Every time that a debate of the kind that interests the Jews
runs its course and starts to fade like a train that's moving away, you see a
Jew or two pop out of nowhere and run at full speed after the train, trying to
catch the caboose.
The debate this time has been about America 's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear
deal, and the Jew that came running after the train trying to score a few extra
points, was Jonathan S. Tobin who could not leave the stage without taking
another shot at the debate. He wrote: “The Iran Deal and the Rule of Law,” an
article that was published on May 10, 2018 in National Review Online.
There was a time when Alan Dershowitz was the one that
played the role of legal storm trooper. When something happened that required
his attention, he came armed with arguments, and took on the issues that were
of interest to Israel
and the Jews. Besides attacking the Arabs and the Muslims, he went after the
right wing groups in America ,
thus branding himself a man firmly on the left side of the political spectrum.
But then, a recent convert to the right side of the spectrum
named Donald Trump was elected President of the United States of America . He proved
to be endowed with a tongue that's deadlier than a gun. And he proved to have a
finger that's happier on the twitter than a rogue cop that has a finger on the
trigger. And so, out of fear of running afoul of Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz
refrained from attacking Donald Trump or anything on the right. He even went
further and abided by the saying: If you can't beat them, join them.
Consequently, Alan Dershowitz joined the crowd that stands
in the Trump corner, popping up on the scene at every occasion requiring him to
explain a whim of Donald Trump, or defend a faux pas committed by him. This
created a vacuum in the legal niche where Alan Dershowitz used to dwell. And
that's when Jonathan Tobin moved in to fill the vacuum. He gave himself the
task of defending Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear
deal, a presentation he had assembled using quasi legal arguments.
As it happened, instead of putting together a defense of
Donald Trump, Jonathan Tobin has only managed to reveal the defects of the
democracy that's practiced in America
today. The following condensed passage of Tobin's article, tells that part of
the story:
“President Trump accused Corker of being responsible for the
Iran
deal. While Corker voted against it, his bill was a setup for its opponents. It
placed a check on the president by giving Congress the right to limit his
ability to lift economic sanctions. Thus, it created a backward
treaty-confirmation process: Instead of requiring the assent of two-thirds of
the Senate to the pact, it gave Obama a shortcut. All the president needed to
do to thwart disapproving the deal was use the veto, and then have one-third of
the House or Senate sustain it. This would have allowed the president to claim
that the deal had passed Congress, despite majorities in both the House and
Senate on record as being opposed to it”.
Thus, whereas Tobin has accused the former president, Barack
Obama of disrespecting the constitutional process by not submitting the Iran
deal for discussion and disposition by the Congress, he told of a parliamentary
trick that the president could have used to outfox the opponents of the deal,
and have it pass anyway with a small minority of legislators approving it.
In addition to showing how rotten the so-called democratic
process has become in America
–– being regularly abused by the Jews –– Jonathan Tobin has shown himself
inadequately educated on the principle of separation of powers in America .
Look what he says: “Obama's refusal to submit the deal to the Senate gave lie
to the notion that America 's
word was at stake in sticking to the deal”.
The reality is that Obama acted in accordance with the
powers vested in him by the Constitution. As such the nuclear deal he
negotiated together with the rest of the world was made legitimate by America 's
own legitimacy.