Disseminating the truth:

1. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   James Madison wrote:
   "A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both…
   
   Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
   
   ...and BTW
   We have just lost our friendship with Israel and gained a friend in Iran.
   Thanks to our so called blankety blank elected "LEADERS!"
   
   President Obama insisted we let Iran have nuclear power
   and they all went along with it.
   
   What is up with this issue?
   
   ...do you suppose?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed unanimously out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.  However, it was scaled down from a previous version before passing committee to cover only the nuclear deal. Amendments featuring the following stipulations were not included:
      
      1.) Requiring certification by President Obama to Congress that Iran was not sponsoring acts of terrorism against Americans.
      
      2.) Requiring Iran recognize the Jewish state of Israel.
      
      3.) Releasing Americans Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian and Bob Levinson.
      
      The Senate should have done more to strengthen the bill and demand accountability from Iran.
      But they didn't.
      
      
      
      
      
      http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/07/se … z3ZWj8ib2A

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/10 … tles-.html
      
      REALLY???

      replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Background to the bill:
   Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrote an open letter to Iran’s mullahs. It was signed by 47 GOP senators.
   He explained,  " ...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.”
   
   ...the offices of our Constitution have different 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 that means... 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 letter concludes. “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
   
   Cotton told CNN that there’s no message to their effort other than “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon...And Iran’s leaders, whom, according to many Iran experts, don’t understand America’s constitutional system, need to know that a deal not approved by Congress won’t be accepted by Congress now or in the future,”
   
   
   
   
   
   
   http://pjmedia.com/blog/dear-ayatollahs … z3ZWqrP4RV

   replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   The final vote was 98-1. Sen. Tom Cotton was the lone “no” vote.
   
   "“A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution. President Obama wants to reverse this rule, requiring opponents to get a two-thirds vote to stop his dangerous deal,” Cotton said. “But Congress should not accept this usurpation, nor allow the president any grounds to claim that Congress blessed his nuclear deal. I will work with Republicans and Democrats to stop a dangerous deal that would put Iran on the path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
   
   
   
   
   
   http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/07/se … z3ZWrvTgtb

   replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   The bill mandates that the president submit the text of any nuclear agreement with Iran to Congress and prohibits the administration from suspending congressional sanctions for 60 days. During that period, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on the agreement.
   
   http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/06/da … z3ZWzQCFLE

   replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   The OP was an exaggeration. The bottom line is that the bill should not have been passed without the further stipulations being included. Seems to be a situation of close, but not close enough.
   
   At least we have something in place to act as a check on Obama and his treasonous leanings toward Iran.
   
   Right?

   replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   This act will prevent Obama or any president from making a treaty with any country without conferring with congress… but, this is already stipulated in The Constitution.

   replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   This a (unnecessary) little bandaid when a big 'ol cast is REQUIRED. 
   The cast?
     Impeachment for treasonous steps toward making a treaty with Iran, allowing them to proceed with plans for nuclear capabilities.
   
   When you really think about it it is a sorry excuse for not impeaching the president.
   Article II, Section 4 –
   
   "What It Means: The Constitution provides that the president, vice president, and other federal officers can be removed from office upon impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other serious crimes. The process was begun only three times in U.S. history against a president — against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon (although he resigned before Congress could formally act) and Bill Clinton.
   
   The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives with a vote to impeach. Then the president (or other accused government official) stands trial for the accusations in the Senate. The Chief Justice of the United States presides at an impeachment trial of the president.
   
   In all impeachment trials, members of the House serve as prosecutors and the full Senate sits as the jury. The accused official must be convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate to be removed from office."
   http://constitutioncenter.org/constitut … ive-branch

   replyreport
8. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Then we would have Biden.
   So if HE does anything wrong, impeach him too.
   who needs 'em?
   Article II, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution:  "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law... provide for the Case of,( in case of) Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability,
                        * both of the President AND the Vice President,*  !
   declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."   [Modified by Amendment XXV].
   
   " The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. It supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state whether the Vice President becomes the President or Acting President if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency. The Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967." Wikipedia

   replyreport
9. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   HINT
   Do NOT vote for either Clinton or Bush!
   
   Lion and the Unicorn
   Were fighting for the Crown
   Lion kicked the Unicorn all around the town
   Some gave them White bread
   And some gave them Brown
   Some gave them Moldy Green Disgusting bread
   And kicked them out of town.
   
   Based on an children's ditty from old England.

   replyreport
10. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    REPEATING:
    "A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution."  Senator Cotton.
    I agree.
    What was sent to Obama as a bill to be signed was not clear enough…
    
    Just fire him, for gosh sakes. There is already enough evidence in his human resources file!

    replyreport
11. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Since no one has the guts to do such a thing as fire the president, there is always the next election.
    But, if we do not get a taste for the truth before the next election, I do believe we are doomed.
    
    You have been warned.
    If you don't want to listen to me, look around you!
    
    1.) http://prepperchimp.com/2015/05/05/texa … ng-states/
    
    2.) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01 … -in-texas/
    
    3.) http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cia-of … id/590228/

    replyreport
12. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Repeating:
    HINT:
    Do NOT vote for either Clinton or Bush!
    OR ELSE!
    
    I believe we are fighting the Globalists.
    And we, the citizenry, need to be on the same page in the next election.
    
    We must vote for someone who has NO connection to them.
    
    Additionally, I also believe we need to to resist any force (influencing us through the news media, educational institutions/programs, movies, etc.) trying to split us up over:
    1. Racial issues 
    2. Cops vs the people issues
    3. Poor vs rich issues.
    4. Youth vs. elders
    5. Sexual Identity issues
    
    We must not fall for it!!!
    
    TWISI

    replyreport
13. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    This just in:
    President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China on Friday signed 32 bilateral agreements.
    Goals:
    1.  Balance their regional interests in Central Asia.
    2.  Secure more than $6 billion in Chinese investment in a Russian intercity rail line.
    3.  Establish an information security agreement heralded as a “nonaggression pact” between the countries in cyberspace.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/world … acts.html?
    
    This event which occurred in the past is a little worrisome:
    "Alaskan legislators, trying to block the U.S. government's controversial treaty ceding to Russia eight islands belonging to Alaska, now have one more reason to fight -- in addition to sovereignty, state's rights and the fishing industry -- namely, oil...The issues involve not only state sovereignty over vital territories but also significant national defense concerns and substantial economic losses over fisheries and petroleum," said Alaska state Rep. John B. Coghill, R-Dist. 32."
    Carl Olson, (chairman of State Department Watch, a public interest group,) called on all presidential candidates to make a statement on where they stand and what they will do if elected. "It shows whether they are on the public's side, or if they are on the inside-the-beltway side. Every single presidential campaign has been approached by us and we're still waiting for them to address this in public." 
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/stat … slands.htm

    replyreport
14. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Acts of Chinese aggression:
    1. Paracel Islands
    China has been using un-necessay aggression toward Vietnamese fishing vessels near the Paracel Islands, rich in oil, gas and fish. China has also been fighting over other islands belonging to Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and Malaysia.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … ed-islands
    2. The Philippines:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16926554
    3. Japan
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asi … index.html
    4. Spratly and the Paracel islands. (Reported two days ago:)
    "China has intensified the construction of (six) artificial islands by dredging sand from submerged coral reefs and building up land mass, sometimes doubling or tripling the size of existing features."
    "...Fiery Cross Reef has attracted most attention because of its speed and scale... the new island is already big enough for a 3,000-meter (9,500-foot) runway able to accommodate big military planes.
    "...Subi Reef (landfill work) ...reportedly includes a runway,
    "...Mischief Reef (based on observation of dredging activities) could accommodate another runway…"
    "...Commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Locklear, says the construction provides ability for China to deploy, base and resupply ships and exert greater influence over the contested area."
    http://news.yahoo.com/south-china-sea-w … 05622.html

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       5/13/15
       "...an advanced Navy warship — the USS Fort Worth — sailed through the South China Sea on Monday near islands China is building in an effort to extend its territorial claims. The United States considers the area to be international waters, and the Philippine and Japanese navies have conducted exercises in the area in an attempt to counter the Chinese claims.
       
       The Pentagon will continue to patrol, from air and sea, the area around the Spratly islands, Army Col. Steve Warren said Wednesday. International law does not recognize man-made islands as extensions of the mainland, Warren said."
       http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /27229987/

       replyreport
15. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/wh … odayspaper
    I wonder what the environmentalists think of the POTUS now?

    replyreport
16. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    "India and China agreed on a close developmental partnership during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to India and Modi's visit will delineate on how to take forward the bilateral economic engagement', India's Ambassador to China, Ashok K Kantha said.     
    
    'We expect more than 20 business agreements to be signed in Shanghai during the visit', the Indian envoy told state-run CCTV on the eve of Modi's trip during which the Prime Minister would visit Xi'an, Beijing and Shanghai."
    http://newstodaynet.com/world/indiachin … -biz-deals

    replyreport