Iranian deal and Obamacare: Is there a connection?

By Jim Killebrew

[November 25, 2013]  I saw in the news a report regarding the new agreement the president's secretary of state, John Kerry, negotiated with Iran and foreign ministers of some European countries, Russia and China. In summary, the Iranians basically will not do anything except promise to discontinue working on building nuclear bombs, which they had denied doing all along. The cost of the agreement, which will be shared by the Americans, includes billions of dollars in cash, billions of dollars worth of gold, billions in petrochemicals, a boatload of automobiles, more enriched uranium that will help Iran continue to produce a nuclear bomb, thousands more centrifuges and at least one plutonium reactor.

As many Americans collectively scratch their heads regarding such a deal for the Iranians and why we would negotiate such a deal with so little in return, we need to examine the process by drawing a larger circle around the possible intent of this outcome.

Most Americans are aware that the president's health care law, known as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has failed to produce the implementation results the administration wanted. The website has not worked since the rollout on Oct. 1, and the younger people, who would pay more in premiums, are not signing up for the new insurance in sufficient quantities as the administration had planned to offset the higher cost of the older population and the group with pre-existing illness that produce high costs of usage. Even the liberal media outlets have turned against the plan, which has ultimately been delayed for implementation until two weeks post-2014 midterm election. That will have a real effect on the results of the election, with the blunting of the negative forces against Obamacare at least until after people have voted.

Of course, normally one would not be able to draw a correlating line between the deal the administration gave to Iran and the failure of Obamacare, except for the president's legacy he hoped to garner with the passage and implementation of Obamacare, unless the president is looking for another legacy irrespective of his health care law.

It might be easy to jump to a conclusion that he thinks the negotiated deal with Iraq will be successful. Successful in that the Iranians will immediately stop trying to develop nuclear weapons, soften their stand on annihilating Israel, call off their jihad-supporting of terror around the world, cease their call for the fall of the "Great Satan" America and begin cooperating as a member of the world community as a good neighbor. Most leaders in the world see little hope in that coming about. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, "This is a very, very bad deal."

So what is the possible connection between Obamacare and the deal with Iran? The other day with the panel on Fox News' "The Five" at 5 p.m., Bob Beckel, one of the co-hosts, made a statement. The panel had been discussing a segment of former President George W. Bush's appearance on Jay Leno's show. Leno had opened the topic by lobbing a softball comment to former President Bush that would have allowed him to bash the Obamacare debacle. Instead, the former president took the opportunity to specifically not criticize the current president or his administration. He showed himself a class act by not taking the opportunity.

That led the panel to discuss other former presidents who are still living and their practice of bashing Mr. Bush when he was holding the office. The panel members concluded President Bush's behavior was commendable. This led to a short set of comments about President Obama still being so young and what he will do when he leaves the office. It was then that the co-host, Beckel, made an offhanded comment that opened a tremendous light on possible future events.

Beckel, a Democrat strategist, managed the Carter election and worked in that administration. He continues to be heavily involved in the "insider" workings of the Democrat party. He usually speaks very consistently with the "talking points" that Democrats throughout the hierarchy speak regarding any issues that are being discussed on any given news-cycle day. Therefore, when Bob Beckel makes a statement regarding future directions of the Democratic Party or statement positions regarding any specific Democrat position issue being discussed, it is fairly certain he has been apprised of the general position the party has taken.

To the question posed by panel members on that day regarding what the young President Obama would likely be doing after his presidency in order to establish and sustain his legacy, Beckel said even without thinking, "secretary general of the United Nations." What a flood of light that statement cascaded over the current actions of the president. For someone who seemingly wants to be involved in the "new world order" and fundamentally change America to join a league of nations around the world, what better way to ingratiate himself to a group of nations that hold the power of peace in the Middle East, or the weakening of Western culture?

With each bow to world leaders, each concession to those who hate America, each weakening blow to the economy of America and each alignment with enemies and against allies, what better resume could he have to make a play for the job of secretary general of the United Nations?

[By JIM KILLEBREW]