I got to the end of the blog at 11:30 PM, my last composition entry for this weekly dialogue and realized I had timed this out of the 15 minute frame. So, I retimed everything from 9:15 PM forward

The weather thing, "Sweater Girl," wasn't suppose to lead to Iran Contra, but, I could not ignore that comment today. What it was suppose to lead to was an accounting of the deaths caused by the storms now crossing the USA due to global warming. You might remember the glibness of Senator Inhofe on the floor of the Senate this past week. I don't know if he was simply attempting to create a diversion to the facts or just obtuse to the reality of the deaths now occurring in the USA.

February 16, 2015

Winter Storm Neptune (click here) thrashed Northeast on Sunday with heavy snow, high winds and dangerously cold temperatures. At least six deaths have been blamed on the storm. Here's the latest:...

I think The Weather Channel does an incredible job with the weather and assisting people to prepare for the worst. I also believe the local forecasters are heores. I don't know what the people of this country would do without them. They are my heroes. They want to be as perfect as they can be to prevent peril and deaths to Americans.

March 2, 2015
0315 gmt
The Weather Channel's Current Temperature Map

There is another storm beginning from the southwest that will proceed to the east coast. Rain and snow will result.

Below is the hemispheric water vapor satellite. It is dense with water vapor. But, the most worrisome evidence is the nearly complete lack of the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone). All that equatorial water vapor is now spread across the planet in an attempt for Earth to cool itself. 

March 2, 2015
0330
UNISYS North and West Hemisphere Water Vapor Satellite (click here for 12 hour loop - thank you)

But, that is boring stuff regardless of the death. These deaths didn't occur because of war or snipers or weapons of mass destruction. I am sure Ronald Reagan is more interesting to the political games in the USA.

Ronald Reagan, without being completely insulting, was an actor turned President. He was never a war president. He achieved his "Reaganomics" through deregulation until it got to prostitution and there he drew the line. 

PLEASE RECALL Reagan didn't like unions and unions support the Middle Class. So, Reaganomics was always about Wall Street and not the Middle Class at all.

Reagan's answer to the Middle East was to counter hostage taking with shipment of arms. If that is not ransom don't ask me what is. But, because it wasn't money it is not considered a ransom.

I pass no judgement on families of hostages that have been killed in Syria. They are seeking to change the ransom standings of the USA as willing and not opposing payments. They lost dearly wonderful people that sacrificed in their lives to bring hope to others in the Middle East.

I will say this, however; anytime the USA has paid ransom with weapons it has lead to the next capture of American hostages to be traded for weapons. There is no indication paying ransom of any kind will prove to be a safe strategy to protect the American people. If I were in the same place as the American families I would feel the same as they do. I have no doubt in my mind. But, other than the emotional trauma there is no justification for paying ransom. Doing so would be a bad idea.

The statement today about Reagan being hell bent on war and aggression is the only stance the USA should ever take on any international stage is irresponsible and a lie. In other words the USA should be on a war footing 24/7 for that moment of opportunity to invade yet another country. 

It was Former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell that stated overwhelming force is the only defense strategy for the USA. It's a Republican thing. 

Overwhelming power is very expensive both in treasure and lives of Americans. The USA cannot and will not continue to be the world's police. Just because we have been in the past does not mean that is what we will do in the future. 

The USA is on track to pursue peace, break down barriers to that peace and pursue the end to genocide before it begins. Is that realistic? Yes, it is. The USA will always need a strong defense and a readiness, but, no different than any other country or union of countries with large land masses where citizens live. Or try to live under a dense blanket of greenhouse gases.

I believe in peace, the Pope demands peace and there is every indication most civilized people want peace.

Peace won't happen unless we prepare for it and foster it. The way peace is fostered is for the needs of people to be met and encourage economic foot prints across any trade route that matters. It can work. It has worked in times past. Russia has to come to terms with it's own insecurities and return to vibrant economic alliances with more than Post Soviet countries. When that happens peace will take on a greater significance again.

But, for the Republicans and their extremist press stating Reagan had the right idea for America and was feared by all is HOGWASH. The hostages for weapons methodology of Ronald Reagan is not a man feared so much as a country compromised. I think the right wingers in the USA can take that rhetoric out of their political plans because it is nothing but a lie. 

I am not sure what kind of a deal was cut with Iran before Reagan's election, but, if the activities after his presidency is any indication, it was way outside the boundaries of simple politics.

The shipments were real and provided a real glimpse of the USA's weakest links in the presidencies of two Republican presidents.

The transactions (click here) that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy. Part of the deal was that, in July 1985, the United States would send 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles...

Below are the same type of weapons sent in hostages for arms under Reagan.

Upwards of 80 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles (click here) reportedly were captured by Al-Qaed-linked fighters in Syria after Western-supported opposition groups were overrun or defected to Al-Nusra Front.

...from Israel to Iran for the safe exchange of a hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir. After that successful transfer, the Israelis offered to ship 500 HAWK surface-to-air missiles to Iran in November 1985, ...

Below is the HAWK surface to air missiles made by the USA that are the same munitions sent to Iran.

...in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. Eventually the arms were sold with proceeds going to the contras, and the hostages were released. In February 1986, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran....

These were the same type as above.

...From May to November, there were more shipments of various weapons and parts. Eventually Hezbollah elected to kidnap more hostages following their release of the previous ones, which rendered meaningless any further dealings with Iran. 

REFERENCE: Iran-Contra Affair Foreign Affairs, 1985-1992 "Irangate"

The habit of exchanging hostages for arms didn't end under Reagan.

August 2, 1989
By Doyle McManus 

...On Tuesday, (click here) history seemed to be repeating itself. Bush Administration spokesmen said that the United States would make no deals with the terrorists who hold eight Americans in Lebanon--but they refused to object to Israel's proposal to swap its prisoners for the Lebanese militants' captives. And other officials said that the Administration holds out some hope that the Israeli idea might work.

"Our policy has been very clear, that we do not negotiate for the release of hostages," White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said. ". . . But Israel is a sovereign nation. They have a different policy with regard to hostages than we have."

George Herbert Walker Bush served as President of the USA from January 20, 1989 to January 20, 1993. This mess was his baby.

How many know there were hostages during the Reagan Presidency?

June 14, 1985

TWA Flight 847 was hijacked en route from Athens to Rome and forced to land in Beirut, Lebanon, where the hijackers held the plane for 17 days. They demanded the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as the release of 700 fellow Shiite Muslim prisoners held in Israeli prisons and in prisons in southern Lebanon run by the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army. 

When these demands weren't met, hostage Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac. U.S. sources implicated Hezbollah. 

In what was widely perceived as an implicit, never explicit, quid pro quo, the hostages started being released by the hijackers, followed some days after by Israel starting to free some of its hundreds of Shiite prisoners. At the time, U.S. officials denied there was a deal and said Israel had already committed to releasing the prisoners. 

Imad Mughniyah, a senior officer with Hezbollah, was secretly indicted for the TWA hijacking in 1987, along with three others. One of those indicted, Mohammed Ali Hamadei, was arrested in Frankfurt, Germany. In 1989 he was convicted in a German court and sentenced to life in prison. [Editor's Note: Imad Mugniyah remained at large and on the FBI's Most Wanted List for 19 years, until he was killed in a car bombing in Damascus, Syria on Feb. 12, 2008.

Reagan the most feared Republican in history began dealing with terrorists granting weapons for hostages.

The rest is history. Oliver North still appears on FOX News to insure his shadow is never cast on the Neocons of the world. 

Oliver North (click here) is a former United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel who served as a National Security Council staff member during the Iran–Contra affair, a political scandal involving the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran, which was to encourage the release of U.S. hostages then held in Lebanon. North formulated the second part of the plan which was to divert proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua (which had been specifically prohibited under the Boland Amendment). Ten days after the story first broke in a Lebanese newspaper, President Reagan appeared on national television from the Oval Office on November 13, 1986, stating that his purpose was “to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the U.S. and Iran] with a new relationship….The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there.”

Reagan began the aggressive USA profile. It hasn't stopped yet.

The first successful bombing of any USA embassy in the region occurred on April 18, 1983. The idea in the Middle East that the USA was the Great Satan began under Reagan and continues through to today among the radicals and extremists. The reputation hasn't exactly been good for the USA. It gave Bin Laden a reason for living.

A suicide bomber in a pickup truck loaded with explosives (click here) rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, including chief Middle East analyst Robert C. Ames and station chief Kenneth Haas.
Reagan administration officials said that the attack was carried out by Hezbollah operatives, a Lebanese militant Islamic group whose anti-U.S. sentiments were sparked in part by the revolution in Iran. The Hezbollah operatives who carried out the attack on the embassy reportedly were receiving financial and logistical support from both Iran and Syria. [For more on how and why Iran and Syria were helping to direct attacks on the U.S., see FRONTLINE's interviews with Robert Oakley and Robert C. McFarlane.
The U.S. government took no military action in response to the embassy bombing, although, according to retired Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, a covert military team entered Beirut in order to gather intelligence in preparation for retaliatory strikes.

The bombing of Libya under President Obama wasn't the first time the USA bombed Libya.

Here is a question for you.

Who began the relationship with Iran while the Shah was in power to provide nuclear technology for production of electricity?

Yes, it was the USA under the "Atoms for Peace" program. What President? What year?

President Eisenhower. "Atoms for Peace" was 1953. But, does anyone know that President Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China to end the Korean conflict in 1953.

July 27, 1953: (click here) Peace Treaty signed at Panmunjom. 38th parallel reset as boundary between communist North and anti-communist South. Cold War tensions continue unabated. Gen. Mark W. Clark says he has "the unenviable distinction of being the first US Army commander to sign an armistice without victory." 

Ronald Reagan had this 'thing' with Iran. I would hardly call it aggressive to achieve peace.

President Reagan (click here) in Robert McFarlane's office with Adolfo Calero, a Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance (Contra) leader, and Oliver North. 4/4/85.

This picture is from the Ronald Reagan Library.

February 8, 1990
By David Johnston

Clarifying an earlier court filing, (click here) lawyers for Ronald Reagan said today that they were invoking executive privilege in refusing to turn over excerpts from the former President's private diaries to John M. Poindexter, the former national security adviser who faces trial in the Iran-contra affair. 

The explanation by Mr. Reagan's lawyers came in response to an order earlier in the day by Judge Harold H. Greene of Federal District Court, who said he needed clarification on whether they intended to assert a ''formal claim by the former President of executive privilege.'' 

In legal papers filed on Monday, Mr. Reagan's lawyers cited executive privilege, without using the term, in refusing to comply with a previous order by Judge Greene to surrender the diaries.

On Tuesday, Mr. Poindexter's lawyers said the former President had violated the court's order because his lawyers had failed to use the term specifically. ''Whatever it is Mr. Reagan has claimed, and his pleading is deliberately opaque on this issue, it does not amount to a formal claim of executive privilege,'' Mr. Poindexter's lawyers said.

Executive Privilege Was Intended...

So, January 1981 the hostages come home on Reagan's inauguration. April of 1985 Reagan is standing in the Oval Office with Oliver North and a leader of the Nicaraguan Contras by name of Adolfo Calero.

The pieces of the puzzle would not come together until later and Reagan declares Executive Privilege in February 1990 to his diaries that is a record of his activities in regard to the Iran - Contra triangle.

After serving as National Security Adviser (click here) Robert McFarlane’s deputy for two years, Navy Vice Admiral John Poindexter was appointed by President Reagan as national security adviser in December 1985. He held that position for less than a year, as he was forced to resign in November 1986 when the diversion of profits from the Iran arms sales to the Contras was exposed and Attorney General Edwin Meese III revealed that Poindexter had known of it.
The Independent Counsel won a joint indictment against Poindexter, his deputy Oliver North, retired Air Force Major General and businessman Richard Secord, and Secord’s business partner Albert Hakim in March 1988. However, because the four claimed the need for the testimony of the others in their trials, which was a problem because of their Fifth Amendment right to protect against self-incrimination, their cases were separated....

Reagan has quite a history with Iran.

Freed American hostages disembark from a plane at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Jan. 27, 1981, one week after being released.

