Mel Brooks could not make ‘Blazing Saddles’ today due to Senator Tom Cotton, and his gang of gunslingers, sending a letter to the leaders of Iran saying they don’t support the first duly elected Black President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, and they will undermine and destroy any treaty he makes with these foreigners.
Cotton is a Sephardic Jew name. Tom looks Jewish. When he ran against the incumbent Democratic Senator, Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising from the Emergency Committee for Israel. The question is, did Netanyahu know the hawks of Israel had Cotton in their back pockets when he spoke to our Congress.
“He’s one with us! He’s our stealthy hired gunslinger! He’ll do what he is told to do!”
Tom’s ancestors fought in the War of Independence as did many Sephardic Jews. His kindred owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy, as many Jews did. Tom’s father fought in Vietnam, and Tom fought in Iraq. The U.S. lost both wars. The Cotton family are LOSERS. They lost the Civil War and their slaves. Do you think they are bitter? Do they secretly celebrate their Jewish heritage and were happy to see the formation of the State of Israel – whose citizens get free medical?
Mel Brooks got away with using the N word in his very funny movie that was chock-full of Liberal phrases and innuendos. White and black Democrats got behind this groovy movie, because, to see Billy Wilder and Cleavon Little smiling broadly at each other as they ride the range, spoke well of our future. We had overcome the racist bigots, the right-wing Christians, the hawks of the world, including the warmongers of Israel that in my opinion are guilty of Treason.
I would like to see President Barack Obama send Federal Marshalls into the Senate chambers and arrest Tom Cotton and his co-terrorist conspirators. Israel, and their allies in the Republican party, have lost their sense of humor, and their minds. It’s high time they lose their nation. They should be put on an old freighter and set adrift in the Atlantic.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the lying-ass, Jew, Netanyahu, hand-picked Tom Cotton to be the next President of the United States – a year ago! To see Cotton walking around with a swagger, as if he had a gun strapped to his hip, made me furious with too many Jews who believe they are superior to most people in the world, and are as racist as can be. Dual citizenship – is out the window!
At the Republican convention the Emergency Committee for Israel, and the End Time Co-terrorists Crazies, brought out their Hollywood Gunslinger to have an insulting, imaginary, conversation with our President that was not present to defend himself. When the Confederate Traitors fired on Fort Sumter, the Sephardic Jews, rejoiced, because, this meant they could keep their slaves.
Let us get a petition going where Netanyahu is declare persona non grata, and barred from entering the United States of America – for life!
What is now clear, We Americans know why no nation in the Middle East and Levant can make any treaty with Israel. They can’t be trusted. They are holding cards under the table. This is a rogue nation. We must stop this dirty election money from Israel. Tom is Vet, so is his father. They have been corrupted by the Snake of Israel. They sold their country out!
Presdient: Royal Rosamond Press
“With one week to go before the Israeli election, a broad-based poll shows Isaac Herzog’s center-left Zionist Union poised to win.”
In diplomacy, the term persona non grata (Latin, plural: personae non gratae), literally meaning “an unwelcome person,” refers to a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country’s government.
Etymologist Barry Popik has traced the term “gun slinger” back to its use in the 1920 Western movie Drag Harlan. The word was soon adopted by other Western writers such as Zane Grey and became common usage. In his introduction to The Shootist, author Glendon Swarthout says that “gunslinger” and “gunfighter” are modern terms and that the more authentic terms for the period would have been “gunman”, “pistoleer”, “shootist” or “bad man” (sometimes written as “badman”).
In June 2006, Cotton gained public attention after he wrote an open letter to The New York Times criticizing the paper’s publication of an article detailing a Bush administration secret program monitoring terrorists’ finances in which he called for three journalists, including the Times’ editor, Bill Keller, to be imprisoned for espionage. The article was widely circulated online and reprinted in full in several newspapers.
Leonard Ryan Cotton:
Leonard Ryan Cotton came with his father, Jesse Cotton, to Yell County in 1862, and has since resided in and near Dardanelle. For many years he operated a grist mill. According to Rebecca Jane (Cotton) Garner, Leonard had gins in Dardanelle, Atkins, and Pottsville. He served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.
The Yell County, Arkansas 1868 Voters List, as published in the bulletin of the Yell County Historical and Genealogical Association, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1999, lists a L. R. Cotton, age 2r yrs., farmer in Dardanelle Precinct, October 9, 1868.
The people who helped lay the groundwork for the war in Iraq have a favorite candidate for today’s midterm election, and that candidate is Rep. Tom Cotton (R) from Arkansas’ 4th congressional district, who is challenging Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) for his Senate seat.
According to newly released FEC filings, Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a right-wing group headed by the neoconservative pundit, Bill Kristol, who infamously predicted that the Iraq war would last two months. At its inception, the ECI was based out of the same Washington office as the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a pressure group that lobbied for the 2003 invasion.
The credibility of Kristol and his neoconservative colleagues was seriously put into question after it was revealed that the war they lobbied for since the time of the Clinton administration failed to turn up weapons of mass destruction.
Yet Cotton has received the endorsement of the neoconservative fringe of the Republican Party, earning him a gushing profile from Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin before he even began his term as a freshman congressman in January of last year.
In that profile, Cotton made clear that he supported the hawkish foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, offering a hodge-podge of buzzwords to bolster his neoconservative credentials with the Post’s “Right Turn” columnist. Cotton, as reported by Rubin, said:
What I used to say in the campaign was, ‘You may be tired of war, but war is not tired of you.’ There are evil people in the world who would do evil things.” Because of questions about U.S. resolve, he pointed out, “Certain Middle East countries are hedging and edging closer to Iran.” He said, “It’s important to remind the American people why we’re still engaged, [to] still maintain force projection, stand with Israel … because it is not something they experience firsthand. They experience the economy, but they don’t experience Gaza or Libya or Afghanistan.”
Cotton’s hawkishness even led him to act ahead of his own party when he tried to introduce an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which would “automatically” levy sentences of up to 20 years on violators of US sanctions against Iran.
That punishment would have extended to “a spouse and any relative, to the third degree” of the sanctions violator, including, Cotton clarified, “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids.” Cotton explained during a markup hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that “there would be no investigation” because “if the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well.”
“It’d be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof,” he said.
The amendment was withdrawn after members of the committee expressed concern that it violated the Fifth Amendment, which protects American citizens against unfair treatment in legal processes and guarantees defendants due process rights. Yet Cotton has promised that he is “committed to the policy” and is “working with allies to include the amendment at other committees of jurisdiction in the Senate.”
Cotton’s proposal of an amendment that would violate the Fifth Amendment and his promise to Americans that “war is not tired of you” has apparently won him the financial support of hawkish advocacy groups like the Emergency Committee for Israel. And, in a rare turn for the ECI’s long history of backing hawkish but losing campaigns, they may be supporting a front-runner. Cotton is leading by 7-points in the latest polls. By the end of today he may be the new face of the neoconservative foreign policy establishment in the Senate.
Sadly, though, the judgment of my Republican colleagues seems to be clouded by their abhorrence of President Obama. Today Republican senators sent a letter to the Iranian regime’s leaders aimed at sabotaging these negotiations. Let’s be clear – Republicans are undermining our Commander-in-Chief while empowering the Ayatollahs. Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was here in the Capitol decrying the evil intent of Iranian leadership. And yet today, Senate Republicans are trying to negotiate with those very same leaders in Iran? This simply doesn’t make any sense.
The outcome of the negotiations between the U.S., France, the United Kingdom, Germany, China and Russia will affect the entire world. But it is unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation, with the sole goal of embarrassing the President.
We should always have a robust debate about our foreign policy. This is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States and the world. This is not a time to undermine our Commander-in-Chief purely out of spite. Throughout the 8 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, I disagreed with his foreign policy. I spoke about it on the floor lots of time. We know the disaster of the war in Iraq. But even at the height of our disagreements with President George W. Bush, Senate Democrats never considered sending a letter to Saddam Hussein. It would have been an embarrassment to the Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush.
So I say to my Republican colleagues, do you so dislike President Obama that you would take this extraordinary step? Barack Obama is the President. I have agreed with him on certain things and I have disagreed with him on certain things, but he is my President and he is your President. It is time for Republicans to accept that the citizens of our country have twice elected President Obama by large margins.
Obviously Republicans don’t know how to do anything other than attempt these seemingly juvenile political attacks against the President. Congressional Republicans don’t know how to get things done. They don’t know how to govern. If you don’t believe me, just read a newspaper. Look at the news. The pundits all agree that the Republicans are in a state of disarray here in the Congress of the United States. They don’t know what to do or how to do it.
Today’s unprecedented letter, originated by a United States Senator who took his oath of office merely 62 days ago, is the kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope they do it sooner rather than later.
A group of 47 Republican senators sent an historically unprecedented letter to Iranian leaders yesterday, suggesting president Barack Obama’s sensitive negotiations with Iran over the country’s nuclear capabilities were meaningless. Vice president Joe Biden was appalled:
I served in the United States Senate for thirty-six years. I believe deeply in its traditions, in its value as an institution, and in its indispensable constitutional role in the conduct of our foreign policy. The letter sent on March 9th by forty-seven Republican Senators to the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations, is beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.
The senator’s letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.
Around the world, America’s influence depends on its ability to honor its commitments. Some of these are made in international agreements approved by Congress. However, as the authors of this letter must know, the vast majority of our international commitments take effect without Congressional approval. And that will be the case should the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany reach an understanding with Iran. There are numerous similar cases. The recent U.S.-Russia framework to remove chemical weapons from Syria is only one recent example. Arrangements such as these are often what provide the protections that U.S. troops around the world rely on every day. They allow for the basing of our forces in places like Afghanistan. They help us disrupt the proliferation by sea of weapons of mass destruction. They are essential tools to the conduct of our foreign policy, and they ensure the continuity that enables the United States to maintain our credibility and global leadership even as Presidents and Congresses come and go.
Since the beginning of the Republic, Presidents have addressed sensitive and high-profile matters in negotiations that culminate in commitments, both binding and non-binding, that Congress does not approve. Under Presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without Congressional approval.
In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary— that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.
The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.
There is no perfect solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. However, a diplomatic solution that puts significant and verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program represents the best, most sustainable chance to ensure that America, Israel, and the world will never be menaced by a nuclear-armed Iran. This letter is designed to convince Iran’s leaders not to reach such an understanding with the United States.The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds. Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely—at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL.
The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table. The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.