Friday, April 17, 2015

The Council Has Spoken - Our Watcher's Council Results

http://www.crystalinks.com/IroquoisGathering.jpg

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

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

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

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

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



 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nEAkWOufFU/T366WMxCdrI/AAAAAAAABOg/easpV-8FMnM/s400/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Cruz will only get better as he goes along.

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

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


Profiles of Senator Rand Paul and others at the link


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

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

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


See you next week!

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

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Our Weasel Of The Week!!



Once again, It's time to present this week's statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, our tribute to evil, our 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all contemptible,but the votes are in and we had a winner who surprised us by triumphing easily over some stiff competition...the envelope please...

 
Racist Judge Olu Stevens!!

The Watcher: What kind of excuse for a judge scolds a three-year-old and her parents in court who were victims of a home invasion and armed robbery as 'racists' because the little girl admitted she was now afraid of black men?

Meet Louisville, Kentucky 30th Judicial circuit Judge Olu Stevens.

At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. Part of it said, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Judge Stevens' response? To excoriate the victims of the crime in open court as racists and to sympathize with the criminal who traumatized a young child and her family.




“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” he said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

Not only did he chastise the victims of the crime, but he let Gregory Wallace, one of the two black perpetrators who pleaded guilty to the March 21, 2013, crime off on probation because "he deserves a chance to redeem himself."

Can you even imagine the headlines nationwide if a white judge let off a white armed robber who had victimized a black family out of racial solidarity? But since this is a black judge, other then the local Courier-Journal, this passed by with barely a mention.


It's interesting times we have in America. Even innocuous words and phrases are viciously attacked as 'trigger words' capable of excusing incredible excesses of rage, injustice and frequently violent reactions provided the perpetrator is white, heterosexual , male, and/or a religious Christian or Jew. Yet outright bigotry and racially motivated violence by select 'protected groups' isn't even mentioned in the media, let alone criticized. To do so in the mainstream media or academia is to become quickly unemployable.

Here we have a little three-year-old who was sitting in her living room watching television with her parents when two thugs forced their way into her home and held up her mom and dad at gunpoint right in front of her. Since they were black males, is it any wonder that a child traumatized in that fashion would be frightened of other black males? In fact, her mom's statement actually says that in spite of their best efforts to disassociate her from her fear of black males, the child is still fearful even around the family's black friends.

But if course, it must be ra-aa-a-aacism, right judge? So of course they have to punished by being demonized, and by letting an armed robber off with probation on the grounds of racial solidarity.

You see, it's no longer enough merely to not practice ra-a-aa-cism. You must be prepared to take responsibility for anything that people like Judge Stevens merely perceive as racist. Even if it's just for the purpose of intimidation and the shaming of supposed 'thought criminals.'

Judge Stevens will undoubtedly go unpunished for his racism and his perversion of justice. He's just like certain judges back in the old Jim Crow days who issued rulings from the bench based on race. But as history shows us, those who practice bigotry and injustice against others frequently have it visited upon themselves eventually.

And payback is always a real bitch.

Enjoy your Weasel, Judge Stevens. As a disgrace to your office and your profession, you definitely rate it.

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week's nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

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?



Exactly What's Wrong With Hillary Clinton Endorsing Driver's Licenses For Illegals

 http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Hillary.jpg

Huff Post is all agog that Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton 'avoided her slip up in the 2008 race' by heartily endorsing issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

The story comes right off the template of Left wing advocacy 'journalism' complete with citing a sympathetic Latino victim whose driver's license 'changed his life immeasurably.'

As she makes her second bid for the presidency, Clinton's position is far clearer and decidedly different. "Hillary supports state policies to provide driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants," a campaign spokesperson told The Huffington Post.

The driver's license issue is still politically fraught. Demographic changes that have made the Latino vote more important have helped shift the scales. But most Americans don't agree with the policy, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this month. The survey found that 64 percent oppose driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, while 26 percent support the idea. Democrats are split, with 43 percent in favor and 46 percent against. Eighty-one percent of Republicans oppose allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's license


The article continues, citing the usual happy talk about how licenses for illegal aliens make them more apt to buy insurance and to report accidents, and improve public safety.

That said, let's look at the reality.

The majority of illegal aliens are not exactly rolling in money, even though a significant number of them receive government benefits while working off the books for cash at jobs like construction, gardening, and other service jobs. And some areas with high illegal alien populations like California are expensive places to live. So many of them tend to drive older vehicles.

While obtaining insurance is mandatory in California, many of the vehicles they drive are of low enough value that it makes more sense for them not to obtain insurance and pay the premium. If there's a wreck they're involved with, many times it's easier and less costly for them to just take off and or abandon the vehicle, especially if the vehicle is not registered with the DMV, which many times they aren't. The reasoning for many of these folks is 'why spend the money?'

Put yourself in their position. Would you pay a couple of thousand you didn't have for insurance when if anything bad happens, you can simply move on and get another car? And if you do happen to screw up and get cited for driving without insurance or get some inconvenient traffic tickets, why worry when getting a new license is just as easy as getting a new car?

You see, in many cases like that, a license makes no difference, especially given the reality of how they're obtained.

In places like California, matricular consular cards issued by the numerous Mexican consulates are accepted as sufficient ID to obtain a driver's license. For the going rate of $50-100 cash in hand to the right clerk, you can get one in any name you want with any address you give them, no questions asked...not to mention they're dead easy to forge.

So there's no problem, especially if a made up name is on the license. Easy to get another matricular consular card and a new license if you want one and just go buy another clunker.

And many times, that's exactly what happens, which is why most drivers with any sense whom aren't illegal aliens spend a chunk of money for uninsured motorist coverage.

My own case is an excellent example. I was rear ended while stopped in traffic by an illegal alien driving 60 MPH on a city street where the limit was 30 MPH. The car itself, an old VW was simply left there, and as it turned out it was borrowed from someone else, supposedly without their knowledge. They, of course had no insurance either, but told the police that the driver simply took off and of course they had no idea where he was.

I ended up being stuck having to wrestle with my insurance company over a settlement on my totaled car and having to deal with the trouble and expense of getting new wheels.

Of course, what Mrs. Clinton and the politicos backing this for Hispanic votes are considering has noting to do with vehicle safety at all.

There's a federal law that says that any driver's licenses given to anyone whose status in America is not legal has to be clearly differentiated from other driver's licenses. In California and a few other states, they aren't. Not only that, but illegal aliens who are getting driver's licenses are now appearing on the voter rolls, since they can register, citizen or not by simply checking a box.

Since California has no voter ID law, voter fraud using illegal aliens has been a factor since the 1980's but this makes it a real piece of cake.In California alone, over 500,000 illegal aliens and counting have already signed obtained licenses.

And by the way, don't think it's just illegal aliens who know how to work this. People who have ideas about staging terrorist attacks on what they see as the Great Satan know all about it too. Not that I'd expect Mrs. Clinton and her friends to be overly concerned, not when there's an election to be won...

 http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/atta_drivers_license.jpg

Yes, I can certainly see why someone like Hillary would go ga ga over this blatantly illegal activity, but that doesn't make it right or healthy.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Breaking: Obama Hid North Korean Rocket Component Transfers to Iran

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00416/105784584_416015c.jpg

US intelligence officials have now revealed that during the Iran nuclear negotiations, North Korea has sent several shipments of advanced missile components to the Iranian regime in violation of UN sanctions - and that the Obama Administration hid the violations from the UN.

Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations.

Critics of the U.S.-led nuclear framework agreement reached in Switzerland earlier this month have said one major deficiency of the accord is its failure to address Iran’s missile program, considered a key nuclear delivery system for the Islamist regime.

CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani declined to comment on the missile component shipments, citing a policy of not discussing classified information.

But other officials said the transfers included goods covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary agreement among 34 nations that limits transfers of missiles and components of systems with ranges of greater than 186 miles.

One official said the transfers between North Korea and Iran included large diameter engines, which could be used for a future Iranian long-range missile system.


President Barack Obama was given details of the shipments in his daily intelligence briefings (assuming he read them), but the officials said the information was hidden from the UN by the White House so that it would not take action on the sanctions violations.

This was confirmed by a spokesperson for Spain's mission to the UN, (which now overseas the UN's sanctions committee)who said the committee was not been told about the shipments by the US since Spain took over in January, 2015.

According to award winning reporter Bill Gertz, who broke this story, this is nothing new:

A classified State Department cable from October 2009 reveals that Iran is one of North Korea’s key missile customers.

The cable, made public by Wikileaks, states that since the 1980s North Korea has provided Iran with complete Scud missiles and production technology used in developing 620-mile-range Nodong missiles.

Additionally, North Korea also supplied Iran with a medium-range missile called the BM-25 that is a variant of the North Korean Musudan missile.

“This technology would provide Iran with more advanced missile technology than currently used in its Shahab-series of ballistic missiles and could form the basis for future Iranian missile and [space launch vehicle] designs.”

“Pyongyang’s assistance to Iran’s [space launch vehicle] program suggests that North Korea and Iran may also be cooperating on the development of long-range ballistic missiles.”

A second cable from September 2009 states that Iran’s Safir rocket uses missile steering engines likely provided by North Korea that are based on Soviet-era SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missiles.

That technology transfer was significant because it has allowed Iran to develop a self-igniting missile propellant that the cable said “could significantly enhance Tehran’s ability to develop a new generation of more-advanced ballistic missiles.”

“All of these technologies, demonstrated in the Safir [space launch vehicle] are critical to the development of long-range ballistic missiles and highlight the possibility of Iran using the Safir as a platform to further its ballistic missile development.”

Among other things, this could be setting the U.S. up for an EMP attack.

No wonder the Iranians insisted that their ballistic missiles program was off the table in any negotiations. Why the president agreed to it is another matter entirely, especially since he had to have known the sanctions he kept boasting about were being grossly violated.

U.N. sanctions imposed in 2009 on North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests prohibit the export of missiles and related technology, and obviously the president didn't want to make an issue of that either, even if it meant deceiving the UN and the P5+1.

There's no telling how far Iran is with its ballistic missiles, but they're obviously a lot farther along than they were since Barack Hussein Obama took over the White House in 2009. This president was simply willing to look the other way.

 

According to Gertz, both White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf declined to comment on this story.

Small wonder.

Watcher's Council Nominations - 'Ready For Hillary' Edition

http://media.townhall.com/townhall/car/b/aria_c12839020150306120100.jpg




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

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

Council News:


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

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

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let's see what we have for you this week....

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions


Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!And don't forget to tune in Friday for the results!

Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!And don't forget to tune in Friday for the results!

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!!

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://indianapublicmedia.org/profiles/files/2011/12/Garry-Trudeau.jpg

Left wing Cartoonist Garry Trudeau!!

 The Noisy Room : My nomination this week is Garry Trudeau of Doonesbury fame. You'd think
a cartoonist would know better and have more sense.

After receiving the George Polk award, Trudeau proclaimed in his acceptance speech that the brave French satirists of Charlie Hebdo were hate-spewing fanatics and said that "free speech... becomes its own kind of fanaticism."

Spoken like a true Progressive/Marxist who has no clue about the brutality and barbarity of radical Islam - he is basically comparing the victims to the murderers in that statement. The George Polk award should be rescinded immediately. What dhimmitude coming from a whiny, wealthy American elitist Leftist. And the New York Times thinks Trudeau's blathering is comprised of wise, nuanced words. Figures.

For basically condoning the executions of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, Trudeau should get ushered into the Hall of Fame of Weasels and a one-way ticket to join ISIS. I'm sure he'd be right at home with the downtrodden there. I've noticed an overreaching mantra from the Left that First Amendment rights should be curtailed and controlled. Trudeau is a fascist weasel of the first order.

 
Racist Judge Olu Stevens!!

The Watcher: What kind of excuse for a judge scolds a three-year-old and her parents in court who were victims of a home invasion and armed robbery as 'racists' because the little girl admitted she was now afraid of black men?

Meet Louisville, Kentucky 30th Judicial circuit Judge Olu Stevens.

At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. Part of it said, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Judge Stevens' response? To excoriate the victims of the crime in open court as racists and to sympathize with the criminal who traumatized a young child and her family.



“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” he said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

Not only did he chastise the victims of the crime, but he let Gregory Wallace, one of the two black perpetrators who pleaded guilty to the March 21, 2013, crime off on probation because "he deserves a chance to redeem himself."

Can you even imagine the headlines nationwide if a white judge let off an armed robber who had victimized a black family out of racial solidarity? But since this is a black judge, other then the local Courier-Journal, this passed by with barely a mention.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/scooby-van-hillary.jpg
SHRILLERY

The Watcher: Oh, why not? Just the thought of this grifter, con artist and serial liar without any accomplishments except staying out of jail having the nerve to believe she's entitled to run for president entitles her to a shot at the Golden Weasel.




Although, I have to admit, at least she knows what it is to be homeless and poor. After all she told us how broke she and Bill were when they left the White House, and Hillary wouldn't lie, now would she?




If the American people are stupid enough to fall for her crap, they deserve everything that will happen to them.

  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?

Monday, April 13, 2015

The Obama Administration's Nonproliferation Hypocrisy

 http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/ab0a993/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Faa%2F5c%2F0de50f4e4de5a1298884826b5155%2Fthumb.jpg

By David Gerstman

I visited the State Department's website earlier this week and I was greeted by an item hailing the 45th anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

After hailing the treaty the article goes on to say more explicitly, "[i]f we didn’t already have the NPT, we would desperately need it today."

A couple of paragraphs later the article boasts about the latest efforts to strengthen the NPT:
The United States is committed to strengthening the nonproliferation regime and the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency to implement nuclear safeguards -- a set of measures to verify that nuclear materials are used for peaceful purposes. The Treaty provides the foundation and context to resolve outstanding challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The ongoing negotiations with Iran provide the best diplomatic path forward for Iran to return to full compliance with the NPT.

The IAEA instills confidence among all NPT parties that a state’s civil nuclear energy is not being diverted into a nefarious weapons program. In New York, the United States will promote the IAEA Additional Protocol, now recognized as the foremost international standard for safeguards that provides the IAEA with the authority to ensure that all nuclear material is used for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT.

The idea that the protocols (remember there's no deal yet) agreed to last week somehow would strengthen the NPT is utterly false.

The point of the ongoing nuclear negotiations from Iran's standpoint is to remove its violations from the books and end the sanctions it incurred for those violations. Iran's goal in the negotiations is to enshrine its "right to enrich" uranium. (No such right exists. Nuclear research for peaceful purposes is a right, an important qualification that cannot be attached to Iran's nuclear research, according to the NPT.)

In July 2006, having failed to satisfy the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) demands to explain its past nuclear research, Iran was ordered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 to suspend uranium enrichment and other nuclear R&D activities within 30 days unless it complied with the IAEA. Iran continued defying the Security Council and in December Resolution 1737 was passed, the first resolution (of 5) imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its NPT violations (and failure to explain its work satisfactorily to the IAEA.)

According to the American version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), when Iran satisfies all of its requirements, a new Security Council resolution will be drawn up to replace the previous six:
All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).

However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.

Now let's assume the most optimistic outcome: that Iran addresses all key concerns. (Iran was supposed to explain possible military dimensions - PMD - of its nuclear work according to the Joint Plant of Action (JPOA) of November 2013, and still has not done so.) Iran would still have over 5000 centrifuges enriching uranium at Natanz. Iran would have centrifuges operating (though not enriching uranium) in an underground reinforced facility at Fordow and would have a heavy water reactor operating at Arak. (In December 2013, Obama himself acknowledged that Iran did not need the latter two facilities "to have a peaceful nuclear program.")

 http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/e99eacd/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/format/png/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fd6%2F7b%2F1badc1224be4b5a9ad935de6787d%2F140715daily1-cartoon.tif

So by defying the IAEA and the Security Council Iran will be awarded 5000 centrifuges enriching uranium that it didn't have before. The sanctions triggered by those violations will be wiped away. (By the way, 5000 centrifuges is enough for a bomb, but not for civilian nuclear program.)

(And if Iran doesn't address all key concerns, what then? Will the Obama administration have the guts to walk away? Or is President Obama so invested in the success of his Iranian outreach that he'll move forward to remove the sanctions anyway? The record on this isn't promising. Though Obama insists that Iran observed the terms of the JPOA, that isn't true. As noted above, Iran never addressed the PMD issue. Also in a clear violation of the JPOA, Iran tested an advanced centrifuge. When challenged Iran stopped; but later the administration downgraded the violation to "probably a mistake.")

The administration characterizes the NPT as essential, but by removing the enforcement mechanisms for Iran's violations, they are gutting the NPT.

Ironically, the president overseeing the destruction of the NPT was once a proponent of nuclear disarmament. The administration continues to forge ahead with its nuclear diplomacy despite regular rebuffs from Iran's supreme leader. The administration also has trouble comprehending criticisms that contain too many big words and seems more focused on sticking it to Netanyahu than in preventing Iran from going nuclear.

 http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/1c85472/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/format/png/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F76%2F14%2F12aad09144ceb13c1d56e9fc6cb1%2F20150403edsuc-a.tif

A Change In The Weather - Looking At The Current GOP Field

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

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/files/2015/03/0323tedcruz3.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Cruz will only get better as he goes along.


http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/11/20/scott-walker-is-the-perfect-republican-candidate-for-2016-on-paper/jcr:content/image.img.2000.jpg/1384929876151.cached.jpg

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

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


 http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Ok7cZOyZES.pCzUZQHjUFw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/e5ba11d79fdf000f730f6a706700324e.jpg

Senator Rand Paul announced Tuesday, and he likewise looks to be a strong candidate. In many ways, he's a throwback to the days when America actually was a free country who revered its Constitution. He's been unfairly slammed as an isolationist, simply because he, like a lot of other Americans is sick and tired of going to war by presidential diktat. Sort term pre-emptive strikes like President Reagan did in Libya, Grenada and the Persian Gulf against Iran that don't involve long term dispositions of U.S. forces are one thing, and by design have a distinct, concrete goal in mind.

The sort of wars we've seen lately in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan with long term deployments and fuzzy, ill defined goals are another animal entirely, and our Founders were quite correct to insist that our commander in chief make the case to congress and get a weasel proof formal declaration of war in order to proceed rather than a mere resolution to use force.

Like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, Rand Paul also disdains the defensive crouch that normally defines conservatives. An example of that occurred today, and it was refreshing:

 When quizzed on his about his views on abortion, Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul avoided the gotcha game and told NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser to ask DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz if it was okay to "kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus." 

"Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus?" Paul reportedly said. "You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it's okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me."

 In other words, chump, let's see you ask the Democrats you love so much these same kinds of wedge questions. And of course, the even more revealing follow ups, if you expect any answers from me along  a similar line.

This is exactly how to handle these people. Most Americans would shrink from the idea of a doctor taking surgical scissors, puncturing the skull of  a  healthy baby over five months old with a fully developed nervous system and the ability to feel pain,vacuuming the child's brains out to collapse the skull and then ripping the child out of the womb unless the mother's life was endangered or there was some other kind of dire medical emergency. So it's never described that way.

Yet these kind of late term abortions happen every day in America for no reason other than a child being inconvenient. And even though the abortion lobby which insists on abortion on demand and supports this sort of carnage is one of the most  important parts of the Democrat coalition, no one ever tries to pin  Democrats down about their support for this sort of thing after describing it in such graphic - and sadly accurate - terms.

If Senator Rand Paul is able to return service to the left this well now, it bodes well for his candidacy. And the fact that he, like Scott Walker is not yet another lawyer from Harvard,Princeton or Yale ( he's a medical doctor, an extremely reality based profession) appeals to me as well. We're going to need quite a bit of reality to clean up the mess Barack Obama and his cronies will leave behind when they leave. And Senator Paul also has a demonstrated ability to appeal to younger voters and to get voters to cross party lines.

 

Senator Marco Rubio at first glance would seem to be a strong candidate. He's young, a good speaker with an inspiring story, and a fiscal conservative with a good record on taxes, the Second Amendment and other such hot button issues. And some members of the consultant class see his Hispanic surname as a bonus.

The problem I see is that Senator Rubio seems to fold under pressure to a certain degree, and to lean more towards trying to please everyone (which of course ultimately pleases no one) rather than starting out embracing firm principles and then making minor compromises to get a deal done.

A good example of this was the way Democrat senator Chuck Schumer twisted Rubio around his little finger when it came to the bogus Senate immigration bill. Aside from making Marco Rubio look foolish, it gave the Obama WHite House an important talking point about how the Democrat majority senate had 'passed a bi-partisan bill, and all the House has to is pass it.' With, of course the president saying that since the House wouldn't act,he had the prerogative to violate our laws and the Constitution to do so.

It was a major error, and while Rubio at least eventually admitted his mistake it doesn't bode well for a Rubio presidency.

And that Hispanic surname? Don't count on it as a benefit. Hispanics in America are a much more diverse group than the consultant class would have us believe. Marco Rubio, like Ted Cruz, is of Cuban descent, and Cuban-Americans are a very different group than Mexicans or Central Americans, particularly those who President Obama has let in under his executive amnesty and whom are already appearing on the voter rolls illegally.

Many of them speak little or no English and receive all of their information from the likes of Democrat-controlled Telemundo and Univision. And many of them will be voting for a Democrat promising unlimited amnesty and increased social welfare benefits.

 http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/150205_POL_JebBushDetroit.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush hasn't announced yet, but is raising funds, hiring staff and obviously preparing to do so. Let's look at him.

Unlike the other GOP candidates with the exception of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush has solid executive experience and was a reasonably accomplished governor of Florida, with an excellent record on taxes and on fiscal sensibility, including civil service reform. He's pro Second Amendment and school choice, In addition, he has the ability to raise tremendous amounts of money. and authentic Hispanic roots through his marriage. He also has an excellent track record with Hispanic voters and speaks fluent Spanish.


A problem with Governor Bush is that his stance on many issues like amnesty and Common Core is essentially opposed not only to the Republican party's base but to a majority of Americans in general. His message, essentially, is that the Republicans are Democrat-lite - they will do pretty much what the Democrats will, just cheaper and better managed.

People inclined to vote Democrat/Socialist will invariably vote for the real thing come election day if nothing else to avoid putting someone with the surname 'Bush' back in the White House. And a large segment of the Republican base will simply sit home, just as they did with Mitt Romney.

That's the current GOP field as I see them today. I'll examine Democrats in a subsequent article.


Forum: 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?

Saturday, April 11, 2015

The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks' Watcher's Council Results

http://www.trevorloudon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/wat1.jpg


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

"Yes, death to the Great Satan" - Ayatollah Khomeini leading crowds in anti-American chants just over a week ago.

"Peace is purchased from strength. It's not purchased from weakness or unilateral retreats." - Benyamin Netanyahu


"If he being Young And Unskillful seeks to gamble for silver and gold/ Take his money my son praising Allah! The fool was made to be sold! -Renowned Persian poet Hafiz, 14th century CE

I believe Herr Hitler is a man whose word can be relied on." - Neville Chamberlain, 1938


 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nEAkWOufFU/T366WMxCdrI/AAAAAAAABOg/easpV-8FMnM/s400/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg


This week's winning essay by a nose,Joshuapundit's -Munich II examines President Obama's so-called 'framework' of his nuclear agreement with Iran. As we nowknow, our president was not exactly being honest with the American people in that speech in the Rose Garden! So what's the actual motivation behind his apparent desperation to achieve some kind of deal..something the Iranians are happily taking advantage of. Here's a slice:

President Barack Hussein Obama announced yesterday that a deal - ooops, a 'framework for a deal' had been achieved with Iran on its illegal nuclear program.

Here's what the president said the components of this unwritten, unsigned framework were.

First of all, he claimed that the reactor at Iran's heavy water facility at Arak will be dismantled so the Iranians cannot produce plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons.He also claimed that nuclear material from Arak would be shipped out of Iran, that Iran would not build a new heavy water reactor and that Iran will not reprocess fuel from its existing reactors ever.

Second, he claimed that the Iranians agreed that its centrifuges would be reduced by two thirds, and that Iran will not enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. He also said that Iran would no longer enrich uranium at its top secret military facility at Fordow. and that there would be severe limits on Iran's stockpiling of the materials needed to build a nuclear weapon.

He said there would be limits on Iran's nuclear program, research and development for a decade and that Iran would never be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.

He also claimed that current sanctions would be gradually phased out in accordance with Iranian compliance, that Iran would face intense inspections and scrutiny, and that if if was found cheating, the UN would slap massive sanctions back on Iran.

There's not a single statement in the above four paragraphs that's true, and that comes from no less than Iran's own Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who supposedly agreed to all this in the last minute negotiations at Lausanne:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations. [...]

Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.

“Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.

He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”


On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.

“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”
“Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”

The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.


The scrutiny and inspections, of course, can be relied on to tell us everything we need to know about Iran's nuclear program, right? Because the Iranians would never try to hide that sort of thing from us, and can be relied on not to cheat

As for the president's threat of renewed sanctions, just like his promises on ObamaCare he is knowingly lying to the American people. It took two years to put together the sanctions regimen in the UN. Now that Obama has essentially dismantled it, it isn't going to happen again, certainly not in time to be of any use. Russia will see to that.

And here perhaps is the most chilling statement Zarif made:

Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.

Can you imagine whom a regime that is the major supporter of Islamist terrorism like Iran is likely to sell nuclear materials and know how to? Iran itself obtained quite a bit from Pakistan's notorious AQ Khan when he was running what amounted to a cash and carry supermarket for this sort of merchandise. What Iran is obviously planning will make what Khan did look minor.

President Obama claims that this 'framework' agreement is a good deal. In reality, all it does is give Iran another three which gives Iran another three months to work on its nuclear weapons technology in exchange for...absolutely nothing specific. Instead of leading to reduced nuclear proliferation, it will increase it, since countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under no illusions as to what this means.

This goes beyond mere appeasement. President Obama and John Kerry are enabling a nuclear armed Iran.

All other things aside, this president and his team are allowing a murderous regime that has sworn to destroy Israel on numerous occasions the tools to attempt a second Holocaust. And there's no question in my mind that this is deliberate.

The moron prog think tank response to this is that the Iranians are rational actors whom would never do this, because of the risk of retaliation by Israel. Let's see what the founder of the regime, the Ayatollah Khomeini had to say about that:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."


The Iranians have continued to promise to destroy Israel since 1978 when Khomeini took over. That goal has never changed.

Neither has their goal of destroying America.




Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, we had a tie between Mark Steyn Let Them Bake Cake submitted by The Noisy Room and Matt Continetti/ Free Beacon Benghazi, Bergdahl, and the Bomb submitted by The Watcher.

I loved both, but Steyn gets the nod this week.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Ask Marion and The Independent Sentinel were unable to vote this week, but were not subject to the 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


See you next week!

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