BloggeRhythms

It’s been written here many times about how, for the current administration, political-pandering to constituents and the fulfillment of campaign promises harmful to the nation in general always override proper policy-development and quite often, plain old common sense. And now we can add another whopper.    

In today’s case, not only wasn’t a good nuclear pact reached with Iran, but while the White House was celebrating the agreement, new Iranian violations were being responded to by the Treasury Department.  

According to FoxNews.com: “The [Iranian nuclear] deal came just before the International Atomic Energy Agency certified later Saturday that Iran had met all commitments under the landmark nuclear deal with six world powers. The deal ends sanctions against Iran and frees more than $100 billion in the nation’s frozen assets. "

To which John Kerry said: “Today marks the first day of a safer world.” . 

Then, at the same time, according to the Associated Press via FoxNews.com: “The United States has imposed sanctions against 11 individuals and entities involved in Iran's ballistic missile program as a result of Tehran's firing of a medium-range ballistic missile.    

“U.N. experts said in a report in December that the missile test in October violated sanctions banning Iran from launches capable of delivering nuclear weapons.    

“A U.S. Treasury official says Iran's ballistic missile program poses "a significant threat to regional and global security,” while, “The U.S. also believes there was a November missile test.”   

The excuse that was offered by U.S. officials is that, the “Treasury planned to announce the penalties in late December, but held off after Iran's foreign minister said they could have derailed the prisoner exchange that took place this weekend.”  

Yet, what’s the hardest aspect of this situation to understand is that U.S. negotiators holding power over Iranian billions, while representing the most powerful nation on the planet, could be backed down by a third-world, backward society in the middle of nowhere. 

Which is remindful of Chicago’s Reverend Wright, Valerie Jarrett and other Iranian supporters surrounding the POTUS, who apparently were pulling his strings from the very beginning.   

On another subject, the upcoming presidential election, an article appeared on FoxNews.com this morning condemning both major political parties, as follows:. 

“Americans have to wait until November to find out who their next president will be, but in a sense, the winner of the 2016 election is already clear: it’s Vladimir Putin. 

“As the race begins, we find ourselves in the midst of a global crisis. Iran is testing long-range, precision-guided ballistic missiles that could deliver a nuclear bomb, arguably in violation of U.N. agreements, and the terms of the Obama administration’s much-trumpeted nuclear deal. North Korea is testing, or claims to be testing, hydrogen bombs; for years, the U.S. has essentially ignored Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. 

“And after executing a prominent Shiite cleric, Saudi Arabia has cut off diplomatic relations with Iran after a mob set ablaze the Saudi embassy in Tehran. The tensions between these Middle East rivals bode poorly for American relations with each country as well as for regional stability (such as it is). 

“In short, this is hardly the time for America to disengage from the world. But to listen to the leading presidential candidates in both parties, disengagement seems to be where the momentum is. And that’s where Putin comes in—because while disengagement will cost the United States dearly, it’s a windfall for the Russian president. 

“On the Republican side, it’s no surprise that Putin has boosted Donald Trump as “a very bright and talented man and the absolute leader in the presidential race.” In Trump, Putin sees the candidate most like him: driven by ego and deal-making over long-term thinking. Putin also knew that Trump would welcome his “endorsement” and defend him. 

“And Trump did. 

“When asked about allegations that Putin has had journalists murdered, Trump coolly replied, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” In his 60 Minutes interview last fall, Trump boasted that he and Putin would “get along very well” and that if “[Putin] wants to be bombing ISIS, let him bomb them”—another indication of a hands-off American approach in the region. Trump believes he and Putin can cooperate: “I believe – and I may be wrong, in which case I’d probably have to take a different path. But I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with,” he said at the CNN debate in September.” 

What’s most interesting about the preceding commentary is that it was written by Douglas E. Schoen, who was research and strategic consultant for President Bill Clinton from 1994–2000. 

Still functioning as a Democrat advisor, Schoen has previously said that President Obama should not seek reelection in 2012. He has also stated that the President has divided the country along partisan lines, and that the Affordable Care Act had been a "disaster" for the Democratic Party. 

So, here we have additional confirmation that the upcoming presidential elections are in no way a forgone conclusion for either party. Because, if one as well connected to politics as Schoen is, is that uncomfortable with his own party’s performance, it’s almost a certainty that the voting public isn’t going to simply fall in line as done in the past. 

Which is likely why more than 40% of voters claim they are independents, not affiliating at all with either major camp. 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Kris "Tanto" Paronto, appeared on FOX & Friends Weekend this morning, to discuss his thoughts about the newly released film "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi." 

Mr. Paronto himself is a former Army Ranger from 2nd Battalion 75th Ranger Regiment and a private security contractor who has deployed throughout South America, Central America, the Middle East and North Africa. He’s also recognized as a hero of the Benghazi attack. 

In the film, the actor playing the CIA station chief speaks to the security team that wants to go help Americans under siege less than a mile away in a U.S. diplomatic compound under fierce attack. The order he gives is to "Stand down," keeping the team from leaving for a crucial 20 minutes, before they decide to ignore him and go anyway. 

That scene is said to be the the pivotal and most controversial one in the film. And while the movie’s producer insists it steers clear of politics, it’s assumed it will spark much political discussion nonetheless.  

What was most interesting was Fox host Tucker Carlson asking about Hillary Clinton’s role in the scenario, although she’s not seen or mentioned at all in the film. Mr. Paranto replied that all he hopes is that as many people as possible see the film, which he believes speaks for itself. However, it was very clear that the film is quite unflattering to her, and everyone else who let the tragedy happen in the first place.

As of today, the film opens in fourth place in movie ratings. Which brings 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