Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law

Many Americans are rightly incensed at the revelation that 47 Republican Senators signed on to an open letter to hardliners in Iran warning them that according to their pledge of loyalty to a foreigner leading the nation of Israel, they will make sure that America does not abide by its international agreements. Although there is no doubt the Republicans’ goal is sabotaging American efforts for a peaceful resolution with Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions, it is somewhat surprising so many Americans were stunned at the news. After all, the only reason corrupt John Boehner brought Benjamin Netanyahu to America was to lobby the full Congress to pass a piece of neo-con  war power legislation to sabotage the United Nation’s (P5+1) attempt to avoid another American Middle East war Netanyahu is desperate to start.

The reason Boehner appeared to violate the Logan Act was not necessarily for communicating with a foreigner, but because he summoned the foreigner to help the GOP “influence the measures or conduct of a foreign government (Iran), and defeat the measures of the United States.”

Having failed in the first Netanyahu ploy, Senate Republicans displayed their fealty to the Israeli foreigner by warning Iran that despite the Constitution or international law, Republicans and Netanyahu set America’s Middle East policy; not the leader of the Executive branch President Obama. It is something that astonished Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif who took time out of his busy schedule to inform “the letter’s authors” that they are as ignorant of their own Constitution as their stupid Confederate base of supporters.

Zarif said, “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy.  It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.  This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.” Republican and Netanyahu war mongering is certainly not a secret, but it is a very prescient statement coming from so-called “warmongering” Iranians.

Last week, two Republican traitors, war mongers Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, pledged to “derail Iran negotiations,” and the treasonous 47’s letter was an attempt to fulfill that promise. Graham told an audience at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that besides killing the Iranian negotiations, he will defund the United Nations because the P5+1 (permanent members of U.N. Security Council plus Germany) are the principles negotiating with Iran. It is not, as the GOP traitors’ letter asserted, a negotiation between Barack Obama (America) and the Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran).

In fact, that GOP assertion puzzled the Iranian Foreign Minister and incited him to school the traitors. First Zarif said he was astonished that “some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration” at all, but particularly over a multi-national negotiation effort. So he took the GOP traitors back to eighth grade history class. An Iranian had to point out that “from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.” Republicans have not been fully cognizant of any presidential powers since January 2009 because Barack Obama is not white; a fact likely not lost on the savvy Iranian.

Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law; not US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states, and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

The Iranian Foreign Minister also reminded the GOP traitors that regardless their allegiance to foreigner Netanyahu, a “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” However, in the same manner that Republicans violated the Logan Act, they have blatantly violated international laws forbidding discrimination, inhumane treatment of American citizens, and torture; it is something the United Nations should be very cognizant of in monitoring America to ensure it honors any Security Council agreement with Iran.

As the Iranian had to remind  the 47 traitors, “the current negotiation with P5+1 [Britain, China, France, Germany Russia and the United States] will result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It is not a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but one concluded with five other countries including all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and endorsed by a Security Council resolution.” It is also not a treaty regardless what the traitors contend. That moronic idea was proposed by John McCain to give Republicans in the Senate power to scuttle any proposed deal; all to expedite and ensure Netanyahu’s plan for an American-Iranian war stayed on schedule. As an aside, Netanyahu has already pledged to bomb Iran in protest if the P5+1 and Iran negotiations are successful and reach a peaceful agreement.

The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound to any law; domestic or international. Still, he hoped to “enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.” Since January 2009, Republicans have done nothing but breach their obligations as legislators and have no desire to adhere to any American obligation implemented under an African American President.

The Iranian Foreign Minister stated “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.” Mr. Zarif can rest assured that America, as part of the so-called P5+1, will act in good faith regardless the gang of 47 Republicans effort to sabotage their own government. What remains to be seen, is if their government will take any punitive action against them for aligning with a foreign enemy (Netanyahu) to derail a U.N. Security Council agreement to maintain peace with Iran. With Netanyahu now a powerful member of America’s government, it is highly doubtful there will be any negative consequences for yet another blatant act of Republicans conspiring with a foreigner to sabotage America.

Time to Question the GOP’s Patriotism

VIDEO: Time to Question the GOP’s Patriotism

Forty-seven Republican senators sent an “open letter” to Iran Monday to tell the Islamic Republic any deal it makes with President Obama may not be permanent. … 

Republicans Are Worried That Treasonous Tom Cotton’s Iran Letter Is Backfiring

Republicans are starting to realize that trying to sabotage the President Of The United States might not have been such a good idea. Republicans are openly worrying that Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran may end up backfiring by uniting Democrats around their president.

Politico reported:

Not every Senate Republican signed on to Tom Cotton’s extraordinary letter to Iran’s leaders, and several of those who didn’t are fuming about the freshman senator’s Monday-morning foray into nuclear diplomacy.

….

With Republicans needing significant Democratic support to achieve their goal of derailing the talks — or at least altering the emerging deal — some senators said Cotton’s effort could backfire by injecting excessive partisanship into the debate over how best to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

What Cotton, and the Republicans who signed his letter really want is war with Iran. During his interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Cotton said, “I think we need to have a credible threat of military force on the table.” Republicans don’t want any agreement that could be viewed as a victory for diplomacy. Republican foreign policy is still straight out of the George W. Bush playbook of shoot first and figure the rest of it out later.

It is common sense that an attempt to sabotage the president would do the exact opposite of what the Republicans intended. Democrats are now free to make sure that Republicans don’t have the ability to override any presidential veto of bills related to a potential agreement with Iran.

Cotton’s letter has made Republican priorities clear. They hate this president more than they love their country.

Instead of killing a deal with Iran on their nuclear program, Cotton’s letter may have guaranteed that Democrats will support it.

GOP Senators Who Signed Treasonous Iran Letter Called “Traitors” By New York Daily News

On the cover of its Tuesday edition, the New York Daily News featured a picture of four Republican Senators with the caption “Traitors” in huge bold letters underneath in response to the letter 47 GOP Senators sent to Iran undermining President Obama’s negotiations with the country. The four Senators represented in the picture were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). Paul and Cruz are 2016 Presidential candidates while Cotton is the freshman Senator who came up with the bright idea to write a letter to Iranian leadership informing them that any agreement reached with Obama could easily be revoked by either another President or Congress.

Accompanying the Daily News’ provocative headline was a scathing editorial calling all 47 Republicans who signed the letter “un-patriotic” and an “embarrassment to our nation.” The paper’s editorial board stated that while they aren’t in total agreement with the White House regarding the potential nuclear pact with Iran, they condemn the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution.

They are an embarrassment to the Senate and to the nation.

How the executive and legislative branches come to terms in the event that Obama presents his version of a done deal to America will be of grave national and international concern. There will be no place for juvenilia, and there should not have been at this expectant juncture.

Rather than offer objections domestically in robust debate, as is their obligation, ringleader Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and his band trespassed on presidential turf by patronizing Iran’s leaders with the suggestion “that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.”

…

The plain intent was to sabotage Obama by pushing the Iranians into balking at a deal out of fear that a turn of the U.S. political wheel could doom the pact in the not-so-distant future.

Late Monday evening, Vice President Joe Biden released a blistering statement through the White House attacking the Republicans who took part in this treasonous stunt. He took special umbrage with Cotton for authoring the letter, pointing out that if this sabotages talks with Iran, then the very real possibility of war is on the horizon.

The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds. Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely—at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL.

The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table. The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.

Cotton appeared on Morning Joe Tuesday morning to address Biden’s statement and defend the letter he wrote to Iran. Of course, he personally attacked Biden, claiming he’s been wrong on “nearly every foreign policy and security decision in the last 40 years” and telling the Veep to “respect the dignity of the Senate” by telling POTUS to submit any deal with Iran to Congress for approval. Cotton also told the hosts that he would only agree to total nuclear disarmament of Iran — ummmm, they don’t have nuclear weapons yet — while stating Iran could not be negotiated with.

With those statements, Cotton was pressed by the panel that no diplomatic solutions or options would only leave military intervention. He finally copped to the fact that he would be completely fine with that, stating that Israel has done a good job with air strikes on facilities in Iran and America could join in with that.

To Joe Scarborough’s credit, he pointed out during Tuesday’s broadcast that if he were still in Congress, he would not have signed on to this letter. Regardless of your personal feeling about the President or the philosophical disagreements you may have over foreign policy or tactics, you do not undercut the nation’s leader in their dealings with other countries. That is way beyond the pale and potentially in violation of federal law. Many have already pointed out that the 47 GOP Senators may very well have violated the Logan Act with their actions.

While I am not positive that is the case, one thing I do know is they violated the trust of the American people. They decided it was more important for them to act like petulant children in an attempt to embarrass the President of the United States than to allow him to find peaceful solutions to real-world issues.

Crazy GOP “Reform” Forces EPA to Ignore Science

Crazy GOP “Reform” Forces EPA to Ignore Science

Can we all agree that the House Republicans have lost their ever-loving minds? How else can we explain their efforts to pass two anti-science bills (again) that will…

Michigan Republicans Re-Introduce Plan To Rig State’s Electoral Votes To Favor GOP

GOP lawmakers in the Michigan Legislature, have re-hatched a plan to divvy up the state's electoral votes to help the Republicans in 2016.…

Republicans in the Michigan State Legislature have re-hatched a plan to divvy up the state’s electoral votes to give an advantage to the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Michigan House Bill 4310 would change the way the state assigns its 16 electoral votes. The proposal was introduced by Cindy Gamrat, Thomas Hooker, Gary Glenn, and Todd Courser. All four are Republican lawmakers.

The proposal, referred to the Committee on Elections, would award one electoral vote for each of the 14 congressional districts carried by a presidential candidate. The candidate who wins the state’s popular vote would receive the remaining two electoral votes.

Under the present system, all 16 electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who wins the state. Democrats have carried Michigan’s 16 electoral votes for six consecutive presidential elections. The last Republican to win Michigan was George H.W. Bush, back in 1988.

A similar bill to rig the state’s electoral votes to help Republicans was introduced in the previous legislative session, but it never came up for a vote. In 2011, Republicans in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia all hatched schemes to rig the Electoral College for their advantage, but backed down because of fear of a public backlash. In 2008, California Republicans tried to put together a ballot initiative to divide up their state’s 55 electoral votes, but those plans proved unsuccessful.

While most electoral vote rigging plots have been launched by Republicans, Democrats’ hands aren’t completely clean either. In 2004, Democrats in Colorado tried to advance a ballot measure to split up Colorado’s electoral votes. That proposition was crushed by Colorado voters 65-35. Ironically, Colorado has gone blue in the last two presidential elections, so had Democrats been successful in their efforts, Republicans would have been the unintended beneficiaries.

The Michigan proposal is legal, as state’s are allowed to determine how to allocate their electoral votes. Two-low population states, Maine and Nebraska, already divide their electoral votes by congressional district. However, the winner of each of those states usually carries all of the congressional district’s within the state, and gerrymandering isn’t a significant factor, so it has been uncontroversial. Barack Obama did actually manage to eke out an improbable victory over John McCain in Nebraska’s, Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District in 2008, but in 2012, that district voted Republican with the rest of the state.

Although gaming the electoral votes in a state, to secure a partisan advantage, may be constitutionally legal, the Michigan plan is fundamentally undemocratic. In 2012, Democrat Barack Obama carried Michigan by a decisive 54.3-44.8 margin over Republican Mitt Romney. If the current Republican proposal had been in place in 2012, Romney would have earned 9 electoral votes to Barack Obama’s 7, in the state of Michigan, despite losing the state by over 400,000 votes. That is a fundamentally undemocratic way to allocate electoral votes in a democracy.

The Michigan plan would essentially multiply the effects of partisan gerrymandering. The way districts are drawn already creates skewed representation in Congress. There is no need to inject the same level of partisan rigging into presidential contests. Indeed, blatantly self-serving schemes like the Michigan proposal, will further undermine American faith in the democratic process by producing more undemocratic outcomes. Republicans don’t care however, because voter cynicism plays to their advantage anyway.

Ideally, the president should be chosen by popular vote. However, the electoral college, as it presently exists, has served the nation reasonably well. To alter the formula, so that state legislatures can thwart the will of the people, and game the system to the advantage of their party is unconscionable. The Michigan scheme, and any plan in another state that seeks to imitate it, should be killed by the legislature on arrival.

Wingnut Dreams

Florida’s Not The Only State Where Officials Censored The Term ‘Climate Change’

Censoring "climate change" is not unusual -- at least in states with governors who do not accept the scientific validity of human-caused climate change.

This Map Is Really Awful News For (Racist) White Christian Conservatives

Dear (racist) white Christian Conservatives….
Read more 

Secession Group Claims Texas Never Joined U.S., Mints Its Own Money And Claims To Be Diplomats

An extremist group from Texas whose members carry their own form of ID, mint their own currency, and threaten officials claim Texas has never been part of the Union – another Waco group?

Read more

Jon Stewart Holds Fox News Accountable for Faux Victimization

Isn’t it amazing how committed Fox News is to the myth of white victimization? Over the weekend, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights. In a stunning example of media bias, Fox, our #1 nation’s #1 news source, honed in on the “liberal bias” of the New York Times for cropping former president George W. Bush from a front page photo of Selma festivities.

Okay, let’s be real – if the New York Times is liberal with anything, it’s those online paywalls.

But more importantly, Fox has somehow turned a historical celebration of equal rights into yet another opportunity to bash the White House. Perhaps they should stop questioning President Obama’s love for America, and look in a freaking mirror instead.

Corporations Suddenly Don’t Have Religious Freedom if They Support Marriage Equality

Corporations apparently have religious freedom if they are against contraception, but they have no right to speak up about marriage equality…

Ever since the Supreme Court decided on January 16 to tackle the issue, everyone is waiting to see how the SCOTUS will rule in the matter of marriage equality. Hundreds of briefs have been filed.

Most surprising of all, last Thursday, 300 Republicans filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to recognize same-sex marriage.

Time magazine reveals a surprise or two among the signatories (view the full list here):

Among the signatories are 23 current and former Republicans members of the House of Representatives and Senate and seven current and former Governors. Sens. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk have signed onto the brief, as has Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Other notables include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and billionaire GOP mega-donor David Koch.

Breitbart has determined that this brief shows the “GOP elite” wants the Supreme Court to “impose gay marriage on America.” This, despite the fact that a January CNN/ORC International survey “showed that 57% of Americans think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married.”

How conservatives love those “majority rules” situations except when they don’t work in their favor.

The court will hear oral arguments on April 28 and rule by June. Naturally, the Religious Right is beside itself with worry that other people they despise will suddenly have the same right they do.

Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel says if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality it will de-legitimize itself by somehow creating a “special right” for gays over and above the rights the rest of us have:

I’m warning them, and I think the rest of the country is willing to come together and warn them, that they need to come back in line with their constitutional duty, and that is to interpret the law, not create brand new law and be our social engineers.

The Catholic News Agency (CNA) – ironically, since the Catholic Church was all for making corporations people with religious rights – now talks about of “big business overreach” because, as Reuters reported last week,

[A]lmost 400 businesses had filed a “friend of the court” brief favoring a redefinition of marriage in a set of cases before the Court that will decide whether states, under the Fourteenth Amendment, must grant same-sex “marriage” licenses and recognize “gay marriages” conducted in other states.

The list of overreaching companies include Facebook and Twitter, as well as Thompson Reuters Corporation, Disney, Starbucks, PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Viacom, Inc., Bloomberg, Verizon, DirectTV, Google (for once, doing no evil), Comcast, CBS, and AT&T. Even the NFL’s Super Bowl winning New England Patriots signed the brief.

CNA quotes one “expert” as telling them, “There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the states to redefine marriage, and big business should not lobby the Supreme Court to say otherwise.”

Oh dear. So corporations only have religious freedoms when their desires coincide with yours. It’s okay for corporations to oppose contraception but how dare they support marriage equality? How morally relative of you!

Rick Wiles, who has previously asserted that America is a godless, Pagan cesspool, and fantasized about being enslaved by sodomites, is taking it a step further. He is now urging his flock to emulate their feckless leader by fleeing these shores for safe havens abroad.

I am not sure who the bigger clown is. There are so many to choose from.

Wiles fled to Costa Rica three years ago because God told him to “flee from the daughter of Babylon and not stay and participant in her sins and not be around when the nation is destroyed.”

So much for a thirst for martyrdom! But you have to wonder, don’t you, why God told him to flee while he’s telling other Republicans to run for president? Just imagine how differently the Bible would read if God had ordered all the old prophets to flee Israel.

Mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

Wiles’ guest, John Price, whom Right Wing Watch describes as “a onetime failed Republican Senate candidate from Indiana and author of “The End of America,” said the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality shows that America “truly is the daughter of Babylon.”

“For Christians, there’s a really major troublesome thing coming and it’s going to be set loose on the country sometime between now and the end of June,” and that, Price said, is that “same-sex marriage [will become] the law of the land.”

Wiles agreed:

I honestly believe this is going to be the ruling that America crosses the line. What would a human father do with a son or daughter that had been blessed, had been a fairly good child most of his or her life and then suddenly just goes off the rails and becomes evil, wicked, rebellious, defiant? What would that father do? He would strip away that child’s blessings, and that’s exactly what our heavenly father is going to do to the United States of America. We’re about to get an old-fashioned paddling that is going to be extremely painful for this nation.

So Wiles and Price say God is going to “paddle” America and that “people who don’t want to be paddled” should “flee” the country.
Good riddance. Take your friends in the KKK with you.

The Supreme Court ruling will obviously have a serious effect on the 2016 presidential race, as Republican candidates may be forced to decide between what SCOTUS says is the law of the land and what their bigoted constituents want.

It is one thing for Alabama to defy the federal government. Presidential elections are not parochial affairs decided by a small clique of racist crackers. As the last two elections have shown, the American people are far more open minded and socially liberal than the GOP chooses to believe.

So you can be like Price, who claims that, “He’s a loving God and he would allow persecution for a good purpose.” Or you can accept that gays and lesbians are just folks like us who want the same things we want, or at the very least bow to the inevitable, like those 300 Republicans, and even if only out of self-interest, do the right thing.

But if you want to flee America instead, feel free. You won’t be missed.

Teabaggers are Fascists

The Daily Drift

Hey, wingnuts, yeah we're talking to you ...!  

 

The Truth Be Told is read in 201 countries around the world.

 
Be a Liberal support US orchards and eat an apple... !

Today is - Johnny Appleseed Day
 

Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally

Some of our readers today have been in:

The Americas

Hamilton, Bermuda

Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Pocao de Pedras, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo e Vitoria da Conquista, Brazil

Montreal and Quebec, Canada

Bogota y Neiva, Colombia

Guayaquil, Ecuador

Mexicali, Mexico City, Monterrey y Tijuana, Mexico

Boaco, Nicaragua

Catano y Ponce, Puerto Rico

The Bottom, Sint Eustatius-Saba

Barquisimeto, Venezuela

Europe

Brussels, Belgium

Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Ruse, Sofia и Varna, Bulgaria

Karlin, Prague a Stare Mesto, Czech Republic

London, England

Bordeaux, Calais, Cerny, Marseille, Nice, Paris, Roubaix, Rouen, Saint-Agnant, Salon-De-Provence, Strasbourg et Velizy-Villacoublay, France

Frankfurt Am Main, Hamburg, Nuremberg und Unterpfaffenhofen, Germany

Meria, Georgia

Athens, Greece

Rathcoole, Ireland

Agliana, Arcugnano, Florence, Palermo, Torino e Torre del Greco, Italy

Koknese, Riga, Ventspils, Latvia

Chisinau, Moldova

Haarlem en Houten, Netherlands

Biala Podlaska, Myslowice i Warsaw, Poland

Lagoa e Porto, Portugal

Bucharest și Timisoara, Romania

Bol'shoy Kamen и Ryazan, Russia

Bratislava a Prešov, Slovakia

Madrid, Valencia y Vigo, Spain

Kista, Sweden

Asia

Beijing, China

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar, Bokaro, Calicut, Chetput, Jodhpur, Mumbai ਅਤੇ Muzaffarpur, India

Pacarkeling, Indonesia

Tehran, Iran

Tokyo, Japan

Amman, Jordan

Al Fahahil, Kuwait

Kajang, Kota Bharu, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Lumpur, Kuching, Papar, Seremban dan Victoria, Malaysia

Colombo, Sri Lanka

Doha, Qatar

Sanaa, Yemen

Africa

Cotonou, Benin

Nairobi, Kenya

Abuja, Lagos, Nigeria

Johannesburg, South Africa

The Pacific

Homebush and Sydney, Australia

Noumea, New Caledonia

Makati, Philippines

Venezuela a threat to US national security

Obama declares Venezuela a threat to US national security

Iran Foreign Minister Gives GOP Senators A Dose Of Reality Medicine

by karoli

 

Whatever our response as a country is to Senate Republicans' shameless attempt to undermine the President's negotiations with Iran, I think we can all agree that foreign minister Javad Zarif's response is a terrific one.
Here it is, via Metaquest:

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.
He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.
Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."

Republican idjuts like Tom Cotton may think it's cool to play cowboy with international relations, but we're fortunate to have some adults in the room still.

Obama White House Rips Senate Republicans For Their Treasonous Letter To Iran

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program. …

The White House ripped Senate Republicans for their attempt to undermine negotiations with Iran, and stopped just short of accusing the 47 Republicans who signed a letter to Iranian government of treason.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program.

Video:

Video Link

Earnest said:

I would describe this letter as a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.

….

The fact is that we have heard Republicans for quite some time, including the principal author of this letter, make clear that their goal is to undermine these negotiations. Again, that is not a position that I am ascribing to Sen. Cotton, that is a position that he has strongly advocated. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug.

….

I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter…It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.

The letter that the Republicans sent suggested that any agreement made with President Obama would be meaningless, “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” Earnest accused the Republicans of being on a march towards the military option in dealing with Iran. It is clear that the letter from the Republican senators was an attempt to destroy the diplomatic process.

The Press Secretary stopped short of calling out the Senate Republicans for treasonous behavior, but his description of the Republican behavior of trying to undermine the goals and national security of the United States left little doubt about how the White House feels about this issue.

Senate Republicans are attempting to undermine the United States government by establishing communications with hardliners in Iran who promote and fund terrorism. Republicans have taken their campaign to undermine and delegitimize the President Of The United States global.

The White House is ripping the Republicans in the bluntest way possible.

Senate Republicans have shown their true colors, and those colors are not red, white and blue.

Iran Letter Backlash Grows As Bernie Sanders Accuses Senate Republicans Of Sabotage

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) hit Senate Republicans right between the eyes by accusing them of an act sabotage in an attempt to start a new war in Iran.

In a statement, Sen. Sanders said:

It appears that for most of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq were not enough. They now apparently want a war in Iran as well. President Obama is working with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China to try to negotiate a peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. These negotiations must be allowed to continue and, hopefully, will succeed. It is an outrage that my Republican colleagues are trying to sabotage that effort.

Sen. Sanders’s statement came after White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest accused Senate Republicans of trying to undermine President Obama, “I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter…It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.”

The Republicans have so grossly miscalculated the public reaction to their letter that even Iran’s Foreign Minister called it propaganda. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

The Senate Republican letter revealed how far they are willing to go in order to sabotage their own government. Republicans may have crossed the line into treasonous territory with their letter, but Sen. Sanders was correct. The letter was a definite act of sabotage.

Senate Republicans demonstrated that they were unwilling to support this president in foreign or domestic affairs. Republicans went far beyond having a difference of opinion with the president. They are now actively trying to jeopardize the foreign policy of their own country.

This sort of behavior is unprecedented in American history. Republicans are sabotaging their own country because they despise the president and are lusting for a new war in the Middle East. Republicans have once again brought shame to their country and embarrassed every American on the world stage. The Senate Republican saboteurs deserve to be punished.

Law Professor: GOP’s Letter To Iran Explaining How Constitution Works Gets Constitution Wrong

by Jameson Parker 

Yesterday, a group of 47 Republican senators became an international embarrassment when they published a letter to Iran telling its leaders to ignore Obama. Today, they become a national one.
The group of Republicans had hoped that by sending a letter to Iran highlighting the way America’s “constitutional system” works, it would become clear to the Iranians that while the president has been working tirelessly with them on an historic nuclear deal, the Republican controlled Congress was planning on derailing any negotiations they could.
In a page oozing with condescension, they wrote in part:

While the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate… Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

However, despite the confident tone, it seems the lawmakers don’t really have a firm grasp on what their role in the treaty-process is exactly. According to a detailed analysis of the letter’s contents by a Harvard law professor named Jack Goldsmith, who teachers and writes about presidential power and international law, the members of Congress got huge portions of this wrong:

The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.”  But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis).  Or, as this outstanding  2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117):  “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.”  Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane.  Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States.

In other words, it’s a two-sided process that involves the president just as much as it involves Congress. The group probably wanted to de-emphasize the sharing of power with the Obama administration because: One, they hate Obama and petty insults are not beneath them. And two, they want to feel more important than they actually are.
As Goldsmith points out, the error in their letter is certainly technical, however that doesn’t mean it is any less embarrassing. The people who, one would think, have the best grasp on constitutional law, seem to have a few blindspots regarding their own limitations in it.
Making matters even more cringeworthy for the Republicans who had hoped this letter would be their shining moment of “screw you” politics to Obama: One of the letter’s chief architects, Sen. Tom Cotton actually graduated from Harvard Law. Apparently, he didn’t get his money’s worth – or at least slept through Goldsmith’s classes.

Always Wrong ...

Merle Haggard - It's Almost 'Criminal' What They Do To President Obama

by Leslie Salzillo

A Merle Haggard quote has been circulating social media over the last two days, almost as if it appeared in response to the incredible disrespect shown to President Obama by Republicans in Congress and foreign leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. The quote is from a 2010 Rolling Stone interview. Patrick Doyle spoke with music legend Merle Haggard, who was attending the 33rd Kennedy Center Honors. Haggard was invited to the White House to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award. Doyle asked Merle Haggard about President Obama, and the traditional 'stone-country' singer-songwriter said he enjoyed meeting Obama and found the President to be quite different from what he had seen in the media. Then Haggard interestingly added:

Merle Haggard: "It's really almost criminal what they do with our President. There seems to be no shame or anything. They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he's doing certain things that he's not. It's just a big old political game that I don't want to be part of. There are people spending their lives putting him down. I'm sure some of it's true and some of it's not. I was very surprised to find the man very humble and he had a nice handshake. His wife was very cordial to the guests and especially me. They made a special effort to make me feel welcome. It was not at all the way the media described him to be."

Doyle asked, 'What's the biggest lie out there about Obama?'

Merle Haggard: "He's not conceited. He's very humble about being the President of the United States, especially in comparison to some presidents we've had who come across like they don't need anybody's help. I think he knows he's in over his head. Anybody with any sense who takes that job and thinks they can handle it must be an idiot."

When Doyle asked if Haggard talked to the President much, the interview took a much lighter tone:

Merle Haggard: "I told him, "You and I have something in common: our wives are both taller than we are." And he said "No! She's got on 3-inch heels! And she is not that tall!" He was like me. He grabbed that real quick."

Merle Haggard's compassion and straightforwardness in this interview seem to be what many of us needed after the GOP once again shamed themselves, and this nation, by seditiously spiting the President of the United States. Reading Haggard's words again, was like a glorious breath of fresh air - an affirmation and validation of the thoughts many of us have been feeling. Merle Haggard was 73 at the time the Rolling Stone interview. That night he stood alongside other living legends like Sir Paul McCartney and Oprah Winfrey. And this was not his first invitation to the White House. Merle Haggard has also been the guest of both President Nixon and President Reagan.
It's easy to see why Merle Haggard is loved by millions. He's the 'real deal'. Having been involved in the music industry in Nashville, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Haggard years ago - a truly charming man. It's as if that rough exterior, from once leading a very rough life, just sort of melts away when you shake his hand. You can feel his warmth. And looking into his eyes, you can almost see through to his beautiful heart.

Visit/Like Merle Haggard's Facebook Page here. At 77, he is still touring, and last year Merle teamed up with pals Willie Nelson and Kris Kristofferson to make an album.

Thank you, Merle Haggard. You are loved.

Fox News Would Probably Say President Obama was Being UnAmerican Here

by Sarah Burris

Republicans LOVE to trash talk the President and claim that he hates America. Most famously, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said:

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said to the crowd, sounding a well-worn dog-whistle. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up through love of this country.”

But, Senator Claire McCaskill hit back hard on Twitter while watching President Obama’s speech on the 50th Anniversary of the March in Selma:

  Claire McCaskill        ✔ @clairecmc Follow

I dare anyone to listen to the speech the President gave today and then say he doesn't love America. #we

4:03 PM - 7 Mar 2015

I’m truly shocked that Fox News didn’t have the guts to follow through with their accusations that the President is unpatriotic. Here’s a quick excerpt we put together of President Obama’s references to his faith in America:

Video Link

Every time Fox News says something like this, we talk about it. We highlight the absurdity. We shout about racism. We demand apologies and respect. Instead of respect, we get more of the same.

A leader’s patriotism should never be called into question. I don’t care if you’re George W. Bush or Barack Obama, if you’re serving as the President of the United States of America you’ve dedicated your life to America. Period. If you’re sitting in that office, chances are you’re getting shot at and you and your family are being threatened. Can we all agree that if you’re putting your life in harm’s way for your country, whether you’re a soldier, elected leader, or a first responder, that you’re not doing it for a free steak at The Sizzler?

Let’s be realistic, if the criteria for ranking patriotism is based on a scale created by the Republican Party and Fox News my guess is they wouldn’t even meet their own expectations.

Tennessee’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Republican hit ex-wife with his car — twice

“I have three witnesses that saw the event,” Gina Hensley said. “Their statements are on file at the sheriff’s department.” Gina Hensley obtained an order of protection against the senator following the Feb. 18 incident.

Republican hit ex-wife with his car — twice

‘The most racist politician in America’

‘The most racist politician in America’: Top Democrat calls out Obama-hating, anti-immigrant Kansas Republican

Damn, Iowa

Republican 2016 contenders invade Iowa to talk up ethanol -- and woo rich donors

Bill O'Reilly's JFK reporting was impossible

Bill O'Reilly's JFK reporting was impossible -- I know because I was there

Walker doing illegal things again

Wisconsin's Walker signs anti-union 'right to work' bill into law

One Simple Way to Save American Democracy: Get Serious About Taxing the Mega-Rich

The Founding Fathers were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into an oligarchy.

by Thom Hartmann

At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
This week, Forbes Magazine released its list of the 20 richest people on the planet—and tied for number six were Charles and David Koch. Right now, it is easy to call out the billionaire brothers as a threat to our democracy (after all, they have promised to spend nearly a BILLION dollars in the 2016 election), but there are 18 other people on that list.

More

It's Bizarre: Libertarians Are Clueless About the 'Free Market' That They Worship

The challenge now: redeeming effective and democratic government.

by Robert Kuttner

The stubborn appeal of the libertarian idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that the free market is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. In an Adam Smith world, the interplay of supply and demand yields a price that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that government interferes with this sublime discipline, the more bureaucrats deflect the market from its true path.

More

Hey Wingnuts ...

SC Supreme Court: magistrates must be able to tell time and read

An order from the South Carolina Supreme Court dictates that those seeking to serve as magistrate judges must pass a rudimentary test of critical thinking skills.
As with many laws and rules, the most interesting thing about this is what isn't stated: that there must be a problem with SC's magistrates lacking extremely basic literacy, critical thinking skills, and the ability to reason -- to pass the test, you need to have a "sixth grade reading level, knowledge of basic mathematics, how to tell time, days of the week and months of the year, and a basic knowledge of the U. S. monetary units and the U. S. Customary System of weights and measures."

I hasten to add that these are minimum requirements, or as the court puts it, the requirements to become a "successful examinee." Successful applicants, it goes on to say, "will not only demonstrate a suitable level of learning ability, but also a mastery of fundamental basic skills." So this should not be interpreted as a suggestion that, say, just being able to make change for a dollar would cut it if you wanted to be a magistrate judge in South Carolina. You would probably need to be able to make change for bills of several different denominations, at a minimum.

Judge Wanted: Must Be Able to Read, Tell Time

***

Now, if we can get them to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time maybe we'll really be getting somewhere.

McDonald's sues to block Seattle's minimum wage

They're basing their case on the 14th Amendment, which addressed slavery by guaranteeing all persons equal protection under the law, and since corporations are people, well...

But what about the equal protection rights of the people who work in these businesses? Our historical research has found that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were very interested in employer-employee relations, and in particular, whether workers could earn "fair, living wages." That phrase doesn't come from some union organizer or activist in Seattle: it comes from Senator Jacob Howard, a staunch Republican who was the Fourteenth Amendment's Senate floor manager back in 1866, and whose statements on the concerns motivating the Fourteenth Amendment are a little more important than the legal opinions of Grimace and Captain Crook. And during the Congressional hearings documented in the official report of the committee that proposed the amendment, Senator Howard asked over and over whether employers would pay "fair, living wages." Of course, a living wage wasn't the only concern behind the Fourteenth Amendment. But, unlike protection of the franchised business model, it was definitely part of the overall goals.
Given how important the idea of "fair, living wages" was to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, it's shameful for the McNugget Buddies to claim that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause should protect them, rather than real human workers with families to feed. But it's not surprising. Ever since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, corporate lawyers have tried to leverage it into a racket to strike down laws like Seattle's. In 1938, a frustrated Supreme Court justice complained that "of the cases in [the] Court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of 1 percent invoked it in protection of the negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." Just this past year, we've seen the Equal Protection Clause invoked on behalf of coal companies and multinational agribusiness conglomerates. And now, the Fry Kids.

Ronald McDonald and Friends Sue Seattle to Stop Minimum Wage Hike

Nine Myths Wingnuts Love To Believe About Welfare

The Internet at its best is a treasure trove of information, better than a thousand libraries. At its worst, it is a means of spreading falsehoods unlike anything the world has ever seen. This is especially true in social media, which the right wing has discovered to be the perfect platform to spread misinformation on political subjects.
Of course, one of the right’s favorite targets is the American social safety net. Americans who receive welfare benefits or food stamps are regular targets of right wing memes and attacks on Facebook or other social media. Not only are most of these memes way off base, virtually every one of them plays on the public’s complete ignorance of how the programs we know as “welfare” function. What do you know about welfare? Most likely you know more than your right wing uncle. But, in case you are in need of some facts and figures, here is some information about some of the right’s favorite welfare myths that will certainly drive that uncle crazy at the next family dinner.
Myth: “People on welfare are lazy and sit at home collecting it while the rest of us work to support them.”
Fact: The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.
During the recession, the Obama administration allowed states to request a temporary waiver of the work requirement, due to the scarcity of jobs. That move gave the right an opening to claim that President Obama was removing the work requirement for welfare. First, conservatives claim that those on welfare don’t want to work, then they claim that the president is “gutting welfare reform” by allowing states to request a waiver of the work requirement.
Myth: “People who go on welfare stay on it forever.”
Fact: According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent,  receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)
Myth: “There’s a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. … She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000″ – Ronald Reagan
Fact: Ah, the “welfare queen.” Ronny loved to tell his stories, and his welfare queen story is one of the most popular. The only problem is the woman he talked about didn’t exist. There is some evidence that elements of this story may have been based on facts, but the descriptions of abuse by an actual woman were wildly exaggerated by Reagan.
Myth: “Welfare recipients keep having more kids so they can get more benefits.”
Fact: According to a 2010 report, which is the most recent data available, released by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the average family receiving TANF benefits has 1.8 children, which is about the same as the national average. Half of the families receiving TANF benefits only have one child. In fact, the average size of families receiving welfare benefits has declined from 4.0 in 1969 to 2.4 in 2010. Also, some states, such as Delaware and Georgia, make it clear to those who sign up for TANF benefits that their benefits will not increase if they have additional children. Taken from the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services website:

You will get information on family planning.  Your check will not increase if you have a baby 10 months or more after you sign up for this program. [Emphasis added]

A Government Accountability Office report (page 45), shows the amount of TANF benefits paid in each state for one to three children. Even in states where having additional children will result in a benefit increase, that increase is, in most cases, $100 a month or less.
Myth: “Where Is The U.S. Headed If More Than 100 Million People Get Welfare?” – Headline of August 2012 column by CNN’s Jack Cafferty
Fact: One hundred million Americans on welfare? Cafferty apparently gets his information from a biased source, the Center For Immigration Studies, which is connected to identified racist John Tanton. According to the 2010 federal HHS report, 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children received TANF benefits that year, a far cry from 100 million.

Myth: “I see these guys all the time, hanging out and drinking, and doing drugs, collecting welfare instead of working.”
Fact: The able-bodied single male with no dependent children who collects welfare in the United States is extremely rare, since the primary goal of most welfare programs is to provide temporary support for children and families. Single males can receive certain benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they are disabled. The rare, able-bodied male who does qualify for benefits is still subject to the program’s work requirements.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are drug users.”
Fact: In recent years, several states have tried requiring drug tests of welfare recipients. The number of applicants who tested positive for drugs was not enough to make the programs cost effective in every state where it was tried. Even Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, one of the early proponents of the idea has given up on it after his plan was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts.
When Florida tried drug tests for welfare in 2011, only about two percent of all applicants tested positive for drug use. According to the New York Times, federal statistics show that the rate of drug use among welfare recipients is about the same as it is for the public at large.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are minorities and illegal immigrants.”
Fact: TANF benefits were paid out to roughly the same percentage of white and black recipients in 2010, according to the HHS report. In fact, the percentage of black families receiving welfare benefits has declined by almost 7 percent since 2000. It’s popular among conservatives to claim that illegal immigrants are getting welfare. But that is not the case. Those who are in the United States illegally are ineligible for benefits other than emergency Medicaid.
Myth: “People collect welfare instead of work, and they get rich. They all have iPhones, drive new cars, have widescreen tv’s, etc. I work and I can’t afford any of that!”
Fact:  Since welfare payments vary by state and by the size of the family, it’s hard to provide all the pertinent numbers here, but here are some ranges:

• A family of four can expect up to $500 a month in food stamp benefits. A single person can expect an average of $200 a month.
• The average monthly allowance under TANF/AFDC is $900 for a family of four. For a single person the average is about $300.

It would be interesting to see what kind of “new car” anyone could buy on that income, or even an iPhone, for that matter. Also remember, despite what Newt Gingrich may have claimed during the 2012 election campaign, you can’t use food stamps for anything except food, so when you’re figuring how much money someone might have for an iPhone or a car, take that money out of the equation.
One final fact about welfare: Would anybody like to guess who makes up the single largest group on welfare in the United States? It’s children. One out of every four children in the United States receives welfare benefits.
“Everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on, who they can feel better than at any time they please.” — Kris Kristofferson
That seems to be the story when it comes to welfare and the attitudes of conservatives. “There but for the grace of God go I” isn’t a consideration. Ask any conservative what problems they have with welfare, and they are likely to start their reply with “I know somebody who…” and then launch into a narrative about someone they know who they don’t believe deserves benefits. But, in a nation of 300 million, it is impossible to know enough “somebody’s who” to reach a valid conclusion. Not that that matters to conservatives, who largely base their ideas on contempt for their fellow man.
Since the year 2000, over three million jobs have been lost to China. Most of those jobs were lost during the Bush administration. If we even had a fraction of those good paying jobs back, maybe so many people wouldn’t need to rely on welfare. But you can’t confuse conservatives with facts, when they would prefer to just blame the welfare recipients…and Obama.