02/7/16
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s Email Problems: Growing Crisis or Nothing to See?

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

The media’s double standard has been on full display with a number of softball interviews and a staged CNN town hall held for the Democratic presidential candidates. The left-wing mainstream media are waiting to crown Hillary Clinton, even before the votes are in. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, in particular, recently interviewed Hillary Clinton about her close victory in the recent Iowa caucuses.

At the very least you would have to say that the thrill up his leg that Matthews used to get for President Obama is now firmly in place for Mrs. Clinton. Matthews’ performance was no journalistic interview. Instead, it was a mutual love-in with Hillary, and the Democratic Party in general. It was as if Matthews was unaware of any of the developments in EmailGate or the Benghazi scandal, both of which have been very public. Yet Matthews uttered nary a word on his sycophantic network, MSNBC, about the substance of any of Hillary’s scandals.

Instead, he showered Mrs. Clinton with praise. “You know I think everybody should’ve been impressed, maybe I wasn’t impressed as I should have been—but everybody should have been about the way you handled New Hampshire last time around,” said Matthews to Mrs. Clinton.

Despite the fact that Matthews, and the rest of the mainstream media, would prefer to ignore the latest revelations in EmailGate, the drip, drip, drip of scandal continues. The day after Matthews’ interview with Mrs. Clinton, Fox News’ Martha MacCallum interviewed Republican Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) about Mrs. Clinton’s email controversy.

Stewart, a former Air Force B1 bomber pilot, is now a member of the House Intelligence Committee. He has seen the latest batch of Hillary’s emails marked Top Secret, and pointed out that there were more than just the 22 emails reported earlier. The total now comes to 29 emails that the State Department will not release.

Stewart was shocked at what he saw when he reviewed these emails.

“[These emails] do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets,” said Congressman Stewart on Fox News. “I can’t imagine how anyone could be familiar with these emails, whether they’re sending them or receiving them, and not realize that these are highly classified.”

“Did Hillary Clinton demonstrate the judgment and the respect for protocol that would allow her to protect national security?” asked Rep. Stewart. “And when I read these emails and when I see how she has exposed some of the most sensitive information or potentially exposed that, I don’t know how we can say that she has demonstrated that judgment.”

Stuart condemned claims that the controversy over Mrs. Clinton’s private email server is a “right-wing conspiracy.”

“For heaven’s sakes, this is where Obama administration officials who have told us that these emails were so classified they can’t be released,” he said. “This wasn’t something that’s coming from the right; it’s coming from this current administration,” Congressman Stewart added. “So her argument isn’t with me, it’s with the President and with his administration regarding that.”

It was the Obama-appointed Inspector General who stated that some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails were Top Secret, and an Obama administration State Department that has concurred. As we reported, some of these emails contained material so highly classified that even the Inspector General’s team wasn’t originally cleared to see them.

But apparently few reporters in the mainstream media saw Rep. Stewart’s interview, or had any interest in hearing his perspective. You see, it’s only Fox News that cares about such trivial nonsense.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler did note Stewart’s interview, but did so only in order to contradict his assertions. “Other sources who have viewed the emails do not describe the emails as strongly [as Congressman Stewart], though one official said Clinton’s aides might have put their security clearances at risk,” writes Kessler.

Kessler’s piece gave only two Pinocchios out of a possible four to Mrs. Clinton for her claims about how she handled classified materials on her private server. In the same Fact Checker column, Kessler cited a George Stephanopoulos interview with Mrs. Clinton. And while we’ve criticized Stephanopoulos in the past for his failure to note his conflicts of interest when it comes to the Clintons—including his obvious partisanship on her behalf by failing to ask her the tough questions—he does deserve some credit for a question he raised on his ABC show last Sunday. He talked about a non-disclosure agreement that Mrs. Clinton signed as secretary of state. This made it clear that whether or not the material is “marked classified” is “not that relevant,” since she has been “trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Mrs. Clinton gave a nonsensical answer, stating at first that “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously.” And then in the same answer she reverted to her tired defense: “And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified, and that was not the case.” She’s trying to have it both ways.

I have reported extensively on the Hillary Clinton email scandal. And, yes, Mrs. Clinton did apologize—sort of. She apologized for using one device for her emails instead of two while she served for four years as secretary of state.

“As I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” said Clinton in an ABC News interview last September. At a recent January town hallstaged by CNN, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she wasn’t “willing to say it was an error in judgment because what—nothing that I did was wrong. It was not—it was not in any way prohibited.”

In Thursday night’s debate on MSNBC, Chuck Todd asked about the emails, but not in any substantive way. He asked her, “So can you reassure these Democrats that somehow the email issue isn’t going to blow up your candidacy if you’re the nominee?” She said, “Absolutely I can. You know, before it was emails, it was Benghazi, and the Republicans were stirring up so much controversy about that.”

He then asked, “Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to come of this FBI investigation?” She replied, “I am 100 percent confident.” What does Mrs. Clinton know that the rest of us don’t? Has she been assured by the Obama administration that no indictment will be forthcoming? After all, President Obama emailed directly to her private email address on a number of occasions, and could get caught up in the scandal as well. Plus, indicting Hillary would create a civil war in the Democratic Party, perhaps opening the door to a Biden run, or a massive defeat in November.

Where is the apology for failing to turn over her emails in a timely fashion when she left office, or for doing business on an unsecured “home brew” server unprotected from Chinese, Iranian and Russian hackers? Robert Gates, the former secretary of defense under both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said that “the odds are pretty high” that Mrs. Clinton’s home brew server was compromised by China, Russia and Iran.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton has absurdly claimed that her server was secure becauseSecret Service agents were guarding the property.

Mrs. Clinton was also caught lying about whether she had turned over all her work-related emails when Sidney Blumenthal’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi revealed additional business-related emails that she had not sent to the State Department.

The drip, drip, drip of scandal has only gotten worse over time. We have now learned that there were more than 1,300 emails containing classified information that were either sent to or from her email server, classified as Top Secret, and some were classified as the even more secret Special Access Programs.

“You were out there on that arena, I remember you standing in I think it was a fieldhouse,” said Matthews during his softball interview with Clinton. “And you went on and on and on, it went on for five hours. It was incredible, it was a marathon, answering every single question of everyone in that room… Are you going to try to match that performance this time?”

No doubt Mrs. Clinton will be more than happy to answer further questions from the mainstream media. If Matthews’ interview and Chuck Todd’s debate questions are any indication, she knows that pertinent questions about her worst scandals won’t even be mentioned.

02/6/16
Wild Bill

What Islam Fears

02/6/16
Ted Cruz

Article at TheWeek blatantly lies about Ted Cruz

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Carter on Cruz

An “article” posted Thursday by Jeva Lange at TheWeek blatantly lies about Ted Cruz. And it is not the first time Lange has mischaracterized Cruz’s words.

The post, titled “Ted Cruz mistakenly claims Jimmy Carter endorsed Donald Trump,” gives the reader the false impression that Ted Cruz said former President Jimmy Carter would vote for Donald Trump. 

Lange writes:

Speaking to an audience in New Hampshire, Cruz told the crowd that former President Jimmy Carter had ‘endorsed’ Donald Trump in the 2016 race. ‘I am not making that up,’ Cruz assured them. Only, he kind of was.

Actually, he kind of wasn’t.

Ted Cruz was very clear that Jimmy Carter would choose Trump as the Republican candidate, if the choice was between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

Here is what Ted Cruz said in part:

“Jimmy Carter endorsed Donald Trump. I am not making that up. That is real. Jimmy Carter said yesterday – he said that between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz I would support Donald Trump.”

Watch:

Jeva Lange continued to say that Carter’s words were “hardly a glowing endorsement,” implying again that Cruz misrepresented his words, which is a blatant lie.

Lange continued,

“To endorse something is to declare one’s public approval or support of that person or idea, which was not what Carter, a Democrat, had done.”

And that is not what Cruz said Carter did.

But why bother with actual news stories when one can bash Cruz? Anyone who actually clicked on the video provided in the post would see that Lange was misrepresenting Cruz, but that did not stop the fake article to be posted all over Twitter.

Former President Jimmy Carter said in part:

“Trump has proven already that he’s completely malleable. I don’t think he has any fixed opinions that he would really go to the White House and fight for.”

On Senator Ted Cruz, Carter lamented that Ted Cruz has strong convictions in which he would pursue “aggressively.”

In an article published Wednesday at the UK-based Mirror, one of the captions on a photo of Trump standing with Cruz proclaimed:

“…[P]undits say unlike Donald Trump, Ted Cruz believes what he’s saying.”

Jeva Lange did not mention this part.

The bottom line is that Ted Cruz would stand for his beliefs, but the Socialists Democrats can at least work with Donald Trump. Jimmy Carter has reason to believe that Donald Trump would be “malleable.” Last month, Trump assured a crowd that he would make deals with the establishment.

Trump said:

“You know what? There’s a point at which: Let’s get to be a little establishment…We’ve got to get things done folks, OK? Believe me, don’t worry. We’re going to make such great deals.”

“Malleable.”

Jimmy Carter was also correct to say:

“On the other hand Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right-wing politics, in my opinion, that would be pursued aggressively if he wins.”

Consider the quote at TedCruz.org, where he explains that he is interested in drastically reducing the size of government (and explains what he will seek to cut with the help of Congress):

“We should shrink the size and power of the federal government by every and any means possible. What does that mean? That means eliminating unnecessary or unconstitutional agencies.” – Ted Cruz

This is evidently not the first time that Jeva Lange misrepresented one of Ted Cruz’s positions. An even more egregious falsehood was from an August article titledIn 2011, Ted Cruz told Republicans not to focus on birthright citizenship. Now he’s ‘absolutely’ against it,” Lange quotes Cruz as saying:

“As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution,’ Cruz stressed. He went on to say that he believes it’s ‘a mistake for conservatives to be focusing on trying to fight what the Constitution says on birthright citizenship.'”

The actual quote, however, did not dismiss birthright citizenship as an important issue as implied by Lange. Rather, Cruz was making the case that  birthright citizenship “wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have people coming in illegally.”

Lange missed that part.

Here is the rest of his quote:

“I think we are far better off focusing on securing the border, because birthright citizenship wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have people coming in illegally. The way to prevent that is to secure the border now so that people are not coming in contrary to law.”

A Twitter user pointed out a link from anti-illegal immigration think tank Numbers USA from 2012 which illustrates that Ted Cruz was not a proponent of “birthright citizenship,” as Lange implies.


In fact, Ted Cruz is regarded as a “True Reformer” in opposition of illegal immigration:

Ted Cruz on Amnesty via Numbers USA

Ted Cruz on Amnesty via Numbers USA

Here is what Jimmy Carter said, which is REALLY what people should be discussing:

02/6/16
Kevin Freeman

USA Transnational Report – February 6, 2016, Guest Kevin D. Freeman

USA Transnational Report

kevinfreeman

SPECIAL INTERVIEW WITH KEVIN FREEMAN!
Saturday (2/6) 8 AM EST!!!

Kevin Freeman is a NY Times bestselling author and considered one of the world’s leading experts on the issues of Economic Warfare and Financial Terrorism. His research has been presented in critical DoD studies and he has been asked to brief or present to the FBI, DIA, ONA, SEC, Naval War College, HASC, Naval Postgraduate School, DARPA, IARPA, and a host of government agencies tasked with protecting America.

Website: http://globaleconomicwarfare.com/

Topics of Discussion:

  • What is economic terrorism? 
  • Can foreign enemies manipulate our stock market?
  • Are they doing it today? 
  • Election & Economic Update 

& more . . .

You can listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios and on Red State Talk Radio.

You can subscribe to USA Transnational Report podcast on iTunes here.

You can also subscribe to our podcast with Podbean, here.

All previously recorded shows are available here, at the links above, or through Spreaker.

02/6/16
Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz confronted by angry ethanol farmer; responds like a President

Ted Cruz confronted by farmer

Ted Cruz confronted by farmer

Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz was confronted by a farmer in Iowa who accused him of planning to take away his ethanol subsidies while funding “big oil.” Cruz responded with a clear grasp of the facts surrounding the ethanol market and explained that he did not want any industries “across the board” to be dependent on the government.

Ted Cruz’s position on ethanol has been misrepresented over and over and over, but here it is in his OWN words.

As observed at IJ Review:

What was remarkable, however, is how Ted Cruz — through a calm demeanor and a deep knowledge of the subject manner — manages to win the farmer over…

Whether or not the farmer will vote for Cruz, there is no doubt that he respected Cruz’s honesty.

02/5/16
Aging

FDA AND THE SPREAD OF BRAIN DISEASES: SHADOW ECONOMIC CRISIS (Part 2)

By Sharon Sebastian

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), charged with the mandate to protect the public’s food supply, openly admits its liability in the deaths of Americans, mostly in the form of heart attacks. That is far from the full story. What the giant government agency hides is its culpability in the recent rise in brain diseases that continue to claim both memory and lives.

A broad alert from the FDA should read:

  • Research links processed foods to a proliferation of deadly brain diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s.
  • Studies reveal a food ingredient is connected to memory loss that impacts learning acuity in schoolchildren and lessened productivity in the workplace among adults.

The FDA concedes that under its watch it has allowed so-called “Frankenstein oils” to permeate Americans’ processed food supply. On public record, the FDA states that partially hydrogenated oils (and their derivatives, trans fats), have caused thousands of heart attacks and deaths annually. The FDA would like it to be old news, swept under the rug. What the FDA hopes to bury from public knowledge is that the “killer oils” have proven to be more deadly than disclosed.

The bad oils that have been fed to Americans for over five decades have now been linked to the increase in deadly brain diseases. In an official release, the FDA admits that the laboratory-engineered oils cause “memory loss” without telling the full story to the American public of a scientific link to long-term, physical damage to the brains of people of all ages. The FDA’s admittance of wrongdoing evades full disclosure. The agency remains conspicuously mute on the recent scientific link of the oils to the sudden increase of incurable brain diseases. An early symptom, of which, is memory loss.

Among the scientists interviewed in the newly released book, “AGING: WARNING – Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields,” Dr. Beatrice A. Golomb, a renowned researcher at the University of California, San Diego, provides insight:

  1. Are “partially hydrogenated oils” and their derivatives, trans fats, toxic?
  2. If “toxic” is defined by the ability to confer harm, then yes, overwhelmingly evidence indicates that trans fats/partially hydrogenated oils are “toxic”.
  1. These oils are notorious in scientific circles for being bad for the body; what is the mental impact?
  2. The brain has a few important functions. One is regulation of mood. One is regulation of behavior (e.g. to control irritability/aggression). One is regulation of cognition [ability to think]. Our data have found trans fat [partially hydrogenated oil] consumption to be adversely linked to each of the three.
  1. Does this loss of memory indicate loss of brain cells?
  2. Evidence shows that trans fats increase inflammation (brain inflammation is bad for memory) and increase oxidative stress, the kind of damage that antioxidants protect against – which is bad for memory – it can kill cells, and it can impair cell energy which can kill cells. But these effects can also impair function without killing cells.
  3. How does memory loss in young, working Americans, due to their consumption of these fats, [partially hydrogenated oils] impact their lives?
  4. That was not an aspect of our study. But certainly, less favorable memory function is expected to translate to less favorable performance in school and in the workplace. Less favorable performance can constrain career choices, affect job performance, and thus influence career trajectories.
  1. What is the value, if any, for using industrially-fabricated oils in our processed food supply?
  2. I used to tell my patients that trans fats improve the shelf life of the food, but reduce the shelf life of the person.

Of critical note is that the deadly oils will remain in the American processed food supply until mid-2018. An excerpt from the aforementioned book, provides further details on how these oils are linked to the build-up of a sticky and deadly protein scientifically known as beta-amyloids. Beta-amyloids wreak havoc as they flow through the cardiovascular system to the brain and eventually attack brain cells:

“A build-up in the brain and blood vessels of a protein plaque called beta-amyloids may be spurred or exacerbated by a build-up of bad cholesterol. Bad cholesterol is accelerated by – how does the FDA put it – by an ‘industrially produced’ food ingredient that the FDA allows to permeate the food supply. Converted in laboratories, they are known as partially hydrogenated oils or PHOs. When deadly beta-amyloids attack and disintegrate brain cells, ‘memory loss’ first occurs, then overtime, oxygen flow is diminished, limbs become incapacitated, bodily functions shutdown and eventually death occurs.”

It is the classic description of death due to most forms of dementia, including Alzheimer’s.

Though brain diseases have existed over time, the documented increase per capita in memory related disorders has sounded alarms. Research points the finger at the very ingredients that, for decades, have permeated processed foods: partially hydrogenated oils. These oils have long been banned in other nations from Europe to Asia. Yet, the FDA looked the other way as major processed food manufacturers glutted the American food supply with the “killer oils.”

An outcry by health advocates forced the FDA to announce a total ban of the oils effective as of June 18, 2018. Until mid-2018, buyer beware. The “phantom oils” remain in a vast array of processed foods as an active ingredient that is being fed daily to American families.

Though a staggering 1 in 3 seniors reportedly dies with dementia, the loss of mental capacity, whether dementia or Alzheimer’s, does not automatically occur with aging according to experts.

“Alzheimer’s [dementia] is not a normal part of aging.” — Alzheimer’s Association.

If not age, researchers queried, what is mentally derailing increasing numbers of people? It is jokingly said when a person’s body goes physically or mentally awry: “Was it something I ate?”

Diseases are caused by either genetics or the environment. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, family-inherited, early-onset Alzheimer’s Disease accounts for less than 5% of Alzheimer’s cases worldwide. Based on those extremely low statistics, researchers zeroed in on an environmental cause. In their sights are industrially-modified oils.

For almost twenty years, food activists voiced alarms that the laboratory-contrived oils remain stuck in arteries and veins far longer than oils from natural food sources. Under assault, the FDA has begrudgingly initiated a ban to slowly withdraw from processed foods the numerous forms of the oils that still saturate the marketplace. While not identified as the cause of Alzheimer’s, partially hydrogenated oils are linked to the acceleration of the build-up of the cell and nerve killing, sticky proteins — beta-amyloids — that turn into plaque and clog the brain. Beta-amyloids are the hallmarks of Alzheimer disease. Findings of top scientists are detailed in the book.

As a government agency, the FDA fails to “use reasonable care” on behalf of the American people. For decades, its inactions resulted in deaths and mental and bodily harm to millions. By law, the inactions by the FDA would be categorized as “depraved indifference” or “gross negligence.” At minimum, it is a “reckless disregard” for human life.

The damage imposed by the FDA proves costly, especially for middle-income families. An excerpt from the article “Epidemic of Dementia: Shadow Economic Crisis” explains: “The rapid increase in dementia and other brain diseases is occurring at a time when middle-income American’s discretionary spending is being tapped out. For growing numbers of families nationwide, long-term health care costs, both inside and outside of the home, are unsustainable.”

The FDA functions under outdated laws that give wide leeway to corporate food giants. Charged with overseeing the overseer, it is Congress that must act to plug the loopholes:

“Corporations that are supposed to be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may also be aided and abetted by the FDA as food corporations are allowed to ‘self-regulate’. The FDA allows major processed food manufacturers to designate their products as being ‘Generally Recognized As Safe.’ It is known by the acronym GRAS. Under the practice of GRAS, the FDA depends on the processed food industry to be its own overseer, its own inspector. Essentially, what that means is that the processed food industry is on the ‘honor system’. It is eerily akin to the tobacco industry when cigarettes were once promoted as being good for your health.”

In addition to PHOs that are consumed daily, the U.S. FDA allows other ingredients and toxins into the American food supply that are banned in other parts of the globe. Processed food manufacturers continue to pack the processed food supply with chemically manipulated ingredients that negatively impact young and old alike.

Taste biotechnology companies today have chemicals aimed at binding artificial flavors to taste bud “receptor cells” on the tongue. They are meant to ‘manipulate and trick’ the mind as substitutes or catalysts for heightened sugar, salt or other flavor sensations. With more patents in the pipeline, competition to stimulate your taste buds through both chemical and natural ingredient-alterations is expected to be fierce.

Will taste bud modifiers that reportedly “trick the mind” have a damaging impact on the developing systems of the very young and the fragile systems of aging Americans? Will the FDA do sufficient testing to determine if mind-altering chemicals will have a long-term, negative impact on consumers’ health regardless of age? If the past indicates the future, the FDA may again remain on the periphery as processed food companies continue to spoon-feed chemically-modified food and drink to unsuspecting consumers.

The charge against the FDA is malfeasance against the American public. As one major toxin is slow-walked out of the processed food supply, a stream of new, laboratory-engineered chemicals and toxins are set to permeate the marketplace. Why is the FDA loath to alert U.S. families that many of the chemicals and ingredients found in the food on their dinner tables, in children’s school menus, in fast foods, on grocery shelves, and in hospitals and nursing homes — are banned elsewhere around the world?”

Recent findings of the damaging impact of lab-modified partially hydrogenated oils come decades too late for the afflicted, dying, and loved ones lost to brain and heart diseases. Instead of a full explanation of the harm done and harm still to come, the FDA’s message remains: “Sorry about that memory loss and all of those heart attacks.” Having admitted guilt without consequence, it remains business as usual as the FDA continues to bow to corporations’ profits over citizens’ health. The determining question is — do Americans care?

Note: The 3-part series of articles on a Shadow Economic Crisis by Sharon Sebastian is presented after years of research and interviews with top professionals and scientists in various fields.

Upcoming article:  

The Shame of Substandard Care: Shadow Economic Crisis – (Part 3) by Sharon Sebastian

Related articles:

Epidemic of Dementia: Shadow Economic Crisis (Part 1) by Sharon Sebastian

Scamming Alzheimer’s by Sharon Sebastian

Sharon Sebastian, author of the book, “AGING: WARNING Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields,” is a columnist, commentator, and contributor in print and on nationwide broadcasts on topics ranging from healthcare, culture, religion, and politics to domestic and global policy. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. Website:   www.AgingWarning.com

02/5/16
Get Off Me Gun

Get Off Me Guns

02/5/16
Ted Cruz

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 02/05/16

The Watcher’s Council

Ted Cruz

Unsavory Agents

MR

MR1

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

Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. – John Harrington

Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid, – these are (all) in very truth the Believers: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous. – Qu’ran, Surah Al-Anfal, 74

The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam. – President Barack Hussein Obama

http://i2.wp.com/2.bp.blogspot.com/--bd_Q_iBJfY/TsYx44QOX9I/AAAAAAAAAm8/QonbRkHSjmw/s400/Noisy%2Broom%2B2.jpg?w=540

This week’s winning essay, The Noisy Room’s Why Is Small Town America Being Inundated With Muslim Immigrants?, is her incisive look at yet another way President Obama is changing America… by flooding heartland America with Muslims from countries where the vast majority of the inhabitants have values and a culture totally inimical to our Constitution as well as our notions of freedom, tolerance and human liberty. Here’s a slice:

Looks like my old stomping grounds in Montana are heating up. People there are not taking Obama’s plan to force refugees on them lying down. There was a protest in Missoula, Montana at 10 a.m. this morning over that very issue. It is just one of many battles brewing out there in small town America.

Small towns in the sparsely populated parts of America are the perfect place to relocate these refugees. Especially, if your agenda includes politically terraforming the country. The West is historically conservative in their politics. Many are Republicans and Libertarians. Even the Democrats hearken back to an earlier time when they were more conservative in nature. Obama and the Democrats can’t have that. They need to have an entire country willing to submit to Marxist diktats. They need areas seeded with those who will vote Democrat and ensure that they stay in power no matter what.

And it’s not just voting demographics that are pushing this move either. I personally believe that there is a warped logic to all of this. That if Islam can be made the predominant religion in America, people will be more easily controlled. That’s insane of course and won’t work, but there you have it. Instead, Shariah law will be implemented and you will see the same atrocities occurring in Europe happen here. The big difference being, that at least for now, Americans are armed and will use those weapons to protect their neighbors, loved ones and country.

Bringing in the refugees also moves forward the Cloward and Piven strategy to overwhelm the system so it will collapse and cause chaos in the streets. These people want to tear the system apart, so they can replace it with something truly heinous. The Obama administration will never admit that this is the plan, but can you honestly look at what is going on today and tell me it isn’t? Our borders are wide open. We are not vetting anyone to speak of and security here in the US is worse than before 9/11.

Refugees1

Communities in states such as Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Kansas are being infused with Muslim refugees even though they are not wanted by the residents or the local law enforcement. The feds and their leaders are not giving them a choice. Wyoming is the only state currently not participating in the program, but even the governor there wants to jump in it. Living in large cities would be too costly for the refugees and more can be accomplished with seeding them across the plains. In a small town, they can turn everything to their advantage in short order. Since many of our larger cities are already flooded with immigrants from south of the border and from Muslim nations, in many respects they have at least partially fallen to the ploy already. This is the fundamental transformation of America in play. South Carolina, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota and Michigan are vigorously fighting against this program and Obama’s ‘change’.

The same entitlements, jobs, lodging and freebies will be given to these refugees in small town America. But that will mean taking more and more away from locals in these same communities. These immigrants bring crime and disease with them. As crime rises, people will leave which will hasten the take over of these towns. At least that is what Obama and his friends hope for. I pray that people dig in and decide to stay and fight if they can.

Which brings me back to Missoula where they had a protest this morning in front of the county courthouse. Refugees are being brought into Helena and Missoula and the people there don’t want them. We’re talking about hundreds of Muslims. Other rallies in Twin Falls, Idaho and Fargo, North Dakota are planned as well. I have friends in Idaho that just won’t stand for this invasion.

It’s the same old story here. NGOs with lots of money and a pro-immigrant agenda are seeking out politicians who can be bought basically, or that can be forced into compliance one way or the other. These individuals, such as Sand Point, Idaho, Mayor Shelby Rognstad, conspire against their constituency until they are forced by the people to back down. The politicians in Missoula seem to have sold out to this movement. Oh, what I wouldn’t give to find out what each of them was offered in exchange for their support in resettling large number of Islamic refugees in their areas.

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Tucker Carlson in Politico Magazine with Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right, submitted by The Noisy Room.

Donald Trump has his detractors, but no one can deny that he has struck a chord among many Americans. Tucker Carlson does a wonderful job of exploring why that is, attracting the deranged hatred of some of Politico’s rabid leftists.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners:

Non-Council Winners:

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s 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?

02/5/16
Ted Cruz Defends3

Ted Cruz or Donald Trump? Let Jimmy Carter be your guide!

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

A lot of good people, including many friends of mine signed up to support Donald Trump for POTUS. That was understandable when Trump was saying great things about illegal immigration and the media was telling us Ted Cruz couldn’t win.

Now its very clear that Cruz can, and most probably will win, and Donald Trump has revealed himself as more “progressive” than principled.

In my view, restoring the US Constitution would solve the bulk of America’s social, economic and political problems in one fell swoop.

Ted Cruz memorized the entire Constitution at age 14. He has fought several important court battles to preserve it. Senator Cruz lives, eats and breathes the Constitution.

How many times have you ever heard Donald Trump even mention it?

But if you’re still in doubt, America’s second worst ever President should settle the question.

Jimmy Carter prefers Donald Trump… need any more be said?

02/5/16
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton endorsed by New York Times & Communist Party USA

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 13: Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (L) and Hillary Clinton take part in a presidential debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Five Democratic presidential candidates are participating in the party's first presidential debate. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

LAS VEGAS, NV – OCTOBER 13: Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (L) and Hillary Clinton take part in a presidential debate sponsored by CNN. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

  • Hillary Clinton “…repair[ed] relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.” (NYT)
  • Hillary Clinton “…will build on the achievements of Obama’s presidency.” (CPUSA)
  • Hillary Clinton “…led the fight in ensuring that poor women get federal funds to pay for their abortions.” (NYT)
  • Hillary Clinton will “defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions [big government].” (CPUSA)

The very first sentence of the New York Times editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton trashes Republican presidential candidates as being the purveyors of “empty propaganda slogans.” While in comparison, Democratic primary voters who seek a “substantive debate over real issues,” the authors gush, “have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.”

As the ideological lines become increasingly blurred, perhaps an endorsement from Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is a positive step in the right direction for the progressively-indoctrinated youth vote. And clearly, the watchdogs are turning a blind eye.

Sam Webb, former national chairperson for CPUSA who currently serves as CPUSA’s public spokesperson says that although Hillary Clinton is not Bernie Sanders, she “will build on the achievements of Obama’s presidency. In other words, her White House will press for economic, social, and political reforms on a range of issues, including existentially necessary action on climate change.”

Webb, not the sharpest tool, warns ominously:

If the Republicans win the presidency, that firewall against far-right extremism that the Obama administration represented will disappear and the barbarians will be no longer at the gate, but likely in charge of the whole castle.

The NYT astonishingly praises Hillary Clinton’s efforts as Secretary of State, claiming that along with Obama and their shared vision, Clinton “allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.”

Hillary Clinton, according to the Old Grey Lady (who is most certainly not a lady) deals with the most “substantive” of issues like her support of gun control, regulating the “business establishment” and “the wage gap for women, especially for women of color.” Clinton also led the fight in ensuring that poor women get federal funds to pay for their abortions.

For his part, Sam Webb of CPUSA continues to say that Hillary,

“will fight for the full range of democratic rights – collective bargaining rights, wage rights, job rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and, not least, health rights – as well as defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions [code for big government].’

As an aside, the NYT also condescendingly trashes Republican candidates for having experience outside of Washington. One can almost feel the sneer:

“…it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case [regulations for Wall Street and banks], given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.”

On Clinton’s use of the military, the New York Times explains:

“…we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.”

Webb laments that if a Republican wins the White House, he or she will “ramp up militarism, [engage in] climate change obstructionism, and the wholesale shrinkage of the public sector.”

Webb continues:

To make matters worse, this concentration of state power in the hands of the extreme right at the federal level is matched and augmented by its control of thirty state governments, ubiquitous voice in the major media, network of well-funded think tanks, pastors in the pulpits, energetic grassroots constituency, and nearly bottomless war chest – thanks to the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires.

Which brings me back to the slogan ‘Bernie or Bust.’ If too many interpret it to mean Bernie or no one, least of all Hillary, it becomes an action (or inaction) that could well cede the country to right wing extremists.

Explain to this author what the difference is between the Democrats, the socialists and the Communists again?

Neither of the articles mentioned the Constitution.