Hat Tip: BB
PM Netanyahu’s Speech in Congress (Transcript)
By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings
There’s a news story out of Bryan,Texas which attempts to explain why the Federal government raided a political meeting put on by a group of folks contemplating Texas Secession from the United States on Valentine’s Day. Police officers representing local, state and Federal agencies rounded up everyone in attendance, confiscated their cell phones, laptops or other recording devices and then fingerprinted each person. All this was done with a search warrant signed by a judge for an alleged misdemeanor committed by two of the attendees who were present at the meeting.
Tell me it isn’t just me… that this entire event come across as bizarre… to the point of making your blood pressure elevate?
After reading the article you find there was an ‘inside man’ working on behalf of law enforcement. I guess those listed as right wing terrorists, anyone who doesn’t like the way our government has been shredding the constitution; and particularly how quickly the Obama administration is destroying what’s left of America’s foundations…, those kind of right wing terrorists require an undercover cop attending political meetings to make sure…to make sure of what exactly?
The misdemeanor crime requiring 20 armed peace officers you ask? …A ‘Fake’ court summons issued by two individuals who have no authority issued to have folks to appear before a judge who isn’t recognized as a judge in Texas or any other state.
‘“You can’t just let people go around filing false documents to judges trying to make them appear in front of courts that aren’t even real courts,” Hierholzer, who led the operation, told the Houston Chronicle.”
For some reason I found myself checking a map of Texas. Bryan is not too far from Waco…remembering a different show of force wherein the Federal government decided to overplay their hand.
Vivid memories; images of buildings being burned to the ground, women and children in that compound being consumed by flames and all because the government wanted to serve a warrant that could easily have been carried out some other way. The Federal government wanted a show of force; well, they got one.
I guess when you have the power of the Federal government to intimidate and run rough shod over small groups of people then it doesn’t matter if they have constitutional protection or not.
“The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out ‘simulated court documents’ — summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure. These ‘simulated documents’ were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a ‘show of force’ – 20 officers and an extremely broad search warrant.”
So twenty law enforcement officers were needed to…were needed to what? I’m still trying to figure out why twenty law enforcement officers were needed. I’m a retired police officer and this stinks to high heaven. There’s the right to peacefully assemble which apparently didn’t apply to these citizens.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Then there was the matter of searching everyone, not just the two specifically named, and confiscating cell phones, laptops and other recording devices to be searched for content. Exactly who raised their arm to the square and swore out the warrant and what kind of judge would sign a ‘shot gun’ warrant, one that lacked specifics and clearly violated the Fourth Amendment of everyone who had their electronic device ‘temporarily detained and searched’ for the purpose of obtaining information?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)
Which is worse, a fake summons issued by someone who lacks authority to demand anyone appear before a court that doesn’t exist or a real warrant signed by a Federal judge giving law enforcement officers permission to violate the law of the land and intimidate citizens into submission? (Hint: you shouldn’t need to flip a coin on this.)
I should know better but keep forgetting; constitutional protections as listed in the Bill of Rights are only found in history books, inalienable rights were done away with and the rule of law means absolutely nothing; forgive my inability to keep up with modern America. Live long and prosper.
This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
By: Alan Caruba
The strangest thing about Obama’s efforts to achieve friendly relations with Iran, something he has tried to do since he first took office in 2009, is that Iran has made it abundantly clear since its Islamic revolution in 1979 that it hates America and, in tandem, Israel as well.
In an Iranian naval drill on February 25, Iran blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier near the entrance of the Persian Gulf. It was a full-size replica of the USS Nimitz. This is the antithesis of friendship, but just to make their position clear, Iranian Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi, commander of its naval forces, let it be known that “We have the most advanced sea mines which cannot be imagined by the Americans.”
But the Americans—in this case the President of the United States and his negotiators—have been making every concession they can to get an agreement that would limit Iran’s ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. Dr. Norman Bailey, an adjunct professor of economic statecraft at the Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., recently wrote that “The U.S. looks set to present its allies with a dangerous fait accompli on Iran’s nuclear program.”
“The most recent deadline of March 24th means only one thing,” Dr. Bailey wrote in a World Tribune commentary. “A deal has been reached between the U.S. and Iran, which will be announced to the other five participants when the Obama administration decides it is convenient to do so.” The other five obviously have nothing to say regarding the negotiations. At one point, the French foreign minister stormed out of the initial meeting proclaiming “This is a fool’s deal.”
It’s worse than a fool’s deal. It is a deal that is predicated on the nuclear destruction of Israel and, after that, the U.S. is next. One might think that Obama knows this and one might be right. People like Mayor Rudy Giuliani have long noticed that Obama doesn’t seem to like America very much.
A commentary by Lawrence Sellin, PhD, a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the U.S. Army Reserve, and tours of service in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Major General Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army, retired, noted that the nuclear agreement did not include measures that would prevent any cooperation between Iran and North Korea or other rogue states. This has not gone unnoticed by the Israelis. Intelligence Minister, Yuval Steinitz, has noted that “We all know that Iran, Syria and North Korea are very close to each other.”
North Korea has its own nuclear weapons program and, as Dr. Sellin and Maj. Gen. Vallely, warned, “Unless specifically prohibited and enforced within the terms and conditions” of the deal, “Tehran may attempt to sidestep the protocols by ‘outsourcing’ parts of the bomb production process to North Korea, Iran’s long-term partner on everything from launch missiles to guidance systems to nuclear war head technology and other required components.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, a party to the negotiations with Secretary John Kerry, met with a visiting North Korean deputy foreign minister, Ri Gil Song, shortly after February 2014 Vienna discussions. Fars News reported that their meetings were devoted to “bolstering and reinvigorating the two countries’ bilateral ties.”
Anyone recall George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil”? It was Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.
In case you are less than confident of Iran’s intentions, in 2013 before the previous nuclear negotiations were concluded, according to the Fars News Agency, the regimes’ outlet run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, the deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, said “America’s interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran’s armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists (Israel).”
The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. On September 29, 2014, he addressed the United Nations. The message will be the same. Any deal with Iran will be a bad deal for Israel which has been in the crosshairs of the Iranians since they came to power in 1979. This isn’t an “existential” threat. It is a threat that can and will destroy Israel if permitted to occur. Obama’s negotiations will leave Israel no other option than to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
If the U.S. Congress has the means to deter and render Obama’s negotiations null and void, they had better do so. On September 26, 2007, the U.S. Senate passed legislation by a vote of 76-22 designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. The long record of Iran and its state-sponsored terrorism can be found by visiting Wikipedia.
What we are witnessing is a level of insane appeasement comparable to that of the 1930s when European nations refused to acknowledge Nazi Germany’s clear intention to conquer them.
Iran’s intentions are known to Obama and no doubt to our Congress. They are surely known to Israel and the Gulf nations. If history is any guide, these negotiations will put the world on the path to a cataclysm that defies the imagination.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
Ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress on Tuesday, the White House initiated a full-tilt public relations battle against the Israeli leader, both publicly and behind the scenes. Yet despite that lobbying by the Obama administration to dissuade some Democrats from attending Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, more than 75% of Democrats are defying the President, and plan to attend, whether out of cowardice or principle.
It’s hard to know which. Some, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), are attending, but are angry at Netanyahu and the Republicans for putting them in this position. It is a poor reflection on the President’s foreign policy that his own party has to choose between a long-standing ally and the President’s reputation.
The latest headline, as this column is published, states that 55 Democrats to skip Netanyahu speech to Congress. Considering that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 46 U.S. senators who caucus as Democrats (including two Independents), that is still less than a quarter of all congressional Democrats. This Congress, the 114th, has the largest Republican majority since the Congress of 1929 to 1931.
The New York Times reported on Monday about the “uninvited problems” that Netanyahu’s speech brings for Jewish Democrats, and refers to the “bruising political showdown” that his visit has initiated. But the paper’s readers are left with the impression that the blame lies with Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH) and Netanyahu, not President Obama and his administration’s ongoing opposition to the speech.
“Mr. Boehner—seemingly ready to try to separate Jewish voters from the Democratic Party they have long favored—remains resolute about his decision,” reports Jonathan Weisman for the Times. “He is also open about his hope that Mr. Netanyahu’s address will undermine the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate an accord with Iran that halts that nation’s nuclear program.”
“But to many Democrats, this time Mr. Netanyahu appears to have gone out of his way to alienate them,” reports Weisman.
On Monday, President Obama’s controversial Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that “The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period.” The use of the word “period” at the end of her sentence, for the purpose of emphasis, was an unfortunate reminder of President Obama’s repeated promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period” How did that turn out? It became PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year.
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC after Powers, and assured the world that he had no intention of insulting President Obama, and that their differences were similar to a family feud. But an Israeli news outlet is reporting that as a result of Netanyahu’s opposition to the Iran deal, the U.S. has cut off intelligence cooperation with Israel “in terms of intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program.”
The opposition to Netanyahu’s speech has filtered down directly from the White House, even if the mainstream media refuse to report on this fact. They prefer to pin the blame for the current conflict all on the Israeli Prime Minister, and on Speaker of the House John Boehner (R\-OH). The media continue to misreport the timeline of events leading up to Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation from Boehner to speak before Congress. The White House was made aware of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted, as even The New York Times has acknowledged in a correction.
In early February the UK Daily Mail reported, “Two prominent black Democrats in the House of Representatives are vowing to skip Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress next month, a move that a White House insider says was put in motion by the Obama administration.”
“I’m not saying the president called anyone personally,” David Martosko quotes the anonymous White House staffer as saying. “But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.”
The administration went on an outright “offensive against Netanyahu” at the end of February, according to Politico, through the words of Susan Rice, Press Secretary Josh Earnest, and Secretary of State John Kerry. But the day before Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, members of the Obama administration attempted to tone down their criticism a bit. Press Secretary Earnest said that the President believes each member of Congress should decide for him or herself whether or not to attend.
Vice President Joe Biden also will not attend the speech.
Despite all this, the vast majority of Congressional Democrats have chosen their side: Israel, and Netanyahu. More than 75% of Democratic Members from both chambers will be attending Netanyahu’s speech, as of this writing. It also turns out that many of those boycotting are among the most extreme left-wingers in Congress—no surprise there. As a matter of fact, 26 of the 55 who have announced they are not attending are either members of the so-called “Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)” or of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), or both. The DSA no longer publishes a list of its Congressional members, but there are many who are in both groups. Some even hold leadership positions within these groups.
Bret Stephens makes the case in The Wall Street Journal that “The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel.” He notes that “Over the weekend, a defensive White House put out a statement noting the various ways it has supported Israel. It highlighted the 1985 U.S.-Israel free-trade agreement and a military assistance package concluded in 2007. When Barack Obama must cite the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides, you know there is a problem.”
Here is the list of those who will not attend PM Netanyahu’s speech, according to The Hill: Those who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have CPC after their name. All are Democrats, or caucus with the Democrats.
SENATE – 8 members
Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) CPC
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.D.)
Sen .Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)
HOUSE – 47 members
Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.) CPC
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fl.) CPC
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Rep. Lois Capps (Cal.)
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.) CPC
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.) CPC
Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) CPC
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.) CPC
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.) CPC
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.) CPC
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) CPC
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Tex.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) Co-Chair, CPC
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) CPC
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio) CPC
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) Co-Chair, CPC
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) CPC
Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (Tex.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) CPC
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) Whip, CPC
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) CPC
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) CPC
Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.) CPC
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wisc.) CPC
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) (non-voting Member) CPC
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine) CPC
Rep. David Price (N.C.)
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) CPC
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) Vice Chair, CPC
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) CPC
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)
It’s time once again for the Watcher’s Council’s ‘Weasel Of The Week’ nominations, where we pick our choices to compete for the award of the famed Golden Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations!
Here are this weeks’ nominees…
The Noisy Room: We’re in the hands of fools and corrupt bureaucrats. Last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission held a faux meeting on open Internet rules and access to broadband Internet. Commissioner Ajit Pai made a statement before the FCC vote to take unprecedented control over the internet with a secret plan. Yes, secret. Secret as in no exposure to the public or Congress prior to its enactment. What follows is the transcript of his comments – in echoes of Obamacare, this had to pass before we could know what was in it. Except, they are still keeping it under wraps. It must be very, very bad indeed.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through ‘an unusual secretive effort inside the White House.’ Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a parallel version of the FCC. Their work led to the president’s announcement in November of his plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report says blindsided the FCC and swept aside months of work by Chairman Wheeler toward a compromise. Now, of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say, ‘We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in D.C that the only thing that could stop FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the president to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory. Congratulations. what the press has called the parallel FCC at the White House opened its door to a plethora of special interest activists. Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairman’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials.
“But what about the rest of the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process altogether. They were being played for fools. And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan, and ‘asked’ the FCC to implement it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in, in recent days, to make last-minute filings, registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet, the American people, to this day, have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.
“Especially given the unique importance of the internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I ask for the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Chairman did the same. According to a survey last week by a respected democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the document public. Still, the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so the American people can find out what’s in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record.
“We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the White House. And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today. There is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. now. The backers of the president’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.
“These aren’t my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal plans that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. but rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement. At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, who once said, the internet is the first thing that humanity has built, that humanity doesn’t understand. This proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it. but the American people clearly do. The proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. I’m optimistic we’ll look back on today’s vote as a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that’s served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, But I do believe its days are numbered. For all of those reasons, I dissent.”
Scofflaw Racist ‘Attorney Generalissimo’ Eric Holder!!
The Independent Sentinel: Eric Holder wants to make it easier to get the white guys in civil rights cases. He is very concerned that he couldn’t get a case together against Officer Wilson and George Zimmerman and has called for Congress to lower the standard of proof.
That’s pretty alarming. The government is going to go after people whether they are guilty or not?
“There is a better way in which we could have federal involvement in these kinds of matters to allow the federal government to be a better backstop in examining these cases [civil rights cases],” Holder said in an NBC News interview Thursday.
“We do need to change the law. I do think the standard is too high,” Holder said in the interview. “There needs to be a change with regard to the standard of proof.”
The Right Planet: Despite the fact multiple investigations and a grand jury have failed to produce any evidence “racism” played any part in the shooting of Michael Brown by the Ferguson Police Department, AG Eric Holder and his race-obsessed DOJ are hellbent in turning the whole incident into a race crime, i.e. “hate crime” (yeah, huh, imagine that). Now Holder’s DOJ is planning to release a report condemning the Ferguson Police of funding their department with “racist traffic stops.”
Democrats Boycotting Israei PM Benyamin Netanyahu’s Speech!!
Virginia Right!: I nominate the Democrats who plan to boycott tomorrow’s speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US House.
These Democrats, who take every possible opportunity to shun Bibi, are acting like 2 year old children throwing a temper tantrum. And they are, of course, taking their orders from Obama who knows his pro-Iran “behind the curtains” activities will be the topic ot the day.
America has, for the most part, stood with Israel. But this president has, in my opinion, been downright hostile towards Israel.
There is no valid reason to not listen to the man. So the Boycottin’ Democrats win my nomination this week.
Ask Marion: My nominee for Weasel of the Week is Jewish Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen, part of a 50 Democrat coalition that is boycotting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday 3.3.15. Netanyahu’s speech is a crucial message to both the American and the Israeli people; a message one would think all American Jews would be interested in hearing.
The Democrat Congressman appeared on the Kelly File to promote the White House’s position that Netanyahu’s visit is a ‘politically tool wielded against our president’. Amazing how the Democrats and their progressive media shills constantly talk about working together but whenever the opportunity arises they whine or refuse to participate.
Just because Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner invited the Prime Minister to speak to Congress without asking the President’s permission, Obama not only refuses to attend, but is sending no representatives from the White House. Netanyahu is a man of courage and strength who understands the issues and exudes leadership, an ally that America has left behind. And his speeches are always worth listening to. Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at AIPAC that was a precursor to his speech to the U.S. Congress.
One must wonder how an American politician, an American Jew, would not only choose to miss this man’s speech but actually help organize a walkout or boycott in support of our President’s childish hurt feelings; a President that is supporting a misguided negotiation with a goose stepping country that hates both America and Israel and is about to go nuclear with America’s help.
Congressman Cohen appeared on Fox with Megan Kelly to defend his boycott and participating in the politicizing of Tuesday’s event, the night before Netanyahu’s speech, but didn’t do a very good sales job of his position. The Jewish Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen said “I love Israel. I’m for Israel. I think Israel is going to be hurt by this speech,” he told Megyn Kelly.
Mike Huckabee told Megyn Kelly that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t giving his speech to Congress to win the election in Israel, and that it may in fact be “very destructive” to his political career. “He’s risking his political life because he values not just the future of Israel, but really, the future of civilization.”
Well, there it is. What a despicable group of Weasels… ANY OF THEM COULD WIN! Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.