NLBS #41: The 47 So-Called "Traitors," And Their Letter to Iran

On this episode of Next Level BS, we take a look at the dangerous insanity going on in Washington, DC. Specifically, the madness around demanding that the 47 Republican Senators who penned a ridiculous letter to Iranian leaders, be prosecuted under the Logan Act. Never mind that nobody, from Ted Kennedy to Barack Obama, ever gets prosecuted under the Logan Act, that's far from the worst of the fallout from this act of supreme stupidity. If this doesn't get the American voters fed up with the intensely dysfunctional government in DC - from all flavors of conservatives and liberals - then we have no idea what will.




Watch in HD on www.TheNLBS.com


Share this video. Tell your friends. Spread the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

And get NLBS t-shirts and swag thenlbs.spreadshirt.com

You glossed some stuff over pretty good on this one.

S&F for your efforts anyway.

originally posted by: theNLBS
We look like a bunch of idiots who can't get along...

Well, it wouldn't be as much of a problem if we just looked that way. The fact that we are that way is much more troubling.

I think you forgot a swear word at 3:33!

Whats that?...some sorta secret message?

Idk Joe, seems fishy to me!

I appreciate that the idea of NLBS is based on you tube, but as it is so heavily promoted on this forum based site, do you think a transcription could be made available for those that don't wish to or can't for some reason use YouTube?

Keep in mind that here on ATS, it is regularly drummed into our brains that -if it's on you tube, it's bullsh**-

Great video great information. I do wonder if this video was too soon. Only because we don't yet know how far this stupidity will go.

Good video as always, I didn't know about the translation letter, what a d bag move.

Good episode.

In this it's about time we revisit the October Surprise of the Reagan era, the holding of the U.S hostages until after the election,

Over the years, Republicans have adamantly denied that Reagan or his campaign struck a deal with Iranian radicals to extend the hostage crisis through the 1980 election. But substantial evidence has built up supporting Bani-Sadr’s account and indicating that the release of the 52 hostages just as Reagan was taking the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1981, was no coincidence, that it was part of the deal. [For the latest summary of the evidence, see Robert Parry’sAmerica’s Stolen Narrative.]

In December 1992, when a House Task Force was examining this so-called October Surprise controversy – and encountering fierce Republican resistance – Bani-Sadr submitted a letter detailing his behind-the-scenes struggle with Khomeini and his son Ahmad over their secret dealings with the Reagan campaign.

Bani-Sadr’s letter was dated Dec. 17, 1992, and was part of a flood of last-minute evidence that implicated the Reagan campaign in delaying the hostage release. However, by the time the letter and the other evidence arrived, the leadership of the House Task Force had decided to simply declare the Reagan campaign innocent.
truth-out.org...

Time willing pls watch this about an hr long.

This "Coke vs. Pepsi", "my team is more American than your team" madness has to stop.

a reply to: Leonidas

I got 1... My dad can beat up your dad...
Works for religion too haha

Glad someone sees it in my viewpoint

a reply to: theNLBS

Bloody good job as always Joe, although I have to ask, is the change in back drop going to be a weekly thing now? Or are you just waiting until your old "studio" space is available again?

With regard to the topic at hand, I have to say that when I heard that this letter had been sent, I was shocked. I was shocked, because I honestly could not conceive of a way in which a group of congress persons could show such utter contempt for the voters, and for the President they elected. Furthermore, your video bought to my attention, that the letter in question, not only suggested that the congresspersons involved in its sending, were basically explaining their intention to go back on promises made by Obama (which would represent a treaty violation and probably some international conduct issues as well), but that this in turn meant that the congresspersons had NO idea how serious their decision to send this message, actually was.

It seems to me that if a person cannot understand that undermining the President of the United States, not to mention baldly stating ones intention to break international treaty, in one document, is a poor idea, and bad for their nation, that they really ought to consider tendering their resignation, and taking up a station in life more suited to their intellect. Perhaps minding elastic bands, or organising pencils by length, from shortest to longest, or making the coffee for people with actual functioning neurons.

These morons certainly should not have a place in arguably the most powerful government on the planet.

I really like this guy. Youtube, despite the fake ufo videos and fake stuff is a REALLY GOOD THING TO HAVE as far as sharing information and expressing your opinions. Im right along wih the guy, I can listen to Netanyahoos lingo and the lies he told last time, do I trust Yahoo, hayle naz or Iran, its like to me, If Israel wants to bomb Iran then do it and leave us out of it. Its a sticky situation not helped out by lies and bull.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: theNLBS

These morons certainly should not have a place in arguably the most powerful government on the planet.

I don't know. Congress makes up a third of the 'shared powers' of the USG. Now that the opposing party has a majority in that branch of government, maybe it's time for them to begin opposing what Obama 'hopes' to get away with. Obama is one guy in a government of many. He's not a monarch.

a reply to: Snarl

To my mind, this issue is only tangentally related to Obama. For all that the letter was sent in opposition to his aims of gaining a deal with the Iranians, the real issue here is that the 47 signatories of this letter are prepared to violate treaty in order to get their way, which will cheapen the word of any utterance of an American ambassador or spokesperson, in the eyes of the rest of the world, ergo, the people with whom they trade, assuming that any of the signatories continue to have carreers in government going forward.

a reply to: TrueBrit

This post shows a complete lack of understanding of the US government establishment.

Those who don't like the president vote for senators and congressmen who oppose him, and those voters WANT their representatives to do exactly this.

This is what happens when we allow West Virginians to vote...ba da bing.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Snarl

To my mind, this issue is only tangentally related to Obama. For all that the letter was sent in opposition to his aims of gaining a deal with the Iranians, the real issue here is that the 47 signatories of this letter are prepared to violate treaty in order to get their way, which will cheapen the word of any utterance of an American ambassador or spokesperson, in the eyes of the rest of the world, ergo, the people with whom they trade, assuming that any of the signatories continue to have carreers in government going forward.

One guy (Obama) wants to make a deal with Iran and tell them if they wait a little while, they can develop nukes and that'll be alright with the US. The collective voice of the people (Congress) said, "I don't think that's what we 'really' want."

I'm kind'a siding with Congress ATM.

a reply to: TrueBrit

A president can't sign a treaty without Congress and the Senate, I believe this letter is basically saying any promises by the president are empty gestures. Also, the US isn't bound by international law under the UN or the ICC, another point the letter was trying to make.

Edit: To be clear, there is currently no treaty. And this is in no way a violation of the Logan act.