BloggeRhythms

The highly questionable and very unpopular Iran nuclear deal received another confirmation that it ought to be reconsidered. Because yesterday, Iran seemed to intentionally flaunt it’s ability to taunt the U.S. whenever and however it can. 

A  senior defense official confirmed to Fox News, that “Iranian rockets passed within 1,500 yards of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz last week. 

“Cmdr. Kyle Raines, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, said in a statement to the Associated Press early Wednesday that Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval vessels fired "several unguided rockets" after giving only 23 minutes' notice over maritime radio that a live-fire exercise would be carried out.” 

Raines described the Iranian fleet's actions as "highly provocative.” Going on to say, "Firing weapons so close to passing coalition ships and commercial traffic within an internationally recognized maritime traffic lane is unsafe, unprofessional and inconsistent with international maritime law.” 

In the time since this past summer's nuclear deal: “Iran has conducted missile tests criticized by the U.S., as well as aired footage on state television of an underground missile base. Iran also sank a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier in February near the strait. It seized a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship and later released it in May after earlier surrounding U.S.-flagged cargo ship transiting the strait.” 

The actions seem to confirm Iran’s understanding that the “deal” was so important to the administration ideologically, that the nation could do just about whatever they wanted militarily. Thus, to prove their power over the U.S. to the rest of the world, just like typical victors in the schoolyard, they’re flaunting their power every chance they get.   

On the subject of weapons, state Senator, Charles W. Carrico Sr., a Virginia Republican, has thrown down the gauntlet with Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a brewing battle over gun rights. 

The Senator’s pushing to defund the governor’s armed bodyguards unless he revokes an order that banned firearms in most state buildings, saying: “It’s easy for someone who is surrounded by armed state policemen to tell someone else they can’t carry a weapon to protect themselves. It’s just equal treatment, that’s all I’m saying,” he told FoxNews.com. 

That’s also the same argument posted here a couple of times in the past regarding the POTUS. Let him walk around unarmed without his Secret Service battalion for a while and then let’s see how he feels about the subject. There’s a very good chance he might view the issue quite differently, provided he’s still breathing. 

On another subject, Cal Thomas writes today @FoxNews.com, about the fears he senses in the public, particularly among whites, that they are losing America as they know it.   

Mr. Thomas writes: “Speaking as a member of a group that will in this century become a minority in America -- that would be white people -- I don't fear minority status. I fear that those who will soon make up the majority will not embrace the values and traditions that have built and sustained America through wars, economic downturns and other challenges to our way of life. 

“Fear can be a factor that motivates to action, or it can cause one to retreat. It seems the people who embrace and practice our historic beliefs and traditions are in retreat, fearful of being called names by the forces of political correctness. "Racist," "bigot" and "intolerant" are three words that cause many to cower, in part because of their inability to disprove a negative. 

Mr. Thomas went on, “The most effective response to people operating this cultural and political wrecking ball is to turn the tables. Whose values and beliefs have worked in the past to improve the lot of the people, and whose have failed? Traditionalists don't have to play defense. They have only to remind Americans of the mess the secular progressives have made. Having been handed by the "greatest generation" a nation with numerous opportunities and a bright future, the baby boomers and their progeny set about destroying it on the altar of self-indulgence.” 

While, as a political columnist likely surrounded by others with similar opinions, Mr. Thomas seems to be missing the bigger picture. Because the remedies for dealing with “the forces of political correctness” are occurring all over the nation presently, and have been for quite some time by now. 

There are now 32 Republican governors, which is certainly a voter rebuke of national policies. At the same time, both the Senate and House have significantly Republican majorities. 

And then there’s the most important factor of all. Those that Richard Nixon in 1969 called the silent majority, an unspecified large group of people who do not express their opinions publicly. However, those are the folks of all types, races and religions that voted all those state officials into office, and will soon deliver the White House as well. 

So, not to worry, Mr. Thomas. Grass roots voters will soon solve your problems and woes. 

On another issue, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron report @wsj.com: “President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs. 

“But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” 

“The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill. 

“The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.” 

This situation’s interesting because it would be ludicrous to assume that a nation as electronically sophisticated as Israel didn’t know that this spying was going on. In fact, Mr. Netanyahu likely knew well in advance what U.S. reactions to his Congressional address would be, insuring his desire to deliver it. 

Furthermore, Israel’s also likely to have been providing “disinformation” due to awareness of those listening in. Because, regardless of what the POTUS and his advisors may think, Netanyahu and his nation have proven quite capable of taking care of themselves when they have to.    

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

While Bill's wife may not possess many talents or skills, blowing with the political wind as she perceives it will suit her best, she does have one resolute trait: subterfuge. 

This morning, Sarah Westwood @washingtonexaminer.com reports that: “Government ethics officials have yet to respond to a congressional request for documents about Hillary Clinton's paid speeches. 

“Rep. Jason Chaffetz pressed the Office of Government Ethics last week for an explanation of its decision to exempt Clinton from laws compelling public officials to disclose all forms of income. 

"Earlier this year, press reports indicated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband failed to disclose millions of dollars in paid speeches over the past thirteen years under the belief they did not have a duty to report that because the speeches were delivered on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and not in the Secretary's or the President's personal capacity," Chaffetz wrote. 

“The Utah Republican cited "at least five speeches" for which Clinton routed her speaking fee to the philanthropy between 2014 and 2015. She did not list that income on her disclosure form as the law typically requires.” 

In this case, it’s curious as to why Representative Chaffetz would be concerned about Bill’s wife’s philanthropic efforts. Because their foundation is a charitable institution, established to provide world-wide financial support to those in need. 

As of the latest report, in 2013, according to nypost.com, the foundation took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges, spending $9 million on direct aid. That’s almost 6.5% of the income given away, leaving only 93.5% for the Clinton’s to be spent on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, “with the fattest payouts going to family friends.” 

Which means that if Representative Chaffetz keeps pressing for documents, he might even eventually expose the foundation as a fraud. Which really wouldn’t be fair to the Clinton’s who left the White House without a dime between them, according to Bill’s wife. 

And that would mean that all those efforts expended to extort what they perceive as rightfully theirs would be exposed to loss, along with any chance at the presidential election. Bringing up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios