Thursday, November 28, 2013

Obama Claims He’s Among Most Accomplished Presidents Ever

In spite of a record number of Americans receiving food stamps, a 7.3 percent unemployment rate, and an embarrassing launch of his signature healthcare program, President Barack Obama says his administration has been the most productive in history.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Obamacare Delayed Again!

In a time when the MSM is urged to report only positive stories about Obamacare, Politico's JASON MILLMAN reports that... "The Obama administration today announced a year-long delay of online enrollment for small businesses looking to purchase health coverage through federal-run exchanges, another setback for HealthCare.gov. The delay, first reported by POLITICO, comes just weeks after Obama administration officials said the online enrollment for small businesses would be ready by the end of November. The announcement also comes just three days before the White House promises HealthCare.gov will provide a smoother enrollment experience for most users trying to purchase individual and family coverage. Fixing the problems with the individual market has been the White House priority.

Is This Our Future?


Suppose you could rent your house for $2,000 a month, the home-price-to-rent-ratio here in PDX might be around 17. The chart shows that in places like Sweden, the UK, France, and Canada, for example, sport ratios up to 90 times the home price. With all the money sloshing around the world and China buying real estate in the U.S, could our ratio in PDX double? That could mean at least a double in the price of our homes. That is the effect of inflation!

Got Gold?

Very Terrifying!

Reprinted from To The Point News

DOES OBAMA WANT IRAN TO HAVE NUKES?PrintE-mail
Written by Caroline Glick   
Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Obama never explained how allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium decreases the likelihood of war.

It isn't surprising that the US and the other five powers signed a deal with Iran last Saturday (11/23). Over the past few weeks, US President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that they were committed to signing a deal with Iran as quickly as possible.

And it isn't surprising that the deal these overeager leaders signed with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism makes the world a much more dangerous place than it was before the agreement was concluded.

With the US and its allies far more eager to reach an accord with Iran on its illicit nuclear weapons program than Iran was, it was obvious from the outset that any deal ultimately reached, at least as long as these negotiating conditions remained in force, would facilitate rather than inhibit Iran's quest to build a nuclear arsenal.

And indeed, the sanctions relief that Iran has gained simply by signing on the dotted line will be sufficient to buffet the Iranian economy through a successful nuclear weapons test.

Iran will achieve nuclear capability while enriching itself through the deal because the deal gives Iran sanctions relief without requiring Iran to make any irreversible concessions. Indeed, Iran just received the international community's permission to continue to enrich uranium, keep all its nuclear installations open and build new centrifuges.

While the deal isn't surprising in and of itself, Obama's decision to conclude it now makes clear the true goal of his foreign policy. To understand that goal, it is first necessary to consider an aspect of the deal that, on the surface, makes little sense.

The negotiations with the Iranians that culminated in Saturday night's agreement went on for a year.  And yet, the final deal reflects Iran's opening positions.   That is, over the course of the entire year, American and European negotiators were not able to move Iran's positions one iota.

So what has the Obama administration been doing for the past year? Since Iran's positions were the same all along, why didn't they sign this deal a year ago? The US's strength relative to Iran did not diminish significantly since a year ago. So the US didn't need this agreement more now than it did a year ago.

Clearly, Obama did not spend the last year trying to build domestic American support for a deal that enables the regime that calls daily for the annihilation of America to become a nuclear power. With Iran building military bases all over Central and South America, Obama never bothered trying to make the case to the American people that they would be more secure with this regime in possession of the capacity to kill millions of Americans with one bomb.

Obama never stood before the Congress to explain how a deal that gives America's Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program advances US national security. He never explained how allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium decreases the likelihood of war.

So what did Obama need the last year for? If he wasn't concerned with getting a less dangerous deal, and he didn't care what the American people thought about his facilitation of Iran's nuclear weapons program, what prevented him from okaying the agreement last year?

To ascertain the answer, it is worth considering Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid's comments Sunday morning (11/24). Beyond noting the nuclear deal's danger to Israel's security, Lapid said, "I am worried not only over the deal but that we have lost the world's attention."

And indeed, Israel has lost the world's attention. Its appropriately deep concerns over Iran's nuclear behavior were belittled, ignored and derided, first and foremost by the Obama administration. Worse than belittling Israel's concerns, which are completely shared by the Sunni Arab world, Obama and Kerry have castigated as warmongers those Americans who agree with Israel's concerns and have attacked them as traitors who seek to push America into an unnecessary war.

At the same time, they have presented the dispute as one of Israel against the rest of the world, ignoring that the Sunni Arab world shares Israel's concerns.

Statements to this effect from US officials have been legion since the details of the deal were first divulged to Israel and the Gulf States by the French and the British three weeks ago.

The brazenness of these anti-Israel statements points to the main action that Obama and his advisors have engaged in for the past year, while not moving Iran a millimeter from its opening position at the nuclear talks.

Over the past year, Obama has engaged in systematically weakening Israel's position both regionally and in Washington. Regionally, the US has forced Israel into talks with the Palestinians that are engineered to weaken Israel strategically and diplomatically. The US has delegitimized Israel's legal rights to sovereignty and self-defense, while effectively justifying Palestinian terrorism as a legitimate response to Israeli actions - which themselves were perfectly legal. So, too, the US has given a green light to the EU's illegal, discriminatory economic war against Israel.

Beyond that, the Obama administration has significantly expanded the prospect of war between Israel and Syria by leaking Israeli strikes against Syrian targets that posed a threat to Israel's security.

The US has also weakened Israel's capacity to take steps short of war to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons possessing state by leaking key components of Israel's covert operations against Iran's nuclear program.

Further, Obama appointed outspoken critics of the US-Israel alliance to key positions in his national security team. First and foremost in this arena was his appointment of Chuck Hagel to serve as defense secretary.

The culmination of this long process of delegitimizing Israel as a warmongering, ungrateful ally and its supporters as turncoats who are forcing the US to endanger itself for the benefit of the Jewish state was the administration's hysterical campaign against Israel and its supporters in the lead-up to Saturday's signing ceremony in Geneva. Everyone, from the White House to Kerry, accused Israel and its supporters of trying to force the US to fight an unnecessary war.

When we consider Obama's decision to wait for a year to sign the deal that enables Iran to become a nuclear power in the context of his main activities over the past year, we understand his foreign policy.

But why would an American president have as goals of his foreign policy to weaken Israel and allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? What does he intend to accomplish for his country by achieving these goals?  The answers might be terrifying.

Caroline Glick is Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post. 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

PRUDEN: Obama’s Full Grovel To Iran

“Looking back at the past decade,” wrote Mohammad Mohammadi, regarded as an Iranian authority on his country’s nuclear affairs, “all the red lines by America and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue have now been transformed into acceptance. Where are the statesmen who will challenge Obama and his groveling?

Irony #3

It is amazingly pathetic that President Obama won’t let you keep your insurance plan, but he will let the Iranians keep their enriched uranium program. Just what sort of idiot will negotiate with terrorist regimes, but not with Americans?

Iran is ‘Spiking the Football in the End Zone’

CNSNews.com) – Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday” said that Iran got the better of the United States and its allies in a weekend deal that lifts economic sanctions and unfreezes $8 billion in Iranian assets while allowing Iran to enrich uranium.

David Horowitz Compares Iran Deal To Munich

This Is Worth Repeating!

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:It’s really hard to watch the President and the Secretary of State and not think how they cannot be embarrassed by this deal. Think about this: half a dozen times, the Security Council has passed resolutions which said Iran has to stop all enrichment otherwise there’ll be no change in the sanctions, no relief. Which means six times China and Russia – not exactly hardliners on Iran – have signed on to this.
And what is the result of this agreement? Iran retains the right to enrich. It continues to enrich during the six months. It is promised a final deal in which we’re going to work out the details of its enrichment. And remember, enrichment is the dam against all proliferation. Once a country anywhere can start to enrich there is no containing its nuclear capacity. So it undermines the entire idea of nonproliferation, and it grants Iran a right it’s been lusting for for a decade. That’s why there was so much jubilation in Tehran over this.
Second, there’s a relaxation of sanctions which have really caused the Iranians to hurt, to worry about the stability of the regime, and to come and negotiate. What happens on sanctions? There’s going to be a huge infusion of cash which can reduce the inflation, can alleviate the shortages. Already the rial, the currency, jumped three percent instantly as a result of this agreement. This is a huge relief for the Iranians, and it can only increase over time.
What do we get in return? I just heard the Secretary of State say we’re going to get a destruction of the 20 percent uranium. That is simply untrue. What’s going to happen is the 20 percent enriched uranium is going to be turned into an oxide so it’s inoperative. That process is completely chemically reversible, which means Iran holds on to its 20 percent uranium and can turn it into active stuff any time it wants.
This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worst deal since Munich.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/25/krauthammer-iran-nuclear-agreement-its-worst-deal-munich#ixzz2llsBurpo

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Football Upsets Week Week 13


#4 Baylor 17, #10 Oklahoma St 49
#6 Oregon 16, Arizona 42 - Oh, my! Oregon was favored by 20 points.
#12 Texas A&M 10, #22 LSU 34
#14 UCLA 33, #17 Arizona St 38

Locally, Oregon St 27, Washington 69!!!
Portland St 41, Eastern Washington 42

Slowly, We Learn More About Benghazi

Listen To Jim Sinclair

Friday, November 22, 2013

Hypocrisy!

Stories Of Obamacare

Jacqueline Proctor: Take, for example, Jacqueline Proctor of San Francisco. She and her husband are in their early 60s. They have been paying $7,200 a year for a bare-bones Kaiser Permanente health plan with a $5,000 per person annual deductible. “Kaiser told us the plan does not comply with Obamacare and the substitute will cost more than twice as much,” about $15,000 per year, she says.
This new plan, Kaiser’s cheapest offering for 2014, would consume about 25 percent of their after-tax income. The new plan still has a $5,000 deductible but provides coverage for things her current policy does not, such as maternity care, healthy child visits and coverage for dependents up to age 26. Proctor has no use for such coverage, since her son is 30.