Angry over Israeli's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm

[dexterm]

Bibi is coming to discuss the danger posed by Iran. I for 1 am a little sick of obama pandering to the mad mullahs.

Bibi plans to present his usual boring BS

"Have I got a deal for you!"

Would you buy a used war plan on Iran from this man?

Edited February 9, 2015 by dexterm

[Seastallion]

Yeah, I know since you have made that same exact post too many times already.

Have one of your alleged sources seen a copy of Netanyahu's speech? Maybe he's going to try and sell Tel Aviv as a resort location.

To the best of my knowledge nobody on this forum has any idea what he might address in his speech...and we won't know until he delivers it.

The fact remains Boehner had every constitutional right to invite him to speak and he has every right to deliver that speech.

Obama's got his panties in a twist about being slighted so he throws a temper tantrum reminiscent of a ten year old.

End of story.

Every report on the issue says Netanyahu's speech will be exhortations about Iran policy. I don't think it will be a sales pitch for Tel Aviv resorts. Neither do you. Silly and disingenuous to try to make the point about knowledge of the speech.

If you accept Publicis's points about foreign policy, then your "had every constitutional right" is wrong. Boehner may have a right to invite whomsoever he please, but he is subverting the president and defying the supreme court by inviting 1. a foreign PM, and 2. to speak about another foreign policy matter.

[Seastallion]

I do not think anyone (publicly, at least) have a clear idea of how close Iran is to developing nuclear warhead capability. Doesn't mean that there is no threat, or that the two other threat components are not bad enough by themselves, but no need to get too carried away with scaremongering. Its a wee bit more complicated than stuffing da bomb inside the tip of a rocket.

This exact same scaremongering has been going on for over a decade now.

Each time more news or pressure is applied it is usually a card played to either divert attention

from something worse or score election points.

Anyone can search & see the stories from 2005 or before

Well, not all of it is scaremongering. Iran could be pretty close to developing a nuclear device, and a delivery system, so the threat is real. My point was simply that the last bit, a marriage between bomb and missile is, if reports are to be believed, a bit farther off issue. That Netanyahu also uses this, constantly, as an election crutch, sure - less certain how that is received by now.

"So the threat is real..."

What threat? Don't use the hackneyed, out-of-context, misquote of Ahmedinijad about a map.

There is no threat of aggression. The threat, I suggest, is that Iran will be able to defend itself. That is only a threat to potential aggressors' plans.

Iran will never fire first. MAD. Iran knows full well that to fire first at Israel would result in retaliation by the US.

[Ulysses G.]

"So the threat is real..."

What threat?

There have been plenty of them and over many years. Que to trying to dismiss any Jewish source of Iranian quotes.

Our battalions are named Imam Ali, Imam Hussein and Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] to clarify our final destination to the Basiji. We will not abandon our [armed] struggle until the annihilation of Israel and until we will be able to pray in al-Aqsa mosque.”

Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of the Basij militia

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14336

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf

[dexterm]

"So the threat is real..."

What threat?

There have been plenty of them and over many years. Que to trying to dismiss any Jewish source of Iranian quotes.

Our battalions are named Imam Ali, Imam Hussein and Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] to clarify our final destination to the Basiji. We will not abandon our [armed] struggle until the annihilation of Israel and until we will be able to pray in al-Aqsa mosque.”

Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of the Basij militia

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14336

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf

Well, that's just empty rhetoric isn't it?

How are they going to be able to pray at Al Aqsa if they have already nuked it, and Israel would no doubt have nuked the wannabe pilgrims...not sure in which chronological order that would be though?

[Ulysses G.]

It is a THREAT to destroy Israel and there are plenty more on those links. Fact are facts.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

It is a THREAT to destroy Israel and there are plenty more on those links. Fact are facts.

Of course Israel demonizers and Iran nuclear weapon promoters usually share the exact same goals as Iran ... the end of Israel. They're not fooling anyone!

[chuckd]

Yeah, I know since you have made that same exact post too many times already.

Have one of your alleged sources seen a copy of Netanyahu's speech? Maybe he's going to try and sell Tel Aviv as a resort location.

To the best of my knowledge nobody on this forum has any idea what he might address in his speech...and we won't know until he delivers it.

The fact remains Boehner had every constitutional right to invite him to speak and he has every right to deliver that speech.

Obama's got his panties in a twist about being slighted so he throws a temper tantrum reminiscent of a ten year old.

End of story.

Every report on the issue says Netanyahu's speech will be exhortations about Iran policy. I don't think it will be a sales pitch for Tel Aviv resorts. Neither do you. Silly and disingenuous to try to make the point about knowledge of the speech.

If you accept Publicis's points about foreign policy, then your "had every constitutional right" is wrong. Boehner may have a right to invite whomsoever he please, but he is subverting the president and defying the supreme court by inviting 1. a foreign PM, and 2. to speak about another foreign policy matter.

But, you see, therein lies the problem. I do not accept Publicus' points about foreign policy.

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

In addition you might want to do a little research and find even one Supreme Court decision that says the Speaker of the House of Representatives is forbidden from inviting anybody he wishes to speak before a Joint Session of Congress. Your input is anxiously awaited.

I will give you credit for one thing though. You have worked very hard to learn so much that is so wrong.

Edited February 9, 2015 by chuckd

[Seastallion]

It is a THREAT to destroy Israel and there are plenty more on those links. Fact are facts.

Of course Israel demonizers and Iran nuclear weapon promoters usually share the exact same goals as Iran ... the end of Israel. They're not fooling anyone!

The ones who try to make out that anyone who is against Israeli policy also want an end to Israel are the ones not fooling anyone.

[Seastallion]

Yeah, I know since you have made that same exact post too many times already.

Have one of your alleged sources seen a copy of Netanyahu's speech? Maybe he's going to try and sell Tel Aviv as a resort location.

To the best of my knowledge nobody on this forum has any idea what he might address in his speech...and we won't know until he delivers it.

The fact remains Boehner had every constitutional right to invite him to speak and he has every right to deliver that speech.

Obama's got his panties in a twist about being slighted so he throws a temper tantrum reminiscent of a ten year old.

End of story.

Every report on the issue says Netanyahu's speech will be exhortations about Iran policy. I don't think it will be a sales pitch for Tel Aviv resorts. Neither do you. Silly and disingenuous to try to make the point about knowledge of the speech.

If you accept Publicis's points about foreign policy, then your "had every constitutional right" is wrong. Boehner may have a right to invite whomsoever he please, but he is subverting the president and defying the supreme court by inviting 1. a foreign PM, and 2. to speak about another foreign policy matter.

But, you see, therein lies the problem. I do not accept Publicus' points about foreign policy.

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

In addition you might want to do a little research and find even one Supreme Court decision that says the Speaker of the House of Representatives is forbidden from inviting anybody he wishes to speak before a Joint Session of Congress. Your input is anxiously awaited.

I will give you credit for one thing though. You have worked very hard to learn so much that is so wrong.

Well...therein lies the problem! You replied to Publicis with "yeah, I know...".

I took from that that you do accept what he said. Obvious, really.

Nobody is claiming the Supreme Court made any such decision. What is claimed is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president is in charge of foreign policy. You really need to go back and read, and comprehend, all that has been said.

If the president is in charge of foreign policy, it is subversion to entertain a foreign leader who will speak on foreign policy issues without the president's input.

[arjunadawn]

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

I agree; It's rubbish that the Speaker subverts the president and is more of the continuous debasing of the US constitution and its perception. While the president is in charge of overseas affairs, and it would be super if he is supported at home, when he is not supported, or is, a separate and equal branch of government can do as it pleases- congress! Period! Not good, not bad; it is the system of checks and balances. The same notion applies to vetoes, judicial review, super-majority, overriding vetoes, etc. The whole notion that gridlock somehow proves the failure of the Representative republic system is nonsense; gridlock is the default neutral state of being to grind the wheels of state to a halt and limit any great moves in any direction. It is only later, when there is consensus IAW law that progress be made. If the Speaker wants to invite a Leader (as noted, he is the only one who can), he has zero obligation to give special invitations to democrats of either the congress or the executive. In fact, doing so suggests the invite is in fact partisan.

Once again, this is more drivel in the continued bastardization of American polity. Do it enough, trample and balkanize, suffer the people, then conclude for them their system fails- then provide a solution.

Edited February 9, 2015 by arjunadawn

[ggold]

Yeah, I know since you have made that same exact post too many times already.

Have one of your alleged sources seen a copy of Netanyahu's speech? Maybe he's going to try and sell Tel Aviv as a resort location.

To the best of my knowledge nobody on this forum has any idea what he might address in his speech...and we won't know until he delivers it.

The fact remains Boehner had every constitutional right to invite him to speak and he has every right to deliver that speech.

Obama's got his panties in a twist about being slighted so he throws a temper tantrum reminiscent of a ten year old.

End of story.

Every report on the issue says Netanyahu's speech will be exhortations about Iran policy. I don't think it will be a sales pitch for Tel Aviv resorts. Neither do you. Silly and disingenuous to try to make the point about knowledge of the speech.

If you accept Publicis's points about foreign policy, then your "had every constitutional right" is wrong. Boehner may have a right to invite whomsoever he please, but he is subverting the president and defying the supreme court by inviting 1. a foreign PM, and 2. to speak about another foreign policy matter.

But, you see, therein lies the problem. I do not accept Publicus' points about foreign policy.

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

In addition you might want to do a little research and find even one Supreme Court decision that says the Speaker of the House of Representatives is forbidden from inviting anybody he wishes to speak before a Joint Session of Congress. Your input is anxiously awaited.

I will give you credit for one thing though. You have worked very hard to learn so much that is so wrong.

Well...therein lies the problem! You replied to Publicis with "yeah, I know...".

I took from that that you do accept what he said. Obvious, really.

Nobody is claiming the Supreme Court made any such decision. What is claimed is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president is in charge of foreign policy. You really need to go back and read, and comprehend, all that has been said.

If the president is in charge of foreign policy, it is subversion to entertain a foreign leader who will speak on foreign policy issues without the president's input.

it would seem that the President isn't interested in anyone's input!

[arjunadawn]

But, you see, therein lies the problem. I do not accept Publicus' points about foreign policy.

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

In addition you might want to do a little research and find even one Supreme Court decision that says the Speaker of the House of Representatives is forbidden from inviting anybody he wishes to speak before a Joint Session of Congress. Your input is anxiously awaited.

I will give you credit for one thing though. You have worked very hard to learn so much that is so wrong.

Well...therein lies the problem! You replied to Publicis with "yeah, I know...".

I took from that that you do accept what he said. Obvious, really.

Nobody is claiming the Supreme Court made any such decision. What is claimed is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president is in charge of foreign policy. You really need to go back and read, and comprehend, all that has been said.

If the president is in charge of foreign policy, it is subversion to entertain a foreign leader who will speak on foreign policy issues without the president's input.

It is widely true in practice and perception that the Executive manages foreign policy of State. This is necessary cosmetically, and sometimes practically, such as invasion, exigent threat, etc. But it is also true that the president's powers are granted, loaned, not total, and dramatically conditional. He powers are not only conditioned upon law and precedent but upon the simple will or desire of the legislature.

It is not true the president has sole power. He is a figurehead, and was never intended to be much more. Our framers were well aware of the entangling Machiavellian ways sovereigns entrenched their own people in slavery and debt by overseas alliances. No, the US president was intended a very conditional use of powers. This is among the reasons I object to the president's current request for up or down vote fast track power to engage in treaties abroad. Without the ability to line item reject, or approve, designs of the executive it is only a short matter of time before dastardly treaties supersede the US Constitution. It is to this concurrent issue the democrats appeal to as they reinforce the false narrative that the foreign affairs belong to the power of the president only! Poppycock!

NOTE: It was the Dulles brothers and others who set the table for the argument, that this president buys into, that treaties entered into under Article VI become the supreme law of the land and thus negate otherwise provided rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Be wary. Be very wary of any president having sole power to engage abroad. It is both illegal and sets terrible precedent.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

[Publicus]

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

I agree; It's rubbish that the Speaker subverts the president and is more of the continuous debasing of the US constitution and its perception. While the president is in charge of overseas affairs, and it would be super if he is supported at home, when he is not supported, or is, a separate and equal branch of government can do as it pleases- congress! Period! Not good, not bad; it is the system of checks and balances. The same notion applies to vetoes, judicial review, super-majority, overriding vetoes, etc. The whole notion that gridlock somehow proves the failure of the Representative republic system is nonsense; gridlock is the default neutral state of being to grind the wheels of state to a halt and limit any great moves in any direction. It is only later, when there is consensus IAW law that progress be made. If the Speaker wants to invite a Leader (as noted, he is the only one who can), he has zero obligation to give special invitations to democrats of either the congress or the executive. In fact, doing so suggests the invite is in fact partisan.

Once again, this is more drivel in the continued bastardization of American polity. Do it enough, trample and balkanize, suffer the people, then conclude for them their system fails- then provide a solution.

The Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy, which is what this worst speaker of the House in US history John Boehner is doing, nor is the Congress authorized or enabled by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy..

The radical Republicans in control of the Congress have made statements they believe the Jewish voters in the US will side with them, which whether accurate or not is not the issue. The issue is that this invitation is politically motivated and has only political purposes, the Constitution be damned.

Prez Obama has shown a great restraint and forbearance of the radical Republicans in this matter. Prez Obama is not thinking, attempting or proceeding to sue the ringmaster speaker of the House in federal court in the same political ways the ringmaster speaker goes to court in his stone-headed and reckless ways on every issue rather than to legislate.

The invitation to a foreign PM to speak to a joint session of the Congress against US foreign policy is also a violation of diplomatic protocol and the foreign PM knows this as well. The criticism is of the foreign PM and the radical Republicans in control of the Congress, not of the president or of the Democratic party, and justly so.

[Morch]

If this speculation is true, it certainly thickens the plot.

The American President and his Democratic Party have disclosed recalcitrance to meet Netanyahu and be in the audience of his speech. This is forcing Netanyahu into a corner. Netanyahu may perceive that his only option is a military strike of the nuclear sites of Iran. President Obama has previously stated that Israel has the right to defend itself. So Netanyahu may address Congress to inform them of the forthcoming strike. He may offer the ultimatum, “either you the Americans do it, or we the Israeli’s will do it.” He may even be there to explain it after it has taken place.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-poised-to-strike-iran/

That's a pretty out there article. Especially with the definitive options illustrated. Somehow the assumption is that the IDF and other security services are all 100% behind Netanyahu and on the same page with regards to Iran. The notion that something of this sort could be pulled on a whim is childish/

[Jingthing]

It is a THREAT to destroy Israel and there are plenty more on those links. Fact are facts.

facts like the weapons of mass destruction depicted and explained by the blatant liar Colin Powell in 2003 at the UN (not to mention Tony B. Liar and his "45 minutes) we envisaged a déja vu performed by Netanyahu.

Not sure how that means Iran isn't seeking nukes as pretty much all rational analysts think that they are. Different countries.

[Jingthing]

If this speculation is true, it certainly thickens the plot.

The American President and his Democratic Party have disclosed recalcitrance to meet Netanyahu and be in the audience of his speech. This is forcing Netanyahu into a corner. Netanyahu may perceive that his only option is a military strike of the nuclear sites of Iran. President Obama has previously stated that Israel has the right to defend itself. So Netanyahu may address Congress to inform them of the forthcoming strike. He may offer the ultimatum, “either you the Americans do it, or we the Israeli’s will do it.” He may even be there to explain it after it has taken place.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-poised-to-strike-iran/

That's a pretty out there article. Especially with the definitive options illustrated. Somehow the assumption is that the IDF and other security services are all 100% behind Netanyahu and on the same page with regards to Iran. The notion that something of this sort could be pulled on a whim is childish/

I totally agree it is way out there, but I thought it was interesting that some people are thinking that way.

[Morch]

I do not think anyone (publicly, at least) have a clear idea of how close Iran is to developing nuclear warhead capability. Doesn't mean that there is no threat, or that the two other threat components are not bad enough by themselves, but no need to get too carried away with scaremongering. Its a wee bit more complicated than stuffing da bomb inside the tip of a rocket.

This exact same scaremongering has been going on for over a decade now.

Each time more news or pressure is applied it is usually a card played to either divert attention

from something worse or score election points.

Anyone can search & see the stories from 2005 or before

Well, not all of it is scaremongering. Iran could be pretty close to developing a nuclear device, and a delivery system, so the threat is real. My point was simply that the last bit, a marriage between bomb and missile is, if reports are to be believed, a bit farther off issue. That Netanyahu also uses this, constantly, as an election crutch, sure - less certain how that is received by now.

"So the threat is real..."

What threat? Don't use the hackneyed, out-of-context, misquote of Ahmedinijad about a map.

There is no threat of aggression. The threat, I suggest, is that Iran will be able to defend itself. That is only a threat to potential aggressors' plans.

Iran will never fire first. MAD. Iran knows full well that to fire first at Israel would result in retaliation by the US.

Iran expressed extremely hostile views toward Israel on many occasions.

Iran having military nuclear capability is a threat for Israel.

There is no threat of aggression in your dreams, perhaps.

Next you'll try convincing that Iran is neutral in its stance toward Israel.

You are not the Iranian leadership, and you have no idea what's on their minds.

Your assurances mean nothing and less.

There is no MAD here.

Israel got no future after a single hit, Iran - a different story.

Nowhere did the USA commit to being involved in any such MAD balance.

Israel is not the only country in the region that sees a nuclear Iran as a threat.

[Morch]

"So the threat is real..."

What threat?

There have been plenty of them and over many years. Que to trying to dismiss any Jewish source of Iranian quotes.

Our battalions are named Imam Ali, Imam Hussein and Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] to clarify our final destination to the Basiji. We will not abandon our [armed] struggle until the annihilation of Israel and until we will be able to pray in al-Aqsa mosque.”

Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of the Basij militia

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14336

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf

Well, that's just empty rhetoric isn't it?

How are they going to be able to pray at Al Aqsa if they have already nuked it, and Israel would no doubt have nuked the wannabe pilgrims...not sure in which chronological order that would be though?

Yeah, yeah, yeah....if Iran threats Israel, it's just words. If Israel threats Iran it's serious.

Threats do not need to make much sense to be threats.

[metisdead]

Some more off topic deflection posts have been removed.

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

Nobody is claiming the Supreme Court made any such decision. What is claimed is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president is in charge of foreign policy. You really need to go back and read, and comprehend, all that has been said.

If the president is in charge of foreign policy, it is subversion to entertain a foreign leader who will speak on foreign policy issues without the president's input.

It is widely true in practice and perception that the Executive manages foreign policy of State. This is necessary cosmetically, and sometimes practically, such as invasion, exigent threat, etc. But it is also true that the president's powers are granted, loaned, not total, and dramatically conditional. He powers are not only conditioned upon law and precedent but upon the simple will or desire of the legislature.

It is not true the president has sole power. He is a figurehead, and was never intended to be much more. Our framers were well aware of the entangling Machiavellian ways sovereigns entrenched their own people in slavery and debt by overseas alliances. No, the US president was intended a very conditional use of powers. This is among the reasons I object to the president's current request for up or down vote fast track power to engage in treaties abroad. Without the ability to line item reject, or approve, designs of the executive it is only a short matter of time before dastardly treaties supersede the US Constitution. It is to this concurrent issue the democrats appeal to as they reinforce the false narrative that the foreign affairs belong to the power of the president only! Poppycock!

NOTE: It was the Dulles brothers and others who set the table for the argument, that this president buys into, that treaties entered into under Article VI become the supreme law of the land and thus negate otherwise provided rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Be wary. Be very wary of any president having sole power to engage abroad. It is both illegal and sets terrible precedent.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

Here for those who are literate in the language of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is the statement of President Thomas Jefferson asserting that the president is the sole authority of the United States in foreign policy and interactions.

Chief Justice John Marshall is further quoted that the president is the sole power of the United States in its external relations in respect of foreign nations, foreign ambassadors, foreign heads of governments, foreign chiefs of state -- all foreign agents of state.

Said President Jefferson....

“...as the President was the only channel of communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone ‘that foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation’; that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider ‘as the expression of the nation’; and that no foreign agent could be ‘allowed to question it,’ or ‘to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either’s transgressing their functions.’

Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or exclude foreign agents. ‘I inform you of the fact,’ he said, ‘by authority from the President.’

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag1_user.html#art2_hd9

Said Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, writing for the Court in 1799...

“The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. Of consequence, the demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him. He possesses the whole Executive power. He holds and directs the force of the nation. Of consequence, any act to be performed by the force of the nation is to be performed through him.”

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014-9-3.pdf

Speaker Boehner and the Congress are usurping the Constitutional authority and remit of the executive branch in the foreign affairs, relations, policies of the United States.

The radical Republicans in the Congress are willfully violating the Constitution and every expressing of it in respect of the international interactions of the United States.

Foreign agents of foreign governments must deal directly and exclusively with the president, not with the Congress or the Supreme Court. Either we have a Constitution or we do not.

Someone needs to notify the Congress that the United States has a Constitution, that the Constitution is clear in these matters, and that the Constitution needs to be respected instead of ignored and violated.

[arjunadawn]

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

I agree; It's rubbish that the Speaker subverts the president and is more of the continuous debasing of the US constitution and its perception. While the president is in charge of overseas affairs, and it would be super if he is supported at home, when he is not supported, or is, a separate and equal branch of government can do as it pleases- congress! Period! Not good, not bad; it is the system of checks and balances. The same notion applies to vetoes, judicial review, super-majority, overriding vetoes, etc. The whole notion that gridlock somehow proves the failure of the Representative republic system is nonsense; gridlock is the default neutral state of being to grind the wheels of state to a halt and limit any great moves in any direction. It is only later, when there is consensus IAW law that progress be made. If the Speaker wants to invite a Leader (as noted, he is the only one who can), he has zero obligation to give special invitations to democrats of either the congress or the executive. In fact, doing so suggests the invite is in fact partisan.

Once again, this is more drivel in the continued bastardization of American polity. Do it enough, trample and balkanize, suffer the people, then conclude for them their system fails- then provide a solution.

The Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy, which is what this worst speaker of the House in US history John Boehner is doing, nor is the Congress authorized or enabled by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy..

The radical Republicans in control of the Congress have made statements they believe the Jewish voters in the US will side with them, which whether accurate or not is not the issue. The issue is that this invitation is politically motivated and has only political purposes, the Constitution be damned.

Prez Obama has shown a great restraint and forbearance of the radical Republicans in this matter. Prez Obama is not thinking, attempting or proceeding to sue the ringmaster speaker of the House in federal court in the same political ways the ringmaster speaker goes to court in his stone-headed and reckless ways on every issue rather than to legislate.

The invitation to a foreign PM to speak to a joint session of the Congress against US foreign policy is also a violation of diplomatic protocol and the foreign PM knows this as well. The criticism is of the foreign PM and the radical Republicans in control of the Congress, not of the president or of the Democratic party, and justly so.

Well, I have mixed feelings. A agree with lots of what you say. I do assert that foreign policy, while the prerogative of the executive, is only balanced with the support and consent of the congress, irrespective of who is what party. Ideally, the two should speak with one voice, at least to the remainder of the world. But it is not a surprise that there would be gridlock and its attendant appearances. This executive has simply alienated a large portion of the American fabric and has indeed alienated most of our allies.

Yes, I think the Speaker is a clown and among history's worst Speakers; but I am just basing that off my personal thoughts. I think the Speaker et al was trying to influence pressure on the executive. Not really very appealing but I believe a power of his office nonetheless.

It is curious that the congress would be called radical. As you note, I try to see both sides of the issue as objectivity as possible without revealing in detail bias; apparently your bias scuttles objectivity. The reason there is an opposition majority, in spite of the "radical transformation of America" is because American's have buyer's remorse and are aghast at what this executive is doing in their name. In the name of their loaned power to him he undoes the very mechanisms that allow them to loan that power, thus its nothing less than usurpation. I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

[arjunadawn]

It is widely true in practice and perception that the Executive manages foreign policy of State. This is necessary cosmetically, and sometimes practically, such as invasion, exigent threat, etc. But it is also true that the president's powers are granted, loaned, not total, and dramatically conditional. He powers are not only conditioned upon law and precedent but upon the simple will or desire of the legislature.

It is not true the president has sole power. He is a figurehead, and was never intended to be much more. Our framers were well aware of the entangling Machiavellian ways sovereigns entrenched their own people in slavery and debt by overseas alliances. No, the US president was intended a very conditional use of powers. This is among the reasons I object to the president's current request for up or down vote fast track power to engage in treaties abroad. Without the ability to line item reject, or approve, designs of the executive it is only a short matter of time before dastardly treaties supersede the US Constitution. It is to this concurrent issue the democrats appeal to as they reinforce the false narrative that the foreign affairs belong to the power of the president only! Poppycock!

NOTE: It was the Dulles brothers and others who set the table for the argument, that this president buys into, that treaties entered into under Article VI become the supreme law of the land and thus negate otherwise provided rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Be wary. Be very wary of any president having sole power to engage abroad. It is both illegal and sets terrible precedent.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

Here for those who are literate in the language of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is the statement of President Thomas Jefferson asserting that the president is the sole authority of the United States in foreign policy and interactions.

Chief Justice John Marshall is further quoted that the president is the sole power of the United States in its external relations in respect of foreign nations, foreign ambassadors, foreign heads of governments, foreign chiefs of state -- all foreign agents of state.

Said President Jefferson....

“...as the President was the only channel of communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone ‘that foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation’; that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider ‘as the expression of the nation’; and that no foreign agent could be ‘allowed to question it,’ or ‘to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either’s transgressing their functions.’

Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or exclude foreign agents. ‘I inform you of the fact,’ he said, ‘by authority from the President.’

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag1_user.html#art2_hd9

Said Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, writing for the Court in 1799...

“The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. Of consequence, the demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him. He possesses the whole Executive power. He holds and directs the force of the nation. Of consequence, any act to be performed by the force of the nation is to be performed through him.”

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014-9-3.pdf

Speaker Boehner and the Congress are usurping the Constitutional authority and remit of the executive branch in the foreign affairs, relations, policies of the United States.

The radical Republicans in the Congress are willfully violating the Constitution and every expressing of it in respect of the international interactions of the United States.

Foreign agents of foreign governments must deal directly and exclusively with the president, not with the Congress or the Supreme Court. Either we have a Constitution or we do not.

Someone needs to notify the Congress that the United States has a Constitution, that the Constitution is clear in these matters, and that the Constitution needs to be respected instead of ignored and violated.

Great argument; thanks. Really.

Nevertheless, the advise and consent provisions of the US Congress/Senate do enable them to balance powers with regard to overseas policy. Insofar as the congress is statutorily empowered to make their own rules, I do not see the violation of anything except decorum. Note: I dont like the Speaker. I think he is a buffoon and a plaything for special interests, but I like our executive less, holding deep convictions of his debasing of my nation.

EDIT: If we accept as the premise that the executive has unlimited authority with regard to foreign policy we hold a position contrary to the notion of limited government. It was foreign engagements (besides manipulation of currency) that the framers most sought to keep in check to prevent executive usurpation. It is with this view they sought to create an executive who both solely represented the United States of America, as opposed to those various states, and for whom authority and financing must be sought by the congress. No, the president has no total fiat for overseas engagements.

Edited February 9, 2015 by arjunadawn

[chuckd]

<snip>

The Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy, which is what this worst speaker of the House in US history John Boehner is doing, nor is the Congress authorized or enabled by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy..

<snip>

Perhaps you can explain to all of us how an invitation to speak before a Joint Session of Congress constitutes an attempt by Congress to "conduct its own foreign policy".

As I see it, the Prime Minister will be introduced, he will speak to those in attendance and perhaps a television audience, there will be applause, he will shake some hands and will then depart the House Chambers.

Will a treaty be proposed? Certainly not by Congress. They know their limitations and entering into treaties is not one of their constitutionally approved duties.

Will a treaty be entered in to? See the above sentence.

What will be discussed? My guess is Netanyahu will discuss the Iranian situation and, perhaps, inquire as to how many more deadlines will Iran be allowed to miss before some concrete action is taken.

Iran is playing Obama like a fiddle and none of those Harvard brains in the White House can see it.

The upside is at least nobody in Congress will call Netanyahu a "chicken s**t".

[Jay Sata]

Same old posters with the same old stuff.

I am out of here with better things to do like reading some decent comment in international newspapers.

Can the last one here please switch of the lights?

[Publicus]

But, you see, therein lies the problem. I do not accept Publicus' points about foreign policy.

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

In addition you might want to do a little research and find even one Supreme Court decision that says the Speaker of the House of Representatives is forbidden from inviting anybody he wishes to speak before a Joint Session of Congress. Your input is anxiously awaited.

I will give you credit for one thing though. You have worked very hard to learn so much that is so wrong.

Well...therein lies the problem! You replied to Publicis with "yeah, I know...".

I took from that that you do accept what he said. Obvious, really.

Nobody is claiming the Supreme Court made any such decision. What is claimed is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president is in charge of foreign policy. You really need to go back and read, and comprehend, all that has been said.

If the president is in charge of foreign policy, it is subversion to entertain a foreign leader who will speak on foreign policy issues without the president's input.

It is widely true in practice and perception that the Executive manages foreign policy of State. This is necessary cosmetically, and sometimes practically, such as invasion, exigent threat, etc. But it is also true that the president's powers are granted, loaned, not total, and dramatically conditional. He powers are not only conditioned upon law and precedent but upon the simple will or desire of the legislature.

It is not true the president has sole power. He is a figurehead, and was never intended to be much more. Our framers were well aware of the entangling Machiavellian ways sovereigns entrenched their own people in slavery and debt by overseas alliances. No, the US president was intended a very conditional use of powers. This is among the reasons I object to the president's current request for up or down vote fast track power to engage in treaties abroad. Without the ability to line item reject, or approve, designs of the executive it is only a short matter of time before dastardly treaties supersede the US Constitution. It is to this concurrent issue the democrats appeal to as they reinforce the false narrative that the foreign affairs belong to the power of the president only! Poppycock!

NOTE: It was the Dulles brothers and others who set the table for the argument, that this president buys into, that treaties entered into under Article VI become the supreme law of the land and thus negate otherwise provided rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Be wary. Be very wary of any president having sole power to engage abroad. It is both illegal and sets terrible precedent.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

The question is a bogus ruse.

The issue is not whether the Supreme Court has denied Congress the authority and remit to receive ministers of foreign governments.

The issue is that Constitution provides no such authority or remit to the Congress. The Constitution is specific that only the president can receive ministers of foreign governments, any minister, to include a prime minister.

President George Washington clarified and established the exclusive Constitutional authority of the Chief Executive who is also the head of state of the United States when he expelled the French ambassador Edmund Genet. Genet had presented his credentials to the Congress which had accepted them but not to the president. President Washington asserted the Constitution is explicit that Genet and the Congress had acted unconstitutionally and he expelled Genet when Genet declined to recognize Pres Washington's authority in the matter.

Further, as is pointed out by Peter Spiro of Temple University Law School...

"First, Congress has no Article I, Section 8 to host a foreign leader.

"Second, reception of foreign leaders is an exclusive power of the President. Article II, Section 3, provides that “he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” In this situation, Prime Minister Netanyahu, appearing as the official representative of his country, should be classed as a “public Minister.”

"The President’s power here is properly understood as exclusive – both because that is how the reception power has traditionally been regarded since the Washington administration and because that is the implication of specifically calling it out in Article II."

Read the full article

David Bernstein, law professor at George Mason University, agrees, adding that “while Congress has a role in foreign policy, direct diplomatic relations with foreign governments are exclusive in the executive, so the nation speaks with one voice–Congress could not have its own State Department, for example.”

http://www.lawblogs.net/go/an-invitation-to-constitutional-conflict

This is the present reality.....

“Under normal circumstances, the President would likely approve of the Speaker wishing to invite the [prime minister] of an ally to address Congress,” writes South Texas College of Law assistant professor Josh Blackman. “But we are not living in normal times.”

http://www.lawblogs.net/go/an-invitation-to-constitutional-conflict

Edited by Publicus for spacing

Edited February 9, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

Talk about "spam".

[arjunadawn]

But, you see, therein lies the problem. I do not accept Publicus' points about foreign policy.

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

In addition you might want to do a little research and find even one Supreme Court decision that says the Speaker of the House of Representatives is forbidden from inviting anybody he wishes to speak before a Joint Session of Congress. Your input is anxiously awaited.

I will give you credit for one thing though. You have worked very hard to learn so much that is so wrong.

Well...therein lies the problem! You replied to Publicis with "yeah, I know...".

I took from that that you do accept what he said. Obvious, really.

Nobody is claiming the Supreme Court made any such decision. What is claimed is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president is in charge of foreign policy. You really need to go back and read, and comprehend, all that has been said.

If the president is in charge of foreign policy, it is subversion to entertain a foreign leader who will speak on foreign policy issues without the president's input.

It is widely true in practice and perception that the Executive manages foreign policy of State. This is necessary cosmetically, and sometimes practically, such as invasion, exigent threat, etc. But it is also true that the president's powers are granted, loaned, not total, and dramatically conditional. He powers are not only conditioned upon law and precedent but upon the simple will or desire of the legislature.

It is not true the president has sole power. He is a figurehead, and was never intended to be much more. Our framers were well aware of the entangling Machiavellian ways sovereigns entrenched their own people in slavery and debt by overseas alliances. No, the US president was intended a very conditional use of powers. This is among the reasons I object to the president's current request for up or down vote fast track power to engage in treaties abroad. Without the ability to line item reject, or approve, designs of the executive it is only a short matter of time before dastardly treaties supersede the US Constitution. It is to this concurrent issue the democrats appeal to as they reinforce the false narrative that the foreign affairs belong to the power of the president only! Poppycock!

NOTE: It was the Dulles brothers and others who set the table for the argument, that this president buys into, that treaties entered into under Article VI become the supreme law of the land and thus negate otherwise provided rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Be wary. Be very wary of any president having sole power to engage abroad. It is both illegal and sets terrible precedent.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

Can someone post the reference to the Supreme Court decision stating the congress cannot invite whom it chooses to speak; I would be very curious to see such a thing.

The question is a bogus ruse.

The issue is not whether the Supreme Court has denied Congress the authority and remit to receive ministers of foreign governments.

The issue is that Constitution provides no such authority or remit to the Congress. The Constitution is specific that only the president can receive ministers of foreign governments, any minister, to include a prime minister.

President George Washington clarified and established the exclusive Constitutional authority of the Chief Executive who is also the head of state of the United States when he expelled the French ambassador Edmund Genet. Genet had presented his credentials to the Congress which had accepted them but not to the president. President Washington asserted the Constitution is explicit that Genet and the Congress had acted unconstitutionally and he expelled Genet when Genet declined to recognize Pres Washington's authority in the matter.

Further, as is pointed out by Peter Spiro of Temple University Law School...

"First, Congress has no Article I, Section 8 to host a foreign leader.

"Second, reception of foreign leaders is an exclusive power of the President. Article II, Section 3, provides that “he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” In this situation, Prime Minister Netanyahu, appearing as the official representative of his country, should be classed as a “public Minister.”

"The President’s power here is properly understood as exclusive – both because that is how the reception power has traditionally been regarded since the Washington administration and because that is the implication of specifically calling it out in Article II."

Read the full article

David Bernstein, law professor at George Mason University, agrees, adding that “while Congress has a role in foreign policy, direct diplomatic relations with foreign governments are exclusive in the executive, so the nation speaks with one voice–Congress could not have its own State Department, for example.”

http://www.lawblogs.net/go/an-invitation-to-constitutional-conflict

This is the present reality.....

“Under normal circumstances, the President would likely approve of the Speaker wishing to invite the [prime minister] of an ally to address Congress,” writes South Texas College of Law assistant professor Josh Blackman. “But we are not living in normal times.”

http://www.lawblogs.net/go/an-invitation-to-constitutional-conflict

Based on this above post I think it is clear you have made a better argument than I have. What, I then ask myself, is it I am referring to, because I can now plainly see the merit of your post? I suppose my position pertains to the notion of the negation powers of congress with regard to... nearly anything. With particular regard to receiving foreign ministers, etc., you have provided a clearer position and I accept that, primae faciae. However, I still assert there does not appear to be a prohibition regarding congress inviting others to speak. Nevertheless, while I have zero use for the Speaker, I tend to accept his take on events simply based on the documented, nonstop, pathological deceit of this administration. http://www.speaker.gov/general/background-invitation-prime-minister-netanyahu

BTW, I don't do ruses. Ruses are for the feeble minded. I do not provide them, nor is it my nature to suspect this in others.

[Publicus]

How is the Speaker of the House "subverting the president" by inviting a foreign head of state to speak? As a matter of fact, the Speaker is the only one that con invite guests to appear before Joint Sessions. Even the President can only do it with an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

I agree; It's rubbish that the Speaker subverts the president and is more of the continuous debasing of the US constitution and its perception. While the president is in charge of overseas affairs, and it would be super if he is supported at home, when he is not supported, or is, a separate and equal branch of government can do as it pleases- congress! Period! Not good, not bad; it is the system of checks and balances. The same notion applies to vetoes, judicial review, super-majority, overriding vetoes, etc. The whole notion that gridlock somehow proves the failure of the Representative republic system is nonsense; gridlock is the default neutral state of being to grind the wheels of state to a halt and limit any great moves in any direction. It is only later, when there is consensus IAW law that progress be made. If the Speaker wants to invite a Leader (as noted, he is the only one who can), he has zero obligation to give special invitations to democrats of either the congress or the executive. In fact, doing so suggests the invite is in fact partisan.

Once again, this is more drivel in the continued bastardization of American polity. Do it enough, trample and balkanize, suffer the people, then conclude for them their system fails- then provide a solution.

The Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy, which is what this worst speaker of the House in US history John Boehner is doing, nor is the Congress authorized or enabled by the Constitution to conduct its own foreign policy..

The radical Republicans in control of the Congress have made statements they believe the Jewish voters in the US will side with them, which whether accurate or not is not the issue. The issue is that this invitation is politically motivated and has only political purposes, the Constitution be damned.

Prez Obama has shown a great restraint and forbearance of the radical Republicans in this matter. Prez Obama is not thinking, attempting or proceeding to sue the ringmaster speaker of the House in federal court in the same political ways the ringmaster speaker goes to court in his stone-headed and reckless ways on every issue rather than to legislate.

The invitation to a foreign PM to speak to a joint session of the Congress against US foreign policy is also a violation of diplomatic protocol and the foreign PM knows this as well. The criticism is of the foreign PM and the radical Republicans in control of the Congress, not of the president or of the Democratic party, and justly so.

Well, I have mixed feelings. A agree with lots of what you say. I do assert that foreign policy, while the prerogative of the executive, is only balanced with the support and consent of the congress, irrespective of who is what party. Ideally, the two should speak with one voice, at least to the remainder of the world. But it is not a surprise that there would be gridlock and its attendant appearances. This executive has simply alienated a large portion of the American fabric and has indeed alienated most of our allies.

Yes, I think the Speaker is a clown and among history's worst Speakers; but I am just basing that off my personal thoughts. I think the Speaker et al was trying to influence pressure on the executive. Not really very appealing but I believe a power of his office nonetheless.

It is curious that the congress would be called radical. As you note, I try to see both sides of the issue as objectivity as possible without revealing in detail bias; apparently your bias scuttles objectivity. The reason there is an opposition majority, in spite of the "radical transformation of America" is because American's have buyer's remorse and are aghast at what this executive is doing in their name. In the name of their loaned power to him he undoes the very mechanisms that allow them to loan that power, thus its nothing less than usurpation. I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

The statement is not objective, it is not neutral, it is not balanced. It is outlander political spam that is presented repeatedly by the poster and by a number of other marginal posters.

The president of the United States is not "anti-American."

The president of the United States, elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012, is a natural born citizen of the United States, a former United States Senator elected from the state of Illinois, the same state that elected Adlai Stevenson its governor who twice was the (unsuccessful) nominee of the Democratic party for president (1952, 1956).

The president of the United States is not "pro-Islamic" nor is the president of the United States "destructive of all rational faculties of leadership."

The views stated in the post are extreme in the extreme and are made only by extremists.

N.B. The president is a "democrat" yes, but he is also a "Democrat."

Edited February 9, 2015 by Publicus

[arjunadawn]

Well, I have mixed feelings. A agree with lots of what you say. I do assert that foreign policy, while the prerogative of the executive, is only balanced with the support and consent of the congress, irrespective of who is what party. Ideally, the two should speak with one voice, at least to the remainder of the world. But it is not a surprise that there would be gridlock and its attendant appearances. This executive has simply alienated a large portion of the American fabric and has indeed alienated most of our allies.

Yes, I think the Speaker is a clown and among history's worst Speakers; but I am just basing that off my personal thoughts. I think the Speaker et al was trying to influence pressure on the executive. Not really very appealing but I believe a power of his office nonetheless.

It is curious that the congress would be called radical. As you note, I try to see both sides of the issue as objectivity as possible without revealing in detail bias; apparently your bias scuttles objectivity. The reason there is an opposition majority, in spite of the "radical transformation of America" is because American's have buyer's remorse and are aghast at what this executive is doing in their name. In the name of their loaned power to him he undoes the very mechanisms that allow them to loan that power, thus its nothing less than usurpation. I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

The statement is not objective, it is not neutral, it is not balanced. It is outlander political spam that is presented repeatedly by the poster and by a number of other marginal posters.

The president of the United States is not "anti-American."

The president of the United States, elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012, is a natural born citizen of the United States, a former United States Senator elected from the state of Illinois, the same state that elected Adlai Stevenson its governor who twice was the (unsuccessful) nominee of the Democratic party for president (1952, 1956).

The president of the United States is not "pro-Islamic" nor is the president of the United States "destructive of all rational faculties of leadership."

The views stated in the post are extreme in the extreme and are made only by extremists.

Ah, now I see why so many TV posters have a "go" at you and you at them. That I am extreme, or those who hold similar views, show just as inverse you necessarily are to state that= extreme- I assume you "extremely" oppose my views? Ok. It is a fair point you make that I comment on the neutral but actually reveal I am not so much. I concede this. You are correct.

I do post often, when relevant, that the US president enacts policies and makes statements that are not only detrimental to America, but Americans. The inclination of the congress to invite a speaker or insinuate into foreign policy making is directly due to the mounting shame and horror that the executive is actually successful in "fundamentally transforming America;" the problem is, it is not the "Hope and Change" and "Promise" that Americans expected, nor is it moving the USA "Forward." Frankly, the utility of this president can actually be measured by mid term elections alone. When the executive acts contrary to the collective will "of the people" midterm elections always reveal the rebuke. That a new and novel interpretation of this fact is offered is arrogance and demonstrates the resolve to which the executive acts, and his contempt upon "the people."

An example of how, finally, your position weakens, is if one considers the scenario that perhaps the framers feared; perhaps an executive sold out to the enemy, or crashing the US abroad into the rocks, or some other negligence or malfeasance. The notion that the congress lacks the authority to act is absurd. It has tools to do so, and recourse by the executive if in overstep. It is of no academic value to consider whether or not this president is run amok abroad because ipso facto the congress has bypassed him and invited a speaker to realign foreign policy. This means it is pointless to consider whether or not is a valid perception theoretically- the congress thinks it is practically.

If my posts are "extreme" and "in the extreme," and I decidedly demonstrate [to you] I am an "extremist" it necessarily follows you are equally to the opposite end of the spectrum. This is not a conundrum, though this is not apparent to you. That is why discourse takes place. Were there no opposing sides there would never be progress. When an appeal is made to impugn or label a speaker who differs from us, we define our position as vacuous. What is absent from our exchange is my impugning you. When the amulet "extrem[ist" or "islamophobia" is employed in dialogue it will reveal the character of the position every time. You have great posts and have enlightened me to some things; thank you. But less emotive conduct reflects your position better. Good luck with the others. They have far more patience than I do and I have loaned your position far more legitimacy than deserved.