Here's Why We Need Conservative Justices On The Court

[Wry Catcher]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?



2. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.




3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.”
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa




4. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.

c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty






5. Yesterday:

“President Trump let the world know at the U.N. today that he’s sticking to his vision of America-first sovereignty, rather than cede power to U.N. multilateralists — to their great dismay. Too bad for them: Mr. Trump’s approach is working.

“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he told world leaders at the UN General Assembly. This country “will not tell you how to live or work or worship.” But we “ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

…vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” Globalists at U.N. Rage at Trump



No wonder the Left/Democrats/Liberals are fighting, tooth and nail, against Trump.....

We are opposed to Trumpism, which everyday and in every way mirrors fascism. Trump is a danger to us and the world. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and an Authoritarian.

He is not a conservative, not a liberal, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others (liberal and conservative) nuts. More precisely he does not learn from experience and acts without due consideration for the consequence of his words and actions.

That he is your idea of what a President should be, is not surprising. You have much in common with him, i.e. Narcissism.

When you learn to read, you can read about the modern Fascists here, you dunce.

Is this Bill O'really in drag? Do you believe everything you read, and only read what supports your agenda?

Trumpism is the modern day iteration of fascism. That's a fact based on history, not the history rewritten by people like you. Real history, not the fake stuff we hear from you.

There is no greater danger to our democratic republic than the rhetoric of mendacious narcissists; another thing you and trump have in common.

You don't read books, do you.


Powers is a well-know Liberal, but embarrassed at folks like you calling yourselves Liberals when you're actually Fascists.

And what are you? A patriot, hardly. You're an agent provocateur, unpaid 'cause you lack the sophistication and intelligence necessary to be credible - you attack everyone who expresses their opinion when it does not support yours. In fact this is another aspect, one more character flaw, which you and trump have in common.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?



2. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.




3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.”
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa




4. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.

c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty






5. Yesterday:

“President Trump let the world know at the U.N. today that he’s sticking to his vision of America-first sovereignty, rather than cede power to U.N. multilateralists — to their great dismay. Too bad for them: Mr. Trump’s approach is working.

“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he told world leaders at the UN General Assembly. This country “will not tell you how to live or work or worship.” But we “ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

…vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” Globalists at U.N. Rage at Trump



No wonder the Left/Democrats/Liberals are fighting, tooth and nail, against Trump.....

We are opposed to Trumpism, which everyday and in every way mirrors fascism. Trump is a danger to us and the world. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and an Authoritarian.

He is not a conservative, not a liberal, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others (liberal and conservative) nuts. More precisely he does not learn from experience and acts without due consideration for the consequence of his words and actions.

That he is your idea of what a President should be, is not surprising. You have much in common with him, i.e. Narcissism.

When you learn to read, you can read about the modern Fascists here, you dunce.

Is this Bill O'really in drag? Do you believe everything you read, and only read what supports your agenda?

Trumpism is the modern day iteration of fascism. That's a fact based on history, not the history rewritten by people like you. Real history, not the fake stuff we hear from you.

There is no greater danger to our democratic republic than the rhetoric of mendacious narcissists; another thing you and trump have in common.

You don't read books, do you.


Powers is a well-know Liberal, but embarrassed at folks like you calling yourselves Liberals when you're actually Fascists.

And what are you? A patriot, hardly. You're an agent provocateur, unpaid 'cause you lack the sophistication and intelligence necessary to be credible - you attack everyone who expresses their opinion when it does not support yours. In fact this is another aspect, one more character flaw, which you and trump have in common.

And yet, effortlessly, I put you in your place.

 

[deanrd]

The first thing you should do is define what a conservative is.

Today’s conservative are anti-Jesus anti-black anti-gay anti-Hispanic basically anti-minority.

Today’s conservatives against healthcare for the majority of Americans. It’s too expensive.

Today’s conservatives are fine with seeing the elderly living in poverty.

Today’s conservatives believe billionaires and corporations should pay none or next to none in taxes.

Today’s conservatives believe the United States should have an authoritarian type of government.

If you understand what a republican conservative is today then it’s obvious the kind of person they would want on the supreme court.

Currently, we have the most conservative President in my lifetime.


Case in point:

"We are standing up for America and for the American people and we are also standing up for the world. This is great news for our citizens and for peace-loving people everywhere," Trump said. "We will never surrender America's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism."
Trump 'didn't expect' UN speech reaction he got - CNNPolitics


Please cite your objection to Trump's conservative statement.

Sure no problem.
Trump goes on and on about American sovereignty and then suggested we should interfere with Venezuela, Iran, and he listed a host of other countries.

Who the fuk is he to tell other countries with they should be doing when he saying leave us alone?

It seemed so obvious to me.

American sovereignty.


American.


Not Venezuelan, or Iranian, or any of the tin-pot tyrannies you Liberals love.



Now....try again:

"We are standing up for America and for the American people and we are also standing up for the world. This is great news for our citizens and for peace-loving people everywhere," Trump said. "We will never surrender America's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism."
Trump 'didn't expect' UN speech reaction he got - CNNPolitics


Please cite your objection to Trump's conservative statement.

We liberals love?
You’re going to lie and then demand an answer?
F**k *** b****!

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?



2. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.




3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.”
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa




4. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.

c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty






5. Yesterday:

“President Trump let the world know at the U.N. today that he’s sticking to his vision of America-first sovereignty, rather than cede power to U.N. multilateralists — to their great dismay. Too bad for them: Mr. Trump’s approach is working.

“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he told world leaders at the UN General Assembly. This country “will not tell you how to live or work or worship.” But we “ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

…vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” Globalists at U.N. Rage at Trump



No wonder the Left/Democrats/Liberals are fighting, tooth and nail, against Trump.....

We are opposed to Trumpism, which everyday and in every way mirrors fascism. Trump is a danger to us and the world. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and an Authoritarian.

He is not a conservative, not a liberal, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others (liberal and conservative) nuts. More precisely he does not learn from experience and acts without due consideration for the consequence of his words and actions.

That he is your idea of what a President should be, is not surprising. You have much in common with him, i.e. Narcissism.

When you learn to read, you can read about the modern Fascists here, you dunce.

Is this Bill O'really in drag? Do you believe everything you read, and only read what supports your agenda?

Trumpism is the modern day iteration of fascism. That's a fact based on history, not the history rewritten by people like you. Real history, not the fake stuff we hear from you.

There is no greater danger to our democratic republic than the rhetoric of mendacious narcissists; another thing you and trump have in common.

You don't read books, do you.


Powers is a well-know Liberal, but embarrassed at folks like you calling yourselves Liberals when you're actually Fascists.

I just finished, Dead Wake a historical novel based on the sinking of the Lusitania; I'm now reading The Court Years, The Autobiography of William O. Douglas. You might enjoy Chap. XI, "The Press" and his take on the MSM.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are opposed to Trumpism, which everyday and in every way mirrors fascism. Trump is a danger to us and the world. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and an Authoritarian.

He is not a conservative, not a liberal, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others (liberal and conservative) nuts. More precisely he does not learn from experience and acts without due consideration for the consequence of his words and actions.

That he is your idea of what a President should be, is not surprising. You have much in common with him, i.e. Narcissism.

When you learn to read, you can read about the modern Fascists here, you dunce.

Is this Bill O'really in drag? Do you believe everything you read, and only read what supports your agenda?

Trumpism is the modern day iteration of fascism. That's a fact based on history, not the history rewritten by people like you. Real history, not the fake stuff we hear from you.

There is no greater danger to our democratic republic than the rhetoric of mendacious narcissists; another thing you and trump have in common.

You don't read books, do you.


Powers is a well-know Liberal, but embarrassed at folks like you calling yourselves Liberals when you're actually Fascists.

And what are you? A patriot, hardly. You're an agent provocateur, unpaid 'cause you lack the sophistication and intelligence necessary to be credible - you attack everyone who expresses their opinion when it does not support yours. In fact this is another aspect, one more character flaw, which you and trump have in common.

And yet, effortlessly, I put you in your place.

Something only a narcissist would write ^^^ and truly believe. I don't doubt your sincerity, I doubt your ability to see the world as it is, not as you want it to be.

 

[Scamp]

America first. Screw the UN. We don't need them.

 

[SavannahMann]

The United States has long ignored international law, even treaties we signed, and expect others to follow, we ignore.

A simple thing like Extradition. We demand that people extradite the people accused of crimes to face our Justice, and when the shoe is on the other foot, at a minimum we drag that foot, and often work tirelessly to thwart the justice we purportedly hold as vital.

JFK said that there America was no better friend, and no more determined enemy. Yet, the truth is that today, we are a poor friend. Pressuring Europe to screw with Diplomatic travel, ignoring extradition requests, and conducting indefensible covert operations within the borders of our friends.

Take the case of Robert Lady. Robert Lady was a CIA station chief in Italy. He participated in the “rendition” of a man who was innocent. After five years, the man was freed from the Egyptian prison we had dumped him into. When he returned to Italy, the nation of his citizenship, the Italian Authorities were horrified to learn of what had happened. They investigated, and found that nearly a Dozen CIA agents had participated in the kidnapping of an Italian Citizen from Italian soil. They demanded extradition of these people to face justice.

We denied the request, and so Italy tried them in absentia. A trick we’ve used before. When convicted, the Italians put warrants out on Interpol. Lady was stopped in Panama trying to cross the border. We found out about this, and rushed down to Panama to pressure the Panamanians to give us Lady first. We took him and rushed him to Florida.

If you wonder why the international legal community holds us in such contempt, you need look no further than our own actions. Here again, as in most issues, the Democrats and Republicans do the same thing time and time again. Now, we are annoyed that the world is taking notice, and demanding action to end these abuses.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Tell me why the extradition treaty with Italy is not a two way street?

Tell me why the treaties we signed and ratified on diplomatic protections only apply to American Diplomats?

 

[Wry Catcher]

America first. Screw the UN. We don't need them.

Really, you prefer armed conflict rather than heated but mostly rational discourse? I wrote mostly rational, since I listened to Trump today and was taken aghast by his rhetoric: arrogant, bellicose and embarrassing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?



2. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.




3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.”
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa




4. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.

c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty






5. Yesterday:

“President Trump let the world know at the U.N. today that he’s sticking to his vision of America-first sovereignty, rather than cede power to U.N. multilateralists — to their great dismay. Too bad for them: Mr. Trump’s approach is working.

“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he told world leaders at the UN General Assembly. This country “will not tell you how to live or work or worship.” But we “ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

…vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” Globalists at U.N. Rage at Trump



No wonder the Left/Democrats/Liberals are fighting, tooth and nail, against Trump.....

We are opposed to Trumpism, which everyday and in every way mirrors fascism. Trump is a danger to us and the world. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and an Authoritarian.

He is not a conservative, not a liberal, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others (liberal and conservative) nuts. More precisely he does not learn from experience and acts without due consideration for the consequence of his words and actions.

That he is your idea of what a President should be, is not surprising. You have much in common with him, i.e. Narcissism.

When you learn to read, you can read about the modern Fascists here, you dunce.

Is this Bill O'really in drag? Do you believe everything you read, and only read what supports your agenda?

Trumpism is the modern day iteration of fascism. That's a fact based on history, not the history rewritten by people like you. Real history, not the fake stuff we hear from you.

There is no greater danger to our democratic republic than the rhetoric of mendacious narcissists; another thing you and trump have in common.

You don't read books, do you.


Powers is a well-know Liberal, but embarrassed at folks like you calling yourselves Liberals when you're actually Fascists.

I just finished, Dead Wake a historical novel based on the sinking of the Lusitania; I'm now reading The Court Years, The Autobiography of William O. Douglas. You might enjoy Chap. XI, "The Press" and his take on the MSM.

I understand....you'd like a syllabus that would enlighten and put you on the right path.


No prob....


I'm here to help.


As you are ill-equipped for debate or even discussion, I recommend these three tomes before you consider posting....or even reading....posts again.


1. Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah

2. West's "American Betrayal"

3. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"

All are scholarly and well-documented.



While I cannot guarantee that you will be less of a dolt after studying the above....it is a possibility.
I speak as the eternal optimist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

America first. Screw the UN. We don't need them.

Here's one reason why....

It was the 32nd President who skillfully used an economic crisis to move America from one based on individualism, free markets and limited constitutional governance, into the camp of the 'shameful six,' Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, or Progressivism.


Roosevelt's filial bond with Joseph Stalin not only made certain that Soviet Communism survived and thrived...but that it advanced international socialism....which is what communism is...after the war.

It was done under the name United Nations.




"A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).


At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.


All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know

Sanity for Superheroes: What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know



a. "[Alger] Hiss was appointed acting secretary-general of the U.N. founding conference and was involved in staffing the U.N. by selecting people for employment in the world body. “About fifty showed up as permanent employees and a couple of hundred in part-time assignments,” Shelton says of Hiss’s efforts." “Alger Hiss Day” a Reminder of U.N.’s Anti-Americanism

 

[PoliticalChic]

The United States has long ignored international law, even treaties we signed, and expect others to follow, we ignore.

A simple thing like Extradition. We demand that people extradite the people accused of crimes to face our Justice, and when the shoe is on the other foot, at a minimum we drag that foot, and often work tirelessly to thwart the justice we purportedly hold as vital.

JFK said that there America was no better friend, and no more determined enemy. Yet, the truth is that today, we are a poor friend. Pressuring Europe to screw with Diplomatic travel, ignoring extradition requests, and conducting indefensible covert operations within the borders of our friends.

Take the case of Robert Lady. Robert Lady was a CIA station chief in Italy. He participated in the “rendition” of a man who was innocent. After five years, the man was freed from the Egyptian prison we had dumped him into. When he returned to Italy, the nation of his citizenship, the Italian Authorities were horrified to learn of what had happened. They investigated, and found that nearly a Dozen CIA agents had participated in the kidnapping of an Italian Citizen from Italian soil. They demanded extradition of these people to face justice.

We denied the request, and so Italy tried them in absentia. A trick we’ve used before. When convicted, the Italians put warrants out on Interpol. Lady was stopped in Panama trying to cross the border. We found out about this, and rushed down to Panama to pressure the Panamanians to give us Lady first. We took him and rushed him to Florida.

If you wonder why the international legal community holds us in such contempt, you need look no further than our own actions. Here again, as in most issues, the Democrats and Republicans do the same thing time and time again. Now, we are annoyed that the world is taking notice, and demanding action to end these abuses.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Tell me why the extradition treaty with Italy is not a two way street?

Tell me why the treaties we signed and ratified on diplomatic protections only apply to American Diplomats?

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

America first. Screw the UN. We don't need them.

Really, you prefer armed conflict rather than heated but mostly rational discourse? I wrote mostly rational, since I listened to Trump today and was taken aghast by his rhetoric: arrogant, bellicose and embarrassing.

One can only conclude that you would feel differently if you were an American.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

If Americans go to another Nation and commit a crime that has the death sentence then that is on their head, and the same goes here. So don't break the law.

 

[SavannahMann]

The United States has long ignored international law, even treaties we signed, and expect others to follow, we ignore.

A simple thing like Extradition. We demand that people extradite the people accused of crimes to face our Justice, and when the shoe is on the other foot, at a minimum we drag that foot, and often work tirelessly to thwart the justice we purportedly hold as vital.

JFK said that there America was no better friend, and no more determined enemy. Yet, the truth is that today, we are a poor friend. Pressuring Europe to screw with Diplomatic travel, ignoring extradition requests, and conducting indefensible covert operations within the borders of our friends.

Take the case of Robert Lady. Robert Lady was a CIA station chief in Italy. He participated in the “rendition” of a man who was innocent. After five years, the man was freed from the Egyptian prison we had dumped him into. When he returned to Italy, the nation of his citizenship, the Italian Authorities were horrified to learn of what had happened. They investigated, and found that nearly a Dozen CIA agents had participated in the kidnapping of an Italian Citizen from Italian soil. They demanded extradition of these people to face justice.

We denied the request, and so Italy tried them in absentia. A trick we’ve used before. When convicted, the Italians put warrants out on Interpol. Lady was stopped in Panama trying to cross the border. We found out about this, and rushed down to Panama to pressure the Panamanians to give us Lady first. We took him and rushed him to Florida.

If you wonder why the international legal community holds us in such contempt, you need look no further than our own actions. Here again, as in most issues, the Democrats and Republicans do the same thing time and time again. Now, we are annoyed that the world is taking notice, and demanding action to end these abuses.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Tell me why the extradition treaty with Italy is not a two way street?

Tell me why the treaties we signed and ratified on diplomatic protections only apply to American Diplomats?

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Very well. How many lives are worth the insuring that the Iranians didn’t have Nuclear weapons? Not just Iranian lives, but American Lives? I’m just curious. Because let’s say we bombed the nuclear plant. Then we have a massive release of radiation, and sure, we got away with it. Then what?

The Iranians mined the entrance to the Arabian Sea before, what makes you think they won’t again? They have submarines that can plant mines. What then? How many ships would we lose? Then of course, that terrrism you mention. They pack a bomb into a container and it arrives in New York Harbor. What happens if it is not even nuclear but just “dirty”? How many millions of lives would be lost over the next three years?

The principle is Jaw Jaw is better than War War. Because Wars have a bad habit of going in directions you didn’t expect. And the idea that the Iranians would just roll over and die because we have stealth Porta Johns is just stupid.

That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won

The Red force won that war, sinking American Aircraft Carriers and other ships. Let’s see, a Carrier has about five thousand people on it, even if you assume 50% casualties, that’s an expensive loss in just personnel, not to mention the billions of dollars of hardware sinking into the ocean.

Short of intercontinental Missiles, we don’t have a way to strike Iran without letting them strike us back. Oh, and they have drones too now. Everyone does. So how long before one of those drones is circling over San Diego with it’s own missiles to fire down on us the same way we fire on them? What will we do? Shout that it isn’t fair that we get bombed the way we’ve been bombing them?

War is one of those things you can’t control. Look at Syria. We went in to drive Assad out, and now are more along the lines of fighting sort of with Assad to drive out ISIS which would never have been as much of a problem if we hadn’t armed them.

That’s why I didn’t vote for Hillary. She loved clever plans, but was never quite clever enough to actually pull it off.

According to the Constitution, Treaties are the same as Federal Law. They can be amended by the Congress, and even revoked by American Law, even if it is a violation of the treaty.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia

But they can’t be ignored under American Law. Yet we do that whenever it suits us. So why are we allowed to do that? I mean you are ranting and raving and almost certainly frothing at the mouth over the power of American Law and yet that American Law must obey the Treaties, and we aren’t because they are foreign. Pfui. You can’t have it both ways. If American Law says that Treaties have the same force as Federal Law, and those treaties stipulate a certain action or behavior, we are breaking Federal Law when we break the treaty. Why aren’t we holding someone responsible?

Well fuck them. We’re American Baby. We can do whatever we want and nobody can stop us.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Do we really need another corporate tool? And the gutless republicans hired a woman to do their job. Sad. While republicans are bunch of sniveling cowards, even cowards know that questioning a women in the usually stupid and misogynist manner they are born with, scars their already weak image - with one exception. Guess it yet, Hillary Clinton. The hate they showed in questioning Secretary Clinton was unreal, it spread on their faces like a virus. But their base knows hate for it is their only virtue. Leave it to draft dodger Donnie, he has twitter, the cowards reply mechanism, he can talk nonsense and hide in bed. Heard Kavanaugh's favorite word in reply to being a spoiled rich boy drunk and sexual predator will be 'fair' treat me fair even though i'm gonna fuuck the working class once I get to be the fifth corporate tool.

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Millhiser

Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Millhiser

'Let’s start telling the truth about what the Supreme Court does'

Opinion | Let’s start telling the truth about what the Supreme Court does

The answer is simple and has to do with the fact that law is not anything like science — and that what the Supreme Court does has little to do with the dispassionate application of clear laws to clear facts.

The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court

"A Supreme Court ruling saying a homophobic baker didn’t get a fair hearing because of his religion. Another ruling that said the Muslim travel ban had nothing to do with religion. Yet another ruling making it harder for public sector unions to do their job."

Did You Think The Gods Were Lying?

The Trolls are working early today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The United States has long ignored international law, even treaties we signed, and expect others to follow, we ignore.

A simple thing like Extradition. We demand that people extradite the people accused of crimes to face our Justice, and when the shoe is on the other foot, at a minimum we drag that foot, and often work tirelessly to thwart the justice we purportedly hold as vital.

JFK said that there America was no better friend, and no more determined enemy. Yet, the truth is that today, we are a poor friend. Pressuring Europe to screw with Diplomatic travel, ignoring extradition requests, and conducting indefensible covert operations within the borders of our friends.

Take the case of Robert Lady. Robert Lady was a CIA station chief in Italy. He participated in the “rendition” of a man who was innocent. After five years, the man was freed from the Egyptian prison we had dumped him into. When he returned to Italy, the nation of his citizenship, the Italian Authorities were horrified to learn of what had happened. They investigated, and found that nearly a Dozen CIA agents had participated in the kidnapping of an Italian Citizen from Italian soil. They demanded extradition of these people to face justice.

We denied the request, and so Italy tried them in absentia. A trick we’ve used before. When convicted, the Italians put warrants out on Interpol. Lady was stopped in Panama trying to cross the border. We found out about this, and rushed down to Panama to pressure the Panamanians to give us Lady first. We took him and rushed him to Florida.

If you wonder why the international legal community holds us in such contempt, you need look no further than our own actions. Here again, as in most issues, the Democrats and Republicans do the same thing time and time again. Now, we are annoyed that the world is taking notice, and demanding action to end these abuses.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Tell me why the extradition treaty with Italy is not a two way street?

Tell me why the treaties we signed and ratified on diplomatic protections only apply to American Diplomats?

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Very well. How many lives are worth the insuring that the Iranians didn’t have Nuclear weapons? Not just Iranian lives, but American Lives? I’m just curious. Because let’s say we bombed the nuclear plant. Then we have a massive release of radiation, and sure, we got away with it. Then what?

The Iranians mined the entrance to the Arabian Sea before, what makes you think they won’t again? They have submarines that can plant mines. What then? How many ships would we lose? Then of course, that terrrism you mention. They pack a bomb into a container and it arrives in New York Harbor. What happens if it is not even nuclear but just “dirty”? How many millions of lives would be lost over the next three years?

The principle is Jaw Jaw is better than War War. Because Wars have a bad habit of going in directions you didn’t expect. And the idea that the Iranians would just roll over and die because we have stealth Porta Johns is just stupid.

That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won

The Red force won that war, sinking American Aircraft Carriers and other ships. Let’s see, a Carrier has about five thousand people on it, even if you assume 50% casualties, that’s an expensive loss in just personnel, not to mention the billions of dollars of hardware sinking into the ocean.

Short of intercontinental Missiles, we don’t have a way to strike Iran without letting them strike us back. Oh, and they have drones too now. Everyone does. So how long before one of those drones is circling over San Diego with it’s own missiles to fire down on us the same way we fire on them? What will we do? Shout that it isn’t fair that we get bombed the way we’ve been bombing them?

War is one of those things you can’t control. Look at Syria. We went in to drive Assad out, and now are more along the lines of fighting sort of with Assad to drive out ISIS which would never have been as much of a problem if we hadn’t armed them.

That’s why I didn’t vote for Hillary. She loved clever plans, but was never quite clever enough to actually pull it off.

According to the Constitution, Treaties are the same as Federal Law. They can be amended by the Congress, and even revoked by American Law, even if it is a violation of the treaty.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia

But they can’t be ignored under American Law. Yet we do that whenever it suits us. So why are we allowed to do that? I mean you are ranting and raving and almost certainly frothing at the mouth over the power of American Law and yet that American Law must obey the Treaties, and we aren’t because they are foreign. Pfui. You can’t have it both ways. If American Law says that Treaties have the same force as Federal Law, and those treaties stipulate a certain action or behavior, we are breaking Federal Law when we break the treaty. Why aren’t we holding someone responsible?

Well fuck them. We’re American Baby. We can do whatever we want and nobody can stop us.

How many lives would have been worth stopping the Nazis before WWII, you dunce?????


Beyond that calculation, which is the faulty analysis that Hussein Obama pretended was the choice, no lives need be lost.


Watch and learn:

The sanctions were strangling them.


1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...

"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow)





2. “Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar”
Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar





3. Question: With an Iranian economy already on the ropes, how deeply do you think that the American decision of getting out of the deal will affect the country?

Answer: The Iranian leadership have built a "resistance economy" that can withstand sanctions, so the country will manage the deprivations. Whether the Iranian people will accept increased poverty, however, is another matter. I expect it will be increasingly dissatisfied, leading to an eventual explosion.
Trump Nixed the Iran Deal: What Next?



Next......is Obama a war criminal?

If he guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons.....

....you betcha'!!!!!!!

 

[SavannahMann]

The United States has long ignored international law, even treaties we signed, and expect others to follow, we ignore.

A simple thing like Extradition. We demand that people extradite the people accused of crimes to face our Justice, and when the shoe is on the other foot, at a minimum we drag that foot, and often work tirelessly to thwart the justice we purportedly hold as vital.

JFK said that there America was no better friend, and no more determined enemy. Yet, the truth is that today, we are a poor friend. Pressuring Europe to screw with Diplomatic travel, ignoring extradition requests, and conducting indefensible covert operations within the borders of our friends.

Take the case of Robert Lady. Robert Lady was a CIA station chief in Italy. He participated in the “rendition” of a man who was innocent. After five years, the man was freed from the Egyptian prison we had dumped him into. When he returned to Italy, the nation of his citizenship, the Italian Authorities were horrified to learn of what had happened. They investigated, and found that nearly a Dozen CIA agents had participated in the kidnapping of an Italian Citizen from Italian soil. They demanded extradition of these people to face justice.

We denied the request, and so Italy tried them in absentia. A trick we’ve used before. When convicted, the Italians put warrants out on Interpol. Lady was stopped in Panama trying to cross the border. We found out about this, and rushed down to Panama to pressure the Panamanians to give us Lady first. We took him and rushed him to Florida.

If you wonder why the international legal community holds us in such contempt, you need look no further than our own actions. Here again, as in most issues, the Democrats and Republicans do the same thing time and time again. Now, we are annoyed that the world is taking notice, and demanding action to end these abuses.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Tell me why the extradition treaty with Italy is not a two way street?

Tell me why the treaties we signed and ratified on diplomatic protections only apply to American Diplomats?

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Very well. How many lives are worth the insuring that the Iranians didn’t have Nuclear weapons? Not just Iranian lives, but American Lives? I’m just curious. Because let’s say we bombed the nuclear plant. Then we have a massive release of radiation, and sure, we got away with it. Then what?

The Iranians mined the entrance to the Arabian Sea before, what makes you think they won’t again? They have submarines that can plant mines. What then? How many ships would we lose? Then of course, that terrrism you mention. They pack a bomb into a container and it arrives in New York Harbor. What happens if it is not even nuclear but just “dirty”? How many millions of lives would be lost over the next three years?

The principle is Jaw Jaw is better than War War. Because Wars have a bad habit of going in directions you didn’t expect. And the idea that the Iranians would just roll over and die because we have stealth Porta Johns is just stupid.

That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won

The Red force won that war, sinking American Aircraft Carriers and other ships. Let’s see, a Carrier has about five thousand people on it, even if you assume 50% casualties, that’s an expensive loss in just personnel, not to mention the billions of dollars of hardware sinking into the ocean.

Short of intercontinental Missiles, we don’t have a way to strike Iran without letting them strike us back. Oh, and they have drones too now. Everyone does. So how long before one of those drones is circling over San Diego with it’s own missiles to fire down on us the same way we fire on them? What will we do? Shout that it isn’t fair that we get bombed the way we’ve been bombing them?

War is one of those things you can’t control. Look at Syria. We went in to drive Assad out, and now are more along the lines of fighting sort of with Assad to drive out ISIS which would never have been as much of a problem if we hadn’t armed them.

That’s why I didn’t vote for Hillary. She loved clever plans, but was never quite clever enough to actually pull it off.

According to the Constitution, Treaties are the same as Federal Law. They can be amended by the Congress, and even revoked by American Law, even if it is a violation of the treaty.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia

But they can’t be ignored under American Law. Yet we do that whenever it suits us. So why are we allowed to do that? I mean you are ranting and raving and almost certainly frothing at the mouth over the power of American Law and yet that American Law must obey the Treaties, and we aren’t because they are foreign. Pfui. You can’t have it both ways. If American Law says that Treaties have the same force as Federal Law, and those treaties stipulate a certain action or behavior, we are breaking Federal Law when we break the treaty. Why aren’t we holding someone responsible?

Well fuck them. We’re American Baby. We can do whatever we want and nobody can stop us.

How many lives would have been worth stopping the Nazis before WWII, you dunce?????


Beyond that calculation, which is the faulty analysis that Hussein Obama pretended was the choice, no lives need be lost.


Watch and learn:

The sanctions were strangling them.


1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...

"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow)





2. “Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar”
Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar





3. Question: With an Iranian economy already on the ropes, how deeply do you think that the American decision of getting out of the deal will affect the country?

Answer: The Iranian leadership have built a "resistance economy" that can withstand sanctions, so the country will manage the deprivations. Whether the Iranian people will accept increased poverty, however, is another matter. I expect it will be increasingly dissatisfied, leading to an eventual explosion.
Trump Nixed the Iran Deal: What Next?



Next......is Obama a war criminal?

If he guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons.....

....you betcha'!!!!!!!

I notice you keep ignoring my questions. You just harp on Iran as if it is the only international issue in the world. When will you condescend to answer my questions?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Tell me why the extradition treaty with Italy is not a two way street?

Tell me why the treaties we signed and ratified on diplomatic protections only apply to American Diplomats?

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Very well. How many lives are worth the insuring that the Iranians didn’t have Nuclear weapons? Not just Iranian lives, but American Lives? I’m just curious. Because let’s say we bombed the nuclear plant. Then we have a massive release of radiation, and sure, we got away with it. Then what?

The Iranians mined the entrance to the Arabian Sea before, what makes you think they won’t again? They have submarines that can plant mines. What then? How many ships would we lose? Then of course, that terrrism you mention. They pack a bomb into a container and it arrives in New York Harbor. What happens if it is not even nuclear but just “dirty”? How many millions of lives would be lost over the next three years?

The principle is Jaw Jaw is better than War War. Because Wars have a bad habit of going in directions you didn’t expect. And the idea that the Iranians would just roll over and die because we have stealth Porta Johns is just stupid.

That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won

The Red force won that war, sinking American Aircraft Carriers and other ships. Let’s see, a Carrier has about five thousand people on it, even if you assume 50% casualties, that’s an expensive loss in just personnel, not to mention the billions of dollars of hardware sinking into the ocean.

Short of intercontinental Missiles, we don’t have a way to strike Iran without letting them strike us back. Oh, and they have drones too now. Everyone does. So how long before one of those drones is circling over San Diego with it’s own missiles to fire down on us the same way we fire on them? What will we do? Shout that it isn’t fair that we get bombed the way we’ve been bombing them?

War is one of those things you can’t control. Look at Syria. We went in to drive Assad out, and now are more along the lines of fighting sort of with Assad to drive out ISIS which would never have been as much of a problem if we hadn’t armed them.

That’s why I didn’t vote for Hillary. She loved clever plans, but was never quite clever enough to actually pull it off.

According to the Constitution, Treaties are the same as Federal Law. They can be amended by the Congress, and even revoked by American Law, even if it is a violation of the treaty.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia

But they can’t be ignored under American Law. Yet we do that whenever it suits us. So why are we allowed to do that? I mean you are ranting and raving and almost certainly frothing at the mouth over the power of American Law and yet that American Law must obey the Treaties, and we aren’t because they are foreign. Pfui. You can’t have it both ways. If American Law says that Treaties have the same force as Federal Law, and those treaties stipulate a certain action or behavior, we are breaking Federal Law when we break the treaty. Why aren’t we holding someone responsible?

Well fuck them. We’re American Baby. We can do whatever we want and nobody can stop us.

How many lives would have been worth stopping the Nazis before WWII, you dunce?????


Beyond that calculation, which is the faulty analysis that Hussein Obama pretended was the choice, no lives need be lost.


Watch and learn:

The sanctions were strangling them.


1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...

"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow)





2. “Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar”
Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar





3. Question: With an Iranian economy already on the ropes, how deeply do you think that the American decision of getting out of the deal will affect the country?

Answer: The Iranian leadership have built a "resistance economy" that can withstand sanctions, so the country will manage the deprivations. Whether the Iranian people will accept increased poverty, however, is another matter. I expect it will be increasingly dissatisfied, leading to an eventual explosion.
Trump Nixed the Iran Deal: What Next?



Next......is Obama a war criminal?

If he guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons.....

....you betcha'!!!!!!!

I notice you keep ignoring my questions. You just harp on Iran as if it is the only international issue in the world. When will you condescend to answer my questions?

The questions are responded to in order of importance.

Hence, today is not the day for you question.

Tomorrow doesn't look promising, either.



This query is momentous:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[SavannahMann]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

 

[JoeB131]

What sort of moron are you, exactly???


An individual comes to the United States, commits a murder, and you say "if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens"....

Who says they have to murder someone to get executed.

The thing is, we signed an international agreement on how to handle foreign nationals who commit crimes, and Texas violated that law.

Then we shouldn't be surprised when Iran executes an American for, let's say, spying. Or being gay. Oh, wait, you Republicans would like to start doing that in this country.