Category Archives: Weasels

Brilliant campaign email from Trump

I tend to submit my name to various political campaigns, both Republican and Democrat, so that I can see their emails. Most of the emails are open begs for money, and they are predicated on fear — the other side is winning, we’re cornered, we need your help. As Scott Adams points out, fear is a very good motivator and Hillary, especially, likes to use it. The problem with fear is that one eventually gets inured to it.  For example, if you read diaries from people who experienced the bombing campaigns in either London or Berlin, what you see is a gradual transition from blind panic to something akin to zen resignation. Eventually racing to bomb shelters just doesn’t seem worth it. All you can do is hope that the next bomb isn’t meant for you.

In terms of Hillary’s fear campaign, I don’t think that her most devout, ideological followers are going get inured to her warnings that Trump is a mad man. I do think, though, that they’ll cease to remain enthused for her. At a certain point, they’ll say in a robotic monotone, “Yeah, he’s crazy and I’m going to vote for Hillary, but I really don’t like Hillary very much. . . .”  That is, fearing Trump doesn’t transform into liking Hillary and, to the extent voter enthusiasm matters, this isn’t a good thing.

Going back to the Scott Adams link above, Adams says that Trump had a very good week. He did three smart things:  He gave calm, normal speeches; the calm, normal speeches contained core truths that most Americans (even loosey-goosey Lefties, if they’re honest with themselves) recognize as true; and he hired very media savvy campaign advisors — and this is true even if Ben Shapiro is correct in his claim that Stephen Bannon is the demonic Mephistopheles to Trump’s Faust.

Apropos Shapiro’s J’Accuse! to Bannon, I admit to being troubled. I admire greatly Shapiro’s wicked good intelligence, strong moral core, ideological courage, and great communication skills, so I’m most certainly not going to dismiss what he says. Having said that, his accusations against Bannon are so strong that, to me, they’re a bit self-defeating.  Despite believing that there are evil people out there, it’s difficult for me to believe that Bannon is that evil. And if he’s not that evil, how evil is he? Also, to the extent Shapiro is a NeverTrumper, and I’ve concluded that Hillary will be so dreadful that it’s worth taking the risk that Trump will be less dreadful, I have to factor Shapiro’s anti-Trump bias into the equation. But I digress….

My point is that fear is a useful weapon up to a point. It excites strong emotions, but those emotions cannot stay excited. Also, while it most certainly drags the opposition down, it’s not a great tool to build yourself up. That is, I don’t think Hillary makes herself look any better by saying that Trump is scary, especially when he’s not behaving in scary ways.

So if the fear-based campaign email is a little bit of a dead-end, what else can a candidate do?  Well, I just received a very different email from the Trump campaign and, frankly, I thought it was brilliant.

Before I get to that email, let me back up a minute and talk about campaign slogans and rhetoric. Hillary’s slogan is “I’m With Her,” which is just a meaningless statement of allegiance. Paul McCartney twisted to “She’s With Me,” which should certainly get out the aging British rocker vote, but isn’t much of a get-out-the-vote slogan either.  (And honestly, I really wish he’d kept his mouth shut because I love the Beatles’ music but now, every time I hear a song, I think to myself “It’s such a shame that McCartney matured into being an idiot” — which kind of spoils the music.)

Trump did a beautiful bit of rhetorical jujitsu and, instead of insisting that voters line up behind him, sheep-like, announced to the voters “I’m With You.”  There’s a world of meaning in that. I’m supporting your values, I’m your man in the fight, I care about the things you care about, I am your servant, not your master.

Taking that powerful statement one step further, Trump’s campaign sent out a wonderful campaign email, which I’ll quote in full here:

Trump Pence Logo
In less than three months, you get to vote for the next president of the United States.

But in order to make sure Trump wins, we need YOUR immediate input on his critical general election strategy moving forward.

Take the Trump Campaign Strategy Survey now. >>

Without you, this campaign would be NOTHING.

Our landslide victories, our momentum, and our massive rallies are all thanks to supporters like you who were ready to Make America Great Again!

But now we face the fight of our lifetime. We The People are going up against Hillary Clinton’s monstrous machine of elites, lobbyists, and special interests who have sent our country down a very dark road.

To win this fight, Trump is turning to his most trusted advisers: the American People.

That means you.

Please – consider it your duty to take the Trump Campaign Strategy Survey now. >>

Thank you,

Team TRUMP

TAKE THE SURVEY

This was good for my lizard brain. He’s not telling me what he thinks I need to know. He’s asking me what I think he needs to know. Okay — I’ll bite. I followed the “survey” link and, rather than being told to give money first, actually got a real survey asking for my opinions about things important to conservatives. The survey ticks off most of the true conservative boxes, which should help allay suspicion amongst those who think he has no idea what conservative voters care about. As you look at the questions, which are a laundry list of the desires of frustrated conservatives, you will see that the Trump campaign has engaged us in his platform. We now have ownership.

  1. Which issues are most important to you?
  • Securing the border
  • Stopping radical Islamic terrorism
  • Economy/jobs
  • Fair trade
  • American energy independence
  • Protecting the life of the unborn
  • Religious liberties
  • Upholding the Constitution
  • Preserving a conservative Supreme Court
  1. Should Trump spend more of his time going after Hillary’s record and her positions on the issues?
  • Yes
  • No
  • No Opinion
  1. Should Trump invest more time and resources in YOUR state?
  • Yes
  • No
  • No Opinion
  1. Should Trump focus more on positive or negative advertising?
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Both equally
  1. Our tax system must be simplified to help working families and reduce IRS corruption.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. America must become energy independent to strengthen our economy and end dependence on our enemies for oil.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Term limits should be imposed on congressmen and senators.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortions.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. A wall must be built along the southern border of the United States to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Trade deals must be renegotiated into terms that put America first.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Hillary Clinton’s plan to increase the number of refugees America takes in by 550% would be disastrous.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Taking proper care of our veterans must be a cornerstone of the Trump administration.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. The Second Amendment must be protected
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Republicans are correct to wait until Trump becomes president to confirm Justice Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. The federal government should return much of its power to state and local governments.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Businesses have been crushed by burdensome regulations that stunt growth.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. We cannot tax our way out of debt. Instead, we must stop wasteful spending to reduce our $19 trillion debt.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Our next president must roll back regulations that have forced companies to relocate overseas.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Repealing and replacing ObamaCare should remain a top priority.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. A Republican House and Senate will best empower Trump to pass necessary reforms for our country.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Political correctness has gone too far. It now threatens our national security.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. School choice policies are critical to empowering American families.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. We must end government regulations that have cost Americans jobs in states like Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Obama’s executive orders must be rolled back on Trump’s first day in office.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Trump must put an end to Obama’s military spending cuts.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Veterans should be able to choose their own health care providers.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Under Obama, the powers of the presidency have been abused.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Our country has strayed too much from what our founders outlined in the Constitution.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Law and order should remain a centerpiece of Trump’s platform.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Opinion
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Which of the following are your biggest concerns personally? (Select as many that apply)
  • Job security
  • Mortgage payments
  • Social security
  • Saving for children’s education
  • Saving for retirement
  • Social issues
  • Terrorist threats
  • Cost of living
  • Increased crime
  • Veteran aid
  • Other

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room

Link:  

Brilliant campaign email from Trump


Article written by: Tom White

Milwaukee on Fire

Shortly after 23-year-old Sylville Smith was shot and killed by a Milwaukee, Wisconsin law enforcement officer last weekend and before facts surrounding the shooting surfaced, the city of Milwaukee went up in flames courtesy of Black Lives Matter leaders in Chicago, Illinois who used social media to incite riots.

Sylville Smith thug shot and killed by police officer Milwaukee Wisconsin 2

Back stepping to moments before the shooting: Smith and a fellow occupant fled on foot from their vehicle after being stopped by law enforcement during what should have been a routine traffic stop.

The officers both wearing bodycams pursued Smith and his friend on foot during which Smith and Officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown, age 24 also Black came face to face.

Officer Heaggan-Brown, who as it was reported earlier this week went to the same school with Smith, knew him and the two may have even had a history with one another, ordered the suspect to drop his firearm.

According to reports, Smith refused and may have raised his firearm that contained 23 rounds at which point, Officer Heaggan-Brown fired seven shots at Smith hitting him once in the arm and another in the chest.  The shots proved fatal and Smith’s firearm as it turned out was reported stolen five months ago along with 500 rounds of ammunition.

[UPDATEReports that Smith and Heaggan-Brown attended the same high school were disputed by Smith’s family and has since been confirmed by the officer’s family.  According to Smith’s sister both men “were well acquainted” with each other since high school.  In other words, both men knew who they were dealing with and what.]

Before the name, ethnicity of the officer who shot and killed Smith became public knowledge or the fact that they knew each other was reported, Milwaukee was burning[…]

Read full article

Original article: 

Milwaukee on Fire


Article written by: Tom White

Politicians’ external behaviors do not prove whether they have a strong moral core

I don’t particularly like a friend one of the Little Bookworms has, although I feel quite sorry for the young woman. She’s in her late teens, with staggeringly low self-esteem that she buries by indulging in drugs, alcohol, and gender fluid sexual engagements. I don’t worry, though, that she’ll be a bad influence on my child who has – thank goodness – a solid moral core that resists this type of depressing debauchery. In any event, my child is a legal adult and can consort with whomever she likes.

The reason I mention this unhappy young woman is that my Little Bookworm met the young woman’s latest boyfriend. Of that young man, my Little Bookworm had this to say: “He’s a really interesting guy in his early 20s. He’s a total straight arrow. He doesn’t drink, smoke, or do drugs.”

I asked the logical question: “What’s he doing with your friend then?”

The answer surprised me. “He’s a drug dealer.”

Well! I immediately told Little Bookworm that, while I have no legal control over her social life, she would do well never to socialize with either the friend or the boyfriend again. I reminded my children ad nauseum when they were growing up that San Quentin (which we can see from our home, so it’s a very real place to them) is filled with prisoners whose primary mistake was to have the wrong friends. If the boyfriend gets arrested while my Little Bookworm is in the same apartment he is, Little Bookworm will find herself in an adjoining jail cell.

Having delivered myself of this practical advice, I begin to think about the difference between apparently moral trappings and genuinely moral conduct. After all, other than the small problem of drug dealing, the boyfriend sounds great – clean cut and clean-living. The package looks good, but the core is rotten.

Looking back in time, we all know about that famous dog-loving, non-smoking, teetotaling vegetarian who sent six million Jews to the gas chamber and started a war that claimed 40 million or so lives within just six years. Hitler, like the boyfriend, was a mass of objectively virtuous behaviors that hid another rotten core.

The opposite can be true too. That is, there are people whose lives appear superficially vice-ridden, but who nevertheless have a strong moral compass. Take Winston Churchill, who was in so many ways Hitler’s opposite during WWII.

Churchill was undoubtedly an alcoholic. He showed exceptionally bad judgment during WWI, leading to the Gallipoli disaster. Many have credibly accused him during WWII of promoting plans that led to unnecessary loss of life, whether of his own troops or German civilians. In addition to loving his wife, mother, and daughters, he had a strain of misogyny that revealed itself in some of his most brutally memorable insults to women who got under his skin.

Despite all those behavioral problems, Churchill had a rock-solid inner morality, one that allowed him immediately to take Hitler’s measure and to be a sure compass during the dark, dark days of WWII. He was Hitler’s light-filled antithesis.

We grow them like that at home too – people whose external behavior is at odds with their true moral (or immoral or amoral) center. Jimmy Carter is Southern Baptist who has always lived a life of traditional rectitude – he is a committed husband, a devout church-goer, and someone who regularly donates his time and energy to building housing for the poor.

I should admire Carter, but I don’t. I loathe him because that pious mantel is wrapped around a man who is a committed anti-Semite, one who routinely sides with the debauched death cult that is Hamas and its followers, a group of people who seek Jewish genocide, murder homosexuals and Christians, suppress women, and use children as shields for their children. No matter how conventionally pretty Carter’s little acts of selflessness, he is (to my mind, at least) a fundamentally bad man.

And of course there are the Clintons. What can we say about the Clintons? Hillary has been married to only one man (although he did allegedly tell an adulterous girlfriend that she cheated on him constantly . . . with women). She’s stood by her man through thick and thin, which seems like the act of a solid, faithful spouse. Still, one cannot help but suspect that her decision to stick it out was driven, not by a commitment to her marriage vows, but by her understanding that she would need someone whose charisma could pole vault her from one job for which she was unqualified and in which she did badly to another job for which she was unqualified and in which she did badly, a pattern that Hillary planned (and plans) to repeat right up until she sits behind the desk in the Oval Office.

To those of us who don’t respect Hillary, the fact that she’s held positions of importance (in all of which she’s conducted herself badly) or that she pays lip service to every Leftist political shibboleth of days past and present does nothing to hide her toxic soul: Hillary is a compulsive liar, a user, a shamefully unindicted felon, and a person motivated by a greed so deep and pure that many of us cannot even begin to contemplate what drives her from one act of crime and corruption to another.

You’d think that after having grubbed in $150,000,000 over a sixteen-year period, Hillary’s greed would be satiated and she’d lie low, but she can’t. Hillary is compulsively greedy and dishonest, a manifest fact that shocks those who believe core morality matters and a fact that, even more shockingly, couldn’t matter less to the legions of Leftists who will do anything to get her into the White House.

Bill is in a class by himself too. He’s such a charming, compassionate man, who really does seem to feel everyone’s pain. A more naturally gifted politician it’s hard to imagine. While I suspect most Americans would cringe at the thought of having Hillary seated next to them at a dinner party, I’m pretty sure most Americans, even those who hate the Clintons – both their politics and their corruption – would have a good time if they ended up with Bill as their dinner partner.

These superficial virtues, though, cannot should never allow us to forget that Bill is almost certainly a rapist, he’s definitely guilty of sexual assault short of rape, he’s a workplace harasser, he’s best buddies with a pedophile, he’s a perjurer and, like his wife, he will do absolutely anything, including selling out his own country, to fill his coffers. His soul is black. But there’s that charm. . . .

As they do with Hillary, the Left so desperately wants to ignore that black soul and forgive Bill his sins, never mind that he has no interest in forgiveness. It’s that need to pin atonement upon him, when he hasn’t really atoned at all, that resulted in one of the most perverse posts I’ve ever seen at the Wonkette blog, home to a hardy, and somewhat . . . um . . . intellectually esoteric collection of rapidly Leftist feminists.

A Leftist named Rebecca Schoenkopf gamely, and rather admirably, decided to tackle head-on an interview that Katie J. M. Baker did for Buzzfeed with Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who has claimed for almost forty years that Bill Clinton raped her.

The interview is a good one and deserves to be read. Broaddrick has never changed her core story in the 38 years since she alleges that Bill trapped her in a hotel room and raped her. Moreover, she’s mostly kept out of the limelight, so she cannot be accused of having made a profitable or high-profile career out of slandering Bill Clinton. Indeed, she might have stayed quiet still were it not for Hillary’s “feminist” insistence that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

For the 73-year-old Broaddrick, whom Hillary did everything possible to silence and discredit, these assertions were a bridge too far. Suddenly, on Twitter, she started speaking out. “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.”

Broaddrick comes across as a credible woman who was used badly by both Bill and Hillary and who never got the justice she deserved. But I want to return to Ms. Schoenkopf who, having read the interview, felt compelled to address it.

To her great credit, Schoenkopf has to concede that Broaddrick’s story is credible. To those who challenge Broaddrick, whether because her story has become more detailed over the years or because she speaks with right-wing organizations, Schoenkopf points out that (a) rape survivor’s do that as they grapple with the event and (b) Broaddrick hates Hillaru so she’ll naturally be drawn to those who support her as she speaks out against Hillary. Schoenkopf notes that, once one addresses these points:

that’s pretty much all the “I don’t believe Juanita” crowd has. Her friends found her with bruised lips, crying, right after the rape allegedly occurred. That’s what we call “contemporaneous evidence” when we believe women.

Once having accepted Broaddrick’s story as true, however, Schoenkopf seeks to rehabilitate Bill without any help from Bill himself. She first says that it was probably just an 80s power thing that had him respond to a woman’s repeated noes by assaulting her so badly she was left bruised and bleeding.

No.

I lived through the 1980’s in America. They were not like the 880’s in the Muslim Caliphate nor are they like the 2016’s in any ISIS-controlled region. Even back in those benighted times 35 years ago, men understood that trapping an unwilling woman in a room and using brute physical force as a way to have intercourse with her was a criminal act, no just macho posturing.

Bad as that bit of historical rewrite is, the worst thing Schoenkopf does it try to cleanse Bill’s criminal, blackened soul without demanding that he make any effort himself in that direction:

To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.

Sorry, but stopping committing crimes is not good enough. There’s no indication that he stopped because of conscience. There’s every indication that he stopped only because the higher his profile, the harder it became to get away with rape and other forms of sexual assault. In addition, the higher his profile, the easier it was to get women to bed him without his having to make any effort. He has no remorse. He has never repented.

Bill – charming, brilliant, even lovable – is a rotten apple who can be forgiven only if one re-writes entirely the definition of remorse and repentance so that those concepts have nothing to do with the actor’s soul and everything to do with his sycophants’ desire to resurrect his credibility.

The last joker in this deck of presidents and president wannabes is Donald Trump? It’s actually hard to get a grip on Trump’s behavior because of the foul miasma that the drive-by media has created around him. After a youth and midlife spent womanizing (but not raping), he seems to have settled down to marital fidelity. He’s also temperate in his behaviors, because he doesn’t smoke nor drink, and apparently has never done so. One could characterize him as an older man who, having sown his wild womanizing oats, has settled down and has the external morals of an elder statesman.

The Left, however, cannot accept a temperate, normal Donald Trump. The fever swamp that passes for a media today insists that (a) he’s an amphetamine addict and (b) that he’s a NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) devotee. The last is especially funny because this is put forward as the reason he’s hiding his tax returns – as if an internationally known businessman would place front and center in his returns a charitable write-off to a pedophile organization.

The media derides Trump as a monster who tries to boot old ladies out of their homes, while his supporters (many of whom have known him personally for decades) characterize him as a generous, spontaneous, compassionate man who doesn’t hesitate a moment to help out people in need. He’s either a corrupt, inept businessman who’s sued constantly, or a pragmatic man who takes minimal risks, turns real profits, and has a knack for cutting through the red tape and getting the job done. He’s a bully or a warrior. He’s a genius or a fool.

The real question, though, is whether any of the above tell us about the real Trump, the man beneath the weird hair, the crazy outbursts, the crude attacks, the savvy business deals, the generous charitable contributions, the teetotaling (and tweaking?). I don’t think so. Everything I’ve described is window-dressing, none of which is an insight into the man’s soul.

I do have some hope, though, that Trump is one of the good guys and that’s for a reason personal to me: Just as I immediately recognized Obama because he was identical in affect and behavior to a handful of malignant narcissists who have been in my life and made me quite unhappy, Trump reminds me strongly of a dear friend.

Trump and my friend have so many traits in common: quirky, original, often brilliant minds; explosive tempers; mountains of eccentricities; pit bull-like fighting instincts, that include the inability to walk away from an argument or insult; loyalty; and great charm. That’s my friend’s outer shell, just as it’s Trump’s outer shell.

With my friend, this shell is a difficult, prickly one, but the rewards of calling him a friend are tremendous. He has such a deep, strong moral core. You can rely on him for insights about difficult times and help during times of need. He knows what is right and what is wrong. For now, until proven otherwise, I’m going to hope that, once one wipes away the slime the media throws at Trump, he’ll be just like my friend: brilliant, difficult, brave, and truly worth the effort.

[It occurs to me that someone who ought to be included in this post is Oskar Schindler, a ne’er do well who had one of the strongests consciences to emerge in Nazi Germany.]

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room

Source: 

Politicians’ external behaviors do not prove whether they have a strong moral core


Article written by: Tom White

Can the 2016 election be rigged? Here’s How

Now, former Trump campaign staffer and political veteran Roger Stone is something of a a controversial figure, but he’s been around and he’s no fool.

Today in The Hill, he put forward exactly how easily the 2016 election can be rigged:

The issue here is both voter fraud, which is limited but does happen, and election theft through the manipulation of the computerized voting machines, particularly the DIEBOLD/PES voting machines in wide usage in most states.

POLITICO profiled a Princeton professor — who has demonstrated how the electronic voting machines that are most widely used can be hacked in five minutes or less! Robert Fitrakis Professor of Political Science in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State Community College has written a must-read book on the strip and flip technique used to rig these machines. Professor Fitrakis is a Green Party activist. …

To be very clear both parties have engaged in this skullduggery and it is the party in power in each state that has custody of the machines and control of their programing. This year, the results of machines in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio, where Governor John Kasich controls the machines, must be matched with exit polls, for example.

Illinois is another obvious state where Trump has been running surprisingly strong, in what has become a Blue state. Does anyone trust Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a longtime Clinton hatchet man. not to monkey with the machines? I don’t. He was using City funded Community groups to recruit anti-Trump “protestors” who posed such a threat to public safety the Trump Chicago event was canceled when the Secret Service couldn’t guarantee his safety.

How do the pols of both parties do it? As easy as determining, on the basis of honest polling, who is going to win. Then, if it isn’t your candidate, simply have the votes for the other guy be given to your guy and vice versa. You keep the total vote the same. This is where the “strip and flip” technique described by Professor Fitrakis comes in.

Maybe you don’t need all the votes the other guy was going to get. If you have a plan in mind involving votes and their redistribution, you can find a programmer who can design the machine instructions to produce that outcome.  Or you can hack the machine you are voting in with that $15 device that you can get at BEST BUY.

A computer hacker showed CBS how to vote multiple times using a simple $15.00 electronic device.

(1) Publish a poll contrived to suggest the result you are going to bring about.

(2) Manipulate the machines to bring about precisely your desired outcome.

As someone with great sentimental attachment to the Republican Party, as I joined as the party of Goldwater, both parties have engaged in voting machine manipulation. Nowhere in the country has this been more true than Wisconsin, where there are strong indications that Scott Walker and the Reince Priebus machine rigged as many as five elections including the defeat of a Walker recall election.

Mathematician and voting statistic expert Richard Charnin has produced a compelling study by comparing polling to actual results and exit polls to make a compelling case for voting machine manipulation in the Badger state.

When the Trump vs. Cruz primary took place, the same pattern emerged again of a Marquette University poll showing a 20 point shift from Trump ahead by 10% to Trump behind by 10%, which was simply absurd. Shifts like that don’t happen over brief intervals of time, absent a nuclear explosion. It didn’t make any sense — unless you knew what was going on was an “instant replay” of Walker’s victories. The machine Priebus built was delivering for Cruz big time.

Today, the polling industry has been reported to be “in a state of crisis” because they are altering their samples to favor Hillary. The Reuters poll actually got busted for oversampling Democrats in order to inflate Hillary’s lead. We even had the absurdity of a Gallup poll proclaiming that 51% of those who had heard Trump’s speech were less likely to vote for him, which was endlessly repeated by the shills at MSNBC.

I predicted that Trump would lead in the polls after his highly successful convention (despite the media frenzy over the non-issue of a Melania Trump staffer plagiarizing a handful of words). In fact, post convention polling for the Trump effort by pollster Tony Fabrizio in key swing states was encouraging. Perhaps this is why the establishment elites have gone into over-drive to attack Trump.

Hillary hasn’t exactly had smooth sailing. Julian Assange of Wikileaks said he had inconvertible proof that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton armed Isis LINK. The IRS has opened an investigation to the Clinton Foundation and it’s many offshoots, and Hillary got caught lying about what FBI Director Comey did say about her.

But you will see less of Hillary’s problems in the mainstream media, which has gone completely overboard in its relentless, even hysterical, efforts to lambaste Trump and promote her. Every remotely objective commentator has been stunned. Trump will, however, have an opportunity to drive these points home in the debates.

We are now living in a fake reality of constructed data and phony polls. The computerized voting machines can be hacked and rigged and after the experience of Bernie Sanders there is no reason to believe they won’t be. Don’t be taken in.

Admittedly, I’m not sure I go along totally with Roger Stone’s allegations about prior hacking. And the idea of exit polls has already proven to be rotten with fraud, since the predominantly Left/Democrat media conducts them, and a lot of people, including yours truly simply walk right on by them.

Even many of the publicly revealed ‘polls’ are subject to being cooked and manipulated, as I’ve proven more than once by examining their mechanics.

But voter fraud and easily hackable electronic machines are a very different matter. And Stone is 150% right to say that the current crop of Pols can’t be trusted.

For some time, I’ve said that we need to go back to paper ballots counted under very careful supervision.

No one yet has been able to hack a piece of paper combined with pen and ink.

Read more: 

Can the 2016 election be rigged? Here’s How


Article written by: Tom White

Fear And Loathing: The Psychosexual Element In Jihad

One of the things that many non-Muslims have trouble reconciling with their notions of multiculturalism when it comes to Islam is the attitudes expressed in the religion and the culture towards women and female sexuality. To many non-Muslims, attitudes expressed by a significant portion of Muslim society towards women can easily be viewed as the Muslim version of fear and loathing.

