SB 1070: Scotus Upholds Part Of Arizona Law, Strikes Down Other Parts

The Supreme Court ruled today on Arizona's SB1070, upholding a key part of the law but striking down others as an intrusion on federal powers.

The part of the law requiring suspected illegal aliens to provide law officers with proof of status - the so-called 'show me your papers' clause - was upheld by the Court as constitutional and a legitimate exercise of a state's powers to enforce the law.

The Court struck down the provisions making it a crime for illegal aliens without work permits to seek employment, to fail to carry registration documents, and to allow the arrest of anyone believed to be an illegal alien and subject to deportation.

The decision was something of a mixed bag. Five justices - Justice Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor - voted to strike down three provisions. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas wanted to allow the entire law to stand while Justice Samuel Alito would have struck down one unnamed provision and kept the rest of the law intact. Justice Kagan was forced to recuse herself.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion:

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

That's really the crux of it. Asking someone to show papers or ID is an exercise in law enforcement that's in sync with federal law. The three provisions the Court struck down are expansions of it.

Justice Scalia, with his characteristic wit made the case in his dissent for Arizona's law on the basis of state sovereignty, writing, "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state."

So in the end, the ruling on SB1070 merely kicks the can down the road.

The real problem is that for political reasons the United States has been failing to enforce it's immigration laws for some time on a selective basis when it comes to primarily Latino aliens coming through our southern border. It is a federal problem that will take federal legislation to solve. Even if illegal alien migration wasn't a key part of wrecking the budget of several U.S. States, it simply isn't viable from a security standpoint in a post 9/11 world.

Or to take Justice Scalia's point to it's logical conclusion, if the United States can't secure it's territory, there's no reason to refer to it as a sovereign state.

Soccer Dad's Mideast Media Sampler,6/25/12

Today's sampler and analysis of Mideast media content from my pal Soccer Dad:


1) The Obama administration's failure


Jackson Diehl asks Is the Obama administration to blame for the Arab spring failures?

Taken together, these disparate comments actually add up to a coherent critique. Obama’s biggest failing in the Arab Spring is not that he chose the wrong side; it is that he has waffled back and forth. He has been consistently indecisive, irresolute and reluctant to act. As a result he has alienated both regimes and revolutionaries, and squandered U.S. leverage.
Before pushing Mubarak out, Obama embraced him; now his aides are criticizing — but so far tolerating — the military’s attempts to hang on to power. Obama insists Assad must give up power and facilitates military aid for the rebels at the same time that he endorses a U.N.-brokered settlement between the regime and opposition. He demands change in Bahrain while continuing to back the regime even when it refuses to reform.
In short, Obama has made a difference during the Arab Spring mostly by not making a difference. By failing to decisively use U.S. aid, diplomatic influence and military power to support the removal of dictators and the beginning of democratic transformation, he has helped tip the balance toward the old regimes — or chaos. No, the mess is not his fault. But he deserves a share of the blame.

There is an element of consistency to the Obama administration's approach that Diehl doesn't explore.


Recently Barry Rubin observed:

This is in tandem with the continued Obama Administration support for the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Congress (SNC)? Despite the fig leaf of putting a Kurd as the head of the group, the Brotherhood’s control continues. Since U.S. policy is being coordinated with the SNC, despite the opposition of other Syrian rebels, one can assume that the Brotherhood will be the big winner from this arms’ supply.
Now there are those in the West who favor the survival of Bashar al-Asad’s regime because they say that a revolution will bring something worse, that is, a radical Sunni Islamist regime. And there are also those in the West—like myself—who favor the overthrow of that regime because we believe that there is a chance for a better regime (better for Syria’s people and U.S. interests). Still others, believing no good solution is possible, think it best that the fighting continue, keeping Syria weak and reducing Iran’s strategic power.
Yet nobody should want to see U.S. help that makes the creation of a radical Sunni Islamist government, determined to wage jihad on America and on Israel, more likely. None should want to see a revolutionary and repressive Salafist state installed in Syria that would link up with other radical Sunnis (in Tunisia, limited by a coalition; in Egypt, if it beats the army challenge; in the Gaza Strip and the main opposition in Jordan) to form a bloc that would further destabilize the Middle East.

Similarly, Eli Lake reported (via Jennifer Rubin)

Instead, the visit this week looks like it’s turning into a political fiasco. Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The group was banned under former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and is now a recognized Islamist political party. Its spiritual leader, Omar Abdel Rahman—also known as the “blind sheik”—was convicted in 1995 of plotting attacks on New York City landmarks and transportation centers, and is serving a life sentence in a North Carolina federal prison.
Eldin, according to his Facebook page, was born in 1968 and resides in Suez, near the canal that unites the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. He was arrested in 1993 on terrorism charges after members of Gamaa Islamiya got into a shoot out with Egyptian security officials at a mosque. He has proclaimed his innocence in the shooting and says he was arrested because of his political activism against Mubarak.
In an interview, Eldin confirmed he is a member of Gamaa Islamiya. By U.S. law, that means he would be denied a visa to enter the country. Nonetheless, he says, he got a visa from the State Department. A State Department spokesman said, “We have no information suggesting that he or anyone else in the delegation is a member of the Egyptian Islamic Group.”

The common element is that the administration hasn't been too careful to avoid boosting Islamists. This could the consistent failure that Diehl was looking for.


In The West's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood Dore Gold notes that supporting Islamists isn't just an American problem.

Nevertheless, according to the Los Angeles Times, U.S. officials said on Monday that they were "deeply concerned by an Egyptian military decree giving the generals sweeping powers to pass laws and decide whether to go to war." This was a stunning statement, considering that the Muslim Brotherhood might still emerge as the winner. Right now, given the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ties to its Palestinian branch, Hamas, leaving Egypt's war-making powers with the Egyptian military is far safer for the world than transferring them to a Muslim Brotherhood government.
The British even went a step further than the Americans. The spokeswoman for the Foreign Office, Rosemary Davis, was interviewed this week by the Palestinian Maan news agency and reportedly declared that Britain was more concerned with the Egyptian military than with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a self-defeating approach. For if the West continues down this course and uncritically embraces the Muslim Brotherhood, then it will be extremely unlikely that it will temper its confrontational political program in the future and become a more moderate movement as many in the West presently hope.

2) More about Morsi


David Kirkpatrick profiles Mohammed Morsi in Named Egypt’s Winner, Islamist Makes History:

Even after the two-month presidential campaign, Mr. Morsi remains an unfamiliar figure to most Egyptians. He was living and working in Los Angeles during the tumultuous period after Islamic militants assassinated Anwar Sadat and his successor, Mr. Mubarak, cracked down on the Brotherhood. Those who knew him in America say Mr. Morsi never appeared notably political or religious. But he became a leader in the Brotherhood after his return to Egypt, and he won election in 2000 to the Mubarak-dominated Parliament, and was chosen to lead the Muslim Brotherhood’s small bloc of 18 members, playing a key role in the group’s experiments in multiparty democracy and coalition-building. But as he rose in the leadership, he gained a reputation as a conservative enforcer, known for discouraging dissent.
Five years ago, when the Brotherhood adopted a draft party platform that called for barring women and non-Muslims from the presidency, Mr. Morsi was a chief defender of the controversial planks, inside and outside the group. He argued that Islam required the president to be a male Muslim, in part because the head of state should promote the faith.
Since Mr. Mubarak’s ouster, the Brotherhood has jettisoned those proposed restrictions from its platform, but during the campaign Mr. Morsi said that he personally still thought that only a male Muslim should hold the office.

