Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Willie's Choice For President

Willie Robertson
Willie Robertson, CEO of the company Duck Commander and star of the family-friendly “Duck Dynasty” reality show on A&E has made his pick for president and it’s – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
“Bobby’s such a great man,” Robertson said, during a sit-down interview on the set of “Fox & Friends” on Friday. “He’s a Christian guy … he always shows up.”
When asked if he endorses Jindal for president, Robertson said, “I do.”
And get up close and personal with The Duck Commander Family
He went on: “I like what he stands for. Bobby’s the best that I know.”
Robertson also said he’s “still listening, like everybody else,” to the platforms of the other candidates, and “these things move and shake.”
On Donald Trump, he said he didn’t agree with everything the billionaire said – including the presidential contender’s remarks about Sen. John McCain’s war-hero status – but he generally liked how he was saying it.
“It’s like the wild, wild west out there,” he said, speaking of Trump’s visit to the border. “Trump’s laying it out there. … That’s what I like about it. … When he dropped the cell phone number [of Lindsey Graham] that’s one of the best things I’ve ever seen in my life.”
He was referring to how Trump let slip Graham’s personal cell phone number during a press stop, while responding to the senator’s characterization of him as a “jackass,” as reported by WND.
Robertson has a new book coming out, “American Hunter.”


Is Iranian Nuclear Deal Un-Constitutional?

President Obama. left, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
President Obama. left, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
Activist lawyer Larry Klayman, a veteran of courtroom battles with presidents, including Bill Clinton and George Bush, is suing President Obama and others over the newly announced deal with Iran, alleging its ratification process is unconstitutional.
“A president cannot lawfully override or amend a treaty simply by issuing an order, even if he calls it an executive order or some other form of international agreement,” the action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, explains.
Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, previously has sued Cuban interests, Iranian officials and others.
His new complaint names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama, Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson of Florida and his congressman, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla.
He alleges that the federal officials “acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution” in support of a bill through which the Iranian deal – which could give Tehran hundreds of billions of dollars and allow it to pursue its nuclear program – is being ratified.
It explains that the Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it.
“A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution, outside that procedure, to make any other form of international agreement,” he explained.
However, Klayman asserted, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act signed May 22, 2015, violates the Constitution by changing the method for ratifying treaties, who ratifies treaties and the minimum vote required.
The process, pushed by Obama and adopted in Congress, instead requires both houses to agree on a “joint resolution of disapproval” instead of having two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate approve it.
“The defendants gave away the carefully crafted protections of the U.S. Constitution meant to preserve the liberties and ‘provide for the common defense’ of American citizens,” Klayman explained. “Obama’s Iran treaty will release $150 billion in assets frozen after Iran’s acts of war in 1979 and repeatedly thereafter. INARA removes restrictions on oil sales and business. Iran will be flush with cash that will finance terrorism against the United States, Europe, and Israel and finance unrestricted development of nuclear weapons.”
The case seeks judgments that the Iran plan is unconstitutional, null and void.
The deal has been delayed many times in recent months. It was announced July 14 after being negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama already has obtained approval from the United Nations and the European Union, but the proposal has only just been given to Congress for its review.
The legislation under which it is being considered provides for a vote to disapprove the plan. Then, after an expected veto from Obama, it would require a supermajority in both the House and Senate to override the veto.
Klayman wrote: “Plaintiff brings this case for himself and others similarly situated because the defendants gave away, abrogated and undermined his constitutional rights, putting him in dangers, including the protections inherent in the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote to ratify a treat.”
The complaint argues the Constitution is clear when it states 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.”
That is an “essential constitutional protect to the rights and security of the citizens of Florida,” he explained.
But since the Islamic Republic of Iran on July 2, 1968, signed onto the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. and Iran already had a treaty.
Thus, any new one would require that the senior document be overridden.
But that takes more than an executive order, he said.
“The previously existing treaty between Iran and the United States on the same subject, the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, having been duly and properly ratified by a two-thirds vote in favor by the U.S. Senate, cannot now be constitutionally modified by the defendants without complying with the treaty ratification process,” his complaint notes.
He argues Obama’s attempts to push the plan through the U.N. was no more than “giving away American sovereignty in derogation of plaintiffs’ rights.”
“Barack Obama’s treaty with Iran is extremely dangerous to the plaintiff and the United States because under the treaty – if it is ratified to become legally valid – the U.S. government will release to Iran assets now valued at $150 billion which assets were frozen and held due to acts of war committed by Iran starting in 1979 against the U.S. Embassy, U.S. government employees and citizens, and the United States generally.
“That $150 billion in funding, plus unrestricted oil sales, will finance terrorism and warfare against the United States and the development of nuclear weapons, placing the plaintiff and the United States and its allies like Israel in Imminent danger.”
In return, Obama gets only “unenforceable and unverifiable promises” from Iran about restricting its nuclear development.
Klayman cites Supreme Court precedent that the Constitution is the controlling standard.
“As a result, a device, invention or scheme which departs from, changes or disregards the constitutional requirement of Article II, Sec. 2, Par. 2, of the Constitution – even in legislation validly enacted by the U.S. Congress – is unconstitutional and void under the same analysis previously applied by the Supreme Court,” the complaint states.
A primary problem, Klayman said, is that the law inverts the process so that “inaction is now treated as ratification.”
Another is that it sets up requirements for future Congresses on how to respond to the need for sanctions against Iran.
The Obama plan, he said, purports to “overrule” the U.S. Congress and dictates how Congress may handle legislation reinstating sanctions.”
The case seeks a declaratory judgment the law is unconstitutional and more.
“Barack Hussein Obama has conspired with persons and entities not named as defendants here, including the leaders of Iran, to violate the civil and constitutional rights of the plaintiff and in so doing violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 to the injury of the plaintiff.”