Things like horrific abuse and even honor killings over matters that seem utterly trivial to non-Muslims abound. The Qu’ran itself permits wife beating and mandates inferior status for women in important matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and the right to testify in a court of law. Clitorectomies are common in the Islamic world, as is enforced segregation of women, dependence on male permission for many everyday activities and mandatory head to toe covering.

These attitudes are so deeply ingrained in many Muslim societies that in one infamous instance, when faced with a choice of letting young schoolgirls out of a burning building insufficiently covered or forcing them back inside to die, Saudi Mutawateen (religious police) chose to let the girls burn to death without hesitation.

To find a real ‘war on women,look no further.

Are these and other instances an integral part of Islam, or are they merely cultural?

That’s an important question the West needs to ask itself, and soon. If these attitudes are cultural, well, culture can be changed to a degree. A Japanese or a Jamaican growing up in say, Britain will maintain certain ties to those cultures but will almost always assimilate to British culture to a large degree, because that’s all he knows and the milieu in which he or she lives, and the same should be true of an Arab or a Pakistani. However, if these practices are an integral part of an ongoing belief system like Islam, the problem is much deeper and unlikely to be eradicated by any amount of cultural assimilation.

And if that’s the case, we in the West are going to have to start asking ourselves some very hard questions.

To come up with some answers, I think it’s important to look at Islam’s formation,its beginnings and its interaction with the existing tribal cultures where it originated, in 7th century Arabia.Perhaps a good place to start is with Islam’s founder, Mohammed.

Mohammed grew up as an orphan and was raised in his uncle’s house in Mecca, his parents having died when he was an infant.In other words, he never experienced what we might consider a normal level of maternal love or approval.

While Mohammed was a blood relative of his uncle, he may or may not have been a particularly favored one. We do know that his uncle, as part of the Quraysh clan made his living from two sources,trade caravans and his share of income from the pagan shrine to the Arab deity, the moon god Lah(in Arabic al-Lah) known as the Ka’aba, which then as now was sacred to the Arabs and attracted pilgrims due to a meteorite within the Ka’aba known as the Sacred Black Stone.

We also know that Mohammed was unlettered and that at a fairly young age Mohammed was working as a camel drover in his uncle’s caravans where he traveled as far as Damascus and came into contact with Jewish and Christian monotheism.

When Mohammed was twenty five, he caught the eye of Kadija, a well-to-do 40 year-old widow with property who married him.This also leads me to believe that Mohammed may not have been a particularly favored relative in his uncle’s house, since he obviously had no wealth of his own at the time to pay a bride-price, his uncle obviously had made little or no effort to find him a bride of child-bearing age or to help with the financial outlay and a match with a 40 year-old widow in those days could hardly be expected to produce offspring.

Did Mohammed marry Kadija as a way out of his uncle’s house? Did he, deep down, resent having to marry someone who was an elderly woman by the standards of that time and place? We have no way of knowing, but it provides some interesting food for thought, especially in light of how it may have affected Mohammed’s attitudes towards women.

The couple remained married for twenty five years until Kadija’s death at age 65, when Mohammed was 50.He thus spent the years of what could be called his sexual prime tied to a much older woman, and undoubtedly experienced a sexual drought during the last 5 to 10 years of the marriage . The hadiths, which chronicle the life, sayings and times of Mohammed uniformly agree that Mohammed was a faithful husband to Kadija while she lived and had no other women, something that’s fairly plausible considering that the family wealth remained in her hands until her death and Mohammed’s sole source of income and support came through her.

During that time, of course, Mohammed had his famous revelation in the cave and Islam was created.

With that in mind, we can examine the connections between Islam as it emerged and the existing tribal culture at the time.

To Muslims, the Qu’ran and what it contains are not merely divinely inspired, but the unadulterated word of Allah himself..G-d 3.0,if you will, direct from the source. It is always a wasted, futile effort to quarrel with items of faith. However, the hadiths again agree that Mohammed, who was familiar with Judaism and Christianity prayed for a third divine revelation specifically for the Arabs, rather than for mankind as a whole, and it is also a fact that Islam was uniquely formulated for the Arab tribal cultures at the time. Mohammed himself refers to the Arabs as `the best of peoples’ and even today the Qu’ran is primarily studied in Arabic and has, in general what we might call an Arab-centric bias.

In terms of Islam’s view of women and female sexuality, it seems obvious to me that part of it came from the existing Arab tribal culture and a great deal of it from Mohammed’s personal view of women, based on his experiences.

It’s not at all hard to imagine a fifty-year-old man,who had spent all of his young manhood married to a much older woman who held the purse strings would picture a paradise peopled by young, eternally virgin houris,or that a significant part of the Qu’ran would deal with the subject of women as booty.

Of course, that was then and this is now, but based on the examples I’ve given above, not much has changed in a significant part of the Muslim world.

Part of the reason, of course is the example of Mohammed, who Muslims consider the human paradigm, the perfect man and someone whom many Muslims seek to emulate.

If Mohammed reacted unconsciously to his early history by relegating women to the status of chattel controlled by men, if he gleefully partook of those female captives his right hand possessed, if he felt perfectly free to consummate a marriage with a nine-year-old girl at the ripe age of 55, if he said the beating of a disobedient wife was acceptable behavior, there are a significant number of Muslims today that regard this as perfectly acceptable.

The question that remains is how much of these attitudes came from Mohammed’s own psyche and his feelings about his marriage and how much came from the ancient Arab tribal cultures.

My own feeling is that the two attitudes fed on each other, as Islam and the primitive tribal culture combined back in the day to sustain each other.

And because of that, they can’t be separated by their very nature…even though some valiant attempts have been made in the past, and are being made today by some Muslims who understand the need for a change.

The psychodrama inherent in Islam’s attitudes towards women and fear of female sexuality is something that’s going to have to be worked out, one way or the other, by Muslims themselves and they are certainly welcome to it. But from the West’s point of view, it offers a unique tool in eliminating the problems with Islam here at home. To put it bluntly, Islam does not and never has played well with others.

For our own societies, we can help the process along by curtailing immigration from countries where these attitudes are common and avoiding even the slightest recognition of sharia law as an acceptable legal system. And when it comes to those Muslims already here, monitoring and if need be intervening to make sure that what’s being taught in all those Saudi-funded madrassahs and Islamic schools does nothing to contradict or undermine our western laws and standards.

Aside from these steps freeing Muslim women, it will protect our own women and girls. The horrendous rape epidemic in Europe perpetrated almost exclusively by Muslim men against non-Muslim women is a warning of what happens when Islam is imported without some very stringent guidelines. It should never have happened anywhere and it should not be repeated, no matter what steps it takes and how ‘politically incorrect’ it seems.

And the example set could end up changing the entire dynamic, as it did in Post-WWII Japan. Or to put it another way, free the women and the rest will follow.That strategy is as old as Eve and the Apple.

– selah –

Link to article: 

Fear And Loathing: The Psychosexual Element In Jihad


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?

Originally posted here:

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


Article written by: Tom White

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://i2.wp.com/www.lsjunction.com/facts/rangers.jpg?resize=500%2C300

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

“You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.” – Rush Limbaugh

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

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

Stately McDaniel Manor

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

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

Friend: “Really? You carry a gun?”

Me: “Yup.”

Friend: “Where?”

Me: “Everywhere.”

Friend: “Everywhere?!”

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

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

Me: “No; but everywhere else.”

Friend: “Why?”

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

Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 5.02.26 PM

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

en.wikipedia.org

  • There is no gift so precious as God’s gift of life.
  • To fail to protect God’s greatest gift is inexcusable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Going armed reinforces and upholds the Social Contract.

  • An armed society is a polite society.

    Jefferson

Much more at the link.

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

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

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

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

Originally from:  

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results


Article written by: Tom White

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Finish The Job’ Edition

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

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

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!

Jump to original: 

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Finish The Job’ Edition


Article written by: Tom White

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



Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question
: Where Would You Go On A Weeks’ All Expenses Paid Vacation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there you have it.

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

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

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

View original post here: 

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


Article written by: Tom White

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://i0.wp.com/media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d2/56/70/d25670a3aa86ce8c614442dbd0500800.jpg?resize=500%2C300

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

“Rape is not about sex, it’s about power and control” – Mark Steyn

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

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

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

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

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1ndmEdQX3AM/Tv04FWJ3kTI/AAAAAAAAAzg/P-WNaJRST6Q/s400/Bookworm%2B3.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

Much more at the link.

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

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

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

Remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

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

View the original here:

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results


Article written by: Tom White