Category Archives: women

It’s time to repeal the 19th Amendment

The 19th Amendment was a good idea in its time, but leftist women have become so perverted by the power it gave them, that we should seriously rethink it.

People are beginning to notice that the new leaders on the left are female. As a woman myself, some might think that I would find this a gratifying sign of progress in America. I don’t. I find it a worrisome thing because these women are driven by pure emotionalism, which has been channeled over the last few decades, especially at colleges, into a sense of perpetual victimhood and a deep hatred for America and her constitutionally-based institutions.

My theory is that the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was a mistake. It wasn’t a mistake when women were given weren’t so angry but for the last few years, thanks to academia, and its evil spawn in K-12 education, the media, and Hollywood, women have marinated in anger. For those who embraced that toxic marinade and emerged as Democrats, Progressives, Democrat-Socialists, or whatever name they give their leftism, it’s destroyed them.

These modern leftist women are not the people who got the vote 100 years ago. They have become a different creature altogether, and not the kind that should be trusted anywhere near power.

I’ve been aware for some time that there’s something wrong with women on the left. The evidence is all around us. Let me just throw some names and some videos at you with examples of women who are paranoid, hate-filled, and often demented (not that I’m judging):

Nancy Pelosi

Maxine Waters

Michelle Obama

Ilhan Omar

Rashida Tlaib

Ayanna Pressley

Barbra Streisand


Alyssa Milano

Greta Thunberg

The woman with the mace can:

These alleged “moms”:

This earnest protester:

The young women described in an article about uber-leftist Macalester University in St. Paul, Minnesota:

The claim that women and POCs (people of color) are unwelcome at Macalester is, of course, absurd. The college’s student body is 60 percent women, and in 2019-20, four of the student government executive board’s five members were “women of color.” “Diversity, equity and inclusion” permeate every aspect of college life. But where zealotry rules, facts are of no importance.

Not surprisingly, during the 2019-20 school year, the most powerful student at Macalester was student body president Blair Cha, a “woman of color.” In her campaign, Cha traded on her alleged underdog status, telling the Mac Weekly she was driven to run by her “passion”
to “empower students” by “speaking up about her experiences” as someone with a “marginalized” identity. She trounced her white male opponent with 60 percent of the vote.

After her victory, Cha made a play to upgrade her victim status. At a faculty meeting in March 2020, she stood up—surrounded by sign-waving female students—and accused one of her professors of discrimination on the basis of “gender, race, ethnicity and national origin in the classroom.” During the nine-month Title IX investigation that had followed her original accusation in Spring 2019, she said, “I struggled every day with extreme anxiety to the point where I could not stand the pain.”

The professor, who had already been officially exonerated, responded that Cha had breached a confidentiality agreement by discussing the matter publicly. He characterized her conduct as “totally beyond the pale.”

Cha’s inability to highlight real injustice during her run for office reveals how slim the pickings really are at Macalester. In an interview with the Mac Weekly, here’s the best she could do: “On the whole campus, it still feels uncomfortable to talk about intersectional topics such as menstruation, being queer, being a POC, etc., at Macalester.” As a result, she said, she had become a leader in initiatives like “Better Sex at Mac” (Title IX, “sexual violence”) and “the Menstrual Hygiene Project” (free menstrual supplies as a human right).

Incidentally, “menstrual health”— or “menstrual equity”—is now one of the hottest social justice issues on American campuses. Its appeal may arise from its combination of two intersecting “woke” causes: feminism and Green activism.

At Macalester, student Miriam Eide, a “Zero Waste Project Coordinator” in the college’s Sustainability Office, was a leader in the menstrual equity project. “I know we have free tampons, but why don’t we have free menstrual cups, too?” Eide said in a Mac Weekly interview in November 2019. She decided to use menstrual cups from OrganiCup, a “sustainability-focused company,” noting “they had a lot less waste in their packaging.” She dubbed the project “SustainaCup.

“OrganiCups are reusable, vegan and cruelty-free, and they are made completely out of hypoallergenic, medical-grade silicone,” according to the Mac Weekly. (You can’t make this up.) “Health and inclusivity are also very important parts of the program,” the paper noted, adding that according to Eide, “a lot of people struggle with the chemicals in tampons.”

By the way, the word “woman” does not appear in the Mac Weekly article about SustainaCup. These menstrual products, it seems, are not for women, but for “people that have periods.” Presumably, it’s important not to exclude “trans women.”

