Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
February 14, 2015
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Ron Dermer as Israel’s ambassador to the United States in 2013, the move was seen as so provocative that aides to the PM were reportedly worried that the White House would balk at the choice. Dermer came with a lot of baggage. An American by birth, he had worked as a Republican operative, helping to draft Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, before emigrating to Israel. There, he eventually became a close political adviser to Netanyahu, while remaining deeply connected in Republican politics in America. Dermer didn’t fit the prototype of a diplomat, someone who works to transcend the partisan politics back home and assiduously avoids becoming enmeshed in the partisan politics of the country where he is posted. As it was Dermer who reportedly helped organize Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's visit to Israel in the heat of the 2012 campaign, one of the Netanyahu government’s many affronts to the Obama White House, skeptics assumed he would simply continue acting as a partisan political operative.
Although he's worked to dispel that image, a string incidents have raised red flags and were more in line with a political animal who hadn't changed much since assuming his country's most important diplomatic post. For Dermer’s critics, those incidents would turn out to be mere prelude to the dramatic rift in formal US-Israel relations that Dermer would ultimately help trigger in January. Dermer’s carefully orchestrated effort in cooperation with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to inject Netanyahu into the congressional debate over Iran sanctions with an address to a joint session of Congress just days before elections in Israel -- without any consultation with the White House and State Department as it was planned -- provoked the nastiest public spat in what has been a consistently uneasy relationship between Obama and the prime minister.
"If you had asked me the day before the State of the Union speech, I would have said to you that (Dermer) had overcome a tremendous amount of adversity and was looking real. ... He was getting around and he was talking to everybody," Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who advised Obama during his 2008 campaign, told TPM. "But then he did this and it either suggests that he decided to go all-in in a game of poker where he could not win, or in fact everything else had been a facade and he didn't learn anything." In the view of American critics, Dermer is at best a political operative bringing the dark arts of that trade to the world stage, where the stakes are too high and the consequences too severe for petty hardball. At worst, in their view, Dermer represents something far more troubling: a direct reflection of Netanyahu’s own approach to politics and diplomacy.
In the latter perspective, Dermer is channeling Bibi when seizing on American political divisions to advance the prime minister's, and ultimately, his own, political agenda. These critics believe such maneuvering threatens America’s bipartisan support for Israel, as the Dermer legacy would be not merely a monumental misstep with the Netanyahu speech, but an undermining of the American pro-Israel consensus that could no longer be taken for granted. Politico Magazine reported in the days before Dermer became ambassador that the White House and congressional Democrats were already suspicious of him, alleging that he had been undermining the international negotiations with Iran by distributing negative talking points to Capitol Hill offices. According to the New York Times, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, among others, had initially resisted the appointment. "The naming of Dermer is a statement that manipulation, with a hard-right twist, of American politics is not just something that arises from time to time in U.S.-Israeli relations but instead is the main aspect of the relationship," Paul Pilar, a longtime CIA analyst, wrote in the National Interest. "It also is a statement by Netanyahu that he isn't bothered if the relationship is seen that way."
cont'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ron-dermer-netanyahu-speech-boehner-obama
Ron Dermer: The MAN AT THE CENTER Of The Unprecedented US-ISRAEL RIFT
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Ron Dermer as Israel’s ambassador to the United States in 2013, the move was seen as so provocative that aides to the PM were reportedly worried that the White House would balk at the choice. Dermer came with a lot of baggage. An American by birth, he had worked as a Republican operative, helping to draft Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, before emigrating to Israel. There, he eventually became a close political adviser to Netanyahu, while remaining deeply connected in Republican politics in America. Dermer didn’t fit the prototype of a diplomat, someone who works to transcend the partisan politics back home and assiduously avoids becoming enmeshed in the partisan politics of the country where he is posted. As it was Dermer who reportedly helped organize Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's visit to Israel in the heat of the 2012 campaign, one of the Netanyahu government’s many affronts to the Obama White House, skeptics assumed he would simply continue acting as a partisan political operative.
Although he's worked to dispel that image, a string incidents have raised red flags and were more in line with a political animal who hadn't changed much since assuming his country's most important diplomatic post. For Dermer’s critics, those incidents would turn out to be mere prelude to the dramatic rift in formal US-Israel relations that Dermer would ultimately help trigger in January. Dermer’s carefully orchestrated effort in cooperation with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to inject Netanyahu into the congressional debate over Iran sanctions with an address to a joint session of Congress just days before elections in Israel -- without any consultation with the White House and State Department as it was planned -- provoked the nastiest public spat in what has been a consistently uneasy relationship between Obama and the prime minister.
"If you had asked me the day before the State of the Union speech, I would have said to you that (Dermer) had overcome a tremendous amount of adversity and was looking real. ... He was getting around and he was talking to everybody," Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who advised Obama during his 2008 campaign, told TPM. "But then he did this and it either suggests that he decided to go all-in in a game of poker where he could not win, or in fact everything else had been a facade and he didn't learn anything." In the view of American critics, Dermer is at best a political operative bringing the dark arts of that trade to the world stage, where the stakes are too high and the consequences too severe for petty hardball. At worst, in their view, Dermer represents something far more troubling: a direct reflection of Netanyahu’s own approach to politics and diplomacy.
In the latter perspective, Dermer is channeling Bibi when seizing on American political divisions to advance the prime minister's, and ultimately, his own, political agenda. These critics believe such maneuvering threatens America’s bipartisan support for Israel, as the Dermer legacy would be not merely a monumental misstep with the Netanyahu speech, but an undermining of the American pro-Israel consensus that could no longer be taken for granted. Politico Magazine reported in the days before Dermer became ambassador that the White House and congressional Democrats were already suspicious of him, alleging that he had been undermining the international negotiations with Iran by distributing negative talking points to Capitol Hill offices. According to the New York Times, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, among others, had initially resisted the appointment. "The naming of Dermer is a statement that manipulation, with a hard-right twist, of American politics is not just something that arises from time to time in U.S.-Israeli relations but instead is the main aspect of the relationship," Paul Pilar, a longtime CIA analyst, wrote in the National Interest. "It also is a statement by Netanyahu that he isn't bothered if the relationship is seen that way."
cont'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ron-dermer-netanyahu-speech-boehner-obama
February 13, 2015
The New York Observer, a Manhattan-based weekly newspaper, is reporting that Henry Kissinger will be throwing his weight behind the candidacy of Bush Crime Family member Jeb Bush by endorsing his candidacy for president tomorrow at a fund-raiser being held by Bush's interestingly named "Right to Rise PAC." It's a move that should forever be known as the political equivalent of syphilis endorsing gonorrhea. Bush, whose real name is John Ellis Bush (the name "Jeb" should be considered a bit of marketing or branding designed to give Bush appeal to neo-confederates), has not yet officially declared his candidacy, but all indications are that he will run and ask America to play Russian roulette again by voting for a Bush. Kissinger previously got involved at an early date with the 1968 presidential candidacy of Richard "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon nearly 50 years ago and should be most notably known for his role in blowing up the 1968 Paris peace talks that were being conducted by the administration of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in hopes of bringing about a truce in the Vietnam war. How devious is Henry Kissinger? He sabotaged the talks while he was Johnson's lead negotiator. Evil does walk the Earth.
It was Kissinger who told Nixon, during the 1968 campaign, that a truce agreement was imminent. Nixon then, in a clear violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with official negotiations between our government and any foreign nation, had his own liaison with the South Vietnamese government, Anna Chennault, tell the South Vietnamese that they should put off reaching a deal with Johnson -- that Nixon would give them a better deal once he was elected. That sabotaging of the peace talks resulted in years of continued war in Vietnam and tens of thousands of U.S. casualties (20,000 U.S. dead, 100,000 wounded) and Vietnamese casualties (1,000,000 dead). Some dare call that treason. It is. Only recently, has it come out, through the release of Johnson's tapes and FBI wiretaps, that Johnson knew of the treasonous sabotage but did not act because he believed that the revelation of treason by a candidate for president would throw the country into even more turmoil than the war itself had already caused. The year had already seen the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
The sabotage also achieved its goal of narrowly electing Nixon as president over Hubert Humphrey, since America was getting mighty sick of the pointless war and Nixon had announced that he had a secret plan to end it. A truce before the election would most likely have changed the outcome of such a close election. The corporate news media have remained largely silent about Kissinger's and Nixon's actions for all these decades. In the era of the creation of the Logan Act, 1797, the pair would rightly have been hung for their treason. To Kissinger and Nixon, the deaths and maiming meant nothing. It was all about power. Nixon rewarded Kissinger by naming him as his own national security adviser. In an example of astounding irony and cynicism, Kissinger was eventually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1973, for negotiating the same agreement between the parties that he had sabotaged five years and so many lives earlier. Had Kissinger been exposed at the time, his name, reputation, and opinions would not be highly regarded today, let alone in 1973. However, they are highly regarded, especially by most republicans and much of the Washington establishment.
Bush is not the only potential republican candidate who has sought Kissinger's endorsement. In recent months neo-fascist Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and America's most obnoxious politician, New Jersey loudmouth Gov. Chris Christie have all knelt before Kissinger to kiss his ring and grovel for his endorsement. The successful quest for Kissinger's tainted endorsement isn't the only recent indication of Jeb Bush's shady character. As if Jeb Bush's corrupt machinations in the 2000 "election" of his brother and the family name itself were not enough to define what kind of person John Ellis Bush is, there is the hiring of his online media expert, Ethan Czahor, cofounder of Hipster.com. Czahor ain't exactly the hippest guy around. He appears to be most famous for his habit of tweeting his sexist, racist, and homophobic thoughts to his twitter followers. The tweets are typical republican fare. They are anything one would hear at any time from any republican you have the misfortune to be in the presence of. The tweets recently disappeared, as if by magic, but not before some timely screen grabs were made, and Buzzfeed has a quite magnificent collection of 'em.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
Senile TRAITOR AND WAR CRIMINAL Kissinger To Endorse Jeb Bush?
The New York Observer, a Manhattan-based weekly newspaper, is reporting that Henry Kissinger will be throwing his weight behind the candidacy of Bush Crime Family member Jeb Bush by endorsing his candidacy for president tomorrow at a fund-raiser being held by Bush's interestingly named "Right to Rise PAC." It's a move that should forever be known as the political equivalent of syphilis endorsing gonorrhea. Bush, whose real name is John Ellis Bush (the name "Jeb" should be considered a bit of marketing or branding designed to give Bush appeal to neo-confederates), has not yet officially declared his candidacy, but all indications are that he will run and ask America to play Russian roulette again by voting for a Bush. Kissinger previously got involved at an early date with the 1968 presidential candidacy of Richard "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon nearly 50 years ago and should be most notably known for his role in blowing up the 1968 Paris peace talks that were being conducted by the administration of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in hopes of bringing about a truce in the Vietnam war. How devious is Henry Kissinger? He sabotaged the talks while he was Johnson's lead negotiator. Evil does walk the Earth.
It was Kissinger who told Nixon, during the 1968 campaign, that a truce agreement was imminent. Nixon then, in a clear violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with official negotiations between our government and any foreign nation, had his own liaison with the South Vietnamese government, Anna Chennault, tell the South Vietnamese that they should put off reaching a deal with Johnson -- that Nixon would give them a better deal once he was elected. That sabotaging of the peace talks resulted in years of continued war in Vietnam and tens of thousands of U.S. casualties (20,000 U.S. dead, 100,000 wounded) and Vietnamese casualties (1,000,000 dead). Some dare call that treason. It is. Only recently, has it come out, through the release of Johnson's tapes and FBI wiretaps, that Johnson knew of the treasonous sabotage but did not act because he believed that the revelation of treason by a candidate for president would throw the country into even more turmoil than the war itself had already caused. The year had already seen the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
The sabotage also achieved its goal of narrowly electing Nixon as president over Hubert Humphrey, since America was getting mighty sick of the pointless war and Nixon had announced that he had a secret plan to end it. A truce before the election would most likely have changed the outcome of such a close election. The corporate news media have remained largely silent about Kissinger's and Nixon's actions for all these decades. In the era of the creation of the Logan Act, 1797, the pair would rightly have been hung for their treason. To Kissinger and Nixon, the deaths and maiming meant nothing. It was all about power. Nixon rewarded Kissinger by naming him as his own national security adviser. In an example of astounding irony and cynicism, Kissinger was eventually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1973, for negotiating the same agreement between the parties that he had sabotaged five years and so many lives earlier. Had Kissinger been exposed at the time, his name, reputation, and opinions would not be highly regarded today, let alone in 1973. However, they are highly regarded, especially by most republicans and much of the Washington establishment.
Bush is not the only potential republican candidate who has sought Kissinger's endorsement. In recent months neo-fascist Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and America's most obnoxious politician, New Jersey loudmouth Gov. Chris Christie have all knelt before Kissinger to kiss his ring and grovel for his endorsement. The successful quest for Kissinger's tainted endorsement isn't the only recent indication of Jeb Bush's shady character. As if Jeb Bush's corrupt machinations in the 2000 "election" of his brother and the family name itself were not enough to define what kind of person John Ellis Bush is, there is the hiring of his online media expert, Ethan Czahor, cofounder of Hipster.com. Czahor ain't exactly the hippest guy around. He appears to be most famous for his habit of tweeting his sexist, racist, and homophobic thoughts to his twitter followers. The tweets are typical republican fare. They are anything one would hear at any time from any republican you have the misfortune to be in the presence of. The tweets recently disappeared, as if by magic, but not before some timely screen grabs were made, and Buzzfeed has a quite magnificent collection of 'em.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
February 12, 2015
Fuggin Putz Judge...................................
In a riveting interview on Thursday, CNN host Chris Cuomo grilled Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore over his efforts to defy federal courts by blocking same-sex marriage in his state. Over the weekend Moore had advised Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples, a move that was compared to Gov. George Wallace blocking desegregation in the 1960s. On Monday, same-sex marriage licenses were issued in some Alabama counties, but more than 50 judges followed Moore's advice. Moore told Cuomo on Thursday that he "dissented" from the federal court ruling because it was "exactly like" Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation.
"It's about discrimination," Cuomo said.
"It's about sexual preference overcoming an institution which has existed in our state, in our United States for centuries," Moore shot back.
"Is equal protection a matter for the Supreme Court?" Cuomo asked. "The answer is, of course, yes."
According to Moore, Alabama's gay marriage ban provided equal protection because LGBT people had a right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else. "Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God," Moore opined. "Our laws do not come from God, and you know that," the CNN host said. "They come from man... Our rights do not come from God. That's your faith, that's my faith. But that's not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise."
cont'
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/chris-cuomo-eviscerates-roy-moore-live-tv
Chris Cuomo EVISCERATES Judge Roy Moore On LIVE TV: 'Our Laws DO NOT Come From God And You Know That'
Fuggin Putz Judge...................................
In a riveting interview on Thursday, CNN host Chris Cuomo grilled Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore over his efforts to defy federal courts by blocking same-sex marriage in his state. Over the weekend Moore had advised Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples, a move that was compared to Gov. George Wallace blocking desegregation in the 1960s. On Monday, same-sex marriage licenses were issued in some Alabama counties, but more than 50 judges followed Moore's advice. Moore told Cuomo on Thursday that he "dissented" from the federal court ruling because it was "exactly like" Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation.
"I would suggest that your refusal goes to what you believe marriage is about, and not just to the law," Cuomo noted. "This is just like the Ten Commandments situation. You were told by the federal courts, remove the Ten Commandments from the public square. You didn't want to, and you wound up losing your job because of it."
"It's not about my feelings, it's about the law," Moore insisted. "And my law, Alabama law, states that I'm chief administrative officer of the judicial system and I must act when the jurisdiction of the probate courts is interfered with by one lone judge who has no power or authority to tell them how to interpret the federal Constitution."
"It's not about my feelings, it's about the law," Moore insisted. "And my law, Alabama law, states that I'm chief administrative officer of the judicial system and I must act when the jurisdiction of the probate courts is interfered with by one lone judge who has no power or authority to tell them how to interpret the federal Constitution."
"It's about discrimination," Cuomo said.
"It's about sexual preference overcoming an institution which has existed in our state, in our United States for centuries," Moore shot back.
"Is equal protection a matter for the Supreme Court?" Cuomo asked. "The answer is, of course, yes."
According to Moore, Alabama's gay marriage ban provided equal protection because LGBT people had a right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else. "Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God," Moore opined. "Our laws do not come from God, and you know that," the CNN host said. "They come from man... Our rights do not come from God. That's your faith, that's my faith. But that's not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise."
cont'
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/chris-cuomo-eviscerates-roy-moore-live-tv
February 12, 2015
Last night, we shared the grief and horror after three young Muslims were executed in their home in North Carolina. We know that if they had been white and Christian and the shooter Muslim, reactions would have been much different. Especially in the media. The fact is, in America, it’s generally looked upon as okay to talk trash about Muslims. It’s fine to blame every Muslim for something Muslims thousands of miles away have done. It’s dandy to call them names, attack their religion, burn their mosques and books and just be hateful. That’s our America, try as we might to change it.
Canada is somewhat different. One Canadian filmmaker, Assma Galuta, wanted to test whether or not her fellow Canadians were swallowing the media insanity about Muslims. What she and her crew found was inspiring. Working with the Time Vision company, Galuta set up an experiment. Asking her friend Mustafa Mawla to participate, she blindfolded him and stood him in the busy Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto (full disclosure — I’ve been to Toronto once and instantly fell in love with it). Signs near Mawla said, “I am a Muslim. I am labelled as a terrorist,” and “I trust you. Do you trust me? Give me a hug.” The crew set up their cameras and waited.
That last guy…. he actually parked his car on Younge — arguably the busiest street in Toronto — got out, waited a few seconds for another man to finish hugging Mawla, gave his hug and then made his way back to his car. That is simply amazing. There were no shouts of “Terrorist!” or “Go home!” I shudder to think what would happen to Mawla here in America.
Galuta writes about her video:
With so many trying so hard to find things to hate about Muslims, wouldn’t it be great to just stop and actually learn something about them? We hear verses from the Quran, cherry-picked and interpreted through the eyes of people who fear and hate Muslims. These same people cherry-pick their own book to support their biases. How can we possibly trust them with someone else’s book?
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/12/watch-what-happens-to-this-blindfolded-muslim-man-on-a-toronto-street-video/
WATCH What Happens To This BLINDFOLDED Muslim Man On A Toronto Street
Last night, we shared the grief and horror after three young Muslims were executed in their home in North Carolina. We know that if they had been white and Christian and the shooter Muslim, reactions would have been much different. Especially in the media. The fact is, in America, it’s generally looked upon as okay to talk trash about Muslims. It’s fine to blame every Muslim for something Muslims thousands of miles away have done. It’s dandy to call them names, attack their religion, burn their mosques and books and just be hateful. That’s our America, try as we might to change it.
Canada is somewhat different. One Canadian filmmaker, Assma Galuta, wanted to test whether or not her fellow Canadians were swallowing the media insanity about Muslims. What she and her crew found was inspiring. Working with the Time Vision company, Galuta set up an experiment. Asking her friend Mustafa Mawla to participate, she blindfolded him and stood him in the busy Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto (full disclosure — I’ve been to Toronto once and instantly fell in love with it). Signs near Mawla said, “I am a Muslim. I am labelled as a terrorist,” and “I trust you. Do you trust me? Give me a hug.” The crew set up their cameras and waited.
That last guy…. he actually parked his car on Younge — arguably the busiest street in Toronto — got out, waited a few seconds for another man to finish hugging Mawla, gave his hug and then made his way back to his car. That is simply amazing. There were no shouts of “Terrorist!” or “Go home!” I shudder to think what would happen to Mawla here in America.
Galuta writes about her video:
“Islam means Peace. In response to recent hate crime and bullying against Muslims due to Islamophobia, we walked the streets of downtown Toronto to see the reactions of Canadians on how Muslims are made to feel because of false media.
The response was touching and inspiring.
We wish to break down barriers and spread awareness about Islamophobia, encourage Muslims to behave as the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us in kindness and good manners, to teach both extremist muslims and non muslims that violence and terrorism is NOT Islam, and we urge non-Muslims to learn about the true Islam.”
The response was touching and inspiring.
We wish to break down barriers and spread awareness about Islamophobia, encourage Muslims to behave as the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us in kindness and good manners, to teach both extremist muslims and non muslims that violence and terrorism is NOT Islam, and we urge non-Muslims to learn about the true Islam.”
With so many trying so hard to find things to hate about Muslims, wouldn’t it be great to just stop and actually learn something about them? We hear verses from the Quran, cherry-picked and interpreted through the eyes of people who fear and hate Muslims. These same people cherry-pick their own book to support their biases. How can we possibly trust them with someone else’s book?
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/12/watch-what-happens-to-this-blindfolded-muslim-man-on-a-toronto-street-video/
February 12, 2015
In a press conference Tuesday, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, one of two Republicans on the commission, blasted Chairman Tom Wheeler's strong plan for net neutrality. It was a speech long on telecom talking points, but short on reality.
The "it's all President Obama's fault" line should be the tip-off that Pai is speaking not as a disinterested protector of consumer rights but as partisan warrior and water-carrier for big telecom, making assertions that have already been debunked. One of them, in fact, was debunked by actual telecoms as pointed out by FCC Special Counsel Gigi Sohn, in an epic Twitter fact check of Pai's press conference. Pai said real net neutrality would stifle innovation and investment, but Comptel, Sprint, Google, and Rural Broadband Association have all said that a light touch Title II regulation wouldn't harm investment. She also pointed out that the idea of new taxes was "destroyed" by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Oh, and the 332-page plan? It's actually only 8 pages. The other 324 pages are historical and legal background and justification, including the fact that the FCC received a record number of comments in favor of net neutrality.
The FCC will vote on Wheeler's plan later this month, with three votes of the five commissioners certainly secured. Then the fight moves to Congress. Pai's statement is utterly dishonest, but it's useful at least in exposing the plan of attack by Republicans in Congress and the telecoms to try to roll back the new rules.
Please, help us protect all that we’ve built with this amazing campaign. Call your members of Congress today urging them to "Let the FCC do its job" to create net neutrality rules and protect an open internet.
Can't call? Sign and send a petition to your member of Congress: Don't kill net neutrality.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/10/1363605/-Republican-FCC-Commissioner-carries-big-telecoms-water-in-anti-net-neutrality-nbsp-statement
Republican FCC Commissioner CARRIES Big Telecoms' Water In ANTI-NET NEUTRALITY Statement
Ajit Pai: ReTHUG waterboy and former Associate General Counsel of Verizon Communications Inc.
In a press conference Tuesday, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, one of two Republicans on the commission, blasted Chairman Tom Wheeler's strong plan for net neutrality. It was a speech long on telecom talking points, but short on reality.
"...The American people are being misled about President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet," he said in a statement, suggesting that Obama had pressured Wheeler into reclassification. "Last week's carefully managed rollout was designed to downplay the plans of a massive intrusion in the Internet economy." The FCC has answered questions about the plan in its own press conference, and Wheeler released a four-page document explaining its major points. But the full document is only available to the rest of the FCC, which will vote on it during a February 26th open meeting.
"I have now read the 332 page plan. It is worse than I had imagined," said Pai. In particular, he warned that reclassifying broadband would open the door to taxes and onerous regulations, and give the FCC "broad and unprecedented discretion to micro-manage the internet." He claimed that although Wheeler has repeatedly promised the plan won't include any new rates or taxes, it doesn't shut the door on implementing them in the future, creating a burden for small regional ISPs and cable providers...."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8012929/fcc-ajit-pai-opposes-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan
"I have now read the 332 page plan. It is worse than I had imagined," said Pai. In particular, he warned that reclassifying broadband would open the door to taxes and onerous regulations, and give the FCC "broad and unprecedented discretion to micro-manage the internet." He claimed that although Wheeler has repeatedly promised the plan won't include any new rates or taxes, it doesn't shut the door on implementing them in the future, creating a burden for small regional ISPs and cable providers...."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8012929/fcc-ajit-pai-opposes-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan
The "it's all President Obama's fault" line should be the tip-off that Pai is speaking not as a disinterested protector of consumer rights but as partisan warrior and water-carrier for big telecom, making assertions that have already been debunked. One of them, in fact, was debunked by actual telecoms as pointed out by FCC Special Counsel Gigi Sohn, in an epic Twitter fact check of Pai's press conference. Pai said real net neutrality would stifle innovation and investment, but Comptel, Sprint, Google, and Rural Broadband Association have all said that a light touch Title II regulation wouldn't harm investment. She also pointed out that the idea of new taxes was "destroyed" by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Oh, and the 332-page plan? It's actually only 8 pages. The other 324 pages are historical and legal background and justification, including the fact that the FCC received a record number of comments in favor of net neutrality.
The FCC will vote on Wheeler's plan later this month, with three votes of the five commissioners certainly secured. Then the fight moves to Congress. Pai's statement is utterly dishonest, but it's useful at least in exposing the plan of attack by Republicans in Congress and the telecoms to try to roll back the new rules.
Please, help us protect all that we’ve built with this amazing campaign. Call your members of Congress today urging them to "Let the FCC do its job" to create net neutrality rules and protect an open internet.
Can't call? Sign and send a petition to your member of Congress: Don't kill net neutrality.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/10/1363605/-Republican-FCC-Commissioner-carries-big-telecoms-water-in-anti-net-neutrality-nbsp-statement
February 11, 2015
The audience for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on March 3 is shaping up to be largely Republican — and almost completely white. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus say they’re planning to skip the speech, calling it a slight to President Barack Obama that they can’t and won’t support. Israeli officials have been taken by surprise by the CBC backlash, kicked off by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights leader who said last week he won’t attend, quickly followed by Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and others. As a result, they’re working to set up a meeting for CBC members with Ambassador Ron Dermer — or even Netanyahu himself when he’s in Washington.
Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, scheduled just two weeks before Israeli national elections, is aimed at stopping a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program — a diplomatic opening Obama administration officials believe could reintegrate Iran into the international community and enhance Israel’s security. Netanyahu, however, feels the United States and its international partners are being naive about Iran’s true intent. “I’m determined to speak before Congress to stop Iran,” Netanyahu tweeted on Tuesday. Democrats across Capitol Hill have been increasingly vocal about their opposition to the speech, criticizing the prime minister and House Speaker John Boehner for making them choose between their support for their president and support for Israel. Announcements that Democrats plan to sit out the speech have trickled in for days.
But the CBC reaction has been particularly potent, striking at the political alliance between Jews and African-Americans that dates to the civil rights movement but has grown more fraught over the years. Often Obama’s strongest defenders against political attacks, black members say they’re outraged that a foreign leader would try to intervene in the U.S. political process. “It’s not just about disrespect for the president, it’s disrespect for the American people and our system of government for a foreign leader to insert himself into a issue that our policymakers are grappling with,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). “It’s not simply about President Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader. It’s deeper than that.” CBC chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told reporters that the speech didn’t come up as a topic in the 90 minutes they spent with Obama in the Cabinet Room. But he, like Meeks, Johnson and many of his members, is not planning to go to Netanyahu’s speech.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congressional-black-caucus-115103.html
DON'T DISRESPECT OUR PRESIDENT, Black Lawmakers Tell Netanyahu
The CBC leader said Boehner is as much or more responsible for the slight as is the Israeli leader. “I don’t hold Netanyahu responsible,” Butterfield said. “I hold Speaker Boehner responsible, but I would hope that Mr. Netanyahu would not want to get involved. I personally think it is disrespectful.”
The audience for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on March 3 is shaping up to be largely Republican — and almost completely white. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus say they’re planning to skip the speech, calling it a slight to President Barack Obama that they can’t and won’t support. Israeli officials have been taken by surprise by the CBC backlash, kicked off by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights leader who said last week he won’t attend, quickly followed by Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and others. As a result, they’re working to set up a meeting for CBC members with Ambassador Ron Dermer — or even Netanyahu himself when he’s in Washington.
“..To me, it is somewhat of an insult to the president of the United States,” said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), leaving the White House on Tuesday after a long meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who also will miss the speech. “Barack Obama is my president. He’s the nation’s president, and it is clear, therefore, that I’m not going to be there, as a result of that, not as a result of the good people of Israel...”
Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, scheduled just two weeks before Israeli national elections, is aimed at stopping a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program — a diplomatic opening Obama administration officials believe could reintegrate Iran into the international community and enhance Israel’s security. Netanyahu, however, feels the United States and its international partners are being naive about Iran’s true intent. “I’m determined to speak before Congress to stop Iran,” Netanyahu tweeted on Tuesday. Democrats across Capitol Hill have been increasingly vocal about their opposition to the speech, criticizing the prime minister and House Speaker John Boehner for making them choose between their support for their president and support for Israel. Announcements that Democrats plan to sit out the speech have trickled in for days.
But the CBC reaction has been particularly potent, striking at the political alliance between Jews and African-Americans that dates to the civil rights movement but has grown more fraught over the years. Often Obama’s strongest defenders against political attacks, black members say they’re outraged that a foreign leader would try to intervene in the U.S. political process. “It’s not just about disrespect for the president, it’s disrespect for the American people and our system of government for a foreign leader to insert himself into a issue that our policymakers are grappling with,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). “It’s not simply about President Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader. It’s deeper than that.” CBC chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told reporters that the speech didn’t come up as a topic in the 90 minutes they spent with Obama in the Cabinet Room. But he, like Meeks, Johnson and many of his members, is not planning to go to Netanyahu’s speech.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congressional-black-caucus-115103.html
February 11, 2015
It’s no secret that in the U.S. the wealthy are given special treatment. This holds true especially when it comes to politics, as our democracy has been steadily taken over by the highest bidders. A 2014 Princeton study demonstrated this when it examined polling data from over 30 years to determine if the wealthy actually have more influence in our political system. The study found that whenever the policy preferences of the wealthy differ from that of the rest of the public, our elected leaders will almost always favor the wealthy. Even more damning, the data collected was from years prior to two major Supreme Court cases — Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC — that opened the floodgates for outside political spending. Enter Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who set out to buy our democracy (or at least the Republican Party’s share of it). The Koch brothers spent more than $400 million bankrolling their favorite conservative candidates in the 2012 election cycle and have recently pledged to double that figure in the 2016 race. Consequently, the Republican Party platform has rapidly become the Koch brothers’ platform.
The influence of the wealthy elite has contributed to a large disconnect between politicians and voters. In 2013, a bill that would have required background checks for the purchasing of firearms was unable to accumulate the 60 votes needed for passage in the senate, even though 86 percent of the public supported it. It was defeated because many senators feared that the powerful and wealthy gun lobby would have retaliated against them for supporting the measure. Similarly, the Koch brothers have effectively eliminated conservative support of measures that would address climate change. While about half of all Republican voters said they would support a candidate who vowed to fight climate change, the Kochs are staunch opponents of environmental regulations due to the fact that it would harm their multi-billion dollar corporation, Koch Industries. The Koch’s opposition to environmental standards has led to a culture of climate change denial among conservatives. Think about how many times you’ve heard a Republican politician respond to a question about global warming with “I am not a scientist.”
It has become imperative for any GOP presidential hopeful to secure the financial blessing of their party’s sugar daddies. It’s why we are already seeing so much political maneuvering by conservatives, with primaries still a year away. Like a bunch of horny contestants on “The Bachelorette,” top Republicans are desperately vying for the Koch brothers love and affection. This isn’t to say that Democrats are immune to lobbying. The U.S. political system forces politicians from both parties to seek funding for re-election campaigns, which will inevitably lead to interest groups and wealthy donors wielding greater influence. However, Republicans have turned the legitimacy of our democracy into a partisan issue. In September, Senate Democrats proposed a constitutional amendment that would have limited the influence of outside political donors. Unsurprisingly, it was shot down, because there wasn’t a single Republican who voted for it. Opponents of campaign finance reform claim that money is equal to speech and should therefore be protected under the first amendment. This notion is incompatible with our nation’s democratic ideals.
cont'
http://www.statepress.com/2015/02/10/the-republican-partys-sugar-daddy-primary/
The Republican Party’s SUGAR DADDY PRIMARY
It’s no secret that in the U.S. the wealthy are given special treatment. This holds true especially when it comes to politics, as our democracy has been steadily taken over by the highest bidders. A 2014 Princeton study demonstrated this when it examined polling data from over 30 years to determine if the wealthy actually have more influence in our political system. The study found that whenever the policy preferences of the wealthy differ from that of the rest of the public, our elected leaders will almost always favor the wealthy. Even more damning, the data collected was from years prior to two major Supreme Court cases — Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC — that opened the floodgates for outside political spending. Enter Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who set out to buy our democracy (or at least the Republican Party’s share of it). The Koch brothers spent more than $400 million bankrolling their favorite conservative candidates in the 2012 election cycle and have recently pledged to double that figure in the 2016 race. Consequently, the Republican Party platform has rapidly become the Koch brothers’ platform.
The influence of the wealthy elite has contributed to a large disconnect between politicians and voters. In 2013, a bill that would have required background checks for the purchasing of firearms was unable to accumulate the 60 votes needed for passage in the senate, even though 86 percent of the public supported it. It was defeated because many senators feared that the powerful and wealthy gun lobby would have retaliated against them for supporting the measure. Similarly, the Koch brothers have effectively eliminated conservative support of measures that would address climate change. While about half of all Republican voters said they would support a candidate who vowed to fight climate change, the Kochs are staunch opponents of environmental regulations due to the fact that it would harm their multi-billion dollar corporation, Koch Industries. The Koch’s opposition to environmental standards has led to a culture of climate change denial among conservatives. Think about how many times you’ve heard a Republican politician respond to a question about global warming with “I am not a scientist.”
It has become imperative for any GOP presidential hopeful to secure the financial blessing of their party’s sugar daddies. It’s why we are already seeing so much political maneuvering by conservatives, with primaries still a year away. Like a bunch of horny contestants on “The Bachelorette,” top Republicans are desperately vying for the Koch brothers love and affection. This isn’t to say that Democrats are immune to lobbying. The U.S. political system forces politicians from both parties to seek funding for re-election campaigns, which will inevitably lead to interest groups and wealthy donors wielding greater influence. However, Republicans have turned the legitimacy of our democracy into a partisan issue. In September, Senate Democrats proposed a constitutional amendment that would have limited the influence of outside political donors. Unsurprisingly, it was shot down, because there wasn’t a single Republican who voted for it. Opponents of campaign finance reform claim that money is equal to speech and should therefore be protected under the first amendment. This notion is incompatible with our nation’s democratic ideals.
cont'
http://www.statepress.com/2015/02/10/the-republican-partys-sugar-daddy-primary/
February 11, 2015
Benjamin Netanyahu seems to think that standing and speaking before the Congress of the United States will make him look big right before an election back home. John Boehner seems to think that behaving like an ass will make him look like less of an ass. Or something. Frankly, it's always hard to fathom what goes on inside John Boehner's orange head. And even Netanyahu himself is playing Boehner for a fool. Which isn't hard to do. But digby gets to the real point about the latest Republican attempt to make President Obama look bad by making themselves look worse. Let's not get caught up in process. This story is about much more than process.
The White House is trying to negotiate a solution to a critical international security issue. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears to be trying to do the same. Time will tell. But both sides are talking, and that has been a step in the right direction. The problem is that ideological extremists want to undermine any effort at a peaceful resolution. Ideological extremists in Iran and Israel and in the United States.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/10/1363571/-What-digby-said-Don-t-lose-sight-of-the-real-story-in-the-alliance-between-Netanyahu-and-the-GOP
Don't Lose Sight Of The REAL STORY In The ALLIANCE Between Netanyahu and the GOP
Benjamin Netanyahu seems to think that standing and speaking before the Congress of the United States will make him look big right before an election back home. John Boehner seems to think that behaving like an ass will make him look like less of an ass. Or something. Frankly, it's always hard to fathom what goes on inside John Boehner's orange head. And even Netanyahu himself is playing Boehner for a fool. Which isn't hard to do. But digby gets to the real point about the latest Republican attempt to make President Obama look bad by making themselves look worse. Let's not get caught up in process. This story is about much more than process.
But here's the problem. Yes, the way it was done was wrong. The Speaker of the House should not be inviting foreign leaders to speak without clearing it with the White House. This is the kind of thing they should agree upon before it happens.
But the real issue here is that Netanyahu and the Republicans are trying to tank the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Even if they had crossed all their Is and dotted their Ts they'd still be trying to stand in the way of a more peaceful world. That's the problem, not the lack of protocol. And it's a big one.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/more-process-dodgin.html
But the real issue here is that Netanyahu and the Republicans are trying to tank the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Even if they had crossed all their Is and dotted their Ts they'd still be trying to stand in the way of a more peaceful world. That's the problem, not the lack of protocol. And it's a big one.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/more-process-dodgin.html
The White House is trying to negotiate a solution to a critical international security issue. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears to be trying to do the same. Time will tell. But both sides are talking, and that has been a step in the right direction. The problem is that ideological extremists want to undermine any effort at a peaceful resolution. Ideological extremists in Iran and Israel and in the United States.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/10/1363571/-What-digby-said-Don-t-lose-sight-of-the-real-story-in-the-alliance-between-Netanyahu-and-the-GOP
February 10, 2015
Netanyahu has been saying the same things about Iran that he incorrectly said about Iraq in 2002 as he sold the Iraq war to the U.S. Congress. Republicans are trying to place Netanyahu in charge of U.S. foreign policy with Iran, which is the foreign policy equivalent of making Bush the president again. In 2012, Juan Cole went back to 2002 to point out that Netanyahu was saying the same inaccurate fear-mongering stuff about Iran that he said about Iraq.
Sound familiar? Yeah, more deliberately distorted intelligence and rumor mongering and building a media case based on bread crumbs left by the frightened and the disingenuous. A little fact checking from Juan Cole (who gave a h/t to Washington Blog):
Republicans in Congress are trying to equate PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Israel, but that is like saying that George W Bush is the United States. So if you disagree with Bush, you disagree with America. Well, that’s just it. Republicans often maintain the position that to disagree with them is to hate an entire country. But they do not own the U.S. and they do not own Israel. Netanyahu is no more Israel than Bush is the United States. In fact, Bush and Netanyahu are the same slice of the pie in these two separate countries. And that’s exactly why Republicans went around the Democratic President in order to invite Netanyahu to sell his fear-mongering foreign policy to Congress while the President is trying to negotiate nuclear disarming with Iran. This is like Bush being in charge of our foreign policy again.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/10/republicans-netanhayu-charge-u-s-foreign-policy-bush.html
Netanyahu LIED ABOUT IRAQ's WMDs, Now He’s Saying the Same Things About Iran
Netanyahu has been saying the same things about Iran that he incorrectly said about Iraq in 2002 as he sold the Iraq war to the U.S. Congress. Republicans are trying to place Netanyahu in charge of U.S. foreign policy with Iran, which is the foreign policy equivalent of making Bush the president again. In 2012, Juan Cole went back to 2002 to point out that Netanyahu was saying the same inaccurate fear-mongering stuff about Iran that he said about Iraq.
“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said, misleading Congress in 2002. He claimed Iraq had Centrifuges “the size of washing machines” to produce the A-bomb. And as Cole wrote, “He said that Israeli intelligence reported to him that Russian scientists and North Korea were on site and actively aiding this phantom nuclear weapons program.”
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-2002-iraq-has-centrifuges-the-size-of-washing-machines-to-produce-a-bomb.html
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-2002-iraq-has-centrifuges-the-size-of-washing-machines-to-produce-a-bomb.html
Sound familiar? Yeah, more deliberately distorted intelligence and rumor mongering and building a media case based on bread crumbs left by the frightened and the disingenuous. A little fact checking from Juan Cole (who gave a h/t to Washington Blog):
There was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program in 2002; it was dismantled in the early 1990s by United Nations inspectors. There were none of the chemical or biological weapons Netanyahu spoke of. No Russians. No North Koreans. Bupkes.
Netanyahu also warned that Iraq would give nuclear warheads (which it did not have) to “terrorist groups.”
He also argued that no inspections could possibly find “mobile weapons sites” (which are impossible), implying that invasion and occupation was the only course open.
Netanyahu proved that neither he nor the Israeli intelligence organization, Mossad, had the slightest actual intelligence on Iraq, and that neither should be trusted to provide such intelligence to the US. Clearly, some right wing Israeli leaders always want the US entangled in regional wars in the Middle East, insofar as they are seeking US support in a hostile region. They therefore habitually exaggerate the dangers, and are little more than bullsh*t artists.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/israel-versus-iran-whats-really-going-on.html
Netanyahu also warned that Iraq would give nuclear warheads (which it did not have) to “terrorist groups.”
He also argued that no inspections could possibly find “mobile weapons sites” (which are impossible), implying that invasion and occupation was the only course open.
Netanyahu proved that neither he nor the Israeli intelligence organization, Mossad, had the slightest actual intelligence on Iraq, and that neither should be trusted to provide such intelligence to the US. Clearly, some right wing Israeli leaders always want the US entangled in regional wars in the Middle East, insofar as they are seeking US support in a hostile region. They therefore habitually exaggerate the dangers, and are little more than bullsh*t artists.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/israel-versus-iran-whats-really-going-on.html
Republicans in Congress are trying to equate PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Israel, but that is like saying that George W Bush is the United States. So if you disagree with Bush, you disagree with America. Well, that’s just it. Republicans often maintain the position that to disagree with them is to hate an entire country. But they do not own the U.S. and they do not own Israel. Netanyahu is no more Israel than Bush is the United States. In fact, Bush and Netanyahu are the same slice of the pie in these two separate countries. And that’s exactly why Republicans went around the Democratic President in order to invite Netanyahu to sell his fear-mongering foreign policy to Congress while the President is trying to negotiate nuclear disarming with Iran. This is like Bush being in charge of our foreign policy again.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/10/republicans-netanhayu-charge-u-s-foreign-policy-bush.html
February 10, 2015
As Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy joins those sitting out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress, Netanyahu himself is trying to salvage the situation. Taking to Twitter to do it is probably not either constructive or top-notch diplomacy, but Netanyahu is more known for his ego than his statesmanship, so begging Twitter readers for retweets it is.
And if he gets to insult the sitting American president while doing so, with the help of House Republicans who are always up for doing that, that's what he'll do. So that'll be fun. Leahy, in the meantime, is blunt about his own reasons for skipping the speech, and he apparently doesn't give a damn whether you retweet him or not.
I wonder if this is playing out like John Boehner thought it would when he planned this out in his own head, or if the caucus was just so tickled to come up with yet another way to transparently insult Obama that they really never even thought about the probable outcomes. They're taking the same insights that led them to shut down the government for a while just so everyone would know they really, really didn't like Obama and applying them now to foreign diplomacy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/10/1363565/-As-Leahy-says-he-ll-sit-out-Netanyahu-speech-Netanyahu-doubles-down
As Leahy Says HE'LL SIT OUT Netanyahu Speech, NETANYAHU DOUBLES DOWN
As Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy joins those sitting out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress, Netanyahu himself is trying to salvage the situation. Taking to Twitter to do it is probably not either constructive or top-notch diplomacy, but Netanyahu is more known for his ego than his statesmanship, so begging Twitter readers for retweets it is.
I'm determined to speak before Congress to stop Iran. RETWEET if I have your support.
https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/565148423507042305
https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/565148423507042305
And if he gets to insult the sitting American president while doing so, with the help of House Republicans who are always up for doing that, that's what he'll do. So that'll be fun. Leahy, in the meantime, is blunt about his own reasons for skipping the speech, and he apparently doesn't give a damn whether you retweet him or not.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont called the speech arranged by House Speaker John Boehner “a tawdry and highhanded stunt that has embarrassed not only Israel but the Congress itself.”
“It has long been an unwritten rule and practice through the decades that when it comes to American foreign policy, we speak and act thoughtfully, with one voice when we can, with the national interests of the United States as our uppermost consideration and with caution about the unintended consequences of unilateral actions like this,” Leahy said. “They have diminished that valuable precedent.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/patrick-leahy-skip-netanyahu-speech-115058.html
“It has long been an unwritten rule and practice through the decades that when it comes to American foreign policy, we speak and act thoughtfully, with one voice when we can, with the national interests of the United States as our uppermost consideration and with caution about the unintended consequences of unilateral actions like this,” Leahy said. “They have diminished that valuable precedent.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/patrick-leahy-skip-netanyahu-speech-115058.html
I wonder if this is playing out like John Boehner thought it would when he planned this out in his own head, or if the caucus was just so tickled to come up with yet another way to transparently insult Obama that they really never even thought about the probable outcomes. They're taking the same insights that led them to shut down the government for a while just so everyone would know they really, really didn't like Obama and applying them now to foreign diplomacy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/10/1363565/-As-Leahy-says-he-ll-sit-out-Netanyahu-speech-Netanyahu-doubles-down
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
