SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/9/2015 11:18:05 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Senate GOP Sends Warning Letter to Iran: Deal With Obama Can Be Revoked...

A group of nearly 50 Republican senators have written a letter to Iran to explain how the U.S. Constitution works. The letter is "An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran."



"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand out constitutuional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of Constitution--the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices--which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress," the senators write.

"First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

"Second, the offices of our Constitution have difference characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then--perhaps decades.

"What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president 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."

The senators conclude: "We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress."



Tom Cotton, the Republican senator from Arkansas who led the effort on the letter, invited all U.S. senators and presidential candidates (including Hillary Clinton!) to sign the letter to the leaders of Iran...



To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/9/2015 11:25:02 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
'Clinton Family foundation accepted millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms'...



To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/9/2015 4:13:32 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Nation of Drivel
...................................................................
Townhall.com ^ | March 9, 2015 | Rachel Alexander
Political discourse has degenerated in recent years into petty insults and fake offendedness.

Instead of debating the merits of issues, the focus in politics has changed to gotcha moments. Social media and TV shows are nauseatingly full of them. Both the insults and the hyped up responses are wrong, but how do you correct the problem? If you dare criticize the petty insults, you’re accused of trampling on free speech. If you criticize the fake offendedness, you are labeled sexist, racist or similar. It is a vicious and unproductive cycle that has squeezed out real debate.



The truth is, the petty insults and fake offendedness are nothing more than drivel. If you have nothing to say but drivel, keep it to yourself. Just because you have a mouth, does not mean every thought that comes to your head should be spoken. The Bible is full of timeless wisdom like Ephesians 5:4: “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.”



Notice you never hear about amazing speeches anymore. When was the last time you heard of a speech like Ronald Reagan’s “Shining city on a hill?” Instead of analyzing speeches on the merits, they are now picked apart for gotchas. Scott Walker, who arguably came out the best of any other GOP presidential candidate at CPAC last month, is mostly remembered for a gotcha moment in his speech there. Twenty years ago, no one would have blinked at him saying in regards to ISIS, “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.” Today, even allies on the right jumped all over his statement.



This has all come about due to the left forcing political correctness everywhere and eliminating God - with the except of the Islamic religion - from the public sphere. By taking out Judeo-Christian morality from society, people have become less kind and thoughtful. Try watching a typical movie from 1990; the polite way everyone behaves is like a breath of fresh air. Generations X and older remember when this was standard behavior in society. Now, politeness stands out because it is no longer the norm. Genteel political shows like Firing Line have been replaced with Playboy political analysts, vicious pundits like Rachel Maddow and egotistical libertines who think nothing of peppering their talking points with profanity. People no longer think before opening their mouths and insulting someone. What used to be common sense has been replaced with “I am awesome, I can say anything I want, I will not be censored.”



Now there are a few on the right who have crossed this line for years, like Ann Coulter. But she does it as part of an act to be humorous, and she is bright enough to pull it off. Not everyone can be an Ann Coulter; they will never be witty or funny enough. And in person, she is very pleasant.



Church attendance is declining due to pushing God out of the public sphere, and of the churches that remain, many are becoming watered down and politically correct. Many say, “Well I have a friend who is an atheist and he is a much better person than most Christians I know.” That may be true, but are those atheists teaching children and others good values in atheist churches? No, atheists generally do not engage in activities like that. The Bible is full of verses like Ephesians 4:32 that fewer children are learning: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”



Forcing political correctness on society has created a hypersensitive type of human who finds offense at everything. Consequently, good people are terrified of running for office, afraid the slightest remark will be used against them to destroy their reputation and career. Terrifyingly, the left has found this technique to be so effective it now makes up stories of gaffes by conservatives.



Social media has brought with it an unpleasant democratization of politics. @DivaPrincess’s tweet carries just as much weight as the president; anyone can see it and it can reach anyone. But there is a reason why we have a representative democracy, not a straight democracy. Not everyone is capable of being a responsible leader in politics. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have helped weaken that system, by giving the rudest people in society a platform for their opinions that is in some ways equal to the media platform of elected officials - and they can easily surpass them merely by increasing their followers, posting more often, and/or paying to increase their presence.



Even conservatives are buying into the gotcha game, because society has become so sensationalized. It is similar to an addiction; the louder and cruder everyone becomes, the more we all become desensitized, so it escalates. The only way to get your voice heard is to be louder and more outrageous than everyone else, so people are saying ridiculous things and shaming others for doing so at an alarming level. Pretty soon almost everyone will have at least one “scandal” written about them on the Internet.



So how do we raise the level of discourse? By not being afraid to call out the cheap talk as drivel. Skip the rude personal attacks and stick to just labeling the garbage for what it is. It is not censorship of free speech to label it such; by using that twisted logic you could say that trying to shut someone up for labeling it as drivel is also censorship. Censorship of the First Amendment must involve the government in some manner, such as the government censoring a newspaper. A private party making critical comments does not invoke the First Amendment.



Would Ronald Reagan’s “Shining city on a hill” speech have become a legend today? Probably not. Instead, he would have been excoriated for advocating to put God back in the schools and denouncing Communism, out-of-wedlock births, government make-work programs and the welfare state.



It will not be easy to stop the sensationalism. It probably will require those with influence and charisma to set an example by focusing on the real issues while labeling everything else drivel. Otherwise, we will continue the slide into a nation of degenerates.



To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/10/2015 11:25:09 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
............................................................................................
Peter Robinson 8/28/2009
forbes.com




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

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “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.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan.

In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.
The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.


First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be 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.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television.
“A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then 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. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.


Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “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.”

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.

“The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.

Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov.
On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes.





To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/10/2015 1:55:35 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
unclewest

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 



To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/11/2015 1:45:13 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Suspicious Fires Twice Destroyed Key Sharpton Records

........................................................................................
foxnews.com ^ | 3/11/15 | JILLIAN KAY MELCHIOR



To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/13/2015 11:31:00 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Clinton Foundation staff were paid with taxpayer dollars

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has the scoop:

Say, how is Clinton nostalgia working out for Democrats these days? Some of them may long for the days when Clintonian freeloading meant stealing furniture from the White House. That amounted to chump change compared to the millions received by the Clintons in the years since they loaded up the moving van at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency. That comes to over $16 million, according to an analysis by Politico’s Kenneth Vogel, and includes cash that has gone into salaries for staffers at the Clinton Foundation

And there you have it. Another day in the life of the Clinton family.



To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/13/2015 11:31:51 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Woody_Nickels

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Could Hillary really do her job without sending classified information?

The Wall Street journal doesn’t think so.

Mrs. Clinton insisted Tuesday that “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” With the Clintons, you always have to parse the meaning of “is,” and Mrs. Clinton didn’t say she never received classified information via email. But if she meant both send and receive, then how could she have done her job given the hundreds of thousands of miles she traveled during her four years at Foggy Bottom?

Surely she had to inspect classified material on numerous occasions while she was on the road doing highly sensitive government business. If some aide had to carry a separate device for classified communications, then that blows away her “convenience” excuse for using a personal email account because she only wanted to carry one device. Maybe the real question is whether anything in her story is true.





To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/13/2015 11:32:17 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Hillary won’t confirm she signed mandatory form indicating she’d turned over all classified documents (including emails) to the State Department

Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner reported last night:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, like all departing federal employees, was required to fill out and sign a separation statement affirming that she had turned over all classified and other government documents, including all emails dealing with official business.

Fox News Megyn Kelly reported Wednesday evening on the requirement and that a spokesman for Clinton had not responded to a request for comment, including an explanation of when the former chief U.S. diplomat signed the mandatory separation agreement or, if she didn’t, why didn’t she.




To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (14312)3/13/2015 11:32:58 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Questions surrounding the digital security of Hillary’s emails mount as Jen Psaki confirms Clinton never used a State Department issued Blackberry

Josh Gerstein reports for Politico:

The BlackBerry former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is seen using in a ubiquitous photo taken aboard a U.S. military aircraft apparently wasn’t government-owned, since the State Department never provided her with such a device, a department spokeswoman said Thursday.

“Secretary Clinton … was not issued a State Department BlackBerry,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said at a regular briefing for reporters.