International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Why Some Think 47 GOP Senators Broke the Law With Iran Letter
Source:
abcnews.go.com
URL Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-g ... -iran-letter/story?id=29528727
Published: Mar 10, 2015
Author: TERRY MORAN
Post Date: 2015-03-10 12:11:23 by Pericles
Keywords: Iran
Views: 6010
Comments: 34
Why Some Think 47 GOP Senators Broke the Law With Iran Letter Mar 10, 2015, 11:58 AM ET ANALYSIS by TERRY MORAN Some law professors and liberal commentators say they believe the “open letter” Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 of his Republican colleagues sent this week to the leaders of Iran, warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Obama won’t last after Obama leaves office, might be a crime. That letter from the Arkansas Republican to the ayatollahs and other Iranian officials, critics say, is a violation of the 1799 Logan Act, which says starkly: “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.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Pericles (#0)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.gKxC4haQ.dpuf Those law professors are pretty stupid.
1799 Logan Act is pretty much a law passed by our Founding Fathers. If I was a good writer I would use this law as a basis for a book where the president arrests and jails almost half the senate - nice thriller basis.
So it is now your position that congress can pass a law with 50 percent plus 1 and it trumps the constitution. That's not true.
Only you see it as a freedom of speech issue. It is not.
It contains words. Words are speech. No means no.
Obunghole should prosecute them then. Then even more people would know he is a literal piece of walking shit.
No means no. So someone threatening to kill the president - just threatening - is free to do so under the first A?
Then Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakan, Al Sharpton, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and quite a few others are doomed as well. "Without authority of the United States" is what was cited by Nancy Pelosi as she deemed as a US HR representative she had authority to 'make talk' with Syria back in 2007.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Someone saying it is not a crime under the first amendment. Someone trying to do it would be.
I doubt it was illegal . The Senate does have a role in foereign policy ;especially regarding treaties . However ... I think it may have been a foolish move on their part . The Dems are divided on the Iran issue ,and this could serve as a uniting issue. It will certainly put more pressure on the Dem opponents to toe the line .(and if that don't work well then a leak about a Justice Dept investigation about their corruption should do the trick). Meanwhile .... a blast from the past . Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR 14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov Comrade Y.V. Andropov On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics." Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop. The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet- American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength. However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals. Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov: 1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.) 2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information. If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side. Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration. Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples. The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney. Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan. We await instructions. President of the committee V. Chebrikov http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr
Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.(Daniel Webster)
let's first put Rockefeller in jail for treason and then talk about these 47 republican senators. Rockefeller: A Traitor for Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller. A former Governor of New York and, after 1973, a former Vice-President of the United States. In the past few years, Rockefeller's image as a "moderate" Republican has become tarnished, espcially since the 1994 publication of Loftus' and Aarons' Secret War Against the Jews . They reveal that Rockefeller was a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. Worse, they reveal, he was a traitor: there are transcripts of telephone conversations between Rockefeller and Nazi agents in South America in which Rockefeller arranged the sale of tons of petroleum products to Nazi Germany. What is really significant about these transcripts is the date: 1943, in the middle of World War II (Loftus and Aarons 270-91). ". . .[T]he Rockefellers just happened to own the largest stock of Standard of New Jersey and were then in partnership with the Nazi-controlled I.G. Farben. . .the (Rockefeller) family was in complete agreement with the Dulles brothers and Forrestal on the question of preserving US profits, no matter who won the war. . .[H]is friend Forrestal had authorized the Rockefeller oil company, Standard of New Jersey, to ship oil to the Nazis in 1941. That was before the United States entered the war, but Pearl Harbor made no difference to Rockefeller . . .[emphasis added--mcs]. All through the war, while Rockefeller was in charge, everything the Germans wanted in South America they got, from refueling stations to espionage bases. The British, on the other hand, had to pay in cash. Behind Rockefeller's rhetoric of taking measures in Latin America for the national defense stood a naked grab for profits. Under the cloak of his official position, Rockefeller and his cronies would take over Britain's most valuable Latin American properties. If the British resisted, he would effectively block the raw materials and food supplies desperately needed for Britain's fight against Hitler. . . (Loftus and Aarons 164-71)." Not only this, Rockefeller's cronies were members of the Dulles-Forrestal clique. (Loftus and Aarons 165-71). And: 'By February 1945 one-third of the nations on the [South American] continent had not even entered the war, while Dulles's friend, President Juan Peron of Argentina led a bloc of decidedly pro-Fascist countries that were eager to help the architects of the Third Reich escape with their assets intact. In the end, these countries had to be ordered to declare war on Germany and Japan, under threat of exclusion from the United Nations. . .