03/3/15

Which Court Papers are Worse?

There’s a news story out of Bryan,Texas which attempts to explain why the Federal government raided a political meeting put on by a group of folks contemplating Texas Secession from the United States on Valentine’s Day. Police officers representing local, state and Federal agencies rounded up everyone in attendance, confiscated their cell phones, laptops or other recording devices and then fingerprinted each person. All this was done with a search warrant signed by a judge for an alleged misdemeanor committed by two of the attendees who were present at the meeting.

Tell me it isn’t just me… that this entire event come across as bizarre… to the point of making your blood pressure elevate?

After reading the article you find there was an ‘inside man’ working on behalf of law enforcement. I guess those listed as right wing terrorists, anyone who doesn’t like the way our government has been shredding the constitution; and particularly how quickly the Obama administration is destroying what’s left of America’s foundations…, those kind of right wing terrorists require an undercover cop attending political meetings to make sure…to make sure of what exactly?

The misdemeanor crime requiring 20 armed peace officers you ask? …A ‘Fake’ court summons issued by two individuals who have no authority issued to have folks to appear before a judge who isn’t recognized as a judge in Texas or any other state.

‘“You can’t just let people go around filing false documents to judges trying to make them appear in front of courts that aren’t even real courts,” Hierholzer, who led the operation, told the Houston Chronicle.”

For some reason I found myself checking a map of Texas. Bryan is not too far from Waco…remembering a different show of force wherein the Federal government decided to overplay their hand.

Vivid memories; images of buildings being burned to the ground, women and children in that compound being consumed by flames and all because the government wanted to serve a warrant that could easily have been carried out some other way. The Federal government wanted a show of force; well, they got one.

I guess when you have the power of the Federal government to intimidate and run rough shod over small groups of people then it doesn’t matter if they have constitutional protection or not.

“The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out ‘simulated court documents’ — summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure. These ‘simulated documents’ were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a ‘show of force’ – 20 officers and an extremely broad search warrant.”

So twenty law enforcement officers were needed to…were needed to what? I’m still trying to figure out why twenty law enforcement officers were needed. I’m a retired police officer and this stinks to high heaven. There’s the right to peacefully assemble which apparently didn’t apply to these citizens.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Then there was the matter of searching everyone, not just the two specifically named, and confiscating cell phones, laptops and other recording devices to be searched for content. Exactly who raised their arm to the square and swore out the warrant and what kind of judge would sign a ‘shot gun’ warrant, one that lacked specifics and clearly violated the Fourth Amendment of everyone who had their electronic device ‘temporarily detained and searched’ for the purpose of obtaining information?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)

Which is worse, a fake summons issued by someone who lacks authority to demand anyone appear before a court that doesn’t exist or a real warrant signed by a Federal judge giving law enforcement officers permission to violate the law of the land and intimidate citizens into submission? (Hint: you shouldn’t need to flip a coin on this.)

I should know better but keep forgetting; constitutional protections as listed in the Bill of Rights are only found in history books, inalienable rights were done away with and the rule of law means absolutely nothing; forgive my inability to keep up with modern America. Live long and prosper.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

03/3/15

Obama Negotiates Israel’s Destruction

By: Alan Caruba
Warning Signs

The strangest thing about Obama’s efforts to achieve friendly relations with Iran, something he has tried to do since he first took office in 2009, is that Iran has made it abundantly clear since its Islamic revolution in 1979 that it hates America and, in tandem, Israel as well.

In an Iranian naval drill on February 25, Iran blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier near the entrance of the Persian Gulf. It was a full-size replica of the USS Nimitz. This is the antithesis of friendship, but just to make their position clear, Iranian Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi, commander of its naval forces, let it be known that “We have the most advanced sea mines which cannot be imagined by the Americans.”

But the Americans—in this case the President of the United States and his negotiators—have been making every concession they can to get an agreement that would limit Iran’s ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. Dr. Norman Bailey, an adjunct professor of economic statecraft at the Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., recently wrote that “The U.S. looks set to present its allies with a dangerous fait accompli on Iran’s nuclear program.”

“The most recent deadline of March 24th means only one thing,” Dr. Bailey wrote in a World Tribune commentary. “A deal has been reached between the U.S. and Iran, which will be announced to the other five participants when the Obama administration decides it is convenient to do so.” The other five obviously have nothing to say regarding the negotiations. At one point, the French foreign minister stormed out of the initial meeting proclaiming “This is a fool’s deal.”

It’s worse than a fool’s deal. It is a deal that is predicated on the nuclear destruction of Israel and, after that, the U.S. is next. One might think that Obama knows this and one might be right. People like Mayor Rudy Giuliani have long noticed that Obama doesn’t seem to like America very much.

A commentary by Lawrence Sellin, PhD, a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the U.S. Army Reserve, and tours of service in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Major General Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army, retired, noted that the nuclear agreement did not include measures that would prevent any cooperation between Iran and North Korea or other rogue states. This has not gone unnoticed by the Israelis. Intelligence Minister, Yuval Steinitz, has noted that “We all know that Iran, Syria and North Korea are very close to each other.”

North Korea has its own nuclear weapons program and, as Dr. Sellin and Maj. Gen. Vallely, warned, “Unless specifically prohibited and enforced within the terms and conditions” of the deal, “Tehran may attempt to sidestep the protocols by ‘outsourcing’ parts of the bomb production process to North Korea, Iran’s long-term partner on everything from launch missiles to guidance systems to nuclear war head technology and other required components.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, a party to the negotiations with Secretary John Kerry, met with a visiting North Korean deputy foreign minister, Ri Gil Song, shortly after February 2014 Vienna discussions. Fars News reported that their meetings were devoted to “bolstering and reinvigorating the two countries’ bilateral ties.”

Anyone recall George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil”? It was Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.

In case you are less than confident of Iran’s intentions, in 2013 before the previous nuclear negotiations were concluded, according to the Fars News Agency, the regimes’ outlet run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, the deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, said “America’s interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran’s armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists (Israel).”

The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. On September 29, 2014, he addressed the United Nations. The message will be the same. Any deal with Iran will be a bad deal for Israel which has been in the crosshairs of the Iranians since they came to power in 1979. This isn’t an “existential” threat. It is a threat that can and will destroy Israel if permitted to occur. Obama’s negotiations will leave Israel no other option than to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

If the U.S. Congress has the means to deter and render Obama’s negotiations null and void, they had better do so. On September 26, 2007, the U.S. Senate passed legislation by a vote of 76-22 designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. The long record of Iran and its state-sponsored terrorism can be found by visiting Wikipedia.

What we are witnessing is a level of insane appeasement comparable to that of the 1930s when European nations refused to acknowledge Nazi Germany’s clear intention to conquer them.

Iran’s intentions are known to Obama and no doubt to our Congress. They are surely known to Israel and the Gulf nations. If history is any guide, these negotiations will put the world on the path to a cataclysm that defies the imagination.

03/3/15

Large Majority of Democrats Defying President Obama by Attending Netanyahu’s Speech

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress on Tuesday, the White House initiated a full-tilt public relations battle against the Israeli leader, both publicly and behind the scenes. Yet despite that lobbying by the Obama administration to dissuade some Democrats from attending Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, more than 75% of Democrats are defying the President, and plan to attend, whether out of cowardice or principle.

It’s hard to know which. Some, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), are attending, but are angry at Netanyahu and the Republicans for putting them in this position. It is a poor reflection on the President’s foreign policy that his own party has to choose between a long-standing ally and the President’s reputation.

The latest headline, as this column is published, states that 55 Democrats to skip Netanyahu speech to Congress. Considering that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 46 U.S. senators who caucus as Democrats (including two Independents), that is still less than a quarter of all congressional Democrats. This Congress, the 114^th, has the largest Republican majority since the Congress of 1929 to 1931.

The New York Times reported on Monday about the “uninvited problems” that Netanyahu’s speech brings for Jewish Democrats, and refers to the “bruising political showdown” that his visit has initiated. But the paper’s readers are left with the impression that the blame lies with Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH) and Netanyahu, not President Obama and his administration’s ongoing opposition to the speech.

“Mr. Boehner—seemingly ready to try to separate Jewish voters from the Democratic Party they have long favored—remains resolute about his decision,” reports Jonathan Weisman for the Times. “He is also open about his hope that Mr. Netanyahu’s address will undermine the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate an accord with Iran that halts that nation’s nuclear program.”

“But to many Democrats, this time Mr. Netanyahu appears to have gone out of his way to alienate them,” reports Weisman.

On Monday, President Obama’s controversial Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that “The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period.” The use of the word “period” at the end of her sentence, for the purpose of emphasis, was an unfortunate reminder of President Obama’s repeated promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period” How did that turn out? It became PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC after Powers, and assured the world that he had no intention of insulting President Obama, and that their differences were similar to a family feud. But an Israeli news outlet is reporting that as a result of Netanyahu’s opposition to the Iran deal, the U.S. has cut off intelligence cooperation with Israel “in terms of intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program.”

The opposition to Netanyahu’s speech has filtered down directly from the White House, even if the mainstream media refuse to report on this fact. They prefer to pin the blame for the current conflict all on the Israeli Prime Minister, and on Speaker of the House John Boehner (R\-OH). The media continue to misreport the timeline of events leading up to Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation from Boehner to speak before Congress. The White House was made aware of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted, as even The New York Times has acknowledged in a correction.

In early February the UK Daily Mail reported, “Two prominent black Democrats in the House of Representatives are vowing to skip Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress next month, a move that a White House insider says was put in motion by the Obama administration.”

“I’m not saying the president called anyone personally,” David Martosko quotes the anonymous White House staffer as saying. “But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.”

The administration went on an outright “offensive against Netanyahu” at the end of February, according to Politico, through the words of Susan Rice, Press Secretary Josh Earnest, and Secretary of State John Kerry. But the day before Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, members of the Obama administration attempted to tone down their criticism a bit. Press Secretary Earnest said that the President believes each member of Congress should decide for him or herself whether or not to attend.

Vice President Joe Biden also will not attend the speech.

Despite all this, the vast majority of Congressional Democrats have chosen their side: Israel, and Netanyahu. More than 75% of Democratic Members from both chambers will be attending Netanyahu’s speech, as of this writing. It also turns out that many of those boycotting are among the most extreme left-wingers in Congress—no surprise there. As a matter of fact, 26 of the 55 who have announced they are not attending are either members of the so-called “Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)” or of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), or both. The DSA no longer publishes a list of its Congressional members, but there are many who are in both groups. Some even hold leadership positions within these groups.

Bret Stephens makes the case in The Wall Street Journal that “The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel.” He notes that “Over the weekend, a defensive White House put out a statement noting the various ways it has supported Israel. It highlighted the 1985 U.S.-Israel free-trade agreement and a military assistance package concluded in 2007. When Barack Obama must cite the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides, you know there is a problem.”

Here is the list of those who will not attend PM Netanyahu’s speech, according to The Hill: Those who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have CPC after their name. All are Democrats, or caucus with the Democrats.

SENATE – 8 members

Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) CPC

Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.D.)

Sen .Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

HOUSE – 47 members

Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.) CPC

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)

Rep. Corrine Brown (Fl.) CPC

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)

Rep. Lois Capps (Cal.)

Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.) CPC

Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.) CPC

Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.)

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)

Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)

Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) CPC

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.) CPC

Rep. John Conyers (Mich.) CPC

Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.) CPC

Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) CPC

Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Tex.)

Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)

Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) Co-Chair, CPC

Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) CPC

Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio) CPC

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) Co-Chair, CPC

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) CPC

Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.)

Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (Tex.)

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) CPC

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)

Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) Whip, CPC

Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) CPC

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)

Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)

Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) CPC

Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.) CPC

Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)

Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)

Rep. Gwen Moore (Wisc.) CPC

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) (non-voting Member) CPC

Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)

Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine) CPC

Rep. David Price (N.C.)

Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) CPC

Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) Vice Chair, CPC

Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) CPC

Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)

Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)

03/3/15

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!! – 03/03/15

The Watcher’s Council

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

Here are this weeks’ nominees…

The FCC!!

The Noisy Room: We’re in the hands of fools and corrupt bureaucrats. Last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission held a faux meeting on open Internet rules and access to broadband Internet. Commissioner Ajit Pai made a statement before the FCC vote to take unprecedented control over the internet with a secret plan. Yes, secret. Secret as in no exposure to the public or Congress prior to its enactment. What follows is the transcript of his comments – in echoes of Obamacare, this had to pass before we could know what was in it. Except, they are still keeping it under wraps. It must be very, very bad indeed.

From Breitbart:

“The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through ‘an unusual secretive effort inside the White House.’ Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a parallel version of the FCC. Their work led to the president’s announcement in November of his plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report says blindsided the FCC and swept aside months of work by Chairman Wheeler toward a compromise. Now, of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say, ‘We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in D.C that the only thing that could stop FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the president to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory. Congratulations. what the press has called the parallel FCC at the White House opened its door to a plethora of special interest activists. Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairman’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials.

“But what about the rest of the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process altogether. They were being played for fools. And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan, and ‘asked’ the FCC to implement it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in, in recent days, to make last-minute filings, registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet, the American people, to this day, have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.

“Especially given the unique importance of the internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I ask for the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Chairman did the same. According to a survey last week by a respected democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the document public. Still, the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so the American people can find out what’s in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record.

“We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the White House. And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today. There is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. now. The backers of the president’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.

“These aren’t my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal plans that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. but rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement. At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, who once said, the internet is the first thing that humanity has built, that humanity doesn’t understand. This proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it. but the American people clearly do. The proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. I’m optimistic we’ll look back on today’s vote as a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that’s served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, But I do believe its days are numbered. For all of those reasons, I dissent.”

Scofflaw Racist ‘Attorney Generalissimo’ Eric Holder!!

The Independent Sentinel: Eric Holder wants to make it easier to get the white guys in civil rights cases. He is very concerned that he couldn’t get a case together against Officer Wilson and George Zimmerman and has called for Congress to lower the standard of proof.

That’s pretty alarming. The government is going to go after people whether they are guilty or not?

“There is a better way in which we could have federal involvement in these kinds of matters to allow the federal government to be a better backstop in examining these cases [civil rights cases],” Holder said in an NBC News interview Thursday.

“We do need to change the law. I do think the standard is too high,” Holder said in the interview. “There needs to be a change with regard to the standard of proof.”

The Right Planet: Despite the fact multiple investigations and a grand jury have failed to produce any evidence “racism” played any part in the shooting of Michael Brown by the Ferguson Police Department, AG Eric Holder and his race-obsessed DOJ are hellbent in turning the whole incident into a race crime, i.e. “hate crime” (yeah, huh, imagine that). Now Holder’s DOJ is planning to release a report condemning the Ferguson Police of funding their department with “racist traffic stops.”

Democrats Boycotting Israei PM Benyamin Netanyahu’s Speech!!

Virginia Right!: I nominate the Democrats who plan to boycott tomorrow’s speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US House.

These Democrats, who take every possible opportunity to shun Bibi, are acting like 2 year old children throwing a temper tantrum. And they are, of course, taking their orders from Obama who knows his pro-Iran “behind the curtains” activities will be the topic ot the day.

America has, for the most part, stood with Israel. But this president has, in my opinion, been downright hostile towards Israel.

There is no valid reason to not listen to the man. So the Boycottin’ Democrats win my nomination this week.

Ask Marion: My nominee for Weasel of the Week is Jewish Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen, part of a 50 Democrat coalition that is boycotting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday 3.3.15. Netanyahu’s speech is a crucial message to both the American and the Israeli people; a message one would think all American Jews would be interested in hearing.

The Democrat Congressman appeared on the Kelly File to promote the White House’s position that Netanyahu’s visit is a ‘politically tool wielded against our president’. Amazing how the Democrats and their progressive media shills constantly talk about working together but whenever the opportunity arises they whine or refuse to participate.

Just because Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner invited the Prime Minister to speak to Congress without asking the President’s permission, Obama not only refuses to attend, but is sending no representatives from the White House. Netanyahu is a man of courage and strength who understands the issues and exudes leadership, an ally that America has left behind. And his speeches are always worth listening to. Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at AIPAC that was a precursor to his speech to the U.S. Congress.

One must wonder how an American politician, an American Jew, would not only choose to miss this man’s speech but actually help organize a walkout or boycott in support of our President’s childish hurt feelings; a President that is supporting a misguided negotiation with a goose stepping country that hates both America and Israel and is about to go nuclear with America’s help.

Congressman Cohen appeared on Fox with Megan Kelly to defend his boycott and participating in the politicizing of Tuesday’s event, the night before Netanyahu’s speech, but didn’t do a very good sales job of his position. The Jewish Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen said “I love Israel. I’m for Israel. I think Israel is going to be hurt by this speech,” he told Megyn Kelly.

Mike Huckabee told Megyn Kelly that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t giving his speech to Congress to win the election in Israel, and that it may in fact be “very destructive” to his political career. “He’s risking his political life because he values not just the future of Israel, but really, the future of civilization.”

Well, there it is. What a despicable group of Weasels… ANY OF THEM COULD WIN! Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.

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

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

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

03/2/15

Obama creating a “country within a country” with illegals

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

On Thursday, Mark Levin interviewed Sue Payne on the subject of Obama’s illegal alien amnesty plans. Payne is a Maryland activist who co-hosts WCBM‘s Pat McDonough radio talk show on Saturday nights with Maryland Delegate Pat McDonough, himself an outspoken critic of illegal immigration.

Payne was able to insinuate herself into a series of three White House conference calls regarding their Task Force on New Americans. According to Payne, the creation of this task force was the upshot of Obama’s November 21 announced plan to amnesty 5 million illegals. Payne said that the number discussed is not 5 million, but more like 13 to 15 million that Obama intends to shield from deportation and move toward citizenship. (Reliable studies show the number more likely to be 20-30 million or even more).

Payne said that communities taking in illegals will be re-designated as “receiving communities,” whose job it will be to make the illegals feel welcome. If you recall, this actually began happening last summer with the wave of immigrants coming across. Instead of waiting for an immigration court hearing, as soon as suitable locations were found, illegals were spirited off to communities all over the country under a blanket of secrecy.

Payne said those “receiving communities” will soon morph into “emerging immigrant communities.” They said that the immigrant needed to be considered as a “seedling” in these new communities. For the seedling to grow, they said, it needs to be in “fertile soil.” Then once it grows, the seedlings would be taking over the host. One of the task force members actually said that they would be creating a “country within a country.”

They said that illegals would specifically “navigate not assimilate” into communities. They said that once immigrants are in, they must be treated as refugees. This would give them access to free heathcare, cash, food, credit cards and no-interest loans, all on the taxpayer’s dime. There would be many older immigrants in this batch and that these older immigrants will need to be given Social Security as soon as possible so that they may “grow old successfully.”

This is literally a subversive plot to overthrow our country. With 15-30 million newly minted voters, the Democrats will get the “permanent progressive majority” they have been seeking to “rule for the long term.” You can be sure they have targeted those communities most in need of new Democrats. For an overall perspective on this latest move in Obama’s war against America, go to the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog.

The leader of this task force is Cecilia Munoz, Obama’s domestic policy advisor and former Vice President of the National Council of La Raza. (NCLR). Munoz has been involved in pro-illegal alien activism for years. In addition to NCLR, she was on the board of CASA de Maryland, the illegals’ ACORN. As the former White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, she promoted government mortgage subsidies of up to $50,000 per loan for “immigrants,” despite the fact that about 5 million of the failed home mortgages that caused the subprime mortgage crisis were in the hands of illegals. So Obama has chosen well for this latest outrage.

You can listen to Payne’s full interview on Levin’s podcast page, here. (Go to minute 91:12).

03/2/15

My reflections on CPAC

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

CPAC/Washington Times Poll The Washington Times

I attended the last two days of CPAC. Missed the first two because of pressing deadlines on other work. However, I did get to see some key speakers and caught the overall flavor of the event. A few observations follow.

Phil Robertson

Duck Dynasty’s politically incorrect Godfather, Phil Robertson was my favorite. I will state right off that anyone who dismisses Phil for his dress and style, in my mind displays the shallow hypocrisy of today’s culture. His fashion is his choice, his words are what count. His speech was priceless. Most important was his emphasis on the Bible and the fact that our Constitution was based on Biblical principles and written by devoutly faithful men. He quotes John Adams’ telling words, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

It is a truth too often overlooked, except by the Left, which has assiduously sought to destroy the Christian underpinnings of this nation precisely for that reason. They know that only when Christianity is destroyed and discredited will our people willingly—or maybe ignorantly would be a better way to describe it—submit to Socialism. The Marxist Frankfurt School, of which Obama is a well-versed student, made that goal explicit. I recommend you watch Phil’s speech, it is insightful and entertaining in a way only he can deliver. I only wish there were a viable candidate that would speak as plainly, honestly and insightfully as old Phi.

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush managed to get his message delivered at CPAC despite pretty widespread conservative opposition to his prospective presidential candidacy. Instead of a speech, which would doubtless have been met with a lot of booing, he staged a tightly-controlled, scripted, on-stage interview conducted by Sean Hannity. That the two conspired to keep it controlled is beyond dispute. Hannity served up key questions that allowed Bush to answer his critics on all fronts in a manner that could not be challenged.

The questions and answers were delivered in machine-gun fashion with no breathing room in between for opponents in the crowd to voice their displeasure. Bush bussed in hundreds of supporters, who clapped and roared their approval every time he raised a controversial issue, like his support for illegal alien amnesty. He made it all sound as reasonable as he could—seal the borders first, and then provide a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million here. After all we can’t send them back now, can we? Yes, I would say we can. Furthermore, it is not 11 million, but more like 30 million or more—virtually all prospective future Democrats.

How Republican politicians refuse to understand that amnesty is the death-knell for the GOP is beyond me. I suspect it is a measure of just how powerful Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers’ money can be. It appears political genocide can be bought. During the speech, conservatives staged a walkout, led by CPAC regular, William Temple, dressed in his usual patriotic garb and carrying a large Gadsden flag.

A breaking news story reveals just how serious it is that we get Obama’s amnesty outrage stopped in its track. Mark Levin interviewed a Maryland conservative activist who recently penetrated a White House Task Force on New Americans conference call on amnesty that was supposed to be private. You can read about that and more, and listen to the interview at Ann Corcoran’s great Refugee Resettlement Watch blog.

Wayne La Pierre

NRA President Wayne La Pierre talked tough on the 2nd Amendment but conspicuously absent was any reference to Obama’s illegal amnesty efforts. As Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has pointed out, illegal alien amnesty is the greatest threat to the 2nd Amendment because Obama’s goal is to get them voting. With the 30 million or so illegals poised to obtain legal status (not the 5 million repeatedly hyped), Democrats will capture the “permanent progressive majority” they have been seeking since the Democratic Party was captured by communists.

As we know, the NRA frequently talks out of both sides of its mouth. It has been an effective voice for the 2nd Amendment, but sometimes makes compromises that threaten the 2nd’s long-term viability. This is one of those instances. Supporting Democrats and RINOs who later show their true colors is another. Failing to support strong 2nd Amendment defenders in some states is a third. For example, their opposition to former Maryland Governor O’Malley’s 2013 gun grab was virtually non-existent. Back then they promised a court challenge to the blatantly unconstitutional law. We are still waiting.

Straw Poll

With the exception of 2012, when Mitt Romney won, the straw poll has gone to Rand Paul or his father every year since 2010. The poll is somewhat biased by the youthful CPAC attendance demographic, but Paulies also swarm the voting booth every year. Noteworthy was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s close second. Cruz came in a distant third and Bush was number five, so apparently his Astroturf messaging method didn’t work. Chris Christie was near the bottom, earning only 2 percent support. Rick Perry tied for last with Sarah Palin. Here are the results:

Given the poll bias, in my mind, Scott Walker was the true winner. I did not see his speech, but the poll suggests Walker left CPAC in the strongest position with the party faithful of any prospective future GOP presidential candidate. Washington insider The Hill newspaper agrees, writing:

His performance didn’t have the same fervor as his acclaimed speech last month to the Iowa Freedom Forum, but it didn’t matter. Walker’s CPAC straw poll placing — a close second behind the favorite Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — shows he got the most bounce out of the event. His showing was especially impressive given that he lacks the organizational muscle of the likes of Paul and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who finished fifth.

And he deserves it. While from a messaging and charisma standpoint, my personal favorite is Ted Cruz, Walker has been tested in an unprecedented, relentless, vicious, four-year trial by fire from Democrats, unions and the media. He is the first governor ever to survive a recall election, and despite a national effort by unions and Obama’s Left, won handily. Same with his re-election. Walker has survived unsullied by a four year secret probe which vies with the IRS scandal as one of the greatest systematic abuses of governmental power in recent memory. Corrupt prosecutors used the power of the bizarre “John Doe” law in a vicious attempt to shut down the GOP throughout the entire state and destroy Scott Walker’s reelection prospects. The only mystery is why Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm and his assistant, Bruce Landgraf, are not in jail. Against all these odds, Walker has governed effectively—introducing changes and reforms that have reversed the state’s downward economic slide, balancing the budget and cutting taxes.

The poll revealed some other interesting characteristics about CPAC’s conservatives. As mentioned, it was a youthful crowd. Fifty percent were 25 or under and 42 percent were students. Sixty-four percent believe that illegal aliens should be either deported and not allowed to return (37%) or encouraged to return home to apply for citizenship (27%). Twenty-nine percent believe illegals should be allowed to stay. Of these, 18 percent thought they should be allowed to apply for citizenship. Seventy-seven percent believe Congress should use its power of the purse to defund Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty.

Again reflecting the dominant age group, 41 percent believe that marijuana should be legalized for medicinal and recreational purposes. Only 27 percent believe it should remain illegal. The crowd was largely pro-life. Depending upon the questions asked, between 68 and 74 percent were pro-life, while between 18 and 25 percent were pro-abortion. Of the issues that would dissuade poll participants from supporting a candidate, i.e. deal breakers, people were all over the map when allowed multiple responses:

Expanding Medicaid under Obamacare 40%

Supporting Gay Marriage 18%

Immigration Amnesty 35%

Supporting Common Core 37%

Being Pro-Choice 31%

Foreign Policy of Disengagement 32%

Taken alone however 58 percent said they would never vote for a candidate who supported Common Core.

03/2/15

Israel’s Enemies in America and Russia

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

03/2/15

America—You be the Judge

By: Retired Adm. James A. Lyons
Accuracy in Media

President Obama’s adamant refusal to link the barbaric atrocities committed by the Islamic State and affiliated al-Qaeda militias to Islam is an insult to the intelligence of all thinking Americans. His insistence that these atrocities are the result of “violent extremism,” not associated with Islam, lessens his already diminished credibility. The Quran and Islamic Law (Shariah) prove him wrong since there are 109 verses in the Quran that can be considered to sanction violence. Furthermore, chapter 2, verse 106 (on abrogation) makes it clear that the later violent verses take precedence over the earlier, less violent ones.

In February, President Obama hosted a White House Summit on countering “violent extremism.” As it turned out, it was essentially a public relations media event that had nothing substantive to offer in terms of countering the Islamic State’s barbaric acts of terrorism. Instead, it was more of a leftist, progressive agenda sympathetic to “Islamic sensibilities and grievances.” It cited lack of education and job opportunities as part of the root cause that enables IS to attract young Muslims. Mind boggling, particularly when Christians, women, and children are having their heads chopped off and are being buried alive.

If it were to have been a serious summit, you would have expected the Director of the FBI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be full participants. However, they were not invited. Instead, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its front organizations were full participants, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both unindicted co-conspirators for funding terrorism from the 2008 Dallas, Texas Holy Land Foundation Trial. Another MB front organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was also represented.

The question must be asked: how can the Obama administration continue to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood when its declared creed, verified by the FBI, is to destroy the United States from within by our own “miserable hands,” and replace our Constitution with Islamic “Seventh Century” Shariah Law?

The MB today, with its deep penetration of all our national security and intelligence agencies, has now been institutionalized. With its carte blanche entry into the White House, it has, in effect, become a defacto cabinet member. All Americans should understand that there is no difference between the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Their objectives are all the same, it’s only the methods they use to achieve it that may be different. It is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination (same as Communism), with Islam the dominant religion and Shariah the law.

The policies of the Obama administration in countering the Islamic jihadists of IS are clearly confusing to our allies. To understand President Obama’s strategy, everything this administration does must be viewed through the prism of his stated objective: to “fundamentally transform America.” This strategy is clear. It is anti-US and anti-Western—but pro-Islam, pro-Iran and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. With his Marxist background, it can be assumed that Obama does not view American power and influence as a force for good in the world. Otherwise, why would he want to fundamentally transform America? Therefore, anything that undercuts US military power and influence is viewed as being “objectively progressive.” President Obama’s refusal to provide legitimate defensive weapons to Ukraine falls under this category. The net result is the emasculation of NATO.

The “leading from behind” strategy announced at the start of the Libyan war, and the unilateral disarmament of our military forces, also fall under this category. A defining moment in the Libyan war was when the Obama administration switched sides in the global war on terror and provided weapons and material support to al-Qaeda and MB-controlled militias. Furthermore, as we now know, the Libyan war was unnecessary since Muammar Gadhafi was prepared to abdicate.

The Middle East today is a disaster area with failed states in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and now Yemen. What’s astonishing is that we are now a de facto partner with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran. By so doing, we are enhancing the expansion of Iran’s hegemony throughout the Middle East at the expense of our long term allies—Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The Obama administration’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq gave Iran a clear signal that we would not contest their influence over Iraq. It was a foolish, or worse, attempt to obtain a nuclear weapons agreement with the evil Ayatollah Khamenei regime. Today, Iran is already a nuclear threshold state that has sufficient enriched uranium to make 8 to 12 nuclear weapons within a few months. Furthermore, a reliable source has informed me that Iran secretly bought four nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Muslim Republic of Kazakhstan in 1992. They were said to have been transferred to Iran and stored in the Lavizan military site near Tehran.

More recently, it was reported by Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily, on 26 February, 2015, that Iran is operating another secret advanced, uranium underground enrichment site northeast of Tehran that was previously unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With thousands of American lives lost due to Iran’s more than 35 years of aggression against the United States, it is inconceivable that any American administration would agree to enter into such a critical agreement, like the one currently being negotiated with such an evil regime.

When you consider all of the above, as well as the Obama administration’s abuse of power and the many scandals including Benghazi, the IRS, Operation Fast and Furious, Obamacare, and the immigration fiasco, any other administration would be brought up on charges of threatening the security of the United States. America, it’s up to you to influence your representatives to hold President Obama accountable.

03/2/15

Forum: What Are Your Impressions From C-PAC?

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: What Are Your Impressions From C-PAC?

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Aside from Jeb being a target with all the asides and overt HRC tackles, it was still a disappointment that Sen Paul won his third time win at the Straw Poll. Good news that Gov Walker came in a really strong 2nd. Impressed that GOP has a great bench to pick from with all the Governors on hand like Govs Jindal, Bush, Walker and Christie as well as other serious cats like Ambassador Bolton, Sen Cruz, Sen Rubio and an almost Senator – Fiorina.

May not have been the appropriate venue for a thorough Foreign Policy discussion (which may explain why Senator Paul keeps winning the Straw Polls) yet am personally checking Gov Walker and I really liked Carly Fiorina. If Bolton runs – he’ll be my 1st love no doubt.

Kinda schadenfreudish perhaps, yet I laughed out loud at Gov Christie and the near empty room. Strikes me as a cat who would relish tinkering around the edges without ever going for the jugular.

Totally changed my mind about Dr Carson. His low intensity speech may not be so great on the campaign trail and his professorial monologue was kinda monotonous.

Bookworm Room: I haven’t paid the least bit of attention to CPAC. I’ve never found that it provides useful information. Every year, it supports a Ron or Rand Paul. Everything else… Meh!

Rhymes With Right: CPAC? I guess I have to be honest and admit that I haven’t paid much attention to it. I suppose the one real interesting thing to come out of CPAC for me is the decisive manner in which Scott Walker skunked Ted Cruz (once you take Rand Paul out of consideration — he, like his father, will never be president). Beyond that, who cares?

The Right Planet: I gotta admit, I just haven’t been that fired up about CPAC this year, either. I soured a bit on CPAC following their “black sheep” treatment of Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney and Robert Spencer back in 2013. Additionally, I have major issues with CPAC’s relationship with Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Watching bits and pieces of the speeches and interviews at CPAC and the final straw poll vote left me with mixed impressions. One has to wonder how we define a “conservative”. The potential presidential candidates are all Republicans but there are very few who could be called true conservatives.

This is Senator Rand Paul’s third win in as many years, mostly due to his overwhelming support from young voters. While Sen. Paul defines himself as a constitutional conservative, his young supporters rally behind his libertarian leanings on social issues. Senator Paul strategically ducks these issues by deferring to states rights. When interacting with “Paulseys” I find many are open to comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty, legalizing marijuana, and giving convicted felons the right to vote. They advocate for same sex marriage and other issues outside traditional conservative values. They embrace the idea of personal freedom while not fully grasping the personal responsibility that goes along with it.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush came in fifth in the straw poll, and even that poor showing was the result of his campaign resorting to bussing in supporters. Laura Ingraham had a great comment about Jeb being the same as Hillary. She is right, they are both progressives and support comprehensive immigration reform and the federalized Common Core State Standards of education. Bush will never get the vote of true conservatives in the primary, as proven by the straw poll results.

Governor Scott Walker came in a close second to Senator Paul in the straw poll, and continues to impress and increase his chances for a viable presidential campaign as he garners more support and the ability to raise the funds he will need to compete against GOP sweetheart Jeb Bush. As I have said before, he has been tested as governor of Wisconsin and has shown the strength of will and character needed to compete against the Democrats and their complicit media.

The Razor: My impression is that the GOP leadership is happy for the Democrats to choose their nominee for them as witnessed by the writeups in the Washington Post and New York Times. Why are these guys still in power again?

Ask Marion: The who’s who in Conservative Republican and Libertarian politics gathered this past weekend at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference; an annual political conference attended by conservative activists and elected officials from across the United States. CPAC is hosted by the American Conservative Union (ACU) and more than 100 other organizations contribute in various capacities.

It is a weekend for potential presidential candidates and others to test the waters with the Conservative and Libertarian Republican base, who often see things a bit differently than the GOP Establishment.

CPAC is a three day event. Day one and day two were filled with speakers, panels and Q&A. The opening as well as the clean-up spots on either day are coveted. This year’s event was opened by Dr. Ben Carson and day one was closed by crowd favorite Governor Sarah Palin, doing a little repair work after the Iowa Freedom Summit. Day two was opened by Newt Gingrich and closed by Governor Mike Pence. The highlight of day three is always the straw poll which was won in 2013, 2014 and again in 2015 by Libertarian leaning Senator Rand Paul, son of Libertarian and Tea Party favorite, Representative Ron Paul. Scott Walker came in 2nd and Ted Cruz followed in 3rd place. This is Rand Paul’s crowd; much due to the large number of young people and Libertarians who attend. Plus, Rand has always spoken about widening the Republican tent and CPAC made an attempt at doing that this year.

It is far too early for CPAC or any event to make much difference for the primaries or the 2016 Election, but it is a good practice ground for potential 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates.

I was impressed with Sarah Palin. She gave a very un-Palin like speech; eloquent, heart-felt, and with energy. Sarah’s speech told me she is running, Palin2016. And I believe she can win if conservatives have the guts to stand-up and fight for what and who they believe in, instead of bending to the media brainwashing of the past 7-years! Many CPAC attendees did not vote for Palin in the straw poll because they are not sure she will actually run and because they are afraid of the possible effects of media damage. I was also impressed with Scott Walker, who is the conservative favorite at the moment. I always love Ted Cruz’s honesty and courage of conviction. And I think people need to take a good hard look at Rand Paul after a third consecutive CPAC win. I also always like to hear Donald Trump’s input from the perspective of all his connections around the world.

Neither Chris Christie nor Jeb Bush sold me on their sincerity or that they have embraced the conservative values that America needs to turn our country around. And per the website Gateway Pundit, it was confirmed that Jeb Bush Bussed in Supporters to CPAC 2015. Let the Bush-Clinton games begin. Laura Ingraham said Jeb and Hillary Can Run On The Same Ticket and most people in the know would say that Hillary and Obama are two sides of the same coin. So if you want change… neither Jeb nor Hillary are what you are looking for.

The Republicans have a deep bench of potential presidential candidates for 2016. The Democrats have yesterday’s politician, Hillary Clinton, and possibly Elizabeth Warren. Let us all hope for America’s sake that the final 2016 candidates will not be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. Americans deserve better. They deserve new ideas, new political blood and a choice.

See and hear speeches from CPAC day one and day two <—HERE.

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?

03/2/15

Radio Interviews This Week – Trevor Loudon & William Palumbo

Hat Tip: Dick Manasseri

Radio Interviews This Week – Trevor Loudon & William Palumbo
Sound The Alarm – The Betrayal Papers
U.S. Captured by the Muslim Brotherhood

Trevor Loudon