BloggeRhythms

Today’s top items pose similar questions. Because both pertain to situations where political influence costs the public dearly. Not only economically but regarding national security as well. Yet, while politicians, and their constituents, pursue self-serving goals regardless, one has to wonder if there’s anything the rest of the public majority can do to stop them.

 

Issue one has major significance, not only because it condemns the pending nuclear deal with Iran, but arises from the thoughts of a former Obama administration top military intelligence official.

 

FoxNews.com reports that yesterday, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, blasted the administration's pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran, calling it a "placeholder" based on "wishful thinking."

 

In written testimony to a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, the general “delivered pointed and detailed criticism of the Iran deal framework -- as well as the U.S. response to the violence in Iraq and Syria,” saying, "It is clear that the nuclear deal is not a permanent fix but merely a placeholder."

 

He also said, the 10-year timeframe on parts of the deal "only make sense" if the U.S. thinks a "wider reconciliation" with Iran is possible. Calling this "wishful thinking," he added that, "regime change" is the best way to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program.”

 

The general went on to opine that, Iran has "every intention" of building a nuclear weapon, and their desire to destroy Israel is "very real." And, "Iran has not once contributed to the greater good of the security of the region,” noting their fighters "killed or maimed thousands of Americans and Iraqis" in Iraq. 

 

Therefore, the general’s experience-based opinion falls in line with almost everyone except the president, his reverend from Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, who is strongly anti-Israel, and a handful of others at the top of his administration. Particularly,  John Kerry, advisor Valerie Jarrett who was born in Shiraz, Iran, and Susan Rice who rarely knows what time it is, much less what’s good for the US.

 

Which means that, in keeping with today’s question regarding personal objectives overriding sound judgment, it appears that there’s a very high probability that despite input from a top expert to the contrary, the president will do all he can to appease Iran. And, since that’s the case facing the nation, who’s going to stop him? Because, at the moment, nobody in office seems to be able to do it from either political party. 

 

Question two arises from an article by Rakteem Katakey of BloombergBusiness @Bloomberg.com via Drudge, who writes that, “The U.S. has taken Russia’s crown as the biggest oil and natural-gas producer in a demonstration of the seismic shifts in the world energy landscape emanating from America’s shale fields.

 

“U.S. oil production rose to a record last year, gaining 1.6 million barrels a day, according to BP Plc’s Statistical Review of World Energy released on Wednesday. Gas output also climbed, putting America ahead of Russia as a producer of the hydrocarbons combined.”

 

Furthermore, “The data showing the U.S.’s emergence as the top driller confirms a trend that’s helped the world’s largest economy reduce imports, caused a slump in global energy prices and shifted the country’s foreign policy priorities.

 

“We are truly witnessing a changing of the guard of global energy suppliers,” BP Chief Economist Spencer Dale said in a presentation. “The implications of the shale revolution for the U.S. are profound.”

 

However, while the nation increases domestic oil production, and still gets oil from Canada by rail although the Keystone pipeline is still stymied by the president, the barrel price is now over $60.00 anyway. Which brings up the natural question that with fuel costs so important to the US economy and all its citizens, why do the president, and his supporters, permit this to happen?

 

The answer of course is that Tom Steyer forked over millions of dollars to the president's campaigns for office, and to this administration, as in foreign policy, personal objectives far override public need and national problems. 

 

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

 

Daniel Halper writes in The Blog @weeklystandard.com, that, “Hillary Clinton is asking supporters to chip in a buck. In an email this afternoon, Clinton writes, "I’m asking you to step up today, give just $1, and become a Launch Donor -- one of the tough, essential supporters who stood with me from the very beginning."

 

Mr. Halper goes on: “But Clinton says it's not about the dollar.

 

"It's not about the money. It's about knowing that when I step on the stage on Saturday, you’re with me. You have my back -- just like I’ll have yours."

 

Then Mr. Halper adds, “The ask is a lot less expensive than the one Clinton is making of those who want to attend the fundraiser with singer Jon Bon Jovi. A ticket to that event costs between $1,000-$2,700.”

 

What’s most interesting about this item is that, to the Clinton’s the issue doesn’t matter at all, only what they can fleece from it. Which is why, knowing that the vast majority of their supporters can’t afford much more than a buck, they conceived a story to be sure to extort every cent they can from them.

 

And since, apparently, "standing with her" is something she claims is important, she must have a very big home in Chappaqua, NY. Because at the rate her presidential campaign is going presently, the White House doesn’t seem to be in her future at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios