That the letter is factual in regard to the constitution is probably the most infuriating thing.
The Truth! It burns, Precious!
1. Sen. Cotton’s letter forces the left to defend the indefensible
2. Sen. Cotton’s letter represents a direct challenge to President Obama
3. Sen. Cotton had the gall to actually invoke the Constitution in defense of his action
4. Sen. Cotton’s letter contains painful truths
From fourth reason in the article ...
"If the negotiations that President Obama was unilaterally conducting with a genocidal jihadist regime were in the best interest of the United States, a letter such as Sen. Cotton’s would be dismissed out of hand and simply ignored."
"At most, Democrats would welcome it as discrediting of Republicans."
Outstanding point and article. Thanks for posting.
Wonder why we haven’t heard about this:
“”While George W. Bush was trying to negotiate a drawdown of our military presence in Iraq back in 2008, a Senator sent a delegation to Baghdad and met privately with Iraqi officials, urging them to reject any of President Bush’s overtures, saying the Bush Administration was in a “state of weakness and political confusion.”
That senator? Now-President Barack Obama.
A New York Post article from 2008 details how adamant Obama was that Bush and his team were weak and that the Iraqis should wait until a new administration stepped in (him, presumably) to re-start negotiations.””
Whenever one of these idiot lib/commies starts yapping about that letter, someone should(’ve) hold up an iPad with the video of Hillary shrieking about dissent being patriotic.
EVERY time; over and over and over and over and over...
how does the saying go?:
first they ignore you: Obamacrats ignored republicans/conservatives
then they ridicule you: Obamacrats ridicule republicans/conservatives
then then you win...
the Logan act has been around over 200 years and only once was it ever used to prosecute anyone. that was in the 1800s. the act itself is so poorly written it would not pass constitutional oversight in the courts. the original reason for the enacting the law was because shortly after the revolutionary war an American citizen was asked advice on dealing with the united states while visiting France. that citizen gave the advice to the French officials. The fact that a ordinary citizen was advising the French in there dealings with the united states embarrassed members of the federalist party. because of the reporting on the advice and the positive outcome that happened with the advice.
I wish my friends on the right would quit giving these Marxists credit as if they simply don't know what the Constitution says, as if they might change their minds & govern according to Constitutional principles once they become aware of what they are.
The fact is they don't give a damm what the Constitution says, & they are VERY aware of it (Obama is said to a Constitutional scholar, is he not?). The Constitution is an impediment to their political goals, yet all we do is say that they are "unaware" of it?
Who is the fool here?
Yeah, right after the trials for Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, Pelosi, and so on. Let the trials begin...
And the start of the Cotton trial should begin with, "And how many of you accuser a$$holes have ever spent a single day in combat defending your nation? None. I thought not. Case dismissed."
bkmk