Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Hey libs - here's the truth about your dirty traitor obaMao - he gave money to Iran and they made him a giant camel penis

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

gave how much in money and gold to Iran? he was not just a moron, he tried to ruin Israel's future and lead them into a

great war, and to help him win another.

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-secret-plans-build-five-nuclear-warheads/

Iran hawks on Capitol Hill say the report confirms warnings from many that the Obama administration downplayed Iran's nuclear activities in a bid to ink the nuclear pact with Iran.

"Republicans have long known that the Obama administration lied to the country about the Iran deal," said one senior Republican congressional official familiar with the report. "Just a few months ago PSI published documents showing they lied to Congress about enforcing sanctions and giving dollar access."

The latest disclosures are fueling the push in Congress for the Trump administration to reimpose greater economic sanctions on Iran, a portion of which went back into effect earlier this month. Some in Congress have called on the Trump administration to go further in its actions, including by fully cutting off Iran's oil exports and access to international financial markets.

"Now this report shows they also lied about Iran's nuclear weapons work," the source said. "You can expect congressional Republicans to increase pressure on the Trump administration to implement maximum pressure on Iran, which they still aren't doing."

Iran was poised to construct at least five nuclear warheads based on its weapons work at the time, according to the new report, which also found that Tehran's nuclear infrastructure was far more sophisticated than previously believed.

"Iran made far more progress toward its goal of manufacturing five nuclear weapons than known before the seizure of the archives," according to the watchdog group.

Information about Iran's nuclear activities, although far less complete, was kept hidden from the public as the Obama administration pressed the international community to support the nuclear agreement.

"It must be acknowledged that at that time, the IAEA and the JCPOA parties, appeared to be downplaying the Iranian nuclear weapons program so as not to stand in the way of starting the implementation of the JCPOA in January 2016," the report found, noting that international nuclear inspectors have yet to take a stance on the new information.

"Today, the IAEA has in its possession much of the content from the Iranian archive; it should be expected to act on this information, something that is not yet visible, after six months of examining the new information.

This nuclear infrastructure remains intact, further fueling concerns about what Iran has been hiding from nuclear inspectors, who must give Iran advance notice of any inspections and refrain from entering the country's contested military sites.

"The continued existence of the Iranian nuclear archive and warehouse reinforces that the Iranian nuclear program's remains, and likely some activities, may have continued up to today," the group said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Jun 8, 2018 - When it comes to the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama administration increasingly appears to have been a bottomless pit of deception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

but he got this right....

 "

2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.

With six of the nine justices sitting silently in the House of Representatives, Obama toldthe nation their ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

 

unrelated i know, but im going to rub cals little doggy nose in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said:

but he got this right....

 "

2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.

With six of the nine justices sitting silently in the House of Representatives, Obama toldthe nation their ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

 

unrelated i know, but im going to rub cals little doggy nose in it

1. The hypocrisy of John Roberts who criticizes Trump for his "Obama judges" statement yet doesn't say a word when Obama publicly chastises the Court for a decision he doesn't like in the State of the Union address.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) defended President Trump on Wednesday after the president traded criticisms with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

In a tweet, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said he did not recall Roberts "attacking" former President Obama when he criticized a Supreme Court ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address.

"Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump for a comment he made abt judge’s decision on asylum," Grassley wrote on Twitter. "I don’t recall the Chief attacking Obama when that Prez rebuked Alito during a State of the Union."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/417952-grassley-defends-trump-in-feud-with-chief-justice-roberts-dont-recall-roberts

2.

"Most widespread in liberal circles is the idea that Citizens opened the floodgates to massive amounts of corporate spending in politics. But as many legal scholars have argued, the floodgates were already open. Citizens is not responsible for the massive amounts of money showered on favored candidates. Nor is it responsible for the rise of so-called dark money in politics.

 

Citizens didn’t upend our campaign finance system. It was a logical next step, given past court decisions.

Let’s put the hated decision into context. The inundation of elections with private cash is not the result of Citizens but rather was facilitated by the 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo. That case established the legal framework sanctioning billions of dollars of independent private campaign spending. In it, the Court ruled that limits on campaign donations — direct donations to candidates — are constitutional but said it was unconstitutional to limit non-donation expenditures, such as independently funded advertisements.

Such independent spending — which cannot be coordinated with candidates, according to the Court — was protected under the First Amendment as not just speech but political speech. The idea is that money is a necessary instrument for supporting a political candidate, whether it’s paying for yard signs or taking out an ad in the newspaper.

Not unreasonably, the Court ruled that limitations on independent expenditures would constitute limitations on one’s ability to support a candidate through any number of media. Placing a dollar limit on such expenditures would arbitrarily prevent certain kinds of campaign support simply by the fact of how expensive they are.

Our inability to trace campaign donations to their source — the dark money issue — is the result of the lack of federal regulations to make disclosure mandatory. And such regulations are legal; the Court said as much in Citizens, with eight of nine justices agreeing on that point! 

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/7/17325486/citizens-united-money-politics-dark-money-vouchers-primaries

Link to comment
Share on other sites
htownbrown Collaborator

htownbrown

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said:

but he got this right....

 "

2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.

With six of the nine justices sitting silently in the House of Representatives, Obama toldthe nation their ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

 

unrelated i know, but im going to rub cals little doggy nose in it

It's funny because the first thing that I think of when I hear the term "dark money" is Obamacare.  Can you imagine the kind of donation it would take to put your name on that crap?  Geezus!

If I so much as hear the president whisper the term Trumpcare, I'm done with him.  What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

well, you have a point there, It is stupid.

except for our support of Israel. They would be wiped out, or the attempts made if not for our support.

The nazis were influenced to hate Jews by the pre-WWII muslims you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Browns149 Mentor

Browns149

Posted
Posted

I have never heard of freebeacon before.So I looked at the website.

And to call the stories they post the “TRUTH” is about the same as saying Fox news is the “TRUTH”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 11/22/2018 at 9:53 AM, calfoxwc said:

except for our support of Israel. They would be wiped out, or the attempts made if not for our support.

The nazis were influenced to hate Jews by the pre-WWII muslims you know.

Thanks for the LOL Tiam, except:

Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia

The relationship between Nazi Germany (1933–1945) and the leadership of the Arab world ... In speeches, Hitler made apparently warm references towards Muslim culture such as: "The peoples of Islam will ... Prior to the Second World War, all of North Africa and the Middle East were under the control of European powers.
 
David Motadel’s Islam and Nazi Germany’s War discusses how Nazi Germany manipulated and inscribed negative perceptions of Jews, the Allies, and the Bolsheviks. It describes the shrewd and detailed propaganda designed by top SS officials to disseminate to Muslims in war zones from North Africa to the Middle East and the Balkans, as well as the internal military propaganda designed to mobilize Muslim units for the benefit of Nazi Germany. The book is divided into three parts, which each describe Nazi Germany’s involvement in crafting volumes of propaganda material. Such material included Islamic translations of the Qur’an vilifying Jews, Islamic morality and codes that opposed Bolshevism, and Nazi ideology’s kinship with Islam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...