Tuesday, July 21, 2015

BloggeRhythms

As consistently typical of the administration, truths regarding an Iranian nuclear “deal” that is far worse than what’s been told to the public has begun to seep out. 
 
An article by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin Nouri of Reuters via yahoo.com accessed by Drudge, states that, “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear programme was "very troubling."
 
In an interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, Kerry said, “I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television at face value, that that's his policy.” 
 
"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling." 
 
However, since this deal was pursued in the same way as the health care tax was, where political posturing far outweighed the good of the nation’s citizens, the huge flaws should come as no surprise. Especially to those who bought the presidential promise that if they liked their doctor, they could certainly keep him or her. 
 
As far as the details of the deal are concerned, Bill Gertz @freebeacon.com quotes comments from Olli Heinonen, a 27-year veteran of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) until 2009.
 
Mr. Heinonen said, “Iran has not changed its nuclear course. It’s keeping all the options open” for building nuclear arms, adding that Iran has signed an IAEA additional protocol permitting short-notice inspections but is delaying ratification for eight years.
 
“Large facilities such as Iran’s Natanz, where large numbers of centrifuges are kept, will be easier to monitor. But small, clandestine sites can be dismantled in 24 days.
 
“Much of this equipment is very easy to move. So you can take it out over the night … and then there is this dispute settlement time which is 24 days—you will use that to sanitize the place, make new floors, new tiles on the wall, paint the ceiling and take out the ventilation.”
 
Most importantly, evidence of this type of activity on Iran’s part has already been seen, whereas, “A case in point involved two suspect Iranian nuclear facilities in 2003.
 
“IAEA inspectors sought to visit Kalaye Electric Company and the Lashkar Abad laser uranium enrichment plant, both covert facilities in Tehran. In the case of Kalaye, the Iranians delayed access for two weeks and during that time completely renovated and scrubbed the site to remove all traces of uranium enrichment.”
 
However, as previously noted, when political goals and temporary appearance are the only objectives, simple things like documented proof of performance contradicting what’s been sold to the public, really don’t matter much in the balance. 
 
On a similar subject, where political gain also outweighs facts and gathered data, Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News via Drudge reports that, “The volume of Arctic sea ice increased by around a third after an unusually cool summer in 2013. 
 
“Researchers say the growth continued in 2014 and more than compensated for losses recorded in the three previous years.”
 
And then, the article goes on to illustrate that, regardless of what the climate actually does temperature-wise, global-warming theorists continue to maintain their now very questionable position. Whereas although, “The scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought. [T]hey say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead.”
 
Which is pretty much what global-warming alarmists have been trying to sell to the public for the past eighteen years. Despite not only having no  temperature climb whatsoever, but now seeing the complete reverse.
 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
 
Tierney McAfee @people.com writes about Bill’s wife responses during a Facebook Q&A session, the first of her 2016 campaign.
 
After delivering canned answers to a few issues key to her platform, such as voting rights and income inequality, another “important” issue came up, as follows:
 
“Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful women in politics, but her appearance – from her haircuts to her affinity for pantsuits – has always been a hot topic. So much so that at this year's White House Correspondents' dinner, comedian Cecily Strong asked the media to promise "not to talk about Hillary's appearance" this election season.”
 
So, here we have someone running for the highest elected office in the world, discussing hairstyles and attire in the same regard as major issues affecting the nation and its populace. Which makes one realize that if a Republican candidate did the same thing, the press would disqualify them as unfit for the position of POTUS, and accuse them of avoiding discussion of key problems facing the nation.
 
However, the press also knows that Bill’s wife is most vulnerable when voicing her opinion on those same key issues, due to wavering and inconsistency. And therefore, they know that her best chance at election is “appearing” to be a viable candidate, which they hope will keep her exposure as unqualified for the office to a minimum. Although it leads to the question: Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are either of you reading this? 
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment