BloggeRhythms

Information regarding the pending Iranian nuclear deal has been sparse lately, unlikely to pick up until the deadline date for its execution, June 30, nears.

 

It’s also unlikely that many people will read a story Michelle Malka Grossman, breaking news editor at the Jerusalem Post linked by  Drudge this morning. The story’s well-worth viewing, however, because it indicates underlying mindsets and inclinations of Iranian military leadership. 

 

According to Ms Grossman, aggressive comments toward Iran made by Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Ya'alon, were misquoted and hence, misunderstood by Iranian officials who were “thrown into a fit over distorted comments.” 

 

While an angry response from the Iranians is certainly logical, after all, they thought themselves threatened, their immediate reaction is what makes the news item worth noting and something to be considered by those seeking to put a nuclear deal together.    

 

Ms Goodman writes that, “In response, Iranian Major General Rahim Safavi threatened Israel with violence, saying that "the Zionists and the US are aware of the power of Iran and Hezbollah, and they know that over 80,000 (Iranian) missiles are ready to rain down on Tel Aviv and Haifa.

 

"We have displayed part of our military capabilities while we have kept many of our achievements and capabilities hidden to outsiders," a comment which comes just a month after P5+1 countries agreed to a framework deal with Iran. "Our response will be crushing not just to the Zionist regime, but to any other aggressor who intends to take action against us."

 

And these are the people that the POTUS and his administration want to help attain nuclear weaponry. Certainly something to consider. 

 

On another recurring topic, the next item comes from accuweather.com. This one’s posted because a quite appropriate reader’s comment follows.

 

Headlined, “Late-Season Freeze to Threaten Northeast Friday Night,” the text says, “It might feel more like late October rather than late May in the Northeast on Friday night as temperatures dip well below normal.

 

“Frost will threaten gardens across the region on Friday night as chilly air moves in from Canada.”

 

Reader, Thomas Emmert, added: “All of this cold weather must be because of global warming....I mean climate change. Ahhh screw it its Bush's fault.”

 

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

 

Although nothing really more than a few more coals on the fire, the story’s important because of its source, washingtonpost.com, ordinarily a reliable supporter of leftist causes. However, it appears that the burden of carrying the Clinton’s water may be turning out to be too big a task. 

 

Today Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger write that, “The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.

 

“The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.”

 

While the money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and even Chelsea Clinton, “Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.”

 

As a practical matter, the fees involved and their handling are only one more case where attempts were made to sweep  potential illegalities under the rug. But, what’s even more egregious to consider is where much of those “donations” specifically came from. 

 

“The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Ni­ger­ian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

The authors add that “the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.including “the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

 

“China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.

 

“The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.”

 

What came next though, was something to consider for those supporting Bill’s wife for president. Because her current claim is that “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” 

 

Yet, according to the authors “The new data shows that a number of public education institutions paid the foundation for speeches by Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.

 

“Those speeches drew backlash on some campuses, as universities paid hundreds of thousands to the Clinton charity at a time of rising tuitions and slashed university budgets.”

 

So, as time passes and story’s regarding the Clinton’s gouging proliferate, it’s become quite obvious that self-serviance, personal gain and political power are Clinton family goals. But, nowhere that’s been seen as yet is what voters actually get for helping them achieve their aims.   

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios