BloggeRhythms

According to Ian Hanchet @breitbart.com, Mitt Romney asked some pointed questions yesterday about Trump.

 

In a completely logical, well-informed manner Romney said: “I think there’s something there, either he’s not as anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets, or to the disabled, like he’s been telling us he’s been doing. And I think that’s — the reason that I think there’s a bombshell in there, is because every time he’s asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays and says, well, we’re working on it. 

Romney went on: "Hey, we’re not talking about the taxes that are coming due this year. Of course they’re working on those. They won’t be ready for months. We’re talking about taxes already filed, back taxes. And my back taxes, when I ran in 2012, my back taxes, I put out in January of 2012. We’re now in late February and we still haven’t seen either Donald Trump’s, or Marco Rubio’s, or Ted Cruz’s taxes. And frankly the voters have a right to see those tax returns before they decide who our nominee ought to be.”

Continuing the perfectly reasonable train of thought, Romney concluded, “You know, Donald Trump has said he’s the best in the country for the disabled veterans, and for the disabled generally. Well, if his taxes show that he hasn’t made any contributions to the disabled veterans, or to the disabled generally, that would be a big issue. So — and I’m not saying that’s the case. I have no evidence of that. But I’m just saying there are things that could be issues, and when people decide they don’t want to give you their taxes, it’s usually because there’s something they don’t want you to see.”

Thus, as the campaign heats up, it should be expected that demands for confirmation of what’s been promised or said will occur far more often from those against Trump in any way.  And, as history's consistently shown, there's plenty of troublesome stuff in that closet of his.

On another issue, Burgess Everett @politico.com writes about Harry Reid’s major testimony to hypocrisy in the Senate yesterday. 

According to Mr. Everett, “Reid unleashed a blunt and blistering attack on longtime GOP colleague Chuck Grassley, accusing the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman of ceding his panel’s autonomy to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and being an inept leader of the committee.” 

Furious over the GOP’s plan to block President Barack Obama from filling the Supreme Court vacancy, Reid lambasted Grassley (R-Iowa) for refusing to meet with the president to discuss the vacancy this week. “Grassley and his committee’s Republican members wrote McConnell on Tuesday to confirm they would refuse to even hold a hearing for Obama’s nominee, and the Des Moines Register reported that Grassley has declined an invitation to visit with Obama.” 

In this case, Reid, by far the most biased and worst Senate Majority Leader in many years, is getting a taste of his own medicine. Because, although Grassley has thus far declined to respond in kind to Reid, he’s used Vice President Joe Biden’s words to justify his efforts to bar a nominee from a hearing. Speaking Monday, Grassley quoted Biden at length from an old speech, claiming that he is merely operating under the “Biden rules” in denying a confirmation during an election year. 

Grassley said: “If the president of the United States insists on submitting a nominee under these circumstances, Sen. Biden, my friend from Delaware, the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of this Chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the Senate should do.” 

The situation has particular meaning because, Reid “infuriated Grassley in 2013 by changing the Senate’s rules and confirming dozens of mostly liberal judges while Reid was still majority leader. Grassley has smarted at criticisms of his leadership ever since, insisting that as chairman he would have processed many of those nominations without affecting Senate precedent.” 

Reid’s reaction to Grassley yesterday was remindful of sewer-worker Ed Norton on the old Jackie Gleason show, who said: “I've always followed that old adage, "Be kind to the people you meet on the way down because you're going to meet the same people on the way up."

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

Yesterday, Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne @FoxNews.com, reported: “Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed to Congress Wednesday that career Justice Department attorneys are working with FBI agents on the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices and the handling of classified material.

“Legal experts say the assignment of career Justice Department attorneys to the case shows the FBI probe has progressed beyond the initial referral, or "matured," giving agents access to the U.S. government’s full investigative tool box, including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses.” 

While the Associated Press reported earlier this month that career lawyers were involved, Lynch's comments are the most expansive to Congress to date, in which she said: "...that matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate."  

Confirming that the FBI criminal investigation is ongoing, and no recommendation or referral on possible charges had been made to her, she said, “I am not able to comment about the specific investigation at this time. But what I will say is again that this will be conducted as every other case. And we will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as to how to best handle it. And I'm also aware of no efforts to undermine our review or investigation into this matter at all." 

At the same time that the FBI investigation sharpens focus, Tyler Tynes @The Huffington Post via msn.com/Drudge, reports that three days before the South Carolina primary where turnout from black voters will be key to clinching the Democratic nomination, two Black Lives Matter activists interrupted a private Clinton fundraising event in Charleston, South Carolina. 

One of them, Ashley Williams protested Bill’s wife, demanding that she account for inconsistencies on her record on race. Specifically comments made about crime in 1996. 

During the $500.00 per person fundraiser, with around 100 people attending, as Bill’s wife spoke to the crowd, Williams stood to her side and held a sign quoting controversial statements made in 1996 when she said "we have to bring them to heel" in reference to at-risk youth.  

Williams, “said she was motivated to protest because policies during President Bill Clinton's administration led to an increase in mass incarceration that mostly struck black communities. She pointed to the three-strike federal laws, the elimination of rehabilitative programs and an emphasis on prison construction that were part of the Clinton legacy on crime.” 

Bill’s wife has distanced herself from these policies, recently issuing a detailed agenda on racial justice. But Williams wants more, saying in a statement before the event: “Hillary Clinton has a pattern of throwing the Black community under the bus when it serves her politically. She called our boys ‘super-predators’ in ’96, then she race-baited when running against Obama in ‘08, now she’s a lifelong civil rights activist. I just want to know which Hillary is running for President, the one from ’96, ’08, or the new Hillary?” 

And that’s been the story of Bill’s wife career. Expedience always outweighs substance, regardless of the issues at hand. Because in her continual attempt to gain the most for herself possible, as far as consistency’s concerned, what difference does it make? 

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

The Nevada caucus results are in, and once again the media, including outlets that should know better, such as FoxNews.com, are touting Trump as the likely Republican presidential nominee. However, the statistics illustrate something else entirely.

Trump wound up with 45.9% of the vote, Rubio won 23.9%, Cruz 21.4, Carson 4.8%, and Kasich came last with 3.6%. Which means, the voting majority, 54.1%, preferred someone other than Trump.

It also means that if mainstream Republicans truly want to block a radical outsider, and keep their traditional party together, either Cruz or Rubio need to drop out. Because together they at present capture 45.3% of voters, a statistical tie with Trump. Which will surely increase in their favor when Carson and Kasich finally give up.

As far as the current standing’s are concerned, yesterday Rush fully explained the Trump phenomenon. Boiling it down to  a single issue that, apparently, gives him a significant edge above all other Republican presidential candidates. Which, at this point, Rush believes they may not be able to overcome. And that issue is: Illegal immigrants.

Rush said, “Whatever you want to call it, some people now say don't use the word "amnesty" because it's lost its oompff and it actually has a negative connotation because it's a tired, worn-out word.  Whatever works, the objective of the Democrat Party is to take whatever people are in this country illegally and allow them to vote.  That's all this is about.  Everything else is a smoke screen.  It's not about uniting families or keeping them united.  It's not about compassion.  It's not about economics.  It's not about any of it.  It's about expanding the Democrat Party voter rolls.  All it is is a Democrat Party voter regulation program.  And everybody talks all around it. 

“And the only way, they are told, the only way they can prove they don't hate Hispanics is to sign on to amnesty or whatever we're gonna call it now so that the 12 million who are here can all of a sudden become legal and can vote.  And after that magic's supposed to happen.  Hispanics are supposed say, "You know, these Republicans are pretty nice. You know what, I like these guys now. You know what, I'm gonna abandon the Democrat Party, I'm voting Republican now."  That's what we're told is going to happen.  Except we know that it won't.  I'm sorry to sigh, but it's frustrating. 

“And now we've closed the circle.  And now we're back at why Donald Trump is in the race and why Donald Trump is running away with it.  You can get as deep or as shallow in the analysis as you want.  But it's about a last chance, a last-gasp effort at preserving the culture that developed after the founding of this country.  It's no more complicated than that, folks.  The country's under siege from all quarters, and recently the Democrat Party has joined those who have put the country under siege.”

Trump’s advantage, Rush believes, is that as far as Republican voters are concerned: “They're gonna knee-jerk react because that's how important the issue is.  They're not going to take any chances with it. So if somebody comes along and says, "I'm gonna deport 12 million," voters will react by saying, “Fine.  I hear you, and I hope to hell you're telling me the truth, because I support you."  

Furthermore, and critically important, according to Rush is that when Trump says, "I'm gonna deport 'em.  They gotta go,  I'm gonna build a wall.  Who's gonna pay for the wall?  Mexico," they're not taking the time to ask if he really means it.  They've already decided that he does.  It's that important to a lot of people.  It's about preserving a distinct American culture which is under assault, which is under siege.  And it's being brought to us by the Democrat Party, which is trying to register all kinds of new voters all the time 'cause they need a permanent underclass of people incapable of taking care of themselves, incapable of providing for themselves who will always be counted on to vote Democrat to be taken care of.” 

Rush concludes by opining that, under these circumstances, people scratch their heads and cannot understand why a single Republican would ever sign on to any kind of amnesty for illegals. “And if you want to know what happens to Republicans that do, the name is Jeb Bush.  A hundred million dollars, and it may actually be $115 million could not erase the baggage that Jeb Bush was carrying around, that people assumed he was for amnesty.  It's that simple.  That's what happens.  That's where we are.” 

On another subject, the mainstream media has quickly and quietly removed Iran from public view, after the highly questionable nuclear deal was signed. However, Iran continues to pursue its hostile agenda against the west. And the U.S. in particular. 

According to Samia Nakhoul @Reuters in Tehran, via yahoo as linked on Drudge: “Iran's leader said that he was confident voters would return a parliament prepared to stand up to the United States at Friday's election and prove that the lifting of sanctions on the Islamic Republic had not changed its anti-Western stance."

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying by his official website on Wednesday: "The nation will vote for a parliament that puts Iran's dignity and independence first, and stands up to foreign powers whose influence on Iran has been removed. 

“Khamenei said again that he was certain that the United States had concocted a plot after the nuclear deal to "infiltrate" the Islamic Republic.” 

And what’s most tragic about Iran’s unchanged threat to their neighbors in the Middle-East, along with festering hostility to the West, is thanks to the previously frozen assets, freed up under the terms of the administration's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, they now have another $100 billion to fund their aggression. 

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

In a pandering article, wherein the left-wing media bias is truly incredible, Margaret Talev and Arit John @bloomberg.com/politics via Drudge, write: “Hillary Clinton doesn’t just want to beat Bernie Sanders in South Carolina. She wants to beat expectations. 

“She’s running more than 20 points ahead of Sanders in most polls heading into Saturday’s Democratic presidential primary, buoyed by overwhelming support from the state’s black voters. Now she’s looking to the state to re-establish an air of inevitability around her campaign -- and deliver such an embarrassing defeat to Sanders that it’s hard for him ever to recover.” 

However, aside from the fact that should she win, it would be due to the “overwhelming support“ of a particular minority in the state, perhaps unrepeatable elsewhere, Bill’s wife may not even make it to the November election.    

According to Jonathan Allen @Reuters via ca.news.yahoo, posted on Drudge: “A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that U.S. State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether the former secretary of state's use of a private email system was an effort to skirt open records laws. 

“The ruling by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is likely to add to the uncertainty hovering over Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the November U.S. presidential election, about the legal consequences of her decision to exclusively use a private email server in her New York home for her government work. 

“The State Department and Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group that sought the depositions as it sues for records about the employment of a senior Clinton aide, must agree on a plan for the depositions by April, Sullivan said in his order on Tuesday, according to court documents.” 

So, while considerable numbers of robotic voters continue to close their eyes to  mounting evidence of deliberate illegality in their candidate, for whatever reasons, the justice system keeps moving toward an eventual determination. And, even if U.S. Judge, Sullivan, finds in Bill’s wife’s favor, she still has Director James Comey and his FBI to contend with. Not a very pretty picture for her. 

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

    

That’s it for today folks.   

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Illustrating how instant communication today, especially the Internet, is making life far more difficult for politicians and their party's, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks: "Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year. 

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor." And that's in direct conflict with the goals of his boss.

However, reader kg14051, posted a comment suggesting what is mot likely to happen in reality.

"This really shouldn't be an issue. Let Obama nominate his choice, have the hearings, and don't confirm."

On another topic: Back in April of 2015, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel spoke about what he terms the city’s, “model gun control legislation.” That was a week before last year's crucial mayoral election, when he was scrambling to defend a rising murder rate. 

Now today, Alexandra Chachkevitch and Megan Crepeau, @chicagotribune.com via Drudge, report that: “[O]ur homicides over the weekend and two more Monday morning pushed Chicago's homicide count so far this year to double the same period last year.  

“The city has recorded at least 95 homicides since the first of the year, compared to 47 last year, according to data kept by the  Tribune. The city has also more than doubled the amount of people shot - about 420 this year compared to 193 last year.” 

While the statistics apparently prove dramatically that it isn’t guns that kill people, other people do, Emanuel took an age-old politician’s stance, simply passing the buck. 

The mayor told the Sun Times: “[W]hile we have model gun control legislation here -at gun stores, it’s now filmed.  There are further background checks. But to get the gains we need, you need to change the gun laws. Which means Springfield has to step up.”

Explaining the situation further, Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said. “Yet even with the strongest partnerships and best policing in the world without better state and federal laws to help keep illegal guns off the streets we will continue to face an uphill battle.”

However, what both the mayor and police chief confirm by their responses, yet still refuse to acknowledge, is that it isn’t the “law” that’s the problem. Because law-abiding gun owners aren’t shooting anyone, anywhere. It’s uncontrolled criminals with weapons that are solely responsible and must be curtailed.

On another subject, last night, on Fox News’ The  O’Reilly Factor, Marco Rubio gave his criteria for dealing with illegal aliens.

“It does depend on what the American people will support," Rubio said of his immigration policy. "Here's what I've suggested in the past. If someone has been here for a defined period of time, they can pass a background check, if they've committed crimes they can't stay. They have to pay a tax, they have to start paying taxes. They're going to have to pay a substantial fine because they violated the law."

However, Rubio, like all others seeking ways to give illegals a break, avoids the major issue in question. Because, according to the Constitution of the United States, at present these people are lawbreakers. 

Therefore, not only is giving them any kind of special consideration unwarranted and undeserved, it belittles, insults and demeans all those who’ve come here legally. Furthermore, if illegal aliens are to be provided special consideration, what other laws can be broken without penalty by categorized  perpetrators? Perhaps uneducated thieves should be forgiven because they can’t read “Do Not Enter” signs on bank vaults and private property.

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

Adam Shaw, Daniel Jativa and Joseph Weber combined on a story @FoxNews.com, suggesting that Bill’s wife isn’t only sinking in favorability, but is taking other Democrats with her in her slide.  

The authors write: “Should Hillary Clinton succeed in beating back the Bernie Sanders challenge, don't look for her — or any of the remaining 2016 Republican White House candidates, for that matter — to provide a coattail ride for any congressional hopefuls. 

“That wasn't the case a year ago, when House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi predicted that a Clinton candidacy "would be one that could not only take her into office, but would [pull Democrats to victory].” 

“But, what a difference a year makes — one filled with FBI investigations into her use of a private email server while secretary of state, questions about foreign contributions made to her family foundation, and Sanders.” 

Additionally, the National Republican Congressional Committee recently predicted that Bill’s wife would return the Democratic Party to “shambles,” pointing to her favorability rating falling well below 50 percent, both nationally, and in some congressional swing districts. 

“Katie Martin, communications director for the NRCC, said: “The significant holes in House Democrats' recruiting efforts not only proves that their initial confidence in riding Hillary's coattails is misplaced, but also that they have no hope of recapturing the House majority in 2016.” 

So, here again, evidence mounts that demonstrates the self-serving interests that drive both Clinton’s, particularly Bill’s wife. And in this case, while she herself may very well not even make it to election day, she has no compunctions about taking her whole party down with her. 

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

That’s it for today folks.  

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Watching Fox News this morning caused scratching one’s head. Listening to their various commentators analyses of Trump's South Carolina primary, it seems they’ve practically claimed his victory as the Republican presidential candidate already. Yet, only three contests have taken place to date, and 67.5 of voters selected someone else. Which means, this contest is very far from over.

Furthermore, to date no Republican contender has really gone after Trump, or confronted him regarding his record. However, when they do, the following graphic posted by a Facebook friend just now should certainly help them.

On another subject, yesterday this column addressed the massive employment rolls of some of the major business successes wherein the principals and/or investors are among the 400 “richest” individuals on the Forbes list. And these are the people whom the Democrat presidential candidates have deemed targets for as much tax increase as possible. Because, evidently, they haven’t helped the economy enough.

In that regard, it later occurred to this writer that above and beyond the 40 or 50 million American jobs created by this group, there are considerably more individuals earning their livings, all or in part, due to them. Because, beyond the major businesses themselves, those huge entity's rely on others to provide goods and services. Such as raw materials, machinery and equipment, buildings and construction, travel and entertainment, food, beverages, maintenance, security, communication, computerization, software, employee training, trucks and automobiles, fuel, energy, environmental control and compliance, along with a whole host of additional outside providers.

So, once again, if “progressives” continue demanding additional taxation, above and beyond the major contribution the “richest” provide at present, demonizing these mega-producers in their rants, those at the pinnacle should simply stop. And when they close down their enterprises, they'll take all those no-longer-needed goods and services providers with them. 

And, as also suggested yesterday, when all that money-flow ceases due to the business closures, perhaps the Clinton Foundation can contribute a billion or two to help cover the shortfall.  

And then, Michael Goodwin @nypost.com today, explaining how Sanders has attracted young voters who seek ever- increasing government support, provides one of the best synopsis of the perils of liberalism one could find anywhere.  

Mr. Goodwin writes: “There is, of course, an irrational dimension to the Sanders phenomenon. Obama is the most far-left president in memory, with his liberalism mixing higher taxes, an explosion of regulations and an expansion of social programs with a weak foreign policy. 

“The results everywhere are ­awful: The economy never fully recovered from the recession, and looks ready to slip back again. The world Obama tried to withdraw from is on fire, with talk of a global war growing louder. 

“America doesn’t need a double dose of the same bad medicine, but that is what young Democrats want. They believe Obama has been too moderate and see Clinton as even more old-school. 

And then Mr. Goodwin offers a glimmer of hope, defining the path that lead to the election of Ronald Reagan, as follows: “The [Democrat] party made this mistake before. After Lyndon Johnson ushered in the Great Society, a new generation furious about Vietnam pushed him aside for successors who were radicals at home and doves abroad. 

“Fortunately, most did not win the White House. Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern were rejected by voters, and Jimmy Carter probably would have been, too, were it not for the backlash over Watergate. After Carter’s disastrous term, the GOP won the next three thanks to Ronald Reagan’s pro-growth agenda and muscular foreign ­policy.” 

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

Ron Fournier, formerly a strong supporter, offered an explanation today @theatlantic.com, illustrating the differences between Bill Clinton and his wife, in the eyes of typical Democrat voters, as follows:

“Voters learned not to trust Bill Clinton to tell the truth about his private life. But they believed him when he said he got up every morning determined to work for them. “Is he in it for us or is he in it for himself?” Even when Bill Clinton disgraced himself and faced impeachment for lying about sex with an intern, most voters believed he was still in it for them. 

“Most voters don’t feel that way about Hillary Clinton, and it’s a dangerous matter of trust. She can’t convince voters that she’s always been honest—not in an era that equips people to be their own electronic fact-checkers. She can’t give today’s voters the authenticity they crave.” 

And although the FBI may be the deciding vote that eliminates her from the race, her weakness in veracity still creates a significant opportunity for alternative candidates. Leading 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

Well, the results from South Carolina are finally in, and two major developments occurred, both affecting the Republican presidential race.   

As it turns out, unfortunately for the nation, the most highly qualified candidate dropped out. Jeb Bush has had enough. On the winning side, however, the current leader, Trump, seems to have topped out despite his victory. 

Trump continues to earn only about a third of voter’s picks, meaning that the now remaining five others in the race were chosen by a significant majority of 2-1 (67.5%). The statistics were, Trump 32.5%, Rubio 22.5, Cruz 22.3, Bush 7.8, Kasich 7.6, and Carson 7.2.

So, if Republicans truly want to win the upcoming election, and prevent their party from becoming a laughing stock, they’re going to have to narrow the field to one competitor against Trump. Which at this point seems to be either Cruz or Rubio. And when they do that, Trump will start to fade into whatever political sideshow he came from. 

On another matter, which also should be of considerable importance to Republican candidates in general, is some statistical data about a major Democrat campaign point. 

Both Democrats in the presidential race continually badger the “rich,” claiming they’re going to tax them as much as they can. However, as usual, their logic is so far beyond just being upside down, it’s absolutely moronic.  

Some research yesterday at Forbes Magazine on-line shows that, regarding the nation’s top 400 wealthiest: “Each of these people’’s success has a ripple effect. Consider Andrew and Peggy Cherng, the founders of restaurant chain Panda Express, who debut with a combined net worth of $2 billion. Their restaurants employ approximately 21,000 people. The gas and convenience stores owned by Tom and Judy Love, also new entrants, employ another 10,000. Other notable newcomers showing there is no shortage of ingenious ideas are Under Armour’’s Kevin Plank, 5Hour Energy’’s Manoj Bhargava and Twitter’’s Jack Dorsey, who gets the bulk of his fortune not from social media but from his mobile bill payment company Square.” 

And then some additional statistics show that among the first 45 businesses shown, owned or controlled by one’s in the top 400 list,  2,182,400 individuals are employed in total. Bill Gates’ Microsoft employs 128,000, Larry Page’s Google 61,000 +, Pierre Omidyar’s eBay 11,600, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway 302,000, Victoria B. Mars’ Mars Candy 75,000, Michael Dell’s Dell Computer 108,800, Sumner Redstone’s Viacom 10,580 (2011), James M. Cox’s Cox Enterprises 55,000, Abigail Johnson’s Fidelity Investment 41,000, while Jim Walton’s Wal-Mart has 1.4 million workers in the U.S. 

Then there’s Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook with 12,691 employees, Larry Ellison’s Oracle with 135,070 more, and farther down the Forbes list: Nike employs another 56,500, Enterprise Rental 83,000, and Jeff Bezos’s Amazon another 154,100. And what’s really amusing, is that major Democrat backer Spielberg’s DreamWorks had only 80 employees in 2012.  

So, perhaps what these “rich” owners and entrepreneurs should say is: “I’ve had enough, I’m tired of being pestered and being demonized by Democrats, and so I’m closing my business down.” 

After all, these tremendously successful people have figured out how to make their fortunes, while providing work for millions of others. So now, let the Democrat politicians find a way to do it themselves. Go out and hire millions, paying their own way without those at the top. However, that’s not very likely at all. Because at present, not one of these loud-mouthed politico’s works for a living, most never have, and all they’re really good at is constant blabbering about what others should do, while continually picking their pockets for more.

 

Which brings us to the biggest fraud of all, Bill’s Clinton’s wife and the daily update on her. 

The Nevada caucus results show Bill’s wife obtaining 52.7% of the vote while Sanders at 47.2% wasn’t very far behind. The heavily unionized state was expected to be a runaway for her. But that didn’t happen. 

What's worse, and perhaps an indication of greater problems to come, is that she may have won the caucus, but entrance polls illustrate what is considered her chief weakness heading into a general election: trustworthiness.

Curt Mills @washingtonexaminer.com, reports that: “Among the 25 percent of Nevada Democratic voters who cited "honest and trustworthy" as the top quality they were seeking in a president, they favored Sen. Bernie Sanders 82-12 percent, according to the CNN entrance poll.” 

On top of that bad news for her, Evan Halper, Contact Reporter @latimes.com writes: “Now, at a critical point in the race, Clinton finds herself under financial stress. The Bernie Sanders money machine keeps churning, sweeping up millions of dollars more than the Clinton campaign has been able to find of late, positioning the democratic socialist from Vermont to compete in states where he was never expected to be a threat. 

“As Clinton’s network of fundraisers in cash-rich regions like Los Angeles and the Bay Area struggle to fill events where tickets typically cost $2,700 -- the maximum a donor can give in the primary -- Sanders is not holding any. His money comes almost entirely online, and keeps coming and coming, far faster and more steadily than small donations do on Clinton’s website.

“Clinton’s rainmakers have grown anxious. She began the year with $10 million more in the bank than Sanders, but that cushion is disappearing fast.”

So, maybe she’ll have to borrow some bucks from the family foundation, which has plenty. Because when you keep 90% of the multi-millions donated, you can afford practically anything. Even an election.

But, just in case she really does go broke: 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