Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Sending A Message Edition

The Watcher’s Council


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

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions:

Non-Council Submissions:

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


People Have Been Thrown in Prison for the Kinds of Stuff Carly Fiorina Engaged in as Lucent’s CEO

Doug Ross @ Journal

While Carly Fiorina has unquestionable debate skills, the more I research her background, the more troubled I become. While it’s clear that she is — politically speaking — somewhere to the left of Jeb Bush on policy, it is her business record that is most alarming.

Let me start with a little history lesson and a company called Lernout & Houspie. Founded in 1987 by two Belgians, L&H went public in 1995 on NASDAQ and operated from U.S. headquarters in Burlington, MA. Specializing in voice recognition software, L&H rode the tech boom to a peak market valuation of $10 billion.

L&H, despite its rise, was dogged by rumors of financial fraud. By early 1999, The Wall Street Journal reported that its earnings had been inflated. A subsequent WSJ investigation led to revelations in August of 2000 that much of the company’s value had been achieved by booking imaginary sales through a wide range of accounting gimmicks.

In April 2001, the founders — Jo Lernout and Pol Hauspie, as well as former CEO Gaston Bastiaens — were arrested in what was then one of the largest accounting scandals in history.

What were the accounting gimmicks that L&H used? Among them, “investing” in companies that were then required to turn those investments around to “purchase” L&H products and services. As the WSJ reported:

The company … appears to have improperly reported revenue from barter deals with other software firms in which no cash changed hands; immediately recognized revenue for sales that were contingent on L&H later performing development work for the customer; and sometimes reported sales before contracts were signed, when it was unclear the customer had the ability to pay or when the customer’s ability to pay depended on investment from L&HIn all, tens of millions of dollars in revenue over the past several years may have been improperly recorded

Thousands of individual shareholders have lost a collective fortune in the fall of a company whose market value was nearly $10 billion nine months ago…

…Michael Faherty, a former L&H salesman in the U.S., says he and others were encouraged to refer potential but cash-poor customers to FLV Fund. “If FLV invests $1 million” in the customer, he says, “it was understood that we’d get about $300,000” in the form of license fees paid by that customer to L&H…

… In 1995, for example, FLV took a 49% stake in the Belgian unit of Quarterdeck Corp., a highflying California software company headed by another Belgian, Gaston Bastiaens. This Belgian unit became L&H’s largest customer, accounting for 30% of revenue that year, and Quarterdeck itself chipped in 6.5% of L&H’s sales…

In simple terms, L&H laundered loans and investments to other companies, which it then booked as phony sales.

And what happened to the founders, Lernout and Houspie? In 2010, they “were found guilty by a Belgian court of fraud violations in the accounting scandal [and] each given sentences of five years…

So what does all of this have to do with Carly Fiorina?

Well, Fiorina ran the telecom giant Lucent as it was imploding, a fact that she was able to conceal until after she’d jumped ship to HP with over $60 million in performance-based pay.

A series of major orders were announced under Fiorina that subsequently turned out to be completely fraudulent. In 1999, for example, Fiorina trumpeted a huge sale of up to $2.1 billion of equipment to a company called PathNet. Problem was, however, that PathNet’s annual revenue was $1.6 million and it could ill afford such a massive purchase. In other words, Fiorina’s PathNet deal was as crooked as a corkscrew:

In the giant PathNet deal that Fiorina oversaw, Lucent agreed to fund more than 100% of the company’s equipment purchases, meaning the small company would get both Lucent gear at no money down and extra cash to boot. Yet how could such a loan to PathNet make sense for Lucent, even based on the world as it appeared in the heady days of 1999?

It didn’t make any financial sense. Just after Fiorina’s departure, Lucent revealed that it had written $7 billion of loan deals to customers, many of them unviable startups like PathNet, which itself went bankrupt in 2001. Post-Fiorina, Lucent also collapsed as the nature of her vendor-financing deals became obvious; but she walked away with upwards of $60 million.

In short, Fiorina used the same fraudulent tactics that L&H employed, investing in companies in order to massively inflate sales numbers.

Unlike Lernout and Houspie, though, Fiorina jumped ship before the implosion and walked away with tens of millions of dollars.

Fiorina, based upon these reports, has a distinctly unsavory background and has as much business running for president as Hillary Clinton does. Which is to say, none.

Related: Top 9 Fun Facts About Carly Fiorina.


Government-media lies: Three treasonous presidential cover-ups?

By: Lawrence Sellin, PHD
Family Security Matters

Although spanning nearly a century, these three apparent cover-ups have one main element in common, that despite massive evidence to the contrary, the government and media are still lying to us about them, one in real-time.

The power to make authoritative pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news by the release of false or misleading information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry or the power to ridicule and casually sacrifice patriotic citizens; are all tactics the government and media have brought to bear to suppress the truth or prevent justice from ever entering a courtroom.

In May 1934, William A. Wirt, a Gary, Indiana schools superintendent, asserted before a Congressional committee that there was a plot among members of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration to overthrow the established social order in the United States and substitute a communist-style planned economy (see “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” by Diana West).

For performing his patriotic duty, Wirt was branded a liar by committee Democrats, smeared by the press and even ridiculed by Roosevelt himself, a fate that would likewise befall future anti-communists.

Although the extent and negative consequences of communist infiltration and influence within the US government and the American press have always been dismissed and derided by the left, experts estimate the number of Americans assisting Soviet intelligence agencies during the 1930s and 1940s as exceeding five hundred, including high-ranking government officials such as Alger Hiss (State Department), Lauchlin Currie (White House), Harry Dexter White (Treasury) and Roosevelt’s most intimate advisor, Harry Hopkins, who twice covertly passed vital secrets to the Soviets.

Likewise, anyone who has the temerity to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy is denounced as a conspiracy theorist or worse.

The Warren Commission unequivocally stated that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, who fired a total of three shots in 6.8 seconds from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building using a 6.5 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even though, for example, the paraffin test of Oswald’s face indicated that he had not fired a rifle.

The flaws in the Warren Commission report are far too many to enumerate and the evidence is far too flimsy to have resulted in a conviction. Nevertheless, the government and the media have persisted in granting it credence.

None of that matters, however, because the Warren Commission was not intended to conduct a serious investigation of the Kennedy assassination, but to prevent one, in order to conceal, what could be considered a coup d’état.

Many people rightfully believe that Lyndon B. Johnson was installed as President of the United States at the behest of powerful politically- and financially-motivated people; that John F. Kennedy and the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald were executed under the supervision of rogue elements of the Central Intelligence Agency who were facilitated by organized crime and officials in Texas; and that Johnson and federal law enforcement, in particular J. Edgar Hoover, orchestrated a cover-up in which the media willingly participated, all of which continues to this day (see “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ” by Roger Stone and “Who Really Killed Kennedy” by Jerome R. Corsi).

Likewise, a conspiracy of silence and a blanket of disinformation has descended upon the public discourse,  “taqiyya” or deception, if you will, regarding all questions related to Barack Obama’s legal eligibility for the Presidency, his personal history and the circumstances and associates surrounding his ascension to power.

Although considered the equivalent of blasphemy by the political-media establishment, sending them into fits of rage or a case of the vapors, it is no stretch of the imagination to mention – and history may prove – that the policies of the Obama administration could reflect his own proclivities, those being in particular Marxism and Islam. At this point one can only speculate as to what might be driving the administration’s aggressive lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender agenda, especially in regard to the military.

I would like to know, for example: was American communist Frank Marshall Davis Obama’s real father; did Obama attend Occidental College as an Indonesian foreign exchange student; did he not register for Selective Service in 1980; did Middle East money facilitate and fund Obama’s graduate education; what is his real Social Security number; why claim a computer-generated forgery as a genuine birth certificate; did Nancy Pelosi create two Certifications of Nomination in 2008, compared to the 2000 and 2004 documents to disguise Obama’s ineligibility for the Presidency and what is the extent of Republican complicity in an alleged cover-up ?

Such questions may never be answered accurately, not to guard national security or protect the American people, but to maintain the power of a privileged ruling class.

Our so-called “leaders” in Washington DC and our “distinguished” journalists would rather risk the survival of the republic than risk the truth.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at [email protected].


Weekly Featured Profile – Kay Tillow


Kay Tillow

Kay Tillow, is a veteran union and socialized healthcare activist from Louisville, Kentucky. She is the executive director of the Nurses Professional Organization.

Well past retirement age, Tillow has been a union organizer for going on 40 years. She has been affiliated with both the Communist Party USA and the communist spin-off, Committees of Correspondence.

Tillow started “helping right wrongs” when she was a student at the University of Illinois. In 1963, when she traveled south and signed up with the radical-led Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

She met and married Walter Tillow at the communist-controlled Highlander Folk School. The couple became organizers for the communist-led United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers and ultra radical Local 1199 of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees. They won some organizing drives and lost others. “But we never quit.”

Although she’s not a nurse, Tillow joined the NPO when it was affiliated with the Machinists . The Democratic Socialists of America led National Nurses United is NPO’s current affiliation. She also represents the NPO on the All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care, for which she is still campaigning. As she puts it: “Jesus healed and he did it for free.”

U.S. Rep. John Conyers, sponsor of H.R. 676, the leading single-payer bill perennially before the U.S. House of Representatives, said in a statement:

Kay Tillow is one of the most historically important advocates for single payer universal health care in the history of the United States. She has been able to garner the endorsements of 21 state AFL-CIO organizations, and over 300 national and local labor organizations to support HR 676…. It is an honor and a privilege to know Kay Tillow.
History will show that [her efforts were] one of the most important factors in why universal health care was achieved in this country.

In 2013, Progressive Democrats of America assigned activists to deliver their material to every U.S. Congressman. Kay Tillow was assigned as the contact for far left Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth.



Interviewing Mrs. Clinton, Avoiding the Tough Questions

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The carefully selected members of the media chosen to interview Hillary Clinton during her run for the Democratic nomination are sure to continue providing her with nothing but softball questions, giving her candidacy an opportunity to claim its honesty and transparency where little exists. Previously we cited Andrea Mitchell’s interview on MSNBC. Most recently it was Chuck Todd, whose interview on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday exposed how these reporters deliberately avoid discussing topics which run counter to their favored progressive narratives.

“And a reminder, and I know there’s always conspiracy theories out there, there are no limitations to this interview,” said Todd.

He asked several questions about Hillary’s private email server but few regarding the classified information found on that server, a much more serious issue.

While the Clintons like to blame the attacks on themselves as partisan politics, Hillary’s lies are becoming harder and harder for the liberal media to defend.

When Todd questioned Mrs. Clinton about her claim that she had turned over her emails as part of a general request from the State Department, he had to press her to provide answers about the discrepancy between the timing of when State asked for her records, and when the campaign claimed that this request was made.

“Well, we have explained that,” replied Clinton. “The campaign has explained it.”

This is far more than the mere discrepancy that Todd made it out to be.

The Washington Post Fact Checker gave Clinton three Pinocchios, because “there was a pressing need for the State Department to seek Clinton’s e-mails” due to the “Benghazi inquiry—and the State Department had made clear…its interest in the Clinton e-mails months before an official letter was sent.” The New York Times recently reported that experts in government classification laws said that Clinton aides may have “violated federal laws that govern how intelligence information is handled.”

The question remains how much of the State Department’s turning against Hillary Clinton is being orchestrated by the White House, which appears to be backing Vice President Joe Biden.

As we have reported, Mrs. Clinton’s receipt of classified email over a private server remains a national security concern: “Whether or not classified information was sent and received, not whether or not it was marked classified—which is the current iteration of her evolving explanation—is the real issue.”

On Monday’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, on CNN, he demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s inconsistent, evolving answers regarding the selection process for deciding which of her emails were personal and which were business, as Accuracy in Media’s Don Irvine cited. Yet on the transcript page of that show, CNN simply omitted that segment, as if it never occurred.

Mrs. Clinton has provided a wealth of excuses in the past that have been proven to be false. When questioning Mrs. Clinton about her dealings with the Clinton Foundation, for example, Todd focused on whether these emails would have been personal or work.

“You know, I did not communicate with the foundation,” replied Mrs. Clinton. “Other people in the State Department did. In accordance with the rules that had been adopted.”

This was another of her many transparent lies, as can be seen in an email already released to the public in June.

An October 28, 2009 email shows Mrs. Clinton copying Doug Band and Justin Cooper on a message to Clinton confidante Sid Blumenthal. “Bill Clinton’s senior adviser Justin Cooper was the man responsible for running the email network, according to archived Internet records,” reported Breitbart on September 2. “Cooper also works as a top fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation. He also serves as a senior adviser to Teneo Holdings, a private corporate advisory and investment banking firm founded by former Bill Clinton adviser Doug Band.” Band was active with the Clinton Global Initiative and on the Clinton Foundation’s Board of Directors at the time.

“Sid—I’m copying Doug and Justin who are traveling with Bill [Clinton] since he will be in Europe and may have some ideas about what could be done, and asking that they share it w him and then get back to you,” wrote Mrs. Clinton.

Questions also remain about possible pay-for-play during Mrs. Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.

“Newly released financial disclosures reveal Bill Clinton received $16.46 million in payments from a George Soros-backed for-profit education company, as Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled tens of millions of dollars to a group run by the company’s chairman,” reported Peter Schweizer for Breitbart in August. “From 2010 until just days before the 2015 release of Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton served as [Laureate Education’s] ‘honorary chancellor.’”

“When the Clinton campaign team obtained a copy of the book and its Clinton-Laureate connection revelation, Bill Clinton abruptly resigned.”

Todd could have also taken Hillary to account for her many falsehoods and role in the Benghazi cover-up, such as her decision to coordinate with the White House to blame the 2012 Benghazi attacks on a YouTube video.

As a counter to Todd’s biased reporting, and in our continuing effort to help keep the media on an aggressive yet unbiased path, we are offering up some suggested questions on various topics that the press should start demanding that Hillary Clinton answer:

  1. You’ve apologized for not using two separate email accounts. But you haven’t apologized for using a private, unencrypted server, which could have easily—and probably was—hacked by Chinese, Russian and North Korean operatives. Will you now apologize for endangering national security?
  2. If in your position as Secretary of State you would have received training on how to handle classified information then why did you and your aides exchange information now marked “Confidential” with Tony Blair regarding his role as Middle East Envoy over your unsecure server?
  3. Why did your department send out a memo encouraging department staffto “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts” yet you yourself used a private server for your work as Secretary?
  4. Why did the State Department and the White House coordinate the Benghazi YouTube video narrative when your staff became aware that this was a terror attack approximately a half hour into the attack?
  5. Why did the State Department provide inadequate security leading up to the attacks, despite multiple requests for assistance from Tripoli?
  6. If you neither sent nor received classified emails using your private server, then why has the Inspector General marked two of them as classified, and Reuters identified another 87 exchanges as born classified?
  7. If you assumed that the State Department would capture your emails when they were sent, then why were your aides also using private email accountsfrom your server?
  8. You told Chuck Todd, “I’m not by any means a technical expert. I relied on people who were.” Bryan Pagliano, who maintained your private server while simultaneously working at the State Department, has pled the Fifth and won’t talk to the FBI. How does this reflect on your statements that you have been transparent with the public?
  9. While you chose to erase and destroy more than 30,000 emails from your time as Secretary of State, why didn’t you allow an independent figure to determine which emails were personal, and which were somehow business related?
  10. If you provided all of your work-related emails, why has the Defense Department now found approximately 10 exchanges which were not turned over in the first place?
  11. Why has the State Department now turned over 925 additional emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi some of which, according to The Daily Beast, were “previously assessed to be of a ‘personal nature and unrelated to the former Secretary’s official capacity?’”
  12. If you say that you’ve deleted all your personal emails, then why have emails from an “old friend,” Sidney Blumenthal, been released by the State Department? Does that mean Blumenthal, who was being paid $10,000 a month by the Clinton Foundation, was conducting official business for you as Secretary of State?
  13. You have said you’re very proud of the “life-saving and life-changing work” that the Clinton Foundation is currently performing. Why, then, does it only spend approximately 10 percent of its funds on direct charitable grants?


Glorifying ‘rampant’ child rape in Afghanistan and Napier’s lesson

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

Via Vice News Screenshot Youtube

Via Vice News Screenshot Youtube

“Western forces fighting in southern Afghanistan had a problem. Too often, soldiers on patrol passed an older man walking hand-in-hand with a pretty young boy.”Joel Brinkley of San Francisco Gate, 2010

“‘Stop imposing your values on others,’ was the message for the American soldiers…. I found it heartwarming.” – “cultural anthropologist” Richard A. Shweder in an OpEd for the New York Times, 2007

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights…But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.” – Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave.

“As a culture that has repeatedly allowed the victimisation of young men by their elders, and turned survivors into abusers, Afghanistan has unleashed multiple generations of predators and traumatised young men.” Christian Steven of RYOT, January, 2015

“If my commanders don’t f*** these boys, who will they f***? Their own grandmothers?'” Afghan Police Chief – Vice News, 2013

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported on “rampant” child rape in Afghanistan. The “tradition” is so prevalent among “allied” police commanders in Afghanistan that it has a name:  “bacha bazi.”

The scolding tone of the New York Times article seems disingenuous, as the once-venerable news source also published an OpEd in 2007 by “cultural anthropologist” Richard A. Shweder “critical of the military for not being more culturally relativist,” as pointed out by Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist.

Speaking of Montgomery McFate, “who has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty…to convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know more about the local cultural scene,” Shweder wrote:

“Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on ‘love Thursdays’ and do some ‘hanky-panky.’ ‘Stop imposing your values on others,’ was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and I found it heartwarming.”


The author, at this point, would be remiss not to address the mortifying and moronic practice of sending “cultural specialists to unfamiliar warzones” which started under the Bush Administration. Wired reported in 2012 that the little-known $100 million-per-year program has been “wracked by allegations of mismanagement and the unfortunate deaths of three of its social scientists…

Latino studies specialist Anna Maria Cardinalli was part of a Human Terrain Terrain in Afghanistan. Photo: U.S. Army

Latino studies specialist Anna Maria Cardinalli was part of a Human Terrain Terrain in Afghanistan. Photo: U.S. Army

What an embarrassment.

The way Afghan pedophilia is portrayed and seemingly glorified by the radical left is perhaps a signal as to why the White House has brushed it aside.

As reported at the Washington Examiner, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said:

“What’s talked about in this, while abhorrent, is fundamentally an Afghan law enforcement matter and those are reports that are given to the Afghan government.”

The sickening response is a cop-out considering that Afghan law enforcement is heavily engaged in the child rape, as clearly described at Vice News and Frontline.

Speaking of glorifying child rape, consider an article at the Dartmouth about a 2013 panel discussion with the “artists in residence” who were “working on ‘Bacha Bazi [Boy Play]’ with the New York Theatre Workshop.”

The author, Heather Szilagyi, writes:

Dynamics of sexuality, gender and heteronormativity are important topics explored in the play. While not representative of all dancing boys, the main character, Hafiz, is gay and finds dancing to be empowering.

Panel discussion with "artists in residence” who were “working on ‘Bacha Bazi [Boy Play]’ via thedartmouth.org

Panel discussion with “artists in residence” who were “working on ‘Bacha Bazi [Boy Play]’ via thedartmouth.org

As pointed out at Human Events by Michelle Malkin, any ignorance of this brutal and demeaning “custom” would have been impossible after Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi’s wrenching documentary on “The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan,” which “aired in London and the U.S. in 2010.”

Additionally, Frontline covered the practice in 2010 in such a way that leaves no doubt that this practice takes place with regularity among some of the powerful men in Afghanistan.

Click here to watch the documentary.

Malkin chides:

…the United Nations has known and done nothing as Taliban warlords and Afghan police groomed, sodomized and sexually trafficked generations of young boys.

According to the recent NYT article, American soldiers who may have stood against this outrage “…have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.”


In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors.

“My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.” [emphasis added]

In May of 2013, Vice News discussed the hideous practice:

Worst of all, police commanders were routinely abducting young men and using them as ‘chai boys,’ house servants who were also kept as sex slaves. In separate incidents, three of those boys had been shot dead while trying to escape. One was shot in the face and one was shot at police headquarters…The police chief first said that the boys had chosen to live on the patrol bases: ‘They like being there and giving their asses at night.’ He also claimed that the practice of soldiers sexually abusing them was necessary. ‘If my commanders don’t f*** these boys, who will they f***? Their own grandmothers?’

Watch here (start at 2:22):

Napier’s lesson

With this in mind, consider Charles James Napier, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India in the 1840’s.  Hindu priests complained about the prohibition of suttee (also known as Sati), the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands, by British authorities.

According to Napier’s brother William, this is how he replied:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Do we want to be the type of people who stand by and allow children to be raped (or body parts of dead children to be sold for profit)?

Or, do we want to follow in the footsteps of Commander Charles James Napier and stand against clear atrocities?

This author chooses the latter.

Cross posted at Broadside News.