Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the second of perhaps a growing list of Democrats to openly appose President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal which would grant Iran liberation from economic sanctions in exchange for Iran tightening its belt on their nuclear agenda.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York was the first Democrat to openly oppose Obama on the deal.
Like many Americans, Menendez is troubled by Iran’s past record of violating a variety of different U.N. Security Council resolutions while at the same time moving forward with their nuclear agenda.
Menendez “says that he is concerned that the agreement doesn’t require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure,” reports theAssociated Press. “He says it’s not an issue of whether he supports or opposes President Barack Obama, who has pledged to veto a congressional resolution of disapproval.”
In a speech on Tuesday, Menendez stated, “Let’s remind ourselves of the stated purpose of our negotiations with Iran: Simply put, it was to dismantle all—or significant parts—of Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time. Not shrink its infrastructure.”
Menendez went on to say, “We must send a message to Iran that neither their regional behavior nor nuclear ambitions are permissible. If we push back regionally, they will be less likely to test the limits of our tolerance towards any violation of a nuclear agreement.”
Unlike California’sNancy Pelosi, who is certain of the ability to pull in all the votes needed to pass this deal, Menendez and Schumer are openly striving to convince others that this Iran deal is not the way to go.
President Obama uses a message of hope to convince Americans of the Iran deal and Menendez isn’t having any of that message.
“Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’—hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires, Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration,” stated Menendez. Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”
John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute reminds us of a sentiment expressed by John F. Kennedy: “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” In time for Memorial Day, Mr. Whitehead reminds us, however, that the war on America’s military veterans continues. You can read his commentaryhere.
Hard to believe, isn’t it? Well, maybe not.Let’s be clear about this, however. A war on American veterans has been going on for a long time now. One may even recall how Janet Napolitano warned that American military veterans pose the greatest terrorist threat to the United States.
I read recently that she stands by this assessment now that she is no longer Secretary of Homeland Security and according to a recent report, CNN’s Ashley Bancroft agrees with her.
I have a different take on this. I think the greatest threat to the United States and its people is the political apparatus that unashamedly gave us such prominent figures as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durban, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, and any of the millions who voted for these low creatures.
As we approach Memorial Day, I simply wonder … Have you had enough of this yet, America?
Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.
Using convoluted logic trying to waste more time, the very dangerous Nancy Pelosi incredibly suggests that the government should investigate the Emails of past secretary’s of state.
by Josh Feldman, Mediaite
Nancy Pelosi today defended Hillary Clinton from the “political investigation” conducted by a House committee into her sole use of personal email as Secretary of State.
Trey Gowdy, the head of the House Special Committee on Benghazi, wants Clinton to testify both on Benghazi and the emails. (Think that is ever going to happen?) LOL
But as Pelosi told reporters earlier today, “I have a concern that this isn’t really about emails, it’s about a partisan investigation by a select committee that has spent millions of dollars [and] produced nothing.”
While Nancy Pelosi threatens to boycott Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress later this year — adamantly denying what she’s suggesting is even a boycott — Greta Van Susteren fired back with a threat of her own for Pelosi and any other Democrats that might want to jump on the temper tantrum bandwagon over the world leader’s visit.
As Van Susteren points out, Pelosi intentionally invoked snickering as she claimed she is not calling for a boycott per-say, but “things happen in people’s schedule and … uhhh … They do. You just never know.” Quickly, Pelosi adds, “Don’t even think in terms of the word boycott, members will go or they won’t go, as they usually go or don’t go.” Sure, with the current leadership, I’m sure someone will have something more important to do… like a golf game or hanging out with the most ridiculous of YouTube celebrities, as they follow the example set by the Narcissist-in-Chief, I’m sure.
However, Van Susteren isn’t letting that little threat fly off Pelosi’s lips unchecked, as Greta throws out a warning of her own:
“If the Democrats take her direction, don’t show up, they may want to find some place to hide because, you know what, I just may send out some cameras to see how busy the MIA Democrats really are that they are too busy to hear a world leader, an ally, in the United States capital discussing something so profoundly important as Iran and nuclear weapons. Hope they don’t get caught playing golf, lunching with lobbyists, or at their own fundraisers.”
Many seem to support Van Susteren’s position on Pelosi’s “not a boycott” threat. After posting the clip to her Facebook page, she’s gained almost 25,000 likes, over 6,500 shares, and close to 5,500 comments, which seem to show overwhelming support of her stated plan to track down temper tantrum having Democrats with cameras if they choose to disrespect a world leader and our ally in such a way.
Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.
To be filed under another one of Pelosi’s delusions.
Shutting down the federal government, i.e. remember the last sequester?, was no big deal.
“The trains ran on time, people received their checks, the park police were tasked with preventing WWII Veterans from seeing their WWII memorial.
One thousand two hundred WWIIveterans die each day, making it highly unlikely many will be able to see their memorial.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., joined by Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., holds a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 4, 2014, about the looming fight over terrorism insurance. As Congress races to its lame-duck finish, …more >
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to her House colleagues Friday thanking them for joining her in going toe-to-toe with President Obama on the $1.1 trillion spending bill and nearly defeating it.
Pelosi portrayed the fight as a strategy designed to achieve leverage in negotiations, suggesting that their goal was to make Republicans worried enough over passing the bill that they might go back and rewrite it, making it moreliberal.
Well today sure was an interesting day when it comes to the effort to keep the government open after midnight tonight, wasn’t it?
First John Boehner brought the bill forward on a procedural vote and that almost failed and fearing the final vote would fail he was forced to withdraw the legislation. Quite embarrassing to say the least.
The reason for this problem is interesting as well for we knew the conservative Republicans were not going to vote for it so John Boehner was working with the Democrats to get the votes from that side of the aisle to ensure its passage. However Elizabeth Warren stepped in and whipped up opposition from the left based on the provision in the bill which would have put a dent in the Dodd-Frank Finance law.
Barack Obama tried to come to the rescue by asking Democrats to support the legislation based on his support but that also failed when Nancy Pelosi slammed the President for his support of the cromnibus. Of course she held nothing back when it came to attacking John Boehner as well.
So what we have here is the conservatives in the Republican party and the liberals in the Democratic party on the same side of this issue albeit for different reasons and now it is being reported here that John Boehner and Barack Obama are working together to come to try to win enough votes to pass the cromnibus.
Sources close to the matter tell Breitbart News that there are “strongly credible rumors” indicating Boehner has abandoned Republicans to form a full fledged partnership with the Obama White House in an effort “to get the votes tonight from House Democrats and Republicans alike for the CRomnibus.”
They say that politics make strange bedfellows and this might be the most bizarre example that I can remember.
I think the biggest takeaway from this as of right now is how much political clout both John Boehner and Barack Obama have lost in their respective parties in so short a period of time.
I had a very busy day today so I was not able to follow all the updates as closely as I would have liked to–did I miss anything?
Press reports say House Speaker John Boehner will ask Rep. Nancy Pelosi to help him overcome “snowballing” GOP opposition to the GOP leadership’s draft 2015 government budget bill.
Boehner’s draft bill funds the entire government for 2015, but makes merely token efforts to stop President Barack Obama’s agencies from implementing his unpopular amnesty, according to rank-and-file GOP legislators.
That claim of snowballing opposition was boosted early Wednesday evening, when aides to House Speaker John Boehner said they would change their funding bill to reduce the number of months of funding for Obama’s immigration agencies.
Late Wednesday night, the Washington Post reported that top Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer also said Boehner’s aides had asked him to deliver Democratic votes to ensure passage of the amnesty-funding bill. GOP Rep. Mark Amodei made the same claim to National Review.
Boehner is looking for Democratic help because many of the 234 GOP legislators don’t want to fund the business-backed amnesty. Boehner needs at least 218 votes to pass the bill.
Obama’s amnesty, announced Nov. 21, has blocked the enforcement of immigration law for 12 million illegals, will grant work-permits to five million illegals, will provide government benefits to millions of illegals and will make it cheaper for companies to hire illegals instead of Americans.
“Right now, it is just snowballing opposition,” Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp told The Daily Caller Wednesday.
“Twenty-four hours ago, there was little [opposition] there… [but] more and and more folks are learning the issue and asking ‘Why would I be voting for this?’” he said, citing quiet conversations he’s had with GOP members. “It is hard to put numbers on it,” he said, adding that legislators are responding to their voters’ phone calls and complaints.
In the run-up to the November election, Gallup reported the highest priority for GOP voters was not Obamacare or the economy, but illegal immigration. Even a poll by CNN and Quinnipiac, taken late November, showed that 75 percent of GOP supporters oppose unilateral action by Obama, and that 54 percent say illegal migrants “should be required to leave.” Only 20 percent of GOP supporters endorsed unilateral action by the president.
Boehner promised to fight the amnesty “tooth and nail,” and on Dec. 1 he proposed a 2015 budget plan he said would block Obama’s amnesty.
Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid are two among many of the senile members of the party of the democrats who must be brought to justice for crimes committed while in office.
Serving the rest of their lives in prison would be too good for either of them.
If we are to take our country back, these Neanderthals must be removed from office.
Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-New York) comments on Wednesday about Democrats’ misguided focus on health care in President Barack Obama’s first term prompted backlash from top Democrats and left-leaning groups, who accused him of being politically craven.
His reasoning: Democrats were targeting the uninsured, a population that he said makes up only about 5 percent of registered voters. Only about one-third of the uninsured, he said, are registered or eligible to vote.
The “mandate” voters had provided Democrats with their 2008 victories, Schumer said, was put on the wrong problem.
“After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them.
We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform,” Schumer said.
“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” he added. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their health care.”
“No shit Sherlock,” entire article below.
It was a characterization with which top Democrats took issue, all the way up to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California), who was instrumental in getting the Affordable Care Act passed into law as the speaker of the House. Through a spokesman, Pelosi said there are “14 million reasons that’s wrong” — referring to 14 million Americans that have gained insurance coverage through various provisions of the law.
“We came here to do a job, not keep a job,” Pelosi said in a statement.
Schumer’s comments on Obamacare came as part of a larger criticism of the Democratic Party’s strategy since 2008 and a look forward to what he said the party needs to do to recapture momentum heading into 2016.
Multiple Republican and Democratic congressional aides speculated Schumer’s speech was an attempt to forge a break from Obama, who remains largely unpopular, ahead of the 2016 presidential election. But one Senate Democratic aide said the Affordable Care Act was the wrong piece of policy on which to focus.
“If your goal is to improve public appreciation of government (which is a very worthy effort), how do you do that by running away from arguably the most important government program to help families in the past decade?” the Senate Democratic aide told Fusion, requesting anonymity to speak frankly.
“Our goal should be to get candidates to run on it and explain it, and that’s the path to showing government efficacy.”
Some of Obama’s former aides put it more bluntly on Twitter. Tommy Vietor, a former spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said Schumer’s basic message was that Obama should have “cared more about helping Democrats than sick people.”
Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter, criticized Schumer for “confirming the public’s most cynical beliefs about the political process.” And Jon Lovett, another former speechwriter, went on an extended rant on Twitter that ended with him saying a test for prospective Democrats is whether they “listen to” or merely “tolerate” Schumer as a prominent voice within the party:
Meanwhile, top Republicans gloated over Schumer’s comments, pointedly saying they agreed with him that it was a mistake to pass the health care law. One top GOP strategist told Fusion he thought Schumer was finally expressing frustration over the fact Obamacare has been a political “disaster that has dogged his candidates for three cycles.”
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fusion he hoped Schumer would join Republicans in working to roll back and repeal the law.
“I’m glad that Sen. Schumer agrees with the overwhelming majority of the American people that the President’s health care law was a bad idea right from the start — hopefully, he’ll now join our efforts to repeal it, and put in place real, patient-centered reforms that actually lower costs,” Steel said.
But if Schumer’s comments were meant to unite the more moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic Party — as he said his plan was supposed to do — the initial response suggests they failed.
Neil Sroka, the communications director for the progressive group Democracy for America, told Fusion that Schumer would be better spent focusing on some of the liberal wing’s priorities — breaking up big banks and student-loan reform — rather than attacking a “successful” piece of legislation.
“Any Democrat who thinks that tackling growing healthcare costs — one the largest drivers for the lack of middle class wage growth over the last 15+ years — was the wrong way to earn the support of middle-class, working families needs to have their head examined,” he said.
Nancy Pelosi is tired of being asked whether she should give up her post.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)
November 13, 2014 Nancy Pelosi on Thursday suggested that sexism plays a role in questions over whether she should remain House Minority Leader after her party’s election shellacking last week.
“As a woman, is there a message here?” asked Pelosi, 74, at a Capitol news conference.
Pelosi challenged how many times reporters had asked that of soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, 72, as his party failed previously to capture the Senate majority over three elections.
“When was the day that any of you said to Mitch McConnell, when they lost the Senate three times in a row … aren’t you getting a little old Mitch? Shouldn’t you step aside?” asked Pelosi.
“Have any of you ever asked him that question?”
“So, I don’t understand why that question should even come up,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi’s comments come as she remains unchallenged so far in keeping her top job ahead of Tuesday’s House Democratic Caucus elections, despite some internal grumbling. Her party suffered a net loss of at least another 11 seats last week (some races have not been called) in the 435-seat House, adding up to a net loss of at least 66 seats since the tea-party-fueled Republican takeover in the 2010 elections.
Pelosi, the only woman ever to serve as speaker, said she is “here as long as my members want me to be here, as long as there’s a reason to be here. I’m not here on a schedule, or anything except a mission to get a job done.”
Pelosi also said she is proud of the confidence the Democratic Caucus has placed in her, but that “my life and who I am does is not dependent on being here.”
“So, I have the liberty,” she said. “If you want me to be here, I’m happy to be here. If you don’t, I’m proud of what we’ve done together.”
“But it’s just as interesting, as a woman, to see how many times that question is asked of a woman,” she said. “And how many times that question is never asked of Mitch McConnell.”
Comment by 
The Silent Soldier 