Income Tax When It Began...And Today, In 2015 Dollars

Courtesy of Against Crony Capitalism.Org

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!!

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

Here are this weeks' nominees....

 
 Obama's FBI Director James Comey!

 The Noisy Room : My nomination for WOTW is FBI Director James Comey for smearing one of
America's remaining allies, Poland, over the Holocaust. Comey said in an
article penned earlier this week for the Washington Post: "In their
minds, the murderers and accomplices of Germany, and Poland, and
Hungary, and so many, many other places didn’t do something evil. They
convinced themselves it was the right thing to do, the thing they had to
do." Poland says the passage wrongly implied it was complicit in the
Nazi genocide of European Jews.

Poland has summoned the United States' ambassador in Warsaw over the
article and is demanding a public apology.

From Yahoo! News:

Poland's ambassador to the United States said in a statement the
remarks were "unacceptable", adding that he had sent a letter to
Comey "protesting the falsification of history, especially ...
accusing Poles of perpetuating crimes which not only they did not
commit, but which they themselves were victims of."

Shortly after Poland's announcement, U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw
Stephen Mull told reporters he would attend a meeting at the foreign
ministry on Sunday afternoon.

"Suggestions that Poland, or any other country apart from the Nazi
Germany was responsible for the Holocaust are wrong, harmful and
offensive," he added, speaking in Polish.

"I think that Comey's wider message was that there were many people
in the world that aided the Nazi criminals, or there were people who
did not respond sufficiently, ... also in the United States."

Fail. I believe the smear was intentional because Poland is insisting on
a missile shield for defense and has criticized the US for lack of
effort in supporting the Ukraine and NATO. Comey weasely and slyly
smeared Poland as being just as bad, just as murderous, just as evil as
the Nazis to undermine them on the world stage. This is the regard Obama
holds our allies in. For dissing another ally that will soon join our
other ex-allies, Comey should get a 24k gold weasel with his face
imprinted on it. Same diff.


 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey!!

 The Independent Sentinel : General Dempsey is my hands-down weasel of the week. Weasel isn't a strong enough word. He has decided to politicize his role and the Pentagon. To cover for Barack Obama, he described the imminent fall of Ramadi as not a real issue after so many military lost their lives or were wounded in Ramadi during the surge. Ramadi was the pivotal battle of the surge.

His comments this week are simply dishonest.

“The city itself, it’s not symbolic in any way. It’s not been declared, ya know, part of the caliphate on the one hand or central to Iraq. And the issue here is not brick and mortar. It’s about defeating ISIL, so, as I said, uh, oh, I’d much rather Ramadi not fall, but it won’t be the end of a campaign should it fall. We gotta get it back.”


 
 Mikey Weinstein, Obama's Personal Czar To Eradicate Christianity In The Military

 JoshuaPundit : A lot of people have never heard of Michael 'Mikey' Weinstein. But he's an influential point man in one of President Barack Hussein Obama's most ambitious projects.

 Whether it's trying to force  combat troops to give up their VA benefits, using their coffins as a campaign  photo-op or illegally suppressing their votes, President Obama has shown from day one that he pretty much despises the American military, especially their  values. Since most Americans do honor our military, the president's solution is to change the nature of those whom serve to the degree possible. One way is to force as many men as possible out of the service, especially officers, and replace them with people more likely to see things this president's way, especially when it comes to politics. A second front, if you will, is to change the military's culture so that any semblance of Judeo-Christian expression and values are eliminated.

And that's where a militant atheist like Mikey comes in. You see, Mikey and his 'Military Religious Freedom Foundation' are raking in lots of taxpayers dollars to wage war on Christianity in the military as official Pentagon consultants.

And Mikey Weinstein hates Christians (whom he sees as Tea Party right wingers) and Christianity with a special hatred, as well as religious Jews. He actually blamed Christians for the Fort Hood terrorist attack, saying proselytizing by "fundamentalist Christians"created a hostile environment that caused jihadist Major Nidal Hasan to go on his rampage,

As a result, both retention and enlistments are way down among believing Christians, who have always been disproportionally represented among those who volunteer for military service. And because Weinstein has particularly targeted chaplains, whom he wants out of uniform and denied all military rank and benefits,  recruiting Christian chaplains whom feel they can no longer practice their faith  has become extraordinarily difficult.

 What this portends for the future of America's military is not pleasant to contemplate.

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?

How To Make Millions Off 'Public Service' -The Corrupt Clinton Cash Machine

 My old editor at Breitbart Peter Schweizer has a new book coming out May 5 entitled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

My review copy will be arriving shortly, so I haven't read it yet. But the New York Times has, and it's good enough that even Pravda-on-the Hudson had to pay it grudging attention,admitting, "He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons."

That's no news to anyone who has read Peter's other books on crony capitalism, which target pigs at the trough in both parties.

The subject of this particular book is a detailed 186 page investigation of how the U.S State Department would grant favors to foreign entities in exchange for high-dollar speaking fees and donations paid directly to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

As I pointed out previously, foundations are one of the most egregious scams to hide and shelter income and avoid taxation for the super rich:

 Now, foundations are interesting creatures. As Jane Fonda shows us , if the foundation has 501(c) status (and the Clinton Foundation certainly does), they can be used as a place to park income so it isn't taxed and can be used for various 'expenses'..or even invested, tax free. Why else do you think that most of the super-wealthy in America like the Clintons have such foundations?

Another thing about foundations that's interesting is that according to the IRS rules, they're allowed to pay salaries and 'administrative costs' (pretty much anything you can think of) with any portion of the donor money, something that has attracted a lot of prominent politicians. Ex-president Jimmy Carter's Peace Foundation, for example provides a very nice income for him courtesy of his anti-Israel Arab friends. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is another prime example of how 'foundations' , 'libraries' and 'centers' can be used as cash cows by their 'owners'.

And here's the kicker about Hillary's 'charitable donation'. Anything the wealthy 'donor' to such a foundation donates likewise becomes a deduction against whatever taxes they might owe the IRS. So if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually did 'donate' all that money to the Clinton Foundation, she got paid two ways..first by reducing her taxable income significantly to lower her taxes and second by acquiring a huge deduction to leverage against the taxes on her other income. And since her husband 'owns' the Clinton Foundation, the money stayed in the family.

Both The New York Times, of all people, and The New York Post had some disturbing things to say about where the huge sums of money the Clinton Foundation collects were spent...and the Clinton Foundation's infrequent audits.

The Clinton Foundation's mission statement ought to be a tipoff:

"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Or as I would translate it, 'We actively pursue fundraising from governments, private enterprise and our well connected friends for various nebulous causes. Yeah, we got a few good things going on, a few programs we can point to, some conferences and some meetings so we have the slideshow as a marketing tool, but essentially, our real object is fundraising and covering our substantial expenses.'

Don't be surprised if some those 'expenses' end up being in kind, cash contributions to Hillary's 2016 campaign that not only evade McCain-Feingold but allow 'donors to get a nice tax deduction to a 501 C in the bargain. It's a dodge, just like the huge $14 million advance Democrat donor-owned Simon & Schuster ponied up for Hillary's failed book. Hillary will pocket the cash and Sumner Redstone and his friends will recoup it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers after they deduct it as a loss against their other income.

Among other countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,and the UAE have given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Somehow, I doubt they did it without expecting something in return, which is probably the subject of some of those e-mails Mrs. Clinton doesn't want congress looking at. According to the Times:

His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

"In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes."

I don't know if Peter Schweizer's new book will mention it, but we also still don't know what happened to that $6 billion in State Department funds that mysteriously disappeared, mostly while Mrs. Clinton was in charge.

I'm certain the Clinton's opo squad and the ex-Clintonistas  in the media will do their best to spin this and cover it up. And I doubt that this by itself will derail her campaign. But the information is out there, and no one can say they weren't told.

You can pre-order the book here.

An Interesting Interview With The Head Of FOX News

The Hollywood Reporter has a fascinating interview with Roger Ailes, the head of FOX news, by far the number one cable news station. It's a very fair and balanced (no pun intended) portrait of a man who has become a legend in the news business. Here are a few bits:

We talk for nearly two hours about everything from Hillary Clinton ("Do you believe that the stuff on 30,000 emails that were destroyed after the prosecutor told [her] to keep it had things on it about yoga? I don't"), the 2016 presidential field in general ("I haven't heard anybody in election campaigns say things that would make me run out and vote for them yet"), exiled NBC News anchor Brian Williams ("I'd put Brian back, but I'd do it the right way"), fatherhood ("It made me a coward") and his legacy ("I don't give a rat's ass what the world thinks").
As I sit across from Ailes on this Wednesday morning in early April, his eyes dart reflexively to the wall of six televisions to the left of his desk; his networks, Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, and the competition, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Bloomberg. My eyes repeatedly wander to a framed photo on a shelf over his left shoulder. It is an iconic black-and-white photograph of Martin Luther King Jr. escorting children into their newly integrated school in Grenada, Miss., in 1966.

The picture is signed by Dr. Bernice King and Dr. Alveda King, King's daughter and niece, respectively, who attended in November the graduation ceremony for the Ailes Apprenticeship Program, a diversity education program he founded in 2004. In point of fact, though, Ailes actually knew Dr. King back in the 1960s — the two crossed paths occasionally when Ailes was a local TV producer in Philadelphia. It's a nugget of Ailes' 'biography that some might find surprising. [...}

As the country enters a presidential campaign season with dynastic implications, Ailes has a dilemma: How much oxygen does he give the fringe GOP candidates who could torment likely frontrunner Jeb Bush and potentially aid Hillary Clinton in the process. It's not a question he answers directly. "I just don't think I should weigh in on it, even in the press because people will think, 'Well, that's the way he's making the network go.' But it looks like Hillary is going to do whatever she wants," he says, "and the press is going to vote for her."

Asked if he thinks Ted Cruz, the intransigent Texas tea party candidate, has a chance of securing the GOP nomination, Ailes deflects: "Listen, we elected Warren G. Harding. Anybody has a chance. You don't know who you're going to be running against. If the other guy falls on his rear end, you could win." [...]

Ailes always has been in the trenches, and that hasn't changed. He's known to call the control room if he sees his anchors straying into territory over which he objects. "I say, 'Tell them to cut this shit out, but don't tell them I called because that will raise the level too high.' " He participates in the 8 a.m. executive meeting (usually by phone), makes all programming decisions and sometimes even negotiates directly with talent (Megyn Kelly, who is a lawyer, negotiates her own contracts directly with Ailes). [...]


Still, there have been changes at the network since the 2012 election, with Ailes clearly wooing a younger brand of conservative. (The network's median age — over 65 — is the oldest of the news networks, though Fox News still outrates the competition among the advertiser-coveted 25-to-54 demographic.) In 2013, he moved Kelly into the 9 p.m. slot occupied for more than a decade by conservative firebrand Sean Hannity. And he built Shepard Smith — an empathic reporter often suspected of being liberal — a $7 million studio and made him the network's on-call anchor throughout the evening.

"Nobody else has this — it's very expensive," says Smith of his show's News Deck, which is staffed by dozens of producers who monitor news feeds and social media for what amounts to a perpetual news factory. "We're paying a lot of people in case something happens. It's an enormous commitment, and nobody else is making it. But those things don't get talked about. What gets talked about is O'Reilly bloviating about something."

Fox News has 19 liberals on the payroll, though they're often dismissed as straw men. When I put this to Juan Williams, a veteran commentator who wrote a well-regarded biography of Thurgood Marshall, he laughs. "Can you get a witness? I'm a witness.

"Clearly the audience likes the kind of tilt that exists [at Fox News]," he says. "But they're not stupid. They want to hear a real, honest conversation. I am allowed to make substantial, critical arguments. And that never gets stepped on."

Williams, in fact, has known Ailes since 1984, when Williams was covering the White House for the Washington Post and Ailes was a campaign advisor for Ronald Reagan.

"Part of the struggle of being a skinny black kid with an afro covering the Reagan White House is that a lot of people [there] basically thought I was the enemy. Ailes' response to me was, 'You're an underdog in this situation, aren't you? I got your back; I'm going to help you.' And he became a key source for me."

Interestingly, while Fox News is the go-to channel for conservatives, about 37 percent of its audience holds "mixed" views, according to a 2014 Pew study, while 14 percent are "liberal" and 4 percent are "consistently liberal." But Ailes doesn't appear to be all that interested in bringing more of these people to his network. "I don't give a rat's ass," he says, breaking out his favorite rodent reference. "My job is to cover the news and do it accurately and fair. And we do. And voila! We have the largest number of independents watching television of any channel. Why is that? Not because we suck around and try to talk these people into watching our programming. We do programming that appeals to them, and so they tune to us. That's how you get them. You can't be chasing these little balkanized groups of people around. It's just nuts. Do your programming. It should be American. We're Americans. It's a culture. We should defend that culture, and we should reinforce that culture."

The full interview is here, and definitely worth a read.

Forum: Should Federal Laws On Marijuana Be Changed?

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: Should Federal Laws On Marijuana Be Changed?

 GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Certainly there is some kinda way to decriminalize weed without legalizing. As best understood, a first marijuana-possession offense is punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both. Considered as a serious misdemeanor.

Some reform ideas include that if a cat possess five or fewer grams, they would only be liable for 30 days in jail, a fine from $65 to $625, or both. It would also be classified as a simple misdemeanor.

Perhaps the best thing would be to confiscate the weed and give a ticket not unlike a traffic violation. Sans jail time (after all the courts are jammed up beyond repair with way more serious chiz than ppl having a laugh and getting all groovy).

If busted while operating a vehicle - the auto insurance corp in question could be notified granting higher rates for cats that dig smoking rides.

Bookworm Room : I hate marijuana. I hate the way it smells. And I hate the way it makes people boring and unambitious. Having said that, I don't think we've done much good treating it as a criminal enterprise over the past many decades. The result is that it's become a romantic outlaw drug that most young people think is harmless, when it should have been subject to the same degree of opprobrium as cigarettes.  After all, in both cases, people are sucking damaging carcinogens into their bodies.

If it were up to me, I'd subject it to the same legal restrictions as alcohol and cigarettes, and then I'd work hard to educate people about its myriad downsides. I'd also allow science to study carefully whether it really does have upsides in pain and disease management or whether those upsides are just part of the same romantic outlaw mythology. If marijuana really does have medicinal virtues, they should be encouraged as part of the range of choices available to people with health problems.

JoshuaPundit : It all depends on what your objective is. The fact is that for the most part prohibition doesn't really work unless people elect to to do it themselves. That's particularly true for marijuana, and there are some important reasons why.

First, pot is not only easy to obtain (easier than alcohol in a lot of places for those under a certain age), but it's an aphrodisiac.

I myself preferred other drugs for the same reason I never smoked cigarettes. I simply didn't like the feeling of smoke going into my lungs. But I frequently had marijuana around simply because a lot of  girls really liked it, especially as a prelude to other activities. Faced with prohibition versus hormones, which do you think people are going to choose? Not only that, but almost everybody thinks they're indestructible at eighteen, no? So much for any lectures about health considerations.

Second, selling narcotics is a business, and that includes the new legal 'medicinal ' weed too. In California, one of the few growing pieces of the economy is small 'clinics' where you can buy marijuana provided you have a prescription.They're almost as common as McDonald's.  L.A. Weekly has pages of ads from doctors offering the prescriptions. They'll prompt  their customers on what to say about their 'symptoms,'  generate a prescription and for a going rate of about $35, you have a pass to buy weed legally. And the state, city and county get nifty licensing fees, business taxes and sales taxes.So money talks, which is why changing Federal law is meaningless one way or the other.

Selling illegal narcotics is a big business too. And the same thing applies.

Hezbollah, Islamic State, the Taliban and Hamas all use the profits on illegal narcotics to fund their  operations, just like other criminal groups like the Mafia,  the Triads, the Mexican Cartels, The Union Corse, the Hell's Angels and other similar groups do. The profits from illegal narcotics also fund other lucrative activities like human trafficking, sex slavery, kidnapping, murder for hire and protection rackets as well as Islamist terrorism for the usual suspects. There's a good reason Hezbollah has its headquarters in  Lebanon's Bek'aa Valley, one of the prime drug growing regions in the world.

Some of you might recall what happened to Bill Clinton's Surgeon General Jocelyn Elder .  Like most of Clinton's appointees she was looney tunes, but she manged to get this one right,All she had to do was merely suggest we should at least look at the logistics of legalizing  all narcotics and providing them free in detox clinics versus the billions we were spending on the War on Drugs, the cost of crime  and the huge, swollen criminal justice and law enforcement  monolith we erected as a byproduct.

I guarantee you the phone calls went out that night, not from some guy in named Guido in a sharp suit with a pinky ring but from legitimate donors who got a call from someone who got a call from someone else whom  knew and owed Guido. The  Democrat-dominated congress erupted and got her slapped down hard in a matter of days.

Like I said, big business and it's all part of a chain.

Your friendly local dealer is usually part of the chain too. Unless he's dealing in very minute volumes and goes unnoticed, sooner or later  he gets a visit from the marketing reps of whomever owns the territory he's in. And after things are properly explained to him, he's allowed to continue operating provided he kicks a percentage back upstairs. That's also why most independent dealers also know exactly where to get whatever other adult refreshment you might want beyond weed.

But if the idea is reducing drug consumption, we see a way that self-prohibition could work, By educating young consumers in graphic detail on exactly what their guilty thrill is paying for and whatits supporting, complete with pictures, there's an even chance of cutting down the consumption of illegal drugs substantially...by making buying them uncool and socially unacceptable to those budding lil' social justice warriors.


The Glittering Eye :I'm of mixed minds. I think the advantages of legalization are being tremendously over-estimated and the downside risks even more tremendously under-estimated.

However, I also think that legalization is inevitable so we'd be better off devoting our energies to trying to figure out what the societal implications of legalization will be rather than to fighting it.

 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?

The Council Has Spoken - Our Watcher's Council Results

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

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - President Ronald Reagan

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right." - H.L. Mencken

""The last man nearly ruined this place, he didn't know what to do with it/If you think this country's bad off now,just wait 'til I get through with it!"-Groucho Marx as Rufus T. Firefly in "Duck Soup" 1933

"We have given you a republic - if you can keep it."
-Benjamin Franklin describing the new American government to his fellow citizen Mrs. Powel after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787



 


This week's winning essay by a nose,Joshuapundit's -A Change In The Weather - Looking At The Current GOP Field is the first of two articles (the next one will examine the Democrats) on the current presidential aspirants, their strengths and weaknesses as I see them and how they stack up. I limited it to those whom gave either announced or whom are obviously gearing up to do so. Here's a slice:

It's early days, and a few people who will likely be running haven't formally announced yet. But I think it's worth looking at Republican contenders for the White House and giving you my initial impressions. I'll be looking at Democrats in a subsequent article.

Senator Ted Cruz was the first to announce, and of course caught an initial blast from the Left's media hacks. We certainly can't dignify them with the term 'journalist since so many of them are simply Leftist activists with access to a microphone or a byline. Expect them to ignore blatant violations of law by the likes of Mrs. Clinton while examining in great detail any occasion where one of the Republican candidates borrowed five bucks from someone ten years ago and forgot to pay it back.

In a sense though, Senator Cruz was either exhibiting great courage, a certain amount of naivete or a mixture of the two by choosing the venue and the speech he did for his announcement. And I say that as someone whom admires him a great deal. By speaking at a Christian college at a time when Christians are under vicious attack by the Left and indeed, by the Obama Administration, he showed exactly what a brave man of principle he is. And make no mistake, Ted Cruz is a man of principle.

He is also a dynamic speaker, scary smart and a superb debater who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The one false note he's hit so far didn't particularly jar me, but I think it might have bothered others...his emphasis in his speech on his profession of Christian faith.

Ronald Reagan too was a man of rock solid faith, but when he voiced it, he took great care to phrase it in ways that were deliberately inclusive. Ted Cruz did not. For many people, this was their first opportunity to actually hear and see Ted Cruz speak. He's already been painted by the usual suspects as a fanatic rather than the articulate and accomplished man he is, and I have no doubt that some of them felt somewhat uncomfortable, although Cruz's audience obviously went wild over it. I look on it as an unforced error (and by no means a major one) by someone not quite used to campaigning with an eye towards a nationwide audience. And it pales when you look at how dynamically he came across, with no podium and no teleprompter, moving all over the stage to a crowd of wildly cheering students.

Ted Cruz will only get better as he goes along.

It's interesting to compare Ted Cruz with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. While Ted Cruz says the right things and articulates them with great skill and aplomb, Scott Walker simply does things and talks about them in ordinary, everyman style. It's Governor Scott Walker who took on some of most vicious public employee unions in the country and won, Scott Walker who balanced Wisconsin's budget, lowered taxes, oversaw the creation of thousands of jobs,and passed a badly needed voter ID law. And he did it while facing two election campaigns and one recall that were financed by millions of out of state dollars as well as death threats aimed at him and his family. The Left wanted Scott Walker's head badly,even to the extent of judge shopping to try and embroil him in bogus charges of campaign financing misdeeds. But he defeated them because he inherently understood that these people need to be challenged and fought, not accommodated and appeased. And because his performance, not his rhetoric spoke for itself. That experience is going to help him a great deal in the current campaign, as evidenced by his embarrassing the media over a dollar sweater and his superb push back to President Barack Obama's condescending horse manure about 'boning up' on foreign policy vis a vis Iran.

Yeah, Scott Walker has already faced the full force of the Left and survived quite nicely, thanks.And he puts up with zero static from the Left. That combination could take him a long way.


Profiles of Senator Rand Paul and others at the link


In our non-Council category, the winner was The one and only Mark Steyn's wonderful Treason and Corruption submitted by The Noisy Room. All I'll say is that if you've never read Mark Steyn before, you're in for a treat.

Here are this week’s full results. Only The RightPlanet was unable tovote tis week, but was not subject to the 2/3 vote penalty for not voting :

Council Winners

• *First place with 2 2/3 votes!–A Change In The Weather - Looking At The Current GOP Field


• Second place with 2 1/3 votes –The Noisy Room – Obama Strangles the Monroe Doctrine and Embraces Latin Dictatorships, Communists and Fascists


• Third place with 2 votes –Don Surber – Chelsea Called Secret Service Pigs?


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –The Independent Sentinel – U.N.-Led EPA Condemns Congress for Interfering With Their Fiats


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –The Right Planet – RFRA Madness!


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Bookworm Room – Are members of our military the most romantic people in America?


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Ask Marion – GOP Has Great Hopefuls...Needs Strategy


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –The Glittering Eye -Our Lousy Tax System


• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Nice Deb – Daaaang: Dems and Repubs Strike Deal to Ensure Congressional Role in Iran Deal


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –VA Right! - If Presidential Candidates were Hairstyles Hillary Would Be a Mullet


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –The Razor – Gay Married Couples Subject to the Marriage Penalty


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –Rhymes With Right – Effort To Censor Pro-Military, Pro-American Film Nearly Succeeds At Michigan

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 1/3 votes! –Mark Steyn –Treason and Corruption submitted by The Noisy Room


• Second place with 2 votes –Powerline – The Crusades Haven't Been In The News Lately submitted by The Watcher


• Third place with 1 1/3 votes – Alan Caruba/Warning Signs – Only Fools Trust Obama or the Iranians submitted by The Right Planet


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –The National Review Editors – Marco Rubio Has the Right Ideas, and More submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –Andrew McCarthy – Obama’s Iran ‘Framework’ Is a Chimera submitted by Joshuapundit


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –Judicial Watch – SIS Camp a Few Miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirmsubmitted byVA Right!


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –Austin Bay – Obama's Iran Understanding: The Verifiable Facts submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote –Maureen Mullarkey/First Things – RFRA And My Wedding Ring submitted by Rhymes with Right


• Fifth place with 2/3 vote –Mitch Ginsburg/Times of Israel-How I learned to stop loving Obama and worry about the bomb submitted by Bookworm Room


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –Andrew Malcolm – Rubio: 'We must change the decisions we are making by changing the people making them' submitted by Don Surber


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote –Brett Stephens/WSJ – Hillary and the Liberal Way of Lying submitted by The Watcher

See you next week!

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

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

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

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

Our Weasel Of The Week!!

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, our tribute to evil, our 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all contemptible,but the votes are in and we had a winner who surprised us by triumphing easily over some stiff competition...the envelope please...

 
Racist Judge Olu Stevens!!

The Watcher: What kind of excuse for a judge scolds a three-year-old and her parents in court who were victims of a home invasion and armed robbery as 'racists' because the little girl admitted she was now afraid of black men?

Meet Louisville, Kentucky 30th Judicial circuit Judge Olu Stevens.

At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. Part of it said, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Judge Stevens' response? To excoriate the victims of the crime in open court as racists and to sympathize with the criminal who traumatized a young child and her family.



“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” he said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

Not only did he chastise the victims of the crime, but he let Gregory Wallace, one of the two black perpetrators who pleaded guilty to the March 21, 2013, crime off on probation because "he deserves a chance to redeem himself."

Can you even imagine the headlines nationwide if a white judge let off a white armed robber who had victimized a black family out of racial solidarity? But since this is a black judge, other then the local Courier-Journal, this passed by with barely a mention.

It's interesting times we have in America. Even innocuous words and phrases are viciously attacked as 'trigger words' capable of excusing incredible excesses of rage, injustice and frequently violent reactions provided the perpetrator is white, heterosexual , male, and/or a religious Christian or Jew. Yet outright bigotry and racially motivated violence by select 'protected groups' isn't even mentioned in the media, let alone criticized. To do so in the mainstream media or academia is to become quickly unemployable.

Here we have a little three-year-old who was sitting in her living room watching television with her parents when two thugs forced their way into her home and held up her mom and dad at gunpoint right in front of her. Since they were black males, is it any wonder that a child traumatized in that fashion would be frightened of other black males? In fact, her mom's statement actually says that in spite of their best efforts to disassociate her from her fear of black males, the child is still fearful even around the family's black friends.

But if course, it must be ra-aa-a-aacism, right judge? So of course they have to punished by being demonized, and by letting an armed robber off with probation on the grounds of racial solidarity.

You see, it's no longer enough merely to not practice ra-a-aa-cism. You must be prepared to take responsibility for anything that people like Judge Stevens merely perceive as racist. Even if it's just for the purpose of intimidation and the shaming of supposed 'thought criminals.'

Judge Stevens will undoubtedly go unpunished for his racism and his perversion of justice. He's just like certain judges back in the old Jim Crow days who issued rulings from the bench based on race. But as history shows us, those who practice bigotry and injustice against others frequently have it visited upon themselves eventually.

And payback is always a real bitch.

Enjoy your Weasel, Judge Stevens. As a disgrace to your office and your profession, you definitely rate it.

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?

Exactly What's Wrong With Hillary Clinton Endorsing Driver's Licenses For Illegals

 

Huff Post is all agog that Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton 'avoided her slip up in the 2008 race' by heartily endorsing issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

The story comes right off the template of Left wing advocacy 'journalism' complete with citing a sympathetic Latino victim whose driver's license 'changed his life immeasurably.'

As she makes her second bid for the presidency, Clinton's position is far clearer and decidedly different. "Hillary supports state policies to provide driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants," a campaign spokesperson told The Huffington Post.

The driver's license issue is still politically fraught. Demographic changes that have made the Latino vote more important have helped shift the scales. But most Americans don't agree with the policy, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this month. The survey found that 64 percent oppose driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, while 26 percent support the idea. Democrats are split, with 43 percent in favor and 46 percent against. Eighty-one percent of Republicans oppose allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's license

The article continues, citing the usual happy talk about how licenses for illegal aliens make them more apt to buy insurance and to report accidents, and improve public safety.

That said, let's look at the reality.

The majority of illegal aliens are not exactly rolling in money, even though a significant number of them receive government benefits while working off the books for cash at jobs like construction, gardening, and other service jobs. And some areas with high illegal alien populations like California are expensive places to live. So many of them tend to drive older vehicles.

While obtaining insurance is mandatory in California, many of the vehicles they drive are of low enough value that it makes more sense for them not to obtain insurance and pay the premium. If there's a wreck they're involved with, many times it's easier and less costly for them to just take off and or abandon the vehicle, especially if the vehicle is not registered with the DMV, which many times they aren't. The reasoning for many of these folks is 'why spend the money?'

Put yourself in their position. Would you pay a couple of thousand you didn't have for insurance when if anything bad happens, you can simply move on and get another car? And if you do happen to screw up and get cited for driving without insurance or get some inconvenient traffic tickets, why worry when getting a new license is just as easy as getting a new car?

You see, in many cases like that, a license makes no difference, especially given the reality of how they're obtained.

In places like California, matricular consular cards issued by the numerous Mexican consulates are accepted as sufficient ID to obtain a driver's license. For the going rate of $50-100 cash in hand to the right clerk, you can get one in any name you want with any address you give them, no questions asked...not to mention they're dead easy to forge.

So there's no problem, especially if a made up name is on the license. Easy to get another matricular consular card and a new license if you want one and just go buy another clunker.

And many times, that's exactly what happens, which is why most drivers with any sense whom aren't illegal aliens spend a chunk of money for uninsured motorist coverage.

My own case is an excellent example. I was rear ended while stopped in traffic by an illegal alien driving 60 MPH on a city street where the limit was 30 MPH. The car itself, an old VW was simply left there, and as it turned out it was borrowed from someone else, supposedly without their knowledge. They, of course had no insurance either, but told the police that the driver simply took off and of course they had no idea where he was.

I ended up being stuck having to wrestle with my insurance company over a settlement on my totaled car and having to deal with the trouble and expense of getting new wheels.

Of course, what Mrs. Clinton and the politicos backing this for Hispanic votes are considering has noting to do with vehicle safety at all.

There's a federal law that says that any driver's licenses given to anyone whose status in America is not legal has to be clearly differentiated from other driver's licenses. In California and a few other states, they aren't. Not only that, but illegal aliens who are getting driver's licenses are now appearing on the voter rolls, since they can register, citizen or not by simply checking a box.

Since California has no voter ID law, voter fraud using illegal aliens has been a factor since the 1980's but this makes it a real piece of cake.In California alone, over 500,000 illegal aliens and counting have already  obtained licenses.

And by the way, don't think it's just illegal aliens who know how to work this. People who have ideas about staging terrorist attacks on what they see as the Great Satan know all about it too. Not that I'd expect Mrs. Clinton and her friends to be overly concerned, not when there's an election to be won...

 

Yes, I can certainly see why someone like Hillary would go ga ga over this blatantly illegal activity, but that doesn't make it right or healthy.

Breaking: Obama Hid North Korean Rocket Component Transfers to Iran

US intelligence officials have now revealed that during the Iran nuclear negotiations, North Korea has sent several shipments of advanced missile components to the Iranian regime in violation of UN sanctions - and that the Obama Administration hid the violations from the UN.

Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations.

Critics of the U.S.-led nuclear framework agreement reached in Switzerland earlier this month have said one major deficiency of the accord is its failure to address Iran’s missile program, considered a key nuclear delivery system for the Islamist regime.

CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani declined to comment on the missile component shipments, citing a policy of not discussing classified information.

But other officials said the transfers included goods covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary agreement among 34 nations that limits transfers of missiles and components of systems with ranges of greater than 186 miles.

One official said the transfers between North Korea and Iran included large diameter engines, which could be used for a future Iranian long-range missile system.

President Barack Obama was given details of the shipments in his daily intelligence briefings (assuming he read them), but the officials said the information was hidden from the UN by the White House so that it would not take action on the sanctions violations.

This was confirmed by a spokesperson for Spain's mission to the UN, (which now overseas the UN's sanctions committee)who said the committee was not been told about the shipments by the US since Spain took over in January, 2015.

According to award winning reporter Bill Gertz, who broke this story, this is nothing new:

A classified State Department cable from October 2009 reveals that Iran is one of North Korea’s key missile customers.

The cable, made public by Wikileaks, states that since the 1980s North Korea has provided Iran with complete Scud missiles and production technology used in developing 620-mile-range Nodong missiles.

Additionally, North Korea also supplied Iran with a medium-range missile called the BM-25 that is a variant of the North Korean Musudan missile.

“This technology would provide Iran with more advanced missile technology than currently used in its Shahab-series of ballistic missiles and could form the basis for future Iranian missile and [space launch vehicle] designs.”

“Pyongyang’s assistance to Iran’s [space launch vehicle] program suggests that North Korea and Iran may also be cooperating on the development of long-range ballistic missiles.”

A second cable from September 2009 states that Iran’s Safir rocket uses missile steering engines likely provided by North Korea that are based on Soviet-era SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missiles.

That technology transfer was significant because it has allowed Iran to develop a self-igniting missile propellant that the cable said “could significantly enhance Tehran’s ability to develop a new generation of more-advanced ballistic missiles.”

“All of these technologies, demonstrated in the Safir [space launch vehicle] are critical to the development of long-range ballistic missiles and highlight the possibility of Iran using the Safir as a platform to further its ballistic missile development.”

Among other things, this could be setting the U.S. up for an EMP attack.

No wonder the Iranians insisted that their ballistic missiles program was off the table in any negotiations. Why the president agreed to it is another matter entirely, especially since he had to have known the sanctions he kept boasting about were being grossly violated.

U.N. sanctions imposed in 2009 on North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests prohibit the export of missiles and related technology, and obviously the president didn't want to make an issue of that either, even if it meant deceiving the UN and the P5+1.

There's no telling how far Iran is with its ballistic missiles, but they're obviously a lot farther along than they were since Barack Hussein Obama took over the White House in 2009. This president was simply willing to look the other way.

 

According to Gertz, both White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf declined to comment on this story.

Small wonder.

Watcher's Council Nominations - 'Ready For Hillary' Edition

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

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:

This week, Simply Jews, The Gates Of Vienna, 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

• The Noisy Room – Obama Strangles the Monroe Doctrine and Embraces Latin Dictatorships, Communists and Fascists


• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Touchy Turkey


• Joshuapundit-A Change In The Weather - Looking At The Current GOP Field


• The Right Planet – RFRA Madness!


• Bookworm Room – Are members of our military the most romantic people in America?


• VA Right! - If Presidential Candidates were Hairstyles Hillary Would Be a Mullet


• The Independent Sentinel – U.N.-Led EPA Condemns Congress for Interfering With Their Fiats


• The Glittering Eye -Our Lousy Tax System


• Nice Deb – Daaaang: Dems and Repubs Strike Deal to Ensure Congressional Role in Iran Deal


• The Razor – Gay Married Couples Subject to the Marriage Penalty


• Rhymes With Right – Effort To Censor Pro-Military, Pro-American Film Nearly Succeeds At Michigan


• Ask Marion – GOP Has Great Hopefuls...Needs Strategy


• Don Surber – Chelsea Called Secret Service Pigs?

Honorable Mentions

• Simply Jews - Why Israel's a magnet for foreign journalists


• Gates Of Vienna - The Senate Stands up to Obama on Iran


• Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - The Obama Administration's Nonproliferation Hypocrisy

Non-Council Submissions

• Mark Steyn –Treason and Corruption submitted by The Noisy Room


• The National Review Editors – Marco Rubio Has the Right Ideas, and More submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD


• Andrew McCarthy – Obama’s Iran ‘Framework’ Is a Chimera submitted by Joshuapundit


• Alan Caruba/Warning Signs – Only Fools Trust Obama or the Iranians submitted by The Right Planet


• Mitch Ginsburg/Times of Israel-How I learned to stop loving Obama and worry about the bomb submitted by Bookworm Room


• Judicial Watch – SIS Camp a Few Miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirmsubmitted byVA Right!


• Daniel Greenfield/ FrontPage Mag –Judge accuses little girl of racism for fearing black men after armed robbery submitted by The Independent Sentinel


• Austin Bay – Obama's Iran Understanding: The Verifiable Facts submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Jack Cashill/American Thinker -Hasn't Al Sharpton Heard of Waco? submitted by Nice Deb


• Maureen Mullarkey/First Things – RFRA And My Wedding Ring submitted by Rhymes with Right


• Reason.Com –What Does Hillary Clinton Stand For? submitted by The Razor


• Brad Heath/USA Today -U.S. Secretly Tracked Billions of Calls for Decades submitted by Ask Marion


• Andrew Malcolm – Rubio: 'We must change the decisions we are making by changing the people making them' submitted by Don Surber


• Powerline – The Crusades Haven't Been In The News Lately submitted by The Watcher


• Brett Stephens/WSJ – Hillary and the Liberal Way of Lying submitted by The Watcher

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

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!

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!!

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

Here are this weeks' nominees....

 

Left wing Cartoonist Garry Trudeau!!

 The Noisy Room : My nomination this week is Garry Trudeau of Doonesbury fame. You'd think
a cartoonist would know better and have more sense.

After receiving the George Polk award, Trudeau proclaimed in his acceptance speech that the brave French satirists of Charlie Hebdo were hate-spewing fanatics and said that "free speech... becomes its own kind of fanaticism."

Spoken like a true Progressive/Marxist who has no clue about the brutality and barbarity of radical Islam - he is basically comparing the victims to the murderers in that statement. The George Polk award should be rescinded immediately. What dhimmitude coming from a whiny, wealthy American elitist Leftist. And the New York Times thinks Trudeau's blathering is comprised of wise, nuanced words. Figures.

For basically condoning the executions of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, Trudeau should get ushered into the Hall of Fame of Weasels and a one-way ticket to join ISIS. I'm sure he'd be right at home with the downtrodden there. I've noticed an overreaching mantra from the Left that First Amendment rights should be curtailed and controlled. Trudeau is a fascist weasel of the first order.

 
Racist Judge Olu Stevens!!

The Watcher: What kind of excuse for a judge scolds a three-year-old and her parents in court who were victims of a home invasion and armed robbery as 'racists' because the little girl admitted she was now afraid of black men?

Meet Louisville, Kentucky 30th Judicial circuit Judge Olu Stevens.

At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. Part of it said, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Judge Stevens' response? To excoriate the victims of the crime in open court as racists and to sympathize with the criminal who traumatized a young child and her family.



“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” he said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

Not only did he chastise the victims of the crime, but he let Gregory Wallace, one of the two black perpetrators who pleaded guilty to the March 21, 2013, crime off on probation because "he deserves a chance to redeem himself."

Can you even imagine the headlines nationwide if a white judge let off an armed robber who had victimized a black family out of racial solidarity? But since this is a black judge, other then the local Courier-Journal, this passed by with barely a mention.


SHRILLERY

The Watcher: Oh, why not? Just the thought of this grifter, con artist and serial liar without any accomplishments except staying out of jail having the nerve to believe she's entitled to run for president entitles her to a shot at the Golden Weasel.




Although, I have to admit, at least she knows what it is to be homeless and poor. After all she told us how broke she and Bill were when they left the White House, and Hillary wouldn't lie, now would she?




If the American people are stupid enough to fall for her crap, they deserve everything that will happen to them.

  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?

The Obama Administration's Nonproliferation Hypocrisy

 

By David Gerstman

I visited the State Department's website earlier this week and I was greeted by an item hailing the 45th anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

After hailing the treaty the article goes on to say more explicitly, "[i]f we didn’t already have the NPT, we would desperately need it today."

A couple of paragraphs later the article boasts about the latest efforts to strengthen the NPT:

The United States is committed to strengthening the nonproliferation regime and the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency to implement nuclear safeguards -- a set of measures to verify that nuclear materials are used for peaceful purposes. The Treaty provides the foundation and context to resolve outstanding challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The ongoing negotiations with Iran provide the best diplomatic path forward for Iran to return to full compliance with the NPT.

The IAEA instills confidence among all NPT parties that a state’s civil nuclear energy is not being diverted into a nefarious weapons program. In New York, the United States will promote the IAEA Additional Protocol, now recognized as the foremost international standard for safeguards that provides the IAEA with the authority to ensure that all nuclear material is used for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT.

The idea that the protocols (remember there's no deal yet) agreed to last week somehow would strengthen the NPT is utterly false.

The point of the ongoing nuclear negotiations from Iran's standpoint is to remove its violations from the books and end the sanctions it incurred for those violations. Iran's goal in the negotiations is to enshrine its "right to enrich" uranium. (No such right exists. Nuclear research for peaceful purposes is a right, an important qualification that cannot be attached to Iran's nuclear research, according to the NPT.)

In July 2006, having failed to satisfy the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) demands to explain its past nuclear research, Iran was ordered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 to suspend uranium enrichment and other nuclear R&D activities within 30 days unless it complied with the IAEA. Iran continued defying the Security Council and in December Resolution 1737 was passed, the first resolution (of 5) imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its NPT violations (and failure to explain its work satisfactorily to the IAEA.)

According to the American version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), when Iran satisfies all of its requirements, a new Security Council resolution will be drawn up to replace the previous six:

All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).

However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.

Now let's assume the most optimistic outcome: that Iran addresses all key concerns. (Iran was supposed to explain possible military dimensions - PMD - of its nuclear work according to the Joint Plant of Action (JPOA) of November 2013, and still has not done so.) Iran would still have over 5000 centrifuges enriching uranium at Natanz. Iran would have centrifuges operating (though not enriching uranium) in an underground reinforced facility at Fordow and would have a heavy water reactor operating at Arak. (In December 2013, Obama himself acknowledged that Iran did not need the latter two facilities "to have a peaceful nuclear program.")

 

So by defying the IAEA and the Security Council Iran will be awarded 5000 centrifuges enriching uranium that it didn't have before. The sanctions triggered by those violations will be wiped away. (By the way, 5000 centrifuges is enough for a bomb, but not for civilian nuclear program.)

(And if Iran doesn't address all key concerns, what then? Will the Obama administration have the guts to walk away? Or is President Obama so invested in the success of his Iranian outreach that he'll move forward to remove the sanctions anyway? The record on this isn't promising. Though Obama insists that Iran observed the terms of the JPOA, that isn't true. As noted above, Iran never addressed the PMD issue. Also in a clear violation of the JPOA, Iran tested an advanced centrifuge. When challenged Iran stopped; but later the administration downgraded the violation to "probably a mistake.")

The administration characterizes the NPT as essential, but by removing the enforcement mechanisms for Iran's violations, they are gutting the NPT.

Ironically, the president overseeing the destruction of the NPT was once a proponent of nuclear disarmament. The administration continues to forge ahead with its nuclear diplomacy despite regular rebuffs from Iran's supreme leader. The administration also has trouble comprehending criticisms that contain too many big words and seems more focused on sticking it to Netanyahu than in preventing Iran from going nuclear.

 

A Change In The Weather - Looking At The Current GOP Field

It's early days, and a few people who will likely be running haven't formally announced yet. But I think it's worth looking at Republican contenders for the White House and giving you my initial impressions. I'll be looking at Democrats in a subsequent article.



Senator Ted Cruz was the first to announce, and of course caught an initial blast from the Left's media hacks. We certainly can't dignify them with the term 'journalist since so many of them are simply Leftist activists with access to a microphone or a byline. Expect them to ignore blatant violations of law by the likes of Mrs. Clinton while examining in great detail any occasion where one of the Republican candidates borrowed five bucks from someone ten years ago and forgot to pay it back.

In a sense though, Senator Cruz was either exhibiting great courage, a certain amount of naivete or a mixture of the two by choosing the venue and the speech he did for his announcement. And I say that as someone whom admires him a great deal. By speaking at a Christian college at a time when Christians are under vicious attack by the Left and indeed, by the Obama Administration, he showed exactly what a brave man of principle he is. And make no mistake, Ted Cruz is a man of principle.

He is also a dynamic speaker, scary smart and a superb debater who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The one false note he's hit so far didn't particularly jar me, but I think it might have bothered others...his emphasis in his speech on his profession of Christian faith.

Ronald Reagan too was a man of rock solid faith, but when he voiced it, he took great care to phrase it in ways that were deliberately inclusive. Ted Cruz did not. For many people, this was their first opportunity to actually hear and see Ted Cruz speak. He's already been painted by the usual suspects as a fanatic rather than the articulate and accomplished man he is, and I have no doubt that some of them felt somewhat uncomfortable, although Cruz's audience obviously went wild over it. I look on it as an unforced error (and by no means a major one) by someone not quite used to campaigning with an eye towards a nationwide audience. And it pales when you look at how dynamically he came across, with no podium and no teleprompter, moving all over the stage to a crowd of wildly cheering students.

Ted Cruz will only get better as he goes along.




It's interesting to compare Ted Cruz with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. While Ted Cruz says the right things and articulates them with great skill and aplomb, Scott Walker simply does things and talks about them in ordinary, everyman style. It's Governor Scott Walker who took on some of most vicious public employee unions in the country and won, Scott Walker who balanced Wisconsin's budget, lowered taxes, oversaw the creation of thousands of jobs,and passed a badly needed voter ID law. And he did it while facing two election campaigns and one recall that were financed by millions of out of state dollars as well as death threats aimed at him and his family. The Left wanted Scott Walker's head badly,even to the extent of judge shopping to try and embroil him in bogus charges of campaign financing misdeeds. But he defeated them because he inherently understood that these people need to be challenged and fought, not accommodated and appeased. And because his performance, not his rhetoric spoke for itself. That experience is going to help him a great deal in the current campaign, as evidenced by his embarrassing the media over a dollar sweater and his superb push back to President Barack Obama's condescending horse manure about 'boning up' on foreign policy vis a vis Iran.

Yeah, Scott Walker has already faced the full force of the Left and survived quite nicely, thanks.And he puts up with zero static from the Left. That combination could take him a long way.


 

Senator Rand Paul announced Tuesday, and he likewise looks to be a strong candidate. In many ways, he's a throwback to the days when America actually was a free country who revered its Constitution. He's been unfairly slammed as an isolationist, simply because he, like a lot of other Americans is sick and tired of going to war by presidential diktat. Sort term pre-emptive strikes like President Reagan did in Libya, Grenada and the Persian Gulf against Iran that don't involve long term dispositions of U.S. forces are one thing, and by design have a distinct, concrete goal in mind.

The sort of wars we've seen lately in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan with long term deployments and fuzzy, ill defined goals are another animal entirely, and our Founders were quite correct to insist that our commander in chief make the case to congress and get a weasel proof formal declaration of war in order to proceed rather than a mere resolution to use force.

Like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, Rand Paul also disdains the defensive crouch that normally defines conservatives. An example of that occurred today, and it was refreshing:

 When quizzed on his about his views on abortion, Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul avoided the gotcha game and told NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser to ask DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz if it was okay to "kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus." 

"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus?" Paul reportedly said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it's okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me."

 In other words, chump, let's see you ask the Democrats you love so much these same kinds of wedge questions. And of course, the even more revealing follow ups, if you expect any answers from me along  a similar line.

This is exactly how to handle these people. Most Americans would shrink from the idea of a doctor taking surgical scissors, puncturing the skull of  a  healthy baby over five months old with a fully developed nervous system and the ability to feel pain,vacuuming the child's brains out to collapse the skull and then ripping the child out of the womb unless the mother's life was endangered or there was some other kind of dire medical emergency. So it's never described that way.

Yet these kind of late term abortions happen every day in America for no reason other than a child being inconvenient. And even though the abortion lobby which insists on abortion on demand and supports this sort of carnage is one of the most  important parts of the Democrat coalition, no one ever tries to pin  Democrats down about their support for this sort of thing after describing it in such graphic - and sadly accurate - terms.

If Senator Rand Paul is able to return service to the left this well now, it bodes well for his candidacy. And the fact that he, like Scott Walker is not yet another lawyer from Harvard,Princeton or Yale ( he's a medical doctor, an extremely reality based profession) appeals to me as well. We're going to need quite a bit of reality to clean up the mess Barack Obama and his cronies will leave behind when they leave. And Senator Paul also has a demonstrated ability to appeal to younger voters and to get voters to cross party lines.

 

Senator Marco Rubio at first glance would seem to be a strong candidate. He's young, a good speaker with an inspiring story, and a fiscal conservative with a good record on taxes, the Second Amendment and other such hot button issues. And some members of the consultant class see his Hispanic surname as a bonus.

The problem I see is that Senator Rubio seems to fold under pressure to a certain degree, and to lean more towards trying to please everyone (which of course ultimately pleases no one) rather than starting out embracing firm principles and then making minor compromises to get a deal done.

A good example of this was the way Democrat senator Chuck Schumer twisted Rubio around his little finger when it came to the bogus Senate immigration bill. Aside from making Marco Rubio look foolish, it gave the Obama WHite House an important talking point about how the Democrat majority senate had 'passed a bi-partisan bill, and all the House has to is pass it.' With, of course the president saying that since the House wouldn't act,he had the prerogative to violate our laws and the Constitution to do so.

It was a major error, and while Rubio at least eventually admitted his mistake it doesn't bode well for a Rubio presidency.

And that Hispanic surname? Don't count on it as a benefit. Hispanics in America are a much more diverse group than the consultant class would have us believe. Marco Rubio, like Ted Cruz, is of Cuban descent, and Cuban-Americans are a very different group than Mexicans or Central Americans, particularly those who President Obama has let in under his executive amnesty and whom are already appearing on the voter rolls illegally.

Many of them speak little or no English and receive all of their information from the likes of Democrat-controlled Telemundo and Univision. And many of them will be voting for a Democrat promising unlimited amnesty and increased social welfare benefits.

 

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush hasn't announced yet, but is raising funds, hiring staff and obviously preparing to do so. Let's look at him.

Unlike the other GOP candidates with the exception of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush has solid executive experience and was a reasonably accomplished governor of Florida, with an excellent record on taxes and on fiscal sensibility, including civil service reform. He's pro Second Amendment and school choice, In addition, he has the ability to raise tremendous amounts of money. and authentic Hispanic roots through his marriage. He also has an excellent track record with Hispanic voters and speaks fluent Spanish.


A problem with Governor Bush is that his stance on many issues like amnesty and Common Core is essentially opposed not only to the Republican party's base but to a majority of Americans in general. His message, essentially, is that the Republicans are Democrat-lite - they will do pretty much what the Democrats will, just cheaper and better managed.

People inclined to vote Democrat/Socialist will invariably vote for the real thing come election day if nothing else to avoid putting someone with the surname 'Bush' back in the White House. And a large segment of the Republican base will simply sit home, just as they did with Mitt Romney.

That's the current GOP field as I see them today. I'll examine Democrats in a subsequent article.