in the LFP rate, a more encompassing measure that includes those who have left the workforce as well as the underemployed remained unchanged at 9.9 percent.”

However, it really doesn’t matter much at this point how the POTUS and his cohorts in the major media distort factual reality regarding the faltering economy. What really counts is the common knowledge of average, everyday Americans in the workforce and those they support financially. All of whom are fully aware that good-paying jobs are scarce and the poorly performing, over-regulated economy is a  result of anti-business policy from the administration.

And that’s what will surely be corrected next November at the polls. Because the working-sector of the voting public is virtually being forced to vote Republican, regardless of what the POTUS or any other leftist tries to sell them.

Next: Alexander Bolton @thehill.com, posted an article that’s amusing if you read it carefully. The subject’s an all-out assault on Sen. Marco Rubio by groups aligned with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. However, the group’s tactic is “angering GOP senators, who fear it could hurt the party’s chances of capturing the White House.”

Farther along in the the text is a paragraph saying: ““A lot of them feel that Rubio, one, has a legitimate shot at the nomination and, two, he has the best chance as of today of winning in November,” said Ford O’Connell, a GOP strategist who worked on Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign.”

Meaning that the advice on how Jeb should conduct his campaign comes from one who worked on the totally worthless McCain strategy. Which is like having Trump tell you how to operate a profitable casino.

And then a friend posted an item on FB to think about:

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

According to Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne @FoxNews.com: "Hillary Clinton used misleading language in Thursday night’s Democratic debate to describe the ongoing FBI investigation into her use of a private email server to conduct official government business while she was secretary of state, according to former senior FBI agents.”

To put the email situation in a clear perspective, Herridge and Browne quoted Steve Pomerantz, who spent 28 years at the FBI, rising from field investigative special agent to assistant director, the third highest position in the Bureau. 

Pomerantz said: “They (the FBI) do not do security reviews. What they primarily do and what they are clearly doing in this instance is a criminal action.” 

Another indicator that the FBI probe is “extremely serious, and the A-team is handling [it] arises from Fox “learning that one of the FBI's senior agents responsible for counterintelligence matters, Charles H. Kable IV, is working the Clinton case.” 

“Kable, known as "Sandy," was appointed special agent in charge of the counterintelligence division at the Washington field office by Director James Comey in December. 

“He had recently served as the chief of the counterespionage section at FBI headquarters.  In that capacity, a bureau press releases says the 15-year, well-respected FBI veteran, "provided leadership and oversight to the field offices engaged in espionage, economic espionage, and insider threat investigations."   

“While his responsibilities are not publicly known, Kable was described to Fox as "tough and no-nonsense FBI." The intelligence source said analysts and agents are exploring whether the mishandling of classified information was "intentional" and who may have benefited.” 

At the same time, Luciana Lopez @ca.news.yahoo.com, quotes a report from Reuters, saying that: “A prominent Democratic donor worried about the party's chances of winning the presidency emailed dozens of fans of Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, urging them to remain prepared to donate if Biden jumps into the race.” 

“The donor, Bill Bartmann, cited new polling showing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly tied with the Hillary Clinton, eroding the 30-point lead the former secretary of state held at the end of last year. Bartmann and other party insiders are concerned that Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, is too far to the left to win against a Republican in the Nov. 8 presidential election."

"We cannot afford to lose the White House," Bartmann wrote in the email, seen by Reuters.

“The email drew a string of affirmative responses, also seen by Reuters.” 

All of which naturally leads to the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.  

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A mixed bag of items today reflect that when all’s said and done, the array of presidential candidates are actually quite funny. Too bad that’s not their intention.

Rush said yesterday, “There's a Democrat debate tonight.  There's a Republican debate on Saturday night.  It just continues to intensify.  A friend of mine sent me the following note with a great idea for a drinking game tonight during the Democrat debate, and here it is: "Every time Crazy Bernie or Hillary Clinton mention a new free government program," which is the contest they are having, who can come up with the most free stuff.

“Bernie... Wait 'til you hear this sound bite.  I've gotta get to this today.  Bernie gets a question from a guy upset that Bernie's gonna raise his taxes.  The guy says, "You know, I'm not a gazillionaire. I'm not a millionaire.  What do you want to raise my taxes for?"  And Bernie says, "No, no. You'll be fine because of all the new free stuff you're gonna get," and the guy says, "Oh, okay. Cool." It was fine with him. 

“He'd be happy to pay a tax increase as long as there's gonna be new freebies.  Now, Bernie didn't use that exact language; that was the message. So the drinking game is every time Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton mention a new "free" government program, you grab somebody else's drink and take a swig. Not from your own.  Just to kind of illustrate the point.” 

In this case, Rush may have explained how socialism works in terms that allow even the dimmest of them to grasp the concept. 

As far as debates are concerned, a FB friend posted the following: 

In another joke, Jeffry Bartash @MarketWatch, writes: “The U.S. created 151,000 new jobs in January, a sharp slowdown after a torrid pace of hiring in the waning months of 2015. Economists polled by MarketWatch had expected an increase of 180,000 nonfarm jobs. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, dipped below 5% for the first time in eight years, falling to 4.9%. Employment gains for December and November were little changed, the Labor Department said Friday.” 

Here we have a situation illustrating that the job market is the worst it’s been since Jimmy Carter was POTUS. The economy’s slowed significantly, employment's flat and there’s little reason to expect a turnaround for the better. Yet, the unemployment rate has dipped below 5% the first time in eight years, falling to 4.9%. So, how can that possibly happen? 

The answer is that, being fully aware that citizens typically don’t read beyond the headlines, the administration cleverly changed the reporting method. And in doing so, those no longer looking for work after a month aren’t included any more. However were the formula that’s always been used in the past still applied, the actual unemployment rate would be in the range of 10% or higher.   

And what’s worse, according to the January jobs report, although the labor force participation rate slightly increased to 62.7%, up from 62.6% in December, it’s the lowest its been in over 36 years.

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

Bradford Richardson @thehill.com, reports that: “Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has dramatically cut into the nationwide lead of primary rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. 

“The poll released Friday finds Clinton leading the race with 44 percent support, compared to 42 percent support for Sanders, within the survey's margin of error.” 

The numbers reflect an incredible shift in only two months, whereas: “The last iteration of the poll in December had Clinton leading Sanders nationwide by a 61-30 point margin.” 

“Democrats nationwide are feeling the Bern as Sen. Bernie Sanders closes a 31-point gap to tie Secretary Hillary Clinton,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. 

“The poll also finds that Sanders matches up better with top Republican primary candidates than Clinton.” 

And then, we get to the humorous part. 

According to FoxNews.com, “Hillary Clinton defiantly claimed at Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100 percent confident” nothing will come of the FBI’s investigation of her email practices and has no concerns about the controversy’s impact on her chances in the race. 

“I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever,” the former secretary of state said at the MSNBC-hosted debate in New Hampshire. 

“The comments come less than a week after the State Department confirmed that, as it releases thousands of Clinton emails, it is withholding 22 emails containing information too “top secret” to release.” 

Reading Bill’s wife’s confident statements were remindful of someone mentioned here in the same context before. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who served as Iraqi Information Minister under Iraqi president Saddam Hussein during the war.  

Known as “Baghdad Bob,” he extolled the invincibility of the Iraqi Army and the permanence of Saddam's rule. And then, in a TV studio one day, while he was on the air predicting an Iraqi military victory, a squad of U.S. marines crossed the stage, picked him up and carried him off into custody. 

So, maybe the FBI will decide to do the same thing to Bill Clinton’s wife during a debate. 

Which brings up the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Buried among all the article links on Drudge, and not found mentioned in any of the major media as an especially newsworthy event, is a Reuters column reporting: “A powerful U.S. lawmaker on Wednesday demanded Secretary of State John Kerry provide an explanation of a $1.7 billion claim settlement paid to Iran just as Tehran released American prisoners last month.” 

Within the column, are a couple of truly astounding disclosures. “Republican Ed Royce, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote that the timing of the settlement and the administration's failure to brief Congress "has led some to express concern that the payment represents a de facto 'ransom' for the release of American hostages." 

And then, aside from the fact that, once again, the administration ignored Congress, the structure of the payout is incredible on its own, as follows: “On Jan. 17, the State Department said the United States and Iran had settled a longstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest.” 

So, not only did the Iranians get their funds back, which many feel is undeserved, American taxpayers threw in another $900 million on top of that. Which isn’t even “deficit spending,” it’s much more like gross negligence in office, to put it politely. Or beyond moronic, to be more blunt. 

On a similar aspect of fiscal-mismanagement and absence of economic knowledge, socialist politico’s, such as Sanders and Bill Clinton’s wife keep pushing for higher minimum wages, less working hours, more worker benefits and longer medical and maternity leaves. 

At the same time, unions continue attempting to organize labor, taking as much as possible from employer's coffers. However, while all this backward thinking takes place among the fiscally naive regarding the future, managements are quickly changing the playing-field, primarily because they’re being forced to, by self-serving union leeches and short-sighted politicians. 

Leanna Garfield @techinsider.io via Drudge, writes today, about the Locus robot that “can zip around a clothing warehouse larger than the size of six football fields. It can also work for 24 hours, without a break for lunch or a salary.

"The bots work alongside humans and do all the normal grunt work. Warehouse workers usually walk 12 to 16 miles each day. With the robots, they don't have to. 

"The robots now meet the human workers in the middle of the warehouse. As soon as someone completes an order online, the bot's system knows exactly where to go in the 275,000-square-foot warehouse. 

"Since the robots are able to move faster than humans without tiring, Welty says the system will boost warehouse productivity by up to 800%. The bots will also not be subject to human error, which means that they can get the order right nearly every time. 

"As a way to increase productivity and speed, many online retailers have been using robots, conveyor belts, and cranes to fulfill orders for the past decade. Amazon has exclusive rights to Kiva Systems' robots, but Welty says Locus' robots are smaller, and more lightweight and versatile. 

At the same time, in another article, Ms Garfield adds: “The Japanese lettuce production company Spread believes the farmers of the future will be robots. 

"So much so that Spread is creating the world's first farm manned entirely by robots. Instead of relying on human farmers, the indoor Vegetable Factory will employ robots that can harvest 30,000 heads of lettuce every day. They'll plant seeds, water plants, and trim lettuce heads after harvest in the Kyoto, Japan farm.  

"The use of machines and technology has been improving agriculture in this way throughout human history," J.J. Price, a spokesperson at Spread, tells Tech Insider. "With the introduction of plant factories and their controlled environment, we are now able to provide the ideal environment for the crops." 

Now, the argument here isn’t that the technological revolution in labor is specifically the fault of socialist politicians, because that isn’t so. However, demanding more pay for the same labor, and continually seeking worker benefits with no commensurate employer income is certainly accelerating increasing interest in automation wherever possible. 

And therefore, the same politico’s would be doing far more for their constituents if they sought to help them increase their value, by forcing teachers to teach instead of merely seeking tenure while using wages as an incentive for employees to increase their worth in the human marketplace.   

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

Yesterday, a comment from Rush covered both Democrat contenders, but applies to the grossly distorted image their party has presented for years which is truly a fiction of media hype and misinformation.

Rush said: “You look at Ted Cruz, you look at Marco Rubio, you look at Dr. Ben Carson. You have two Hispanics and an African-American getting 60% of the caucus votes. Over on the Democrat side, two bedraggled, worn out old white people were the choice. And we sit here, we continue to have to listen to all this garbage that the Republican Party is where you find a lack of diversity and closed-minded bigotry.” 

And then, as an absolute truth and verification of Rush’s thought, an item on FoxNews.com, illustrates clearly who Bill’s wife really represents and how her allegiance has been bought and paid for. 

Regarding a $675,000 speaking fee paid to her by Goldman Sachs, “Clinton went on to say that she accepted the Goldman money after she left the State Department in 2013, when, as she put it, "I wasn't committed to running" for president.” 

Additionally: “An Associated Press analysis of public disclosure forms and records released by her campaign found that Clinton made $9 million from appearances sponsored by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity firms and real estate businesses.”

This from the woman who's out there every day "fighting" for the needy. Yeah, right!

Going further in regard to her clearly questionable behavior, is Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, now senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. In that role, he’s ordinarily taken a neutral political approach to subjects discussed, clearly explaining the legalities involved in a way that viewers can understand them in layman’s terms. 

However, for some time now, he’s demonstrated significant disgust for Bill Clinton’s wife, her conduct in the past and particularly, her use of her private email server when secretary of state.     

To begin his column yesterday, the judge wrote: “Clinton, of course, is the heiress to the mightiest Democratic political apparatus in the land. Hence the question: What do the Iowa Democrats know that caused thousands of them to flee from her? 

“They know she is a crook.” 

And then, in closing, he offered the following summation: “Let’s be as blunt about this as the FBI will be: Causing state secrets to reside in a nonsecure, nongovernmental venue, whether done intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage. 

“And there is more. When asked about the consequences of Clinton’s brazen exposure of state secrets to anyone who knows how to hack into a nonsecure computer, an intelligence operative winced as if in pain when he remarked that the nation’s then chief diplomat surely compromised the “sources, methods, and lives” of her colleagues. 

“Even Democrats who see Clinton as a symbol of their long-time wish for a progressive female in the Oval Office are beginning to recognize that anyone who has jeopardized American lives for political gain is unworthy of their votes, unworthy of their trust and unworthy of public office.” 

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

That’s it for today folks.  

    

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Veeerrryyy slow news day, following the useless Iowa caucuses. Other than the reports that first Huckabee and now Paul, have dropped out of the Republican presidential contest. Which means that the remaining contenders can vie for their supporters, except for the fact that there aren’t any to speak of for either of them.

The absence of major news, however, provides an opportunity to pass on an item sent to me by a friend, in which Abbott and Costello explain how the administration is handling the horrendous unemployment situation in the nation, as follows:   

COSTELLO:  I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America 

ABBOTT: Good Subject.  Terrible Times.  It’s 5.6%.      

COSTELLO:  That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT:  5.6% Unemployed.

COSTELLO:  Right 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO:  WAIT A MINUTE!. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed.  23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT:  No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed.  You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO:  What point? 

ABBOTT:  Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO:  I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hillary. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife and the fact that it’s utterly amazing that, no matter the issue at hand, if she’s involved, the truth is always in question, regardless.

In today’s case, the subject is whether or not she actually won the Democrat caucus Monday night.

Jennifer Jacobs, @desmoinesregister.com, writes: “It's Iowa's nightmare scenario revisited: An extraordinarily close count in the Iowa caucuses — and reports of chaos in precincts, website glitches and coin flips to decide county delegates — are raising questions about accuracy of the count and winner.

“This time it's the Democrats, not the Republicans. 

“Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final.”

Thus, if nothing else, it’s been proven once again that it really doesn’t matter what the situation is. If there’s a Clinton involved, it’s a sure bet that something shady has taken place. And what’s really quite ironic is, that if by some chance any of them ever was honest for once, how would anyone know it? 

In another Clinton matter, Eddie Scarry @washingtonexaminer.com, writes: “Veteran investigative journalist Bod Woodward on Wednesday said a likely reason Hillary Clinton lost young voters in Iowa to her main Democratic rival is because she has a harsh tone that comes across as insecure. 

"I think a lot of it with Hillary Clinton has to do with style and delivery, oddly enough," Woodward said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "She shouts. There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating." 

“Show co-host Joe Scarborough agreed.” 

Farther along in his column, Mr. Scarry added: “Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said a similar thing about Clinton's speech-making voice. 

"She is especially poor at the podium, where, when she wants to emphasize an applause line, her voice becomes loud, flat and harassing to the ear," Noonan wrote in January. She compared Clinton to a "landlady yelling up the stairs that your kids left their bikes in the hall again." 

Now, although, both Woodward and Noonan are quite correct that Bill’s wife comes across as a screaming old shrew, they triggered another thought about her campaign that’s not only quite confusing, it makes no sense whatsoever.

In many appearances, the supporters behind her wave signs saying Bill’s wife is “Fighting For You,” which makes one wonder as to exactly who she’s fighting with, and why. Because, the POTUS is a Democrat that she worked for as secretary of state. Bernie Sanders is farther left than she is. And every bit of legislation that her party desires gets enacted, one way another, and it’s been that way for the past nine years now. 

So, what on this green earth remains for her  to“fight” for? Because it not only all got done quite handily without her, she won’t likely be needed in the future either. 

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

 

That’s it for today folks.      

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As reported here last October, Gallup had been the country's gold standard for election polling ever since its legendary founder, George Gallup, predicted Franklin Roosevelt's landslide reelection in 1936.

“But after a bruising 2012 cycle, in which its polls were farther off than most of its competitors, Gallup told POLITICO it isn't planning any polls for the presidential primary horse race this cycle. And, even following an internal probe into what went wrong last time around, Gallup won't commit to tracking the general election next year.” 

And then, yesterday, Iowa voters proved Gallup to be precisely correct. Because no pollster in the nation came anywhere near being accurate in their predictions, most showing Trump as the far ahead leader. 

Regarding Trump's Iowa performance, FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt put it this way: “He underperformed the average of pre-election polls by more than 5 points, losing despite having led in the final 13 polls.” 

And then, Mr. Stirewalt continued: “How [Trump] responds to this adversity will tell us a great deal. He holds an astonishing 21-point lead in the Real Clear Politics average of New Hampshire polls and can fairly well bank on a win there on Feb. 9. That’s the kind of comeback he needs. It certainly worked for Mitt Romney.” 