Why Would Britain Be Looking At Islam Through Two Different Lenses?

  • The real question is why, when it comes to the most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all -- a country committed to the annihilation of a UN member state -- Her Majesty's government would not only permit it to have any nuclear project, but would trust the word of a regime with stated genocidal intent when it says that it is not pursuing genocidal weaponry?
Two very interesting things happened in Britain over the last two weeks. What makes them more interesting is that they are wholly contradictory.
Abroad, Britain's foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, put his nation's name to the P5+1 agreement with Iran, lifting sanctions against the Islamic Republic, unfreezing its assets, lifting arms controls on the regime and much, much more, all in exchange for having potential oversight -- with permission requested weeks in advance of any inspection -- of the country's nuclear sites. Britain's signature on this deal appears to have been an accepted and acceptable outcome with no significant opposition from any senior political figure of either main political party, and very little objection in the national press.
A few days later, Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his best speech to date on the threat of Islamic extremism at home and abroad. In that speech, the Prime Minister defined the challenge that Islamic extremism poses to Britain's way of life and cohesion as a society. He outlined the problem better than perhaps any other Western leader to date:
"What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end, it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim... mostly violence against fellow Muslims -- who don't subscribe to its sick worldview. But you don't have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation."
So how does the Prime Minster's domestic speech on extremism fit with the foreign policy goals currently being pursued by the British government? The most straightforward answer is: They don't. Take that lowest rung of what David Cameron rightly sees as an ideological ladder. That is, the ideas which do not pertain to the destruction of whole nation-states but nonetheless demonstrate an extremist mind-set.
In a recent interview, the UK's Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, was asked for an example of what might constitute warning signs of radicalization in a young person. Her answer was that being "extremely intolerant of homosexuality" might be just such a warning sign. Asked whether she thought that a pupil who thought homosexuality was "evil" should be reported to the police, the Education Secretary said that it would "depend very much on the context of the discussion."
By these lights, the Islamic Republic of Iran would most certainly have to be said to display signs of extremism. Indeed, given the circumstances, a referral to the police might be the only option. The Iranian regime does not simply think that homosexuality is "evil," it acts on this sentiment by hanging homosexual people from cranes in public squares. In the last year and a half alone, the regime has hanged more than a thousand people found "guilty" of this "crime," among similar offenses. Iran has also jailed others for the "crime" of being a Christian pastor, a former American marine, or a journalist for the Washington Post.
Another of Cameron's warning signs, a hostility to "sexual equality" would also appear to be among the regime's failings. As no less a figure than America's Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, said earlier this year, when Iran was attempting to join the UN's gender equality body, "In Iran, women are legally barred from holding some government positions, there are no laws against domestic violence, and adultery is punishable by stoning." This is the most diplomatic summary of Iran's subjection of women, but as Power said, these matters, among others, make Iran wholly inappropriate for membership in any gender equality body. In the eyes of the British government, they would also make the Iranian government's attitudes extremist.
Of course, the same Iranian government would fail any British inspectorate's tests in relation to other types of "discrimination, sectarianism and segregation," as David Cameron says. The Iranian government's treatment, for instance, of Iranian citizens who do not adhere to their own particular interpretation of Islam could hardly be said to be liberal. Not only are people of the Baha'i faith horribly and consistently persecuted (to select only one group), but in Iran, apostasy and blasphemy laws remain on the books, which mean that anybody convicted of believing anything other than the beliefs of the Ayatollahs can be hanged in public from cranes -- and they are.
But these are all among the lowest rungs of the extremist ladder. In Prime Minister Cameron's perfectly accurate definition of "the furthest end" of extremism, it consists of "seek[ing] to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm." For an example of which one need go no further than a speech given by another world leader, only three days before David Cameron's speech.
Last Friday, just before Cameron's speech, and only days after the signatories in Vienna were rejoicing over their deal, a senior Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, was selected by the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to deliver Friday prayers in Tehran. He did so -- at this state-run occasion -- while standing on a podium festooned with the words, "We Will Trample Upon America." The words "We defeat the United States" could also be seen in images from the rally.

Left: Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, speaking on July 17 in Tehran, behind a banner reading "We Will Trample Upon America" and "We defeat the United States." Right: Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims "Death to America" on March 2.

Meanwhile, only four days after the signing of the Vienna agreement, the Supreme Leader of Iran himself appeared on Iranian state television, praised the "magnificent Iranian people" for calling for the destruction of Israel and America, and said that he hoped that Allah would answer their prayers. Ayatollah Khamenei was referring to the previous week's official day of particular anti-Israel activity called "Al-Quds Day". Khamenei said in his speech, "You heard the chants of 'Death to Israel', 'Death to the US.' You could hear it... So we ask Almighty God to accept these prayers by the people of Iran." His speech was punctuated by cries of 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel'.
Everybody who knows anything about foreign policy understands its complexities. Perhaps it is not surprising that behaviour that would get you designated an "extremist", "subversive" and even "terrorist" at home might have to be viewed differently abroad. After all, the regime in Saudi Arabia -- an ally of the UK and US -- could hardly be said to be the world's foremost defender of human rights. So perhaps the double standard is understandable. Perhaps behaviour that is extreme at home must be tolerated abroad. But the question really is not why the UK government is willing to maintain a double standard. The real question is why, when it comes to the most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all -- a country committed to the annihilation a UN member state -- Her Majesty's government would not only permit it to have any nuclear project, but would trust the word of a regime with stated genocidal intent when it says that it is not pursuing genocidal weaponry?

Friday, July 24, 2015

Kerry Makes It Very Clear, If Things Go Wrong, Israel Will Be Blamed. The US In NOT A Friend Of Israel.

Kerry has ‘intense exchange’ with Jewish leaders over Iran deal

Secretary of State John Kerry had an “intense exchange” when he tried to sell the Iran nuclear deal to skeptical Jewish leaders in New York on Friday.
A day after GOP senators blasted him for getting “fleeced” by Iran, Kerry faced another tough crowd in a closed-door meeting with about 120 Jewish leaders at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
“It was very intense exchange, serious exchange,” the group’s vice chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein, told The Post.
Kerry spoke from a podium and fielded pointed questions from a crowd of Israel supporters concerned that the deal could allow Iran to get relief from sanctions while still maintaining some nuclear infrastructure that could threaten Israel.
“There was no acrimony, but there was intensity,” at the event, held at the Stern College for Women in midtown, said Hoenlein
He said members asked Kerry about “snapback provisions” if Iran cheats, a 24-day waiting period for nuclear inspections, and the window of when Iran gets to re-start some nuclear R&D.
One critic was former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Kerry’s former Senate colleague, who “made some impassioned comments,” according to Hoenlein.
The State Department called to request the meeting as the Obama administration works to secure enough support in Congress to fend off a motion of disapproval and prepares for a possible override of a promised presidential veto.
“Clearly they’re concerned about where members of Congress are at,” said Hoenlein. “That was implicit in his remarks.”
The role of Sen. Charles Schumer, and a longtime defender of Israel and a key Democratic leader, remains up in the air. Schumer has yet to take a position on the Iran deal.
“I believe he’ll do the right thing. The question is, will he go public and does he bring others along?” said Hoenlein.
Earlier, at the Council of Foreign Relations, Kerry said Israel would get the blame if Congress votes down the nuclear deal.
“I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed,” Kerry said.
That line of argument didn’t go over well with the Jewish leaders. “They [the Obama administration] can differ with that [Israel’s position] without isolating people or Israel,” said Hoenlein.
In his speech at the Foreign Relations group, Kerry also went after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he hasn’t offered a real alternative to a deal he has been denouncing for months.
“We’ve seen the Prime Minister draw a cartoon of a bomb at the UN and so on and so forth,” Kerry said. “But what’s happened? What has anyone done about it? Anybody got a plan to roll it back?”
During an interview earlier on NBC’s “Today” show, Kerry also warned Israel would be making a huge mistake if it took unilateral military action against Iran.
“That’d be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don’t think it’s necessary,” he said.

Yes, IRS Did Target Tea Party And Other Conservative Groups

House chairman: Documents

 prove IRS 'political targeting' of conservatives

The chairman of the top House committee probing the 
IRS political witch hunt of President Obama's foes said 
documents prove that the agency targeted conservatives 
and then tried to destroy the evidence and he promised 
"news" on the panel's investigation next week.
"I promise you – there will be news on the IRS side
 as early as next week. So stay tuned," said Rep. 
Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee.
Chaffetz this week detailed elements of his panel's
 probe in an address to the Ripon Society in 
Washington, accusing the IRS of violating a 
House subpoena in destroying evidence and 
mocking President Obama's claim on Jon 
Stewart's Comedy Channel show that "the
real scandal around the IRS" is 
underfunding the agency.
"Probably the biggest thing our committee 
is looking at is the IRS," said the Utah 
lawmaker. "You have political targeting that
 is factual at this point. There are no ifs, 
ands or buts. You had groups within the 
IRS who were politically targeting conservatives
 and impeding their First Amendment rights," he added.
What's more, because the panel sought documents 
from the IRS when the targeting of Tea Party and 
other conservative groups made headlines, there
 is still information coming out about the episode.
"You're going to continue to hear more about this.
 Because when the targeting became evident, the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee put
 in place a subpoena for the documents – a small
 window of Lois Lerner's e-mails. Internally, the
 IRS put a preservation order in place -- don't 
destroy or get rid of any of these documents. 
These documents and e-mails were in the
possession of the IRS. And on March 4, 2014, 
they destroyed them" he said.
"Imagine if the IRS had given you a summons 
for you to produce documents. You had them
 in your possession, and then you destroyed them. 
What would happen to you? Do you think they 
would say, 'Oh, darn it!' No, which is why Congress
 has to stand up for itself. You cannot -- with a duly 
issued subpoena and eternal preservation order 
in place -- go out and destroy documents and say
 there is no consequence to that; nobody's going 
to be held accountable, and nobody is at fault.
"And yet that's essentially what we've heard from
 the President, who has said repeatedly there is 
not even a 'smidgeon' of corruption. He was on 
the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night 
and said, 'You know what the real scandal is? The 
real scandal is that the IRS is underfunded. They 
need more agents, more people, and Congress
 passed a bad law.' You know this ridiculous 
law the president is talking about? It was 
passed in 1913. He makes it look as if we had 
passed this law. That little detail he said on 
the Daily Show, you're going to see that 
surface. We will continue to pursue this, 
and I promise you – there will be news 
on the IRS side as early as next week. So stay tuned."
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can
 be contacted at