(Loftus and Aarons 165-71).'94tab It was all a farce: Argentina didn'92t declare war until late April, two weeks before the German surrender. In fact, most South American dictators made a fortune from the Nazis during the war (Loftus and Aarons 165-71).Therefore:}{plain f1 '93Rockefeller's political and corporate strategy was to use his block of Fascist nations to "buy" the majority vote at the UN. . .The Latin American bloc represented nineteen votes to Europe's nine. . .[Rockefeller}{plain f2 '92s] partner in moneymaking just happened to be John Foster Dulles, a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and a fellow conspirator in smuggling Axis money to safety. . .Those Israelis who were present for the foundation of the Jewish state insist [Rockefeller] had crossed several lines and had made a profit on both sides of the war. Rockefeller's name arose in several incriminating wiretaps and. . . it is entirely possible that the Zionists were given transcripts by sympathetic British officials. . .One Israeli intelligence officer admits the British connection. . . Ben-Gurion had already accumulated more than enough ammunition against Rockefeller and had decided that he couldn't take any chances with an indirect approach. There was no time for a British-style media campaign. The Latin American votes were needed in three days. "Our American sources insist that the Jews simply laid their cards on the table for Nelson to read and 'blackmailed the hell out of him.'. . .In 1936, the Rockefellers entered into partnership with Dulles's Nazi front, the Shroder Bank of New York, which. . .was the key institution in the Fascist economic 'miracle.' In 1939 the Rockefeller-controlled Chase National Bank secured $25 million for Nazi Germany and supplied Berlin with information on ten thousand Nazi sympathizers in the US. Except for a few months' interruption, the Rockefeller-owned Standard of New Jersey company shipped oil to the Nazis through Spain all throughout the war. "The roster of the Rockefellers' known pro-Nazi behavior is horrendous. As previously outlined, in 1942 Senator Truman described the behavior of the Rockefellers' company as treasonous. . .Under the US Constitution, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. On September 22, 1947, Federal Judge Charles Clark issued the following opinion in a civil case: 'Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national in view of its relationship with I.G. Farben after the United States and Germany became active enemies.' The date is significant. Two months later, just as Nelson Rockefeller was hoping that the damage could be limited to a few corporate scapegoats, the Jews arrived in his office with proof that he personally had committed treason against the United States of America.' (Loftus and Aarons 165-71). It was the perfect moment, Loftus and Aarons (165-71) tell us, for blackmail. Today, Nelson Rockefeller is remembered as the Republican millionaire who became vice-president of the United States. But: '. . . in 1947 he was still under a cloud of suspicion for his activities in South America. . . Despite the fact that Rockefeller sat on the ProclaimedList Committee and was in charge of Latin American intelligence, he turned a blind eye to Standard's shipments of South American oil to Hitler. . .[But] by 1947, the Rockefeller publicity machine had things under control, notwithstanding what Judge Clark might have said. Then the Jews arrived with their dossier. They had his Swiss bank records with the Nazis, his signature on correspondence setting up the German cartel in South America, transcripts of his conversations with Nazi agents during the war, and, finally, evidence of his complicity in helping Allen Dulles smuggle war criminals and money from the Vatican to Argentina. . .[The] Zionist[s] blackmail[ed]. . .Nelson Rockefeller. . .Reuven Shiloah, Ben-Gurion's intelligence chief. . . masterminded the operation. . .[W]hen the Zionists confronted Rockefeller, (he) skimmed through the dossier and coolly began to bargain. In return for the votes of the Latin American block, he wanted guarantees that the Jews would keep their mouths shut about the flow of Nazi money and fugitives to South America. There would be no Zionist Nazi-hunting unit, no testimony at Nuremberg about the bankers or anyone else, not a single leak to the press about where the Nazis were living in South America or which Nazis were working for Dulles. The subject of the Nazis was closed. Period. Forever. . .[T]he price for the margin (of votes) of safety [for the admission of the new nation of Israel to the UN] was steep. In effect, the extra votes for passage in the UN were bought with the blood of 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. . .The Zionists' success at the UN General Assembly did not end the danger to their cause. There was no guarantee that the Jews would not be double-crossed. They knew that Forrestal, the Dulleses, and their other enemies would not give up. And they could not blackmail them all. . .' (Loftus and Aarons 165-71)." Rockefeller is not the only major figure they expose for treason in World War II. James V. Forrestal, then-Secretary of the Navy and later the Defense Department, and Prescott Bush's attorney Allen Dulles, then-OSS Swiss Station Chief and later Director of CIA, are revealed to have engaged in treasonous acts during the Second World War. Both were partners in Rockefeller's company, Standard Oil. Both, say Loftus and Aarons, were under surveillance by FDR (64-73). We've also recently learned that Prescott Bush was indicted under the Trading With the Enemy Act in November, 1942, while U.S. troops were under fire in North Africa. It was found that Prescott's firm, the Union Banking Company, was helping arrange loans for the sale of petroleum products to Hitler (Tarpley and Chaitkin 30-46). Worse, it became apparent that Prescott remained on the boards of directors of a number of companies now known to have engaged in treason in World War II, until 1952 (Bowen 4-11). Allen Dulles remained Prescott Bush's attorney even when it became known in various inner sanctum circles in Washington, D.C, during the war that both he and Forrestal had been found to be such bad security in dealing with the Axis that the Roosevelt Administration had placed them both under surveillance in order to determine if they were engaged in acts damaging to the national security of the United States (Loftus and Aarons 64-73). Rockefeller kept many of these exposures of treason from having media attention, so that most Americans were not aware of them until the 1990's. Rockefeller was able to take advantage of Israel's need for votes to secure membership in the UN to keep his own role in treason under wraps for nearly 50 years (Loftus and Aarons 270-91). He was able to pressure Jewish intelligence to make a deal with him whereby his own treason was hidden in return for the votes of 20 Latin American nations that Rockefeller basically controlled. Israel needed those twenty votes to secure membership in the UN. In return for covering up Rockefeller's treason, Jewish intelligence got Israeli admission to the UN in 1947. A number of other high-level persons were also involved in treason during World War II, as Charles Higham points out in his books American Swastika (New York; Doubleday, 1985) and Trading With the Enemy(NY: Delacorte, 1983. 39-42). Among them were Robert Lovett, Artemus Gates, William Stamps Farrish and William Draper. All of these were also associates of Prescott Bush throughout his life. In addition, George Bush's own association with known Nazis and Nazi-sympathizers of World War II has come under increasing scrutiny in the past few years with his ascension to the Vice-Presidency and the White House. As he left the White House in 1993, major allegations were apparent that George had associated for too long and at too great a level of closeness with several known Nazi-sympathizers of World War II, including Lazslo Pasztor, a man who acted as a courier of information for the Nazis during World War II. Bush has also insisted on continuing to associate with Yaroslav Stesko, a known war criminal who headed a Nazi puppet regime in the Ukraine during World War II. During Stesko's administration, thousands of Jews were slaughtered (Bellant 159; Bowen 2-11). But perhaps more important, from an American viewpoint, is the effect of men like Stesko on the average American soldier in the field in World War II. This is an angle that hasn't been brought out much about this area, but it is one that infuriates me. By making it easier for the Nazis to administer their regime in the Ukraine, Stesko freed up hundreds or perhaps thousands of German troops to fight against and sometimes to kill American GI's in Europe. It is also important to understand the strategic effects of individuals like Laszlo Pasztor on the German war-making ability. By delivering messages and keeping lines of communication open within the Third Reich, Pasztor helped keep the Germany in the war longer. Some of the communications he delivered from Hungary, where he was a member of the domestic version of Hungary's Nazi party called the Arrow Cross, apparently facilitated German troop movements in the Balkans and along the Mediterranean at a time when easier troop movements meant lower German casualties--and higher American casualties (Simpson 173-80; Bowen 2-4). We also now know that Allen Dulles's "Sunrise" negotiations with the Axis in World War II were much more involved than anyone had previously suspected. (Loftus and Aarons 75-80, 99). A big motivating force behind Dulles, they tell us here, was Nelson Rockefeller atttempting to avoid prosecution after the war. He didn't completely succeed. In 1947, a federal judge ruled that his company, Standard Oil, had been guilty of treason during the War. Several executives got jail sentences and fines were levied against Rockefeller and his company. There was a reason. Rockefeller's tankers had fueled Nazi u-boats in the Canary Islands (Higham 36-42). On March 22, 1943, Rockefeller authorized an enemy agent already blacklisted to receive $3668 for legal services in Rio. On April 22, 1943, one of Rockefeller's officers cabled Zurich confirming the shipmenet of 16.7 tons of fuel to the Axis. In a secret document on June 9, 1943, one of Rockefeller's officers in Venezuela was authorized to continue trading with four enemy corporations to the tune of 13,000 kilos a month (Higham 36-40). Rockefeller was defiant of FDR's efforts to shut down his sale of oil to the Axis. The Dulles brothers had one of their clients threaten to disrupt the US oil supply during wartime. Besides US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, three other members of the US intelligence community insist that Allen Dulles was personally behind the threat to cut of Saudi oil supplies. The Standard Oil Executives made it clear that the entire US war effort was fueled by their oil and it could be stopped. The US Government had no choice but to go along if it wanted to win the War. (Loftus and Aarons 63-7). According to Charles Higham, by 1939, while Hitler and Japan were building up their armaments and Americans were dangerously short of rubber and the armed services were hard put to complete wheels for planes, tanks and armored cars, Rockefeller made a deal with Hitler whereby he could obtain certain kinds of Standard Oil artificial rubber while American would get nothing (Higham 36). And Senator Harry Truman's Committee learned in 1942 that Standard Oil had sent cables to Japan in 1941 asserting that its trade with Japan would continue whether or not America went to war with them (Higham 42-53). Further, according to Higham, on January 28, 1944, Britain forbade the sale of further petroleum products to Spain, since it had been learned that oil sent to Fascist Spain went to Germany. Roosevelt soon joined Britain's ban. But on May 2, 1944, Rockefeller's Standard Oil succeeded in pressuring FDR to allow it to again sell oil to Fascist Spain. As a result, 48,000 tons a month of American oil began to flow back to the Nazis (Higham 58-62). Prescott had to know of some of this, since his banking firm did regular business with Standard Oil and his attorney, Allen Dulles, was on its Board of Directors. Prescott}{plain f1 '92s steamship line had extensive contacts with the Nazis, as well. It had provided free trips for German Nazis to the US for a meeting of a Fascist eugenics group in which Prescott Bush was a member throughout World War II (Bowen 2-11) and Prescott had an attorney on staff who continued to do bond business with the Nazis until November 1942, apparently stopping doing so only because he was indicted by the US government (Tarpley and Chaitkin 34-40). Only a few months earlier, in September 1941, Rockefeller had his tankers refuel Nazi submarines that were sinking American ships in the North Atlantic and with which it was widely known the US was involved in an undeclared war. (Higham 35-6). Rockefeller also accepted $11 million in bonds directly from Hermann Goering in 1940, and the two initialed off on an agreement whereby Nazi Germany was authorized to continue to exploit Standard Oil's Rumanian oil, whether or not America came into the war. (Higham 34-60. See also Bella Kissh's unpublished thesis on this, 1984--full reference can be located at the Annotated Bibliography file on this Website: Go to Annotated Bibliography). Thus, Prescott's insider knowledge of, yet continuing partnership and business association with, Rockefeller and his firm, makes some other subsequent events look suspicious after this May 2, 1944 reshipment of oil to the Nazis via Spain and those cables to Japan of 1941. For, on May 15, 1944, Prescott's son George Bush flew his first combat mission in the Pacific against the Japanese. Given this backdrop, one must wonder why he was even there. Works Cited: Bellant, Russ. Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party (original title: Old Nazis, the New Right and the Reagan Administration). Boston: South End, 1991 Bowen, Brig. Gen. Russell S. The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed. Carson City, NV: America West, 1991. Higham, Charles. Trading with the Enemy: An Exposé of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983 --------. American Swastika New York: Doubleday, 1985. Josephson, Emanuel Mann. The Truth About Rockefeller, Public Enemy Number One: Studies in Criminal Psychopathy. New York: Chedney, 1964. 162-3; Notes 130-2. "James Forrestal was closely associated with Rockefeller. As head of Dillon, Read and Co.he effected the financing of Rockefeller's German interests, including that of their I.G. Farbenindustrie A. G. office building....It was Forrestal, appointed for the purpose a special assistant in charge of inter-American affairs, who served to cover up Rockefeller's appointment to his draft-dodging, lucrative post of Co-ordinator'(162-3)." (Notes} 130-2: "[W]ith the help of Harry L. Hopkins and Anna tab Rosenberg. Forrestal turned over his position to Rockefeller, and was given the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Later he became the first Secretary of Defense, where he was in a postion to sluice off arms contracts to firms controlled by his Rockefeller patrons." Much of this book is right-wing propaganda, but these specific references are to actual documentation: 130 is "Richard Mathieu: BUDGET HEARINGS END WITH BLASTS AT ROCKY, NewYork Daily News February 14, 1964, 18: 1."; and 131: "Douglas Dales: AUSTERITY URGED IN STATE SPENDING New York Times, February 14, 1964, 1: 1." Kramer, Michael S. and Sam Roberts. "I Never Wanted to be Vice-President of Anything!" An Investigative Biography of Nelson Rockefeller. New York: Basic. 1976. I refer to this book frequently as a good "background" text for the reader going into the 1994 discoveries cited in Loftus and Aarons (below). No specific page numbers present useful specific major scandals. World War II completely ignored (it doesn't even appear in the index). Page 2: photograph of Rocky at Presidential podium, caption: "Nelson in a characteristic pose behind a podium he does not own yet." The book is mildly critical of Rocky throughout, but the minor scandals only give a general background to the character suggested. Page 11-12: "...[H]e... signed a bill authorizing New York high schools to introduce a new course entitled 'Communism and Its Methods and Destructive Effects,' despite opposition by the State Education Department. And on April 27, 1964, Rockefeller claimed to have told Nikita Kruschev that he opposed coexistence between the United States and the Soviet Union because such a posture was'a very clever means of trying to pull us into close cooperation where they can then undermine the forces of human freedom.' On the same occasion, he was asked if the activities of Communists in the United States were not treasonable, and he answered, erroneously, that the 'Communist Party in this country has been barred for that reason.'" Litchfield, Michael and the "National Insecurity Council." It's A Conspiracy! Volume One. Berkeley, Cal: Earthworks, 1993. Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St. Martin's, 1994. Simpson, Christopher. Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War. New York: Delacorte, 1988. Tarpley, Webster Griffin, and Anton Chaitkin. The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. New York: Executive Intelligence Review/Ben Franklin, 1991. If you find this list of sources inadequate--and some have indicated they did--I invite you to visit my Bibliography, Annotated Bibliography, and Updated Annotated Bibliography for additional and backup sources. I would like to note here, for the record, given the critiques I've received on this point, that there is a massive amount of data, not easily accessible, to be processed here. It has required more than one round of edits to my sources. The actual information you will find regarding this, is voluminous. The Annotated Bibliography alone, for example, will stretch over several web pages, as you will see when you visit it. The fact is, regardless of whether the original book ad's claim was legitimate, it is clear there has ended up being something unusual about GHW Bush's records in WW2. This strongly indicates that Bush was not "regular military" but was, rather, in the OSS, fore-runner of the CIA. A series of things suggests this, including: How did he get into the Navy as a pilot at 18, when regulations set a minimum age of 21 for pilots? On top of that, why was he made a reconnaisance pilot at the age of 19? Why are the page numbers so "funny looking" regarding his flight of June, 1944, off Guam? Why was he taken aboard the USS Lexington after a seemingly innocuous water landing in the midst of the US fleet? How did Bush know where to locate rear-admiral Kauffman, even if it was only to deliver the wedding invite described by Stinnett? What was going on at Palau, regarding reconnaisance photos Bush took? There seems to have been a reprimand issued, then apparently more or less withdrawn, regarding Bush's captioning of the recon. photos he took. Was there a discrepancy between OSS rules and Navy rules regarding such? Why are dates missing from squadron commander records regarding his flight at Chi Chi Jima? Why, in fact, do they appear to have been removed? Why do official Marine flight records say there were "no carrier-based raids against Chi Chi Jima between July 4, 1944 and February, 1945," if Bush's squadron attacked Chi Chi Jima September 2, 1944? Why does the log of the USS Finnback, not have a mention of Bush until October 1944? In 1959, while Allen Dulles was still CIA head, Bush's ship the "Barbara" was described in an FBI memo as "a CIA asset". The wording does not suggest this was a brand-new affiliation for the ship. As you read through this Site, and these sources, you have to wonder: what are, and what is the nature of, the undercurrents in all our lives? In history? In politics? In the possibly metaphysical? What is Synchronicity? What is the Unconscious or subconscious? What "powers" does it have? Gerald K. Haines, in his work on the CIA's investigation of UFOs, (cited elsewhere on the Site and in my sources), has been able to confirm that CIA personnel sometimes impersonated Air Force personnel in the 1940s, '50s and '60s. They did so, in these instances, by interviewing alleged UFO witnesses to try to determine if UFO sightings were related to the U-2 or other reconnaisance craft. These conversations fed into the ongoing books and articles at NICAP and elsewhere regarding "Air Force" visitors to UFO witnesses. Since the CIA impersonated Air Force personnel, why should Navy personnel have been exempt from being also impersonated by its predecessor, the OSS? You may want to "qualify" some of my statements in succeeding chapters, from "committed" to "may have committed" or "possibly". But after you weed through all the "may haves", "seemingly's" and "seem to have's" that could or should be added to this massive amount of material, you have to come back to grappling with what all of this suggests. Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website
by J.B. Williams Like so many other old ideas, the concept of treason seems to have lost its usefulness in today's American society of social creature comforts and lofty "love thy enemy more than thy country" precepts. It's almost treasonous to accuse anyone of treason today. But have some stretched the boundaries of honest dissent and strayed into treasonous territory for the sake of political gain? Treason is defined differently in different parts of the world. In America, the U.S. Constitution defines it this way in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, (or) in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The most recent case decisions I could find involving treason were Cramer v. United States, Haupt v. United States and Kawakita v. United States, all dating back to WWII. In all three cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there are four essential elements for conviction on treason charges. Those four essential elements are as follows; "(1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy." I believe that the current events I want to examine meet the definition of treason. But let's better understand the definition of treason before examining the events. An "intention to betray" is defined by Webster's this way; "to give aid or information to an enemy; to deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance; to be false or disloyal; to divulge in a breach of confidence." An "overt act" is defined as "an outward act that is done in furtherance of a conspiracy, of treason, or of the crime of attempt and that is usually a required element of such crimes for conviction even if it is legal in itself." To provide "aid", "to help or furnish with help, support, or relief," and "comfort", "a condition or feeling of pleasurable ease, well-being, and contentment; Solace in time of grief or fear." To "adhere", "to remain devoted to or be in support of something." On this basis, I believe we have multiple acts of treason taking place in America today. But for the purpose of establishing what it means to commit an act of treason, I want to focus in on one particular example before discussing the others. Using the definition of treason prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, the following event seems to provide a precise example. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on the November 14, 2005 edition of "Fox Sunday" divulged "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq--that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." Senator Rockefeller was at the time of his trip, less than four months after 9/11, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which means he was entrusted with "sensitive secured information" as relates existing intelligence regarding Iraq WMD, ongoing intelligence operations looking into Iraq's WMD program and America's national security plans concerning the ongoing threat. Syria was then and remains today on the State Departments list of terror regimes, clearly defined for some years as an enemy to America itself. But Syria was also a close ally to the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the very subject of the information Senator Rockefeller chose to share with Hussein's allies in Syria. In the weeks that followed Senator Rockefellers' friendly visit with Syria, CIA operatives began reporting Iraqi convoys traveling across the Syrian border; - a suspected "outsourcing" of Iraq's WMD, which became the centerpiece of Colin Powell's case against Iraq before the UN. Those same WMD that would later go missing by the time America entered Iraq 12 months later. (See the entire time-line of events here in Rockefeller's Treachery by writer Joan Swirsky.) What were Senator Rockefeller's "intentions" in his visit with three Arab Middle Eastern states four months after 9/11, carrying with him and divulging "national security information" concerning America's intelligence and related policy towards Iraq? Was his trip an "overt act", and did his trip include a "violation of trust or allegiance" to the United States? Did the information he carried to known U.S. enemies, known allies of the Hussein regime, provide "aid or comfort" to America's enemies? According to the definition of treason spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and Senator Rockefeller's own account, there has not been a more clear-cut case of treason in modern history. Yet the so-called American press has been completely silent on the subject, which is of course, a form of "aiding and abetting" in and of itself. If you can't wrap your mind around Senator Rockefeller's act of treason, there is no chance you will comprehend the more subtle acts of treason happening daily on the world stage. If this morning, our news headlines read "Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab Al Zarqawi killed in midnight raids on Al Qaeda hideouts", what would the reaction of nearly every American, especially those serving in forward combat positions be? Immense joy? Relief? A sense of great accomplishment? A sense of victory even? Or at least an impending victory? Then imagine what the reaction is among our enemies when their headlines read "U.S. Senator Dick Durbin accuses American soldiers of being Nazis and terrorists", or "U.S. House Rep. John Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of American troops and an end to hostilities in the Middle East", or "U.S. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean announces America CAN'T win in Iraq", or "U.S. Senator and prospective Presidential candidate John Kerry accuses American soldiers of terrorizing innocent Iraqi kids in the dead of night as they sleep". These are the exact same words often uttered by our enemies in their efforts to drum up support for their cause. The reaction of our enemy to these statements from U.S. officials is no different than our reaction would be. They are "comforted" by these headlines. Their mission of destroying American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians is "aided" by these headlines and even worse…- their acts of terror are "justified" by these headlines… Do these actions by supposed American leaders constitute an act of treason? According to the definition prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, they do. But according to the lack of action taken against Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia for his direct overt act of aiding the enemy, they don't and they won't. Sadly, too many Americans today see all of these acts as only acts of dissent against an administration they love to hate. Their hate is so strong, that they can't see past their efforts to destroy a President and see the destruction they cause on the other side. Or, they simply don't care about the damage they cause because the end, winning seats in 2006 and 2008, justifies the means. A simple act of dissent? Not really… Politically motivated rhetoric at its worst? At the very least! No American politician has the nerve to publicly accuse another American politician of treason today. The old media are complicit in the effort and nearly half of the American population sees nothing wrong with undermining their country, its principles, its security or its troops, especially if it somehow serves their political agenda. Where does that leave real Americans truly concerned about our national security, the American way of life and our children's future?
You would need to arrest Obama under the Logan act. He isn't a natural born citizen. We are without a legitimate president right now. To bad we can't go back in a time machine and convince his mother to have an abortion.
What I want to know is who were the republicans who didn't sign the letter.
You would need to arrest Obama under the Logan act. He isn't a natural born citizen. We are without a legitimate president right now. Citizens arrest.
Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-2523Call: (202) 224-2523 Her name is Susan. She is evil. She is from Maine
Senators Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Dan Coats (IN), Jeff Flake (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Rob Portman (OH)
Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.(Daniel Webster)
I'm unfamiliar with this legislation and uncertain how it would apply given the intracacies of today's situation. Nevertheless, I think both Tom Cotton & Bibi Net&yahoo! are mentally unbalanced and candidates for a straightjacket & padded cell. As if the Syria/ISIS/Iraq/Afghanistan region wasn't already politically unstable enough, these numnutz want to sidetrack and derail any peaceful negotiations with Iran and incite a disruptive "regime change" there as well? Whatever happened to: Good grief... Iran dislikes ISIS just as much as we do.
Let's understand something. First, the term "breaking (broke) the law" has become rather meaningless. First off, if one defines the elite ruling class as those in a) The Zero Administration; b)members of Congress or the Courts who push a Statist agenda (note - these can be either Ds or Rs - doesn't matter; c)the mainstream news media; and d) the billionaire (world citizen) class. Those who fund and otherwise pull the strings of otherwise rather stupid icons like Zero the First. So - defining the ruling class that way - it goes without saying that members of said class cannot "break the law." The Law does not apply to them. What is the purpose of the law then? It is simply to keep us - the rubes and hicks in flyover country - in line. And it is also to keep in line anyone (see Mendendez) who - although a member of the ruling class - decides he may want to "stray." You do not cross the emperor. As these 47 republicans will soon find out.
And so many of those meddling Dems and Reps in the past would have to march to jail first. Below is how the Justice department ruled on such a case: In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded: The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953. [7] More: In 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated that the activities of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua that year and had returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States, may have violated the Logan Act; but Jackson was never indicted.[1] In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to be House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it. In June 2007, Representative Steve King introduced legislation that would prohibit then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from drawing on Federal funds to travel to foreign states which the U.S. deems to sponsor terrorism. King claimed that Pelosi's dialogue with the Syrian government violated the Logan Act.[8] The amendment was not adopted. Not going to happen.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
She and her 'friend' another susan in the Portland media framed Hathaway for child rape two days before the primary, she is the definition of evil, she is one of those I would not walk across the street to pee on if she were on fire, which she will one day be. Hathaway was later exh9nwerated when the girl came forward.
True enough. But even Mussolini woke up one day hanging by his heels, dead.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Wasn't it something like 140+ congresscritters that flew over there with staffers on 2-3 airliners? Beyond undermining Bush's authority to conduct foreign policy (and doing so overseas, normally verboten), Pelosi tried to lie about her reasons for being in Syria, as a messenger for Israel. As her tissue of lies disintegrated, she and her airliners of dupe congresscritters (the entire CBC was onboard along with Kucinich and the hard Lefty types), she got tired of groveling in her mini-burqa for Assad (who kinda tried to avoid her for 3 days) and came home. Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16 HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said. Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda. Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared. Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. At any rate, there was considerable mention of the Logan Act in 2007, the first time many of us had heard much about it since both parties had always observed the rule that "disagreements stop at the water's edge" meaning no badmouthing the prez or talking foreign policy overseas or trying to conduct private diplomacy unless acting directly on a president's request. This happened when the Stain and Lady Lindsey were dispatched by Obama to Egypt to try to keep Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in power which was given a very cold reception in Cairo. Apparently Stain & his Lady were considered more likely to get an audience with the military than Hitlery or Pentagon/DoD. At the time, it was reported that Egypt wouldn't answer the phone if the Pentagon called them and that the WH was quite upset. This is when we lost Egypt entirely as a client state. We gave them $1-$2 billion in aid per year and the Saudis bought them out with a pledge of $15 billion which they started to promptly deliver on, alleviating Egypt's economic crisis and keeping the government afloat. And they didn't need Uncle Sam any more. To this day, we have not really re-established relations with Egypt. IOW, the steady strong relationship with Egypt that has persisted since the Carter era and the Camp David Accords that he brokered between Israel and Egypt is shattered. Egypt is no longer our client, our friend. And yet, you hear nothing in the press about "Who lost Egypt?". Because Obola is the press's president and they aren't going to pay any attention to the extensive damage being done by such incompetent bungling in foreign policy while both Hitlery and Lurch served as secretaries of state.
Treason is one of those amorphous crimes, like "conspiracy" or "malingering", or "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline". The very last thing we need to do is to dust off treason law and start using it to try to tame political opponents. Why? Because Treason is the holy grail of thought crimes: it allows the DEATH PENALTY. The Right is the minority. They are weaker, less organized and divided. Try to wield "Treason" as a sort of "Ring of Power" to behead the Left, and what will surely result is a bloody jujitsu. Consider the Nuclear Option. The Democrats used it (or a procedural variant of it) to end the filibuster and pack the Appellate Courts with judges. But it was the Republicans, back in W's day, who drew that weapon from its sheath, THREATENING to do it, but then dividing and backing down. In the sturm und drang over that, the Gang of Eight came forward to stop it, but in the meantime, the Left steeled itself to face the reversal and the onslaught, and listened to the arguments. Then, when they wanted to put THEIR judges on the court, they just invoked it. No threats, no taunts - BOOM - naked power, and the Right folded because they felt too weak to fight. So, the Right postured with it, and got nothing, but the Left used the weapon which the Right had conditioned the country to be prepared for. If men of the Right want to die as condemned traitors someday, the best way to go about it is to try to prod the sleeping dog of treason law to its feet. The legal minds of the Right are weaker than those on the Left, and Righties are more cowardly. Unsheath the sword of treason and the threat of death, and the Left will win that fight, and the Right will end up being put to death. And they will deserve it too, because they made the threat first. It is the most bumbling form of suicidal stupidity to start to think about eliminating one's political opposition by killing them using treason law. It won't work. Ever. But if it ever is unsheathed, the Left will body slam the Right, take that weapon, and ram it up the Right's ass like a red hot poker. Want to die? Then start threatening to kill people as traitors. The Reign of Terror lasted for about 18 Months. At the end of it, Robespierre and the rest of its leaders were all marched to the guillotine and had their heads chopped off. And they deserved it. Start trying to execute your political opposition, draw THAT sword and gun, and you will die, and you will deserve it. The United States is not at war. Therefore, there is no enemy. Therefore, treason is impossible. Espionage? Yes. Official secrets broken? Sure. Those things can be prosecuted. That game can be played, but if there is no declared war, there is no "enemy", and if there is no enemy, formal, legalistically speaking, then treason is IMPOSSIBLE. For treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". No enemy, no treason. No war, no enemy. Does my analysis frustrate you? Pull back and cool down. I AM TRYING TO GIVE RIGHT WINGERS A WAY OUT OF THE FEVER SWAMP OF DEATH INTO WHICH THEY HAVE CHARGED. Treason is going to be laughed at and ignored. But GOD HELP the Right if it ever gets traction, because a lot of Right wingers will die in the jujitsu that results. Given the "logic" that has gotten this raised, SOMETHING needs to be able to give the Righties a fig leaf to cover themselves, a reason to come in off this particular ledge. No declared war, no enemy is the WAY to back out of this death trap keeping one's dignity intact, AND it allows the anti-militarist crowd a nice perch on which to gain purchase in this debate. So instead of the usual despising what I have to say because it's me saying it, THINK about what I am saying and why. Treason is going to end up a laughingstock charge. But God help the Right if it ever gains traction.
Okay, you deserve LF's coveted Historical Footnotes of the Month award.
Exactly. People on the Left and Right constantly toss the word 'treason' around blithely on any occasion. The classic treason case is Benedict Arnold. A modern example was the Rosenburgs. Treason under American law requires elements of active collaboration with a hostile and credible enemy of America and its interests. In no way can some letter signed by a minority of senators meet that standard. The Founders were extremely wary of allowing any repeats of the shameful treason trials routinely conducted in the various Great Power monarchies of Europe, often conducted just to loot the wealth of powerful nobles who had crossed the king or challenged his conduct or policies.
Wasn't it something like 140+ congresscritters that flew over there with staffers on 2-3 airliners? Beyond undermining Bush's authority to conduct foreign policy (and doing so overseas, normally verboten), Pelosi tried to lie about her reasons for being in Syria, as a messenger for Israel. As her tissue of lies disintegrated, she and her airliners of dupe congresscritters (the entire CBC was onboard along with Kucinich and the hard Lefty types), she got tired of groveling in her mini-burqa for Assad (who kinda tried to avoid her for 3 days) and came home. Yes, I remember. I was in Iraq at the time:) Good run down, history account and commentary to boot. Did you have an extra cup of Joe today?:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Low hanging fruit. Many of us recall these events, even if the national media has been stricken with such amnesia on the history of the Xlintons? Libmedia: "Bill and Hillary who? Never heard of 'em, know nothing about these people."
Accordingly to someone Megan Kelly interviewed, Hitlery is a poor old elderly lady who doesn't know how to turn on a computer. Also heard she refuses to turn over the server. Can't blame her as she probably has no clue what Bubba downloaded to that thing.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
These 7 Senators did NOT sign the letter: Jeff Flake - Ariz Bob Corker - Tenn Lisa Mukowski - Alaska Lamar Alexander - Tenn Thad Cochran - Miss Susan Collins - Maine Dan Coats - Ind
Woh, they even got Rand to sign on. Man, does he want to be prez or what? LOL.
Let me guess. Those that think so, are ALL Obama Demoncraps. And, they simultaneously think it was A-OK when Demonturds contacted and worked with Sandinista's in Nicaragua, and also collaberated with Communists in Syria ( Nancy Pelousey & dick Durbin ), or other cases of Demonturds collaborating with other communists. Well, then as far as I am concerned, they can ESAD!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Thanks AK.
I despise the Democrats. I especially despise Obama. He is an unreconstructed 20th Century leftist piece of shit, a total incompetent, and untrustworthy as well. But these 47 GOP Senators made a huge mistake trying to play the evil Iranian Mullahs against the American President. The GOP is known as the stupid party, but how fucking stupid can you get? Bravo to the 7 GOP Senators that didn't sign this letter.
Some law professors and liberal commentators say they believe the “open letter” Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 of his Republican colleagues sent this week to the leaders of Iran, warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Obama won’t last after Obama leaves office, might be a crime.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: Pericles (#2)
Congress shall make no law ...
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#5. To: Pericles (#4)
Only you see it as a freedom of speech issue. It is not.
#6. To: Pericles (#4)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Only you see it as a freedom of speech issue. It is not. It contains words. Words are speech.
#8. To: Pericles, A K A Stone (#0)
“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.”
#9. To: Pericles (#7)
So someone threatening to kill the president - just threatening - is free to do so under the first A?
#10. To: Pericles (#0)
#11. To: A K A Stone, Redleghunter, sneakypete, stoner, All (#8)
“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.”
#12. To: All (#11)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller
Committing Treason:
Providing Aid and Comfort Adhering and Abetting
Thursday, December 8, 2005
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
Recent articles by JB Williams
#13. To: Pericles (#2)
1799 Logan Act is pretty much a law passed by our Founding Fathers. If I was a good writer I would use this law as a basis for a book where the president arrests and jails almost half the senate - nice thriller basis.
#14. To: All (#12)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)
1799 Logan Act is pretty much a law passed by our Founding Fathers. If I was a good writer I would use this law as a basis for a book where the president arrests and jails almost half the senate - nice thriller basis.
#16. To: BobCeleste (#14)
What I want to know is who were the republicans who didn't sign the letter.
#17. To: All (#14)
What I want to know is who were the republicans who didn't sign the letter.
#18. To: Pericles (#2)
1799 Logan Act is pretty much a law passed by our Founding Fathers. If I was a good writer I would use this law as a basis for a book where the president arrests and jails almost half the senate - nice thriller basis.
ARE THEY NUTZ???
"Trust but verify"
~ Ronald Reagan
It makes MUCH more sense to negotiate with a stable IRAN to help defeat ISIS. Only a nincompoop would risk starting WW-III by trying to topple the Ayatollahs at this time.
#19. To: Pericles (#0)
Broke the Law
#20. To: Pericles, A K A Stone (#2)
1799 Logan Act is pretty much a law passed by our Founding Fathers. If I was a good writer I would use this law as a basis for a book where the president arrests and jails almost half the senate - nice thriller basis.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#16)
#22. To: Rufus T Firefly (#19)
" You do not cross the emperor "
#23. To: redleghunter (#8)
"Without authority of the United States" is what was cited by Nancy Pelosi as she deemed as a US HR representative she had authority to 'make talk' with Syria back in 2007.
I was wondering if anyone else still recalled it. 
Nancy Pelosi in her mini-burkha, 2007
But now a 2015 letter from some senators, not even a non-binding and meaningless motion voted on in the Senate, from less than half of the U.S. Senate, is treason? Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
#24. To: TooConservative (#23)
#25. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#20)
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act ... Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua ... House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government ....
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
The United States is not at war. Therefore, there is no enemy. Therefore, treason is impossible.
#27. To: TooConservative (#23)
I was wondering if anyone else still recalled it.
#28. To: redleghunter (#27)
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
#30. To: BobCeleste (#14)
What I want to know is who were the republicans who didn't sign the letter.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
These 7 Senators did NOT sign the letter:
#32. To: Pericles (#0)
" Why Some Think 47 GOP Senators Broke the Law With Iran Letter "
#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#34. To: Pericles (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]