Israel – Iran – #NetanyahuSpeech To The American Congress: A Churchill Moment

Update: Obama tried to shut today’s speech down. But Netanyahu knows how to handle thugs. As Purim looms, Netanyahu stands strong and the Obama attacks have only made this speech more important. Now, everyone is watching and posting on this. Open thread: Leader of the free world speaks to joint session of Congress. The entire political world is watching. Obama has even set up a bogus event to try and steal the spotlight from Netanyahu but as is usual with Obama, he fails.

The Netanyahu speech at 10:45 a.m. ET (it will probably start closer to 11:00) can be viewed here:



Jeffrey Goldberg has attacked the Netanyahu speech too and is not happy it is being delivered at all. Still Goldberg has some comments to be taken seriously:

I’m fairly sure Netanyahu will deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition.

The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me—or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis—with confidence. Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium (a “right” that doesn’t actually exist in international law); it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I’m more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.)

Goldberg also lists some of the dangers for and lies of Barack Obama:

This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them—if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people. [snip]

On Israel, here’s the promise Obama made that stays with me the most: “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” he said. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli government recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” He went on to say four words that have since become famous: “We’ve got Israel’s back.”

Netanyahu obviously believes that Obama doesn’t have his, or Israel’s, back. There will be no convincing Netanyahu that Obama is anything but a dangerous adversary. But if a consensus forms in high-level Israeli security circles (where there is a minimum of Obama-related hysterics) that the president has agreed to a weak deal, one that provides a glide path for Iran toward the nuclear threshold, then we will be able to say, fairly, that Obama’s promises to Israel were not kept. One of Netanyahu’s most strident critics, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, said recently, “A nuclear Iran is a reality that Israel won’t be able to come to terms with.”

He went on to say, “Two issues in particular concern me with respect to the talks between the world powers and Iran: What happens if and when the Iranians violate the agreement, and what happens when the period of the agreement comes to an end and they decide to pursue nuclear weapons?

—————————————————–

History questions: How could this have happened? How could they have been so stupid? How could they have been so blind? How could they not see what was so very obvious? How could they have stood by and not taken action?

When we look to the past we have many questions such as those above. Sometimes we can understand the confusion of policy makers at the time or we realize that the issues were complicated and the best answers not easy to arrive at. But sometimes the truth is obvious and the answer so glaringly there to see that our questions amount to “How could they not have seen? How could they not done what was necessary?”

As an example, Adolf Hitler broke the Versailles Treaty on purpose when he ordered the occupation of the Rhineland. Hitler knew his was a monumental gamble and that if so much as a handgun was raised in opposition to his provocation his reign was over. “If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs” he wrote after the episode he further described as “the most nerve-racking 48 hours of his life.” Hitler won his gamble.

What happened? Britain and France were war weary after the lost lives and calamities of the Great War we now know as World War I. The ongoing world-wide Great Depression further sapped the strength and will of these nations. Both countries were lost in a dream of peace and appeasement, and a politics of denial and pacifism. One voice did not engage in denial of reality:

Among the public men of influence, only Churchill recognized the profound peril to the world that the Nazis and Fascists represented. He spoke out in Parliament, on the radio, in his newspaper columns, anywhere and everywhere, demanding the government wake up and prepare. [snip]

The men who were, the prime ministers and party leaders, not only disagreed with Churchill but considered him a loose cannon and an annoyance. [snip]

In 1934, in scenes reminiscent of the best spy dramas, Churchill held clandestine meetings at Chartwell, where he was briefed on the actual situation in Germany by the government and military men in his network, men in positions low enough to be without policy-making influence but high enough to know the true facts and statistics being developed (and be in despair at the lack of response from the government). With this information, Churchill shocked Parliament by revealing the true figures of German military production, figures many colleagues refused to believe. [snip]

On March 7, 1936, Hitler invaded the demilitarized Rhineland, which action conflicted with and basically tore up the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I. Hitler chose that date knowing that Ministers of Parliament would be unavailable on that day; the British ruling class was accustomed “to take its weekends in the country,” criticized Churchill, while “Hitler takes his countries in the weekends.” Churchill understood the meaning of this invasion, saying “An enormous triumph has been gained by the Nazi regime,” and stating “The German Army is a dagger pointed at the heart of France.” But many in Britain saw this as Hitler simply getting his own.

Like Obama at the golf course as Americans are beheaded British leadership at the time did not want to listen to the voices which counseled urgent action. To Obama events in the Middle East and attacks against Israel are Arabs/Muslims ‘getting their own.” That is why to Obama who once aspired to be the “Arab’s lawyer” against Israel – it is Netanyahu who is the warmonger. In the 1930s Neville Chamberlain claimed “The real danger to this country is Winston. He is the warmonger, not Hitler.”

Winston Churchill in the political wilderness was not deceived nor beaten down by reality. Churchill said what needed to be said as the darkness gathered:

“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness…We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. Do not let us blind ourselves to that…I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost…the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defenses; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war…And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” [snip]

“Chamberlain had the choice between war and shame. Now he has chosen shame – he’ll get war later.”

Like Churchill, the Prime Minister of Israel has some harsh realities to convey to the American Congress. In this Netanyahu is aided by the vivid brutalities of those that want to destroy Israel.

Netanyahu speaks to America as ISIS thugs seek to destroy civilization and the artifacts of civilization:

Isis militants have reportedly ransacked Mosul library, burning over a hundred thousand rare manuscripts and documents spanning centuries of human learning.

Initial reports said approximately 8,000 books were destroyed by the extremist group.

However, AL RAI’s chief international correspondent Elijah J. Magnier told The Independent that a Mosul library official believes as many as 112,709 manuscripts and books, some of which were registered on a UNESCO rarities list, are among those lost.

Mosul Public Library’s director Ghanim al-Ta’an said Isis militants then demolished the building using explosive devices.

The Muslim thugs seek to destroy not only the written word:

The militants shoved [ancient Assyrian] stone statues off their plinths, shattering them on the floor, and one man applied an electric drill to a large winged bull. The video showed a large exhibition room strewn with dismembered statues, and Islamic songs played in the background.

Lamia al-Gailani, an Iraqi archaeologist and associate fellow at the London-based Institute of Archaeology, said the militants had wreaked untold damage. “It’s not only Iraq’s heritage: it’s the whole world’s,” she said.

“They are priceless, unique. It’s unbelievable. I don’t want to be Iraqi any more,” she said, comparing the episode to the dynamiting of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Afghan Taliban in 2001.

These are monsters that hate Israel and want to destroy the heritage and the institutions of the West.



Muslim thugs are literally devouring their enemies:

A British man who went to fight with the Kurds against Islamic State has claimed the terror group fed a desperate mother a meal of meat and rice before revealing she had eaten her own son. Yasir Abdulla, 36, from Yorkshire said that the woman had appealed to IS to release her son when they tricked her.

Adbulla told The Sun the woman was offered a seat at IS headquarters, then given a drink along with cooked meat and rice. At first she thought they were being generous, but when she finished the meal they revealed the cooked meat was the flesh of her son, whom they had murdered earlier.

These animals seek to destroy Israel and all Western civilization. They will then rule.

As if borrowing from Chamberlain, Iran claims Netanyahu is the warmonger:

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator said on Saturday that “scaremongering” by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu won’t stop the Islamic Republic and world powers from reaching a final nuclear deal.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the world should not allow the hard-line Israeli leader to undermine peace. He was referring to Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next week on the emerging nuclear deal that he considers dangerous.

“Through scaremongering, falsification, propaganda and creating a false atmosphere even inside other countries, [Israel] is attempting to prevent peace,” Zarif told reporters during a joint news conference with his Italian counterpart, Paolo Gentiloni. “I believe that these attempts are in vain and should not impede reaching a [nuclear] agreement.”

Barack Obama is allied with Iran to stop Israel:

Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the US Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the US and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, the White House said on Saturday.

“The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran. If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House’s National Security Council.

We’re not surprised by Barack Hussein Obama’s nuclear alliance with Iran. We recall Obama, the Arabs’ lawyer in 2010:

President Barack Obama’s relations with the Israeli government have hit a new low, but the tensions on display this week between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be reviving another presidential project: Obama’s quest to improve America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world. [snip]

Now, Obama’s return to the question of Israel’s continuing construction in East Jerusalem has signaled an acceptance of some Arab criticism of Israel. At the same time, Obama’s willingness to cross swords with the Israelis comes at a domestic political cost: The pro-Israel group AIPAC released a letter Friday with the signatures of three-quarters of the members of the House, pressing the administration to retreat from public confrontation. [snip]

Obama’s new focus, and the intense pressure his administration has placed on Netanyahu, have stirred deep concern among Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill, they say, because it represents an acceptance of the Arab narrative that Israeli intransigence lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. And some observers see it in the context of a subtle, but major, shift in American strategy toward resolving it. [snip]

The new model drawing attention from Democratic foreign policy hands, he said, is to build support among Arab leaders for a U.S. plan and then present that to Israel — to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer, rather than as Israel’s, in one formulation used to describe the effort in the region.

That is what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is up against. Obama sees his role as one that is “to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer” and prosecute Israel.

Towards that end Obama Dimocrats seek to boycott Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday morning.

On Tuesday morning, Obama, “the Arabs’ lawyer” will do all in his power to silence the voice of Netanyahu:

Showing a graphic he said depicted Iran’s training, arming and dispatching of terrorists on five continents, Netanyahu said Iranians’ “tentacles of terror” reached across the world.

“This is what Iran is doing now – without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons. And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal,” he said. “And as prime minister of Israel, I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them.”

Like Churchill’s summation of the Nazi threat, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu warns about the threat which confronts the world today:

When Netanyahu walks to the podium of the House of Representatives on March 3, he’ll undoubtedly have in mind an earlier speech given by a foreign leader to a joint meeting of Congress. On December 26, 1941, Winston Churchill addressed Congress, though in the smaller Senate Chamber rather than in the House, as so many members were out of town for Christmas break.

Churchill enjoyed the great advantage in December 1941 of having an American president who, after Pearl Harbor, was a clear and unambiguous ally in the war for the West. Netanyahu has no such advantage. So it might be hard for him to say, as Churchill did, that here in Washington he had “found an Olympian fortitude which, far from being based upon complacency, is only the mask of an inflexible purpose and the proof of a sure, well-grounded confidence in the final outcome.”

But Netanyahu won’t be speaking only to the Obama administration, which has, after all, made clear its lack of interest in listening to Netanyahu and whose allies won’t be there to listen. He’ll be speaking to the American people.

Netanyahu’s speech to the American Congress will will be the same speech Winston Churchill repeatedly gave to Great Britain in those years before the Second World War. Netanyahu will quote Churchill and say “There is a great danger in refusing to believe things you do not like.”

On Tuesday, March 3, at 10:45 a.m. Netanyahu will tell the American Congress and the American People many things we will not like. What Netanyahu will say is things we need to hear.

Share

157 thoughts on “Israel – Iran – #NetanyahuSpeech To The American Congress: A Churchill Moment

  1. If this was any other American president we would say the story is a lie. But with Obama occupation of the White House it is possibly true (even if badly sourced):

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPRXZ-F2CUQ

    The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

    Following Obama’s threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

    According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

    The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

    The plan to shoot down Israeli planes was first proposed by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

    “We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.

  2. Scott Walker stands by Israel:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414643/standing-our-friends-standing-our-enemies-scott-walker

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress this week. We should listen closely as he raises legitimate concerns about Iran — giving him and his country the respect worthy of a close ally. Instead, President Obama and some Democrats have chosen to use this visit as a political football. This is exactly what Americans dislike about Washington. Lost amidst the petty squabbling in our nation’s capital over protocol is the simple fact that the U.S.–Israel relationship is in crisis, perhaps the most serious crisis in our history. While implementing policy that rewards Israel’s enemies, the Obama administration has been questioning the prime minister’s motives and attempting to undermine his message. Stop the pettiness. We must repair the ruptured bonds between our two countries.

    The U.S.–Israel partnership has historically been a rare point of bipartisan consensus. Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East. Our countries share common democratic values, our governments work together daily to confront security threats, and our citizens are bound together by shared history, culture, and blood. This alliance has withstood wars, diplomatic crises, and personal tensions. Until President Obama, all U.S. presidents were dedicated to working out legitimate disagreements between our two governments in order to advance our common interests. This president has chosen a different course. He has been uniquely indifferent to Israel’s concerns and uniquely accommodating to Israel’s enemies. Consider the most important point of contention in the U.S.–Israel relationship today: the Iran nuclear challenge. Prime Minister Netanyahu comes to Washington not to provoke the president, but to ring the alarm bells. He has legitimate security concerns regarding the type of deal he sees taking shape. In his view, this deal is likely to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state and provide the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Such a deal presents an existential threat to Israel. And at a time of extreme anxiety in Jerusalem, the president has reportedly ceased communicating with the Israeli security establishment while writing to Ayatollah Khamenei, supreme leader of a regime that repeatedly calls for Israel’s destruction. We must not allow this relationship to deteriorate any further. So what do we do? First, the president and his advisers must treat the prime minister of a longstanding ally with the respect that he deserves and stop playing politics. The second step is for the United States and Israel to work out parameters of a comprehensive nuclear agreement that are acceptable to both sides. And finally we must work to rehabilitate our traditional alliance structure in the Middle East, creating a bulwark capable of resisting Iranian aggression. Our national security depends on it. For all of our allies in the region, Arab as well as Israeli, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are just one part of its broader assault on the regional order, an order that depends on U.S. leadership. If the president continues to call into doubt our friendship with Israel while seeking rapprochement with Iran, he will harm more than just the U.S.–Israeli relationship. He will undermine the trust of our remaining friends and partners in the Middle East. In addition to warm relations with Israel, we also need the cooperation of the Sunni Arab states in order to destroy radical Islamic terrorists and stabilize the region, and the Sunni Arab states are as threatened by Iran’s deadly designs as Israel is. Strong leadership in the White House is the missing ingredient. Today our alliances are not sound because our allies question our commander-in-chief’s resolve and commitment to their security. We cannot afford to be passive spectators while the world descends into chaos. America must stand with our friends and stand up to our enemies. Then and only then can our standing in the Middle East and throughout the world improve and with it our own security.

  3. again…whose side is he on?

    the only people O likes are the ones that are genuflecting and idolizing him…anyone that disagrees or has a different POV is demonized…and ridiculed…

    how many more days?

  4. the irony is that O has made such a big deal about N speaking and how destructive his speech is…and his spokesperson, Josh, says he did not listen to today’s speech and probably will not have time to listen to tomorrow’s speech in Congress…

    so the speech is so destructive and earth shattering that O doesn’t even have the time…or respectful courtesy to listen to it…

    because he doesn’t want to hear reality…

  5. Adbulla told The Sun the woman was offered a seat at IS headquarters, then given a drink along with cooked meat and rice. At first she thought they were being generous, but when she finished the meal they revealed the cooked meat was the flesh of her son, whom they had murdered earlier.

    ————

    What monsters, I can’t even imagine the lasting pain this mother will go though for this.

  6. We hope Hillary attends the Netanyahu speech and precludes this:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-ad-attacks-clinton-over-silence-on-netanyahu-speech/

    The ad was financed by “The Emergency Committee for Israel,” a group founded by William Kristol, the Jewish-American editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine.

    The video starts by criticizing President Obama for holding “secret talks” with Iran and accuses the US leader and “anti-Israel Democrats” of boycotting Netanyahu during his visit to Washington next week.

    It then asks why Clinton has not commented on the issue. As the apparent front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, the ad asks: “Where is Hillary Clinton? Does she support the boycotters or is she too afraid to stand up to them?”

    The New York Times reported that the ad will be televised, mainly on cable networks, with a relatively modest budget of $200,000.

  7. If Hillary does not attend, if she does not show her support for Israel. ..I am done with her…

  8. If Hillary does not attend, I will have to seriously reconsider who she is. But I think it is wonderful that she has not made any announcements about it.

  9. It would be enoumously encouraging if Hillary attended…and sadly surprising…

    it would be a statement the whole world would receive…

    I agree Shadow this post is heartbreaking…

    and what are we left with but many, not all, rude, disrespectful, immature Democrats and a President acting like spoiled children because of a snub…or is it because N is taking too much attention from the one and only epitome of dsyfunction, O himself…

  10. btw…I just heard the DWS said she would not attend tomorrow…she will probably be flooded with calls to try to change her mind…what a fool she has become…it was just in the news she was going attack O as anti-semetic if he took the DNC away from her…and now this is how she conducts herself…

    this admin is way too passive for me…many of us have not seen such barbarism in our lifetime as is currently going on and the O admin is so damn nonchalant…no rush…no urgency…there is something mentally wrong going on with this admin…

  11. A friend of mine is a doctor and a businessman.

    He wanted to sell his medical products in Iran.

    He was told he could not do so UNLESS he obtained the consent of a certain Mullah.

    So he figured, when in Rome, etc.

    He went to visit the Mullah at his palatial estate.

    It was festooned with art work, tapestry, rugs and artifacts from the Persian empire.

    He waited, and waited, and waited in the drawing room for his host to appear.

    After 30 minutes the Iranian Mullah appeared.

    He sat down with my friend and said 70-30.

    Then, he got up and left.

    My friend asked the interpreter what does that mean.

    He was told that the Mullah wants 70% of the profits and you get to keep 30%.

    My friend told him will he negotiate.

    The interpreter said no.

    If you want to do business here that is the deal.

    Note: I was told that story only a few hours ago. That is what Kerry is facing. And with an inept lead negotiator like Wendy Sherman and an Obama desperate for a deal, they will be lucky to get 30%.

    More likely, I am told, it will be 20%-80%—and the deal with legitimize Iran.

    One thing you can be sure of however. Regardless of the lipstick Obama tries to put on the pig it is still a pig. Iran is still Iran. And a bad deal is a bad deal.

    But big media will promote it like the second coming of Christ, not realizing that it guarantees a future Israeli attack.

    There will be a lot of swag in this deal for high placed Iranians. Grease is what the Mafia called it. The purpose of these bribes are so key players can bribe their subordinates and thereby maintain their power base.

    One little known fact is that the son-in-law of Kerry is Iranian.

  12. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Washington to deliver a controversial address to Congress on March 3, he won’t be the only big name in town who might soon be facing an election.

    Hillary Clinton is also scheduled to be in the capital city on that day, to be honored by EMILY’s List, the group supporting female Democratic candidates.

    Clinton’s spokesman did not respond to a question about whether the two plan to meet, but the convergence of the prime minister and former secretary of state brings together two of the most talked-about figures in politics, at a crucial time for both of them.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dc-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-115070.html

  13. Admin, your post is excellent, and treats this issue with the seriousness it deserves. It’s unthinkable that a US president has sided with terrorists against this country’s allies. Obama is the antithesis of a true American President. He has no desire to be remembered as a president who accomplished great things for and on behalf of the American people. Even his one supposed intended legacy – Obamacare – was a screw-up from beginning to end. He handled that so poorly, his lack of interest (or lack of ability) revealed his lack of concern.

    Barack wants his legacy to reflect his allegiance to those who see America and its allies as enemies. He wants to (in his mind) even a score on behalf of those with whom he identifies and to take the perceived oppressors down a few notches.

    Little about Barack’s anti-Americanism or his bold affinity our enemies is surprising. The man never possessed the loyalty to this country to be a decent president. That he had also lacked the competence to do so is obvious now, as well. But he’s one man – albeit a powerful one. The Dims in the senate and house and Dim leaders outside of congress have either been complicit in Obama’s schemes and anti-American policies or they have lacked the courage to speak out against him and his supporters. I hope all of the Dims in the senate and house who boycott the speech tomorrow pay the ultimate political price.

    Regarding the article claiming Hillary had a responsibility to state her position on Netanyahu’s speech – that’s total bullshit. She has no responsibility to speak to the unbelievably self-serving actions of this failed president who has deliberately positioned himself on the side of the enemies of America and Israel. This scenario would never have occurred under any other president, Dim or Republican. Unquestionably, had Hillary been president this would never have been an issue, and there would have been no choice to make.

    I hope she shows up. But, to say that her absence should be taken as agreement with Obama is too much of a stretch to make. She has no official position with the Obama government. She’s not a member of congress. She hasn’t announced her candidacy. She doesn’t have to take a position. And Kristol of the BS Weekly Standard has the nerve to ask if Hillary is “afraid” to oppose the boycotters. Well, fuck Kristol. In using this important issue just to take a hit at Hillary, he diminishes the seriousness of the situation. In the tradition of that bat shit crazy Hannity and other conservatives in media, he would sacrifice his mother’s life for a chance to slam Hillary.

    If Hillary shows up – great. But at this point the people with some actual power – who actually have a vote in congress had better stop playing politics and start trying to get control of the problems within the ME, including the situation with Iran, ISIS, and the rest.

  14. List of quotes from Obama in support of Islam.

    20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam and Mohammed

    #1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

    #2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

    #3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

    #4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

    #5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

    #6 “Islam has always been part of America”

    #7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

    #8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

    #9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

    #10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

    #11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

    #12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

    #13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

    #14 “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

    #15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

    #16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

    #17 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

    #18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

    #19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

    #20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

    Read more at http://www.youngcons.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-from-barack-obama-about-islam-and-christianity/#uH3pD5TzfJ8AO7dB.99

  15. Good article about Netanyahu and his justified distrust of Obama’s policies from Tom in Paine blog.
    ____________

    (snip)

    You would have thought after getting wiped out in two elections for the same reasons –supporting or defending Obama’s failures and his betrayals of Democratic ideals and his promises reneged on over critical policies like healthcare with Obama caving in to the health insurance industry and dropping the public option and it’s real and political consequences, Democrats would have learned a valuable lesson in what happens when you support failure for partisan reasons. Obviously they haven’t and seem intent on doing what they do best politically — shoot themselves in the foot especially when it comes to compromising their own principles to support Obama.

    The reason for Netanyahu’s speech is simply about one thing: Obama from the very beginning has proved he can’t be trusted on anything much less a deal with Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. And Netanyahu knows what too many Democrats still won’t admit — that if Obama couldn’t stand up to the health insurance industry, if he couldn’t stand up to Wall Street, if he couldn’t stand up to the threat of Isis calling them ” the junior varsity” after refusing the advice of his former Secretary of State and three Secretaries of Defense to arm the moderate Syrian rebels to stop the threat and spread of Isis, if he wouldn’t stand up to Putin in Crimea and won’t stand up to Putin now in eastern Ukraine, if he backed off his threat against Assad over the use of chemical weapons, why would Netanyahu or anyone else trust him to stand up to the Iranians and come away with anything more than a tepid, cosmetic, ineffective deal in order to claim success just like the ineffective cosmetic cave in on healthcare reform known as Obamacare?

    (snip)

    http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2015/03/netanyahus-speech-hoping-to-stop.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TomInPaine+%28Tom+In+Paine%29

  16. Free

    Regarding the article claiming Hillary had a responsibility to state her position on Netanyahu’s speech – that’s total bullshit. She has no responsibility to speak to the unbelievably self-serving actions of this failed president who has deliberately positioned himself on the side of the enemies of America and Israel. This scenario would never have occurred under any other president, Dim or Republican. Unquestionably, had Hillary been president this would never have been an issue, and there would have been no choice to make.

    I hope she shows up. But, to say that her absence should be taken as agreement with Obama is too much of a stretch to make.

    ——–

    I totally agree, Free.

    And I have no doubt that if Hillary were President, she would do all she could to protect Israel from being attacked.

  17. As well as it should be, the focus right now is on Bibi and the speech he will give in support of his society’s survival. But to all here – be warned. Bumbles and his ilk (wbb might agree that Soros’ hand is plastered ALL OVER THIS ONE) are busy destroying, DEMOLISHING the fabric this nation was built on. These people are bad. They hate America. They hate Americans. Sadly, there is no opposing force to stop them. And the true treachery of the publicizing of the recent officer involved shootings comes to the surface.

    Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

    From article….{Emphasis mine}

    President Barack Obama today introduced his plan for a progressive takeover of state and local policing.

    “We have a great opportunity… to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations,” he said Monday.

    “We need to seize that opportunity… this is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come,” Obama said, as he touted a new interim report from his Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

    Obama also instructed his media allies to help a federalization of policing, and to sideline critics of centralized policing rules. “I expect our friends in the media to really focus on what’s in this report and pay attention to it.”

    Obama is using the crisis sparked by the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, who was killed after assaulting a shopkeeper and a policeman in Ferguson, Mo. Obama and his deputies stoked the subsequent controversy in the run-up to the 2014 election, in the hope of boosting African-American turnout. The mobilization effort failed, partly because local law-enforcement officials released a video showing Brown’s strong-arm robbery of a store shortly before the fatal shooting.

    (snip)

    The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.

    State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”

    Those political goals are echoed in the tasks force’s interim report.

    “Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust,” the report says. “The Federal Government, as well as state and local agencies, should encourage and incentivize higher education for law enforcement officers.”

    (snip)

    Obama’s strategy matches the progressive playbook, which continuously expands progressives’ power by gradually adding more conditions to federal aid. That same strategy is implemented in education via the “Common Core” education plan, in the health-sector via Obamacare, in the banking industry via the mortgage rules that caused the damaging property bubble and in housing via Obama’s “regionalism” plan.

    That’s strategically different from prior Democratic administrations, which cited poverty as a justification for expanding federal aid. The unemployment rate for African-Americans in Ferguson is roughly 16 percent.

    In his Monday statement, Obama did not mention unemployment.

    Read more and watch the video at http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/

    There is no doubt that whereas the media and common sense suggest that teh one has not really accomplished anything, evil and one partyism suggest that bumbles is getting ALOT accomplished. All at the expense of the Constitution. And where is the GOP? Aiding and abetting.

    We are sooooooooooooo f@#ked. Asshats.

    Hillary 2016

  18. On Tuesday, March 3, at 10:45 a.m. Netanyahu will tell the American Congress and the American People many things we will not like. What Netanyahu will say is things we need to hear.
    —————————————————————————————–

    rats – I will not be able to watch. stuck in meetings this am. I am more interested in WHO attends and their reactions. admin, when all is said and done, please give us the bibi speech red-carpet re-cap!

  19. what very interesting timing this whole email blow up scandal…just a coinky dink its happening today of all days.

  20. HRC email scandal – yes. AM TV does not know whether to spend time with that or Bibi. So I really hope she shows up. I am amazed to find my usually un-American Senator Bob Casey will attend and has issued a strong statement in support of the speech: “Nothing should divert attention from the foreign policy issues our two countries are facing”

    Then there’s this which is going to blow some minds:
    US House leader to give Israeli leader bust of Churchill
    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner plans to give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a bust of Winston Churchill when he speaks Tuesday to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress about the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.
    The gift was chosen because Netanyahu and the former prime minister of Britain are the only foreign leaders who have addressed Congress three separate times.
    The speech has spurred controversy because Boehner unilaterally invited Netanyahu to appear at a time when international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are at a critical juncture. Boehner, a Republican, did not consult with the White House or Democratic leaders.
    Netanyahu told a Jewish lobby group on Monday that his speech is not intended to inject Israel into American political debate, yet some Democrats plan to skip his address.
    Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as president of the Senate, also will not be attending. He’s on a trip to Central America. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican who is president pro tempore, will fill Biden’s seat.
    Boehner also has invited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.
    Netanyahu’s office says the Israeli leader will give Boehner a menorah and a copy of the story of Purim, a Jewish holiday being celebrated this week that commemorates the deliverance of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire where a plot had been formed to destroy them. The gift is symbolic in that Iran has vowed to annihilate Israel.
    http://news.yahoo.com/us-house-leader-israeli-leader-bust-churchill-173646885.html

  21. Count One Drop out. She won’t attend Bibi’s speech. Even tho she supports Israel and is concerned about Iran, she ……… is basically just toeing Obama’s line. So much for that independent, fighting spirit Liz wants to be famous for.

    _____________

    “I strongly support Israel, and I remain deeply concerned about the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon, which I discussed in detail with Prime Minister Netanyahu when we met in Jerusalem last November,” Warren said in a statement obtained by the Boston Globe.

    “It’s unfortunate that Speaker Boehner’s actions on the eve of a national election in Israel have made Tuesday’s event more political and less helpful for addressing the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the safety of our most important ally in the Middle East.”

    (snip)

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234402-sen-warren-joins-bibi-boycott

  22. Iran says “hell no” to Barack’s demand for it to stop “sensitive nuclear activity for at least 10 years”.

    ________

    Iran has rejected as “excessive and illogical” a demand by US President Barack Obama that it freeze sensitive nuclear activity for at least 10 years.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was quoted saying Mr Obama spoke in “unacceptable and threatening” terms.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31713824

  23. Obama fears the truth.

    Why?

    Because in this case the truth is not a mere tap on the shoulder.

    It is a howling reproach.

    Look at the fucking track record.

    Wendy Sherman and fat fuck Bill Richardson negotiated a deal to prevent N. Korea from attaining the bomb.

    Now Wendy the give away artist negotiates a deal to prevent Iran from attaining the bomb.

    Will the result be any different.

    Is it important that the theocratic state attaining the bomb has taken an oath to Allah to wipe out Israel?

    Or is that all just hyperbole?

    Where are the left wing peaceniks today who wanted unilateral disarmament against the Soviet Union?

    More nukes less kooks?

  24. At the end of the day, I doubt this will make any difference.

    The administration attitude is damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

    The republican response will be we had our political moment. Now we can cave. We can blame Obama. And the ignoranti–meaning the public are such rubes they will never know the difference. And then we can say if you give us the White House we will stop this.

    That is how this thing will play out.

    And frankly, after their deceit on amnesty, I no longer care what happens.

    There will be no justice for the American people until a third party is formed.

    I know nobody wants to believe it, but it is the howling truth.

  25. …am I missing something..I thought the USA (and the sane world) stood for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons…

    why is this even a question?

    and what about the idea of the USA allowing Iran to process more uranium towards nuclear weapons…

    does that not open Pandora’s box for all the other countries in the middle east and give them the green light to also demand “their” rights

    How can any President of the USA and his party be so naive…how can they even consider that they have an honest partner in Iran to negotiate with…

    …all the haters of not only Israel…but also the USA…must all be laughing at what a “mark” the USA and this admin negotiators are…

    …that “reset” and getting back to Putin after O was re-elected went very well didn’t it…or was O flat out wrong on that too…

  26. btw…if Iran is supporting terrorism all over the world and supplying weapons, etc…does O and this admin not get the ramifications of that…

    do they want to make it easier for the enemy and other terrorists that want wipe Israel off the map…and then come for us…

    Iran is not our friend…what’s up with that…

  27. Update: Obama tried to shut today’s speech down. But Netanyahu knows how to handle thugs. As Purim looms, Netanyahu stands strong and the Obama attacks have only made this speech more important. Now, everyone is watching and posting on this. Open thread: Leader of the free world speaks to joint session of Congress. The entire political world is watching. Obama has even set up a bogus event to try and steal the spotlight from Netanyahu but as is usual with Obama, he fails.

    The Netanyahu speech at 10:45 a.m. ET (it will probably start closer to 11:00) can be viewed here:



    Jeffrey Goldberg has attacked the Netanyahu speech too and is not happy it is being delivered at all. Still Goldberg has some comments to be taken seriously:

    I’m fairly sure Netanyahu will deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition.

    The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me—or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis—with confidence. Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium (a “right” that doesn’t actually exist in international law); it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I’m more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.)

    Goldberg also lists some of the dangers for and lies of Barack Obama:

    This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them—if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people. [snip]

    On Israel, here’s the promise Obama made that stays with me the most: “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” he said. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli government recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” He went on to say four words that have since become famous: “We’ve got Israel’s back.”

    Netanyahu obviously believes that Obama doesn’t have his, or Israel’s, back. There will be no convincing Netanyahu that Obama is anything but a dangerous adversary. But if a consensus forms in high-level Israeli security circles (where there is a minimum of Obama-related hysterics) that the president has agreed to a weak deal, one that provides a glide path for Iran toward the nuclear threshold, then we will be able to say, fairly, that Obama’s promises to Israel were not kept. One of Netanyahu’s most strident critics, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, said recently, “A nuclear Iran is a reality that Israel won’t be able to come to terms with.”

    He went on to say, “Two issues in particular concern me with respect to the talks between the world powers and Iran: What happens if and when the Iranians violate the agreement, and what happens when the period of the agreement comes to an end and they decide to pursue nuclear weapons?

    —————————————————–

  28. The leader of the free world is now entering the House chamber to deliver the “State of the Free World” address.

  29. Netanyahu is slathering Obama with praise. This makes Obama look even more petty.

    Now, the substance of the speech has begun. Bibi speaks about Purim and Queen Esther.

  30. Netanyahu talks “hide and cheat” game as he states that the world knew about North Korea about to have nukes and did nothing. Ditto Iran when it comes to “nuclear inspectors” without the ability to stop Iran going nuclear.

  31. I wonder how many Dims were there? I did see Feinstein, standing and clapping…but didn’t recognize anyone else. I did miss the first part of the speech though.

  32. saw Manchin (he was very supportive), Boxer, Reid, Murray, Mikulski for a few

    heard rangel on cnn this am say he was going to go but got so many calls from his constituents that he changed his mind and was going…

    how can any dem argue with what N said…finally an adult in the room…not more snide posturing by the peacock

  33. Looks like Obama has feathers up his a$$….

    Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) announced Monday that they will not attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Tuesday address

  34. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/03/netanyahu-we-must-all-stand-together-to-stop-irans-march-of-conquest/

    Netanyahu: Nuclear Deal ‘Paves Iran’s Path To The Bomb’

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in his address to Congress that there would be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East if a deal is signed with Iran.

    “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror,” Netanyahu said to applause.

    In a speech that dozens of Democrats skipped, the Israeli leader warned that a nuclear deal “paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

    “So you see my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one leaving Iran with a vast nuclear progam, and two, lifiting the restrictions on that program in about a decade,” Netanyahu said. “That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

    The Israeli prime minister touched on the major concessions he believes will happen in a nuclear deal with Iran.

    “Absent to dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran: the first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. Breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb,” Netanyahu said. According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected but not destroyed. Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largly intact, Iran’s breakout time would be very short — about a year by America’s assessment, even shorter by Israel.”

    Calling it a “very bad deal,” Netanyahu said that Iran will always be an enemy to the U.S.

    “The ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America. And don’t be fooled, the battle between Iran an ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America,” he said. “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic, the other calls itself the Islamic State, both want to impose a militant Islamic empire — first on the region and then on the entire world.”

    Netanyahu believes the deal could lead to a “potential nuclear nightmare.”

    “If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a MIddle East littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare,” he said.

    Netanyahu also touched on Iran defying United Nations inspectors.

    “I know this won’t come as a shock to many of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, but it also plays a pretty good game of ‘hide and cheat’ with them,” he said.

    Netanyahu said that Israel is no longer passive in the face of threats to its country and people.

    “I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over,” he told lawmakers. “We are no longer scattered among the nations powerless to defend ourselves, we restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend ourselves have boundless courage. For the first time in a hundred generations, we the Jewish people can defend ourselves.

    “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

    Netanyahu added that Iran’s founding document calls for the “pursuit of jihad.”

    During his speech, Netanyahu stated that he deeply regretted that some perceived him being in Washington as political.

    “We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” Netanyahu said. “I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.”

    Netanyahu thanked Congress for their support to build Israel’s “Iron Dome.”

    “This Capitol dome helped build our ‘Iron Dome,’” Netanyahu said. “Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.” [snip]

    Fox News reports that Netanyahu’s speech was interrupted by applause nearly 40 times. [snip]

    The White House expressed its displeasure with the appearance by word and deed, dispatching Vice President Joe Biden on an overseas trip that meant he did not fill his customary seat behind the House rostrum during the speech. Nor did Netanyahu meet at the White House with Obama on his trip to the United States.

    Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel was among those in attendance for Netanyahu’s speech.

  35. At least 50 Democratic House members and eight senators who caucus with the Democrats said in recent weeks they wouldn’t attend the speech, many in protest to a move that they say is an affront to the president.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) had originally said he would skip the meeting, but changed his mind on Tuesday.

    A full list of the Democrats who confirmed they missed the speech follows:

    SENATE – 8 members

    Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)

    Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)

    Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

    Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

    HOUSE – 50 members

    Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.)

    Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)

    Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)

    Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)

    Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.)

    Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)

    Rep. Joaquin Castro (Texas)

    Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)

    Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.)

    Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)

    Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)

    Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.)

    Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.)

    Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)

    Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.)

    Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.)

    Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)

    Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)

    Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)

    Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.)

    Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)

    Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)

    Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.)

    Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)

    Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)

    Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.)

    Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)

    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)

    Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)

    Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)

    Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.)

    Rep. John Lewis (Ga.)

    Rep. Dave Loebsack (Iowa)

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)

    Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)

    Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.)

    Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.)

    Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)

    Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)

    Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)

    Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)

    Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.)

    Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)

    Rep. David Price (N.C.)

    Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)

    Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)

    Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.)

    Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)

    Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)

    Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)

  36. Bibi answered every political question that could come up.

    No a bad deal is not better than a bad deal–it is worse.

    No this is not a choice between this bad deal and war.

    No there is no enforcement mechanism–because they can kick out the inspectors.

    No it is not the end of the world if Iran walks away from the bargaining table.

    No they need a deal because Russia and China are in economic trouble and cannot help them.

    No world war III cannot be dismissed as workplace violence.

    No Bibi will not accept the risk of another Holocaust to appease the appearer in chief

    No we cannot deny the existence of radical islam or that its roots are in the Koran

    No we are not as safe as Obama wants us to believe.

    But will any of this matter politically?

    In saner times, it would have mattered absolutely.

    But in the age of Obama, to quote Sammy Goldwin on his deathbed: nothing matters. (Or was it Louie B Mayer–like Casey Stengel said look it up.) it is simply a detail.

    Now he threatens more than just the survival of the middle class.

    Bliss is it to be alive in the age of Obama, but to be a Mullah—or a big media maggot–is very heaven.

    This may have some marginal effect on the shape of the deal, but there will be a deal.

    And, thanks to the big media beloved messiah, it is more probable than not that there will be a war.

    Which is the real tragedy here.

    The intellectual giant (IQ=124) who promised to save the world ends up destroying it.

    Shades of Rod Serling’s episode: the alien much beloved by the ignoranti carries around a cookbook entitled to serve man. Big media hails him as our savior and but we learn in the end that this is a cook book.

    Here, Soros, the last living Nazi would write the introduction.

  37. The absent minded (law) professor president strikes again.

    I will NOT dignify Bibi’s comments with a response.

    I will change the subject.

    Wowee!

    Whereupon big media does a break neck about face and goes wherever he wants.

    They are, after all, nothing more than Obama operatives, and should be treated as such.

  38. to start with…Bibi schooled O in ‘the art of negotiating 101’

    …as another master of negotiation, Donald Trump, would say….”you always have to be prepared to walk away”

    …and who could blame anyone for trying to teach O how to negotiate…after his blunder of letting 5 terrorists free for one US deserter…while terrorists still held American hostages that they then beheaded and killed…

  39. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/aipac-conference-rejects-tough-love-from-susan-rice

    “When it comes to defending the US-Israel relationship, I am not intimidated by anyone,” said Menendez. “Not by Israel’s enemies. Not by political friends, when I believe they’re wrong.”

    That got louder, more sustained cheers than anything Rice had meant as an applause line. “It was Congress that was responsible for bringing Iran to the table,” said Menendez, “and it is Congress that should have a role in deciding whether to provide sanctions.”

    As the crowd rose to its feet again, a voice could be heard near the press tables, yelling: “That’s right! Tell it like it is!

  40. Hold them

    I’ve thrown in the towel. Both sides are lying cheating POS’s. I give up on the whole phony sideshow In DC. Fuck them all!

  41. http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/democratic-senator-take-shots-at-susan-rice-in-fiery-aipac-speech-video/

    Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez not-so-subtly criticized Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice during his speech before the 2015 AIPAC policy, slamming her for calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress “destructive.”

    “When it comes to defending the U.S.-Israeli relationship, I am not intimidated by anyone,” Menendez began. “Not Israel’s political enemies, and not my political friends when I believe they’re wrong.

    “Now I agree with some Democrats that the political timing of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress tomorrow may have been unfortunate, and we must work fervently to keep the U.S.-Israel relationship a strong, bipartisan endeavor,” he said. “But, I must disagree with those who say that the prime minister’s visit to the United States is destructive to U.S.-Israel relations.”

    “And tomorrow,” he added over loud cheers. “I will be proud when I escort the prime minister to the House chamber to give his speech, to show him the respect he deserves from every American who cares about our relationship with the only true democracy in the Middle East.”

    “Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain came to Washington in January, and he lobbied Congress against Iran sanctions.” Menendez noted. “Well, it seems to me that if it’s okay for one prime minister to express his views, it should be good for ALL prime ministers.”

  42. Obama, Boner an McConnell, they’re all the same. Total deception and lies for their own gain. We have been totally fucked with nowhere to go.

  43. Chamberlain is on TV talking about why his Iran Ian nuclear plan is best and BIBI didn’t know what he was talking about.

  44. Pelousy:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/nancy-pelosi-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-react-115701.html?hp=l2_4

    Nancy Pelosi: Netanyahu speech ‘insulting to the intelligence of the United States’

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed a speech Tuesday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as full of “condescension” and an “insult to the intelligence of the United States.”

    The California Democrat was visibly upset during Netanyahu’s address on the House floor, in which the Israeli leader urged Congress to take a more aggressive line against Iran as part of the ongoing negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear facilities. Pelosi and other congressional Democrats were critical of the brash language Netanyahu used to describe those negotiation.

    “That is why, as one who values the U.S.-Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation,” Pelosi said in a statement.

    Netanyahu used his address, which garnered significant interest from lawmakers, to question the wisdom of crafting a nuclear deal with Iran instead of enacting stricter sanctions against the government.

  45. why don’t Nancy P and the Dims just go kiss poor, offended, O’s —!

    poor baby…he’s so sensitive…

  46. OMG…The House Passes the Obama amnesty/Homeland bill. 70% Republican,vote against it…
    Boehner, if it looks like, feels like, talks li just enough a Democrat, partner in crime with the Obama administration. ..then it is..

    Republicans need to remove him…can they?

  47. The Printers Circle and 34 others follow

    Darrell Issa‏@DarrellIssa·3m3 minutes ago
    There’s the Monroe Doctrine. Truman Doctrine. Reagan Doctrine. Seems Obama Doctrine is “I’m taking my ball & going home.” #NetanyahuSpeech

    ******************************************

    O & Kerry re: Netanyahu speech…”speech, what speech”

    head in the sand…

  48. isn’t it ironic that O has more trust in the Iranians then he does in Netanyahu, the repubs, and even the Dims…

    who does he represent again?

  49. isn’t it ironic that O has more trust in the Iranians then he does in the repubs,
    ———–
    Actually no.

    We have all seen what trusting the republicans gets you:

    Stabbed in the back.

  50. S
    March 3, 2015 at 4:38 pm
    he is the president of the USA correct…I’ll take a repub over an Iranian any day
    ———-
    I see no practical difference.

    Like treason, it is a question of dates.

    Or–if you prefer: kill me now or kill me later.

    This treason however will bust the Republican Party wide open.

    Conservatives will boycott the 2016 election.

    Never trust an establishment Republican.

    And that is great news for the democrat nominee.

    Breibart speculates that Boehner’s rationale for inviting Bibi was to give him cover for caving on amnesty.

    The timing confirms this.

    Now is the time for a third party.

    Who will not play the game with big media.

    Big media speaks only for the political class, not for the people.

  51. As Expected, John Boehner Sells Out the Conservatives In Yet Another Performance of “Failure Theater”
    —Ace

    Failure Theater is the process by which the Establishment deliberately fails to do achieve anything, but wants credit from the Dumb Conservatives they’re playing to for allegedly “trying.”

    Each of Boehner’s and McConnell’s “defeats” are in fact planned in advance. They are not trying to advance the conservative agenda; they are attempting to con conservatives into believing they have attempted to implement conservative policy, when in fact they were delivering their political deliverables to their Donor Class paymasters all along.

    Uneducated, gullible, and easily led: if we stand for this, we are exactly what the Washington Post slurred us as 30 years ago.

  52. Life in politics is apparently becoming too stressful for Nancy. If the fact that the head of state of one of America’s Allies addressed congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House brought her to tears, she needs to go the hell home.

    She also needs to recognize that even tho Obama may be stupid enough or unconcerned enough to trust Iran, Netanyahu is not. He knows Iran is not to be trusted.

    ___________

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/netanyahu-652811-nuclear-obama.html

  53. freespirit…the Dims have turned into O lapdogs…these are the people I fear the most…their childish, spiteful behavior so embarrassing…and dangerous

    someone should ask Nancy what she thought of O’s negotiation when he let 5 terrorists go for a military deserter…and then talk to us about “insult to our intelligence and condescenion”

    get over yourselves and look at the dictator pushing you and other branches of govt aside with executive orders in the vein of tyrants…

    sorry, but i stand with the repubs, free thinking Dems and N on this one…

  54. Nancy reminds me of Mrs. Norman Bates in the Alfred Hitchcock thriller: Psycho.

    A mummy with a picked brain.

    Only the mouth moves.

    Meanwhile the real psycho, Obama, is being dissected by one major media source as follows:

    “Axelrod recalls his shock when during the 2012 campaign Obama flew into a fit of fury and called him a mother fucking son of a bitch in front of others before storming out of the room”

    (Sounds like a bad hair day for no drama Obama—even a messiah can have a bad hair day.)

    But that’s not all . . .

    “Barack and Michelle have ugly and bitter scream fests. Michelle has actually snapped him in the face in front of stunned onlookers.”

    And it gets worse . . .

    “At night when he is alone he is tortured by the thought that Americans consider him to be a total failure.”

    (Not if big media can help it)

    “He suffers from insomnia and wanders around talking to portraits of dead white presidents.”

    “His staff is alarmed and worry he may accidentally start some military action that cannot be recalled.”

    That is the good news . . .

    Now for the bad news:

    If they take Obama away in a strait jacket, what is left?

    Biden.

    And if not Biden then Boehner.

  55. gonzotx

    March 3, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    *****************************

    gonzotx, I wanted them to reject also but I did not know that what they passed only extends for 6 months or thru Sept…so it isn’t as bad as it could have been…and now the courts will have their say…

    next battle maybe O actually trying to raise taxes by executive order without Congressional approval…that would be the last straw…

  56. wbboei
    March 3, 2015 at 6:17 pm

    Where did this info come from?

    Slapped in the face….

    Wandering the halls talking to dead ‘white’ Presidents…

  57. S

    By then the 20 million illegals will be even more entrenched into America, will be voting with their new ID’s, receiving 3 years of ‘back taxes” they never worked or applied for, collecting Social Security, bankrupting American schools and our medical system ( I have personally seen an incredible uptick in Austin , and all the special services they receive ). Add to that the 2-3 million more illegals by September, this is BS, BS…surprise, he did on the day Bibi was speaking, you think that’s just coincidence?

  58. Why do the R’s keep voting Bonar in as Speaker when his best act is folding like a cheap suit?

    Obama can completely give away America in 6 months.

  59. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/house-passes-clean-dhs-funding-bill-with-more-than-two-thirds-of-republicans-voting-no/

    The “Hastert Rule” says that a Speaker shouldn’t let any bill reach the floor unless a majority of his own caucus supports it. In the end, when the Great Executive Amnesty Sellout reached its final act, a supermajority of Boehner’s caucus opposed it. He passed the bill anyway — with all members of the minority party voting yes.

    John Boehner, Democratic Speaker of the House.

    It ended up 257-167. Here’s the roll, but don’t get too caught up in the 75 Republicans who voted yes. If 100 Democrats had switched their votes to no at the last second, I assume Boehner would have had little trouble replacing them with squishier members from his own side. Dozens of GOPers voted no here, no doubt, simply because their votes weren’t needed and a “nay” on authorizing executive amnesty will help them avoid primary challenges next year. There are probably 50-60 House conservatives who opposed the bill on the merits, because they’d rather endure a very limited shutdown of DHS to pressure Obama on immigration than throw in the towel now.

  60. S, I agree. I’m sick of the Dims and their lack of gumption.

    Wbb. I say we just let Joe take over. Not a great option, but maybe he’ll stay drunk and do less damage.

  61. The writers who can’t hack it at the globe generally migrate to NYT or WashPo, the graveyard of journalism.

    This periodical like National Enquirer generally has the goods, e.g. John Edwards.

    The Globe had the goods on Frank Gifford–and Kathy Lee.

    And now they have the goods on Obama.

    If this thing came out of the blue, I would be skeptical.

    But there is an entire body of research, which I have posted here, that confirms every word of this.

    This is what the are hiding.

    This is what will come out in the tell all books after he is out.

    This is not a right wing hit job—these are his own people reporting these things.

    http://www.globemagazine.com/

    This is why Guilani’s comments struck such a nerve.

    Many people at the pinnacle of big media and elsewhere are heavily invested in the lie.

    This is the way the truth gets out.

    I cannot vouch for everything that these periodicals right.

    But I can sure as hell vouch for this article.

    It has the ring of truth to it.

    Its an in your face kind of truth, and it needs to be.

  62. Gonzotx…

    it is such a freaking mess and I do not doubt what you are saying…hopefully the courts will step in and stop it…maybe admin has some insight into how this can be unraveled with the courts and the DHS

  63. Prime Minister Netanyahu delivers a powerful speech making a number of salient points which resonate with congress. President Obama, unable to deal with it when people don’t let him have his way, throws a hissy fit. Later, he’ll probably meet up with the other 7th graders who function as his aides and WH staffers and they’ll draw frownie faces in each other’s year books and talk about what a meanie Bibi is.

    __________________

    “As far as I can tell, there was nothing new,” Obama said in the Oval Office, his anger rising during a fiery, 11-minute rebuttal. “The prime minister did not offer any viable alternatives,” he said, after saying he read Netanyahu’s remarks after conducting a videoconference with other heads of state to discuss the situation in Ukraine. He encouraged Congress not to be “distracted.”

    “We’re staying focused on the central issue: How do we prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?” he said. “If we’re successful negotiating, then in fact this will be the best deal possible to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Nothing else comes close. Sanctions won’t do it. Even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we have put forward,” Obama continued.

    But Netanyahu, who possesses a savvy understanding of American politics (and made a show in his speech of praising Obama and his “friend” Secretary of State John Kerry), may have altered appraisal of the negotiations with Iran. And that was Obama’s chief worry when he learned last month that House Speaker John Boehner and Netanyahu’s representatives collaborated on the dramatic lobbying event on Capitol Hill.

    Here are some points that resonated with lawmakers:

    Obama is misguided, or wears blinders about Iran’s true ambitions and motivations. Speaking to the GOP-controlled House and Senate, Netanyahu reiterated his warning: “Don’t be fooled.”

    The prime minister reinforced views among conservatives and some Democrats that Obama’s record of recognizing and responding to brewing threats in the Middle East and elsewhere has been less than stellar. Netanyahu argued the administration is being duped by Iran’s negotiators. He believes pledges of reformed nuclear objectives will not change in Iran, no matter what Tehran may sign to win relief from the international sanctions regime. Netanyahu pointed to North Korea as an example of broken nuclear promises.

    Netanyahu denounced the contours of the deal being negotiated in Switzerland as playing into Iran’s hands. He warned the outcome could accelerate a path toward nuclear war in the Middle East because he believes the parameters would strengthen Iran’s capabilities within a decade to create a nuclear weapon with such speed, the world could not intervene.

    “Why would anyone make this deal?” Netanyahu asked. “This is a question that everyone asks in our region.” He let the clear rebuke of the president hang in the air.

    “Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?” he continued. “Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal.”

    Conservatives in Congress applauded Netanyahu’s insinuation that Obama sees the world as he wants it to be, not as it is.

    Congress has a role to play as negotiations with Iran continue. Netanyahu wants U.S. allies to deploy the power of the legislative branch to alter the administration’s negotiations.

    Obama had to lobby Congress early this year to delay consideration of measures designed to tighten sanctions on Iran while the nuclear talks are underway. He secured two months of additional running room after asking lawmakers to press Iran if and when the talks collapse, not while diplomacy might still result in an agreement.

    The prime minister’s arguments will reinforce distrust of Iran among lawmakers, including among some who reluctantly supported Obama’s arguments that Congress should sit on the sidelines into the spring.

    “I would urge the members of Congress who were there to continue to express their strong support for Israel’s security,” Obama said Tuesday, encouraging unity on Capitol Hill and patience to await a final agreement, if Iran will indeed sign on.

    “I’m not focused on the politics of it. I’m not focused on the theater of it. And my strong suggestion would be that members of Congress, as they evaluate it, stay similarly focused,” he said.

    Immediately following Netanyahu’s remarks, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein told CNN she had misgivings about some of the details of the ongoing negotiations, believing 10 years of restrictions placed on Iran’s activities was too short (she prefers 15 or 20 years), and she said a “breakout” buffer of a year, as insurance that Iran could be stopped if caught cheating, was also too short. She told CNN she received a classified briefing from the administration about the status of the negotiations and was speaking with knowledge of the administration’s positions.

    There are other lawmakers, including other Democrats, who concur and will revive their pressure on the president and on Kerry.

    Israel advocated tougher adjustments to any pact hammered out with Iran. Although Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s rhetoric as a debunked script that lacked internal logic, the prime minister did more in Washington than criticize negotiations and warn about Iran’s evil intentions.

    The prime minister told Congress that any pact with Iran should “demand” that Tehran halt aggression in the Middle East, cease support for terrorism, and end threats against Israel. An agreement should require the verified destruction of all Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including centrifuges and heavy water reactors; include a longer breakout insurance period than one year; and maintain all sanctions for a decade or longer, or until Iran’s behavior is demonstrably and verifiably altered, the prime minister said.

    “The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal,” Netanyahu maintained.

    The prime minister said there is a path to pressure Iran to accept tougher demands in order to win sanctions relief — an alternative that does not involve war, but relies on a willingness to walk away from the bargaining table and expect Iran to return. It was a jab at Obama as a poor bargainer, clueless about the Persian mindset, and too hungry for a deal in the twilight of his presidency.

    Obama dismissed the prime minister’s case as “a distraction.” But his reaction clearly suggested he believes Netanyahu has support on Capitol Hill for his assertion that a tougher deal with Iran is somehow possible.

    Israel will defend itself against Iran’s nuclear threats and other acts of aggression. Netanyahu dismissed the Obama administration’s criticism that he offers no alternative solutions, short of war, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. “We’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war,” he said. “That’s just not true.”

    Nonetheless, the prime minister was not shy when warning of war in defense of the Jewish state — a concept with potent meaning in Congress and across the United States. “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand!” Netanyahu declared to loud applause.

    Threats to Israel are threats to the United States and the world. The prime minister invoked the Holocaust and vowed Israel would not be “passive in the face of genocidal threats” from Iran or any other country in the region. And he leaned on the special bond between two nations.

    “America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” he said.

    The president presents the problem of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon as first and foremost a question of America’s national security interests — a priority that “happens to” also be in Israel’s national security interests.

    Netanyahu played to the ties that automatically bind, encouraging Congress to reaffirm the United States will defend Israel, come what may.

    “I know Israel does not have to stand alone,” the prime minister said. “I know America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel,” he assured lawmakers with a generous smile.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/03/netanyahus_speech_what_hit_home_–_and_worries_the_wh_125809.html

  64. freespirit

    March 3, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Prime Minister Netanyahu delivers a powerful speech making a number of salient points which resonate with congress. President Obama, unable to deal with it when people don’t let him have his way, throws a hissy fit. Later, he’ll probably meet up with the other 7th graders who function as his aides and WH staffers and they’ll draw frownie faces in each other’s year books and talk about what a meanie Bibi is.

    *******************************************

    free…I was just getting ready to sign off and I read that and literally laughed out loud…good one!

  65. This is not a case of first impression. Others who have risen to the presidency have found been affected by it mentally. The best example is Warren Harding, who sought to be the most beloved president, became mired in scandals and entered into a deep depression from which he never recovered.

    There is no question that the responsibilities of high office place great strains on a rational man. But Obama was a narcisstic personality to begin with, thus it is hardly surprising that he would crack under the pressure. If you think this is all nonsense, I would ask only one favor of you. See how he behaves over the next two years. If you do that, you will be a believer.

    Read more: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Warren-G-Harding-Scandals-and-illness.html#ixzz3TNEQpmeJ

  66. S
    March 3, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Gonzotx…

    it is such a freaking mess and I do not doubt what you are saying…hopefully the courts will step in and stop it

    ———–
    More likely they will rule that the lawfulness of Obama’s action is now a moot issue, and even if they ruled otherwise (which they will not) what possible remedy can they fashion that will restore the status quo ante. This is the way off the hook Roberts is looking for. I am sure that he, and 20 million illegals breathed a huge sign of relief when they learned of Boehner’s treason.

  67. Now the interesting part. Obama will conclude a deal with Iran, no question in my mind about that. Would that treaty then pass congress. Not likely. But does that really matter? They have been thinking about how to by-pass congress and the requirement that treaties be ratified, and here is what he will do: he will approve the treaty by executive order in which case it is binding until it is reversed by a future president. Remember his promise to rule through the pen and the telephone. The question Israel will then have to decide is what will a two year hiatus mean in terms of the nuclear threat. Because if you look at this from the standpoint of the Mullahs, that is probably all the time they need, and it will consolidate their status in that part of the world, insulate them against attacks, give them legitimacy. And Obama will claim that he checked another box given to him by the Council of Foreign Relations, which was to get a deal with Iran and to open them up as a market for General Electric nuclear business. Imelt got what he wanted from Obama. What this means, however, is that Israel is on its own. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

  68. gonzotx
    March 3, 2015 at 5:10 pm
    As Expected, John Boehner Sells Out the Conservatives In Yet Another Performance of “Failure Theater”
    —Ace

    Failure Theater is the process by which the Establishment deliberately fails to do achieve anything, but wants credit from the Dumb Conservatives they’re playing to for allegedly “trying.”

    Each of Boehner’s and McConnell’s “defeats” are in fact planned in advance

    ——

    I hate to say I told you so, but . . .

    If Obama ends up destroying the democrat party

    It is important that the republican party NOT be the default position

    He who seeks equity must do equity (i.e. the equitable doctrine of unclean hands)

    We need a third party to break the stranglehold of the elites on the American People.

  69. John will take the heat for this cave on amnesty. Until now he was just a drunk and a womanizer. Now he is the man who betrayed the base of the party. He will step down prior to 2016 election and the party will try to fool the base again by saying that the vast majority of Republicans voted against funding. But only a fool would believe that nonsense. Boener cut his unholy deal with the Mad Woman of the House and once he determined how many votes he would need, he told the rest of the Republicans to vote in opposition–so voters would be none the wiser. There were roughly 60 republicans who declared their opposition to funding before this unholy deal was worked out. All the rest of them were simply looking to cover their butts, and their silence before the fact reveals their real motives. This is why after this episode I feel comfortable dismissing the party as a whole as sell out artists, not worthy of voter support.

  70. I believe the fraud had wanted a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Muslim’s from the get go.
    This was always the plan. .. Always

    He is a muslim, I do believe that, and it explains a lot of his bizarre actions, and his advisarel relationship from the beginning with Israel.

  71. All the rest of them were simply looking to cover their butts, and their silence before the fact reveals their real motives.
    ———-
    And that would include Trey who makes these glorious speeches about the rule of law until the rubber meets the road.

    Who do they think they are kidding?

    A con job works only as long as you can con the rube.

    When the rube wises up it no longer works.

    It could be that the real rube here is not the voters but the RNC

    Who thinks they can continue this charade with impunity.

  72. gonzotx
    March 3, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    I believe the fraud had wanted a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Muslim’s from the get go.

    ——-
    He did.

    It was evident from the beginning that he was open to it.

    His exact words I do not recall, but the gist of it was they will eventually have one.

  73. Pariah | Define Pariah at Dictionary.com

    any person or animal that is generally despised or avoided

    ————-
    Among the blogs I read and the people I talk to John Roberts has definitely acceded to that status, i.e. pariah.

    After today, Boehner will too.

    Among voters, not donors.

    To donors, he is just another politician who stays bought, and is willing to lie to his constituents.

    Mitch the Tortise is another pariah.

  74. Morris claims that Bibi has redefined the debate as he puts it.

    Question: what debate is he talking about? And does it even matter to a dictator?

    Morris says that Bibi spotted the weakness–an expiration date, which is tantamont to an approval thereafter.

    He goes on to say that Congress will not ratify therefore Obama must include that new term in the agreement.

    Bullshit. Obama can do whatever he wants and congress is impotent to stop him.

    If he wants them to ratify it, he will submit it.

    If not he will do it through executive action.

    Congress has made itself into a non entity.

    The power is with the executive branch, now and forever.

    So I will not get caught up in the faux drama.

    It is a joke.

    Israel will need to act unilaterally.

  75. I can’t for the life of me understand why Bonar ALWAYS betrays the bills the GOP fights for in the first place.

    Is he a secret lover of Barrycakes?

    This makes no freaking sense why they would let amnesty pass!!!

    Fu@k um all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  76. Congress has made itself into a non entity.


    They all just take up space, rally for the cameras and then keel over when it comes time to support the wishes of the American public.

    All the aliens are far more important to Congress then the citizens.

    I am soooooooooo disgusted.

    Admin, please, is there a sunny side of the street for all this bs????

  77. What the Hell was this bill all about again? Was it just to fund Homeland Security, or was it to give Obama authority to push though with amnesty???

    Admin, do you have clarification?

    I’m so angry, I can’t think straight.

  78. Let play this game from the other side of the table.

    If I were a Mullah confronted with a demand for no expiration to the agreement, knowing that the source of the demand was Bibi, how would I respond?

    Mindful of the 70-30 rule, I would tell Obama that he is engaging in bad faith negotiation and threaten to pick up my marbles. And when he said congress will not ratify it, if it has an expiration date, I would tell him that is not my problem.

    I would let that one sit on the table for fortnight and laugh at the way the Obama rats scrambled around in panic. The would freeze up and I would wait a bit, and agree to return to the table only if the United States removes all sanctions and released all Iranian assets in US banks which have been frozen since 1980. A desperate Obama would accede to the second demand.

    Then, I would go back to the table and play rope a dope on these Harvard trained idiots. I would impress upon them that you need a deal more than we do, we are content to let things go on as as they are, and by the way, what do you plan to do about ISIS? Obama would continue negotiations because he could not afford to admit they failed, and I would use that time to proceed with plans.

    I think Iran is holding the whip hand on Messiah Obama. And if he makes good on his threat to shoot down Israeli warplanes, they have bought themselves everything they wanted.

  79. WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is sending President Barack Obama a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the budget year, without overturning the president’s immigration policies.

    The House on Tuesday voted 257-167 for the measure that Obama is expected to sign. Without action, funding for the department would have expired Friday at midnight.

    The outcome was a victory for Obama and Democrats, and a defeat for the GOP strategy of trying to overturn Obama’s executive actions on immigration by linking them to funding for Homeland.

    Republicans were unable to overcome united opposition from Senate Democrats to their strategy. They also suffered embarrassing internal divisions that left the country within hours of a partial agency shutdown last week.

    Fu@k um again!!!

  80. You have, in this negotiation, the perfect storm, meaning one party that does not need a deal, and the other party that does, and will pay any price to get one. This would be a formula for impasse were it not for the fact that Obama has a way around congress, and is driven to achieve a deal–any deal with Iran, because that was and still is the dictate of the Council on Foreign Relations about whom Hillary once said you give us our marching orders. And again, Obama CANNOT afford to fail. A bad deal based on an executive order which gives Iran two more years to develop its nuclear weapon seems to me the most likely outcome. The asymetry here between Messiah Obama–a trembling tower of Tapioca, and the Mullahs who speak only to god is the driving force.

  81. Shadowfax, the DHS funding bill was to fund DHS. Some wanted to use the funding bill to block Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat by specifically refusing funds for what Obama did. The bill was all about funding not approving of what Obama did. Of course by funding the entire DHS the congress is funding Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats.

    The courts are still blocking Obama as this article from an hour ago notes:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/deadline-looms-states-respond-immigration-suit-29350904

    A coalition of states suing to stop President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration asked a federal judge Tuesday not to lift a temporary hold on the directives.

    The 26-state coalition, led by Texas, said in a 22-page court filing to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, that “there is no emergency need to institute this sweeping new program.”

    “It is not in the public interest to allow (the U.S. government) to effect a breathtaking expansion of executive power, all before the courts have had a full opportunity to consider its legality,” the states said in their motion.

    Hanen issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 16 that halted Obama’s action, which could spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. The states sought the injunction, arguing that Obama’s executive action was unconstitutional.

    The U.S. government on Feb. 23 asked Hanen to lift his injunction while it appeals his ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

    Justice Department attorneys have said a stay of Hanen’s ruling is needed “to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is able to most effectively protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of the border.”

    The states argued the preliminary injunction does not impair Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s “ability to marshal his assets or deploy the resources of” his agency.

    The states also said lifting the stay would irreversibly harm them as they would spend millions of dollars in government benefits for individuals that they would not recover if they win their lawsuit.

    The first of Obama’s orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — had been set to take effect Feb. 18. The other major part, extending deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

    Obama announced the executive action in November, saying a lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own.

    There was no deadline for a decision by Hanen.

    That last sentence makes us laugh and Obama fume.

    We’ll post the plaintiffs’ pleading as soon as it becomes available. We hope Judge Hanen takes the government’s motion to lift the injunction and places it in a place it never sees light again.

  82. Forgive me, but I am so sick and tired of all the nuanced analysis of the Washington elites and their if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle hypothetical. There is one factor which is outcome determinative: leverage–leverage, and—leverage. Leverage favors the Mullahs and disfavors Messiah Obama even though the is by universal big media proclamation the second coming of . . . whatever.

  83. Shadowfax, the DHS funding bill was to fund DHS. Some wanted to use the funding bill to block Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat by specifically refusing funds for what Obama did. The bill was all about funding not approving of what Obama did. Of course by funding the entire DHS the congress is funding Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats.

    The courts are still blocking Obama as this article from an hour ago notes:
    ———-
    Correct: Boehner’s sell-out does not, ipso facto, settle the legal issue pending before the court.

    What is does do is give Roberts exactly what he needs to duck the issue.

    Congress has funded this illegal act, and there is no way to restore the status quo ante.

    That IS the critical point here.

  84. Here’s a good laugh:

    http://www.france24.com/en/20150303-nobel-peace-prize-chairman-removed/?aef_campaign_date=2015-03-03&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&dlvrit=66745&ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_linkname=editorial&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter

    OSLO (AFP) –

    The controversial head of Norway’s Nobel Peace Prize committee was removed Tuesday and demoted to the rank of mere member in an unprecedented move.

    Thorbjoern Jagland, a former Norwegian premier, drew criticism after becoming committee chairman in 2009 for awarding the prestigious Nobel to newly elected US President Barack Obama. He will be replaced by current Deputy Chair Kaci Kullmann Five.

  85. If I were in Roberts position, and looking for a way out, I would go for mootness.

    Think back to the Marco Defunis case, which involved a denial of admission to the University of Washington Law School. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court it was ruled to be moot. He had been admitted. Likewise here, but the time this case is decided by the Supreme Court these law breakers will be accorded all the rights provided for by the Obama Administration. As there is no practical way to undo this and restore the status quo ante, and IF like Roberts I was looking for a way out, I would be inclined to rule the issue was moot. That is what I am talking about. I understand what it means to do something with a reservation of rights, and I have done that before myself. But where, as here, there is no way to restore the statut quo ante, Boehners treason has rendered the issue academic. And what about the hundreds of millions of others who will see this action as an open invitation, and bypass the lawful methods. It no longer matters, because in the end, the rule of law will be trumped by politics and the will of the donor class.

  86. Thanks for explaining Admin.


    Wbb

    Congress has funded this illegal act, and there is no way to restore the status quo ante.

    That IS the critical point here.

    ——-
    Legally does this mean to fund the DHS by Congress, implies that anything that Obama does with amnesty, is therefore more legal than what the courts find legal. Or are you saying it just gives the cave-in Supremes an excuse to say amnesty is therefore accepted by Congress because they funded DHS knowing that Obama would use the money to gift all 5 million aliens?

    Sounds like amnesty is just a matter of time?

  87. admin
    March 3, 2015 at 10:04 pm

    Here’s a good laugh:

    —To bad they can’t ask for the Peace Prize back.

  88. From someone who earlier disapproved of Netanyahu giving the speech:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/a-few-brief-thoughts-on-the-netanyahu-speech-and-an-apology/

    When the Prime Minister finished speaking today, I realized exactly how wrong I had been in assuming that this was going to be some cheap, catchpenny display. This was, as I said on Twitter in the moments following the address, one of the most powerful speeches which I have seen delivered in that chamber in the modern era. Netanyahu was the essence of many attributes so lacking in American politics today. He was gracious, not only to those who obviously support him, but to those who might disagree with him here on various policy points. (And, as I will cover below, even with those who were simply rude.) He projected wisdom and rational thought, so frequently lacking in the cheap seats of the theater of American politics. He was sincerely grateful for all that he and the nation he represents have received from the United States and for the consanguinity between our nations. He expressed confidence and hope in a lasting relationship which should be a hallmark of civilized relations in the modern world.

    Above all, he was not there to be a politician as I had previously supposed. He was there to be a leader, but also a gracious ally, speaking as an equal on the world stage. He did not come with his hat in hand to ask America to save him. He reiterated that Israel could save itself, but that it would not have to stand alone as long as those with common values which embrace basic goodness stood together in sodality. It was, quite simply, one of the most moving speeches I have witnessed in many years.

    I was wrong – in the worst way, since I have clearly allowed cynicism to poison the well – when I supposed that this speech was a pointless, partisan, political ploy. I think I’ve spent too long watching American politicians standing up on cable news and barking out the same tired talking points which their minions repeat ad nauseam for the mainstream media complex. I was highly impressed and felt a bit ashamed. I owe the Prime Minister an apology and I do so now.

  89. “I believe the fraud had wanted a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Muslim’s from the get go.”
    ****
    Pakistan has a Muslim nuclear bomb and a lot of them. Their estimated nuclear stockpile is 100-120 nuclear weapons and the aircraft/missile systems to deliver them. Pakistan is also one coup away from having a bat-shit crazy Sunni radical Islamist gov’t. I don’t know what the games are about with Obama and Iran but if they ever attempted a nuclear test, Israel would blow the country back to the stone age.

  90. The Ayatollah of rock and rolla is playing the chess game exactly like I advised. Its not that I am that smart. Rather, the strategic move here is that obvious. There message to Obama is subtle: never give a sucker an even break. No to everything, but continue to negotiate ad infinitum knowing that Messiah Obama cannot afford to be the one to pull the plug on negotiations because it would undermine his self image as the peacemaker. An image he boasted about in the 2008 primary debates, if you happen to recall. And use that time to build out the nuclear infrastructure. Meanwhile Obama can unleash his big media minions on Bibi–terrible thing he did, set the process back a year etc. When you sucker punch a sucker is that really a sucker punch? It took great courage for Nannypoopie to attend the speech. Thus, the least she could have expected was a nod from Bibi, but did not get one. We have heard of the Arab expression the dog that did not bark. Holmes too. Well this was a case of the nod that never was. Now we know the real reason why she turned her back.
    ————————–
    Bibi’s Speech—The Real Fallout

    Benjamin Netanyahu only made one mistake in another stellar performance in front of Congress today. The Israeli PM neglected to give an initial shout-out to Nancy Pelosi as he did to Harry Reid, causing the now House minority leader to walk off in a snit and call his speech “insulting.” Oh, well, even the most seasoned politicians like Bibi blow it sometimes.

    But you know he did a good job because some desperate Democratic backbencher from Kentucky named John Yarmuth got all incensed in his post-speech statement (no, he didn’t attend), accusing Bibi of being like a kid at Disneyland trying to get everything he wants, including extra ice cream. Obviously Yarmuth (a former Republican and a Jew — go figure) missed the key point. Obama and Kerry already were about to give the Iranians everything they want.

    Well, not quite. Because when you give the Iranians everything they want, they just want more. And, lo and behold, in the midst of the uproar over Netanyahu’s speech, along comes none other than Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif to set matters straight:

    MONTREUX, Switzerland (Reuters) – Iran rejected on Tuesday as “unacceptable” U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue talks on a deal, Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported.

    Iran laid out the position as the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers met for a second day of negotiations and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a stinging critique of the agreement they are trying to hammer out.

    pelosi_netanyahu_congress_3-3-15-1
    Pelosi during Netanyahu’s speech. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

    Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met a day after Obama told Reuters that Iran must commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a landmark atomic deal to be reached.”Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,” Zarif was quoted by Fars as saying.

    So, in other words, the ten-year sunset clause that many of us thought should be an horrendous non-starter, is not enough for the Iranians — who, of course, will continue to negotiate, probably until 2035, assuming they haven’t blown up half the globe by then.

    There you have it — the perfect signal the Iranians aren’t really interested in a deal but wish to continue to play the Obama administration for suckers on into oblivion. Who could have predicted that? Well, a lot of people, including yours truly, the day before yesterday — and I don’t speak a word of Farsi.

    I have one other prediction to make. This won’t make a bit of difference to John Yarmuth. He’ll still be angry at Netanyahu. And Pelosi will stay insulted.

    Also watch video: Nancy Pelosi Turns Her Back on Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/03/03/bibis-speech-the-real-fallout/#ixzz3TOJdxiU2

  91. S, 🙂

    In describing Netanyahu in the article Admin posted 10:43 the author uses the term “gracious” a couple of times. That aptly describes the quality that was obviously lacking in Obama and his response to Netanyahu’s speech. He and MSM, along with his other spinners tried to convince the public that Barack’s objection to the speech was based on concerns that it might interfere with negotiations with Iran and because the speech was scheduled close to the time of Israeli election. The failure of Boehner to observe proper protocol also mentioned, but not emphasized (it was at first, but the “message” changed).

    The first two reasons are bogus. The real reason was because no one consulted with Obama. He was not made aware that the invitation was to be extended, and he was powerless to stop it even after demanding that it be stopped. Obama’s request was ignored by Bibi and Boehner.

    No matter how Obama and MSM try to spin this, Obama’s response revealed his pettiness and his smallness. He could not be the bigger person and ignore the breech of protocol – despite the fact that throughout his presidency he has snubbed and violated protocol, tradition, law, constitution time and again. Obama was unable to be a statesman and a leader. He was incapable of being gracious. Because of his self-centered petty response, he missed an easy opportunity to pretend to be a true leader, capable of ignoring a small perceived infraction in order to preserve and strengthen a strained relationship with an important ally. Had he been able to do so, he might have earned a bit of respect . Obama is apparently unwilling to placate and support America’s allies – but has no problem bowing and scraping to America’s enemies.

  92. I don’t know what the games are about with Obama and Iran but if they ever attempted a nuclear test, Israel would blow the country back to the stone age.
    ——–
    Unless Obama shot down their planes.

  93. Shadowfax
    March 3, 2015 at 10:17 pm
    Thanks for explaining Admin.


    Wbb

    Congress has funded this illegal act, and there is no way to restore the status quo ante.

    That IS the critical point here.

    ——-
    Legally does this mean to fund the DHS by Congress, implies that anything that Obama does with amnesty, is therefore more legal than what the courts find legal. Or are you saying it just gives the cave-in Supremes an excuse to say amnesty is therefore accepted by Congress because they funded DHS knowing that Obama would use the money to gift all 5 million aliens?

    Sounds like amnesty is just a matter of time?

    ————–
    A Republican operative would undoubtedly argue that no action in furtherance of Obama’s illegal action can be taken until the injunction is lifted, but the truth is Jehhhhhhhhhh is already taking certain actions in furtherance of the decree like he said he would which caused me to wonder whether a contempt citation will issue. It has not. I think we are dealing here with a fait a compli, the moment congress funded the illegal action. Many conservatives would agree with me/

  94. Poor Obama, so perturbed by Bibi.

    Too bad he has never been so emotionally upset about beheadings, open borders, a bad economy, Russia taking over part of the sovereign neighbor next door, etc, etc, etc….

    What a narcissist, and the absolutely worst person to fill the job of American president.

    I’m with Rudy G, I don’t think he loves America, I don’t even think he culturally *is* American. If someone were to say they think he *does* love America, I’d ask, what exactly would someone do differently than he if they didn’t love America?

  95. The first two reasons are bogus. The real reason was because no one consulted with Obama. He was not made aware that the invitation was to be extended, and he was powerless to stop it even after demanding that it be stopped. Obama’s request was ignored by Bibi and Boehner.
    ———-
    I think the real reason for the hissy fit was Obama did not want the world to know what a rotten, one sided deal he negotiated until it was too late to stop him. And then he and his big media allies would have put a full court press on congress to ratify and if that was not possible then the treat it as an executive order. It was like Obamacare in that sense, he would have to conclude the deal before anyone knew what was in it. It would have been the 30/70 deal I talked about. For Hertzog this would have been okay because he would rely on Obama’s illusory promises, but for Bibi who knows a snake when he sees one, it was not okay.

  96. wbboei
    March 4, 2015 at 12:46 am
    ———————–
    I’m sure the IAF will have fighter escorts and ECMs accompanying any bombers on their way to Iran because Netanyahu will have to assume the worst about Obama, that any planes they encounter in their flight path will be hostile, even those from US carriers.

  97. The Liberal Circus
    by Victor Davis Hanson

    Lately liberalism has gone from psychodrama to farce.

    Take Barack Obama. He has gone from mild displeasure with Israel to downright antipathy. Suddenly we are in a surreal world where off-the-record slurs from the administration against Benjamin Netanyahu as a coward and chickensh-t have gone to full-fledged attacks from John Kerry and Susan Rice, to efforts of former Obama political operatives to defeat the Israeli prime minister at the polls, to concessions to Iran and to indifference about the attacks on Jews in Paris. Who would have believed that Iranian leaders who just ordered bombing runs on a mock U.S. carrier could be treated with more deference than the prime minister of Israel? What started out six years as pressure on Israel to dismantle so-called settlements has ended up with a full-fledged vendetta against a foreign head of state.

    Transparency? Consider the recent disclosures that Hillary knew almost immediately that the Benghazi killings were the preplanned work of terrorists and not due to spontaneous rioters angry over a video — and yet continued to deceive the public that just the opposite was true. The problem with Hillary’s scandals are not just that they reveal a lack of character, but that they are illiberal to the core on hallmark progressive issues of concern for equality, transparency and feminism.

    We no longer live in an age of debate over global warming. It has now transmogrified well beyond Al Gore’s hysterics, periodic disclosures about warmists’ use of faked data, embarrassing email vendettas, vindictive lawsuits, crony green capitalism, and flawed computer models. Now Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken the psychodrama to the level of farce in a two-bit McCarthyesque effort to demand from universities information about scientists who do not embrace his notions of manmade global warming. Where are the ACLU and fellow Democratic congressional supporters of free speech and academic freedom to censure such an Orwellian move? Finally, even the American Meteorological Society had to condemn the unhinged Grijalva for his bizarre efforts.

    Attorney General Eric Holder came into office alleging racism and calling the American people cowards, and six years later is exiting, still blaming racism for his own self-inflicted failures. In between, Holder became the first attorney general to be cited for contempt by Congress. He stonewalled the Fast and Furious investigations. His plans to try terrorists in federal civilian courts were tabled almost immediately. He ordered electronic taps and surveillance on the communications of Associated Press and Fox reporters for supposed leaks. He ignored wrongdoing in the IRS mess, a scandal that continues to grow. He got caught using his government jet to take his daughters and their boyfriends to the Belmont Stakes.

    But Holder will be remembered largely for his racialist tenure. He dropped a strong case of voting intimidation by armed Black Panthers at the polls. In congressional testimony, he referred to blacks as “my people”; anyone else — except Joe Biden — who had said the same would have been asked to resign. He promised federal action on Ferguson and the Trayvon Martin shootings — and then quietly backed off when the evidence for civil rights violations did not meet his own rhetorical excesses. The problem, he pleaded, was not that his targets were not guilty under the law, but that the law itself had to be changed to make them guilty. Holder claimed repeatedly that opposition to Obama was race-based, and he leaves office as a caricature of incompetence and racial divisiveness.

    The IRS scandal likewise went from melodrama to farce. The president said there was not a “smidgeon” of corruption in the selective targeting of conservatives. Lois Lerner, the focus of investigations, pled the Fifth Amendment after having received over $100,000 in merit bonuses. When congressional investigators wanted to subpoena her computer records, IRS officials claimed both that her hard drive had crashed and that its data was unrecoverable. The latter proved untrue; but then so far so has everything the IRS has said. The only lesson is that any private citizen who replied to IRS inquiries in the manner that the IRS responded to public subpoenas would be jailed.

    Debt? Barack Obama stated out in 2008 calling George W. Bush unpatriotic for piling up nearly $5 trillion in eight years; he may be on target to double that amount — and trump the combined red ink of all prior presidents. Obama raised taxes, slashed defense, and still ended up with over a $500 billion annual deficit, as he declared the age of austerity over.

    So it has become with most liberal issues. The debate over illegal immigration has gone from arguments over closing the border to Social Security cash rebates to illegals and presidential threats to punish Border Patrol officers who enforce existing law. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf assures us that poverty and unemployment are catalysts to terrorism, just as so-called Jihadi John, the psychotic ISIS beheader, is revealed to be a preppie British subject from the upper middle class. The president brags that gas prices have gone down because frackers ignored his efforts to stop them — and then vetoes the Keystone Pipeline.

    The Trayvon Martin controversy descends from the purportedly preteen of released photos who was shot down in cold blood by a white vigilante into doctored NBC tapes, airbrushed photos, the New York Times’ invented rubric “white Hispanic,” the president weighing in on Trayvon’s shared racial appearance, girlfriend Rachel Jeantel’s explanation of Trayvon’s violence as a sort of homophobic act of “whoop ass” — only to be echoed by MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry’s ugly sanction of violence on Martin Luther King Day with the amplification of Jeantel’s term “whoop”: “I hope [Martin] whooped the sh-it out of George Zimmerman.” It would be hard for a satirist to make all that up.

    Michael Brown goes from the icon of a “gentle giant” in vain calling out “hands up, don’t shoot” only to be gunned down by a white racist cop — to a thug who strong-armed a store clerk, walked out into the middle of the road under the influence and then attacked a police officer. Conspiracists once warned us that the government was buying up ammo to prevent private gun owners from purchasing it; now we learn that Obama by executive order may ban the most popular type of sporting ammunition. Is there one element of Obamacare that has not been modified, delayed, or ignored — from the employer mandate to the fine for noncompliance?

    Why this descent into travesty?

    The liberal left got what it wanted in 2009 with a supermajority in the Senate and large majority in the House, a subservient mainstream media, the good will of the American people, and the most liberal president in American history. It only took that liberal hierarchy six years to erode the Democratic Party to levels that we have not seen since the 1920s. Almost every policy initiative we have seen — whether climate change, foreign policy, health care, or race relations — has imploded.

    The answer to these failures has not been introspection, humility, or reevaluation why the liberal agenda proved unpopular and unworkable, but in paranoid fashion to double-down on it, convinced that its exalted aims must allow any means necessary — however farcical — to achieve them.

    The logical result is the present circus.

  98. Still 4 Hill posts responses from Media Matters and other sources disputing NYT’s false accusations that Hillary violated the law by using personal email account for official State Dept. communications.

    ________________

    The New York Times’ Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law
    It Was Only After Clinton Left The State Department That The Law Concerning Private Emails Was Changed

    Research March 3, 2015 1:20 PM EST ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN

    619
    Print Email
    The New York Times accused Hillary Clinton of potentially violating federal law pertaining to the preservation of e-mail records while acting as Secretary of State, but requirements to maintain such records did not exist during her tenure.

    The New York Times Accused Clinton Of Possible Wrong-Doing With Usage Of Non-Government Emails

    NYT: Clinton’s Use Of Private Email During Time At The State Department May Have Violated Federal Law. In a March 2 report, The New York Times accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of possibly having “violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record” with the use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department.The Times reported, “Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.” [The New York Times,3/2/15]

    But The Law Overseeing Retention Of Private Emails Was Not Changed Until After Clinton Left The State Department

    President Obama Signed Update To Federal Records Act In 2014. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. [Congress.gov, accessed 3/3/15]

    National Archives Official: 2014 Federal Records Law Clarified How Private Email Should Be Handled. Among the “major points” in the 2014 law highlighted by the National Archives was: “Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems.” [Records Express, National Archives, 12/2/14]

    2014 Federal Records Law Marked “The First Significant Changes To The Federal Records Act Of 1950.” According to the National Archives, the 2014 law marked “the first significant changes to the Federal Records Act of 1950.” [Records Express, National Archives, 12/2/14]
    Law Signed “Two Years After Clinton Stepped Down.” Criticizing the Times article’s insinuation that Clinton violated the law, Daily Banter contributor Bob Cesca pointed out: “The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.” [The Daily Banter, 3/3/15]

    http://still4hill.com/2015/03/03/media-matters-takes-the-new-york-times-behind-the-woodshed-on-the-hillary-clinton-email-dust-up/

  99. Not to press an old point, but the repeated efforts by conservatives to make a giant scandal out of Hillary’s TWO mentions of the film protest in discussing Benghazi are ludicrous.

    On Sept. 11 and Sept. 12 Hillary’s reference to the film is framed thusly:

    “Some have sought to …….response to inflammatory material posted on the internet”

    Below is an excerpt from a timeline by Fact Check, which of course attempts to make it appear that Hillary was out spreading this rumor. Given their left wing bias, it’s no surprise that Fact Check would try to place blame on Hillary – not where it belonged on Obama and his WH aides.

    _________________

    Sept. 11 – Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

    Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

    Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
    _______________

    As we already know, Judicial Watch has published the origin of the film protest rationalization, and its author:

    _______________

    Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points

    APRIL 29, 2014

    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

    The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.

    The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

    The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

    Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

    [W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

    Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

    The Rhodes communications strategy email also instructs recipients to portray Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” throughout the crisis. Another of the “Goals” of the PR offensive, Rhodes says, is “[T]o reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” He later includes as a PR “Top-line” talking point:

    I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.

    The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

    Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.

    In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”

    But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.

    The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

    The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

    The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also contain numerous emails sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility. The contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an “attack”:

    September 11, 2012, 6:41 PM – Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky, to Susan Rice:
    As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…

    At 8:51 pm, Pelofsky tells Rice and others that “Post received a call from a person using an [sic] RSO phone that Chris was given saying the caller was with a person matching Chris’s description at a hospital and that he was alive and well. Of course, if the he were alive and well, one could ask why he didn’t make the call himself.”

    Later that evening, Pelofsky emailed Rice that he was “very, very worried. In particular that he [Stevens] is either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him.” Rice replied, “God forbid.”

    September 11, 2012, 4:49 PM – State Department press officer John Fogarty reporting on “Libya update from Beth Jones”:
    Beth Jones [Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs] just spoke with DCM Tripoli Greg Hicks, who advised a Libyan militia (we now know this is the 17th Feb brigade, as requested by Emb office) is responding to the attackon the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”

    Material is blacked out (or redacted) in many emails.

    “Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/
    ________________

    The fact that FOX news and every other conservative, right wing nut in the country tried to make the focus of Benghazi Hillary’s two mentions of the film protests, with each statement beginning with the words “Some have sought to justify …” confirms their lame attempt to politicize this tragedy. They must be so frustrated because they were unable to blame the whole damn incident on Hillary, they have just continued to grasp at the same old straw, blaming her for those two comments as if they altered the course of events or were as scandalous as Watergate.

    Hillary was told by her boss to cite that as the reason for the attack. There was much tension at home and in the ME regarding the incident. She chose to frame it as she did to reflect that this was not a statement of fact or even of speculation on her part. In her response to attacks and considering the pressure she was receiving from the WH and her desire not to increase tensions between the US and the ME Hillary responded as well or better than most people would have in her position.

    People were killed in that attack. It was a gravely serious incident. For the freakin’ Repubs to continue to focus on Hillary’s reference to that film shows just how little they actually give a damn about the lives lost.

  100. As tough as it is to come to grips with, if Hillary runs and if her candidacy embraces the far left agenda of Obama, I won’t be able to support her. Voting conscience is what’s important – not being a blind follower of anyone. But, my conscience won’t be dictated to by the bogus claims of those afflicted with CDS.

    Just as any public official does, Hillary deserves to be criticized when that criticism is valid. But by damn, it needs to actually BE VALID – not some trumped-up mole hill-into-mountain bullshit hate speech to which Hillary has been subjected by both those on both the far left and the right.

    For anyone to have maintained the high approval ratings and the level of support from voters (ranging from 54% to 60% consistently), in spite of the damn witch hunt (and they mean witch LITERALLY), as Hillary has done is heartening. Although these high numbers it may not continue with the Warren supporters, the left wing haters, and the right wing crazies continuing to pound her with every bogus, non-issue they can make up , the fact these attacks have not served their purpose – to destroy Hillary – thus far is reason to be hopeful. And, lately there have been mighty damn few such reasons.

    I think our challenge as Hillary supporters will be (as it always has been) to separate the bogus slander from true factual concerns regarding Hillary’s position on various issues and respond accordingly. For the present, as Shadow Fax and others have said, she is the absolute best person for the job of president – and heaven knows given the state it’s in today, our country cannot afford to elect another self-serving incompetent president.

    Americans who actually give more of a damn about this country than they do blind allegiance to an ideology or political party – or clinging to their Clinton hate – will take the 2016 election extremely seriously and vote for the candidate who can help repair damage done by the O Administration. As a country, we don’t have time for political games and posturing. We need a damn leader – not a self-serving petulant child in the WH.

  101. freespirit
    March 4, 2015 at 8:14 am
    ——————————

    Her enemies on the right and left have been desperately throwing anything at her hoping it will stick in order to convince her not to run. The fact is, both sides are absolutely terrified of her running and will do anything to prevent that.

  102. WSJ p.3 today.

    Article on John Roberts—man on the hot seat.

    It notes the vote on the pending case on Obama care will come down 4 to 4.

    Hence Roberts will be the deciding vote.

    Previously, he pulled out of his ass the opinion which legitimatized a government take over of that industry.

    Which, as the article notes, “deeply damaged his reputation with conserative” who equate his action with “treason”.

    They asked two law professors to opine on whether he will fall through his ass again, on this one.

    On the one hand you have Jessee Choper who has been a law professor since Christ was a corporal.

    He is from Boalt Hall, i.e. Cal Berkley. and was a law clerk for Earl Warren

    Thus, it is hardly surprising that he would say ignore the language and consider the societal consequences and legislate.

    On the other side, you have Mike McMcConnell who is a more recent vintage.

    I knew his predecessor Gerald Gunther who was a real good guy, and an advocate of judicial self restraint than activism.

    He says that while there is a concern for the integrity of the court, and an earnest desire not to invalidate acts of Congress

    There is also a tradition of implementing the plain meaning and respecting the legislative history which goes to the heart of the judicial function and cannot be ignored.

    So there you have it: the judicial activism on the one hand, judicial self restrain on the other, and a man in the middle who was placed under enormous pressure by NYT and congress which caused him to crack.

    A man like that, who cracks once, is likely to crack again, along the same fault line./

  103. Her enemies on the right and left have been desperately throwing anything at her hoping it will stick in order to convince her not to run. The fact is, both sides are absolutely terrified of her running and will do anything to prevent that.
    ________

    Exactly, Tony!

  104. freespirit
    March 4, 2015 at 10:22 am
    As tough as it is to come to grips with, if Hillary runs and if her candidacy embraces the far left agenda of Obama, I won’t be able to support her.
    ———-
    That is a reasonable position to take.

    Bear in mind, however, that candidates campaign to the left in the primary and to the center in the general election.

    Therefore, it still comes down to a question of trust.

    And that question will be answered not by what she says, but what she does.

    The best tell of how she will act is the people she surrounds herself with and the cabinet she selects.

    Some of that will be known before the general election.

  105. foxy, as O demonstrated in the video, “nothing new” is the standard Dim response to Bibi’s speech. This, of course, misses the point entirely – as is the intention.

    Bibi made clear in advance of his speech the primary topic, which was something OLD – old as the hills. His goal was to reiterate and emphasize the threat a nuclear Iran posed to his country, to this one, and to the world . The points he made were valid, real, and serious.

    The something “new” was provided by Obama and his anti-Israeli band of thuggy children – the willingness of this country to allow Iran to develop nuclear capability. So, no – Bibi didn’t invent a new way to dupe people, which is something the WH would have been seriously interested in. He didn’t come to announce a new and even more pro-Obama media outlet – which O would have also been totally into. He hadn’t figured out a sneaker, more creative way for the Dims to attack Hillary.

    Bibi’s “nothing new” response was about the historical threat posed to his country by others in the ME, the promise from leaders of other countries and groups within the ME to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. He was asking the leaders of this country to refrain from entering into agreements with a sworn enemy of Israel and America. He was advocating for his people and their safety.

    Yeah, it was all pretty “old” shit. And, apparently – to Obama and the Dims – too boring and unimportant to bother with. But, if they want “new”, they can just let MSM or the WH, or any of the Obama Dims make up new lies to justify Barack’s willingness to allow Iran to develop nuclear capability, and to explain away their disregard for the safety of Israel its citizens.

  106. freespirit

    March 4, 2015 at 12:41 am

    S,
    ***********************************************

    so agree, freespirit…

    a confident person is not afraid to be gracious…O now fears not only not getting a deal by being out negotiated by Iran’s demands (they won’t even agree to 10 years, let alone the 15/20 Feinstein wants)…and/or the Congress actually garnering enough support to override any veto O threatens with any flimsy deal he makes…

    Bibi just exposed the reality of O’s little secret cocoon much too clearly for O to take…emperor standing there with no clothes…oops…

    Bibi needs to hang tough and keep it up until O is safely out of office and control…

    *************

    as far as Hillary goes…she has a very big challenge ahead of her to undo the two terms of damage O has wrought…and she has to be deft less she be blamed for his deeds…

    I just do not want to hear Obama 3 out of her…open mind until she gets a chance to speak for herself…

Comments are closed.