Kirkpatrick goes on to report that some number of secular voters also welcomed Morsi's election as they viewed his victory as a victory against the military rulers. (Given the narrowness of Morsi's victory, doesn't it suggest that more than a few secularlists feel like Tarek Heggy?)


Eric Trager wrote an in-depth profile of Morsi back in April. That profile was notable for this:

First, for the final four years of Hosni Mubarak’s reign, Morsi was the primary point-of-contact for State Security within the Muslim Brotherhood. State Security was the repressive domestic security apparatus through which the Mubarak regime monitored and infiltrated opposition groups, and Morsi negotiated with State Security to ensure the Brotherhood’s participation in various political endeavors, such as parliamentary elections. “Mohamed Morsi has very good security relations,” former deputy supreme guide Mohamed Habib told me during a March 2011 interview. “State Security likes a connection point who has the confidence of various Brothers, and [top Brotherhood leaders] pushed for him.” Indeed, Brotherhood leaders trusted Morsi because they viewed him as ideologically rigid, and therefore unlikely to concede too much to the regime during negotiations. Brotherhood leaders also believed that Morsi’s longtime political experience, including his membership in the Brotherhood’s political division since 1992 and leadership of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc from 2000 to 2005, made him an effective negotiator.
Interestingly, Morsi inherited this role from Khairat al-Shater, the man whom he recently replaced as the Brotherhood’s presidential candidate. Prior to the 2005 parliamentary elections, Morsi assisted al-Shater in negotiating with the regime over the number of candidates that the Brotherhood would run. When the Brotherhood won 88 of 454 total seats in parliament—including a majority of the seats that they contested—the regime was infuriated, and it is believed that its subsequent prosecution of al-Shater was, in part, a punishment for his failure to reduce sufficiently the number of Brotherhood candidacies. Following al-Shater’s conviction, Morsi became the Brotherhood’s sole liaison to State Security.
Morsi’s willingness, in the years afterwards, to negotiate with a Mubarak regime that brutally repressed the Brotherhood for decades is a testament to the organization’s political gradualism during that time. “Our program is a long-term one, not a short-term one,” Morsi told me during an August 2010 interview. “If we are rushing things, then I don’t think that this leads to a real stable position.” Indeed, under Mubarak, the organization’s primary aim was survival—which is why it frequently coordinated its activities with the regime, and typically refused to join the various protest movements that emerged during the waning years of Mubarak’s rule. “We never participate in some randomness movements before,” Morsi told me in his stilted English. The Brotherhood thus initially refused to participate in the January 2011 mass demonstrations that ultimately toppled Mubarak. And despite having been arrested as the revolt reached its climax, Morsi participated in early February negotiations with then-vice-president Omar Suleiman that, unsuccessfully, aimed to end the protests.

This casts Morsi's candidacy and victory in a somewhat different light than the New York Times did. The Brotherhood (and Morsi) were willing to work with the Mubarak regime to the degree that it benefited their ambitions. Morsi wasn't exactly a shunned outsider who suddenly won an uplifting victory. He was willing to work with the now reviled old establishment to achieve his organization's political goals.


3) Whoops!


The source for yesterday's item about Nathan Thrall came from an e-mail sent by Challah Hu Akbar.

Watcher's Forum : What 's The Likely Result Of President Obama's Claiming Executive Privilege Over Fast And Furious Docs?

As many of you know, the scandal of Fast and Furious involved the Department of Justice allowing thousands of illegally purchased weapons to 'walk' across the border for resale to Mexican drug cartels. The weapons had no tracking devices, most have never been recovered and over 300 murders have been attributed to them, including the murder of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry.

On the eve of Attorney General Eric Holder being cited for contempt over his refusal to supply documents on Fast and Furious that were subpoenaed by the Congressional Oversight committee, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents in question. What will be the end result of this strategy and what does it signify? The Council weighs in:

The Razor:I’ve often wondered if Nixon had been a Democrat whether there would have been a Watergate investigation by Washington Post reporters. At the time I don’t think reporters were anywhere near as biased towards the Democrats as they are now due to Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam war, but considering how they’ve lost all pretense to objectivity since I find it worth considering. It’s a shame because Fast and Furious has the potential to be the worst scandal since Watergate.

The administration created procedures to funnel guns to narcoterrorists in Mexico for an unknown reason. There are three possible reasons for the operation: First, that the administration was so incompetent that it failed to create tracking mechanisms for the guns on the Mexican side of the border by working with Mexican authorities. Second that the administration was passing guns to the narcoterrorists as a tool of American foreign policy to help them destabilize the Mexican government for example. Finally, that the administration funneled guns to the narcoterrorists as a tool of domestic policy to justify gun control measures made easier by American made guns turning up at crimes committed by the Mexican gangs. All three options are impeachable offenses by the Attorney General, and the last two are impeachable offenses of the president. I don’t take impeachment lightly. I opposed the Republican effort to impeach Clinton in 1998 and still do, but Fast and Furious has the necessary ingredients to justify it in this case if the facts bear it out.

That said I do not expect the Executive Privilege orders to be challenged by a mainstream press that operates as the propaganda wing of the DNC. The orders are coming over the summer when most people are too busy enjoying themselves to pay much attention to the news, and the orders have enough nuances to them (Bush used them 6 times while this is Obama’s first) for people to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. The administration knows how to play the press better than any I’ve seen in my lifetime thanks to the press’s willingness to be played.

It is a shame because what is known about Fast and Furious is enough to justify full disclosure. I expect that we will someday know the truth, but I don’t expect it before November.


Bookworm Room:If Obama cannot credibly prove that the documents he seeks to protect involve the executive decision-making process, his claim will die and die quickly. He'll end up looking like a fool, and the documents will be squeezed out of Holder.

If Obama can credibly prove that the documents he seeks to protect involve the executive decision-making process, he's actually in trouble, because he will have implicated himself in the Fast & Furious cover-up. In this regard, keep in mind that Rep. Issa posed an extremely narrow request that goes to Fast & Furious testimony, rather than Fast & Furious itself. Because Holder has consistently backtracked -- i.e., recanted lies -- Obama's claim means that his office was a part of the cover-up. And to the extent that Holder is still refusing to turn over documents, Obama is part of a continuing cover-up. Worse, for Obama, the narrow range of this type of executive privilege claim means that, because wrongdoing is involved, Obama will ultimately still need to let those documents go to the House.

The worst thing for Obama is that, by invoking executive privilege, he leaped over the the Cone of Silence that the media had so thoughtfully built around Fast & Furious. It's gone from being a scandal in the conservative internet to becoming national news. Those same citizens who were once completely oblivious to this chicanery are now sitting up and taking notice.

There's debate as to whether the Democrat party has become so ethically corrupt that it will continue to rally around Obama and Holder regardless of subsequent discovery about wrongdoing. If Dems do rally around him, Obama will avoid impeachment or official humiliation from the legislative branch. What's more important, though, is that this whole debacle won't end well in the public eye. Obama will look like a fool for wrongly invoking executive privilege or, if he had reason to invoke it, his fingerprints will suddenly be all over a scheme that armed drug runners, killed American law officers, and killed innumerable Hispanics on both sides of the border.

Joshuapundit:President Obama is playing an interesting game here, and one he has a decent chance of winning.

This is by no means the first time the Administration has been fingered in questionable deeds. Most American have forgotten, for instance, that the White House was directly implicated by two senate candidates who both made public statements that the White House offered them jobs not to primary incumbents, a felony offense that somehow just wafted away into the ozone. Congress's request to the DOJ for a special prosecutor was denied here too.

President Obama believes he has Teflon underwear based on these and other instances I could mention, and and the president knows it primarily comes from his race and the unspoken threat of massive urban civil unrest should he be called to account and secondly from his idolization by the dinosaur media. That's why Fast and Furious has been allowed to drag on so long.

The House will almost certainly vote on party lines to cite Holder for contempt, but their only possible redress will be through the DC circuit court, which will take months. If President Obama loses, he will likely grant Eric Holder and anyone else concerned a pardon, which is irrevocable. It's unlikely that a new Republican Administration would pursue this matter, given how the political classes operate. If the president should win and if the Republicans take both houses of Congress this matter might be pursued but if so it's likely to end up as the Clinton impeachment did because most Democrats in the Senate are unlikely to vote for impeachment of a Democrat no matter what, and the likelihood of getting 60 votes to convict is sketchy. Especially since the president has the power to pardon any awkward witnesses to eliminate any possibility of prosecutors granting immunity in exchange for testimony.

The only positive thing is that by prematurely claiming non-catalogued executive privilege this president has not only linked the White House to Fast and Furious with iron shackles, but forced the dinosaur media to cover the scandal instead of being able to ignore it.

The Noisy Room:I believe that the Executive Privilege that Barack Obama has claimed over Fast and Furious will be challenged by Issa and others and will wind up at the feet of the Supreme Court. If I had to guess on that outcome, I believe Constitutionally they would rule against Obama.

In the end, this scandal will prove more widespread and deeper than Watergate and the media will not be able to contain it. The truth will eventually come out and I have long said that Eric Holder should one day grace the inside of a prison cell. He will be found in contempt and will likely get a Presidential pardon. As for Barack Obama, I predict this whole thing will be stalled until he is out of office, G-d willing, next year. Obama will most likely never have to pay for his hand in this, although if he is involved, in the end he could be prosecuted. Romney will have to clean up the mess left him and try to repair as much of the damage as possible.

Read the rest here!

The President As Huckster

Aside from selling questionable designer fashion ware, the Obama campaign is now involved in yet another sleazy endeavor.

If a couple you know is getting married, they encourage people to donate the price of the gifts they would have given to the Obama campaign. I kid you not.

Just imagine how overjoyed a young couple is going to be after footing the bill for a wedding and then having Auntie or your best man say 'Hey, I donated $50 to Obama's campaign instead of cutting you a check. What, you're not happy?'

They're even encouraging couples on the campaign site to register, so that their friends and relatives will be steered towards being obligated to donate to Obama whether they support the president or not rather than putting in a little something in cash or gifts to help the new couple get started. Because you see, the president is...well, entitled to it. All of it. Just because he can.

This is how con men and cult leaders operate, because they feel they're owed everything you have regardless of what it is. It's also how another well known class of people operate, but I'll let you fill in that particular blank yourself.

Obama's senior adviser and factotum Valerie Jarret's daughter just got married, and I'm sure the gifts were plentiful, given the number of people who want to curry favor with someone like the president of the United States. I guarantee you those guests weren't encouraged to cut checks to Obama instead of gifts.

He simply has no shame, and no limits.

The Eurozone's Time Of Decision

Next week, there is a major summit of EU leaders scheduled. They're going to try to hash out some way of dealing with their ongoing fiscal crisis. Italy's Prime Minister Mario Monti was fairly stark about what's at stake.

As I predicted earlier, Spain's bailout without the insistence of major austerity measures and reduced government spending had been the signal for what amounts to a 'gang bang' on German
Chancellor Angela Merkel. Not only does Italy expect a bailout on similar terms, but Portugal and Ireland now want their bail out agreements amended to cut back on mandatory austerity measures. And they now have another important player piling on Merkel - the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde:

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde warned that the euro is under "acute stress" and urged eurozone leaders to channel aid directly to struggling banks rather than via governments. She also called on the European Central Bank (ECB) to cut interest rates.

The stark message from Lagarde, delivered to eurozone finance ministers who were meeting in Luxembourg, will increase pressure to come up with a unified approach to tackle problems including Spain's struggling banks. She urged the 17 eurozone countries to consider jointly issuing debt and helping troubled banks directly. She also suggested relaxing the strict austerity conditions imposed on countries that have received bailouts.

"We are clearly seeing additional tension and acute stress applying to both banks and sovereigns in the euro area," Lagarde said after the meeting. {...}

One of Lagarde's recommendations for Europe was that eurozone leaders should consider issuing bonds or debt "in some form" backed by the governments of all member countries. Berlin opposes the idea because it would put German taxpayers on the hook for foreign debts and increase the country's cost of borrowing.

In addition, Lagarde said it was necessary to break "the negative feedback loop" that occurs when governments take on more debt to bail out their banks, and she called on Europe's two emergency bailout funds to shore up shaky banks directly.

Let's translate what 's going on here, and more importantly, who it's coming from.

This the head of the IMF, a crucial player in the world's financial order and a major potential source of funds for the EU's troubled economies. And what she's telling Angela Merkel and the Germans is that the IMF's support for the eurozone is questionable unless the Germans and other healthier members of the eurozone agree to purchase Greek, Spanish, Italian, Irish and Portuguese debt that the market has already decided are perfectly lousy investments. Moreover, she wants that debt purchased at at artificially lowered interest rates, and she wants the money to go directly to the banks, so the entire eurozone is on the hook for it rather than individual countries.

The idea here is simple. If the Germans bend over for it,the contagion from the affected countries will be spread throughout the entire system. At the same time, the 'purchase' of the debt plus low interest rates will allow the affected countries to chuck any ideas of fiscal austerity and engage in 'growth' - a euphemism for increased government spending.

If Angela Merkel agrees to this, she's likely to become history politically if the current polls are any indication of how the average German feels about this sort of arrangement.

Even if it goes through, it's a recipe for ruin, and I don't see how it can last for long.

The Council Has Spoken!! THis Weeks Watchers Council Results

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

But before get to that, some important biz...

This Sunday is the birthday of our own Political Commentator, Michael Haltman!!



Now I have to say, aside from the fact he's a truly standup guy, I've always admired Michael for his determination and hard work. He's a tireless and prolific writer, and some of you may not remember, but it took him two tries to get on the Council once he wanted on. He's one of the few I've seen (if any) to get outvoted for admission initially, take it in stride and keep on coming until the next vacancy was his. And since he's been one of us, he's proven himself to be a major asset to the Council who has always been willing to contribute richly to the group as well as being a good friend I really value.



Here's to you, Michael.have a wonderful birthday bro, and many more! And BTW, that's gen-u-wine New York State Champagne in those glasses!





This week's winner,Simply Jew's Soviet propaganda: leaving Dr. Goebbels in the dust - Part II is the second part of an absolutely wonderful essay on how Soviet propaganda ( and do take the time to go to the links of actual Soviet cartoons) targeted Israel and Jews once the Arabs became their clients, done from the viewpoint of a former Soviet citizen who experienced it first hand. Here's a slice :

The previous post has shown that in the beginning of nineteen seventies Soviet leaders have decided to make a clean break with the Marxist-Leninist position of the internationalism, racial equality and all the related slogans and buzzwords. At least where the Jews are concerned.

It is somewhat difficult to explain to the Western mind how unique and ground-breaking was this decision. In that regime every printed word and every text transmitted via radio or read on TV was controlled, sometimes by several functionaries, and every deviation from the official party line in the media was severely punished. Control over media items prepared for external consumption was many times tougher. To imagine anyone being able to slip unapproved content of the kind described is unthinkable.

But the case of the "USSR" monthly was only a tip of the iceberg. After the Six Days War, the world became sharply divided between supporters and enemies of Israel. USSR became the chief supporter of the Arab countries, while USA, up to 1967 somewhat hesitant, came heavily on the side of Israel. The lines in the Middle Eastern sand were drawn. Immense quantities of Soviet weapons were provided to Egypt, Syria and other, less directly involved in the Israeli/Arab conflict countries. The price of the weapons was laughingly low. Thanks to the quirks of Soviet economy that allowed virtually any price to be "profitable" and to special economic arrangements that allowed Arab countries infinitely delayed credits and a partial payment in local products, the "business" flowered. Soviet citizens remember quite well cheap Algerian wine, for instance, shipped in huge vats and dispensed under some localized brand names. Or Syrian wool and Egyptian cotton... Only a few were aware of the reasons behind appearance of the unusual merchandise on the shelves.

In our non-Council category, the winner was The Gates of Vienna for Multi-Culti Child Snatchers submitted by Joshuapundit. Written by Paul Weston, Chairman of the British Freedom Party, it details how social workers in the UK are attempting to to seize a baby as soon as it is born from an expectant British mother....because she doesn't embrace or approve of the elites policy of 'multiculturalism'. And no , this is not a joke.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

• *First place with 2 2/3 votes! Simply Jews – Soviet propaganda: leaving Dr. Goebbels in the dust - Part II
• Second place with 2 1/3 votes – The Noisy Room - I'm ‘Just’ A Blogger
• Third place *t* with 2 votes – Bookworm Room-King Obama the Insane -— is Obama still living the big lie, or has he slipped round the bend?
• Third place *t* with 2 votes – The Right Planet-Ann Barnhardt – Stop Drinking the LEMMENade
• Fourth place with 1 vote – Joshuapundit- How The MainStream Media Legitimizes Jew Hatred
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Mellow Jihadi- Birthing Aboard an Aircraft Carrier
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-George W On My Mind
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Glittering Eye –This Is Not the Stimulus You Were Looking For
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – VA Right! – Virginia Republican Primary Was an Epic Failure for the Virginia TEA Party
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Colossus Of Rhodey Right –What a surprise
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Political Commentator – Will municipal bonds be the next headwind on the horizon for Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan?
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Aegypt"s Next Revolution
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Razor – On Father's Day

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 3 2/3 votes! – Gates Of Vienna- Multi-Culti Child Snatchers submitted by Joshuapundit
• Second place with 2 1/3 votes – PJ Media/Victor Davis Hanson –The Scandal Of Our Age submitted by Bookworm Room
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes –Global Public Square – How dictators have evolved with the times submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes -Via Meadia Wilsonian Wars, Wilsonian Ruin submitted by The Razor
• Third place*t* with 1 1/3 votes - Victor Davis Hanson Are We In Revolutionary Times? submitted by The Noisy Room
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote -Kausfiles/Daily Caller –The maddening details of Obama’s DREAM Decree submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote - Sister Toldjah –Obama’s threat to constitutional liberty submitted by Rhymes With Right
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote -World Affairs Journal –Women: Beware of Egypt submitted by The Mellow Jihadi
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Global Market Economics –America in Decline: The Soul Crushing Despair of The Unemployed submitted by The Political Commentator
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote - The Daily Caller –Border Patrol Union Demands Holder's Resignation over Fast and Furious submitted by The Independent Sentinel
• Sixth place with 1/3 vote -IOwnTheWorld.com –LEMMings submitted by The Right Planet

See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council takes apart one of the provocative issues of the day an weighs in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!

Commerce Secretary Bryson Resigns Following Auto Crash Spree In L.A.

I have to admit, I expected this:

Commerce Secretary John E. Bryson has resigned, WTOP has learned, but will continue serving in an advisory role to the president.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Bryson, 68, says he chose to give up his cabinet position following a "recent seizure and medical leave of absence."

The secretary was involved in two traffic accidents in the Los Angeles area in early June as a result of a seizure, the government said.

"I have concluded the seizure that I suffered on June 9th could be a distraction from my performance as Secretary and that our country would be better served by a change in the leadership of the Department," Bryson wrote in the letter to the president.

As I wrote earlier, Bryson's behavior after the first accident, for which he was cited for felony hit and run was not that of someone who had suffered a seizure but of someone panic fleeing to avoid being caught at something. His being found unconscious at the scene of the second accident was more likely the result of a seizure brought on by stress after the fact.

I'd be willing to bet even money that he'd had seizures before. People get their driver's licenses yanked when they first have seizures and Bryson was probably driving without a license. He fled when he was involved in the first wreck where he rear ended another car to avoid being caught.

Bryson is quite wealthy, and I'm sure he had his lawyers make a suitable financial settlement with the victims involved in exchange for their not pressing charges or cooperating with any police investigation. Since no one was seriously hurt, the felony charges will almost certainly be dropped, especially since the local D.A. hasn't filed formal charges yet on a wealthy and influential local man.

Meanwhile Bryson took a 'medical leave of absence' to get the story off the front pages and give his people time to get this sufficiently handled, put in his resignation and everyone's reasonably happy.

Manus manum lavat, one hand washes the other.

Obama's Job Approval: 43% Per Gallup

Awwwww... so sad. 43% approval. 49% disapproval.

And this was before his pulling executive privilege out of wherever to try and cover up for Fast and Furious.

SCOTUS Rules 7-2 Unions Must Allow Opt Out On Fees For Political Assessments

Public employee unions took another significant hit today as the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that unions must give workers a chance to opt out of unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

This particular case involved the SEIU shaking down its California public sector members for a $12 million 'special assessment' the union wanted. for political campaigning. A number of employees at SEIU Local 1000 decided to object to the fee, which was assessed without any notice. They sued, which given the SEIU's proclivities took a certain amount of courage.

California's notorious 9th Circuit sided with the union, unsurprisingly. But the Supreme Court, quite rightly, reversed the appellate court in a 7-2 decision written by Justice Alito.

"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.

This is huge, because the decision directly impacts the right of public employee unions to collect for political activities without giving members an opt out. Alito's majority decision clearly broadens this to include not only fees levied without notice but any special assessments.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the judgment and voted with the majority, but were careful to write an opinion of their own, disagreeing that the First Amendment requires an opt-in system for other circumstances like "the levying of a special assessment or dues increase" but were very clear that public employee unions in closed shops couldn't pick their members pockets for political campaigning:

"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds."

The dissenters? Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan of course. But that's to be expected. Breyer is the most far left of all the justices, with the possible exception of Kagen. And Kagen, an academic who has never worked as a judge or as a lawyer other than her brief stint as President Obama's solicitor general has no discernible qualifications for the court except her political views and her status as a Friend Of Barack. She's going to be a poison pill in the Supreme Court for quite some time, unfortunately.

Junta Delays Announcing Results In Egyptian Elections

Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces(SCAF), the military junta now ruling the country has announced a delay in giving the results in Egypt's tense presidential election. Both the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate Mohammed Morsi, and Ahmed Shafiq, a former general and Mubarak-era minister have claimed victory.

The SCAF has already dissolved the newly elected Islamist dominated parliament on sketchy technical grounds, has declared itself the chief legislative body, reinstated martial law and reserved for itself the power to write Egypt's new constitution. All of these steps have led the Muslim Brotherhood to claim there is a military coup in the making.

They are likely correct:

A Brotherhood spokesman, Mahmoud Ghozlan, had already warned earlier that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which has ruled Egypt since Hosni Mubarak's overthrow last year, might be preparing to steal the election. He said that the refusal by Mr Morsi's opponent, Ahmed Shafiq, a former general and Mubarak-era minister, to concede defeat and his insistence that he would be declared the victor raised suspicions that the army had "bad intentions".

"If Shafiq is declared the winner, this will make the coup clear," Mr Ghozlah, told the Saudi-backed newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat. "This encroachment on the result may lead to a confrontation between the people and the army".

The SCAF claims that the council overseeing Egypt's elections is examining a number of complaints over improper procedures and tampering from both sides.

While Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate has a substantial lead, there's a very good chance the military may simply negate the election for the time being while the election is 'investigated' and a sitdown occurs to see which candidate is willing to let the SCAF call the shots.

If it's Shafik, as is likely, than two key question remain: will the Islamists force a confrontation on the streets? That will depend on the answer to question two...will the rank and file military and noncoms follow their senior officers, or will they vote with their feet for Islam? In Iran, the military component of the revolt against the Shah started with a group of air force noncoms and enlisted men and spread. The generals followed.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on Islam winning out.

Another lesser question, of course, is what President Obama will do.If this is a military takeover 'for stability' will the Muslim Brotherhood enabler-in-chief deal with the junta or attempt to come out on the side of the Islamists?

Stay tuned..

City Manager Fires Police Chief Over Trayvon Martin Case

City Manager Norton Bonaparte, pictured above, announced today that Sanford Police chief Bill Lee had been fired because of his handling of the Trayvon Martin case.

"After much thoughtful discussion and deep consideration for the issues facing the city of Sanford, I have determined the police chief needs to have the trust and respect of the elected officials and the confidence of the entire community," City Manager Norton Bonaparte said in a news release.

"We need to move forward with a police chief that all the citizens of Sanford can support. I have come to this decision in light of the escalating divisiveness that has taken hold of the city."

Well, I guess you could certainly see that coming, for obvious reasons.

Chief Lee was tossed out with three-month severance and a week's salary. Not exactly your standard termination package.Lee's sin, of course, was not arresting Zimmerman and getting him charged with murder immediately, even though he had no credible evidence to do so.

Needless to say, the Martin family and their lawyers were gratified.This is another step towards prejudicing a potential juror pool.

Late Wednesday night, representatives of the Martin family said they "respected" the city manager's decision.

"It's important that we really believe that, as all of this has unfolded, we've continued to move closer to justice," said family attorney Daryl Parks.

'Justice', of course, being a murder two conviction by any means necessary.

Chief Lee had offered to resign before, back in April when the city was deluged with 'activists' led by Al Sharpton, back when the president of the United States weighed in on a pending legal matter. But the city commissioners voted not to accept it.

Apparently they've seen the light now. It's politically important that George Zimmerman gets some kind of jail time, even if it's done by intimidating Zimmerman into copping a plea for a lesser charge.

Hypocrisy Flashback - Sen. Obama On Attn'y General Independence And Executive Privilege

Talk about partisan politics and hypocrisy - Here's Senator Barack Obama back in 2007 talking about the need for the attorney general to be independent, for him to be the people's lawyer not the president's and to follow the law regardless.

And oh yes...about how a president and an attorney general shouldn't hide behind executive privilege.

I guess it's only racism when people get outraged over a black president and a black attorney general doing it.



(hat tip, Louie Louie...and to Vlad for the video)

How The House Should Proceed Against AG Holder

Today, the House oversight committee voted to cite Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt over Fast and Furious and refer it to the House for a full vote.To their shame, not one Democrat on the committee voted in favor..it was a strict party line vote. Hopefully some of the other House Democrats will have more regard for their Constitution, their oath of office and their country.

Constitutional expert, talk show host and attorney Mark Levin had some excellent advice for Congress on how to proceed once the full House vote is completed, which should be early next week:

As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.

As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.

In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)

Because among the categories of documents sought are all those relating to the recantation by Holder of testimony before Congress, the demand goes to the core of the Congressional power under Article I. In this respect, this is not a general or oversight inquiry but a determination of why the Attorney General of the United States testified falsely before Congress about his own knowledge of a federal program. Presumptively, none of this category of documents is protected by Executive Privilege for wrongdoing per se is not protected by the privilege.

The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself -- and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.

Yes, some documents may be covered by EP, but the blanket attachment of that label flouts the law and the Constitution, and harms the legitimate assertion of EP by Presidents of either party in the future. The Constitution is far too important to be subject to the caprice of this President and an AG who, on its face, wants to be free from scrutiny about why he testified falsely before a Committee of Congress.

Executive Privilege is a very important implied executive power, used in various forms since the presidency of George Washington. Therefore, it's misuse and abuse, to cover-up wrongdoing, conceal embarrassing information, or advance a political agenda, diminishes the ability of future presidents to assert it legitimately.

Obviously the president's decision to assert executive privilege en masse without even providing a log and a singling out of specific documents is a cover up in itself, and designed to stall things until after the election. It's also obvious that Senator Grassley and Rep. Issa know something, which is why they zeroed in on these specific documents.

The trick for Congress will be to get some of the rats to start jumping off of the S.S. Titanic to save themselves via immunity.

One possible smoking gun is the fact that $10 million in stimulus funds were earmarked for Fast and Furious, some the Obama Administration boasted about at one time. It's in the stimulus bill itself.

As you'll recall, the bill was entirely constructed by Democrats, with Republicans essentially locked out of the room.Who put it in the bill? Was it Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? And whose instructions were they acting on? What did the President know and when did he know it?

And by the way, I want to see a statement by Mitt Romney to the effect that if he becomes President, he'll appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this, go where it may.

President Obama has certain powers, but he can't pardon himself.

Fake-A-Hontas Lashes Out At 'Rightwingers' - Including Professor Jacobson At Legal Insurrection!!

Democrat senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren, AKA Dances-With-Socialism keeps getting buried deeper and deeper in her false claims of Cherokee Indian ancestry. First, when the story first broke, she attempted to simply lie about the fact that she claimed minority status at Penn State and Harvard Law in order to take advantage of affirmative action and 'diversity' bennies to get herself hired to lucrative positions. She was forced to admit it after subsequent investigation proved she informed both universities she was Native American and was promoted as a diversity hiring by both schools..and further revelations forced Princess Passes Bull to admit that she listed herself as Native American in order to get placed on a list of “Minority Law Teachers”.

It's just gotten worse since then, since a number of actual people of Cherokee ancestry have denounced her for falsely claiming the lineage. Even genealogical tracing of Warren by a group of Cherokees led by Twila Barnes has shown that Fake-A- Hontus has no Cherokee heritage. In fact, one of her direct ancestors even participated in rounding up the Cherokees and shipping them to Oklahoma via the infamous trail of Tears.

The bizarre thing about this is that Warren could have headed this entire thing off by simply saying that this was based on what she was told by her family, that she might have been mistaken, sorry about that. It all would have gone away.

Instead, she's been living this lie and wallowing in minority victim status fo rso long she simply couldn't give it up, so she's doubled down, accusing 'rightwingers of orchestrating this while refusing to meet with Cherokee groups who are demanding she explain herself.

And prominent among those nasty rightwingers? Our friend Cornell Law professor Bill Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion! You literally have to see the vids at this link in order to believe them. According to Warren and her surrogates, the whole Cherokee issue was a product of 'Brown operatives', not Princess Speaks-With-Forked-Tongue's own lies and manipulations of the diversity industry:

Rather than meet with the Cherokee women and prove her heritage or apologize, Warren’s response has been to create a shiny object for the press to focus on, a ”right wing extremist“:

Warren’s camp responded late today with this statement: “The people of Massachusetts are concerned about their jobs, the future for their kids, and the security of their retirement. Scott Brown would rather talk about anything else. The out-of-state group in question is being promoted and supported by a right wing extremist who is on the record supporting and contributing money to Scott Brown. It is past time we moved on to the important issues facing middle class families in Massachusetts – even if Scott Brown won’t.”

The Warren statement does not identify the “right wing extremist,” but her campaign has been feeding my name to dutiful scriveners at places such as CBS Boston, who use old information from the Brown-Coakley race.

Professor Jacobson, of course, has been on this story form the outset.

This is a classic exhibition of the left wing mindset, for what it's worth. No matter what happens, it's always someone else's fault.

If this is the sort of person the people of Massachusetts want representing them, fine.But really, res ipsa loquiter...the thing speaks for itself.

Obama Claims Executive Privilege Over Fast And Furious Docs

With a committee vote on a contempt of Congress citation looming, Attorney General Eric Holder brought in the heavy artillery and had President Obama exert executive privilege over the Fast and Furious docs Holder is refusing to provide in answer to subpoenas issued by the investigative committee chaired by Rep. Darrel Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley:

Rep. Darrell Issa pressed ahead with a committee vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, despite an 11th-hour move by President Obama to exert executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents at the heart of the dispute.

The announcement instantly touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a "political witch hunt" and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder's "stonewalling" over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was first informed of the president's decision to exert executive privilege in a letter Wednesday morning, shortly before the contempt vote was scheduled.

Issa said committee staff are evaluating the letter but described the move as too little, too late as he and other GOP lawmakers questioned the basis for the assertion.

"This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today's proceedings," Issa said.

Issa accused the Justice Department of trying to compel the committee to close its investigation in exchange for documents it hasn't yet seen. "I can't accept that deal. No other committee chairman would," he said.

Fast and Furious, you'll remember, involved the Department of Justice allowing thousands of illegally purchased weapons to 'walk' across the border for resale to Mexican drug cartels. The weapons had no tracking devices, most have never been recovered and over 300 murders have been attributed to them, including the murder of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry.

Since this came to light, there has been a major pattern of stonewalling, obfuscation and outright lies to the committee, headed by Representative Darrel Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley.

In fact, the documents President Obama just asserted executive privilege over relate to a February 11th, 2011, letter to Sen. Grassley claiming that the Department of Justice and AG Holder had only just found out about Fast and Furious. Holder and the DOJ later admitted the letter was 'in error' after an e-mail trail surfaced that proved they knew about Fast and Furious and had approved the operation long before, and what Grassley and Issa want to see is documents dated after from February 2011 and afterward relating to how Justice officials learned about the Fast and Furious investigation. Or in other words, who knew what and when did they know it.

Holder's final offer in his meeting with Issa was that he would brief Issa and the committee himself on what was in the documents rather than supplying the subpoenaed documents themselves..provided the committee agreed in advance that this would satisfy the subpoena! Such an offer only underlines how much contempt the attorney general has for the committee and for Congress.

I'm hardly surprised President Obama is asserting executive privilege here. It's been obvious to me for some time that this led straight to the White House. In fact, President Obama even allowed for $10 million in funding for the operation as part of his 'stimulus' program. It's in the stimulus bill itself.

As Senator Grassley said in a statement today, there's no reason for President Obama to assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement:

"The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions. How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? "

Of course this president knew about Fast and Furious, and a long tome before February 11 of 2011.There's a reason funds for Fast and Furious were in the Stimulus package President Obama is so proud of. I mean, look at all the jobs it provided for weapons traffickers and enforcers for the Mexican drug cartels!

If the majority of Democrats in Congress had any decency (of if the president did, for that matter) there would be a special prosecutor named immediately. Needless to say, they haven't and there won't be.

Soccer Dad's Mideast Media Sampler

Today's sampler and analysis of Mideast media content from my pal Soccer Dad:

1) Out of the shadows



The New York Times reports, Israel Weighs Response After Attacks by Hamas:

The armed wing of Hamas, the Islamic militant group that governs here, fired barrages of rockets into southern Israel on Tuesday after a break of more than a year during which the group largely adhered to an informal cease-fire.
...
Hamas has kept out of the last few rounds of violence, leaving smaller, more radical groups like Islamic Jihad to fire rockets and then restraining them in an effort to restore calm, often with the help of Egyptian mediators.

First of all, either Hamas observed the ceasefire or not. If it "largely adhered to" the ceasefire, it wasn't a ceasefire.
The bigger problem is that Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza. If "smaller, more radical groups" were carrying out attacks on Israel it was with the implicit consent of Hamas. In which case the over 290 rocket attacks into Israel in less than a half year do not constitute "largely adhering" to a ceasefire.
The stated position of the New York Times is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "committed to democratic elections and the peaceful rotation of political power," which is a conclusion one could draw only if one ignored their history and often stated goals. Here too, reporters for the New York Times make a conscious effort to whitewash the role of Hamas in terror against Israel.


What's wrong with the following two paragraphs?

The rockets were apparently a reaction to three Israeli airstrikes here on Monday and Tuesday that killed six Palestinians, most of them militants. The Israeli military said it had attacked terrorist squads responsible for firing rockets and for sniper fire along the border with Israel.
A Palestinian toddler, 2, was killed and her older brother was injured Tuesday evening in a blast at their house, witnesses and medical officials said. Residents said an Israeli plane had fired a missile at the house, in the Zeitoun neighborhood in Gaza City, but the Israeli military said that it did not carry out strikes at that time and that an initial investigation had indicated that the blast was caused by a failed rocket launching from inside Gaza.

Assuming that the toddler was one of the fatalities mentioned in the earlier paragraph, then Israeli strikes killed only, not "most[ly]" militants. This is a fact that even Ma'an got right, but the New York Times obfuscates. In fact according IDF spokesperson, Avital Leibovich 10 - 15 percent of all Gaza rocket launches fail and land in Gaza. The practice of targeting Israeli civilians (especially from civilian areas) poses a substantial risk to civilians in Gaza, even if Israel does not strike back.

But there was a sense that Islamic Jihad was gaining ground, while the smaller groups and many residents here criticized Hamas for not avenging the Israeli strikes. Hamas, whose name is an acronym in Arabic for the Islamic Resistance Movement, was being accused of having abandoned the path of resistance against Israel.

Since Israel doesn't strike at Gaza except in response to attacks on its citizens, what does this say about Gaza's political culture that attacking Israel is a component of a group's popularity? Of course the reason that Hamas's popularity has been shrinking may be due to factors other than the its lack of overt participation in terror.


One interviewee in the article makes a good point:

Waleed al-Modallal, a political scientist at the Islamic University of Gaza, said Hamas had emerged from recent internal elections “stronger and more organized” at a time of regional change, and that it had been buoyed by the rise of Islamic political power in Egypt and other areas.
There was also some internal pressure from Hamas supporters calling on the movement “not to leave the battlefield and to carry out its role alongside the other factions,” Mr. Modallal said in a telephone interview.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have announced their common goal of destroying Israel and now they are apparently starting to coordinate their activities.
Finally there was this:

Hamas said it had aimed its rockets at a civilian community and an Israeli military base near the border. In anticipation of Israeli military action, Hamas security forces evacuated their bases and headquarters here.

This might be the most important bit of information in the entire article. Israel has very good intelligence in Gaza. As long as Hamas was not openly involved in terror against Israel, Israel didn't target Hamas. This is most likely why Hamas left the terror to other organizations. The reason Hamas had avoided participating in the terror and contracting it out (informally or not) to other terror groups wasn't out of any sense of moderation as the article suggests ("largely adhered") but out of fear of being targeted in response.

Watcher's Council Nominations - All Summer Long Edition

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

Ahhh, summertime is here! It may be just the California guy in me, but there's still something special about the summertime. Yeah, things have changed (and boy, do I remember how it was) but there's still a handful of that summertime Lotus Land dream left if you open up and look for it.

Hey, the weather's gorgeous, school's out, and wherever you are, amidst all the turmoil and angst it's important to take some time to enjoy life and remember that its...well...fun! So don't let you and your heart get too far apart.












Council News:

This week, Ask Marion, Right Truth, The Pirates Cove and Maggie's Notebook took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status with some great pieces they submitted to yours truly.

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

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which 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 just return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

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, with all that out of the way, let's see what we have this week....

Council Submissions

• The Noisy Room – I'm ‘Just’ A Blogger



• The Political Commentator – Will municipal bonds be the next headwind on the horizon for Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan?



• Simply Jews – Soviet propaganda: leaving Dr. Goebbels in the dust - Part II



• The Colossus of Rhodey – What a surprise



• Joshuapundit-How The MainStream Media Legitimizes Jew Hatred



• The Independent Sentinel – President Barack Kardashian Isn’t From the Hood Unless You Count the West Village As the Hood



• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Aegypt"s Next Revolution



• The Right Planet – Ann Barnhardt – Stop Drinking the LEMMENade



• Bookworm Room – King Obama the Insane -— is Obama still living the big lie, or has he slipped round the bend?



• VA Right! - Virginia Republican Primary Was an Epic Failure for the Virginia TEA Party



• The Razor – On Father's Day



• The Glittering Eye -This Is Not the Stimulus You Were Looking For



• Gay Patriot – George W On My Mind



• Rhymes With Right – I'm Obama! And I Make The Laws!



• The Mellow Jihadi – Birthing Aboard an Aircraft Carrier

Honorable Mentions

• Ask Marion - 5th Graders Being Taught Oral & Anal Sex



• Right Truth - To Be 14 Again



• Pirates Cove - Good News: Yet More Leaks On Cyberwarfare



• Maggie's Notebook - Holder-Issa Meeting: 20 Minutes of Nothing

Non-Council Submissions

• Victor Davis Hanson –Are We In Revolutionary Times? submitted by The Noisy Room



• Global Market Economics -America in Decline: The Soul Crushing Despair of The Unemployed submitted by The Political Commentator



• Elder of Ziyon – More proof that BDS represents no one submitted by Simply Jews



• The Weekly Standard Blog – Senators: Abandon Iran Talks If No Progress Is Made submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey



• The Gates of Vienna – Multi-Culti Child Snatchers submitted by Joshuapundit



• Daily Caller – Border Patrol Union Demands Holder's Resignation over Fast and Furious submitted by The Independent Sentinel



• Global Public Square – How dictators have evolved with the times submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD



• IOwnTheWorld.com – LEMMings submitted by The Right Planet



• PJ Media/ Victor Davis Hanson-The Scandal Of Our Age submitted by Bookworm Room



• Doug Ross – Top 10 Things President Romney Can Do Now That We Know Old Media Approves of Rescinding Laws by Executive Order submitted by VA Right!



• Via Meadia –Wilsonian Wars, Wilsonian Ruin submitted by The Razor



• Kausfiles/Daily Caller – The maddening details of Obama’s DREAM Decree submitted by The Glittering Eye



• Right Turn -2012 isn’t 2008 submitted by Gay Patriot



• Sister Toldjah – Obama’s threat to constitutional liberty submitted by Rhymes with Right



• World Affairs –Women: Beware of Egypt submitted by The Mellow Jihadi



• Liberty's Spirit – Vagina, Vagina, Wherefore Art Thou Vagina? submitted by The Watcher



• WSJ/Laffer And Moore – Obama's Real Spending Record submitted by The Watcher

Enjoy! And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!

Teacher Who Screamed At Student : 'It's Criminal To Criticize Obama' Will Keep Her Job

Remember this one?



The video shows the interaction between a teacher, one Tanya Dixon-Neely at North Rowan High School in North Carolina telling her class all about the story of Mitt Romney allegedly bullying someone in high school.

When one of her students asks her, “Didn’t Obama bully someone though?” The teacher says: “Not to my knowledge.” When the student then cites the fact that Obama, in Dreams from My Father, admitted to shoving a little girl around, she gets hysterical“Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” screams the teacher. Romney is “running for president. Obama is the president.” She proceeds to go absolutely berserk and starts screaming that no one is going to disrespect President Obama in her classroom, says that the student can be arrested for 'slandering the president', that people were arrested for 'saying bad things about President Bush' and that 'you think when you get arrested they read you your rights? They don't.'

When the student refused to back down, she physically threatens him, saying, “OK, do I have to get my cane?”

I predicted when this originally broke that this sorry excuse for an 'educator' would keep her job, and it turns out I was right:


The North Rowan High School teacher who told students it’s criminal to speak ill of the president will keep her job with the Rowan-Salisbury School System.

Although Tanya Dixon-Neely has been suspended without pay, she will return next school year, when she will be required to start a monitored growth plan, Superintendent Dr. Judy Grissom said in a press release.

The district received national attention when a nearly 10-minute video of Dixon-Neely and senior Hunter Rogers engaging in a heated political debate went viral. In the video, the Dixon-Neely can be heard telling Rogers that he could be criminally charged for speaking ill of President Obama and that people had been charged for insulting former President George W. Bush.

“As I have stated to our entire school system staff, I expect all teachers to be professional during class discussion and not to force their personal or political views on students, demean students, or instruct students on what to believe,” Grissom said in the release. “Teachers must create a positive instructional environment conducive to learning within the guidelines of our state curriculum.

“Ms. Dixon-Neely’s failure to meet these standards during the recorded portion of class is the basis for my disciplinary action against her.”

The fact that the teacher in question gave her students totally false information, tried to indoctrinate them, and demonstrated her superb classroom management skills by getting hysterical in front of them and actually threatening a student physically is apparently outweighed by her union protection and racial background.

And yes, that's a factor. The superintendent understandably doesn't want this woman running to Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to file a taxpayer funded law suit that the district will have to fight at its own expense....so the students at this North Carolina high school can just put up with it and like it, and that goes double for their parents who are paying the bills.

I notice that the superintendent makes a point of mentioning that the teacher 'has received messages that include racist language and sentiments'. Wrongheaded as that language and those sentiments may be, that has no bearing on the fact she's not fit to teach. But it is a cute way of using the race card to imply that all of the criticism of Ms. Dixon-Neely is just the ignorant ramblings of some semi-educated white trash, and therefore of no account.

More National Security Leaks - And Where They Might Have Come From

There have been another series of national security leaks that appear to be aimed at helping President Obama politically by bolstering his national security credentials. As the WAPO reveals, these primarily deal with joint cyberwarfare ventures with Israel aimed at Iran's nuclear program:

The United States and Israel jointly developed a sophisticated computer virus nicknamed Flame that collected intelligence in preparation for cyber-sabotage aimed at slowing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials with knowledge of the effort.

The massive piece of malware secretly mapped and monitored Iran’s computer networks, sending back a steady stream of intelligence to prepare for a cyberwarfare campaign, according to the officials.

The effort, involving the National Security Agency, the CIA and Israel’s military, has included the use of destructive software such as the Stuxnet virus to cause malfunctions in Iran’s nuclear-enrichment equipment.

The emerging details about Flame provide new clues to what is thought to be the first sustained campaign of cyber-sabotage against an adversary of the United States.

“This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. “Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.”

Flame came to light last month after Iran detected a series of cyberattacks on its oil industry. The disruption was directed by Israel in a unilateral operation that apparently caught its American partners off guard, according to several U.S. and Western officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

There has been speculation that the United States had a role in developing Flame, but the collaboration on the virus between Washington and Israel has not been previously confirmed. Commercial security researchers last week reported that Flame contained some of the same code as Stuxnet. Experts described the overlap as DNA-like evidence that the two sets of malware were parallel projects run by the same entity.

Spokesmen for the CIA, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment.

The article goes on to give details on how the programs work that will undobtedly be of great interest to the Iranians.

One could certainly question the judgment of the reporters involved in running this story, but the big question remains...where are the leaks coming from?

Obviously from the White House..and one interesting possibility points the finger at none other than Secretary of defense and former CIA head Leon Panetta.

Apparently Secretary Pannetta was a prime suspect in another leak that took place during the Nixon Administration.

After the 1968 campaign, Nixon hired Pat Moynihan–who had served as assistant secretary of labor for policy in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations–as his urban-affairs adviser and all-around White House intellectual. Moynihan was already a somewhat controversial figure, having authored a report called “The Black Family: Then and Now,” which attributed the disproportionate poverty in the black community to rising illegitimacy. The liberal intelligentsia pilloried Moynihan for this conclusion, and he left the Department of Labor not long after his authorship of the report became public. ...

The memo was leaked to the press, and on March 1, the New York Times ran an article headlined “‘Benign Neglect’ on Race Is Proposed by Moynihan.” The White House was swamped with criticism from civil-rights leaders and editorial pages, and Moynihan had to hold a press conference to defend himself. ...

Although memos leak all the time, and the leakers are rarely identified, The New Republic’s John Osborne reported in a March 1970 profile of Moynihan that Leon Panetta was a prime suspect in the leak.

There was certainly some reason for the suspicion. In February, Panetta had resigned from HEW because he opposed the Nixon administration’s approach to desegregation. Panetta later went to work for New York mayor John Lindsay, switched parties, and successfully ran for Congress as a Democrat in 1976. The leaker has never been definitively identified.

It's important to emphasize that this is speculation, and there's no direct evidence that Panetta is the source of the leaks. But he is a very partisan and loyal Democrat with a long history in DC who knows how this sort of thing works, who was fingered, correctly or incorrectly in a prior leak, and who might not be adverse to making a try at manipulating the odds on re-election in Obama's favor.

One thing that's undoubtedly true is that the leaks have severely hurt America's national security ability to carry out covert operations like this in tandem with other countries. Can you imagine the Israelis or any of our other allies trusting us on confidentiality or wanting to work with us on joint ventures after this? I can't. At least not until after the present regime is out of power.