The "social contract" is something the righties don't understand.

Its actually worse than that Oskar. The word they don't understand is "conserve".

Are you thinking of this?...


The only known indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who had written an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom under the pen name of "A Western American." In the article, Flournoy advocated a separate nation in the western part of the United States that would ally with France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice John Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become moot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Accusations_of_violations_of_the_Act

Thanks, John ~ that was what I read altho in an article, not wiki ~

Sooz

The petition I signed the other day had a little over 9,000 signatures ~ the goal was 100,000, which was surpassed last night, less than 24 hours after I signed ~ people, including me, are VERY pissed off about this latest GOP/TPer tantrum ~ Sooz

Cotton digs deeper after Iran letter sparks fury
03/10/15 12:54 PM—Updated 03/10/15 11:43 PM
By Steve Benen

Over the last 24 hours, there’s been enormous national interest in the 47 Senate Republicans who wrote to Iran to undermine American foreign policy. Nationwide, as of a couple of hours ago, the top 10 trending Twitter topics in the United States listed “#47traitors” at the top. The list also included “#IranLetter” and “Logan Act,” which the senators are accused of violating.

As the intensity of the controversy grows, there’s renewed interest in Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the right-wing freshman who organized the letter to Tehran. The GOP senator talked to msnbc this morning about the kind of policy he’d like to see.


The Arkansan added that he wants Iranians to “completely disarm their nuclear weapons program.”

It’s worth emphasizing that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. “Disarming” sounds like a worthy goal, but it’s difficult to get rid of weapons that do not currently exist.

Cotton proceeded to quote Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu twice, and complain about Iran’s dominant influence in Baghdad – dominance made possible, of course, by the U.S. war in Iraq, a conflict Cotton supported and participated in.

The senator added there are “nothing but hardliners in Iran.” What he neglected to mention is that Iran’s hardliners oppose a nuclear agreement with the United States, our allies, and our negotiating partners, putting them in line with … Tom Cotton.

As the controversy continues to unfold, Republican presidential hopefuls are slowly starting to weigh in on the matter, most notably Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who has a curious habit of answering questions he hasn’t been asked.

Jindal, arguably a little too eager to draw attention to himself, this morning called on Vice President Biden to apologize to Cotton because the senator “wore the boots in Iraq,” a reference to Cotton’s status as a war veteran.

There’s probably little point to taking Jindal’s cry for attention too seriously, but for the record, let’s note that Biden may have condemned the effort by American senators trying to sabotage American foreign policy, but he never denigrated Cotton’s military service. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry, who’s helping lead the P5+1 talks, also “wore the boots” during his combat service, and he’s probably not impressed with the 47 Senate Republicans conducting their own freelance foreign policy, either.

If you missed Cotton’s appearance on msnbc this morning, here’s the whole interview: [video accessible via end link]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cotton-digs-deeper-after-iran-letter-sparks-fury

This is an eloquent AND a kick-ass response from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif [who I believe has a post-graduate degree from a US university] that politely-but-forcefully shames and corrects the Idiot 47 "misinformation" ~ emphasis/bolding below is in the original ~ Sooz

Iran Foreign Minister Gives GOP Senators A Dose Of Reality Medicine
By karoli / 3/09/15 5:31pm

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:


Republican idjuts like Senator 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.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/iran-foreign-minister-gives-gop-senators

Nothing like a bitch slap. lol I can't wait for the response and spin.

He could have used Cameron's "Complete idiots!" to that Faux News "expert" on no-go-zones.

Jon Stewart 'covered' this story last night, indicating this is another R vs. D argument (each side does it, each side accuses the other). He mentioned Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria back in 2007, criticized by the Bush White House.

However, Stewart (it's a comedy show, after all) failed to mention the following;

...three Republican congressmen — Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Frank Wolf of Virginia — visited Syria separately and met with Mr. Assad on Sunday. And a senior American diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, held talks in Damascus last month with Syrian officials about an influx of Iraqi refugees. Mr. Bush did not mention those visits in his remarks yesterday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=1&

The article states that the U.S. was attempting to "isolate the country [Syria] diplomatically" so Pelosi was acting without White House approval, but presumably so were other leaders. While the U.S. was not in the middle of negotiating a deal with Syria (as it is now with Iran), this could still be considered an interference and inappropriate.

The bottom line is this; Congresspeople need to stop this. They have no business communicating with foreign governments. These people represent their states, not the nation. There is a reason we have diplomats and other officials for dealing with other governments.

These people represent their states, not the nation. There is a reason we have diplomats and other officials for dealing with other governments.

THIS ^^^^

DING! DING! DING! ~ 2 sentences/23 words worth repeating ... and repeating ~

Sooz

* Edited for clarity.

GOOD! ~ I love the comment that the Idiot 47 are actually uniting the country against their egotistical, self-imposed stupidity ~ I will read each of these full editorials, but this gives us a teaser of just how strong the "anti" editorials are ~ and newspapers tend to have verrrrry long memories ~ each of the newspaper names in this article is a "live link" to the full editorial ~ Sooz

National Outrage Grows As 22 Newspaper Editorials Blast Senate Republican Letter To Iran
By: Jason Easley / Wednesday, March, 11th, 2015, 2:43 pm

Newspapers all across the country are ripping the 47 Senate Republicans who attempted to sabotage President Obama by writing a letter to Iran. Here is a sampling of the criticism from no less than 22 newspaper editorial boards.

The Concord Monitor in New Hampshire took Sen. Kelly Ayotte to task for signing the letter, “Ayotte and the rest of the gang of 47 would like nothing more than for the American people to view the letter as a necessary defense against misguided negotiations and flawed policies, a comeuppance for an arrogant commander in chief who flaunts his contempt for the Constitution. They want you to know, America, that they wrote the letter for you because Obama must be stopped. In reality, they are playing a political game dangerously out of bounds.”

The editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette wrote that the senators who signed the letter should be ashamed, “America’s partners in the talks are among the world’s most important nations — China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. They can only be appalled at seeing Secretary of State John Kerry and the president, who are charged with making the nation’s foreign policy, hit from behind by one house of the federal legislature. The senators who signed the letter should be ashamed.”

The Sacramento Bee wrote that Senate Republicans need a civics lesson, “It’s the Republican senators who signed the letter – including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and potential presidential candidates Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida – who could use a remedial civics class. The Constitution gives the president broad authority to conduct foreign policy. The Senate’s “advise and consent” role covers formal treaties. The potential deal on Iran’s nuclear weapons program is not a treaty. It is a multinational agreement that involves Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, as well as the United States and Iran.”

The Baltimore Sun pulled no punches, “The poison pen note was a shocking example of just how far President Barack Obama’s GOP critics in Congress are willing to go in an effort to undercut his foreign policy goals…The GOP senators might just as well have put up a big sign over their chamber warning the mullahs in Tehran to prepare for war because that’s the practical import of rejecting any possibility of a negotiated resolution of the two countries’ differences. Republican lawmakers in effect have adopted the hard-line agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who offered a similarly uncompromising view of Iranian intentions when he addressed a joint meeting of Congress last week.”

The Boston Globe accused Senate Republicans of winning sympathy for Iran, “WINNING SYMPATHY for the renegade Islamic Republic of Iran is no easy trick. But Republicans in the US Senate seem to be accomplishing it with their breathtakingly reckless intrusion into international diplomacy….The letter not only undercuts the president’s traditional authority to oversee the shaping of foreign policy but badly undermines America’s credibility in the international community.”

The Kansas City Star wondered if it was the Iran letter, or the Republican senators who were treacherous, “Given the Republicans’ pure hatred of Obama, it also seemed extra personal, yet another politically motivated attempt to stop him from doing anything that might be perceived as a victory for his administration.”

The Salt Lake City Tribune referred to Utah’s two Republican senators as foolish for joining the campaign, “It will be up to history to judge whether the latest partisan stunt joined by Utah Sens. Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch amounts to an act of End Times warmongering or merely another bit of cringe-worthy buffoonery on the global stage. Chances are that the foolish, dangerous and arguably felonious attempt by the Obama Derangement Caucus of the Senate will soon be forgotten. Unless, as President Obama himself muttered the other day, the Senate Republicans make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran to push the region, and the world, that much closer to nuclear war.”

The quotes above from editorial boards around the country are a small taste of the backlash that is growing against the Senate Republicans. Anger is growing from coast to coast.

It is not an understatement to suggest that the outrage over the Senate Republican letter is national. In this time of great partisan divide, Republicans managed to unify the country with an act that was as blatantly unpatriotic as it was blindingly stupid. The tea partiers who turned the House of Representatives into a three ring circus have invaded the Senate, and the letter to Iran is their most high profile bit of handiwork.

Republicans are desperately trying to convert Hillary Clinton’s emails into a 2016 campaign story, but the irony is that with their Iran letter, the Senate GOP might have just handed Democrats a powerful issue that could put an end to their fragile Senate majority.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/11/national-outrage-grows-22-newspaper-editorials-blast-senate-republican-letter-iran.html

Ha ha ha! Just kidding! Sure....



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -idea.html

The Error in the Senators’ Letter to the Leaders of Iran

By Jack Goldsmith
Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:55 AM

Josh Rogin reports that a “group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.” Here is the letter. Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

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. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

About the Author
Jack Goldsmith is the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, where he teaches and writes about national security law, presidential power, cybersecurity, international law, internet law, foreign relations law, and conflict of laws. Before coming to Harvard, Professor Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003. Professor Goldsmith is a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/

They just screwed themselves. Now the Dems need to convincingly paint all Republicans with the same brush.

New York Daily News cover, March 10, 2015

I am still plenty pissed off about "the letter" ~ I see this stunt as the proverbial "step too far" ~ and reading commentaries like this one only reinforces my burning anger ~ McCain is co-opting Ron Paul's "I sign a lot of letters" excuse ~ well, bozo, that does NOT release you from responsibility for signing it ... especially when you claim to be a "foreign policy expert" ~ ~ Sooz

McCain second guesses his support for sabotage letter
03/11/15 03:54 PM—Updated 03/11/15 03:56 PM
By Steve Benen

One of the striking aspects of the letter to Iran from Senate Republicans this week was the scale of the GOP support. The effort to undermine American foreign policy and sabotage international nuclear talks wasn’t simply limited to a few fringe, right-wing figures known for their ridiculous antics.

On the contrary, though the letter may have originated with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), it ended up receiving the endorsement of 87% of the Senate GOP conference, including the entirety of the Senate Republican leadership, as well as some of the party’s most vocal figures on matters of foreign policy, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.).

By last night, the longtime Arizona senator seemed to realize this may not have been wise. He told Fox News the letter may not have been “the best way” for his party to achieve its goals, adding that partisan divisions sometimes lead Republicans “to react maybe in not the most effective fashion.”

As for why McCain put his name on the sabotage letter, the senator’s explanation to Politico was not reassuring.


OK, but that’s clearly not an argument. I can imagine a U.S. senator being confronted with a lot of paperwork on a daily basis, much of which requires a signature, but it’s not unreasonable to think a 28-year veteran of the Senate and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee might pause before signing a letter to Iranian officials, urging them not to work constructively on nuclear issues with the United States, our allies, and our negotiating partners.

Amanda Taub makes a persuasive case that McCain’s explanation for his conduct arguably makes matters worse.


McCain complained on Fox News last night that there’s a “total lack of trust” between the White House and GOP lawmakers.

Yeah, I wonder why that is.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mccain-second-guesses-his-support-sabotage-letter

The ONLY reason some GOP/TPers are now trying to "explain" why they signed the letter is because of the unexpectedly enormous backlash it has prompted ~ and the excuses are ... lame, at best ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

McCain, Rand Paul roll out new excuses for sabotage letter
03/12/15 08:00 AM—Updated 03/12/15 08:17 AM
By Steve Benen

After putting his signature on the Senate Republicans’ infamous sabotage letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) started hedging Tuesday night, saying the GOP’s missive to Iranian leaders may not have been “the best way” for his party to achieve its goals.

By late yesterday, the longtime senator offered an entirely new rationale.


McCain went on to tell Politico that he and his colleagues “probably should have had more discussion” about the document, “given the blowback that there is.”

Note, this appears to be the third excuse Republicans have come up with for the letter intended to derail American foreign policy. The first rationale was that the 47 GOP senators were kidding, and this was all an attempt at being “cheeky.” The second was that Republicans tried to undermine international nuclear talks, but this is all President Obama’s fault.

And here’s John McCain rolling out the option behind Door #3: Republicans were concerned about snow, so they rushed.

Oddly enough, that’s probably slightly better than the rationale Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) came up with.

On NBC’s “Today” show yesterday morning, the Kentucky Republican told Matt Lauer that he signed on to the sabotage letter because he wanted to “strengthen the president’s hand.”

If there’s a way to see this as a coherent argument, I can’t think of it. Rand Paul thought it would strengthen Obama’s hand at the negotiating table if Republicans told Iranian officials not to trust or cooperate with Obama?

In the larger context, let’s not forget that Republicans tend to consider foreign policy and national security as their signature issues, and polls, reality notwithstanding, generally show Americans trust the GOP more on matters of international affairs. Credibility on foreign policy is generally seen as a birthright throughout the Republican Party.

And yet, consider what we’re seeing from Republican senators right now and the degree to which it’s amateur hour within the GOP.

At a certain level, the fact that so many in the GOP are scrambling to address the scandal they created is itself a heartening sign. All things considered, it’s better to hear Republicans making bizarre excuses than to hear them boast about how proud they are of their sabotage letter. Senators like McCain and Paul aren’t defending the letter on the merits so much as they’re looking for excuses to rationalize their participation in a dangerous stunt.

But I’m nevertheless reminded of Fred Kaplan’s assessment from earlier this week: “It is a useful thing when a political party reveals itself as utterly unsuited for national leadership.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mccain-rand-paul-roll-out-new-excuses-sabotage-letter

I heard a rumour that the Republicans also claim to be better at running the economy. Hope it's only a rumour because statistics say differently.

The real problem is that nig....er....black guy occupying that big White House in an all-white neighbourhood.
That someone of an inferior race should have achieved that is highly offensive.

I didn't think it was possible/probable, so I never thought I'd be saying this, but Cotton is Ted Cruz on steroids ~ ~ Sooz

47 Republicans’ Iran letter was not treasonous but mutinous, explains retired Army general
David Ferguson | 13 Mar 2015 at 15:17 ET

A retired Army major general spoke to the Washington Post this week about Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and the other 46 Republicans who signed an open letter to the Iranian government undermining President Barack Obama’s current attempts at hammering out a bilateral agreement regarding the country’s nuclear program.

The letter has led some to brand the group of rogue Republicans “traitors,” but when Jonathan Capehart interviewed retired Army Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton, the military officer explained that the letter was actually mutinous rather than treasonous. It was still illegal and an unprecedented show of weakness and disunity by the U.S. government, but it did not, Eaton said, rise to the level of treason.

“I would use the word mutinous,” Eaton told Capehart. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.”

Eaton — who is a senior advisor to VoteVets.org and worked to train Iraqi soldiers after the U.S. invasion — went on, “What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better. I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on to succeed.”

The consequences, he said, could be disastrous.

“The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said, and he believes that Cotton realizes it, too, but is so concerned with raising his profile and scoring political points that “he simply does not care. That’s what disappoints me the most.”

Eaton said, “I expect better from the men and women who wore the uniform.”

Capehart agreed, writing that “the American people deserve better from the Senate.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/47-republicans-iran-letter-was-not-treasonous-but-mutinous-explains-retired-army-general/

Bob Schieffer's questioning of Cotton was solid, with one exception that was brilliant [my emphasis/bolding below] ~ I love that Cotton is not comfortable with Iran controlling Tehran, which most of us know is the capital of ... Iran ~ and if Cotton has "no regrets at all" about authoring this letter, he must not be paying attention to a very significant number of the other 46 senators who signed distancing themselves from doing so ~ ~ Sooz

Being Tom Cotton means never having to say you’re sorry
03/16/15 09:20 AM
By Steve Benen

A week after attempting to sabotage American foreign policy and doing real damage to U.S. credibility on the international stage, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sat down with Bob Schieffer yesterday to explain himself. True to form, the right-wing freshman boasted he has “no regrets at all.”

Of course not. Being Tom Cotton means never having to say you’re sorry for undermining your own country’s attempts at international diplomacy.

At one point, towards the end of the interview, the “Face the Nation” host asked the Arkansas senator about his alternative solution if the talks collapse. Cotton didn’t offer any specifics, but he did express concern about Iranian influence in the region.


The fact that Iran maintains influence in other countries with Shia majorities in the region is hardly a new development, but the fact that Cotton is concerned about Iranians “already controlling Tehran” seemed like an odd thing to say. Tehran, of course, is the capital of Iran. In effect, the Republican senator was lamenting Iranian dominance of Iran, concerned that Iranians “control” the capital of their own country.

Making matters slightly worse, if Cotton is troubled by Tehran’s influence in Baghdad, he should probably know that Iran’s dominance is the direct result of the U.S. invasion he supported and participated in. In other words, it was the senator’s own preferred foreign policy that created the conditions he now finds so alarming.

Which should probably raise some questions about his judgment now.

In the same interview, the CBS host asked a good question I haven’t seen elsewhere: “Well, senator, are you planning to contact any other of our adversaries around the country? For example, do you plan to check with the North Koreans to make sure that they know that any deal has to be approved by the Congress?”

Cotton largely avoided the question – though he did blame the Clinton administration for the fact that North Korea developed nuclear weapons on George W. Bush’s watch, a development the Bush/Cheney administration did nothing about – though it struck me as a legitimate area of interest. Cotton and his 46 Senate GOP cohorts apparently seem eager to tell the world that when it comes to Iran, there are effectively two U.S. foreign policies – the official one, embraced by the White House, the State Department, and U.S. diplomats, and a rival one, pushed by American politicians who hope to undermine the White House, the State Department, and U.S. diplomats.

But Schieffer’s point is sound: why stop with Iran? Why shouldn’t Cotton start writing more condescending, legally dubious, error-ridden missives to global capitals everywhere, telling other countries that Republicans don’t want others to trust the United States, either?

Why not declare categorically that, at least for the next couple of years, international observers should no longer expect one United States position on global affairs, but rather, two – one from the President of the United States and one from American elected officials who hold him in contempt?

That’s a recipe for success for a 21st century superpower, right?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/being-tom-cotton-means-never-having-say-youre-sorry

But Schieffer’s point is sound: why stop with Iran? Why shouldn’t Cotton start writing more condescending, legally dubious, error-ridden missives to global capitals everywhere, telling other countries that Republicans don’t want others to trust the United States, either?

Well, Mr. Schieffer, can you name one country that DOES trust the United States?

"They already control Tehran."

We may have a new winner for Most Stupid Comment by a Politician.

I'm thinking that depends on if you ask the people or the politicians, oskar ~ I'm also somewhat surprised that you can't [or refuse to] recognize that the American people are clamoring for change ~ when you condemn our country, you condemn all of us ~ and I'm not so sure any major country is in a position to condemn any other country ~

Sooz