Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
"by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”
“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
"Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."
ROFLMNAO!
So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and aiding their means to injure the United States.
Sorry bout that,
1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Were you charged for the full brain wash? Ask for some money back, you only needed a light rinse.
Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago. 47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
Actually, you are wrong. A treaty is signed before ratification by anyone the president appoints to do so. I have made that clear in many posts. The only time the presidents signature is required on a treaty is AFTER it is ratified by a 2/3 aye vote by congress.A president always signs a treaty unilaterally and BEFORE ratification. This is historical fact and standard procedure.From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior ...
Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
"empty bluster" defines the conservatives to a 'T'. It is the language of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio - charlatans and demagogues each.
There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities. If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
I already have but you'll carry on with your hackery and inability to understand oil/nat gas ministries in the region along with israel's natural gas fields.
Thank you. I'm so impressed with your ability to post nothing of substance and nothing to suggest critical thought. A skill well honed by your side of the aisle.
I wasn't surprised that you couldn't comprehend the correlation of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources. You really are that dumb. I thought you had a few cells up there to at least follow logical thought for a minute or two. Man, was I wrong.
Correlation does not imply causation, but I digress, what is the numerical correlation "of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources." Evidence required.
The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
"by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”
“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
"Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."
ROFLMNAO!
So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and aiding their means to injure the United States.
Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago. 47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
While I don't personally see a violation of the Logan Act by these 47 Senators, Kerry has absolutely nothing to do with this. But fear not, your failed attempts of deflection have been duly noted.The 47 scumbags violated the Logan Act, not that any criminal indictments are likely, they are culpable as are those who defend this deplorable action.
See: Logan Act legal definition of Logan Act
LMNAO! The LOGAN ACT?
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
LOL...
Oh now THAT is FASCINATIN'...
The Reader should recognize that the contributor cited above is a self professed proponent of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and an unapologetic supporter of the Peasantpimp of the Union States, who APPOINTED JOHN KERRY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
Kerry himself, a 'man' who QUITE LITERALLY 'without authority of the United States, directly commenced, carrying out correspondence AND intercourse with the foreign government of North Vietnam, and the officers and agents thereof, in relation to the dispute with the United States , KNOWN AS THE VIETNAM WAR, AS A MEANS TO DEFEAT THE MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES pursuing the defeat of the North Vietnamese Communists..., wherein, in 1970 :
"by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”
Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States.
ROFLMNAO!
So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... even as those in charge of such negotiations, HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR IN ANOTHER WAR, WHEREIN HE TOOK >THEN< AS HE IS TAKING NOW: ADOPTION OF, THUS ADHERENCE TO THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED HOSTILITY TOWARD THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!
ROFL ... You cannot make this crap up!
We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender... Reality is false, falsity is reality, down is up, up is down good is evil and evil is good... .
Which, at the end of the day, is just evil... doin' what evil does.
Sorry bout that,
1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Were you charged for the full brain wash? Ask for some money back, you only needed a light rinse.
OH! Now THAT is a lovely concession!
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
"by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”
“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
"Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."
ROFLMNAO!
So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and aiding their means to injure the United States.
Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago. 47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
He tried to right nothing other than his own self gratification. He is no hero and a despicable yet disgusting human being for his actions against the US.
Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago. 47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
The traitor never shed a drop of blood his whole time in Nam.
He was advised to go home after his 3rd phony Purple Heart.
The man was a coward and a blowhard. I know this for a FUCKING FACT.
They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
I think you have the ass backwards.
Agreed - although reversals were not attempted to either the ObamaCare and Immigration situations, with Pubs in control of both Congress and the Oval Office - which is, of course, their hope for 2016...Well, for better or worse, the Pubs have served notice that they plan to overturn much of Obumble's work, if they win in 2016.
Yea, I think that was their objective in 2012 as well. Especially that pesky Omamcare. How'd that work out for them hateful Rethugs? Is that done yet? Or are they waiting till they overturn the illegal immigrant situation? How's that working out for them?
But really, the IF they win part is the truth. Big IF.
Nahhhhhh......This is how much Republicans hate Obama and hate America...
Who has said that besides the foreign policy loon John Bolton?They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
I think you have the ass backwards.
Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".
Actually, you are wrong. A treaty is signed before ratification by anyone the president appoints to do so. I have made that clear in many posts. The only time the presidents signature is required on a treaty is AFTER it is ratified by a 2/3 aye vote by congress.A president always signs a treaty unilaterally and BEFORE ratification. This is historical fact and standard procedure.From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Besides, we are discussing whether or not Obama plans to have this "agreement" ratified as a treaty...
So your post is useless.
I remember when keys (there are theists, then there is wiggy theists like keys) was arguing that whatever he said, in one of the marriage equality threads, was authoritative. Adorable!
LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?
The Advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle are marveling at irrefutable fact.
