BloggeRhythms

Another day’s arrived, and additional information’s leaked to the press regarding the Iranian nuclear giveaway by the POTUS and his administration.

 

Details reported by the Associated Press, say: “The so-called side deal, labeled "Separate arrangement II," says Iran will "provide to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]" photos and videos of locations and environmental samples, "taking into account military concerns." Which means that, to all intents and purposes, Iran has significant, if not complete, control over information provided in regard to its nuclear weaponry development in the future.

 

In that regard, and has often been mentioned here, the reasons for Iran’s receiving such favorable treatment from the administration is that the POTUS, and those closest to him, likely have a different agenda than what’s in the best interests of the U.S., and certainly its ally Israel.

 

Additional confirmation of the administration’s actions came from presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson who “wrote in a recent op-ed piece for The Jerusalem Post that a speech this month by Obama in support of his Iran nuclear deal was “replete with coded innuendos employing standard anti-Semitic themes.”

 

Telling “Fox News Sunday” that on a recent visit to Israel he “couldn’t find a single person there who didn’t feel that this administration had turned their backs on Israel., he added that, “All you have to do … is go to Israel and talk to average people on all ends of that spectrum.”

 

The doctor, “like most Republicans, does not support the deal, in part because they think it would put Israel in greater danger of a nuclear or non-nuclear attack by Iran.”

 

However, it isn’t just the extremely unfavorable Iran deal that has upset voters, as evidenced by traditionally Democrat leaning Jeff Greenfield in an article @politico.com’s magazine who tilted an article: “Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression—even if Hillary wins.”

 

Mr. Greenfield writes that, “Barack Obama took office in 2009 with 60 Democrats in the Senate—counting two independents who caucused with the party—and 257 House members. Today, there are 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, the worst showing since the first year after the Reagan landslide. Across the Capitol, there are 188 Democrats in the House, giving Republicans their best showing since Herbert Hoover took the White House in 1929.”

 

The author goes on to opine that the preceding is only “the tip of the iceberg. When you look at the states, the collapse of the party’s fortunes are worse. Republicans now hold 31 governorships, nine more than they held when Obama was inaugurated. During the last six years the GOP has won governorships in purple and even deep blue states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio. In the last midterms, only one endangered Republican governor—Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania—was replaced by a Democrat. (Sean Parnell in Alaska lost to an independent.) Every other endangered Republican returned to office.”

 

Moving on to state legislatures, “In 2009, Democrats were in full control of 27 state legislatures; Republicans held full power in 14. Now? The GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold full power in just 11. In 24 states, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature—giving them total control over the political process. That increased power at the state level has already led to serious consequences for Democrats, for their political future and for their goals.”

 

Summing the situation up, Mr. Greenfield writes: “Wait, you are asking: Don’t Democrats, with the demographic wind at their backs, have a good chance of holding the White House? Doesn’t the Senate map give them a real shot at retaking the Senate? Don’t national polls show that the GOP is far more unpopular than the Democratic Party?

 

“Yes—and a third term for Democrats along with a recaptured Senate would clearly affect Obama’s political legacy. Even with those victories, however, the afflictions of Democrats at every other level would ensure enduring political trouble.”

 

Thus, after reading what the national statistics clearly confirm, the real question becomes why top national Democrats continue pursuing goals and objectives that most of their own constituents around the nation obviously don’t agree with. And the answer to that one is, today’s politicos, are not only totally out of touch with their supporter’s wishes, they only represent themselves and the most free-spending lobbyists. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, whose troubles are growing exponentially.

 

Reuters reports today that, “For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

 

“But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account.”

 

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

 

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

 

Which means that evidence arising that she willfully and unlawfully possessed, concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed classified material is a distinct possibility. And in that case, much like the sentence given to David Petraeus to serve two years on probation and to pay a $100,000 fine, she may be criminally charged as well.  

 

And that leads to the ongoing daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios