BloggeRhythms

Like a skilled sleight-of-hand magician, the POTUS  has the nation focused on gun-control following the shootings in San Bernardino last week. And while most folk’s attention is diverted to this major threat, he’s hoping the growing problems in another of his misguided goals will gain as little media coverage as possible. However, Fox News is watching, as always.   

Jennifer Griffin and Lucas Tomlinson @foxnews.com report this morning that: “Iran has carried out a new medium range ballistic missile test in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions, a senior U.S. official told Fox News on Monday. 

“Western intelligence says the test was held Nov. 21 near Chabahar, a port city in southeast Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province near the border with Pakistan.  The launch took place from a known missile test site along the Gulf of Oman.” 

The missile has a range of 1200 miles, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. It’s similar to the precision guided missile tested by Iran on Oct. 10, which elicited strong condemnation from members of the U.N. Security Council. 

Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said in a statement after the last Iranian ballistic missile test in October: “The United States is deeply concerned about Iran's recent ballistic missile launch." At that time, the POTUS said the United States was preparing to brief the U.N. sanctions committee, adding that it would not derail the nuclear deal. 

Therefore, it seems quite logical that Iran now clearly understands that their missile-building activity is acceptable to the POTUS. Which is most likely why they’re testing newer and better weaponry every month, and will keep on doing so with no one to stop them.   

The growing unrest around the world, seems to be sparking a pro-gun, pro self-protection surge from many ordinarily everyday citizens on Facebook. These are people who, most often, use the social networking service to communicate with friends, exchange messages, post status updates and photos, share videos and receive notifications when others update their profiles. 

But evidently, times are now changing, to the extent that one of my friends posted the following on FB this morning. 

On another topic, aside from the Iranian’s apparent intention to ignore nuclear proliferation agreements and U.N. complaints, U.S. Democrats are increasingly fearful that the POTUS’s handling of the threat from ISIS in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is becoming a liability for their party.

Poll ratings on terrorism began sliding soon after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and have now been completely reversed from their high point.  

Niall Stanage writes @the hill.com: “In a CNN/ORC poll released last week, only 38 percent approved of his handling of terrorism, while 60 percent disapproved — the lowest mark of his presidency. Asked specifically about Obama’s approach to ISIS, 33 percent approved and 64 percent disapproved.” 

At the same time, many Democrats now claim that the address the POTUS delivered Sunday “was grounded in politics, noting it was symbolically important but light on actual news.” 

“Democrat strategist, Brad Bannon, said: “There are a lot of moving parts here and I think it is the president who sets the tone for his party. The Democratic Party needs to respond with a single message.” 

Another Democratic strategist, Hank Sheinkopf, told The Hill bluntly that the POTUS’s message was: “Weak and unclear,” asking “What is the plan of action?” 

Answering his own question, Sheinkopf went on: “He has no specific plan except to say we will stay the course and everything will be fine. If the polls are to be believed, [voters] liked it when he took the lead to kill Osama bin Laden, and they don’t like that he’s not taking the lead now. Americans still hope John Wayne will show up.” 

As far as the “Americans” are concerned, there’s now a very strong chance that foreign policy-wise, John Wayne will show up. However, just like in real life, he’ll almost certainly be a Republican.  

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

Naja Rayne @people.com, writes that Bill’s wife’s vice chair, Huma Abedin, is taking Trump head on. 

Abedin’s enraged about Trump’s calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." His premise is based on research he claims shows that "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population." 

In response, Abedin wrote in an email to supporters: "I'm a proud Muslim – but you don't have to share my faith to share my disgust. Trump wants to literally write racism into our law books." 

Then she added: “His Islamophobia doesn't reflect our nation's values – it goes far enough to damage out country's reputation and could even threaten our national security.”

Reading back what she had to say so far certainly makes sense, and is something to be strongly considered. But then, in true Clintonian fashion, she added: “Unfortunately, Trump is leaning into the kind of fear of progress that very well could help him win the nomination. We have to be ready to stop him." 

As a result of continuing to yammer once her case was made, she underlined the point that despite her objections, Trump could still win the presidential nomination. Which means that a majority of voters obviously must agree with him. And thus, if they align with Trump, they’re rejecting her, her boss and her party as well. Leading to the question that if she's so correct, how could that possibly happen?

Which brings us to 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