BloggeRhythms

Saturday’s Republican primary results have been tallied for four states, where frontrunner Trump remained stagnant, averaging 36.5% of votes while Cruz/Rubio attained 54% combined. Also indicating that 63.5% of those voting preferred someone other than Trump.

 

The breakdown showed that in Kansas, Cruz attained 65% of votes, Trump 23% and Rubio 17. In Kentucky, Trump squeaked by at 36%, with Cruz at 32% and Rubio 16%. Louisiana was another close one, Trump winning with 41%. But that was only 3% higher than Cruz at 38%, while Rubio gained a mere 11%. Then, in Maine, Cruz won again at 46%, Trump only 33% and far behind, Rubio trailed with just 8%.

 

Which means that Trump certainly isn’t running away by any means, when compared to the rest of his rivals combined appeal. And, no one knows where the votes will go, if and when, Rubio and/or Kasich drop out. But, one would have to assume that most of those switching would wind up with Cruz at this point. Because most of non-Trump voters have already chosen someone within the party structure, making it logical they’d continue to do so. 

 

So, at present, things ain't lookin' so hot for the motor-mouth.   

 

On another issue: Rush is appearing on Fox News today with Chris Wallace. He frequently tells listeners he’s “doing this show with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair because I have talent on loan from . . . God.” So, I texted him on Facebook that in this case, he’ll have to tie his whole brain behind him, and he’ll still have an edge in dealing with that self-impressed, pompous sack of hot air, Wallace. 

 

And then, a friend posted this on FB today.

 
  

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

 

Two important occurrences, direct personal involvement is now exposed and the article appeared in the ordinarily supportive Washington Post.

 

Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger report:ed yesterday: “Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence. 

 

“The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s ­authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.

 

“In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.” 

 

Thus, while Bill’s wife continually claims the issue is simply a Republican plot to defame her, having no material substance, the facts say something else completely. What's worse for her, is that her actions are far more serious than those of General David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty a federal charge of removing and retaining classified information as part of a plea deal in March, 2015. 

 

Raising 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

Not much going on in the news. More debates, more primary's and it’s anyone’s guess as to who’ll wind up as either party’s presidential candidate. Particularly because the FBI may play a major role on the Democrat side, by incarcerating their front-runner. And now it looks like the top Republican may be headed for court himself. On charges of fraud and misrepresentation at the sham, Trump University. 

Ian Tuttle @nationalreview.com, writes: “First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) 

“Cue lawsuits. Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits — two class-action lawsuits filed in California, and one filed in New York by then-attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who told CNN’s New Day in 2013: “We started looking at Trump University and discovered that it was a classic bait-and-switch scheme. It was a scam, starting with the fact that it was not a university.”

Mr. Tuttle continues: “Meanwhile, Trump — who maintains that Trump University was “a terrific school that did a fantastic job” — has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested a protective order from the court “to protect her from further retaliation.” According to court documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He’s already brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general’s office. But it’s not working. Trump himself will have to take the witness stand in San Diego federal court sometime during the election season — and because of the timeline of the cases, a “President Trump” would be embroiled in these suits long after November.”

So, it will be interesting to see, if Trump is elected, cops entering the Oval Office and cuffing him. Perhaps right under a painting of Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceeding. 

On another issue mentioned here often, Justin Fox @bloomberg.com, headlined his column today: “Why aren’t more Americans working?”

The article’s most interesting because it encapsulates the direct relationship between politics and the American economy, particularly when seeking votes undermines job markets and whole classes of lesser skilled workers. Such as raising minimum wages despite the incentive that provides toward automation replacing people. Or, protecting unionized teachers via tenure, leading  the quality of education to worthlessness.  

Mr. Fox writes: “If you're looking for something to blame for the declining employment-to-population ratio, robots and workers abroad seem to be likelier culprits. Employment in manufacturing, which has been strongly affected by automation and overseas competition, fell from 17.3 million in February 2000 to 12.3 million last month. That's a lot of lost jobs for an economy to replace. Then there are the other possible causes that I trotted out last time:

“Maybe the U.S. system of unemployment insurance and job retraining and placement is busted. Maybe the perverse incentives built into the Social Security Disability Insurance program are keeping people who could work out of the labor force. Maybe the U.S. educational system is doing an especially poor job of preparing people for work. Maybe increasing geographic divergence in employment in the U.S. is leaving job seekers stranded far from jobs. Maybe poor child-care options are keeping American women at home. Maybe U.S. corporations, under pressure from capital markets, are spending so much money on share buybacks that they’re underinvesting in labor.”

So, obviously, the free market has responded to legislation by adapting its practices to preserve its enterprises and income opportunities. However businessmen didn’t cause the demise in work opportunity, or force independence from employment. Politicians did. Almost all of them members of the Democrat party.    

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

Originally, Washington Free Beacon reported back in April 2015, that Bill’s wife’s campaign “has made payments totaling six figures to Clinton this election cycle, according to a review of its expenditures.” Suggesting that funds were being siphoned off personally by the candidate.

And then, although the Clinton campaign didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment before publication, it later contacted the Beacon after the story was published, “and said the amounts listed were in-kind contributions to the campaign from Clinton.

“Those are in-kind donations from Hillary Clinton, not payments to her. Sorry for the slow response,” said campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin. 

“The campaign said the FEC requires in-kind contributions to be posted under expenditures and contributions even though no money is being disbursed from the campaign.” 

So, the point the Beacon was attempting to make is that although Bill’s wife had previously claimed that she and Bill were “dead broke” when he left the White House, the two have since amassed millions of dollars in wealth.” 

However, what’s also evident by the need for personal funds is that, perhaps donors aren’t coming through as expected this time around. A major concern.

On another issue, it was mentioned here a day or two ago that Bill had trouble focusing in an argument with a heckler during a campaign event. Now, today, Steve Guest @dailycaller.com writes: “While stumping for Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton attempted to boast on behalf of his wife, praising her for establishing sanctions on Iran, but instead he got confused and said “Iraq.” 

“During a campaign rally Thursday night in Baton Rouge, La., the former president said, “She got those sanctions on Iraq, which required China and Russia to sign off so everybody would enforce them. Even I didn’t think she could get them, but she did. 

“In all fairness, who really knows what Bill Clinton is talking about anymore?” America Rising asked. 

Thus, the go-to guy may have finally run out of steam, leaving his wife to campaign on her own. Which is like Popeye running out of spinach. And we all know what that means. It also 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

Didn’t watch the Republican debate last night, and from the recaps this morning, missed absolutely nothing. 

FoxNews.com summed the event up this way: ‘'Donald Trump’s rivals teamed up at Thursday’s Fox News Republican presidential debate in a concerted effort to cast him as a political salesman willing to say anything and take any position to win the nomination – but in the end, pledged to support the GOP nominee, even if it's Trump. 

“Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich all pledged to support the eventual nominee. And Trump, who has occasionally threatened to mount an independent bid, also vowed, “Yes, I will” support the nominee.” 

Other than that, the evening was another showing of grown men, supposedly capable of heading the greatest nation on the planet, acting like ten year olds sassing each other in a schoolyard. While the only individual on the stage with the required experience was Kasich, who’s been running last in the polls. Because an unsophisticated mass of frustrated voters don’t know the difference in value between blowhard wannabee’s and a highly successful governor.    

On a similar aspect of the Republican race, yesterday Rush took a quite negative view on the comments Mitt Romney made is his anti-Trump presentation in Utah yesterday morning.

In this case, it should be mentioned that I’ve been a Rush fan since 1988, when he began broadcasting his show nationally from WABC in NYC. Although in recent years, since his broadcasts are so overloaded with commercials, I read the text’s on Facebook and elsewhere on the Web, which is far better than tuning in. However, for the first time in those many, many years, I disagree significantly with his conclusions about both, Romney’s impact and Trump’s invincibility.

Rush said: “Now, Mitt Romney had some substantive things to say about Trump that, as I say, if you just look at it within the bubble of his comments, might make some sense.  But it's nothing nobody else has been saying about Trump in this entire campaign.  There wasn't anything new, and not one instance in the past of anybody saying any of these things about Trump has caused massive defections from Trump's campaign.  So the questions then arise, okay, if it hasn't worked prior to today, why do it today?  What's the deal?  And the answers to me are rather obvious.”

So, what we have here is Rush stating that first, Romney came up with nothing new to disparage Trump. However, Romney didn’t have to because the negatives are substantial and huge. So, what Romney did was list them, highlighting each in a way that hasn’t been done before, commenting on them individually. And as far as the lack of defections are concerned, Trump only had 35% of voters favoring him to begin with.   

Rush then used past events to further his point saying: “Let's go back, February 2nd, 2012, in Las Vegas, the Trump International Hotel and Tower, and Donald Trump endorsed Romney for president February 2nd, 2012.  And we have two Mitt Romney sound bites.  Here's the first. 

“ROMNEY:  There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life.  This is one of them, being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel, and having his endorsement is a delight.  I'm so honored and pleased to have his endorsement. 

“RUSH:  Don't think the people supporting Trump don't remember this.  Don't think they're gonna hear this either on this program or elsewhere and they're not gonna be questioning Trump.  They're gonna be questioning Romney.  Here's the second bite.  Get this. 

“ROMNEY:  Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works, to create jobs for the American people.  He's done it here in Nevada. He's done it across the country.  He understands that our economy is facing threats from abroad.  He's one of the few people who stood up and said, "You know what, China has been cheating. They've taken jobs from Americans. They haven't played fair. We have to have a president who stands up to cheaters."  So I want to say thank you to Donald Trump for his endorsement.  It means a great deal to me to have endorsement of Mr. Trump and people across this country.” 

And then Rush hit the nail on the head, but missed the point completely. Rush said: “Trump's the same the guy that he was four years ago in 2012. But here's Romney accepting his endorsement and praising him, praising him on the terms Trump is using in this campaign.  He's gonna get back at the people cheating Americans (i.e., the Chinese). He's gonna get back at the people taking jobs from Americans. Romney applauds that.  Trump is campaigning on those very things.  But strip away the details.” 

However, Romney’s point, along with many others in agreement, is that Trump has indeed changed in the past four years. He’s gone from a business man and political supporter to a candidate making loud, ridiculous, often frightening, statements and promises while having no solid platform and presenting no substance. And that’s what Romney’s worried about, and he happens to be correct.     

As Rush’s show went along, though, something must have happened to cause him to reconsider. Because some time later that very afternoon, Rush changed his tune completely, posting the following on Facebook: “There are a lot of primary votes yet to be had from people who oppose Trump. He's not winning a majority of Republican votes. He's getting a majority of the media coverage; he's getting a majority of the fascination. But when you look at raw vote totals, Ted Cruz is only 79 delegates behind him right now.” 

So, without giving Romney credit, Rush must have thought about what he’d said and came to the proper conclusion. That Romney truly knows exactly what he’s talking about regarding Trump. 

On another subject, for what it’s worth, FoxNews.com, reports: “Secretary of State John Kerry will not travel to Cuba this week as previously planned, a State Department official told Fox News late Thursday.

“It has been postponed,” the official said and noted the Cuba trip had never been formally announced. 

“According to Reuters, two U.S. officials said the trip had been canceled over Kerry’s concerns about Cuba’s human rights records.”

So, here again, just like Kerry’s surprise when told that the Ayatollah was urging anti-American activity in Iran, Kerry woke up two days late and two dollars short, looking like the colossal dupe he’s always been. 

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

According to an “exclusive,” on FoxNews.com, by Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne: “The FBI is investigating whether computer passwords were shared among Hillary Clinton's close aides to determine how sensitive intelligence "jumped the gap" between the classified systems and Clinton's unsecured personal server, according to an intelligence source familiar with the probe. 

“The source emphasized to Fox News that “if [Clinton] was allowing other people to use her passwords, that is a big problem.” The Foreign Service Officers Manual prohibits the sharing of passwords. 

“Such passwords are required to access each State Department network. This includes the network for highly classified intelligence -- known as SCI or Sensitive Compartmented Information -- and the unclassified system, known as SBU or Sensitive But Unclassified, according to former State Department employees.” 

“A separate source said the list of individuals is relatively small -- about a dozen, among them Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who was described as "pivotal" because he forwarded so many emails to Clinton. His exchanges, now deemed to contain highly classified information, included one email which referred to human spying, or "HCS-O," and included former Clinton aide Huma Abedin. 

“As Fox News first reported last year, two emails -- one sent by Abedin that included classified information about the 2011 movement of Libyan troops during the revolution, and a second sent by Sullivan that contained law enforcement information about the FBI investigation in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack – kick-started the FBI probe.” 

So, the investigation continues with considerable disagreement from both political sides as to what the final outcomes might be. However, it’s highly unlikely that career FBI agents, along with other senior members of other agencies, are working this diligently to insure that Bill’s wife is cleared of wrongdoing. Whereas she’s the responsible individual at the top of the chain. Which means there’s a very high, and growing chance of guilt. 

Leading 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 

BloggeRhythms

At 11:30AM this morning, Mitt Romney delivered a scathing speech at the University of Utah, totally disparaging Trump. 

While making no specific endorsement, Romney declared that Cruz, Rubio or Kasich would be better for both, the nation and the future of the Republican party.

Taking on Trump’s campaign issues individually, Romney carefully explained the flaws in each, including immigration, foreign policy and the economy. And that, the “only serious policy proposals” for the country are coming from the other Republican candidates on the field.

Moving on, Romney said: “As one businessman to another,” mocking Trump’s record of failed companies. The list included Trump’s four bankrupt casino’s, airline, magazine, mortgage business and particularly Trump University. 

In summation, Romney said, “I understand the anger Americans feel today. Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing ... the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.”

And then, admitting he might be proven wrong, he challenged Trump to release his back tax returns and “secret interview” with the New York Times.

Some research shows that, according to Byron York @washingtonexaminer.com: Trump “told the Times something to the effect that he might not actually push for the deportation of all 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States "because it's going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session."

“In other words, the story goes, Trump's tough talk on immigration is just talk. He doesn't really mean what he's been telling voters, who will be outraged when they find out that their presidential choice has not been honest with them. Or at least that's the story.” 

Now, whether Romney’s attempts to derail Trump will gain any traction remains to be seen. But if nothing else, in an extremely dignified and thoroughly professional manner, Romney offered an accurate and straightforward description of Trump’s highly flawed history and myriad mistakes. 

And, sadly for Romney, had he done the same thing to his opponent when he ran against Obama, today we’d probably all be calling him “President Romney.”   

Below is an article by Bill Barrow and Emily Swanson of the Associated Press via Drudge. It’s included today because in reading it, one would assume Trump won Super Tuesday’s contests by landslides. However, I’ve included a question following the text which no one in the media seems able to answer. 

According to the authors: “Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump continues to demonstrate a wide base of support, riding record turnouts to seven victories out of the 11 states where Republicans cast Super Tuesday ballots. 

“Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and other media across nine of the states showed Trump drawing significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications. Perhaps most important for Trump: Even among voting groups where he was weakest, he maintained enough strength to deny Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio any chance of catching him. 

“It was a repeat of the billionaire businessman's performance in February, when he won three of the first four nominating contest. On Tuesday, he added states as disparate as Vermont, Virginia and Alabama to his win column. 

"We have expanded the Republican Party," Trump gloated Tuesday night in his victory speech.” 

So, if so many voters find him so appealing, why was his average “win” only 35% of the total vote nationwide?  

The answer is: 65% of voters preferred someone else. 

And then, A FB friend posted this today. Another added the caption: “They know nothing.” 

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

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, @FoxNews.com, writes: “It is fair to call this a scandal because it consists of the public revelation of the private and probably criminal misdeeds of the nation’s chief diplomat during President Barack Obama’s first term in office. Clinton’s job as secretary of state was to keep secrets. Instead, she exposed them to friend and foe. The exposure of state secrets, either intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage. For the secretary of state to have committed espionage is, quite simply, scandalous.

“We are not addressing just a handful of emails. To date, the State Department has revealed the presence of more than 2,000 emails on her private server that contained state secrets -- and four that were select access privilege, or SAP. The SAP emails require special codes in order to access them. The codes change continually, and very few people in the government have the codes. SAP is a sub-category of "top secret," and it constitutes the highest level of protected secrecy, for the utmost protection of the government’s gravest secrets. It is unheard of for SAP-level data to reside in a non-secure, vulnerable venue -- yet that is where Clinton caused four SAPs to reside.

“Clinton’s allies in the State Department have perpetrated the myth that the 2,000 emails were recently upgraded to reflect their secret contents. That is untrue. The emails possess secret status by virtue of their contents, not because of any markings on them. Clinton had a legal obligation to recognize state secrets when she saw them, no matter their markings or non-markings. On her first day on the job, she swore under oath that she recognized and understood that legal obligation and she promised to comply with it. She did not comply.”

Then, this morning, on FoxNews the judge went further in explaining how the investigation has now reached an extremely serious phase. That’s because the Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Bill’s wife’s private email server. That raises the level to a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official. 

Mr. Pagliano, worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009. 

According to Judge Napolitano, what needs to be understood by the public is that, before immunity can be granted to a witness a Grand Jury must be impaneled. And that means the case has become far more serious whereas, due to costs, time involved and personnel required for review at that level, there must be evidence warranting the significant investment to be made.  

As a result, the Judge feels that without knowing specifically who at this early stage, its a foregone conclusion that someone will certainly be indicted. And unless he commits perjury when testifying, it won’t be Mr. Pagliano, because he’s now been granted immunity. Which means it’s certainly someone further up the chain, which ends with Bill’s wife. 

Leading 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 

BloggeRhythms

Super Tuesday now over, major media’s in the throes of anointing Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. The numbers, however, present a significantly different picture.

On a state-by-state- basis, Trump had no major wins, with his highest margin occurring in Massachusetts where he got 49% of the vote. His combined competitors, though, got 51% in that state.

In Alabama Trump got 43% of the vote, the other four 57%. Alaska was won by Cruz, Trump getting 34% of the tally, while the rest of the field gained 66%. And the list goes on. Arkansas Trump 33%, the rest 66%, Georgia, Trump 39% the rest 61%. Minnesota was won by Rubio with Trump’s count only 21% and the others, 79%. Cruz won Oklahoma with Trump at 28% and the field wining 72%. Tennessee, Trump 39%, the rest 61%, In Texas Cruz wins again, with Trump at 27% and the others at 73%, Vermont, Trump 33%, others 67% and Virginia, Trump 35% and the rest a significant 65%.

Across all 12 states, he won about 36 percent of the vote, which is where he was in New Hampshire — and 10 points below the Nevada caucuses he won last week.

So, if these results are some kind of huge victory for Trump, either there's some other method of gauging voter’s wishes used by the media or someone will have to explain what I’m missing. Because the only thing that the results clearly indicate is, most voters (64% yesterday) don’t want Trump and there are too many other candidates still in the race. 

Even the delegate count was no great landslide endorsement by any means either. Trump gained 285, while the rest of the field amassed 281. A virtual tie.

As far as the media’s concerned, the bias in the press was clearly expressed by Amie Parnes @thehill.com, who wrote about Bill Clinton’s wife, as follows:

“Many Republicans, at least, think she could destroy Trump. 

“If it’s a Clinton-Trump campaign, she’s going to win and win handily,” said Tony Fratto, who served as a spokesman to former President George W. Bush. “She needs to come out swinging and aggressive. She needs to get out quickly and define him, attacking him early and often and never letting up.” 

And then Ms Hill wrote one of the most revealing paragraphs seen in a very long time: ”With Trump and Clinton both largely unfavorable among voters, Republican strategist Kevin Madden, who served as an adviser on the Romney campaign in 2012, quipped that the campaign could be “a race to the bottom to see who hits the bottom first.” 

So, that’s where the nation is today. Two unpopular weasels vying for the most important job on the planet, affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. And a major media supporting both. One reason being that they feel certain that he can’t win, and another because the ideology of the left doesn’t care who represents them, so long as their every need is taken care of by government. And their best bet at this point is a candidate whose only achievement in life is marrying a former POTUS. 

In another display of media bias, an article by Tom Dart in Laredo, Texas @theguardian.com, is headlined: “Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built”

The text says: “A candidate who has described Mexicans as rapists and criminals and whose core immigration plan is to make Mexico pay for a giant wall ought not to prosper on the southern border. Yet Donald Trump was embraced on Tuesday by voters in America’s most Hispanic city. 

“Trump won almost 35% of the Republican primary vote in Webb County, where Laredo is the county seat, comfortably ahead of Marco Rubio (28.4%) and Ted Cruz (28.2%), the Hispanic senator from Texas who finished first in the state overall.” 

So here again, a misleading premise is foisted on the public. Especially those who glance only at headlines. Because, not only isn’t 35% of the count “dominating,” it isn’t even impressive. And, as shown above regarding the other races, the same statistical problem for other candidates repeats itself. Because with Cruz at 28.4% and Rubio at 28.2 , together they’ve attained 56.6%. Far and away surpassing Trump again.  

The summation of the anointment of Trump in the media is remindful of a similar occurrence, taking place 68 years ago, as posted in Wikipedia.   

"Dewey Defeats Truman" was an incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune on November 3, 1948, the day after incumbent United States President Harry S. Truman won an upset victory over Republican challenger and Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in the 1948 presidential election. It was famously held up by Truman at a public appearance following his successful election, smiling triumphantly at the error.” 

Which is a reminder that it’s always wise to wait until all the votes are in before declaring a winner. No matter how much you want to support your favorite. 

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

When all is said and done, aside from primary election results, the most important vote regarding Bill’s wife rests with FBI Director James Comey. According to Harper Neidig @thehill.com, the director “told Congress on Tuesday that he is closely involved in the agency's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.”

Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) said, "This is a matter of considerable import. Is there anything that you can tell us as to when this matter might be wrapped up one way or the other?”  

"I can't, congressman, as you know we don't talk about our investigations," Comey responded. "What I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it's done the way the FBI tries to do all of it's work: independently, competently and promptly. That's our goal, and I'm confident that it's being done that way, but I can't give you any more details beyond that." 

Therefore, with the investigation still going on, it’s anyone’s bet as to what the outcome will be. Although rumors abound that should the White House attempt to suppress an indictment of Bill’s wife, Comey and others are prepared to resign from the bureau. And if that happens, it will surely set off a huge, damaging controversy in Congress. 

Bringing 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

Syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas, headed an article today on FoxNews.com: "Donald Trump and America’s sewer politics A campaign beyond embarrassment”

Mr. Thomas begins: “I was going to write about how the Republican presidential campaign has become gutter politics, but given Donald Trump’s horrid statements, the gutter would be a step up, because things have descended into the sewer.”

From there, Mr. Thomas provides examples and commentary supporting his point that, in his opinion, this presidential campaign has reached the lowest level of unbridled mud-slinging and lack of professional capability in political history. 

And then, once again, a reader, DetroitGuy,  summed up the situation succinctly. But by doing so, and supporting Trump, the reader subconsciously defined the glaring problem his candidate poses for the nation. 

DetroitGuy wrote: “Obama built Trump.  Eight years of weaselly rule by executive order and leading from behind has made a lot of people angry. Trump is seen as the anti-Obama.”

However, while the description of Obama’s certainly correct, his major flaw were inexperience and unpreparedness for the job. Coupled with a refusal to entertain any type of discussion, negotiation, or willing compromise with the other side.

And, in the event that Trump’s elected, it would be natural to assume from his campaigning conduct he’d do the exact same thing Obama did. The only difference being party affiliation. 

On another aspect of the current campaign, the presidential candidates continually battle among each other as to what they’d do to control illegal immigration. The only one, however, taking a firm stand, feasible or not, is Trump. Which may explain why this blustering outsider with a significantly faulty personal history is doing so well in the polls. Because voters want the problem fixed.

Today, Mark Wiggins @.kvue.com via Drudge writes: “It's a mix that reached a crisis in 2014. Some 260,000 people, mostly unaccompanied children from Central America, flooded across the border through the Rio Grande Valley. Congress called for legislation, then-Gov. Rick Perry mobilized a thousand National Guard troops, and the Eighty-fourth Texas Legislature pumped nearly a billion dollars into the Texas Department of Public Safety for border security.”

Mr. Wiggins goes on: “That was more than a year and a half ago, and with everything that's happened, the question is what -- if anything -- has changed? 

"In the past few months the number of unaccompanied alien minors unlawfully entering the U.S. soared to over 17,000 and the number of family units increased to 21,000," Chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) informed the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in a February 4 hearing on Capitol Hill. "If these trends continue it is predicted there will be a 30 percent increase in the record high numbers we witnessed in 2014."

And that's what American voters want stopped, even if the answers means being stuck with Trump.

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

FoxNews.com reports: “Ahead of a possible make-or-break Super Tuesday, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign announced that it had raised more than $42 million in February. 

“Sanders' campaign claimed the total was the most raised in a single month by any of the 2016 candidates, adding that the self-described democratic socialist had received more than $6 million in donations on the final day of the month.” 

“Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said: “Not only are we going to smash Secretary [Hillary] Clinton’s personal goal of raising $50 million in the first quarter of 2016, our supporters are putting Bernie on the path to win the nomination.”

The most important point in the article, though, was that Sanders' campaign “has made much of its reliance on small donations, and the candidate himself has contrasted his comparatively shoestring fundraising operation with the far wealthier Clinton campaign.” 

Which goes to indicate that, regardless of what pundits may profess, or mainstream media outlets try to emphasize about Bill’s wife campaign, individual voters still find Sanders more popular if their donations are used as the measure. 

As far as Sanders money-raising is concerned, reader beach 56, commented: "hmmm...a socialist pandering for money?! did anyone ask Bernie where he thinks that money comes from?”

And then, in what may be another indication of potential weakness regarding Bill’s wife, Daniel Halper @weeklystandard.com, wrote yesterday: Only 75 people came out to hear Chelsea Clinton condemn the Republicans for being racist, homophobic, and sexist. Clinton called this election the most important one of her lifetime.” 

And in Chelsea’s case, she’s certainly correct. Because if her mother loses, in a very short time it will be: Chelsea who? 

Which raises 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