July 18th, 2015

Why isn’t the Iran deal a treaty? Please listen to this

There doesn’t seem to be a way to embed the audio I’m asking you to listen to, but please go to the link. The important part of the audio starts at minute 17:25 goes to minute 27:12, and another part begins around minute 37:00 and goes to about 48:30. If you only have time to listen to one of those segments, I’d suggest the first one. But I strongly urge you to hear both.

The interview is with Elizabeth Chryst, who is a former elected officer of the U.S. Senate and is an expert on how Congress works in terms of rules and procedures. I had never heard of her before this, but she seems to be a conservative and is speaking on the subject of the Corker-Menendez bill, and why conservatives are dreaming if they think there was ever any chance of blocking the Iran deal as a treaty. That’s not a reality that she likes, and she knows that her fellow conservatives are unhappy to hear it. But she thinks it’s a reality they need to face.

Basically, her point is that ever since the FDR administration the power to accomplish a treaty-like international “deal” by using executive action instead of the official treaty power, and to bypass Congress by so doing, has expanded greatly and become fairly commonplace and approved by courts. As I’ve said elsewhere, most of us never quite realized how much of a gentleman’s agreement our government was until now. That goodwill has been evaporating, and not just with the Obama presidency either. But Obama took the disintegration further for political gain.

So here we are.

Please listen. The Republicans are the villains sometimes, but they are not the villains here.

So why is so much ire being directed at Corker-Menendez? Because people are very very frustrated and angry. I understand their frustration and anger and share it. But—as Chryst says—facts are facts. There are plenty of reasons for ire at Republicans in Congress. But this doesn’t happen to be one of them.

[NOTE: I am pretty certain that a lot of you will disagree. I plan to write a much longer post on this subject some time next week, but right now I’m about to go outside and actually try to have some fun today.]

41 Responses to “Why isn’t the Iran deal a treaty? Please listen to this”

  1. G6loq Says:

    “Stop Iran” Protest In Times Square, Wednesday, July 22, 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
    Be there or be Square ….

  2. Ymarsakar Says:

    What people want and need is for evil people to suffer.

    If they can’t have that… well, you know how a mob is, they go after the weaklings and low hanging fruit after that.

  3. George Pal Says:

    Ms Chryst:

    We learn that Congress had long ago (circa FDR) ceded power to the Executive and Judicial branches of government and had become subsidiary to both. And furthermore, that legislating a curtailment of such power was beyond their abilities, or more obviously I believe, beyond their wants – who would vote out of office someone who had nothing to do with Executive and Judicial overreach. Their sinecures would be that much more secure.

    Ms Chryst:
    “We know this president takes every law that he wants to, either he avoids it, doesn’t implement it, pretends like it doesn’t exist, uhmm, doesn’t enforce it, which all of that is code for, changes the law or he takes an existing law, redefines it, twists it into a pretzel that doesn’t even resemble the law that passed Congress, – he’s been doing this his whole administration so there’s absolutely no logical reason for any logical person to think that he would do the hard thing…” [continues with executive agreements and Corker deal]

    We learn there’s absolutely no logical reason for any logical person to think that he would do the hard thing. Apparently, we may assume, I take it, there’s no logical reason to think he could be impeached. I know, been there done that… he can’t be convicted so why bother making the case. The case ought be made to inform the future; to present a record to which the MSM would never allude but historians would; to respect the law as Obama never had; to implement the law as Obama never had; to be on the right side of justice, if not history; to do the right thing just because it hadn’t been done for so long we’d forgotten how good it would feel.

    On the other hand, though I haven’t yet changed my mind completely, I can see why not proceeding with impeachment would be the better part of realpolitik – not because of ‘lose’ but because of treachery (god I’ve about worn that word out). Though the case could be made, I am not sure the Republicans would, not could, but would make it. I trust I could trust them not much farther than I could toss Obama.

  4. Matt_SE Says:

    If this is all true, then it’s another indictment of the GOP establishment. Were they not able to explain this in any forum? Or did they just not care enough to inform the rubes?

  5. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Basically, her point is that ever since the FDR administration the power to accomplish a treaty-like international “deal” by using executive action instead of the official treaty power, and to bypass Congress by so doing, has expanded greatly and become fairly commonplace and approved by courts.”

    Actually, and as others have pointed out, what one President may agree to, another may legally rescind. This ‘deal’ is NOT ‘law’, it is strictly an agreement between the Obama administration and the Iranians.

    Thus, that it is not a treaty is a very good thing, as treaties are the supreme law of the land and legally binding upon future administrations until nullified by Congressional vote or circumstance.

    “Constitution of the United States
    Article. VI.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”

    Obama, in his news conference, attempted to defend his treason by positing that either craven capitulation masquerading as diplomacy or military force were the only paths open to America. Obama well knows that the Iranians would immediately abandon their pursuit of nukes were the threat of forthcoming U.S. military force credible.

    Obama is knowingly facilitating a mortal national security threat to the United States and in doing so, is engaged in the most base treason. Congress, in its failure to stop Obama is complicit in that treason. And the responsibility for the deaths of the millions to come will rest firmly upon their souls.

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    It’s NOT just one president, FDR. That’s when it began. Now it is long-established (many quite a few presidents) in practice and in court decisions where it has been challenged and upheld many times.

    If you think about it, if the Republicans in Congress say it’s a treaty and vote against it, and Obama says “Eff you, I’m going ahead anyway,” and the law backs him, their only option is impeachment, and they do not have enough votes to convict. Period. That’s reality at this point. You can argue, “Well, it shouldn’t be that way,” but apparently it is. That why they passed Corker-Menendez.

    They can still call it a treaty and vote on it. Nothing in Corker-Menendez stops them. But it will be an unenforceable act. Corker-Menendez was designed to give them an extra option to try to stop it.

  7. neo-neocon Says:


    I believe I have seen this explanation from the GOP and from other writers. It didn’t get much attention, though. I
    don’t have time to research it now, but when I write my post later in the week I’ll try to find it.

  8. Ymarsakar Says:

    A sacrifice is needed to redeem America and gain the power of death to defeat evil. How large that sacrifice must be, really depends on how long people sit around and wait.

  9. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    I’m not disputing that it started with FDR, nor disputing that it has been upheld by SCOTUS as to its legality. I am merely stating that ANY agreement, deal, understanding, etc. by a President with a foreign power, that is NOT ratified by Congress places no legal obligation upon future administrations to uphold that agreement. Thus, it is entirely up to the discretion of each future President whether Obama’s deal with Iran will be continued.

  10. chuck Says:

    Nothing lasts for ever and governments seldom retain their original intent for more than two of three centuries. The power to wage war, make treaties, set spending, and originate the laws no longer belongs to the legislative branch. Reversing that evolution at this point is almost impossible without a major upset and upset of sufficient magnitude to accomplish that change would more likely result in further divergence. I’m don’t know how things will continue to evolve, but I’m pretty certain we will never again have a government that takes the Constitution as written seriously.

  11. stan Says:

    I don’t care what unconstitutional developments there have been in the past. The Constitution is clear. Congress needs to enforce it.

    If clear understandings about the Constitution can be radically changed by a 5-4 SCOTUS, clear understandings can be re-introduced as quickly.

    Enforce it. If Obama implements it without Congressional approval, announce that any military officer involved will be held to have obeyed an illegal order and face court martial in 2017. Any civilian involved will face the full extent of whatever administrative punishment is allowed. Period.

    And tell the public, the Iranians, and the world that the expiration date for anything Obama does is Jan 2017 if not sooner.

  12. blert Says:

    The normal recourse when tyrants get out of control is foreign ‘corrective action’ aka war… or the Heaven sent mortality of man.

    The Republican top brass realize that party income/ contributions would COLLAPSE if the larger polity became aware of how powerless they are.

    Congress has devolved down to the status of the Duma under the Tsar. — Strictly a talking shop.

    The exact same trajectory was established by the ancient Roman Senate. It was reduced to a shambles — if not a stable.

    As previously posted, Barry has the single most damaged soul of any recently ensconced tyrant.

    He profiles worse than


    It will be MOST difficult for him to leave center stage.

    January 20, 2017 will be all too much for Barry.


    His signature political achievement will prove out to be the replacement of Black Congressmen with Latino Congressmen.

    Demographics rule.

  13. Frog Says:

    Thanks, Neo. I misunderstood Corker-Menendez.

    But the “negotiators” who ALL signed off on the deal are all the members of the UN Security Council, so the deal can instantly become a Security Council Resolution. Obama and his partners can unfreeze the frozen $100 Billion Iranian assets instantly. Germany and France can increase their trade with Iran. The entire deal is out of the hands of the American people.

    I wonder why Germans, French, British seem so quiet on this. (We’ll ignore the Russians and Chinese presses.) I do not read the Western foreign press, but nothing from abroad seems to have spilled over to us.

    Israel is in a state of dreadful danger. The entire world is manifestly anti-Semitic, and it will not require an Irani nuke to crater the country when it is really isolated as an apartheid state. Wait til Irani warships are in the Mediterranean, assisting Gaza blockade breaches.

  14. neo-neocon Says:


    I think the Western Europeans are quiet because (a) they still depend on the US and don’t want to actively defy it (b) they are not exactly philo-Semitic; those who don’t actively hate Israel can take it or leave it, and probably wouldn’t shed many tears at its destruction; and (3) perhaps most importantly. they want to trade with Iran.

  15. neo-neocon Says:


    Congress can’t “enforce” much.

    It has certain powers. It can pass legislation, or fail to pass legislation. But it needs a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a presidential veto. The Republicans don’t have that without a lot of Democratic support, which doesn’t seem to be in the offing.

    Here is what you suggested:

    If Obama implements it without Congressional approval, announce that any military officer involved will be held to have obeyed an illegal order and face court martial in 2017. Any civilian involved will face the full extent of whatever administrative punishment is allowed. Period.

    Congress cannot “announce” such a thing. Congress can pass laws. Congress can, for example, pass a statute under its power to regulate armed forces, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it could attempt to pass something akin to what you describe. First of all (and that’s only first of all), President Obama would veto it, and that veto could not be overridden. Second of all, if it somehow could be overridden, anyone prosecuted would have a right of final appeal to SCOTUS, and I can go out on a limb right now and say that I am almost certain that the Court would say that Congress had gone beyond its constitutional authority in passing a bill that said that complying with an “executive agreement” of the president (i.e. the Iran deal) was a crime.

  16. Japan Says:

    Iran Nuclear ProgramRSS

  17. Dennis Says:

    Neo said:
    “Please listen. The Republicans are the villains sometimes, but they are not the villains here.”

    True enough. Unfortunately, many “conservatives” are working for the enemy probably unknowingly by attacking our side.

  18. stan Says:


    I went to law school too. GOP Congressional leaders and GOP presidential contenders can announce their intention to everything in their power to require BOzo to honor the Constitution. They can tell the world that the deal is void (or at a minimum, voidable). They can sue for a writ prohibiting implementation. Even if all they manage is to make the PR effort of their insistence that the Constitution be followed, they should characterize their actions as upholding/enforcing the clear meaning of the Constitution. It’s a winning hand with the public and one which will strengthen the party in Nov 2016.

  19. stan Says:

    Whether or not the Court rules against any suit, it’s a win for the GOP. The Court has completely forfeited all credibility with the GOP base already. It will simply reinforce the need to get a Republican in the White House to make the next appointments.

  20. neo-neocon Says:


    We can agree that it would merely be theater and a PR move for the GOP, rather than an effective approach in terms of actual results that change the law or Obama’s actions re Iran. I actually happen to approve of that theater; I think they should do it. But I understand why they don’t. What’s more, I think the tremendous ire against them for not doing it is misplaced and counterproductive and a waste of time and energy (as well as possibly premature), using energy that should be directed at those who did this, Obama and the Democrats. I also see the ire at Republicans as leading a lot of conservatives to abstain at the polls, which only has the effect of electing more Democrats. That’s what I mean by “counterproductive.”

  21. Frog Says:

    Neo: the ire and the energy is directed at the GOP precisely because we know the Dems cannot be influenced. That is the scary thing. They cannot be influenced.
    So we hope, hope and pray the GOP can be influenced, but it is also beyond influence. So what’s left? Anger.

    Slightly off topic, look at the GOP ire levelled at Trump. Misdirected. The GOP shoots its own candidate(s); it will not, cannot effectively shoot against the Dems (Might offend Latinos, or whatever), and hopes it can win some of the less-adherent Dems by attacking its own. When done with Trump, they’ll turn again on Cruz. Or someone. The GOP hunts for Todd Akinses harder than Dems do: “See, we are virtuous! Look what we found! Out, damned spot!”

  22. neo-neocon Says:


    Good point about the redirection of the anger. But it’s so counterproductive that I think people need to resist it—which of course is very difficult.

  23. expat Says:

    Speaking of European trade with Iran: The Social Democrat Economic Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, has just arrived in Iran with a large contingent of business leaders to sign deals there. They have probably been in the works for a while. The news reports are about how much business this will bring to Germany. The German delegation is to first to travel to Iran. They all say that Iran will be influenced if we deal with them.

    Gabriel followed Schröeder as Minister President of Niedersachsen. Now he is following him in negotiating with evil empires. We all know how Putin changed his tune after Schröeder signed on with Gazprom.

    I nver want to hear another criticism of America from these creeps.

  24. blert Says:


    Putin on the fritz?

    But you’re right.

    Putin developed a hunger for Ukrainian land — maybe Drang nach Osten has its counter part in Russian?


    Ukraine has stopped purchasing Russian (Gazprom) natural gas. (July 1, 2015)

    When Putin swallowed up the Donetz basin, he also swallowed up his customer base for natural gas… the industries there.

    Ukraine farmers were always too poor/ dis’d to receive natural gas.

    Which leaves only some urbanities in the west to consume the balance of Ukraine’s import.

  25. Frog Says:

    expat’s news reminds me how well Sweden did by staying neutral in WWII. Traded with Germany, prospered, sustained no wartime losses of physical plant or population, came out of V-E day with a big fat smile on its face.
    By contrast, Norway was occupied, had Quisling.As was Denmark, of course.
    Sweden was not a big happy sanctuary for Jews either, IIRC.
    Looks like the Germans are now following the Swedish model.

  26. neo-neocon Says:


    Speaking of the Germans and the Swedish model—it reminds me a bit of the speculation about the hijacking of Lufthansa 651, in 1972. Ever heard of it? It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s the most relevant part:

    The West German trade interests in the Arab countries as well as the desire to be spared from future acts of terror were alleged as motives for a government involvement. Shortly after the events surrounding Flight 615, Haim Yosef Zadok accused West Germany in a Knesset speech of having “used the opportunity [of the hijacking] to improve its relations to the Arab world.” In his 1999 autobiography, Abu Daoud (the mastermind behind the Munich massacre) claims that he had been offered $9 million by “the Germans” for faking the prisoner release. In later years, he refused to repeat or elaborate this allegation, though. In a 2006 interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Zvi Zamir, the head of Mossad from 1968 to 1974, states that he was certain that there had been some kind of an agreement between West Germany and Black September.

    The Oscar-winning documentary film One Day in September (which was released in 1999 and deals with the Munich massacre) supports the thesis that the hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 615 was “a set-up, organized by the German government in collusion with the terrorists,” which corresponds to remarks by Jamal Al-Gashey about the aftermath of his liberation. The film features an interview with Ulrich Wegener, a German counter-terrorism expert and founding commander of GSG 9, who calls such allegations “probably true”. Wegener is also quoted with the opinion that considerations of the West German authorities on how to deal with the hostage situation had likely been mainly driven by the desire to prevent the country from becoming the focus for further acts of terror.

  27. Cornhead Says:

    Prediction. When things start to go bad during debate and hearings on this Iran thing, Barack will bring the hostages home.

    It was all set up in advance.

    Obama thinks the American people will fall for the human interest story.

    I say he gets called out on his cynical trick.

  28. neo-neocon Says:


    You might just be correct.

    Then again, maybe he’ll just finesse Congress by going past them to the UN.

  29. Cornhead Says:


    And if the deal sails through the UN, Obama will play the card that his way is inevitable; just like HRC is the inevitable nominee.

    We are helpless in the hands of King Barack. He rules.

  30. Artfldgr Says:

    neo: most of us never quite realized how much of a gentleman’s agreement our government was until now. That goodwill has been evaporating, and not just with the Obama presidency either. But Obama took the disintegration further for political gain.

    just wait till all those laws that they made and didnt enforce and did for symbolic reasons no longer have the genetlmans agreement behind them not to act on them… that will be interesting.

    heck.. right now, the Big O is about ot make a real sh*t storm out of “disparate impact”… and feminists though they were clever with that one and how it spread.. wait till the ladies who did this find out!!!! [it certainly wasnt the men, and the racialists are in the same boat with feminists, and lgbt…]

    then they find they cant get loans for cars, homes, schools, and have to pay more, and go to jail more often on minor offenses while others get out free and can run wild doing things to them as in the other matriarchies in history..

    its going to be interesting…
    right now, they are being attacked left and right in ny… something that prior to the new era was actually rare

    Men are the majority victims of crime, women are actually the least likely) they have been grabbing their purses, and beating them till they let go, one man snuck up behind a woman on a date and blew her head off with a shot gun, a 70 something year old woman was knocked over and died, an 80 something year old was raped in her apartment, and the list is growing really fast.

    And the men are acting like the men in sweden!!!

    milinials are not going to be the kind of men they spit on for 40 years and still did the right thing, these wont even show up to be spit on…

  31. Artfldgr Says:

    The United States is not a constitutional republic. It is an oligarchy controlled by wealthy financiers who hire politicians to pass legislation beneficial to them and employ journalists to keep the citizens ignorant and compliant.

    Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans believe in democracy. It is simply an ideological contest between two different forms of totalitarianism based on big government, where they represent only themselves in their pursuit of personal power and profit.

    Over the last hundred years, the Democrat Party has moved farther and farther to the left, evolving from populism to Marxism and developing an operational model resembling that of the mafia. Its leaders are a gaggle of coffeehouse communists and unindicted felons, who seek the lifestyles of the rich and famous while practicing the politics of Joseph Stalin.

    The Republicans are democratic only in the sense that they are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder, where their political power and, ultimately, compensation from their rich donors increase proportionally with the expansion of government.

    The federal government is now an industry competing with the private sector for revenues and resources, but, unlike the private sector, government is unconstrained by regulation and the rule of law.


    The United States is on the cusp of a second civil war, one to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between the Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives, but a battle between the entrenched power and tyranny of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people. LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

  32. Artfldgr Says:

    Time to learn how to sing a new song before the old songs are illegal AGAIN… then again, will amerrticans know enouh about the singing revolution to repeat it? doubtful…

    Arise ye workers from your slumbers
    Arise ye prisoners of want
    For reason in revolt now thunders
    And at last ends the age of cant.
    Away with all your superstitions
    Servile masses arise, arise
    We’ll change henceforth the old tradition
    And spurn the dust to win the prize.

    So comrades, come rally
    And the last fight let us face
    The Internationale unites the human race.

    No more deluded by reaction
    On tyrants only we’ll make war
    The soldiers too will take strike action
    They’ll break ranks and fight no more
    And if those cannibals keep trying
    To sacrifice us to their pride
    They soon shall hear the bullets flying
    We’ll shoot the generals on our own side.

    No saviour from on high delivers
    No faith have we in prince or peer
    Our own right hand the chains must shiver
    Chains of hatred, greed and fear
    E’er the thieves will out with their booty
    And give to all a happier lot.
    Each at the forge must do their duty
    And we’ll strike while the iron is hot.

  33. Artfldgr Says:

    supports the thesis that the hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 615 was “a set-up, organized by the German government in collusion with the terrorists,” which corresponds to remarks by Jamal Al-Gashey about the aftermath of his liberation.

    lets get this straight…
    it was a set up by arafat… he even bragged about it as did others… and the germany your talking about is EAST germany, not germany which would be WEST Germany…

    the russians worked through east germany, hungary, and especially romania… (the leader there, the Big C also bragged about it)

    The World was Going our way the KGB and the battle for the third world…

  34. neo-neocon Says:


    We would not be helpless if the public were not either unaware of what’s happening, unaware of its significance, or actively supporting Obama. It is the public that re-elected him in 2012 knowing a lot about him (I forgive them for 2008). It is the public that swallows the liberal MSM, which they pay attention at all. Etc., etc.. The public may label itself “conservative,” but the majority is not; I am convinced of that.

    If Congress had enough people of integrity (!) to override Obama’s veto, we would be less helpless. Although he could still reach into his bag and get out a number of tricks, with 2/3 of the Senate and a majority of the House, for example, he could be impeached and convicted.

    Even if enough Democrats to join with Republicans and make the requisite 2/3 had the integrity to defy him on the Iran deal (and I bet there are close to that many who realize that if they had integrity, they would), it would be enough to give him at least a moment’s pause. But I very much doubt there will be that many, although I bet there will be a few.

  35. physicsguy Says:

    ” I am convinced of that. If Congress had enough people of integrity (!) to override Obama’s veto, we would be less helpless.”

    And that, I think, is one side of a two part system that has us in this perfect storm; the other being the MSM. The Dems have moved so far left, and now regard party loyalty far above the basic concerns of the country. It’s even penetrated down to the local level (at least in CT), where party loyalty and adherence to the leftist ideology trumps all other concerns in their political decision making. The rigid party discipline that the Dems seem to impose and is accepted, is really astonishing to me. While the GOP is more like the Dems of 40 years ago, they do differ in the level of party adherence and discipline.

    Where are the Scoop Jackson’s and JFK’s? They don’t seem to exist anymore.

  36. Richard Saunders Says:

    Congress could do what they’re supposed to be doing — use the power of the purse.

    But they won’t. Franklin was right — we couldn’t keep it.

  37. Orson Says:

    I am yet to catch up on all the content here. But I must immediately cite the fact that legal historians like Philip Hamburger (Columbia Law)
    and F H Buckley (GMU law)
    “The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America”

    have raised these points already: through administrative and “executive” law, we (the government) have re-invented the same Monarchical levers of power that spawned the American Revolution in the first place.

    This, of course, does not make the situation anymore just, merely because the whip and the lash are wielded electively instead of hereditarily.

    It does, however, make the situation all the more ironic and outrageous that we can only rely on liege majeste – instead of Constitutional checks and balances that were intended to preserve the Rule of Law.

    it’s “law” now that’s – quite literally – lost. Replaced by despots.

    Such sad times; sad, mad days.

  38. Orson Says:

    A second point in reply to the exchange of Neo and Geoffrey Britain: THIS will simply notnmatter.

    The coalition that kept the Iran Embargo together was its roots built up in the (first) Gulf War, though UN resolutions and the entire international legal regime devoted to staunching nuclear proliferation.

    Once broken, Humpty Dumpty will not be put back together again. That was still during the Cold War era. It’s done.

    If the US and it’s next prez does it alone, the US will simply be isolating itself.

    The destructiveness of Obamunism knows no bounds.

    However, there are upsides that could emerge, over time.

    First, what already appears to be emerging is a nuclear-armed Middle East, with Sunni and Shi’ite lines of opposition.

    If so, it is possible that the Al Qaida/ISIS quest for a New Caliphate – and thus the unification of Islam – may be better self-checked within the Islamic world with states interests lining up more autonomously.

    It is possible that national interests, or at least regional interests promoting national sovereignty of nations within them can strengthen resistance to terrorist, Salafist option.

    I know: this seems highly unlikely to most of us, now. But the events of the past 18 months or 2 years suggests a vector-dynamic going towards this direction.

  39. Ymarsakar Says:

    It is possible that national interests, or at least regional interests promoting national sovereignty of nations within them can strengthen resistance to terrorist, Salafist option.

    Just like back when Mohammed conquered Persia and parts of India with his Jihad?

    These cultures are too brittle to put up a balance of powers and relying upon them to do so is bad gambling.

  40. mysterian Says:

    “As I’ve said elsewhere, most of us never quite realized how much of a gentleman’s agreement our government was until now.”
    Such an entertaining way of saying the two teams are not playing by the same rules.

  41. Jeff Stanley Says:

    The nice ladies on that audio talk about “cheating” like as if they were talking about someone being caught on Ashley Madison’s email list. These are nuclear weapons we are talking about. I repeat, nuclear weapons. This agreement could result in millions being incinerated. I repeat, millions being incinerated.

    Yet the best the Republicans could do to prevent it was to pass a bill that could be vetoed by the president? Turning the Constitutional requirement for 2/3 of the Senate to concur on a treaty on its head? Where all Obama had to do was get 1/3 of either house to veto?

    The Republicans are posers, as they bloviate about how bad the Iran deal is, and the Corker Bill proves it. That bill was designed for one thing, and one thing only: to provide them — along with whatever Dim-o’s are in competitive enough districts that they need to vote no too — with political cover.

    It’s not “a done deal.” Yeah, let Obama could make an executive agreement “in your face.” But Congress could take its case to the American people, and pass a bill nullifying it. Then let Obama veto that.

    The Republicans problem is they are unwilling to engage in bare knuckles politics, ever. Even when, the good Lord knows, if there was ever a time for bare knuckles politics, this was it.

    Too late, despite Chryst’s rosy hopes. It’s a done deal now. One that may spell doom for us all.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge