Listen Live – Another Lawfare Loss for CAIR “Muslim-Free Zone” Declaration Can Not Be Suppressed


Robert Muise, Co-Founder & Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), will be interviewed by John McCulloch on Tuesday December 1st at 6 PM EASTERN


regarding another Lawfare loss by the Council on American Islam Relations (CAIR). This time a Federal Court granted the AFLC’s Motion to Dismiss CAIR’s law suit against a Florida gun shop’s declaration of its premises as a “Muslim Free Zone”.

“This dismissal was yet another AFLC victory against CAIR and its jihadi lawfare against patriotic Americans across the country.  This victory follows on the heels of a recent victory against CAIR in a Michigan federal court where CAIR’s subpoenas were quashed and CAIR’s nefarious client sanctioned for abusive practices.  CAIR was born from a jihadi terrorist conspiracy, and it has done little to distance itself from those bona fides.  CAIR is on notice: if you attempt to use the courts to conduct your civilizational jihad, AFLC will be there to defend law-abiding, patriotic Americans and our nation’s national security.  We will match and defeat your civilization jihad with our constitutional lawfare in every courtroom across the nation.”

Listen Live online – http://saleminteractivemedia.com/ListenLive/player/WDTKAM

Call-in to talk with Robert and John – 800-923-9385


Treason, Cowardice, and the Islamic Invasion: Why States Must Revitalize The Militia

By Publius Huldah

To All State Governors and State Legislators:

War is coming to America.  Obama is importing young able-bodied males to make civilizational jihad on us; and Congress can’t summon up the moral courage to stop him.

To see what is ahead for us, watch this 20 minute video.  It depicts the Islamic takeover which is right now going on throughout Europe as European countries are being repopulated by millions of young able-bodied Muslim males (euphemistically called “refugees”) who are explicit about their intention to breed the native Europeans out of existence, and replace the European cultures with Islamic culture.

And Obama is bringing it here.

This paper discusses the two courses of action set forth in Federalist Paper No. 46 for situations such as this: (1) The States must refuse to cooperate with the federal government; but if that doesn’t solve the problem, (2) The States must use their State Militia to defend their State and Citizens.

Invaders are not “Refugees” or “Immigrants”

Those pushing for an Islamic takeover of Europe and North America are referring to these able-bodied young Muslim males as “refugees”.  The use of that term brings the Muslims who are brought into the United States within the federal Refugee Resettlement Act.  And since the Constitution delegates power over immigration to Congress, and Congress re-delegated refugee policy to the President, the States must submit to Obama’s Will and accept the “refugees” he forces on them. Thus goes the specious argument recently made by Ian Millhiser.

But we will look at the Truth.

What does our Constitution say about Immigration and Naturalization?

Immigration (or migration) pertains to new people coming to this Country to live.1 Naturalization refers to the process by which an immigrant becomes a Citizen.

Our Constitution does delegate power over immigration and naturalization to Congress.  Article I, §9, clause 1, delegates to Congress (commencing January 1808) power to control migration. 2 Article I, §8, clause 4, delegates to Congress power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

But what is going on now with the importation of large numbers of able-bodied young Muslim males is not “immigration” as contemplated by our Constitution.  It is an act of war being committed against the People of the United States by their President.  The plan is to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and set up an Islamic Caliphate over America. 3

That is Treason – it is Insurrection.  It is not “immigration”, and it is not “refugee resettlement”.

The States must refuse to cooperate

Michael Boldin’s recent informative article explains how the federal resettlement program works: The federal government coordinates resettlement of “refugees” with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) located within the States, and thus circumvents state and local governments.  Accordingly, the States should promptly stop all such NGO involvement; take control of the programs themselves; and then refuse to cooperate with the federal government.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, spells this out in Federalist No. 46 (7th para).  Respecting  unpopular acts of the federal government:

“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments;  and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

But if the federal government persists, then the States must move to the next Step.

Our Constitution Imposes the Duty on the Federal Government to protect us from Invasion

Article IV, §4, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), Madison says of this provision:

“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…” [emphasis mine]

Article I, §8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power:

“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 delegates to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. The States retain the power to appoint the Officers and conduct the training.

Article II, §2, clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.  [But remember:  the federal government may call forth the Militia only for the three purposes listed in Art. I, §8, cl. 15].

But the federal government hasn’t called forth the Militia to protect the States from the Islamic invasion. To the contrary, the President is importing the invaders and foisting them on the States.

So! What are States and The People to do?  Because the President is aligned with the invaders, and Congress filled with moral cowards,  must we passively submit to having ourselves and our Christian and Jewish children killed, and then let our surviving burka dressed daughters and granddaughters be handed over to the clitoris cutters?

No!  The People have the Natural Right of self-defense; and the States have the reserved Power to defend their Citizens.  With the State Militia, The People and the States have the means to exercise this Natural Right and reserved Power.

The States must Revitalize their State Militia

What is the Militia?  As Dr. Edwin Vieira’s excellent series 4 on the Militia and how it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms shows, the Militia has a long history in America.  That history began with the English settlements in the early 1600s.  Every free male was expected to be armed and prepared at all times to protect himself, his family, and his community.  Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement.  So at the time of the drafting of our Constitution in 1787, everyone knew of this 150 year long history of free American males being required to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to answer the call of Duty.

Accordingly, the above identified “militia clauses” were written into our Constitution of 1787.

In 1792, Congress implemented these militia clauses and passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.  This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a rifle and ammunition pouch, and train.

As Section 1 of the Act shows, the adult able-bodied male Citizens of a State are The Members of their State Militia.  So, continuing the long-standing colonial tradition, Members of Congress in 1792 thought it such a fine idea that all male citizens be armed and trained and members of their State Militia, they required it by federal law!

So! As Art. I, §8, cl. 15 shows, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into national service to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.  But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the Citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para).

And on the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…”

True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4).  But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the People have the natural right to defend themselves, and their States have the retained Power to employ the Militia to defend them from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

The States are within their retained Sovereign Power to call up their State Militia to fend off invaders.  Article I, §10, last clause, is an expression of this retained sovereign Power of States of self-Defense:

“No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded…”

Clearly, the States may use their State Militia to engage in War to defend the States from Invasion.5

James Madison spoke to the same effect as Hamilton respecting federal tyranny.  In Federalist No. 46 (9th para), Madison speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

“…Let a regular army … be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. … [To the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.  It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. …  Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms [an insurmountable] barrier against the enterprises of ambition…” [boldface mine]

Look to Your State Constitution for Provisions re Your State Militia

Article VIII of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee provides for Tennessee’s Militia.  Consistent with the tradition which has existed in this Country since the early 1600s, all Tennessee Citizens are members of this Militia.  Article I, §28, TN Constitution says:

“That no citizen of the state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”

Read your State Constitution.  What does it say about the Militia?  What do the implementing State Statutes say?  Is your State Militia active?  Why not?  For information on revitalizing your State Militia, see Dr. Vieira’s three part series, “Are You Doing Your Constitutional Duty For “Homeland Security”?


Madison closes his magnificent 9th paragraph in Federalist No. 46 with this:

“…Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” [emphasis mine]

But we became “debased subjects of arbitrary power”.  So now, will we lay down before the Invaders and Insurrectionists and those in our federal government who aid and abet them?  Or we will man up, revitalize our State Militia, and show the world that we still have some “free and gallant Citizens of America” in this land?


1 Our Framers contemplated that immigration would be restricted to people who shared our culture and values – e.g., Federalist No. 2, 5th para.

But Americans got conned into believing that an ideal culture is multicultural.  Thus, with Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reform act of 1965, our borders were opened to all.  We congratulated ourselves on our new virtues of “tolerance” and “diversity”.  But the goal of the multiculturalists was to eradicate our unique Culture – we were too gullible to see it.  So now, the enemy is inside the gates, and more are coming in.  And Islam doesn’t tolerate multiculturalism.

2 “Open borders” adherents bristle at the assertion that Congress has constitutional authority to restrict immigration.  They insist that Art. I, §9, cl. 1 addresses only the importation of slaves and says nothing about free immigrants.  But the text distinguishes between “migrations” and “importations”, and the Duty is levied on “importations”, not “migrations”.  Slaves, being “property”, were “imported”.  Free Europeans “migrated”.   The power of the States to determine such persons as it was proper to admit, expired January 1808. There are various letters and speeches from our early days confirming this.  I’ll write it up when I get time (if this doesn’t turn on the light).  For now, see Federalist No. 42 (6th para):

“…Attempts have been made to pervert this clause [Art. I, §9, cl. 1] into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice [slavery], and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.” [boldface mine]

Our Framers understood that the national government must be able to determine who is allowed to come here. That’s why Art. I, §9, cl. 1 delegates to Congress power to control immigration, commencing January 1808.  And isn’t one of your complaints against the federal government that it has refused for so long to control our Borders?

3 See the website for The Center for Security Policy (Frank J. Gaffney) HERE.   There you can read The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and take over all American Institutions. They are working to make this Country part of a global Islamic caliphate.  Open your eyes NOW.

4 Do read all 8 of Dr. Vieira’s papers in this series.  They get very moving.

5 “Troops” as in Art. I, §10, last clause, are professional full-time soldiers.  States may not keep “Troops” absent consent of Congress.  But the States’ Militia is a permanent State institution.  The States retain their pre-constitutional powers over their Militia, subject only to the federal government’s limited supremacy set forth in the 3 Militia clauses [See Part 2 of Dr. Vieira’s paper HERE.] PH

Ted Cruz Thanksgiving

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 11/28/15

The Watcher’s Council

Ted Cruz Thanksgiving

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, left, speaks during the Presidential Family Forum as Ben Carson listens, Friday, Nov. 20, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, left, speaks during the Presidential Family Forum as Ben Carson listens, Friday, Nov. 20, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

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

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. – Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

I have neither curiosity, interest, pain nor pleasure, in anything, good or evil, they can say of me. I feel only a slight disgust, and a sort of wonder that they presume to write my name. – Percy Bysshe Shelley

The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. – Malcolm X

Republicans and Democrats are obsessed with making sure that illegal aliens are granted citizenship. The American people are not. They’re concerned about jobs, the economy, debt. They’re concerned about a plundering country. They’re concerned about a decaying, dying country. – Rush Limbaugh


This week’s winning essay, Bookworm Room’s The Wall Street Journal’s hatchet job on Ted Cruz, is pretty much about what the title implies it is. As Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz continues to rise in the polls, like Donald Trump he becomes a target for character assassination and trial by media… not just for his conservative principles, but in particular for his positions on illegal migration. That’s an issue dear to the heart of both Leftist Democrats and as we see here, the GOP establishment. Bookworm takes this effort by Kim Strassel apart in her usually erudite fashion. Here’s a slice:

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I support Ted Cruz. I realize he’s not perfect, but no candidate is. What matters to me is that his political values most closely align with mine, that he’s not scared of a fight (and, especially, he’s not scared of the media), and that he is truly smarter than just about everyone else out there. I learned yesterday, though, that Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal most definitely does not like Cruz. She wrote a savage hit piece on him essentially blaming him for ISIS’s ability to spread throughout the United States. (That spread, of course, has nothing to do with Obama’s open borders policy and the contempt he shows for every person and idea that suggests that Islam might have a problem.)

But before honing in on her perception about Cruz’s alleged security failures, Strassel first lambastes him as a rank opportunist who cares only about self-aggrandizement and refuses to take care of the GOP’s needs:

The senator’s supporters adore him because they see him in those moments when he has positioned himself as the hero. To them he is the stalwart forcing a government shutdown over ObamaCare. He’s the brave soul calling to filibuster in defense of gun rights. He’s the one keeping the Senate in lame-duck session to protest Mr. Obama’s unlawful immigration orders.

Mr. Cruz’s detractors see a man who engineers moments to aggrandize himself at the expense of fellow conservatives. And they see the consequences. They wonder what, exactly, Mr. Cruz has accomplished.

ObamaCare is still on the books. It took the GOP a year to recover its approval ratings after the shutdown, which helped deny Senate seats to Ed Gillespie in Virginia and Scott Brown in New Hampshire. Mr. Obama’s immigration orders are still on the books. The courts gained a dozen liberal judges, all with lifetime tenure, because the lame-duck maneuver gave Democrats time to cram confirmation votes through. Mr. Cruz’s opportunism tends to benefit one cause: Mr. Cruz.

So it’s Cruz’s fault we have Obamacare and it’s his fault because . . . he took a principled stand against it? (I admired that stand when he took it and I still do.) The fact is that Cruz is one of the few Republicans in Congress who actually stood by the party planks and actual promises he and other alleged conservatives made to voters since 2008. He is the only one in Congress on the right who shows the slightest bit of spine. So when Strassel writes, “but Obamacare is still on the books,” the real question shouldn’t be “How do we blame Ted Cruz?” Instead, the real question should be “How did this happen when Republicans control Congress and the purse strings?”

Strassel’s claim that, following Cruz’s principled stand, it took Republicans “a year to recover,” is patently ridiculous. Republicans have enjoyed greater electoral success in the past six years than the party ever has — and she is going to blame defeats in Virginia and Massachusetts on Cruz. That is infuriating.

The above insults are just throat-clearing for Strassel’s real issue: Ted Cruz has made us less safe than we should be because he refuses to authorize the government to turn America into even more of a police state with endless spying on citizens:

Mr. Cruz regaled the crowd about how he had opposed a proposal to intervene in Syria and how he doesn’t support “nation building.” To this he could add a few others: He has consistently voted against defense reauthorization bills that enable troop funding. And this spring he ginned up support to pass a law that undercuts the National Security Agency’s ability to use metadata to root out terror plots. Mr. Cruz, citing “privacy rights,” co-sponsored the bill, along with Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Al Franken and Barbara Boxer.


It may have seemed like a good idea to Mr. Cruz at the time. But after Paris, he finds himself with a national security agenda that is increasingly at odds with the public will. Florida’s Marco Rubio (who opposed the NSA bill) had fun this week reminding Americans of the stark foreign-policy differences between himself and the Texan, noting that Mr. Cruz has supported laws that “weaken U.S. intelligence.” Mr. Rubio, who has delivered at least 10 major foreign-policy addresses in the past few years, is running as the unabashed hawk, calling for robust new U.S. world leadership. Mr. Cruz may have walked himself into playing the counterpoint—a Rand Paul stand-in.

Strassel is snide — and she is wrong. Cruz is absolutely right to place limits on the NSA and meta-data. As is developed at some length my post about a talk by Mary Theroux of the Independent Institute, all of us should be deeply suspicious about our government at this point — a government that hoards people’s information like a miser and that is becoming ever more out of control and the master, not the servant, in this country:

The government’s spying on American citizens is so enormous we literally cannot comprehend its scope. The data collection (which is in the multiple zetabytes) grossly violates our inherent Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. NSA employees before Snowden tried to blow the whistle on this beginning around the year 2000, and got ferociously persecuted by the government because of their efforts. Snowden’s spectacular leak broke that log jam.

But here’s the really important thing that Theroux said: The government gets so much data, it’s useless for the stated purpose of crime and terrorism prevention. As it comes in, it’s simply so much white noise. It certainly didn’t stop 9/11 or the Boston bombing. In this regard, think of England, which has more CCTVs per capita than any other country in the 1st world, and maybe in any world. Nevertheless, these cameras do nothing to prevent crime. As the number of cameras has increased, so has the crime rate. The data is useful only after the fact, to help (sometimes) apprehend the criminal.

Well, one can argue that ex post facto apprehension is a good thing — but it’s a good thing only if there’s been a clear violation of a pretty well known law (e.g., don’t beat people to death or don’t rob a jewelry store). We’re looking at something much more sinister here. Think of the volume of law in America and, worse, think of the staggering volumes of rules interpreting those laws.

As Theroux noted, Stalin’s chief of police famously said (and I’m paraphrasing) give me the man and I can find the crime. We Americans have a government that’s sitting on data that can be used to criminalize us after the fact the current government (Republican or Democrat or Third Party) doesn’t like us. It’s like a landmine under every American.

No thinking citizen should trust a government that produces a Lois Lerner and then protects her from indictment, even though at least one of the charges against her is that she released private data the IRS held to Democrats for partisan purposes. Nor are abusive employees the only problem. Don’t forget that the government is so dysfunctional that the Office of Personnel Management allowed personal information for millions of employees (including social security numbers and security check information) to get into hackers’ hands. Our government has proven itself to be both corrupt and incompetent, yet Strassel excoriates Cruz for refusing to give it an even longer leash.

Here’s the reality: All that meta-data the government collected has yet to be used to stop a single terrorist incident. All it does is collect more and more information that our government can use against us. It is an Orwellian nightmare that Stalin and other authoritarians of whatever stripe could only dream of having. If it had stopped the Tsarnaev brothers, or any of the other attacks on our soil, perhaps we should feel differently, but there is no evidence that it has made any real difference.

Our Founding Fathers had several guiding principles, one of which is that the good intentions of a benevolent government could not be trusted in perpetuity. The Founders loved George Washington and would have elected him King, but they were worried that a George Washington III might prefer to be a tyrant.

Much more good stuff at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Victor Davis Hanson with Obama Has Just Begun, submitted by Fausta’s Blog. Hanson, a classist and historian as well as a stunning writer tells us baldly that this last year of Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency is likely to be the most dangerous for the country – and why. This is a must read.

Here are this week’s full results. A number of our members – Fausta, GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD, Nice Deb, The Noisy Room and Puma By Design were unable to vote this week, but were not subject to the 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

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

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

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

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


Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Origin Of The Species Edition

The Watcher’s Council


(Graphics by Rick McKee)

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:

Bookworm scored big this week. She was cited and linked once by the one and only Mark Steyn and once by talk radio star Mark Levin’s website, thus proving the intelligence and good taste these gentlemen possess. Council Akbar!

This week, The Pirate’s Cove, Powerline, The People’s Cube and Blazing Cat Fur 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 email address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

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

Council Submissions:

Honorable Mentions:

Non-Council Submissions:

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everyone! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that! And remember to tune in Friday for the results!

Judge Jeanine Pirro

Judge Jeanine Rips Obama Over Refugee Talk: ‘Be Honest For Once’

Barack Obama

Choosing national suicide

Family Security Matters

As Winston Churchill noted in his indictment of appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, “there is a great danger in refusing to believe things you do not like.”

Barack Hussein Obama is succeeding in his fundamental transformation; that is, dismantling the United States as a capitalist republic, based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles.

Obama is dangerous as a President because his ideologies, Marxism and sympathy for Islam, drive him to pursue policies that run counter to the national interest, the well-being of the American people and, quite frankly, the survival of the country. His mendacity is compounded by his arrogance and narcissism that prevent him from accepting responsibility and learning from his mistakes. He is not on our side.

People ask – How can this be happening to our country? What can we do to stop it?

It can happen because the political-media establishment does not consider the United States “our” country. The political-media establishment considers the United States “their” country, in which ordinary Americans are permitted to live as long as we elect those they want elected and continue to pay taxes to support their lavish life styles and to maintain the corrupt status quo. Welcome to feudal America.

It can happen because, like Obama, the Democrat Party, the liberal media and academia are populated with the same Islamo-Marxists, a totalitarian marriage of convenience, distinguished by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and a belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed. Through unregulated immigration, Democrats seek to alter the demographics of the United States to create a permanent one-party state to implement their far-left totalitarian agenda. Islamists have something similar in mind, albeit even more brutal and oppressive.

It can happen because America’s domestic enemies promulgate notions that attack the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. They also promote policies that weaken our ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built e.g. the Common Core assault on American education. Anti-American, messianic political movements can only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined, not by personal freedom endowed by the Creator, but by the destiny of the community, endowed by a ruling elite of commissars or mullahs.

In can happen in any otherwise sophisticated society that loses a sense of its own history, succumbs to a present-tense culture and embraces the false promises of a leftist utopia in order to generate the truly blissed-out and vacant servitude required by the Obama strategy. Using media deception and historical revisionism, the low-information voter will slouch towards Obama’s utopia by a combination of governmental coercion as in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and the hedonist nihilism of a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus managed by the nanny-state found in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.

It can happen because the Republican establishment and its propaganda arm, Fox News, choose not to expose and oppose Obama to any extent that it might place in jeopardy their position as junior partners in the corrupt political-media status quo. They are funded by and serve the Chamber of Commerce and a broader class of wealthy global financiers, locusts, who view America as just another landmass and people to exploit.  Republicans are not in Congress to represent their constituency or solve the nation’s problems, but to perpetuate themselves in office. As the Republican establishment’s grip on power becomes ever more tenuous, they will more aggressively oppose internal political challenges, whether it is from Donald Trump or the Tea Party and they more eagerly work together with Obama and the Democrats.

Case in point is the cynical piece of legislative window dressing, but appropriately-named  SAFE ACT (American Security Against Foreign Enemies), recently passed by a bipartisan “veto-proof” 289-137 majority in the Paul Ryan (R-WI)-led House of Representatives. It is being heralded by the political-media establishment as a bill that would “erect high hurdles for Syrian and Iraqi refugees coming to American shores” and “require new FBI background checks and individual sign-offs from three high-ranking U.S. officials before any refugee could come to the U.S. from Iraq or Syria.” Those descriptions are nonsensical at best, outright lies at worst. FBI Director James Comey already testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks for terrorist ties on all Syrian refugees. The legislation does not cover potential terrorists coming from countries other than Iraq and Syria. Finally, the SAFE ACT gives final approval authority for entry solely to the Obama Administration, which has vowed to flood the country with refugees i.e. to facilitate a Muslim invasion of the U.S. similar to that we are witnessing in Europe, all financed by George Soros. The SAFE ACT does not provide physical safety for the American people, but it does provide political safety for the Republican establishment in the form of disinformation and legislative legerdemain.

In essence, the Republican establishment, in choosing to collaborate with Obama and the Democrats, is choosing national suicide. They prefer that option to representative government.

What can we do to stop it?

More than anything else, the political-media establishment does not want the American people to take back our country. The legislation, executive orders and judicial decisions emanating from Washington D.C. are geared to maintain the status quo or enhance the power of the federal government over the American people.

More than any other time in our history has the separation between the rulers and the ruled been as great and it bears comparison to the events leading up to the American Revolution. Whenever the interests of government officials are in such stark conflict with those of the people, tyranny ensues.

Frederick Douglass wrote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

I think the American people are running out of words.

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 lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.


Runestad: Give communities say on refugees resettlement

By: State Rep. Jim Runestad
The Detroit News


State Rep. Jim Runestad

The heinous attack in Paris by Islamic State terrorists is an example of how this group of extremists continues to infiltrate peaceful communities worldwide and wreak havoc.

As a result of the unprovoked attack by ISIS in France, many governors in America including Gov. Rick Snyder, suspended relocation of Syrian refugees to communities in their states. I commend Snyder for his decisive action to protect Michigan residents.

Several days prior to the attacks in Paris, I drafted two bills to protect Michigan residents by establishing regulations regarding refugee relocation and expanding the requirements to check the backgrounds of those who wish to move from unstable nations into our communities.

One of the bills suspends the use of state funds to assist the federal government in its voluntary Refugee Resettlement Program until the state Legislature and local communities are given a say in relocating refugees.

Between 2008 and 2014, the federal government has resettled more than 27,000 refugees from 60 different nations into 120 Michigan communities, without the approval of the state or the communities into which these exiles were moved. I believe, and my bill requires, that the Legislature and county governments should have the final say about immigrants making a home in Michigan. As a sovereign state, we should not and cannot be forced to comply with a voluntary federal program that could have a tremendous negative impact on our neighborhoods.

My other measure prevents resettlement of people from so-called failed states whose backgrounds cannot be checked because of a weak government that has no database on its citizens.

Failed states are nations that have a high degree of corruption and criminality and a government that does little to control that corruption. Since there is no avenue for finding out if a refugee has a past criminal record or is part of a corrupt organization, we must suspend the habit of allowing individuals from these failed states whose backgrounds have not been reviewed to enter our communities. My bill prevents the federal government from allowing this unchecked immigration from those rogue nations.

I believe America and Michigan are melting pots and have assimilated good citizens from diverse nations, many of whom have contributed greatly to our success. I believe that Michigan residents deserve to know that citizens from diverse nations seeking a new home have been fully vetted and pose no threat to their families. Until we can guarantee we are not allowing terrorists to relocate in Michigan communities, we should cease accepting immigrants whose intentions are not known.

State Rep. Jim Runestad is a Republican from White Lake.

Border Security

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 11/21/15

The Watcher’s Council

Barack Obama


John Kerry

Border Security

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

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. – Thomas Jefferson, 1786 in a report to John Jay, then US Secretary of Foreign Affairs

Liberty and freedom are so very precious that you do not fight and win them once and stop. They’re prizes awarded only to those peoples who fight to win them and then keep fighting eternally to hold them. – WWI Medal of Honor winner Alvin York,from a speech in front of the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day, 1941.

I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself. – Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ‘Democracy In America.’

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them – Qu’ran, 8:12

And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah – Qu’ran,8:39

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. – Qu’ran 9:29


This week’s winning essay, Joshuapundit’s Why The West Is Doomed…, is my reflection on recent events in Paris and elsewhere, the response of our political elites, the inherent danger in referring to the Paris attacks as ‘terrorism’ and what must be done in order to change course. Here’s a slice:

Unless we make a major corrections and entirely change direction, what happened in Paris is just the beginning of the end, and the West is headed for horrendous consequences and perhaps even defeat.

It’s been just a few days since the atrocity in Paris, and the response to it has been similar to other jihadist attacks. They range from the usual suspects actually excusing the brutality and talking about how it has nothing to do with Islam ala’ Mrs. Clinton  to misdirected remarks for ‘action’ that resemble nothing so much as the old carny game of whack-a-mole, this time with ISIS as the target d’jour.

Walk with me awhile and let’s examine the real problems we face, along with what’s really involved in solving them.  I guarantee you won’t be bored. I haven’t seen much real analysis anywhere on how to actually win this conflict for obvious reasons,because they involve dealing with some uncomfortable realities. Here’s a small spoiler preview…ISIS is neither the main problem nor even the main target.

From the first, we were lied to. According to President George W. Bush post 9/11, we were fighting a war on ‘terrorism’. To President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we’re at war with ‘extremism.’ They all have their own reasons for misdirecting the American people, most of which have nothing to do with either the good of the United States or making any real progress in actually winning the conflict against the faux target they’ve created.

We’re in a war, all right. And ISIS is just one of the players.It’s high time we realized that rather than an ISIS problem, we have a major problem with Islam..in particular, with Islamic fascism and its adherents.And even worse, we have problems that could very well doom civilization and freedom as we know it if we continue along the present course.

The idea that we’re fighting ‘terrorism’ or ‘extremism’ is especially ludicrous and using the terms are   a gross insult to our collective intelligence. ‘Extremism’ is a vague, dubious and deliberately subjective term designed to cloak reality in fog, and  ‘terrorism,’ after all, is a common tactic of war, designed for one purpose and one purpose only – to erode an enemy’s desire and ability to make war.

In the Middle Ages, a common tactic of waging war was to try to destroy the wealth of an enemy and its ability to support warfare by sacking towns and farmlands. Another example more familiar to Americans was General William T. Sherman’s March To The Sea through the most productive part of the Confederacy, leaving a swath of destruction and desolation in their path. They burned Atlanta and other cities and towns  to the ground, destroyed not only military targets but civilian property and infrastructure, and lived off the land by ‘foraging,’ which essentially meant stealing whatever they found and leaving the civilians with a bare minimum to survive on if they were fortunate.The idea was to end the war by degrading the South’s ability and will to fight, and it was very successful in that regard.


We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience. – General Sherman in a report to Union Chief Of Staff  General Henry Halleck, December, 1864.

Similar tactics were used in both world wars by both sides for similar reasons.

French President Hollande was entirely correct that the attack on Paris was an act of war, but it was not ‘terrorism’ or mindless carnage to no purpose. After all, France has been committing acts of war against ISIS by flying 200 air support missions against both combatants and civilians in ISIS territory since September of 2014.

The tactical idea involved also made sense – to remind the West that their cities and their civilians are also vulnerable and can be reached by ISIS.

Every master of strategic thinking whether its Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, General MacArthur or Napoleon has shared certain basic principles in common. They’ve all agreed that in order to successfully wage and win a war, you must have clear goals, know whom your enemy is and secure your base. To that, I’d add utilizing effective leadership and motivated forces.

Not only is the West not doing any of these things, it’s doing its best to do the exact opposite. To really get perspective on that, let’s look at how ISIS and other jihadist entities, both Sunni and Shi’ite are waging their war against us as opposed to  how we’re doing whatever it is we’ve  been doing for the past decade and a half or so.

They have secured their bases, and there’s little or no fifth column within. Anyone they even suspect of betrayal or less than full commitment to victory is immediately and ruthlessly dealt with. Both their enemies and their goals are clearly defined and marked out with formal declarations of war after the Islamic tradition, which both Osama bin-Laden and ISIS adhered to. On the Shi’ite side, Iran makes no secret of their hostility to us. They want death to America and President Obama is helping them get the tools for the job.

ISIS leaders and their fighters are dedicated, brave and more than prepared to fight and die for Allah and the Caliphate. The Paris attacks were carried out by young fighters willing to give their lives to accomplish their mission. So were their successful attacks on Iraqi forces who on paper outnumbered them and were far better equipped, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

In contrast, our leaders resort to the most tortuous euphemisms to avoid actually mentioning our real enemy or even establishing more than the most vague and general goals. Unlike al-Qaeda in it’s heyday, The Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Hizb’ al-Tahrir and ISIS, there’s no declaration of war by us and no defining of whom or what we’re fighting at all.

Not only have they not secured our base, but our current leadership has actually enabled the breaching of those bases, encouraging mass migration from questionable Muslim countries where Islamism and jihadist thought are quite popular.

As a result of that migration and in particular America’s tolerance and even appeasement of  Saudi and Emirate funded Muslim Brotherhood  front groups like CAIR, The North American Islamic Trust, The Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, The Islamic Society Of North America and others, a fifth column in America is rampant. Not only are young Muslims radicalized in mosques and madrassahs here by radical imams, but jihadist web sites and platforms like al-Jazeerah, or Jihad TV as I call it are readily accessible.

As opposed to the militaries of our opponents in this war, our severely scaled back forces have seen much of their best combat leaders and experienced combat troops forced into retirement or out of the service to make way for a military that  appears to be far more concerned with transgender rights, ‘diversity’ and placing women in combat roles regardless of whether they meet physical requirements to do so than concentrating on defeating our enemies.  Retention is at an all time low. And as for faith, even mentioning G-d is likely to get you reprimanded or even bounced out of the service – unless of course, you’re talking aggressively about Islam’s ultimate victory  over the Infidels and putting ‘Soldier of Allah’ on your official business card like Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood murderer did.

Finally, our lack of decisive leadership speaks for itself. We have no strategy and no clear goals  and we haven’t for years. President Obama isn’t even following the old rule of  ‘at the very least, do no harm.’  His destabilizing the Middle East and paving the way for Iranian nuclear weapons is a nightmare his successors in office as well as the American people will have to face and it will not be pretty.

Again – and I can’t emphasize this enough – we are in a war with Islamic fascism, and it’s supporter are far from being as much of a minority as certain people would lead you to believe. And yes, is does have everything to do with Islam. There is nothing Boko Haram, Hamas,  Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, Hizb’ al Tarir, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime or any of the other so-called ‘extremists’ are doing that is not sanctioned by the Qu’ran. Nothing.

That, by the way is very different from being in a war with Muslims. Many of them are decent and peaceful people. But Islam itself is not going to be reformed. It is a violent religion that brutalizes women and non-believers and was designed for world conquest. As Mohammed told his followers before he died in 632 CE, they are commanded to fight the infidels until they died, became Muslims or paid massive protection money or other tribute for their lives to Muslims and “felt themselves subdued.”

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Sultan Knish with Why Islam is the Religion of War, submitted by The Independent Sentinel.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Puma By Design was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty:

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?

Catholic Campaign

Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In the face of President Obama’s veto threat, members of Congress may not be able to pass legislation suspending or upgrading the program permitting refugees from Syria, the Middle East and North Africa to settle in the U.S. But the Republican Congress certainly has the power to hold hearings into the millions of taxpayer dollars being funneled through Catholic and other church groups to bring them here. Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike would like to know how “religious compassion,” using federal money, is increasing the potential terrorist threat to America.

You may recall that Pope Francis promoted the Obama administration’s pro-immigration policies during his visit to the U.S. Left unsaid was the fact that the American branch of the Roman Catholic Church is getting millions of taxpayer dollars to settle refugees. According to their financial statement for 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops received over $79 million in government grants to provide benefits to refugees.

Simply stated, Congress can expose how the money is being spent and cut it off.

Some of the refugees being settled are Catholics from Latin America who join the church in the U.S. But others are from the Middle East. Ironically, the Catholic Bishops are bringing Muslims in, while closing down Catholic churches inside the U.S.

Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch website notes that Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was closed down by the Catholic Church and has been leased to an Islamic society which renamed it Mosque Of Jesus The Son Of Mary.

“There are slim copper crescents where, for 100 years, there had been crosses,”reports Marnie Eisenstadt of the Syracuse Post-Standard and Syracuse.com. She adds, “The six crosses were removed and replaced at the end of June. Four of them were massive: 600 pounds of concrete each, and more than 4 feet tall. The step was the last, and most visible, in the building’s change from church to mosque.”

The situation is even worse in Europe, where Islam is replacing Christianity as the dominant religion.

The Catholic News Agency reports that only 2.9 percent of the French population actually practice the Catholic faith. That compares to 3.8 percent of the population that practice Islam.

It is reported that as many as 150 new mosques currently are under construction in France.

Nevertheless, in response to the recent wave of Muslims fleeing the Middle East, Pope Francis has appealed to Europe’s Catholics, calling on “every” parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary to take in one refugee family.

The Catholic Church in America would clearly prefer to bring immigrants into the U.S. from Latin America, where Catholicism is still strong, and have them join Catholic churches in the U.S. The Catholic Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reports that 40 percent of all growth in registered parishioners in Catholic parishes between 2005 and 2010 was from Hispanic or Latino Catholics.

But even with the massive immigration from Latin America, Catholic churches around the U.S. are still being closed down. A group called Future Church reportsthat hundreds of parishes have been merged or closed in New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland and many other urban and rural places.

“Recently,” the group reported, “the Archdiocese of New York merged or closed more than 70 parishes, often in the face of staunch opposition by committed parishioners. Pope Francis, during his U.S. visit, stopped at Our Lady Queen of Angels School in East Harlem, where the Archdiocese closed the parish in 2007.”

Corcoran has recorded a popular video, sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, explaining the history of resettlement refugee policies and their connections to Muslim groups and the United Nations.

James Simpson’s book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, notes that the Catholic Church has been a major component of the open borders movement.

Many Catholic groups are proud of the federal dollars they receive, for purposes that go far beyond refugee resettlement.

Overall, reports Network, the self-described Catholic Social Justice Lobby, “…the Obama administration has actually increased funding for Catholic nonprofit organizations and programs. In fact, more than $1.5 billion went to Catholic organizations over the past two years.” These figures include an increase from just over $440 million (2008) to more than $554 million (2010) to Catholic Charities USA.

In addition to direct federal grants to help refugees, government at various levels provide subsidized housing, healthcare, food stamps, other cash assistance, and free education. There is also a cost to the criminal justice system of taking care of the criminals among them.

It’s the Catholic role, in collaboration with the federal government, in bringing refugees to the U.S. that caused Corcoran to leave the church. She told Accuracy in Media, “In 2002, having been raised in a protestant faith, I became a Catholic. For a few years I loved being a Catholic. All of that changed beginning in 2007 when I learned that another church group began resettling mostly Muslim refugees to my rural county in Western Maryland. I learned that the church group was largely funded and directed by the U.S. State Department to place the refugees in our county with no local input.”

She added, “But that is not everything I learned. My research led me to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ acceptance of over $70 million a year of taxpayer dollars to similarly resettle thousands of impoverished third-worlders, many from Muslim countries, in other unsuspecting towns and cities. Catholic Charities throughout the U.S. get many millions more to do the work as well.”

She says this kind of work by the Catholic and other churches is not Christian charity. “As harsh as it sounds,” she says, “I look on it as thievery when a supposedly non-profit ‘religious charity’ helps itself to the U.S. Treasury and then pats itself on the back for doing good works. And then lobbies Congress for more money for itself to boot!”

Corcoran said she has found reporters reluctant to investigate the federal dollars going to the Catholic Church. “When talking with a reporter recently I was told by the reporter that he would never even have dreamed to look into where the U.S. Bishops were getting their millions of dollars for their ‘migration fund,’ presuming it was from the personal charitable donations of good and generous Catholics in hundreds of parishes across the country,” she said. “I suspect all those good Catholics never think to ask the question either—where are the millions coming from?”

“Why aren’t more reporters exposing the U.S. Bishops deep pockets?” she asks. “And, why are our ‘leaders,’ even our budget hawks, in Washington not speaking up?”

Pearls Before Swine

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Plus ça Change Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Yes, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – the more things change, the more they stay the same.

It’s unlikely, but recent events in Paris might just open some people’s eyes when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Kudos to Stephen Pastis, who tweeted this 2003 strip to the world yesterday with the message “It applies now as much as ever.”

As Bob Marley once sang, who feels it knows it.

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:

We currently have a vacancy on the Watcher’s Council. If you’re interested in being considered for membership in the oldest, most established and most enjoyable blogging group in the ‘sphere, please leave a comment (which won’t be published) with your name, site name and an e-mail in the comments section of any article at Joshuapundit.

This week, The Pirate’s Cove, The PoliticalCommentator, Simply Jews and Benjamin Weingarten 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 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

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

Council Submissions:

Honorable Mentions:

Non-Council Submissions:

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