Tuesday, August 11, 2015

#Hillary Lied About Her E-Mails, Broke The Law And What It Really Means

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/clinto2016.jpg


(some of this piece was based on what I wrote on July 10th. I've updated it to reflect recent events and no, as I said then she still won't be prosecuted)

Once again, Mrs. Clinton has revealed to us that if she tells you the sun is shining, you'd better make sure you have an umbrella handy.

Most polls show that the majority of Americans, for some odd reason consider her untrustworthy and an out and out liar.CNN’s national poll shows that 57% of Americans see her that way, and ABC News and the Wall Street Journal put that number at 52%.

She's continued to sing the old Right Wing Conspiracy song, and to claim, as she did in an interview with CNN's servile Diane Keillor, “When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system,” she said. “Now I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.”

There are enough outright lies in that small paragraph to warrant a serious trial.

Even storing Federal records on a private server is a serious violation of the Federal Records Act for reasons that should be obvious, and a violation of the agreement Mrs. Clinton signed when she started at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton was likewise required to turn over any and all records in her possession to government, which she quite obviously did not do.

Not only did Mrs. Clinton fail to turn over work-related emails, but she and her staff also edited some of those emails before submitting them, as the Examiner's Sarah Westwood reported.

In legalese, this shows intent. Mrs, Clinton intended to deceive congress.Not only that, but the committee obtained a number of e-mails that were work related and were either edited or somehow missing from the 55,000 Mrs. Clinton turned in:

The missing materials, which the State Department says it does not have, came to Congress by other means. They include writings about the jockeying for oil contracts in Libya after President Obama engaging in a war without congressional approval to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. This comes among her back-and-forth emails with Sidney Blumenthal, a former staffer who had been barred from employment in the Obama administration, to continue offering his insight and advice on Libya. [...]

But the proof of intent to deceive comes in the fact that Clinton or her staff actually edited some of the emails and turned over censored versions to State before destroying her copy of the originals.


I think we can reasonably be certain that cash donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for an inside track on oil deals or for Federal contracts involving Libya and other areas were the subject of some of these communications, but what's already known is damaging enough.

Another, much more serious problem than the usual lies and corruption is the fact that Mrs. Clinton's private server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agents. Her server lacked the normal security given to classified information within the government's official system. Professionals who have examined the security of Hillary private e-mail account have said that the question is not whether the account was hacked, but to what degree.

Not only were classified communications almost certainly compromised, but there's not telling what kind of personal, perhaps even indictable messages might have been scooped up. Imagine a president in the midst of negotiations with a foreign power like China, Russia or Iran suddenly confronted discretely with an ultimatum that unless she made certain far reaching concessions, certain information she desperately didn't want revealed would be made public.

Federal Law(36 CFR 1234.24) requires agencies to collect all records from “external electronic mail systems” so that they can be stored inside government archives. There's also a federal law (44 USC 3106) that authorizes legal action through the Attorney General and the Justice Department “for the recovery of records” that are threatened by destruction, deletion or erasure. Willfully destroying a federal record is a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Mrs. Clinton is already guilty of that crime as well by admitting she destroyed her server.

Like I said, a lot of lies in one paragraph.

Mrs. Clinton felt free to destroy her private server and laugh at the subpoenas from congress because she knew that President Obama's Attorney General and the DOJ were not going to take any action against her, again for obvious reasons. Among them is that there's no longer a requirement to do so.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, there is no such thing as a truly independent special prosecutor's office any more. When the Democrats dominated congress after Watergate, they passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 that created a special prosecutor, later called an Independent Counsel position, which could be used by either Congress or the Attorney General for investigations of Officials in the executive branch. It was totally independent of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. That's who Kenneth Starr worked for, whose work led to President Clinton's impeachment for the felonies of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of office.

As I've mentioned before, one of Mr. Bill's last 'gifts' to the country before he left office in 2000 was to eliminate the Office of the Independent Counsel totally and replace it with the very different Office of Special Counsel, controlled by the Attorney General as part of the Justice Department.

For those of you who've been wondering why IRS-Gate, Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other scandals haven't been fully investigated and prosecuted the way Watergate was, you now have your answer. And now you also know why Eric Holder laughed out loud when congress cited him for contempt.

Congress itself has no real police power anymore. They can investigate matters and subpoena documents, but they have little power to compel testimony or prosecute anyone the Obama Regime wants to protect. Congress does have the remedy of hiring its own prosecutor and impeaching the president, but the process is likely to take longer than 18 months, and certain members of the Republican establishment are afraid that going there would be 'messy.' So that's highly unlikely, just as Mrs. Clinton being prosecuted for breaking federal law is.

The problem Mrs. Clinton has is that unlike her husband, she's not really good at lying. Not only does she lack the delivery skills to pull it off, but she lacks Mr. Bill's astounding memory and forgets what lies she told people previously. That's actually even more disturbing in a way, because it shows an innate contempt for those she wishes to rule to tell them such obvious and easily debunked whoppers.It's as if we're not worthy of the effort to do it really well.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about whether someone like this should be president.

And speaking of which, new developments may actually affect that much, at least. The State Department's inspector general informed congress that 4 out of the 'sample' of 40 e-mails Mrs Clinton provided were indeed classified material that should never have been on her server, and two were of the highest category and classified as “Top Secret.”

The FBI seized both her server (which it turns out wasn't destroyed after all) and three thumb drives containing copies of work-related emails sent to and from her personal email addresses via her private server. And the probe has expanded to include Hillary's two long time personal aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, who also sent e-mails via the private server.

Her spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN last night that Clinton's team "has worked with the State Department to ensure her emails are stored in a safe and secure manner."

I'll just bet they did. And, as you'll recall, Mrs. Clinton claimed to have deleted scads of 'personal' emails from her server. Again that's easy to believe, although her definition of personal is likely to be different and a lot more expansive than the average person's.

In spite of all this, Mrs Clinton won't be prosecuted for offenses that would land most State Department functionaries in jail for years. Aside from what I mentioned above, Mrs. Clinton had a ringside seat to a lot of things the Obama Regime would just as soon sweep under the rug, like Benghazi. She knows far too much about what really happened and why, and is in position to take a lot of people with her if it comes to that.

But there may be another, more cynical game in the works.

Don't be surprised if this goes just far enough to knock Hillary out of the running for 2016.

It's fairly common knowledge that the Obamas and the Clintons aren't exactly friendly. Part of it is personal, as anyone who's followed the politics since 2008 knows. But a lot of it is political in nature.

The Clintons, believe it or not, are the heads of the more conservative part of the Democrat Party as it's composed just now. Barack Obama and the über-progressives that are the base of the party are far to the left of them. And they're not fond at all of She Whom Would Be Queen. They see Hillary and her minions as old, washed-up and not in tune with the new, more radical stance Obama brought to Washington.

President Obama has plans for when he's out of office, and one of them undoubtedly is to replace the Clintonista machine with his own and mold the party in his own image. He already personally owns the vast database his computer whiz kids put together for him of supporters and funding targets nationwide, and his Organizing America is a well constructed machine to direct the über-progressives after he's out of office.

Rest assured that if Barack Obama wanted this business with Hillary stonewalled, that's what would have happened. The inspector generals and the FBI, after all, work for him now.

So I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this goes just far enough to the point where Hillary has to withdraw...and the Clintons and their wing of the party are history.

After which, Obama's ideology and control of the party's direction is assured as his protege, über-progressive favorite Elizabeth Warren jumps in.

We'll be able to tell whether I'm right depending on how this investigation goes. It wouldn't take all that much to stop Mrs. Clinton's coronation.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Forum: What Did You Take Away From The GOP Debates?



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 Did You Take Away From The GOP Debates?


Don Surber : Only women bleed?

Seriously, Carly won. Kasich took the nightcap by co-opting the message of The Other Donald (my phrase for him). Next day comments by Donald Trump about Megyn Kelly may have ended his campaign.

My main takeaway was that it was good TV. Sharp, well-researched questions followed by good answers. No Coke or Pepsi bullshit. The bar is raised by Fox News.

The Independent Sentinel : Carly Florina won both debates. She was quick, knowledgeable, strong. she wants to bring America back and I believe she can do it.

The evening debate was a ruined after the intro and the second question which was worthy of a debate on TMZ since it was taken out of context and only meant to take Trump down.

An article by the hill called Trump teflon and they wondered how he could be taken down. The obvious answer is to stop trying to take him down with tactics unbefitting Fox News. People resent being manipulated and they don't like unfair attacks.

Of course the left loved it. The three-person Fox team took up one-third of the time and asked candidates questions at the start that addressed the worst criticisms against them. Everything the candidates said afterwards hardly mattered to those not on the right.

Hello, Fox, Hillary is the enemy, not our candidates!

And why did they go after the pro-life issues when we have Planned Parenthood selling infants parts from their baby chop shop. They're probably committing infanticide. Why all the social issues questions?

The afternoon debate wasn't the ratings-getter but it was so well-done. All our candidates could do their best in that atmosphere.

Did Fox switch teams to get ratings?

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD:I pretty much decided yours truly doesn't give a rat's assets over anything GOV Christe, SEN Paul or GOV Kasich has to say. Personally rather see Carly Fiorina and GOV Perry get into the top ten.

All in all - a big phat field to choose from!

 JoshuaPundit : Much of what I had to say about the debate can be seen here. But I think a few points need to be emphasized, and definitely amplified in few of the events of the last few days.

While few questions could have been better off not asked, overall I thought FOX did a fine job, especially given the amount of people involved. They kept things moving and asked exactly the tough questions needed. FOX News is not an organ of the GOP. That, after all is what the Left says,isn't it? They are a news organization and their job is to ask the tough questions. Considering Trump's history of Twitter insults towards women I didn't find Megan Kelly's question to be at all out of line as it will be a major Democrat talking point.I found his obvious reference to her menstrual cycle to be odious, one men have used for years when faced with strong women they disapprove of.

Let us examine Mr. Trump. His speeches consist of obvious applause lines and zero real policy. Yet no one questions that. There's talk of the 'Teflon Trump' and insults to ethnic groups and women that would normally have the media in a howling frenzy get passed by, just like questions about aspects of his previous record. This sort of license is unheard of for Republican candidates. Ever wonder why?

I got my answers Thursday night. When he was asked straight questions about his 180 degree pivots on issues like abortion, his sudden change from being a lifelong Democrat to a Republican, and his relations with crony capitalism and the Clintons, he came out with obviously rehearsed and bogus sounding answers. And to top it off, he refused to commit to not running as a third party candidate.

Let's go back to 1992. Another billionaire named Ross Perot ran for president. He had the same formula...lots of applause lines and little meat, the ability to glom onto an angry electorate and a fair amount of media savvy; He did exactly what Trump is doing know, except he had the honesty to run as a third party from day one. He got just enough votes to allow Bill Clinton to slither into the Oval Office. You see, I fell for Perot's nonsense too so I know exactly what Trump's appeal is. Of all the votes I ever cast, that's the only one I wish I had back - it would likely have prevented 9/11, because George HW Bush would have had Osama bin-Laden in custody somewhere singing like a canary, North Korea wouldn't have the bomb and China would be at least 29 years behind militarily from where she is now.

Trump is this year's Perot, and being that he is so personally close to the Clintons, the idea might very well be for the Donald to help her get elected. It's exactly the sort of scheme I could see Bill Clinton coming up with. It also explains the 'Teflon Trump.' Why else would the ObamaMedia not be tearing his head off?

I urge people not to fall for this scam. If you really want an anti-establishment Republican, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee fill that space admirably. And with consistency without any last minute conversions.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The first GOP debate was disappointing. The format did not give each of the candidates enough time to leave an impression with the viewers. For the most part it was The Trump Show, and he spent more time bloviating than actually giving any substantial answers to any of the questions.

The good news is that over 24 million viewers watched the debate, which hopefully means people are truly looking for a change from the last six and a half years of President Obama’s destruction and fundamental transformation of our country.

The biggest problem the GOP faces is not Donald Trump, it is all of the disaffected voters who are tired of the GOP establishment turning their backs on the issues they promised to fix if only we gave them majorities in the House (which we did in 2010) and the Senate (delivered to them in 2014). We no longer have a Congress truly representative of we the people.

There were some good moments had by Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. It will be interesting to see how the voters reacted to them and how their numbers do in the post debate polls.

One thing we need to see the Republican candidates do going forward is convey the fact that Hillary Clinton is just another Barack Obama and electing her would only bring us more of the same. In addition, they need to explain clearly what our country stands for and how that differs from the direction progressive policy makers and educators have taken us over the last century. This election is not just about whether an R or D becomes president. It is about restoring our country to the Constitutional Republic our founders intended.

The Right Planet : I was left scratching my head. Some believe Fox News was aiming to take down Donald Trump. But Fox has also given more airtime to Trump than any other candidate. I find that rather "interesting." The Washington Post (insert grain of salt here) reported Bill Clinton had called Donald Trump and encouraged him to play a larger role in the Republican Party. If these reports are true, why would Clinton want Trump more involved in Republican politics?

What is at play here, in my opinion, is what I call the "Trump Factor." Trump is tapping into the vast reservoir of frustration and anger many Republicans and right-leaning voters feel when it comes to the GOP's rather nasty habit of caving to the Left on just about everything. It is certainly something that has caused me endless exasperation and frustration. But I just can't take Trump serious as a viable candidate for president. I don't want a narcissistic hothead for leader. We already have one of those, albeit a passive-aggressive one. Yeah, Trump is good for a vicarious thrill. I get it. But that's about it for me. And I have some serious questions about Trump's motives.

It was interesting, too, to note that the Fox News moderators gave Trump more than double the amount of time (11:14 min.) as some of the other candidates. Jeb Bush came in second with 8:48 min. Rand Paul and Scott Walker spoke the least amount of time.

I think Cruz and Walker sounded the most presidential, and echoed a lot my own beliefs. Both Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee did surprisingly well. Although their responses seemed over-rehearsed and canned to me. Ben Carson seemed a bit overwhelmed at the beginning of the debate. But, as the debate got going, I really liked what Carson had to say. He certainly provided the best quote of the debate: "I'm the only one to take out half a brain, but if you went to Washington you would think someone had beat me to it." John Kasich's and Jeb Bush's brand of neocon, big government politics just does not appeal to me. I thought Jeb Bush did the worst overall, as expected.


 Puma By Design : I watched both debates, Tier 1 and Tier 2.

To be honest, I favored the Tier 1 debate over the second.

While there was no audience present at the Tier 1 debate referred to by the media as the “undercard”, it did little to stifle the energy and performance of Carly Fiorina.

Finally, Americans would hear directly from the candidates instead of a biased media acting as the intermediary, framing, sabotaging and misinterpreting what these candidates have to offer.

Enter the Tier 2 debate, which from my perch in the window came off as a well-orchestrated dog and pony show put into play by the GOP leadership. Primary agenda: Take out Donald Trump.

Acknowledging that time was limited with so many candidates on stage, right out of the gate, moderators and a few others seemed to set their sights on Trump. In so doing, the pace was set for the rest of the evening to the point of chaos prevailing and dominating the news cycle for two days after instead of the debate.

As a result, candidates were deprived of a long awaited opportunity to introduce themselves to America thus shortchanging 24 million viewers. To be honest, I expected better of Fox.

Jeb Bush was far from impressive and on common core Bush stated, “I don’t believe the federal government should be involved in the creation of standards directly or indirectly, the creation of curriculum or content. It is clearly a state responsibility. I’m for higher standards…And if states want to opt out of Common Core, fine. Just make sure your standards are high.”

Twenty-four million viewers tuned into the debate, I cannot begin to imagine how many of those viewers nearly felt out of their seats on that one.

Common Core IS federally funded. Bush also said that it is fine for states to opt out of Common Core provided states make sure that their standards are high. So who sets the bar, governor?

Balderdash. Taking a swipe at opponents of Common Core while commending Ohio governor, John Kasich’s embrace of Common Core, Bush in an op-ed posted in The Columbia Dispatch on April 27, 2013 entitled, “Students need challenge of Common Core standards” stated the following:

Ohio joined 45 other states and the District of Columbia in adopting world-class academic standards, known as the Common Core State Standards. The initiative is state-driven, voluntary and truly bipartisan. Unfortunately, as full implementation of the new standards nears, myths and misinformation are threatening to derail this great progress.

Retreating from this bold education reform would be bad policy and bad politics and would jeopardize the college and career readiness of future generations of students and, ultimately, the quality of tomorrow’s work force. It also would render Ohio’s already significant taxpayer investment in the new standards worthless and without account. To understand the significance of this policy issue, it is important to review the facts and separate the truth from mendacity….


You want to separate the truth from mendacity, let us start with the fact that Common Core standards are pushed by the Department of Education, a federal agency.

Kudos to Marco Rubio for checking Jeb Bush on this and setting the record straight.

I expected better of Rand Paul…PERIOD.

Emeritus of Neurosurgery, Benjamin Carson is a patriot but I suspect in over his head.

So who would I say won the debate? Carly Fiorina hands down. I would, however, recommend Fiorina not allow the mainstream media to pull her into Trump/Kelly debacle.

Finally, I believe that it is clear that the GOP leadership is determined to put on these dog and pony shows only to force their chosen one down the throats of Americans.

After all, they did it in 2012 and got away with it. The Republican leadership is working from the same playbook.


 Well, there you have it!

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?



Friday, August 07, 2015

The Opening Salvo - Last Night's Debates

https://localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/s051485448-300.jpg?w=770

What can we take away from the FOX news GOP debates last night?

The first and most important thing is that it gives the lie to President Obama's current approval numbers, which I've always questioned. Over 24 million people watched the debate last night, an audience that shattered all previous records for a non-sports event.

These people are hungry for change,literally starved for it. They may not say so to a pollster, out of fear of the regime targeting them, which they've seen happen all too much. Or of being labeled 'rscist'. But they're not deaf dumb and blind to how the country is being destroyed.They were watching to see who among these men could be relied on to save it.

And there's also immense anger at the betrayal of the Republican establishment, whom did nothing they promised during the 2014 campaign. That is what explains Donald Trump's high poll numbers, and last night's huge audience.

I disagree with much of the criticism being tossed at the FOX moderators last night. First, handling that many people is extraordinarily difficult anyway, but I thought FOX managed it fairly well. And I liked the way they kept things moving. I also disagree that the questions were overly barbed or biased, although there were a couple I think the event could have done without.

This is the big leagues, and the Republican candidates had better get used to this sort of scrutiny, the kind Democrats never face. If you think last night was bad, wait until you see how Candy Crowley and CNN treat the GOP lineup. And don't ask me why the GOP agreed to Candy Crowley as a moderator after what she pulled in 2012. You wouldn't like my answer.

The candidates? In the lower tier, Carly Fiorina did very well, and may have launched herself into top tier. She went after Hillary Clinton with both fists and was extraordinarily on point. Unfortunately, I researched Ms. Fiorina thoroughly when she ran for senate in California, I'm very aware of her record. I'll be sharing that with you in a separate piece.

In the top 10 tier?

Donald Trump was initially the focus of attention, but that shifted very quickly. The overall impression on anyone with an open mind is that with a few exceptions, this is a highly qualified group of people.

I thought Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee did extremely well. For many people it's the first time they've seen either man in action, and both were articulate and intelligent. I would also say that for those people thrilled by Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric, both of these men came across as choices with actual records of long standing opposing the status quo and that GOP establishment. And both candidates are going to have an appeal to people of faith...of all colors and backgrounds.

Donald Trump trotted out the expected applause lines, but was hit hard on his donations to the Clinton Foundation, his past support for abortion on demand and his sudden conversion to being a Republican after being a life long Democrat. His answers to these questions struck me as pat and rehearsed. The real kicker, of course was when he was asked if he would commit to not running as a third party candidate and he refused.

His performance last night will reinforces suspicion in many quarters that he may very well be running as a faux candidate to split conservative votes and deliver the election to Hillary Clinton, with whom he's on very good terms. It is not out of the realm of possibility in the least. Especially when we're talking about the Clintons.

Personally speaking, I've already been here before with Ross Perot, who delivered the White House to Bill Clinton in 1992. Yes, dear readers, I fell for Perot's song and dance and voted for him, and it's the one vote I ever cast I wish I could take back.At least Perot had the honesty to run as an honest third party candidate from the jump. Donald Trump apparently lacks that honesty, and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the story for me unless he changes his mind. For those of you enamored of Trump's anti-GOP establishment rhetoric, there are other candidates running more worthy of support if you're being intellectually honest.

Rand Paul and Scott Walker had some really excellent moments, and Walker in particular was able to show off his outstanding record as Wisconsin's governor. He's also noticeably more comfortable at the podium, and in discussing foreign policy. Rand Paul thrilled the entire crowd when, in response to a question on same sex marriage he responded "I don't want the government registering my guns or my marriage." He also deserves credit for pinning down Donald Trump on his refusal to commit to not running as a third party candidate.

Ben Carson was a pleasant surprise, showing off a sense of humor that went over very well, and a knowledge of security and foreign policy matters that showed he's been studying up.

Marco Rubio did well also, although his performance was fairly rehearsed. If you like Marco Rubio, you were pleased with his showing. If you don't, and especially if you still don't trust him on illegal migration, it didn't change your mind.

Jeb Bush had a coupe of stumbles, but again did OK if you like Jeb Bush. After all, he was a very good governor for Florida and accomplished quite a bit. The illegal migration issue will either lose him or get him the nomination. His attempt to differentiate 'legal status' from citizenship struck me andpropbably a lot of other people as desperation.

Christy-Creme is finished. I can't imagine why anyone takes him seriously.He's been a lousy governor of New Jersey with a poor fiscal record, and is simply the last quivering corpse of the endangered East Coast RINO species. And I can't imagine why John Kasich was first tier. He had his moments, but it's hard to imagine him as president.

What was most interesting to me was the high quality in general of the candidates. With th possible exception of Cristy-Creme and perhaps Mr. Trump, these are serious and qualified people...some more than others in my view, to be sure.

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 Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." - PJ O'Rourke

"We now have the liberal playbook and we know what they are doing, and we are using it against them. Unlike the Democrats though, we aren't out to destroy our society, we are out to save it." - Mark Levin

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent." - Ludwig Von Mises

"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15!" - President Ronald Reagan



https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEina3R_XxvxeOwQVqlMgRYhedtwhUavZ5xrgIXsSZGszA0cz2TcIW2R2DAdZ4n1zyd6dgt2rGlauzUe11rMHc2TP6Xn5msqTNK0REO85RFHp8G9QtYRJy5Hw1XCPZOwgVdQXhAi2g/s1600/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg


This week's winning essay,Joshuapundit's Donkey Kong Politics - The Democrat Field. In it, I chose to take an in depth look and the main Democrat candidates and analyze their records character, strengths and weaknesses. Here's a slice:


It is early days yet, with 16 months until the election. But it's interesting to assess the Democrat field as it is today from a horse race perspective and see where we are, especially as we're starting to get a glimpse of future trends.

Hillary Rodham Clinton remains by far the Democrat frontrunner. She's raised far more money than any of the other candidates, more than all of them combined. And she has far more name recognition than any of them. Mrs. Clinton has indeed been with us a long time. To add to these advantages, she has her own built in grievance group appeal because she possesses a vagina and can work the 'first woman president' angle for all it's worth.

Unfortunately for her, she's run into significant problems on the way to the coronation.

The biggest stumbling block to Hillary Clinton has been her own persona. When she first starting her obvious toying with announcing her candidacy after resigning her job as Secretary of State, she had record high approval ratings. At that time, I wrote on these pages that as soon as she began to run, people would remember all the things they disliked about her. And I put her chances at getting the nomination at no more than 50/50, about which more later.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was mostly cut out of the loop. President Obama assigned all of the juicy diplomatic roles to 'special presidential envoys' and Mrs. Clinton was reduced to administrative tasks and a role as messenger girl when needed. Even the UN was taken away from her, as President Obama made it a Cabinet post reporting directly to him and put Obama loyalist Susan Rice in the slot.

The public has a notoriously short memory, especially with Clinton minions like George Stephanopoulos in the media talking her up while making sure nothing problematic really made the news. So Secretary Clinton was largely seen as benign, a reminder of the supposed Good Old Days of the Clinton presidency.

The first reminder of the real Hillary came out in the wake of the Benghazi scandal when it was revealed that she and the Obama regime collaborated on blatantly phoney talking points to blame a totally unknown video and an out of hand 'protest' for a well planned terrorist attack in which a US ambassador and three others were murdered. That one was too big for her media allies to contain, especially after America saw her temper tantrum on national TV when she was confronted with her lies by congress and revealed her hideously amoral core by screaming that it made no difference.

Still, she was protected by the Obama regime for its own reasons. They classified all records of the attack including drone and on ground videos of what happened, threatened the eyewitnesses whom survived so they wouldn't testify to congress and stonewalled the requests of congress for information. And as time went on, the media cooperated by burying the story. So people tired of hearing about it and many, especially the True Believers moved on and as she announced her candidacy, she was still very much the Queen in waiting.

The next shoe that dropped was our finding out that while she had no major foreign policy accomplishments, Secretary Clinton wasn't nearly so benign and idle as we supposed. She used her time in office to enrich herself and her husband through the corrupt Clinton Foundation, selling influence and access as a well-researched best seller "The Clinton Cash Machine" documented. Not only that, but it came out that $6 billion from the State Department budget Mrs. Clinton was responsible for allocating mysteriously went missing.No one to this day knows what happened to the money.

And now its been revealed that Hillary egregiously broke the law (and endangered America's national security) by storing classified documents on a private server located in her home that was almost certainly hacked by foreign governments, refusing to release those documents to the US Department of State and destroying the server. Given who's in the White House she likely won't be prosecuted for that, but again, this sort of thing reminds people of whom Hillary Clinton is and why they dislike her.

Aside from her cold, secretive and imperious personality, she's a corrupt serial liar whose tall tales are so easily found out that it outrages many of the intended recipients that she apparently thinks they're stupid enough to swallow them. There is simply not a truthful bone in her body and again, you have a lot of people recalling why they dislike her...just as I predicted.

She reminds me of an old girl friend of mine who likewise lied in that particularly manic fashion. After catching her out the first couple of times and getting that deer in the headlights look, I learned never to take her seriously or believe a word she said and to just enjoy the carnal aspects of the relationship. But then, she wasn't running for president.Hillary Clinton is.

Another problem Hillary Clinton has to deal with in her march to the White House is one beyond her control. The party's base has simply moved far to the Left of her...or at least far to the Left of what she would like the American people to perceive. Hillary Clinton and her husband have always been a lot more radical in reality than they projected to the American voting public. They are what Emmett J. Tyrrell Jr. famously called 'coat and tie radicals.' They were willing to drop the obvious trappings and positions of the Left to a certain extent to infiltrate the System they despised from within for power and profit.

They largely succeeded, thanks to Bill Clinton's undeniable skill as a politician in 'triangulating' - running ever so carefully to the Left to get the nomination and back towards the center in the general election to capture the flag. Hillary's problem is that the Democrat Party George Soros and Barack Obama have created is simply too far Left to allow her to do that easily. She will either have to run hard to the Left to capture her party's base or to the center, hoping that a combination of her gender and the fact that the alternative is one of the Hated Republicans will be enough.

While I still say that the nomination is largely hers for the taking, the chances of her getting it are only 50/50/. Her health is poor, and she is already polling equal or behind some of the GOP clown show, a trend that's likely to continue. The Democrat's system of super delegates - party movers and shakers unelected by any particular state - gives us at least the possibility that at some point, if her poll numbers keep dropping, they'll have a little talk with her. And she'll drop out and someone like Elizabeth Warren will drop in. Again, I see this as at least a 50/50 possibility.


Profiles of the other candidates at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was David P. Goldman's Will Israel Save America? submitted by Joshuapundit. Goldman, of course, was the brilliant 'Spengler' of Asia Times fame. As always, Goldman deals with the larger issues and points out some fascinating ties and some interesting similarities between the inner nature of Israel and America that might not have occurred to you.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Ask Marion was unable to vote this week but was not subject to the 2/3 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?

Thursday, August 06, 2015

Breaking: Chuck Schumer Opposes Iran Deal

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101020_chuck_schumer_ap_328.jpg

Prominent Senator Chuck Schumer has come out opposing the Iran fiasco.This surprised me. It may very well cost Schumer his status as the heir apparent to Minority Leader Harry Reid as well as other retaliation.

Schumer indicated in his statement that he will work to get other senators to oppose the bill, but how hard he works at it...well, we'll see. It certainty doesn't seem from his statement that he will. Perhaps he simply realized he couldn't live with himself voting for something like this.

On the other hand it might very well be that Schumer was given 'permission' by the president provided he didn't work to hard to lobby against the Iran dealso he could keep his senate seat.

Here's his full statement :

Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.

Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.

I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.

While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.

In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.

Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.

To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.

Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.

When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.

Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.

Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.

If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.

But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.



Obama: 'Killing Babies To Harvest Their Organs Is An Atrocity'

 http://www.chronicle.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/obama1.jpg

Yes believe it or not, the president actually said that..except he was talking about Africa to Africans, not America.

President Barack Obama told a group of young African leaders on Monday that harvesting organs from humans that are killed as part of an African ritual was “craziness” and a “cruel” tradition that needed to stop. He warned of dehumanizing marginal groups of humans and of the problems that arise when “you are not able to see someone else as a human being.”

In a wide-ranging question and answer session with members of the Young African Leaders Initiative [YALI], a woman from Kenya said “Persons with albinism in Africa are being killed and their body parts harvested for ritual purposes. My request to you is to raise this issue with heads of state of African countries to bring these atrocities to an end.”

Obama decried the practice and went on to encourage the young people to do everything in their power to fight on the behalf of vulnerable humans.


'Cruel traditions?' 'Protecting the vulnerable?' Has our president not seen the recent videos of Planned Parenthood apparatchniks wheeling and dealing over the body parts of aborted babies...with special emphasis on selling the organs of 21-16 week-old babies whom already have a nervous system and can feel the pain of being ripped from the womb?

In fact, he hasn't. According to his spokeshole Josh Earnest, the president chose not to watch the videos. Hardly surprising, since when the president was a state legislator in Illinois, he fought tooth and nail for infanticide...fighting against legislation that would have mandated that babies whom survived an abortion attempt receive medical care. That was too much even for the radical pro-abortion group NARAL to stomach.

What an obscene hypocrite our president is.

(H/t, Molly at the Federalist)

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...

 https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/496069693426262016/cSEzbsjx_400x400.jpeg
 City Councilman and illegal migrant enabler Jhonny Pineda!

 Puma By Design : My WOTW nomination this week goes to Jhonny Pineda, City Councilman of Huntington Park, (southeast Los Angeles), California.

Pineda just announced the appointment of two illegal immigrants to serve as commissioners on the city’s advisory boards.

Francisco Medina was appointed as Commissioner of the health and education commission and Julian Zatarain will laud over the parks and recreation commission.

This action reeks of pay to play. Medina interned for fellow council member, Gil Cedillo and Zatarain has only been in the country eight years and yes, both are in the country illegally.

What part of ILLEGAL does this newly elected obviously corrupt council member not get and who cares if the City’s legal counsel said that the appointments are legal, illegal is just that. ILLEGAL!

Pineda’s actions is a kick in the gut of every American and legal immigrant.


 One of the things Barack Obama and his willing helpers are doing that is going to reverberate long after he packs up his golf clubs and leaves is to change the very meaning of what it means to be an American. For instance he recently changed the Oath of Citizenship to eliminate the provisions about defending America.

This only makes sense, of course, if you're dealing primarily with economic migrants whom have no real loyalty to the United States, or Muslim immigrants whose first loyalty is to the Ummah. And by coincidence, that's primarily whom Barack Obama and Jeh Johnson are flooding the country with. It's particularly disgusting and insulting when you reflect that American Hispanics are the majority of Medal of Honor winners.

In California, I would almost say there's little if any benefit from citizenship any more, Illegal aliens vote with impunity, employers are generally not stopped in any way from employing them, they have driver's licenses, can apply and collect social welfare benefits freely, and most of the major cities in California are sanctuary cities that will not cooperate in deportations, even if they have criminal records. The logical next step is to have them hold public office and help run the state. Why not?

Jhonny Pineda is simply the first of many Weasels to use this trend to their advantage...because we are allowing it to happen. As such, he richly deserves his Golden Weasel. Tiene frijoles y arroz con esto? No problemo Amigo. We aim to please.


  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?

Wednesday, August 05, 2015

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - Parts And Service Edition

cartoon4

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:


Debra Heine over at Nice Deb penned a superb article at PJ Media reporting on how the Obama Administration has sided with the Palestinians, working to try to stop US citizens from collecting judgments they won in court as victims of PLO terrorist attacks. It's a must read.

This week, The Pirate's Cove, Maggie's Notebook and Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion 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

Honorable Mentions

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, August 04, 2015

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/89/256833910_dc5e794df2.jpg

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....

 http://images.politico.com/global/2012/06/120612_jeb_bush_ap_328.jpg
GOP RINO Heir Apparent Governor Jeb Bush!

Don Surber : Mustela Bushus Trey is my nominee. Jeb! helped found a charity that gave millions to Planned Parenthood while publicly professing to be pro-life. He is to the left of Donald Trump (Mustela Bad Hairus) on this issue. From Life Site News:

Until the eve of his presidential campaign, Jeb Bush was director of a philanthropy that gave tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and financed its advocacy of "unrestricted access to abortion" around the world. The charity also approved money to global abortion providers while he sat on its board.

In 2010, Jeb was named one of the founding directors of the Bloomberg Family Foundation, established as a tax-exempt foundation to advance the vision of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He resigned from the board at the end of 2014 to prepare his presidential campaign.

While a Bush spokesman has responded to concerns by saying that Bush would not have voted on every initiative of the foundation, a pro-life leader told LifeSiteNews it "stretches credibility" that Bush was unaware of the foundation's pro-abortion work, given the centrality of such work to the foundation's mission, and its scope.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Bush for comment, but did not hear back by press time.



 http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz.jpg
DNC Head,Obama Groupie And Walking Blonde Joke Debbie Wasserman-Schultz!

