BloggeRhythms

Thursday, March 19th, the president of the US directly addressed the Iranian public via a taped video message. The unprecedented action drew considerable response, with one of the most insightful coming from Rush.

 

Rush began, “You know, folks, that election in Israel, the victory, Benjamin Netanyahu, that has really confounded Obama.  Do you know what Obama did?  He recorded a video address to the people of Iran and blamed the hardliners in both of our countries, he's telling the people of Iran, for all the mess that's going on in the Middle East.  It's unprecedented.”

 

And then, Rush referred to Obama’s conversation with President Rouhani on September 27, 2013 wherein Obama was told: “Iran’s supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.”

 

Obama’s comments led to Rush’s simple but truly profound question: “If the Ayatollah Khamenei here has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, then why are we talking to them?  What is there to worry about?  What the hell are we negotiating?  If the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop nuclear weapons, then what are we talking to them about?  No, I'm not asking it rhetorically.  I'm being serious.  Why are we negotiating?  This doesn't make any sense.  And even if the Ayatollah Khamenei had issued a fatwa against, there's no such thing as a fatwa against nuclear weapons.  You issue a fatwa against infidels.  A fatwa is against your enemy.” 

 

Farther along in the broadcast, Rush said, “So I checked the e-mail during the break.  "Rush, what is your problem?  What is so bad about Obama addressing the people of Iran?"  Okay.  It's not that Obama was addressing the people of Iran.  It's that he was telling the people of Iran that the biggest problem in our two countries coming to an agreement is hardliners in his country, America.  And then we find out he won't even tell us what the final details of any agreement are, because it's gonna be classified, we're not allowed to know what the deal is.

 

And it’s in this aspect of Rush’s response that he seems to have left out a major point. Because, it’s widely reported that Obama’s livid with Prime Minister Netanyahu for addressing the joint congressional session, and thereby going directly to the American people to make his case right before an Israeli election. Yet, Obama’s a national leader too, and it seems quite clear that he’s doing exactly the same thing with Iran that the Prime Minister did here. And therefore, likely gave Obama the idea in the first place. Which means, all Obama's noise is self-serving political pap as usual.

 

On the same subject Charles Krauthammer said, “This is unusual in American history, a president addressing a serious adversary, enemy of the U.S., where the leader leads chants of 'death to America.' If only he would address as warmly the Israelis as he does the Iranians and their leaders.”

 

Next we have another Obama project that’s not doing very well at all. Jeffrey H. Anderson reports on weeklystandard.com: “When the Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2010 without a single Republican vote, the CBO said that the unpopular overhaul would lead to a net increase of 26 million people with health insurance by 2015 (15 million through Medicaid plus 13 million through the Obamacare exchanges minus 2 million who would otherwise have had private insurance but wouldn’t because of Obamacare). 

 

“Fast-forwarding five years, the CBO now says that Obamacare’s tally for 2015 will actually be a net increase of just 17 million people (10 million through Medicaid plus 11 million through the Obamacare exchanges minus 4 million who would otherwise have had private insurance but won’t, or don’t, because of Obamacare.

 

“In other words, Obamacare is now slated to hit only 65 percent of the CBO’s original coverage projection for 2015.”

 

According to the official website obamacarefacts.com: “As of March 2015, the net cost of ObamaCare is projected at $1.207 trillion over the 2016 – 2025 period,” a truly staggering number. Which leads to the question of what commercial entity on earth could reach slightly more than half of its projected target and remain in business? For those who really don’t know, the answer is absolutely none. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton and his spouse.

 

Kevin Sullivan and Rosalind S. Helderman on washingtonpost.com, write about money received by the Clinton’s foundation from highly questionable sources.   

 

In response: “The Clintons’ defenders have dismissed concerns about the donations as political sniping, saying the test of the foundation is not where it gets its money but how it spends it.”

 

Now, that reply, while obviously presented because no reasonably plausible explanation exists, is unbelievably moronic when one thinks about it. Because it goes even further than a Machiavellian end that justifies the means.  

 

However, taking these intellectual dwarfs by their word, what they’re really saying is that if Willie Sutton, Bonnie and Clyde or Josef Stalin were he an American, donated some of their ill gotten wealth to charity they’d be readily acceptable as candidates for the presidency of the United States. And in the Clinton world that would probably be quite true.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios