Obama Will Ignore Congress And The People – Impose Iran Deal Himself

After floating a trial balloon for a ‘Third term’ while in Africa – His Heinous’ henchmen tell Congress that if they do not approve the Iran treaty, Obama cannot be counted on to follow the law.

The hits are coming fast and furious now, daily even – as this news is like, so last week.  All by design of course in application of Saul Alinsky’s Rule No. 8.  You are so baffled by yesterday’s outrage that you miss the one or two the Obama regime dumped on America today.

In the avalanche of despotism and lawlessness, the Obama regime is not bothering to make pretenses anymore.  They are becoming proud of this Fascist Dictatorship it is establishing, with or without support from the Ruling Class Oligarchy, whom are just useful idiots for the moment: making a despotic coup legitimate.  This will become more clear in the days ahead as Obama furiously imposes his agenda to fundamentally transform the nation into smoldering ruin.

While the American people are all upset over the death of a lion in Africa thanks to the incessant Praetorian media’s attention to it, baby’s are harvested at taxpayer expense for their parts and tissue and the American people yawn at industrial extermination, while begin ruled by a dictatorial regime that demands obeisance to it’s ideology.  I’ve read and seen something similar happening to another enlightened and industrial nation about 70 years ago.  Still the people slumber.

Fascism is back in vogue, and an ignorant populace have no clue this is what now rules them.

Obama: If Congress Blocks My Iran Deal, I’ll Ignore The Law & Do It Anyway

How very fascist. So, Obama is saying that if Congress doesn’t play ball on approving the Iran deal, he might just go ahead and do it anyway. That violates the Constitution and the law. Technically he can’t do it – oh, but he will. Notice how Kerry sidestepped the issue? If Obama does this and isn’t made to answer for it or stopped, that’s the end of our Constitutional Republic and the actual beginning of a dictatorship. Even if a conservative is elected in 2016, by then $150 to 200 billion will have gone to Iran, effectively arming our enemies for our destruction. This president has gone rogue and we must reign him in – legally and physically if need be.

When you eliminate impeachment as a possibility and both sides of the political aisle are complicit in a Marxist agenda, you get this type of behavior. Obama is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur and a pen and a phone. Of course he won’t obey the law… he’ll flaunt it whenever he can get away with it. If leaders won’t go along with him, he’ll blackmail them or use leverage of some sort against them to get these so-called leaders to see things his way. This type of bowing before our enemies such as Iran, Russia and China will get millions of Americans killed. Obama knows and doesn’t care. This is treason you are watching unfold in the Oval Office.

Kerry Won’t Commit That They Will Follow The Law If Congress Rejects Iran Deal

A senior House Democrat at Tuesday’s Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Iran deal, asked Secretary of State John Kerry if the Obama regime would follow the law if the Senate rejects his Iran nuke deal. Kerry would not commit that the Obama administration would follow the law if Congress shoots down the deal by a veto-proof majority.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) asks John Kerry, “But let’s say Congress doesn’t take your advice and we override a veto and the law that is triggered then imposes certain sanctions. Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly, and even if you think it’s absolute terrible policy?” Sherman asked.

“I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are,” Kerry replied.

“So you are not committed to following the law?” Sherman pressed.

“No, I said I am not going to deal with a hypothetical,” Kerry said. “That’s all.”

But if that doesn’t blow your mind, how about more insanity from Obama’s point man on handing the Iranian Mullah’s nukes and billions of dollars to make their pledge of ‘Death To America’ a reality?  He really, really said this when questioned about the rallies and chants led by Iran’s leaders:

KERRY: IRAN’S “DEATH TO AMERICA”DOESN’T MEAN THEY WANT TO KILL US

At no time was he made aware of an Iranian plan to destroy America.

Secretary of State John Kerry is still seeking a nuanced explanation for Iran’s government saying, “Death to America”. He called the Iranian government’s cries of “Death to America” “not helpful” and suggested that the Supreme Leader might not really mean it.

And now Kerry would like to emphasize that aside from the “Death to America” chants and the nuclear bombs and constant threats of war, at no time was he made aware of an Iranian plan to destroy America.

Yesiree bob.  The Clown Jester heading the State Department really said all of this under testimony. This is why Obama and his Jihadist pals are laughing their asses off at us.  They believe we are stupid enough to believe what Kerry said, and that there is no danger to the world with a nuclear-armed Iran.

