Category Archives: Forum

Forum: What Did You think Of NBC’s Commander in Chief Forum?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! 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 Did You think Of NBC’s Commander in Chief Forum?

Stately McDaniel Manor: Perhaps the most obvious lesson from the Commander in Chief Forum was something we already know: Donald Trump can be rational, effective, and even a bit presidential. Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest, crooked, and dangerous presidential candidate of my lifetime.

His performance may well foreshadow his debate performances, and if so, that could be the difference between winning and losing. The election remains his to lose. Seemingly, whenever he is pulling ahead, he says something incredibly dense, like praising Vladimir Putin, which has the potential to submerge him again. Fortunately, that particular gaffe probably won’t damage him much, if it all, but I’ll cover that in another article.

Still, Trump is in a sense, a blank slate. He hasn’t destroyed entire nations, created a scam charity/personal slush fund, badly damaged national security and labored mightily to destroy the rule of law. He hasn’t subverted the legitimacy of the FBI, the IRS, the DOJ, the State Department and many other federal agencies. His “lies” are generally more New Yawk bluster and BS than actual lies, and they don’t conceal innumerable federal felonies. It’s unlikely he’ll turn the Supreme Court into a gaggle of progressive rubber stampers that think the Constitution an impediment to progressive glory and eternal rule, rather than the law of the land. He has the very real potential to do a great deal of good, particularly if he does half what he’s promised and repeals Obamacare, rolls back federal regulations, improves the economy, stops destroying coal and oil jobs, and enforces immigration law. He actually could undo a great deal of the damage of the Obama/Clinton years, and those possibilities were on display at the CiC Forum.

Most importantly, Trump not only does not hate our military, he appears to actually respect those that wear the uniform, and might be willing to listen to their good advice. He appears hawkish, but demonstrates little military and national security acumen. This is not surprising, considering his life as a businessman. However, he does have a track record of hiring capable people and getting difficult things done, and has a far more realistic view of our deadly enemies than virtually any progressive.

Trump has potential, and displayed it. Under him, it’s possible America will not decline further, and might even improve.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand is a known quantity. There is no doubt what she’ll do as President; she’s told us in voluminous detail. She’ll turn the Supreme Court into a body that will decide every case on progressive principle rather than the Constitution. The First and Second Amendments will be legislated from the bench into irrelevance, and a permanent progressive majority on the court will be inevitable. Massive vote fraud, ensuring a permanent progressive majority in Congress and in virtually every office of the land will become reality. Political correctness will run wild, and single payer health non-care will be mandated. Canadians will have nowhere to go to get the health care their single payer system can’t provide.

Hillary Clinton’s spiteful hatred of our military and those that serve in it are legendary. Her embrace of our enemies, and hatred of our allies, is perhaps only a little less than that of Barack Obama. She will destroy the coal industry–another Hillary promise we can bet she’ll keep–greatly increase federal regulations of all kinds, drive gas prices to previously unheard of levels, and complete the wealth redistribution that is global warming policy.

She will throw wide our borders, totally ignoring our immigration laws–she has said she’ll go farther with executive orders than Barack Obama–and will ensure a permanent minority underclass beholden to progressives. Catering to that underclass will fundamentally change America, from our language to our customs to our place in the world.

There is no lie she will not tell, no law she will not break, nothing she will not do to complete the decline of America into a true banana republic, while congressional republicans scramble to see who will rule the rubble.

Clinton’s potential is almost entirely for destruction. It is almost impossible she will do anything good for America. It is almost impossible she will uphold and defend the Constitution.

That’s our choice: a possibility of regaining constitutional government and the rule of law, or a further, precipitous, final descent into socialist oblivion. The money can, and will, run out. The economy can collapse. Our enemies can attack around the world, even in America, and even now, our Marines are scrounging museums and aircraft bone yards to find parts to keep at least some of their jets flying.

We know from Benghazi exactly what Hillary will do with that 3 AM phone call. Trump might actually do something right, something in America’s interests, something that might save American lives. He might even tell the truth about it later.

Trump has potential. He just might protect and defend the Constitution, and with it, America and Americans. At least he doesn’t hate them.

Don Surber: I judge such events by the reactions. Going in Trumpkins worried about Lauer. Afterward, Hillary’s Super PAC — as Cruz called the media — jumped on Lauer. The next day Hillary held her first press conference in nine months to blunt the forum’s impact. The next day after that, she opened her basket of Deplorables.

In the forum, Trump’s voice was softer and firmer now. He knows he will be C-in-C in January and relishes the job. He no longer has to prove himself. That’s the transformation. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a raw rookie candidate. Those who wrote him off in August, well, like I said, it was August. His focus is on November.

JoshuaPundit: I examined the C-in-C Forum in detail here. As the polls done after the event  which I present at the link indicate, three things are clear…Mrs. Clinton was perceived as evasive and untruthful,  it was Donald Trump who was seen as decisive, presidential and the clear winner, and our military prefers Trump as commander-in chief by a large majority.

That’s impressive considering how much Matt Lauer tried to help her, not to mention the earpiece she was wearing  to get coached from backstage. In spite of that, he endured a real gang stomping from the Clinton Media, similar to what happened to Bob Schieffer of CBS after the first 2012 Obama-Romney debate. Aside from an attempt at disinformation, the media frenzy was also intended as a warning to Lester Holt, the next left wing Democrat ‘moderator’ to do a lot better, or else.

That’s also exactly why Obama’s former CIA head, lifelong Democrat Mike Morrell was let loose to shill for Mrs. Clinton and attack Trump as ‘dangerous for national security.’

Fun fact: Morrell’s interview was with Martha Raddatz, who just by coincidence will be ‘moderating the second debate.

And that ain’t no coincidence.

Trump, not being stupid is now calling for debates without a Clinton campaign operative ‘moderator,’ just he and Mrs. Clinton. I’d modify that myself to include a timekeeper to prevent Hillary Clinton from filibustering.

Here’s another thing I took away form the C-in-C forum. Trump has a far better chance to become president than the polls indicate, that the Democrats are running scared and that the American people just might not have as bad a suicide complex as I feared. They’re realizing that we do have a president in waiting, and perhaps even a great one.

The Glittering Eye : I thought the CiC forum was inoffensive and largely uninteresting. I was amused (or maybe dismayed) at how exercised some bloggers and columnists became at Matt Lauer’s failure to be partisan enough to suit their tastes. They seem to have forgotten that’s the job of the Clinton campaign rather than the news media.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : All in all I liked the Commander in Chief Forum. It was a good way for the candidates to be themselves without having to be on the offensive like they have to be in a face to face debate with their opponent.

Hillary Clinton went first after losing the coin toss and Trump opting to go second.

In answer to the question of what qualities does she have that would make a good commander in chief she replied “steadiness”. Matt Lauer asked about judgment and she said judgment, too. She was asked several times about her emails. She said she knew the importance of classified emails and understands the policies and procedures in place in handling classified and top secret emails. These were all good questions with no good answers from her. She repeated obvious lies after what we know has been revealed through the FBI and through reports arising from information obtained in FOIA requests. One thing did stand out in her answer: She said she communicated classified material on a wholly separate system. Where are those emails and on what system?

In her one attack against Trump she said he lied and that he was for the war in Iraq. She did own up to the fact that she made an error when she voted to get us into the war. She was a Senator and had information very few people had available to them to make this decision. Her attacks against Trump for his early support of the war as a civilian cannot be compared.

There were no questions about Benghazi and Clinton said we did not lose a single American in that action in Libya. Of course we did not lose anyone in “that” action, but our actions in Libya created the climate for the massacre of four Americans in Benghazi.

Finally, Clinton essentially told our enemies they did not have to fear any real action or threat from us as she vowed to never put ground troops in to defeat ISIS. And when questioned about preventing future terrorist attacks on U. S. soil she promised to keep those on the terrorist watch list from obtaining guns in her continuing fight for increased gun control.

Matt Lauer was very gracious and helped Clinton by almost coaxing her with key words she used to expand upon in her answers. She was measured and steady and came across very well in my opinion. I try to watch these forums and debates with the eyes and ears of a not wholly informed voter to get a feel for how the candidates are perceived by them.

At the break, right before they came to Trump they played a nasty anti-Trump advertisement. That was pretty low even for NBC.

Matt Lauer asked Trump many more questions than Hillary which he answered with an even temperament. Lauer threw some of his prior outrageous statements back at him to question his judgment. Hopefully Trump understands how his Tweets and off the cuff remarks come across to the general public and how the media will always throw them back at him to make him look bad. In these last two months he needs to stay on message and keep attacking Hillary on her scandals and corruption if he truly wants to win the election.

All in all it was a good introduction to the candidates as we are getting ready to see them face off in the upcoming debates. Now is the time more people are starting to pay attention to the election so hopefully they will see enough to make the right choice in November.

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

Forum: What’s Your Reaction To The Campaign Thus Far?

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: What’s Your Reaction To The Campaign Thus Far?

Don Surber: My reaction: It’s August

Fausta’s Blog : As for the campaign, I’m seeking refuge in opera. All of the drama with half the calories.

JoshuaPundit : I’m finding this campaign fascinating. We’re seeing something unique in American politics here.

For starters, we have to throw out the usual Democrat vs. Republican stuff to truly understand it. This is a mostly bloodless rebellion against the uniparty political class and our self-appointed elites who have plundered the country for their own fun and profit while leading it into a quarter century of decline. Needless to say, that’s why the elites from both parties and their paid for minions in the media and punditocracy are united against Trump, because a Clinton presidency means the status quo…which suits them fine.

That also explains why Trump’s campaign hasn’t put out more ads and why his campaign staff remains skinny. Trump wants border control and has never budged an inch on wanting to rein in serial outsourcing overseas, our ridiculous trade agreements and corporate H1B visa abuse to put Americans out of work in favor of lower wage foreigners, especially in the tech sector. These are bottom line issues for the donor class, so most of them are sitting on their wallets.

Another difference is the attitude of most of the media. They’ve never been so nakedly partisan. It used to be that they at least made a show of objectivity. Now, they no longer even bother.Mrs. Clinton is a hard sell, so the only alternative is to demonize Donald Trump and the press,including a number of self labeled  ‘conservatives’ has been an eager accomplice.

With all that going on, Trump is surprisingly holding his own.

Is some ways, this reminds me of Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign. Truman had the advantages of incumbency, and the media climate was not nearly as poisonously partisan as it is now, but he was not a popular candidate within his own party. The FDR progressives loathed him as a Southerner and an ignoramus, while Southern conservative Democrats considered him far too liberal. Both factions split off into third parties and Truman had little support from mainstream Democrats and donors. His opponent, Tom Dewey had united,  full support from Republicans eager to retake the White House after 4 terms of democrat rule.

TV and presidential debates were not a factor in 1948. So Truman did the only thing he could. He took his case directly to the American people with a whistle stop tour, often doing four events a day. Sometimes, he ended up speaking to as little as a dozen people on a railway platform. Dewey, on the other hand was far less comfortable speaking in public and relied on press conferences and scripted events. While the polls showed Truman far behind, on election day he won handily.

Image result for Dewey Defeats Truman

Donald Trump is doing exactly the same thing now, appearing before thousands of people.

He’s also doing a few things Republican candidates haven’t done for years. He’s actually courting the black vote and challenging them by reminding them that years of voting Democrat have done nothing to better their lives. And as I pointed out previously, he’s even willing to subject his positions to input from his supporters publicly on national TV..thus showing them, among other things, that someone running for president actually cares what they think. I’m fascinated to see how this all turns out.

The biggest problem Trump has right now are the #nevertrumpers, especially those in the pundit class. They remind me of the Tories in our own original Revolution, willing to put their personal economic benefit first before the good of the country. They’re under the illusion that if Trump can be defeated, they can take control of the party. They couldn’t be more wrong.

What Trump has spearheaded is a movement that isn’t going to disappear. Even if they get what they want and  Trump’s defeated, his supporters  already hold the Republican Party as it is today in contempt. And they aren’t going to have anything to do with a GOP headed by these folks. No matter what happens in November, a lot of folks are going to remember the words and  deeds of the #nevertrumpers and react the way our forefathers reacted to the Tories after America’s  freedom was won. That’s true whether Mrs. Clinton becomes president or not.

Puma By Design :What is my reaction? Where do I start?

Moving past the “omigosh, it’s only August and as I prepare this post, 71 days, 10 hours, 4 minutes and 26 seconds to go” repertoire (yeah, I actually checked so humor me), my fiercest reaction is to the NeverTrumpers who are colluding with their fellow Progressives on the left and the media all of whom have anointed themselves our betters aka soldiers for Hillary.

The elitists talking heads, correction soldiers for Hillary have taken to thrashing anyone within earshot over the heads with the misconception that Trump supporters are angry, white, racist and unintelligent, middle class working men.

Absent from the conversation, not for the sake of political correctness but for the purpose of deceiving voters is that one need not be Caucasian to be angry, male or a Trump supporter as proven by the countless Black and female supporters that the media when covering Trump rallies intentionally avoid or edit out of their reporting.

And while we’re on the subject, isn’t it really the establishment of both parties who are through their propaganda guilty of deflecting their own bias and about non-white and female Trump supporters on to the so-called alt right? Yesterday, we were wack-o birds. Today we are the alt right. Stop pretending that we do not exist.

Moving on let us talk about the policies of the past eight years and the fact that Hillary Clinton in the White House means more of the same, if not worse.

I find myself more often of late revisiting the days during George Bush’s presidency when one could not miss the number of Black owned businesses opening in Black communities throughout New York City.

New businesses, whose owners some of whom were of other ethnicities had begun popping up where none had existed in thirty years since before the burn baby burn era and late 60’s riots that devastated Black communities in this country.

So yes, I am disgusted and angry that because of failed social engineering policies, before the end of Barack Obama’s first term that many of those same businesses that flourished just years earlier, not just in Black communities but across the were no longer thriving and many had gone out of business.

An Obama second term made life even harder for the poor and the middle class but Donald Trump is the only voice out there speaking for us.

After eight years of failed Progressive policies, my reaction to the 2016 presidential election campaign season is that as resilient as we are as a nation, America deserves better which is something that Hillary Clinton will not deliver, not to the nation’s middle class America, not to America’s poor and for darned sure not to Black America.

Clinton cannot run on her merits because she has none so Barack Obama to ensure that his failed policies live on has contracted the mainstream media to spin, misquote, lie and divert attention away from Crooked Hillary’s sins and omissions as they’re being swept under the rug.

Of course, none of it is for love of country or their fellow Americans but to ensure that global ideologues who know nothing of the hardships endured by America’s middle class and poor and for whom the establishment holds disdain remain in power and secure in their bubble to relish in their elitist lifestyle.

The Independent Sentinel: This election is making me sicker. The thought of eight years of Clintons is horrible. They’re the reason I left the Democrat party.The media is ganging up on Trump.

Stately McDaniel Manor : The campaign so far? There hasn’t been a campaign so far, at least not a professional political campaign. Hillary Clinton has been raising money, shouting angry wooden, speeches, lying, lying about lying, lying about lying about lying, and dodging innumerable new scandalous revelations by first trying to ignore them, then blaming the vast right wing conspiracy, crying racism or sexism, claiming it’s old news and she already gave whatever authorities thousands pages of whatever and answered hours of questions, and besides, Trump’s a racist, a sexist, a nativist, hates puppies and sunshine and is a poopy face besides. Oh yes, he’s a Klansman too!

Bizarrely, she is running on a platform of destroying the First and Second Amendments, not only ignoring immigration law, but obliterating it, going even farther than Barack Obama has done on usurping the separation of powers via unconstitutional executive orders, destroying the coal industry, putting innumerable Americans out of work, destroying the economy by dramatically raising taxes, spending us into oblivion, preserving Obamacare, supporting Black Lives Matter lawlessness, and in general, abandoning the rule of law and encouraging chaos.

But she’s the patron saint of the Middle Class.

Republicans are proving, as if any proof were necessary, that they truly are the stupid party. NeverTrumpers have convinced themselves that eight years of Hillary Clinton, and a Democrat-controlled Congress is merely another brief period wandering in the wilderness rather than the final push off the cliff into Venezuela-like squalor. They ignore history, which teaches us that the devolution of a nation first occurs slowly, and suddenly, at warp speed. They seem to believe a Supreme Court controlled not by honorable constitutional scholars, but by partisan Progressive hacks and “wise Latinas”—how does Justice Barack Obama strike you?–will somehow be only a mild inconvenience until they can once again take political control. They’re stupid enough to think their brilliance can undo the utter destruction of the Constitution and rule of law wrought in the name of making it forevermore impossible for Republicans to hold the reigns of power.

Some people suggest these NeverTrumpers are smart, even brilliant people, people whose only thought is for what is best for the Republic. Not so. Anyone that lets their ego get in the way of their intellect is behaving like a butt hurt adolescent and not a serious adult whose heart is in the right place.

And then there is Donald Trump, who has been behaving consistently like Donald Trump, a self made man/entertainer, whose bluster, New York vulgarity, brash personality and loud mouth have worked very well for him through all of his 70 years. Fortunately, he has never been a politician. Unfortunately, he has never been a politician.

Trump won the nomination fair and square. He played the game and beat every other candidate like rented mules. And now, he has done something very smart. He’s hired Kelly Ann Conway to manage his campaign, and the difference is already apparent.

One of Trump’s biggest failings is his refusal to use ads to attack Clinton. Oh, he’s had a few, and many of them have been effective, but he has not produced the volume and content necessary to effectively play on Clinton’s historically yuuuuge negatives. Sorry Donald, but your personality isn’t enough. “Let Trump Be Trump” is only a recipe for disaster, not a strategy for electoral victory.

The ads practically write themselves, yet we’re not seeing them. For example, juxtapose Hillary’s claims to be the savior of the middle class with a 20 mile private jet flight. Oh, what fun I could have producing that ad! There is voluminous footage of Hillary’s bizarre, seizure-like behavior, her taking weekends off and her many health problems. That should be playing continuously everywhere. Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation pay for play, Bill’s rides on the Lolita Express, the list is endless. Where are those devastating ads?

It’s early. Clinton’s negatives can only go down, despite the desperation of the Lamestream media, and the Obama Administration to keep her afloat. It remains Trump’s election to lose, but despite many Republicans doing their best to lose it for him, he has a chance

The campaign really begins with the first debate. If he can present himself as well informed, temperate, and can hammer at Clinton’s vulnerabilities, which are legion, without being crude and nasty, and if he can nail the debate moderators, who will surely go easy on Clinton, without sounding like a bully, he can win. Yes, he can still be Trump, but a smart, focused Trump. He knows what it means to win, now he has to adapt to a different style of winning. If he presents himself as the sneering, eye-rolling, without-a-clue name-calling buffoon he has so often played, Americans will find out what “fundamental transformation” really means.

Hint: there won’t be an America around to assess it.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : This presidential campaign is like nothing I’ve ever seen. Our country is being polarized by forces on the left and the right and I believe it is going to get worse as we get closer to November. It’s hard to believe Hillary Clinton has not been indicted for her many quite serious scandals. The main stream media is only now beginning to show an interest in her nefarious activities while serving as Secretary of State. If it weren’t for Judicial Watch and Citizens United it is possible we would never know about her emails and the conflict between her duties as Secretary of State and pay for play dealings through the Clinton Foundation.

Donald Trump is being excoriated in the media for everything he says or does while Hillary Clinton skates and avoids speaking with the media. This is truly a choice of the lesser of two evils. Neither candidate is a conservative and I don’t trust either one to shrink this bloated and too powerful government. At this point I have chosen to be a one issue voter. That issue is the Second Amendment and because of this it has to be #NeverHillary.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW1 Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

Forum: Would You Change NATO Or Leave It As Is?

Every week on Monday morning, the folks at WoW! Magazine and our invited guests weigh in at Our weekly Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Would You Change NATO Or Leave It As Is?


Stately McDaniel Manor: In this, at least, Donald Trump is right. As a military alliance, NATO retains potential utility, but it has fallen into disrepair and disrepute. A large part of the latter is the fault of Barack Obama, but every president since the fall of the Soviet Union bears responsibility for the former.

Any military threat is viable only if that force has sufficient numbers, capability, and demonstrated skill. What’s left of NATO is lacking in every category, and this is largely due to our ally’s failure to live up to their financial obligations. This is what Trump was talking about. Virtually all of our allies have failed to maintain their militaries at a level necessary to maintain a credible deterrent.

This is particularly ironic for nations of the European Union. If the EU is truly an economic powerhouse and a political wonder, why should any member nation have the slightest difficulty maintaining its NATO obligations? The nations of the EU should be equipped with the most up-to-date equipment, ready to field forces of sufficient numbers on a moment’s notice, and should be fully integrated with the rest of the NATO force. As Sarah Palin would say: “How’s that workin’ out for yah?”

A third issue is a failure of imagination. Too many assumed that once the Soviet Union was gone, there was essentially no existential threat. I suspect Georgia and Ukraine would have differing opinions. And, of course, North Korea remains a festering boil on the posterior of the world. NATO must be revamped, not only to once again face down the Russian/Neo-Soviet threat, but the threat of Islam, led by Iran.

The worst problem, however, is NATO has virtually no credibility left. When Barack Obama, early in his administration, pulled promised defensive missiles out of Eastern Europe, when he betrayed the Poles, he sent the very clear message that NATO existed in name only, and Vladimir Putin played him and Hillary Clinton–reset!–like the fools they are. He gambled, wisely, that NATO–which is mostly the United States–would do nothing to stop him, and he was right.

As inelegant as Donald Trump usually is, he’s on the right path. Either revitalize NATO, require–if we have to force them, NATO is a sham–every member to live up to their financial obligations, and readily admit new, viable members, regardless of what Vladimir Putin has to say about it–this will mean an immediate willingness to go to war with Putin and every other dictatorial madman–or finish the job Barack Obama has already nearly completed and let NATO die of neglect.

NATO is a military, mutual defense alliance. Unless it has the hardware, personnel, training, logistical capabilities and the political will to fight whenever the agreed triggers are pulled, it’s just another Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama State Department: full of lofty rhetoric and lies, but utterly feckless. For us, that’s a very expensive paper tiger.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : As the world grows more unstable we will need the alliance of NATO nations to fight the threat of expanding enemy forces. Although formed initially to fight the threat of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism during the Cold War we are facing a greater threat today from radical Islamists in their attempt to create a global caliphate.

In addition we are on the precipice of a Third World War as we see the saber rattling from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. A cohesive alliance of western nations is needed to quell attempts from an aggressive enemy nation or nations to expand their control into NATO allied countries. NATO needs a defined mission with defined actions should any aggressions occur. There should be no question as to what our response will be in the event of an attack on one or more of our NATO nations. We also need to build and preserve superior military power and presence in our allied nations.

JoshuaPundit: Ah, ha ha! King Solomon, author of Koheles (Ecclesiastes) gets proven right again…there’s nothing new under the sun. That’s because human nature never changes, just the players.

Ultimately, any alliance or foreign policy gizmo falls apart as soon as it outlives its usefulness to one of the major players. The Congress of Vienna, created to keep the peace in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars is a classic example. It lasted all of 65 years until the Prussians decided they were strong enough to knock off the French in 1870.

So, let’s look what NATO was, shall we? While one could say it succeeded in its initial mission, to fend off the USSR, in a very real sense it amounted to U.S. power providing a shield for Europe at our expense. The only original members whom even had anything resembling armed forces were America, the UK, Canada and France, sort of. And throughout the next half a century or so, the EU’s NATO herd dismantled most of their military and spent their money on building a Socialist welfare state rather than on national defense. Hey, let Uncle Sam do it!

Now, let’s look at what NATO is today. Russia, the original rationale for NATO isn’t a major threat for the most part just now. The collapse of energy prices as well as Russia’s severe demographic problems and difficulties with its domestic Muslims make war an option Putin can’t afford. The Russians do make a few choice items of military gear, but the stuff they don’t sell for badly needed export dollars is concentrated in a few elite units. The rank and file make do with what they can get, and the dirty secret about the Russian Army are the tensions and even actual firefights between Muslim and native Russian troops. The only reason Putin has been able to play a larger game is because like certain Russian leaders in the past, he’s discovered the dysfunctional and easily bluffed nature of his counterparts in the U.S.

As for NATO, it’s become divided into military haves and have nots. Most of Western Europe are have nots when it comes to significant military. France still maintains a semblance of what it once had, but the UK, including its once magnificent navy is barely capable of defending its own territory if that. Norway has a small but efficient and well equipped navy suited for its needs, and so do the Danes. No one else, although Germany’s Bundewehr is beginning to rearm. But here’s an additional problem…politics.

The real threat to Europe isn’t Russia, but jihad. And few if any of the Western European NATO nations are likely to participate in a war against it, either for reasons of domestic politics or simply because their entire resources are tied up in managing their domestic home grown jihad unrest. France will sit it out unless someone like Marine Le Pen is president, and most of the rest almost certainly will.

On the other hand, the Eastern European EU members have been investing a fair amount of funds into national defense. As a reaction to President Obama’s policies, a military alliance outside of NATO known as the Visegrád Group has formed, consisting of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, who also have strategic cooperation with the Baltic States. Collectively, they represent a significant force, and even better, they have all avoided being bullied into taking large numbers of Muslim ‘refugees’ into their countries. That’s important, since their likely enemy is Islamic forces rather than the Russians.

And that brings us to the real catch 22 of NATO, Turkey. Originally, Turkey came into NATO in 1952, and because of JFK’s acquiescence to Khrushchev’s bluffing and demands during the Cuban Missile Crisis, our strategic missiles were removed from Turkey and they had to build their own army up, partly as a deterrent to their historic adversary, Russia and partly because of the army’s role in Turkish politics.

At this point,Turkey is no longer an ally and they haven’t been one since Erdoğan and the Islamists took over the country. And not only do they have access to all of NATO’s intel and contingency strategies, but they now have the largest conventional army in Europe, along with a clear path through the old, historic jihad route through the Balkans to the West, not to mention a Muslim enclave as a base in Kosovo. Does anyone think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that Erdoğan, faced with a moribund economy might decide to revert to Islam’s historic remedy for such things, rape and plunder of the Infidel? I’d start easing them out of NATO tomorrow,but there’s a problem there.

Erdoğan has already blackmailed the EU to the tune of $2 billion in exchange for making some effort to keep Muslim ‘refugees’ from crossing his border into EU territory. The Western European EU members of NATO would never go along with ousting Turkey out of fear he’d dump even more ‘refugees’ in Europe, let alone that he’d unleash his military on them.

One thing that’s stopping Erdoğan from pursuing something like that now is Putin,who the Obama regime has made a point of insulting and alienating. And as you might have noticed, Erdoğan is doing his best to cosy up to Putin in recent days.

A little history, to once again prove King Solomon’s point. In 1937-1938, Winston Churchill and those of like mind were screaming at the top of their lungs for Britain to take Stalin up on his offer of a conference to discuss some kind of mutual tripartite security agreement with Britain and France. Churchill saw clearly that Hitler would never dare start what would have amounted to a two front war, but Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister refused to even consider the idea seriously. He delayed doing anything for months and then actually insulted Stalin, first by sending a low ranking general to Moscow with no authority to conclude anything and second by selling out the Czechs without even consulting the USSR.

Hitler took advantage of the West’s stupidity and told his foreign minister Joachim Ribbentrop to meet with his Soviet counterpart Molotov and give Stalin virtually whatever he asked for. And the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was signed on August 21st, 1939, 77 years ago today. Stalin ended up with lucrative trade deals for his raw materials, a non-aggression pact, a nice slice of Poland and a free hand to invade the Baltic states. Hitler got a quiet eastern front, war materials he badly needed and the ability to concentrate his forces on Poland and then the West.

Like it or not Putin is one of the few world leaders actually fighting jihad right now. We are going to need to work with him to defeat it and he will eventually need to work with us no matter what kind of deals he thinks he’s making now. As for the Western nations of NATO, I could be wrong, but I think that given the choice of spending more of their own money on rebuilding their military or dropping out of NATO, many of them would opt to drop out. In a war, you need allies whom are actually willing to fight. That’s where we should concentrate our aid and assistance. I’m not sure NATO as a whole qualifies anymore, something I hope changes for the better.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD :Since their primary mission of being a force in opposition to the Warsaw Pact in Europe ended on December 24, 1991 when the Hammer and Sickle flag of the Soviet Union was replaced by the Tricolor flag of the Russian Federation on the Kremlin’s flag post in Moscow, NATO could have cased their colors the next day and locked the doors of their headquarters in Mons, Belgium. They had accomplished their mission.

Since that fateful day in 1991, they have proven themselves to be a fairly inept military force. In the Kosovo campaign, ninety percent of the air combat sorties were carried out by aircraft from the three English-speaking member states: Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.

None of the other member states, with the exception of the Netherlands, is very keen on increasing their troop commitments in Afghanistan, despite it flowing out from the only instance in which the alliance invoked Article 5 and declared that the attack on America of September 11, 2001 was an attack on all.

Joint Task Force 151, which is a NATO Naval force, is one military venture in the organization which is working with some degree of success and participation by the European member states.
Eastern European nations within an overnight tank ride from Commonwealth Russia are another.

Critics of NATO in regards to ‘bear poking’ or trying to start a war with Russia are off target

Simply put, absent the U.S., the rest of the alliance’s military does not have the heavy lift capability to move troops and equipment in an expeditious manner. They don’t have the needed air assets to carry out any sort of air interdiction campaign. Many of their Social Democratic governments are still, inexplicably, politically averse to placing any of their citizens in danger via any sort of heavy military action.

The Change

Since NATO members have been attacked by ISIL or ISIS sympathizers, it seems only fair that NATO should formally Declare War on the Islamic State.

That in itself would be a major shift for NATO as we know it. 1st off, Turkey – who has either covertly or overtly aided the Caliphate since day one with illicit oil purchases, easy access to and from the Caliphate as well as maintaining supply routes will finally have to decide which side of the fence she’s on.

Turkey would have to be in it to win it and that simply means the absolute destruction of the Islamic State. If not – the burden to destroy the IS would be heavier for NATO, yet not impossible.

The incredibly fake believe concept of no boots on the ground will have to be put out of it’s misery. While NATO nations that have far too long enjoyed a free ride with their conscript militaries, may have a significant number of their countrymen opposed to any intervention and ground force, this is where their individual leaders must develop and use their political leadership to convince their respective nation states.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW1 Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

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?

Originally posted here:

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


Article written by: Tom White

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?

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?

More here:

Forum: How Would You Compare The Two Conventions?


Article written by: Tom White

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?

Forum: What Was Your Reaction To Trump’s Acceptance Speech?

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 Was Your Reaction To Trump’s Acceptance Speech?

 Stately McDaniel Manor : Donald Trump’s Convention acceptance speech embodied everything I like about him, and everything I fear could easily derail his campaign and allow Hillary Clinton, the most hateful, angry and corrupt harridan imaginable, to seize the White House at a time when the Supreme Court, and the future of Western Civilization are up for grabs.

I suspect Trump’s popularity comes from his willingness to say, loudly and even a little crudely and clumsily, what so many Americans think and feel. There is no politically correct filter there. He is a self-made man, a genuine American success story, and he does get things done when others can’t. His deal-making skills may be of great value, as might his stubbornness and self-assurance.

But what scares me more than a little are the same things, and more. His speech was ridiculously long. People inexperienced in public speaking often try to throw everything into every speech as though it’s the only chance they’ll ever get. Some just love the sound of their own voice, even though they, like Trump, tend to endlessly repeat themselves, and fill their speeches with verbal fillers, particularly when they speak without notes or a teleprompter.

Trump also tends not to focus on the issues of the moment, and flies off on tangents, particularly when he thinks someone has personally slighted or attacked him just as he did today when he went after Ted Cruz. He earlier tweeted that Cruz’s failure to endorse him was no big deal. He should have left it there and looked magnanimous, but nooooo! He just has to go after people personally, and when he does, he runs his mouth and might say anything. If he can’t drop that habit, he won’t become president. And if he does it as president, that’s all he’ll be doing. George W. Bush had that part of presidential temperament right. He knew everyone and their dog would go after him, and he just let them have at it. To do otherwise, elevates ankle biters to the level of President of the United States.

Trump has to learn, and very soon, to stay on message. He can do it without becoming wooden and inflexible. Learning to prioritize, to focus on what is most important, is an essential adult skill that Trump has seemingly yet to master. Being outrageous is cute and endearing for a time, but eventually, presidents have to identify big problems, explain how they are going to solve them, and do it.

We’ve had eight years of Barack Obama’s personal references. Today after the attack in Munich, I heard him on radio saying he knew nothing about what happened, but proceeded to rattle on anyway mouthing meaningless platitudes that did nothing to suppress terrorism or further international relations. Sometimes presidents accomplish most by saying least. A trumpian version of that kind of meaningless twaddle will get old very fast. We really don’t need to hear from the president every day, about everything that happens, and when we do, we quit listening. He becomes the boy that cried wolf, and isn’t heard or believed when it really matters.

It’s time for Donald Trump and his advisors to sit down and lay out a coherent plan for the rest of the campaign. That plan has to include focus on specific issues, particularly those on which Hillary is uniquely vulnerable–there are more than enough of those–Trump’s solutions and how he’ll implement them, and little or nothing else.

One other important issue: someone needs to whack Trump upside the head and convince him the President can’t “make” anything happen alone. Donald Trump, businessman, can do that; Presidents can’t. They can set agendas, cajole, guide, maneuver, use the moral bully pulpit for good and to support the Constitution. He has to learn how to play the political game for the benefit of America.

“I’ll make America great again, “ “I’m the only one that can do it,” is meaningless without answers about how that’s going to happen, and after the conventions, people are going to demand those answers. If Trump can’t provide them, if he can’t incorporate presidential demeanor without abandoning the personal qualities that have thus far inspired so many, enough people are going to go with the devil they know to elect Hillary.

Always, it’s important to remember if it’s not close, Democrats can’t win through vote fraud. We’re going to see unprecedented vote fraud in this election. Trump and the Republican National Committee need to be very concerned, and very focused, on that issue too.

The Razor : He scares the living daylights out of the Left, quite a few centrists and even a smattering of conservatives. Given the Left’s demonization of every Republican candidate since Nixon as a demagogue along the lines of, well, Nixon – it’s refreshing to actually have a candidate that lives up to their hateful rhetoric.

One thing’s for sure: if he becomes president the next 4 years are going to be interesting. Very interesting.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Donald Trump’s acceptance speech appealed to the concerns of many if not most Americans. He promised to be the law and order president and would keep us safe, build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, and return jobs to our country.

He recited a litany of the failures of the Obama administration and the Clinton State Department, which have made us less safe at home and is leaving us a less safe world. Under the current administration we have higher rates of unemployment in minority populations, poverty, people relying on food stamps, and crime in the inner cities.

In several attacks on his Democrat opponent, he said Hillary’s greatest accomplishment might be getting away with the many crimes she committed during her term as Secretary of State.

Trump explained that “nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” He promised the American people that “I am your voice.” While it would have been better to say “I hear your voices” hopefully that is merely a quibble over semantics. Time will tell.

When he becomes president Trump promised we will defeat the barbarians of ISIS and we will defeat them fast. It would have been preferable to have given some specific details of his plans to defeat this radical Islamic terrorist group whose barbarism is growing and reaching across the globe.

Trump’s speech was well delivered and well received. The main stream media outlets all focused on how dark it was but unless you have not been paying attention to national and world events we truly do find ourselves in a dark place.

I look forward in the coming months to hear more substantive comments on exactly what his plans entail and how Trump will Make America Great Again.

I reserve my concerns that Trump is just another big government politician. He appears to believe he alone can do all the things he promises. Hopefully that is just ego, for if that were the case we no longer live under the laws of our constitutional republic; a Constitution which provides a balance of powers to keep despots in check.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD : The speech hit mostly high notes: the country is on the wrong track.

Crime and violence are serious concerns. Trump promised to be a “law and order” president, specifics to come. Many believe race relations have deteriorated since 44 took office. Cops are under attack. Poor kids are trapped in failing public schools and Democrats won’t let them escape. Trump promises school choice.

Terrorism is on the rise at home and overseas. Instead of focusing on battle readiness, our depleted military focuses on goofy fakebelieve stuff like Climate change or worse, the inclusion of transgender and women soldiers. Veterans are not being adequately cared for.

Bad trade deals are notorious for helping certain elements at the expense of the country and Democrat policies are the reason for the sorry shape the nation is in.

JoshuaPundit : Honestly, I’d give the speech a B++ if there is such a thing. By that I mean it was a really good speech with some flaws.

I’ve always loved hearing Donald Trump speak. His rallies didn’t involve scripted, jowl shaking oratory but a sort of down to earth conversation between him and say, 30,000 people. He was so relaxed, so comfortable in his own skin it was almost eerie. Unlike most pols, he wasn’t talking at them, but with them. He’d come up to the podium, take that sheet of folded paper out of his pocket and have at it. He’d get the talking points out at each spot and say what needed saying, but he’d mix them in with anecdotes about the campaign, or whatever else was on his mind, and there were always a few jokes at his own expense. And then there was the impromptu audience responses, like singing along to your favorite singer’s hit songs. Going to his rallies was fun!

Trump’s acceptance speech was different. The content was just fine, and it mirrored what a lot of Americans are concerned about right now, with outreach to a lot of groups who Trump is going to get more votes from than most people think. I mean, if you were LGBT and in your right mind, would you vote for Hillary who wants to bring boatloads more unvetted Muslim ‘refugees’ into America and take away your guns too? Ditto if you’re a young woman unless you enjoy the thought of being raped.

And his attack on Hillary Clinton was bone-crushing, which is why a lot of the Democrat media ignored it.According to pollster  Frank Luntz’s Democrat and Republican focus groups, that part of Trump’s speech was off the charts as far as approval went.

The problem was that it was about 20-25 minutes too long, and it needed to touch the bases in a more succinct, sound bitey way. It reminded me of some rock concerts where things start out energetic, hit a lull in the middle with the drum solo and then pep up for a high energy finish.

And that relaxed, natural Trump wasn’t visible enough, although it was there. One of my favorite bits was when Trump was talking about the rigged system we have and how he was going to fix it and then looked at the audience, grinned, spread his hands out and said ” And who would know better than me?”

It broke the audience up, and it broke me up watching the stream.

I also was a little uneasy about his refrain that he was going to fix this and that and ‘we’re gonna do it fast.’ Government doesn’t work that way, and especially not for this outsider taking on entrenched interests in both parties. Things need to be parsed, refined and done by consensus. That, by the way is why I’ve never been bothered by Trump’s not getting into too many details but focusing on goals. That’s how business gets done. The goals come first and the mechanisms come later after the pros and cons have been weighed and agreed on.

And while Ivanka was absolutely wonderful, I couldn’t help wondering if a real fire breather like the Reverend Mark Burns as an opener might not have been better. The Rev reminds me of a clerical Howlin’ Wolf, and that’s some heavy duty praise. It would have gotten that crowd fired up like nobody’s business and perhaps then The  Donald would have felt able to be a bit less strident in places.

All in all though, a really good job. And as we’ve seen in the past, it will likely get better because if nothing else, we’ve seen that Trump has an astonishing ability to recover, step back and learn from his mistakes.

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?

Forum: Is Islam Compatible With A Free Society?

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:Is Islam Compatible With A Free Society?

The Glittering Eye : Of course it is. To the same extent as Christianity or Judaism is.

Islam is inclusive of more diversity of beliefs than Christianity and enormously more than Judaism. Within it is contained variants that are completely compatible with a free society, whatever radical conservatives within Islam and foes of Islam of other confessions might think.

The question is somewhat beside the point. For me the much more important question is whether Wahhabist/Salafist Islam is compatible with a free society and to that question the answer is “No” and, honestly, I think that those who profess the Wahhabist/Salafist versions of Islam would agree with me.

The additional challenge is that the Wahhabist/Salafist variants of Islam are on the rise, largely propelled by the money of Gulf Arabs, not just among the Gulf states but everywhere including the West. Something like three-quarters of all imams in the United States are foreign born, most of those are Saudis, and a distressingly large proportion of those hold to very conservative Wahhabist/Salafist beliefs.

Then the question is what is to be done?

Stately McDaniel Manor : Islam is not compatible with individual or societal freedom. This is not merely an unfortunate side effect, an unintended, unforeseeable consequence of Islam, but its very nature. “Islam” means “submission,” which definition and all of its connotations must be taken very seriously indeed.

Islam is not a religion as Americans define religion. It is rather a political, moral, philosophical, military system with some religious trappings. It’s reason for being, its goal, is to conquer the world and impose, by force of arms, on every human being, Islam. One need not infer this. The Koran plainly and unambiguously requires it.

Islam is an invention of a medieval, tribal mindset, yet is an attempt to unite all tribes under the Islamic banner. The tribal mindset is still very much a part of much of the world, and particularly the Middle East. Americans tend to think of themselves as Americans first, and every other identity category thereafter. A Methodist American is still an American. A Catholic American is still an American. Not so with Islam.

Muslims are Muslims, first, last and always. Islam does not recognize the concept of nations, governments, allegiance to the values and rule of law that are the heart of America. Americans swear allegiance to the Constitution, but worship God as a member of one of many denominations, denominations that peacefully coexist under the Constitution. Americans also sometimes choose not to worship God, or even to acknowledge His existence. In America, we take to heart the wise counsel of the Founding Father most responsible for religious liberty, Thomas Jefferson, who said:

“But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, of no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. …Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”

The Koran, however, exhorts Muslims not only to enslave the world, but to kill all that resist. It actually goes into specific methods of killing, and holds particularly enmity for Jews. It’s fascinating, and horrifying that it is the Muslims that kill in the name of Islam that are following the words of its prophet. Muslims that wish only to live in peace, and that are willing to follow the American rule of law are not following the very specific and bloody dictates of their faith.

This is in part why most Muslims do not actively criticize jihadists or take active measures to reform Islam. Not only are jihadists actually acting on the letter and intent of their faith, they are more than willing to kill other Muslims that disagree with them.

Islam holds women and children to be of little value, essentially possessions of men. One need not spend much Google time to discover Islam is completely incompatible with every form of liberty for women. Fascinating too is the willingness of American leftists to ignore this horrific side of Islam. Cut out a girl’s clitoris without anesthetic? Grope and rape women at will? Beat women as a religious duty? Hey, we have to honor diversity! Who are we to judge other cultures?

It is probably true that most Muslims will never take the path of jihad. However, we’ll never know their actual numbers, annoying jihadists tending to result in torture, mutilation and death and all. It is equally true that huge numbers of non-violent Muslims are sympathetic to the acts and goals of jihadists, support Sharia, and actively lobby against assimilation and for the establishment of Muslim no-go zones within democratic nations, zones ruled by Sharia. Great Britain has allowed the establishment of no less then 88 Sharia courts, abandoning the rule of law for all.

But we must accept Islam and let any Muslim into America. Refusing to do that is not who we are, as Barack Hussein Obama says. Forget, for the sake of argument, that there is no one less fit to identify American values than Barack Obama. “We can’t deport Muslims that want to establish a caliphate in America! It’s unconstitutional!”

People expressing that moronic opinion might want to spend a bit of time actually reading the Constitution. Americans have the absolute right to establish immigration laws, and may deport foreign nationals at will. For citizens, native-born or naturalized, a brief visit to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 might be equally instructive. The overall point is that the Constitution and laws of the United States cannot be interpreted to be a suicide pact, unless of course, we wish to embrace Islam.

Islam recognizes no individual liberty, and no authority but Islam. Such people cannot assimilate, nor can they faithfully accept and follow the American rule of law, which though under constant attack during the Age of Obama, is the foundation of American uniqueness and liberty.

JoshuaPundit : Looking at what Islam has wrought during its history and what it continues to produce today answers the question.

I have Muslims in my life who are decent, fine people. But in all but two instances, they are secular Muslims. The two devout Muslims I’m close to practice a faith primarily based on Mohammed’s early, peaceful Mecca Qu’ran and would be regarded as heretics by most Sunni and Shiah. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood and it’s Islamist offshoots, the wahabbis, Boko Haram, Lakshar e Tiaba, etc. are actually much more faithful to what the Qu’ran demands than the Muslims I know. The money and momentum in Islam is with jihad.

In Islam, the peaceful Mecca Qu’ran has been almost entirely superseded by the violent Medina Qu’ran via Islam’s Doctrine of Abrogation, something accepted by all four major fiqhs (Muslim schools of religious dogma and jurisprudence).

When you read the Qu’ran and hadiths and see what’s in them, the ridiculous nature of the term ‘radical Islam ‘ become very clear. Islam is Islam. Among other things, Islam has nothing comparable to what we would call the Golden Rule. What passes for it in Islam only pertains to fellow Muslims, not kuffars, non-believers. They can be murdered, raped, openly deceived and enslaved as long as it advances Islam. While many Muslims choose to ignore this, many others do not and the religion encourages this behavior. To be a non-Muslim under Muslim rule means to be bled white with jizra, the protection money demanded by Muslims from the conquered, to have no legal rights at all except the right to life as decreed by the changing whim of Muslims.

The whole history of Islam and its death toll of over two hundred million people as well as millions enslaved tells us all we need to know about that. Islam doesn’t play well with others.

While Muslims are able to live in a free society if they accommodate their beliefs to our norms and culture, Islam is totally incompatible. Our current leaders frequently make the point that WE have to change our laws, customs and norms to accommodate Islam. The reverse is true, and any sane society demands it.

The way to end this war – and that’s what it is – is exactly the way we defeated the Nazis and Japan…by securing our homelands, by destroying Islam’s armed might where necessary, by attacking them economically, by discrediting their ideology and by making the consequences of any attack on us so horrendous in cost as to be unthinkable.

If we had done that after 9/11, we wouldn’t even be talking about this now.

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?

Link to original – 

Forum: Is Islam Compatible With A Free Society?


Article written by: Tom White

Forum: Is Islam Compatible With A Free Society?

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:Is Islam Compatible With A Free Society?

 The Glittering Eye : Of course it is. To the same extent as Christianity or Judaism is.

Islam is inclusive of more diversity of beliefs than Christianity and enormously more than Judaism. Within it is contained variants that are completely compatible with a free society, whatever radical conservatives within Islam and foes of Islam of other confessions might think.

The question is somewhat beside the point. For me the much more important question is whether Wahhabist/Salafist Islam is compatible with a free society and to that question the answer is “No” and, honestly, I think that those who profess the Wahhabist/Salafist versions of Islam would agree with me.

The additional challenge is that the Wahhabist/Salafist variants of Islam are on the rise, largely propelled by the money of Gulf Arabs, not just among the Gulf states but everywhere including the West. Something like three-quarters of all imams in the United States are foreign born, most of those are Saudis, and a distressingly large proportion of those hold to very conservative Wahhabist/Salafist beliefs.

Then the question is what is to be done?

Stately McDaniel Manor : Islam is not compatible with individual or societal freedom. This is not merely an unfortunate side effect, an unintended, unforeseeable consequence of Islam, but its very nature. “Islam” means “submission,” which definition and all of its connotations must be taken very seriously indeed.

Islam is not a religion as Americans define religion. It is rather a political, moral, philosophical, military system with some religious trappings. It’s reason for being, its goal, is to conquer the world and impose, by force of arms, on every human being, Islam. One need not infer this. The Koran plainly and unambiguously requires it.

Islam is an invention of a medieval, tribal mindset, yet is an attempt to unite all tribes under the Islamic banner. The tribal mindset is still very much a part of much of the world, and particularly the Middle East. Americans tend to think of themselves as Americans first, and every other identity category thereafter. A Methodist American is still an American. A Catholic American is still an American. Not so with Islam.

Muslims are Muslims, first, last and always. Islam does not recognize the concept of nations, governments, allegiance to the values and rule of law that are the heart of America. Americans swear allegiance to the Constitution, but worship God as a member of one of many denominations, denominations that peacefully coexist under the Constitution. Americans also sometimes choose not to worship God, or even to acknowledge His existence. In America, we take to heart the wise counsel of the Founding Father most responsible for religious liberty, Thomas Jefferson, who said:

“But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, of no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. …Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”

The Koran, however, exhorts Muslims not only to enslave the world, but to kill all that resist. It actually goes into specific methods of killing, and holds particularly enmity for Jews. It’s fascinating, and horrifying that it is the Muslims that kill in the name of Islam that are following the words of its prophet. Muslims that wish only to live in peace, and that are willing to follow the American rule of law are not following the very specific and bloody dictates of their faith.

This is in part why most Muslims do not actively criticize jihadists or take active measures to reform Islam. Not only are jihadists actually acting on the letter and intent of their faith, they are more than willing to kill other Muslims that disagree with them.

Islam holds women and children to be of little value, essentially possessions of men. One need not spend much Google time to discover Islam is completely incompatible with every form of liberty for women. Fascinating too is the willingness of American leftists to ignore this horrific side of Islam. Cut out a girl’s clitoris without anesthetic? Grope and rape women at will? Beat women as a religious duty? Hey, we have to honor diversity! Who are we to judge other cultures?

It is probably true that most Muslims will never take the path of jihad. However, we’ll never know their actual numbers, annoying jihadists tending to result in torture, mutilation and death and all. It is equally true that huge numbers of non-violent Muslims are sympathetic to the acts and goals of jihadists, support Sharia, and actively lobby against assimilation and for the establishment of Muslim no-go zones within democratic nations, zones ruled by Sharia. Great Britain has allowed the establishment of no less then 88 Sharia courts, abandoning the rule of law for all.

But we must accept Islam and let any Muslim into America. Refusing to do that is not who we are, as Barack Hussein Obama says. Forget, for the sake of argument, that there is no one less fit to identify American values than Barack Obama. “We can’t deport Muslims that want to establish a caliphate in America! It’s unconstitutional!”

People expressing that moronic opinion might want to spend a bit of time actually reading the Constitution. Americans have the absolute right to establish immigration laws, and may deport foreign nationals at will. For citizens, native-born or naturalized, a brief visit to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 might be equally instructive. The overall point is that the Constitution and laws of the United States cannot be interpreted to be a suicide pact, unless of course, we wish to embrace Islam.

Islam recognizes no individual liberty, and no authority but Islam. Such people cannot assimilate, nor can they faithfully accept and follow the American rule of law, which though under constant attack during the Age of Obama, is the foundation of American uniqueness and liberty.

JoshuaPundit : Looking at what Islam has wrought during its history and what it continues to produce today answers the question.

I have Muslims in my life who are decent, fine people. But in all but two instances, they are secular Muslims. The two devout Muslims I’m close to practice a faith primarily based on Mohammed’s early, peaceful Mecca Qu’ran and would be regarded as heretics by most Sunni and Shiah. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood and it’s Islamist offshoots, the wahabbis, Boko Haram, Lakshar e Tiaba, etc. are actually much more faithful to what the Qu’ran demands than the Muslims I know. The money and momentum in Islam is with jihad.

In Islam, the peaceful Mecca Qu’ran has been almost entirely superseded by the violent Medina Qu’ran via Islam’s Doctrine of Abrogation, something accepted by all four major fiqhs (Muslim schools of religious dogma and jurisprudence).

When you read the Qu’ran and hadiths and see what’s in them, the ridiculous nature of the term ‘radical Islam ‘ become very clear. Islam is Islam. Among other things, Islam has nothing comparable to what we would call the Golden Rule. What passes for it in Islam only pertains to fellow Muslims, not kuffars, non-believers. They can be murdered, raped, openly deceived and enslaved as long as it advances Islam. While many Muslims choose to ignore this, many others do not and the religion encourages this behavior. To be a non-Muslim under Muslim rule means to be bled white with jizra, the protection money demanded by Muslims from the conquered, to have no legal rights at all except the right to life as decreed by the changing whim of Muslims.

The whole history of Islam and its death toll of over two hundred million people as well as millions enslaved tells us all we need to know about that. Islam doesn’t play well with others.

While Muslims are able to live in a free society if they accommodate their beliefs to our norms and culture, Islam is totally incompatible. Our current leaders frequently make the point that WE have to change our laws, customs and norms to accommodate Islam. The reverse is true, and any sane society demands it.

The way to end this war – and that’s what it is – is exactly the way we defeated the Nazis and Japan…by securing our homelands, by destroying Islam’s armed might where necessary, by attacking them economically, by discrediting their ideology and by making the consequences of any attack on us so horrendous in cost as to be unthinkable.

If we had done that after 9/11, we wouldn’t even be talking about this now.

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?