SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Blasher who wrote (14698)3/27/2015 12:40:16 PM
From: joseffy3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Blasher
MJ
SirWalterRalegh

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Leftwing NPR [National Public Radio], paid for with taxpayer's money, fired employee Juan Williams the moment he said that very thing---

that he felt uncomfortable when he saw muslim garbed passengers on a plane he was taking.

The lady head of NPR who fired him minutes after he said that also said gleefully that he should have his head examined for thinking such a thing.



To: Blasher who wrote (14698)3/27/2015 12:40:31 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together

Limited options for Congress as Obama seeks to bypass lawmakers

The Washington Free Beacon
BY: Adam Kredo
March 26, 2015 2:00 pm

Excerpt:

LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.

This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.

“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.

With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.

*snip*

The Rest



To: Blasher who wrote (14698)3/27/2015 12:45:14 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
ACLU gets Stung in Wisconsin

........................................................................................
americanthinker.com
By Robert Knight
March 26, 2015



Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin voters, and champions of clean elections won a crucial decision at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday when the justices declined to hear a challenge to an appeals court’s decision upholding Wisconsin’s photo voter ID law.

While miffed by the Court’s action, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) crowed today (Tuesday) that state officials said the law still will not be in effect for the April 7 election.

The ACLU filed an emergency request on Monday asking for an extension of a stay of the law that had been granted before last November’s election. Within hours, state officials announced that the law would remain suspended because absentee ballots had already been sent out.

“For now, the voters of Wisconsin will be able to cast their ballots free from the burdens placed on them by this law,” said ACLU Voting Rights Project Director Dale Ho, in a press release. “But this should be the case for voters permanently, not just for one election. We are evaluating our next steps in the fight for the right of all Americans to vote free from unnecessary barriers."

By “barriers,” the ACLU means the simple requirement for voters to show a photo ID, as people must do for everyday activities such as cashing checks, buying beer, applying for welfare benefits and food stamps, entering certain government buildings, and boarding airplanes.

In its appeal, the ACLU argued the head-scratching contention that Wisconsin’s law, which applies equally to all voters, regardless of race, sex or creed, violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Also, that because some voters would have to obtain valid IDs to vote, that the law “imposes a severe burden,” violating the 24th Amendment’s prohibition of poll taxes.

For good measure, the ACLU further argued that the law violates the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which bars “disparate impact” on minorities from any voting rules. The ACLU, like President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and race hustler Al Sharpton, contends that minorities, unlike other citizens, are somehow uniquely incapable of getting IDs. This would be grounds for accusations of racism if it were made by, say, white racists.

The race hustlers’ main argument -- that photo voter ID laws “suppress” minority voting, was dealt a serious blow when minority voting increased in the last election despite many states requiring such IDs.

For example, in North Carolina, whose photo ID law was in effect for the 2014 mid-term election, but not in 2010, non-Hispanic black participation rose from 38.5 percent in 2010 to 41.1 percent in 2014, according to the North Carolina Board of Elections.

As for poll taxes, they were imposed during the abusive Jim Crow era, following the Civil War, when racist authorities created hurdles to prevent blacks from voting. For a concise history of the era’s abuses and their enforcement by Democrats, see "The Truth about Jim Crow", a special report by the American Civil Rights Union.

Full Story



To: Blasher who wrote (14698)3/28/2015 1:38:38 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
What's amazing is the health care law is thousands of pages but the agreement with Iran is going to be 2 to 3 pages.

credit db



To: Blasher who wrote (14698)3/28/2015 1:40:04 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Obama “blowing up our alliances to secure a deal that paves Iran’s way to a bomb”

March 27, 2015 9:23 am By Robert Spencer 42 Comments

Why is Obama so avid to have this deal that he will make disastrous concessions to the Iranians and throw U.S. allies under the bus to get it? Does he really, really want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Is this really all about enabling Iran to destroy Israel?

“Obama Admin Threatens U.S. Allies for Disagreeing with Iran Nuke Deal,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 27, 2015:

Obama Admin Threatens U.S. Allies for Disagreeing with Iran Nuke Deal

U.S. allies snubbed as administration moves toward nuke deal

From left, German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius talk after Hammond made a statement about their meeting regarding recent negotiations with Iran over Iran's nuclear program in London, England, Saturday, March 21 / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
March 27, 2015 5:00 am

LAUSANNE, Switzerland—Efforts by the Obama administration to stem criticism of its diplomacy with Iran have included threats to nations involved in the talks, including U.S. allies, according to Western sources familiar with White House efforts to quell fears it will permit Iran to retain aspects of its nuclear weapons program.

A series of conversations between top American and French officials, including between President Obama and French President Francois Hollande, have seen Americans engage in behavior described as bullying by sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

The disagreement over France’s cautious position in regard to Iran threatens to erode U.S. relations with Paris, sources said.

Tension between Washington and Paris comes amid frustration by other U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The White House responded to this criticism by engaging in public campaigns analysts worry will endanger American interests.

Western policy analysts who spoke to the Free Beacon, including some with close ties to the French political establishment, were dismayed over what they saw as the White House’s willingness to sacrifice its relationship with Paris as talks with Iran reach their final stages.

A recent phone call between Obama and Hollande was reported as tense as the leaders disagreed over the White House’s accommodation of Iranian red lines.

Amid these tensions, U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley met with her French counterpart, Gerard Araud, Monday to discuss a range of issues.

Benjamin Haddad, who has advised senior French political figures on foreign policy issues, said leaders in Paris have not been shy about highlighting disagreements they have with the White House.

“Fance, like other European countries, has negotiated for more than 10 years and endured most of the sanctions’ burden,” said Haddad, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute.

“The French want a deal, but they see no rush and repeat that Iranians need a deal more than we do, and that we shouldn’t fix artificial deadlines that put more pressure on us than Iran.”

One source in Europe close to the ongoing diplomacy said the United States has begun to adopt a “harsh” stance toward its allies in Paris.

“There have been very harsh expressions of displeasure by the Americans toward French officials for raising substantive concerns about key elements of what the White House and State Department negotiators are willing to concede to Iran,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is because the clarifications expose just how weak the Americans’ deal is shaping up to be.”

“The meeting between the French ambassador in Washington and the president’s envoy to Paris—not a diplomat but a big fundraiser for his campaigns—comes amid these very harsh words that were spoken privately about the ambassador’s recent comments on the seeming American desperation for a deal, and the tough words that President Obama had for President Hollande in their phone call.”

Strategic differences remain between the United States and its allies over how a final deal should look, the source said. The French remain opposed to a recent range of concessions made by the Obama administration.

“We may agree that denying Iran a nuclear weapon ability is the goal, but apparently the view of what one can leave Iran and assure that is very different,” the source said.

“Clearly these are the differences that must be discussed. I don’t see France suddenly deciding that America is right and French objections to weakness are wrong, nor that silence is preferable to transparency.”

Haddad said the French are hesitant to rush into an agreement.

“The French want a robust deal with clear guarantees on issues like [research and development] and inspections to ensure that Iranians won’t be able to reduce breakout time during the duration of the agreement (also an issue of discussion), or just after thanks to research conducted during the period,” he said. “That is also why they disagreed on lifting sanctions.”

He also said the French “don’t trust Iran and believe an ambiguous deal would lead to regional proliferation.”

Another Western source familiar with the talks said the White House is sacrificing longstanding alliances to cement a contentious deal with Iran before Obama’s term in office ends.


“The President could be hammering out the best deal in the history of diplomacy, and it still wouldn’t be worth sacrificing our alliances with France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—key partners in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Gulf,” the source said. “But he’s blowing up our alliances to secure a deal that paves Iran’s way to a bomb.”

A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the issue.

Meanwhile, talks between the United States and Iran reached a critical juncture Thursday, as Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Iranian counterpoint to hash out differences over key points concerning Iran’s nuclear program.

The sides are hoping to reach a framework agreement by March 31 amid reports that Iran is demanding Saudi Arabia immediately halt airstrikes in Yemen, where Iran-aligned forces are working to bring down the Western-backed government.

The issue could complicate the talks as the United States attempts to balance its regional alliance with Iran in Iraq against competing interests with traditional allies in Saudi Arabia.

U.S. negotiators have reportedly softened their stance in recent days on a range of issues relating to Iran’s continued production of nuclear materials. One of Iran’s nuclear sites in Fordow could continue to operate, according to the Associated Press.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-threatens-u-s-allies-for-disagreeing-with-iran-nuke-deal/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/obama-blowing-up-our-alliances-to-secure-a-deal-that-paves-irans-way-to-a-bomb