Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An new crock of Leftist .... stuff...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An new crock of Leftist .... stuff...

    Some idiot law professor thinks (if you can call it that)...

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...dI?ocid=SMSDHP

    “They probably were in violation of the act, yes,” says Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the American University Washington College of Law.
    On the other hand, when the Left does it that's okay...

    The obscure, unenforced act periodically becomes a topic of conversation, such as when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2007
    So, an irrelevancy in the news...

  • #2
    The treaty Obama wants to sign is the real treason, but I will get to that later.

    For all of those tossing the word treason around in response to the Republicans daring to question and oppose Obama, this isn't the first time an elected official other than the President has made contact in order to negotiate with a foreign leader.

    1. Kerry Fondly Reminisces About Time He Aided Communist Guerrillas

    It’s always great to hear old radicals reminiscing about the time they helped undermine America. It’s even better when they have risen to become Secretary of State. With Kerry, America has its own version of Joschka Fischer. The problem is that America didn’t need a Joschka Fischer or a Joschka Kerry.

    By issues of “conflict resolution”, Kerry means he tried to stop President Reagan from aiding the rebels against the Communist regime by falsely claiming that the Sandinistas weren’t Communists and were willing to live in peace with us as long as we stopped aiding the Contras.


    Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgr...st-guerrillas/

    Undermine America, undermine the President, lie to achieve his end. Sounds like standard fare for Mr. I Threw Someone Else's Medals Over The White House Fence To Protest The Vietnam War.



    Note that next to Kerry in this picture is Tom Harkin. The trip was so Kerry could negotiate with Daniel Ortega for Congress to reject aid to the Contras, all to block President Reagan's efforts in the region.

    2. Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

    Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

    Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

    Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

    Source: http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted...-robinson.html

    Kennedy was willing to meet with a foreign leader in order to sell out both his President and his country, all to advance his own political ambitions. As stated, when Reagan was calling the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, Kennedy was willing to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

    3. Pelosi Defies Bush, Meets Syrian Leader

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the White House on Mideast policy, meeting with Syria's leader Wednesday and insisting "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." The Bush administration criticized the visit, saying she was following a road lined with victims of terror.

    ...

    Pelosi and a delegation of five congressional Democrats and Ohio Republican Dave Hobson met for three hours with Assad, including a lunch with him in Damascus' historic Old City


    Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pelosi-d...syrian-leader/

    The second paragraph is the most telling. Bush was attempting to marginalize the Assad government due in part to its brutality. Pelosi ignored that and went behind his back. However as soon as Obama was elected, Pelosi changed her mind.

    Pelosi’s Dance With Assad

    Pelosi seemed to enjoy a good relationship with Assad, when she rejected President George W. Bush’s recommendation to not meet with Syria’s dictator. In 2007, Pelosi ignored the Bush administration’s foreign policies and met with one of the most authoritarian leaders of the world— one who has ruled Syria by killings, torture and oppression. Later, though, Pelosi praised Assad by stating, “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” This rhetoric, these remarks, and the trip to Damascus itself further legitimized Assad’s rule, not only domestically but also regionally and internationally.

    If Pelosi’s logic and doctrine suggest that unilateral military actions should be avoided, diplomatic efforts should be exhausted and a legitimate case should be made to the American people on the use of military force, then how could Pelosi justify supporting a military strike in Syria?

    Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/maj...s-assad-dance/

    She, and everyone else, can justify it easily. Bush was to be opposed in all things regardless of how that opposition affected either America or the American people, and Obama is to be supported in all things regardless of how that support affects either America or the American people. So one day Pelosi is Assad's friend and the next she wants to strike him from existence.

    Many on the left want to cry and wail concerning this letter but the Republicans who signed it are doing nothing which Democrats haven't previously done, doing nothing which violates the Constitution, and are working in defense of the American people. Obama's treaty proposal should be the topic of conversation, as it serves no purpose other than to strengthen Iran and undermine security both in the region and in America.

    How Obama Is Giving Iran a Nuclear Arsenal

    Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly objects to the treaty that the Obama administration is making with Iran concerning its nuclear program. He has good reason to be alarmed. Here is why.

    ...


    Iranian centrifuges now have a capacity of 5 SWU per year each. The regime is working on upgrading this to 24 SWU each, a figure that would match American centrifuge performance. Even if we assume that they will remain unable to reach that goal, the 6,500 centrifuges permitted by the treaty will still give Iran a capacity of 32,500 SWU per year. Examining the table above, we see that while producing 17 bombs from 0.7-percent-enriched natural uranium would require a total of about 75,000 SWU, if the first step of enrichment to 4 percent has already been accomplished, then only 17,000 SWU would be required. Thus, after allowing creation of a large stockpile of 4 percent U235, the 32,500-SWU-per-year enrichment capability that the Obama treaty will grant Iran would allow it to transform that stockpile into first-class nuclear bombs at a rate of 32 per year.

    Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-robert-zubrin

    Obama's treaty with Iran has been called surrender, and considering what it allows Iran to do that is an apt description. Yesterday on FOX News Bill Hemmer asked John Bolton about the letter to Iran, specifically about the charge of treason leveled against the Republicans who authored and signed it. Bolton replied:

    "That's ridiculous. Senators and members of the House opine on foreign policy all the time. There's a long tradition of it in this country. And in any event we're arguing about the wrong thing. Let's talk about Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the fact that the deal the administration is very close to signing will essentially legitimatize politically this terror-supporting regime. It will legitimatize Iran's ability to enrich uranium and get itself involved in other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. It will not address weaponization. It will not address ballistic missile delivery systems. This deal is an act of surrender. That's what we ought to be talking about."

    Bolton is right. Without nuclear weapons Iran already exerts some level of control, or at least great influence, over the Shiite militias in Iraq, Assad in Syria, and Hezbollah. Iran also backs the Houthis in Yemen.

    "Yemeni officials and diplomats say the Houthis, now led by Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, 33, are backed by Iran. The Houthis deny that link, but the Yemeni authorities have seized ships carrying Iranian weapons that they say were being sent to the Houthis."

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/wo...-of-yemen.html

    With nuclear weapons Iran will become the dominant power in the Middle East, not a stabilizing force. The leadership of Iran has previously articulated its desire to wipe Israel from the map. Nuclear weapons would certainly put that goal within easy reach. It isn't like Iran is that fond of the US either:

    Iran Hints at Nuclear Deal Amid Death to America Chants

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/...hants-28895145



    Amid all the vile rhetoric concerning a letter sent by 47 Republicans the question of the danger posed by Obama's manic need to sign a deal with Iran regardless of what it eventually cost not only America but the world goes largely ignored. And why are we paying Iran for the process of negotiating?

    U.S. to Award Iran $11.9 Billion Through End of Nuke Talks

    The Obama administration on Wednesday paid $490 million in cash assets to Iran and will have released a total of $11.9 billion to the Islamic Republic by the time nuclear talks are scheduled to end in June, according to figures provided by the State Department.

    Today’s $490 million release, the third such payment of this amount since Dec. 10, was agreed to by the Obama administration under the parameters of another extension in negotiations over Tehran’s contested nuclear program that was inked in November.


    Senators—including Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), and John Cornyn (R., Texas)—sought last year to put a hold on the cash infusions until the White House could certify that Iran was not using the money to support terrorism.

    Source: http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...of-nuke-talks/

    As if the administration would care about that. Regardless, the Obama administration is paying Iran for the pleasure of negotiating a nuclear treaty which allows them to develop nuclear weapons to use however they feel. And all anyone wants to talk about is a letter sent by 47 Republicans who have finally shown a little bit of backbone and tried to stand up to another idiotic Obama foreign policy blunder.

    Those concessions, Netanyahu argued, make this a "very bad deal" that "would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them."

    It's hard to disagree. Obama's position is apparently that the Iranians won't agree to anything more stringent. The president seems to be suffering from the compulsion afflicting some parties to a lengthy negotiation: the urge to get to some kind of agreement, however disadvantageous.


    Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ew_125847.html

    I doubt many who automatically support the treaty sought by Obama have considered much past the because Obama phase, but perhaps they should.



    Due to length the Constitutional issue will have to be addressed in a second post.

    Comment


    • #3
      I suppose those touting the Logan Act never bothered to read this:

      Article 2 - The Executive Branch - Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

      What this means is the President may engage in treaty negotiations but he alone does not have the authority to commit the nation to an agreement without a vote in the Senate. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all treaties made are considered inferior to its jurisdiction.

      However:

      How Obama Will Bypass Congress On His Iranian Nuclear Arms Deal

      Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave up trying to change President Obama's mind about a nuclear deal with Iran long ago. He knows Obama is determined cut a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons, at any price, on the belief that Tehran will then become a reliable ally in the region.

      ...

      How can Obama sign a nuclear arms deal with Iran without submitting that agreement to the Senate?

      The same way that Obama has rewritten federal immigration and education law without Congress: by expanding executive power.


      Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncar...roval-n1964687

      In this grand process the only person potentially violating the law is Obama, by once again bypassing the Congress to get what he wants. I don't recall electing a dictator.

      Alexander Hamilton once said: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States." Bypassing the Senate to enact this treaty would be infringing upon the power of the Constitution. But that hasn't stopped Obama yet.

      In context of the overall issue the Logan Act is suddenly worth discussing. It wasn't when Pelosi and Kennedy and Kerry and Fonda made their efforts to negotiate with foreign leaders, but now it is. As has been previously stated, the Logan Act is not the Constitution and does not supersede the Constitution. It states:

      "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

      However this isn't the hammer many want it to be.

      From: The CRS Report for Congress, Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority: The Logan Act, February 1, 2006:

      The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.

      Source: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

      The key words are "without authority." It has previously been established Senators have the authority to engage in discussion with foreign officials. From the same source:

      "A search of statements issued by the State Department concerning the Logan Act from 1975 to the present has found two opinions in the DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, continued, beginning in 1980, with a column in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. In these instances the Department did not consider the activities in question to be inconsistent with the Logan Act. One opinion concerned the questioning of certain activities of Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern with respect to the government of Cuba. The Department stated:

      "The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

      McGovern went to Cuba to show his support for Castro. They seemed to get along so well...



      If McGovern going to Cuba isn't a violation of the Logan Act, neither is this letter written by 47 Republicans. From the same source:

      "In a number of instances, people have been alleged, often by political opponents, to have violated the Logan Act. For example, critics have suggested that Ross Perot’s efforts to find missing American servicemen in Southeast Asia have violated the Logan Act. Critics alleged that former House Speaker Jim Wright violated the Logan Act in his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984 while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President, Reverend Jesse Jackson went to Syria to help in the release of a captured American military flyer and to Cuba and Nicaragua. The trips by Reverend Jackson occasioned comments from a number of people, most notably from President Reagan, that Reverend Jackson had violated the Logan Act. Other private citizens, such as Jane Fonda, have made trips which have been criticized as violative of the Logan Act, but there have apparently been no official sanctions taken in any of these instances."

      Regardless of any of this, violation of the Logan Act is not treason, as the act itself never uses or cites that language.

      How can you use a law to charge treason when that law doesn't even include the stipulation violating it is treason? The Constitution defines treason, not the Logan Act.

      From the letter written by Congressional Republicans:

      "First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

      This is what the Constitution specifies.

      Rep. King on Iran Nuke Deal: ‘If It's a Treaty, You Have To Go To The Senate’

      Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) said the nuclear deal President Barack Obama is negotiating with Iran, if it is a treaty, should be submitted to the Senate for a ratification vote, which would require two-thirds of the senators to vote in favor for it to pass, as required by the Constitution.

      He added that if it is an "executive agreement," then "it should go to the House and Senate.”


      Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mich...have-go-senate

      Comment


      • #4
        Maobama will just get the UN Security Council to ratify our surrender to the Islamofascist Iranian Empire.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          You forgot Kerry's acting as a private citizen meeting with the VC and North Vietnamese as part of his VVAW days in Paris for "Peace talks." That is an even clearer violation of US law... A private citizen acting as a diplomat...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            You forgot Kerry's acting as a private citizen meeting with the VC and North Vietnamese as part of his VVAW days in Paris for "Peace talks." That is an even clearer violation of US law... A private citizen acting as a diplomat...
            And he is still acting (posing) as a diplomat.
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Some idiot law professor thinks (if you can call it that)...

              http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...dI?ocid=SMSDHP



              On the other hand, when the Left does it that's okay...



              So, an irrelevancy in the news...
              Largest example of this might be the late Charlie Wilson, Democratic Congressman from Texas,

              EXCERPTS;
              ...
              Charles Nesbitt "Charlie" Wilson (June 1, 1933 – February 10, 2010) was a United States naval officer and former 12-term Democratic United States Representative from Texas's 2nd congressional district.
              Wilson is best known for leading Congress into supporting Operation Cyclone, the largest-ever Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert operation which, under the Carter and Reagan administration, supplied military equipment including anti-aircraft weapons such as Stinger antiaircraft missiles and paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Division to the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. His behind-the-scenes campaign was the subject of the non-fiction book Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History by George Crile III and the subsequent film Charlie Wilson's War starring Tom Hanks as Wilson.
              ...
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles..._politician%29


              What didn't get enough focus(IMO) in the movie but was in Crile's book, was Wilson's own "foreign policy" efforts in brokering arms and finance deals with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, PRChina and Pakistan to funnel the flow of weapons and cash to the Afghanistan war against the Soviet occupiers. Charlie was a one-man unofficial 'State Dept.' with connections and clout not often possible via official channels.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                Largest example of this might be the late Charlie Wilson, Democratic Congressman from Texas,

                EXCERPTS;
                ...
                Charles Nesbitt "Charlie" Wilson (June 1, 1933 – February 10, 2010) was a United States naval officer and former 12-term Democratic United States Representative from Texas's 2nd congressional district.
                Wilson is best known for leading Congress into supporting Operation Cyclone, the largest-ever Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert operation which, under the Carter and Reagan administration, supplied military equipment including anti-aircraft weapons such as Stinger antiaircraft missiles and paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Division to the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. His behind-the-scenes campaign was the subject of the non-fiction book Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History by George Crile III and the subsequent film Charlie Wilson's War starring Tom Hanks as Wilson.
                ...
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles..._politician%29


                What didn't get enough focus(IMO) in the movie but was in Crile's book, was Wilson's own "foreign policy" efforts in brokering arms and finance deals with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, PRChina and Pakistan to funnel the flow of weapons and cash to the Afghanistan war against the Soviet occupiers. Charlie was a one-man unofficial 'State Dept.' with connections and clout not often possible via official channels.
                At least he was working in the interests of the US... I'm not sure Obama the Ignorant is...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  At least he was working in the interests of the US... I'm not sure Obama the Ignorant is...
                  Underscores the subjective selectivity of your OP.

                  Wilson is the sort whom likely couldn't be a "Democrat" in current US politics, he'd have to be a "RINO".

                  Barry is the tool/fool of Crony Capitalism/Corps that want monopoly and 'statist' support - such as General Electric positioning to be the "dealer" of "carbon credits" should ACC/AGW get political traction resulting in more regs against CO2 emissions.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X