But it’s not just the Dimwitted John ‘D. Student’ Kerry that says “Do not believe your own eyes and ears”- Obama’s CHIEF at DHS insists the following:

DHS Chief: Don’t Call it ‘Islamic Extremism’ Because Islamic Terrorism Doesn’t Have Anything to Do With Islam

So we have an Obama Regime that will hand Iran’s Mullahcracy billions of dollars, a free pathway to nuclear weapons, defend their nukes against our allies AND at the same time,INSIST that ‘Death To America’ does not mean they want to kill us.  Because after all, Islamic Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam according to the Obama Dictatorship.

 

GOP Outrage Over Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal? It’s All Kabuki Theater

Obama to use UN to impose Nuke Deal.   Senate was told about John Kerry’s approval of Obama’s plans to circumvent Congress on Iranian nukes at his Confirmation hearings back in 2013.  They rubber-stamped Kerry’s nomination anyway.

For all the public outrage over His Heinous Barack Obama’s Dictatorial end-run around Congress and ignoring the Constitutional requirement for treaties to be ratified in the Senate, the truth is that the very same people now speaking out against Obama’s unilateral nuke deal agreement with Tehran – VOTED TO CONFIRM the very man who told them he approved of Obama using that tactic back in 2013.

It’s not like the Senate and the GOP did not know that Obama was planning to negotiate a deal with Iran without them. They knew!   John Effing Kerry TOLD them during his confirmation hearing in 2013 that HE SUPPORTED OBAMA ENACTING SUCH A DEAL BY HIMSELF and using methods outside of the ‘ideological restraint’ of Congress!!!!  Here’s excerpts from the transcript of his confirmation hearing:

SENATOR JAMES RISCH (R-ID)

There are a lot of us that are becoming increasingly concerned about all this talk regarding executive agreements as opposed to treaties that are negotiated by the executive branch as contemplated by the Founding Fathers and ratified, if appropriate, by this committee and eventually by the full Senate. Can you give us your view on matters regarding executive agreements? How do you feel about that and the bypassing of the committee?

SEN. KERRY: Well, it would depend — I would say to you, Senator, that it would depend on what the subject matter is and what the sort of scope is and whether or not it falls under a traditional treaty purview or it falls under executive agreement purview.

I can’t — I don’t want to be commenting in some prophylactic way one side or the other without the specific situation in front of me. But I’m confident the president is committed to upholding the Constitution. He’s — I don’t think he’s — you know, and I think — and I’ll say this to all of you.

There’s no better way to guarantee that whatever concerns you have about the president’s desire to move on an executive agreement would be greatly, you know, nullified or mollified if we could find a way to cooperate on a treaty or on the broader issues that face the nation. But you know, I think — I think there’s a lot of frustration out there that some of the automatic ideological restraint here that prevents the majority from being able to express their voice has restrained people and pushed people in a way where they’ve got to consider some other ways of getting things done.

SEN. RISCH: Well, and that’s exactly what concerns us, Senator Kerry, is the fact that it’s OK to do this through the regular order if it gets done, but if it’s not going to get done, then it’s — the ends justify the means; it’s OK to end-run around the Constitution.

So even when Kerry confirmed to these Senators that he was going to support an end-run around the Constitution in regards to Obama enacting treaties outside of Congress – these same Senators voted to confirm him as Secretary of State ANYWAY.

It’s all kabuki theater.

They say they oppose ObamaCare – the GOP FUNDS IT.  They say they oppose Obama’s Executive Amnesty and automatic citizenship for illegals – THE GOP FULLY FUNDS IT.  They say they oppose Obama’s usurpation of power and using the ATF, the FCC, FEC and other alphabets to impose “Law” by decree – they not only FULLY FUND IT – they refuse to use the tools the Constitution provides them to defund and oppose what Obama is implementing.

Kabuki.

These same GOP leaders will no doubt feign outrage over upcoming dictatorial decrees and usurpations by Obama and his Executive branch – yet they will no doubt confirm radical Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder at the Justice Department, even after she told them she approves of Obama making law outside the Constitution and handing rights to illegal aliens in preference over American citizens.

The Constitution is irrelevant to this regime now, and the GOP refuses to uphold it – or their oaths to support and defend it.

Obama will cut out Congress and take his Iran ‘deal’ to give the Mullah’s nukes to the UN Security Council, and this letter will be about the only effort they employ to assuage an outraged and bewildered American people.

 

Senate Was Warned About Obama’s End Run on Iran

Congress is struggling to thwart President Obama’s attempt to strike a nuclear deal with Iran on his own, in violation of the Constitution. Lawmakers are taking unprecedented measures — the invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Corker-Menendez bill and even a letter to Tehran to stop it. None of this would be necessary if the U.S. Senate had done its job instead of rubber-stamping John Kerry’s nomination as secretary of state.

In January 2013, Kerry plainly warned Senate Foreign Relations Committee members — the same people now leading the charge against the Iran deal — that he intended to support Obama’s end run around the Constitution because “they’ve got to consider some other ways of getting things done.” Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and John McCain, R-Ariz., all heard Kerry’s statement first-hand, ignored it and voted for him, offering effusive praise for their former Senate buddy. Now they are getting what they should have seen coming.

Too bad the U.S. Senate abdicated its responsibility. It has final say on presidential appointments, but our senators would rather go along and get along than make sure nominees will follow the Constitution.

Have the senators learned their lesson? This month, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general — the nation’s top law enforcement official. During a Judiciary Committee hearing in January, Lynch indicated she thought Obama’s executive actions to rewrite immigration laws were “reasonable.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz calls her views “disqualifying” and says the Senate has a choice: defend the rule of law or “confirm an attorney general who has candidly admitted she will impose no limits on the president whatsoever.” Ensuring that top government officials are committed to the U.S. Constitution, it’s a no-brainer.

That’s what Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, tried to do at Kerry’s confirmation hearing. The U.S. Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, something Obama foresees he cannot get. Obama calls the possible deal with Iran an “agreement.” Presidents have always made “agreements” without Senate approval, but none of the importance and duration of the Iran deal. “To allege that this doesn’t have all of the marks of a treaty is an insult to everybody’s intelligence,” says McCain now. But at the hearing, McCain was mum about the point.

Only Risch pressed Kerry, insisting that calling it an agreement, not a treaty, amounted to an “end run around the Constitution” that reflected a dangerous “ends justify the means” mentality. With masterful obfuscation, Kerry said maybe things could get done in “the regular order” — meaning constitutionally — but he wouldn’t guarantee it. “It would depend.”

Fast-forward to February 24, 2015, when Kerry returned to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a budget hearing. When Menendez and Corker pressed him for information about the Iran negotiations, he stonewalled. “I’m not going to go into the details of where we are and what we’re doing.”

Worse, Kerry said there should be no “formal approval process” by Congress. “This is the president’s prerogative.” Kerry threw the senators a few crumbs, conceding that though the president can suspend sanctions against Iran, permanently removing them would require a vote in Congress.

A vote, but not the two-thirds majority of the Senate that the Constitution requires for treaty approval. That is why the Senate’s effort at curbing the president — the Corker-Menendez bill — is a shameful retreat. The bill says Obama must submit a final Iran arms deal to Congress within 60 days for hearings and a vote, and bars the president from suspending sanctions against Iran in the meantime. This puts the burden on Congress to cobble together a veto-proof majority, instead of the president having to win over two-thirds of senators. That’s not what the founders intended.

The Senate failed to do its job during Kerry’s confirmation hearings, and now the nation faces the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Senators treat these hearings as media opportunities and quibble about getting their 10 minutes on camera instead of asking tough questions. In fact, they request that answers be kept short so as not to infringe on their own time. It’s hardly the deliberative body the framers envisioned to provide “advice and consent” on critical issues.

Would the White House really try to get around the Constitution?

bizarre as it may seem — is that the administration would go to the United Nations Security Council to pass the Iran agreement and thereby boost its status as enforceable international law.

…the State Department refused to rule out the end run around the Senate and the Constitution. (“State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said on Tuesday: ‘I’m just not going to get ahead of how this would be implemented at this point in time.’”)

There are multiple, serious problems with such an approach. For one thing, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it was a non-binding deal that the next president could demolish with “a stroke of the pen.” Was he misleading the Senate, or is he willing to rule out the end run around the Senate?

Second, the entire legal theory is dubious at best. To believe it could work is to assert the president can unilaterally supersede the dictates of the Constitution.

White House Marxists Calls Republicans “Traitors” To Obama’s Iran Nuke Plan – Pot, Kettle, Black

Democrat Marxists go berserk over letter GOP Senators wrote to Iran in opposition to Obama’s unilateral plan to allow Iran to make nukes, ignoring their own history of sabotaging Presidents, Policies and Comforting Enemies of the United States.

The New York Daily News headlined its front page “traitors” in reference to Republicans who wrote a letter to the Iranian regime informing them about our Constitutional process so that whatever secret deals they make with Obama about their nukes – Congress will have a say in the ultimate decision.

The House Republicans had to take this position because Obama had already stated he was going to implement a nuclear agreement with the Jihadist Iranian regime CIRCUMVENTING CONGRESS – and acting in secret with Iranian’s Mullahs which will allow them to create nuclear weapons over time – a deal in which Obama has no such authority to make.  Essentially the Senate Republicans stated what their Constitutional roles and duties are according to the Supreme Law of our land, a statement that Leftist Moonbats and the Obama regime have said or implied is TREASON.  Not treason to the Constitution which their letter to Iran details – rather treason to Obama and a bastardization of an obscure act their party’s members have always skirted in their own historical aid and comfort of America’s enemies.

Obama went so far as to accuse them of what he, himself has been engaging in.  Obama accused the Republicans of aligning themselves with ‘Iran’s Hardliners” which could not be further from the truth, given the actual content of the letter itself – but the media narrative is what Obama’s narrative is, and the truth is whatever Obama says it is.

Leftists in the regime and their storm trooping “progressive” sycophants are demanding criminal charges be filed and arrests made against  these Republicans for violating The Logan Act.

A White House Petition to arrest and charge the Senate with treason has reached over 200,000 signatures – and it will be interesting to see if the Dictator will truly find his inner Che and do what Fidel would do to his political opposition by ridiculous re-interpretation of laws to benefit his sole intent to impose omnipresent authority.

It’s interesting that when Democrats have written, met with or used backchannels to undermine Nixon, Reagan and the Bushs’ foreign policies – such declarations of treason (and some of it decidedly was) were never made and pursued.  But Marxists are in this for their glorious complete revolution – and in keeping with their history – all Revolutionistas demand blood flow when their revolutions reach the absolute power stage.

Which is where we are nearly at.

Laugh this off at your own peril – these despots are deadly serious and they will not permit anyone to get in Obama’s way of handing our enemies the means to wipe us out of existence.

Showdown Between White House, Democrats and Republicans Over Iran Just Got Uglier

The showdown between the White House, Democrats and Republicans just got a whole lot uglier.

The latest clash comes after 47 Senators sent a letter directly to Iranian leaders yesterday explaining that the President of the United States doesn’t have unilateral authority to make a deal with the regime. They also warned if President Obama acts alone and doesn’t consult Congress before making a deal, the deal will be considered temporary.

…As a refresher, controversy between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill started in January when House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress and to warn the world about the threat of a nuclear Iran. Boehner did this without first consulting the White House. After Netanyahu accepted the invitation and delivered his speech last week, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed she nearly cried because she was so offended. Leading up to the speech, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed Netanyahu’s speech would “tear at the fabric” of the U.S.-Israeli relationship while other White House officials warned his remarks could torpedo U.S. talks with Iran over a deal regarding their nuclear program.

“Biden wrote in a scathing letter: “The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.”

Last night, President Obama accused Republicans of aligning themselves with Iranian “hardliners” for sending the letter.

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Obama said. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

The White House has been clear that any deal with Iran will not be a treaty and therefore will not require ratification from Congress.

Meanwhile the Iranians who fund the world’s largest terror organization, Hezbollah, continue their nuclear secrecy and goals of wiping Israel off the map.

 

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICA’S ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT

On Monday, 47 United States Senators sent an open letter to the Iranian regime warning that any deal cut by President Obama could be revoked by Congress.

“The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

This sent the Obama administration and its media allies into a tizzy of rage. After all, it is one thing for the president of the United States to send secret love letters to the ayatollahs; it is quite another for GOP members of the Senate to warn the Iranians that they will not abide by a bad deal.

Vice President Joe Biden said that the Republican letter was “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere,” adding, “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country – much less a longtime foreign adversary – that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.” Josh Earnest of the White House said that the letter was “a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.”

The New York Daily News headlined its front page “traitors.”

Jon Lovett, former White House speechwriter and current failed TV sitcom writer, tweeted, “SHAME is the best medicine for these 47 Republicans. And they shall have it!” Other Democrats in the media said that Republicans were pushing war as an alternative to peace.

This is sheer nonsense. It was the Obama administration that suggested no deal was better than a bad deal. But given the false dichotomy between any deal and war, that suggestion was obviously a ruse.

Nonetheless, several Republicans declined to sign. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), ever one to solicit the love of the mainstream media, said he wouldn’t sign onto the letter because “it was probably not something that was going to be helpful in that effort, for me to be involved in it.” Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) also declined to sign on, as did Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who said that the letter was not “necessary.” Others who did not sign included Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Dan Coats (R-IN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Democrats have said that the letter may violate the Logan Act, which states:

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

Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that “the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context.  Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement.”

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, “then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy.” Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush’s surge in Iraq as “a tragic mistake” and vowing, “I will do everything in my power to stop it.” As Tom Cotton said this morning, “If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate.”

Annapolis – Roadmap To Ruin For A Declaration of Peace In Our Time

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. – Zechariah 12:2-3

“Israelis “must show the world that they are ready to … bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement” – President George Bush, November 27, 2007

One has to wonder whether or not President Bush graduated Sunday School or History Class given his Administration’s meddling and hamstringing of Israel at Annapolis this week. In what appears to be a hunt for a legacy besides the War on Terror and Amnesty for Illegal Mexicans – Bush is apparently once again on the path of insanity to push forward another one of his twisted ideas of homogeny. The consequences of this insanity however, will prove to be deadly. He is ignoring biblical admonitions as well as the lessons of history that scream out loud that trading land NEVER results in peace. What Bush suggests is no less than for Israel to commit national suicide, and to reward terrorists and genocidal maniacs their fondest wishes for the annihilation of the State of Israel.

It appears that Bush’s screwball notions of “new tone” – by letting Democrats dictate and influence his Administration’s policies has now made it’s way into U.S. Foreign policy. While many in his Administration were displeased with Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats visiting with, having an audience with President Basher Assad and appeasing the Axis Of Evil Member Syria earlier this year – Condi Rice has out-butt licked them all by granting Syria and almost 40 other hostile Arab and Islamic nations a SEAT at the table in discussing the future of Israel with their fellow terrorists in Palestine and Arabia.

Someone please help me understand the reason behind this lunacy, but it looks an awful lot like Bush hosting a dinner party for three dozen wolves and a sheep – and letting them decide what is for dinner.

Have our leaders in Washington completely lost their minds and forgot what happened when other ‘legacy’ Nimrods like Neville Chamberlain tried to carve up and surrender the Sudetenland to Adolph Hitler in 1938? Do they deliberately forget that every single time Israel has surrendered land to the Palestinians, that those territories became launching pads for asymmetric terrorist attacks on Israelis? Did Bush suddenly forget that the territory Israel holds was the result of an aggressive war being waged on it in 1948, 1967 and 1973 by the same nations who chant for the death of Israel and America??

Let’s see, aside from Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert, who has never met a trade he did not like – seated at the table is Mahmoud Abbas, head of Hamas and so-called leader of a future –Palestinian State that still holds kidnapped Israeli soldiers as hostages. Also seated are leaders of nations that support Jihad terrorists groups such as Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Islamic Brotherhood, and almost 30 other nations with Jihad elements in them.

Bush requests that Israel ‘end the occupation’ and surrender the lands it acquired during the three wars waged against it by the same nations now seated at the table Bush has set to crown his legacy of ‘changing the Mid-East’. One has to wonder how many days hence will pass before we hear about a request by the Bush Administration for Israel to hand all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians – since it is evident he will do everything and anything to secure a statement of peace from Israel and the Arab nations.

Bush is setting up a table for disaster, as assuredly as Chamberlain and Daladier had 70 years ago. Both America and Britain will be cut to pieces for attempting to force a peace on Israel with people who have as much a mind for peace as Hitler did, and whom have no intention of allowing Jews to live or exist in the Middle East anymore than the Fuhrer did of Jews in Europe.

This will come back to bite America and the West HARD, and we will rue the day we engendered this kind of insanity on Israel and the world.

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. – I Thessalonians 5:3

Articles:

Abbas: We must have Jerusalem as capital

Israel, Palestinians OK negotiating plan

Abbas slammed as “traitor” at anti-Annapolis rallies

Gang rape in Annapolis

Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims