Alexander Hamilton Slams Obama!

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

 

[JoeB131]

someone is off her medications this morning.

 

[konradv]

I dare Congress to vote it down. I don't doubt it's as good a deal as we can get. It seems the Republicans aren't satisfied with anything but war. The notion that, if Iran backtracks it can't be remedied, is ridiculous. If they renege, why can't we?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess the deal that GW Bush got in 8 years as president was so much better?

I guess the current GOP plan is better?

 

[natstew]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

Thanks for posting this, and I would like to add: When has Iran ever honored any deal with the ny Country or the U.N.. Never!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I say offer the Iranians an Iran/US defensive military alliance if they'll agree to give up their nuclear program...

...in exchange, any act of aggression against Iran would be considered an act of aggression against the US, and we would respond accordingly.

(get that, Netanyahu?)

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

someone is off her medications this morning.

Why is it when the inept need a way to fill the time in their empty lives, they post a vapid note such as yours.

It has nothing to do with the OP...and, clearly, the OP is perfect or you would have been able to latch on to something....anything....that you could find a way to disagree with....


You birdbrains become tiresome.

Let's carve this in stone: I provide thoughtful OPs, based on strong evidence and facts, supported, linked, sourced, documented....

...and folks like you can never do better than what you posted.



I'm gonna guess that everything you do is of the same quality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dare Congress to vote it down. I don't doubt it's as good a deal as we can get. It seems the Republicans aren't satisfied with anything but war. The notion that, if Iran backtracks it can't be remedied, is ridiculous. If they renege, why can't we?

"I don't doubt it's as good a deal as we can get. It seems the Republicans aren't satisfied with anything but war."


Here's a plan...and has nothing to do with war....
How about increased sanctions until we get the correct deal?


Now explain how you could be so ignorant as to post "I don't doubt it's as good a deal as we can get."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess the deal that GW Bush got in 8 years as president was so much better?

I guess the current GOP plan is better?

So the best you can do is change the subject to over half a decade ago?
Inadvertently, you've proven the OP.

 

[G.T.]

someone is off her medications this morning.

Why is it when the inept need a way to fill the time in their empty lives, they post a vapid note such as yours.

It has nothing to do with the OP...and, clearly, the OP is perfect or you would have been able to latch on to something....anything....that you could find a way to disagree with....


You birdbrains become tiresome.

Let's carve this in stone: I provide thoughtful OPs, based on strong evidence and facts, supported, lined, sourced, documented....

...and folks like you can never do better than what you posted.



I'm gonna guess that everything you do is of the same quality.

The birdbrained propoganda your gullible ass swallows on a daily basis is typically only WORTHY of post #2 of this thread.

Quoting like minded people's opinions who are more important in life than you are? Doesn't defacto make those opinions any more or less truthful than if any other dull brained gullible internet dweeb said it.

Linking your opinions to opinions and pasting them doesnt magically turn them to fact.

Get it?

Youre the biggest slave to an organized propoganda campaign the internet has ever seen. "Raise your paw."

But at least you have skills. Like highlight, copy and paste.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

Thanks for posting this, and I would like to add: When has Iran ever honored any deal with the ny Country or the U.N.. Never!

I'd like to add this to your post.....consideration of reality, such as you post about Iran's track record is the history of Liberals/Progressives/Democrat.

For these folks, feeling passes for knowing.



1. In 1973, Brezhnev gave a secret speech to Communist Party leaders in Prague, declaring how the trickery was designed to allow Soviets to pretend to act as diplomats while building military strength and terror networks. British intelligence exposed Brezhnev's secret, the just-between-us-Communists declarations to US officials (and leaked to the NYTimes).
John W. Finney, "Brezhnev Said to Assure East Europe that Accords with West Are a Tactic," NYTimes, September 17, 1973, and William Beecher, "Brezhnev Termed Détente A Ruse, 1973 Report Said," Boston Globe, February 11, 1977.

Sound familiar?


2. In 1982, Ronald Reagan asked his arms control advisory committee to conduct a review of Soviet compliance in the 25 years of arms control treaties. It was the first such concerted review ever. The answer to the question of Soviet arms controls compliance was thatthere was none.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 198.

"The Soviet Union repeatedly violates treaties, and the rest of the world turns their heads and proceeds to enter into still more treaties, which the Soviets violate with impunity."
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., "Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties," vii, 83.



Unlike Roosevelt, the great Reagan provided the so much more realistic "Trust, but verify."
Obama....channeling Roosevelt when he should have learned from Reagan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I say offer the Iranians an Iran/US defensive military alliance if they'll agree to give up their nuclear program...

...in exchange, any act of aggression against Iran would be considered an act of aggression against the US, and we would respond accordingly.

(get that, Netanyahu?)

lol

Maybe the Iranians have a greater ability to learn than you do....
"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents."
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess the deal that GW Bush got in 8 years as president was so much better?

I guess the current GOP plan is better?

So the best you can do is change the subject to over half a decade ago?
Inadvertently, you've proven the OP.

How many decades ago was Alexander Hamilton?

btw I asked if the current GOP plan is better? 'current' is in the dictionary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I say offer the Iranians an Iran/US defensive military alliance if they'll agree to give up their nuclear program...

...in exchange, any act of aggression against Iran would be considered an act of aggression against the US, and we would respond accordingly.

(get that, Netanyahu?)

lol

Maybe the Iranians have a greater ability to learn than you do....
"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents."
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So you're making the case that the Iranians SHOULD provide for their OWN defense by carrying on with their nuclear program.

lol, good one. You are delightfully confused.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It is now up to the members of Congress to do their duty, on this delicate and momentous occasion. It is up to members of Congress to refuse to accede to this set of concessions made by our current executive magistrate, concessions that would put one of the world's most dangerous regimes further along the road to acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard



We are about to find out how appropriate the appellation "Lock-Step Liberals" is.....or if the Constitution hods any sway....ANY....with the Democrats in Congress.


We'll see if our 'petit mal President' gets his way.

 

[G.T.]

Im not sure what gives Iran the place to say that Israel doesn't exist and why we can't iron that sticky wicket out, in the very least?

Why is that so hard for The Administration to at least acknowledge that? "Hey, Iran, Israel exists. We know so, because despite the rhetoric from my Republican colleagues, i sign the legislation with my own left hand sending Israel real American Taxpayer Dollars."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I say offer the Iranians an Iran/US defensive military alliance if they'll agree to give up their nuclear program...

...in exchange, any act of aggression against Iran would be considered an act of aggression against the US, and we would respond accordingly.

(get that, Netanyahu?)

lol

Maybe the Iranians have a greater ability to learn than you do....
"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents."
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So you're making the case that the Iranians SHOULD provide for their OWN defense by carrying on with their nuclear program.

lol, good one. You are delightfully confused.

"So you're making the case...."


Either you are really that stupid or this is an example of ......

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


Today it's Trick #2 on display

 

[PoliticalChic]

Im not sure what gives Iran the place to say that Israel doesn't exist and why we can't iron that sticky wicket out, in the very least?

Why is that so hard for The Administration to at least acknowledge that? "Hey, Iran, Israel exists. We know so, because despite the rhetoric from my Republican colleagues, i sign the legislation with my own left hand sending Israel real American Taxpayer Dollars."

WHAT THE HECK?????

Who wrote that for you??????

An actual post dealing with the issue....and including a cogent proposal?????




You're taking all the fun out of this!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I say offer the Iranians an Iran/US defensive military alliance if they'll agree to give up their nuclear program...

...in exchange, any act of aggression against Iran would be considered an act of aggression against the US, and we would respond accordingly.

(get that, Netanyahu?)

lol

Maybe the Iranians have a greater ability to learn than you do....
"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents."
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So you're making the case that the Iranians SHOULD provide for their OWN defense by carrying on with their nuclear program.

lol, good one. You are delightfully confused.

"So you're making the case...."


Either you are really that stupid or this is an example of ......

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


Today it's Trick #2 on display

You just don't realize you made that case. That's the best part.

YOU brought up the Ukraine as an example of the insecurity of a country giving up its nukes. That's the case for Iran not giving up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Im not sure what gives Iran the place to say that Israel doesn't exist and why we can't iron that sticky wicket out, in the very least?

Why is that so hard for The Administration to at least acknowledge that? "Hey, Iran, Israel exists. We know so, because despite the rhetoric from my Republican colleagues, i sign the legislation with my own left hand sending Israel real American Taxpayer Dollars."

Do we get the 'existence' of a Palestinian state out of that? Or is that one more issue that Israel is exempt from.