BloggeRhythms

As confirming evidence mounts in numerous scandals and reflecting extremely poor decision-making regarding the current White House, another block-buster of a fiasco surfaced today.

 

Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura of the Washington Post report that, “Aides knew of a possible White House link to Cartagena, Colombia, prostitution scandal.”

 

While, “nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.”

 

However, new details from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time, suggesting a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member. Yet, that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged. 

 

“The lead investigator later told Senate staffers that he felt pressure from his superiors in the office of Charles K. Edwards, who was then the acting inspector general, to withhold evidence — and that, in the heat of an election year, decisions were being made with political considerations in mind. 

 

David Nieland, lead investigator on the Colombia case for the DHS inspector general’s office, told Senate staffers, “We were directed at the time . . . to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election.” He also added that, “his superiors told him to withhold and alter certain information in the report of investigation because it was potentially embarrassing to the administration.”

 

Therefore, there’s now additional evidence  confirming that campaigning and political rhetoric have always been the core of the current administration, while professional job capability and practical experience rarely appear. Probably because there isn’t any. Which is why, regardless of the topic, from the economy to health care to foreign affairs, and everything else in between, none of those with any responsibility at all really knows what they’re doing at any time.

 

In that regard, Ron Fournier in the National Journal wrote an article titled, “Why Obama Won't Listen to Leon Panetta.”

 

Referencing Washington Post columnist Dan Balz, Mr. Fournier says that, “In a column called, "Will the president listen to Leon Panetta?" Balz urged the president and his team to "take to heart the critique from someone who has served both this president and the country loyally for many years." I can't imagine they will. Nor do most Democrats in this town have much hope for an outbreak of humility at the White House.

 

It starts with the president—this inability to accept criticism and learn from it—and so Obama seems destined to leave office no more comfortable or competent with the vague arts of leadership than he was six years ago.”

 

Examples cited include a description of how little Obama fought to stop deep automatic budget cuts that rattled the Pentagon. In that case, Panetta wrote: "Indeed, that episode highlighted what I regard as his most conspicuous weakness, a frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause."

 

"That is not a failing of ideas or of intellect," Panetta added. "He does, however, sometimes lack fire. Too often, in my view, the president relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader."

 

Furthermore, “Obama gets so discouraged by the process" that he almost abandons the fight, Panetta told USA Today. "He's going to have to jump in the ring and fight it out for the next two years," he said. Fighting ISIS is an opportunity for a president who has "lost his way" to "repair the damage."

 

Now, while Mr. Fournier, Mr. Balz and Mr. Panetta himself, all try to point out the incumbent’s faults and shortcomings and still remain positive about his presidential abilities, all three of them are still trying valiantly to gloss over the fact that he’s not qualified for the job that he holds.

 

And, to a great extent, all the incumbent really does is rally support for his cause and nothing else to follow up. Because, it seems that every day that he’s not on a golf course he’s someplace in front of a crowd, holding a microphone and screaming and yelling about his causes while castigating and smearing those opposing him. 

 

Then there’s also the incorrect assumption by Mr. Panetta that the incumbents “lost his way,” which can’t possibly be true because he never had one to begin with.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Former defense secretaries, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, have released memoirs detailing frustrations with the incumbent’s foreign policy and management style. Panetta has particularly criticized him in several interviews since his book, “Worthy Fights,” came out this week.

 

Although it’s odd for former associates to level criticism while a president is still in office, now another has joined the growing group of those believing the incumbent’s performance is lacking for someone holding the office of POTUS. 

 

Jonathan Topaz wrote in www.politico.com yesterday that, “former President Jimmy Carter is criticizing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, saying he has shifting policies and waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

 

In an interview published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength.

 

“[W]e waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group. “Then when [ISIL] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.”

 

While Robert Gates and Jimmy Carter may simply be expressing significant concerns they have over the incumbent’s abilities and are showing that frustration in their scathing comments, it’s also very likely that Mr. Panetta is also trying to help Bill Clinton’s wife in her goal of trying to win the next presidency of the U.S. However, while that election’s two years away, that possibility is already bringing opposition out of the woodwork, although Bill’s wife hasn’t even announced her candidacy yet.

 

Michael Isikoff, of Yahoo News via Drudge, writes today that Robert Fiske, a former U.S. attorney who served as the original independent counsel in charge of the Whitewater investigation to probe the financial dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton “says he was poised to bring high-profile indictments against top Arkansas political and business figures — based in part on testimony from a chief witness against the then president — when he was abruptly replaced by a panel of federal judges, throwing his investigation into turmoil.”

 

In a forthcoming memoir, "Prosecutor Defender Counselor," Mr. Fiske writes that, "I was angry, frustrated and above all disappointed that I was not going to be able to carry through and finish bringing the indictments. And while he offers no judgments on the conduct of the Clintons, nor on that of the man who replaced him, Kenneth Starr, he offers a more complicated picture, describing how he had quickly uncovered "serious crimes" in the Whitewater investigation but that his probe was cut short after conservatives falsely accused him of a "cover up." 

 

While there was never any evidence sufficient to link the Clintons to any of it, “there were certainly serious crimes." And, by the summer of 1994, Fiske says, he was preparing to bring eight indictments against 11 defendants, including criminal charges for fraud against Jim and Susan McDougal (the Clintons' Whitewater business partners), Webster Hubbell (then an associate attorney general and formerly Hillary Clinton's law partner) and Jim Guy Tucker (Clinton's successor as governor of Arkansas).”

 

Furthermore, “A key witness in these cases was David Hale, a former municipal judge and the owner of a federally subsidized small-business lending company. It was Hale who had made the most serious allegation against Bill Clinton: Hale had claimed that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, had pressured him to make a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan to a marketing company owned by Susan McDougal that was really intended to pay off the two couples' debts in their Whitewater real estate investment. ("My name can't show up on this," Hale claimed Clinton had told him, an account that President Clinton later denied.) 

 

In August 1994, just as his investigation in Arkansas was gathering steam, Fiske was jolted when a panel of three federal judges — two of them strong conservatives — removed him on the grounds that he was not independent enough (because he had been appointed by Clinton's attorney general) and replaced him with Starr.”

 

The preceding items important because although Bill’s wife hasn’t even announced her presidential candidacy yet, stories both pro and con are starting to surface already. And since so many negative situations will eventually be dragged up again, the road ahead for the Clinton’s is going to be a very rough one. 

 

However, while her own problems and shortcomings may be extremely difficult, if not impossible to overcome, the current incumbent’s performance record may set the whole Democrat party back so far, Bill’s wife may have no chance of winning anyway, regardless.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Following Leon Panetta’s comments in his new book, regarding his disagreement with the incumbent’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Bill Clinton’s wife poured additional fuel on the same fire in Canada yesterday.

 

According to the Ottawa Citizen: “Hillary Clinton said Monday that military action against Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria is ‘essential’ to stop the growth of ISIL outside the region.”

 

She told several hundred people at a conference hosted by a Canadian think-tank that, “This kind of jihadist extremism is expansionary.” And that, “Overall, there may be 50,000 to 100,000 ‘hard-core jihadists’ in the world right now. I think we turn away from it at our peril. This is a long-term struggle and we just have to be sensible about it, and be smart, and learn the lessons from the past.’’

 

At the same time, although her comments were in direct disagreement with the incumbent's plans for limiting U.S. engagement to airborne bombing missions in Iraq, she went on to answer a question about the stalled Keystone XL pipeline project that would bring Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries, by saying, “Well, you know, I can’t really talk about it because I was in the office that has primary responsibility for making the decision. I don’t want to inject myself into what is a continuing process or to in any way undermine my successor as he tries to make this decision.”

 

Which goes to show once again that her answers continually vary, depending on the political points involved. And, just like any other hack, has no real point except getting herself elected.

 

On another matter, it seems that all of the other critical issues being mishandled by the administration has taken the incumbent’s health care tax off the front pages for now.   

 

However, Anne D’Innocenzio, AP Retail Writer, says that, “Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to eliminate health insurance coverage for some of its part-time U.S. employees in a move aimed at controlling rising health care costs of the nation's largest private employer.

 

Starting Jan. 1, it will no longer offer health insurance to employees who work less than an average of 30 hours a week. The move affects 30,000 employees, or about 5 percent of Wal-Mart's total part-time workforce, but comes after the company already had scaled back the number of part-time workers who were eligible for health insurance coverage since 2011.”

 

This follows similar decisions by Target, Home Depot and others to completely eliminate health insurance benefits for part-time employees while, “Wal-Mart, like most big companies, also is increasing premiums, or out-of-pocket costs that employees pay, to counter rising health care costs.”

 

Wal-Mart further told Associated Press that “it's raising premiums for all of its full-time and part-time workers: For a basic plan, of which 40 percent of its workers are enrolled, the premiums will go up to $21.90 per pay period, up from $18.40, starting Jan. 1.”

 

Therefore, regardless of how many attempts, diversions or cover-ups are employed to keep actual facts from surfacing, real world events continue to override the continual rhetoric spewed by the current administration. 

 

Which means that with the mid-term elections only about a month away, and very few groups or individual's that haven’t been harmed in one way or another by reams of leftist policies to date, Republicans ought to win both houses of Congress by landslides. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

In USA Today, Susan Page writes about Leon Panetta’s new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace. In the text, the author argues that “decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served.”

 

Though not published until tomorrow by Penguin Press, the book’s already provoked rebukes at the State Department and by Vice President Biden. But Panetta says he was determined to write a book that was "honest," including his high regard for the president on some fronts and his deep concern about his leadership on others.

 

Panetta claims that, “By not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual U.S. force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort, that "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed." 

 

Additionally, “By rejecting the advice of top aides — including Panetta and then-secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — to begin arming Syrian rebels in 2012. If the U.S. had done so, "I do think we would be in a better position to kind of know whether or not there is some moderate element in the rebel forces that are confronting (Syrian President Bashar) Assad."

 

And finally, “By warning Assad not to use chemical weapons against his own people, then failing to act when that "red line" was crossed in 2013. Before ordering airstrikes, Obama said he wanted to seek congressional authorization, which predictably didn't happen.”

 

After reading Mr. Panetta’s comments, and considering the timing of his book’s release, the question for me becomes: Why do it now, a month before the mid-term elections? 

 

The most logical answer is that, considering Mr. Panetta's background and affiliations, the odds are this may very well be an attempt to help Bill Clinton’s wife in her bid for the presidency of the U.S. Because in addition to mentioning her specifically while discussing the arming of Syrian rebels, he also said in the interview that, “[S]he would be a "great" president. One thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done," he says, in words that draw an implicit contrast with Obama. "When it comes to being president of the United States, it's one thing to talk a good game. It's another thing to deliver, to make things happen."

 

Now, as far as Mr. Panetta himself goes, “At first a moderate Republican, he worked in the Nixon administration before being pushed out after aggressively enforcing civil rights laws. He changed parties, was elected to nine terms in the House from California as a Democrat and served as chairman of the House Budget Committee. Clinton appointed him Budget director, then moved him to White House chief of staff to impose order in what had been a chaotic operation. After the 2008 election, Obama tapped him as CIA director, then named him to head the Pentagon.”

 

So, he has an extensive and impressive background which makes one think that he might very well have been offered a top job in a Clinton administration next time around if Bill’s wife wins, such as her VP. 

 

The only visible drawback is his age which is 76. However, Bill’s wife is a tired old bag too.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Horrendous problems for the nation continue to mount, in places such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as well as here at home regarding our border’s, Ebola, the Secret Service, the IRS, the Defense Department, rising health care costs, a shrinking job market, growing welfare rolls and the deficit to name a few.

 

Yet, last month at the at the UN Climate Change Summit, according to Levi Winchester of the U.K.’s Sunday Express, US President Barack Obama said global warming was an issue "that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other."

 

However, it seems that facts and actual data are suggesting something else completely.

 

Mr. Winchester writes that, “This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth's temperature last rose - something that Dr. Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand.

 

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade - but are now baffled by the fact our planet's temperature has not increased for almost two decades.

 

Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk, Dr. Peiser said: "What has happened is that the public has become more sceptical because they were told we are facing Doomsday, and suddenly they realise ‘Where is the warming that we were promised?’"

 

"They say we can predict the climate and the reality is that they can’t."

 

Because of this so-called "global warming hiatus," Dr. Peiser says climate change is not as pressing of an issue as it once was, a fact that should be embraced by the scientific community.

 

"Climate change used to be a top priority but it has dropped quite significantly - other issues are more important for international meetings," he said.

 

On the same topic, in the incumbent’s home town, nbcchicago.com reports as follows: “Looks like Mother Nature isn’t going to let Chicago forget that winter is coming.

 

The city saw light snow Saturday morning, marking one of the earliest snow sightings on record. The earliest snow spotting in Chicago is Sept. 25, which occurred in 1928 and again in 1944, according to the National Weather Service.

 

The city set a temperature record with O'Hare Airport recording a high of 47 degrees, marking the lowest maximum high temperature in 79 years, the NWS reported. The previous record, set on October 4, 1935, was 48 degrees.

 

The average high temperature in Chicago for the month of October is 62 degrees. The average low temperature is about 43 degrees.

 

So, once again, it appears that Mother Nature’s listening very carefully when mere earthlings take it upon themselves to usurp her powers by claiming they‘re certain about what she’s going to do in the future. She also seems to take umbrage with their smug audacity and doesn't abide by their incontrovertible attitudes. 

 

Which is likely why she chose the leader's home town to set an example of exactly how wrong one can be when claiming to know what an always unpredictable force of nature’s going to do anytime, anywhere or in any way.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The first case of Ebola diagnosed in the U.S., confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday, was a subject of discussion this morning on Fox New’s show Cashin' In.

 

While host, Eric Bolling, panelist Wayne Rogers and two others agreed that a significant part of the problem stemmed from lax government performance in controlling entrants to the nation from known trouble spots, another panel member vehemently disagreed.

 

Jehmu Greene strongly claimed that the problem was due to Republicans in Congress refusing to approve the president’s nominees for Surgeon General. And that had there been someone in that office overseeing the nation's health safety, the incident would not have occurred.

 

In response, opposing panelists began rattling off the names of departments where scandals and significant problems have arisen despite having a director or head. Such as the IRS, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, the State Department, Defense and Health & Human Services to name a few examples.

 

Considering how ridiculous Ms Greene's claim sounded, and in view of the other panelist's ridicule of her stance, I looked her up to find that she’s a Hillary Rodham Clinton advisor, Democratic strategist, former director of the Democratic National Committee Women's Office, former president of the Women's Media Center, Define American co-founder and former President of Rock the Vote who “brought Will.i.am, one of the founding members of the hip hop/pop band, The Black Eyed Peas, and President Barack Obama together for the first meeting at a Rock the Vote event.”

 

Consequently, it’s now quite obvious as to why she took the position on the Ebola subject that she did, because a rational response wouldn’t even occur to her. Because in situations like this one, for Democrats the answer is always political. And additionally, when it comes to problems of any kind at all, for the current POTUS and his constituents, it’s always someone else’s fault.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Flipping channels this morning, I caught a few minutes of Maria Bartiromo’s show on the Fox business network. She was talking to the head of a major Philadelphia bank about his expectations for the economy. Unfortunately, I didn’t catch his name.

 

I mention him, because although his approach was quite casual and completely apolitical, he matter-of-factly expressed his opinion about the economy’s future performance and his plans for his institution's investments.

 

Without making any endorsements of any candidates, or any specific statements about policy, he said he expected the stock-market to rise significantly. He also thinks costs of fuel will greatly reduce stimulating travel, transportation of goods and materials, and leaving consumers more money to spend on other needed items, stimulating the economy even further.

 

He also believes regulation will slacken, making business growth and investment greater which, in turn, will boost the overall economy even further, while helping the government increase tax revenue and lower the deficit.

 

As he continued to paint a picture of the nation’s rebound and all the positive things her guest was predicting, Ms Bartiromo finally asked him why he felt so certain about an economically healthy future. His reply was that he was certain there would be a Republican takeover of the Senate, along with their retaining the House.

 

Therefore, my question for today is that since there’s no doubt that the Philadelphia banker’s correct in his predictions and expected economic results, what is about Democrats that makes them despise success to the extent that they’ll kill the nation’s productivity to bring everyone else down to their level of misery and abject failure?    

 

Then again, although knowing that they’ve decimated the nation’s financial performance, Democrat’s continue trying to convince the voting public that things are better today than they were in 2008.

 

In that regard, Dem’s are touting yesterday’s unemployment rate which reduced to 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008. However, that’s primarily because the administration changed the formula, eliminating those out of the work force because they’ve simply given up their job search.

 

Therefore, to get a true picture you have to look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U-6," which includes the "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." And although that rate fell in September to 11.8 percent, double the government's newly devised rate, it’s the first time it was below 12% since October 2008.

 

Furthermore, aside from a politically favorable change in the unemployment rate calculation method producing an artificially lower number, the labor force participation rate has also collapsed. It slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% in September, the lowest in over 36 years, matching February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million.

 

So, the problem the Democrats have at the moment is that no matter how they try to manipulate data and statistics, the real-world results indicate something else. And just like the banker from Philadelphia this morning explained, when they go to the voting booths folks aren’t going to think about or remember manipulated political gibberish, they’re going to elect candidates they believe are going to make things better for them in the real world.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios