He did a lot more than the Dear Leader ever did. The Divine One either abstained or voted present. Cruz, right or wrong, at least had the courage to follow his convictions.
So where's your criticism of The Liar in Chief for being a calculating wimp?
I gave you my source. You give me yours. My source was a man who was there and who helped remedy the disaster that Chamberlain wrought.
Not one loon has addressed what I posted, not one. Both the loons have changed the subject.
What will happen when those religious fanatics get a nuke? How about answering that, loons! And who is going to let them get a nuke? The Divine One, that's who.
Jack goes duck hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2014- School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in f or traumatized students and teachers.
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2014 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it .
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2014 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The family gets extra money (SSI) from the government because Jeffrey has a disability.
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2014 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse , Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair w ith the psychologist.
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock .2014 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2014 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2014 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents - and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee . He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.1957 In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.2014- Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
rob, you need to read Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" and the other five books of his "The Second World War" (I have read them) before you make uninformed statements like that. When you loons make up "facts", it just proves how uneducated and delusional you are.
Besides who in their right mind would pay attention to someone who is delusional enough not to think The Liar in Chief is a liar? You live in a fantasy world and make up "facts" to support your fantasy.
WOW, flop, this is an answer the idiot would be proud of but then you two are one in the same. Aren't you?
When, not if, Iran gets a nuke, how long do think it will take them to pack half a dozen in a suitcases and give them to their terrorists pals and then London, Paris, Rome, New York and Chicago will disappear from the face of the Earth?
The knee pad wearers won't care and they will still worship the messiah.
U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together
Limited options for Congress as Obama seeks to bypass lawmakers
BY: Adam Kredo
March 26, 2015 2:00 pm
LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.
U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.
Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.
This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.
“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.
With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.
“Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source. “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”
The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.
This scenario has been criticized by nuclear experts, including David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Albright told Congress in November that “a prerequisite for any comprehensive agreement is for the IAEA to know when Iran sought nuclear weapons, how far it got, what types it sought to develop, and how and where it did this work.”
“The IAEA needs a good baseline of Iran’s military nuclear activities, including the manufacturing of equipment for the program and any weaponization related studies, equipment, and locations,” Albright said.
One policy expert familiar with the concessions told the Washington Free Beacon that it would be difficult for the administration to justify greater concessions given the centrality of this issue in the broader debate.
“The Obama administration has gone all-in on the importance of verification,” said the source, who asked for anonymity because the administration has been known to retaliate against critics in the policy community. “But without knowing what the Iranians have it’s impossible for the IAEA to verify that they’ve given it up.”
A lesser emphasis is also being placed on Iran coming clean about its past efforts to build nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic continues to stall United Nations efforts to determine the extent of its past weapons work, according to the Wall Street Journal.
By placing disclosure of Iran’s past military efforts on the back burner, the administration could harm the ability of outside inspectors to take full inventory of Iran’s nuclear know-how, according to sources familiar with the situation.
It also could jeopardize efforts to keep Iran at least one year away from building a bomb, sources said.
On the diplomatic front, greater concessions are fueling fears among U.S. allies that Iran will emerge from the negations as a stronger regional power.
I would love to see Cruz as president. If for nothing else, it would drive the loons crazy and maybe, just maybe it would drive the idiot to move to the workers' paradise.
beach, you don't honestly believe the idiot is going to give you a straight answer. After all, the moron is an idiot.
rd, careful now flop is in love with Pocahontas. She has never lied or done anything wrong even though she is part of the evil 1%.
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton June 2004
Lenin couldn't have said it better himself.
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton
I'm all for it. Texas would be one of the richest countries in the Americas. Companies would flock to Texas. We have no income tax and low unemployment. And best of all we are a capitalistic, conservative state. Socialists do not do well here. We believe in working for a living.
Hispanic activists organizing In support of tougher immigration laws
Updated: Mar 25, 2015 10:54 AM CDT
By Kristine Galvan, Reporter
HOUSTON (FOX 26) -
Pedro Rivera is 53 years old, Hispanic, and a retired military man. He's also part of a growing number of Hispanic Texans pushing for stronger immigration enforcement, including the passage of SB 185, which would stop cities from implementing policies banning local cops from asking immigration-related questions.
“I'm an American citizen and I believe in the rule of law,” Rivera said. “And being Hispanic, I should not be granted special privilege in avoiding the law. We need officers to have all the tools available to them to keep us safe. That includes asking the question, when you're being detained for a crime or being arrested for an offense, ‘ are you here illegally? Are you a US citizen?'”
Rivera is working with Maria Espinoza, director of the Remembrance Project. Espinoza's Houston-based organization works with families of Americans killed by people in the United States illegally.
“This is a new initiative,” Espinoza said, of an effort to recruit Hispanic conservatives to speak out in support of SB 185.
Espinoza's new group, which isn't exclusive to people of Hispanic origin, traveled to Austin last week and asked lawmakers to stop Texas cities, like Houston , from adopting their own immigration related policies. It's not a new fight. The Texas Senate actually passed a similar measure in 2011. It prompted protests, then stalled before becoming state law. Espinoza says a lot has changed in four years.
“We have more Latinos who are behind this issue and also law enforcement,” she said. “We have (four) sheriffs who testified with us to remove sanctuary city policies.“
But many more, including Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia, testified in opposition of SB 185. Cesar Espinosa is an immigrant rights activist in Houston.
“We don't think it's a good idea for the state,” Espinosa said. “ We don't think it's a good idea for the city. If people are afraid to come forward (and report crimes as) victims of crimes or witnesses of crimes because of their legal status, we're all going to be in trouble.”
Critics also say passage of the bill would promote racial profiling.
Maria Espinoza disagrees.
“I have never been pulled over. My daughter has never been pulled over, and none of her friends have been pulled over because of profiling,” she said. “We have to weigh the odds. We have families and we took families with us to the hearing whose loved ones were killed (by illegal immigrants). Their children were killed by people who should not have been in the country in the first place. There is no comparison in lives lost to someone being detained (for questioning) for five or ten minutes.”
A message on the homepage of The Remembrance Project website reads: “We believe that America is exceptional. In our lives and in our country, America is the priority. As are Americans! Learn what you can do to stop the nonsense of ignoring laws and our US Constitution. Help stop public servants from placing other countries and non-citizens before our families. Join us to speak up for Latinos!”
Doc, if only the idiot would follow my advise and go to the workers' paradise
mark, this was the same woman who said Benghazi was caused by a video.
Susan Rice Flashback: Bergdahl Served ‘With Honor and Distinction’
by Ian Hanchett 25 Mar 2015
National Security Advisor Susan Rice defended the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on the June 1, 2014 brodcast of ABC’s “This Week” by saying Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.”
Regarding the desertion allegations, she said Bergdahl, “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”
Rice also said that “assurances relating to the movement, the activities, the monitoring of those detainees [released in exchange for Bergdahl] give us confidence that they cannot and, in all likelihood, will not pose a significant risk to the United States. And that it is in our national interests that this transfer had been made.”
I believe her. She wouldn't lie to us.