Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - Nothin' To Do With Islam Edition

Islamism,Islam, Muslim, terror, terrorism, Orlando, terror attack, LGBT, Media, MSM, media bias,Jihad,
(Courtesy of my Israeli pal,veteran cartoonist Yaakov Kirshen of Dry Bones)

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.


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

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions


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!

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Whose To Blame For Orlando?

http://www.capmag.com/images2y346y/comics/cf/ConnectingDots-X.gif


A few separate events, all in the same few days...a man guns down 50 people in an Orlando, Florida night club, another man is arrested in Sacramento, California with a list of targets, still another man is shot dead by police after taking hostages in Amarillo, Texas, and still another man murdered two people in Magnanville, France and posted picture of the murders on Facebook.

Is there a thread connecting these incidents? Why of course there is, JFA, Jihad for Allah. And Ramadan is a special time for this kind of activity.

 https://regularrightguy.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/obama-smug.png


Of course, the usual suspects would not want any mention of that sort of thing! The news media, our president, the presumed Democrat nominee and the Leftist punditocracy had far more interesting things to blame...America's supposed lack of gun control and in the case of Orlando, homophobia, of course. The execrable New York Daily News actually ran a photo of the carnage with the headline 'Thanks, NRA' while the head of our misnamed Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson said that disarming Americans is now a matter of national security badly needed to keep Americans safe.

You literally can't make this stuff up.

The 'gun control' argument is ludicrous in and of itself. One of the Orlando victims actually texted his mother to tell her goodbye because the jihadi was coming towards him. Rest assured that young man would have given anything he owned for a loaded, working firearm in his hand and the ability to use it at that tragic, life ending moment.

Jihadis like Omar Mateen as well as ordinary criminals will always be able to obtain guns by theft, smuggling, buying them on the black market or even by making guns themselves. They could care less about laws. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but that didn't stop jihadis from killing over a hundred disarmed people in Paris using fully auto AK47s.

So if guns aren't to blame, how about homophobia? There are a couple of things awry with that. First, we know the following at this point: that Mateen himself was a homosexual whom was actually familiar with the gay nightclub he shot up, and that he also cased several other targets, including Orlando's Disney World.

Thanks to how our media silences certain things about the Religion of Peace, one fact that isn't well known is how certain shaheeds, martyrs are recruited. In 'Palestine' as well as in AfPack and Iraq, young women and yes, homosexuals have been recruited as suicide bombers by jihadis because they are deemed less likely to be caught. In these places, there have been several instances of older women caught setting up young girls to be gang raped and then blackmailed with the choice of redeeming themselves by becoming shaheeds or facing murder by their families in an honor killing. The same thing has been done before with male homosexuals whom face the death penalty if outed, particularly in AfPak.

If Omar Mateen was focusing on murdering gays, there would be no reason for him to scope out other,non-gay targets. His first wife, school classmate and second wife have both revealed that it was known that Omar was homosexual and that he had perused gay dating sites on the internet. Rather than outright Muslim homophobia, I think it's likely he was outed and blackmailed. And then, since Disney World has fairly tight security, he simply picked the softer target, one where he was known and was familiar with.

In any event, since the Obama Administration has already imported almost one million Muslims 'refugees' and increasing from countries where homophobia, along with other things incompatible with a free society is an established part of the culture and the religion and since Mrs. Clinton is quite open about wanting to increase those numbers if she's elected, isn't it a bit awkward of them to bash homophobia verbally in America while working so hard to increase it? Of course, the media isn't going to ask them such an awkward question. And of course, it's definitely a question homosexuals ought to be asking themselves before they vote Democrat, but I digress.

So, if we can't blame guns and homophobia, what's left? Can we blame Islam? ISIS? I don't think so, not really.

The men and women we're discussing (and that includes Mateen's spouse, who admits she knew the attack was imminent but said nothing to the police)are merely doing what the Qu'ran and their imams have told them to do for fourteen hundred years. And ISIS is just the latest player.

After all, if you import lots of poisonous snakes and settle them on your property, is it fair to complain if they behave according to their nature? Especially if you spread them around the country without telling anyone they just might be poisonous, and threaten anyone whom dares complain with the full weight of Big Government? That's exactly what's been happening,and while the Obama Regime has been facilitating this on steroids, it's not new.

The theory behind this after 9/11 and a few other 'man created tragedies' was that we needed to be especially nice to Muslims and Muslim countries so that Islam could go through a reformation and become more 'moderate.'

Well, it worked. Except not as planned, saddiq. Instead of becoming more moderate whatever that actually meant, Islam's reformation went in the opposite direction to become even closer to Mohammed's original 7th century blueprint. And why not? We actually encouraged it.

Three presidents, all of whom were two termers facilitated a devil's bargain made by the Sunni monarchs with Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Provided they didn't operate on their turf, the Sunni monarchs were more than willing to finance dawa, proselytization by the Muslim Brotherhood in the West. That meant funding CAIR, The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), The North American Islamic Trust(NAIT) which later morphed into the Islamic Trust of North America(ITNA), The Muslim Students Association(MSA) and a whole slew of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. If any of the names sound familiar, it's because they were all named as unindicted conspirators for giving material aid to terrorism in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and most of the heads of these organizations would be in jail right now if it wasn't for Eric Holder and the Obama Administration protecting them by refusing to prosecute them.

The Sunni monarchies also financed the Brotherhood in the buy out of most of America's existing mosques either by outright purchase, new construction or by offering these small mosques new buildings or a refit of their existing ones plus all kinds of funding, provided the Brotherhood got to pick the imams and religious teachers. One of the major donors to this site is a devout Muslim, American patriot and former Marine Lt. Colonel who emigrated here as a teen from Turkey and earned his citizenship in our military. He saw exactly that happen to his local mosque and now prays at home.

If you ever wondered about the source of what our Dear Leader recently called 'home grown radicalization,' there's a big part of the answer. All one needs to do is follow the chain of events behind attacks like the ones in Boston, Little Rock, Fort Hood, Sacramento and now Orlando.

 

And it wasn't only the mosques and madrassahs. The Saudis and their fellow Sunni monarchs spent money buying up the Middle East Studies departments of many major universities, and also spent lavishly on what I call the Golden Flying Carpet, where compliant diplomats and politicians were rewarded after they left office with lucrative business opportunities, six figure speaking fees, honorariums and 'consulting fees' and other monetary rewards.

And there were and are eager recipients on both sides of the aisle. Remember 'Portgate' when President George W. Bush wanted to turn our port security at 22 major over to a company owned by the Emir of Dubai, a country with a long history of financing and facilitating jihad? Aside from the president's efforts on behalf of the Emir of Dubai to twist the arms of congress on this one, a whole brigade of ex-presidents, former cabinet members and influential pols swarmed all over our legislators, including Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton's 'consulting fee' was half a million US dollars, and interested parties can also research how Bill Clinton got seriously wealthy after leaving the White House thanks to a 'business opportunity he was given by the Emir of Qatar. And who funds Jimmy Carter's six figure salary from the Carter Peace Foundation.

 

For that matter, it was the Saudis who funded the lion's share of George W. Bush's huge presidential library at SMU, and it was Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who recently claimed to have financed 20% of Mrs. Clinton's campaign, something the Saudis were quick to deny in the wake of recent events, claiming the prince had been 'misquoted.' Although this item would seem to contradict that.

I recite these sorry facts merely as a possible explanation of certain otherwise inexplicable things that have happened over the last quarter century of so.

Ever train a puppy? If you have, you know that it's vital to correct the dog when he misbehaves and to praise him when he behaves properly. If you praise him and reward him no matter what he does, the bad behavior not only continues, it accelerates. Eventually, it graduates from urinating in the house and chewing shoes to biting you as he loses respect for you and decides he's in control.

That's where we are now, like it or not. What's next?

While there are certainly individual Muslims capable of playing well with others, Islam is not. And it isn't going to change, not without major, real world natural consequences. Reverting to the time-honored homily that most Muslims are peaceful may be true, but a significant number of Muslims aren't, and many of the rest seem  curiously reluctant to oppose them in any major way, just like our dysfunctional leadership. We have to start from that premise, and as he has a habit of doing, it was Donald Trump who first fingered this as the beginning of solving the problem, something he was demonized for by the President, Mrs. Clinton and a number of 'conservative' Republicans like Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander, and Bob Corker.

Trump's correct that the main problem is weak leadership, but along with that, it is the West and particularly the United States that needs a major change of attitude and an end to inaction. That's going to mean more than a temporary ban on Muslim migration and building a wall.

This website's original subtitle was and remains 'A Digest And Commentary On The War Against Jihad.' Over ten years later, it is a war we have barely begun to fight, and even today, we concentrate of the fallacy of defensive war, of reaction, something General Douglas MacArthur once succinctly and correctly defined in one word: defeat.

 The US has dealt in the past with fanatical enemies as well as potential fifth columnists on its soil with great success. The way we did it was not by using half measures. When even the idea of a jihadist attack on America or its allies becomes unthinkable because of the dire consequences it involves, that attacks will stop.

That's exactly what we're going to have to do to defeat the Death Cult much of Islam has become.

And to return to our theme, who's really to blame for Orlando and the other atrocities committed on out soil? Time to look in the mirror. After all, whom was it that elected our current excuse for leadership over the last two decades or so? And whom has continued to enable it?

Here's something from someone I consider a master of the English language:

"You can always trust the American people to do the right thing - eventually."

Churchill had also seen a stagnant, reality ignoring Britain in action and the real sign of change came when he was elected its leader. In a few months, we'll see whether America is ready for that kind of change.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Forum: Who Will The Nominees Pick As Running Mates?



Every week on Monday, 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: Who Will The Nominees Pick As Running Mates?

Bookworm Room : I hope that Donald Trump picks Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest constitutional conservatives around. I wouldn't dare even guess whom Trump will actually pick. He makes a habit of going off in directions that no one expects.

I think that, as we sit here, it's likely that Hillary will pick Fauxcahontas, aka Elizabeth Warren, the embittered, hypocritical "class warrior" who made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year teaching a class or two at elitist Harvard, who lives in a subsidized high-end home, and who made even more big money buying foreclosed houses. As one of her students in the days before she discovered she could leverage her cheekbones into an Ivy League profession, all I can say is that I thought she was a dreadful Banking Law teacher. I never had the faintest idea what she was talking about -- and I've learned over the years that I'm bright enough to understand good teachers and lazy enough to tune out bad ones.

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: Conventional cats tend to believe old school chiz about VP. Geography, race and gender. Yet 2016 has been anything but conventional.

In this regards, HRC will pick someone up until last fall would never have been considered for VP with HRC as the nominee:

Senator Sanders. "Feel the Bern" could very well be applied to HRC's curiously boring campaign to grab semi socialist younger cats that may not vote HRC in the fall.

Senator Warren. If one woman is historic - why not up the ante with two? Either Sanders or Warren will complete HRC's lurch to the leftist side of politics imaginable. Unverified gossip says Team Clinton is more intrigued than ever about a Clinton-Warren ticket, and some strategists say the longer Sanders stays in the race, the more likely Clinton could pick Warren to be her running mate.

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. Many see him as having all the right attributes to fill the ticket and win over progressives. Unions love him, plus he speaks fluent Spanish could help further drive Latinos to Clinton's column. Perez told reporters this week that he has had “no conversations” about a possible VP role. Instead, he said, he is focused on his job and “in my spare time” is also helping to elect Clinton.

Gov John Hickenlooper. Aside from the catchy surname, a win in Colorado would cement the race for Clinton. Hickenlooper has also been a loyal soldier to Clinton during the primary, particularly when his state voted for Sanders by nearly 20 percentage points.

For the GOP, Trump recently stated he had a short list of about 7 cats - including Arizona Gov Jan Brewer and Oklahoma Gov Mary Fallon. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa may be a tad closer to getting the call though, as Trump's negatives with women are sky high. A woman on the ticket might help. Plus, Ernst is from the swing state of Iowa.

Governors Christie, Perry and Jindal may sound good, though Trump is likely to win Texas and Louisiana with out them. Christie's in-your-face, tough-talking style is a lot like Trump's. If being an attack dog is a top requirement for a VP candidate then Christie's evisceration of Marco Rubio is a qualification/recommendation. Then again, Trump usually takes care of those duties himself.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has made no secret he'd dig the gig.

Long Shot - Congresslady Mia Love from Utah. Haitian (many say she was an anchor baby) her mixed marriage, immigrant, and lady attributes could very well inoculate Trump from the the trifecta of tired accusations about race, immigrants and gender Trump has taken and will continue to take.

Plus, "Trump Love 2016" is mighty catchy!

JoshuaPundit: Let's start with Mrs Clinton. I doubt she will pick Elizabeth Warren, because Fauxahontas is not only another elderly white lady from a state Hillary is sure to win anyway but is something of a star in her own right (and therefore not as controllable) whom would have to give up a senate seat to run. She might also be seen as something of a sell out by her fans for running with Mrs. Clinton, Additionally, word is Fauxahontas has ambitions of jousting with Chuck Schumer for the Senate leadership spot.

Ditto when it come to Boynee for a lot of the same reasons. All else aside, the last thing the Dems want is a Jew on a national ticket, even a totally irreligious, Israel bashing one like Boynee.

I think Hillary is going to go for what she needs most in the election; a younger, more energetic attack dog, the largest black turnout she can get and as much support from Obama as possible. She'll get two of these qualities and the possibility of a third (the largest black turnout she can muster) with former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick.

A number of writers repeated a story that back when Joe Biden was toying with a run, Obama's price for support was that the president would be able to pick Biden's running mate, who was Obama protege, Deval Patrick.  Since Biden didn't run, it's not a stretch to see the Clintons making the same deal with Obama, given the president's obvious zeal and promise of over the top support for the Clinton campaign. Given that Patrick is  a decent rabble rouser who embraces radical Left wing politics. I see him as a natural choice.

I doubt she would pick a Latino, simply because turnout is usually low, Latinos tend to be concentrated in states that are already democrat strongholds and Trump is showing surprising strength in this demographic lately. However, if Mrs. Clinton did pick a Latino, I'd expect to see either former mayor of San Antonio and present HUD Secretary Julián Castro. Or possibly Reps. Xavier Bacerra or Luis Gutiérrez. All three are experienced race card slingers and total amnesty advocates.

I honestly have no clue as to whom Donald Trump would pick. The only thing I can say is that he appears to take the choice seriously and to want to pick someone whom could take over if President Trump was incapacitated and unable to serve for some reason.


Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : After the massacre today in Orlando by a radical Islamic terrorist it should be clear to most reasonable Americans that Hillary Clinton should NOT become president, so who cares who she picks as a running mate. As far as Trump, I would hope he picks someone more conservative than himself. Newt Gingrich would be my first choice, but since this election is down to Clinton or Trump (unless the FBI decides to do something about Hillary’s illegal activities) we need to support Trump no matter who he chooses as his running mate.


  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?


Friday, June 10, 2016

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher's Council Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/C.sf.,_castelli,_carmine_gentile,_ovale_con_allegoria_dell%27accademia_degli_illuminati,_1730-1750.JPG

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

"“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” " - Jeff Cooper, Art of The Rifle

"Liberalism is like an acid that distorts and ruins everything it touches" -Rush Limbaugh

“The Second Amendment is timeless for our Founders grasped that self-defense is three-fold: every free individual must protect themselves against the evil will of the man, the mob and the state.” - Tiffany Madison


Stately McDaniel Manor

We had a tie this week in our Council category. Joshuapundit's Welcome To The Left's Carny Show is about...well, let's just say the title pretty much says it all.

Stately McDaniel Manor's Gun Violence Awareness Day And Common Sense concerns the outright hypocrisy involved in one of those cute Leftist 'holidays' I wasn't even aware of, and I bet you weren't either. It's a superb piece, and since I break ties around here,it gets the crown this week. Here's a slice:

Thursday, June 02, was National Gun Violence Awareness Day. I nearly missed it, or at least, I wasn’t aware of it until I read about it in my daily Internet searches. Such occasions must have various symbols associated with them–these days that means a color–and the people behind this occasion have chosen orange. Perhaps they think themselves clever, associating their cause with blaze orange vests worn by hunters for safety purposes, or perhaps it’s just that the rainbow–much more eye-catching–was already taken by LGBTQWERTY folks.

 credit: politico.com
-credit: politico.com

I’ve long had a language problem with “gun violence.” Violence, a noun, requires activation; it requires a verb, as in “he committed violence.” One might add an adjective to clarify the degree of violence, but warping a noun into an adjective to describe an inanimate object–or an idea or concept, as in this case–is nonsensical.

If we’re going there, why not “car violence,” or “hand violence,” or “foot violence?” There could even be “fork violence,” “thrown ketchup violence,” or “hamburger violence.” Far more people experience violence through the application of force via motor vehicles, hands or feet than by firearms. Unsaid, because it is reasonably assumed, is that violence is committed by people using various instruments, when they’re not using their hands or feet. One can shoot someone, and normal people might call that act violent, but normal people do not say: “Bob committed gun violence on Steve.” They say “Bob shot Steve,” assuming any such act would involve violence. And why not “bullet violence”? After all, it was the bullet that did the damage, not the gun. If Bob stabbed Steve with a screwdriver, no sane person would think to say “Bob committed screwdriver violence on Steve.”

Why, then would anyone invent an “awareness” day using such a clumsy and strained bastardization of language? Aren’t people already aware that there are plenty of criminals out there and they sometimes shoot people, particularly in places like Chicago? Of course they are. It’s not because they seek clarity and education. On the contrary, they seek to control, conceal and mislead.

Who, after all, apart from sociopaths and psychopaths, is in favor of violence, regardless of which tool is used to commit it? Who champions “gun violence?” No one. So what do the people behind National Gun Violence Awareness Day hope to accomplish, other than further deconstructing clear, understandable English?

I’ll get to that in a moment, but one thing the Left has down pat is coopting the language. They know all too well how powerful the ability to name things is, and how effective choosing the right language–and relentlessly hammering it into the ears of low-information citizens–can be in controlling any debate. That’s why leftists currently prefer to call themselves progressives rather than liberals. While most people can’t accurately define “liberal,” they can judge the rhetoric, actions and policies of liberals, and liberals have given themselves a very bad name indeed. Thus, liberals have become progressives, because who can be against progress? That’s why they’re always talking about “moving America forward,” and maintaining the glorious progress they’ve achieved. When it gets down to actually explaining that progress, one usually finds that the progress consists of progress in working to maintain progressive progress so that we can continue to progress progressively, or in making life infinitely worse, as with Obamacare.

 Eventually, the public catches up to the latest progressive deception. Hillary Clinton and others have been proclaiming the Republican “war on women,” for a very long time, but she recently stopped using that term when polling indicated it was no longer effective. Apparently progressives still think “gun violence” works.


Amy Schumer's Gun Awareness Day Statement

Progressives are also good at getting celebrities involved in their crusades. A woman billed as an actress and comedian, Amy Schumer, was very much involved, posting a selfie of her torso, naked except for a athletic bra which looks sort of reddish-orangish. Obviously, she is making a statement that semi-naked, headless women in reddish-orangish bras are particularly aware of gun violence and if you pose that way, so can you.

As I already mentioned, no one is arguing for “gun violence.” There is no “More Gun Violence Association Of America” lobbying for more of something that does not, in grammar and fact, exist. “Gun Violence” is nothing more than the June, 2016 version of “Gun Control,” which long ago went the way of “Liberal.” “Common Sense Gun Safety,” is also becoming a bit long in the tooth.



Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was The National Interest with The U.S. Navy's Plan to Dominate the Sky in the 2030s (And Beyond) submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD

Here are this week’s full results. Fausta, The Razor and Angry White Dude were unable to vote this week, but none of them were subject to the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


See you next week!

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?

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - 'Trust Me' Edition



Well, the Democrats now have their nominee...one of the sleaziest, most corrupt figures ever to besmirch American public life. The American Spectator's E.J. Tyrell Jr. once referred to the Clintons as 'coat and tie radicals,' people whom were willing to put on the costume of what they saw as the establishment in order to destroy it while garnering wealth and power for themselves. No one can deny that they've had a decent amount of success in both goals.

A very wise man who was there for the birthing once described our government to one of his fellow citizens as 'a Republic, if you can keep it.'

This is the election where we find out whether we can.

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.

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

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions


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!

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Welcome To The Left's Carny Show

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6qjIv5IwRsFlu-PpTcISzNtUPKAxYgnH6dTpY5fF055wUd3gMvGvhILdujE3TXwOmCS5dmsMxykbl2jcioBUgVlykM4Sq1jCmZRW4IBdHPNxj8VgJOpFC5qs8uHU8JYMbuycGdA/s1600/Carny+Clown+and+Barker.jpg

Ever been to a real live carnival and watched the barkers lure the rubes in? The basic premise is always one of illusion, which means distracting people from reality with the promise of something special to see or the winning of a prize playing one of the 'games of chance' while taking them for as much as you can. Let's go to the carny show and have some fun, shall we?

Step right up! Here's your chance and we have some great  exhibits.

Here's exhibit number one....Donald Trump's phony charity, especially towards veterans.

He didn't raise any $6 million, and he held on to the money he did raise for too long, right? He lied! He only raised $5.6 million, including $1 million he kicked in himself.

Look over here, not at that other booth housing the Clinton Foundation exhibit.Trust me, folks, there's nothing you want to see there!

Oh, OK let's take a look anyway if you really feel you must. Aw, c'mon...do we really need to watch  what Mr. Trump and a certain Marine combat vet have to say?



Oh my...let's make sure we cut the Marine out when we show this on CNN, m'kay? Just leave in the part about him bullying a reporter and calling him a sleaze. Yeah, that's the story.

Oh and you don't want to look at this part of the Clinton exhibit either....well if you must, you must. Yeah, these are just boring figures from Form 990 charities use to report their figures. Trust me, it's...well, OK. Some guy named Don Surber put this stuff together...damned bloggers.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AP999317622685.jpg

The [Clinton] foundation’s latest Form 990 shows that as of December 31, 2014, Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and their hedge fund son-in-law sat on $439,505,295 in assets. That's pretty good for a "non-profit."

In 2014, they received $24,313,685 in contributions and $113,957,283 in grants, including government grants.

That $439 million in assets is 17 times larger than that $25 million hedge fund that son-in-law ran into the ground by hedging on Greek debt. That $439 million represents a hefty investment fee for some person or company lucky enough to land the account.

The foundation spent $248,221,698 in 2014:

$95,887,139 on salaries and benefits.

$20,786,529 on travel.

$17,249,876 on professional and consulting services.

$14,200,147 on conferences and events.

$14,196,240 on UNITAID commodities expense

$13,519,824 on meetings and training.

Et cetera. Oh and $33,692,599 was spent on direct program expenditures. Sure, this is all legal, but as a charity, this is not on the up and up. The Clintons used this as a way to launder foreign donations (which would be illegal if they were campaign donations) to finance her campaign in absentia.

See, I told you it was boring. It wasn't ? But hey, LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP'S FOUNDATION!

His latest Form 990 as of 2012 shows $1,259,851 in income, all from Trump. $1,712,089 in disbursements to various charities, and a total of $1,717,293, in assets. Looky at all the expenses! What's this $5,305? Oh, just the audit cost, and Trump paid for it himself based on the figures? Sounds fishy to me. Like I said, this is real news, not the stuff about the Clinton Foundation. Just forget about that, OK?

Let's go to the next exhibit...hey, the bogus Trump University! What a scandal huh? Donald Trump fleecing all those poor people, no wonder he's being sued. No, don't go back to the Clinton exhibit. You don't need to know about CGI University and the Clintons, it's nothing important. trust me. No one's interested in that. No one important, anyway.

And no, please don't go back there behind the curtain! OK, so the Trump University thing is a little exaggerated. Quiet down, let's keep this between ourselves and I'll level with you, OK?

Turns out this got started after Trump refused to donate to New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's campaign in spite of repeated 'suggestions.' It's just a coincidence, honest that Trump was slapped with a $40 million law suit by Schneiderman after that against Trump University in 2013 charging fraud. Would I lie? Now who did donate to Schneiderman were some lawyers from a law firm named Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The next step was a U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel who certified a class action suit and selected two law firms, long time Democrat bundlers and contributors and both heavy Clinton donors to find plaintiffs and represent the class action case against Trump University. The two firms were - wait for it - Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP.

Did I mention that Judge Curiel was a long time Democrat activist and an Obama appointee, one of those judges Democrat majority leader Senator Harry Reid shoved through via the nuclear option? Oh, you knew that, really?

Well, I'll tell you, once those lawyers started trolling for plaintiffs, a whole crowd of folks responded wanting to be part of the suit. OK, OK, gimmee a break, so yeah, it was only six plaintiffs, and the judge allowed three of them to withdraw from the class action after they panicked and realized that rather than the easy payday the lawyers told them about they could be liable for costs instead.

The main plaintiff, a yoga instructor named Tarla Makaeff wanted out as well, and believe it or not, Judge Curiel has ruled that after six years of litigation, she can leave because the judge says her deposition for her lawyers is sufficient for Trump's lawyers to defend the case ...no cross examination, no deposition by Trump's attorneys, no nothing.

But let's move on, because here's our main exhibit - Donald Trump the bigot!

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4nv6ol2z-TSwU35cOVN0Lb99aFGqyyTnro-qj4j-uB7CYu_1bKhkVk8QBXHLsMgVEb9X7QYzWWpj2K9gxSP_Cq84oamzzMaUOUmriJeGSmCldiURl22NwPMK45a3MXRugJVkK/s1600/Adolph_Trump.png

Oh Yeah! How dare he insinuate that Judge Curiel might not give him a fair trial just because of the judges ethnicity! All the judge did was to rule that a plaintiff Trump's lawyers have built their case on need not be deposed or cross examined by them, and to unilaterally decide to unseal court documents 'by mistake' without redacting them for personal information at the request of The Washington Post, including plaintiff accusations against Trump University.

Everybody knows how impartial judges are, right? OK, this judge has made a few errors that would probably lead to a reversal on appeal of any verdict he delivers, but we're all only human, aren't we?

Oh, the La Raza thing. You heard about that huh? Well you know, it's just a civil rights group. In Spanish, it means 'the people' that's all.

Oh you ummm, speak Spanish. And you say 'the people' in Spanish would be 'la gente' or 'el pueblo' which means literally the town, and is also used to mean 'the community.' OK, so La Raza means the race. So what?

OK,OK...so it's not a civil rights group, not really. So maybe Judge Curiel, aside from being a very leftist Democrat is a long time pro-Amnesty and pro open borders activist. That doesn't mean he isn't impartial. What difference does that make. Just look at Judge Vaughn Walker in California on same sex marriage. Wasn't he impar...bad example, forget I said that.

But look at Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, remember how she said that a wise Latina would...better forget about that one too.

So what you're telling me essentially is this...that what Donald Trump is saying is that Judge Curiel is likely to be biased against him and not treat him fairly because the judge is a rabid, partisan Democrat and Trump is the Republican nominee in an election year? And because the judge is very leftist Latino who is against border control and an end to illegal migration? Is that it?

Who ever heard of such a crackpot idea? That's crazy talk!

You know, you really annoy me. We spent a lot of time and money putting this show together and you go and ruin it for everybody. Get out and don't come back.

No refunds either, read the sign. Racists!

Monday, June 06, 2016

'The Free Men Of the World Are Marching To Victory' - D-Day



Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon a great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened, he will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

~ Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower


The above is the statement General Eisenhower released to the allied forces under his command just before the Normandy Invasion that started the liberation of Europe from the Nazis.

Not so well known is that General Eisenhower also had another statement in readiness announcing the failure of the invasion and accepting full responsibility for what would have been a debacle.

When you read about Operation Overlord in Cornelius Ryan's "The Longest Day" or in Eisenhower's own remarkable book Crusade In Europe, it's easy to see why General Eisenhower was not unprepared for its possible failure. The weather was uncertain, there were indications that the enemy had found out the details of the plans for the invasion, and the sheer logistics of getting that many men and the supplies they would need landed on those hostile shores is amazing to read about even today. There were plenty of General Eisenhower's advisers who advised him not to attempt it, and it took considerable courage to go ahead anyway.

My uncle was one of the men who landed on Omaha beach that day. He never spoke about it much, except, in characteristic fashion, to make a joke about all the 'merchandise' he was supposedly carrying to sell off....

I can only imagine what it was like to see the gates on that LST drop and have to run through the choppy waves to the beach, straight into the face of enemy fire every inch of the way.

The invasion might well have failed if not for a superb bit of disinformation. General George Patton was America's best combat commander, fresh from a superb record of victories in North Africa and Sicily. However, Patton was also in the political doghouse over an incident involving the slapping of a soldier he felt was malingering.

General Patton was removed from command of the Seventh Army in Italy and ordered to London, partly to get him out of the spotlight and let the furor die down and partly because allied intelligence had confirmed that the Germans were convinced that Patton was going to be the commander of the allied attempt to invade France, which they also thought was certain to be directed at Calais, the closest point between England and France.


Instead, Eisenhower put General Omar Bradley in command and used Patton as a decoy, creating message traffic back and forth to an entire fictitious army group and feeding the Germans fake intel on a supposed landing straight across the Strait of Dover to Calais. Because of that, German General Erwin Rommel was given only three Panzer units for the Normandy area while the rest were designated as being "in reserve" and held back in locations inland where they could be shunted over to Calais and deployed on Hitler's direct orders. In fact, most of them ended up staying right where they were as Hitler declined to give the orders to move them.

Out of the three Panzer groups Rommel had, only one was placed near the actual site of the Normandy landing. The other two were deployed near Calais and stayed right where they were for two weeks after the invasion, because the Nazis were still convinced that Patton was going to lead the main invasion force in an assault on Calais. By the time the Germans realized they'd been had, it was too late and the Allies had a firm beachhead.

One of the most amazing exploits in a day of amazing exploits has to be the scaling of the cliffs at the Pointe Du Hoc by Army Rangers, and I have a little story to tell about that...my apologies to those of you whom are regular members of Joshua's Army whom have heard it before.

About 20 or so years ago, a few days after another June 6th, I ran into a grizzled old man and his friend at the bar of a local country club, where I was waiting for a lunch companion to show up. We got to chatting, the way people do in bars, and when a brief item flashed across the screen on the bar TV about D-Day, the man mentioned that his friend had been one of the Army Rangers who scaled the sheer cliffs of the Pointe Du Hoc under withering enemy fire, taking out the artillery, machine guns and pill boxes at the top of the cliffs. It cost these incredibly brave men a casualty rate of about 60%, and I'm still amazed it was even done at all.

Fortunately, my lunch date was late and the elderly warrior felt like talking, so I got to hear a first hand account from him what that had been like, using rope ladders and daggers and pulling themselves upwards while the Germans fired down at them.

As he spoke, an amazing thing occurred. The years seemed to drop away from him somehow and I could almost see the young soldier who pulled himself up the cliffs of the Pointe Du Hoc and kept going until he reached the top.No histrionics, no hyperbole, just a matter of fact account of a tough day's work.

Today, it's almost certain that the the man I spoke to that day isn't among us anymore. But I feel privileged that I got a chance to spend some time with him, hear what he had to say and buy him a drink or two. It was living history at its best, and I've never forgotten it.

The men who invaded Normandy and defeated the scourge of fascism gave us the gift of freedom. Recent events would seem to suggest that we've taken that far too much for granted, the surest way to lose that freedom.

The warriors who beat back the dark night of tyranny 72 years ago did it so their posterity could live in a free nation. Now it is our turn to honor them by continuing that fight and preserving that freedom for our own posterity. We owe them no less.

-Selah-

Forum:Whom is responsible For The Riots In San Jose? Why?



Every week on Monday, 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: Whom is responsible For The Riots In San Jose? Why?

Stately McDaniel Manor : Who is responsible for the San Jose riots protesting Donald Trump? I don’t pretend to have any inside information on this, but one can make reasonable judgments based on media accounts. The media have made much, including photos and video, of protestors burning the American flag, waving the Mexican flag and assaulting blonde women. The fact that the media are reporting this at all must mean that the amount of American flag burning and anti-American hatred displayed is of unprecedented and epic proportions. From the available images, one could reasonably believe the protesters are of Mexican, or at the very least, Hispanic, descent.

Also according to media reports, these ”protestors” are motivated by what they believe to be Donald Trump’s desires regarding illegal immigration. In essence, they absolutely do not want to experience the professional, efficient enforcement of American immigration law, just like Democrats.

Let’s put aside, for the purposes of this discussion, the fact that few things make Americans want to deport illegal immigrants--or Democrats--more or faster than seeing them burn the American flag while waving the flag of the nation they fled. It is this sort of thing that causes reasonable Americans to reasonably ask: “If you hate America so much, why did you come here?” And “So, does this mean you don’t intend to fully assimilate into American culture? Is that what you’re trying to say?” Some might even add: “If you learned English, you could just say it instead of burning American flags.”

Who is behind it? Who stands to benefit from it? Democrats, and other racist organizations like La Raza (The Race). I rather doubt that the Border Patrol Agent’s Union is a sponsor, nor is the NRA, the Republican National Committee or the Trump Campaign.

What’s that you say? Trump could be sponsoring the violence as a ploy to turn the public against Hillary? We know the Democrats do stunts like paying protestors, illegally coordinating with all manner of prohibited organizations beneath the radar, and even trying to manufacture astroturf protests (OK, raising the dead to vote Democrat is a pretty neat trick too), but there is, as yet, no evidence that Trump does the same, and the RNC is too afraid of Democrats--they’re more afraid of Trump--to even think of that kind of dirty trick.

Thus far, I’m not seeing any middle class white family men burning Mexican flags at Hillary rallies, or assaulting blonde women at those rallies, an event about as likely as a joint protest by Bigfoot, space aliens and the Loch Ness Monster. Until then, one need not be Sherlock Holmes to figure out who is involved.


The Glittering Eye: There's a lot of blame to go around. First and foremost the "protesters" who go out with the characteristic radical's objective of provoking a response are to blame because people should be held responsible for their actions. Then the few Trump supporters who "sucker punch" or pepper spray "protesters" because they shouldn't respond with violence and they're providing the protesters justification.

Donald Trump because when you go out of your way to speak provocatively it's not surprising when people are provoked. Police officers who aren't enforcing the law because they're not doing their jobs. Democratic pols who aren't condemning violent protesters. Republican and Democratic pols who've accepted illegal immigration with a wink and a nod for decades. Mexican pols who've treated illegal immigration as a safety valve and primary economic policy for so long they now think of it as a right.

I'll stop now not because I'm running out of people to blame but because I'm tired of typing.


JoshuaPundit: Let's start by using reverse logic, a favorite tool of mine to figure out whom we can't blame.

The San Jose police basically stood by and watched a mob of people violently assault Trump supporters who were peacefully exiting a political rally. Their logic, as voiced by San Jose's police chief Eddie Garcia  was that protecting citizens whom had a constitutional right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly from assault by as violent mob would have been 'bad police tactics' because it might have angered the mob even more, and we can't have that now can we? Unsaid, of course was 'hey, after all, these are just a bunch a racist Republicans. Who cares what happens to 'em?' Well not quite unsaid, since that is essentially what San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told the AP while blaming Donald Trump for the violence, saying “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign."

Need I mention that San Jose is a very left wing, totally Democrat run Bay Area city? That it's a sanctuary city for illegal migrants?

So, is what happened in San Jose the fault of any of the above? Well, the police were obviously following orders not to lean heavy at all on the protesters, and they obviously got those orders from Chief Garcia...who serves at the pleasure of the mayor and the city council, whom obviously gave Chief Garcia his orders on how the police should conduct themselves. Cops have jobs, families to support, and pensions to protect, and that usually means that when you get an order, you obey it for the most part. In this case, they obviously just followed orders, including Chief Garcia.

Is this Trump's fault? Controversial as some of what he says might be, it is all constitutionally protected speech, and there's a slew of Supreme Court decisions to support that. Likewise, you can't blame his supporters, who were violently attacked as they were peaceably leaving the area for simply exercising their constitutional right of freedom of assembly.

What about the mayor and the council? Tempting as it is, these are relatively small fish in the turgid swamp that is now the Democratic Party. Of course they obviously played an enthusiastic part, especially the mayor. But that part was obviously that of messenger boy. Who was it further up the food chain whom orchestrated this? Cui bono, who benefits?

Let's look at the message what happened in San Jose is sending and see if that sheds any light:

  • Political street violence is perfectly acceptable with minimal cost to those whom commit it as long as it's aimed at the Right.
  • You go to a Trump rally at your own risk. And cities that allow the Trump campaign to book venues for their rallies can expect the same bloody mess. Better to simply deny permits to the Trump campaign and avoid all that, isn't it?
  • The Left has free rein to turn the GOP's Cleveland convention into a maelstrom of riots and chaos, all of which can be featured on national TV. After all,Cleveland is also a Democrat run city.In fact, plans  for bringing in additional police from out of state were recently torpedoed because the city of Cleveland refused to pay for worker's compensation insurance for the additional police.  Rest assured that the Cleveland police will get orders similar to the ones the police in San Jose received.
As anyone with a fighting chance of a two digit IQ can figure out, bringing that many  'protestors'  to San Jose took money and organization, just like #blacklivesmatter did, and there's almost certainly more where that came from. La Raza  received over $11 million from the Federal Government this year alone, along with additional millions from various foundations, and they're hardly the only ones benefiting from a Clinton victory this election year.

 It's pretty obvious who benefits.


  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?

Friday, June 03, 2016

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher's Council Results

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl7HWA0K_uQR9HMdyW4gsP7qoYEdMjzux0ZBayXpHZNCvD9jqezJIM-rw1Ev_ItQpcvD_6GIIuFx9deuQovv_9O32QaVljIjPhyuusSj6uu3_-myHpO45FJhVdJ2uni4WhTWMn/s1600/confederacy.png


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

"I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street." - Spike Lee

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today" - Thomas Sowell

“Within a socialist community there is no room left for freedom” - Ludwig Von Mises


Stately McDaniel Manor


This week's winning essay,Stately McDaniel Manor's These Aren’t The Justice-Involved Individuals You’re Looking For is his reaction to the innate mental disconnect of the new Obama doctrine of referring to criminals as 'justice involved individuals,' especially as it applies to education. Here's a slice:

Lets review: Americas colleges are virtual snakepits of rape. One in four young women embarking on a college career—according to the Obama Administration—will be raped during their undergraduate days. College life is suffused with a “rape culture,” and the “war on women” continues unabated. Strangely, parents continue to send their daughters off to colleges, apparently blithely unconcerned that their daughters stand an excellent chance, a chance about which they are fully aware, of being raped, beaten, perhaps even murdered. And they’re willing to pay tens, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars for that chance.

Then what do we make of this from Judicial Watch: 


 "The Obama administration has ordered the nation’s colleges and universities to stop asking applicants about criminal and school disciplinary history because it discriminates against minorities. Institutions are also being asked to offer those with criminal records special support services such as counseling, mentoring and legal aid once enrolled. The government’s official term for these perspective students is ‘justice-involved individuals; and the new directive aims to remove barriers to higher education for the overwhelmingly minority population that’s had encounters with the law or disciplinary issues through high school."

Instructions are outlined in a cumbersome document (Beyond the Box) issued by the U.S Department of Education (ED) this month. It says that ‘data show plainly that people of color are more likely to come in contact with the justice system due, in part, to punitive school disciplinary policies that disproportionately impact certain student groups and racial profiling.’ Because education can be a powerful pathway to transition out of prison and into the workforce, it’s critical to ensure that admissions practices don’t disproportionately disadvantage justice involved individuals, the directive states. Colleges and universities should also refrain from inquiring about a student’s school disciplinary history—including past academic dishonesty—because that too discriminates against minorities. Civil rights data compiled by ED show ‘black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than white students and often for the same types of infractions.’

Therefore colleges and universities should consider designing admissions policies that don’t include disciplinary history so they don’t have the ‘unjustified effect of discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability,’ the new ED guidelines state. Three out of four colleges and universities collect high school disciplinary information and 89% of those institutions use the information to make admissions decisions, according to the order. That needs to change, according to the administration. A few years ago it warned public elementary and high schools to administer student discipline without discriminating on the bases of race, color or national origin because too many minority students—especially blacks—were getting suspended. The feds assert they issued the directive after reports of ‘racial disparities’ in ‘exclusionary discipline policies’ that created a ‘school to prison pipeline.

Oh, “data show”? Well, as long as “data show,” who can argue with that? Actually, anyone with a functioning, non-progressive virus-infected brain can, and should, argue with that. What “data show” is that Blacks, and to a much lesser degree, Hispanics, particularly males, commit not only the overwhelming majority of disciplinary offenses in schools, they commit the overwhelming majority of crimes in schools and elsewhere, at rates far outstripping their numbers in the population. This has been known for as long as such statistics have been kept. Rational people understand that the problem is such people choose to misbehave in school and to commit crimes. Obamites and other Progressives are embarrassed by what “data show,” because the data exposes their ideology as a lie, therefore, they have to pretend that the criminals are the helpless, innocent victims of statistical racism and purposeful, institutional discrimination, an issue I explored in March of 2014 with Race-Based School Discipline: The Movement Continues, and in November of 2014 in Race-Based School Discipline Finds Fertile Ground In Minnesota.

The Progressive point is simplicity itself: don’t deal with the problem, just stop collecting the data and change the messaging to blame Conservatives.

 credit: nypost.com

The Atlantic makes the Obamite case: 

Gathering background information about future students is a core business of admissions departments, but some box opponents believe the criminal-history question has an unintended negative effect. “Students of color are the most likely to be harmed by putting these questions on the application,” said Natalie Sokoloff, professor emerita of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She conducted a study that looked at the use of (or absence of) the question by two-year and four-year colleges in Maryland, a total of 50 schools. She analyzed all application forms used during one year and concluded that 40 percent included a question about criminal background. ‘Public four-year and two-year colleges are less likely to ask the question at the state and national level. Places that are more likely to give an opportunity to people with criminal records are two-year public colleges, and places that are least likely are private four-year colleges,’ she said.
Sokoloff believes, ‘These kinds of practices really are de facto forms of race-based discrimination, because people of color are disproportionately impacted by these policies.’ Scholars like Sokoloff, reform advocates, and public thinkers often point to the structural racism already at work in school systems—in which the over-disciplining of black children creates a school-to-prison pipeline. So not only are black students more likely to end up in prison than other groups, but once they are released and attempting to break that cycle by applying to college, they are more likely to confront the box—and the conundrum of whether or not to check it.
‘This question doesn’t belong on the college-admissions form any more than questions about the weather belong there,’ said Barmak Nassirian, current director of policy analysis with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. The organization represents 420 four-year colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. ‘These are not facts that in any way relate to the matter at hand,’ he said, ‘which is to decide if someone is qualified to come learn something.’ Nassirian also agreed that the school-discipline and criminal-history questions disproportionately affect low-income students, students of color, and students with disabilities. ‘We know that communities of color and students with disabilities are disproportionately affected by run-ins with the law’; it follows that they are more often asked to disclose such histories. ‘This mindless adoption of these mechanical so-called ‘safety checks’ does have the predictable downside of disproportionately affecting the students who need it the most,’ he said. ‘This amounts to extrajudicial punishment on someone who has already served a punishment for a crime.
 saggy-pants-thug

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Christian Lowe in the Federalist with ‘Real Sports’ Trolls Public About America’s Most Popular Riflesubmitted by The Daley Gator
. It's a great piece that looks at how the Leftist media promotes its anti-Second Amendment agenda at all costs.


Here are this week’s full results. Only Angry White Dude and Fausta were unable to vote, but neither was subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


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?