The Noisy Room: Debbie Wasserman Schultz gets the nod for my nomination this week. Wasserman Schultz is just the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans. She’s a weapon of mass destruction for the Socialists… er, Democrats. She didn’t just screw up once when asked if she could tell the media the difference between Socialists and Democrats, she did it twice. Once with Chris Wallace last week and she just did it again with Chuck Todd. What a moron. It’s not just that she can’t answer a question, it’s that she’s so very bad at it. Then she lumped Hillary Clinton in with right-wing Republicans when she attacked the GOP. That one may have been on purpose. With the likes of brain trusts like Joe Biden and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you can see why the Democrats have fallen to the Marxists. The stupid are easily infiltrated and overthrown from within. As Charles Payne said, the Debster couldn’t answer the question because there is no difference between the Democrats and Socialists. None.

You say pig, I say swine. For Debbie’s incompetence, she has been mercilessly pounded on by social media. Good. Some have commented that you are spelling ‘communist’ wrong. Heh. That’s actually more correct than you know. This all came about because Socialist Bernie Sanders is leading the race for the Democratic nomination. And the jackasses are going wild for him (that’s a party pun). Gee, I thought the media was on the side of the Marxists. What I think Wallace was trying to get her to do was defend Hillary somehow, but she’s just too dense to even do her job as the DNC Chairwoman. Either that or they have written the Hildebeast off, which I highly doubt. At any rate, their whole party is literally falling apart. It’s almost humorous. If the Republicans can’t beat these numbskulls, we deserve whatever we get. For being an incoherent, Socialist moron, Debbie should be the proud recipient of a golden weasel.

 https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/496069693426262016/cSEzbsjx_400x400.jpeg
City Councilman and illegal migrant enabler Jhonny Pineda!

Puma By Design : My WOTW nomination this week goes to Jhonny Pineda, City Councilman of Huntington Park, (southeast Los Angeles), California.

Pineda just announced the appointment of two illegal immigrants to serve as commissioners on the city’s advisory boards.

Francisco Medina was appointed as Commissioner of the health and education commission and Julian Zatarain will laud over the parks and recreation commission.

This action reeks of pay to play. Medina interned for fellow council member, Gil Cedillo and Zatarain has only been in the country eight years and yes, both are in the country illegally.

What part of ILLEGAL does this newly elected obviously corrupt council member not get and who cares if the City’s legal counsel said that the appointments are legal, illegal is just that. ILLEGAL!

Pineda’s actions is a kick in the gut of every American and legal immigrant.


 http://www.firstuusandiego.org/Websites/firstuusandiego/images/Detention_Center_Facility.jpg
The ICE Otay Detention Center

Ask Marion :My nominee for Weasel of the Week is the ICE Otay Detention Center who are still detaining 27 Iraqi Christian refugees in the San Diego area. The 27 men, women and children fled Iraq earlier this year after ISIS took over the territory where they used to live. Members of the local Iraqi Christian community said that the government knows full well that the people being held are not criminals.

Just like we all know that the border in San Diego is open to everyone, except is you are an Iraqi Christian.

The pressure is building at the border in San Diego.

"These are people that have escaped ISIS, escaped slavery and refused to convert, only to be imprisoned by ICE with no explanation," said local Iraqi Chaldean Christian leader Mark Arabo who appeared on Hannity on 8/3/15.

But so far end as cold as ice for religious refugees.


 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?

Why Hasn't Louis Farrakhan Been Arrested?



Here's The Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan speaking for his #JusticeOrElse movement at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Miami:

"I'm looking for ten thousand...in the midst of a million. I'm looking for ten thousand in the midst of the million. Ten thousand fearless men. Who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny."

'Death is sweeter than to continue to live and bury our children while white folks give the killer...hamburgers."

"Death is sweeter! Than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of the 400 year old enemy. Death, death is sweeter."

"The Qu'ran teaches persecution is worse than slaughter. Then it says, retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breaths of those whose children have been slain."

“So if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us. Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling,”


This is not protected speech under the First Amendment...just ask Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance about that. This is a direct, clear, imminent incitement to violence as outlined by the Supreme Court in Virginia v Black,  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and other cases.

It is also  certainly a violation of Florida's state laws (Florida Statutes Section 877.03 and Florida Statutes Section 870.01), and of the City of Miami's civil code.

Nor is this the first time he's used this kind of language. So why wasn't Louis Farrakhan charged and arrested? Change the word 'white ' to  'black'   in the above transcript. Do you think a white speaker saying the same things would have been arrested, as I think he or she should have been?

Guesses?


Monday, August 03, 2015

Forum: What Are The 5 Most Important Issues To You In The Coming Election?




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 Are The 5 Most Important Issues To You In The Coming Election?

Don Surber : 1. Electing a Republican not named Jeb! Bush.


The Independent Sentinel : We need a president who will vacate all executive orders, memos, guidance issuances and every other misery Barack Obama put into place.

The new president needs to declaw the government agencies starting with the firing of the left-wingers fundamentally transforming us.

It's in a way too late, but the nuclear deal needs to go. Treaty powers need to be restored and perhaps legislation needs to be passed that prevents these abuses by another Imperial President.

The military needs to be brought back up to par and the new president has to try to repair relations with allies and dump the communists and Fascists.

We need a president with an economic plan that doesn't involve redistribution and over-investment in the exaggerated so-called science of climate change. We need to shrink the welfare state and get people back to work via the free market.

That is more than five but there are so many things wrong. Mostly we need a president who can restore our self-respect and unite us again. My concern isn't what the socialists in the EU or what the fascists in the UN think of us, I care what we think of ourselves.

 Puma By Design :

1. Illegal immigration

2. Rebuilding our Defenses, Military. Thanks to Barack Obama, who has weakened our defenses, those who would have thought twice about attacking us eight years ago, no longer fear or respect us.

3. Reigning in the government PERIOD. From overreach, regulations to spending

4. Jobs, jobs, jobs

5. Education – parental control. Let the parents make the decisions, not bureaucrats and unions.

JoshuaPundit : My issues are as follows...and I'm fully aware that few politicians will be honest enough to actually discuss them in real terms with voters.

First, we need actual reform on both legal and illegal migration. This issue affects many of the others. I see it as encompassing real control of our borders, both physically and legally, and a return to the realization that immigration is a privilege extended by a sovereign state, not a 'right.' The diversity visas need to be ended and simple points system evolved for legal migration that applies to everyone...and because of the abuses of the last 8 years, criteria for rescinding the green cards of those whom do not meet this criteria. Illegal migrants likewise need to be compelled to register so that individual cases can be evaluated and a decision made on their continued legal residence based on criteria such as crime records, knowledge of English, employment, family members or employers willingness to be guarantors so the illegal migrants do not become public charges, etc.

Abuse of the H1B visas that have kept wages static for years in many industries needs to be stopped, and all decisions on new immigration subject to the effect on American workers already here. To my knowledge, the only presidential candidates whom have addressed this sensibly are Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Jim Webb.

Second, we need major reform of the tax code and a downsizing of the IRS. The entire tax code, in my opinion, needs to be rewritten so that all Americans pay taxes. I favor a design that simplifies the laws substantially, provides for perhaps 3 brackets for both personal and corporate income taxes,  eliminates most deductions and lowers rates. This approach would have enormous benefits. 

The lower rates would actually increase revenues, as the increased money available to be spent or invested would generate other financial activity which could then be taxed. Most Americans whom work for wages wouldn't even have to bother filing taxes, as they would be automatically deducted as they are now. Self employed persons could pay quarterly as many do now, simply providing 1099's and a check, or those employed by corporations or doing work for hire like actors or musicians could have their taxes deducted by these corporations on their behalf.

A lowering of corporate taxation and a simplified tax code would also encourage domestic and (along with a genteel hint about possible tariffs)  foreign investment. You would once again see good paying blue collar jobs in America, and a far better balance of trade. This is exactly what happened with Japan in the1980's and is why many 'Japanese' cars are now built by American workers in places like Kentucky and Ohio.

Third, we need to revamp the Civil Service rules. It's all very well to rant about Big Government and the elimination of whole departments, but while that kind of bolshoi is a nifty applause line, reality is a different matter. For one thing, our courts in their wisdom have ruled that government employees have a property right to their jobs and it costs a large amount of time and money to fire anyone. Massive layoffs result in decreased  economic activity. While it might be nice to imagine that arrogant Uncivil Servant flipping burgers instead of sneering at you, the reality is that, multiplied by hundreds of thousands, his or her new salary as opposed to the $60K he  or she used to make affects everybody's bottom line. And the byzantine regs of the civil service rules with their minutiae of job classifications limits what jobs people may do and where they can be transferred.Change that, and you can transfer workers where they're needed and gradually shut down or even change the mission of various government departments and gradually downsize government by attrition.

Fourth, we to deal with our youth and our culture. America is full of kids with no fathers and no future beyond immediate gratification or maybe lucking into a coveted corner to sell crack on. They have no skills and no jobs, and even more importantly, many of them have no clue how to behave if they did. We need a wide spread government program to get these kids out of their environment and into better things. For some of them, this might mean apprenticeship programs involving private industry or even the military to teach them a trade. For others, it might mean jobs combined with room and board working at building up America's infrastructure, and things like helping to fight fires or similar projects. In all cases, part of the game would be instructing them in America's history and culture and teaching them to take pride in it.

For the same reason, school choice is absolutely essential. So is eliminating public employee unions or at least open shopping them.


Fifth, we need a president who understands strategic thinking and our military.This year, the Army failed to meet its recruiting goals. After all, with the involuntary mass layoffs, unsafe recruiting stations, the VA scandals, the current war on Christianity, the PC uber alles atmosphere and the likes of Barack Hussein Obama as commander in chief, is it any wonder?

This all needs to change. It isn't enough to simply rebuild our military in manpower and equipment. We need to rebuild our military culture.

We once had a Federal office known as the Director Of Civilian Marksmanship. His job? Working with the NRA and similar groups to ensure that America's youth were taught gun safety and shooting skills. He also saw to it that surplus military rifles were sold and distributed to them, as well as to ROTC programs around the nation. This was back in the days when kids received that first .22 from Dad and early lessons on how to use it safely...back when Dad still lived at home.

The result was that kids learned early about respect for  guns, and you didn't see the mass shootings we have now. Plus, if America needed them, they were ready to go and a lot of them already knew how to shoot pretty well, I'd love to see that happen again, through the NRA and Jr. military programs like the Marine Corp's Devil Pups. That's how you rebuild a military culture.

For the past eight years, aside from having a president with little respect for our military except as  props and photo-ops, we have also had one whom has been an utter failure at strategic thinking. What that means is that you nurture and support alliances in strategic areas and horse trade with the bad guys from a position of strength, not weakness. Or, as Ronald Reagan once said, "We win, they lose."

Our next president will have to be someone like that - whether we like it or not.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The five most important issues to me in the coming election are, in order from fifth to first:

5. Budget

4. Reining in overreaching and unconstitutional regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the CFPB

3. National Defense

2. National Security, encompassing immigration and border protection


And the number one issue most important to me:

EDUCATION. It is imperative that we, as a people and nation, understand the damage already done by progressives who infiltrated our education system. It began in the 1960s at the university level, but today the indoctrination begins in pre-K and continues through elementary, middle, and high school. You see it in our youth who have already accepted the socialist doctrine as preferable to our republican form of government.

Ask Marion :

1.Stop Illegal immigration and securing the borders.

2. Repairing the U.S. economy which includes everything from nullifying illegal trade agreements to creating jobs, jobs, jobs…;

3. Help Americans believe in a future which includes a great America after rebuilding our military strength around the world.

4.Fixing American Healthcare with an actual plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

5. Overhaul the Education system and restore the power of parents, states and the U.S. Constitution.

   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?