Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« USA Today: 'Harry Reid reaped $1.1 million from sale of land he didn't own' | Main | Shotguns are for weddings, deer hunting and - what's that DHS? »

April 22, 2014

Our Imperial President was against terrorists before he was for terrorists!


Might I suggest reading the excerpts before accessing the provided links as this is lengthy but required as no single article told it all.

NOTE - here on American soil
- "Individuals with diplomatic immunity cannot be prosecuted or even charged with so much as a traffic ticket, let alone an act of terrorism."

TPNN - Obama Signs Cruz 'Anti-Terrorist' Bill into Law, Says He WON'T Enforce It!

In 1979, there was a student takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran. For 444 days, 52 Americans were held hostage. Then President Jimmy Carter was lambasted for his weak foreign policy which lead the Iranians to view him as an inconsequential leader. Therefore, they did not fear America. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, with the spinelessness of Jimmy Carter purged from the White House, the hostages were released on the very day of his inauguration.

Hamid Abutalebi has been selected by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as their United States Ambassador. Abutalebi was one of the hostage takers of those 52 Americans. While he claims he only served as a translator and negotiator, the United States Congress voted unanimously to deny his entry into the United States, since the U.N. meetings are held in New York.

The bill passed by Congress was authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Congressman Doug Lamborn from Colorado. Continue here.

Toledo Blade - Obama blocks visa for Iran's UN ambassador Hamid Aboutalebi (Editor's note: The title is misleading as I can find NO information where the visa of H.A. has actually been blocked.)
Obama signed the bill a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared that Iran was meeting its commitments under a landmark nuclear pact signed Nov. 24.

Since then, the IAEA said, Iran has diluted half its higher-grade enriched uranium reserves to a content that is less usable for weapons.

In response, the Treasury Department moved to release a $450 million installment in Iranian funds that were frozen under sanctions.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that "all sides have kept the commitments made" under the nuclear deal and that the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia and the European Union "will continue to uphold our commitments as well."

When Congress passed Cruz's bill by unanimous consent last week, the White House said government lawyers weren't sure if it would pass judicial muster because of America's commitments as the host nation to the U.N.

Obama thus added a caveat when he signed the bill. He said he would treat the language regarding diplomats as "advisory"... More here.

Washington Post - Another Obama Administration signing statement - In full here.

Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation. Nevertheless, as President Bush also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion.

It seems that Iran had gotten word that this bill was being put forth and attempted to be proactive in their stance on it. The date is April 14th the signing date was April 18th.

Iran calls for investigation on visa issue -

The US government, contrary to article 4 of hosting country agreement with the UN on its obligation to issue visa for ambassadors and diplomats of other states, has declared that it would not issue a visa for Irans choice for its representative in the UN, Hamid Abu-Talebi. Iran protested the decision and has said it will follow the case through legal procedures.

So the first question is - will he, won't he? The second question is - when are we going to physically kick the UN out of America and out of our business? And the third question - refer to question two and substitute "our imperial president" for "UN."

Posted by LadyR at April 22, 2014 4:41 AM

Articles Related to :