BloggeRhythms

One of the most accurate analyses of the president’s nuke deal with Iran came from long-time comedian, Jackie Mason, in an interview to air Sunday night on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's AM 970.

 

As reported @jpost.com, Jackie joked, “Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice that you can walk in and inspect them… So we are protected in this city from bad tuna fish.  We’re not protected from a bomb but we’re protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."

 

Jackie went on, "This secretary of state, Kerry, negotiated with them for a year-and-a-half and accomplished nothing. He ought to give us back for all the trips he made. He cost us millions of dollars in airplane fares and he came back with nothing except a bad foot."

 

Then Jackie summed up the deal this way: "First Obama said we can inspect them any time, any place, whenever we please. Now it turns out ‘whenever we please’ except when they don’t allow it.  If they don’t want it it’s up to them. So then we have to wait 28 days [sic] to inspect, as if to say for the 28 days we can trust them completely, because they’ll do nothing. They’ll just hold the bomb in front of us waiting for us to come so they can show it to us. That’s how stupid this negotiation is to us."

 

Although coming from a comedian, the summation is entirely accurate. And unfortunately, the joke is entirely on the free world, particularly the U.S.  

 

The next item comes from Olaf Ekberg @theamericanmirror.com, who writes about “an untouched flyer advertising a “Young Americans for Hillary”event for students, indicating there isn’t much energy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign among the youth in New Hampshire.”

 

The article includes a photo of a flyer posted on Twitter Friday for the party in Manchester, New Hampshire today, where no one has yet to take a free invitation to the event.

 

In addition to the apparent lack of interest shown by the target audience, the comments following the article are not only consistently negative toward Bill Clintons wife, but illustrate significant awareness among young individuals regarding her significantly flawed career. 

 

Here’s a link to the short article: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photo-no-one-interested-in-young-americans-for-hillary-party/

 

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

 

While Michael Goodwin is certainly no fan of either Clinton, his column today @nypost.com via Drudge, indicates that he’s seemingly written off her presidential campaign altogether, as follows:

 

“The news that two inspectors general from the Obama administration want the Justice Department to investigate her handling of classified material is a potential game changer. For many Democrats, it will serve as final proof she is ­fatally flawed.”

 

Mr. Goodwin suspects that “somebody very high in the food chain leaked the memos requesting the probe,” and that person is likely Valerie Jarrett. Whom, he writes, is not only known to “despise Clinton,” but “ would not do this against the president’s wishes."

 

Mr. Goodwin then goes into significant detail to support his premise of her political demise by proposing that, “Any honest prosecutor looking at her e-mails would also look for evidence she traded government favors for contributions to the Clinton Foundation or paid speeches.

 

“She and Bill Clinton were paid $25 million for speeches in just 16 months, and some of that cash came from donors and companies with business before her. Similarly, big donors to the foundation also sought help from her as secretary.

 

“There is also serious suspicion about some payments made by foreign governments and foreign companies. Ericsson, the Swedish conglomerate, paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speech as it was lobbying to avoid America’s penalties for doing business with Iran, according to The Washington Times.”

 

Suggesting that, “One place to look for information on any conflicts of interest, or worse, would be the 30,000 e-mails Clinton said she withheld on the grounds they were “personal,” Mr. Goodwin opines that her “career marked by persistent dishonesty might be nearing the finish line long before she planned.”

 

And then, he hits the mark squarely by concluding that, “The arc of her life demonstrates that the greatest threat was never someone on her enemies list. It was always the woman in the mirror.”

 

Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios