What GAME is Iran playing? - Obama's 2nd Term Blues

BBC News: Reports on Iran's new nomination for its UN post in New York, " The Obama administration says Iran's nomination of a former hostage-taker as its ambassador to the United Nations is "extremely troubling".

Lets Get Real:

This move by Tehran is a REAL kick in the teeth for President Obama, since coming in to Oval Office in 2009 the Oval has tried to develop talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, the latest talks are not seen as having a great chance of success, this move by Tehran could be a way out for the Government of Iran, if Obama gives the green light the right and even some Democrats will jump on him, he could even be in pictures with the UN Ambassador from Iran, the rawness of the hostage crisis that took down the Carer Presidency has not be forgotten in the US, if the Oval Office says NO, then Iran can say that the talks have failed due to the actions of the Americans.   One has to assume that Tehran must have known that the history of their nominee would come to light, while at the same time having talks with the US about a final deal, there have been reports that the Conservatives in Iran have told their new President that either he gets a deal that benefits Iran or he is out of office.   Any deal that allows Iran to get near to becoming a nuclear power will not be approved either by the US Senate or Israel, a treaty or agreement could lead to Israeli striking Iran with all its power, thus in a sense this move by Tehran might be the straw that breaks the Treaty, various sides have an interest outside the main players in making this deal fail, the Conservatives in Iran who do not want a better relationship with the West and Israel and its supporters, yes this blog, who see any DEAL as another Munich 1938, the real world is raw, brutal and not for the faint hearted.  

Free Speech and Money - Obama's 2nd Term Blues

The New York Times: Has the following editorial comment on the latest Judgement by the US Supreme Court on how much individual Americans can spend overall in an election cycle, from candidates to pressure groups, " The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its crusade to knock down all barriers to the distorting power of money on American elections....court’s campaign-finance rulings have determinedly eaten away at the court’s own precedents and decades of anticorruption efforts by members of Congress.. ".

Lets Get Real:

This is typical of the liberal NYT, when it Unions or rich left wing Americans giving money the uber liberal NYT tends to be quiet, when the US Supreme Court wants to allow Americans to decide how much they spend the liberal elite press goes crazy, it all right for uber left wing rich people or Unions to fund their pet projects but the idea that the right should have the same right sends the left up the wall.   The NYT still thinks its the 1970s after Watergate, WELL WAKE UP its the 21 Century, things might have changed since the time of Richard Nixon.   The US Supreme Court was right to reduce the red tape,  it should go further, there should be NO Limits on how much an individual or company gives to a political candidate, its a matter of free speech, its the FREE part that the NYT is missing, not new, they covered for Stalin and still release secret files that damage US national interests.