Sadly, the examples above are just a select few of the seemingly infinite number of instances in which women, mostly young, but some old enough to know better, have embraced a purely emotional, logic-free world. In this world, they are perpetual victims, they make cause with others they deem victims, and their power lies in lies. (Not a typo; I meant that wordplay.)

Churchill figured out the problem over 100 years ago. I say this based upon my reading Churchill: Walking with Destiny, by Andrew Roberts. I recommend it. It’s a highly readable look at the most brilliant and amazing man of the modern era.

As I read the book, I was struck by something Churchill wrote when he was a young man in India, in the 1890s. At the time, he was studying everything he could get his hands on to grow in wisdom and prepare himself for a career in politics. He was also jotting down the ideas that would shape him in the decades ahead.

Although surprisingly modern in many ways, Churchill shared the values of the late-Victorian era in which he lived. One of those was that he believed women should not vote. (He later changed his mind about this and was supportive of women in politics.)

The fascinating thing about Churchill’s view was that he did not object for the usual reasons. That is, he wasn’t saying that women were not constitutionally or intellectually suited for the vote. He didn’t talk about women’s sphere being in the home. He didn’t say it would make them less feminine.

Instead, Churchill had a very pragmatic concern about the women’s vote. As Robert’s writes, quoting Churchill, “‘If you give women votes you must ultimately allow women to sit as members of Parliament,’ after which inevitably ‘all power passes to their hands.'”

That’s what we’re seeing now. Democrat power is passing to women’s hands, and it’s an ugly business. They shield themselves defensively behind their femininity, as AOC did when Rep. Yoho allegedly spoke to her as he would to a man (and I believe him when he says he didn’t), but they fight offensively like rabid honey badgers. They use their femininity to pervert everything they touch, even while claiming to disdain being treated differently because they’re women.

Looking at the Democrat party, one can’t help feeling that the young Churchill was right and that the 19th Amendment was a mistake. I’m trying to come up with some sort of weird female corollary to Lord Acton’s expression that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Something along the line of “If you give a woman a vote, just wait a hundred years and watch that power cause the brains of her descendants on the left to dissolve into appalling, hysterical, ignorant, hate-filled, manipulative, mean-spirited anti-American mush.” Something like that….

(This is one of those ideas that’s haunting me and that I’m developing and refining as I go. Expect to see more of it in later posts.)

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

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

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

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” “ – Sheila Cronin, leader of the feminist organization NOW

“The haste and vehemence with which scores of Duke University professors publicly took sides against the students in this case is just one sign of how deep the moral dry rot goes, in even our most prestigious institutions.We have become a society easily stampeded, even by the unsubstantiated, inconsistent and mutually contradictory statements of a woman with a criminal record.

All it takes is something that invokes the new holy trinity of the intelligentsia — “race, class and gender.” The story of a black woman gang-raped by white men fit the theme so compellingly that much of the media had no time to waste trying to find out if it was true before going ballistic.” – Thomas Sowell on the Duke Lacrosse rape case.

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” – Susan Brownmiller, noted feminist authoress and academic.

Stately McDaniel Manor

This week’s winning essay,Stately McDaniel Manor’s Campus Rape And Social Justice: All Men Are Rapists . He gives us a clear look at what’s really behind the ‘epidemic’ in campus rape. Here’s a slice:

Rape is among the most turbulent issues on college campuses these days. If social justice warriors–Progressives–are to be believed, the incidence of rape on campus has reached epidemic levels. They proclaim that 20-25% of college women will be raped during their time on campus, and some claim the numbers of victims are even higher.

This is, of course, nonsense, and no extensive, multi-year studies are required to prove it. If valid, reproducible research revealed that whenever a car was started, there was a 25% chance it would explode, who would dare drive? If anyone truly believed that 25% of all women attending college would be raped, what father would send his daughter to college? Which young woman would voluntarily set foot on a campus, particularly knowing that most are victim disarmament zones?

Even so, the battle rages, yet it is an old battle. It is not a battle for the prosecution of actual criminals, nor is it a battle for public safety. As always, it’s a battle of the culture wars; the ultimate prize: ultimate political power.

In this particular battle, conservatives fight for the rule of law–equal justice for all. This requires that people that actually commit rapes be prosecuted and convicted. It also requires that anyone accused of rape–or any crime–be afforded all of the protections of the Constitution, including the rights to counsel, and due process. For conservatives, it goes without saying that actual rape victims must be protected and given all reasonable aid and support. That’s just part of the rule of law, of common decency.

Progressives, however, have different objectives, particularly where alleged rape on campus is concerned. They fight for progressive outcomes, victim empowerment, and documenting large numbers of rapes, which gives them political power to agitate for other progressive goals. Their ideology, their narrative, requires every “victim” be absolutely believed in every particular, regardless of evidence. Evidence is very much beside the point; they have no intention of prosecuting rapists. They only need men to be proclaimed rapists and expelled from schools. This allows them to validate the narrative of 25% of college women being raped, which gives them more political power to persecute “rapists,” which continues the cycle, resulting in political power and control of others. The law and the Constitution are meaningless to them, actual impediments to their desired outcomes.

It is important to also keep in mind that a substantial, perhaps defining current in feminist theory as taught and practiced at universities is that all men are rapists. Some feminist professor/theorists and pundits go so far as to preach that even consensual intercourse is rape, and women that enjoy it simply aren’t sufficiently evolved to understand their oppression and degradation.

And speaking of degradation, the media are always delighted to support the social justice narrative, because it’s their narrative. Consider this from Mary Katherine Ham regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, where ridiculously false accusations of rape were ultimately exposed:

New York Times Public Editor Dan Okrent diagnosed the media coverage of the case in the documentary as journalists excited to find all their pet social-justice issues in one story.

‘It was white over black, it was male over female, it was rich over poor, educated over uneducated. All the things that we know happen in the world coming together in one place and journalists, they start to quiver with a thrill when something like this happens,’ Okrent said.

And it was all a lie, all of it; from the first moment, and to this day, the media have learned nothing. Few, if any, have actually apologized for or retracted their false Duke coverage, and after viewing a contemporary documentary that exposed the Duke hysteria for what it was:

Ten years later, despite a recent lesson in humility with the Rolling Stone UVA rape story, some of that grudging tone remains, as in Slate’s write-up on the documentary: “[I]t’s a bizarre experience to watch a documentary that expects the viewer to root for a bunch of accused rapists.

What’s bizarre is a refusal to admit that the accused Lacrosse players were so blameless, the state’s Attorney General took the unprecedented step of publicly declaring them to be innocent. Not only was there insufficient evidence to link them to any rape, not only was there no such evidence, there was voluminous evidence to prove their innocence. For example, at the time of the supposed rape, one of the defendants was a mile away using an ATM, as time-stamped video footage proved. As for the rest, there was not a molecule of DNA evidence, a fact the prosecutor and DNA lab tried to hide.

In that case, the rule of law was vindicated, and innocent men were able, at horrific cost, to prove themselves innocent. Ultimately the right outcome, but not quite the way our system of justice is supposed to work. For social justice warriors, the outcome, and the fact that the Lacrosse players retained lawyers, was abhorrent. In one case, we see the stunning differences between the rule of law and social justice.

The invaluable Ashe Schow has done important work exposing the sordid motives of the social justice movement in persecuting young men. She reports on a new document that epitomizes the social justice perspective, The Blueprint For Campus Police: Responding to Sexual Assault, out of the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Austin:

A new ‘victim-centered, trauma-informed’ approach to handling campus sexual assault appears at first glance to be an improvement on the current model of allowing campus administrators to play police, judge, jury and executioner. But look deeper into the new guidelines and one will see that this is far from an improvement and more an attempt to railroad accused students while looking impartial.

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, we had a tie, which I had to break as per our bylaws. It was between Bearing Arms Second Amendment as Second-Class Right? A Dismal Warningsubmitted by The Daley Gator, a fine essay by Bob Owens about dangers to our Second Amendment rights and Michael Totten’sPutin Declares Victory in Syria submitted by Joshuapundit, a piece well up to Totten’s high standards as he discusses recent developments in Syria.

I liked both articles but decided to defer to the Bearing Arms piece on this one.

Here are this week’s full results. Nice Deb, The Daley Gator and GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD were unable to vote this week but none were affected by the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

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

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

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

View original: 

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

Article written by: Tom White

I Will Not Vote in This Primary for Marco Rubio (or John Kasich)

I am truly undecided this election.  I am almost ready out of frustration to vote a protest vote for Governor Jim Gilmore.  But one person I will not – cannot vote for – is Senator Marco Rubio.  Trying to wrap himself in the Reagan mantle, Rubio is no Reagan.

Rubio already stated he approved of President Bush (43) going to war to enforce United Nations resolutions in Iraq.

Rubio also objected to (in the South Carolina debate) the Syria Obama resolution not because it is none of our business but because it did not do enough to take out the Assad regime (and he cited as truthful the allegation that Syria used chemical weapons on the rebels) – that is not a Reagan solution.

In the debate last evening on Libya (from this text):

RUBIO: Yes, a couple of points. Number one, on the Libya situation, we didn’t topple Gadhafi, the Libyan people toppled Gadhafi. The only choice before America that this president had to make is, does it happen quickly or does it take a long time?

And I argued if it takes a long time, you’re going to have rebel forces emerge like these radical Islamists to take advantage of the vacuum. And that’s what happened. That’s where the term “lead from behind” came. And that’s the foreign policy that apparently Senator Cruz appears to agree with.

Meddling!  More meddling!  NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!  And it seems Rubio was against drafting women and for it at the same time:

He’s previously said Selective Service should be opened up to women, but on Friday Marco Rubio said he was against drafting women into combat.

“I do not support drafting women and forcing them to be combat soldiers. I don’t support that. I never have and I don’t now,’ Rubio said at the Faith and Family Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.

Rubio’s words had social media abuzz — many accusing him of flip-flopping — given the response he gave to a question on Selective Service at the ABC News debate just a week ago.

“I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a draft is ever instituted,” he told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz in Manchester, New Hampshire.

I cannot imagine Ronald Reagan would be for this.  No, Senator Rubio is a neocon.  I am tired of meddling wars under the guise of “American leadership in the world”; not every nation thinks US leadership in the world.  Ask a Serb.

I am agonizing over this vote.  I think the best one in the race is Dr. Ben Carson and I’ll decide Monday if I will vote for him or another candidate.  But it won’t be Senator Rubio.  (It also won’t be Governor Kasich for this in the last debate where is wanted to also support the Syrian rebels – after he said he did not like civil wars in the SC debate):

KASICH: There’s something — I want to — I want to point out something here today that is — it’s so critically important — about how the Obama administration has really done such a ridiculous, feckless job here in foreign policy.

First of all, we should have been supporting the rebels long ago. They could have taken Assad out, and because we did nothing, the Russians are in, and they’re sitting in the catbird seat.

We should have been helping them. I’m thankful that the aid trucks are finally getting into Syria. But the fact is, had we had acted, we would have solved that problem.

I have issue with Donald Trump but he at least called out the Bush failed policies in the SC debate.  Just remember who said it first – the other great Ronald:  Dr. Ron Paul.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Barbaric Idea: Women Have to Register for the Draft

I cannot believe it:  Bush, Rubio and Christie all indicated in the GOP NH debate that they favored requiring women to register for the military draft:

Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie indicated support for opening Selective Service up to women in case the draft is ever reinstated, the three Republicans said Saturday.

“I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised,” Rubio said. “I support that. Now that that is the case, I do believe Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in the case a draft is ever instituted.”

Bush made it a point to note that there is no draft currently, but did say “I do, I do,” when asked if young women should be required to sign up for Selective Service.

“The draft’s not going to be reinstituted,” he said.

Pressed by host Martha Raddatz, Bush replied: “We don’t have a draft, I’m not suggesting we have a draft,” but he is focused on military readiness and high morale, and has no objection to women serving in combat roles.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie didn’t directly express his views on requiring women to register for the Selective Service, but said more broadly, “There’s no reason why one young woman should be discriminated against for registering for the Selective Service.”

I’m done with all three of those candidates for the primary.  I can assure you if young women – mothers especially – get required to register for the draft – I’ll find every appropriate and legal way to peacefully protest this barbaric outrage.  I’ll hit the streets.  Be the world’s oldest hippie.  This country MUST NOT send women to war.  It is because of Jeb Bush’s brother that we have women and even mothers being deployed to what was in effect combat roles.  But at least those ladies chose to join the armed forces.  But it was not right.  Not to meddle in other people’s business.  Not to build nations.

But a draft is different:  it’s involuntary.  There should not even be a draft unless there is a clearly declared war and imminent danger to the United States.  Not to do good or to stop alleged genocide or to build nations and other meddling (That ought to cover all the wars since 1992 we have been in with the possible exception of Afghanistan but we expanded that mission beyond what was necessary); if we draft women, this may force the people to consider if these wars are worth it.  But too often war gets started by Presidents and Congress does nothing – gave no approval – will not stop it – and these wars are not in our interest.  And women will be drafted and serve in combat involuntarily.

There was one candidate who said no:  Ted Cruz.

“The idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think, is wrong,” Cruz told a crowd –unprompted – at a campaign rally. “It is immoral. And if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

Cruz is right.  It is immoral.  It’s barbaric.  And two REPUBLICAN Congressmen have actually introduced a bill to REQUIRE women to register for the draft:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., a retired Navy SEAL, filed the Draft American’s Daughters Act to stoke debate over the military’s historic move to fully integrate female troops into all combat roles. If passed, women from 18-26 years old would for the first time have to join men in registering with the Selective Service program and potentially be forced to fight in future wars.

If you live in the district if either of these representatives (who I think did it to start a debate rather than because they favor it but a bill is a bill and it could pass in spite of them!) tell them:  NO DRAFT FOR WOMEN.  Period.  No compromise here.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Forum: Have Relationships Between Men And Women Changed For The Worse?

Every week on Monday morning , 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: Has The Relationship Between Men And Women Changed For The Worse?

The Razor : Feminism once meant equality between the sexes. It has long since devolved into man-hatred, with women portraying men as sexual predators incapable of reaching maturity with psychopathic tendencies. In the process they have recreated a neo-Victorian sexual paradigm where women are too weak and feeble and must be protected from men, their ideas and thoughts as well as their sexuality. I half expect feminist college professors to faint at the next microaggression. Thirty years ago I thought college age women were neurotic. Today I think they are absolutely insane.

Being the gatekeepers of sexuality has traditionally elevated women’s worth, forcing men of that age to put up with a lot of hassle. Fortunately today there are more distractions that compete for men’s attention, putting a limit to the amount of trouble they are willing to put up with in order to have sex. To put it bluntly, women are in danger of pricing themselves out of the market.

I once thought that because of the innate inequality of sexual desire shared between the sexes that men would always be dependent on women. But thanks to technology I see men growing independent from women to a degree that I once didn’t believe possible. And I’m also seeing women react in surprising ways to this change in the balance of power between the two sexes.

In all likelihood the spasms of feminist dystopia we are witnessing on today’s campuses and among the liberal elites will settle down and the he-ing and she-ing that has characterized our species since its inception will continue unabated. But if it doesn’t, women will stand to suffer more than they expect as men decide their crazy, self-contradicting controlling desires are simply not worth the trouble. Bring on the replicants!

The Independent Sentinel : Since the sixties, I’ve watched the man-hating feminists demean men. I won’t negate the fact that they have helped raise the status of women, but they’ve also elevated them to the point that they are encouraged to kill their babies at any time up to the moment of birth because it’s their bodies. In the process of boosting women, they’ve used the tactic of belittling men and attacking them as aggressors to win their points.

The left today includes both men and women putting men down. Women are seen beating up the bad guys while men are too often portrayed as weak or looking like Pajama Boy or walking around with orange hair and crashing into cars in Foster Child commercials. Aggressive sports are on the ropes and football players are portrayed as more violent than the other men though research proves it’s not true.

Older men and women appear to have great relationships in this country but I don’t know what the situation is going to be for the new generation. I will say, however, that women need to get ahead on their own merits, not because of preferential treatment, lies about their abilities, and degradation of men.

The Glittering Eye: I don’t find the Forum format conducive to long-form, citation-filled responses. Maybe I’ll write a post on this subject. I’ll just jot down a few quick thoughts.

I’m an empirical kind of guy and, if there’s empirical evidence that men and women are happier and better off, that their relationships are happier, longer, and more satisfied, and that children are being reared in more loving and secure environments than was the case 50 years ago, I have yet to see it. Over that period marriage rates have waned, divorce rates have risen, and the proportion of children being reared in homes with both of their biological parents has fallen to levels unparalleled in American history if not in human history as well.

Increasingly, men are becoming dispensable. A relative handful of elite women may wield more power and influence and reap more wealth than ever before but by far the greater number of women are being left to rear children alone.

You can change the laws. You can change the expectations. You can’t change millions of years of human physical and social evolution in a few years or even in a few generations. Is it any wonder that suicide rates have risen?

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : We know it to be true that for a society to survive we must first start with a secure family unit consisting of a father and a mother raising their children together; providing for them and teaching them morals and values and how to be productive members of society.

I really feel sorry for the youth today growing up exposed to progressive indoctrination especially when it comes to the male/female relationship. While the majority of children in the past grew up secure in their sexual identities, today the emphasis is on the aberrant among them. Our children are being taught at a very early age that there are all types of sexual preferences and all of them are acceptable. They encourage self-exploration at very early ages. It’s almost as if the majority of people, the heterosexuals, should NOT be the preferable choice. All this is doing is causing the lines to be blurred and creating uncertainty in our children. Like so much of the progressive agenda, uncertainty is the key to indoctrination and the younger the child the easier it is to shape and mold their morals and values.

Relationships today must be very difficult for young adults, given all of the information they are being fed from their progressive teachers and the media. However, I believe most of them will follow the traditional route and find a mate and settle down and raise their families. After all, we are hard wired to do so. Indoctrination will never be able to change human physiology.

JoshuaPundit : Ah, the prog fascist model! Remember ‘Julia,’ the character in that famous Obama ad? Something that immediately struck me and that I haven’t heard mentioned anywhere else was that there is another famous ‘Julia’ who was used as a model for cradle to grave government control of a woman’s life. She appears in Orwell’s 1984 and like her lover, Winston Smith is crushed by the State and condemned to live a loveless, lonely life afterwards.

Many women in America used to meet their spouses at school or at work. Today, most sane young men wouldn’t dream of asking anyone they work with or go to school with out on a date. All it takes is a malicious accusation of ‘sexual assault’ and they face expulsion or being fired. The risks are simply too high.

A lot of the young women who revel in this ‘victory’ will end up a lot like Julia in their mid to late thirties..unloved, miserable, childless and wondering where all the good men have gone to.

Lots of men are rethinking things too. After being demonized from that first day in kindergarten by the very society they helped to build and make a much more safe and pleasant place for women, an increasing number of them are choosing to avoid marriage and hold on to their adolescence as long as possible. Or they’re looking for wives elsewhere. As one of them put it, your children and 2/3 of your earnings is too high a price to pay for the privilege of seeing the average American girl naked.

Some bright spots – while the current laws and the culture being pushed today is designed to eliminate till-death-do-us-part marriage entirely, it persists stubbornly the among more traditional cultures in America, especially where religion is a factor. And those families are the ones having most of the children in America today. And there is also this. When times get hard, people tend to flush the sophistries of the Left and return to the traditions of the past. Marriage rates shot up during Great Depression.

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: Have Relationships Between Men And Women Changed For The Worse?

Article written by: Tom White

President Obama Embraces Climate Change Hoax

This week, 195 nations participate in a Global Climate Change Summit in Paris, France to combat “man-made global warming” by virtue of the production of Greenhouse Gases. Man-made Global Warming, just like its parent Man-Made Global Cooling, it’s brother Climate Change, its’ sister Climate Disruption, and their dog Climate Wierding, are all members of the Hoax Family. A scam invented to grant government more regulatory access to global business and global financial infrastructure. There are piles of data supporting “climate change” and there are even more piles of data demonstrating it to be an international hoax of unprecedented proportions.

Do your own research and make your own conclusions; but as for me, I am convinced that these 195 nations are led by the most corrupt, nefarious, power-hungry, and greedy governments comprised of petulant political tyrants and wannabe tyrants, who themselves have not and cannot produce anything of value on Earth. These governments are trying to manufacture a pseudo-science religion from which they, and only they, benefit from radically increased powers that they, and only they, shall grant upon themselves.

As the threat of liberty, freedom of information, and freedoms of communication grow, these governments seek to tighten their grip on business and technology, on information, and ultimately intend to ensure an end to our dreams of privacy and free enterprise.

It is impossible for me to believe that all those countries and all these governments really believe in Global Warming. They haven’t been scammed. They are scamming. Every day I lose more respect for the leaders of the land, as I listen to them lie and defraud a Republic they’ve sworn to protect and defend. These are not serious men and women ruling us. They just so happen to be elite proprietors of a kind of corruption conducive to modern tyranny. This global warming hoax is theater for the people, the masses, the useful idiots who out of fear will exchange their liberty for protection from some environmental apocalypse.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Barack Obama, President of the United States, and Leader of the Free World:

Yes. If you’re cringing in shame, in embarrassment, and in humiliation, I feel your pain. Al Gore got rich advocating this hoax. Obama lacks such a noble motive as personal greed. This fraud isn’t a sword or any kind of blunt instrument for our Dear Leader, but a bomb… tens of thousands of bombs to drop upon what he perceives as the evil of Capitalism.

I have a litmus test of sorts, which I use to discern good faith intellectualism from reckless pseudo-religious fraud. Anyone who believes in Man-Made Climate change and who also supports this Climate Change agenda, I reject as a character come in bad faith. I don’t feel this way about any other issue, because on almost every other issue, I can at least empathize with, if not rationally understand, a persons perspective. But these Chicken Little’s – these End-Times false prophets, are creatures of a kind I cannot respect.

Any politician that wants to ensure they never get my vote, regardless of the stakes, need to do but one thing: to profess to believe in Man-Made Global Warming. I’m sorry, it’s a deal breaker.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!!

It’s time once again for the Watcher’s Council’s ‘Weasel Of The Week’ nominations, where we pick our choices to compete for the award of the famed Golden Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations!

Here are this weeks’ nominees….

Blah Blah Blah Bill Gates, Global Warming Groupie!!

The Noisy Room : My nomination this week goes to Bill Gates and his carbon tax scam. He wants to spend $2 billion of his own money on it as an investment. That should tell you something. His says the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to get the job done. Bill Gates is not a socialist… he’s a fascist. My husband and I have been in computers forever. We know how Gates got his start. He did write some innovative code, but that’s not how he got where he is today. He did it by standing on the works of others and using people. Global warming, climate change does not exist. It is a monstrous hoax that fiends manipulate and the weak minded flock to. The only one that benefits from government funded technologies in that arena is Bill Gates, who stands to make an ever greater fortune off the misery of others, just as he does in Common Core. The private sector is not inept… capitalism is what grew this nation and entrepreneurship and capitalism is what will save it. Not socialism or more accurately, communism. Gates is a monster who must not prevail.

Gates is a criminal… a very wealthy, elitist one. Anyone who listens to him and follows him is making a serious mistake. He’s for eugenics, for Common Core, for climate change and for a one world government. Under what Gates proposes, we would be taxed into utter submission to the federal and global governments. There would be no free market… no chance to rise up and succeed just as Gates has. That door would be forever shut. He is touting the removal of the Constitution and our freedoms, so that the State may be enabled and put in control. If you oppose him, you are ill-informed and a moron. Listen to the man carefully; he does not hide what he is doing. What saddens and angers me are the many who seem to buy into Gates’ hogwash and follow him blindly. He has his own liberal lynch mob, that given half the chance would imprison and ‘re-educate’ those who disagree with him. Whatever you do, do not follow the Pied Piper of Tech.
CNBC’s Faux ‘Journalist’ Carl Quintanilla!

Fausta’s Blog: Carl Quintanilla, who came up with “”Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?”‘
On the bright side, it gave Cruz an opening for the best line of the night.
The View’s Whoopi Goldberg, Famous For Formerly Being Funny!

The Independent Sentinel : Whoopi Goldberg is my weasel of the week.

After the “ladies” of The View insulted Carly Fiorina’s appearance during the debate, she said if she ever gets invited back onto the show, she’d like to see if they’d say that to her face.

Well, apparently, the catty women on The View didn’t like being called out for being rude. They invited Carly back on Friday and she’s going, but Whoopi, who won’t be present on Friday, took the coward’s way out and insulted her during Monday’s show.

Whoopi Goldberg said the “ladies” of The View raised Carly’s standing and then she actually said that Carly needs to learn when someone is coming for her, someone is paying her a compliment or just making an observation.

Hey, Whoopi, you are demented looking. I’m just making an observation!

Aren’t they the ones who said Trump shouldn’t insult people? Only they can insult people I guess.

I think the “ladies” have gone mad. They are giving women a bad name.

They are the war on women.

Well, there it is.

What a despicable group of Weasels…ANY OF THEM COULD WIN! Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!

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?

Visit site:

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!!

Article written by: Tom White

Gay Marriage gives us an Opportunity – Reform our Domestic Relations Law in Virginia!

While I do not approve of how gay marriage was given to us – it was clear judicial activism – I think we should now embrace the decision without delay or evasion.  (I said years ago what should have been done and we can still do it!)

In fact, let’s take a page from the Saul Alinsky book for a change:  Use the crisis of gay marriage to reform the other end of the marriage issue:  Divorce laws.  In the Commonwealth they are a disaster.  Let me state the reasons (Actually I did soin 1989!):

  • Long separation periods to get divorced.
  • Appeals from the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court to Circuit Court when means a new trial on all issues.
  • Jurisdictional burdens to even go to court (you need in most cases six months to live in VA to even file).
  • Adultery and other fault grounds can bar alimony for the offending spouse.
  • Spousal support ought to be limited to extraordinary situations or temporary ones such as getting a degree.
  • Child support could be collected like spousal abuse – swear out a warrant – but ability to pay ought to be a constitutionally required consideration.  I am not wholly sold on that but needs study.
  • Maybe visitation, too but I am not sure again – needs study.
  • More forms for uncontested divorces even in circuit court.

There might have to be some tweaking of this platform and maybe some additions.  I think we already have a transitional statute to ensure gays access to the courts.  This is what I call the “he is she and she is he” statute (Code 1-216):

“A word used in the masculine includes the feminine and neuter.”

No need to change “husband” and “wife” for “spouse” except perhaps on forms (“Husband/Spouse” and “Wife/Spouse”) as needed.

My brief review of the divorce laws does not show need for dramatic changes in language other than perhaps the Turley/Sanders formulation:  Take the word marriage out of the code and replace it with domestic partnership or similar term.  I, maybe not Professor Turley, would include a strong protection for religious freedom.

So, let’s go and get these ideas out there.  Study them.  Virginia’s divorce laws favor men and the rich.  They act as a gigantic wheel to hurt women and the poor.  Let’s use this crisis to reform the laws and maybe some suburban women we scared away with the unconstitutional Terri Schiavo act will come back to the Republican Party.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Hysteria is Dangerous: Dealing with Liberal Fantasy

We’ve all had a great deal of fun at the expense of liberals these last few weeks. We’ve got men who think they are women (transgender), and white women who think they are black women (transracial), and even people who self-identify with other species. The ridiculousness of it all begins with the liberal intelligentsia praising people for living out what is essentially their own personal fantasy-lives.

The mocking came quickly and often. Rush Limbaugh referred to himself as self-identifying as a skinny person, demanding to be treated as such. Zach Werrell took a shot at the Jebster, referring to him as a Transconservative. We can elaborate on this epidemic of intellectual dishonesty stalking our country.

Women who demand to be treated like princesses? Transroyalty. There are no more narcissists with a god-complex, they are simply transdiety. Self-identify as a snowflake? Then you are transmolecular. The jokes can go on and on.

dolezalThe trouble is the root of all this nonsense. The modern American, liberals in particular, suffer from a severe emotional and intellectual detachment from reality. They believe it is courageous to pretend to be something you are not, essentially, indulging in ones’ own fantasy life, and requiring the rest of society to go along with it, and to approve. This is hysteria; and hysteria is dangerous. Any perspective that is completely disconnected from reality is dangerous and no one should be celebrating individual or mass delusion or hysteria.

If the media can get us to accept men pretending to be women or whites pretending to be black, then they can get us to accept just about anything. If individuals have no objective, principled perception of “reality”, then their minds are susceptible to any strain of thought, regardless how ridiculous, false, or warped that strain of thought might be.

The powerful, who are seeking weak-minded herd-mentalities, are always testing us to see just how ridiculous of a lie they can get us to buy into – Man-Made Global Warming is a great example. There is zero evidence supporting this fantasy and mountains of evidence demonstrating the fraudulent research that has gone into this lie. Corporate boondoggle after corporate boondoggle related to “green energy” demonstrates that this isn’t some ideological movement. It’s about power and money.

Taxes improve the economy? Here is another fantasy they try to lay at the feet of fools. Welfare works? Social Security is sustainable? You didn’t build that? You can keep your doctor?

thebruceWe live in an overly political society governed by dishonesty and fantasy, and the shame of it all is that all this chaos only exists because we allow it to exist. So insecure about our own understanding of reality, we constantly defer to the fantasies of others. Inside our hearts and minds, we know the prevalent world views are all balderdash, but we want to tolerate other world views. We have succumbed to multiculturalism and egalitarianism. If someone uses the word equality in an argument, we feel compelled to accept it or to keep our objections quiet. Why?

Each of you are capable of knowing what is true and what is false. Each of you are capable of recognizing contradictions and since contradictions do not exist, when you discover one, you know at least one of your premises are false! You guys know the difference between right and wrong, but the world wants nothing more than for you to shut up about it. Why? Because if no one is allowed to call right right and wrong wrong, then there will be no one to stand up against the wrong, against the ridiculous, against the hysterical, against the deluded.

Don’t give in. There is nothing wrong with objecting to untruth, to dishonesty, to fallacy, to poor reasoning, to fantasy, or to hysteria.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker