Iran publishes book on how to outwit the US and destroy Israel

[Brant Gaede]

Well, they had to have a number and it had to be greater than the majority for the majority had already passed the bill.

There must have been some ancillary reasons.

--Brant

this has all become somewhat quaint as the country is now ruled through the increasingly fascist federal bureaucracy, with its innumerable regulations issued constantly, and the Chief Executive overlord, so you can pretty much forget the balance of power, especially because the Supreme Court threw in the towel in the late 1930s, taking the Court out of the fight

[Mikee]

At least two yes votes for every negative vote. Only as prescribed by the Constitution.

[Brant Gaede]

At least two yes votes for every negative vote. Only as prescribed by the Constitution.

Not quite. Since there are 100 members of the US Senate, 67 must vote to over-ride to over-ride, even if 33 Senators aren't there. The negative vote is merely the negative vote. You can't over-ride it. What's to be over-riden is the veto.

Thanks for the link.

--Brant

[anthony]

Thanks Mike, Brant. All of it will take some digesting.

[Peter]

I was just on Townhall on the web and it locked up when I was going to read an article called, "What part of death to America don't you understand?" Our system has checks and balances so that it is hard to get controversial things passed in Congress. I will wait for someone like Ted Cruz to defund the crappy treaty if the Senate can't get the votes to overturn a Presidential veto. I was only half listening yesterday but 3 democrats are against the treaty and had some decent understanding of its flaws. Perhaps when all of it is published and under scrutiny the votes will be found. I just have a bad feeling that Obama would sign a bad treaty / agreement with the devil just so he can say he did something.

[Selene]

I was just on Townhall on the web and it locked up when I was going to read an article called, "What part of death to America don't you understand?" Our system has checks and balances so that it is hard to get controversial things passed in Congress. I will wait for someone like Ted Cruz to defund the crappy treaty if the Senate can't get the votes to overturn a Presidential veto. I was only half listening yesterday but 3 democrats are against the treaty and had some decent understanding of its flaws. Perhaps when all of it is published and under scrutiny the votes will be found. I just have a bad feeling that Obama would sign a bad treaty / agreement with the devil just so he can say he did something.

Peter.

IT IS NOT A TREATY, the Statist in Chief chose to evade the treaty requirements by identifying it as an "agreement," or, an "accord."

Stop referring to it as a treaty.

A...

[Peter]

Adam wrote: IT IS NOT A TREATY, the Statist in Chief chose to evade the treaty requirements by identifying it as an "agreement," or, an "accord." Stop referring to it as a treaty. end quote

Rush was saying something similar but why is Congress going to vote on it?

[Selene]

Adam wrote: IT IS NOT A TREATY, the Statist in Chief chose to evade the treaty requirements by identifying it as an "agreement," or, an "accord." Stop referring to it as a treaty. end quote

Rush was saying something similar but why is Congress going to vote on it?

Because the Republican Party sold out every American citizen.

They cooperated, Corker is the Quisling in Chief on this one in the Senate.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/senate-passes-corkers-iran-bill-98-1/

These scum specifically castrated the Treaty Provision of the Constitution with this bill and flipped the 2/3 responsibility of the Treaty power [which was felt not high enough by a number of the Founders because it wedded the entire nation to Law] and turned it into 2/3 to stop it.

Welcome to The Power Elite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite

[Peter]

Adam wrote: These scum specifically castrated the Treaty Provision of the Constitution with this bill and flipped the 2/3 responsibility of the Treaty power [which was felt not high enough by a number of the Founders because it wedded the entire nation to Law] and turned it into 2/3 to stop it. end quote

Sheesh. Chill out and listen to this:
Sing it Maria:
High on a hill was a lonely goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo
Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo
trea•ty noun: treaty, plural noun: treaties. 1. a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries synonyms: agreement, settlement, pact, deal, entente, ... moreconcordat, accord, protocol, convention, contract, covenant, bargain, pledge, concord, compact

I love the way she sings, Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo a treaty is an agreement . . .

I use the word Treaty in a generic sense as an agreement between countries though it is also an agreement between the UN and Iran. I get the argument that Lurch and Obama are trying to bypass congress, so it need not be ratified, and it would require a 2/3 majority etc. BUT it need not last one second longer than the swearing in of a new President and its US provisions can be defunded.

The debates are on. Perry is doing OK on securing the border.

[Selene]

The debates are on. Perry is doing OK on securing the border.

Better than he did as governor?

He is a nice guy.

He ain't goin nowhere and no one has any doubt that Texas will not be in the Democratic column.

-------------------------------------------

I see, so since all of those nice synonyms do not appear in the Constitution and the key operative word is Treaty [capitalized, I believe] does, the meanings in terms of Constitutional law is that is has no meaning?

trea•ty noun : treaty, plural noun: treaties. 1. a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries synonyms: agreement, settlement, pact, deal, entente, ... moreconcordat, accord, protocol, convention, contract, covenant, bargain, pledge, concord, compact

This "argument" of yours is disingenuous at best.

Finally, this one makes me sad that you could still believe this lie...

. I get the argument that Lurch and Obama are trying to bypass congress, so it need not be ratified, and it would require a 2/3 majority etc. BUT it need not last one second longer than the swearing in of a new President and its US provisions can be defunded.

Have you noticed that McConnell is a liar?

Have you noticed that Boehner is a liar?

A...

Post Script:

Better get that check out to the Perry campaign while he is still a candidate.

[Peter]

An interesting article. Will the newspapers name change to The Times IF Israel?

A simple question for anguished Democratic legislators on Iran, Op-Ed from The Times of Israel: A challenge to concerned lawmakers, amid fresh revelations of the farcical holes in a deal that patently fails to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons program BY DAVID HOROVITZ August 20, 2015, 6:15 pm 51.

Every time you think it can’t get any worse, another gaping hole appears in the world powers’ dismal Swiss cheese of a deal on Iran’s rogue nuclear program. From the get-go, it seemed intolerable that the negotiations with Iran did not require, as early conditions, that the regime acknowledge its previous illegal efforts toward producing a nuclear weapon. But the sad fact is Iran was not required to come clean. From the get-go, it seemed intolerable that the negotiations did not require the Iranian leadership to halt its relentless incitement for the destruction of the United States and Israel. Yes, one has to negotiate with one’s enemies. But apart from being demeaning and lacking in all self-respect, it is also inefficient to negotiate with enemies who continue to seek your demise. And yet, even as the talks proceeded, and since they were concluded, the poisonous rhetoric — rhetoric with inevitable violent consequence — has continued unabated.
From the get-go, it seemed intolerable that the negotiations did not also require that Iran cease its encouragement, training and arming of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. But Iran makes plain every day that its ongoing support for the “resistance” — as in, those who resist the notion of Israel continuing to exist — is not limited by the accord and will not cease.

As the deal itself took shape, it seemed intolerable that the US-led P5+1 powers had shifted from the imperative to neutralize and dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities and instead opted to content themselves with freezing and inspecting the Iranian program. But shift they did. As elements of the deal became public, it seemed intolerable and unthinkable that the regime would be allowed to continue its R&D on ever-faster centrifuges. Criticisms of this and other clauses were haughtily dismissed by senior Obama Administration officials as being premature and/or inaccurate. But the complaints and concerns proved all too justified. When the deal was finalized, it seemed unthinkable that the negotiators had abandoned the demand for “anytime, anywhere” inspections of suspect facilities. But abandon that vital demand they most certainly did. Trying to understand the deliberately convoluted clauses of the accord that relate to inspections, one can only conclude that they empower the regime to maintain whatever secrecy it deems necessary at the military sites where it has pursued and will pursue work towards a nuclear arsenal. After the deal became public, it seemed unthinkable that the flawed inspection clauses would be rendered still more problematic by related side deals that further neutralize effective inspection. But so it is proving. First, Iran indicated — and the US grudgingly acknowledged — that no American inspectors would be allowed into Iran. Then Iran asserted — and no denial has been forthcoming from the P5+1 — that it retains the right to veto any inspectors it doesn’t like the look of. Such assertions underline what has now become a depressingly familiar feature of the negotiation process: Iran’s descriptions of what has been agreed on have proven accurate; Western assurances, markedly less so.

Which brings us to Wednesday’s Associated Press report that one of the side deals reached between Iran and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency provides for Iran to carry out its own inspection work at the Parchin military facility where the IAEA has long alleged it experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms. The Iranians have been strenuously attempting to sanitize the site for years — which is bitterly amusing, since they evidently need not have bothered. Even the Iranians plainly didn’t think they’d get away with a deal this ridiculous. It’s akin to having Bernie Madoff scrutinize his own business practices, or Tour de France cyclists conduct their own doping tests… except it has global life-and-death implications.

And, again, the Obama administration would seem to have misrepresented what was agreed. It had indicated that the IAEA-Iran side deals were technical, unremarkable documents. While IAEA chief Yukiya Amano insisted Thursday that “the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices,” Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, told the AP on Wednesday he could recall no previous instance where a country being probed for nuclear wrongdoing was allowed to conduct its own investigation.

On both sides of the aisle, the current conventional wisdom is that opponents of this abysmally negotiated, dangerous accord have the votes to reject it next month but not to overcome a presidential veto. What has hamstrung key anguished Democrats thus far has been the “what if?” question — as in, what if we do defy our own president and vote with the Republicans to override the veto? Yes, it’s a lousy, lousy deal — which cements a vicious regime in power, gives it vast funding to foster terrorism and regional chaos, and paves its path to the bomb with a mixture of inadequate oversight, absurdly legitimized ongoing nuclear work and sunset clauses. But what happens if we strike it down? Does the rest of the world just ignore us and proceed with it anyhow? Would it constitute a pointless act of protest that could doom our careers? Would Iran get its sanctions relief anyway? Is there any prospect of a more competent deal being negotiated? Good questions, not all easy to answer.

But one question can be answered with increasing confidence: Is this, as President Obama claims, the best possible deal? Yes, indeed, it is. The best possible deal for the Iranians. They continue enriching. They maintain their R&D to enable a speedier breakout to the bomb when they so choose. They can keep the inspectors at bay. They never have to come clean on past nuclear weapons work. They can continue missile development. They get their sanctions relief. Their coffers are swelled. The prospect of the regime being ousted by domestic reformers, already small, is reduced still further; they can now throw money at any domestic problems. They can merrily orchestrate terrorism and intimidate regional foes. Truly, it is the best deal Iran could possibly have imagined — to an extent that becomes clearer to the rest of us with each passing day. You don’t have to be a war-monger or a lobbyist to see that. You just have to read the small print, to listen to the leadership in Tehran, and to watch developments in our bloody region. And don’t forget, there’s a second IAEA-Iran side deal whose details have yet to come to light.

That “what if” question is a tough one, indeed. What if we vote against? What if we defy the president? But there’s another side to that question, which those anguished, responsible Democratic legislators must also ask themselves: What if we let this bad joke of a deal go through?

[Jules Troy]

Obama=Chamberlaine....

[Brant Gaede]

Obama=Chamberlaine....

One of the two was an honorable but mistaken man. If there had been no Munich Hitler might have been disposed by the German military. If only. Appeasement to buy time for preparedness can be a valid facet of a foreign policy, but everything has its price. Predicting the cost is easy but receiving the bill is hard, even if affordable. It wasn't Munich so much as all the appeasing up to that date.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Good point.

[Selene]

[Peter]

What if? What if we had also dropped a bomb on Nazi Germany? Predictions of a past destiny?

[Peter]

I view Iran as I view Nazi Germany. Iran is our enemy and they have repeatedly stated that Israel will be nuked first and then the United States, who they call The Great Satan. During Kerry’s supposed negotiations with them this year THE DELEGATES from Iran repeatedly chanted Death To America, during the talks.

There was a story in Gannett yesterday that the U.S. will need to build up forces for weeks before any sort of strike, using 30,000 pound bombs, could be coordinated. And it would require the cooperation of our allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Why the sham pretense of never using Israeli land or airspace? It’s not as if Israel would avoid attack, or be hated less by those Islamic Nazis. The news article stated we know exactly where Iran’s nuclear facilities are located.

Three more points. Firstly, if we strike before they use their nukes or after they nuke us or Israel, we will still need to verify the destruction of their nuclear capabilities so troops on the ground, if only for days, might be needed. Secondly, we will need to insure commerce continues in the region which will mean we destroy their ships, attack boats, air force, and artillery. And lastly, we will need to keep conventional retaliation originating in Iran, Lebanon, Syria or wherever from destroying Israel and then we will need to keep Iranian sponsored terrorists from getting across our borders.
Peter

‘Israel should be annihilated,’ senior Iran aide says. Adviser to parliamentary speaker rejects British foreign secretary’s suggestion that Rouhani indicating ‘more nuanced approach’ to Jewish state BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF August 25, 2015, 5:05 pm. A senior Iranian official on Tuesday said Israel “should be annihilated,” and that the thawing relations with the West would not translate into a shift in Tehran’s position concerning the Jewish state. Hussein Sheikholeslam, a foreign affairs adviser to parliament speaker Ali Larijani, told Iranian media that contrary to remarks by British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, “Our positions against the usurper Zionist regime have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated and this is our ultimate slogan.”

. . . . Sheikholeslam told a Hamas news outlet earlier this month that Iran has resisted pressure exerted by the P5+1 world powers during the nuclear negotiations to halt its political involvement in Gaza, Syria and Yemen. “These powers admitted that the reason for their pressure on us is our position on Israel,” he said. “We told them that we reject the existence of any Israeli on this earth.”

[Peter]

One more point. If we are nuked or if Israel is nuked we very well may nuke back or Israel will nuke them. By destroying Iran’s military and nuclear weapons conventionally, we would be saving Iranian lives and avoid another instance of nukes being used 70 years after their first use on Japan. The destruction of Iranian capabilities should be a top priority of our War College scenarios. Are we insane?
Peter

[Brant Gaede]

A case can be made for waging war against Iran for Iran is waging war against the US and Israel.

--Brant

should we be the tactical and strategic experts?

[Peter]

Headline from The Times of Israel: 900 US rabbis sign petition opposing Iran deal.

Switzerland regrets cartoon of doves defecating on Netanyahu.

Obama’s friends and family webcast to Jews falls short of reunion.

Meet the Jewish woman getting ready to live on Mars.

Hamptons Jewish Cemetery so trendy even non-Jewish dying to get in.

Missing Nazi gold train ‘discovered’ by Polish radar.

PM to Italy’s Jewish leaders: Israeli innovation will defeat BDS

Netanyahu says efforts to isolate Israel will ultimately fail because ‘science and technology are stronger than any boycott’

Middle East, Israel to be water scarce by 2040 — report. WRI study says Gaza will run out of drinking water in 5 years; climate change, population growth to make region among most ‘extremely highly stressed’ for water

In live broadcast, president says ‘deal blocks every pathway that Iran might take’ to nukes; expects ‘sacrosanct’ US-Israel ties will improve BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF August 28, 2015, 9:14 pm Updated: August 28, 2015, 11:51 pm
US President Barack Obama insisted Friday that the recently negotiated agreement on Iran’s nuclear program “deals with the existential threat to Israel,” citing the concerns of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the most vehement opponents of the deal. Furthermore, he said, the agreement “blocks every way, every pathway that Iran might take in order to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

He said once the nuclear accord was implemented, he expected “pretty quick” improvements in US-Israeli relations.
Obama was speaking from the White House in live webcast organized by North American Jewish groups about the Iran nuclear deal. At the start of the webcast, the president made a few remarks before taking questions that were submitted ahead of the event.

The president said that the agreement ensures that Iran’s centrifuges in Natanz will be removed, except for a handful, and it makes sure that those cannot be used to create enriched uranium. He said the plant at Fordo would be converted into a research facility and would no longer have in it centrifuges that could be used to create nuclear materials.

He also maintained that the US has ensured that it can “snap back” the tight sanctions on the Islamic Republic that Obama credited with bringing Iran to the negotiating table, “in the event that Iran cheats or does not abide by the terms of the deal.”

[Selene]

President O'bama is certainly a man who will not prevaricate...

Next point?

[Peter]

Boss Hickory Clinton: Can you figure out what he is doing with those emoticons?

Secret Service Agent, Jubani Marlow: Yes ma’am. We have him clearly kicking the President, after ironically calling him a liar.

His boss Hickory Clinton: Keep him under deep surveillance. Check and see if he has any unlicensed boots.

[Selene]

Boss Hickory Clinton: Can you figure out what he is doing with those emoticons?

Secret Service Agent, Jubani Marlow: Yes ma’am. We have him clearly kicking the President, after ironically calling him a liar.

His boss Hickory Clinton: Keep him under deep surveillance. Check and see if he has any unlicensed boots.

Are you sure about who is being addressed here Peter?

A...

[moralist]

Peter writes:

The president said that the agreement ensures that Irans centrifuges in Natanz will be removed, except for a handful, and it makes sure that those cannot be used to create enriched uranium. He said the plant at Fordo would be converted into a research facility and would no longer have in it centrifuges that could be used to create nuclear materials.

He also maintained that the US has ensured that it can snap back the tight sanctions on the Islamic Republic that Obama credited with bringing Iran to the negotiating table, in the event that Iran cheats or does not abide by the terms of the deal.

People who tell others lies

have condemned themselves

to believe the lies of others.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Peter writes:

The president said that the agreement ensures that Irans centrifuges in Natanz will be removed, except for a handful, and it makes sure that those cannot be used to create enriched uranium. He said the plant at Fordo would be converted into a research facility and would no longer have in it centrifuges that could be used to create nuclear materials.

He also maintained that the US has ensured that it can snap back the tight sanctions on the Islamic Republic that Obama credited with bringing Iran to the negotiating table, in the event that Iran cheats or does not abide by the terms of the deal.

People who tell others lies

have condemned themselves

to believe the lies of others.

Greg

I'd say it's more general: Those who lie live in a world of lies. Those who are honest live in a world of honesty even if they hedge aside the liars. The less freedom you live in the more you have to lie to get by. You can cut that by avoiding a lot of things that have been de-freedomized but there comes a point you have to lie, lie and lie again merely to survive, literally--lie or get out.

--Brant