“EPIC”: Obama Wants To Give Away More Free Sh*t

What an original plan. Obama wants to “deliver free sh*t to people in his voting coalition” as Ace of Spades put it on Twitter, and the (largely Republican) American taxpayer gets to foot the bill. Like hiking the minimum wage, and the Equal Pay Act for women, (both  of which are bad ideas but sound good) the Free Community College Plan has no chance of passing a Republican Congress but it’s a great issue to use for the next two years to make Republicans look like mean, nasty, crank-muffins who don’t want young people to succeed. Who would have ever have expected such a dastardly ploy from the Divider in Chief? So unpredictable, this guy.

Obama made an apt comparison in his speech today…(wherever he was.)  He’s on the road campaigning again if you can believe that. Oh yeah – I guess he’s in Arizona because he made a point of not stopping at the infamously ill-run VA Hospital in Phoenix. Nothing to see there.

But in a speech (I’m guessing at a university!) he did want to talk about the goodies he wants to bestow on liberal young voters, comparing them to Christmas presents under the tree. I kid you not.

And here, he unveils his awesome gift – TWO FREE YEARS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE you guys!!!

“This is huge!!!” a White House Twitter follower gushed.

“EPIC!” blurted another. “There are no words for the awesomeness.”

*The best part is – Obama says “it’s free for everyone who’s willing to work for it.” So I’m guessing it will pay for itself and it won’t cost the taxpayers one thin dime.  

Not one thin dime, you guys!

Obama will say the free college will lead to more highly paid community college teachers, increasing the quality of education.  Obama’s plan will even save families an average of – I don’t know – $2,500 a year, or something, on tuition if students decide to continue with their education after two years! And best of all – if they like their teachers – they can keep their teachers!

Obama is just so so epic.

*Rumors that MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber is the Architect of Obama’s Free Community College plan have not been confirmed.

Details about the actual proposal here. But it’s dumb that we’re even talking about it because it isn’t going to happen.

The New York Times Stealth Edits Charlie Hebdo Piece, Deleting Muslim Proselytizing

Jim Treacher at the DC Trawler caught the New York Times egregiously altering their piece about the Charlie Hebdo attack, entitled, “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.”

Here’s the original version of the paragraph before it was stealth edited.

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

It was later changed to this:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

In the new version, the “calm and steady” Jihadist is portrayed in an almost heroic light –  sounding almost chivalrous – not to mention righteous. Gone are the exhortations to convert to Islam and cover herself. Why would the NYTs do this?

It’s no secret that the New York Times is the House Organ of the Obama Regime, so it stands to reason that the original copy did not fit the WH’s desired narrative. And what narrative is that? Well, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, gave us a hint, Wednesday when he told reporters that the administration is going to “redouble” their efforts to explain what the “true tenets” of the Religion of Peace actually are.

“There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are.  And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.

Reminding people about actual tenets of Islam like women being required to cover themselves, and forced conversion, as proselytized by the Jihadists, does not help in their efforts.

They think the problem is one of “messaging” which can be combated with their own messaging.  Simply telling the people the truth, is not even considered.

But the Times’ stealth edit is even worse than that – because not only did they remove the truth, they replaced it with a lie.

In the Radio France Internationale (translated) version of the interview with Sigolène Vinson,  there’s nothing about a calm and steady Jihadist sounding almost Jesus-like with “Be Not Afraid.”


Absent also is the  exhortation to “think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” Where did the NYTs even get that?

A better translation via the Daily Mirror:

Ms Vinson told Radio France Internationale that one of the killers aimed his gun at her but decided against taking her life.

She said the man told her: “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu’ran and wear a veil.”

She added that as the man left, he shouted “Allahu akbar, allahu akbar.”

The altered NYTs version is WAY OFF.

They even left out the “Allah Akbar” and replaced it with, “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”




Our Weasel Of The Week!!

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

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were all despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner…the envelope please…


Yes, it’s those trashy hypocrites from PETA!

Ask Marion : My Weasel of the Week nominee is PETA.

Sarah Palin posted a photo of her 6-year-old special needs son, Trig, trying to help with the dishes. Nobody immediately reacted when he said he needed help to reach the sink, so Trip took it upon himself to solve the problem. He stood on the family dog, Jill, a black lab especially trained to be a companion for kids like Trig who suffers from down syndrome.

When Palin posted the photo, PETA went nuts. Now I’m a dog lover, but really???

Hmmm… funny thing?!? When Ellen DeGeneres, who doesn’t suffer from Downs or the like, posted virtually the same photo of herself standing on the family dog as a child, there were crickets from PETA and then they nominated her women of the year.

And when President Obama admitted that he ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia there wasn’t a peep either from PETA.

Or how about when New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio dropped the groundhog, who eventually died, at the yearly celebration? I don’t remember a peep from PETA either.

But like with anything else in today’s climate, if you are a Democrat or a Progressive from either party, you are untouchable and always excused, but if you are a Republican or worse yet. a tea party Republican, you are fair game with a target on your back for anyone or any group to inflict their fake outrage. Just ask former Governor and GOP Presidential Candidate Romney .

ButSarah Palin responded to PETA like only Sarah can!

Yes, PETA, who compared chickens to Holocaust victims, who outraged people all over the world with a disgusting ad claiming that ‘shark attack victims have it coming’ after honeymooning groom Ian Redmond was killed in a shark attack in the Seychelles, whom had to publicly apologize for harassing and bullying a 14-year-old kid in Louisiana for raffling off his bull to fund his trip to Great Britain as a Student Ambassador through the People to People.

And then, there’s all those animals that PETA kill themselves..

The Palin kerfluffle was just another instance of these people making asses of themselves, and they definitely earned their Golden Weasel!

Tell me, would you like fries with that?

Well, there it is.

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

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

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

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

Mark Steyn: “Obama talked the talk, and these savage murdering fanatics today in Paris walked the walk.”

Mark Steyn, appearing on the Kelly File Wednesday night, went on an absolute tear against the cowards in the media who willingly waved their free speech rights in reaction to Islamic threats against free speech in the past.

Lauding the courage of of the French satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo, Steyn said, “it’s only because the NY Times didn’t (publish Mohammed cartoons), and Le Monde in Paris didn’t, and the London Times didn’t, and all the other great newspapers of the world didn’t — only Charlie Hebdo, my magazine in Canada and a few others did, that they were forced to bear a burden that should have been more widely dispersed.”

He also criticized the NY Daily News for censoring the Charlie Hedbo’s Mohammad cartoon  in their report on the massacre, charging that they are dishonoring the dead in Paris.

He savaged the French speaking John Kerry, who mumbled something Wednesday about “a battle between civilization and [pregnant pause] forces that are against civilization.”

“Perhaps he’d like to be a little more specific, Steyn quipped. “Because these men all have something in common and John Kerry isn’t prepared to address it.”

Steyn then harkened back to Obama’s “disgraceful” speech before the UN in 2012, in which he said, “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

“For a start, under American law, and  under the laws of all civilized societies, you can slander a bloke who died in the 7th century,” Steyn noted. “But secondly, the head of the country that has the 1st Amendment, shouldn’t be standing up in front of the United Nations indicating that he’s willing to trade off freedom of speech!”

He proceeded to hit the president between the eyes with this zinger, “Obama talked the talk, and these savage murdering fanatics today in Paris walked the walk.”


Andrew McCarthy, NRO: Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism’

While insipid Western leaders cannot admonish us often enough that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the French satirical magazine has offered a different take — one rooted in the cherished Western belief that examination in the light of day, rather than willful blindness, is the path to real understanding. In that tradition, a few other choice aspects of sharia, detailed by Muslim scholars in Reliance, are worth reviewing:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.)

As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. — Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliancem13.2–3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet . . . said, ‘Men are already destroyed when they obey women.’” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not “violent extremist” doctrine. This is Islamic doctrine — sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. Millions of Muslims, particularly in the West, do not abide by it and are working heroically — and at great risk to themselves — to marginalize or supersede it. Of course we should admire and help them. That, however, is not a reason to pretend that this doctrine does not exist. It is, furthermore, suicidal to ignore the fact that, because this doctrine is rooted in scripture and endorsed by influential scholars, some Muslims are going to act on it, and many millions more will support them.

Meanwhile, via the Weekly Standard, the White House vows to “redouble its efforts” to explain “what true tenets” of the Religion of Peace actually are.

“There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are.  And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.