April 27, 2015


The Forum Is Up: If The Clintons Committed A Felony, What Should Be Done?

Every week on Monday morning , 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: Assuming that they are brought to trial and convicted, If The Clintons Committed A Felony, What Should Be Done?

 GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD : Not sure how to answer this – so I hit up a certain cat over at Daily Conservative

The only reason that a public servant would use a private email server hosted out of her house would be to hide her emails from the public she serves.

That’s not just unethical… it’s illegal. And it is the same crime that General Petraeus just pleaded guilty to.

You see, in Petraeus’ case, he pleaded guilty to storing classified materials on his unsecure, private email account. The law requires that classified documents be stored on secure government servers to protect against hackers.

The State Department is saying that Hillary Clinton ONLY used her private email account while she was Secretary.

Which means one of two things:

Either she never received any classified material by email while she was Secretary of State (extremely unlikely) or she committed hundreds, if not thousands, of misdemeanors and felonies by keeping those documents unsecure on her private server.

Those are the only two options. Either Mrs. Clinton wasn’t doing her job, or she was committing crimes on a daily basis.

The penalty for storing classified emails on a non-government, unsecure email server is up to a year in prison and $100,000 fine PER DOCUMENT. This isn’t a felony, but it is a misdemeanor that carries prison time.

The other law that she might have broken is the statute prohibiting the destroying/concealing of government documents. The punishment for knowingly concealing or destroying government email records is 3 years in prison PER OFFENSE.

This second violation is a FELONY and would disqualify her from holding public office!

Did Hillary Clinton illegally kept classified materials on her private email server? It would be inconceivable for the Secretary of State – possessing the highest security clearance – would not discuss anything classified over email.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Considering the most recent allegations against Hillary Clinton, the most damning, and, if proven, felonious actions committed would be:

1. Taking money from foreign governments

2. Deleting over 30,000 emails AFTER they had been subpoenaed by Congress,

3. Improper disclosure on tax returns of the receipt of donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments.

On the first count, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states “… no Person holding any office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any Present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The acceptance of money while serving as Secretary of State, regardless of whether these were payments for special favors, violates the Constitution and U. S. law. If Clinton was still in office, this would be an impeachable offense.

On the second point, deleting over 30K emails after they had been subpoenaed is an obstruction of justice. It is a crime as per 18 U.S.C. §1519 to destroy a document to prevent it from being subpoenaed. According to an article in Thompson Reuters by Law Professor Ronald Rotunda, “Section 1519 imposes up to 20 years imprisonment for what commentators call, “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” A casual observer would find it hard to believe her explanation that they were all private emails and none of a public nature. Are we to believe we have NO trail of any of Clinton’s emails while she served as Secretary of State?

Thirdly, we have the announcement that the Clinton family’s charities will be reviewing and refiling five years of tax returns (and possibly more) after news agency Reuters found errors in how they reported donations from foreign governments. Could it be the IRS that takes down the Clinton Empire? Perhaps, if the rule of law was applied equally regardless of political connections or affiliations, but it doesn’t appear President Obama’s IRS and Department of Justice pay much attention to the rule of law unless it benefits his progressive agenda.

The Clinton’s continued arrogance and belief they are somehow above the law is not a sudden revelation. This attitude has existed since they began their political career. Clinton deflects these latest allegations as right wing conspiracy theories. She and her campaign team do not deny any of the charges. They confidently assert there is no smoking gun or evidence of wrongdoing. With these latest revelations, it appears there is enough “there there” for the Justice Department to launch an investigation. Sadly, I don’t hold out much hope for this happening under the current administration.

As to what should be done if they are found guilty of these felonies, the Clinton Foundation should be stripped of its charitable tax-exempt status retroactively back to its formation, its assets liquidated along with all of the Clintons’ properties and holdings, and all of the monies distributed to charities benefiting America’s veterans and their families. Bill and Hillary should be sentenced to live out the rest of their days in confinement together in a single cell in a federal prison with no possibility of parole. One can dream, can’t one?

JoshuaPundit : If I had to answer this question short and sweet, I could confine my response to one word – nothing. Because nothing will be done. They will not be tried at all, much less convicted.

Not that there isn’t quite a bit they could be tried on. According to Mrs. Clinton’s own admissions, she committed obstruction of justice by destroying material she had on a private server after congress had subpoenaed it. There’s also the tacit admission that she and the Clinton Foundation committed what amounted to tax fraud and misuse of a 501C status by (a) failing to disclose the actual foreign sources of donations, AKA money laundering and (b) mixing together a number of those donations in what appears to be attempt to camouflage their origin with government grants they received, also known as commingling. While an ordinary American would be facing severe prosecution and forfeiture of assets for these crimes, the Clintons are being allowed to refile 5 years worth of taxes and 900 reports to ‘fix their mistakes,’ after which they will use money from the Foundation to pay, given their means,extremely modest penalties for misfiling.

And we haven’t even gotten to the pay for play aspects of many these donations which saw speaking fees for President Clintom skyrocket, and came from countries and businessmen who had business that Secretary Clinton as head of State Department was able to intervene on their behalf, and appears to have done so in exchange for large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Or the fact that she apparently classified materials on her private server, another violation of federal law.

Keep in mind that since the Clintons own the Foundation, they were able to use these ‘donations’ to invest and pay ‘expenses’ and to park income from these high paid speaking fees tax free to be used as massive deductions on their other income.

The Clintons won’t be tried for a number of reasons.

The GOP leadership in the Senate just signaled clearly that for all the promises and hot air expended, they have no intention whatsoever of challenging any of this president’s agenda and that he will be allowed to get away with whatever he wants to. So there will be no special prosecutor or any other assistance from the Obama Department of Justice, which now controls that formerly independent office.

The Clintons are prominent Democrats and frankly, there are different legal standards for Democrats nowadays, especially prominent ones whom likely know where a few bodies are buried. So even in the unlikely event any of this sees a court of law, no federal prosecutors will attempt to do anything more than a wrist slap.

We no longer live in a country of laws when it comes to the Oligarchy, this class we have allowed to rule over us. Instead, the laws, when they’re not simply ignored are frequently used as a means to obfuscate and deny justice rather than achieve it.

There is, however an interesting implication, a subtext to the current brouhaha over the Clintons. I’ll explore that in a separate item over at my place shortly.

The Glittering Eye : What should happen under those circumstances? They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What will happen? Nothing. Look at David Petraeus, for goodness sake.

The Independent Sentinel : The Clintons should be investigated and tried if there is evidence. They should be punished if they are guilty. It’s pretty straight-forward to me. For their role in turning control of 20% of our uranium over to the Russians, if convicted I think they’re traitors.

Wolf Howling : The Clintons are a sordid pair around whom the stench of scandal always hangs. Those of recent vintage are the multiple issues arising from Hillary’s e-mail during her time as Secretary of State and her subsequent recent erasure of tens of thousands of those e-mails. Another brewing scandal lies with the Clinton Foundation, a cash machine for the Clintons that does not seem to be acting as a charity and indeed, may well be at the center of undue influence on government decisions while Hillary was Secretary of State.

There is a real question whether Hillary violated criminal laws concerning the handling of official e-mails and the transmission of classified information over non-government means of communication. There are related questions as to whether the State Dept. or Hillary herself have committed perjury in their responses to legal requests for information that would have required production of Hillary’s personal e-mails in response. Indeed, the threats Hillary created to our national security by using a private e-mail address not reasonably secured far exceed those created by General Petraeus, who was recently prosecuted for divulging classified material. This is also an issue that ties directly into Behghazi. Because of the whitewash investigation of that incident, one that did not include either Hillary or top levels of the State Department, and because we have not had access to her e-mails, we still do not know what role Hillary played during and in the months leading up to the criminally reckless event that cost the lives of our Libyan Ambassador and several others. Hillary’s refusal to hand over her e-mail server for expert analysis and her attempt to address these issues with a stage managed presser before foreign correspondents have all been just jaw dropping in their shamelessness.

Yet other issues surround the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hill’s personal money machine since Bill left office. It is a charitable foundation that has taken in well over half a billion dollars, yet fed out only 15% for actual charitable work, if it can be called that. It appears that much of the Foundation money that has been doled out has directly benefited rich friends of the Clintons, and it appears that numerous foreign sources have given money to the Clintons, and then soon after found themselves the beneficiaries of favorable U.S. government actions. The most notorious of these that we know about so far is the approval of a Russian’s purchase of 20% of our nation’s uranium mines, an approval signed off on by Hillary in the State Dept. after several large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Then there is the fact that the Foundation has, for years, failed to disclose its foreign donors, either in its tax returns or as part of legally required disclosures regarding potential conflicts of interest during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.

I doubt that there is any direct quid pro quo so in any of this so clear as to sustain a criminal conviction. But it stinks like a three day old manure pile in the hot sun. We will know far more about that in a few days, when Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash is published.

So what should be done. In a society where rule of law dominates, Hillary would be face down on a table right now along with her sever, both getting a colonoscopy from FBI agents as part of an investigation similar to that of General Petraeus. The MSM seems unsure of what to do at this moment regarding Hillary, but what they aren’t doing is pressing her at any point on the e-mail issue. As to the Clinton Foundation, the MSM appears to be holding its breath, waiting for Schweizer’s book release, apparently afraid that even they won’t be able to stem the tide.

If Hillary and the MSM have an option, they will see her skate right through until her coronation. We will never have answers about the Clinton Foundation or the many issues surrounding Hillary’s e-mail. What we should have is a press treating the Clintons like Nixon and a DOJ that has already opened up investigations. Unfortunately we have neither at the moment, and there will be no investigations until 2017, if ever. Rule of law does not seem to matter to the left in this country, and so long as they hold the levers of power, it will atrophy in this nation.

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?

Continue reading...

April 18, 2015


Democrats Keep Blacks “Brain Chained”

Excellent video commentary from Alfonzo Rachel!

Continue reading...

April 13, 2015

1 Comment

The Weekly Forum Is Up: Are Negotiations With Iran Worth Continuing? Why Or Why Not?

Every week on Monday morning , 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 : Are Negotiations With Iran Worth Continuing? Why or Why Not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I wrote in a critique of that interview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Well, there you have it!

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

Continue reading...

April 13, 2015


Marco Rubio Is No Conservative

Today Florida Senator Marco Rubio announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential race.  He joins former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul in the list of potential Republican nominees running for the office.

In 2010 Rubio courted tea party conservatives in Florida, who volunteered and worked tirelessly to get him elected to the Senate.  He said the right things and convinced us he was the real deal, a true conservative.  Once elected, however, he quickly immersed himself in the GOP establishment and has proven to be a big government progressive.  His work with the Gang of 8 in support of comprehensive immigration reform, a/k/a amnesty, without first focusing on sealing the borders, pretty much sealed it for us.

Recently, Marco Rubio made an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  The once favored “crown prince” of the Tea Party movement was making the rounds feeling out his chances in his bid for president in 2016 and promoting his book, American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone.

On the show, he proposed that the Earned Income Tax Credit should be expanded.  Currently this is a government subsidy awarding thousands of dollars to families if they qualify when filing their yearly income tax returns.  Senator Rubio suggested it should be a wage enhancement for those who earn under a certain amount of money, whether they have families or are single, and that it should be included in every paycheck.  This sounds more like a corporate bailout and a way to make people comfortable in their current economic status.  Corporations like happy drones and Senator Rubio seems to have found the answer through government largesse.

When questioned by Jon Stewart, Senator Rubio asserted what he proposed does not go against the conservative beliefs of the tea party.  He said he was taking limited government and free enterprise and moving it into the 21st century to answer the challenges of the 21st century.

We know the 21st century presents serious economic challenges, but conservatives also know bigger government and wealth redistribution is not the answer, unless the question is socialism.

To his proposals, Jon Stewart told Senator Rubio “In your heart you’re a Democrat”

The Stewart interview went on for three segments.  Senator Rubio is youthful, attractive and affable and could easily win those young voters who consider themselves conservative.  Rubio is not a conservative, as watching his interview will reveal. For the link to The Daily Show interview, click here.  You will need to follow the links to the additional segments.

For true conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio should not be considered as the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.

Continue reading...

April 7, 2015


Hitler Reacts To Denied #GayWeddingCake

Another hilarious, and a little too on point, Hitler video from Steven Crowder.

Continue reading...

April 6, 2015


The Forum Is Up: Is Religious Freedom Seriously Threatened In America?

Every week on Monday morning , 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: Is Religious Freedom Seriously Threatened In America? The Razor : A year ago everyone was dumping buckets of ice water […]

Continue reading...

March 30, 2015


The Forum Is Up: What’s Your Take on The Bowe Bergdahl Situation?

Every week on Monday morning , 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’s Your Take on The Bowe Bergdahl Situation? What Will The Outcome Be? The Glittering Eye : As Lord Sankey […]

Continue reading...

March 24, 2015

1 Comment

The Weekly Forum Is Up: Is America In Decline?

Every week on Monday morning , 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: Is America In Decline? Why Or Why Not?  Wolf Howling : It is beyond question that our nation is in […]

Continue reading...

March 18, 2015


The Weekly Forum Is Up! How Would You Improve Race Relations In America?

Originally posted on Right Reason:
Every week on Monday morning , 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: How Would You Improve Race Relations In America? ?Wolf Howling :To improve race relations, you…

Continue reading...

March 18, 2015

1 Comment

The Weekly Forum Is Up! How Would You Improve Race Relations In America?

Every week on Monday morning , 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: How Would You Improve Race Relations In America?  Wolf Howling :To improve race relations, you first have to understand why […]

Continue reading...

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,490 other followers