January 20, 2012 was President Obama's second inauguration. What the heck was this article trying to do? Set the tone for an invasion vs peace talks? There is an agenda here.
January 20, 2012
By The Learning Network

...The New York Times (click here) said that Reagan’s address “made no reference at all to the long-awaited release of the hostages” as he was “apparently following a self-imposed restraint of not saying anything until the Americans had left Iranian air space.”... 

...On Jan. 11, 2012, as tensions increased over Iran’s nuclear program, the country reported that an Iranian nuclear scientist died in what was termed a “terrorist bomb blast” in northern Tehran when an unidentified motorcyclist attached a magnetic explosive device to the scientist’s car. Officials denounced Israel and the U.S. and called for retaliation for the killing. According to a Jan. 12 article in The New York Times, “the scientists’ deaths are part of what current and former American officials and specialists on Iran have called an accelerating covert campaign of assassinations, bombings, defections and digital attacks, which they believe has been carried out mainly by Israel in an effort to subvert Iran’s nuclear program."

Earlier that week, Iran announced that it had sentenced a U.S.-born former Marine from Flint, Mich., to death for allegedly spying for the C.I.A.

Do you think incidents like these could lead to full-scale war? Why or why not? What, if anything, do you think can be done to prevent the escalation of tension between Iran and the United States?

Fully expect to hear war mongering by the Israeli Prime Minister in regard to Iran. I have no doubt some of these events will be peppered throughout the speak to REMIND those in the White House exactly what the USA is in the world.

This is the prep for a country, post 2016, that will sustain. 

That said, there was a comment by some right winger on "Meet the Press" today that warrants review.

The statement was based in the idea that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Mostafavi Moosavi Khomeini was so afraid of Ronald Reagan he released the American hostages during his inauguration.

That is the basis of the right wing Neocon that believes Pre-emption is justified. The idea that the USA has Presidents that would think nothing of launching an attack against any country if the circumstances warranted it. 

The ideology gets pretty crazy when realizing "USA Interests" encompasses the interests of Wall Street, especially that of the petroleum industry.

But, I want to address the exceptionally ill conceived ideology of the right wing in the USA that Ronald Reagan was going to launch an attack against Iran immediately after his inauguration. 

This is the ideology that lives trough today when John McCain and Lindsay Graham get out their war drums. There politicians are completely convinced so long as the USA maintains an aggressive agenda and image the world will live according to the rules.

Hello? Rules? What rules, the ones "W" used with Iraq? Those rules? 

Make no mistake, the ideology that Cheney holds near and dear, that the USA should be in a continuous war in order to maintain the Homeland is a valid statement. The political right wing does want the forever war. 

Can we please stay on course to control something that is going to prove to be the worst technology ever created.

February 28, 2015
By Leigh Tauss Record-Journal staff 

Lawmakers (click here) are considering a bill that would increase restrictions on electronic cigarettes, including a ban on flavor options.

State Sen. Dante Bartolomeo and state Rep. Catherine Abercrombie, both Democrats representing Meriden, are among the sponsors.

The bill defines electronic cigarettes as tobacco products and subjects them to the same laws as cigarettes. It requires e-cigarettes be flavorless and carry warning labels. Other requirements include listing ingredients on the package.

Two other bills would prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in schools and in places where smoking is prohibited. 

According to the federal Food and Drug Administration, there has not been enough testing to determine potential risks, benefits and potency of e-cigarettes....

Four "Marlboro Man" ad actors have died of cigarette related disease.

It's Sunday Night

This is not nudity. It is however suggestive fashion. I began this weekly venture after I realize the "W" regime in early 2000s was really doing a number on the American idea of sexuality. 

It has taken a few decades for women to appreciate their bodies and not deny them. It is needless to say when there was a march in America to return women to the doudy OLD IMAGES it scared me and brought back the nightmares of what we fought against so long ago. Our daughters were not going to be treated as sex objects.

Part of being a woman, is being sexy. It is just the way it is. As a feminist I learned that a long time ago. Feminism is not about denying the sexuality endowed to every person, man or woman, but to be sure when a woman's image is used for reasons it is used for, there is respect without victimization.

It wasn't long ago women put themselves in the public's eye to end the 'body part' porn, be it soft porn or heavy duty XXX. Today, when a model appears on the cover of "Maxim" she is referred to by her name with an expose of who she is by and a bit of a biography. That is treating the image of woman with respect and COMPLETE identity. Women become victims when they are not respected for the PERSON they are; it is called depersonalization. Crimes against women are not caused by sexuality, it is caused by depersonalization.

We are the ones who burned the bar. We didn't deny our sexuality, we exposed it and made it real. The bar was a symbol of domestication of women in a way that removed their potential and a life fully enjoyed. Sex was no longer tabu. It came to the surface that women were sexually oriented to pleasure no differently then men.

The sixties was not about simply abandoning old stereotypes, it was about being whole and being happy.

"Sweater Weather" by The Neighborhood (click here)

All I am is a man
I want the world in my hands
I hate the beach
But I stand
In California with my toes in the sand
Use the sleeves of my sweater
Let's have an adventure
Head in the clouds but my gravity's centered
Touch my neck and I'll touch yours
You in those little high-waisted shorts, oh
 
She knows what I think about
And what I think about
One love, two mouths
One love, one house
No shirt, no blouse
Just us, you find out
Nothing that I wouldn't wanna tell you about, no

'Cause it's too cold
For you here and now
So let me hold
Both your hands in the holes of my sweater
 
And if I may just take your breath away
I don't mind if there's not much to say
Sometimes the silence guides our minds
So move to a place so far away
The goose bumps start to raise
The minute that my left hand meets your waist
And then I watch your face
Put my finger on your tongue
'Cause you love to taste, yeah

These hearts adore
Everyone the other beats hardest for
Inside this place is warm
Outside it starts to pour

Coming down
One love, two mouths
One love, one house
No shirt, no blouse
Just us, you find out
Nothing that I wouldn't wanna tell you about, no, no, no

'Cause it's too cold
For you here and now
So let me hold
Both your hands in the holes of my sweater

'Cause it's too cold
For you here and now
So let me hold

Both your hands in the holes of my sweater
Whoa, whoa...
Whoa, whoa... whoa
Whoa, whoa...

Both your hands in the holes of my sweater
Whoa, whoa...
Whoa, whoa... whoa
Whoa, whoa...

'Cause it's too cold
For you here and now
So let me hold
Both your hands in the holes of my sweater

It's too cold
For you here and now
Let me hold
Both your hands in the holes of my sweater

It's too cold,
It's too cold
The holes of my sweater...

What ethical issue is transpiring this week with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Conflict of interest. 

Other statesmen/stateswomen in Israel will not have the same opportunity to speak to a joint session of Congress.

With the Prime Minister talking about his agenda, the USA has no idea what other parties in Israel believe and have as an agenda that would bring about peace. We don't know if the Prime Minister is the only point of view in Israel.

Within that reality, the Prime Minister is attempting to create a vacuum to others that may see peace as a strong political agenda for Israel.

It also is creating. That is the present tense. The Prime Minister's belligerent attitude IS CREATING conflict of interest for those in the USA that recognize the fact this invitation is faux in it's wording and disrupts current efforts across the spectrum of the Middle East for the White House and specifically for the State Department.

This invitation by the House Speaker is densely laced with ethical problems. The wording of the invitation is a lie, the pressure it brings to the Israeli political process is completely inappropriate. There is palpable pressure within the USA Congress to attend a basically unethical breach of standards within the White House while peace processes are occurring as well as a military alliance with other countries in the Middle East.

No one has control of the podium when the Prime Minister comes to speak. I don't care what the teleprompter says, there is no guarantee those will be the words of the Prime Minister. The USA does not need to have Israeli political speech launch a war with any other country in the Middle East. 

The entire idea a Prime Minister of Israel will use a joint session of Congress to promote his own political agenda is outrageous.

This is the political standard SOP for the right wing of the US GOP. They hack away at ethical standards to create political issues and then the country pays for it. 

There is no way Israel should receive any benefits out of this speech. It is nothing more than a stump speech and I am confident the right wing political party will continue to spin the politics after the speech. 

Secretary Kerry should continue with his work without regard to the Prime Ministers inappropriate agenda as evidenced by this speech. 

I will remind while USA politicians appreciate election monies from Israel's political action committees, they have openly stated if anyone opts out for this speech by Netanyahu there will be consequences. Really?

I will remind there has been very inappropriate relationships with the Israel political infrastructure, including investigations leading to prosecutions in the federal system of the US government. This open display of POWER PLAYS is not only unethical, but, Illegal. There is no quid pro quo allowed between election financial backers and candidates OR ANY EXISTING ELECTED OFFICIAL. 

For the Congressman or Congresswoman that have changed their plans to attend this speech due to such financial backers there are consequences. 

Declassified FBI files (click here) reveal a long running espionage and theft of government documents investigation targeting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC during the 1984 US-Israel Free Trade Area negotiations.    The FBI uncovered allegations that an agent of the Israeli intelligence services worked undercover as a member of AIPAC's staff. A quarter century after the tainted negotiations led to passage of  US-Israel preferential trade pact, it remains the most unfavorable of all US bilateral trade agreements, producing chronic deficits, lack of US market access to Israel and ongoing theft of US intellectual property.

The investigation started in June of 1984 and only ended in January of 1987 because Israel was able to declare diplomatic immunity.  The FBI case is factual, but, effected by diplomatic laws.

Diplomatic immunity does not exist with PACS or elected Congressional members when they are functioning within the Homeland, especially when it equates to financial/monetary Quid Pro Quo.

This is governed by Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (click here).

Done at Vienna April 18, 1961;

- Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America September 14, 1965; (Under President Johnson)

Before the word OPTIONAL comes into question; the word does not apply to the text of the main convention. It applies to two amendments that refine definitions.

The Senate (click here) of the United States of America by its resolution of September 14, 1965, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, gave its advise and consent to ratification of the Convention and the Optional Protocol

- Ratified by the President of the United States of America November 8, 1972

- Ratification of the United States of America deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations November 13, 1972;

- Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America November 24, 1972;

- Entered into force with respect to the United States of America December 13, 1972 (Under President Nixon)

Attending the joint session of Congress is highly unethical. There is no question, it crosses the border of corruption. The Prime Minister has many, many platforms in the USA, but, not the Congressional floors of either houses.

By the way, violations of this convention is enforceable at the International World Court.

I thank the Moscow police for allowing a peaceful rally that recognized the murder of Boris Nemtsov.

In his political career Boris Nemtsov organized not only rallies, but, several political parties. He is smiling on Moscow today. He was a great statesman. He will be missed. 

March 1, 2015

Thousands gathered (click here) at a rally in commemoration of the murdered opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in the Russian capital. Demonstrators have marched through the center of Moscow, crossing over the bridge near the Kremlin where the politician was shot dead.
At the beginning of the rally, Moscow police said around 16,500 people were taking part. After it ended at about 5 pm local time, police said that according to their estimates at least 21,000 people attended the event. Opposition member Sergey Davidis said nearly 50,000 people participated in the march, RIA Novosti reported.
The rally’s participants marched in silence. Those in the front row were holding a banner reading, “Heroes don’t die and these bullets target each of us."... 

A Moscow TV video has been shown to the people in regard to the death of Boris Nemtsov. It is our dearest hopes the murderer will be caught.
 

Ted Cruz: "Hillary Clinton embodies corruption in Washington."

Not nearly as well as Ted Cruz does. National Security anyone?

I thought the 'in your face' Saturday Night Live Daesh skit was right on target. The West indulges there children to their adulthood with education that will carry them through their lifetimes. It is absolutely astonishing the Muslim faith is having this "Disneyland" experience with their young people. Amazing.

The Clinton Foundation was designed to work internationally. There was never a doubt the monies would be obtained and used from and in foreign countries. What does the Clinton Foundation have to do with Hillary's run for President? The Clinton Foundation was established to carry Bill's work as President forward.

We  believe that the best way (click here) to unlock human potential is through the power of creative collaboration. That's why we build partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere to work faster, better, and leaner; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be, tomorrow....

This is exactly the problem with the 'infortainment' press.  Anyone paying attention knows exactly what the Clintons have been about. Bill's presidency opened doors to other countries that others only tried to open. Asia loves Bill. This is nothing. The Clinton Foundation was a comfort to Democrats realizing "W" was in office. Every power that wanted Bill back and this was the result of his dynamic presidency. There is no doubt here. The only scandal is if Hillary wants bendy straws in her hotel room. 

The infotainment press looks for the positives of a candidate and turns them into moral dilemmas. It is nonsense and should be treated as such. Christi's persona openly puts them in their place. He once said, "I've had enough of the crazies." That is exactly the problem and now our national defense is in the infotainment press and look at the circus it has become. 

Netanyahu's visit is nothing but politics. It has no brevity in reality. Netanyahu is already playing footsie the another Bush. By the way, the Prime Minister was not always welcome with Bush 43 when he was in office, but, Congress never played politics with the American military either. The underlying issues for political purposes is about the American Military Industrial Complex.

Likely 2016 (click here) presidential candidate Jeb Bush gave his first speech on foreign policy yesterday in Chicago and told the audience that he was in favor of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session in Congress in March.
Jeb added, “I for one am really eager to hear what he has to say.”
Netanyahu responded to Jeb’s kind words of support with this: 

Thanks to the comments (click here) from @JebBush regarding my upcoming speech to Congress:

10:19 AM - 19 Feb 2015

Netanyahu is a Neocon. 

This visit brings up all kinds of problems, including American politics and how it never brings the Palestinian plight in regard to Israeli aggression in taking land for settlements to the forefront of American priorities.

And according to Jeb Bush Israel is our closest ally? Really? I suppose Jordan and Turkey are just chump change, because, it has always been Jordan that has lead efforts to bring an end to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. So. If Jeb wants to say he finds Israel our closest ally he is estranging an ally that now leads the Alliance in the Mideast against Daesh. Jeb Bush has no foreign policy credentials and this is another proof of it. 

King Abduallah II of Jordan took an incredibly important stance in the Middle East after a Jordanian pilot was slaughtered as a POW. POW status is recognized by the Geneva Conventions. No one expected any POW to be openly slaughtered in the efforts to defeat a militia that kills at will.

When that Jordanian pilot was slaughtered it gave a pause to at least one other ally in the Alliance. King Abdullah II returned to the battle and he made an incredibly important stance in leadership that brought the Alliance back to full strength. Other countries came to terms with what defense of their countries actually meant.

The country of Jordan has been pivotal in every aspect of USA interests in the Middle East including bringing the leadership of Israel and Palestine to the peace table. So, it is a huge mistake to say Israel is our closest ally in the region. That is not the case at all. The USA has many great allies in the region and to single out Israel causes tensions to grow, both with leadership and the people. That is a completely irresponsible statement by Bush and everyone expects this mess from Netanyahu. He uses no discretion in his politics or the role of Israel in the peace table. We are still waiting him to arrive.

Netanyahu works in a vacuum with the Palestinians and this completely proves he has no regard for any aspect of peace with Palestine. He complains Gaza is a problem so the peace process doesn't work, but, the lands that he is occupying is in The West Bank. That is the strategy with Israel, take land from the West Bank while holding Palestinian leadership responsible for Hamas. Palestine's leadership has no more influence with Hamas than Israel does, yet the Palestinians in the West Bank are made to suffer, including farmers, because of Israel's political demands for more and more land for settlements.

If a nation of people have no land to call a homeland that is genocide. It is cultural genocide that will ultimately cause a race to integrate into another culture. Tell me that is not happening in the West Bank. It absolutely is happening, but, the Republicans just look the other way because it suits their politics. 

The USA recognizes Israel in a strong alliance, but, nowhere does or did it expect Israel to be willing to erase the Palestinian homeland in it's entirety. Israel has a right to defend itself, but, it is not allowed to invade the West Bank with settlements.

The Late Prime Minister Arial Sharon recognized the Palestinian's right to exist and he was in the same political party as Netanyahu. Israel needs a change in leadership. 

The USA's interest in the Middle East goes beyond Israel and to that reality are now in talks with Iran. It is wrong for Netanyahu to place the USA in the middle of Israeli elections. There are ethical problems with his visit and to that end I expect Minority Leader Pelosi to address same in the US House. Neither the US House or Senate floor is to be used for politics. Why not just open up the US Congress to every nation in the world, I am sure there is enough diversity among these elected officials to be tapped for such influence in their homelands.