BloggeRhythms

Today’s items illustrate that, articles published by a variety of authors on different topics often have a great deal in common. In this case, what’s quite obvious is that many who hold high office might very well be significantly out of touch with the general public.

 

This morning, Alex Swoyer @breitbart.com, wrote up the current state of the recycled trade agreement, recently voted down by House Democrats.

 

Mr. Swoyer quoted Congressman Paul Ryan, who said, “We’re not considering the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There isn’t a trade agreement yet to consider. It’s not a deal, it’s still being negotiated.”

 

Ryan went on, “What we’re considering in Congress is what we call Trade Promotion Authority, which is to give America the ability to go and negotiate a trade agreement and complete negotiations of a trade agreement, then bring the trade agreement to Congress for an up-or-down vote . . . [TPA determines] whether or not we have the ability to go and negotiate, complete negotiations and get a trade agreement.”

 

However, history shows that Ryan’s explanation might not be quite true whereas, “recent research and reports by Breitbart News prove that in the past 40 years, any trade deal where the president had fast-track trade authority ended up being passed, meaning Congress didn’t stop it.”

 

Additionally, “Experts disagree with Ryan and have suggested the TPP – which would be fast tracked through TPA – would essentially extend NAFTA, which cost more than five million American jobs to be taken overseas and given to foreign workers.”

 

What seems most obvious here, however, isn’t specifically the trade agreement itself, which might very well have positive long-term benefits to American workers. Yet, many of the problems arise simply because not only doesn’t a significant portion of the public understand the mechanics of the agreement, the Republican’s attempting to push the legislation through are doing virtually nothing to help them learn what’s needed for proper evaluation.   

 

Therefore, what the situation clearly illustrates, is either a disconnect with the voting public, or a purposeful attempt to mislead them. And until that public receives full, in depth information and clear explanations of how, where, when and why jobs are created, the Republican's who ran on promises to turn the economy around sound, act and perform just like the conniving Democrats they accused of doing exactly the same thing.

 

And if that’s truly the case, voters will remedy the situation in November 2016.  

 

The next issue, also illustrates public opinion trends indicating disagreement with one generally having the highest level of public trust and respect; Pope Francis.  

 

An article by Nicole Winfield, Rachel Zoll and Seth Borenstein of the AP via Drudge, says, “In a sweeping environmental manifesto aimed at spurring concrete action, Pope Francis called Thursday for a bold cultural revolution to correct what he described as a "structurally perverse" economic system where the rich exploit the poor, turning Earth into an "immense pile of filth.

 

“Francis framed climate change as an urgent moral issue in his eagerly anticipated encyclical, blaming global warming on an unfair, fossil fuel-based industrial model that harms the poor most.”

 

In this case. while detailing Pope Francis's philosophy, describing his ideas for potential solutions, it isn’t the article itself that is surprising. The shock comes from the numerous reader’s comments, Virtually all of them expressing disagreement. And even more astounding, the level of disrespect for the Holy Father’s opinion with many suggesting that the issue is none of his business.  

 

Therefore, as has has been suggested here quite often, if high-profile persona’s aren’t paying attention to the Web and its steadily increasing reach among the public, there are likely to be some painful surprises in store for them in the future. Because the public no longer needs “leaders” to selectively provide information, guidance or direction in decision-making. There’s virtually no subject in the world anymore that literate individuals can’t research on their own. 

 

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

 

In this case, while not directly about her and not really new information as such, it nevertheless certainly confirms her untrustworthiness, apparent disregard for anyone but herself, and her tendency to insult the public’s intelligence.

 

Ian Hanchett @breitbart.com writes: “Representative Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said that Hillary Clinton told Sidney Blumenthal to keep the emails to her coming and that this proves Blumenthal’s correspondence with Clinton was not “unsolicited” on Wednesday’s “America’s Newsroom” on the Fox News Channel.”

 

Gowdy stated, “he [Blumenthal] was sending emails to Secretary Clinton far before the attack in Benghazi, all the way back to 2011. So, the whole lead-up to the attacks in Benghazi, Blumenthal was sending emails to Secretary Clinton that he never vetted, he doesn’t know anything about the sources.”

 

Nonetheless, though, what’s most interesting is that, once again, it seems that money’s involved. Because, according to Gowdy, “The memos were written by Tyler Drumheller, who may have had a financial interest. And anytime someone has a financial interest, then you need to look at the material, or their objective in the outcome, their interest in the outcome with scrutiny. She couldn’t do it and he couldn’t do it. So, how did they vet the information that was being passed on to our top diplomat?”

 

So, another day and another chapter in the story. Which makes one wonder how long this type of negativity can go on. It also piques the question, regarding Republican candidates in general. Because while none of them have really disparaged Bill’s wife to date, they surely have ammunition of their own, that likely will make matter’s worse for her. Which leads to the recurring question asked here: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Joel B. Pollak’s column @breitbart.com via Drudge this morning, regards a new book, Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide by Michael Oren.

 

Mr. Oren’s perspective is unique because of his background. He’s an “American-born historian who served as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. during President Obama’s first term.” Therefore, he has first-hand knowledge of the individuals he writes about. Particularly President Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, and even Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Most inportantly, he’s “an Israeli who can explain the Jewish State from a near-native sabra perspective, yet in the idiom of his American audience. And he understands American politics with a depth few outsiders can match.”

 

Mr. Pollack writes that, “The autobiographical portions of the book, recalling Oren’s life as an Israeli paratrooper and an underground agent in the Soviet Union, are fascinating and inspiring. His account of the growing cultural divide between liberal American Jews and their brethren in Israel is both illuminating and alarming.”

 

Mr. Pollack states that Mr. Oren, “exposes shocking new details about the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel,” providing many examples. Such as, “when Netanyahu gave a speech endorsing a Palestinian state in 2009–becoming the first Likud prime minister to do so–the White House ignored him. Instead, the pressure on Israel continued, causing the Palestinians to dig in and refuse to compromise.”

 

Along the same lines, Mr. Oren says, “Nobody has a monopoly over mistake-making,” acknowledging that Netanyahu made a few missteps. “Still, he points out, when Netanyahu tried to give Obama what he wanted, his efforts were barely acknowledged.”

 

In that regard, “The point he wishes to stress–a point he has made elsewhere recently–is that no Israeli government could have done better: Obama is the problem,” according to Mr. Oren.

 

“In addressing Hillary Clinton’s role, Oren is generous to a fault. Recalling the 45-minute lecture she delivered to Netanyahu during a 2010 spat over construction in Jerusalem (which the Obama administration calls “settlements”), Oren says that she did her duty reluctantly, reading from a script.”

 

Mr. Oren’s observation about Bill’s wife “reluctantly reading from a script,” is particularly noteworthy. Because it confirms one of her often-seen traits. Rather than presenting true-felt feelings or opinions on almost any subject, she consistently delivers whatever she thinks will benefit her most at the particular time. For her, personal gain always outweighs all else.  

 

As far as Bill’s wife’s presidential aspirations are concerned, were she to succeed, that might not be good for Israel either. Because, “Whether she wins or not in 2016, U.S. policy toward Israel may continue to be fraught with tension. Oren notes that Obama drew upon an emerging cohort of new policymakers steeped in resentment of American power and suspicion of the “Israel lobby.” They will linger in Washington long after Obama has left office.”

 

As far as the American/Israeli relationship is concerned, Mr.Pollack relates a quite interesting point: “Though polls indicate that mutual support between ordinary Americans and Israelis is at, or near, an all-time high, and defense cooperation remains close, tensions between the American and Israeli governments have seldom been worse.’

 

Which means that despite all the president’s efforts to undermine Israel, which may have indeed created a huge rift between himself and Israel’s leadership, the public in both nation’s has not only seen right through his charade, but simply refuses to accept it.

 

As an example of the public’s growing use of readily available information, especially in the case of the Web today, reader SadieJoan freedumb sings, wrote: “Breitbart readers are the smartest people on the planet! Breitbart was a great man. We are all citizen journalists now. You Commies cannot keep the truth from coming out. Eventually it always does. "Breitbart Lives!"

 

On another misguided liberal topic, a new report by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) has found that automation in the next generation could transform the shape of the Australian workforce.

 

As far as the work force’s concerned, “Robots and automation could eventually replace everything from some nursing and surgical jobs to meal preparation, driving and washing elderly patients. Almost 40% of Australian jobs that exist today could disappear in the next 10 to 15 years thanks to advances in digital technology.”

 

Although the report concerns Australia, the same revolution's taking place here. And what's tragic about the dire labor situation is that instead of seeking ways to assist those most vulnerable, via education, job-training and technical-support, politicians push for votes by increasing the minimum wage. 

 

However, as evidenced by the automation revolution, minimum wage increases not only do nothing to help unskilled laborer’s to improve their capabilities, they incent businesses to equip at a faster pace. Especially in low-level, repetitive functions where most minimum wage earners are employed and therefore, most vulnerable to replacement by technology. 

 

On the political scene, a review of Donald Trump’s speech yesterday reveals that while estimating his own assets at $9 billion, he never mentioned his liabilities. Which certainly could be less than his assets actual worth, or, considering his many bankrupted entities, could also be much more. 

 

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

 

FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt wrote yesterday that, “The Clinton Foundation has raked in $11M in payments from small non-profit groups for speeches by Hillary, Bill and Chelsea, Politico reports.”

 

Yet, “When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club ... Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity ... Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club ... Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family's own ... charity.”

 

Also, from Mr. Stirewalt, [Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended keeping secret a 500-guest White House concert featuring Prince and Stevie Wonder, saying the event was a personal affair for the Obamas and “not part of the responsibilities of the president and first lady.”

 

So, it’s nice to know that with almost half the American labor force unemployed, at least the first family’s still having  a very good time, regardless. 

 

Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

And finally, a friend posted this on FB this morning.

 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Donald Trump isn’t mentioned often here, because he’s not really worth the keystrokes. However, today he announced his plan to run for POTUS.

 

As far as his candidacy’s concerned, it should be noted that he’s six and a half years too late. Because his forte is overspending into bankruptcy, which his businesses have done several times. But, in that regard the nation’s already dead broke, because Obama beat him to it. It’s getting out of debt that’s the problem. Unfortunately, that’s the part that would stump candidate Trump. Unless he decides to simply default on the debt, something he’s quite familiar with. 

 

As a practical matter, his chances of election are probably less than nil. But what would have been interesting to see, were he to win, is some of the changes he’s known for. For example, the White House would have new 24K gold doorknobs installed and fully refurbished marble bathrooms. While the military might have genuine leather seats in their Humvees and tanks, its aircraft would likely have maple-wood veneer floors, and genuine chrome seat-belt latches. Just like the Trump air shuttle did before he defaulted on his loans and ownership of the company was turned over to creditors. 

 

The next is from Michael Bastasch @dailycaller.com, who writes that, “Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.”

 

Mr. Bastasch explains that, “The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.”

 

For information and data gathering: “The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.”

 

What’s important about NOAA's information-gathering methods, is that it’s collected from true and accurate observation. Many, global-warming alarmists rely instead on computerized modeling, statistics obtained selectively and assumed temperature trends having nothing to do with reality.

 

As far as the globe in general is concerned, China’s been the most populous nation on Earth. And the effects of its unprecedented economic boom are taking very serious proportions. The cumulative climatic impact of steady growth in the consumption of over a billion people is tremendous.

 

Reader, ApplegateRanch Old Hickory added, “The answer to questions about China's pollution problems is generally along the lines of, "China must be allowed to temporarily pollute at high levels in order to modernize and achieve the technological advances necessary to ultimately reduce pollution, and clean up their environment."
Ecowhack Warmists say that with a straight face.”

 

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

 

Jake Tapper, and The Lead staff @cnn.com quoted Bill’s wife as saying yesterday, “the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal."

 

Then Mr. Tapper and staff went on, “But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State.”

 

Following that, 45 instances were cited by Mr. tapper and staff, “when she approvingly invoked the trade bill about which she is now expressing concerns.”

 

Adding fuel to the fire, former Obama adviser David Axelrod said on MSNBC, “[S]he called the TPP, she said it was going to be the gold standard for trade agreements, so this is very, very freighted for her. This is difficult terrain to navigate because she owned this to some degree and now she has to try navigate through it. So it's going to be challenging for her."

 

Also yesterday, according to politico.com, ”House GOP Benghazi investigators have discovered 60 new Libya communications between Sidney Blumenthal and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a congressional source told POLITICO on Monday — suggesting that either the State Department or the 2016 Democratic presidential contender withheld correspondence the panel had requested.

 

“The congressional source did not know whether Clinton had turned over all the new emails to State and State did not provide them, or whether Clinton failed to hand over the correspondence.”

 

So, here we have continuations of water that’s drip, drip, dripping on Bill’s wife’s rock. And as frequently stated here, the world has now significantly changed for political candidates. In a way that tired old war horses may not fully comprehend. Because the voting public now has immediate Web access to historical information and performance, along with current utterances, 24/7/365. Which means that’s once anything's been said or done, it’s not simply going to go away to be forgotten like it used to. 

 

Reader, wewin supergun, put it this way: “These emails will continue to leak out from many sources. And eventually the IRS IG will publish his report (even if the FBI refuses to investigate). And all this will hit the DNC over the next 12 months as we prepare for the next national election. And all those Dems who are now saying "there is no there, there" will be embarrassed and back-pedaling saying "I am shocked... shocked to find this level of corruption!"

 

Which leads to the very important daily question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A slow news day today provides some time to expand on yesterdays blog. Particularly regarding the apparent lack of knowledge among many liberals on numerous issues they feel strongly about. Especially, the economy, employment and certainly, business management and performance in general.

 

For example, where the point comes through clearly is often found in reader's commentary in the New York Times. Predominantly because that audience is generally more well-versed, educated, literate and erudite than most.  And, as far as their commentary regarding the economy’s concerned, the readership base seems to fall into two major categories. Those in the every-day employed ranks and those having amassed some degree of wealth via endeavor, inheritance or otherwise.

 

For those among the presently “employed,” thoughts appear to stem from the position that work is a necessary evil, to be tolerated only because the rewards are needed for basic survival and whatever other amenities might be affordable. Therefore, it’s government's job to see to as many of life’s demands as possible. Such as, health care for those who require it, higher wages for unskilled labor, free education, welfare, unemployment benefits, tax abatement, food stamps and housing assistance.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, well-heeled liberals promote the same ideology, urging government to maintain, or increase, its support of those they feel require it. Economic support is viewed as so necessary a government function, that many of those at the top having high public profiles use their status to clamor incessantly that more be done in that regard.

 

Both groups outlined above, generally push their agendas often, loudly, without equivocation and in virtually any forum in which they can appear. What’s more, a continual effort's made to increase awareness of liberalism and grow their ranks, attempting to attract and all who’ll join them.

 

Republicans, on the other hand, believe primarily the exact reverse. For them, hard work, self-improvement, individualism, lofty personal goals and self-actualization are the ideal. Along with a minimization of government, reduced to only necessities such as the military and public safety, if possible.

 

Furthermore, Republicans do almost nothing to increase their ranks whatsoever. For them, achieving Americans almost always decide to join the political effort on their own. And most often, it’s because those are the one’s who took advantage of what the nation has to offer to those who strive for accomplishment. Including the right to make anything of yourself that’s achievable, without governmental interference, so long as the goals are within the law.

 

Thus the point for today concerns what's most remarkable about the US. Because, despite continual efforts of liberals, and the current administration in particular, to curb, inhibit, limit and suppress economic freedom and American ingenuity, 40% of voters are Republicans, the same as the total for Democrats.

 

Which means that almost half the nation is still comprised of free-thinking, individualistic achievers, desiring primarily to remain self-sufficient, despite the continual attempts from the left to curtail them. And that’s something the Founding Fathers would be quite pleased about, since that’s why they came here to begin with.

 

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

 

The Washington Free Beacon Staff @freebeacon.com/politics headlined an article today, “Painful: Clinton Flack Struggles to Explain How 2016 Campaign Strategy Differs From Failed 2007 One.”

 

According to the story, “Hillary Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri gave a painfully convoluted response Friday to a question about repeating the campaign approach of reintroducing Clinton again Saturday with a speech focusing on her roots.

 

“Reporter Annie Karni pointed out this seemed very familiar from 2007 during a question-and-answer session sponsored by Politico in New York, asking that if the approach of Clinton “reintroducing herself to the country” didn’t work last time, why would it work this time.”

 

And the reply to Ms Karni's question didn’t come from Ms Palmieri, who didn’t have one. However, the actual answer is that it won’t.

 

Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

In closing, a friend posted this on FB. 

 

  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Once again, Maureen Dowd in her Op-ed column @nytimes.com has written about the POTUS defeat regarding the trade bill. The article’s titled, Flickering Greatness.

 

Ms Dowd writes: “At this pivotal moment for his legacy at home and abroad, his future reputation is mortgaged to past neglect.

 

“Like Prufrock, Obama must wonder if the moment of his greatness is flickering.

 

“The Democrats — even most of the Congressional Black Caucus, which Obama courted aggressively and which has been protective of him — showed their allegiance to themselves, their principles and their labor allies, and not to their aloof president.”

 

Ms Dowd, as usual is quite adept with the written word, describing the demise of the president’s “legacy” trade bill accurately. Her article's mentioned here, however, because in pondering the president’s performance in office to date, there isn’t any “moment of greatness,” that’s ever taken place to this writer’s knowledge. In fact, there’s been nothing but abject failure, regardless of the issue involved.   

 

Reader Ken, summed the POTUS’ performance, as follows: 

 

“It calls for psychological analysis, of which there will be much (endless) in coming years. A man half-formed by virtue of inexperience and egregious pandering. An ego elevated to ethereal heights. An ideologue who imagines ideas are fact. What would you expect. And, a person who instinctively enjoys his privacy and thinks (and prefers to act) alone. A personality better suited to artistry rather than presidency.
History will look on these eight years as the naive ones. Hope and change.”

 

As far as the comments in general are concerned -as to be expected from those regularly reading the New York Times- the writing is superior, intellectually far above average, with an abundance of supporting references, chosen to enhance their points. 

 

However, what’s most astonishing is that despite the towering intelligence obvious among the reader’s responding, how little they apparently know, or grasp, about how the nation’s economy actually works. The same holds true for foreign policy, health care, taxation and underlying causes of unemployment. In fact, for the most part, they seem to represent a faction that resides in a utopia that exists only in the liberal mind. But certainly not in the practical reality of how the world has functioned for the past 85 years.

 

As an example of lack of understanding economic reality,  reader JT FLORIDA wrote:

 

“5.7 million new job openings in April, the most in 15 years and an unemployment rate of 5.5 %. President Obama would be the first to say that he isn't satisfied with the pace of improvement for all Americans but given the obstructionism by a Congress opposed to a more robust jobs plan (infrastructure such as highways) the president is doing remarkably well.”

 

However, the fact of the matter is that unemployment’s at 5.5% because the the standard for reporting by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has been changed by the administration to omit the long-term unemployed. Were they to be included the “rate” would exceed 11%.

 

Furthermore, as of March 2015, the labor force participation rate fluctuated between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013.

 

Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent. At that time, the US economy was at its worst since the great depression, and anti-business Jimmy Carter, was president.

 

As far as those in the unemployment rolls, 92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force in February 2015, also according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

And finally, referring back to reader JT FLORIDA’s comment, he stated that “given the obstructionism by a Congress opposed to a more robust jobs plan (infrastructure such as highways) the president is doing remarkably well.”

 

However, instead of typing what seems like a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps JT ought to give the issue a bit more thought. Because, the “highway” jobs entail swinging pick-axes, shoveling dirt and loading dump trucks. Which is a step down from slinging burgers in fast-food joints, the POTUS’s other premier example of full employment.

 

Along the same lines, illustrating the dismally poor understanding of how the economy works, Times reader Steve Armyspouse1988, wrote: “The first two things the Republican House did this year was try to pass the Keystone pipeline and try to repeal the estate tax.

Republicans represent the oil companies and the 1%.

That's it.”

 

In this case, the reader exposes the shame of the educational system in the US, and the Democrat party itself, for not teaching its constituents basic economic fundamentals. Choosing instead to politicize issues, rather than trying to grow the nation to everyone’s benefit.

 

As shale oil production has shown, lowering gasoline prices stimulates spending in other areas, thereby lifting the economy and creating job opportunities. 

 

Lowering the estate tax performs similarly by permitting those who earned the income to keep more of it. That not only stimulates spending, but also helps family owned businesses survive. But most importantly, rewards those who earned it, which certainly isn’t the government. 

 

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

 

Gail Sheehy wrote one of the most blatantly pandering columns extant @politico.com/magazine. The puff piece goes so far as to assume the presidency’s a far gone conclusion, as follows:

 

“But now, at 67, Clinton finally appears to be beyond carefully constructing her identities or letting her advisers to design the persona she presents. And it’s going to help her win what she wants most.”

 

Nonetheless, in promoting Bill’s wife, Ms Sheehy’s made the same mistake as reader JT FLORIDA in the previous item above, by including a quote from Bill’s wife without fully doing her homework.

 

Bill’s wife said, “I believe success isn’t measured by how many millions the wealthiest have, but how many children climb out of poverty, and how many families get ahead and stay ahead.”

 

However, the simple truth is that, other than her own husband who kept Republican Allen Greenspan on as head of the Federal Reserve to set the nation’s economic policy for eight years, every other Democrat president has been an unmitigated economic disaster. Including the guy in office now, that Bill’s wife worked for and supported wholeheartedly.

 

As for reader’s thoughts go, donna chang, wrote: “Vincent Foster and Ambassador Christopher Stevens could not be reached for comment.

 

Phil123e added, “Hillary is all about the middle class. She has decided to make the middle class the centerpiece of her campaign for president. But “Mrs. Middle Class” demands $300,000 for a one-hour speech and a Gulfstream private jet to take her there and back.

She also gets the Presidential Suite at a 5 star hotel, or she won’t show up.”

 

So, it seems that no matter how rosy a picture the press tries to paint of Bill’s wife, significant number of voters aren’t buying it. Which leads to the obvious question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folk.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The old proverb “what goes around, comes around,” has proven true again for the POTUS. After avoiding congress as often as possible during his tenure to date, when he urgently needed votes for his trade bill Friday, Democrat members in his own party adamantly refused to comply. 

 

Yesterday, on FoxNews.com’s “Special Report with Bret Baier,”' Wall Street Journal and Fox News contributor, Jason Riley, said the “stinging blow to President Obama's trade agenda, is the president's own fault.” 

 

Mr. Riley opined, "This is a failure of presidential leadership. This is a president who rules by executive authority, executive action. He has spent six years putting Congress at arm's length...and it came back to bite him on this trade issue."

 

Summing up the politics, Mr. Riley explained that, "The politics of trade require a president to build a coalition, build a consensus from the center out. You're going to lose progressives on the left. You're going to lost protectionists on the right. But you have to use persuasion, argument."

 

However, considering this particular president’s actions since taking office, although he’s a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, he doesn’t seem to know what a “coalition” actually is.

 

Reader davidbt added, “If Reid was still leading the Senate, and Pelosi was still leading the House, this bill would've never been voted on, and the American People would've been denied an up or down vote.  Maybe Congress is beginning to work again.” 

 

On another issue, Bloomberg reports on Republican candidates Scott Walker and Marco Rubio regarding an idea often proposed here by myself in the past.

 

According to the text: “Walker said both he and Rubio often hear the suggestion that they should combine forces, potentially even before the first nomination voting in Iowa in February 2016, as a way to stand out amid a crowded field…Some who have talked privately to Walker about a possible pairing with Rubio say they have been surprised by how seriously the Wisconsin governor seems to be taking the prospect.”

 

As far as the rationale is concerned, Governor Walker is precisely correct when he also said, “he likes governors and their executive experience better than senators as potential presidents and vice presidents, but that Rubio stands out…‘I do like Marco Rubio,’ he said. ‘I think he and I have similar thoughts on national defense and foreign policy.’”

 

Putting it more succinctly, especially in view of the present POUTS’s performance in office, the presidency isn’t an occupation that can be learned on the job. And, much more importantly, as often stated here, doesn't come with training wheels. 

 

This morning, Drudge posted an article from 2008 by Scott Whitlock @mrcnewsbusters.org, titled, “FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015,” exactly seven years ago.

 

At that time, Bob Woodruff appearing on ABC,s “Good Morning America in 2008”,  “hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

 

“The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)

 

“As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles." 

 

As far as the proven truth is concerned, “Seven years later, the network has quietly ignored its horribly inaccurate predictions about 2015. When it comes to global warming claims, apparently results don't matter for ABC.” 

 

Which is precisely the way all fanatical global-warming alarmists act when facing the actual facts disproving their arguments, up to and including the POTUS.  

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, which also includes a referral back to things said and done in the past.

 

An article, from Sunday, June 3, 2007, by Washington Post Staff Writers Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr. via Drudge, regarded the campaign status of Bill’s wife at that time, as follows:

 

“The challenge is more than just getting voters to connect to Clinton: She has extremely high negative ratings to try to counteract.

 

“Introducing biographical information about her childhood and early adulthood, her advisers hope, will flesh out the familiar caricature of Clinton as an overly ambitious careerist who leaves scandal in her wake. After 15 years in Washington, she is also seen as an inside-the-Beltway figure; underscoring her Midwestern upbringing is, they believe, one way to shift that view (while also, not coincidentally, appealing to voters in Midwestern swing states such as Ohio).”

 

And now, eight years later, Annie Karni writes @politico.com: “After nearly two and a half decades in the glare of the public spotlight, Hillary Clinton will reintroduce herself on Saturday by highlighting her personal journey marked heavily by the deprivations faced by her own mother.”

 

Which means that, Bill’s wife must live in some kind of time warp, Twilight Zone episode or Groundhog Day distortion. Because, after twenty-five years in the public eye, she has to reintroduce herself to the public, and start all over again. 

 

Yet, what’s even worse for her is that those who really do know her well don’t like her very much at all, and never did from the very beginning.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

By nothing more than coincidence, today’s theme turns out to concern numbers. Particularly relating to those for and against politician's, policies, and legislation.

 

An article this morning, by Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee on FoxNews.com presents his opinion about the pending Supreme Court decision regarding King v. Burwell.

