The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/C.sf.,_castelli,_carmine_gentile,_ovale_con_allegoria_dell%27accademia_degli_illuminati,_1730-1750.JPG

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

“Americans have the right to choose to be unarmed and helpless. Be my guest.” – Ted Nugent

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” – Jeff Cooper, Art of The Rifle

“There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men.”– Robert A. Heinlein

Stately McDaniel Manor

This week’s winning essay,Stately McDaniel Manor’s A Post-Orlando AR-15 Primer is one of those rare gems of the blogosphere – a very well written, compact, information packed source of practical knowledge by someone who knows what he’s talking about. Here’s a slice:

The recent Jihadist slaughter of Americans in Orlando is a crisis Mr. Obama and his sycophantic minions are determined not to allow to go to waste. Accordingly, he has come up with a typically Obamite plan to deal with Islamist terror: disarm law-abiding Americans who pose no threat to anyone. Fox News reports: 

Obama-Pledge-salute

Being tough on terrorism — particularly the sorts of homegrown terrorism that we’ve seen now in Orlando and San Bernardino — means making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons that are capable of killing dozens of innocents as quickly as possible,’ Obama said in his weekly radio address. ‘That’s something I’ll continue to talk about in the weeks ahead.

Hillary Clinton, who has never seen an anti-liberty, gun control idea she did not embrace, was true to form:
Hillary

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has also joined the fight to ban semi-automatic weapons, saying last week: ‘Weapons of war have no place on our streets.

Some Democrats, Liberal Republicans, and some in the media are calling for compromise, but compromise requires that each side surrender something. Such compromise is commonly presented as integral to “common sense gun safety” proposals, but what will anti-liberty forces surrender? They have nothing to offer, but they demand total surrender. How may fundamental, unalienable rights be compromised? How does one compromise on due process? How does one compromise on the right to keep and bear arms? Allow the abridgement of rights every other week only?

Professional anti-gun shock troops in the media and Congress have implied that the AR-15 and all of its variants are uniquely dangerous and commonly used in mass shootings and crime.  This is abject nonsense.  Rifles of all types are used in less than 3% of all shootings, and AR-15s in only a tiny portion of that already tiny portion of the firearm universe.

The AR-15 has been demonized, and will continue to be disparaged because the anti-gun movement has, for decades, worked to convince the public that any gun that looks like a machine gun must be a fully automatic weapon.  One of the oldest tactics of these anti-freedom forces is to ban any gun, type of gun or accessory possible in the hope that such bans will be a foot in the door to eventual total bans of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

M-16

Early M-16

With this in mind, I present a basic AR-15 primer in the hope that facts are the best antidote to lies.  Anti-gunners often call the AR-15 a “high-powered” rifle, or an “assault weapon.”  Both are entirely false.  The AR-15 fires a rifle cartridge of intermediate power at best, and there is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” which is entirely an invention of anti-gun organizations and the media, though some states have used that language in gun banning legislation.

L to R: .22LR, 9mm, .223, .308

L to R: .22LR, 9mm, .223, .308

For an understanding of the relative size of the cartridges mentioned herein, here is a photo of four of the most common contemporary cartridges.  From left to right, the .22 Long Rifle, the 9mm, the .223, and the .308. True high-powered rifle cartridges are on the order of the .308 and larger.

M1 Garand Battle Rifle

M1 Garand Battle Rifle

Battle Rifles:  After WWII, the Army sought a replacement for the M1 Garand, a large and heavy rifle, firing an unquestionably high-powered cartridge, the .30 caliber 30.06.  This–a high-powered, full-sized cartridge–is the defining characteristic of the battle rifle.  Because of the power of these long-range cartridges, battle rifles tend to be heavy, weighing in the ten-pound range, and have been historically made of steel and wood, which has been replaced with plastics in the modern era.  The M1 was the first generally issued semiautomatic battle rifle.

General George Patton called the Garand “the greatest battle implement ever devised,” but it did have drawbacks.  Loaded, the weapon commonly weighed more than 11 pounds, and it did not use magazines, but metal clips holding only 8 rounds.  The 30.06 is also a physically large and heavy cartridge, limiting the number of rounds a soldier can carry.  The Garand remains the only widely available firearm that is actually fed via a clip, which term is commonly misused when one actually means “magazine.”

FN FAL Battle Rifle

FN FAL Battle Rifle

After WWII, modernization efforts among western militaries nearly led to the American adoption of the excellent FN-FAL semiautomatic rifle in .308 caliber.  Unfortunately, the “not invented here” syndrome prevailed and the US adopted the M-14, which was essentially an M1-Garand in the somewhat smaller .308 cartridge, with a flash hider and a removable 20-round box magazine.  This more or less forced NATO to adopt the .308. At around the same time, the British were experimenting, to good effect, with sub-.30 caliber cartridges.

M-14 Battle Rifle

M-14 Battle Rifle

The M-14 was the rifle that initially accompanied our troops in Vietnam.  Its unsuitability as a general issue rifle for counter insurgency warfare, particularly fought in a jungle environment, quickly became obvious.  The need for a lighter weapon capable of fully automatic fire–battle rifles are too light to be controllable in full-auto mode–and firing a smaller cartridge became obvious. One can carry far more .223 cartridges for the same weight and space than .308 cartridges.

StG44, the first assault rifle credit:www.geocities.ws

StG44, the first assault rifle
credit:www.geocities.ws

Assault Rifles:  The first true assault rifle was the German StG-44, first used in combat near the end of WWII.  It was this rifle that was part of the inspiration for the ubiquitous AK-47, the most widely produced assault rifle in history.  True assault rifles have these characteristics:
(1) Shoulder fired
(2) Gas operated (with a few well-known exceptions)
(3) Single-operator fired
(4) Removable magazine fed
(5) Firing an intermediate-sized cartridge
(6) Semiautomatic and full automatic (and/or burst) capability

Eugene Stoner, working for the ArmaLite Company (hence “AR”), developed the forerunner of the AR-15, the AR-10, in the mid 1950s.  Like the AR-15 that followed it, it was made with aircraft grade aluminum and plastics, and had a very futuristic appearance.  Unlike the AR-15 it was chambered for the .308 (finalized as the 7.62 NATO) cartridge.  It competed against the M-14 and the FN-FAL in Army trials, but the Army adopted the M-14, and the AR-10 was scaled down to become the AR-15, which would ironically require the kind of intermediate cartridge the British wanted.  A more detailed history of the development of the AR-15 can be found here.  

It was the Air Force, not the Army, that initially adopted the AR-15, designated the M-16, for base security, in the iconic triangular hand guard configuration.  The initial flash hider had a multi-pronged, open end, which was quickly found to catch on foliage, and was replaced with a closed end design as depicted here.  Eventual redesigns of the rifle resulted in the round hand guard and the heavier barrel now standard on the military family of weapons.  The .223 civilian cartridge was standardized as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.  While the cartridges have very similar dimensions, there are some caveats regarding their use. It is entirely safe to fire .223 cartridges in weapons chambered for 5.56mm, but the opposite may be unsafe in some circumstances. Those interested can find more detailed information here.  

The Civilian AR-15:  The AR-15 is the best-selling rifle family in America.  However, it is not an assault rifle, and certainly not a non-existent “assault weapon,” which is best defined as any firearm anti-gun forces want to ban on any given day, particularly if it is black, or scary-looking to the uninformed.  The standard military rifle has a barrel of approximately 20”, but the most popular civilian configuration resembles the military M-4, which is a short-barreled, fully automatic carbine with a collapsing stock.  Civilian equivalents are not fully automatic firearms, and have barrels of no less than 16” to conform to federal law.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Scott Adams@Dilbert.com with How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper submitted by The Glittering Eye.

Let’s just say that if you are an anti-Trumper or know someone who is, you owe it to yourself to read this one, redolent with the creator of Dilbert’s cynical wit and knack for getting to the truth of the matter.

It might be noted that Scott Adams has endorsed Hillary Clinton, because ‘I live in California and I fear for my physical safety.’

Here are this week’s full results. Only Fausta was unable to vote but was not subject to the usual 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?

Watcher’s Council Nominations – Blind Faith Edition

Blind indeed.

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:

Stately McDaniel Manor got a great mention at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion this week citing him for his fine work unmasking the Freddie gray Travesty. Kudos!

This week, The Commentator, Simply Jews and Seraphic Secret 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!

Forum: What’s Your Opinion Of Obama’s Refugee Resettlement Program?


Every week on Monday, the Council, members of the Watcher’s Council Community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What’s Your Opinion Of Obama’s Refugee Resettlement Program?

Don Surber : It stinks. Stalin liked to relocate people to undermine strong ethnic communities.

Angry White Dude : AWD has never understood the great need to resettle Muslim refugees (or any other ethnic or racial group) into the United States. What purpose do they serve the taxpayers who pay for resettlement? Do Muslim refugees have any great skill other than rape, murder, and destruction? I read where 75%+ of all refugees brought into America live on welfare. Plus, the cost is estimated to be $20,000 per refugee just to get them here.

There is much more than meets the eye here. Muslim countries aren’t accepting Muslim refugees. Only the West. Even the Republicans back and set aside funds to resettle Muslims. When Speaker Paul Ryan says he will sue President Trump if Trump bans Muslim immigration, we can pretty much surmise that someone way above Ryan and Congress is pulling the strings. Someone who, like Congress, doesn’t have the best interests of America in mind.

Someone made a comment on my blog this week that said radical Islam isn’t our enemy. We could destroy Islamic terrorism in six months if we wanted. Washington is our enemy. After all, they are making all this Muslim immigration possible at great cost and risk to Americans.

Stately McDaniel Manor: President Obama’s refugee resettlement program is simplicity in itself: let in people from Muslim nations torn with anti-civilization strife, wracked with Muslim against Muslim butchery, and almost unspeakable atrocities committed against Christians, Jews and non-Muslims. Ignore American immigration law, care nothing about whether any of these people will be contributors to America–producers rather than parasites–and don’t bother to vet them–it’s impossible anyway–knowing beyond any doubt that a significant number of them will take the path of Jihad against Americans on American soil.

The more fundamentally incompatible such people are with American representative democracy, the more Mr. Obama and progressives like it. Dump them throughout America and force the states to deal with them.

Forget the fact that this amounts to treason–giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. Barack Obama is impervious to impeachment and his minions are impervious to prosecution. Forget the fact that the beliefs suffusing every fiber of the being of many of these people guarantees that not only will they make no attempt whatever to assimilate American culture, but will do all they can to subvert, overthrow and destroy it.

Mr. Obama cared nothing for these people when their own governments were slaughtering them. He drew red lines and then ignored them. Why then is he now pretending to care so much that he is welcoming thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of jihadists into America?

Votes. Progressivism depends entirely on a pliant, desperate population ready to vote to keep the free goodies coming. Who more desperate than foreigners with no skills, unable to find jobs in an Obama-created economy where nearly 1/3 of working age Americans no longer bother to seek jobs? Who more desperate than foreigners who do not speak the language, know nothing of the culture, and are dependent on the government for their bare existence, even as they plot to destroy that culture and obliterate the government?

If Barack Obama and his progressive enablers and puppet masters were trying to destroy America, what, apart from open civil war, would they be doing differently? This way, progressives can reap the same benefits and scream “racism” and “nativism” at their enemies, while demanding that law-abiding Americans be disarmed when jihadists murder Americans.

For Progressives, it’s the best of all possible worlds. For Barack Obama, it’s par for the course.

JoshuaPundit : Well the first thing to debunk here is that this isn’t about ‘refugees’ at all. You might remember that President Obama’s first major interview after he took office was with Al-Arabiya, in 2009 in which he stated that the United States was ‘one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world.”

That was very obviously not true then, with the CIA Online World Factbook of that time stating that America had well under 2 million Muslims, putting us at 58th out of the 60 most populous Muslim countries. Knowing that, as well as what I knew then about President Barack Hussein Obama my first thought was that it sounded like a goal. Since he took over, this president has imported a million Muslims into America, almost all of them from areas where an animus to western culture, Jews, non-Muslims, women and homosexuals is a given almost from birth. If they’re allowed to stay, the Muslim population can be expected to triple in a very short time because of our family unification policies, de facto polygamy and Islam’s prohibition of birth control. Another little known fact…because of this, it was written into ObamaCare that Muslim businesses and institutions were exempted from ObamaCare’s mandate to provide birth control.They never had to go to court over it.

And the refugees the Obama Administration has been taking in from places like Syria are almost exclusively Muslims. Few if any Christian, whom are in a much more dire predicament are allowed in. So the idea this is about ‘refugees’ is ridiculous. It is about increasing the Muslim population of America. And changing America’s demographics in certain areas, since they are mostly being ‘settled’ strategically in Red State areas in the heartland. Over 30 states, including Texas sued the feds for settling these ‘refugees’ in their states without even informing them of where they were being located or how many. That Texas suit was recently thrown out of court for lack of standing by a federal court judge, a George W. Bush appointee.

America’s experience with taking in refugees has, by and large been beneficial. It worked well in the period from the mid-nineteenth century until the 1920’s because the migrants were carefully vetted and we had no huge welfare state. They came from Ireland, East Asia and Central Europe first, and later from Greece Italy, Poland, the Baltic states, and Russia. They were escaping political turmoil, oppression and in many cases outright famine and grinding poverty at home. By and large, they had compatible cultures, worked hard to assimilate and fit in and became part of our American family.

I personally witnessed two such migrations that occurred even after our welfare state was established. The first one involved Vietnamese who fled communist rule and mostly settled in California and Texas. They literally came with nothing, but by the next generation they were established and their kids were frequently showing up as valedictorians. The Vietnamese, by the way, were mostly Christians. I had the pleasure of helping a group of them in Westminster, California obtain financing for their church. The second involved refugees from the fascist regime in Iran. This took place over the period between 1979 to the mid eighties. The refugees were mostly Persians connected with the Shah’s regime, Persian Jews, Armenians, and Ba’hai. They too assimilated well.

Both groups mostly arrived with nothing and may have collected welfare for a short time, but got off it quickly because that’s simply not how they see things. Both cultures are highly entrepreneurial, and value hard work and education. They fit America like a glove.

I mention them because the current crop of ‘refugees’ is exactly the opposite. They are unvetted, and see the welfare state as a bounty from the stupid kuffar, non-Muslims. Islam places severe constraints on entrepreneurs and capitalism, which is one reason the Muslim world is in decline today. Even the oil states are experiencing social turbulence as it gets harder to buy their way out with subsidies. Education, except for the Qu’ran is not particularity encouraged in most cases, especially for women. And their culture is completely antithetical to America’sn culture.

Yes, these refugees could easily have been settled in the Arab world. But Obama and certain EU governments want them in their countries, as loyal subjects who will vote for their continued benefits and the providers of those benefits.

The Glittering Eye : I think it’s ill-conceived. There’s one thing that He Who Must Not Be Named is right about: we don’t need more immigrants, particularly immigrants who don’t speak much English, may or may not have any marketable skills, and who are impossible to screen.

However, there is a group of Middle Easterners and West Asians that we should accept. There are about 50,000 Afghan and Iraqi translators who have helped us over the last 15 years. They have the advantages of speaking at least some English, being (presumably) reasonably favorably disposed towards us, and they’ve already been vetted at least as well as we can vet people in the Middle East and West Asia. And we owe them a debt of honor.

So, forget the Syrians. Let the Germans take them. We should expedite the visas of Iraqi and Afghan translators and their families. We owe it to them.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The Obama Administration’s refugee resettlement program completely and dangerously ignores its duty first and foremost to protect American citizens. Just this week CIA Director John Brennan advised us that ISIS/ISIL has plans to infiltrate and insert radical Islamic jihadists in a global terrorism campaign via these refugee routes.

The administration is bringing in tens of thousands of refugees despite massive opposition by the American people through unconstitutional presidential executive orders. In my state of Florida Governor Rick Scott appealed to the White House to provide information on the refugees being settled in our state. They told him no, that it would violate the privacy rights of the refugees. The states absolutely have the right and authority to refuse refugees unless and until we know who they are, where they come from, and their personal background and history.

In this last year of Obama’s second term as president we are seeing the fundamental transformation of America he promised as a candidate in 2008. This is civilization jihad combined with civilization suicide. This is giving aid and comfort to our enemies within the United States, the very definition of treason.

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?

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://primitivehebrews.org/_Media/pasted-file_med-2_med.jpeg

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

“There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam and not Islam” – The’Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, Doctor Of Qu’ranic studies, Al-Azhar University, Egypt.

“Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) in very truth the Believers: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous.” – Qu’ran, Surah Al-Anfal, 74

“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” – President Barack Hussein Obama

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nEAkWOufFU/T366WMxCdrI/AAAAAAAABOg/easpV-8FMnM/s1600/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg


This week’s winning essay
,Joshuapundit’s Who’s To Blame For Orlando? Is my reaction not just to the attack itself but to the reaction to the attack. And it includes a few points I haven’t really seen seen mentioned or commented on anywhere else. Here’s a slice:

A few separate events, all in the same few days…a man guns down 50 people in an Orlando, Florida night club, another man is arrested in Sacramento, California with a list of targets, still another man is shot dead by police after taking hostages in Amarillo, Texas, and still another man murdered two people in Magnanville, France and posted picture of the murders on Facebook.

Is there a thread connecting these incidents? Why of course there is, JFA, Jihad for Allah. And Ramadan is a special time for this kind of activity.

 https://regularrightguy.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/obama-smug.png

Of course, the usual suspects would not want any mention of that sort of thing! The news media, our president, the presumed Democrat nominee and the Leftist punditocracy had far more interesting things to blame…America’s supposed lack of gun control and in the case of Orlando, homophobia, of course. The execrable New York Daily News actually ran a photo of the carnage with the headline ‘Thanks, NRA’ while the head of our misnamed Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson said that disarming Americans is now a matter of national security badly needed to keep Americans safe.

You literally can’t make this stuff up.

The ‘gun control’ argument is ludicrous in and of itself. One of the Orlando victims actually texted his mother to tell her goodbye because the jihadi was coming towards him. Rest assured that young man would have given anything he owned for a loaded, working firearm in his hand and the ability to use it at that tragic, life ending moment.

Jihadis like Omar Mateen as well as ordinary criminals will always be able to obtain guns by theft, smuggling, buying them on the black market or even by making guns themselves. They could care less about laws. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but that didn’t stop jihadis from killing over a hundred disarmed people in Paris using fully auto AK47s.

So if guns aren’t to blame, how about homophobia? There are a couple of things awry with that. First, we know the following at this point: that Mateen himself was a homosexual whom was actually familiar with the gay nightclub he shot up, and that he also cased several other targets, including Orlando’s Disney World.

Thanks to how our media silences certain things about the Religion of Peace, one fact that isn’t well known is how certain shaheeds, martyrs are recruited. In ‘Palestine’ as well as in AfPack and Iraq, young women and yes, homosexuals have been recruited as suicide bombers by jihadis because they are deemed less likely to be caught. In these places, there have been several instances of older women caught setting up young girls to be gang raped and then blackmailed with the choice of redeeming themselves by becoming shaheeds or facing murder by their families in an honor killing. The same thing has been done before with male homosexuals whom face the death penalty if outed, particularly in AfPak.

If Omar Mateen was focusing on murdering gays, there would be no reason for him to scope out other,non-gay targets. His first wife, school classmate and second wife have both revealed that it was known that Omar was homosexual and that he had perused gay dating sites on the internet. Rather than outright Muslim homophobia, I think it’s likely he was outed and blackmailed. And then, since Disney World has fairly tight security, he simply picked the softer target, one where he was known and was familiar with.

In any event, since the Obama Administration has already imported almost one million Muslims ‘refugees’ and increasing from countries where homophobia, along with other things incompatible with a free society is an established part of the culture and the religion and since Mrs. Clinton is quite open about wanting to increase those numbers if she’s elected, isn’t it a bit awkward of them to bash homophobia verbally in America while working so hard to increase it? Of course, the media isn’t going to ask them such an awkward question. And of course, it’s definitely a question homosexuals ought to be asking themselves before they vote Democrat, but I digress.

So, if we can’t blame guns and homophobia, what’s left? Can we blame Islam? ISIS? I don’t think so, not really.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Daniel Greenfield with Why Islam is Violent submitted by Joshuapundit.

Greenfield delves into Islam’s tribal past in an effort to explain exactly why the so-called Religion of Peace is anything but.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Fausta was unable to vote this week, but was not affected by the usual 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 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?

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Nothin’ To Do With Islam Edition

Islamism,Islam, Muslim, terror, terrorism, Orlando, terror attack, LGBT, Media, MSM, media bias,Jihad,
(Courtesy of my Israeli pal,veteran cartoonist Yaakov Kirshen of Dry Bones)

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.

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

Council Submissions

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!

Forum:Who Will The Nominees Pick As Running Mates?

Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Who Will The Nominees Pick As Running Mates?

Bookworm Room : I hope that Donald Trump picks Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest constitutional conservatives around. I wouldn’t dare even guess whom Trump will actually pick. He makes a habit of going off in directions that no one expects.

I think that, as we sit here, it’s likely that Hillary will pick Fauxcahontas, aka Elizabeth Warren, the embittered, hypocritical “class warrior” who made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year teaching a class or two at elitist Harvard, who lives in a subsidized high-end home, and who made even more big money buying foreclosed houses. As one of her students in the days before she discovered she could leverage her cheekbones into an Ivy League profession, all I can say is that I thought she was a dreadful Banking Law teacher. I never had the faintest idea what she was talking about — and I’ve learned over the years that I’m bright enough to understand good teachers and lazy enough to tune out bad ones.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Conventional cats tend to believe old school chiz about VP. Geography, race and gender. Yet 2016 has been anything but conventional.

In this regards, HRC will pick someone up until last fall would never have been considered for VP with HRC as the nominee:

Senator Sanders. “Feel the Bern” could very well be applied to HRC’s curiously boring campaign to grab semi socialist younger cats that may not vote HRC in the fall.

Senator Warren. If one woman is historic – why not up the ante with two? Either Sanders or Warren will complete HRC’s lurch to the leftist side of politics imaginable. Unverified gossip says Team Clinton is more intrigued than ever about a Clinton-Warren ticket, and some strategists say the longer Sanders stays in the race, the more likely Clinton could pick Warren to be her running mate.

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. Many see him as having all the right attributes to fill the ticket and win over progressives. Unions love him, plus he speaks fluent Spanish could help further drive Latinos to Clinton’s column. Perez told reporters this week that he has had “no conversations” about a possible VP role. Instead, he said, he is focused on his job and “in my spare time” is also helping to elect Clinton.

Gov John Hickenlooper. Aside from the catchy surname, a win in Colorado would cement the race for Clinton. Hickenlooper has also been a loyal soldier to Clinton during the primary, particularly when his state voted for Sanders by nearly 20 percentage points.

For the GOP, Trump recently stated he had a short list of about 7 cats – including Arizona Gov Jan Brewer and Oklahoma Gov Mary Fallon. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa may be a tad closer to getting the call though, as Trump’s negatives with women are sky high. A woman on the ticket might help. Plus, Ernst is from the swing state of Iowa.

Governors Christie, Perry and Jindal may sound good, though Trump is likely to win Texas and Louisiana with out them. Christie’s in-your-face, tough-talking style is a lot like Trump’s. If being an attack dog is a top requirement for a VP candidate then Christie’s evisceration of Marco Rubio is a qualification/recommendation. Then again, Trump usually takes care of those duties himself.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has made no secret he’d dig the gig.

Long Shot – Congresslady Mia Love from Utah. Haitian (many say she was an anchor baby) her mixed marriage, immigrant, and lady attributes could very well inoculate Trump from the the trifecta of tired accusations about race, immigrants and gender Trump has taken and will continue to take.

Plus, “Trump Love 2016” is mighty catchy!

JoshuaPundit: Let’s start with Mrs Clinton. I doubt she will pick Elizabeth Warren, because Fauxahontas is not only another elderly white lady from a state Hillary is sure to win anyway but is something of a star in her own right (and therefore not as controllable) whom would have to give up a senate seat to run. She might also be seen as something of a sell out by her fans for running with Mrs. Clinton, Additionally, word is Fauxahontas has ambitions of jousting with Chuck Schumer for the Senate leadership spot.

Ditto when it come to Boynee for a lot of the same reasons. All else aside, the last thing the Dems want is a Jew on a national ticket, even a totally irreligious, Israel bashing one like Boynee.

I think Hillary is going to go for what she needs most in the election; a younger, more energetic attack dog, the largest black turnout she can get and as much support from Obama as possible. She’ll get two of these qualities and the possibility of a third (the largest black turnout she can muster) with former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick.

A number of writers repeated a story that back when Joe Biden was toying with a run, Obama’s price for support was that the president would be able to pick Biden’s running mate, who was Obama protege, Deval Patrick.  Since Biden didn’t run, it’s not a stretch to see the Clintons making the same deal with Obama, given the president’s obvious zeal and promise of over the top support for the Clinton campaign. Given that Patrick is  a decent rabble rouser who embraces radical Left wing politics. I see him as a natural choice.

I doubt she would pick a Latino, simply because turnout is usually low, Latinos tend to be concentrated in states that are already democrat strongholds and Trump is showing surprising strength in this demographic lately. However, if Mrs. Clinton did pick a Latino, I’d expect to see either former mayor of San Antonio and present HUD Secretary Julián Castro. Or possibly Reps. Xavier Bacerra or Luis Gutiérrez. All three are experienced race card slingers and total amnesty advocates.

I honestly have no clue as to whom Donald Trump would pick. The only thing I can say is that he appears to take the choice seriously and to want to pick someone whom could take over if President Trump was incapacitated and unable to serve for some reason.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : After the massacre today in Orlando by a radical Islamic terrorist it should be clear to most reasonable Americans that Hillary Clinton should NOT become president, so who cares who she picks as a running mate. As far as Trump, I would hope he picks someone more conservative than himself. Newt Gingrich would be my first choice, but since this election is down to Clinton or Trump (unless the FBI decides to do something about Hillary’s illegal activities) we need to support Trump no matter who he chooses as his running mate.

  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?

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/C.sf.,_castelli,_carmine_gentile,_ovale_con_allegoria_dell%27accademia_degli_illuminati,_1730-1750.JPG

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

““The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” “ – Jeff Cooper, Art of The Rifle

“Liberalism is like an acid that distorts and ruins everything it touches” -Rush Limbaugh

“The Second Amendment is timeless for our Founders grasped that self-defense is three-fold: every free individual must protect themselves against the evil will of the man, the mob and the state.” – Tiffany Madison

Stately McDaniel Manor

We had a tie this week in our Council category. Joshuapundit’s Welcome To The Left’s Carny Show is about…well, let’s just say the title pretty much says it all.

Stately McDaniel Manor’s Gun Violence Awareness Day And Common Sense concerns the outright hypocrisy involved in one of those cute Leftist ‘holidays’ I wasn’t even aware of, and I bet you weren’t either. It’s a superb piece, and since I break ties around here,it gets the crown this week. Here’s a slice:

Thursday, June 02, was National Gun Violence Awareness Day. I nearly missed it, or at least, I wasn’t aware of it until I read about it in my daily Internet searches. Such occasions must have various symbols associated with them–these days that means a color–and the people behind this occasion have chosen orange. Perhaps they think themselves clever, associating their cause with blaze orange vests worn by hunters for safety purposes, or perhaps it’s just that the rainbow–much more eye-catching–was already taken by LGBTQWERTY folks.

 credit: politico.com

-credit: politico.com

I’ve long had a language problem with “gun violence.” Violence, a noun, requires activation; it requires a verb, as in “he committed violence.” One might add an adjective to clarify the degree of violence, but warping a noun into an adjective to describe an inanimate object–or an idea or concept, as in this case–is nonsensical.

If we’re going there, why not “car violence,” or “hand violence,” or “foot violence?” There could even be “fork violence,” “thrown ketchup violence,” or “hamburger violence.” Far more people experience violence through the application of force via motor vehicles, hands or feet than by firearms. Unsaid, because it is reasonably assumed, is that violence is committed by people using various instruments, when they’re not using their hands or feet. One can shoot someone, and normal people might call that act violent, but normal people do not say: “Bob committed gun violence on Steve.” They say “Bob shot Steve,” assuming any such act would involve violence. And why not “bullet violence”? After all, it was the bullet that did the damage, not the gun. If Bob stabbed Steve with a screwdriver, no sane person would think to say “Bob committed screwdriver violence on Steve.”

Why, then would anyone invent an “awareness” day using such a clumsy and strained bastardization of language? Aren’t people already aware that there are plenty of criminals out there and they sometimes shoot people, particularly in places like Chicago? Of course they are. It’s not because they seek clarity and education. On the contrary, they seek to control, conceal and mislead.

Who, after all, apart from sociopaths and psychopaths, is in favor of violence, regardless of which tool is used to commit it? Who champions “gun violence?” No one. So what do the people behind National Gun Violence Awareness Day hope to accomplish, other than further deconstructing clear, understandable English?

I’ll get to that in a moment, but one thing the Left has down pat is coopting the language. They know all too well how powerful the ability to name things is, and how effective choosing the right language–and relentlessly hammering it into the ears of low-information citizens–can be in controlling any debate. That’s why leftists currently prefer to call themselves progressives rather than liberals. While most people can’t accurately define “liberal,” they can judge the rhetoric, actions and policies of liberals, and liberals have given themselves a very bad name indeed. Thus, liberals have become progressives, because who can be against progress? That’s why they’re always talking about “moving America forward,” and maintaining the glorious progress they’ve achieved. When it gets down to actually explaining that progress, one usually finds that the progress consists of progress in working to maintain progressive progress so that we can continue to progress progressively, or in making life infinitely worse, as with Obamacare.

 Eventually, the public catches up to the latest progressive deception. Hillary Clinton and others have been proclaiming the Republican “war on women,” for a very long time, but she recently stopped using that term when polling indicated it was no longer effective. Apparently progressives still think “gun violence” works.

Amy Schumer's Gun Awareness Day Statement

Progressives are also good at getting celebrities involved in their crusades. A woman billed as an actress and comedian, Amy Schumer, was very much involved, posting a selfie of her torso, naked except for a athletic bra which looks sort of reddish-orangish. Obviously, she is making a statement that semi-naked, headless women in reddish-orangish bras are particularly aware of gun violence and if you pose that way, so can you.

As I already mentioned, no one is arguing for “gun violence.” There is no “More Gun Violence Association Of America” lobbying for more of something that does not, in grammar and fact, exist. “Gun Violence” is nothing more than the June, 2016 version of “Gun Control,” which long ago went the way of “Liberal.” “Common Sense Gun Safety,” is also becoming a bit long in the tooth.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was The National Interest with The U.S. Navy’s Plan to Dominate the Sky in the 2030s (And Beyond) submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD

Here are this week’s full results. Fausta, The Razor and Angry White Dude were unable to vote this week, but none of them were subject to the mandatory 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 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?

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Trust Me’ Edition

Well, the Democrats now have their nominee…one of the sleaziest, most corrupt figures ever to besmirch American public life. The American Spectator’s E.J. Tyrell Jr. once referred to the Clintons as ‘coat and tie radicals,’ people whom were willing to put on the costume of what they saw as the establishment in order to destroy it while garnering wealth and power for themselves. No one can deny that they’ve had a decent amount of success in both goals.

A very wise man who was there for the birthing once described our government to one of his fellow citizens as ‘a Republic, if you can keep it.’

This is the election where we find out whether we can.

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.

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

Council Submissions

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!

Forum: Whom is responsible For The Riots In San Jose? Why?

Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Whom is responsible For The Riots In San Jose? Why?

Stately McDaniel Manor : Who is responsible for the San Jose riots protesting Donald Trump? I don’t pretend to have any inside information on this, but one can make reasonable judgments based on media accounts. The media have made much, including photos and video, of protestors burning the American flag, waving the Mexican flag and assaulting blonde women. The fact that the media are reporting this at all must mean that the amount of American flag burning and anti-American hatred displayed is of unprecedented and epic proportions. From the available images, one could reasonably believe the protesters are of Mexican, or at the very least, Hispanic, descent.

Also according to media reports, these ”protestors” are motivated by what they believe to be Donald Trump’s desires regarding illegal immigration. In essence, they absolutely do not want to experience the professional, efficient enforcement of American immigration law, just like Democrats.

Let’s put aside, for the purposes of this discussion, the fact that few things make Americans want to deport illegal immigrants–or Democrats–more or faster than seeing them burn the American flag while waving the flag of the nation they fled. It is this sort of thing that causes reasonable Americans to reasonably ask: “If you hate America so much, why did you come here?” And “So, does this mean you don’t intend to fully assimilate into American culture? Is that what you’re trying to say?” Some might even add: “If you learned English, you could just say it instead of burning American flags.”

Who is behind it? Who stands to benefit from it? Democrats, and other racist organizations like La Raza (The Race). I rather doubt that the Border Patrol Agent’s Union is a sponsor, nor is the NRA, the Republican National Committee or the Trump Campaign.

What’s that you say? Trump could be sponsoring the violence as a ploy to turn the public against Hillary? We know the Democrats do stunts like paying protestors, illegally coordinating with all manner of prohibited organizations beneath the radar, and even trying to manufacture astroturf protests (OK, raising the dead to vote Democrat is a pretty neat trick too), but there is, as yet, no evidence that Trump does the same, and the RNC is too afraid of Democrats–they’re more afraid of Trump–to even think of that kind of dirty trick.

Thus far, I’m not seeing any middle class white family men burning Mexican flags at Hillary rallies, or assaulting blonde women at those rallies, an event about as likely as a joint protest by Bigfoot, space aliens and the Loch Ness Monster. Until then, one need not be Sherlock Holmes to figure out who is involved.

The Glittering Eye: There’s a lot of blame to go around. First and foremost the “protesters” who go out with the characteristic radical’s objective of provoking a response are to blame because people should be held responsible for their actions. Then the few Trump supporters who “sucker punch” or pepper spray “protesters” because they shouldn’t respond with violence and they’re providing the protesters justification.

Donald Trump because when you go out of your way to speak provocatively it’s not surprising when people are provoked. Police officers who aren’t enforcing the law because they’re not doing their jobs. Democratic pols who aren’t condemning violent protesters. Republican and Democratic pols who’ve accepted illegal immigration with a wink and a nod for decades. Mexican pols who’ve treated illegal immigration as a safety valve and primary economic policy for so long they now think of it as a right.

I’ll stop now not because I’m running out of people to blame but because I’m tired of typing.

JoshuaPundit: Let’s start by using reverse logic, a favorite tool of mine to figure out whom we can’t blame.

The San Jose police basically stood by and watched a mob of people violently assault Trump supporters who were peacefully exiting a political rally. Their logic, as voiced by San Jose’s police chief Eddie Garcia  was that protecting citizens whom had a constitutional right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly from assault by as violent mob would have been ‘bad police tactics’ because it might have angered the mob even more, and we can’t have that now can we? Unsaid, of course was ‘hey, after all, these are just a bunch a racist Republicans. Who cares what happens to ’em?’ Well not quite unsaid, since that is essentially what San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told the AP while blaming Donald Trump for the violence, saying “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign.”

Need I mention that San Jose is a very left wing, totally Democrat run Bay Area city? That it’s a sanctuary city for illegal migrants?

So, is what happened in San Jose the fault of any of the above? Well, the police were obviously following orders not to lean heavy at all on the protesters, and they obviously got those orders from Chief Garcia…who serves at the pleasure of the mayor and the city council, whom obviously gave Chief Garcia his orders on how the police should conduct themselves. Cops have jobs, families to support, and pensions to protect, and that usually means that when you get an order, you obey it for the most part. In this case, they obviously just followed orders, including Chief Garcia.

Is this Trump’s fault? Controversial as some of what he says might be, it is all constitutionally protected speech, and there’s a slew of Supreme Court decisions to support that. Likewise, you can’t blame his supporters, who were violently attacked as they were peaceably leaving the area for simply exercising their constitutional right of freedom of assembly.

What about the mayor and the council? Tempting as it is, these are relatively small fish in the turgid swamp that is now the Democratic Party. Of course they obviously played an enthusiastic part, especially the mayor. But that part was obviously that of messenger boy. Who was it further up the food chain whom orchestrated this? Cui bono, who benefits?

Let’s look at the message what happened in San Jose is sending and see if that sheds any light:

  • Political street violence is perfectly acceptable with minimal cost to those whom commit it as long as it’s aimed at the Right.
  • You go to a Trump rally at your own risk. And cities that allow the Trump campaign to book venues for their rallies can expect the same bloody mess. Better to simply deny permits to the Trump campaign and avoid all that, isn’t it?
  • The Left has free rein to turn the GOP’s Cleveland convention into a maelstrom of riots and chaos, all of which can be featured on national TV. After all,Cleveland is also a Democrat run city.In fact, plans  for bringing in additional police from out of state were recently torpedoed because the city of Cleveland refused to pay for worker’s compensation insurance for the additional police.  Rest assured that the Cleveland police will get orders similar to the ones the police in San Jose received.

As anyone with a fighting chance of a two digit IQ can figure out, bringing that many  ‘protestors’  to San Jose took money and organization, just like #blacklivesmatter did, and there’s almost certainly more where that came from. La Raza  received over $11 million from the Federal Government this year alone, along with additional millions from various foundations, and they’re hardly the only ones benefiting from a Clinton victory this election year.

 It’s pretty obvious who benefits.

  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?

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

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fjmYWFGjRLQ/VBZKcuHxAUI/AAAAAAAAi1w/5WIOcOHaH2s/s1600/confederacy.png

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

“I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.” – Spike Lee

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today” – Thomas Sowell

“Within a socialist community there is no room left for freedom” – Ludwig Von Mises

Stately McDaniel Manor

This week’s winning essay,Stately McDaniel Manor’s These Aren’t The Justice-Involved Individuals You’re Looking For is his reaction to the innate mental disconnect of the new Obama doctrine of referring to criminals as ‘justice involved individuals,’ especially as it applies to education. Here’s a slice:

Lets review: Americas colleges are virtual snakepits of rape. One in four young women embarking on a college career—according to the Obama Administration—will be raped during their undergraduate days. College life is suffused with a “rape culture,” and the “war on women” continues unabated. Strangely, parents continue to send their daughters off to colleges, apparently blithely unconcerned that their daughters stand an excellent chance, a chance about which they are fully aware, of being raped, beaten, perhaps even murdered. And they’re willing to pay tens, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars for that chance.

Then what do we make of this from Judicial Watch: 

 “The Obama administration has ordered the nation’s colleges and universities to stop asking applicants about criminal and school disciplinary history because it discriminates against minorities. Institutions are also being asked to offer those with criminal records special support services such as counseling, mentoring and legal aid once enrolled. The government’s official term for these perspective students is ‘justice-involved individuals; and the new directive aims to remove barriers to higher education for the overwhelmingly minority population that’s had encounters with the law or disciplinary issues through high school.”

Instructions are outlined in a cumbersome document (Beyond the Box) issued by the U.S Department of Education (ED) this month. It says that ‘data show plainly that people of color are more likely to come in contact with the justice system due, in part, to punitive school disciplinary policies that disproportionately impact certain student groups and racial profiling.’ Because education can be a powerful pathway to transition out of prison and into the workforce, it’s critical to ensure that admissions practices don’t disproportionately disadvantage justice involved individuals, the directive states. Colleges and universities should also refrain from inquiring about a student’s school disciplinary history—including past academic dishonesty—because that too discriminates against minorities. Civil rights data compiled by ED show ‘black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than white students and often for the same types of infractions.’

Therefore colleges and universities should consider designing admissions policies that don’t include disciplinary history so they don’t have the ‘unjustified effect of discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability,’ the new ED guidelines state. Three out of four colleges and universities collect high school disciplinary information and 89% of those institutions use the information to make admissions decisions, according to the order. That needs to change, according to the administration. A few years ago it warned public elementary and high schools to administer student discipline without discriminating on the bases of race, color or national origin because too many minority students—especially blacks—were getting suspended. The feds assert they issued the directive after reports of ‘racial disparities’ in ‘exclusionary discipline policies’ that created a ‘school to prison pipeline.

Oh, “data show”? Well, as long as “data show,” who can argue with that? Actually, anyone with a functioning, non-progressive virus-infected brain can, and should, argue with that. What “data show” is that Blacks, and to a much lesser degree, Hispanics, particularly males, commit not only the overwhelming majority of disciplinary offenses in schools, they commit the overwhelming majority of crimes in schools and elsewhere, at rates far outstripping their numbers in the population. This has been known for as long as such statistics have been kept. Rational people understand that the problem is such people choose to misbehave in school and to commit crimes. Obamites and other Progressives are embarrassed by what “data show,” because the data exposes their ideology as a lie, therefore, they have to pretend that the criminals are the helpless, innocent victims of statistical racism and purposeful, institutional discrimination, an issue I explored in March of 2014 with Race-Based School Discipline: The Movement Continues, and in November of 2014 in Race-Based School Discipline Finds Fertile Ground In Minnesota.

The Progressive point is simplicity itself: don’t deal with the problem, just stop collecting the data and change the messaging to blame Conservatives.

 credit: nypost.com

The Atlantic makes the Obamite case: 

Gathering background information about future students is a core business of admissions departments, but some box opponents believe the criminal-history question has an unintended negative effect. “Students of color are the most likely to be harmed by putting these questions on the application,” said Natalie Sokoloff, professor emerita of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She conducted a study that looked at the use of (or absence of) the question by two-year and four-year colleges in Maryland, a total of 50 schools. She analyzed all application forms used during one year and concluded that 40 percent included a question about criminal background. ‘Public four-year and two-year colleges are less likely to ask the question at the state and national level. Places that are more likely to give an opportunity to people with criminal records are two-year public colleges, and places that are least likely are private four-year colleges,’ she said.

Sokoloff believes, ‘These kinds of practices really are de facto forms of race-based discrimination, because people of color are disproportionately impacted by these policies.’ Scholars like Sokoloff, reform advocates, and public thinkers often point to the structural racism already at work in school systems—in which the over-disciplining of black children creates a school-to-prison pipeline. So not only are black students more likely to end up in prison than other groups, but once they are released and attempting to break that cycle by applying to college, they are more likely to confront the box—and the conundrum of whether or not to check it.

‘This question doesn’t belong on the college-admissions form any more than questions about the weather belong there,’ said Barmak Nassirian, current director of policy analysis with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. The organization represents 420 four-year colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. ‘These are not facts that in any way relate to the matter at hand,’ he said, ‘which is to decide if someone is qualified to come learn something.’ Nassirian also agreed that the school-discipline and criminal-history questions disproportionately affect low-income students, students of color, and students with disabilities. ‘We know that communities of color and students with disabilities are disproportionately affected by run-ins with the law’; it follows that they are more often asked to disclose such histories. ‘This mindless adoption of these mechanical so-called ‘safety checks’ does have the predictable downside of disproportionately affecting the students who need it the most,’ he said. ‘This amounts to extrajudicial punishment on someone who has already served a punishment for a crime.

 saggy-pants-thug

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Christian Lowe in the Federalist with ‘Real Sports’ Trolls Public About America’s Most Popular Riflesubmitted by The Daley Gator
. It’s a great piece that looks at how the Leftist media promotes its anti-Second Amendment agenda at all costs.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Angry White Dude and Fausta were unable to vote, but neither was subject to the usual 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?