Forum: What Was Your Reaction To The Chattanooga Attack?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Was Your Reaction To The Chattanooga Attack?

Don Surber : C-in-C should order every officer (commissioned and non-com) to carry a sidearm when on duty stateside. Exemptions for chaplains and working physicians. Maybe a few other MOS. National Guard and reservists would be up to the discretion of commanders as a matter of protocol, while preserving the authority to order so. Any civilian who feels uncomfortable can kindly resign/retire from DoD.

Puma By Design: Courtesy of the dysfunction in the present administration, America's enemies are at war with us on U. S. soil empowered by our so-called leaders who are in denial, stupid and in the pockets of our enemies while at the same time, refusing to call this evil by its name.

America’s enemies are targeting our service members and their families because it is a known fact that they are not armed.

ARM THEM. They have the right to defend themselves...and us ON American soil.


GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Gun free zones get people killed.

In Chattanooga, the dark one liner is “From DUI and weed to J!had in 90 days.” Busted in April, it appears he made a fast conversion to violence.

We often prided ourselves here about our easy going laissez-faire attitude. Not anymore. Was this cat self radicalized? Inspired by the mosque? Both? Doesn't really matter now as armed vigilance is replacing the Coexist stickers and memes.

We really need all the prayers and good vibes y'all may send.


JoshuaPundit : Unfortunately, the minute I heard about this atrocity, I knew exactly what was coming. The theme by the media, assorted political figures and the Obama Regime, as always, was to repeat the mantra of 'senseless violence.' Hillary Clinton said it, as did the president, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Florida senators Bill Nelson (Democrat) and Marco Rubio (Republican).

And of course, no one can imagine why this happened. Nothing to do with Islam, surely! The Pentagon will investigate this for months to let everybody forget about it, and our president will determine what they'll say. They can't call it workplace violence like Fort Hood this time, but maybe they can work the mental health angle. Never mind that every attack involving Muslims resulting in mass casualties or attacks on military facilities like this has been jihadist in nature.

These attacks are not senseless violence. They are directed attacks, whether carried out by so-called lone wolves or otherwise.  The orders are in the Qu'ran, and there's enough evidence on Mohammed AbdulAzeez's computer thus far to show the usual pattern - jihadist social media,  and as I'm sure we'll eventually find out, a jihad preaching mosques with a radical, Islamist imam somewhere in the picture.

Since 9/11. we, or at least the people we've chosen to lead us have made the point time and time again that we're 'not at war with Islam.' Maybe, but anyone observing the world as it is would have to be in a coma not realize that a significant part of Islam's adherents consider themselves at war with us. That, or willfully deceptive.

A normal country faced by these kind of facts would secure its borders, limit visas to countries where jihadists and Islamists tend to thrive, and vet very carefully those visas that were approved. It would place Islamist front groups as well as mosques and madrassahs under close scrutiny and eliminate those preaching jihad, radicalizing young Muslims and/or thought to be a security risk. Most important, government facilities like military recruiting offices or bases that are obvious targets would be hardened and guarded with armed security.

We are doing none of these things. In fact, since Barack Hussein Obama became president, we're doing exactly the opposite.  There have been numerous attacks, planned and executed against U.S. military facilities on his watch, and yet, the mantra coming out of the White House is always the same..'senseless violence.'

Here's a thought as uncomfortable for me to write as it may be for you to read. The four Marines and the Navy Petty officer whom were murdered in Chattanooga may be mourned by us, but in a very real sense, we have their blood on our hands for not calling our elected officials to account...especially this president.

The one covenant a leader has with those he or she rules is to protect a country's sovereignty, its people and its borders.  America does not have that.

If we had any national self respect we would be thronging by thousands in the Capital, and flooding the congressional switch boards demanding this president's impeachment. We would be  insisting on immediate action to remedy this situation rather than sitting back placidly waiting for  the next attack.

We would be screaming bloody murder.


The Right Planet : My initial reaction was one of outrage, followed by profound sadness for the families and friends of those murdered in cold blood in Chattanooga. You know, it's not like ISIS and its ilk haven't expressed their desire and intent to kill members of our military right here at home. Furthermore, there have been some 34 service personnel killed at military facilities within the United States on Obama's watch—specifically, one soldier killed at a Little Rock recruiting station in 2009, 13 murdered at Fort Hood in the same year, three more killed at Fort Hood in 2014, 12 killed at the Washington Navy Yard two years ago, and now four Marines and one Navy petty officer are dead in Chattanooga. Several state governors, including my own, have ordered their National Guardsmen to start carrying weapons. But, to my knowledge, no such orders have been given at the federal level to allow U.S. troops the ability to defend themselves.

Via the LA Times:

Despite being active-duty servicemen with military weapons training, few of the victims in these attacks had an opportunity to defend themselves, thanks to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56, enacted in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush.

That policy strictly limits the military and civilian personnel who can carry firearms at military facilities to those in law enforcement or security roles. U.S. bases and recruiting centers have been "gun-free zones" ever since.

There have been recent reports of civilians with legal-carry permits standing guard at a few recruitment centers. How messed up are things in this country when civilians must provide security for own troops? Enough, already ... ARM OUR TROOPS!


  Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : What is my reaction to this terrorist attack? I am at once saddened at the tragic loss of life of four Marines and one sailor, yet angered that this has happened again on America soil.

The shooter’s name was Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, a 24 year old Kuwaiti born naturalized American citizen whom friends described as a “devout Muslim.” It is reported he traveled to Jordan in 2014 and to Kuwait and Jordan in 2010. Friends said he changed after his last trip to the Middle East.

In a media/theater of the absurd, we are being told not to jump to any conclusions about his motivation for these attacks. Isn’t it time we got past wanting to know the shooter’s motivation in these all too familiar scenarios? No one questioned Dylan Roof’s motivation for his slaughter of nine Black church members in Charleston, South Carolina. It was racism – end of story.

Reports are coming out that Adbulazeez suffered from depression. Perhaps a religion that teaches hatred of all non-believers and rewards martyred jihadis with seventy-three virgins might lead to depression… and violence.

I am mad that the rules on military bases and these recruitment centers prohibit our service members from being armed. At the very least, this policy should be changed immediately. They must be able to carry firearms, especially knowing they have been specifically targeted by ISIS for attacks. To have served heroically overseas and then to return home only to be attacked in a store front recruiting center should send chills down everyone’s spines, and maybe wake up some. President Obama says we are not at war with Islam, but we should be past the point of acknowledging radical Islamists are at war with us.

The Glittering Eye: It's early days in the investigation yet and I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. I say at this point let the investigation takes its course.

I'm willing to let the Pentagon decide whether soldiers in recruitment centers or on military bases carry sidearms or whether they should be ordered to do so.

As of this writing whether there are ties to Al Qaeda or DAESH, whether the perpetrator of the murders was mentally ill or not, and just what lead him to kill people are all unknown. Policy considerations need to be conditioned on actual circumstances rather than imagined ones. Maybe he was radicalized on the Internet or self-radicalized or had some conversion experience on a visit to family in Jordan. We just don't know.

Ask Marion : ARM THEM! ARM THEM! ARM THEM! Arm all military personnel on American soil!!

The wolf is no longer at the door, America's enemies are at war with us on U. S. soil!! America’s enemies are targeting our service members and their families and they know they are not armed. Let them carry a sidearm when on duty stateside.

ARM THEM... They have the right to defend themselves...and us ON home soil. As Judge Jeanine Pirro said in her opening statement this past weekend: They Want To Kill Us, They Determine To kill Us… And They’re Here.

Some of the governors have already stepped up in wake of the Chattanooga attacks. Governor Fallin of Oklahoma, has authorized their adjutant general to arm full-time military personnel. Arkansas, Texas and several other state governors have also already stepped up or in the process. Some other groups like Oathkeepers are also meeting.

For anyone who thinks this is extreme, just look at Switzerland, a neutral and one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Every adult is a trained member of the Swiss militia and they keep their weapons at home on the ready. In 2011 the Swiss law and tradition was tested and put to a vote. Let us remember our own history and minutemen who were armed and ready to defend themselves and freedom at a minutes notice and step back to using common sense!!

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

I've Read the Nuclear Deal, Mr. President, and It's Awful

 


By David Gerstman

In his combative press conference last week to defend the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, President Barack Obama issued the following challenge:

So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it; number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues, is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.

First off it’s worth noting that Energy Secretary and MIT nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz said back in April that to be effective the deal would have to include “anytime, anywhere,” inspections, so Obama’s explanation about why 24 days notice is now good enough fails to convince me.
I want Moniz to explain why he changed his position on this AND why 24 days is now acceptable. I would like Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to explain why he walked back his comments on requiring “anytime, anywhere” inspections.

And I want a more convincing explanation than negotiator Wendy Sherman’s excuse that the term was just a “rhetorical flourish.” (If that was a rhetorical flourish, I’m curious how many other administration comments about the nuclear deal were rhetorical flourishes.)


But in that paragraph, Obama limits the grounds of questioning the deal to whether the language of the deal is insufficient to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear breakout over the course of the deal.
Here’s where I have problem. Even if the agreement was airtight, and I doubt that it is, there’s a matter of the administration’s behavior during the Joint Plan of Action, which was agreed to in November 2013. The problem is that the Obama administration has acted as “Iran’s attorney” covering for Iran’s violations of the previous agreement.

In a notable episode last month, administration officials attacked The New York Times for reporting that Iran would likely fail to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by the June 30 deadline. In the end Iran did reduce its stockpile but not by the method prescribed and not to the form that it was required to.

The nonproliferation think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, earlier this month, explained why the administration’s behavior in this case was troubling:

The reason is not that somehow one form or other of LEU oxide is harder to turn back into hexafluoride form for use in a breakout. This is almost irrelevant to the debate. Unfortunately, these main forms of LEU oxide are straightforward to convert back and use during a breakout. That is a principal reason that in a final deal the United States wants all but 300 kilograms (kg) of Iran’s near 10,000 kg of LEU shipped out of the country or blended down to natural uranium. The United States is now making a very narrow interpretation of this provision in the JPA, and an interpretation that is at odds with its previous positions and common sense. It is also an interpretation that appears to favor Iran and not the United States. Reaching this interpretation seems overly driven by the administration’s fear of Congress. The administration appears to have lost sight of the true adversary in its on-going battle with Congress.

This weakening of interpretations is a bad precedent for the future. This case signals a U.S. willingness to legally reinterpret the deal when Iran cannot do what it said it would do, in order to justify that non-performance. The United States should have said, like we do, that Iran has not met its commitment in the JPA on this issue and fully explained the status of the stocks and what the future remedy will be. It should have used that position as leverage to gain additional concessions from Iran. Experts and Congress may have noted the discrepancy with concern but few would have advocated walking away from the JPA as a result of a frank discussion of this issue last winter or even now.

So President Obama made a point of appealing to science or scientific expertise as proof that his deal is solid, but when science said that a previous deal wasn’t being observed, the administration attacked the science!

President Obama insists that the fear of “snapback sanctions” (probably unworkable) will keep Iran from cheating. But if the administration’s past performance is any indication, Iran has nothing to fear. There will be no “snapback’s” if no violation is declared. If the administration papered over Iranian violations to keep negotiations going, what are the chances it will declare Iran in violation now that a new agreement has been reached?

So Obama’s challenge doesn’t work on two levels. The science might not be right and the problems with the deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), extend to more than just what’s written in the deal.

 

But there’s another aspect to the deal that’s disturbing. I will quote a few non-contiguous items from the deal:

18. The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue – 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) – simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V.

26. The EU will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions that it has terminated implementing under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. There will be no new nuclear related UN Security Council sanctions and no new EU nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures. The United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this JCPOA and to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified in Annex II. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part

36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level – either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

37. … Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

Item (18) quoted above means that all of the resolutions involving Iran’s failure to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) will be erased. These resolutions were passed because Iran pursued an enrichment program outside of its NPT obligations and failed to account for all of its past nuclear research.

Iran has maintained its enrichment program, and will be allowed to continued it under the terms of the JCPOA. It still has not come clean about its past nuclear work, and for the sanctions relief to take hold, Iran apparently only has to commit to admitting its past nuclear work to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The JCPOA, in effect, legalizes Iran’s years of violations and rewards them for limiting their level of violations in the future.

The best analogy I could think of would be a corporation having been found in violation of emission standards for years agreeing to a deal that would absolve them of all fines accumulated over the years, have the violations expunged from government records and allowing the corporation to continue polluting at 50% over the standards instead of 100%.

Item (36) is curious too. I know that Iran’s Foreign Minister started off these negotiations with a presentation calling the crisis over its nuclear program an “unnecessary crisis.”
All along Iran called the sanctions “illegal.” So part of its goal was not just to get the sanctions removed, but to rewrite history so that Iran becomes the aggrieved party. By agreeing to cancel all the relevant Security Council resolutions about Iran’s nuclear program, the P5+1 nations are effectively rewriting history to Iran’s benefit. Worse, the Joint Commission empowers Iran to bring complaints against the other nations involved.

If the IAEA detected a violation and, say, France initiated an action against Iran in the Joint Commission, (another reason “snapback” is a fantasy), what would stop Iran from bringing some arbitrary action against France, and offer to drop it if France drops its action? I’m not a lawyer, maybe this is addressed elsewhere, but based on Iran’s behavior they will take advantage of any opening it is afforded in the deal.

And this brings us to (37) and the end of (26). If the process of finding Iran in violation is completed and an effort is made to reimpose sanctions, what is to stop Iran from saying, “okay we’re leaving the JCPOA.” Obama has said that this negotiation process has kept a rein on Iran’s nuclear development, but doesn’t this mean that an attempt to re-impose sanctions if Iran is found in breach of its obligations could mean that Iran could then legally “cease performing” its JCPOA obligations?

I see that (26) has language about the dispute resolution process, but if Iran loses that process and still maintains that it committed no breach, what’s to stop Iran from saying it was framed? Remember that the JCPOA rewrites history saying that Iran committed no violations in the past, what’s to stop Iran from doing that again,especially when there’s language that seems to preemptively gives them the means to do so?

So yes, Mr. President I have read the deal. Given the combination of your administration’s behavior and what’s written in this document, it is awful.

The Roots Of The Jihad In Tennesee

 

Many people are wondering about  the jihad attack that took the life of four Marines in Chattanooga yesterday. After all, if trained Marines aren't safe, who is?

People wondered the same thing when the Tsaernov brothers struck at the Boston Marathon. How could this have happened?

The root causes of attacks like these are exactly the same...a jihad friendly mosque,usually owned and financed by a Muslim Brotherhood front group like the North American Islamic Trust, a radical imam, and unrestricted Muslim immigration with little or no vetting.

Breitbart has an interesting story on the immigration angle today that sheds light on that part of the story, and why we can expect a lot more of these attacks. I particularly want Marco Rubio fans to pay attention:

According to U.S. Census Data, the United States admits roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants legally each year, representing the fastest growing block of immigration into the United States. Tennessee, in fact, is home to one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the country, causing the President to give a recent speech there in favor of expansive immigration. The Mayor of Nashville has launched a New American Advisory Council to help facilitate the legally-sanctioned transition from the previous inhabitants of Nashville to the new ones.

Both of Tennessee’s Senators, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)helped pass the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill which would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next ten years (remember Marco Rubio's part in that as well).

Unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants invited into the United States with green cards are granted automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Pew Research has estimated that immigration will cause the population of U.S. Muslims to more than double over the next two decades—from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030. This demographic change is entirely the product of legal admissions–that is, it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.

Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees. Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The importation of Middle Eastern immigrants through the nation’s refugee program has led to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States.

Minnesota, for instance, which has the largest Somali population in the country, has struggled to stem terror recruiting. The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported that six men from Minnesota were arrested and charged attempting to fight alongside ISIS. During the last two years alone, more than 20 Somali-Americans from Minnesota have left the U.S. to fight alongside terrorists under the banner of ISIL.

Similarly, as National Review has reported, “Dearborn, Michigan is home to just under 100,000 people, about 40 percent of whom are Muslim. In 2013, a leaked government document revealed that more people from Dearborn were on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other city except New York.”

The head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Union, Kenneth Palinkas, recently warned about this very issue: “It is also essential to warn the public about the threat that ISIS will exploit our loose and lax visa policies to gain entry to the United States. Indeed, as we know from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, from the Boston Bombing, from the recent plot to bomb a school and courthouse in Connecticut, and many other lesser-known terror incidents, we are letting terrorists into the United States right through our front door.”

He listed a number of terror attacks in which the attackers were immigrants voluntarily imported into the United States, including the Boston Marathon Bombing. None of these attacks would have occurred but for immigration sanctioned by the federal government.
{...}

On the heels of these developments, two Republican Senators–Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
and Dan Coats (R-IN)–have announced plans to substantially increase immigration from countries with large Muslim populations as a condition of a new highway bill. They are proposing to attach “highly-skilled” immigration bills from last Congress, which would expand the number of STEM workers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)–large numbers of whom come from countries with large Muslim populations like Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia. The Tennessee killer was himself an engineering student.

Similarly, presidential contender Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)has also introduced immigration legislation that would substantially increase opportunities for Muslim immigration by creating an uncapped green card program for foreign students specializing in STEM fields while tripling the number of H-1B visas. One of the fastest growing groups of foreign students are from Saudi Arabia, helping propel the foreign student population to an all-time high.

Senator Rubio’s statement on the terrorist attack in Tennessee did not mention anything about Islam.

Why, of course it didn't. This is nothing to do with Islam, right? Of course not!

Or does it?

There are between 2.5 and 3 million Muslims here in America.I can testify personally that many of them are decent folks. But what about the others? And what about those whom bring certain attitudes from their home countries that are simply incompatible with a free society? And unfortunately, there are more of them then we're being led to believe:



So 29% of Muslims polled here in America agree that violence against those whom insult Mohammed or Islam or whatever-it-is-this -week is 'sometimes acceptable?'

And 25% of them agree that attacks on Americans as part of the global jihad are justified, while 51% of them want to be governed according to sharia law?

Let's bend over backwards and slash ten percent off these numbers, just for giggles. Given the amount of people we're talking about in a relatively open society, can you see the nature of the problem in even 15% of these people believe jihad attacks against non-believers is just what Allah ordered? Or if half of them believe in following sharia, given what it mandates for women, for homosexuals, for nonbelievers? For people whom decide they no longer want to be Muslims?

Rest assured that if this trend continues, you're going to see a lot more attacks like Chattanooga, Fort Hood and Boston. You will see more honor killings. You will see Jews increasingly attacked on the streets of America, and Jewish synagogues, schools, community centers and markets or restaurants where they might congregate  under increased attacks, as they are in France and much of Western Europe. You will see 'no go' areas in American cities, and Muslims pushing for sharia law to be instituted for them, or else.

And of course, none of this will have anything to do with Islam!

"The frog in the pot felt like the water was a little warmer than he would have liked, but always figured it would cool down a bit as he got used to it. Oddly enough, it only got warmer."

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher's Council Results

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"I saw that the Aztecs were eating human meat, just like we take cows from the butcher’s shops, and they have in all towns thick wooden jail-houses, like cages, and in them they put many Indian men, women and boys to fatten, and being fattened they sacrificed and ate them." - Bernal Díaz, a member of Cortez's party in "The Conquest of New Spain" (written by 1568, published 1632)

"When I was in Holland, the idea was, all cultures are equal and all are to be preserved. My idea was, no, all humans are equal, but not all cultures are equal." - Ayaan Hirsi Ali


“We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. If they [Anglos] don’t like Mexicans, they ought to go back to Europe.” - Mario Obledo, former California secretary of health and welfare, 1998 Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and co-founder of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) interviewed on radio station KIEV, Los Angeles, June 17, 1998.


“Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn't matter which color does the hating. It's just plain wrong.” - Muhammed Ali






This week's winning essay,The Right Planet's MTV Shames White People for ‘What They’ve Done in America’ is about MTV's latest venture - the public racial shaming of white people on national television for profit and entertainment.And The Right Planet's Brent Parrish had a few straight to the heart things to say about that. Here's a slice:

Gay journalist and illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas has produced a documentary for MTV called White People. Apparently the whole purpose of the documentary is to perpetuate the “white privilege” meme by gathering up some Caucasian youths in order to make them feel “uncomfortable” about their whiteness.

Via Entertainment Weekly:

Discomfort has a name, and it’s MTV’s "White People."

The network is serious about its newest documentary from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, who won the prize for covering the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. "White People" tackles the hot topic conversation of white privilege head-on in a special presentation borne out of MTV’s Emmy-winning Look Different campaign.

The doc premieres on July 22 on MTV and follows five young white people from around the country, exploring their notions of racial identity in modern America.

Ah yes, let the Great Shaming continue!

Jose Vargas was born in the Philippines and came to the United States when he was twelve. According to a 2011 NYT article penned by Vargas, his mother sent him to live with his grandparents in the U.S. without obtaining authorization for him to stay in the country permanently. No word yet on when Vargas will shame his fellow “brown people” back in the Philippines over the fact they were “named as one of the most racist countries in the world” … not to mention their treatment of undocumented “yellow people.”

But I digress.

You know, as a white person, my idea of “white privilege” would go a little something like this … Let’s say I illegally entered Mexico and managed to land a job with the Mexican equivalent of Viacom (the corporation that produces MTV). And let’s say I produced a documentary titled Brown People that was funded by “brown people.” And let’s say the whole point of my documentary was to make “brown people” feel uncomfortable about what they have done in Mexico, as “brown people.” (You know, the Aztecs, Mayans, human sacrifices, drug cartels, narco-terror wars, and all that.) Of course, I’d also remind the “brown people” of how La Raza-ist (i.e. racist) they are if they expressed any displeasure over the fact that I had illegally emigrated to their country in order to make them feel uncomfortable about their “brown privilege.”

Now, if I could pull that off … that’s what I would call “white privilege.”



If we are forever going to be aggrieved by things that no one alive today had anything to do with (i.e. slavery), or assign collective guilt to an entire race of people over the actions of certain members from that race, then the hostility, resentment and rage will never end. But, sadly, there are those who benefit and enrich themselves by creating and fomenting permanent division (i.e. Marxist-Leninists et al).

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was the inimitable Mark Steyn with The Stupidity of Sophisticates submitted by The Noisy Room. and does Mark Steyn take them apart! A must read.

Here are this week’s full results. Rhymes With Right, VA Right, Bookworm Room and GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD were unable to vote this week, but none were subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting :

Council Winners

• *First place with 2 2/3 votes!-The Right Planet – MTV Shames White People for ‘What They’ve Done in America’


• Second place with 2 1/3 votes – Joshuapundit-Breaking - The Sordid Details Of Munich II Leak Out


• Third place with 2 votes –The Noisy Room – Pope Offers the Masses the Opium of Marxism


• fourth place with 1 1/3 votes –Bookworm Room – The Humpty Dumpty remedy for the Church's gay marriage problem


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –The Independent Sentinel – Suburban Governments Were Just Nationalized by the Federal Government


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Nice Deb – Dumbest Article You Will Read Today

Sixth place with 1/3 vote –Ask Marion – Progressive Planned Parenthood Roots and Continued Shame

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 votes! –Mark Steyn –The Stupidity of Sophisticates submitted by The Noisy Room


• Second place with 1 2/3 votes –Daniel Greenfied/FrontPageMag –Time To Call Obama And Kerry What They Are: Traitors submitted by The Independent Sentinel


• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Life News – Shock Video Catches Planned Parenthood’s Top Doctor Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies submitted by The Right Planet


• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes –Michael Totten – The Iran Delusion: A Primer for the Perplexed submitted by The Watcher


• Fourth place with 1 vote –Peter Lipson/Forbes –Are We Really Ready For Quality-Based Doctor Payments? submitted by The Razor


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes -Duane Lester.Com – Missouri Democrats Rename Annual Dinner After Former KKK Member submitted by Don Surber


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes -Acculturated – Where Have All the Manly Journalists Gone? submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes -All Emerging Markets -A Visual Guide To Venezuela's Failed Economy submitted by Nice Deb


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -David Harsanyi/The Federalist – Obama’s Nuke Deal Makes Israel The Enemy And Iran Our Ally submitted by Joshuapundit


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Mark Theissen/WAPO –Obama's silence on Kathryn Steinle killing is deafening submitted by The Watcher

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Jihad In Tennessee - Four Marines Murdered

Four US Marines were murdered and a police officer wounded when a gunman drove up to two military facilities and opened fire on them. Thanks to a Clinton era policy, no arms were permitted inside and the Marines were sitting ducks.

The killer was  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a Kuwaiti who is a naturalized U.S. citizen..you know, diversity. He was shot and killed in the interchange by a police officer.



 

The two military facilities Abdulazeez hit are around eight miles apart.First, he did a drive by shooting at an Armyy recruiting building on Amnicola Highway, and then drove to The Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center on Old Lee Highway, which sits near Tennessee River Park, near the Tennessee River and just northeast of downtown Chattanooga. That's where the four Marines were murdered.

Believe it or not, the usual suspects are doing whatever they can to label this simply a violent assault rather than a terrorist attack, just like Fort Hood.

Of course, there's evidence that this was a jihad attack that they'd rather ignore, like this tweet from an ISIS affiliated account:



And this one:

You might want to ask yourself just why Twitter allows itself to be used for messages like this, but certainly no one else is.

I can pretty much tell you how this went down. When they finally piece this together, they will find a radical Imam at a local mosque where Abdulazeez worshiped and was encouraged to wage jihad on the infidels right in the middle of it. And just by coincidence, it's the last day of Ramadan.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

Our Weasel Of The Week!

Yes, once again, It's time to present this week's statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all particularly slimy and despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner...the envelope please...

 

Pravda-on-the Hudson And The Compilers Of Its Faux 'Best Seller ' List

JoshuaPundit  and Nice Deb : Sometimes it's small, sleazy actions that best bring out the true Weasel behavior.

Ted Cruz has a brand new book out, "A Time For Truth," published on June 30. Unlike most of these sort of books, it's an autobiography Ted Cruz wrote himself sans ghostwriter, and it really does give you an understanding of whom he is, what he believes and why. And it's also a pretty good read.

The book sold 11,854 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan's hardcover sale numbers. That's more than 18 of the 20 titles that appeared on the New York Time's bestseller list for the week ending July 4. Aziz Ansari's "Modern Romance," which was #2 on the list, sold fewer than 10,000 copies. Ann Coulter's "Adios America," at #11, sold just over half as many copies that week.It is currently #4 on the Wall Street Journal hardcover list, #4 on the Publisher's Weekly hardcover list, #4 on the Bookscan hardcover list, and #1 on the Conservative Book Club list.

Ted Cruz's book did not appear on the New York Time's bestseller list at all and still hasn't even though it's still selling in the top five.

When Harper Collins inquired why the Times was  the Cruz book, they were told by Times spokesmouth Eileen Murphy that the book "didn't meet our standards for inclusion."

"Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book." She then accused Harper Collins of arranging bogus bulk sales, claiming that "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,"

No less than Amazon,  the largest Internet retailer in the country outed this for the horse manure it was:


"As of yesterday, 'A Time for Truth' was the number 13 best-selling book, and there is no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity in our sales data," Sarah Gelman, Amazon's director of press relations, said in an email.

Amazon's findings match those of HarperCollins, the book's publisher, which said Friday that it had "investigated the sales pattern" for Cruz’s book and found "no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization." Moments after that announcement, Cruz's campaign issued a press release accusing the Times of lying and calling on the paper to provide evidence of bulk purchasing or else formally apologize.

“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response — alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’ — is a blatant falsehood,” Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler said in a statement Friday. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher HarperCollins.”

Ironically, according to Keith Urbahn, the book's literary agent,the Times' weasel actions are actually helping sales.

You know, my father of blessed memory (Z"l) used to have a very Brooklyn expression I can't repeat here for people who tried to pull this sort of weasel thing and got caught at it. The very pettiness of the action and the easily debunked blatant lie to try and justify it is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, and the Times handled it the same way she did - stonewalling it as long as possible and then very quietly, without admitting any wrongdoing or really apologizing just moving on:

Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said that the newspaper made no changes to its selection process, and so the fact that Cruz’s book is being included now suggests a rise in individual purchases, spurred by his public battle with the paper.

“This week’s NYT best seller list was arrived at using the same process as last week’s – and the week before that,” Murphy wrote. “That process involves a careful analysis of data, and is not influenced in any way by the content of a book, or by pressure from publishers or book sellers.”

Have you ever heard such horse manure? Now, after lying about 'bulk strategic purchases' as an excuse to blackball Cruz's book and being outed by the publisher and biggest major retailers as the weasels they are, they finally admit Cruz's book to their putrid list where it debuts at number 7 rather than number 3 where it  would have had they  allowed it on the list when it first came out. And this is the so-called 'paper of record.' If they'd lie about something like this, can you imagine what they lie about when they present 'the news?'

 

And this Eileen Murphy...her official title at the Times where she's worked for the last four and a half years is 'vice president of corporate communications.'  I know, jobs are hard to come by, but imagine you had to wake up in the morning and mouth these sordid prevarications for a living to earn a paycheck. So I decided to award the Weasel to her, so she can share it with her co-workers. It'll look great right next to the Jayson Blair portrait, Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize, and other mementos of Time's history to remind them all of whom they really are every time they look at the Golden Weasel.


 Well, there it is.

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week's nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Obama explodes When Asked why American Hostages in Iran Weren't Released

President Obama went ballistic when CBS News' Major Garrett asked him during a scheduled White House press briefing on the Obama administration's Iran deal about four Americans still held hostage by the Iranian regime.

"As you well know there are four Americans in Iran. Three held on trumped-up charges, according to your administration, and one whereabouts unknown," he said, referring to Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, retired U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post Tehran bureau chief Jason Rezaian and former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran years ago.

Garrett continued, "Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?"

President Obama, of course, didn't actually answer the question. Instead, he lashed out at the reporter:

"I got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails — Major, that's nonsense and you should know better," Obama said.

"I've met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody's content," he added.

So, with the Obama regime basically giving the Iranians everything they wanted that meant anything, they couldn't include freedom for four hostages as part of the deal? The prisoners are languishing in Tehran's notorious Evin prison. There are credible reports that at least one of the hostages has been tortured, and in fact all four may have been.
And John Kerry couldn't spare the time to insist on them being released? After the Bowe Bergdahl fiasco?

Garret responded to the president's criticism after the briefing, explaining that he intended to be "provocative."

"Sometimes you have to take a scolding from a president to get to an answer," he said during a CBS News live report. "That's part of my job."

"Politics, especially those elected as president, are very adept at creating straw men … that's exactly what the president did," he added. "Clearly it struck a nerve. That was my intention. Was it provocative? Yes. Was it intended to be as such? Absolutely."


I personally doubt this president actually met with their families, certainly not recently. But regardless of that it is singularly disgraceful that while giving away the store to a terrorist regime, this administration refused to insist on redeeming its American hostages. It sounds suspiciously four other Americans who were left to die in a place called Benghazi.

Kudos to Major Garrett for actually practicing journalism. And being willing to stand up to the inevitable retaliation from the Obama Regime for speaking truth to power.

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - Famous Last Words Edition

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at The Noisy Room scored big as she had her article picked up this week at Gateway Pundit as well as on Bad Blue...along with three other stories that she wrote for Right Wing News. Talk about a blogging superstar!!


This week, The Political Commentator, The People's Cube, and Doug Ross earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let's see what we have for you this week....

Council Submissions

• The Noisy Room – Pope Offers the Masses the Opium of Marxism


• Don Surber – James Burke won back the public's trust.


• Joshuapundit-Breaking - The Sordid Details Of Munich II Leak Out


• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Pax Irania?


• The Right Planet – MTV Shames White People for ‘What They’ve Done in America’


• The Razor – American Magical Thinking – Flag Edition


• The Glittering Eye -Director of OPM Resigns


• The Independent Sentinel – Suburban Governments Were Just Nationalized by the Federal Government


• Ask Marion – Progressive Planned Parenthood Roots and Continued Shame


• Nice Deb – Dumbest Article You Will Read Today


• VA Right! - Martha Boneta Documentary on Virginia Farmer’s Triumph Over Corruption, Cronyism Wins Anthem Film Festival Awards


• Bookworm Room – The Humpty Dumpty remedy for the Church's gay marriage problem


• Puma By Design – Donald Trump Press Conference LA; victim’s families; Jamiel Shaw – FULL-UNEDITED


• Rhymes With Right – Statue Of Obama's White Supremacist Hero Vandalized In South Carolina

Honorable Mentions

• The Political Commentator - My Big Fat Greek Analogy


• The People's Cube - Black-owned bakery sued by gay Confederate reenactors


• Doug Ross - Living In An Age Of Evil

Non-Council Submissions

• Mark Steyn –The Stupidity of Sophisticates submitted by The Noisy Room


• Duane Lester.Com – Missouri Democrats Rename Annual Dinner After Former KKK Member submitted by Don Surber


• David Harsanyi/The Federalist – Obama’s Nuke Deal Makes Israel The Enemy And Iran Our Ally submitted by Joshuapundit


• The Hill – ISIS has threatening words for Christian Jerusalem submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD


• Life News – Shock Video Catches Planned Parenthood’s Top Doctor Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies submitted by The Right Planet


• Peter Lipson/Forbes –Are We Really Ready For Quality-Based Doctor Payments? submitted by The Razor


• Acculturated – Where Have All the Manly Journalists Gone? submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Daniel Greenfied/FrontPageMag –Time To Call Obama And Kerry What They Are: Traitors submitted by The Independent Sentinel


• Jeff Jacoby/Boston Globe -When judges corrode the law submitted by Ask Marion


• All Emerging Markets -A Visual Guide To Venezuela's Failed Economy submitted by Nice Deb


• Michael Totten – The Iran Delusion: A Primer for the Perplexed submitted by The Watcher


• Noah Rothman/Commentary – The Democrats’ Worst Fear submitted by The Watcher


• Mark Theissen/WAPO –Obama's silence on Kathryn Steinle killing is deafening submitted by The Watcher

Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!And don't forget to tune in Friday for the results!

The New Iran Deal - the Stench Of Appeasement

Over the weekend, I received intel from some of my sources outlining the framework of the proposed deal by John Kerry and the P5+1 with Iran regarding its illegal nuclear weapons program, where I reported on here. It was so bad that I don't mind telling you that it took me a couple of days to get to a place where I could write about what was involved, and I hoped that for once my sources were exaggerating a bit or that the West might finally come to its senses and walk away.

Today, the deal, known as the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action' was announced, ad as usual, my notorious Little Birdies did not exaggerate at all, and the 'Plan of Action' is pretty much what they said it was with a few last minute minor changes, none of which mean much in practical terms.

Iran will be able to veto any IAEA inspections, and will be able to pick and choose where those inspections take place. It will likewise be able to delay any inspections through the mechanism of an 'arbitration system' giving Iran plenty of time to clean up and move anything they want to conceal while still technically being in compliance.

As I reported, the sanctions officially won't be lifted until 2016. In the real world, the sanctions have disappeared already and countries are already cutting deals with the regime. That includes the UN arms sanctions on Iran as a supporter and enabler of terrorism, which are supposed to remain in place for five years but will supposedly be lifted after certification of Iran's compliance. In the real world, Russia and China among other countries will cheerfully violate the sanctions, which they never approved of in the first place. Money talks, and Russia especially is not going to take weapons sanctions seriously anymore.

The Iranians have apparently agreed to reduce their centrifuges to 6,000 and to destroy most of their stockpile of enriched uranium. Since we only know approximately how much of each they have and inspections are at Iran's discretion, this is a fairly meaningless concession on their part. Expect that many of the centrifuges Iran disposes of will be the old, first generation IR-1s, which the Iranians want to replace anyway, and as part of the agreement, the Western powers have also agreed to work with Iran to help it install and operate more advanced centrifuges. As far as the nuclear stockpile goes, again, we have no clue how much they really have, and there are technical ways to 'destroy' enriched uranium that allow it to be reprocessed at a later date.

There was also no mention in this 'plan' of Iran's heavy water reactor at Arak, which has no peaceful application and produces plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons. Presumably, Arak will continue to operate.

I'm not surprised at all Iran signed on to this. It provides this fascist regime with billions of dollars to keep it in power, develop nuclear weapons and expand its power in the region. And it demands nothing significant from them.

President Obama announced what a wonderful deal this was, saying that because of this deal, "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East."

For a sitting president of the United States to say this is the very height of either ignorance, arrogance or sheer deception..perhaps all three. Because of this president's 'diplomacy,' the Saudis have already announced that they will now obtain nuclear weapons and Egypt is working on a deal with Russia for a new reactor to enhance its own already existing nuclear program. And let's not even mention the almost certain Iranian bomb to come.

A second blatant lie in this morning's output by President Obama is that "the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. "

As I pointed out above, the exact opposite is the case. Before this was announced, I gave you what has turned out to be a pretty accurate preview yesterday of the sort of horse manure this president would use to sell this to the American people:




And here's another thought to consider. This dubious achievement is Obama's legacy. Even if Iran cheats, does anyone really think this president is going to be the one to admit he was wrong and take action? Anyone who has been paying attention to Barack Hussein Obama's conduct in office knows better. He will ignore it, claim plausible denial and leave it to be someone else's problem. Just like Bill Clinton did on North Korea and other fiascoes.

The president made a point of castigating the Republican controlled congress as 'playing politics' and letting them know that he will veto any attempts by congress to reject this ridiculous travesty.

Surprisingly, to me the best comment on this came from none other than Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who derided the agreement as a "dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal," saying that it still allows a path for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb.

"A comprehensive agreement should require Iran to verifiably abandon – not simply delay – its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability," Bush said in a statement. He added: "This isn't diplomacy – it is appeasement."

Winston Churchill had this to say after Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich in 1938 with his own version of peace in our time: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

It's very possible that having made the same choice, we will have the same result, and at a time of Iran's choosing, not ours. They remain committed to the destruction of the country they call the Great Satan, and that has not changed.

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!

It's time once again for the Watcher's Council's 'Weasel Of The Week' nominations, where we pick our choices to compete for the award of the famed Golden Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations!

Here are this weeks' nominees....

 

MTV's Racialist Illegal Alien Commentator Jose Antonio Vargas!

 The Noisy Room : My nomination this week is Jose Antonio Vargas/MTV. Boy, this isn’t how I remember MTV. This is just sick. Racism wasn’t something most of us even thought of until Obama came on the scene. Now, the Marxists are creating chaos in the streets and trying to push a race war. Looks like MTV is a willing propaganda channel for the government now. If this video and show were hosted by white people, it would be shut down faster than you could blink. The Progressives want us divided along racial lines and they will use every tool they have to do it. MTV is just their way of getting to young minds.

 

From Top Right News:

Does it get any sicker than this? Here is the product of nearly 60 years of Progressive indoctrination in our schools, media and culture.

MTV will air a show later this month entitled White People which shows young white Americans crying on camera over their “white privilege” and publicly shaming them for “what they’ve done in America”.

No, this is not a joke. The documentary is hosted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant and amnesty activist who has worked for the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.

The trailer for the show, which has been widely criticized by YouTube respondents, features white people expressing angst about how they are desperate not to appear “racist” or “offend people.”

According to Kimberly Ricci, the documentary forces the participants “to internalize what they’ve done in America” – in other words, this a huge exercise in white guilt tripping for public consumption.

An MTV write up of the show also explains how Vargas talks to young Native Americans who feel that European settlers did not ‘save the country’.
“They are the ones who invaded. They are the ones who took,” says Vargas. In the interests of balance, when will Vargas be fronting a show called Black People that collectively blames all black people for black crime statistics, including the fact that black people in America commit over half of homicides despite making up only 13 per cent of the population?

How about the fact that despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa?

How about the fact that interracial rapes are almost exclusively black on white?
How about the Barbary slave trade, under which over 1 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa until the middle of the 18th century?
Are black people going to be shown crying on camera having been shamed into taking responsibility for all of this? No, because that would be racist. But according to MTV and Vargas, subjecting someone to trial by media purely because of their skin color is perfectly acceptable – so long as they are white.

This documentary represents the culmination of years of race-baiting and racial division which is being driven by the mass media and the Obama White House, tensions which have rapidly accelerated since the Ferguson and Baltimore riots.

Responses to the video trailer on YouTube were savage, with the clip receiving twice as many ‘thumbs down’ in comparison to ‘thumbs up’.

“I’m black, even I know this show is straight up racist. Only because it’s stereotyping white people, all white INDIVIDUALS are not like that,” wrote one respondent.
“You want an uncomfortable conversation on race? Let’s talk about violent crime stats shall we? No? I get it, you only want white people to feel uncomfortable,” added another.
“Fuck you MTV, I will NEVER apologize for the skin I was born with, nor will I apologize for being a male, or for being straight,” another respondent asserted.

However, many in the liberal media are celebrating the show, with Kristen Yoonsoo remarking how pleased she is about the fact that, “lots of white people tears lie ahead.”
“It’s always a good time poking fun at white people,” she concludes.

They are cherry picking whites who willingly express faux grief over their race and things done in the past they had nothing to do with. MTV goes out and finds Native Americans who say what they are programmed to say. They use professional victims and those with a political agenda that want to tear us apart. They even have the nerve to use an illegal, Marxist alien to host the show. This video is hugely unpopular on YouTube which should give MTV a clue that this is offensive and just stupid. But no… they now have a political agenda and have a point to make. Whatever happened to music videos and entertainment? Or has the government just co-opted all major media outlets now? The fact that Vargas is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist is a very bad joke as well. Cry me a river and get over your racist selves. We don’t have to be ashamed because we are white, straight, conservative or Christian. MTV can stuff it and have richly earned their weasel status along with Vargas.




Physician And Medicare Fraud Farid Fata!

Ask Marion :I nominate oncologist Dr. Farid Feta, who gave $35 million in needless chemotherapy to patients – some of whom didn’t even have cancer, for Weasel of the Week. Even when patients arrived at Fata’s office with urgent medical conditions Fata directed that chemotherapy be administered before he would allow them to go to the hospital.

He has been sentenced to 45-years in prison after poisoning over 500 patients with needless or excessive Cancer treatments in a scheme to collect millions of dollars from insurance companies.

Although this is an extreme case of fraud and malpractice, if you look at our entire western medical system, and more specifically the treatment of Cancer, it is full of fraud and questionable treatment decisions that are considered conventional, are approved by the system or are ignored.

Having Cancer is a battle within your own body, but having Cancer in America is having a battle within your body as well as with the AMA, the FDA, the FTC, Big Agri, Big Pharma, Big Business and Big Government and usually with your own doctors who are without many of the tools that practitioners have outside the U.S., as well as often having the wrong tools. Add a monster like Dr. Farid Fata and there is no hope which is all that keeps severely ill patients going.

The prosecutors did a fantastic job in this case, but many victims were disappointed with the 45-year sentence considering all of the lives that Fata ruined and all the grave markers out there that all the victims’ families have to look at. Life without parole or the death penalty seems more fitting to most!


 
Pee Aitch Dee And Vampire Advocate Dr, Deviant, AKA DR. D. J. Williams!

;The Independent Sentinel : Dr. D. J. Williams, yet another useless sociology researcher, wants us to accept vampires as normal. We mustn't stereotype them.

“Most vampires believe they were born that way; they don’t choose this,” said Dr. D. J. Williams, the study’s lead researcher and the director of sociology at Idaho State.

“The message is to not take things at face value, to be more aware of our stereotypes and our judgments, maybe focus on commonalities that people have,” Williams said in an interview with MTV. “People understand themselves in very different ways, and that’s OK. We’re all human. We all have a lot of things in common. I think a little more awareness of our own biases and more cultural sensitivity — more compassion — that’s really the important thing underlying all of this,” he said.

If they feel they're vampires, they must be vampires. There's no other explanation!

Sadly, “nearly all participants were distrustful of social workers and helping professionals and preferred to ‘stay in the coffin’ for fear of being misunderstood, labeled, and potentially having to face severe repercussions to their lives.”

I know, why don't we make them a protected class!

In his bio on the Idaho State University, it says, "D J is a leading expert on deviant leisure (including both positive and negative forms), thus he is sometimes affectionately known as “Dr. Deviant.” He appreciates human diversity and creative expression."

How did this guy get a job at Idaho State? Are they loons now too?


 
Pravda-on-the Hudson And The Compilers Of It's Faux 'Best Seller ' List

 JoshuaPundit : Sometimes it's small, sleazy actions that best bring out the true Weasel behavior.

Ted Cruz has a brand new book out, "A Time For Truth," published on June 30. Unlike most of these sort of books, it's an autobiography Ted Cruz wrote himself sans ghostwriter, and it really does give you an understanding of whom he is, what he believes and why. And it's also a pretty good read.

The book sold 11,854 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan's hardcover sale numbers. That's more than 18 of the 20 titles that appeared on the New York Time's bestseller list for the week ending July 4. Aziz Ansari's "Modern Romance," which was #2 on the list, sold fewer than 10,000 copies. Ann Coulter's "Adios America," at #11, sold just over half as many copies that week.It is currently #4 on the Wall Street Journal hardcover list, #4 on the Publisher's Weekly hardcover list, #4 on the Bookscan hardcover list, and #1 on the Conservative Book Club list.

Ted Cruz's book did not appear on the New York Time's bestseller list at all and still hasn't even though it's still selling in the top five.

When Harper Collins inquired why the Times was  the Cruz book, they were told by Times spokesmouth Eileen Murphy that the book "didn't meet our standards for inclusion."

"Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book." She then accused Harper Collins of arranging bogus bulk sales, claiming that "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,"

No less than Amazon,  the largest Internet retailer in the country outed this for the horse manure it was:


"As of yesterday, 'A Time for Truth' was the number 13 best-selling book, and there is no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity in our sales data," Sarah Gelman, Amazon's director of press relations, said in an email.

Amazon's findings match those of HarperCollins, the book's publisher, which said Friday that it had "investigated the sales pattern" for Cruz’s book and found "no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization." Moments after that announcement, Cruz's campaign issued a press release accusing the Times of lying and calling on the paper to provide evidence of bulk purchasing or else formally apologize.

“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response — alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’ — is a blatant falsehood,” Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler said in a statement Friday. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher HarperCollins.”

Ironically, according to Keith Urbahn, the book's literary agent,the Times' weasel actions are actually helping sales.

 Well, there it is. What a despicable group of  Weasels...ANY OF THEM COULD WIN! Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?