 

The senator states that regardless of how the case regarding the issuance of health insurance subsidies is decided, the Obama administration is “in violation of their own law,” and “the negative consequences for patients and taxpayers will continue absent thoughtful, patient-centered reform.”

 

For confirmation of his opinion, the senator writes, “The latest numbers don’t lie. Earlier this month, the administration announced proposed rate hikes of 10 percent or more for health insurance plans enrolling more than six million people in 41 states. This sizeable premium increase on top of prior hikes threatens the financial health of both American families and taxpayers generally, and is evidence that the health care law failed to hold up to the president’s key promise to lower costs.”

 

While the numbers are enlightening as to how the tax is considerably more costly to many than promised, the statistics also deliver another message that’s far more important. Yet, those opposed to the president’s health care tax don’t ever discuss it. Including the senator himself, in his article this morning. However, the costs versus the benefits are astronomical.

 

In that regard, the senator wrote that the health insurance plans are, “enrolling more than six million people in 41 states.” Thus, if his numbers accurate, it means that whereas the US population was 318.9 million as of 2014, those 6 million enrollees amount to only .0188 of the entire population. And in reverse, the billions spent to date don’t help the other 99.98% citizens an iota, while raising taxes on all those who actually pay them.

 

In other words, as has often been mentioned here before, all the talk, speeches, time spent, dollars wasted, and thousands of man hours have been focused on an issue actually affecting a group without health coverage that, size-wise, doesn’t even make a dent in the total population.

 

Which means that, if government got out of the way and asked private enterpriser’s to solve the problem in an open market for them, the program would likely not only run at a profit, but far more customers would probably sign up for it.

 

A reader, freethinker0101, offered a simple solution confirming the point, as follows:

 

“If you want to make health insurance more affordable, than you need to do two things first and foremost.

 

1) Sell insurance across state lines.

2) decrease the patent time for new drugs

 

Doing these two things will increase completion between health insurance companies causing prices to drop, and it will make generic drugs available faster so people don't have high drug costs. After these are done we can move on to other areas like tort reform.”

 

Issue two concern’s the president’s attending the annual congressional baseball game at Nationals Park in Washington last night. His objective was to personally lobby House Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats on the pending Trade Promotion Authority bill.

 

Then today, he visited Democrats on Capitol Hill to deliver a final plea to them ahead of a showdown vote later today in the House

 

What’s most interesting about this situation is that according to news reports, so far,  just 21 of the House’s 188 Democrats have declared their support. Furthermore, only few think that number will climb much higher.

 

The concern for Democrats in this case, stems from opening the nation’s doors to imports, and foreigners, threatening US jobs, prices and wages. All of which are ordinarily critical to the core constituents of the Democrat party. Which makes one wonder about the president's real goal. Especially since his only confirmed support at present is coming from big-business focused Republicans.

 

Therefore, even though much of the president’s political strategy seems to be based on “12 Rules for Radicals,” which suggests ways to keep opponents off balance, even the author Saul Alinsky, would likely have problems trying to figure this one out.

 

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

 

Kent Babb wrote an article @washingtonpost.com, titled, “She won’t back down. Or go away. Subheading: “Hillary Clinton’s unyielding mind-set could help her make history, if it doesn’t sabotage her again.”

 

While the piece itself is long, boring, childish, favorably contrived and written to put Bill’s wife in the most favorable light possible, the story itself isn’t what’s most telling about her current image with the public.

 

Following the story, 583 reader comments were listed. And although not all of them were read by this writer, almost every one seen was negative toward Bill's spouse. And, furthermore, the negativity and mistrust among readers relates all the way back to her college days, the Rose law firm, and Hillarycare, continuing on to include more recent issues. Such as, Benghazi, Libya, the Clinton Foundation extortion's and her lost emails. All serving as examples of ineptitude or selfishness which certainly won't disappear from the voting public's mind this time around.

 

Which leads to the question once again: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios