Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, January 17, 2026
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1021)

The winners are in for the 2013 AMA (American Music Awards), along with critic picks on Best and Worst Dressed celebrities.

Unsurprisingly, Taylor Swift made the best dressed list, while Sarah Silverman is on the worst.

Pick for “Best Dressed” at the 2013 AMA, country music star Taylor Swift in a Julien MacDonald gown.

Taylor Swift – Winner for “Best Dressed”

Pick for “Worst Dressed” at the 2013 AMA, comedian Sarah Silverman wearing… Who cares?!

Pick for “Worst Dressed” at the 2013 AMA, Sarah Silverman.

Other “Best and Worst Dressed” celebrities at the 2013 AMA last night.

Best Dressed: Jenna Ushkowtiz. The ‘Glee’ star wore a Raoul gown to match her gorgeous ombre locks at tonight’s AMAs.

Best Dressed: “Glee” Star Jenna Ushkowtiz

Worst Dressed: How much did Kate Parry pay for that?

Worst Dressed: Kate Perry

Click for more in the image gallery!

Missed a performance or just want to see it again?

2013 American Music Awards Winners

 

Artist of the Year
Justin Timberlake
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
Taylor Swift – WINNER
Rihanna
Bruno Mars

Single of the Year
Florida Georgia Line featuring Nelly – “Cruise” – WINNER
Robin Thicke featuring Pharrell & T.I. – “Blurred Lines”
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Wanz – “Thrift Shop”

New Artist of the Year
Florida Georgia Line
Ariana Grande – WINNER
Imagine Dragons
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
Phillip Phillips

Favorite Male Artist – Pop/Rock
Bruno Mars
Robin Thicke
Justin Timberlake – WINNER

Favorite Female Artist – Pop/Rock
P!nk
Rihanna
Taylor Swift – WINNER

Favorite Band, Duo or Group – Pop/Rock
One Direction – WINNER
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
Imagine Dragons

Favorite Album – Pop/Rock
One Direction – Take Me Home – WINNER
Taylor Swift – Red
Justin Timberlake – The 20/20 Experience

Favorite Male Artist – Country
Luke Bryan – WINNER
Hunter Hayes
Blake Shelton

Favorite Female Artist – Country
Miranda Lambert
Taylor Swift – WINNER
Carrie Underwood

Favorite Band, Duo or Group – Country
The Band Perry
Florida Georgia Line
Lady Antebellum – WINNER

Favorite Album – Country
Luke Bryan – Crash My Party
Florida Georgia Line – Here’s to the Good Times
Taylor Swift – Red – WINNER

Favorite Artist – Rap/Hip-Hop
Jay Z
Lil Wayne
Mackelmore & Ryan Lewis – WINNER

Favorite Album – Rap/Hip-Hop
Jay Z – Magna Carta… Holy Grail
Kendrick Lamar – good kid, m.A.A.d. city
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis – The Heist – WINNER

Favorite Male Artist – Soul/R&B
Miguel
Robin Thicke
Justin Timberlake – WINNER

Favorite Female Artist – Soul/R&B
Ciara
Alicia Keys
Rihanna – WINNER

Favorite Album – Soul/R&B
Rihanna – Unapologetic
Robin Thicke – Blurred Lines
Justin Timberlake – The 20/20 Experience – WINNER

Favorite Artist – Alternative Rock
Imagine Dragons – WINNER
The Lumineers
Mumford & Sons

Favorite Artist – Adult Contemporary
Maroon 5 – WINNER
Bruno Mars
P!nk

Favorite Artist – Latin Music
Marc Anthony – MARC ANTHONY
Prince Royce
Romeo Santos

Favorite Artist – Contemporary Inspirational
tobyMac
Chris Tomlin
Matthew West – WINNER

Favorite Artist – Electronic Dance Music (EDM)
Avicii – WINNER
Daft Punk
Zedd
Calvin Harris

Top Soundtrack
The Great Gatsby: Music From Baz Luhrmann’s Film
Les Miserables
Pitch Perfect – WINNER

The verdict is in on the 2013

WASHINGTON — For concision and precision in describing Barack Obama’s suddenly ambivalent relationship with his singular — actually, his single — achievement, the laurels go to Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. After Obama’s semi-demi-apology for millions of canceled insurance policies — an intended and predictable consequence of his crusade to liberate Americans from their childish choices of “substandard” policies sold by “bad apple” insurers — Scalise said:

Obama is like someone who burns down your house. Then shows up with an empty water bucket. Then lectures you about how defective the house was.

What is now inexplicably called Obama’s “fix” for the chaos he has created is surreal. He gives you permission to reoccupy your house — if you can get someone to rebuild it — but for only another year.

At least he has banished boredom from millions of lives. Although probably not from his.

The place to begin understanding the unraveling of his presidency is page 274 of “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.” The author, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, quotes Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama’s closest and longest-serving adviser, on her hero’s amazingness:

“He knows exactly how smart he is. … I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. … He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”

Leave aside the question of whether someone so smitten can be in any meaningful sense an adviser — about what can such a paragon as Obama need advice? (Although he did recently say, “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Just to buy.) It is, however, fair to note that what ordinary people ordinarily do is their jobs, competently. Obama’s inability to be satisfied with anything so banal has plunged him into Jimmy Carter territory.

Carter’s presidency crumbled when people decided they still liked his character but had no confidence in his competence. Obamacare’s misadventures,  and Obama’s response to them, have caused people to doubt both his character and his competence.

The White House, disoriented by adoration — including the self-adoration — of its principal occupant, sits in a city that has become addicted to its own adrenaline. It is in a perpetual swivet stoked by media for which every inter-institutional dust-up is a crisis.

This year began with the “fiscal cliff” crisis. (You may have forgotten, there having been so many supposedly epochal events to keep track of: All the Bush tax cuts were set to expire; the “crisis” ended when only those cuts for the wealthy were allowed to lapse.)

Then came spring and the “sequester crisis,” meaning discretionary spending “slashed” by “draconian” cuts of … 2.3 percent. Autumn brought the crisis of the shutdown of (part of) the government, and the crisis surrounding the inevitable raising of the debt ceiling. The ostensible crisis was that the Obama administration might choose to default on the nation’s debt even though government revenues were 10 times larger than required to service the debt.

Good grief. The 1854 passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a crisis. As was the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor. But as for 2013’s blizzard of supposed crises: Arguments between the houses of Congress, or between the executive and legislative branches, about money should not be called crises; they should be called politics. The separation of powers that is the essence of the constitutional system assumes rivalrous institutions. When, however, the conflict is not about money but about the nation’s constitutional architecture, perhaps the language of crisis is apposite.

The New York Times reports that last March Henry Chao of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which superintended creation of the HealthCare.gov website, told a conference that he had worries: “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.” When such an embarrassing experience occurred, Obama responded like a ruler of a banana republic unfettered by constitutionalism and the rule of law. Although no president has even a line-item veto power (which 44 governors have), this president asserts the power to revise the language of laws by “enforcement discretion,” and suggests no limiting principle.

But even this is a crisis only if Congress makes it so by supine acquiescence. Congressional Democrats are White House poodles. They also are progressives and therefore disposed to favor unfettered executive power. Republicans are supposed to be different.

George Will’s email address is [email protected].

Obama is like someone who burns down

In a phone call placed by the president hours after being rebuked by the Israeli prime minister, a stern warning was offered by Netanyahu to Obama.

“The prime minister made it clear to the most powerful man on earth that if he intends to stay the most powerful man on earth, it’s important to make a change in American policy because the practical result of his current policy is liable to lead him to the same failure that the Americans absorbed in North Korea and Pakistan, and Iran could be next in line,” Likud Beytenu MK Tzachi Hanegbi told the Knesset Channel.

“I spoke last night with President Obama. We agreed that in the coming days an Israeli team led by the national security adviser, Yossi Cohen, will go out to discuss with the United States the permanent accord with Iran,” the prime minister said.

(Also Read: Poll: Poll: Did The White House Lose The Faith of Israel?)

“This accord must bring about one outcome: the dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear capability,” Netanyahu said.

Obama called Netanyahu on Sunday to discuss the deal that the U.S. and five other world leaders reached to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting some $7 billion in crippling sanctions that were just beginning to threaten the regime’s credibility.

The official response from the Obama administration candy-coated the conversation that transpired between the two men with a suspected history of having a personal dislike for one another. “The two leaders reaffirmed their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the White House said.

(Also Read: Netanyahu Calls Iran Deal ‘Historic Mistake,’ Will Defend Israel)

“The president told the Prime Minister that he wants the United States and Israel to begin consultations immediately regarding our efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution,” the White House said in a readout of the call. They also said Obama wants the U.S. and Israel to begin consultations immediately on efforts to negotiate the framework of a solution and repeated the U.S. has a “firm … commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.”

Netanyahu didn’t back down from his position that the Iran deal is a “historic mistake,” but noted it would have been worse without Israel’s diplomatic efforts.

 

In recent years, Israel has repeatedly threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities if it concludes international diplomacy has failed to curb the Iranian nuclear program.

But if military action was difficult before, it seems all but impossible in the current climate.

(Also Read: Future Of Iran Deal Uncertain As Bipartisan Skepticism Mounts)

“Israel doesn’t have legitimacy right now … to conduct an independent military option against Iranian installations,” said Yoel Guzansky, a former Israeli National Security Council staffer who was responsible for monitoring the Iranian nuclear program.

“How can Israel, after the entire international community sat with Iran, shook hands with Iran and signed an agreement, operate independently?” he said. “It will be seen as someone who sabotages 10 years of trying to get Iran to the table and trying to get a deal.”

In a phone call placed by the

President Barack Obama pushed lawmakers in Congress Sunday to support the Iran deal reached with six world powers that he claims would temporarily ease sanctions in exchange for curbing Tehran’s nuclear program. However, bipartisan skepticism in both the House and Senate could spell a congressional push for tougher sanctions, leading to a veto face off with President Obama and members of his own party.

The Obama administration stated that it does not believe it needs approval from lawmakers in Congress to move forward with the deal announced in Geneva over the weekend. But much of the criticism has come from lawmakers within Obama’s own party, including Senators Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Bob Menedez D-NJ.

Schumer noted the “disproportionality of this agreement” makes it likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together in a bipartisan agreement to pass additional, stricter sanctions when the Democratic-controlled Senate returns in December for the New Year session. “I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues,” Schumer said.

The Iran deal reached over the weekend would ease the burden estimated at $7 billion for the Tehran regime.

(Also Read: Netanyahu Calls Iran Deal ‘Historic Mistake,’ Says Will Defend Israel)

“Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions,” said Menendez, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, nor abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions on Iran should the talks fail.”

Menedez also added that he expects “that the forthcoming sanctions legislation to be considered by the Senate will provide for a six month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran, but will at the same time be immediately available should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement.”

The Republican-controlled House has already voted for new sanctions on Tehran back in July, but the measure had not been taken up in the Senate.

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel — video seen above — called the framework of the Iran deal ” disappointing,” on CNN”s “State of the Union” Sunday. “It’s disappointing to me that Iran is still going to be allowed to enrich while they’re talking,” Engel told Crowley. “I would have thought that should be a prerequisite to any kind of talks. We’re not asking them to dismantle any of their centrifuges. So that’s disappointing.”

Engel echoed concerns voiced by Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers, R-MI. “We have just rewarded very bad and dangerous behavior,” Rogers told Crowley. “So think about what this agreement does,” Rogers posed.

“It says you can continue to enrich – that’s what the Iranians believe – and they have made no changes, no changes in the development of their nuclear weapon program. I can tell that you with a high degree of certainty.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce R-CA, asked Secretary of State John Kerry to appear before the committee.

“I have serious concerns that this agreement does not meet the standards necessary to protect the United States and our allies,” Royce said in a statement. “Instead of rolling back Iran’s program, Tehran would be able to keep the key elements of its nuclear weapons-making capability. Yet we are the ones doing the dismantling – relieving Iran of the sanctions pressure built up over years.”

Sen. Marco Rubio R-FL, used strong words to characterize how he saw the Iran deal. He said the Iran deal “shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands.”

(Also Read: Poll: Poll: Did The White House Lose The Faith of Israel?)

Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” that Tehran was celebrating because the Iran deal reached with the U.S. and the five other world powers allows it to continue to enrich uranium, while getting relief from crippling sanctions that everyone agrees were beginning to threaten the Iranian regime’s credibility.

“They’re spiking the ball in the end zone,” he said.

Senator Corker made clear that his greatest concern was that the Obama administration wouldn’t follow through on the terms of the Iran deal, including daily inspections on nuclear facilities and ensuring that the country obeys new limitations for nuclear enrichment, which are below levels for building a nuclear weapon.

He also repeatedly said he didn’t want the interim deal to “become the norm” and suggested Congress is ready to reinstate sanctions and impose more.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to say whether Obama would veto a bipartisan bill that increased sanctions against Iran.

President Barack Obama pushed lawmakers in Congress

Islamist al Qaeda rebel fighters seized the largest oil field in Syria on Saturday, cutting off President Bashar al-Assad’s access to almost all local crude reserves.

Activist groups have told media reporters such but there was no immediate comment from the government and it was not possible to confirm the reports of the capture independently.

But the loss of the al-Omar oil field in Deir al-Zor province, if confirmed, could leave Assad’s forces almost completely reliant on imported oil in their highly mechanised military campaign to put down a 2-1/2-year uprising.

“Now, nearly all of Syria’s usable oil reserves are in the hands of the Nusra Front and other Islamist units … The regime’s neck is now in Nusra’s hands,” said Rami Abdelrahman, head of the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Assad’s regime forces have supposedly gained the upper hand against the rebels since the fighting began, supposedly due to support from the Lebanese Shi’ite militia Hezbollah and its regional ally Iran.

Iran has just come to an agreement with the U.S. and six world powers, which Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Natanyahu said was a “historic mistake.”

(Also Read: Poll: Poll: Did The White House Lose The Faith of Israel?)

On Saturday in the northern province of Aleppo, air strikes killed at least 40 people and wounded dozens, most of them civilians, the Observatory said.

However, opposition fighters, particularly well-armed and supported Islamist factions, still hold large pieces of territory in northern and eastern Syria.

Foreign powers are trying to bring together the warring parties at an international peace conference, dubbed ‘Geneva 2’, planned for mid-December. Both the Syrians and their international partners are at odds over terms for the talks.

Syria’s peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi discussed the conference on Saturday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva. He is expected to meet U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry later.

The civil war in Syria has destabilized the region and killed well over 100,000 people.

The rebels are led by the Sunni Muslim majority in Syria and have drawn support from radical Sunni groups such as al Qaeda and other foreign militants.

Shi’ite countries and militias have thrown their weight behind Assad, who is from Syria’s minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam.

Until the reported insurgent capture of the field, a pipeline transporting the crude to central Syria for refinement had still been working despite the civil war.

Most oil reserves are now in the hands of rebels, local tribes or Kurdish militias, some of whom may be willing to sell oil Assad.

Assad is also believed to be getting fuel from Shi’ite Muslim giant Iran, his main regional ally. Tehran has been bankrolling the Syrian government’s fight against the rebels and offering military support.

A video posted on the internet showed rebels in camouflage and black scarves driving a tank under a sign that read “Euphrates Oil Company – al-Omar field”. The speaker in the video said the field was overrun at dawn on Saturday, but the authenticity of the footage could not be independently verified.

Syria is not a significant oil producer and has not exported any oil since late 2011, when international sanctions took effect to raise pressure on Assad. Prior to the sanctions, the country exported 370,000 barrels per day, mainly to Europe.

The conflict began in March 2011 as peaceful protests against four decades of Assad family rule but has degenerated into a civil war were more than 100 people are killed each day.

Despite international efforts to launch peace talks, neither the rebels or Assad’s forces appear ready to lay down arms.

Activists near Damascus said a heavy battle was raging in the eastern suburbs outside the capital between the army and pro-government militias and rebel units, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an al Qaeda affiliate.

Rebels are trying to retake the town of Oteiba in order to break a heavy blockade on the opposition-held suburbs in the east that ring the capital. For months Assad’s forces have choked off the areas from both food, supplies and weapons.

The fighting caused dozens of deaths on both sides, a fighter in the area said.

In Switzerland, diplomatic wrangling continued as the international supporters of different sides of the conflict discussed a framework for talks.

Moscow, Assad’s main arms supplier, wants Iran to participate in the peace conference, which is opposed by both the United States and Saudi Arabia, a regional rival of Tehran and major backer of the rebels.

Brahimi is to hold “trilateral” talks with Russian deputy foreign ministers Mikhail Bogdanov and Gennady Gatilov, as well as U.S. Under Secretary Wendy Sherman, in Geneva on Monday

Islamist al Qaeda rebel fighters seized the

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the Iran deal regarding its nuclear program a “historic mistake,” and admonished the world in remarks that were broadcast from the start of his weekly cabinet meeting.

Netanyahu expressed little faith in the deal’s ability to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying it only slows a nuclear program that will still be capable of producing a bomb.

Speaking to his Cabinet on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the agreement has endangered Israel, who he declared will not be bound by the Iran deal and reserves the right to defend itself without permission or assistance.

“As prime minister of Israel, I would like to make it clear: Israel will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability,” Netanyahu said.

“What was reached last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake,” Netanyahu added. “Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world.”

Netanyahu said the Iran deal foolishly gives sanction relief “in exchange for cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be canceled in weeks.” It is a sentiment echoed throughout the Israeli government.

(Also Read: Poll: Poll: Did The White House Lose The Faith of Israel?)

An official in the Prime Minister’s office said the agreement “gives Iran exactly what it wants: a significant easing of sanctions and allows Iran to keep the most significant parts of its nuclear program. The agreement allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and leaves it the centrifuges that enables it create (fissile) material to create nuclear weapons. Likewise, the agreement doesn’t lead to dismantling the Arak reactor. The economic pressure on Iran would have led to a much better agreement that would have dismantled Iran’s nuclear capability.”

“We’re worried about the agreement but our job is to keep up the warnings,” said Yair Lapid, Israel’s Minister of Finance and part of Netanyahu’s coalition government. “We’re not comfortable but this warning needs to be done. We have six months until there is (hopefully) a better agreement.”

Yair Lapid repeated Israel’s right to self-defense stating, “I want to clarify that Israel will not let Iran develop nuclear military capability. We may be the only child in the room saying the king has no clothes but that’s what we must do.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avidgor Lieberman, told Israel Radio that “Israel will have to make a reassessment,” while acknowledging “all the options are on the table.”

“We are talking about the greatest diplomatic achievement for the Iranians,” Lieberman said. “We have to take our decision in a clear-eyed, independent manner, and we have to be serious enough to be responsible for our fate. Responsibility for the fate of the Jewish people and for the state of Israel lies with the Israeli government alone.”

The Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs, Intelligence and International Relations Yuval Steinitz, liken the Iran deal with the ill-conceived agreement between the world and North Korea, stating “like the failed agreement with North Korea, this agreement is likely to bring Iran closer to obtaining the bomb.”

“Israel cannot take part in the international celebration which is based on Iranian duplicity and self-deception,” Steinitz said.

(Also Read: Iran Agreement Reached With 6 World Powers)

Nafatali Bennett, the Minister of Economy and Commerce, said on Army Radio that world powers could have used the talks in Geneva that led to the deal to force Iran to give up its nuclear program rather than freeze it at a point where it can resume work at any time.

“Iran was on the mat because of the sanctions, but then the West picked it up and gave it something to drink. Israel does not have to be a party to this agreement and has the right to defend its security,” he said, alluding to possible military action. “The whole Middle East is affected but the danger to Israel is unique.”

“If five years from now a nuclear suitcase explodes in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the deal that was signed this morning,” Minister Naftali Bennett said.

In several Facebook posts no less, Israelis compared the Iran deal to the one made by former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who naively hatched the agreement with Nazi Germany in 1938, which did not prevent a world war and allowed the Nazi war machine to build to almost invincible proportions.

Josh Hasten, who hosts a political radio show, told USA TODAY that, “There is no doubt that the leaders in Iran are smiling this morning as they have been given a pass by the world community to maintain the option of building a nuclear weapon.”

He characterized the deal as an appeasement that will leave the entire world and not just Israel at risk of a nuclear Iran.

“It’s truly a major step in the wrong direction,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the

GENEVA (AP) — The French and Iranian foreign ministers said early Sunday that a deal between six world powers and Iran has been struck that curbs, or limits Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Yes, we have a deal,” as he walked past media reporters who were crowding the hotel lobby where formal continuous negotiations had taken place over the past five days.

When asked by media reporters in attendance if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said `’Yes” and gave reporters a thumbs up.

The goal of the negotiations was to outline the framework of an Iran agreement to freeze Iran’s nuclear program for six months, while offering the Iranians limited relief from what was just now becoming crippling economic sanctions for the regime. If the interim deal maintains lasting power, the parties involved will negotiate the final-stage Iran agreement to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

The deal only came after a personal intervention by Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as other foreign ministers whose stature had raised hopes for a breakthrough in what was a stalled effort.

(Also Read: Netanyahu Says ‘This Is A Bad Deal’ With Iran)

Diplomats refused to spell out details of the Iran agreement or negotiations that transpired up until and past midnight, finally concluding early Sunday.

People’s Pundit Daily previously reported on the inner working of the deal, and the administrations effort to delay sanction implementation to move the negotiations along.

Unfortunately, diplomats intimately familiar with the efforts to reach the Iran agreement refused to give the media details. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, characterized the talks as being in “their 11th hour,” with most issues resolved.

Nearly a decade of failed international efforts to halt Iran’s expanding nuclear program has led up to this moment for better or worse. The Iranian regime has held, despite all evidence to the contrary, its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and no motive is held that would lead to building nuclear weapons.

After September’s annual U.N. meeting a 15-minute phone conversation between Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, was the first time the two nations’ leaders had communicated directly after three decades of U.S.-Iranian silence.

The six world powers — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — were seeking to halt expansion of Iran’s enrichment program, including an end to enriching to a level that can be turned into warhead material within a matter of weeks.

The powers were aiming to increase oversight of Tehran’s nuclear program, which already consists of a reactor that can and will produce plutonium when completed. Just as thecae with enriched uranium, plutonium can arm nuclear warheads.

In return for these demands, the six world powers were offering Iran gradual and limited sanctions relief over a six month duration, which hinged upon Iran’s behavior and compliance. According to the framework, sanctions on oil exports and financial transactions — the most severe penalties — will be kept in place until a final deal is achieved after those six months, which is supposedly able to permanently reduce the dangers of proliferation from Iran’s nuclear activities.

Around 10:35 PM ET, President Obama addressed the American people at a press conference, stating that he has simultaneously been committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and coming to this Iran agreement.

(Also Read: Poll: Poll: Did The White House Lose The Faith of Israel?)

“For the first time in nearly a decade we have halted key parts of Iran’s nuclear program,” Obama said. They must halt their centrifuges and current ones must be limited.

“These are substantial limitations,” Obama claimed. “Because of this agreement, Iran cannot use negotiations to advance their nuclear program.”

The pressure caused by the most crippling sanctions will be minimized by relief provided through the deal, however. The president said that they will ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be for peaceful purposes.

There has been no response as of yet from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who just last week criticized the administration for accepting what he called “a bad deal” regarding the framework of the Iran agreement.

An Iran agreement has been hatched between

Religious freedom has scored another victory over the conscious-threatening mandate under ObamaCare, requiring faithfuls to provide pregnancy-terminating contraceptives. The victory for two Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses is the latest in a string of freedom of religion cases brought in front of federal courts.

The groups have won a delay in having to comply with controversial mandates in ObamaCare that would go against their religious values.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that forcing two Catholic schools and charities that are related to the schools to comply with parts of ObamaCare would result in a loss of donations and workers, and fines that would force some of the church programs to close down.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab for the Pittsburgh and Erie Catholic dioceses allows the two groups to ignore compliance with the mandate until their appeal reaches the higher courts. The dioceses, as well as other religious organizations, have objected to ObamaCare requiring that several forms of contraception, including sterilization, be provided along with employee health care plans.

It is these very Essential Health Benefit Standards that have been the center of controversy over the last couple weeks, as preposterous regulations cause insurers to dump millions of Americans who were happy with their plans.

Judge Schwab reasoned that the government would not be harmed by a delay in the case, but the dioceses on the other hand would be harmed, and would face a “substantial burden on their free exercise of religion” if they were forced to comply by January 1.

Schwab found that the contraceptive mandate would apply to some church organizations but not others, and that would cause a division within and for the church.

There have been 75 similar lawsuits filed against the government over ObamaCare, setting the stage for a final conclusion at the U.S. Supreme Court. Another notable case covered by People’s Pundit Daily involved Cherry Creek Mortgage, who also won a reprieve from the mandate.

Hobby Lobby Mardel Christian bookstore, as well, asked the high court to take up the case on October 22, after U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton granted them a temporary exemption.

The public policy arm of the Catholic Church in Michigan filed a in federal court on November 1. They, too, are challenging the federal mandate to provide contraception services under ObamaCare.

In the Pennsylvania case, the Department of Justice claimed that a plan to have third parties provide and pay for services such as birth control and abortion wouldn’t infringe on religious freedom rights.

But Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik testified before Schwab last week that he wouldn’t be able to live with himself if he signed a form that allowed the disputed services to be provided to employees, even by a third party. Zubik said the church is being asked to violate an important belief and a matter of conscience.

Religious freedom has scored another victory over

Medicaid coverage is offered as a part of the social safety net for the poor, but the care is substandard and not intended for Americans who are able to pay for better coverage. Yet several stories have emerged validating early claims made by the law’s critics, who foresaw a side-effect of ObamaCare that will force Americans who aren’t poor into Medicaid coverage.

One such story comes from a woman, whose daughter wrote about her mother’s experience in an article just this week in the Wall Street Journal, who was forced into substandard Medicaid coverage even though she didn’t want it and could purchase better coverage.

“How has it come to this?” Nicole Hopkins asked in the Wall Street Journal. Her mother Charlene was one of the 5 plus million Americans who had her insurance cancelled and shopped for a new insurance plan on the now-infamous HeathCare.gov.

Must to her dismay, the ObamaCare website only offered her one choice, substandard Medicaid coverage.

If she was poor it might have been a blessing, but Charlene Hopkins isn’t poor and doesn’t view herself as poor. Ms. Hopkins is visibly ashamed and clearly admonishes ObamaCare for forcing her to shamefully take what she believes to be a taxpayer funded hand-out. Charlene is proud to have led a life of independence and self-sufficiency, and now she feels as if ObamaCare is taking away her dignity.

Dignity and the traditional American ethic was par for the course on the Wisconsin farm where Charlene was raised by parents who refused to accept government assistance or handouts of their own. Her family was a part of another American generation that found their dignity in working hard and in helping others when they needed it.

“The pride is from being able to take care of yourself in all ways, and health insurance, for example, is just one of those things you do,” she says.

The story of Charlene Hopkins, which was first documented by Doug McKelway at Fox News, smashes the White House narrative that erroneously holds ObamaCare expands options.

It is a familiar, oft-made claim from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who just repeated it on Friday. “They’ll have choices they didn’t have in the past, including a range of options when it comes to levels of coverage,” Carney told reporters at the White House press conference.

But the idea that ObamaCare expands options to millions is not true, especially for those Americans receiving cancellation notices who have to settle for substandard Medicaid coverage.

James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center said, “the system will automatically sign them up for Medicaid, even if they don’t want to be on Medicaid. That’s what’s happening. So a lot of people are getting signed up for Medicaid just by virtue of what their income is.”

Fox News also reported on a Virginia family who asked if they could tell their story on the condition of anonymity. They showed Fox News documents proving their story of being forced into Medicaid coverage as the sole option.

The father outrageously owns a $5 million house, which is already paid for and the family owns three cars. Their kids attend expensive private schools, as well, yet though the father has amassed a fortune but has stopped working, he is considered by the ObamaCare website standards to have no income. His wife has just begun with a new start-up business, but as so many other businesses when starting up, her business has yet to produce profitable income.

The website put him on Medicaid, ignoring net worth figures. He didn’t exactly just let it go, and took to the ObamaCare chat area to alert costumer service. A screen shot of the dialogue given to Fox News reads: “Let 60 minutes show up in front of my 5 million dollars paid for house and tell America that this guy is on {Medicade} and that the American people are paying {fro} it!”

Still, a navigator replied, “I do understand your frustration, however I have no other options to offer.”

It has been established that Medicaid coverage provides substandard care. One such study cited by the report comes from the Manhattan Institute, when Avik Roy wrote in 2012, “Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die as those with private insurance; their hospital stays were 42 percent longer and cost 26 percent more.”

Another problem with Medicaid coverage is that most doctors refuse to even accept patients who have Medicaid coverage, because payments for reimbursements are too low. Yet another, is the lack of choice within Medicaid coverage, which does not give patients the option to get a second opinion if God-forbid one was to receive a cancer prognosis. And the list goes on and on.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis said, “One woman in Boston who was in Medicaid said she had to go through a list of 20 doctors before she found one who would see her. I asked if she was going through the Yellow Pages.” The woman told Goodman that she was just going through the list of doctors Medicaid coverage gave her to choose from.

“That tells you something about the standard of care on Medicaid,” Goodman said.

The CBO projects Medicaid spending will rise rapidly over the coming decade, which was a foundational argument for those who opposed the law. Why would lawmakers support a law that expands and builds upon already broken programs that needed reform before ObamaCare was added?

An aging population and rising costs per beneficiary will ensure Medicaid coverage will be even more substandard than it already is now in the future. The reports are flooding in around the country from those like the woman Goodman spoke with who was dealing with a very real, very scary doctor shortage.

It is unclear whether the administration’s motive was to increase dependence on the federal government, as seems to be the case with more than one program during the Obama administration, or if the forcing of willing and able paying Americans into Medicaid coverage is just another unforeseen side-effect of the mother of all central planning projects, ObamaCare.

Medicaid coverage is offered as a part

Nov. 22, 2013: GOP New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, left, talks to Cindy McCain, wife of GOP Sen. John McCain, at a forum in Phoenix, Ariz.AP

At the annual Republican Governors Association meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, top governors and potential 2016 presidential candidates say the focus for the party should be on 2014, not 2016.

Christie told those in attendance, “start thinking about 2016 at our own peril.” Gov. Chris Christie, the group’s new chairman, two weeks ago handily won reelection in Democrat-dominated New Jersey.

This year’s meeting for the Republican Governors Association saw a surprise visit from George W. Bush, the last Republican president to win the White House.

Washington incompetence and dysfunction was the theme to be sure, with the governors touting their very different, very productive and successful records. It was clear that they view their leadership at the state level the new model for a party searching for a way to return to power.

Bush sharing stories from his time as Texas governor and as president, underscored that message.

“He encouraged all of us and agrees, I believe, with us that the best breeding ground for presidents is the governors,” said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

In his role as the new Republican Governors Association chairman, Gov. Chris Christie will be raising money for other governors, hyping party activists and smoozing financial donors for 2014.

The political environment will be a benefit for Christie. The most competitive governors’ races are in states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all states where any future Republican nominee would need national stature. For any embattled governor, Christie’s help could later translate into a future favor and alliance.

Democrats have telegraphed a strategy, which includes attempting to exploit such relationships and attaching Christie, who they view as their most dangerous 2016 opponent, to governors with less star power.

Adding to a message he has been pushing, Gov. Bobby Jindal pushed a message of policy substance over other considerations. The man who said the party needed to stop being the party of stupid, said Republicans need message discipline to define what they’re for,because they cannot just say what they’re against.

Gov. Bobby Jindal passed his role as chairman of the organization and stressed the party’s need to focus on policy and tone. For many who do not know, Jindal is a former congressman and Bush administration health policy expert. Drawing on that experience, Jindal said ObamaCare problems were “a design problem” rather than just poor implementation.

Furthermore, he stressed the fact that Republicans need to put out alternatives, offering ideas such as ensuring people can buy insurance policies across state lines, pooling costs and offering tax credits.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a former congressman who served as chairman of the House Budget Committee, criticized those in his former position on dealing with healthcare and budget issues.

Kasich was clearly upset with the tactic involving the government shutdown, and voiced his support for a federal amendment to the Constitution that would require Congress to balance the federal budget.

Kasich also said Obama’s overhaul was “really HillaryCare,” noting the former first lady’s failed role in efforts to overhaul healthcare during the 1990s.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry joked about his gaffes during the presidential nomination in 2012, and when Kasich suggested that Republicans needed to reform the way it conducts presidential debates, Gov. Perry clapped and yelled, “Hell yeah!”

Other Republican governors note that in all seriousness, Gov. Perry’s economic record is serious. Republican governors pointed to Perry’s job record in Texas as a model to run on, and Perry argued the need to talk to “people’s hearts” on issues like immigration.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — for better or worse — wasn’t in Arizona. Instead, he was promoting his new book, “Unintimidated,” about his fight with public-sector unions and victory in a union-backed recall election.

People’s Pundit Daily reported on the stories of death threats that are outlined in his new book. People’s Pundit Daily political analysis has Walker a candidate favorite for the 2016 dark horse.

Republican donors support him and he is a candidate who could be supported by all of the party’s rival factions.

At the annual Republican Governors Association meeting,

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial