Wednesday, April 30, 2014

A Simple Solution To Prevent More Botched Executions
Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner are in the news today, and the recipients of a great deal of media sympathy. Both were on death row in Oklahoma and had been sentenced to execution by lethal injection.

In Lockett's case, something apparently went wrong with the chemical concoction and instead of an instant, painless death. Lockett writhed in pain for about 20 minutes before dying of a heart attack. Warner's execution was postponed.

Aside from the media outrage, there's of course talk of lawsuits.

But it's interesting to look at this in context.

Warner got the death penalty because he was convicted in 1999 of raping and murdering an 11-month-old child, the daughter of Warner’s live in girlfriend. Aside from being raped, the child suffered a six-inch skull fracture, a broken jaw, three broken ribs, bruised lungs and a lacerated liver and spleen. He spent almost 15 years gaming the system, a lot longer than his victim was allowed to live.

And Lockett? Fifteen years ago, in 1999 Lockett, a career criminal and two associates went to the home of one Bobby Lee Bornt, either to collect a $20 debt or simply with robbery on their minds. They tied up Bornt, beat him severely in front of his 9-month old son.

While they were at it, Stephanie Neiman, 18, who had just graduated high school two weeks ago dropped off her friend,Summer Bradshaw at the house.

The trio beat and raped Stephanie and her friend multiple times after covering their mouths with duct tape, and then drove the four victims to a remote location. Stephanie was shot twice with a sawed off 12 gauge shotgun and then buried while she was still alive. She was killed because she was white, because she refused not to say she wouldn't call the police or because Bornt and Summer were parents of a child, depending on whom you believe.

I'm not sure how long it took Stephanie Neiman to die..maybe 20 minutes? Exactly the time it took Clayton Lockett to die in agony? I like to think so, as I reflect on the fact that G-d has an infinite sense of justice.

As far as the drug cocktail goes, the problem may have been the drugs or a burst vein. Apparently the old, proven formulas are difficult to obtain these days, since many of the countries in Europe that manufacture them have refused to export them for the purpose of lethal injections.

Well, I can see that. And certainly, there's nothing good about using experimental drug cocktails where things can go wrong. Thankfully, there's a simple, easy solution to make sure nothing like this happens again:

"Benghazi? What Difference Does it Make?"

Not as much as it would have made in September of 2012...which was apparently the whole point.

Thanks to a long and successful battle by Judicial Watch in federal court, a whole raft of new e-mails between the White House and the State Department concerning the deliberate lies and coverup over the fiasco in Benghazi have surfaced that definitively prove that the White House deliberately lied about the nature of the attack, and colluded with the State department to construct a false narrative and deceive the American people to protect President Obama's re-election.

Emails  sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney were sent out just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice hit 5 separate Sunday news shows to promulgate the lie about 'the video'.

Interesting fellow, Ben Rhodes. Officially, he's the current deputy national security adviser for strategic communication for President Barack Obama. Now, he has no real national security qualifications for the gig, although his degree, an MFA in creative writing from NYU probably helps a bit in crafting the sort of fanciful fiction we hear out of the president.

Oh, and just by chance, his brother is - wait for it - David Rhodes. The president of CBS News, the same network where award winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson has said since her resignation that she was actively discouraged from investigating stories like Benghazi and Fast and Furious in any depth and was thought of as a 'troublemaker' for doing so.

Speaking of Sharyl Atkisson, she's gone independent for now and she has a fine piece of reporting here that highlights what was in the recently released e-mails, and why the White House wanted them hidden so badly:

In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television ​ network political talk shows.

The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

A court compelled the release of the documents, which were heavily-redacted, to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has sued the government over its failed Freedom of Information responses. I have also requested Benghazi-related documents under Freedom of Information law, but the government has only produced a few pages to date.

Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the Rhodes email the “smoking gun” showing the “political manipulation by the White House” after the attacks.

​“The political shop at the White House took over early on,” Graham told me. “They understood it was a terrorist attack, that they had a political problem, and were going to handle it politically. They weren’t going to entertain anything other than what they wanted the public to hear.”

USA Today quotes a spokesman for the White House National Security Council reacting to the Rhodes’ email by stating that it contains general talking points on unrest spreading throughout the region in response to an offensive video, and also made clear that "our primary goals" included the safety of U.S. personnel in the field and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Since the deadly attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, there have been persistent allegations that the Obama administration developed a false political narrative to downplay or hide the fact that terrorists had struck. The President had campaigned by stating that al Qaeda was “on the run,” and Republicans have argued that news of a terrorist attack eight weeks before the election could have decimated his re-election campaign. Four Americans were killed in the assaults, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

White House officials copied on the Rhodes “goal” email include Press Secretary Jay Carney, then-Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Earnest has failed to respond to more than a year’s worth of my emails and phone calls in my effort to obtain official White House photographs taken the night of the Benghazi attacks. The White House photo office had told me that Earnest’s personal approval was needed for the photos to be released. 


Attkisson doesn't mention it here, but regular readers of this site know that State Department spokesmouth Victoria Nuland was involved in the coverup process as well, 'managing' how the phony narrative was presented publicly in order to protect her superiors - like Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So was then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, who heavily edited the fact sheet and the original talking points.

Attkisson also found out how the White House tried to hide this document:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told me today that the government apparently tried to keep the Rhodes email out of Congress and the public’s hands by classifying it after-the-fact.

“They retroactively changed the classification,” Chaffetz says. “That was an unclassified document and they changed it to classified.”

In the past month, the government has supplied 3,200 new Benghazi-related documents under Congressional subpoena. In some instances, Congressional members and their staff are only permitted to see the documents during certain time periods in a review room, and cannot remove them or make copies.

Chaffetz says that the State Department redacted more material on the copies provided to Congress than on those that it was forced to provide to Judicial Watch.

One of the most heavily-redacted email exchanges is entitled, “FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm.” The Fox News article was circulated among dozens of officials including Rhodes and then-Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough but the content of their email discussion is hidden.

She has more at the link, showing how the White House had a reasonable degree of advance warning and that they knew almost immediately that the attack on Benghazi had nothing to do with any video.

So, where do we go from here?

Anyone who's been following the Benghazi story knows by now just from their behavior that the White House deliberately set out to deceive the American people to protect President Obama's re-election chances, after all that 'al-Qaeda is on the run' bluster. This simply formalizes it. Normally, just as with IRS-gate, an ethical attorney general abiding by his oath of office would have appointed a special prosecutor long ago, but that's not what we're dealing with here.

Congress, of course could use this as a springboard to vote funds and authorization for their own prosecutor, followed by formal impeachment charges that wouldn't get President Obama out of office but would publicize this stuff to the American people and force Democrats to take a position they'd be stuck with.

 But it's a reasonable assumption that Speaker John Boehner doesn't want to go there because he lacks the stones to deal with the political fallout from the actions that would probably be needed if an investigation revealed that the president was indeed or other high ranking regime figures were as involved in these things as they appear to be.

Even more damaging would be what would come out if we get into the question of exactly what Ambassador Stevens was doing in an unprotected consulate in Benghazi, an al-Qaeda hotbed even the International Red Cross had moved its people out of because it was too dangerous.

What actually happened in Benghazi is bad enough even without the coverup and I revealed the true story here about a year ago. If that ever came out, we 'd be talking about  criminal indictments.


NAACP, Black Groups: Sterling's Punishment 'Not Enough', Seek Diversity Shakedown

The National Urban League, Al Sharpton's National Action Network, the NAACP and the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation issued a statement today applauding Clipper's owner Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA and a $2.5 million fine, much of which, according to NBA commissioner Adam Silver, will go to these same groups or as Silver put it, 'groups fighting racial discrimination'.

They called the decision “a bold, courageous and resolute message that the views expressed by Sterling do not represent the National Basketball Association as an organization today or the kind of organization that it seeks to be in the future.”

But getting Sterling banned and collecting what amounts to a bounty isn't enough. They want a meeting with Silver to negotiate a shakedown.

“Sterling’s long-established pattern of bigotry and racist comments have not been a secret in the NBA,” the statement said. “Yet until now, they have been tolerated and met with a gentle hand and a blind eye.”

They want Silver to mandate 'diversity' and affirmative action hiring in the NBA's executives and ownership to see to it that Sterling “remains an anomaly among the owners and executives in the league.”

Since Silver has already committed to using the NBA's influence and power to try to force Sterling to sell the Clippers, what these groups are obviously insisting on is that the next Clipper's owner be black, regardless of his qualifications or financial stability.

“Our goal is for Commissioner Silver to extend these efforts beyond a reactive approach to one egregious situation to a proactive approach that will allow him to set forth and enforce clear policies and codes of conduct that reflect the best of the NBA, as well as foster a league culture that is as inclusive in practice — at all levels — as it is diverse in players and fan base.”

That 'gentle hand and blind eye' included the NAACP and other groups, of course as long as Sterling kept donating large sums of money to them.

Just two weeks from today, Sterling was set to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP in a dinner headlined by - wait for it - Al Sharpton.

CBS reported today that Sterling was going to receive the award for his long history of donating to minority charities and giving game tickets to inner city children, one of a number of awards he'd gotten over the years.

This should be a good lesson to anyone donating to groups like these.Essentially, they're a bunch of race pimps and con artists who will turn on you when it's convenient.

It's not well known and the organizations have gone to some lengths to bury the fact, but the majority of the civil rights organizations were co-founded and funded by Jews. The NAACP, for example, was organized and co-founded by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, who essentially kept it alive by extensive fundraising for them.In the 1970's, the Jew's reward was to have the NAACP and other groups like them turn on the them and refuse to support them on issues like Israel.

You won't find any mention of Rabbi Wise or any other Jews on the NAACP's website. Instead, they warmly welcome the likes of anti-semites like Louis Farrakhan as an honored guest with standing O's.

Watcher's Council Nominations -Guv'mint Surveillance Edition

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:

The Council In Action!

  • Liberty's Spirit has a fine new piece up at the Times of Israel, Yom Hashoah, the 3-D test, and Those with Special Needs

  • Bookworm Room was cited by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's 'Best Of The Web'

  • This week, The Midknight Review, Jewish American Patriots,Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion Maggie's Notebook and The Pirate's Cove 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 a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which 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 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 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!

    Tuesday, April 29, 2014

    Racist Poker....Show Me Your Cards!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/usa-basketball-clippers.jpg

    I've pretty much stayed away from the Donald Sterling story, mostly because with everything else going on, I see this as a deliberate distraction by the media.

    But I don't mind this brief reflection,because it relates to a great many other things.

    Donald Sterling, who owns the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team made some private remarks to his girlfriend/mistress V. Stiviano, who is of black and Mexican descent, after she posted a picture of herself with Lakers Hall of Famer Magic Johnson on Instagram.

    Sterling told Stiviano not to broadcast her association with black people or bring black people to Clippers games, and specifically mentioned Magic Johnson on the recording, saying “don’t bring him to my games, OK?”

    Well! After this was outed on TMZ Saturday, that's all anyone in the media had time to write or talk about.

    The NBA's black players voiced outrage, and the player's union said that "this is a very serious issue which we will address aggressively.”

    Rev Al Sharpton, of course, threatened to rally the troops for a protest outside this evening’s NBA playoff game in Los Angeles, and even the Mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti came out with a statement, saying “These statements are offensive and despicable and have no place in Los Angeles. I urge the NBA to act swiftly. L.A. fans deserve and demand better.”.

    Well, the NBA did act swiftly. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver held a press conference today and announced that Sterling was going to be banned for life from the NBA and fined $2.5 million.

    Silver said he was going to “do everything in my power” to force the sale of the Clippers.

    “The hateful opinions voiced by that man are those of Mr. Sterling. The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful. That they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage,” Silver said. “I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers association or the NBA. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices, he may not be present at any Clippers facility, and he may not participate in any business or decisions involving the team.”

    The irony of all this is that Sterling, a Democrat in good standing was all set to receive an award from the NAACP in spite of a long history of, shall we say,problems with racial discrimination, including allegations from former players. In November 2009, Sterling paid $2.73 million to settle allegations by the feds that he refused to rent apartments to Hispanics and blacks and to families with children. And the Bush Justice Department sued Sterling in August 2006 for allegations of housing discrimination in the Koreatown neighborhood in mid Los Angeles.

    Nevertheless, none of this was a problem for the NAACP before, where's there's nothing money won't buy. At least, until now.

    So here we have an old white guy who essentially became a thought criminal not for any of his prior problems with race (which were no secret to anyone) but because he said some really stupid, bigoted things in private.

    That's your hand? Let me show you mine.

    Today, when NBA Commissioner Silver announced Donald Sterling's punishment, guess who was sitting in the front row? None other than our old friend Spike Lee (h/t, Truth Revolt).


    Lee now works for SiriusXM NBA Radio, an official NBA outlet. Let's examine some of Spike Lee's record on race shall we? Just this last February, Lee was bitching on the air about too many white people living in Harlem:

    “Have you seen Fort Greene Park in the morning? It’s like the mother*****’ Westminster Dog Show….When you see white mothers pushing their babies in strollers, three o’clock in the morning on 125th Street, that must tell you something.”

    Anyone who's seen his films has noticed that white characters - or in most cases caricatures- are universally portrayed as unsympathetic stereotypes, and in the case of 'Mo' better Blues', fairly anti-semitic ones.

    Spike Lee is also the same guy who bragged about his racist behavior when it came to interracial couples, saying “I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.”

    And it was Spike Lee, you'll remember, that posted what he thought was the home address of George Zimmerman on Twitter..except it turned out to be a completely different elderly couple who received multiple death threats and had to flee for their lives from an angry mob. Spike had to give up some cash for that one, but someone could easily have been hurt or killed because he decided to throw gasoline on a raging fire.

    Let's further remember that all of this stuff was public, out in the open and not part of what was presumed to be a private conversation. Anyone calling for Spike Lee to be fired? For his show to be boycotted? Did the NBA have any problems hiring him, with his history? Not even remotely. In fact, he's featured in their commercials.

    Oh, and can we talk about Reverend Al? This racist and anti-semite blatantly libeled people just to get himself donations and notoriety in the Tawana Brawley case, instigated a pogrom against Jews in the mixed Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights, called Jews 'diamond merchants' and 'interlopers', was arguably responsible for the deaths of four people in the Freddie's Fashion Mart slayings, and spurred the mob and threatened riots over the Trayvon Martin shooting.

    And now there he was, calling for  Donald Sterling to be stripped of his ownership of the Clippers, saying, “No one should be allowed to own a team if they have in fact engaged in this kind of racial language.”

    'Racial language'? Let's listen to a few clips of Rev Al in action:

    And the height of irony? In spite of admitting after the fact that he knew all about Donald Sterling's prior problems with race, Rev Al was more than willing to headline the NAACP dinner that was scheduled to honor Sterling.

    What does that say about Rev Al? We already know what it says about the NAACP. But is anyone talking about it? Has MSNBC fired him? Has he suddenly become persona non grata at the White House, the people's house you and I pay for?


    Racist poker? I think I have a much better hand, and I'll raise you.

    Let's be clear here. I'm not engaging in the game of saying that what Donald Sterling did is just fine. In fact, on a purely practical note, any businessman who disrespects his paying customers and employees like this loses my respect, just because I don't have much respect for sheer stupidity.

    What I am saying is that I find the hypocrisy and double standard here despicable. Again,let me underline something. The racist behavior of Spike Lee and Rev Al has been blatantly public, has had real world consequences for innocent people and has had zero consequences for them. Donald Sterling is being harshly punished for something awful he said privately that had no real world consequences to anyone except for some highly selective outrage once the media publicized it.

    And the reason for that is pretty obvious. With the midterms approaching, and President Obama's approval ratings sinking in the polls a distraction was needed, and ra-aaa-acism and class warfare is about all that's left.

    So what we have here is the punishment of a thought criminal, based on race and on partisan political necessity, and that shouldn't sit well with anyone.

    Even more so, it highlights a different standard for bigotry based on color. And if that's not de facto racism in itself,what is?

    Kerry Backtracks " Apartheid Israel"? Who's He Think He's Fooling?

     US Secretary of State John Kerry at a news conference at the State Department in Washington, in June, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

    Apparently U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry felt the need to qualify his outrageous comments on Israel over the weekend.From the Jerusalem Post today:

    "I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes," Kerry said in the statement, issued by the State Department. "I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one."

    'Partisan political purposes'? from the Left leaning Obama friendly Daily Beast, who broke the story?

    And that commitment to Israel? Kerry played a major role behind the scenes orchestrating the EU boycott of Israel and their fixation with 'settlements'. And he did it under orders from Obama, guaranteed, even though that kind of boycott is against current U.S. law.

    And look at this, from the same statement:

    "In the long term, a unitary, binational state cannot be the democratic Jewish state that Israel deserves or the prosperous state with full rights that the Palestinian people deserve," Kerry said. "That’s what I said, and it’s also what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said."

    Now, Israel already is a democracy where its Arab minority have full legal and voting rights, and they have throughout Israel's entire existence. On the other hand, Mahmoud Abbas is in year 10 of a four year term, both the PA and Hamas are not even close to being places where law and order reigns. And notice how Kerry omits the bit about 'democratic' when it comes the actual apartheid, unitary state Abbas and Hamas want to put together! It's just 'full rights' - at the expense of Israel, of course.

    And Netanyahu saying the same thing? Now, I follow these things pretty closely and the only thing I've heard Netanyahu say on the matter is that he's committed to two democratic states living in peace next to each other. That's what he said in his original speech at Bar-Ilan University on June 14th 2009 and what he's said since - with the added conditions that the new 'Palestine' be demilitarized
    and recognize Israel as a Jewish State, both of which the Palestinians refused to do and still refuse to do five years later.

    In fact, that almost exactly what Israeli PM Yitzchak Rabin said when he foolishly agreed to the Oslo fiasco...a demilitarized, democratic state of Palestine living next to Israel in peace.

    Has Kerry once talked about insisting that the Palestinian Authority or Hamas are required to be peaceful and democratic before they get any U.S. aid? Or used the word 'apartheid' to describe them, which applies far more to them then it ever did to Israel? Has he ever condemned them for building on 'disputed territory'?

    I must have missed that. But I haven't missed our secretary of state's pathetic attempt to lie his way out of being caught expressing his true feelings. He's not a senator anymore who has to appeal to an electorate with a substantial pro-Israel component, merely a functionary who says and does what President Obama tells him.

    This is spin for the gullible, not an apology of any kind. Once a liar, always a liar,

    Monday, April 28, 2014

    Kerry's 'Apartheid Israel' Outburst Is A Window Into The Future

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made some interesting remarks on Israel and the Middle East peace process over the weekend that reveal not only the Obama Administration's mindset, but a signpost as to its future direction.

    The Left-leaning Daily Beast got its hands on a recording of Kerry speaking before the Trilateral Commission before a number of world leaders described by the UK Telegraph as 'senior US, Western European, Russian and Japanese officials' (who was in the audience hasn't been revealed yet).

    Kerry said that unless Israel surrenders to Palestinian demands for a peace deal, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa.

    Kerry also said that a failure of Middle East peace talks would lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens, as though that isn't happening on a daily basis, criticized what he called Israeli settlement-building and said that a change in Israeli or Palestinian leadership would make a peace agreement more possible.

    "A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative, said Kerry. "Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizens - or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state."

    Oddly enough, it's not Israel but the Palestinians who are constantly promoting a one state solution in their mosques, media and schools. And an apartheid one, where the Jews have been driven out.

    Kerry also said that at at some point, he's thinking about presenting his own peace framework and telling both sides to “take it or leave it.”

    The Secretary seems to have forgotten that he already did that, and that it was the Israelis that accepted it as a starting point and Mahmoud Abbas that rejected it.

    It's worth noting that Kerry singles out Israel, which has a 20% Arab minority with full voting and legal rights as the 'apartheid state'. Meanwhile, both the Arab occupied areas of Judea,Samaria and Gaza contain not a single Jew and never will according to Mahmoud Abbas' own statements, and Kerry is apparently just fine with that kind of judenrein.

    The focus here is, as usual entirely on Israel. It is Israel who needs to make concessions, Israel who had better give in and deal with a Palestinian government with the genocidal Hamas as a partner, Israel who needs to stop building homes for its people, Israel who had better surrender or face even more arb violence.The Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians need do nothing.

    While this nonsense appalled a number of people within the pro-Israel community here in America, it's important to realize that Kerry wasn't just mouthing off on his own.

    U.S. State Department spokesmouth Jan Psaki commented that Kerry was simply stating his views.

    “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers Olmert and Barak, was reiterating why there's no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish State. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants and the kind of future both Israelis and Palestinians would want to envision,” she said. “The only way to have two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution. And without a two-state solution, the level of prosperity and security the Israeli and Palestinian people deserve isn't possible.”

    The Israeli politicians Psaki holds up as role models are quite revealing. There's Tzipi Livni, who has a miniscule political constituency in Israel because of her toxic persona and general incompetence and was so despised by other Israeli politicians that none of them, not even the Leftist Labor or Meretz were interested in forming a coalition government with her Kadima party to make her prime minister, after which Kadima imploded. There's Ehud Barak, who offered Yasser Arafat 98% of Judea and Samaria along with half of Jerusalem only to have Arafat refuse and use this weakness as his signal to launch a war against Israel's civilians. And Ehud Olmert, one of Israel's worst and most corrupt leaders who been convicted and is headed for prison. These three dysfunctional, failed politicians are symbolic of the Obama Administration's choice for Israeli leadership. Weak and oh so flexible, you understand.

    But Psaki's statement along with a few other details tells us quite a bit. First of all, her statement in an official capacity tells us that John Kerry is definitely not off the reservation here. He is voicing the views of the Obama Administration. This is simply a case of the servant carrying out the Massa's orders, either in fact or by inference, and he will not suffer as a result. Why would he?

    President Obama wants to end the alliance between Israel and America. He said so directly in 2009 after he was elected in no uncertain terms and his actions since have underlined it. America's official stance now mirrors the EU's.The only small brake on this has been the fact that at least 2/3 of congress is still pro-Israel, in part out of conviction and in part because almost all of the $3 billion in U.S. aid Israel receives gets spent here in the U.S. and goes into the pockets of America's defense industry, creating jobs, taxable economic activity and financing joint weapons projects utilizing Israeli high tech.

    But President Obama has been successful in making Israel a partisan issue. The perfidy of the majority of America's Jews whom voted for Obama made this possible and provides cover for it.

    As I pointed out, the Obama Administration has already signaled that it has endorsed the new PLO-Hamas unity deal.

    What we'll see, as Kerry has so helpfully signaled is a de facto normalization of the U.S. relationship with Hamas, another part of President Obama's enthusiasm and patronage of the Muslim Brotherhood. And we will see Israel presented with an ultimatum - that 'take it or leave it' deal Kerry was blustering about - to accept the diktats of the new PLO/Hamas government.

    If Israel refuses, watch as the United States takes a major part of collaborating with the EU to install a genocidal Arab reichlet on Israel's borders via the UN.

    At the same time, look for the president to send cash and political operatives to work on getting Leftist Israeli politicians like Labor's Isaac Herzog and a leftist coalition elected..exactly what President Bill Clinton did to shove Oslo through and empower Yasser Arafat 'for peace'.

    The bottom line is that on Yom HaShoa, the day Jews commemorate the victims of the Holocaust the Obama regime is working on putting together its support for forces that want very much to be part of the next one.

    Simply put, they are knowingly aiding and abetting evil.

    Forum:Do You Agree With Piketty That Income Inequality Must Be Cured By Government Action?

    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
    :Do You Agree With Piketty That Income Inequality Is Something That Needs To Be Addressed By Government ?

    The Left is absolutely ga ga over a new book by French Economist Thomas Piketty that calls for this. Are they right?

    The Noisy Room:Once again, the Left is in the throes of love for an economist who embraces Socialism/Marxism and who extols the evils of capitalism and income inequality, while making sweet love to big government talking points. An addled Krugman is simply in a state of ecstasy with the rest of the Left. What utter Marxist bull crap. Let's just keep on trying disastrous financial policies that have NEVER worked and will NEVER work until we finish ourselves off with fiscal suicide. So typically French.

    “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” Piketty's bible for aspiring Marxists, is an unabashed rehash of “Capital,” Karl Marx’s logically challenged bible of income and wealth redistribution. Neo-Marxism is Piketty's battle cry, with a Socialist croissant or two thrown in for that buttery collectivist flavor.

    Colored me bored. It's the same old tripe with a shiny new cover and a new name stamped on it. They keep saying Piketty is a famous economist - well, I must be backward. I've never heard of him, nor care to. Same old Communist rhetoric and the Left proclaiming the author's brilliance, while decrying the ignorance of the masses. Keep hitting Americans over the head with it long enough and they'll eventually get it -- that capitalism, hard work and success are bad. No... no, we won't and we don't want to. And we certainly aren't frightened by your glorious intellect that espouses nothing but slavery for all and wealth for the elite. The false premise of the cry of 'Oligarchy' is not the defining topic of our time... it is the determining distraction of a fractured nation. Enough of the love affair with Marx already.

    Piketty calls for an 80% income tax on the rich, plus a wealth tax. He bleats on about the evils of capitalism while stripping those who have worked and succeeded of all they own for those who have less. Then he'll tax them again, in moves reminiscent of a wife beater, they asked for it I guess. He would like taxation to be used as a weapon of confiscation and redistribution. Another way to bring America down and put more Marxists in control.

    No, I don't agree with Piketty. He's a utopian putz. Government doesn't need to address income inequality... they need to leave us the hell alone.

    GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

    Frenchy l' Femme's redux of old dead Karl's Das Kapital giftwraps a solution for busy bodies that wanna queer the mix on anyone's chance to join the affluent, rich and super rich.

    A global wealth tax. While this seems politically unfeasible, certain elements will LOL that it is the only thing likely to work. In particular, these cats are dismissive of the idea that more education and training for the masses can solve the problem.

    Yet there are no bread riots, and the American economy is growing faster than those of all but a few Western nations. The problem with gross inequality is that one tends to assume it will produce terrible effects that it may not yield — for example, increasing labor unrest. And there’s the stigma that only left-wingers, who would rather redistribute revenue than generate it, care about inequality. Occupy Wall Street, the revolt of the many against the few, fizzled.

    So what? Is it the American Gov's gig to ensure something something wealth equality happens?

    No matter how much Constitution reading ones does - there is nothing nothing in it about wealth equalization.

    Repealing the Death Tax, Inheritance Tax and a brand new tax code after the current one has been shredded along with energy independence, a redux of the EPA, Dept of Education and other stuff is the way to go.

    The Independent Sentinel: Thomas Piketty may well be the most dangerous man in America today.

    Piketty is a Marxist who is actually advocating the overthrow of capitalism in his new book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", published by Harvard and embraced enthusiastically by the left in the media, in the universities and in government. Our administration, universities, and media are so far-left that they are outwardly embracing his tempered communism, claiming it's not communism.

    It is a dangerous book at this time as our government moves from a Republic to a socialist democratic one. Make no mistake, that is the fundamental change we are now undergoing.

    Articles people should consider reading are: by Michael Tanner, Cato Institute, in National Review Online, "Piketty Got It Wrong", by Kevin D. Williamson, in National Review Online, "Welcome to the Paradise of the Real", and Daniel Schuchman, in the WSJ, "Thomas Piketty Revives Marx for the 21st Century". Then I would suggest people read the book, as painful as it will be.

    The book will be weaponized to make the income inequality debate palatable and redistribution a necessity during this election cycle, and more importantly, during the 2016 election cycle. There is talk that Hillary Clinton will run on income inequality.

    Communists are now out in the open, but they are pretending they are not communists so they can continue to hide in plain sight.

    Piketty wants a worldwide tax of 80% on all incomes above $500,000 and other additional taxes if that is not enough to destroy wealth. He believes that this will somehow not disencentivize people. He is opposed to inheritance and retirement funds because they do not share the wealth throughout the collective. He has no viable solutions other than sharing the wealth and seems to think redistribution grows wealth as opposed to creativity and innovation driven by capitalism.

    There are many problems with Piketty's data but you won't hear much about that from the American left.

    Income inequality, climate change and social justice are the neo-communist ideals of the 21st century. Like all other idyllic collectivist ideologies, people will eventually resist and it will end in violence. All of these issues are being presented as dire necessities. The left is making income inequality so serious and so disastrous, that anything will justify stopping it. If you haven't read Ben Stein's article in the American Spectator titled, "Disasters and the Enemies of Freedom", I'd suggest it. It so succinctly and clearly tells of the dangers in what is happening now.

    Liberty's Spirit:While it is generally unfair to discuss someone's perspectives without reading their book, it is my understanding that Piketty simply wants to tax wealth out of existence. He has decided that anything above $500,000 in income should be taxed at an 80% rate. Giving the tax to the government, to do what with, only someone who despises entrepreneurship could tell you. Apparently that isn't really discussed beyond giving it to the poor world wide. Apparently according to Piketty we can trust these third-world dictatorships to use that money to help their people, just like they do today. Or as Piketty suggests, better yet, give it to the United Nations itself, since they are such a fine and upstanding organization, run by such fine and upstanding socialist-tyrants, oligarchs and Islamo-fascists. You know the true humanitarians in the world who really care about their fellow human beings. The welfare of the people of the world is obviously the UN's first priority, indicated by Iran being on the Human Rights Committee for Women, and Syria, Russia and China all being on the Human Rights Council. (That was sarcasm for those too devoid of a sense of humor to notice.)

    If past is prologue, under this "new" economic regime, the peasants, who will be left in poverty, will once again work so that their betters will live glorious lives of luxury. Yes he said $500,000. No that is not chicken feed. But if you think that under this economic model you would ever be able to reach anywhere near that income you would be sorely mistaken. In order to reach such an income you need opportunity. If people and corporations cannot keep what they earn, no matter how much it is, then there is no incentive to strive, to create or to better anything in their world. Why work in order that someone reap the glory and the reward? This is not the middle ages. People are not gong to willingly return to serfdom or slavery.

    Now in Piketty's new world order, it will not be those of royal blood that rule over us, but a conglomeration of political sycophants, party apparatchiks and fascist thugs. Pretty much like what has happened under President Obamas' leadership only with the added outcome that we would end up like the socialist wonderlands of Venezuela and Brazil. Where the leadership lives high-on-the-hog, having raped the country of its finances, and the people starve. There aren't riots in these two countries because the people can buy life's necessities.

    His plan seems simply like rehashed socialism with a huge bit of communism embedded. The fact that the leftist-progressives, who have practically destroyed the productiveness of the United States economy, seem to be holding the book up as their new Bible on how to govern, basically sets me to questioning its actual usefulness. The reality is, that France, from whence the author hails, has turned politically to the right and has had enough of this socialist, spread the wealth, hate the rich garbage.

    As history tells us, any time that someone is kept from keeping the fruits of their labor, their productivity goes down. Additionally anytime government tries to run the economy you end up with financial ruin. Now that is not to say that there doesn't need to be some regulation and rules governing markets. Lassiz-faire capitalism isn't all its cracked up to be either. We did see that after the rules governing investment versus regular banks were relaxed we ended up with a worldwide financial crisis. However, the true market reality is that when Americans have been left alone to pursue their dreams, not only does the US benefit but the entire world tends to do better.

    Furthermore, for some unknown reason, those that wish to create "income equality," and I use that term rather loosely, prefer to make everyone poor instead of making everyone rich. It seems that if you have the drive to be better than someone else then somehow that is a bad thing, unless of course, you want to be better in a socialist-fascist environment. As long as you tow the party line you are allowed to garner accolades, and financial rewards.

    I recommend to those that would like to implement Piketty's program that they start with the Left stalwarts. But not only do they tax "income," but wealth itself. Let those on the left, such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the editors of the New York Times , The Nation, the Daily Kos, The Daily Beast and every Kennedy and Clinton allow the government to come in, look at all their holdings (property, stocks, bonds, investments, etc) in country and off-shore, and allow it to be taxed at an 80% rate. When they are willing to give up their wealth, and not just take from those who are trying to create wealth, for the ideals they decide us "insignificant people" have to live by, then let them talk. Until that time they need to shut up and get out of the way of the American people.

    FYI- for those who promote Piketty's ideas, there is nothing stopping them from giving all their money away to the poor NOW. Let those who think that income inequality is the next big political issue, show the rest of us how its done and give away anything that they have over the $500,000 mark and then let them be taxed on all their holdings, including government perks, such as the millions spent on some people's many vacations.

     JoshuaPundit: The first thing that appears obvious to me - especially given the response this book has received from the usual suspects - is that this is all about politics, not economics. As far as 'inequality', Margaret Thatcher expressed it quite well to a couple of Leftists who had the gall to mouth off to her about the subject:


    Of course, as I said, this whine about 'inequality' has nothing to do with economics and everything to to do with politics. The idea, of course, is to gain power and wealth by bribing the easily led with as many freebies stolen from the labor of others as possible, while creating rage and a target for it.

    As we've seen,once in power they start stealing with both hands while bankrupting anyone who 's not 'connected'. Sinclair Lewis, a popular novelist early 20th century wrote a minor novel in the 1930's called 'It Can't Happen Here' about a fascist takeover of America. What's most interesting about the novel is the nature of the fascism he saw taking over, a faux populist corporatist state (the ruling party was even called 'The Corpos') very similar to what's developing now, where the State determines winners and losers. Hitler, the ultimate progressive set things up in exactly that way, complete with a ready made enemy to demonize.

    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...n'est pa, Komrade Pikkety?

    Bookworm Room: Thomas Piketty, an economist, is the newest darling among the Leftist intelligentsia and faux intelligentsia (but I repeat myself), because he claims that capitalism is inherently unfair since it’s entirely predicated on income inequality. Clive Crook explains that even the meanest intelligence should see that Piketty’s conclusions don’t match his data.

    I’ll add something that Crook didn’t say and that I’m sure Piketty ignored: Capitalism is not a still photograph; it is, instead, a moving picture. In any specific frame, there will be rich people and poor people who are separated by a wide gap. However, the dynamic of capitalism is that the poor in one still photo are not the same as the poor in the next. Socialism, by contrast, is a still photograph: Except for the coddled nomenklatura, everyone else stays firmly mired at the bottom forever.

    Of all sources, the New York Times backs up my conclusion that the problem with socialist economists is that they understand the economy in static, not dynamic, terms:

    It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.

    Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12 percent of the population will experience a year in which they find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, a mere 0.6 percent will do so in 10 consecutive years.

    It is clear that the image of a static 1 and 99 percent is largely incorrect. The majority of Americans will experience at least one year of affluence at some point during their working careers. (This is just as true at the bottom of the income distribution scale, where 54 percent of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60).

    The Glittering Eye: Yes. There's more than a single factor behind income inequality in the United States. The government shouldn't try to bring the incomes of the hardworking and talented more into line with those of the rest of the society. We will always have Michael Jordans and Tiger Woodses.

    However, there's another factor driving income inequality: rent-seeking. The bankers who earned millions even as their banks failed and were left intact during the financial crisis weren't created or supported by the workings of the market but by those of the government. When the government lifts tariffs from domestic manufactured goods but preserves them in one form or another on services, that's a subsidy to services. When environmental or labor regulations are imposed on domestic businesses while foreign businesses aren't required to comply with them, that's a subsidy to foreign businesses who export their manufactured goods or provide services here. The list of government actions that produce or bolster income inequality is very, very long.

    The only force that's able to reverse these prior government actions or mitigate their effects in producing income inequality is the government itself.

    The income tax system is a blunt instrument in dealing with income inequality, striking the incomes of the hardworking and talented right alone with those of people who've manipulated the reins of government to increase their own incomes. Further, increasing marginal tax rates mostly serves to prevent people from becoming rich rather than making the rich more equal to the rest of us. The very rich can always leave, taking their wealth with them, or engineer exemptions for themselves. That's been the history of the income tax system.

    Rather the federal government needs to abolish or mitigate the effects of the thousands or hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that produce income inequality by changing our trade, banking, immigration, agriculture, tax, and other laws to avoid creating winners and losers.

    The Right Planet: Well, since Paul Krugman admires socialist Thomas Piketty, sumpin' tells me I'm not likin' what we're steppin' in here. First, I would challenge anyone to define "income inequality" for me. You don't lift up the "oppressed masses" up by pulling others down. Oh, and it's so much easier to tear something down, than it is to build it up, isn't it? Milton Friedman once said,”The only way in which you can redistribute effectively the wealth is by destroying the incentives to have wealth.” Is that why Piketty and sycophants like Krugman propose more government intrusion into the livelihoods and incomes of American citizens? Isn't the only way to address so-called "income inequality" by redistributing wealth and riches from the haves to the have nots? Do these guys have an original idea between them? Always with the Marx ... always the Marx. Use the Marx, Luke (aka Thomas) ... use the Marx.


    Ask Marion: I do not agree with Piketty… A free market and pressure from “the people” address the issues that matter to those concerned, just sometimes a bit slower than we would like...

    There has been so much good discussion about this subject among the members of this group since we got this week’s question, in lieu of repeating what everyone has said and we’ve passed around, I think I’ll share what Rush said on the subject last week. As he says, liberal, progressive hypocrites from the White House, who pay women less than men, to liberals like Marlo Thomas… Don't Worry About Income Inequality When It Comes to Their Own Wealth and Success:

    Rush: As you recall at the end of the program yesterday we were in the midst of a discussion about the French socialist wacko economist by the name of Thomas Piketty, and who we have sound bites from today as well. Mr. Piketty's premise is that there's too much income inequality and that there's too much wealth and the wealth is held in the hands of the same people forever and they don't share it and they don't pay people enough. All they do is just take and take and take and this leads to the end of democracy.

    It's a totally absurd premise. It's a premise that has been tried in a remedial way to fix what people think are the gross unfairnesses and inequities of capitalism for decades and the idea that there's some notion of equality that we can all be made to fit into, plugged into. We can all end up being the same people. We can all end up having pretty much the same stuff. And there's only one way that can happen. And that is if we don't have anything and our leaders have it all, and then they decide who among us gets what.

    It's frustrating, as it always is, because to me it is such common sense but it does take an open devotion to liberty and to freedom and an understanding of the consequences of individuality, rugged individualism and that freedom entails opportunity. It promises opportunity. It guarantees it, in fact, and it's what you do with that opportunity that determines your outcome in life. And if you fail to exploit the opportunity you're given, somehow we end up blaming the country. These people do. When the blame should fall squarely on the person who fails to seize the day.

    We have a compassionate country that feels sorry for those who don't do well and want to fix it for them and so forth. We all feel guilty. The successful end up feeling guilty and they're made to feel guilty, "It's not fair we're doing so well and these people aren't." Well, what if they're not trying very hard? All kinds of barriers. Everybody's different. For example, to give you a little illustration, a mindless little story I found today in the middle of show prep, and it's really mindless.

    "Marlo Thomas Silences Power Lunch Crowd at Michael’s." Now you might be thinking what in the name of Sam Hill does that have to do with income inequality? I'll tell you what it has to do with it when I read the story to you. Marlo Thomas, the wife of Phil Donahue, still married. They still have a majordomo. They still have a mansion up there in upstate New York or Connecticut somewhere. Vladimir Posner still has his guest room there. They sit down over, what, schnapps, think about the good old days. Trotsky and so forth.

    "There are not many women formidable enough to silence power lunch spot Michael’s, but Marlo Thomas is one of those women. The petite star of ’60s sitcom 'That Girl' coquettishly cajoled those in the packed restaurant to be silent as she stood up to greet a group who gathered to celebrate her new book, 'It Ain’t Over.' Thomas joked, raising her famous husky voice, 'Can I get the whole restaurant to be quiet? You guys have got to keep it down. I don’t mind if you are talking over Diane Sawyer and Arianna Huffington, but I just can’t have it.'

    "Thanking Sawyer and Huffington for hosting Wednesday’s event, she joked, 'I have tried to use every girlfriend I have to sell this book, and I think it’s working.' Her tome, which features stories of 60 women who 'started over,' is subtitled 'Reinventing Your Life -- and Realizing Your Dreams -- Anytime, at Any Age.'"

    Well, why? Why? Why are you trying to better yourselves, Marlo? Why don't you try to settle in and be the same as everybody else? Why don't you just settle for being the same as all the other dregs that are out there, the unfortunate dregs that are being left behind by this unfair capitalist system. Why are you exploiting this system? Why are you trying to write a new book? You're 60 some odd years old, whatever years old you are, you've lived your life. Why don't you go away, be happy, celebrate what you have and sit there and clip coupons? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

    Income inequality, be happy with what we have? What do you mean, Marlo, you want more? Don't you have enough? Haven't you done enough? Haven't you achieved enough? Why do you need to bring these other babes into it? Why do you need to bring Arianna Huffington into it and Diane Sawyer? Don't they have enough? What about these other 60 women, stories of 60 women who started over? Why did they start over? Why weren't they happy with what they had? Why were they being greedy? Why weren't they so absorbed with income inequality, realizing they had more than anybody else, why did they want more? It's not fair, Marlo.

    Marlo Thomas added: "One thing I learned from reading everybody’s story is, think big and work small … and don’t be afraid to fail." Now, wait a minute, that sounds like capitalists. Don't be afraid to fail. Take a chance. Take a risk. Don't be afraid to do that. Claire Shipman has a book out with some other woman, Katty Kay is her name. Claire Shipman, the stay at home wife (now when she wants to) of Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. She can stay home if she wants to because they have a lot of money. You can't, but she can. You're not supposed to stay at home. You're supposed to go out and work and let somebody else take care of your kids. But she can stay at home because she's part of the elite. She can write books about how she lives, but you're not supposed to be able to do that because you're from the hoi polloi.

    Anyway, she's got a book called Confidence Gap. That's the latest problem plaguing American women, the confidence gap. They just don't have enough confidence. These rascally men, way too confident, much more confident than women. Women have got to ratchet up their confidence level up there. And they've got to start thinking big. Claire Shipman says we gotta do a much better job at failing. What she means is learning how to fail, because there is an education in failing.

    Now, to the American left, failure is natural and everybody does it, and everybody should do it and it's the natural order of things because nobody's capable of anything more than failure. The people that do not fail are few and the one percent and it's unfair and so we have to punish them. But here the elites, they want to learn from their failure and take it and make it something bigger, which is what everybody should want to do. But when you want to do it somehow you're subverting America. When they do it, they somehow are enlarging themselves.

    The guests toasting Marlo Thomas included Gail King. No mention of the Oprah. Have you seen that story, the interview with the Oprah and the stepmother and the step -- whoa, I don't have it at my beck and call, but oh man, oh man, it's all about Stedman and Gail King and Oprah and how race is nothing but a strategy that these people use. That there isn't any real racism out there, they just use it as a strategy to get sympathy. It's been out about a week. I was able to partake of some of it while I was in recovery mode.

    Anyway, some of the other women at this thing: Gayle King, HBO’s Sheila Nevins, Joanna Coles, Joy Behar, Gloria Steinem, Diane von Furstenberg, Meredith Vieira and Atria’s Judith Curr.

    Why? They're Democrats. The leader of their party is out there making this big push for income equality. Why are they trying to better themselves? Why does Marlo need a new start? Why does she need a new book? Why does she need to even think about realizing dreams again? I'm sure she's realized her dreams over and over. Now she wants to reinvent her life, realize her dreams, anytime, any age. My point, these are a bunch of hypocrites, folks. While their leader Barack Obama is out trying to convince you to give up, that the deck is stacked against you, that this country is so unfair and unjust, that the one percent, the Koch brothers, whoever they are, are taking everything and there's nothing left for you. The only way you have a chance is to keep voting for them so you get what you need to get by. You should be happy with that.

    We should all not be happy until everybody is making the same. Here you have these people that vote for this guy. They're out there trying to get richer and richer and more powerful and more powerful every day. And they already are. So they are apparently free and clear and able to go ahead and follow the natural human order, which is self-improvement, make yourself better, improve your standard of living, improve your lot in life. They're free to tackle that as often as they want without criticism. If they pull it off, they're going to be celebrated. These women will be given awards for these books and these stories and so forth. And they'll have another lunch at Michael's to celebrate what a great meaningful book Marlo wrote. Or maybe that's what this was.

    But it burns me up. These people are a bunch of hypocrites. The people that make this country work are not the Marlo Thomas's of the world or Arianna Huffingtons or whoever. The people who make this country work are out in parts of country that David Gregory needs a psychological analysis to be able to relate to, and they're working hard every day and they're trying to utilize the freedom they've got. They're trying to improve their lot in life. And when they make 150 grand, somebody comes along in the Democrat Party and says you're getting too rich and we're going to raise your taxes and put you on our health care plan that you can't keep your doctor anymore and so forth. They do everything they can to put obstacles in these peoples' way and start bludgeoning them with guilt over this notion of income equality, because there's too much income inequality.

    Meanwhile, they don't sit by and sit in squalor. They don't just sit by and subsist with what they've got. They're all trying to find out where the money is and they're reaching into the till and they're trying to get as much of it as they can, however they can. But somehow when everybody else does it, it's greed or it's selfishness, or some such thing. We're being ruled by a bunch of hypocrites at best, and at worst it's worse than that. But here's just a tiny, tiny little example.

    RUSH: It's just a take-off on this French economist Thomas Piketty who has been embraced profoundly, happily, by some of the most common names of the left, the media and the Democrat Party. And what he wants to do is literally destroy wealth under the theory that destroying wealth is somehow going to distribute it fairly. It's never worked.

    But the point is that the people that sign on to this, the people that are all excited about it, are out there doing the exact opposite of what he says in the book. They're out there living lives, full capitalism as best they can. They don't vote that way. But they're writing books. They're trying to improve their lives, trying to start over at age 70, trying to maximize the one life they get, but you shouldn't.

    The fact that the White House under the Obama administration still pays women less than men is the perfect argument and example that income inequality like the fake war on women by Republicans are both ploys by the left to play to the low-informed and to promote Hillary Clinton’s candidacy using the carrot of electing the first female president in 2016, who will fix all this… NOT; just like electing the first black president was the carrot in 2008… who will fix race relations in America once and for all, NOT. And the women carrot, plus the amazing turnout she gets at everything from book signings, political rallies to the NRA, is exactly why Sarah Palin needs to be at the top of the 2016 GOP ticket!

     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?

    Friday, April 25, 2014

    The Obama Team Endorses The New PLO-Hamas Unity Deal

    The fallout from the Fatah-Hamas unity agreement continues, but in reality it's more symbolic than realistic so far.

    For his part, President Obama made sure that we know he considers Israel equally responsible for the collapse of the talks, that the Palestinian Authority will continue to get its jirzyah from the American taxpayer and that pressure on Israel by the Obama Administration will continue.

    "The fact that recently President Abbas took the unhelpful step of rejoining talks with Hamas is just one of a series of choices that both Israel and the Palestinians have made which are not conducive to solving this crisis," Obama said.

    Obama added that his administration would not be deterred by Israel suspending the peace talks on Thursday in response, and would instead continue backing US Secretary of State John Kerry's push to force through a peace deal, reports AFP.

    State Department spokesmouth Jen Psaki made sure to continue the theme of mild criticism of Abbas and the PA for linking up with an internationally recognized terrorist group coupled with making sure Israel was blamed equally for the fiasco:

    "There have been unhelpful steps from both sides throughout this process, whether it’s settlements or the UN or whatever it may be. So they are both – they have both been guilty of that."

    As you can imagine, this kind of nonsense generated a fair amount of fury among insiders in Netanyahu's government, particularly as Netanyahu had allowed himself to be arm twisted into ridiculous concessions to Abbas just to keep the 'process' going,on which more in a bit.

    The Israelis ought to realize now that nothing Abbas does is going to get his lawyer and community organizer in the Oval Office to see to it that the PA suffers any significant consequences for this bit of duplicity...and nothing Israel does is ever going to be enough. The White House has taken sides blatantly, just like the EU, and that is simply that.

    As a matter of fact, in a separate statement, Psaki claimed that Abbas had talked to Secretary Kerry and told him that the new unity government would be his government and represent his policies. He is said to have promised Kerry that along with recognition of Israel, the future government would abide by past agreements and renounce violence.

    “It’s a positive thing,” she said.

    According to our own State Department,The Obama Administration is now openly endorsing a government composed of a recognized Terrorist group with the blood of Americans on its hands.Of course they always were, but never this directly, never this blatantly.

    Abbas is playing along with this perfectly, to the point where I believe one of my notorious Lil' Birdies on the Palestinian side is correct in telling me that this was planned out between Abbas and the White House before hand. He's even let it be known that his shiny new unity government that includes Hamas is going to announce to the PLO’s Central Committee its 'recognition' of Israel. Recognition as what, of course isn't being mentioned and for that matter, Hamas isn't really playing along anyway.

    Speaking to the Palestinian Information Center from Ramallah, top Hamas official Hassan Yousef made it clear that Hamas will not recognize Israel and “will not give up the resistance,” and he also made it clear that Hamas is marching to its own drummer and that international intervention meant nothing.""any interference in Palestinian affairs by outside parties is unacceptable, and we cannot exercise blackmail and dictation."

    At the same time, Hamas leader Ra'fat Murra announced in the official Hamas outlet in Lebanon, al-Ajnad, that "The option of negotiations has failed, Palestinian resistance remains the right option".

    So is Hamas going to cease firing rockets at Israel from Gaza? Are they going to rescind the Martyr's Oath all Hamas members swear to uphold that calls for genocide? Will they ever really commit to a peace treaty with Israel, no matter what Abbas or his tools like Saeb Erekat or Hanan Ashrawi say? Of course not.

    And speaking of Saeb Erekat, the former right fork of Arafat's tongue and nowchief Palestinian negotiator told Sky News in Arabic that Hamas is not a terror organization and never will be.

    And then, Erekat added in interview that Hamas is not required to recognize Israel (directly contradicting what Abbas told Kerry), since there are parties in Israel which don’t recognize the state of Palestine. So in other words, just because there are private citizens in Israel who don't recognize the idea of a Palestinian state,it doesn't matter what the Israeli government's official position is..especially since 'Palestine' isn't even a state yet!

    One of my favorite Yasser Arafat quotes comes to mind here.."I've killed for my cause. Don't you think I would lie for it?"

    Hamas, for their part are not giving away anything much to be part of this unity agreement. They aren't giving up terrorism against Israel, they will still retain control of Gaza, and there's no sign of them allowing Palestinian Authority security forces to return to the Gaza Strip. And there's a good reason for it.

    The leaders of Hamas know that Abbas and the Fatah old guard are on their way out. is on the way out in a few months and that they're taking over. So the Beast known as 'Palestine' is going tobe one big happy family again after the elections,only with Hamas in charge as Abbas and the Fatah Old Guard depart to enjoy the money they've stolen and stashed away.

    Meanwhile Abbas is enjoying himself. He knows that the Obama Team is going to launch another big diplomatic offensive to get the talks back on track, even though Netanyahu's cabinet, even clueless lefties like Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni voted unanimously to end them. Abbas is sitting back and waiting now and waiting to see what Secretary Kerry and the Obama regime are going to offer him to go back to the table. At that point, he'll simply up the ante again, with brand new demands and pre-conditions he'll expect Kerry to deliver by extracting them from Netanyahu.

    And that, of course, is the real problem.

    Fatah and Hamas are who they are and they do what they do. But without Netanyahu and others going along with this farce, it would simply end. Believe or not,Netanyahu was reportedly bullied by the Obama Administration right before the Hamas unity pact was announced to gift Abbas and the PLO all sorts of goodies to get the peace talks back under way.

    They included permission for the Palestinians to begin wide-scale construction projects in Area C, the part of Judea and Samaria that's under Israeli control right now and where most of the Jews live. Israel was alos apparently willing to agree to a significant release of more convicted terrorist killers and a partial freeze on building in West Bank settlements...all to listen to Abbas say no for another few months.

    If this is true (and I haven't been able to confirm it yet) Netanyahu needs to resign immediately. Allowing Fatah to build in Area C while prohibiting Israelis from doing so would not only be despicable hypocrisy, it would endangers the lives of the Israelis living in that area in Jewish communities like Gush Etzion and Ariel. And it would also would signify Netanyahu's connivance in a future ethnic cleansing of that area - and by extension, a re-division of Jerusalem itself. It would symbolize his willingness to move Israel back to the indefensible pre-'67 borders.

    If that was Netanyahu's idea about how to proceed, if he was willing to appease Israel's enemies to that extent, he is no longer fit to lead Israel. Frankly, I doubt he's that stupid and this was probably just a trial balloon released by Tzipi Livni, who definitely is that stupid. But in any case, resuming talks right now is not to Israel's benefit in any way, because nothing good will result from it.

    What is in Israel's benefit is to unilaterally decide the terms of the divorce - meaning borders and strategic areas to hold - and to impose them.

    There's no peace to be had by appeasing the heirs of Arafat, or making any kind of deal with them they won;t hod to anyway. Saeb Erekat is telling the truth for once. The him and the majority of those who call them selves Palestinians, Hamas isn't a terrorist group at all, since they're doing Allah's work by murdering Jews.

    The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks' Watchers Council Results

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

    "So much gets lost in the translation. Even if you sat there listening to it with a microscope, there’s no way you’re gonna find out what it means." -Frank Zappa

    "Give me four years to teach the children and
    the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
    -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    "Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent." -John Dewey, one of the founders of American public education.

    This week's winner, The Right Planet's Journey to the Center of the Common Core – Pt. 1 is great analysis of something few of us know much about, but should because of the radical effect it will have on society. Here's a slice:

    There has been a lot of talk and news lately about Common Core (CC)—specifically, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), i.e. national standards for education. Whether you have children in school or not, CCSSI affects every American, in one way or the other. One could say Common Core represents a radical bureaucratic “revolution” in education. Although proponents claim Common Core is a States’ or local initiative, it is, in many ways, a great “bait and switch” that flew underneath the radar of many Americans.

    There are several reasons I decided to write on the subject of Common Core standards. The primary reason was to ask the who, what, why, where, when and how. I know a number of people don’t know much about Common Core. As a matter of fact, the other night I heard Bill O’Reilly say on his show on Fox that he didn’t know much about Common Core standards. Ironically, O’Reilly was also discussing the possibility of Jeb Bush as a potential presidential candidate in 2016. Jeb Bush is a prominent figure behind Common Core, which I will get into later.

    A well-informed and educated populace tends toward a well-informed electorate. A sick culture will produce a sick body politic. Teaching children and young adults how to think, and not what to think, is what I believe the goal of learning and education should be. But the very paradigm and definition of “learning” is being redefined in the Common Core standards. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” The authors of Common Core understand and comprehend Lincoln’s words quite well.

    Secondly, I discovered quite a bit of interlock in my research into the philosophy and ideology of Marxism with the current proposed Common Core standards. Additionally—and some would say, naturally—I experienced this same interlock phenomenon in examining the aims and goals of the United Nations—specifically, the goals of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), among other U.N. initiatives, particularly those concerning “climate change” and “environmental sustainability,” i.e. Agenda 21.


    The interlock between Common Core and educational goals and initiatives laid out earlier in the Twentieth Century by progressive educators like John Dewey, Charles Hubbard Judd, George Counts, Stanley H. Hall—and even Soviet psychologist Lev Vykotsky, whose theories on learning are based on the communal process (now lovingly referred to as “collaborative learning“)—is quite compelling.

    Writing this article has been challenging on several fronts. Not only are there numerous educational issues surrounding CC, there are also a plethora of social, cultural and economic issues swirling around the debate on Common Core. Many of these social, cultural and economic components have already been folded into the Common Core curriculum, hence the controversy.

    When one studies who the major players are behind Common Core, I would say more on the left support CC than on the right. But you really have to throw out the right-left paradigm, in my opinion, when it comes to CC. Common Core is not a right-left thing, per se; it is a progressive, globalist, collectivist thing. There are members from both the right-side and the left-side of the aisle who have a stake in pushing Common Core standards, for various reasons and motives. Some of them might be described as the “usual suspects,” but others might surprise you, as we will see later in this article.


    Since my intent is to try and provide a detailed, yet concise, overview of the who, what, where, when, why and how on Common Core, while exploring a bit of the philosophy and historical origins behind CC standards, and the corroboration of CC standards with the aims and goals of Marxists from my own research, I decided it might be best to structure the article by stepping back into time from the present to the past—meaning, by first looking at the who, what, where, when, why and how of Common Core, and then exploring its origins, aims and goals.

    Much more at the and be informed.

    In our non-Council category, the runaway winnerr was Mark Steyn with The slow death of free speech submitted by The Noisy Room. It's Steyn at his best, tslking about how big government and progressive fascism is encroaching on our traditional liberty, a subject he knows about first hand.

    OK, here are this week’s full results. The Independent Sentinel, Simply Jews and Rhymes With Right were unable to vote this week, but only Rhymes With Right was affected by the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty.:

    Council Winners

    Non-Council Winners

    See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.....'cause we're cool like that!