Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

My view

Iranian Revolutionary Guard (*)(*)(*)(*) their pants at the first sight of Israeli warplanes.

 

But it seems that Israels have (*)(*)(*)(*)ed their pants without sighting our missile power! what will they do if they see it?!

 

What missile power?

 

Would seem that you are not familiar with the fact that theyve eliminated all the Idolaters, Jews and Christians from Saudi Arabia

 

Not sure of your point. The Shah couldnt be installed in 1953 when he had served as Shah since he was installed in 1941. But you keep drinking the kool aide.

 

I am quite familiar with the history of Islam and Saudi Arabia. Shall we also discuss historic ethnic cleansing in Europe or Asia or North America?

 

Zakat is one of the pillars of Islam. One becomes an apostate when they choose to ignore this mandatory obligation.

Yes, secular conflict in Islam has been around since day one of the shia acceptance of Ali as the next prophet.

 

As per the first passage, it proclaims the later revelation on the same subject to supersede the earlier one. Despite this formula, those searching for scriptural justification will find it.

An eye for an eye, thou shalt not kill and all that.

 

My point was that ISIS is NOT some religious cult, it is a criminal political faction that has no compunction about using apostate/atheists to achieve their aims.
My point was that ISIS was NOT created by Obama's policies, its seeds were planted long before he even came on the scene.
My point was that ISIS are scumbags even worse than the Baathists were, since they readily accepted Baathists into the fold.

 

Why do the Messiah supporting left love the Iranians so much? Are they truly such a bunch of lemmings where they will follow Bam Bam off a nuclear armageddon cliff?

 

Lets discuss the current ethnic cleansing occurring.

 

Yes, the tolerant, peaceful meccan verses are superseded by the more intolerant, violent Medinan verses.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a sect of Islam. Religious in every aspect.

 

It must be noted that while the letter should be dismissed completely it has reared it's ugly head in disrupting the very sensitive negotiations between the US and Iran and is probably going to result in us achieving less, not more, in concessions from Iran. If anything it was highly counter-productive to the negotiations between the US and Iran it's hardly imaginable that anything could have been worse than this letter from Republican Senators that don't represent the US and don't even represent the US Senate.

They're a bunch of political jerk-offs that violated the Logan Act and should be prosecuted for unlawfully interferring in the critical US negotiations with Iran.

 

???? What they are currently negotiating gives Iran more and the US less than the status quo under the UN resolutions.

 

Walker has little chance of becoming President and little respect for the Constitution.

 

Okay, there's Burma, and India, and Kyrgystan, and Sudan, and Syria and Central Africa to name a few instances, where would you like to start?

 

The Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Denmark etc got a kings and queens, but the power is elsewhere. As for Iran... Wikipedia states "In 1951, Mohammad Mossaddegh was appointed Prime Minister and committed to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry". So it's obvious the US became a terrorist state to get an others countries natural resources in a cheap way.

 

We shall See....The Tea Party man has what it takes.

Walker has proven he knows how to seriously kick liberal azz in a blue state.

Give me an example of him not respecting the Constitution.

We all know obama doesn't by his many examples.

 

"We all" know very little about the Constitution and you are in the same category if you can not figure out how Walker disrespects the constitution.

The raging masses are woefully ignorant of intent of the founders.

First a quote from Jefferson:

The founders ideas came from classical liberalism (please to not confuse with the modern term "liberal". One of the primary ideas was the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do to you"

In other words, if you do not want others killing you, your family or stealing from you or your family then you have a moral obligation not to do the same to others. Jefferson includes separation of church and state in this quote - If you do not want others forcing their religions beliefs on you then do not force them on others.

In classical liberalism the legitimate power of the state extended, in general, "only" to acts in which one person was trying to harm another

We can go into more detail but this should suffice for now.

The power of the state was to be as limited as possible. The Bill of Rights was put in place as an attempt to restrain the state from abusing its power.

Rights such as privacy and arbitrary detainment search and seizure are not to protect you from Bin Laden. They are to protect you from the state.

Now we can intelligently discuss constitutional violations such as the NSA spying and Obama's "if we want increased security, we have to give a little" claim.

Compare to Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security".

Funny how a Constitutional Law professor can seem to remember Benjamin isn't it.

I have just gotten started on Obama and can go further, much further but the question at hand is Mr. Walker.

Will Walker shut down Homeland Security ? Will Walker stop the "heavy hand" of the state from abusing the constitution by allowing arbitrary detainment, search and seizure.

Will Walker not try and force his religious beliefs on others (a clear violation of separation of church and state) by making anti abortion legislation ?

Will Walker get rid of laws against Pot and Prostitution.

Will Walker get enforce current laws on the books against Monopolies/Oligopolies.

I think not.

Both Red or Blue are trampling on the Constitution and it is about time you figured that out.

 

I'm no constitutional law professor by a long shot, but here's what I get out of Jefferson's quote.

The governments power has been exceeded if you are hurt physically or financially.

It also affords you the freedom of your own opinions as long as they don't violate the above.

In my own opinion, anything that benefits the people is fine as long as the above is not violated,

this includes whatever it takes for the peoples security as a whole.

I think we can all agree on the golden rule.

My favorite quote from Jefferson has something to do with a liberty tree.

Our founding fathers were no doubt brilliant men, but with the modern age and all of it's unforeseen

circumstances, there are measures that must be taken for the safety of all.

Scott Walker is a Fine Man and he is the answer to pull us out of this S!!T hole obama has got us in.

Now back to the ill informed, I refer you to Article 2, Section 2, about paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The Republican Congressmen had every right to do what they did.

Only a dictator and his misguided cronies would argue otherwise.

 

Jefferson is talking about the legitimate power of Government and is saying that Laws can be made only in relation to "acts which are injurious to others" such as stealing and killing or other "direct" harm.

The question the founders wrestled with was "what justifies Government authority in the first place and 2) what are the legitimate powers of Government"

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to set up a Government system where the people were protected from power "heavy hand" of the "State"

The "State" exercises power and control through laws. Jefferson is giving a general rule to determine whether or not a law can be shown to be legitimate/illegitimate and he clearly targets laws on the basis of religious belief as "illegitimate" .

John Adams

According to the founders we are not to make laws on the basis of religion and they say so in no uncertain terms. The powers of Government are to be very limited and apply only to acts which are injurious to others in a fairly direct way.

You did not answer any of my questions in relation to Scott Walker.

I have no idea what you are referring to below ?

 

Cant imagine what you think that has to do with your claim that the US installed the Shah in 1953.

Wow, are you clueless. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was a British company and they had already gotten at Iranian oil since oil was discovered in Iran. And again, Cant imagine what you think that has to do with your claim that the US installed the Shah in 1953.

 

The topic of the thread. The letter the Republicans sent to the Mullahs. You've gotten so far from it, you've lost track of what the topic even is.

 

The quote literally reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”


It doesn't say 'on the basis of religion.' The clause has to do with the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion. Making laws based on Judeo-Christian morals and values (Ten Commandments) It NOT establishing a state religion.

 

I think this kind of talk is the reason we've been being taught a lesson these last 14 years. Pity some people haven't learned it, even after 10,000 dead and 6 trillion dollars lost.