Which leads to the question: Mitt who?

A Facebook friend put it this way: 

Statistically speaking, the results show that Cruz won with 23.75% of the vote. Also meaning that 72.35% preferred someone else. In second place finisher, Trump’s case, more than 3/4’s of voters (75.69%) chose another. While in lagging Rubio’s case, 76.1% didn’t select him either. All of which suggests that this race is still as open as a barn door.   

As for myself, I’d love to play poker with any of those gullible enough to pay an iota of attention to a political poll. I could retire all over again.

On another, more important issue, Anthony B. Kim writes about what happens when American voters believe campaign speeches, instead of doing their homework to research candidates true credentials and goals.  

Mr. Kim researches international economic issues at The Heritage Foundation and is research manager of the Index of Economic Freedom, the flagship product of the Heritage Foundation in partnership with The Wall Street Journal. 

Mr. Kim writes: “Millions of people around the world are emerging from poverty thanks to rising economic freedom. But by sharp contrast, America’s economic freedom has been on a declining path over the past decade.

“According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress.

“The U.S. has fallen from the 6th freest economy in the world, when President Barack Obama took office, to 11th place in 2016. America’s declining score in the index is closely related to rapidly rising government spending, subsidies, and bailouts.

Since early 2009:

• Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.
• The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax-filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.
• The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.
• Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation.

And then, while the POTUS clearly has the nation moving backward in every major category measurable, Michael Bastasch @dailycaller.com reports as follows:

“A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent. The biggest concern for Americans was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

“Despite a big PR push by President Barack Obama to tout his administration’s global warming agenda, most Americans have been unconvinced it’s the country’s most pressing issue. A Fox News poll from November found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern. 

“A Gallup poll from March 2015 found Americans’ concern about global warming fell to the same level it was in 1989. Global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns — only 32 percent said they worried about it a “great deal.” 

“Meanwhile, only 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions, while 23 percent say it’s caused by natural changes and 26 percent say it isn’t a proven fact,” CNN reported. 

Yet, despite the unimportance of the subject to the populace, and the significantly questionable validity that global-warming even exists, Andrew Follett, Energy and Environmental Reporter @dailycaller.com, presented some truly astounding data today. 

“The United Nations Paris agreement to stop dangerous global warming could cost $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists. 

“The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period,” calculated Bloomberg New Energy Finance with the assistance of the environmentalist nonprofit Ceres. 

“That’s almost as much money the U.S. federal government spent on defense in 2015, according to 2015 spending numbers from the bipartisan Committee For Responsible Federal Budget. The required annual spending is almost 3.7 times more than the $131.57 billion China spent on its military in 2014.” 

At the same time, it’s ironic that, “solar and wind power have not done much to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Studies show solar power is responsible for one percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.” 

And therefore, not only isn’t all the misspent funding not assuaging the problem, natural gas is twenty times more effective as a cure.

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

Yesterday's caucus in Iowa ended in a virtual tie between Bill’s wife (696) and Sanders (692.) Leading John Whitesides @Reuters via yahoo.com, to write: “Hillary Clinton's struggle in Iowa to fend off underdog Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, reignited questions about her ability to close the deal with Democratic voters and turned up the pressure on her high-profile White House campaign.

“The Democratic presidential front-runner, whose campaign ran off the rails in Iowa in 2008 against Barack Obama, was dealt another setback on Monday in the Midwestern state that begins the 2016 race for the presidency.” 

While the results indicate problems for Bill’s wife overall, some very telling details underlie the most recent statistics: 

Mr. Whitesides writes that: “Fundraising figures reported on Sunday by Sanders underscored the extent to which his campaign has grown into a popular movement. 

“Clinton has raised more than Sanders - her campaign brought in $109 million last year compared to his $73.5 million. But 75 percent of his haul came from donations of $200 or less, in contrast to only 18 percent of Clinton's, and far more of Clinton's donors have hit the $2,700 donation limit.” 

Which means that, he’s caught her while raising almost 33% less than she has, and doing so across a far broader cross-section of voters. Appearing to be, as Mr. Whitesides has suggested above, very much like what happened to her last time around.  

As far as the Democrat presidential race itself goes, it’s like watching a movie that could be called ”Geriatric Park.” Where two prehistoric Neanderthals from the stone-age bang at each other with huge wooden clubs. Until at the end they clash in wheelchairs, sliding over sideways with their tongues hanging out. Both exhausted and out of gas altogether, as they fade into the sunset in the background. 

And although they’re all also old has-been retreads, the daily question still comes up: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.       

Adios

BloggeRhythms

For what seems like an eternity by now, the media's been deluging the nation with reports regarding today’s Iowa caucuses. However, as a practical matter, the Iowa results have been correct only once in the past 36 years. As mentioned here yesterday, in the last 9 presidential elections, as far as nominees are concerned, the poll’s been right only 22% of the time. In regard to the presidency itself, the percentage drops to 11%.  

The reason for mentioning the worthless Iowa polls again today, is that while the public is being buried with endless drivel about the meaningless event, other extremely important issues are being overlooked by the major media. 

As candidates throw mud, fabrications and slurs at each other in both major parties, none of which have any bearing on their ability to preside over the greatest nation on earth, a far more important story was buried in the middle of yesterday's Drudge report, as follows:   

Mehreen Khan @telegraph.co.uk, reported on Saturday that: “Saudi Arabia faces years of tough austerity as the worst oil price crash in the modern history forces the kingdom to make radical cuts to government largesse, the International Monetary Fund has warned. 

“The world's largest producer of crude oil will need to "transform" its economy away from oil revenues, which make up more than 80pc of the government's wealth, according to Masood Ahmed, head of the Middle East department at the IMF. 

“The Saudi monarchy has already been forced to unveil the largest programme of government austerity in decades as oil prices have collapsed by more than 70pc in 18 months. 

"This will have to be part of a multi-year adjustment process," Mr Ahmed told The Telegraph.

“He urged the kingdom to reform its generous system of oil subsidies and introduce a host of new taxes, including consumption levies such as VAT. There will have to be a major transformation of the Saudi economy. It is necessary and it is going to be difficult, but it is a challenge which I think the authorities have clearly laid out," said Mr Ahmed. 

Similarly of major significance: “The warning comes as the world's weakest oil producing nations could buckle under the pressure of the price rout. IMF officials have been in Azerbaijan this week amid fears Baku will need a $4bn international rescue package to stave off a debt default.” 

And perhaps more importantly: “During the world's last major oil price crash in 1986, 17 out of 25 of the developing world's major oil producers defaulted on their debts, according to research from Oxford Economics. Debt mountains in producer nations ballooned by 40pc of GDP on average.” 

So, what this means is, that the declining prices are certainly curbing the fiscal ability of nations reliant on oil for significant portions, if not all, of their income. And therefore, country’s such as Venezuela and Iran, all risk sliding into economic recession if oil prices continue to drop. Russia’s newfound geopolitical assertiveness could also be reversed. Mexico and Brazil, while relatively less dependent on oil, could still see slower growth and diminishing revenues. 

Therefore, what should be obvious by now, is that if not for the pandering to those endorsing the global-warming farce, curbing drilling in the U.S. and vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline, the financial breakdown of major enemies could have begun seven years ago. 

It’s also quite possible that ISIS wouldn't have been able to finance its hostile activities in the Middle-East, while Iran, perhaps, would have found its nuclear development too expensive to pursue so quickly. 

Which means that it’s not too far-fetched to place a significant part of the blame for the nation’s foreign policy problems, and the resurrection of major enemies squarely on the shoulders of U.S. environmentalists who've aided and abetted them.   

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

In her case, while she claims to be “fighting” for her constituents, whatever that means, her campaign quietly released current fund-raising data yesterday. 

And while she was out there standing up for the poor, needy and downtrodden, billionaire donor George Soros recently gave $6 million to her super PAC, according to new figures filed with the Federal Election Commission Sunday night. Which makes one wonder exactly what he expects in return from her. Because Soros wouldn’t “donate” a nickel to anything that wouldn’t bring back at least five bucks to him.

But, far more importantly, a U.S. government official who has reviewed Bill’s wife’s emails told Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne that “the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed it too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” 

The official, unauthorized to speak on the record, was referring to the 22 “Top Secret” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted. 

While the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification, “the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.” 

What’s more, “the “Top Secret” documents were sent over an extended period of time -- from shortly after the server's 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.” 

On the other hand, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with. 

"There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. "Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security." 

And while Representative Pompeo certainly seems to be on the right track, about what Bill's wife surely should have known in regard to handling sensitive information, a FB friend posted an item this morning about her presidential qualifications in general.

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

   

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios