Our Weasel of the Week Nominees!! — 03/31/15

The Watcher’s Council

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/89/256833910_dc5e794df2.jpg

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….

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/16/16584/original/250.jpg?2759
America’s Favorite Closet Islamist, Grover Norquist!!

The Noisy Room : My nomination this week is Grover Norquist. Glenn Beck should be commended for taking on Grover Norquist. He should have been outed years and years ago. Beck devoted two shows to Norquist this week. The first laid out his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. In the second show, he had Grover on to defend himself. The weasel did a very bad job of defending his record. His demeanor and posturing screamed that he was lying. He only went on Beck’s show after he petulantly emailed Beck that he was backing out and then reversed himself because he realized how bad it made him look.

The best line of the whole interview by Beck to Norquist: “If I take you at face value, you’re the most unlucky person … I’ve ever met in my life,” Beck said. “Only Barack Obama is this unlucky with a string of friends who are radicals.” I think that pretty much says it all.

http://freedomindiana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Church-300x251.jpg
 The Leadership of the Christian Church Disciples of Christ

Rhymes With Right :In 1993, this mainline denomination offered its enthusiastic support for the passage and signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  In 1997, the denomination filed an amicus brief supporting the law when it was challenged before the Supreme Court.  Last week, the leaders of the Indianapolis-based denomination voiced their strong objection to the passage of a RFRA by the state of Indiana, and threatened to remove its 2017 biennial General Convention from Indianapolis declaring the following:

Purportedly a matter of religious freedom, we find RFRA contrary to the values of our faith – as well as to our national and Hoosier values. Our nation and state are strong when we welcome people of many backgrounds and points of view. The free and robust exchange of ideas is part of what makes our democracy great.

As a Christian church, we are particularly sensitive to the values of the One we follow – one who sat at table with people from all walks of life, and loved them all. Our church is diverse in point of view, but we share a value for an open Lord’s Table. Our members and assembly-goers are of different races and ethnicities, ages, genders and sexual orientations. They have in common that they love Jesus and seek to follow him.

We are particularly distressed at the thought that, should RFRA be signed into law, some of our members and friends might not be welcome in Indiana businesses – might experience legally sanctioned bias and rejection once so common on the basis of race.

This is a particularly weaselly declaration from these denominational leaders.  After all, the denomination itself permits its congregations to decide to whether or not to permit gay weddings in their sanctuaries, and allows its clergy the same freedom regarding whether or not to officiate gay weddings.  This is in stark contrast to the demand that the state of Indiana require all of its citizens, regardless of religion, to conform to a very different standard with regard to participating in gay weddings.

https://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/elizabeth-ashack.jpg?w=190&h=190&crop=1
Christian Bashin’ Bureaucrat Elizabeth Ashack

The Right Planet: An economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Elizabeth Ashack, decided to jump aboard the hate wagon against my own state of Indiana in protest to the recent passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Ashack sent out the following Tweet:

“[P]eople in the red states vote for nazis to govern, and then call themselves Christian, it will not end well for them. #BoycottIndiana”

Ashack then quickly deleted her Tweet, but not before a few people managed to get screenshots of her original Tweet. She then removed any mention of her connection to the Department of Labor in her Twitter profile. Now, Ashack claims her Twitter account was hacked:

“On Friday, March 24 both my work and home computer were hacked. An investigation is underway. Twitter and LinkedIn accounts were compromised.”

If that were true, why did she delete that Tweet as well? Now, that’s what I call a weasel!

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ReverendAl.jpg
Tax Cheat, Race Pimp And Undying Opponent Of The English Language Al Sharpton

The Independent Sentinel :Al Sharpton is my choice for weasel of the week. In response to the Indiana Religious Freedom Act, he said this:

“This is a key moment for the country. Too often in our history, we’ve seen religion used to justify attacks on other people’s rights, from slavery, to Jim Crow, to women’s right to vote. That same fight is with us today, and we can’t let it stand.”

Similar laws to the Indiana law exist in 19 other states. The Indiana law is essentially the same as the federal law. The law in liberal Connecticut is much stricter than the one in Indiana.

Sharpton was not the lone hyperbolic fool these past few days. There was the NCAA shooting their mouths off, Cher saying it was the same as ‘slavery’, there was that great sage Miley Cyrus calling Gov. Pence an @$$hole, and economist Elizabeth Ashack calling people in the red states Nazis. Still, the whole Jim Crow thing had a special touch coming from the greatest race-baiter of this century.

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

Posted in American Culture, Politics, Religion, Watchers Council, Writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Thou Shalt Not Criticize Fox, Part 2

By: Diana West
DianaWest.net

ten-commandants

Part 1 is here.

Picking up with Mickey Kaus quitting The Daily Caller after Tucker Carlson took Kaus’s column critiquing Fox off TheDC website because, Kaus says, Carlson told him TheDC can’t trash Fox because he (Carlson) works there…

“He [Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson] said it was a rule, and he wouldn’t be able to change that rule. So I told him I quit,” Kaus explained.

Reached via email, Carlson told On Media: “Mickey is a great guy, and one of the few truly independent thinkers anywhere. I’m sorry to see him go.”

NB: Fox does not own the Daily Caller. Carlson is a host of a Fox weekend show.

Kaus will now publish his columns exclusively…

Posted in American Culture, American Sovereignty, Border Control, Communism, Conservatism, Democrats, elitism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Immigration, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

RFRA MADNESS!

By: Brent Parrish

RFRA-signings

An apoplectic fit has erupted in the media over Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Never mind the fact the Indiana statute is  similar to a federal statute signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The Indiana law also mirrors similar laws on the books in thirty-plus other states.

Oh, and let’s just ignore the fact the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder backed the most controversial part of the RFRA law in court, contradicting the allegations by some far-left rags who claim the Indiana law is fundamentally different from other RFRA laws.

Via National Review (emphasis mine):

The Obama Administration held that a corporation, albeit a non-profit one, could defend itself against a private claim from an employee by asserting that the Obamacare’s contraception mandate imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That is to say, the most controversial aspect of the new Indiana religious-freedom law was blessed by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department. This position is directly at odds with the views of Sotomayor, Posner, and others. Again, none of this was particularly controversial until fairly recently.

Additionally, President Obama signed a comparable bill in 1998 when he was an Illinois senator. But that didn’t stop the White House from hitting back at Indiana’s RFRA law.

IL-RFRA-Obama

The usual suspects have taken their unhinged indignation to social media to lambast and paint the entire state of Indiana (my home state) as a bunch of intolerant “bigots.”

RFRA-Cher

Miley-Cyrus-RFRA-tweet

One activist group who obviously opposes Indiana’s RFRA law went so far as to make a video titled “Indiana Is a Great Place To Be a Bigot,” along with the accompanying byline: “If you love covered bridges and discriminating, book your trip to Indiana today.”

The hypocrisy is in overdrive now. Connecticut’s Democratic governor, Dan Malloy, attacked Gov. Mike Pence as a “bigot,” despite Connecticut having a religious freedom law on its books.

Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, tweeted his “disappointment” over Indiana’s law, urging the governor of Arkansas to veto similar legislation. Never mind the fact Apple does business with a number of countries in the Middle East who regularly persecute and murder homosexuals.

Apple-Tim-Cook-RFRA

And then there’s Elizabeth Ashack, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics who tweeted: “[P]eople in the red states vote for nazis to govern, and then call themselves Christian, it will not end well for them. #BoycottIndiana”

elizabeth-ashack-tweet

Ashack quickly deleted her incendiary tweet, but not before some managed to capture screenshots of her original tweet. She then edited her Twitter profile and removed any mention of her employment at the BLS. But her editing was also observed and reported. So now Elizabeth Ashack is claiming her Twitter account was hacked.

Let’s just review how the dialectic—a tactic constantly employed by the Marxist-Leninists on the  left and the neocon Trotskyites on the right—works in relation to social issues that are exploited solely for political purposes, i.e., more government control.

Years ago I read an article by a former detective, Philip Worts, that succinctly lays out the dialectic tactic and how it is used to bring about a “paradigm shift”:

In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it’s emotional. Do not underestimate the force of emotional pain. POWs frequently described their long periods in isolation as worse than some of the most brutal physical torture. Isolation from the group is a powerful behavior modification weapon.

Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield: Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift. The weapon looks like this:

  1. A Diverse Group (“Diversity” needed for conflict)
  2. Dialoging to Consensus (Dialectic process)
  3. Over a Social Issue (Problem/Crisis/Issues)
  4. In a Facilitated Meeting (Controlled environment using facilitator/change agent)
  5. To a Predetermined Outcome (Paradigm shift)

The dialectical exercise is often given lovable labels like “consensus-building” or “conflict resolution.” On the surface, it may sound good. But the whole point of the strategy is to bring about consensus (see “bipartisanship” and “compromise”) by rubbing opposite sides of the political spectrum against each other in an effort to move both sides toward a predetermined outcome.

I suspect this is all being ginned up to fire up the left’s base following the shellacking they received in the 2014 primaries, and to try and flip Indiana into the blue column.

RFRA-Clarification

Click above to read the article.

We so often hear, particularly from the left, that we must practice “tolerance” and accept all points of views. And we also hear, ad nauseum, about the need for “equality” and “fairness” from the same people. But why is tolerance and fairness and equality strictly a one-way street?

Let’s just look at a few recent examples of so-called “tolerance” and “fairness.”

There have been several reports as of late of whites being banned from “Black Lives Matter” events (see here and here). And there’s the recent protests by “Black Brunch” protesters crowd targeting “white establishments” for “disruption” solely based on the color of one’s skin. Just invert white for black in these reports and imagine the whirlwind of outrage that would pour forth from the left and the main-stream media. And yet we hear nary a word from the liberal media about such discriminatory practices that are based solely on one’s faith or skin color.

So, once again, why is tolerance and equality and fairness only a one-way street? I think we know why. And it has nothing to do with tolerance and equality and fairness, but rather power for power’s sake alone … tolerance be damned.

how convenient church lady

Related:

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) “Establishment Clause” refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) “Granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, “demonstrates”means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, “exercise of religion” includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, “governmental entity” includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person’s exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Christianity, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, GOP, Homosexuality, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, LGBT Activism, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, opinion, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Rank Stupidity, Religion, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Stunning Revelation: Bill Gates Has Spent $2.3 Billion on Common Core

North Denver News

Bill-Gates-One-World-Government

The new curriculum driven into law by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the Common Core Standards, is a product of massive spending on an unprecedented historical level by Bill Gates.

Research by Jack Hassard, Professor Emeritus at Georgia State, shows compelling evidence that Gates has spent $2.3 billion pushing the Common Core. More than 1800 grants to organizations running from  teachers unions to state departments of education to  political groups like the National Governor’s Association have pushed the Common Core into 45 states, with little transparency and next to no public review.

The Common Core now represents a de facto and de jure national school curriculum, something theoretically prohibited by federal law. But the Common Core comes with common high-stakes tests and common textbooks, making  the standards are more than standards.

The Gates involvement, profiteering by testing publishers like Pearson and the heavy-hand of federal coercion in the Common Core has aroused political opposition from right and left, as well as from education experts who have called the standards inappropriate developmentally, pushing young children into material they aren’t ready for.

The Colorado Department of Education was a major recipient of Gates Foundation money, during a time when funding for Colorado classrooms was slashed. CDE’s Colorado Legacy Foundation received $9.7 million in Gates money in 2011, and $1.4 million in a second grant that year. CDE received another  $6 million in 2012. In 2012, and 2010,  CDE received $1.74 million each. In 2013, $828,000 was received. At over $22 million in recent years, the Colorado Department of Education is one of the largest Gates recipients in the nation.

Read more at North Denver News …

Related:

Bill-Gates

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

—James Madison

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Climate Change, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, Education, elitism, Energy Policy, EPA, Fascism, Federal Budget, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founders, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Immigration, Indoctrination, Islam, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Debt, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, RNC, Science, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Sovereignty, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Revolutionary Communist Roots of #BlackLivesMatter

Click below for related story:

Red-Black-and-Green-Commies

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Islam, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, Muslim Brotherhood, National Security, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, Palestinians, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Rank Stupidity, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Union Actions, United Nations | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How Conservative Are GOP Presidential Candidates?

Click below for related story:

Conservative-Candidate-Chart

h/t: GOP Briefing Room

Posted in American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Conservatism, GOP, House of Representatives, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Politics, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Senate, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Leave a comment

Stay Skeptical, My Friends … Stay VERY Skeptical

Hillary-Skeptical

h/t: GOP Briefing Room

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, Bill of Rights, Communications, Crime, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Security, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Rank Stupidity, Satire, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Gingrich: I Don’t Want to Repeal ObamaCare, and Neither Does Congress

By: Brent Parrish

Newt-Gingrich-403x304

For the past couple of years I’ve been taking a very hard look at certain members within the GOP, as well as other individuals and groups who profess to be “conservative” or right-leaning, and examining whether their words match their deeds.

Let’s take Newt Gingrich as an example.

There are have been plenty of times where I found myself in agreement with Newt. I recall during the presidential debates cheering Gingrich when he went after the liberal main-stream media.  I’ve also found agreement with Newt and his professed strong stance against Islamic terrorism.

But I also found myself at odds with Newt Gingrich concerning his past support for federal aid to education, so-called “free trade” agreements like GATT and NAFTA, federal land grabs, foreign aid, bailouts, the Export-Import bank, and his alleged belief that national sovereignty is a “thing of the past.” And just who will we give our sovereignty to? But I digress.

A number of GOP candidates ran on a platform of repealing the cynically named “Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act” (a.k.a. Obamacare), yet quickly caved to the Obama agenda by providing funding for Obamacare via the so-called CRomnibus bill (a combination of a Continuing Resolution and an omnibus spending bill covering dozens of federal agencies), despite the fact the GOP won a landslide victory in both Houses in the 2014 primaries.

Now Newt Gingrich is claiming the GOP doesn’t have the stomach to fully repeal Obamacare, instead preferring to whip up a version of Obamacare lite.

Via The New American (emphasis mine):

Although he’s found that ObamaCare isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (shown) doesn’t think it should be repealed outright — and, he added, neither do congressional Republicans, notwithstanding their rhetoric to the contrary.

[…]

Challenged by O’Donnell about his past support for an individual mandate, Gingrich said that he no longer favors it “because in order to make an individual mandate work, you have to move to an extraordinarily authoritarian system.” Yet Gingrich is known to have stumped for a mandate as early as 1993 — claiming it was the conservative alternative to the complete nationalization of healthcare being pushed at the time by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton — and continued speaking in favor of it until just before he jumped into the 2012 presidential race. Considering that it should have been obvious from day one that enforcing an individual mandate would require authoritarian means, one suspects that politics, rather than principle, have shaped Gingrich’s view of the mandate over the years.

In spite of his misgivings about many aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Gingrich made it clear that he’s not in favor of repealing it.

“There are a certain number of people from your party that say they just want [the ACA] repealed,” O’Donnell said. “It doesn’t sound like you agree with that.”

“Well, they don’t, either,” replied Gingrich, precipitating a round of laughter from both O’Donnell and the audience. Instead, he said, they’ll just repeal the parts they don’t like while retaining the politically popular ones.

The latest CBO projections predict federal spending will increase nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years to insure fewer than half of uninsured Americans.

Once again, despite all contrary rhetoric coming from a number of GOP leaders, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the two parties from one another.

 Quigley-Carroll-right-left-quote

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Bill of Rights, Conservatism, Debt Ceiling, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Federal Budget, GOP, Health Care Bill, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Debt, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, Politics, Progressive Movement, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unemployment | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Forum: What’s Your Take on the Bowe Bergdahl Situation? What Will the Outcome Be?

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’s Your Take on the Bowe Bergdahl Situation? What Will the Outcome Be?

The Glittering Eye: As Lord Sankey said in 1935, the presumption of innocence is the golden thread that runs through the criminal law. That is as true of our code of military justice as it is of our civil code. I’m concerned that too many are forgetting that in the case of Bowe Berdahl. Let the case work its way through the courts. That’s what hearings and trials are for.

I do find it interesting that the editors of the New York Times a) assume that Berdahl is guilty and b) think he should be absolved from that for political reasons. There is another ancient legal dictum that covers that: fiat justitia ruat caelum or let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Wolf Howling: On the night of June 30, 2009, Army Spc. Bowe Bergdahl, then stationed in Afghanistan at Outpost Keating, left a note in his tent stating “he was leaving to start a new life.” Bergdahl left his post and made his way into the surrounding countryside, committing a textbook act of desertion per the UCMJ. The Taliban soon made Bergdahl their prisoner.

In the immediate aftermath of his desertion, Bergdahl’s battalion engaged in repeated efforts to find him in operations that claimed the lives of six soldiers. Moreover, Army Command made a decision that Outpost Keating, then slated for closure, should remain open as a base from which to search for Bergdahl. On October 3, 2009, the base was subjected to the one of the largest and bloodiest attacks of the Afghan War, in what has become known as the Battle of Kamdesh. The battle resulted in eight more American soldiers killed and twenty-seven wounded.

The Obama administration, at some point, began secret negotiations with the Taliban for the return of Bergdahl. In violation of U.S. law, the Obama administration agreed to a prisoner exchange with the Taliban without timely notifying Congress. Despite that, the Obama administration claiming general power to act under the Constitution, unilaterally authorized the deal. On May 31, 2014, Bergdahl was exchanged for five top Taliban commanders who, until then, were being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility.

In the wake of criticism, the Obama administration defended their deal, laughably claiming that Bergdahl was a soldier with a distinguished record of service. At least three of the five members of the Taliban Five seem poised to resume their efforts against American and Afghanistan interests. The U.S. military recently charged Bergdahl with desertion.

My take is that Bergdahl should be tried for desertion and, if found guilty, be jailed for life. I also believe that Obama’s decision to trade for Bergdahl was part of a larger plan to close Gitmo, but that pushback in the wake of this trade will stop that. Obama, who has made an industry out of violating the Constitution and the laws of our nation, will suffer no penalty for this trade because Congress is too supine to force the issue. Most if not all of the Taliban Five will return to their positions in the Taliban to again plan the death and destruction of Americans.

At the Daily Caller, W. James Antle III opines on one other possible fallout:

The charges against Bowe Bergdahl are not merely embarrassing to the White House. They will further undermine the already shaky confidence in the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran.

I don’t see that. The Iran negotiations are orders of magnitude more important than the Bergdahl situation, which is little more than a flash in the pan in the grander scheme of things. Obama has already given the nation countless grounds to mistrust his judgment and veracity as regards the Iran negotiations. The administration’s prevarications and poor judgment as regards Bergdahl are merely more straws on a camels back that is already broken. In the very near future, no one will remember this but as one more sad footnote in the history of the Obama administration. At least, that is, until new American deaths can be traced to the recently released members of the Taliban Five, as seems a certainty. Then the impotent howling will commence yet again.

JoshuaPundit: I pretty much said what I had to say here. The Army had to be dragged kicking and screaming into prosecuting this human detritus because the top brass have all seen what happens to generals whom don’t toe the party line…they get booted out. The Army knew as far back as 2010 when the Pentagon originally investigated this that Bergdahl willfully deserted his post, but they’ve kept stalling. The Army even postponed charging Bergdahl until after the 2014 midterms.

So our our commander-in-chief paid a nice ransom and freed 5 top Taliban commanders from Club Gitmo who have undoubtedly been responsible for more attacks on our troops in AfPak now that they’re free. It also doesn’t surprise me that the Obama regime knew Bergdahl was a deserter but lied to the American people about him ‘serving with honor and distinction.’ They simply don’t care anymore, having gotten away with this kind of thing so many times at this point.

The Army does surprise me though, just a bit. Considering that Bergdahl put his unit in danger and that Bergdahl was directly  responsible for the deaths of at least 5 other soldiers whom died trying to find him. I’m convinced the only reason they finally charged him was because this was so blatant it would have resulted in a major morale and discipline issue if they had just swept it under the rug, as they were obviously told to. At  that, what we’ve actually got here is not the prelude to a court martial
but the military equivalent of a ‘grand jury’, to stretch this out for months so the end result can be more or less buried.

The end result? They’ll obviously have to try him, whether they want to or not. There’s just too much evidence, including a little love note he wrote before he left. I’m assuming they will not consider AfPak as actual wartime, so a violation of Article 28 of the UCMJ calls for 2-5 years imprisonment, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and benefits.

By time he’s actually sentenced, at worst he’ll probably get two years , and it will be close enough to January 2017 that he’ll merit a presidential pardon or commutation of sentence after serving a few months. when you compare this with how the Pendleton 8 were treated, (all of them were acquitted after going through sheer hell) it makes you wonder…

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Bergdahl is charged with one count of Article 85 and one count of Article 99.

Article 85 is “desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty.” It carries a maximum potential punishment of a dishonorable discharge, reduction to the rank of private, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and five years in prison.

Article 99 is “misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place.” It carries a maximum potential penalty of dishonorable discharge, reduction to the rank of private, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and life in prison.

The UCMJ defines desertion as intent to leave a unit “permanently.”

Army officials associated with Bergdahl’s legal case cannot discuss or disclose the findings of the 2014 investigation while legal actions are pending “out of respect to the judicial process, the rights of the accused and to ensure the proceeding’s fairness and impartiality.”

The date of the hearing has not been announced.

An Article 32 preliminary hearing is similar to a civilian grand jury inquiry. It is designed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to merit a court-martial.

Based on the outcome of the hearing, a general court-martial convening authority will decide whether to refer charges to a general court-martial, refer the charges to a special court-martial, dismiss the charges, or take any other action deemed appropriate.

One important difference in the military process is that the defendant and defense counsel are present for the hearing and can cross-examine witnesses.

Without a confession from Bergdahl, military lawyers would need to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove his intent, including statements from members of his unit and Afghan villagers who may have come in contact with him after he left the U.S. base.

Depending on the outcome of the Article 32 hearing, Bergdahl’s attorney, could request an administrative solution to his client’s case by requesting that the military discharge Bergdahl in lieu of a court-martial.

Most likely, that is what will happen – a less than honorable discharge.

Personally, “Death To Traitors” may be apropos.

Also, tons of speculation that the Taliban 5 swap for Bergdahl may be the 1st step to shutting down enemy detentions at Guantanamo Bay.

Bookworm Room: In June 2009, when Bowe Bergdahl vanished, those who were paying attention already knew that he was a deserter at best or a collaborator at worst. His reputation amongst his fellow troops was terrible and, as his email correspondence with his father was being made public, it was obvious that Bergdahl wasn’t simply a lost sheep.

By the time of his release from Taliban hands, in May 2014, the military had, not only lost six good men searching for him, it had also had ample time to study everything about Bergdahl’s life until the point of his captivity — and to get to know his family. His father is quite manifestly a Muslim convert, with his beard and headdress and Pashtun and Arabic prayers. Or he has a really, really, bizarre variation of Stockholm Syndrome, to the point at which he’s identifying with his son’s hosts or captors, depending on which story one believes.

Obama knew all of this, and yet he took Bergdahl back in exchange for five men who undoubtedly have killed many Americans and who, know free, will undoubtedly kill many more. Not only that, but he had his mouthpieces fan out and knowingly tell Americans the lie that Bergdahl served honorably and vanished bravely.

Summed up: At all times relevant to Bergdahl’s release, it was manifestly obvious based upon the widely available evidence — almost all of it from Bergdahl’s and his father’s own keyboards — that this was an act of desertion, pure and simple.

So why the “desertion” charge now? This is going to be a show trial. Bergdahl’s lawyers are already claiming (a) that it’s the military’s fault for allowing him to enlist in the first place; and/or (b) that he was trying to be a good soldier by departing in the dark of night, without any of his equipment, to report to another base about infractions on his base. The military tribunal, assuming it’s been properly staffed with “good soldiers,” will accept one or the other of these defenses, and Bergdahl will vanish into obscurity.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Since the Bowe Bergdahl trade last May with the Taliban for five high value enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, many of us were under the impression an Article 32 investigation was underway. The announcement on March 25th reveals that what the Army was conducting all this time was an Article 15-6 investigation, which is a non-judicial investigation utilized for lesser crimes committed while in the military.

We now know Bergdahl has been charged with “desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty” as well as “misbehavior before the enemy.” These charges mean now Bergdahl might receive an Article 32 hearing, essentially like a civilian grand jury hearing, to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to a court-martial.

Many who have been following the case heard statements from his platoon members, who all appear to agree Bergdahl deserted his post and should be court-martialed. Possibly half a dozen of his platoon mates lost their lives looking for Bergdahl.

After all the fanfare with President Obama and Bergdahl’s family in the White House Rose Garden, and with Susan Rice stating on national television that “he served the United States with honor and distinction”, the political pressure on the military must be intense to make this case go away.

I suspect the outcome of this will be Bergdahl’s attorney will ask for, and the Army will grant, an administrative discharge, avoiding an Article 32 hearing altogether. This means he will receive an “other than honorable” discharge and will not serve any jail time.

What is most disturbing is that our military, caving under the political pressure of this administration, delayed and continues to delay bringing the Bergdahl desertion case to court martial.

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?

Posted in Afghanistan, American Culture, Politics, U.S. Military, War, Watchers Council, Writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons: ‘Muslim Brotherhood Is a De Facto Cabinet Member’ [Video]

YouTube/JoeMillerUS: Admiral Lyons, the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, breaks down the Iranian threat, the influence of Islam on American government, specifically, the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood. Admiral Lyons contends the Muslim Brotherhood’s proven objective and creed is to destroy America from within.

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, Hamas, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Iran, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Muslim Brotherhood, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, opinion, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Religion, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Sovereignty, Terrorism, Theocracy, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Military, War | Tagged , | Leave a comment