In the Emperor's New Clothes, only the little boy can say that the emperor is naked. The good news about yesterday's speech by Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress is that lots of media are taking on that boy's role, and pointing out the nudity: exclaiming over the fact that a foreign leader came into our house of government to try and overrule our president on foreign policy. Chris Matthews was especially forceful, describing it as a takeover. While a New York Times article said that Democrats have to choose between "loyalty to the Jewish state" and the president.

But journalists have a bigger job than merely exclaiming. They must explain to readers why this outrage took place. Why did Netanyahu get this platform? The answer is the power of the Israel lobby inside our politics. And while there was some talk about the Christian Zionist component of the lobby compelling Republicans to show up, no one could explain why so many Democrats - about 175 of them - sat still for this insult to the president. They did so because of the importance of the Jewish part of the lobby inside the Democratic Party, epitomized by Alan Dershowitz in the gallery. This was surely obvious to viewers. But the media were silent on that score.

Here is some of the coverage I'm talking about. A piece at the New York Times saying that Netanyahu had issued an effective policy challenge to Obama pointed out the strangeness of the spectacle -

Mr. Netanyahu's hotly disputed address constituted a remarkable moment in Washington: a foreign leader taking the podium before members of the House and Senate to argue strenuously against the policies of the sitting American president. In doing so, the Israeli leader was essentially urging lawmakers to trust him — not Mr. Obama — when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon...

Times reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear then openly spoke of Democrats whose "loyalty to the Jewish state" is competitive with their support for the president:

For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu's speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state.

Why is that choice awkward and painful? I would like to hear why those Democrats feel that "loyalty." Why aren't we hearing about Haim Saban and other leading funders of the Democratic Party? Why aren't Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Anderson Cooper and Chris Hayes interviewing John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the scholars who wrote the book The Israel Lobby?

Stewart did a lot of Jewish shtick about the Netanyahu speech yesterday. He called it the longest blowjob a Jewish man has ever received. But he tried to put it on the Republicans - "the state of the union speech the Republican wanted." Hold on. As the Times informed us: "Some Democrats who are strong supporters of Israel praised Mr. Netanyahu's speech."

REN TV announced that the investigative group working on the Nemtsov murder has images of suspected killers' faces. They were obtained after a thorough study of the killers' departure from the crime scene. After detecting the ZAZ Chance car which was used by the killers to make their getaway, investigators requested all materials from the Potok surveillance system along their route, and also surveillance video recordings. They also requested that drivers of other cars who were driving on the same streets at the same time be identified, so that any dashboard camera recordings might be studied.

"These measures allowed us to get several images. They are only in the possession of the investigative group, which now includes specialists from the Counter-Extremism Center, the most experienced operatives of Moscow criminal police, representatives from the FSB and the SKR. We have images of at least two individuals. One can readily tell from the images that they were most likely born in the southern parts of Russia," said REN TV source.

FSB Director Alenksandr Bortnikov said that the investigators have identified suspects. Of course, he added that there are always suspects.

US defensive weapons may become part of the arsenal of an oligarch-sponsored part of the Ukrainian army if Washington decides to provide military assistance to Ukraine, US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said.

"Do we see any of these weapons becoming part of the arsenal of that part of the Ukrainian army, which I believe the third of the Ukrainian army now that is in conflict, that is financed by the oligarch, a private citizen who happens to be a multi billionaire," Rohrabacher asked US Assistance Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at a hearing in US Congress on Wednesday.

Rohrabacher query came as many members of US Congress are advocating that the United States provide defensive weapons to Ukraine.

The United States has been assisting Ukraine with economic and non-lethal military support since the Kiev government began a military operation against independence supporters in Ukraine's eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk last April.

In December, US Congress authorized the allocation of $350 million to arm the Kiev government. However, US President Barack Obama has not enacted the legislation.

While members of the Obama administration and US Congress have stated their support to arm Ukraine, US NATO allies Germany, France, Spain and Italy have opposed the measure.

Now that April 15th is on the horizon, many taxpayers are bracing themselves for the inevitable penalty that will hit them if they don't sign up for Obamacare. It's estimated that at least 3 million households may have to pony up 1% of their income, or $95 per adult, if they don't have insurance; a number which is poised to expand to 2.5% for the 2016 tax year.

However, for all its bluster and intimidating language, the Affordable Care Act might not have any teeth. Recently, a tax expert writing for Forbes noticed that Obamacare, while far-reaching and burdensome in terms of what it demands from the American people, offers little to no repercussions for anyone who would be tempted to avoid it.

It seems that when the bill was first being drafted and it came time to outline the penalties for failing to comply, somebody got cold feet.

The United States has become engrossed in the debate over providing lethal arms to Ukrainians, US Senator Chris Murphy said at a US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

"We are obsessed with this question of providing arms to the Ukrainians," Murphy stated on Wednesday. "It matters, but it is obsessive within the American context because [providing weapons] is one of the few tools we have to try to blunt and combat Russian aggression in the region."

The democratic Senator generally supports efforts to provide the Kiev government with weapons, but still has reservations as such US action would be "relatively unprecedented" in the history of US relations with Russia.

Murphy explained that a decision on the part of the United States to arm Ukraine "would be a change in the policy we have traditionally observed over the long course of the past 100 years" toward Russia.

"Let's just acknowledge that during the Cold War... we didn't do this," Murphy noted, referring to US restraint in providing "overt arms" to opponents of the Soviet Union during the Hungarian uprising and the war in Afghanistan.

In December, the US Congress authorized $350 million to arm Kiev. However, US President Barack Obama has not enacted the legislation. Other pieces of legislation are currently pending in the US Congress aimed at putting additional pressure on the Obama administration to provide arms.

China is defending its proposed cybersecurity laws as "beyond reproach" in the wake of harsh criticism from the US - criticism that the state -run Xinhua news agency called "arrogance and hypocrisy."

In late 2014, China published draft legislation of rules for foreign companies wishing to do business in China. Those included handing over encryption keys, allowing for "backdoors" into company systems to allow Chinese counter-terrorism surveillance, and keeping company and user data on servers in China.

President Obama called these requirements "something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States." But China maintains that they are security practices similar to the US' own — indeed perhaps more transparent — and a normal condition of doing business.

"All countries are paying attention to and taking measures to safeguard their own information security. This is beyond reproach," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying said.

The new regulations "would essentially force all foreign companies, including US companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they can snoop and keep track of all the users of those services," Obama told Reuters, expressing skepticism that any Silicon Valley companies would be willing to comply.

Russia's Security Council accused the United States of plotting to oust President Vladimir Putin by financing the opposition and encouraging mass demonstrations, less than a week after a protest leader was murdered near the Kremlin.

The US is funding Russian political groups under the guise of promoting civil society, just as in the "colour revolutions" in the former Soviet Union and the Arab world, council chief Nikolai Patrushev said on Wednesday. At the same time, the US is using the sanctions imposed over the conflict in Ukraine as a "pretext" to inflict economic pain and stoke discontent, he said.

More than 50,000 people turned out in central Moscow on Sunday to mourn the death of Boris Nemtsov, a former deputy premier turned Putin opponent who was gunned down on Friday in one of the most heavily guarded areas of the capital. That was the biggest rally Russia has seen since 2011-12, when Putin was preparing to return to the presidency for a third term.

"It's clear that the White House has been counting on a sharp deterioration in Russians' standard of living, mass protests," Patrushev said. Russia can withstand the pressure, though, thanks to its resilience and "decades of experience in combating color revolutions," he said.

The Russian-backed revolt in Ukraine has led to the worst standoff between the Kremlin and the US and its European allies since the end of the Cold War. The fighting has claimed at least 6000 lives, according to the United Nations. Putin has repeatedly blamed the US for inciting the protests in Kiev last year that toppled his ally, Viktor Yanukovych.

Because since the first day after the moment of the crash of the Malaysian "Boeing" I adhere to the version where the airplane was shot down by the Ukrainian SU-25 attack jet, I simply cannot refrain from publishing a new investigation, which summarizes the arguments on this topic.
A rod from the "air-to-air" missile R-60M was found among the wreckage of MH17

A model was assembled in Holland using of the fragments of the "Boeing" that was shot down in Donetsk. Using the photos of the fragments from the crash site, it is possible to approximately reconstruct the airframe. Among the photos there were at least two that refute the version of the attack against the plane using the "BUK" complex.

On one of the photos we can see the object, which looks like a rod from the AAM missile R-60M. On the other photo — a round hole in the air intake of the right engine. There are at least nine holes in the skin that are characteristic of the effect of an "air-to-air" missile.

There are three things I remember vividly from when I took my oath of office as a career federal employee in the current administration: the mountain of paperwork required to get signed up for my health benefits, the peppy presentation by the guy who ran the office gym, and the very serious, very clear instructions regarding federal records. The messages were loud and clear. Don't lose or break your equipment, and don't use your own. I don't know what kind of orientation Hillary Clinton got when she joined the administration, but we now know she chose to use her own equipment.

Before I was a career fed at an agency, I was a political appointee at the White House — a staff constantly under scrutiny from the press, more so than most of our non-political colleagues. Because of that pressure, we invoked the "Washington Post test" nearly every day. How would you feel if the email you're writing showed up on A1 of the Post? Did someone send you an email saying something you were uncomfortable with? Respond in writing making it clear you disagree. Did someone ask you over the phone to do something you're even remotely uncomfortable with? Ask them to put it in writing — in email.

In each story there is always a beneficiary. In politics, nothing happens "just like that". And even more so, no political assassinations happen "just like that". In order to understand who would benefit from the death of Boris Nemtsov we need to analyse two things - known details of the crime and the history of similar late incidents in Russia. Then everything will become clear. We'll start with the details.

On February 27, 2015, Boris Nemtsov was shot dead in Moscow. Here are the known details of the crime.

1. On the eve when the opposition march scheduled for March 1, one of its organizers gets killed.
2. Nemtsov was killed right beside Kremlin.
3. He was murdered cynically - in front of witnesses. However, the girl he was with was not killed and was left as a witness.
4. The girl is from Ukraine.
5. The murder takes place February 27 - two days before the president of Russia proclaimed this day as the celebration "Day of special operations forces." People start call this "the day of polite people."
6. On the other side of the bridge, where Nemtsov was shot, there is Bolotnaya - area where the strongest opposition protests of 2011-2012 took place.
7. All of the Western and Russian liberal media is filled with photos of a dead body and place of his death "in colour". Kremlin towers in the background.

Let's summarize: it would be difficult for Kremlin to come up with more unfortunate place, time and the murder scenario should Kremlin be considered the initiator of the tragedy.