Monday, August 15, 2016

Forum: Does America Still Have A Free, Independent Media?



Every 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: Does America Still Have A Free, Independent Media?


Stately McDaniel Manor: Our society has, without a doubt, a free, independent press. What it lacks is a responsible, ethical, professional press. The role of the press is no less potentially important than it was in the time of the Founders, but much has changed.

Some suggest that the digital age has fundamentally transformed the role of the media. Internet news sources, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, all mold opinion. The Legacy Media no longer have a monopoly on the news, or on opinion writing, for that matter. This has wrought changes, perhaps even opportunities: Donald Trump rode Twitter to the Republican nomination.

One thing, however, remains unchanged: we get precisely the press we deserve, just as we get the politicians we deserve. Think Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are a coincidence? A completely unexpected bolt from the blue? They are the logical, foreseeable consequence of a people who, for the most part, no longer understand or embrace the Constitution, the very principles and the rule of law that make America, America.

The Legacy Media have always had a leftist slant, but in the past, they angrily denied it, and if one of their own stepped too far over the line, they were roughly brought back into the fold, and in rare instances, fired. But the temptation to advocate rather than report--after all, the Legacy Media are elite, educated, smarter and more in the know than those they supposedly inform--became ever stronger, and before long--mere decades--the line became all but invisible, the consequences for crossing it, weaker and weaker until they have all but vanished.

Much of the Lamestream Media abandoned all pretense at objectivity with the first election of Barack Obama. They were no longer content with reporting history, they wanted to make it, and nearly everyone in their ranks became--if they were not already--a Democrat operative with a byline. Oh, they still argued their objectivity upon occasion, but ever more weakly.

Circa 2016, there is virtually no protestation of even-handedness. An Associated Press reporter, one Lisa Lerer, was present for an incident where Hillary Clinton potentially had a seizure of some kind. There have been numerous concerns about Clinton’s health, and several public instances of seizure-like behavior, but the media has responded primarily by declining to cover them. That has all changed, and surely represents the Media’s realization that Clinton does have serious health problems and needs their help to cover them. Ms. Lerer to the rescue!

Lerer, obviously with the blessing of the Associated Press, wrote a full-throated defense of Clinton, including a medical diagnosis of her unique fitness to be President that would have done a hired Clinton press flack proud.

Who needs people like neurologists or other medical professionals to testify to Clinton’s physical fitness to rule when we have the Associated Press!

Keep in mind that the AP is a wire service. Their content is sold to new organizations around the world, so if the AP is in the tank for Clinton, every newspaper, blog, or other media source that uses their material is also in the tank for Clinton, whether they realize it or not.

Surveys routinely reveal that 90% and more of reporters self-identify as Progressives/Democrats. They are independent and free to make that choice. What they are not is honest, objective, and trustworthy. We are, in part, responsible for that.


Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : While we still have a free independent media, what we are lacking is integrity in our journalists. Actually, it’s worse than that because they don’t even realize how biased they are.

The major media outlets employ journalists and reporters who graduate from progressive universities and colleges where they have been indoctrinated with a bias against traditional American values. Being immersed in the hatred and animosity against America and its perceived evils it becomes impossible for them to report on stories objectively. Returning to college to finish my bachelor’s degree I sought a notoriously liberal school and took an American Studies major with a focus on communication and media. I tell people I received a bachelor’s degree in Bitterness Studies. The focus in nearly every class was anti-American and pro-globalism and multiculturalism. Marxism is alive and well and producing good little communists on our college campuses. It is no wonder we have a generation of young adults who seem unable to cope with even the basic challenges of adulthood. The guilt and hopelessness of this generation is striking and I find it difficult to imagine them becoming well adjusted, happy, and competent contributors to our society.

Progressives need people who are dependent on government. Our progressive education system has destroyed their sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Today’s journalists regurgitate the party line because this is where they are made to feel safe and protected. To step outside this circle would mean suffering public humiliation, a useful tool of the left to keep people in line.

On a positive note, with the advent of the internet and the rise of independent news reporters and bloggers we are able to counter some of the leftist media. We do this because we are the truth tellers in a world we find full of corruption and media bias. We are not beholden to politicians and the progressive agenda which pervades the major media outlets. We are the pre-Revolutionary War pamphleteers of the twenty-first century. There are a lot of people who are still able to think critically and see what is happening in our country and as things become progressively more intolerable there will be more searching for the truth. We have taken on this task willingly and out of love for our country and our way of life. We are truly happy warriors.

We do have a free independent media for now, but I fear very soon we will not as the internet is being turned over to a global governing oversight entity. It may become very difficult to write as we do today in the near future. I hope I am wrong about this, but I don’t think I am.

Bookworm Room : If we define "freedom" to mean that the government cannot use coercion to force people into speech against their will, America still has a free media. America's tragedy is that our media didn't need force and coercion to abandon its commitment to truth. It did so voluntarily. So free? Yes. Honest? No.

JoshuaPundit: I've been a news junkie for a longtime...even dating back to the old pre-internet short wave days. It was an is fascinating to me to see how different news agencies in different countries would handle the same stories, and weight them in importance. Even in those days, there were news agencies that were obviously biased, and others whom prided themselves on their objectivity like the BBC. That, of course,is no longer true of the Beeb and a number of other institutions.

The change could be traced back as far as the 1940's, when groups like the New York Teacher's Union were heavily infiltrated by the communist party. It revved up during the '60's, when a number of red diaper babies and similar radicals infiltrated the university systems and many college administrators caved in to their demands to try and preserve civil order.But to me, the real tipping point was in 1972, when President Nixon ended the draft. The supposedly moral anti-war movement melted away, but the leaders and cadres went back to the university systems and became tenured radical professors.

There's a reason people like Bill Ayers got so involved in education.

Because that's the key to what's going on with news media now. The Left controls education and has for some time.

American media has always had its partisan elements. In most sizeable towns, there was always a democrat and Republican paper. But the bias was up front and honest, and the competition was on a relatively level playing field. That's not the case today.

Back when the nation's press was a monopoly of three alphabet networks and a handful of influential big city newspapers, the bias towards the Left and the Democrats was there and always increasing, but the Old Guard who still maintained a modicum of journalistic standards kept it somewhat in check. As they retired and the new breed took over, the change became more and more apparent.

The introduction of talk radio and later, the internet exploded this monopoly for a time.

But thanks to social media. It's reasserting itself again since these sites are pretty much controlled by the Left and they now control how news is weighted and what gets highlighted. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are actually suppressing conservative media and doing what the Leftist media has always done...not covering or hiding news stories and information that goes against their progressive agenda. Conservative activists have found themselves banned by Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or even worse, 'shadow banned' where the poster believes his or her content is being posted because he or she can see it on his page. They're unaware no one else can.

Google is even more insidious. If you have an exact URL, you'll get what you were looking for but they have altered the search algorithms so that if you merely do a general search on a topic that debunks the Leftist mythology what you'll frequently see instead is a lot of articles taking the other side, with what you're looking for frequently being buries several pages away if you're lucky. You have to be extremely specific to find what you want, and many times that doesn't even matter. This also applies to google images.

Want to fix the media and preserve the First Amendment? Fix education. It would take some intestinal fortitude, but it is by no means impossible.

If Mrs. Clinton is elected, look for a pervasive effort to neuter talk radio via the FCC and the internet using use taxes, 'hate speech' codes and high fees for the privilege of blogging. I hope I'm wrong about that.

   Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And stay tuned for news on an  exciting new development from the Watcher's Council!

Trust me,  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, August 12, 2016

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher's Council Results

http://www.lsjunction.com/facts/rangers.jpg


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

"You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." - Rush Limbaugh

"“Guns are our friends because in a country without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are.” " - Ann Coulter

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison


Stately McDaniel Manor


This weeks' winning essay, Stately McDaniel Manor's I Carry A Handgun, Because.. is a real treat, a beautifully written essay that explains exactly why the author chooses being armed as opposed to the alternative! Here's a slice to whet your appetite for the entire feast:


I do not advertise the fact that I carry a concealed handgun, or that I am an instructor. However, on the occasions when this comes up, people are often amazed. Not because I am a diminutive wisp of a fellow–I’m anything but, and if I do say so myself, and I do, I’m roguishly masculine–but because I am an English teacher and singer, and my default facial expression is a smile. The resulting conversation usually goes like this:

Friend:  “Really? You carry a gun?”

Me:  “Yup.”

Friend: “Where?”

Me:  “Everywhere.”

Friend: “Everywhere?!”

Me: “I carry a spear gun in the shower.”

Friend:  “No!” The horror and surprise in their eyes is delightful to see.

Me:  “No; but everywhere else.”

Friend:  “Why?”

I usually hit on a few of the high points, issues of logic, common sense, gentle persuasion enabling those that already know me to accept a side of me previously unimagined.. Employing my most frequently used weapon–the keyboard–I’ll endeavor to explain.

 Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 5.02.26 PM

I CARRY A HANDGUN BECAUSE:
* Evil exists and may confront anyone at any time and any place.
* I believe God exists and expects me to protect those that can’t protect themselves.
* Self-defense is a God-given, natural, unalienable right.

 en.wikipedia.org


* There is no gift so precious as God’s gift of life.

* To fail to protect God’s greatest gift is inexcusable.

* My life is worth far more to me, those that love me, and to a just society than the lives of vicious criminals and terrorists.

* The lives of the innocent—friend or stranger—are worth far more to me and to a just society than the lives of vicious criminals and terrorists.

* Three times in my life I have raised my right hand and sworn a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I have never betrayed those oaths and never will.

* By carrying my handgun, I honor the foresight and wisdom of the Founders in writing the Second Amendment.

* The Constitution is only paper and ink, a statement of principals and intentions. When the will wavers and when some wish to change, ignore or destroy those principals and intentions for light and transient reasons, only the threat and, if necessary, the application of the force of arms, will suffice to preserve liberty.

* A handgun is the most convenient, usual and effective means of self-defense.

* Going armed reinforces and upholds the Social Contract.

* An armed society is a polite society.

 Jefferson


Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was noted Middle East commentatorRaymond Ibrahim with Is Islam Violent? Forget the Koran, Let's Talk About Islam's PROVEN Historical Record submitted by Joshuapundit. While he left out part of the story (the Indian Genocide during the Muslim conquest alone is estimated at between 1 and 20 million people), the basic point is fairly obvious.

Here are this week’s full results:

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?

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - 'Finish The Job' 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.

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!

Monday, August 08, 2016

Hostages, Ransoms, Iran, and Israel - Obama Lies Again

 http://i.iheart.com/v3/url/aHR0cDovL2NvbnRlbnQuY2xlYXJjaGFubmVsLmNvbS9jYy1jb21tb24vbWxpYi82MTMvMjAxNi8wOC8yMTB4MjEwL2V1cm9zXzBfMTQ3MDI0ODQzMC5qcGc=?ops=

It's been revealed that American hostages held unjustly by Iran were released this January, but only after a sum of $400 million in cash sent by the U.S. was received by the Islamic Republic. This transaction was meant to be hidden, but now it's come out, it has immediately raised questions. Was this a ransom? Why was this hidden from the American public?

US President Barack Obama speaks to the media in Arlington, Virginia, on August 4, 2016. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

The totally misnamed Josh Earnest, Obama's spokeshole was quick to say that no ransom was paid, and Hillary Clinton said - it seems to be her trademark -that this was old news and 'no one cares about it anymore.' Well, it worked for Benghazi and her illegal private e-mails and server, so why not?

But it was left for Barack Obama to pull off the biggest, most shameless lies of the bunch. He gave a press conference and asserted the following:

  • That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever.

  • That the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered. And that America's own lawyers advised paying this settlement because Iran had pursued litigation in court and by settling, 'we saved America billions of dollars.'

  • That this was old news, that the Iran deal was working and that even Israel admitted it. Obama also said those who had been most critical of the deal should admit they were wrong:

    “What I’m interested in is if there’s some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster come out and say, ‘This thing actually worked.’ Now that would be a shock,” he said.“That would be impressive. If some of these folks who said the sky is falling suddenly said, ‘You know what? We were wrong and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in short term and develop a nuclear weapon.’ But that wasn’t going to happen.”

    “The Israeli military and security community … acknowledges this has been a game changer,” he said. “The country that was most opposed to the deal.”

Well, let's examine these claims. First of all have we paid ransom before for hostages during Obama's term in office?

Remember these?


In 2011, the Obama Administration paid $1 million dollars to Iran
as 'bail money' to get them to release two hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer who accidentally wandered over the Iranian border two years before and were being held in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. An additional $500,000 in 'bail' was paid earlier for the release of Sarah Shourd, Bauer's girl friend when she became seriously ill in Evin. So, a total of $1.5 million in ransom money.

In 2012, the Obama Administration used USAid as a conduit to pay $4.6 million to the Egyptian Government for the release of 43 NGO operatives...including Sam LaHood, the son of the then Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

Then there was deserter Bowie Bergdahl. Remember him? Not only were 5 extremely skilled and dangerous Taliban commanders sent back to Afghanistan, but there a great deal of evidence that the Obama Administration also paid a ransom of something like $5 million to the Taliban for his release.

Even if Bergdahl's ransom consisted of just the five Taliban commanders alone, those of you with loved ones serving in AfPak can thank the Obama Administration and Mrs. Clinton, then Secretary of State for making things far more dangerous and life threatening for them.

These are just a few instances that come readily to mind, and I'm certain there are other instances. So contrary to what the president said, yes, his administration does pay ransoms for hostages. And if I remember, he mentioned that countries that do that see the price go up. That's certainly been the case for the United States!

 https://speechable.s3.amazonaws.com/images/h25ehqe3.png

Let's look at the president's next claim, that the cash payment of $400 million wasn't a ransom, it was a claims settlement for an arms deal that the Iranians were already pursuing via litigation. And the money just arrived there at the exact same time as the hostages were being released just by coincidence.

Now anyone who's ever paid a court judgment knows this is sheer fantasy. Settlements of this kind involve legal documents including one called a satisfaction of judgement filed by the litigant at the same time payment is made. And the president's nonsense - that's the most benign word I can use here - about the fact that it needed to be all cash 'because we don't have a banking arrangement with Iran' is a blatant falsehood. There absolutely no reason the U.S. couldn't have deposited the funds in a Swiss bank by check for the Iranians to have wired to wherever they wanted in any currency they desired.

There's a name for what the Obama Administration chose to do instead. It's called money laundering and it's a felony offense. No wonder even some of the officials in Obama's serially lawless Justice Department were concerned about this one.

The Iranians wanted cash for a simple reason - to humiliate the Great Satan and show the money off to prove it actually was a ransom. Which is exactly what they've done.

One of the the hostages has recounted that even though the plane to take them home was ready for takeoff, the Iranians told them that they were waiting for the plane with the money and they weren't going to be released until it arrived.

Another falsehood the president told us is that this was supposedly an arms contract that was never fulfilled. I know a little bit about arms dealing and how it's legitimately conducted. The normal procedure is that the contracts are signed and the consignee (the purchasing country) goes to a large bank and obtains a Letter of Credit in the amount required. A Letter of Credit is a guarantee from a bank on behalf of one of its customers (in this case, Iran) to the seller's bank that the seller (in this case, the U.S.) will be paid in full to the amount of the Letter of Credit as long as the contracted goods and services are delivered.

To restate this more simply, the buyer's bank guarantees payment (normally they have the funds on hold) to the seller's bank when the buyer receive what they ordered.

Since, as President Obama told us, the arms were never shipped to the Ayatollahs the money was never released to America either.


So yes, that $400,000,000, was ransom money. And our president lied once again, without being challenged by a servile press.

Finally, let's look at his claim that the Israelis are on board and just love the Iran deal.

Now, there are a few Israeli members of the military and security establishment that agree with the president, but what's notable is that they're all ex-members and almost all associated with the left wing Zionist Union (AKA Labor) party that the president tried and failed to put into power with substantial injections of cash and paid activists when he interfered with Israel's elections. They're the people whose mindset and opinions the Israeli electorate overwhelmingly rejected.

And the people who they elected and who have actual responsibility for Israel's security?

Avigdor Liberman, Israel's defense minister compared the Iran deal to Munich in 1938.

"The Munich Agreement didn’t prevent the Second World War and the Holocaust precisely because its basis, according to which Nazi Germany could be a partner for some sort of agreement, was flawed, and because the leaders of the world then ignored the explicit statements of [Adolf] Hitler and the rest of Nazi Germany’s leaders,” the ministry said.

“These things are also true about Iran, which also clearly states openly that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel,” it said, pointing to a recent State Department report that determined that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

Yitzhak "Tzachi" Hanegbi, currently Minister in the Prime Minister's Office in charge of National Security and Foreign Affairs has a long history as part of Israel's security and defense establishment and who until recently chaired the Knesset’s powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He said, “I don’t know to which Israelis he (Obama) spoke recently. But I can promise you that the position of the prime minister, the defense minister and of most senior officials in the defense establishment has not changed.”

“The opposite is the case. The time that has elapsed since the deal was signed proved all our worries that, regrettably, we were justified before the deal was made.”

And Prime Minister Netanyahu? Netanyahu merely issued a statement that Israel “has no greater ally than the United States” but made plain nonetheless that Israel’s position on the Iran nuclear deal “remains unchanged.”

While he felt the need to be somewhat more diplomatic than Liberman (who later yielded and walked his initial statement back a bit), it's worth noting that Netanyahu used the example of Munich himself previously. And it's a correct one, with both involving a weak leader seeking to appease a vicious, aggressive enemy and buy 'peace' at an ally's expense. Czechoslovakia had a strong, well equipped military, strong, built up defenses on the German border and a world class armaments manufacturer in the Skoda Munitions Works. If Chamberlain had not sold out his ally, Hitler might never have felt secure enough on his Eastern front to start WWII and engage Germany in a two front war for some time. Certainly, it would have given the West a lot more time to arm and prepare if nothing else.

There should be no question in anyone's mind that President Barack Hussein Obama sees Israel as eminently disposable, just like Chamberlain saw the Czechs.

 http://conservativepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/obama_noisrael.jpg

At any rate, another outright lie from this president.

And there was not a single question or followup at his press conference challenging any of these gross fabrications.

No one even challenged him by asking for his reaction to Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei essentially dumping the Iran deal and any future negotiations in a very public manner. (Hat tip to Moon of Alabama via The Glittering Eye)

Which is exactly why he keeps doing it. Because what used to be a free, independent press is now largely his enabler, a group of courtiers and political activists that covers for him. For them, that is more important than truth, the nation's well being or even a semblance of ethics. And thus, they reinforce President Obama's gigantic ego in believing that he can lie with impunity and that he really is smarter than everyone else.

Forum: Where Would You Go On A Weeks' All Expenses Paid Vacation?



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
: Where Would You Go On A Weeks' All Expenses Paid Vacation?

 Stately McDaniel Manor: If given an all-expenses paid vacation, I would hasten to a little-known redoubt of Paradise: Thermopolis, Wyoming.

In Thermopolis there is substantial geothermal activity and several facilities for enjoying the kind of naturally heated mineral waters people pay thousands to simulate in hot tubs. I enjoy Thermopolis, particularly in the winter, when one can lounge in enormous outdoor pools, warm and comfortable in a bathing suit in the perfectly heated water, as snow falls all around. It’s particularly beautiful and peaceful in the night.

There are, of course, multiple motels and hotels and restaurants. It is a quiet, unhurried place were one can retreat to rejuvenate body and soul without the blather and overwhelming noise and humanity of far too many tourist attractions.

During my Wyoming days, I often did just that. When I retire, I’ll reacquaint myself with those simple but profound pleasures. There is, at least for me, no need to travel far and spend vast sums of money to vacation.

Bookworm Room : My dream vacation has always been for everyone else to go away and for me to stay home, without any demands being made upon me. If that dream vacation came with all expenses paid, I'd have take-out every night from my favorite restaurants.

If I actually had to go somewhere on this dream vacation, I'd like to take a cruise around America's northeast region in the Fall. Holland America, which is the cruise line I've traveled on several times before has some lovely cruises that allow you to visit places important to America's Revolutionary War heritage and give you a chance to see the beautiful nature all along the coast up into Canada.

The great thing about cruises is that they're relaxing for me: My hotel room travels with me, so I don't end up packing, unpacking, and repacking every single day, and I sleep through the more boring parts of getting from Point A to Point B. The stewards take beautiful care of the rooms. Delicious food is available all the time. If I pay a little extra, they'll do my laundry for me.

Lastly, I'd love to repeat my Civil War/Revolutionary War trail trip from last year, only I'd do it in either the Spring or the Fall, not the summer, and I'd want my companion (if any) to enjoy American history as much as I do. Seeing it with two disgruntled teens in tow was painful.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : I’ve always had a wanderlust and have visited many places and checked them off my bucket list. I’ve been to Stonehenge and visited the Tower of London and many other sites around London. I went to Munich in 2000 for Oktoberfest. I’ve been to Mexico and many islands in the Caribbean. All were wonderful trips and I loved meeting the people and seeing the sights.

But with the world as it is today my wanderlust is being tamped down with a concern for safety. And it seems not as important anymore where I go as who I am with. The place we keep returning to is the Blue Ridge Mountain area of North Georgia. I am drawn to the mountains, woods, creeks and waterfalls. It is where I am always able to find peace and contentment.

Walking along the creeks or just sitting by the creek watching the water flow rejuvenates my soul and reminds me how connected we are with nature and the natural order of things. A perfect all expenses paid vacation would have to be a family vacation; bringing all of our siblings and their families up to the mountains to reconnect. We are all in various parts of the country and rarely get to see each other anymore with our various work and school schedules. A week in a private resort in the Blue Ridge Mountains reconnecting with family would be my dream vacation.

 JoshuaPundit: I'd have several choices to pick from. It would probably end up being Israel, and I'd take the free week and pay for an extra one because there's so much to see and do.The combination of sheer fun, natural beauty, spiritual input and the fascinating history of the place are irresistible. Plus, it would be great to visit some old friends.

Another place I wouldn't mind seeing again is Alaska. I'd go in late May or early June before the tourist mobs on the cruise ships arrive and  avoid more than a brief look at the Inner Passage where they mostly hang out.

Alaska is what I call one of the 'strong places' on earth and it is like nowhere else. The impression a lot of people have of it being a barren ice cube is completely mistaken.

Australia would be a consideration, simply because I've always read and heard about how unique it is and because  every time I meet an Ozzie (with one exception) I seem to get on famously with them. I have no idea why, but it would be interesting to check out their home turf and find out! My wife lived there for a number of years, so at least we'd have people to visit.


 The Razor : A week limits me to somewhere in Europe or possibly Israel but that’s cutting it pretty short for anything beyond Jerusalem.

I spent 8 days in Rome last year and am going back again soon. There are some cities in the world that you could spend a month in and still not scratch the surface. London. Tokyo. New York (of course). Rome – definitely. And Jerusalem.

But due to expense, even guaranteeing constant jet lag, I’d go for New Delhi. I’ve been wanting to visit India for a while now and only the distance and cost has stymied me. But the week would allow me to eat my way through the heart of one of the world’s great cuisines. Although some may consider Indian food an acquired taste, once I acquired it I was hooked. So far I’d rank the top 3 world cuisines in no specific order Italian, Indian and Chinese. The airfare, accommodation and food bill covered by someone else makes India my top choice.


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, August 05, 2016

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher's Council Results

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d2/56/70/d25670a3aa86ce8c614442dbd0500800.jpg

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

"Rape is not about sex, it's about power and control" - Mark Steyn

"Sometimes the men would also exercise extreme physical and sexual violence on the girls and threaten them that should they ever seek to free themselves from the grasp of the group they and/or their families would suffer serious harm.

"The defendants took the girls to other places, usually hotels/guest houses or empty private dwellings, for other men to have sex with them, again often in groups and often in return for money which was paid to the men and not the girls"
- Official SCR(serious case review)on UK Muslim sex grooming gangs.

“When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali*. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her” - Prominent Egyptian Muslim scholar Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni

(a wali is woman's male 'guardian' who would have to give consent to a marriage. This isn't a 'marriage,' so it isn't needed. The Qu'ran also says that when a married woman is captured in battle, her marriage is invalidated so it's open season.)

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2GJBshOOHwAwN4iaZBKDgIN6y9Yoiz-WjYZ7LJa3K0YPphCCwxdyzd7MiP1TvaTp8jXnLSHqys4pnoPCW1O2fhQiMydVIAmYo9aYuGU8YpNi_rIEoJ7-TH5SbVSs8hWCEy6Cfsw/s400/Bookworm+3.jpg


This week, we had a tie in the Council Category between Joshuapundit's-A Few Things About Hypocrisy, Politics And A Certain Mr.Khan... and Bookworm Room'sWith Islam it's always about sex .

My piece was an in depth look at the Khan game the Democrats used at their convention, the sheer hypocrisy involved and some interesting facts about Mr. Khan's preference for sharia over the Constitution, his connections to the Clinton Foundation and finally, how he makes his living. On the other hand, Bookworm's fine piece on Islam and women and its larger implications for society was, I thought, far better. So she gets the gold this week. Here's a slice:

Not long after 9/11, one of the smartest men I know told me that, when it comes to Islam’s battle with the West, “it’s all about control over women and access to sex.” That’s a simplification for an existential war that involves fundamental beliefs, rather than mere land borders, but I think he’s on to something.

His insight is also part of the reason that the Left is having such trouble with Islam — because for the Left, it’s also all about sex and control. While Islam views citizen control as vesting sexual power in men and denying it to women, the Left views citizen control as vesting sexual power in the state and denying it to the traditional family and religious units that once advocated keeping sexuality within a Judeo-Christian context of heterosexual monogamy. (I’ve expanded on that topic at American Thinker.)

Building upon the foundation of my friend’s insight, the events of the last 15 years have furthered my understanding of the fact that (a) the Islamist need to use sex as a means to control women and (b) the Leftist need to control everyone by using sex as the opiate of the people — and that while Islam understands and loathes the West, Leftists keep thinking Islam is just a different type of groovy. Three articles that popped up on my radar today help illustrate these ideas.

The first, this morning, was the news today about an Imam in England who said that one of the glories of Islam is that men get to keep sex slaves:


An Imam has told his congregation in Wales that war is approaching and Islam allows them to take women as slaves and rape them.

[snip]

In the audio, Imam Hammuda is heard telling a group of young men: “One of the interpretations as to what this means is that towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today, and because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves, yeah, women will be taken as slaves.

“And then, her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife.”

[snip]

More than 5,000 non-Muslim Yazidi women and girls were abducted by Islamic State in 2014. Many have been trafficked and traded on slave markets.

Surat An-Nisa, verse 24 of the Koran, reads: “And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls.”

We in the West shudder when we read that, but it is a very powerful message to young men, not just Muslim young men. After all, young men are all about sex. There are only two things that rein them in: fear of dominant males and social norms preventing them from acting on their sexual urges.

In the West, we’ve neutered our dominant males by insisting that masculinity is a toxic disease that must be destroyed (enter Pajama Boy, who’s handed all of his testosterone to TrigglyPuff). Also, while the West preaches the virtue of endless sexual gratification, the reality is that our average spotty male adolescents aren’t getting any of the good stuff.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Dr. Rich SwierLetter from a Blue Star Mother to the Muslim Gold Star father that spoke at the DNC submitted by Joshuapundit. It continues most eloquently the theme of my Council submission at the hands of a woman with a son serving in the field , and exposes the real issues involved perfectly. Do read it.


Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners



See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And stay tuned for a major announcement from the Watcher's Council!

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.


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

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - Mountains Vs. Molehill Edition

http://therealside.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HillaryClinton-Scandals-vs-DonaldTrump-Attrib-AFBranco-ComicallyIncorrect-051716.jpg

Graphics by the always stimulating AF Branco at Comically Incorrect!

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:


Stay Tuned for a major announcement coming soon about the Watcher's Council!!!

This week, Twitchy, TammyBruce, 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!

Monday, August 01, 2016

A Few Things About Hypocrisy, Politics And A Certain Mr.Khan..

 

The latest Trump molehill pumped up by the media to obscure the Clinton mountains involves one of the speakers the Democrats had at their convention, Khizr Khan and his wife, to attack Donald Trump, a Pakistani Muslim couple who lost their unfortunately lost their son, a decorated vet, in Iraq in 2004.

The talking point of Mr. Khan's speech was,of course Donald Trump's 'racism' in wanting to 'ban all Muslims from America.' Of course, all Trump has proposed is extreme vetting on immigrants from certain countries ad a temporary ban until we figure out policy, but hey, why go with the truth when a lie works so well and the media will cover for you? Just ask Hillary Clinton!

Mr. Kahn claimed that 'if Donald Trump were president my son would never have come to America' which given some facts we'll look at later, might or might not have been true. And he invited Donald Trump to 'read the Constitution. If he doesn't have one, I will lend him my copy.'

Actually there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits America from refusing anyone entry  under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for whatever reason. And the sensible precautions Donald Trump is proposing make far more sense to me then our current policies of amnesty for unvetted Muslims from ISIS infested areas and lying about it to the American people.

Now, I have nothing personal against the Khans and I feel for their loss, but you know, it would have been far more moving if the Clinton campaign had one of the four Benghazi mothers speak at their convention. Oh, wait...when Benghazi mom Pat Smith appeared at the Republican convention, the Democrats laughed at her and smeared her. The PBS talking heads covering the convention even turned down the volume on her and talked over her speech as she described how Hillary Clinton lied to her about the cause of her son's death.

Hey, respect for a dead hero's mom, right? Not unless it fits in with the Left's agenda, thank you.

Now, I think Trump should have ignored Khan's attack on him. After all it's Dem politics as usual. But he unfortunately stuck his foot in it. Someone really needs to explain to him that anything he says or does is going to be deliberately misconstrued and twisted by the media. And that he also needs to stay out of silly twitter wars back and forth, and avoid interviews with hardliners owned by the Clintons masquerading as 'journalists' and 'newsmen' like George Stephanopoulos.

But given that (we'll pretend he's Mrs. Clinton for an instant and ignore the silly 'sacrifices' brouhahah), much of what he said was true.

For instance, it's perfectly true that Hillary's votes and later conduct that helped send the Khan's son to his death in 2004 along with a lot of others, particularly the games she, Joe Biden, a certain Senator Obama and Harry Reid played with funding that cost the lives of our troops.(See former Sec Def Bob Gates' book for details. He's pretty open about how livid he was hearing how they laughed about doing it& deliberately just for the politics when he served in the Obama Administration). And it was the Obama Administration's policies that made their sacrifices in vain.

It's also true that as Trump tweeted, "This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!"

In that context, Mr. Kahn's remarks on how terrorism has nothing to do with Islam also raise some questions in my mind. The Qu'ran, the Hadiths, the Sunna and certain recent events say something very different.

And here's another interesting fact. Khizr Kahn has some very interesting connections with the Clinton crime Foundation and the Saudi government.

As Michael Walsh points out:

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.


Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.

Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.


But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.


Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.


“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.


The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.


The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.

Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.

“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”


“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”


Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government. {...}

Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

 “Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system.
[...]


But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash. 

The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”


Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal.

 Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.
 
For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.

“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”


If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.


Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”


“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

Those flaws are enormous (much more here) but this certainly does shed a little light on the matter, no? It certainly seems likes the real reason Khizr Khan was so outspoken against Donald Trump has to do with the fact that Khan largely makes his living via shoving  unvetted Muslim migration through a leaky visa for sale loophole.

And just as an aside, Mr. Khan, when he's not brandishing the Constitution for the cameras apparently has a real fetish for the very unconstitutional sharia law ! That, along with the above facts does seem to cast some real doubt on the sincerity of what he had to say.

Finally, I have to ask, how much, really, did this have to do with his son? As painful as the loss was and as heroic as is son likely was, why cheapen that for the sake of partisan politics? And why put his wife through that? If she really was as ill as they say, with high blood pressure, this could have easily brought on a stroke. Was it worth the risk just to help get Hillary elected?

In the end, what we have here, once again, is the Democrat media pouncing on Trump's admittedly clumsy phrasing while ignoring the back story, as well as the serial lies, corruption and malfeasance of their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Well, what do you know! Now that it's been exposed that Khizr Khan has a law firm that
financially benefits from moving unvetted  Muslim migration into America through a major loophole in our immigration laws, Breitbart reports that he's deleted his website from the internet! Here's a screenshot of what it looked like before he tried camouflaging his real interest in all this. Obviously it was never about his son at all. It was a political ploy that just happened to coflate Khan's livelihood with what he needs to keep the cash coming in - Hillary's election and a continued flow of unvetted Muslims.

The website is now gone from the Internet, and instead sends anyone who clicks on the link to his website to a page where he parked the URL until the heat dies down, run by GoDaddy.

It's notable that the entire Democrat media jumped on this without once checking out anything about Khan's affiliations, previous writings on sharia or how he personally profits from unvetted Muslim migration.

And just for giggles, here's Mike Pence doing a superb job of handling an obvious Hillary plant:



In Mrs. Clinton, we have someone who damaged national security to try and hide her own greed and corruption, someone who helped set the entire Middle East on fire, someone who willingly lied to the American people and to the grieving families of the four Benghazi dead that she left to perish when they could have been rescued. And she lied to their families literally in front of their loved one's coffins.

Today, President Obama made a speech overseas in which he said that Donald Trump was unfit to be president.

"There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world."

This from President  Barack Hussein Obama, who while running his mouth about 'the troops' from time to time  has serially treated our military and our veterans with cavalier disrespect throughout his entire presidency. And who is he endorsing as someone he thinks  is fit for the office of president?

Hillary  Clinton.



Forum: How Would You Compare The Two Conventions?



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
: How Would You Compare The Two Conventions?

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Both were choreographed obviously. I liked Trump's speech better. HRC seemed to say things were semi ok and she'll do her dangest to give us 4 more years of it.

No thanks!


Stately McDaniel Manor : One can pretty much safely ignore most of the promises and solemn pronouncements made at the Democrat and Republican conventions, whether made by celebrities, minor political figures, the vice presidential candidates or the candidates themselves. Particularly where the Democrats are concerned, all such things have expiration dates. And even if a given candidate were absolutely honest and did their best to keep their promises, as President, they would quickly learn, as Eisenhower did, there is a very big difference between being a General and a President. Generals give orders; they are carried out. Presidents can, for the most part, and unless they ignore the Constitution, only suggest and persuade.

The 2016 conventions have, however, revealed several facts, none of which bode well for the future of an America based on the Constitution and the rule of law. That America, which recognizes and honors individual freedom and a government only large enough to fulfill its limited, enumerated responsibilities, appears to be, if not dead, then mortally wounded.

It appears that the decades-long work of Progressives in subverting the American education system has been in large part successful. Bernie Sanders could not have been nearly as successful unless the young had no grounding in the ideals of liberty and democracy. His ideas make no sense whatever to those that understand economics, human nature, and history, to say nothing of science. But that’s true of much of the Democrat agenda. Sanders is unquestionably to the left of what passes from mainstream democrat thought, which is already ridiculously far to the left, well into socialist/communist territory.

Yet, if the DNC had not corruptly denied him an honest contest, he would be the Democrat nominee today. This could only happen in a Democrat party so far to the left as to be unrecognizable as an American political party, and so it is. A new generation appears to think government is mother and father, wealth magically materializes from government printing presses, work is for suckers, and social justice, which is about doing whatever makes one feel good about their moral superiority, is all that is necessary to make society utopian.

The Democrat party is no longer recognizable as an American institution, and its failure to include an American flag in its set design until embarrassed about it by outsiders is merely a symptom of its decline.

All is far from well on the opposite side of the aisle.


The Republican establishment worked long and hard to kill the tea Party, that group of Americans whose primary principles were fidelity to the Constitution and small, limited government. What is left is a vile stew of crony capitalism and Republicans in Name Only interested primarily in hanging on to power and reaping its benefits.

Americans were told that if they gave control of Congress to Republicans, much would be accomplished. Instead, Republicans immediately began to complain that they were only 1/3 of the power in the country, and appeared to be essentially helpless in the face of Barack Obama’s repeated usurpations of the powers of the Congress. A Republican Party without a solid, understood philosophical foundation, principles for which it is willing to fight, alienated Americans that considered themselves Republican their entire lives, and made it possible for Donald Trump to defeat far better candidates--and a larger number of vanity candidates.

We are left with a Democrat candidate whose primary claim to the presidency is the possession of a vagina, and who blatantly lies about everything, with the admiring assistance of the Media. Two thirds of Americans don’t like or trust Hillary Clinton, yet it is entirely possible she could become President and hasten the destruction of what remains of American liberty.

Two quick examples: She, through Supreme Court appointments, will destroy the First Amendment. She has explicitly stated she thinks it entirely constitutional to prohibit political speech--particularly any negative political speech aimed at her. Any intelligent school child understands it was securing specifically political speech that was the aim of the First Amendment, yet Hillary Clinton, lawyer and self-described law teacher, thinks it proper to abolish it. And she will, without question, destroy the Second Amendment. In this, she and Barack Obama are virtual clones. They have never seen an anti-liberty proposal or law they did not fully support, and all would do nothing but harass or deny liberty to the law abiding. Even if the Supreme Court, by some miracle, did not do her bidding, she has made it clear she intended to go beyond the precedent for ruling by decree established by Obama.

These are a few of her promises we can be certain she will keep.

And we are left with Donald Trump, a man who cannot in any way be labeled with any possible sense of Republicanism, whatever that might be these days. We can have a vague, but probably accurate, sense that he would do less damage to the Constitution than Hillary, but his policies seem to be whatever he is thinking in the milliseconds before he speaks. His unforced political errors may yet do him in, yet Americans are so sick of both political parties and of the entire federal government, they may elect him as little more than an out of control wrecking machine.

Sadly, I can’t say with certainty that isn’t what we need, or that it would necessarily be a bad thing, compared to the alternative.

What purpose did the conventions serve? To demonstrate just how desperate our situation really is.


 JoshuaPundit : I think the conventions were useful in the sense that they provided truth in labeling for anyone who observed them with anything like an objective eye and ear.

On the one hand, we had a group of largely patriotic, freedom loving Americans concerned about the future of the country and the growing power of government. And a candidate who sees the the very real problems we face and has the courage to actually name them and promise solutions.

It was a celebration of freedom, G-d, and country.

On the other, we had pretty much the opposite. Even our country's flag was conspicuously absent until even the tame media picked up on it and flags were hurriedly brought in. It was a celebration of  policies that have involved real decline in our economy, our foreign policy and the rule of law. The Wikileaks e-mails release only emphasized the cynical, corrupt nature of the entire enterprise and of their candidate.

Believe it or not, the treatment of the losing candidate and his supporters in each party was a real indicator  of how the two conventions compared.

On the Republican side, no one prevented Ted Cruz's supporters from airing their views, and Cruz was allowed to speak, although he acted despicably and egotistically. Even many people who used to support and respect  him were shocked at his behavior, which hurt party unity when he could easily have helped heal it. Yet he was still allowed to speak.

On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders' supporters had their signs confiscated, were warned not to wear 'Bernie' attire and were even thrown out of the convention. Even the tactic of dimming the lights to avoid showing large scale walk outs and booing to the TV audience was used.

 Sanders would never have been allowed to address the convention if he hadn't endorsed Hillary Clinton, and as I pointed out,  there's every indication that he was handsomely rewarded financially for selling out his followers.

In short, the conventions pretty much mirrored both the two parties and the candidates they nominated


 Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason :
Watching some of the highlights of the Republican National Convention and the Democrat National Convention one would think the presidential nominees were vying for the highest office of two completely different nations.

The drama of the Republican National Convention concerned itself with whether the party would listen to the voice and vote of the people and nominate Donald J. Trump and whether Senator Ted Cruz would endorse Trump. The message from the RNC promised a return to the rule of law, restoring sensible immigration policy, and bringing jobs back to America.  After nearly eight years under President Obama, Republicans believe we are no better off and in fact are less safe, less free, and more in debt than ever before in our history.  The media calls Trump’s vision of America dark, but many of us believe we are in a dark place in America today. Acknowledging this reality is the start to setting us back on the right course of action.  From the media coverage the event seemed well controlled.  Overall I would say it was mediocre in its scheduling and content presentation… a bit boring. 

The Democrat National Convention, on the other hand, was presented more like an awards show where we knew the ending before it started.  The Sanders supporters protested outside and inside and disrupted some of the speakers to the point where they had to put in white noise machines above them to drown out their voices.  The protests continued outside daily although most of the media stopped covering them after the first day.  Many of the Sanders supporters left after the first day and there were so many empty seats that ads were placed on Craigslist for actors and seat fillers at fifty dollars a day.  Bernie Sanders looked like the unhappiest man in the room as his claims of the game being rigged were verified by leaks of hacked emails coming out of the DNC between the operatives. Still he soldiered on and threw his support behind Hillary.  Of course, Hillary graciously commended Bernie for his progressive economic and social justice issues and told him “your cause is our cause.”  She said of him and his supporters: “Our country needs your ideas, energy and passion. That is the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America.” They seemed to be in damage control most of the event.  First the email hacking story came out and then it was reported there were no American flags anywhere to be seen.  It was the media that shamed them into putting some flags on the stage.

Michelle Obama tried to convince us what a great job her husband has done and how much better we are today than when he took office.  She still speaks of how she is living in a house built by slaves, continuing to play the victim-race card.  Her negative view of America in spite of all she and her husband have achieved has become tiresome.

Bill Clinton’s little ramblings on how he met and fell in love with “a girl” rang hollow I hope with most Americans.  This man defiled the highest office in the world with his actions and perjured himself before Congress and the people.   Thanks to him a generation of youth was convinced oral sex wasn’t really sex.  In my opinion he singlehandedly did more damage and contributed to the growing moral decline of our society.

President Obama delivered an eloquent speech which brought back memories of how he came to be elected in 2008.

In her acceptance speech, Clinton said “Our Founders fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power.”  I am always amazed how the left cleverly weaves the Founding Fathers and the Constitution into their speeches.  We know how they vilified the Tea Party for trying to restore our government to what the Founders envisioned but they still bring it out when it serves their purpose of deception.

What Hillary really hopes to accomplish was revealed on the Sunday Fox interview with Chris Wallace, where she spoke about changes to the Second Amendment.  Not only did she say we need to come together to pass reasonable gun control, she told Wallace she believed ALL OF OUR RIGHTS, not just our Second Amendment right to bear arms, “but EVERY right that we have, is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.”  One can only imagine what the IRS would do under a Clinton presidency to stifle the free speech of conservative organizations and individuals.  A President Clinton would bring more government regulation and programs. She promises a stimulus bill larger than the one President Obama passed, more money thrown to private corporations in public-private partnerships to advance a renewable energy agenda, and we know the world has become a more unstable place during her tenure as Secretary of State.

As a woman I am ashamed the first woman nominated to run for president on a major party ticket is Hillary Clinton.  Her nomination is not a proud moment in America’s history. 

 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?