President Obama Embraces Climate Change Hoax

This week, 195 nations participate in a Global Climate Change Summit in Paris, France to combat “man-made global warming” by virtue of the production of Greenhouse Gases. Man-made Global Warming, just like its parent Man-Made Global Cooling, it’s brother Climate Change, its’ sister Climate Disruption, and their dog Climate Wierding, are all members of the Hoax Family. A scam invented to grant government more regulatory access to global business and global financial infrastructure. There are piles of data supporting “climate change” and there are even more piles of data demonstrating it to be an international hoax of unprecedented proportions.

Do your own research and make your own conclusions; but as for me, I am convinced that these 195 nations are led by the most corrupt, nefarious, power-hungry, and greedy governments comprised of petulant political tyrants and wannabe tyrants, who themselves have not and cannot produce anything of value on Earth. These governments are trying to manufacture a pseudo-science religion from which they, and only they, benefit from radically increased powers that they, and only they, shall grant upon themselves.

As the threat of liberty, freedom of information, and freedoms of communication grow, these governments seek to tighten their grip on business and technology, on information, and ultimately intend to ensure an end to our dreams of privacy and free enterprise.

It is impossible for me to believe that all those countries and all these governments really believe in Global Warming. They haven’t been scammed. They are scamming. Every day I lose more respect for the leaders of the land, as I listen to them lie and defraud a Republic they’ve sworn to protect and defend. These are not serious men and women ruling us. They just so happen to be elite proprietors of a kind of corruption conducive to modern tyranny. This global warming hoax is theater for the people, the masses, the useful idiots who out of fear will exchange their liberty for protection from some environmental apocalypse.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Barack Obama, President of the United States, and Leader of the Free World:

Yes. If you’re cringing in shame, in embarrassment, and in humiliation, I feel your pain. Al Gore got rich advocating this hoax. Obama lacks such a noble motive as personal greed. This fraud isn’t a sword or any kind of blunt instrument for our Dear Leader, but a bomb… tens of thousands of bombs to drop upon what he perceives as the evil of Capitalism.

I have a litmus test of sorts, which I use to discern good faith intellectualism from reckless pseudo-religious fraud. Anyone who believes in Man-Made Climate change and who also supports this Climate Change agenda, I reject as a character come in bad faith. I don’t feel this way about any other issue, because on almost every other issue, I can at least empathize with, if not rationally understand, a persons perspective. But these Chicken Little’s – these End-Times false prophets, are creatures of a kind I cannot respect.

Any politician that wants to ensure they never get my vote, regardless of the stakes, need to do but one thing: to profess to believe in Man-Made Global Warming. I’m sorry, it’s a deal breaker.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Forum: What Are Your Thoughts This Thanksgiving?

Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:What Are Your Thoughts This Thanksgiving?

 Fausta’s Blog : Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday.

It is, as Mark Steyn says,

“…very small scale, very modest, very intimate, very American, and absolutely gets to the key of things, which is thanking God for the blessings of this great land.”

Thanksgiving is wonderful in its flexibility:

You can celebrate Thanksgiving cooking and serving at the local soup kitchen, at a restaurant, at home, with your friends, with family, hosting exchange students or other newcomers. You can do the traditional menu, and you can do ethnic dishes; do all the cooking or do pot-luck. You may get all of your family members and your friends helping you, or you may do all the work yourself. You may add other celebrations – birthdays, engagements, anniversaries, even Christmas – if your guests are traveling from far away. You may really dress up for a formal table, or you may have a casual dinner outdoors (as we did this year). Better yet, you can do a combination of all of the above, alternate, make every year different, which I really enjoy. Thanksgiving is about creativity, hospitality, flexibility, warmth.

Indeed, Thanksgiving is a sample of our country’s best values.

As for the politicizing of Thanksgiving, I’m all for the simplest, most direct approach. Because that’s another good thing about Thanksgiving: to learn that one earns a place at the grown-up table.

The Glittering Eye : I’ll delegate my response to Nurse Eye Roll:

It’s that time of year where everyone starts to think of things they’re thankful for and talks about them on social media. Nurses however… we are a different bunch. Every time we go into work, we are thankful. It doesn’t take the month of November to inspire this.

We are not thankful for our massive salaries or bonuses. We are not thankful for predictable jobs where we are guaranteed to finish an entire cup of coffee or get at least two bathroom breaks. We are not thankful for having every holiday off with our families. When nurses think about what they are thankful for, our list looks very different than most peoples’…

We are thankful that we are able to walk, talk, and breathe on our own. We have seen exactly what it looks like when someone suddenly loses those abilities. We have seen the tears stream down patient’s faces, as they are unable to verbalize their feelings. They let their tears fall for their nurses because they don’t want their families to see them struggling.

We are thankful we have jobs with sick time. We see patient after patient come in jobless that has waited until the very last second to come in to have their ailment treated because they cannot afford to pay anything or take time away from work. They wait and pray at home for things to just go away as they become exponentially worse. The man with the pain in his foot three months ago is now having it amputated. The woman with untreated diabetes whose vision was getting blurry earlier this year is now blind. The young mother of four with a respiratory infection that she hoped would go away on its own because she couldn’t take any time off… who is now intubated and sedated in the ICU, in acute respiratory distress syndrome… whose fingers and toes are starting to turn blue and purple from all of the medications she’s getting just to keep her blood pressure up… who is now a DNR.

Read the whole thing. I thought it put matters into a bit of perspective.

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : With family members working varied schedules we celebrate our Thanksgiving differently every year. We take turns hosting and everyone chips in bringing a favorite dish so no one is stressed or overworked. We enjoy the customary dishes of roasted and/or fried turkey, sweet potato casserole, stuffing, mashed potatoes and various vegetables and casseroles, along with the requisite pumpkin, pecan, and apple pies.

What struck me more this year, not just within my extended family but in the wider community, was the overall sense of everyone just going through the motions. We seem to have lost the feelings of thankfulness and celebration usually felt at this time of year.

 What was once a joyful festivity celebrating the pilgrims’ first year in the new world and the promise of a better future has turned into debates over the countless sins and transgressions this country has brought to the world. The left and the media want us to be ashamed we are Americans. Black Friday deals and protests were more important topics of discussion and news reports than remembering why we celebrate Thanksgiving.

 From my perspective there is an overall sense of anxiety among the people; a sense of uncertainty. People aren’t excited or hopeful anymore nor are we permitted to take pride in being “Americans.” The left is succeeding in tearing down the traditions that have united us as Americans. It seems since Obama has become president we got the change he promised, but are losing the hope.

 Well, there you have it.

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.

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

And THIS is the TORY Party? I Hate to See the Labour, LibDems,…Only One Answer in UK: UKIP

Check this quote out from the Sun UK newspaper (it has a pay wall and stay away from page 3!) from a TORY MP (thanks to ConservativeHome):

“It wants the ban extended to ads in print and cinemas, curbs on sweets at tills, and sugar labelling. Tory committee chair Sarah Wollaston said: “One third of children are overweight or obese when they leave primary school. It’s not just the prospect of an earlier death, it’s about quality of life.”

“The ban” is a ban on junk food ads and of course a sugar tax of seven pence (about 11 cents or so) on sugary drinks.  Did the Conservatives, the party of Margaret Thatcher, call for social engineering and nanny state policies?  But one Tory MP at least says no:

A Conservative MP has branded Jamie Oliver’s campaign for the introduction of a sugar tax on fizzy drinks and sweet foods “patronising nonsense”.

***

Andrew Percy, the Tory MP for Brigg and Goole who sits on the health committee told the paper Oliver’s suggestion is “patronising nonsense”.

“This is a classic nanny state reaction and it won’t work.

“Slapping 10p or 20p on a can of sugary drink won’t make people change their behaviour.”

We should be thankful that PM Cameron does not appear to support it.  But it is disturbing that Conservatives are endorsing it.  If Labour ever wins, the ban and the sugar tax and the ban on cheap beer (ponder that when you go vote in Oldham West) and a lot of other big government items will surely pass – with the help of Tory collaborators.

There is only one answer, flawed as it might be, for the UK:  The United Kingdom Independence Party.  Rah for John Bickley this Thursday!

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

UKIP Gains Momentum in Oldham West

The Torygraph, I’m sorry I mean the Telegraph (UK), reported that UKIP is sending maximum resources to Oldham West and Royton to seek a surprise by-election win December 3 and is urging Tory strategic voting for the libertarian party:

New polling suggests the UK Independence Party has dramatically cut Labour’s lead in the previously safe seat of Oldham West and Royton, which became vacant when the former minister Michael Meacher died last month.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Farage, the Ukip leader, said the contest was now so “close” that he would be throwing all the party’s available campaign resources at winning, in the final few days before Thursday’s vote.

***

Mr Farage said: “We are going to give this a very big push. I am going to be there almost all week. I have cleared the diary out of almost everything else. One of the things we have to do is try to get Tories to vote Ukip tactically to vote Labour.

Labour senses the political momentum shifting to UKIP but it is an uphill battle (The late incumbent won with a 14k margin last May):

Labour sources fear that they could lose if Ukip’s surge continues – and defeat would intensify pressure on Mr Corbyn’s already embattled leadership.

According to both Labour and Ukip insiders, the Labour leader’s opposition to a “shoot-to-kill” policy against terrorist gunmen in the aftermath of the Paris attacks has been particularly damaging to Labour’s standing in the constituency.

UKIP has cut the Labour lead to seven points!  The Guardian has a very reasonable assessment of the potential – and the uphill climb:

Oldham West should not be a difficult defence. Its long-serving MP, the late Michael Meacher, bequeathed a 15,000-vote majority in a seat he comfortably held for 45 years. Yet reports from the campaign trail suggest Labour is nervous and Ukip buoyant. Comparisons are made with the neighbouring seat of Heywood and Middleton, where a collapse in the Labour vote nearly delivered an upset victory for Ukip in 2014. Could Labour lose? It is possible, but Oldham West is much tougher terrain for Ukip than Heywood; Labour’s starting majority is larger, and there is a hefty ethnic minority vote unlikely to switch to Nigel Farage’s party. Ukip needs everything to go its way to get into contention.

And the Independent reports the sudden and numerous appearance of the Farage Labourite in the district:

Labour Party internal polling suggests that it is within 1,000 votes of losing the Oldham by-election to Ukip.

Canvassing by activists over the past few weeks has found that swathes of voters who backed Labour in May are preparing to desert the party in the by-election, in what should be one of its safest seats.

Senior figures close to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn are understood to be “very worried” and fear the party could lose the seat.

It might be interesting Thursday evening.  (And I am off work Friday so that means potential for multiple victory laps if UKIP wins!)

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Cruz Campaign Capitalizes on Carson’s Inexperience

Senator Cruz continues to capitalize on Dr. Ben Carson’s inexperience, gaining ground against Carson in Massachusetts. In October, Massachusetts polling data showed Trump with 48%, Carson with 14%, Rubio with 12%, and Cruz with only 5%. In one month, Trump has dropped to 32%, Rubio up to 18%, Cruz at 10%, and Carson dropping all the way to 5%. Now, this early polling in Massachusetts isn’t a good gauge of anything in a vacuum, but considering what we’re seeing in other polls, it appears that Senator Cruz is directly siphoning off votes from Carson.

AP_ted_cruz_jt_150321_16x9_992Obviously, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson share the same constituency; so whichever candidate’s campaign seems the most formidable will likely be the campaign with all the votes at the end of the day. While I have tremendous respect for Dr. Carson and while his campaign staff has proven to be remarkable fund-raisers, they have done a very poor job crafting a clear message. Rand Paul, whom I also respect and support, has suffered from the same lack of message. Over the last few weeks the Rand team finally looks to have simplified its message and to have begun demonstrating why Senator Paul, and no one else, ought to be the Republican Nominee. Too little too late I’m afraid.

The success of the Cruz Campaign can be found in its’ consistency. Republicans are looking for a conservative candidate that walks the walk, and that’s Ted Cruz. That’s been his message from day one. Why is Ben Carson running for President? Why is Ben Carson the best candidate in the Republican field? No one seems to have an answer to those two questions, least of all the Carson Campaign, which is a serious problem. Carson’s support is still strong nationally, because he’s a brilliant man with an admirable character and it’s just hard as heck not to love the guy. However, as he delves into the policy alongside the Governors and Senators, he looks inexperienced.

Why is this important for Cruz in Virginia?

Surprisingly (and I’ve heard few people discussing this) a Mary Washington University Poll in early November showed Carson leading the field in Virginia with 29% of the vote. Trump is in second place in Virginia with 24%. Rubio had 11% and Cruz had 10%. I would imagine, if the same trend holds true in Virginia as it has in Massachusetts and Iowa, we will see Senator Ted Cruz skyrocketing in Virginia. Rubio, Cruz, and Trump could actually be very close together come the next round of Virginia polls. So keep an eye out.

Unfortunately for Carson, candidates who begin these steady, across the board, decreases in their poll numbers, rarely survive. Voters write these candidates off and quickly jump to their next favorite candidate. In both the case of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, the number 2 favorite is typically Senator Cruz. With the Republican and Democrat Parties and everyone in the television and print medias targeting Trump, it is hard to imagine Trump hanging on. That isn’t right, by the way. No candidate should lose support because of what the Political Parties say or how viciously the media goes after them. If you agree with a candidates policies, what do you care what the media says? However, this has been the trend over the past several elections. No candidate has survived the blitzkrieg The Donald is facing. Of course, no other candidate has been Donald Trump.

We’ll see what happens. The holidays will speed us through the rest of 2015 and come January 2nd, the primary season will be in fifth gear. Should be fascinating.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Should More Millennials Run for State Legislature as a Democrat? Well, After They Treated Dr. Larry Lessig, Why Should They?

Emma Roller writes a nice op-ed in the New York Times about the apparent difficulty of the Dems to get people to run for state legislatures.  Here’s a useful highlight:

Another problem for Democratic Party operatives: There are plenty of other outlets for left-leaning millennials’ sense of altruism that do not involve running for political office. The Peace Corps recently reported receiving the highest number of applications since 1975. Why bother entrenching yourself in petty party politics when you could have a more direct impact overseas, or make more money working for a start-up?

Democratic Party operatives hope that they can find millennials who can get as excited about running for state assembly as they are for the new craft cocktail bar opening up in their neighborhood.

***

Finding experienced Democratic candidates to put up in future cycles means recruiting young people to serve in state legislatures as soon as possible. One option would be for the Democratic Party to start branding itself as a political disrupter, in much the way Republicans have adopted the language of Silicon Valley.

The Democrats would have a better case if they did not have awful policies:  Pro-abortion, increased spending and government power, a willingness to cede sovereignty to international institutions, etc.  (In fairness not all Democrats favor all those things and they do have a concern for the little guy and for justice not always seen in the GOP.)

But Roller is right:  State legislatures are a laboratory, not just as Justice Brandeis wrote years ago for ideas, but for people to run for Congress and statewide offices.  Remember my new fifty cent book I got at the library about running for state representative or senate I wrote about a few weeks ago.  (I got a nice email back when I told one of the authors how much I liked about the book and he recommended two other books he helped write.)  It awakened in me a desire to consider prayerfully at the right time a run for the state house!

Let me tell you:  Running for office can be the most fun with clothes on, but only if you run for the right reasons:  You have to have some idealism, some non-negotiable items to work for if elected.  A willingness to say:  I am not interested in budget committees or being speaker or committee chair but rather to get ideas debated and passed.  Seek term limits and perhaps other aspects of the Sanders Platform.  It’s almost too bad that my delegate and senator are both Republicans.  I do not like primary fights unless there is a good reason.  But we need something more in the GOP than thanksgiving that there was a contested race for sheriff in Powhatan County.

Finally, a note to the Dems:  Maybe if you want idealistic Millennials to seek political office, consider how you treated Dr. Larry Lessig.  I thoroughly disagree with him but I think the party could have found a place for him in the debates.  But Lessig did something I thoroughly disagree with:  He quit the race.  I think with all the duest respect that I have for Dr. Lessig’s effort that he should have taken a page from the Ron Paul book:  Practice guerrilla politics.  Have rallies.  Raise huge amounts of funds on one day.  Have the first flying blimp in the history of presidential politics  Walk hundreds of miles for liberty.  For Dr. Paul changed the tone of the political debate in our nation in the direction of liberty and several Paulites have run for a seat in their state house.  Some of those Lessigites would have made great Democrat candidates for state legislature in 2020.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://i1.wp.com/static0.therichestimages.com/cdn/864/455/90/cw/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/secret_society_by_thecolourushproject-1.jpg?resize=500%2C300

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

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

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

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

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

http://i0.wp.com/4.bp.blogspot.com/-1ndmEdQX3AM/Tv04FWJ3kTI/AAAAAAAAAzg/P-WNaJRST6Q/s400/Bookworm%2B3.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much more good stuff at the link.

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

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

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

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

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

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

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

Originally from: 

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results


Article written by: Tom White

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://static0.therichestimages.com/cdn/864/455/90/cw/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/secret_society_by_thecolourushproject-1.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1ndmEdQX3AM/Tv04FWJ3kTI/AAAAAAAAAzg/P-WNaJRST6Q/s400/Bookworm%2B3.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much more good stuff at the link.

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

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

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

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

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

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

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

Major UK Betting House Gives UKIP a Fighting Chance in Oldham West

I do not want to condone betting or gambling although I do support legal gambling by private parties (not the lottery – the state ought not raise funds through exploiting the people; the lottery ought to be privatized) subject to appropriate regulation.  But in the UK they actually bet on politics.  One of the largest gambling houses – Ladbrokes – is saying that UKIP’s chances in the special election for a new MP in Oldham West is down to 5/2.  Only Labour has better odds:

UKIP odds of winning Oldham West & Royton shorten again. Now just 5/2; were 8/1 10 days ago.

Embedded image permalink
After this incident in Westminster involving a high level Labour MP quoting Chairman Mao’s infamous Little Red Book, it might be a win going away for the libertarian, anti-EU party next Thursday!

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

The Rise of Cruz in Iowa Explained

In the most recent Quinnipiac Iowa poll, Senator Ted Cruz surprised analysts by coming in second to Donald Trump with 23% of likely caucus goers support. The ascendancy of Cruz in Iowa can be contributed to two primary factors. First, that Rubio and Carson supporters are not securely in the tent for those candidates. Secondly, the terror attacks in Paris and the return of foreign policy to the forefront of the campaign. Ted Cruz, having refused to attack his fellow candidates, has not angered those who currently have different favorites, nor has he done anything to hurt anyone’s favorite candidate in the polls. Senator Cruz has stayed above the fray and run an extraordinarily disciplined messaging campaign. Cruz does not go off topic. Cruz is not taken by surprise. Cruz does not make mistakes. So as other candidates, running less disciplined campaigns, make their mistakes, Senator Cruz is there to pick up their votes.

cruz2The top five candidates in Iowa are Donald Trump (25%), Ted Cruz (23%), Ben Carson (18%), Marco Rubio (13%), and Rand Paul (5%). Of the top four candidates, their supporters were asked “(If candidate chosen q1) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the caucus?” Donald Trump boasts the most certainty amongst his supporters with 51% saying that their minds are made up and only 48% saying that their minds could be changed. Ted Cruz comes in second with 41% saying that their minds are made up and 58% saying their minds could be changed. Both Trump and Cruz have built a large number of secured support and we haven’t even gotten into the thick of the campaign season (January/February).

Rubio and Carson, however, do not have a secure hold on their supporters. 33% of Ben Carson supporters say that their minds are made up and 65% say their minds could be changed. Rubio’s numbers are far worse. Only 22% of Rubio supporters say their minds are made up, while an astonishing 78% of people polled, who said they support Senator Rubio, say their minds could be changed. This is great new for the Cruz Campaign for 2 specific reasons.

First, of those who say they support Ben Carson, 18% consider themselves Tea Party, 18% consider themselves Very Conservative, and 24% consider themselves Evangelical. That means that 60% of Carson’s voters could easily fall into the Cruz camp, based on ideological agreement. Senator Marco Rubio, however, holds sway over fewer ideological allies. 5% consider themselves Tea Party, 8% consider themselves Very Conservative, and 6% consider themselves Evangelical, which means only 19% of Rubio Voters are likely to switch over to Cruz. However, remember that 78% of Rubio voters aren’t committed. What if ideological lines weren’t the only factor in the race?

Senator Cruz’s jump in the polls coincides with a jump in voters’ perception of the candidates on the issues. Recent terror attacks have brought foreign policy back to the forefront of people’s minds. Ted Cruz leads Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Paul when voters were asked who they thought was the best candidate on foreign policy. Ted Cruz received 24%, Donald Trump 18%, Marco Rubio 15%, and Ben Carson and Rand Paul each received 6%. Interestingly, it would appear that Cruz’s rise in the polls and Carson’s decline, was directly the result of the fact that Cruz is viewed as being the best on foreign policy and Carson, not so much. When asked about terrorism in particular, Trump still leads Cruz. Also, when it comes to the question of who is a “strong leader”, Trump continues to lead there as well. This is why Trumps numbers remain solid.

Another area of this poll that is particularly instructive, is the favorability of the candidates. When asked if there were any candidates likely caucus goers would NOT support, we see Ted Cruz with a huge advantage. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich have the highest number of people who are absolutely resolute that they do not support them. 26% say the absolutely would not support Jeb Bush. 23% say they would not support Donald Trump, and 19% say they would not support John Kasich.

If you’ve been hearing folks talk about the inevitably of a Cruz/Rubio showdown, the numbers I’m about to share with you are the reason why. Only 5% (the lowest number polled) of caucus goers say they would not support Senator Ted Cruz. In second place? Senator Marco Rubio with only 7% saying they would not support Rubio. Which means, Cruz and Rubio are likely to pick up everyone else’s votes as they drop out of the race. Donald Trump isn’t going to gain votes, but it is also very unlikely that his supporters abandon him. Which means that while Trump will hover in the upper 20% range, as other candidates drop out, Senators Cruz and Rubio will continue to rise, with each of them likely surpassing Donald Trump by February.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker