04/17/15
Hillary Clinton

The Council Has Spoken – Our Watcher’s Council Results – 04/17/15

The Watcher’s Council


Brooklyn Bridge


Port Authority


30 Rock Subway


Las Vegas


Brooklyn


Watts Towers – LA Ghetto

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

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

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

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

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

http://i1.wp.com/3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nEAkWOufFU/T366WMxCdrI/AAAAAAAABOg/easpV-8FMnM/s400/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg?w=540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Cruz will only get better as he goes along.

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

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

Profiles of Senator Rand Paul and others at the link.

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

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

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?

04/17/15
Judith Miller

Judith Miller Opens Old Iraq War Wounds, and Sheds Some New Light

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, has sparked a fierce reaction from a mainstream media intent on continuing to blame George W. Bush’s “lies” for the Iraq War with her new book, The Story: A Reporter’s Journey. The book has produced a general disgust from a media intent on ignoring important revelations she’s made in this book. Instead the mainstream media have chosen to focus on her alleged agenda-driven reporting leading up to the invasion of Iraq, while for the most part ignoring additional details about how weak the prosecution was against Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Miller now says that not only was she wrong when she testified that Libby had outed CIA operations officer Valerie Plame to her, but that the federal prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was on a vendetta designed to implicate former Vice President Dick Cheney himself in the conspiracy to expose Plame, with Libby as a convenient victim sacrificed in pursuit of Fitzgerald’s agenda.

Ms. Miller’s testimony was vital to the trial. She was “the only reporter who asserted that Mr. Libby volunteered information about Mr. Wilson’s wife,” writes Peter Berkowitz of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, in a long piece for The Wall Street Journal, entitled “The False Evidence Against Scooter Libby.” Now she says her memory is unclear, and that Libby probably hadn’t “talked about Plame with me that day.”

Her testimony at the trial interpreted notes from a conversation years past. Not knowing that Plame had worked for the State Department, Miller interpreted those notes to support the premise that Libby had told her about Plame’s position at the CIA.

“If Libby, a seasoned bureaucrat, had been trying to plant her employer with me at our first meeting in June, he would not have used the word Bureau to describe where Plame worked,” writes Miller in The Story. That’s because, she writes, “The CIA is organized by offices within divisions” whereas the “State Department is divided into functional offices and regional and other ‘bureaus’…”

“Reading Plame’s book had put my reference to that word—in parentheses and with a question mark—in a new light,” she writes. “Libby probably hadn’t used it, or talked about Plame with me that day.”

“Had Fitzgerald’s questions about whether my use of the word Bureau meant the FBI steered me in the wrong direction?” she wonders in her book. “Had I helped convict an innocent man?”

Such an error would prove troubling for any reporter, and probably for anyone who might have accidentally testified falsely. It was courageous of Miller to acknowledge that she had been misled given her already controversial reputation.

Her after-the-fact explanation actually fits with contemporaneous accounts “She was confused about that at first, she said,” the Associated Press reported back in 2007. “‘Through the context of the discussion, I quickly determined it to be the CIA,’ she testified.”

Fitzgerald had a transparent agenda, according to her 2014 interview with Joe Tate, Libby’s lawyer until the criminal trial, writes Miller. Tate told her that Fitzgerald told him, “Unless you can deliver someone higher up—the vice president—I’m going forth with the indictment,” a bargain Fitzgerald offered him twice, according to Miller’s book.

Accuracy in Media (AIM) has reported extensively on the flaws in the way Libby’s prosecution was conducted. Yet years later ABC News was still including this “scandal” in its top ten political scandals of the 21st century, and reporting the facts from Plame’s and her husband, Joe Wilson’s biased perspectives. “It’s unfortunate that this story has to be re-litigated time and again,” I wrote in 2013.

The story of Libby’s trial will not be re-litigated again here, but my numerous accounts of the myths surrounding this story outline essential details on how this trial has become one of the most misreported stories in recent history.

Miller’s account validates AIM’s consistent reporting on the subject: “I wrote or co-wrote with Cliff Kincaid a series of articles during and after the Libby trial that showed he was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, and that Bush did a disservice to Libby and his own legacy by not having the courage of his conviction to pardon Libby rather than just commute his sentence.”

“Indeed, the prosecution presented no hard evidence that Libby had lied,” I wrote. “Instead, the prosecution asked the jury to infer that Libby had (with no motive) lied, based simply on the jury’s experience of the accuracy of memory.”

And now Miller says her memory was likely not accurate at all.

Miller apparently discovered her error upon reading Plame’s book, Fair Game; Libby himself had suggested to her she might find “something of interest” in it.

According to her account in The Story, Miller has been treated very harshly by the Times, and considers herself a scapegoat for the Times’ and news media’s overall discontent with the war coverage. “Other news outlets had followed my lead,” she writes. “That made me Azazel, the biblical goat upon which the community heaped its many sins.”

“‘Judy’s stories about WMD,’ wrote the Times’ Maureen Dowd, ‘fit too closely with the White House’s case for war,’” I noted back in 2005. “That was the bottom line of the anger and venom, some of it very personal, aimed at Miller by the likes of Dowd and Frank Rich.” I also pointed out how Miller was far from being the only reporter, or editorial writer, at the Times to have written about Saddam’s possession and pursuit of WMD, some of which turned out to be wrong, but by no means all of it.

Recall that it was then-President Bill Clinton, who in 1998 signed the Iraq Liberation Act, making regime change official U.S. policy, and he ordered the sustained bombing of Baghdad in December of that year. As the bombs began to fall, Clinton told the nation, “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

The animosity between Miller and the Times remains palpable. “To Ms. Miller’s credit, this is not a score-settling book, although Bill Keller, the executive editor who she says forced her out of The Times, gets walked around the block naked a couple of times and competing reporters receive just-for-old-times’-sake elbows to their rib cages,” writes Terry McDermott for the Times.

“Cast out of the journalistic temple, she says she felt ‘stateless,’ and from the evidence here she remains a bit lost,” he writes in the book review—ending it with a pointed, unnecessary jab. “This sad and flawed book won’t help her be found.”

Similarly, Erik Wemple of The Washington Post calls the book “depressing,” “desperate,” and written with a “tedious grand design.” And while Wemple cites Libby early in his review for his criminal conviction, he never touches on the points made by Miller that pointed to his persecution by Fitzgerald and exoneration as it related to Miller.

“A two-year study by Charles Duelfer, the former deputy chief of the U.N. inspectors who led America’s hunt for WMD in Iraq, concluded that Saddam Hussein was playing a double game, trying…to get sanctions lifted and inspectors out of Iraq and…to persuade Iran and other foes that he had retained WMD,” wrote Miller for The Wall Street Journal in an op-ed published on April 3. “Often forgotten is Mr. Duelfer’s well-documented warning that Saddam intended to restore his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted.”

Miller’s account is the more accurate, if less politically correct, one, despite the media’s ongoing animosity toward any evidence or argument that may absolve Bush from the accusation that he lied—and misled us into the Iraq War.

“Neighboring Kuwait and Iran also thought Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction,” notes Berkowitz for Real Clear Politics. “So did some of Saddam’s field commanders.” So did the British government, the French, and many of the other countries in the coalition that went to war with us in Iraq. Last year, The New York Times, of all places, revealed in a major series of articles titled “The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons,” that “American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs” during the Iraq War, but the Bush administration chose to keep it quiet. Clearly, the stockpiles of WMD that they expected to find once Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein were not found. The debate over that issue, and the significance of the Times’ findings, continues. But it is wrong to argue that no WMD were found in Iraq.

Berkowitz, in his Wall Street Journal analysis, took a deeper look at the actions of Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Libby, and it wasn’t pretty: “Mr. Fitzgerald’s conduct warrants revisiting not only to set the record straight about Mr. Libby, but also to illustrate the damage that can be done to national security by a special counsel who, discovering no crime, generates through his investigations the alleged offenses he seeks to prosecute.”

And this, which detailed how Fitzgerald withheld exculpatory evidence from Libby’s lawyers that could have absolutely made a difference in the final outcome of the trial: “Mr. Fitzgerald, who had the classified file of Ms. Plame’s service, withheld her State Department cover from Ms. Miller—and from Mr. Libby’s lawyers, who had requested Ms. Plame’s employment history,” wrote Berkowitz. “Despite his constitutional and ethical obligation to provide exculpatory evidence, Mr. Fitzgerald encouraged Ms. Miller to misinterpret her ambiguous notes as showing that Mr. Libby brought up Ms. Plame.”

Berkowitz also made the most salient point regarding this whole prosecution. The idea, when the investigation began in late summer of 2003, was to find out who leaked Valerie Plame’s name and identity to reporters, specifically to Robert Novak, who first reported it in a July 2003 column. By October, the FBI knew where the leak came from. It was Richard Armitage, from the State Department, who unlike some at the White House was opposed to going to war against Saddam. But that was kept quiet, and when Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor in December of that year, the case should have been closed. But Fitzgerald chose to seek a conviction against Libby by arguing that he was lying, rather than that his memory was confused when he spoke months later following his July 2003 conversation with Meet the Press host Tim Russert. Libby’s team wanted to have memory experts testify, but Fitzgerald refused to allow it, allowing him to stack the deck by manipulating witnesses.

Miller now makes clear that Libby did not tell her about Valerie Plame.

I sat through parts of the trial, including the day that Evan Thomas of Newsweek, David Sanger of The New York Times, Bob Woodward, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, and Robert Novak testifiedall of whom spoke with Libby during the period in which he was supposedly outing Plameand each one said that didn’t happen in their conversation.

The idea that neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post, nor others in the media, regularly and deliberately push an agenda when the facts are limited, only available from the administration’s perspective, or conveniently fit preconceived narratives about reality is laughable. Accuracy in Media exists to document many such cases, including: the coverage of the Ferguson, Missouri shooting; the Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus;” Obamacare, and illegal immigration. Meanwhile, stories about Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the IRS scandal, among others, are largely ignored by the mainstream media because they don’t fit the established progressive agenda and might damage the current administration.

In the end, this is one of those books that each party takes from it that which conveniently suits their own narrative. And by doing so, many in the media are ignoring the important revelations to be found in Miller’s new book, The Story: A Reporter’s Journey.

04/16/15
ISIS Camp In Mexico

ISIS In Mexico, Means ISIS Is Here In The United States

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton


Bare Naked Islam


The 9.12 Project

Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now know that eight miles across the Texas border into Mexico, lies an ISIS camp. It’s merely a stone’s throw from El Paso. A second one is on the Mexican side of the border from New Mexico. If those two are confirmed, there are probably others. This intel comes from a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector – long time, trusted sources of Judicial Watch.

The area where the ISIS cell lies across from El Paso is known as “Anapra.” It is just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. The other cell is to the west of Ciudad Juarez in Puerto Palomas. They are targeting New Mexico – specifically the towns of Columbus and Deming as entry points into the US with the aid of Mexican cartels.

But just coming to America is not the main course here. Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials also discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu supposedly in or near these camps, as well as documented “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during a joint operation last week.

Both law enforcement and intelligence sources are reporting that the area surrounding Anapra is controlled by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez Cartel”), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso). This makes this area extremely violent and dangerous for the Mexican Army and the Federales to operate in. The cartel love to torture and kill police and military personnel that they cannot turn into agents for the cartels.

Judicial Watch’s sources say that “coyotes,” who are into human smuggling/white slavery and are working for the Juarez Cartel, are also in league with ISIS. They help transport them through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. Since no one is there watching the border, these areas are more easily accessible. This whole area is a haven for large scale drug smuggling operations through numerous routes as well.

It is now known that ISIS intends to target railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). ISIS also has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. They are conducting reconnaissance of universities, the White Sands Missile Range, government facilities in Alamogordo, NM and Ft. Bliss, as well as the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM. That ought to have Americans screaming, but no one seems to be noticing it much at all. That is apathetically suicidal. ISIS doesn’t tend to bluff and they have already told us they are coming.

Remember, this is the border that Obama refuses to secure. The border he has thrown open to welcome illegal immigrants. Those illegals coming over that border in the last year and a half, are primarily not Mexican. Many of them are other nationalities. It’s a welcome wagon for ISIS and other terrorists.

Ft. Bliss is aware of the ISIS threat that is near them and has them in their sights. The police and Feds also know, but none of them have the green light or the wherewithal to do anything about it. In fact, the Feds are denying this whole issue even as the evidence mounts that the terrorists are here and casing the joint. Terrorists have already been caught coming across the Mexican border into Texas over the last few months. For The Record documented the fact that a Russian operative came across, was caught and then released. It would appear we have no protection from our enemies whatsoever and sooner than later, there will be a major attack on America over that border courtesy of Barack Obama and his Administration.

In September of 2014, Francis Taylor, the undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), testified that there “have been Twitter and social media exchanges” involving ISIS adherents across the globe discussing the idea of infiltrating the United States through its southern border. So, this development comes as absolutely no surprise.

WND reported that it was about that time that Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, confirmed in a TV interview that jihadists with the Middle Eastern group ISIS were caught coming into the US from Mexico. He got that directly from the Border Patrol.

“They were caught at the border … therefore, we know that ISIS is coming across the border,” he said. “If they catch five or 10 of them, we know there are dozens more that did not get caught.”

Of course, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson denied the reports at the time. And surprise, surprise, surprise… now the FBI is denying that ISIS is only eight miles from El Paso as well. Responding to Judicial Watche’s claims, the FBI called a “special” meeting at the US Consulate in Ciudad Juárez.

From Judicial Watch:

A high-level intelligence source, who must remain anonymous for safety reasons, confirmed that the meeting was convened specifically to address a press strategy to deny Judicial Watch’s accurate reporting and identify who is providing information to JW. FBI supervisory personnel met with Mexican Army officers and Mexican Federal Police officials, according to JW’s intelligence source. The FBI liaison officers regularly assigned to Mexico were not present at the meeting and conspicuously absent were representatives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It’s not clear why DHS did not participate.

[…]

Last August JW reported that ISIS, operating from Ciudad Juárez, was planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level U.S. federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources confirmed then that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border had been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies were placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning the imminent terrorist threat.

Just last week, ISIS released a video promising “We Will Burn America.” It calls for another 9/11 in America and for ISIS fighters to slaughter Americans across the globe. Don’t you think that it would be prudent to listen when someone with a proven murderous track record threatens to annihilate millions of Americans? Hmm?


The Clarion Project

The film was distributed with a twitter campaign using #WeWillBurnUSAgain and #We_Will_Burn_America, alongside pictures showing the imagined destruction.


The Clarion Project

Erick Stakelbeck points out there are three ways ISIS can attack and kill us here at home:

“City Wolves”

In February of this year, FBI Director James Comey made a stunning statement about ISIS supporters in the United States: “Those people exist in every state,” Comey said. “I have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state. Until a few weeks ago there was 49 states. Alaska had none which I couldn’t quite figure out.” He added, “But Alaska has now joined the group so we have investigations of people in various stages of radicalizing in all 50 states.”

So, now we know that there is a network of ISIS supporters and sympathizers in every state of the union. The enemy has infiltrated all 50 states and they are biding their time. ISIS is nothing if not patient.

ISIS calls these homegrown jihadists “city wolves” and is actively encouraging them to carry out one-man (or one-woman) jihads in US cities wherever they can and whenever they get the opportunity. You’ve already begun to see some instances of attacks across the nation. For instance, a Columbus, OH man whom the Department of Justice says trained with ISIS in Syria and was planning a terror attack here has been arrested in the US. It will get much worse, I have no doubt. As Stakelbeck put it, if ISIS supporters begin to carry out smaller scale, horrific attacks like this on a regular basis in American cities, creating a virtual guerrilla war-type climate, the US economy and psyche could be affected in profound ways. Not to mention it would give Obama a perfect excuse to declare martial law or solidify his national police force or both.

The Returnees

Department of Homeland Security Chief Jeh Johnson recently admitted that at least 40 of the estimated 180 US citizens who have traveled overseas to fight alongside ISIS have already returned home. “We have in fact kept close tabs on those who we believe have left and those who’ve come back,” Johnson told 60 Minutes. “A number have been arrested or investigated and we have systems in place to track these individuals. But you can’t know everything.”

Really? Because I thought it was your job to know everything. At least when it comes to terrorists. That’s Johnson telling Americans it’s only a matter of time till we get hit – that the terrorists are slipping through the cracks and there’s nothing we can do about it. Meanwhile, close to 5,000 Europeans have left to join ISIS. Western Europeans can enter the United States without a visa. These people don’t have a flipping clue how many are coming or are already here. That’s frightening.

The Border

This brings us full circle back to Judicial Watch’s warning and the border. Think about ISIS getting chemical or biological weapons across our border. Think the unthinkable – what if they brought nuclear weapons across. It wouldn’t be hard with no one guarding the hen house, now would it? Consider those weapons nestled away across America and ISIS simultaneously attacking a number of our larger cities all at once. It would be a killing field and our worst nightmare.

9/11 happened almost 14 years ago and yet our borders are so ridiculously unsecured that there might as well be neon signs flashing that say “Jihadists Welcome” upon entrance into the US from Mexico and Canada. Yet, our leaders claim they have never been more secure. A nation-state cannot sustain itself long term – or protect its citizens – if it refuses to secure its borders. If your borders are not protected, you have no sovereignty and won’t stand as a nation for long.

ISIS in Mexico, means ISIS is here in the United States. It’s a no-brainer. Yet we aren’t going after the cartels, smoking out the spotters, chasing down known terrorists or doing anything that even remotely looks like protecting the US from ISIS launching a terrorist attack. The enemy is already through our gates and setting up house here in the US. The Islamic State is getting ready for a killer performance. Where do we go from here indeed… we don’t even realize we are at war in our own country.

04/15/15
Hillary Clinton

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Ready For Hillery’ Edition

The Watcher’s Council

http://i1.wp.com/media.townhall.com/townhall/car/b/aria_c12839020150306120100.jpg?w=540

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

Council News:

This week, Simply Jews, The Gates Of Vienna and Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

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

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 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!

04/15/15
Muslim Brotherhood Control of US Govt

The Betrayal Papers: Part V – Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

Muslim Brotherhood Control of US Govt

Introduction

The Betrayal Papers have thus far investigated and explained the Obama administration and their alliance with the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The articles analyzed several aspects of White House policy, foreign and domestic, and compared them to the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Parts V and VI will explore the personal ties that bind Obama, as well as the progressive American left, to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is a portrait of a conspiracy that has reached unprecedented heights of global control.

“A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”

Has there ever been a president whose personal history is so murky, so questionable, and so baffling? All one must do is recall the allegations, still open for debate and research, that checker Obama’s background. Laid out below are some of these allegations, not to be proved or disproved, but to remind the reader that Obama’s personal history is replete with question marks.

  • A 1991 promotional literary pamphlet featured a short biographical sketch of Obama, and claimed he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
  • What is his actual name? The only publicly available school record for Obama lists him as an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro.
  • Moreover, on an immigration document from 1965, Obama’s mother included the name “Soebarkah” under Barack Hussein Obama. This is likely a name given to him by the Islamic cult of Subud, to which his mother proudly and openly belonged.
  • For a reason yet to be explained, Obama’s Social Security number begins with the prefix 042, which corresponds to Connecticut, a state in which Obama has never lived.
  • Regarding his academic records, recall that Obama attended three universities: Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University (his admission to which coincides with a $25 million dollar donation from the Saudi’s to the Harvard Law School). His academic records with these three institutions have never been revealed, despite efforts by investigative reporters. The student body president at Columbia University during Obama’s time there, Wayne Allen Root (once the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate), has stated publicly that he never met or even heard of Obama while at Columbia, and cannot find any classmates of his who remember him either. Root, like Obama, was a political science major.
  • While campaigning for President, candidate Obama presented himself as a “Professor” of Constitutional Law while at the University of Chicago. Yet this turned out to be untrue. In fact, he was a “Senior Lecturer,” a title and position significantly less prestigious than Professor.
  • Finally, the best known and most researched of these allegations is the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. From his days as a candidate in the Democrat primary, the place of Obama’s birth has been in contention. While Obama has insisted he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, there are others who claim he was born in Mombasa, Kenya; there’s even a copy of his purported Kenyan birth certificate. Moreover, apparently trustworthy sources swear that the Long Form Birth Certificate is a forgery.

All these questions leave the investigator with only one choice: to define Obama not by his inconsistent biographical details, but by his associations and actions.

The Communist Prelude: Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s Mentor

As documented extensively in Paul Kengor’s book The Communist, Davis ranks high among Obama’s early life influences. A literal card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Davis was considered by the FBI an enemy of the state.

Frank Marshall Davis in his younger and later years.

Frank Marshall Davis in his younger and later years.

  • Frank Marshall Davis, a known Soviet Communist and admirer of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, was a friend of Obama’s mother’s father, Stanley Dunham.
  • The Communist Davis lived in both Hawaii and in Chicago. He was Barack Obama’s mentor through the 1970s, until his departure for Occidental College in 1979.
  • Davis was also a pornographer. In his book Sex Rebel, he wrote excitedly about having sex with minors. Pedophilia was unusual for Communists of the era: Harry Hay, another Communist and associate of Davis, was reportedly an advocate of NAMBLA, the National Man-Boy Love Association.
  • In 1995, in a broadcast on Cambridge Municipal Television, Barack Obama described Davis as “a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps” and “fairly a well-known poet.”

Irrespective of the publicly accepted, sanitized biography of young Obama, the historical facts establish that his primary political mentor was a Soviet Communist sex offender, introduced to him by his mother’s family.

Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are

George Soros

George Soros, aka György Schwartz, is the Hungarian-born billionaire investor and financier behind a tangled constellation of progressive front organizations. Among these front organizations are: The Open Society Foundation/Institute, ACORN, Think Progress, the Center for American Progress, Code Pink, Occupy Wall Street, National Council of La Raza, the Tides Foundation, MoveOn.org, the New America Foundation, and the International Crisis Group. As one writer wrote succinctly in 2011, “Essentially, the entire leftist wing of the Democrat party, including the President can be tied to George Soros in some way.”

george-soros

George Soros

  • Soros was born in 1930 in Budapest, Hungary, to a Jewish family. He grew up in wartime Hungary and was an admitted Nazi collaborator who turned other Jews over to the Nazi authorities. To this day, he has stated that he has no remorse for his actions of turning in Jews to the Nazis and having their property confiscated. As Soros said to 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft it was “the happiest time of my life.”
  • Soros is a financial manipulator and breaker of currencies. In 1992, Soros crashed the British pound when he made a bet it would correct against the Deutschemark.
  • Soros has a history of using government influence for personal gain. In 1999, (Bill Clinton’s) Secretary of State Madeline Albright blocked a $500 million loan by the U.S. Import-Export Bank to the Russian oil company Tyumen. Tyumen planned to use this money to acquire one of Soros’ companies and a Siberian oil field, and apparently Soros felt his deal wasn’t sweet enough. A few months later, Albright did indeed approve the loan, but only after Soros was guaranteed additional protections for his interests at the expense of Tyumen.
  • This pattern repeated in 2009, when the U.S. Import-Export Bank announced a “preliminary commitment” to loan $2 billion to the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras. This caused the shares in the company to rise 9% from April 2009-August 2009 (the time of the announcement). Soros, a major shareholder in the company, profited handsomely.
  • In 2002, French authorities prosecuted Soros for insider trading. In 2012, the government of Russia issued an arrest warrant for Soros for violating Basel II financial regulations.
  • Obama’s foreign policy and the Arab Spring are intertwined with Soros interests. In 2008 the International Crisis Group (aka ICG, a Soros front), issued a paper that urged the Egyptian government to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to form a political party. Anyone with knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Egypt from the 1940s onward, which include assassinations and terrorism, understands the necessity of the Egyptian government’s hard line on the terror group.
  • Interestingly, ICG is also home to Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the Obama administration’s lead investigator for Benghazi, as well as Robert Malley, who was recently appointed by Obama to a prominent position to lead Middle East policy, despite a history of connections to Hamas.
  • In a 2011 op-ed for the Washington Post, Soros himself referred to Israel – not Hamas – as the “stumbling block” in Middle East peace. In the same piece, Soros encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to be given a seat at the table in Egyptian political life, and urged Obama to support the Arab Spring overthrow of ally Mubarak.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn

Of all the nefarious personal relationships of Barack Hussein Obama, the bloodthirsty couple of Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dorhn are the most unsettling. In the 1960s, Ayers and Dohrn were notorious radicals, anarchists, and terrorists – declared enemies of American society.

Ayers and Dorhn hosted a meet-and-greet and fundraiser for candidate Obama when he first ran for public office. Indeed, Obama’s political career was launched from the couple’s living room in Hyde Park.

  • Bill Ayers’ father was Tom Ayers, President of Commonwealth Edison (the power company of Chicago) from 1964-1980, and Chairman from 1973-1980. The Ayers family was close to the corrupt Daley political machine and involved in various philanthropic causes, and Bill was a son of considerable privilege. The Ayers family connection to power production is important to note in connection with the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will be detailed in Part VI.
  • Despite his mainstream upbringing, Ayers gravitated to terrorism and revolution. In 1969, he, Dorhn, and other radicals founded the Weather Underground. From its inception until the early 1980s, this group of nihilist anarchists would claim responsibility for targets that included police, an R.O.T.C building, the home of a judge, New York City Police Headquarters, and The Pentagon.
  • Dorhn and Ayers lived for a time as fugitives together, and eventually married. But due to legal technicalities neither Ayers nor Dorhn ever served time for their crimes.
  • The couple has two sons. Both were, curiously, given Islamic names: Zayd and Malik.
  • Ayers has admitted not once, but twice that he is author of the Obama’s memoir, Dreams of my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, published in 1995.
  • On September 11, 2001, a review of an upcoming book by Bill Ayers appeared in the New York Times. In the memoir Fugitive Days, Ayers recounted his time on the lam. Wrote Ayers in the book, the lines which were reprinted in the Times the morning of September 11: “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” and “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
  • A few hours after that edition of New York Times hit newsstands on 9/11/2001, four planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda. Two of them brought down the World Trade Center. Another crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. And the other slammed into the Pentagon, once a target of Bill Ayers, scarring the symbol of American military might and killing 125 people.
  • Consider the psyche of Dohrn (from 1991-2013 a professor at Northwestern Law School) who, upon hearing of the horrific murder of actress Sharon Tate (where a fork was stuck into her nine-month pregnant belly) by psychopath Charles Manson’s gang, stated: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate’s belly. Wild!” Dohrn then adopted the “fork salute” for the Weatherman.
  • Years after 9/11/2001, Dohrn and Ayers would openly associate with Islamic terrorists. First, in connection with the 2010 “Peace Flotilla,” a terrorist smuggling operation originating from Turkey that sought to arm Hamas in Gaza. The rabid couple’s attraction to terrorism was enabled by the Soros front group, Code Pink.
  • In 2011, Ayers and Dohrn teamed up with Code Pink once again when they crashed the revolution in Egypt’s Tahrir Square to help oust American and Israeli ally Hosni Mubarak. Reliving their youth, they pulled a page from their old playbook, teaching the protestors how to organize their very own “day of rage.”

ayers

Valerie Jarrett

No figure in the administration holds more sway over Barack Obama than his Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Officially in charge of the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, her Twitter handle – vj44, as in “Valerie Jarrett, 44th President” – conveys a truer sense of her power. Yet not even one American voted for President Jarret.

  • Valerie June Bowman Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran in 1956 to James and Barbara Taylor Bowman. An examination of Jarrett’s family is the key to understanding her influence in Chicago.
  • Jarrett’s father James, a Howard University graduate, was, at the time of her birth, working as a physician and geneticist in Iran. Her mother Barbara’s family is deeply connected to Chicago politics. Jarret’s maternal grandfather was Robert Taylor, who was on the board of the Chicago Housing Authority, a municipal corporation. To this day the Robert Taylor Homes, a public housing project, bear his name.
  • A political appointment, Jarrett was not subjected to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Yet according to every published account, it is she who is the true center of gravity in the administration. Ranging from healthcare “reform” to negotiating with terrorist Iran, the Senior Advisor, not the President, calls the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • The few murmurings which have come out regarding Jarrett’s omnipresence in the White House have not been flattering. According to one former administration official, “It’s pretty toxic… She went to whatever meeting she wanted to go to—basically all of them—and then would go and whisper to the president. Or at least everyone believed she did. … People don’t trust the process. They think she’s a spy.”
  • Even Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, according to author Jonathan Alter, was “tired of being undermined by Valerie Jarrett” when he resigned from his position.
  • Given Jarrett’s political force in the capital, the media’s curiosity about Jarrett’s background, governing principles, ideological beliefs, and business dealings has been conspicuously lacking.
  • One of Robert Taylor’s (Jarret’s grandfather) business partners was Rufus Cook. Rufus’s ex-wife, Ann, is a cousin of Jarrett’s. Cook is also a legal counsel for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, based out of Chicago. In 2007, the country was shocked when a video emerged that showed the pastor of Obama’s church, Reverend Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, saying of September 11, 2001, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” This was a borrowed line, originally spoken by the Nation of Islam’s silver-tongued spokesman, Malcolm X, referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
  • Indeed, TUCC’s Reverend Wright and NOI’s Louis Farrakhan are thick as thieves. In 1984, Wright and Farrakhan traveled together to Libya to meet the “Mad Dog of the Middle East,” Muammar Gaddafi.

Another Jarrett cousin is Antoinette “Toni” Cook Bush, daughter of Rufus and Ann. In 2013, Toni, a Chicago lawyer, was hired as the head lobbyist for News Corp, owner of Fox News. This is perhaps why Jarrett has been spotted dining with News Corp CEO, Australian Rupert Murdoch.

  • Jarrett’s family has direct connections to Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett’s father in law, Vernon Jarrett, was a journalist who worked with Frank Marshall Davis Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers. In his younger years, explains Kengor, Vernon Jarrett “had been elected to the Illinois Council of American Youth for Democracy, the CPUSA youth wing.” Finally, Robert Taylor (mentioned above) was on the board of Chicago Civil Liberties Union with Frank Marshall Davis.
Click above to zoom

Click above to zoom

Jarrett, who met Obama in 1991 and introduced him to Michelle, is a part of their family. Given her connections and power, is it any surprise that she recently said to The New York Times Magazine, “I intend to stay [in the White House] until the lights go off.”

Tony Rezko

Antoin “Tony” Rezko is the Chicago-based Syrian-American slumlord who arranged a corrupt deal for the Obama’s home. Rezko, who is currently serving a 10 ½ year prison sentence and was known for influence peddling through bribery, crafted a special deal in which he loaned money to the Obamas and donated to their campaign organization … all while setting them up in a mansion in Hyde Park.

Statement: Hillary Clinton referred to Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a man under federal indictment, as Obama's contributor.

Statement: Hillary Clinton referred to Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a man under federal indictment, as Obama’s contributor.

  • Obama’s relationship with the corrupt Rezko goes back decades. Rezko tried to hire Obama to work for his real estate company Rezmar when he graduated from Harvard Law School. In 2008, Obama stated that Rezko was a “friend” whom he had “known for 20 years.”
  • The Chicago Sun-Times estimated that Obama had received “$168,308 from Rezko and his circle.”
  • In 2005, Rezko arranged the purchase of the Obamas’ home in Chicago. Because the Obama’s were not in the financial position to purchase the house at the time, Rezko made a deal with the owner to purchase the adjoining empty lot next to the home at above market price to compensate for the Obamas’ below market offer on the home ($1.65 million versus the $1.95 asking price).
  • The Rezko case unfolded before the nation as Barack Obama was ascending to the presidency. It embroiled Patrick Fitzgerald (who was previously known for prosecuting Vice President Cheney’s chief-of-staff Scooter Libby), Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich (who is serving a 14 year jail sentence), Obama, and Rezko.
  • The convicted felon Rezko is an associate of international criminal and former Saddam Hussein agent, Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi.

Nadhmi Auchi

The Iraqi operator Nadhmi Auchi is the sort of rarefied sort of gentlemen you would normally come across in a spy novel. On the surface, Nadhmi Auchi is a business magnate, a dynamo philanthropist, and an honored citizen of many countries. As was explained by a former senior official of the Defense, State, and Commerce departments, John A. Shaw, Mr. Auchi made a name for himself as the international financier and arms dealer extraordinaire of Saddam Hussein. By 1980, Auchi was an asset of the British foreign intelligence service, MI6. (So multi-faceted is this billionaire mystery man that he has his own dedicated Wikileaks page.) Auchi and Tony Rezko were partners in real estate and pizza.

Auchi and Governor Blagojevich

Auchi and Governor Blagojevich

  • Contemporary to the timeline of Obama’s political rise in Chicago, Auchi was building an influence operation one brick at a time in the very same city. His ties from the Middle East to America’s Midwest made his enterprise a conduit of Middle Eastern money into the United States of America.
  • Shaw writes, “Nadhmi Auchi, despite his purchased respectability in England, was the financial eminence behind the Chicago-Arab combine, and the man who, with Rezko, helped invent Barack Obama as a political star.” Through Tony Rezko, his local bagman, Auchi financed and guided Obama (and Jarrett) into the Oval Office.
  • While a large shareholder in BNP Paribas, Auchi was involved with the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, which was based on the sale of Iraqi oil.
  • In 2004, Auchi was banned from entering the U.S. for scamming the Pentagon on an Iraqi cellular deal he helped broker. After securing rights to Iraq’s cellular services, Auchi went on to corner the market on power contracts for the post-war transition, as well.
  • If Soros personifies the Progressive wing of Obama’s politics, it is Auchi that personifies the wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Auchi’s stances on litmus test issues tell who he is, politically speaking, in the Middle East. Auchi is anti-Semitic, and led support for the Turkish terror flotilla (an operation which ties him to Ayers, Dorhn, and Soros).
  • It may seem an odd dichotomy that two people in low cost housing, Valerie Jarrett and Toni Rezko, and two artful and sophisticated investors, Auchi and Soros (both of whom are convicted of financial crimes in France), ushered Obama to the presidency. Yet each one of these individuals shares one lethal trait: they are masters at using government for their personal gain.
  • Auchi has a history of suing his critics, and silencing those who cause too much trouble. His reputation as an aggressive litigator and someone who won’t hesitate to kill may have convinced journalist David Ignatius to think twice about disclosing his knowledge of Auchi’s activities. For instead of a nonfiction book, Ignatius did indeed pen a spy novel, The Bank of Fear, based on Auchi’s career.

Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said

Rashid Khalidi is an anti-Semitic professor and historian of Palestine. Khalidi is currently the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. During their Chicago years, the Obamas were close friends with Khalidi and his wife, Mona. They were also friends with Edward Said, Khalidi’s mentor.

  • Throughout the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at the University of Beirut, he routinely spoke on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization.
  • The Obamas and Khalidis have been friends for decades. When in Chicago, the Obamas regularly dined with the Khalidis.
  • In 1998, the Obamas attended a banquet which featured Edward Said as the keynote speaker. Said, a Palestinian-American (now deceased), had long been a critic of the State of Israel, which he referred to as being in “illegal military occupation since 1967.”
  • In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama when he was running for Congress. The following year, the Woods Foundation (where Obama served as a Board member) donated $40,000 to Mona Khalidi’s charity.
The Obamas and the Saids dining together in Chicago (1998)

The Obamas and the Saids dining together in Chicago (1998)

As one pro-Palestinian activist phrased it in 2008, when Obama’s views on Israel and Palestine were a subject of controversy: “I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates.”

With the benefit of more than six years of hindsight, it is clear that Barack Hussein Obama (with the eager cooperation of Secretary of State John Kerry) has been the most anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian president in United States history.

Conclusion

A man does not become President of the United States without very high powered connections. Usually these connections are accumulated through a long career of public service, whether in the U.S. Congress, Executive, or on the state level. Obama rose to the Presidency after serving a scant four years in the U.S. Senate, two of which were spent running for President. Prior to that, he served an unremarkable seven years in the Illinois State Senate.

Before launching his political career in the living room of American anarchists, Obama was a community-organizing lawyer for progressive groups. Among them was ACORN, which was instrumental in creating the housing bubble.

With such little authentic biography available, we are forced to define Obama by his friends. They include financial and political manipulators and fixers, corrupt businessmen and international criminals, card-carrying Communists and FBI-identified enemies of the state, terrorists foreign and domestic, and their academic apologists.

Part VI will conclude The Betrayal Papers with a look at the various interconnected schemes of the above-named Obama associates.

See also:

The Betrayal Papers is a collaborative effort by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which includes: Andrea Shea King, Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Benjamin Smith, Brent Parrish, Charles Ortel, Chris Nethery, Denise Simon, Dick Manasseri, Gary Kubiak, Gates of Vienna, IQ al Rassooli, Right Side News, Leslie Burt, Marcus Kohan, Mary Fanning, General Paul E. Vallely, Regina Thomson, Scott Smith, Sharon Rondeau, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, Trevor Loudon, Wallace Bruschweiler, and William Palumbo.

04/15/15
Obama's Foreign Policy

Full – Mark Levin EXPOSES how US Senate just GUTTED constitutional treaty power and GAVE IT TO OBAMA

Mark Levin EXPOSES how US Senate just GUTTED constitutional treaty power and GAVE IT TO OBAMA

Mark Levin exposes the treachery in the US Senate today, who he says just capitulated completely to Obama by gutting their own constitutional duty to approve treaties, giving it solely to Obama. So in short, Obama can make a treaty with the Islamo-Nazis in Iran without submitting it to the Senate and the Senate can only stop it if they can get enough nays to vote against it.

04/13/15
Benjamin Weingarten

Conservative Writer: Liberalism Is ‘Totalitarianism Masquerading As Tolerance’ [VIDEO]

By: Ginni Thomas
The Daily Caller

With millennial support for President Obama dropping from 58 percent in 2009 to 34 percent last December, Benjamin Weingarten, 26, demonstrates confidence as a foe of secular progressives.

Weingarten prides himself for studying those who don’t value our founding principles while studying at Columbia University and living in New York and New Jersey. Nineteen months ago, he left a promising career on Wall Street to join Glenn Beck’s The Blaze to influence the cultural and political debates of our time.

By interviewing authors of provocative books, doing podcasts and appearing on Beck’s programming, Weingarten is engaging the culture to reclaim traditional American ideals. In New York and New Jersey, he admits he basically “gets push back every time he opens his mouth.”

In this wide-ranging video interview with The Daily Caller, Weingarten discusses the troubling phenomenon of “totalitarianism masquerading as tolerance.” He finds it curious that the secular left refuses to defend the free speech of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — who left her Muslim faith after horrendous personal harm and at great risk. Weingarten says, the “left is tolerant of people who take their viewpoint. And, no matter what your identity, if you disagree with their viewpoint, you are the enemy.”

On the Iran deal, Weingarten said “if there were ever a case where the devil was in the details, this would be it.” Surveying international reactions, Weingarten commented, “If the French are taking a harder line against the Iranians than America, then something is seriously rotten in our national security establishment and in the Executive Branch.”

As for the administration’s allies calling Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his Republican colleagues “traitorous” for merely reminding Iran that the Senate must ratify any binding treaty, Weingarten says, “when it serves their interest, the left would like to have nothing to do with Congress.”

Progressives, he mentions, push their agenda by any means necessary. After November’s elections, Obama, Weingarten says, is “un-tethered from constitutional authority,” “brazen,” “audacious” and “dangerous.”

The Obama foreign policy doctrine, driven by the progressive worldview, is, he says, “to spit in the face of our allies and coddle our enemies.”

Our adversaries, according to Weingarten, are Russia, China, Islamic extremists and Iran. As for the Muslim Brotherhood allies in America who now advise the Obama national security team, we have “foxes guarding the henhouse.” He thinks “we are willfully blind” and seem overdue for another catastrophic act from terrorists.

As for the record of House and Senate Republicans, Weingarten is underwhelmed, calling them “derelict.”

Weingarten lays out criteria — such as amnesty, common core, and liberty — to judge the growing field of nominees posturing to run for president in 2016. Two vulnerabilities for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, according to Weingarten, are the calamitous and mistaken Russian reset, and the entire Libyan debacle. Clinton’s toppling of the Libyan leader with its horrendous consequences should be something she is held responsible for, Weingarten believes.

WATCH:

For more on Benjamin Weingarten and his work at Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze Books, see his author page and his personal Twitter account, as well as TheBlaze Books podcast, and TheBlaze Books page, Twitter and Facebook.

04/13/15
irannukes1

Forum: Are Negotiations With Iran Worth Continuing? Why or Why Not?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Are Negotiations With Iran Worth Continuing? Why or Why Not?

Don Surber: Iran is worth bombing ala Israel bombing Iraq’s nuke facilities in 1981. May take more bombs this time, but we have them. Use them.

The Razor: The Iranian regime has made it clear they want to destroy us. Not only has their rhetoric been consistent since the Iranian Revolution, but they’ve backed their words with deeds beginning with the Hostage Crisis, followed by the Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut, continuing through the 1980s and 1990s with their support of various sundry terrorist actions including the kidnapping and murders of American civilians in Lebanon, culminating in their fighting US soldiers in Iraq both overtly through the Shiite Militias and covertly using Iranian special forces. Their track record in that regard is amazingly strong, consistent and clear – unlike the American responses to the regime which has varied through the administrations beginning with Carter’s.

You can be the greatest diplomat in the world, a modern day Talleyrand or Nixon-era Kissinger, but you cannot negotiate anything with someone intent on killing you beyond the manner of your death.

So no the negotiations aren’t worth continuing and if I were in a place to decide I would force the Americans and Europeans to walk away. In fact I’d make Benjamin Netanyahu look like Dennis Kucinich by committing the Western World to the complete destruction of the Iranian regime. The only way to stop a murderer from killing you is to kill him first.

To paraphrase the great Roman statesman Cato the Elder, Iran delenda est.

JoshuaPundit: As far as I’m concerned, we haven’t really been involved with ‘negotiations’ with Iran for some time. Ever since this circus started in late November, 2013 it’s been the same story. John Kerry or Barack Obama holds a presser to tell the American people about  what a wonderful deal we just made with Iran, and the Iranians respond by outing them as the liars they are. This story I wrote 15 months ago could just as easily be dated today, as Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, President Rouheni, Iran’s own Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, (who supposedly agreed to all this in the last minute negotiations at Lausanne), and Defense Minister Hossein Dagan once again show us that our president is an unrepentant liar.

Even this president’s comments about the sanctions ‘snapping back’ if Iran cheats are an outright falsehood. Does any sane person really believe that China, Russia and even Germany are suddenly going to give up millions in trade in a timely enough manner to curtail Iran getting the bomb? It took almost two years to put the sanctions regime in place originally. And what if Iran objects or differs with what the IAEA finds or where it can inspect? How many months is that going to take to adjudicate and come to a decision in the UN, of all places?

What this has really been about is buying time for Iran to perfect its nuclear weapons, although the Obama regime added a new twist be rewarding them for stalling with billions in badly needed cash to keep the regime alive and the centrifuges spinning. The latest ‘deadline’ of June 30th, 2015 will have given Iran an additional 17 months to progress towards nuclear weapons and to harden and fortify their nuclear sites.

There is no ‘framework.’ There never has been, just concessions to Iran and repeated delays for their benefit. Among other things, Among other things, this ‘diplomacy’ has been used to intimidate Israel and prevent them from dealing with what amounts to an existential threat while this travesty has been going on. That too is deliberate. Chamberlain and Deladier used the same tactics to stop the Czech army from mobilizing to defend themselves against Hitler.

As I wrote here, there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that President Barack Hussein Obama has no problem with a nuclear armed Iran, and yes, he has both personal ideological and domestic political motivations I detail at the above link. That’s exactly why he and Secretary Kerry have converted a position of strength into a position of weakness. He’s willing to let Iran have nuclear weapons and if that happens to lead to region-wide proliferation and/or a nuclear attack on what he considers that white, colonialist Zionist outpost, I’m sure he’ll issue a suitably phrased, nuanced statement condemning it while lecturing Israel on the need to ‘reduce tension in the region.’

And therein lies the heart of the matter. Even a few years ago, Iran’s nuclear facilities could have been disabled with a fairly minimal loss of life on both sides. That isn’t true any more. To shut down places like Fordow would now almost certainly require massive bombing and perhaps even tactical nukes,,not to mention the fact that this president and his Iranian-born consigliere Valerie Jarrett aren’t going to allow any action against Iran, no matter how grave the risk to U.S. security.

Barring impeachment or an unlikely removal from office, that’s where we unfortunately sit.

We will unfortunately pay dearly in blood and treasure as a result.

Wolf Howling: Until the reelection of Obama in 2012, negotiations with Iran were based on multiple UN declarations requiring that Iran cease any further enrichment of uranium that could be used for a nuclear arsenal. Those negotiations were backed by sanctions that were hurting the Iranian economy and, deep in the background, there was a threat of force if the negotiations failed. Arguably, force should have been applied years ago, but be that as it may, the sanctions were hurting Iran sufficiently that they’ve come to the table to have them lifted.

But the negotiations as they now exist are over a Proposed Framework that would lift sanctions, see the continuation of the Iranian nuclear program as well as continued development of Iran’s delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and give the imprimatur of the U.S. and the U.N. to full scale development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal in a decade. The collateral effect of a deal on these terms would be to see Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey create their own nuclear arsenal. All of this would be, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, “a catastrophe, not a strategic objective.

No, the negotiations over the Proposed Framework are not worth continuing. The mere fact that they happened is insanity itself.

The contention from Obama that it is either this or we de facto acquiesce to an Iranian nuclear arsenal is suicidal fallacy. According to Obama, sanctions will not work to end the Iranian threat. As to force, Obama stated in his NYT interview with Tom Friedman, that “a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’”

As I wrote in a critique of that interview:

Economic sanctions with a threat of force is what brought Iran to the table. Now Obama claims that neither continued and ever increasing economic sanctions will work and use of force will only lead Obama to a nuclear weapon more quickly? That is ludicrous. One, economic sanctions were crippling Iran’s economy and can work if given time. The negotiations ongoing now are proof.

But if we run out of time, there must be a threat of overwhelming force. The Iranian regime is wholly dependent on sales of oil and gas for it’s economy. Cut them off from their oil and gas and the bloody theocracy would soon fall. All of Iran’s oil and gas fields are on a strip running along the western border of the country. Indeed, when Iraq attacked Iran in the 1980’s, their master plan was to take control of a portions of that western border region. It was actually a workable strategy, had Saddam Hussein not been an incompetent commander. Bottom line, there is no need to attack all of Iran to bring the theocracy to its knees and destroy it. Because of its dependence on oil revenues and the vulnerability of its oil fields, it would be much easier to bring decisive force on the theocracy than it might at first blush appear. The whole concept of using force is based on the truism that you use it until the other side gives up. It’s kind of been that way since before the written word. Obama’s claim that force would only lead Iran to faster development of nuclear weapons would only be true if the force used were utterly insufficient and ineffective to convince the mad mullahs that they would lose everything if they continue to pursue nuclear weapons.

So bottom line, negotiations over a Proposed Framework should end now. Negotiations from the deck of the 5th Fleet anchored in the Persian Gulf and backed by the threat of overwhelming force to end, once and for all, Iran’s nuclear program should recommence. But those negotiations should come with a hard end date, when words end and diplomacy “by other means” begins. And that threat of force should be multilateral, including not just the U.S. and Israel, but all of the other nations that have a stake in seeing that Iran’s mad theocrats never gain a nuclear arsenal. That should be about 205 by my count. There are no other acceptable options. Peace in our time with a nuclear armed Iranian theocracy is as impossible today as “peace in our time” was impossible in 1930’s Europe with Hitler and his Nazi regime.

Bookworm Room: Iran is now as it has been for the past 30 years: Intractably hostile to America; holding genocidal intentions towards Israel; moving towards regional dominance, especially control over the Gulf; funding Islamic terrorism around the world; determined to become a nuclear power; and, at the leadership level, in thrall to a version of Islam that it believes requires it to jump-start the Apocalypse.

In its negotiations with Obama, Iran has made it patently clear that, in exchange for ridding itself of onerous economic sanctions, it will give… nothing. Obama is fine with that deal. No sane person should be.

Until Iran is will to make real concessions, we should not be negotiating with it. Instead, we should continue sanctions.

Having said that, I understand that the world’s bad actors — Russia, China, Venezuela, etc., not to mention the EU — are anxious to get into Iran and start making money. Given this reality, there’s an argument saying that, because we can’t hold these entities back any longer, we should just recognize reality and make a bargain with Iran if for no other reason than to save face when economic sanctions vanish under a wave of bad-actor investments.

I disagree. I know that this sounds like old-fashioned, self-righteous morality, but it seems to me that, if bad things are going to happen no matter what, the very least a moral country can do is to refrain from putting its signature on a deal with the Devil. Until Iran is willing to make serious concessions and start acting like a nation among nations, rather than a mad terrorist stalking civilization, we should not be negotiating with it, and we certainly should not put our imprimatur on its allegedly inevitable move towards being an apocalyptically-oriented nuclear power.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Our negotiations with Iran seem pointless. On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Secretary of State Kerry said we don’t trust Iran.  How can there be any productive negotiations with those you do not trust?

The administration says we have a framework for a deal.  The self-imposed March deadline has come and gone.  The Supreme Leader (of Iran) insists all sanctions against Iran must be dropped immediately for any agreement.  Iran is playing America, playing the P+5 nations (United Nations Security Council plus Germany), and playing for time, making us look like fools as they further their nuclear ambitions and build alliances with radical Islamic elements around the world.

The Glittering Eye : I continue to be surprised at the Obama Administration’s chronic inability to understand one of the basics of conducting a successful negotiation: only negotiate with decision-makers. People who are capable of making and standing behind a commitment. In the case of the very strongly top-down Obama Administration that means the president. There is only one person who can speak for Iran: the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and, as Eli Lake has pointed out at Bloomberg, he does not apparently agree with the framework that the Obama Administration is claiming that his negotiators agreed to:

Here’s the thing about agreements. The parties that enter into them have to actually, you know, agree.

Take the Iran framework agreement, for instance. President Barack Obama says he has one on the basics of the nuclear deal with Iran. He doesn’t. How do we know this? Because Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran — the only person who decides on this matter — says he hasn’t agreed to the most important elements of the deal as laid out in the White House fact sheet.

Negotiations like this are always messy. But the disagreement between Khamenei and Obama gets to the heart of whether this is a good or a bad deal. Obama says the sanctions on Iran would be relieved over time and could be snapped back. This gives the U.S. and its allies leverage if Iran defies inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or goes back on its word, as it has on previous arms control agreements. Here’s how the White House fact sheet released the day the framework agreement was announced on April 2 describes that mechanism: “U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.”

Khamenei says he will only agree to a deal if all the sanctions are lifted up front, upon Iran’s signature. In Khamenei’s version of events, the only realistic leverage the U.S. and the west would have against Iran would be to bomb its nuclear facilities.

The question then becomes “Is an agreement in which all leverage the P5+1 have with Iran is lifted before Iran lifts a finger ‘worth it’?” I think the answer it “No”.

There are any number of bizarre and puzzling things about the ongoing and interminable negotiations with Iran beyond why we are negotiating with lackeys. For example, why has the U. S. policy changed from finding Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon “unacceptable”, the diction of both the Bush and Obama Administration’s for years to “not unacceptable”?

For me the most puzzling thing about the negotiations is why are we negotiating anything which will strengthen the hand of the present Iranian regime at all? Not only has the regime executed and imprisoned more Iranians than the Shah ever dreamed of, it has poured scarce resources of money and time into a nuclear development which, without a nuclear weapon, makes considerable less economic sense for Iran than modernizing its oil and gas industries would have done, and is destabilizing the entire region with its proxy wars (not that our efforts in the region for the last couple of decades have been notably stabilizing).

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: For eons, American policy has been for Iran to enjoy a regime change. Until 44 hit town of course.

There doesn’t seem to be any reasons that benefit the U.S. with Iranian negotiations. The fake believe meme that these negotiations are better than war is easily disproved with the uncool facts that Iran has been at war with us since Ayatollah Khomeini. Asymmetrically of course, yet warfare is a better description than being at odds.

Iran is the mommie of terrorist groups with a nation state sponsor. The current regime is illegit since open and fair elections is somewhat of a deception. The State’s idea of tolerance is not found in any dictionaries and Iran has a history of breaking tons of agreements negotiated in good faith.

Instead of non profit jaw flapping, Iran should be sanctioned heavily, repeatedly sans modesty or restraint until the regime collapses.

A “talk to the hand” treatment with Preacher Command would gain far more benefits for Iran and America in the long run.

Well, there you have it!

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