BloggeRhythms

Still unable to reach an acceptable deal to all parties, talks with Iran regarding its nuclear program have now been extended until Saturday, July 11.    

 

What’s been most obvious since the “negotiation” began, is that Iran understands full well that the U.S. will acquiesce to almost anything demanded to achieve closure of an agreement. That’s because the POTUS is far more focused on what he deems his “legacy,” than the details of a deal in a region he cares little, if anything, about at all.  

 

Iran, in fact, is so sure that it holds the upper hand that, according to FoxNews.com, “Iran threw another wrinkle into the mix on Monday by pushing for an end to the U.N. arms embargo on the country -- a parallel deal that the United States opposes as it seeks to limit Tehran's Mideast power and influence. 

“Lifting the arms embargo would be separate from a long-term accord that foresees limits on Iran's nuclear programs in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic. But Iran also sees existing U.N. resolutions affecting Iran's nuclear program and the accompanying sanctions as unjust and illegal. It has insisted that those resolutions be lifted since the start of international negotiations nearly a decade ago to limit its nuclear-arms making capability.”

Beyond the story itself, reader’s comments added some interesting byplay into just how much the general public actually understands about Iran’s historic aggression, which turns out to be lacking for many. 

 

Attempting to appear on top of the subject, and to exhibit smug cerebral superiority, Intellectulliberal, obviously tried to blame current Conservatives by posting:

“REPUBLICAN TEST 

What Year did our problems start with Iran... and why did they start?”

freethinker0101 replied,

“1979”

Then radmorick provided the details. 

“The problems started in the late 1970's and they started because President Carter thought the Ayatollah Khomeini was a "god-like" individual.  Typical liberal fail, another one of which is in progress right now.”

So, it looks like Intellectualliberal opened the wrong can of worms for himself.

 

In another article on the same subject, staff reporters at Jerusalem Post on-line wrote that, "The US might arrive at some agreements with us within the framework of the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany), but we should never hold a positive view over the enemy,"  Iran's Fars News Agency quoted Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan as saying. 

 

"Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations' freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains," he explained further.”

 

Nonetheless, despite Iran’s ingrained hostility toward the US, and the fact that a deal with that nation has little likelihood of being any real deterrent to their nuclear program, the POTUS is obviously confident enough to take another obscenely expensive vacation.

 

According to dailymail.co.uk, he’s renting an 8,100-square-foot home featuring seven bedrooms, nine bathrooms, a basketball/tennis court, hot tub, infinity pool and views of the Elizabeth Islands. 

It’s the same $12million 'cottage' in Chilmark, on Martha's Vineyard he rented last year. 

The home is owned by wealthy widow Joanna Hubschman, whose husband was a General Electric executive “who contributed $6,900 - the maximum donation then allowed - to Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  However, it was Barack Obama who took the party's ticket and went on to win the White House."

 

Two weeks before the general election, Mr Hubschman contributed $2,300 to Obama's campaign.” 

Which brings us to Today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. This one by Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy @nytimes.com.

The authors write: “In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders’s 15 percent in a Quinnipiac poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders’s 33 percent.” Then they add: “Those who see Mrs. Clinton as being at risk in Iowa say she is still far better positioned to win the nomination than Mr. Sanders, who lags by double digits in Iowa polling.”

And now, here’s the paragraph that even coming from the most zealous supporters of Bill’s wife, sounds absolutely preposterous: ”Sanders is an untested national candidate who has far less money than she does, and his self-announced “democratic socialist” leanings are anathema to many Americans. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, meanwhile, have deep experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories, and Mrs. Clinton often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals.”

Now, to all those actually believing that Bill’s wife has “deep experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories," and that, "Mrs. Clinton often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals,” has any of them ever heard of Barack Hussein Obama?

Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are either of you reading this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, less than a long-shot presidential hopeful, Rick Perry, took another hopeless wannabe, Donald Trump, to task.

 

Robert King of the Washington Examiner via FoxNews.com, quoted the former Texas governor, Perry, as saying, “Donald Trump doesn't understand the challenges with securing the border from illegal immigrants.”

 

Perry was responding to the “billionaire entertainer's” recent comments that the Texas governor didn't do enough to secure the border while he was in charge of the state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico.

 

What was most interesting is the subtle, yet glaringly obvious identification of Trump in the press by seasoned political reporters. Because no mention was made of him as a businessman at all. Instead he was classified as being precisely what he is: an “entertainer.”

 

Governor Perry, however, being a politician at heart couldn’t simply be satisfied by highlighting Trump’s inexperience. Perry went on to also call, “Trump's controversial comments on Mexicans bringing drugs and crime across the border "offensive." And that turned out to have a backlash potential from Trump because, “The family of a California woman who was allegedly shot dead by an illegal Mexican immigrant have criticized officials who didn't hand him over after he was jailed just months before the attack,” according to dailymail.co.uk.  

 

The news story goes on to say, “Grieving relatives of Kathryn Steinle, 32, who was shot dead on San Francisco's Pier 14 Thursday night, made the comments in light of revelations that alleged killer Francisco Sanchez, 45, had already been sent back over the border five times.

 

“Immigration officials said that they had made him a 'priority' request for any law enforcement officers who picked him up.”

 

Perry though, isn’t the only one overstepping reality, whereas Trump was quoted on DailyMail on Facebook as boasting, “‘I am the only one’ who can fix immigration.” That statement is so beyond ridiculous it ranks right with Obama promising; "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife whose handler’s decision to rope of the press on July 4th in New Hampshire is evidently presenting some serious problems for her presidential coronation.

 

On one hand, by creating a barrier between herself and the press, she now appears to be a self-appointed imperialistic entity. One who does not have to expose herself to the mundane interfacing with reporters that other, lesser, presidential candidates must suffer. She’s far above the menial level of others.

 

The problem created by that posturing, though, is that except for her hard-core believers, most others view her royalist demeanor as pompous, arrogant and unacceptable from a candidate for the presidency of the United States.

 

But then, if she removes the barriers holding back the aggressive press, she subjects herself as to having to answer questions on issues that caused institution of the barriers to begin with. Such as, her role in the Benghazi massacre, her promotion of relations with Libya, her “lost” emails, her relationship with White House banned consultant Sidney Blumenthal, extortion continually paid to the Clinton Foundation, donations received from questionable foreign governments, exorbitant personal appearance fees and the total lacking of any personal accomplishments, other than marrying Bill and the unearned positions of power it led to for her.

 

So, her present quandary leads to the question of which road she chooses to travel. Does she prefer to keep losing ground in the polls because of her standoffish personal regal demeanor? Or does she continue to fail because of her refusal to discuss her professional incompetence with the press? Which drawback appears more favorable in a presidential candidate for the highest office in the United States of America? 

 

Mayor Bloomberg, and even Joe Biden, are either of you guys reading this?

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

An article buried on Drudge this morning, by Robert Pear @nytimes.com, addressed significant increases in health care coverage costs from insurers. While certainly to be expected, some of the reactions to the higher fees are interestingly biased and worth analysis.  

 

According to Mr. Pear, “Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

“Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.”

Many reactions reflect the certainly logical results of the imposition of the health care tax, such as the already mentioned increases in coverage costs. Others, though, seem to be a surprise to many who surely shouldn't have been taken aback.  

 

For example, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, “said that federal subsidies would soften the impact of any rate increases, of the 10.2 million people who obtained coverage through federal and state marketplaces this year." Yet, whereas 85 percent receive subsidies in the form of tax credits to help pay premiums, what else would any rational person expect?
 

Regarding the overwhelming majority of subsidized coverage recipients: “Some say the marketplaces have not attracted enough healthy young people. “As a result, millions of people will face Obamacare sticker shock,” said Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming.”

 

However, how can anyone be truly surprised when the government steps in to offer anything free, or even at reduced cost, without a corresponding source of revenue to cover the additional expense? As far as those paying their own way are concerned, they’re in the same spot as one’s who can’t identify the sucker in the poker game only to find out later, it was themselves all the time. 

 

Mr. Pear notes that, “The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.

 

“Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico has requested rate increases averaging 51 percent for its 33,000 members. The proposal elicited tart online comments from consumers.

“This rate increase is ridiculous,” one subscriber wrote on the website of the New Mexico insurance superintendent.”

Above all though, what’s most interesting and totally predictable, is the reaction of the POTUS upon learning of the predicament he himself is primarily responsible for. “President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”

So, in other words, he’s not involved in this anymore and it’s now up to the folks whose costs he’s forced to as much as double in many cases to go out and fight for a solution themselves. And if that isn’t the most incredible example of self-serving arrogance, it’s hard to imagine what is.

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

Michael Goodwin, @nypost.com, titled his latest column: “How Bernie Sanders threatens to derail Hillary’s coronation.”

In the article, Mr. Goodwin compares the current situation in the Democrat presidential race to Lyndon B. Johnson’s whom everyone assumed was a shoo-in as POTUS. 

At that time, “LBJ looked certain to be re-elected in 1968, until a Minnesota senator with a penchant for poetry named Eugene McCarthy shocked the world by getting 42 percent in the New Hampshire primary, against Johnson’s 49 percent. Less than three weeks later, the president famously declared that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

What’s most important about the comparison raised by Mr. Goodwin is how quickly things can change in presidential politics. Especially when the voting public is displeased with a present administration’s handling of critical issues affecting the nation. In Johnson’s time, there were social and cultural clashes between classes, generations, and races. There was also the continuing of the very unpopular war in Viet Nam.

All in all, there are many similarities to today in Johnson’s decision to withdraw, and today’s situation among Democrats in general and Bill Clinton’s wife in particular.

Because, regardless of how hard she attempts to distance herself from a POTUS responsible for many unpopular political positions, coupled with significant losses to the nation’s economy as a whole, the voting public’s going to paint her with the same brush anyway. And that is something she cannot escape, no matter haw much money she raises and how much of her own history she attempts to refabricate.

Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are you both reading this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today’s items reflect continuing trends predicted here fairly often. Particularly regarding how politicians pander to constituents, most times ignoring obvious truths indicating major flaws in their arguments. 

 

Qiu Quanlin @telegraph.co.uk writes about an industrial trend in China, which soon will have the same effects here, though for different reasons.

 

Mr. Quanlin writes, “It may seem like science fiction, but robots really are on the rise.

 

“Already incorporated on the frontline of plants in the Pearl River Delta, a major manufacturing region in South China, high-tech production is seen as the long-term answer to future growth. 

 

“With industries as diverse as garment manufacturing and smartphone production vying for export orders in a crowded global marketplace, finding that competitive edge is crucial. 

 

And, here’s the critical issue: Luo Weiqiang, assistant general manager of Guangdong Everwin Precision Technology, which designs, manufactures and sells electronic components, says “By using 60 industrial robots, an assembly line that would have needed about 600 workers in the past now needs just 100.”

 

Additionally, and even more dire, “Production efficiency has also greatly improved after the introduction of industrial robots.” 

 

The company, established in 2010 plans to have 1,000 robots when it upgrades its production lines this year which will do the work of 3,000 employees. 

 

The trend to automation becomes far clearer when utilization statistics are considered, whereas “In China, demand for industrial robots has increased dramatically. Last year, sales of robotic technology reached 5.6 million units, up 54 per cent compared with 2013, Xinhua News Agency reported,” and ”The demand will continue to rise as China needs more-advanced equipment to upgrade its manufacturing,” according to Zhang Peng, deputy director of Shunde Economy, Science and Technology Bureau. 

 

Therefore, in China explosive industrial growth has caused the spurt in technology whereas additional people aren’t available to fill the employment need. On the other hand, here in the US, rising minimum wages, increasing benefits, more vacation and leave time are beginning to force replacement of personnel with robotics wherever possible. 

 

Which means that, in China, the problem’s occurring for positive reasons, production growth. While here, the replacement of workers is greatly spurred on by self-serving politicians in search of votes, taking advantage of an unaware, uneducated, and soon to be replaced, labor force.   

 

On another issue illustrating political objectives outweighing obviously negative expectations, W.J. Hennigan @latimes.com reports that, “As diplomats rush to reach an agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, the U.S. military is stockpiling conventional bombs so powerful that strategists say they could cripple Tehran's most heavily fortified nuclear complexes, including one deep underground.

 

“The bunker-busting bombs are America's most destructive munitions short of atomic weapons. At 15 tons, each is 5 tons heavier than any other bomb in the U.S. arsenal.”

 

What’s most interesting is that, “U.S. officials say the huge bombs, which have never been used in combat, are a crucial element in the White House deterrent strategy and contingency planning should diplomacy go awry and Iran seek to develop a nuclear bomb.”

 

Now, whether the officials statement's regarding the existence of the weaponry has been released as a stimulant to induce Iranian acceptance of a nuclear deal, or simply publication of tactical information is, obviously, an unknown. However, the president's comment following the announcement, seems totally preposterous, as follows:      

 

“Obama has made it clear that he has no desire to order an attack, warning that U.S. airstrikes on Iran's air defense network and nuclear facilities would spark a destabilizing new war in the Middle East, and would only delay Iran by several years should it choose to build a bomb.”

 

The comment makes absoloutely no sense because simple logic dictates that, if the US has the weapons to eliminate Iran’s nuclear sites today, that capability will remain in the future. Thus, any US deterrents to Iranian nuclear threats can only be curtailed by the US itself, regardless.

 

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

 

Ken Thomas @myway.com writes that on Friday, in Hanover, New Hampshire, Bill’s wife said, “Obama and her husband had both inherited a series of economic headaches when they entered office and urged voters to elect another Democrat "to continue the policies that actually work for the vast majority of Americans."

 

However, Obama followed two years of a Democrat congress undoing the previous six years of Republican induced economic growth. He also followed a very unpopular war in Iraq. And, as his record shows, he's lied about every issue he promised to fix, including the economy, his health care tax, immigration reform, and now, we’re right back in Iraq again in a far weaker position than gained six years ago.

 

As far as Bill Clinton himself is concerned, he won election as POTUS primarily because, his predecessor George HW Bush reneged on his vow not to raise taxes. Yet, no top Democrat thought Bush would lose despite the tax increases, which is why Clinton, who was way down the list of possible nominees, got the presidential bid in the first place.   

 

Bill’s wife also said, if the nation elected a Republican president, "they will repeal the Affordable Care Act.” That is as certain as I can say." And, her words should make any Republican candidate a shoo-in. Because repeal will please all Republicans and most Independents, adding up to about 60% of the electorate.

 

Additionally, she said, “at the end of her husband's two terms, the economy had generated 22 million jobs, a balanced budget and "a surplus that would have paid off our national debt if it had not been rudely interrupted by the next administration."

 

What she left out though is that voters that do some homework, or understand anything about the economy at all, certainly know that Bill Clinton’s economic policy was created and managed by Republican, Alan Greenspan, a Bush holdover.

 

Then, after all her misrepresented descriptions of the nation’s economic history, she finally got something correct by saying, “she hoped the U.S. would "get a deal that puts a lid on Iran's nuclear weapons program" but said it was "too soon" to know if that was possible.”

 

And that really is the horrendous current situation, because the whole world won’t really learn the truth about Iran’s weapons program until they start bombing Middle-Eastern neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia and Israel.  

 

Which brings us to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this? And perhaps, someone will read it to to Joe Biden, too.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Looks like the holiday weekend got off to a quick start. Very few items in the news today.

 

As far as the still dragging nuclear deal with Iran is concerned, FoxNews.com reports that, “Iran took a hard stance on two of the biggest demands of world powers in a final nuclear deal Thursday, rejecting any extraordinary inspection rules and warning that if the U.S. and other countries re-impose sanctions after the deal is done, it will ramp up enrichment of bomb-making materials.

 

“A senior Iranian negotiator told reporters outside Vienna the U.N. nuclear agency’s standard rules governing access to government information, sites of interests and scientists should be sufficient to ensure that Iran’s program is solely for peaceful purposes. Anything beyond that would be unfair, he said.”

 

Therefore, not only hasn’t any progress been made on the core issue of the deal, curbing Iran’s nuclear weaponry capability, that nation’s nuclear threats have now increased. Which only goes to prove once again, that this “deal” should never have been considered by the US in the first place.

 

Which brings us quickly to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. This one from John Sexton @breitbart.com.

 

Mr. Sexton writes about her sliding poll numbers, explaining that, “Hillary’s drop owes something to there being a somewhat credible alternative who excites the party’s hard left core, but it also probably has a lot to do with voter’s sense of embarrassment. No one wants to support a candidate they do not believe is truthful or trustworthy. Sanders may be unpolished, but at least he is earnest. Hillary has been shown to be a money-grubbing fraud, and her campaign and, most importantly, the candidate herself, don’t seem to have much to say about it.” 

 

Mr. Sexton’s observation regarding Bill’s wife’s remaining quiet about her history is critical because, as he points out, “The only way for Hillary to improve her worsening situation is to come out from the undisclosed location where she is kept between appearances and try to answer the many outstanding questions about her Foundation, her email server, her husband’s lucrative speeches, and her dubious achievements as Secretary of State. Those questions remain outstanding because, as noted above, she has refused to answer them. But not answering is not making them go away. To consider just one example, it appears the claims she made about her homebrew email server a few months ago were not accurate. She is going to have to come up with new answers if she wants the issue to fade rather than fester.”

 

Reading the preceding summation of self-serving practices, professional incompetence, dubious behavior and fact-alteration illustrate clearly why she would prefer to avoid answering questions for as long as possible.   

 

However, hiding away, avoiding press scrutiny doesn’t seem to be doing the trick, because, “Hillary’s camp has been saying that she would run as the underdog not the candidate of inevitability. But underdogs press the flesh and meet the press. They don’t get to take two weeks off between questions. Hillary is running a smile and wave campaign, and the polls indicate it isn’t working for her. She has already “launched” her campaign twice, maybe the third time will be the charm.”

 

Which means that the following question keeps growing in importance: “Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggerRhythms

The commonality of today’s entry’s is “numbers.” Most of them bad for those involved, and all of them subject to considerable interpretation, depending on your opinion of those in question.

 

To start, Ali Meyer @cnsnews.com wrote about the Bureau off Labor Statistics employment data released today.

 

While the Obama administration has changed the statistic used as the indicator for US employment, by omitting those out of the current workforce for any reason, other formulae reflect an extremely dismal labor picture.  

 

Ms Meyer reports that, “The 157,037,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 250,663,000 civilian noninstitutional population, the lowest labor force participation rate seen in 38 years. It hasn’t been this low since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.” And Jimmy Carter was president.

 

In that regard, yesterday Rush reflected on the position taken by David Stockman, former budget director for Ronald Reagan, who uses a much broader based and entirely logical type of calculation to prove his premise that the real unemployment rate is 42.9%.

 

Mr. Stockman’s theory, as delivered by Rush, says, “At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68..." That is the workforce.  Sixteen to 68 is the age boundaries where you find the potential American workforce.  Between 16 and 68, there are 210 million Americans, and 93 million -- 40% -- of them, are not working.  Now, that's probably a much better way of expressing employment, unemployment, and the real strength, performance, or lack of, of the US economy.”

 

Furthermore, "By contrast, during 2014 only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, according to the BLS estimates," actual government numbers. So the workforce is defined as ages 16 to 68, a total of 420 billion potential labor hours, which equals great productivity if that happens.  Last year, only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, just a little over half what's possible.  "Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours," and that is how Stockman arrived at "the real unemployment rate was 42.9%..."

 

Christopher S. Rugaber AP Economics Writer @hosted.ap.org added the background information that, “The unemployment rate fell from 5.5 percent in May, the Labor Department said Thursday. But the rate fell mostly because many people out of work gave up on their job searches and were no longer counted as unemployed.

 

“In addition, the percentage of Americans working or looking for work fell to a 38-year low, a possible sign of more discouraged job seekers. And employers added 60,000 fewer jobs in April and May combined than the government had previously estimated.”

 

Therefore, despite the administration’s fudging and finagling statistical formulations, sooner or later unemployment support will run out as eligibility limits are reached. And it’s then that all those currently being supported by government will need earned income to survive. Which in turn, will make the political party focused on building the economy the choice for the overwhelming majority. And that certainly has never been the forte of Democrats.    

 

Another issue in the news yesterday featured two bozo’s not really worth writing about, but the situation is still pretty amusing., 

 

Several news agencies reported that, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday that his administration is reviewing the city's business relationships with billionaire developer Donald Trump, who is facing a backlash for his presidential campaign comments about rapists and drug dealers among Mexican immigrants.

 

Mr. de Blasio, is out of town on holiday, but said in a statement."We are reviewing Trump contracts with the city. Donald Trump's remarks were disgusting and offensive, and this hateful language has no place in our city." 

 

What’s interesting about this one is that, not only is the deluge of unbridled, potentially problematical, illegal immigrants true, the influx has been mentioned here for more than two years now. Which means that for these two clowns, if this is something they’ve just noticed now, they’re both totally unaware of events going on around them. Therefore it’s no wonder that one of them has bankrupted so many businesses, while the other one’s buried in a job that’s miles and miles above his capabilities. 

 

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

 

Kenneth P. Vogel @politico.com writes that, “A trio of pro-Hillary Clinton groups raised more than $20 million in the first half of the year, including at least $1 million from billionaire financier George Soros, POLITICO has learned.”

 

Mr. Vogel goes on to note that, “Clinton is a fundraiser par excellence, and her ability to raise money for her own campaign was never in doubt.” However, “The fundraising ability of the pro-Clinton super PACs was less clear.”

 

And that hesitation on the part of super PAC’s is worth considerable thought because, “Clinton’s allies early this year had privately fretted that supportive super PACs were struggling to raise money amid internecine squabbling and reluctance from some of the Democratic Party’s wealthiest backers.”

 

So, it seems that concerns about Bill’s Clinton’s wife’s presidential candidacy exist at all levels, including that of the Democrat party’s ordinarily most supportive members. Which leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The most appropriate word for today’s items is “typical.” Applicable to three top Democrat names in the news: The POTUS, Jimmy Carter and of course, Bill Clinton’s wife. 

 

After what seems like an eternity, there are indications that the POTUS might now realize that the Iranian nuclear deal may blow up (no pun intended.)

 

FoxNews.com  reports that, “President Obama threatened to "walk away" from a nuclear deal with Iran if it fails to keep tabs on the country's compliance, as the negotiations were extended past their original Tuesday deadline amid sharp disagreements.”

 

What’s most interesting, though, is his subtle change of position when presenting his present predicament by saying, "My hope is [they] can achieve an agreement." And in that way, removing himself from his position as the initiator of the deal in the first place, which he certainly was. 

 

A senior State Department official said “the P5+1 negotiators, along with Iran, have decided to extend the deadline until July 7, to allow more time for negotiations to reach a long-term solution." However, it appears that the POTUS now has some serious doubts that a “solution” will be reached, causing him to find a way to blame somebody else for the failure.

 

At the same time, also according to Fox, Jimmy Carter “told an Aspen Institute audience that Obama's accomplishments on foreign policy "have been minimal" and that the United States' influence is "lower than it was six or seven years ago."

 

The former president then said something unimaginable from a Democrat, by opining that “the U.S. had suffered a reversal of fortunes in foreign policy since Obama took over from President George W. Bush.” Carter added, “I would say the U.S.'s influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower than it was six or seven years ago." 

 

What’s most interesting is that Carter is often proclaimed by pundits to be the worst president in US history, presiding over a series of foreign policy challenges as Iran seized American hostages and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. 

 

Yet, even he evidently realized the errors of his ways and spent “the last year of his presidency trying to counter these threats, in part by articulating the Carter Doctrine, a reversal from his previously standoffish foreign policy.”

 

Which means that in Obama’s case, he seemingly not only inherited all of Carter’s faults, but compounded them. And then, unlike Carter, has made absolutely no attempt to repair the damage he’s created, thereby making “W” Bush a far happier man.  

 

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

 

Another item from FoxNews.com regards information gathered from the newly released trove of emails to and from Bill Clinton’s wife when serving as Secretary of State. Particularly those between herself and Sidney Blumenthal, an advisor.

 

According to Fox, “The revelations come at an awkward time for Clinton, now a presidential candidate, who had repeatedly sought to distance herself from Blumenthal, saying his advice on Libya and other issues was “unsolicited.”

 

Despite her disclaimers, however, “Controversial adviser Sidney Blumenthal was sending then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton guidance on sensitive diplomatic matters much earlier than previously known, even as the White House was blocking him from becoming a part of her staff, according to emails released late Tuesday by the State Department."

 

Blumenthal served as a senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton between 1997 and 2001, “but was reportedly prohibited by the Obama administration from taking a job with Clinton's State Department team.

 

“However, in an email dated November 5, 2009, Blumenthal sent Clinton an email titled “Agenda with Merkel,” encouraging Clinton to develop the Transatlantic Economic Council, which he said “now languishes.”

 

David Martosko, US Political Editor for Dailymail.com, added that, “Political operative David Axelrod had her email address almost from the start, but claimed just weeks ago that he was unaware of it.” While, “Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote to her at the now-infamous 'HDR22 @clintonemail.com.'

 

While the controversy has continued, Bill’s wife has seen ratings of her character and trustworthiness drop in polling. And, at the same time, others in the media are beginning to pile on.

 

For example, Jason Howerton @theblaze.com reports that, “When Campus Reform correspondent Cabot Phillips quizzed young people on the lavish “cribs” of 2016 presidential candidates outside the White House, he got a variety of guesses — from Marco Rubio to Ben Carson and even Donald Trump.

 

What the respondents didn’t realize was each of the four multi-million dollar homes featured in the quiz — valued as high as $13 million — once belonged to Hillary Clinton.

 

“What?!” one women responded after learning the truth.

 

“What, really? You’re pulling my leg,” another man said.

 

Another female told the correspondent, “You’re changing my opinion on the election a little bit.”

 

Which leads to the recurring question: Mayor Bloomberg are you reading this?

 

And then, in closing, here’s an appropriate quote from a truly born leader. Posted this morning on FB.

 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios