A Little Israeli Humor....

Thomas Perez As New DNC Head And What It Really Means

The Democrats, after a fairly strident campaign voted for former Obama Deputy Attorney General and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez over Rep.Keith Ellison (D-MN) to head the Democrat National Committee(DNC).

As I pointed out elsewhere, there was very little ideological difference between Perez and Ellison. it was always really a matter of style, backers and ethnicity. In fact, Perez immediately appointed Keith Ellison as his Assistant DNC head. Sorry, Alan Dershowitz. You can stay Democrat, but it's still the new home of anti-semitism and you and other Jews of your persuasion had best get used to that.

I've already examined in detail Keith Ellison's record of racism, anti-semitism and his connections with the Nation of Islam as well as Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee(MPAC) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. He's also anti-Israel and a serious Marxist who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and is on record as&supporting reparations for black Americans and an all-black, geographically self-contained U.S. “homeland.”

Thomas Perez is cut out of exactly the same cloth with a couple of important difference. While Keith Ellison favored a more in your face activist style, Perez is more of a sleazy, backroom type of operator. WikiLeaks revealed quite a bit about him. He openly colluded with the Clinton campaign and the DNC to destroy Bernie Sanders and rig the game for Hillary. During the 2016 DNC primary, Perez e-mailed John Podesta and encouraged the Clinton campaign to paint Sanders as a “candidate of whites” in order to discourage non-whites from voting for him. And there's a lot more.

Thomas Perez has a long history of being one of the Obama Administration's loyal courtiers and soldiers. Keith Ellison, by contrast, is an outsider championed by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. While Ellison ended up being second in command as a sop to the Democrat's über-progressives, picking Thomas Perez is a clear signal that the Democrats are still Obama's party. Many of the insiders who voted for DNC head understood that and followed his orders.

Another aspect of this is ethic. Obama figures that the black constituency and their votes are the property of the Democrat Party. They feel that they don't have to do much to get black votes. That demographic can largely be ignored, and even though some blacks have figured this out, many have not. The real target now for the Democrats is Latinos. And as such, some of their issues will be illegal migrants, fighting voter ID laws, redistricting and amnesty. There are some major flaws in this strategy, but I digress. Meanwhile Perez has already started to implement this, calling the Trump administration racist and a "return to Jim Crow' here at the Latino Political Power Summit today:



Muslims are another new target demographic, and as we'll see, aside from their obvious joy in Keith Ellison's high position in the DNC, expect CAIR and similar Islamist groups to celebrate Tom Perez's election as DNC head.He's been a firm and valuable ally in the past.

As assistant attorney general, Tom Perez was Eric Holder's point man at the Department of Justice when it came to assisting and protecting Islamists. It was Perez who bullied various communities in the American heartland to ignore their own zoning laws and permit the building of huge, foreign funded mega-mosques.

At one point, President Obama in connivance with our Department of Justice were working on a way to defy the First Amendment and make criticism of Islam illegal with EU-style hate speech laws. Again, Tom Perez was working with Obama and Eric Holder to flesh this out until the expected 2012 Democrat majorities in congress failed to materialize. Watch this weasel in action:



Perez also had a hand in working up the DOJ's disinclination to prosecute motion that let the leaders of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups off the hook from being jailed for material aid to terrorism.

Perez is also a racialist, as you may have gathered  from his email suggesting  demonizing Bernie Sanders as "the candidate of whites."

He's on record as saying that voting rights don't apply to whites.

An investigation into Perez by the DOJ's Inspector General revealed extreme views he holds according to A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division conducted by the Office of the Inspector General Oversight and Review Division in March of 2013.

Perez told investigators that white people were not entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act according to a report from the Washington Free Beacon:

CRT AAG Perez stated that interpreting Section 5’s retrogressive-effects standard to not cover White citizens was consistent with the Division’s longstanding practice, as well as case law interpreting the provision and the intent behind its enactment… Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term ‘minority’ to mean not numerical minority but rather ‘an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.

Perez told the investigators that applying Voter protection laws to whites would be too 'complicated':

According to Perez, applying Section 5’s retrogressive-effect protections to White citizens would create ‘dramatic complications’ … noting that ‘many voting changes … will almost always have some racial effect in some direction,’ and if the retrogressive-effect standard protects everyone, then virtually no proposed voting changes would ever be approved.

In other words, if the New Black Panther Party wants to intimidate white people attempting to vote, no biggee.And Thomas Perez had a part in that one too, reportedly lying to congress under oath according to  J. Christian Adams, then an attorney in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

There's more I could mention, but this gives you an idea of who Thomas Perez is and how he operates. Yes, this is a move by Obama to continue to control the Democrat Party as opposed to the Bernie faction, but the Bernie faction still has a prominent seat at the table. And the Democrats see their future success in intensifying the 'Resistance' inflating racial grievance to keep America divided and moving further to the Left.

Forum: Civil War?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! staff, community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Civil War?

 Don Surber: No.

We are a non-military society that freaks at death. Impolitely, we are sissies. I mean, these people cannot handle chalked messages on the sidewalk.

But we are a nation of drama queens as well with the millionaire celebs screaming "The Resistance," even those who sang for Gadhafi and that freak in Uzbekistan who boiled his political opponents. All these brave poodles would cower if there were a fascist. Trump is the anti-fascist. We have not had a president this disinterested in power since Washington. Of course Trump is as Narcissistic as Obama, so I can see how people get confused.

There may be secession. Horace Greeley in 1860 preached, "let them go." But the odds are long.
The best way to avoid a civil war is to have the economy rebound. The last 16 years have been the malaise Carter talked about. Both parties are responsible. Trump's economic policies -- "capitalism"-- should bring the prosperity that calms everyone down.

 Rob Miller : Civil War? Well, maybe. It depends on what you call civil war.

We won't see large battles between  armies commanded by trained professional soldiers, at least not on both sides. Nor will we likely see whole secessionist states involved. Interior California, Washington State east of the mountains, Upstate New York and Southern Illinois are unlikely to go along with the program, to put it mildly.

And the program is important. What's going on now is a fight about the Democrats retaining their political power and a large part of their political base. The last Civil War was about Democrats keeping their slaves. This one is about them keeping a never ending flow of illegal migrants as cheap domestic servants and reliable voters.

If you notice, the actual violence and the most vociferous language is coming from Blue ruled Democrat urban fiefdoms. While the Left might be flooding congressional town halls with paid, organized 'protesters' (the identical, pre-manufactured signs and the trained seal, on cue unison chants are a dead giveaway), most of these people aren't prepared to risk their bodies. It's in places like Ferguson, Baltimore, Berkeley, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles where the more overt, violent stuff is happening. And college campuses. A big reason for this is because sympathetic Democrat politicians  can be relied on to order the police to stand down and limit their response to containment rather than suppression. And also, that's  where the citizens have normally been at least partially (and in the case of campuses totally) disarmed by restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

While that might also occur in urban Democrat enclaves in Red States, it' s less likely because these states tend to have Republican governors who will not put up with violent  civil disturbance, and armed citizens who would take matters into their own hands.

That's what we're more likely to see,  considerable urban violence in the Democrat ruled urban  areas I've mentioned,the late Sixties and early Seventies on steroids. As Napoleon discovered back when he was dealing with violent riots in Paris  for the Directorate, this sort of thing is easily cured by an injection of lead. Not so easily dealt with is lawfare and propaganda,  but  Attorney General Jeff Sessions is likely to do a pretty good job and the first one, and the media themselves have lessened the effect of the second.

Another way to settle things would be to simply arrest politicians who decline to enforce federal law on things like immigration for obstruction of justice. The picture of a couple of Texas Rangers ambling into Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner's office with a warrant for his arrest or the FBI doing the same thing to California Governor Jerry Brown or NYC's Rick De Blasio is both amusing and rather pleasant. Of course, in  the Big Apple, the NYPD would probably be immensely disappointed they didn't get to slap the cuffs on Hizzoner themselves.


Mike McDaniel : The seeds for civil war were sewn when leftists, with national scope and influence, recovered enough from the election of Donald Trump for their burning hatred of the American people and of actual American principles to burn through their disbelief and shock. One can only imagine the screaming obscenities and flying lamps and other furnishings in the environs of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a variety of other criminals when it became apparent there would be a pause in the inevitable march of the progressive vanguard. As Barack would have put it--actually, he probably did--history was on the wrong side of history.

If the left had only done what most other sane Americans do when their candidate loses elections--resolve to do better next time, and work within the parameters of our republican system of government to advocate for their principles in the meantime--all would be well. But this time, things might be different. This time, Mr. Obama promises to lead a leftist opposition, and he has a community organizing cabal ready to lead the oppressed to the promised land.

In the past, Democrats at least tried to hide their disdain and outright hatred for most of America. No longer. They are now advocating “resistance,” disrupting, as a set of new normal tactics, peaceful townhall meetings, and sending paid thugs into protests to beat, burn and destroy property. They have stepped over the line of peaceful, honest protest into conspiracy and organized gang violence. Presumably, Barack Obama and other “leaders” are smart enough--though I wouldn’t bet on it considering their egos--to keep themselves sufficiently removed from active planning and participation in crime, but they need not be directly involved. Their anarchic minions know what is required.

And the media no longer pretends to be objective and professional. The Democrat party might as well be paying their salaries. Oh, there will always be media of a sort, but they are, day by day, damaging their influence. Eventually, enough of the public will turn against them, considering them not merely a deceptive annoyance to be ignored, but agents hostile to America and to the daily interests of Americans. I wouldn’t want to be a reporter when they manage to cement that realization in the minds of the public.

Open warfare now? No. Actual Americans are patient people. They will endure a great deal before taking up arms.

What would it take? America will never allow things to degenerate to the point of California, a pseudo-state wholly owned and ruled by the Democrat Party, with all of its corruption and bizarro world fantasies. In a way, the east and west coasts are a sort of safety valve where Communists, Socialists and other totalitarians can live as they choose. What, one wonders, would life be like for them if everyone that didn’t share their ideology fled to America?

Should lawlessness become too out of control, should progressives ever again seize power and aggressively act--as they surely would--to ensure they would never again lose it, should America be in jeopardy of becoming California, and most of all, when progressives try to seize individually owned arms, as they surely would and must, then would Americans take back America.

To be sure, some federal officers, perhaps even some of our military, would side with leftist leaders in the hope they would end up on the winning side, but most would not. The overwhelming majority of our military members still come from America. Even outside the military, the training, knowledge, ability, and arms necessary to prevail are virtually all on the side of liberty. I’d put one American woman against 20 progressive pajama boys any day. Should that day arrive, the fight would be brief, and those that sided with tyranny would be accorded no mercy. If it ever “progresses” to that level, liberty would be forced to stamp out tyranny for all time, or at least as far as possible.

And all that’s necessary to avoid it is for the left to behave like honest, non-violent citizens of the republic. Hillary Clinton lost. Donald Trump is president. The Democrat ideology has been soundly rejected by most of America. That’s the way democracy works. Shut up, sit down and figure out why and do better next time. Unfortunately, the Democrat party is on the verge, as I write this, of electing a Muslim, anti-semite lunatic and lightweight to lead their party, and they show no sign of abating the deranged hatred they seem to universally feel for most of the American electorate.

They would do well to remember, as the Japanese learned, what happens when the sleeping giant is awakened.

Dave Schuler : I think that unless we're very careful we're headed towards civil war. While it's possible to protest peacefully, it's not possible to guarantee that a protest will remain peaceful. Protests are likely to escalate in the level of violence. That will encourage retaliation if only in self-defense. The largely detached strategy that local police have taken prevents over-reaction but they don't protect the targets of violence.

The opposing sides are too far removed in views and too isolated in geography. There are also too many inherent conflicts in the positions being held by the anti-Trumpers. For example, it is just not pragmatically possible to maintain open borders, the logical conclusion of what passes for an immigration policy among them, and have an expansive welfare state.

Laura Rambeau Lee : The enemies within might want a civil war, but I am afraid they have failed to form a cohesive platform for their supporters to rally around. They have created too many aggrieved categories and classes of people to be able to come together to overthrow anything. They can’t even figure out what sex they are or which bathroom to use… and without firearms it might be a tad difficult to pull off. What the radical left hoped to create were useful idiots but I am afraid there is nothing useful about this millennial generation.

On the other hand, conservatives in this country have become more united and been able to forestall the progressive movement in America. After years of hard work on our part, if our Republican controlled presidency and both houses of Congress fail to deliver on the many promises that got them elected I can see an overthrow of the political elite, although I am not sure how that would play out. Our immediate past presidents, starting with George H.W. Bush (if not before) have advanced the agenda for a global communist New World Order and a free and armed America is the only thing standing in the way of achieving their goal. What will start it will be another collapse of the economy which will be much worse than we saw in 2008. If the economy crashes again all bets are off. Better to be aware and prepared than be caught by surprise.

Well, there it is.

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

Trump Scores At CPAC With A Rousing Speech

Donald Trump visited CPAC this year, and gave a speech that told the CPAC members and America exactly where things are heading. It's definitely worth listening to.

He had a few things to say about the press, emphasizing that there were many honest and hardworking reporters, that he wasn't at war with the press but with fake news...and as we know, there's been a lot of that lately.

A poll conducted by The Washington Times at the conference after the speech found that 86 percent of respondents “strongly or somewhat approve” of the job that Donald Trump is doing as president, compared to just 12 percent who somewhat or strongly disapprove of his work so far. Two percent were unsure.

Admittedly, not the toughest audience he's ever faced but still impressive.

US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley Rips The UNSC's Anti-Israel Bias

 

America's new UN Ambassador Nikki Haley did a press conference after her first UN Security Council meeting, and she had a few things to say about the UN's disgraceful obsession with Israel:



Among other things, she made a point of emphasizing the U.S. alliance with Israel and saying point blank that the U.S. will never repeat "the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334." That of course was Barack Hussein Obama's parting, hateful slap at Israel, his support for a one sided, anti-semitic diktat attempting to sidestep the direct negotiations required by both Oslo and the Road Map, force Israel back to unsafe borders and re-divide Jerusalem.

What Ambassador Haley is doing is putting the UNSC on notice that things have changed in Washington and the days of an anti-Israel administration are over.

An excellent beginning. It's about time.

Milo Yiannopoulos: Once Again, 'Conservatives' Destroy Their Own

 


Milo Yiannopoulos has emerged as one of the Right's most effective spokespeople. He was willing to literally risk his personal safety to journey into the belly of the beast, college campuses and slay the dragons of political correctness, militant second wave feminism, leftist fascism and denial of free speech. He went armed with a keen sense of facts, his hilarious campy gay delivery, a superb sense of humor and the courage to present the truth as he saw it no matter what. He literally made people who aren't usually exposed to non-prog-fascist views take a fresh look at things and change their minds

The Left literally had no defense against him but to use brute force to riot and shut him down.Until now. And as usual, it was so -called 'conservatives' that happily provided the ammo.

 
Ready, aim, fire!

Some Twitter cretins who call themselves 'the Reagan Patrol' unearthed an old video where Milo talked about how coming of age consensual relationships between teen homosexuals of the age of consent and older gays could help them cope with their sexual orientation and deal with things they couldn't discuss at home. He was talking about people in their late teens (in the UK the age of consent is 15, and it's 16 in much of the U.S) but unfortunately used the term 'boys.'  So they were able to use that to frame him as supporting pedophilia.

Milo attempted to explain that he was a sexual abuse victim as a young man of thirteen himself,that he regretted the use of the word 'boys' and that he did NOT support pedophilia.







He certainly had that right. Not only is he an avid Trump supporter, but his success excited envy. So the idiot  'conservatives' had to take him down and went to town with this.

They got Milo disinvited from a speaking engagement from CPAC, and cost him a publishing deal for his upcoming book 'Dangerous' was cancelled by Simon & Schuster.

Today, Milo resigned from his job with Breitbart. Here's what he had to say about it:



And this, remember, is without Milo having done anything at all!

This is exactly why 'conservatism' has accomplished so little in the last thirty years and why the entire brand is rotted to the core. When someone on the Left is found to have been involved in scandal, a sexual predator, a liar or guilty of a crime, the Left don't demonize their own...they circle the wagons around them. Sometimes, they even elect them president or stop them from being impeached. As just one example, an actual self-confessed pedophile like Lena Dunham remains in their good graces. It's conservatives who take delight in the circular fire squad, and Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly the first person to experience this.

Milo says he's going to soldier on, and with his gifts, his courage and his spirit I'm not worried about him. He can self publish his book, put together his own internet platform, even book his own tours. But the Left now has a weapon to use against him they didn't have before to delegitimize him, courtesy of the 'Reagan patrol' and like minded 'conservatives.' Talk about irony...President Reagan was known for his sympathy and tolerance for homosexuals, and he famously said that the 11th commandment is that you don't speak ill of your own.

This kind of stupid is exactly why I haven't considered myself a 'conservative' for some time. I have no desire to be lumped together with a bunch of self destructive fools.

Forum: Who's Your Favorite President?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! staff, community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Who are Your Favorite Presidents?

Fausta : George Washington: Brave, learned, tall, rich, good-looking in his youth, and the man who gave up the presidency. His legacy is best summarized in his Farewell Address:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

Don Surber:My favorite is Trump. He's taking on the establishment and every day is a new adventure. As they try to put him down, they expose their own corruption. Consider the AP Fake News story about Trump weighing sending 100,000 National Guardsmen to round up illegal aliens. It is preposterous. All the AP did was show itself to be run by liars.

My second favorite is Lincoln. Ended slavery. Gave us the transcontinental railroad (finished under Grant), land grant colleges, and the Homestead Act. Those four moves set the nation up for the industrial and agricultural growth that made us the most prosperous nation on Earth.

My third favorite is Reagan, a decent man who gave conservatives hope after 50 years of socialism.
Of course, Washington is the most important. He eschewed nobility. He set the tone for everyone to follow. This is why I do not call Monday "President's Day," and why Congress never changed the name from George Washington's Birthday.

Rob Miller : There's a novelist I like who used to be quite popular named Somerset Maugham. In one of his books ('The Moon and Sixpence?' The Razor's Edge?')he wrote that he had never ceased to be amazed at how much courage there was in the cowardly, how much baseness there was in the good, how much character there was in the dishonorable and how much honesty there was in the dishonest. I think it's the same with presidents. The office and the challenges change the man, for better or worse.

A while ago I examined who I thought the worst presidents were based on a specific criteria. Although now I would have to add Barack Hussein Obama to the list, I wouldn't change it otherwise. But the best? Well, in no particular order:

Calvin Coolidge remains one of the few presidents ever to shrink the behemoth of the federal government while keeping a balanced budget. He oversaw considerable growth in America's economy while exhibiting an almost voodoo-like knowledge of when to simply get out of the way and let things be.He did no harm and quite a bit of good.I also love his old fashioned Down East sense of humor.My favorite 'Silent Cal' story concerns a woman reporter who once gurgled at him, "Mr. President, I made a bet with some of the other reporters that I could get you to say three words. Can you say just three words for me?"

President Coolidge's response? "You lose."

Ronald Reagan was an amazing man and an amazing president. He turned America around from the decline of the Carter years and although he really did little to actually shrink government, he at least recognized and named the problem. Articulate, humane, brave and principled, he left America far better than he found it - strong, prosperous, confident ad with its major strategic threat, the Soviet Union in eclipse and en route to defeat just a year or so later. I don't refer to him as 'Ronaldus Maximus for nothing.

John Adams remains a seriously underrated president. Aside from his role in the Revolution and being a prosperous lawyer willing to risk his neck for freedom, he was also Washington's behind the scenes go to man when it came to keeping the fractious colonies in line or formulating policy. As president, he overcame serious political opposition to build up our military and is often called the Father of the American Navy. His term in office solidified nuts and bolts of the American government andhow it works. And yeah, a man of almost obsessive principle and courage, willing to risk ruin and social ostracism to defend the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial even though he was a firm and outspoken patriot - on the grounds that a man accused of a crime was entitled to a legal defense no matter what.

And at last we come to George Washington, truly the man who set the standard for our future presidents. While his ability to lead is a given, a window into his sublime character is that he was willing to take on the job at all. He was one of America's richest me, comfortably ensconced at his palatial home in Virginia with nothing to gain by casting his lot with a bunch of barely organized rebels taking on one of the world's great powers. He could have easily done what lots of people in his situation did...sit back, keep quiet and wait and see who would prevail. Instead, he took on the job and risked his health, his wealth and his life, because had the Revolution failed, there's no doubt he would have been hung as a traitor and everything he possessed confiscated by Crown. Washington was fully aware of that, but he possessed the moral and physical courage to take a stand and see things through, no matter the odds.

It's far to early to assess Donald Trump's presidency, but as a passing note, he has shown exactly that same kind of courage. He had a pleasant life of ease and plenty, a beautiful wife and a successful company he put together where he had the pleasure of working with his kids everyday. Instead of just sitting back and enjoying life, he chose to run for president and be subjected to ridicule, hatred and even physical danger.

He was never called a racist or Hitler before he decided to run for president with an R after his name, nor were his wife, kids and even his grandchildren ever attacked viciously in public simply because they were his family. And he's putting up with all that plus the stress and hard work involved in the job itself at age 70 - for the munificent sum of $1 per year.

Disagree with him or not, you can't deny that he chose to run for president knowing what it involved, especially after seeing how the Left and their trained seals in the media demonize opponents and their families. And he did it anyway. That kind of courage is an encouraging sign.

Mike NcDaniel : The first on any rational being’s list would have to be George Washington. Even before he became president, at the Constitutional Convention, he was the unanimous--the only--choice to preside. He said only a very few words, and remained silent the rest of convention. A giant among giants, his mere presence was enough to lend the necessary gravity to the deliberations of giants. Likewise, there was no question who would be the first President of the new United States. Oh, to once again experience that kind of national pride and unity.

On the long ride to the new nation’s capitol, Washington passed tens of thousands lining the roads, and weeping in gratitude and admiration at his passing. It affected him deeply. A lesser man’s ego might have swelled to epic proportions, but Washington wept and was humbled. Washington served with dignity befitting the office. He could have been president for life--many clamored for just that--but knowing everything he did would set the tone for the future, retired to private life. Washington was a great American, and a truly humble and dedicated public servant.

Abraham Lincoln would also have to be on the list. His speech in response to Judge Douglas is a classic of American philosophy, mercy and grace. The Gettysburg address, less than two minutes in length, rhetorical, moral perfection. It is little known Lincoln was not the featured speaker that day, but was included out of obligation. The headliner was the greatest public speaker of the time: Edward Everett, who spoke for more than two hours. No one remembers what he said, but Lincoln’s words--and this is no faint platitude--will live as long as liberty survives. Likewise his Second Inaugural speech is a masterpiece of the depth and honor of the American spirit. I need not speak to his preservation of the union, the Emancipation Proclamation, and his genius for friendship.

As magnificent as it is, the Lincoln Memorial scarcely does his spirit justice.

Imagine Harry Truman, hours after being sworn in as president following the death of FDR: “Uh, by the way Mr. President, we have the most powerful weapon mankind has ever developed, and you have to decide if we use it against our enemies.” Harry Truman remains the only world leader to authorize the release of nuclear weapons.

As history marches on, more and more fools believe the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary, perhaps even war crimes. Perhaps the best recent information on the issues facing the new president is provided by the invaluable Bill Whittle, here. Whittle puts to shame the morally bankrupt arguments of the shameless. We owe more to Harry Truman than most can imagine.

There have been, at precisely the right times, just the right men in the Oval Office. I do not, for a moment, think this chance, but the guidance of God. Their morality, patriotism and courage turned the tide of history and ensure that freedom would not perish from the earth. Harry Truman, much reviled by those without knowledge of history, humanity and patriotism, think otherwise. How terrible to be such shriveled souls.

And then there is Ronald Reagan, the right man at the right time, the man who, working with other visionary world leaders, ended the Soviet empire and freed untold millions. His view on the Cold War was simplicity itself: “we win; they lose.” His unabashed love for America and belief it her greatness was a shining city on the hill.

Donald Trump. Does he have that kind of moral clarity, that kind of selfless courage? Will he truly drain the swamp and return America to government of the people, by the people, for the people? We shall see.

Doug Hagin : Well, Washington set the standard. He term limited himself, limiting his own personal power. He set the example of what a president should be in many ways.

Reagan, because he believed, truly believed in Conservatism, and showed what Conservatism could do when implemented.

Also, two presidents not so famous. John Tyler, and Grover Cleveland But these men showed a great respect for the Constitution, and the separation of powers, and Federalism. I would suggest reading the book, Nine Presidents who Screwed Up America and four who tried to save her by Brion McClanahan for more of an in depth understanding of these two leaders.

Dave Schuler : While naming the usual suspects, e.g. Washington, Lincoln, is pious, it's just too expected.

I'm going to have to go with the politically incorrect candidate of James K. Polk. He accomplished nearly every campaign promise and then, consistent with his campaign promise, refused to seek another term. As far as I'm concerned that's batting 1.000.

He was also the architect of the present United States. He literally changed the map of the country.


Bookworm : I'm here to put in a good word for Calvin Coolidge. He understood that a liberty-oriented government exists to occupy as small a space as possible within the nation. It has its core responsibilities -- national security, free commerce between the states, international relations, etc., but it functions best when it gets out of the way. Here are some of my favorite quotations, all of which are clear and concise, and all of which explain how he understood individual liberty; limited, constitutional governance; and the importance that faith (personal faith, not government-imposed faith) plays in a the affairs of a healthy, moral nation:

"To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race."

“I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.”

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”

“This country would not be a land of opportunity, America could not be America, if the people were shackled with government monopolies.”

“Wealth comes from industry and from the hard experience of human toil. To dissipate it in waste and extravagance is disloyalty to humanity.”

“I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people.”

“The people cannot look to legislation generally for success. Industry, thrift, character, are not conferred by act or resolve. Government cannot relieve from toil. It can provide no substitute for the rewards of service. It can, of course, care for the defective and recognize distinguished merit. The normal must care for themselves. Self-government means self-support.”

“The nation which forgets it defenders will be itself forgotten.”

“...After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are the moving impulses of our life. But it is only those who do not understand our people, who believe that our national life is entirely absorbed by material motives. We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism.” [Dishonestly, many anti-Coolidge writers stop with the first sentence or two. The whole quotation is powerful.]

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.”

“It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan.”

“Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberality, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in our world. One rests on righteousness and the other on force. One appeals to reason, and the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in the republic, the other is represented by despotism."

"The government of a country never gets ahead of the religion of a country. There is no way by which we can substitute the authority of law for the virtue of man. Of course we endeavor to restrain the vicious, and furnish a fair degree of security and protection by legislation and police control, but the real reform which society in these days is seeking will come as a result of our religious convictions, or they will not come at all. Peace, justice, humanity, charity—these cannot be legislated into being. They are the result of divine grace.”

Honestly! How can one not love the man who presided so wisely over one of the most dynamic growth periods in America? It was imperfect as all times are, but looking back on the tapestry of American history, it compares very well to other decades. The most corrosive influence during this period was probably Prohibition and that, one must remember, was a gift from the Progressives.

The only reason Coolidge is not given the respect he deserves is that Progressives became ascendant in America's history departments and media after his presidency, and they poured their encomiums on Franklin Roosevelt. That would be the Roosevelt who, among other things, imprisoned American citizens without due process, sent Jews to die in Nazi death camps, refused to integrate the American military, tried to force the Supreme Court to rule in his favor on manifestly unconstitutional acts, and kept the U.S. in a perpetual Depression thanks to his Leftist economic policies. FDR gets kudos for his upbeat demeanor and for being a patriotic wartime president who, thanks to Hitler's stupidity in declaring war on America after Pearl Harbor, joined in the good fight in Europe, but otherwise he's simply a post-War Leftist idol.

And yes, I agree with everyone else about George Washington, the man who would not be king; Abraham Lincoln, who refused to let the nation disintegrate at the alter of slavery, one of humanity's great evils; and Ronald Reagan, who inspired a powerful conservative revolution, delaying by two decades the Progressives' disastrous politics.

For now, I'll hold off on Donald Trump. I think he's doing wonderfully so far, and I'm still kvelling with joy about that beautiful press conference, but I still want to get more of a feel for his presidency before ranking him.

 Laura Rambeau Lee : We are a relatively young republic. President Trump is only our forty-fifth president. I am taking this opportunity to provide some little know historical information on our third president, Thomas Jefferson. One can’t bring up the name Thomas Jefferson without some educated/indoctrinated liberal immediately responding with “he owned slaves”. That is supposed to shut down all further conversation about the man and diminish his accomplishments and contributions as a founding father of our country. We were all taught Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. What we were not taught was that his original draft was edited to leave out the following paragraph as a listed grievance against the King of England:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

You see, Jefferson, as well as the other founding fathers, detested the practice of slavery. Like many others, he inherited slaves through his father’s and father in law’s estates. It was the English monarchy that brought slavery to the colonies. The above paragraph was stricken from the Declaration of Independence in order to obtain the signatures of the representatives of Georgia and South Carolina and get unanimous consent of all of the Colonies.


Jefferson attempted several times during his political career to abolish slavery. His first attempt was in 1769 when he became a member of the legislature of the county in which he resided. In his autobiography Jefferson acknowledged that during the turbulent Revolutionary War eradication of slavery had not been addressed and he wrote “this subject was not acted on finally until the year [17]78, when I brought in a bill to prevent their further importation. This passed without opposition, and stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication.” Here we again see Jefferson’s personal commitment to the abolition of slavery in America. This was an important advancement towards ending the practice and also reveals the Founding Fathers shared the same commitment.


The Library of Congress states that, “As his life advanced, Jefferson became more and more concerned that people understand the principles in and the people responsible for the writing and adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote: "this was the object of the Declaration of Independence, not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we [were] compelled to take." He wanted future generations to understand what they had done, and more importantly, why they had done it.

Jefferson’s contributions to the founding of the United States of America sowed the seeds of liberty which set the course of our country towards the inevitable freedom of every man, woman, and child. It took a very bloody Civil War to finally effect this change. Never before in the history of mankind have free men fought to emancipate those who had been enslaved. In writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson established the precepts upon which our nation was founded. Our belief in the inherent right of every individual person to life, liberty, equality of opportunity, and self-determination, has been a beacon shining upon the world which still today attracts people from countries all over the world to immigrate to our shores.

History is never as simple or neat as we have been taught. As for me, Thomas Jefferson remains my favorite president. He had me at “sacred and undeniable.”

Well, there it is!

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

Trump Triumphs - A Press Conference Like No Other

With the war on Trump and his administration by the press escalating, President Trump decided to give Sean Spicer a pass and handle the next press conference personally. And oh, did he ever.

He did it by doing what he does best - making his case directly to the American people.

The Donald simply eviscerated the press in epic form. The only quarrel I have with the above headline was that Trump didn't rant, not once. He was cool, calm and collected throughout as he made the press jump through his hoops.  The media headlines about him being 'unhinged' , 'ranting','angry' and 'unpresidential' are fake news at it's worst. You can see that for yourself below.




Contrary to the endless reports about 'chaos' in his administration, Trump outlined precisely the amount of things accomplished by him and his team in less than five weeks since he took over, and that with his cabinet picks and appointments being deliberately stonewalled by the Democrats.

He challenged the press openly to report more honestly and to be less biased, to have more respect for the American people because, as he put it to the assembled reporters 'nobody believes you anymore.' He actually cited some fake news reports recently put out by the media as examples.

He addressed the most important issue in the General Michael Flynn affair; that while Flynn had been fired because of a trust issue, the real culprits were the people who illegally leaked confidential matters of national security and the press which published them, including Trump's own phone calls with world leaders, something unheard of before. Trump has that being investigated, and rest assured he's going to find out who's responsible.

As an interesting side bar, one thing Barack Hussein Obama did before he left office was to secretly expand the NSA's survellence powers and ability to share them with other government agencies on the sly as the New York Times reported:

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people. (emphasis mine)

Now, guess who one of those agencies is? The Department of Justice, which of course has its own intel branch...and just happened to be filled with Obama appointees led by Sally Yates, who was in command because the Democrats delayed Jeff Session's confirmation as AG on the flimsiest of grounds. It was Sally Yates who turned over the intel on Flynn to the Trump Administration. Did she leak that and other items to the anti-Trump media as that mysterious 'senior official?' I have a feeling we're going to find out.

The presser continued, with Trump addressing questions...again..about his connections with Russia. Aside from a couple of calls with Putin, once when the Russian leader called to congratulate him and a second time after he was inaugurated,there isn't one. And I absolutely loved when he continued his answer by saying 'What if we had a good relationship with Russia? We might not be able to, but why not see what we can negotiate?' He also repeated that he had no intention of revealing strategy to the press beforehand. Smart man, our president.

Best laugh out loud line? CNN's insufferable Jim Acosta sputtered about how Trump's labeling CNN 'fake news' was an attack on journalism and the First Amendment.'

The Donald replied that he was going to drop calling CNN 'fake news' and after a theatrical pause continued "I'm going to change it - to very fake news!"

I unfortunately had a mouthful of coffee when the Donald came out with that exercise in free speech.

Trump also outlined future plans and goals as well as some stories the media hasn't seen fit to reveal...like Trump's attempts to get a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss jobs and the carnage in America's inner cities that have been snubbed. Even individual members like Elijah Cummings won't meet with him. But of course, you'd never see that on CNN.

If any of you were nervous about Trump coping with the attacks on him and his administration fret no more. This was the President Trump we elected, a fighter who gets things done. Just watch.

A Must Read - The Untold Eyewitness Story Of The Paris Bataclan Killings

If you read nothing else today, take the time to read this gripping interview on the November 2015 Bataclan jihad attack in Paris with Eagles of Death Metal vocalist Jesse Hughes. The interview was conducted by Gavin McInnes over at Taki's Magazine. Hughes's band was onstage when the jihad killings occurred. This is his eye witness account of what happened. Hughes feels that the media totally misrepresented the story, with details pulled out of context from his previous interviews and manipulated to support editorializing and commentary that was completely opposed to his views.

Hughes tells exactly what happened, how it was handled and the implications for the future in the War on Jihad.

Here's a taste:

McInnes: It’s hard to talk about the attack without sounding like you’re blaming the victims, but it’s impossible to deny fear of Islamophobia and fear of guns led to a lot of deaths that night.

Jesse Hughes:: I saw fear fall like a blanket on the whole crowd and they fell like wheat in the wind—the way you would before a god. I was totally alert from the very beginning. The first thing I needed to do was find my girl. Fear took a backseat and “where’s my girl?” took over. I could smell gunpowder in the backstage area and I knew someone fired a round back there. I saw a guy with an FAL and when he turned to face me his eyes looked like marbles. He was stoned out of his mind, and we now know they were on Xanax and cocaine. I recognized him. I’d seen him earlier in the day and noticed him staring at us.

McInnes: They were in the venue early. That implies some staff were in on it.

Jesse Hughes:I got in a lot of trouble for saying that. I know for sure that they were in there early. I remember them staring at my buddy. I just chalked it up to Arab envy. You know what I mean? When a Muslim sees a cocky American dude with tattoos, he stares at him. I realized later it was Abdeslam and he was staring at my buddy because they thought he was a threat. There’s no denying the terrorists were already inside, and they had to get in somehow. During the shooting I went outside and the backstage door was propped open. How did that happen?

McInnes: Do you think political correctness is killing our natural instincts and making us vulnerable?

Jesse Hughes:Definitely. There were two girls who were involved. They were at the venue and vanished before the shooting, and these women were in traditional Muslim garb. They knew people wouldn’t check them because of the way they were dressed. They got caught a few days later.

McInnes:The fear of offending Muslims is a terrorist’s greatest weapon.

Jesse Hughes:Look at the guys who bombed Brussels. They were wearing black gloves on one hand. Their luggage was too heavy to lift, but they didn’t want anyone helping them with it. Nobody brought any of this up until after the bombs went off.

McInnes:We’d rather die than be called a bigot.

Jesse Hughes: How is a faith being associated with racism? Just take out the word “Islam” and replace it with “communism.” It’s an ideology. The same way the Rosenbergs could sell nuclear secrets from within America is the same way Muslim terrorists can attack us from within. It’s okay to be discerning when it comes to Muslims in this day and age.

McInnes: Where is this push coming from? Is it all our fault?

Jesse Hughes:Of course not. When you’re at a soccer game in Europe and you see the words “United Arab Emirates,” you know there is a lot of Arab money floating around and influencing the dialogue. The conversation is constantly being steered away from scrutiny. They think we’re fools.

Arab money is a pollutant. So many movies are made with Arab money. George Clooney doesn’t kiss the ass of the Arabs for no reason. American movies are the best way to influence the hearts and minds of the world.

Read the whole interview at Taki's Magazine. Highly recommended.


.

Gen. Michael Flynn Resigns As Trump's National Security Advisor

General Michael Flynn has resigned as President Trump's National Security Advisor, after it was learned that the Justice Department informed the White House that it believed he might be subject to blackmail.

The axe fell when Flynn admitted that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other senior officials about his communications with Sergei Kislyak, who is Russia's ambassador to the United States. In his resignation letter,Flynn said:

"Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology."

Along with his resignation of course.

What happened is that the FBI had intel that Flynn had discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, but Flynn told administration officials that he hadn't. Pence repeated the misinformation on national television.

While Flynn didn't do anything illegal, this was a bad mistake on his part. But like the soldier he was, he owned up, took the blame and paid the price, a sad end to an honorable career.

To their shame, the Democrats are absolutely ecstatic over this.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and a Leftist progressive. He said Flynn's resignation was "all but ordained the day he misled the country about his secret talks with the Russian Ambassador."

"In fact, Flynn was always a poor choice for National Security Advisor, a role in which you need to be a consensus builder, and possess sobriety and steady judgment," Schiff said in a statement. "It is certainly no role for someone who plays fast and loose with the truth."

Schiff, of course,has no military, hands on intel or national security experience whatsoever. So of course, he knows all about what's needed in an NSA advisor.

And that's interesting, considering that Rep. Schiff and his fellow Dems were all in for Hillary Clinton, whom we know deliberately endangered national security by putting classified material on an unprotected server to hide her crooked deals and operated her office as Secretary of State  for her own profit like a mega high priced escort service, pay for play.

Flynn made a bad error in judgement and he had to go. And there are stories floating around that he may have been responsible,inadvertently perhaps, for several media leaks. But by comparison with Mrs. Clinton's disgraceful, self serving misdeeds and outright felonies...no contest.

Retired Army Gen. Keith Kellogg is a longtime trusted policy adviser for Trump. He  has been appointed acting national security adviser, according to a White House statement. Kellogg was the former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, and he has years of combat, national security and command experience.

He may end up getting the gig permanently.

Another possibility being talked about is retired Navy Vice Adm. Robert Harward, the former deputy commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command. Former CIA head General David Petraeus was apparently also mentioned, but I doubt he gets it because of his own national security problems.

Either Kellogg or Harward would be a good choice, and Kellog will do a great job holding things together until a decision is made.

Forum: What Will Happen With Trump's Travel Ban And Immigration EO?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Will Happen With  Trump's Travel Ban And Immigration EO?


Don Surber: One thing I have not done since he entered the race in 2015 is give Donald Trump any advice on what to do. I reserve my bad advice for others politicians. His track record is too good. He has me scratch my head from time to time, but eventually I see his point.

He can either press ahead with the case and make Democrats remain on the side of terrorists, or he can rewrite the executive order (which I gave read and see nothing to rewrite) and close off those seven nations. I thin the former course is the correct course to take because this is a fight worth winning. The cost is minimal. Bad headlines? He thrives off them. I really don't see a downside.

The 9th circuit over the weekend decided to rehear the case en banc -- essentially appeal the case itself. The lawyer blogs I read say this is unusual and means the judges are embarrassed and do not want to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Republicans have long wanted to break up the 9th. There you go.]

JoshuaPundit: Before I get to main course, an aperitif of truth to wash away the foul taste of some common disinformation. First, the implementation of the travel order was not 'sloppy' or rushed. Before signing and implementing the EO, the president sent it to the White House Office of Legal Counsel. That office exists for one purpose, to carefully vet any proposed action and advise the president as to its legality and/or any possible legal pitfalls. The president's executive order was carefully vetted and passed with flying colors before the president signed and released it.

Second, a number of the usual suspects have said with a straight face that no terrorist attacks on Americans  have ever  originated from  natives of the 7 countries in question. That is a deliberate, bald faced  lie. And there's a lot more where that came from.  Apparently these creeps think the American people are as stupid as they think we are.

Trump's only mistake was in thinking that his legal authority was so obvious in this matter and the national security considerations so obvious that it would be implemented forthwith, even if a flood of demonstrations ensued. He didn't count on the judge shopping and subsequent legal challenge that were so obviously planned in advance.

It's no accident this went down in Washington State, and that has little to do with any moral implications, all the signs and chants aside.Always follow the money. The People's Republic of Seattle and environs has a great many corporations that depend on a continued supply of comparatively low wage H1B visa holders for companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks. Heaven forbid they should employ Americans and pay a decent wage! So much for these companies' egalitarian,'liberal' principles, hmmm? According to the language of the lawsuit that was filed, "Many of those immigrant workers are from Muslim-majority countries."

Other institutions mentioned in the lawsuit are universities in the area who claimed that the order"caused immediate harm to Washington's public universities, which are state agencies."

When you do some checking, you find that foreign students are a major cash cow for Washington's universities, because they pay full tuition. Only Washington DC, Massachusetts, New York and Delaware have a higher percentage of foreign students. Hey, who cares if Mahmoud from Iran is actually a spy, or wants to plant a bomb in an airport terminal at Sea-Tac? Gotta make a buck, especially if we can look virtuous and thwart Trump-Hitler while we're doing it. Another source of income comes from the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to various organizations via the Refugee Resettlement program for resettling 'refugees' in unsuspecting communities across the heartland. There have already been a number of crimes and incidents stemming from this practice in parts of the country where this sort of thing used to be virtually unknown.

So a lot of the uproar is simply about money.

Will the Travel Ban and Immigration EO be implemented? Well, eventually, but it will probably take the Supreme Court to do it, the fact that there's absolutely no legal basis not to. The 9th circuit has been reversed more times than any other district court, so what's one more?

A lesson I hope The Donald takes from this is that these swine will do anything they can to slow walk and impede whatever he does, no matter what it is or how beneficial and necessary for the country it is.Those are unimportant details for the Left.

Stately McDaniel Manor:
I’ve been amused to watch the media, assorted pundits, and virtually all leftists screaming in hysterical agony over everything President Trump does, or is said--falsely--to have done, or is said--falsely--to be planning to do. I am particularly amused, however, at the talking heads that solemnly intone Mr. Trump’s immigration order, which has been abused by the 9th Circuit, commonly known as the 9th Circus for its propensity to make up the law as it goes along, is “sucking all the air out of the room.” Old Washington hands may be breathless over this single issue, but Mr. Trump--and the American people--are not.

As I’ve recently written, https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/split-the-ninth/ and apparently can’t write often enough, Mr. Trump is actually used to work. He works hard, each and every day, just like working Americans that pay taxes and keep our economy afloat. He works long hours, just like the aforementioned Americans, and he can work on more than one thing at a time. Look in the dictionary under “multitasker,” and one will find a photo of Mr. Trump, and millions upon millions of other competent, non-politician and pundit Americans.

President Trump and those that work for him are more than capable of dealing with the 9th Circus, and of simultaneously handling innumerable other tasks. This is why the federal government employees some 3 million people, so they can handle a great many tasks at once. I know they’re out of practice, and this will take some adjustment after eight years of a President who only occasionally did a bit of work, and that, grudgingly, but it’s the new normal. The new Sheriff has already arrived, shot most of the bad guys, and kissed the pretty saloon owner.

Now, after that little bit of a multitasking example, let’s continue to this week’s topic.

I have, upon occasion, found myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz. We have agreed on the Trayvon Martin case, the Freddie Gray case, and a variety of other legal issues, and we agree on what Mr. Trump should do with this immigration executive order: simply write a new, leaner and meaner executive order addressing every issue raised by the lunatics of the 9th Circuit. Clean it up, make it absolutely unassailable by any sane jurist. Simultaneously, pursue the other executive order in the courts, or perhaps, just long enough to make it moot.

Various leftist attorney’s general will file suit against the new order, but the ultimate goal will be the Supreme Court, and the proper record must be built for that Court. It is even possible the four progressives might vote to uphold the Constitution in this case--the Constitution and federal law are that clear--though one should never count on that sort of rationality.

We must now expect unrelenting lawfare. Virtually everything Mr. Trump does will be met with lawsuits by progressives. In this case, the Constitution is crystal clear, as is federal law: the President of the United States has exclusive power--government has powers, people have rights--to regulate immigration. He can do what he did: stop immigration from any country dead in its tracks. Foreign nationals have no rights under the Constitution, and under federal law, states have no standing to sue in this matter. Federal courts have no legitimate role.

So the 9th Circuit did what it always does: it ignored the Constitution and the law and made it up.

This is a crisis foreseen by those Americans that voted for Donald Trump. The inevitability that federal courts, packed with progressives rather than honest men and women willing to honor their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution and uphold the law, would ignore their oaths, and blatantly establish rule by federal judge, daring us to do something about it. With a progressive majority on the Supreme Court, eventually, the only means of restoring the Constitution would be violence, and no sane person wants it to come to that.

It’s time for Congress, working with Mr. Trump, to write new laws, carefully and narrowly written laws, that remove--leaving no wiggle room--the ability of the states, private parties, and others to claim standing to sue the President in matters of national security and immigration. To do otherwise is to join Democrats in national suicide.

It’s also time for Attorney General Sessions to drain the swamp that is the Department of Justice. Actually demanding its employees work on the side of America and the rule of law for a change would be novel indeed. Putting in the A-Team, or bringing in outside pros not twisted by progressive ideology, to argue the government’s cases would help too.

What’s that you say? Even if the weasels in Congress do that, the courts will just ignore the law, just as they ignore any law they don’t like now? Perhaps, but we have to start somewhere, and in the meantime, Mr. Trump will be continuing to work, each and every day, on a multitude of important issues. That’s why Democrats are slow-walking his cabinet secretaries. When they’re in office, Mr. Trump will pick up a pace that’s already leaving progressives breathless.

It can’t come soon enough, and it’s about time.

The Glittering Eye :One way or another President Trump's executive order suspending travel from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa will be upheld. Either the Ninth Circuit en banc will uphold it (30% confidence) or the Supreme Court will uphold it (75% confidence).

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Perhaps the 9th circuit’s decision will be a lesson learned and cause the Trump Administration not to be so quick to issue executive orders until every detail, legality, and consequence of such order is explored. It looked and was sloppy in its crafting and execution. President Trump should understand how everything he does is going to be scrutinized by the political left and the progressive media. He cannot make amateurish mistakes. President Trump should let this go and issue a new executive order. He also needs to push the Senate for the speedy confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice. We need a conservative constitutionalist to replace Justice Scalia in order to advance our conservative agenda.

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

Sessions Confirmed; Nasty Fauxahontas Fails In Bogus Race Card Attempt

Senator Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General, but not before Fauxahontas, prog-fascist heroine and the senior senator from Massachusetts made a particularly nasty attempt at impugning the reputation of a far more honest and accomplished human being than she'll ever be capable of becoming.

What she attempted to do was to play the race card to brand Senator Sessions as a racist, and then to throw a fit when she was reminded that it was against senate rules:




How charming to quote Senator Ted Kennedy as a moral arbitrator, the man who left a woman die slowly in a car he crashed and then colluded with the authorities, using his name, position and influence to hide his part in it? The man who invented 'Borking,' the sport of demonizing and slandering public officials nominated for public office and up for Senate confirmation? The man who could justifiably have been prosecuted for treason because of his private approach to the Soviet Union offering to help them destroy the Reagan presidency?

And how amusing to hear the senator who was employed by Harvard based on lies about her native American heritage and who actually voted to confirm corrupt racist hacks like Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch talk about racism!

I'm hardly surprised to find that the late Senator Kennedy is Elizabeth Warren's idea of a hero, role model and moral arbiter.

And Coretta Scott King? She had a right to her opinion, although there's zero evidence that the judge who broke the KKK in his home state of Alabama is a racist. The late Mrs. King's heavy involvement with the Democrat Party when she wrote that letter in 1986 might just have had something to do with her sentiments. In any event, this cynical use of that letter without a scrap of proof is a classic example of the sort of McCarthyism happily use whenever they can while squealing like pigs in a slaughterhouse whenever they feel they can get away with accusing others of it.

Of course, someone with more honesty might have chosen to read this letter to the Senate, from someone who actually was directly involved in some of Judge Session's 'racism' Mrs. King mentioned in her letter, someone who had personal reasons to bear a grudge.

But this wasn't about giving Jeff Sessions an honest appraisal.

This was by no means spontaneous. The day after Fauxahontas attacked Jeff Session, her new book came out. And the media had obviously been prepped for the new far Left hotness The Washington Democrat Digest praised this new "battle cry" and the anti-Trump Fake News  political action group CNN hailed the "rallying cry" . And of course,  th efundraising letters went out, with a new slogan and hashtag #She presisted. Take a look at the merchandise they had ready for consumption by the True Believers:

 

 


Notice to single young men. Avoid any interaction whatsoever with a female wearing something like this. Consider yourself warned!!!

The unintentionally funny part of this is the 'she persisted' tagline. Fauxahontas didn't persist or accomplish a damned thing. She violated senate rules egregiously to help sell her book and herself as a possible 2020 candidate,  was told by the president of the senate to sit down and keep quiet. She did as she was told. She didn't persist in keeping Jeff Sessions out of the Justice department either.

There is something she did accomplish.

Elizabeth Warren, just like the rest of the senate has worked with Senator Jeff Sessions for years. They knew very well the accusations made were libelous, partisan falsehoods.  they did it anyway, just because. While the Senate was designed by our founders to be the deliberative, more reasoned, more collegial  part of congress. The Democrats, led by Harry Reid have almost destroyed that completely. The crazed opposition to President Trump's appointees on the most far fetched grounds imaginable is unprecedented.

Only one Democrat,Joe Manchin from West Virginia defied the baying jackals and voted to confirm his colleague. Do the Democrats imagine that after this, the Senate Republicans are going to be willing to work with them and pretend what Fauxahontas just did never happened? Do they really think th eAmerican people don't see what they're doing?

You reap what you sow. Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and their colleagues are in for a hard lesson.

Merkel's Trying To Buy Her Way Out of Germany's Refugee Crisis

 

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing new elections and is not doing at all well in the polls. Quite simply, the Muslim refugees she imported en masse to Germany have turned into a nightmare, with violent crime including sexual assaults at unheard of levels. And most of these refugees, rather than working are enjoying the generous German social welfare benefits, which is exactly why most of them came to Germany in the first place.

Merkel's new scheme to try and get back into her fellow German's good graces before elections involves paying migrants millions of Euros to leave.

Merkel is setting aside $95 million (€90m or £76m) in taxpayers’ money to create a fund to try to pay these refugees to withdraw their asylum applications and leave Germany voluntarily.

Germany rejected 170,000 asylum claims in 2016 , according to the Daily Mail,  but only 26,000 were repatriated to their home countruies while 55,000 more decided to leave voluntarily and try their luck elsewhere. But that leaves 81,000 rejected applicants who are probably still in Germany!

Angela Merkel' solution - making German citizens who didn't want these people in their country in the first place to pay millions to get rid of them - is going to be an epic fail. Here's why.

Even Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s First Vice-President has admitted that at least 60% of the Muslim migrants coming to the EU aren't fleeing war zones at all, but are simply economic migrants attracted by the generous social welfare benefits of countries like Germany. When offered a one time modest payout as opposed to years of welfare, free medical and free housing, why would they leave?

 

And even if they took the money and left, what would stop them from returning with a new name and a new story? Nothing. In fact, that's already happened with several migrants involved in terrorist attacks in the EU.

It's also worth remembering that the EU has tried this kind of bribe before. Remember how Turkey's Tayyip Erdoğan conned what, €3 billion out of the Eu to store these migrants in Turkey? Since he already has the cash, there's nothing stopping him from simply opening his borders and letting the migrants flood into the EU, which Erdoğan threatens to do every so often anyway.

Merkel really has only a couple of options. She could cut off all social welfare to the migrants which would either involve a lot of them self deporting or massive unrest. Or she could start deporting migrants in large numbers and find a country or countries not on Europe's borders willing to accept them for a suitable bribe. That's probably the least costly option, but it will cost a lot more than €90m to pull off if it can be done.

And even if successful, it's highly unlikely to resonate well with the German electorate who are going to have to pay for it all, unless Merkel can con the EU into splitting the tab.

Talk about your self-inflicted wound!  So traurig, Frau ReichsKanzler...

Why Trump's Policies And Israel's New Law Could Lead To Real Peace

 

Amid headlines from the usual suspects about President Trump 'criticizing Israeli settlements' (including the leftist press in Israel) the truth is that Trump's policies and Israel's new law could lead to real peace.

What President Trump actually said was that the creation of new settlements was not helpful when it came to “the process of reaching peace."

With a meeting coming up between the president and Israeli PM Netanyahu, someone he's been on friendly terms with for years, it's obvious that the Donald is laying the groundwork for a serious attempt at a deal. In an interview with Israel Hayom, President Trump had some revealing things to say.

After praising PM Netanyahu, voicing his expectation of an excellent future relationship with Israel and harshly criticizing the Iran deal, the conversation turned to Jerusalem and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Actually President Trump has said nothing negative about building and expanding existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Nor will he. In fact when he was asked whether he was going to condemn Israeli announcements of building in existing Jewish communities like the previous administration, he responded "No, I don't want to condemn Israel. Israel has had a long history of condemnation and difficulty. And I don't want to be condemning Israel. I understand Israel very well, and I respect Israel a lot, and they have been through a lot. I would like to see peace and beyond that. And I think that peace for Israel would be a good thing for the Israeli people, not just a good thing, a great thing." ...

" They [ new settlements] don't help the process. I can say that. There is so much land left. And every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left. But we are looking at that, and we are looking at some other options we'll see. "

That hardly qualifies as 'criticizing settlements.' It's simply a self-evident statement and an attempt at prepping the ground with an appearance of neutrality pending any coming negotiations. And President Trump also had this to say about relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem:

Q: How soon will you decide on the issue of relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem?

"Well, I want Israel to be reasonable with respect to peace. I want to see peace happen. It should happen. After all these years. ... Maybe there is even a chance for a bigger peace than just Israel and the Palestinians. I would like to see a level of reasonableness of both parties, and I think we have a good chance of doing that."

Q: And the embassy?

"I am thinking about the embassy, I am studying the embassy [issue], and we will see what happens. The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision. I'm thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens."

Q: You always speak about making good deals. Don't the Palestinians have to make concessions as well?

"Yeah. They do. Absolutely. It has to be good for everybody. No deal is good if it is not good for everybody, and we are in that process, and we will see what happens. People have been in that process for many decades, and it has been going a long for a long time. So many people think it cannot be made. I have very smart people that ... say a deal can't be made. I disagree with them. I think a deal should be made, and it can be made," he concluded.

What President Trump is doing here is straight out of 'The Art Of The Deal.' He is deliberately positioning himself so that the U.S. can appear as a reasonable arbiter. With the Israelis, whom he knows are the far more reasonable party, he's holding out certain carrots; an embassy in Jerusalem, recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capitol as well as  recognition  of Jewish communities and their right to natural growth in Judea and Samaria. There's also the promise of demanding real life meaningful concessions from the Arabs whom call themselves 'Palestinians' as part of any deal  as opposed to just taking Abbas's word for it. He's even holding out the promise of formal relations between Israel and the other Arab states. While those relationships exist in reality, especially with Saudis Arabia and the Gulf States, they're clandestine. And Trump's disdainful mention of the Iran deal maybe points to something big in the future. Nothing unites like a common enemy.

With the 'Palestinians',  Trump's using the stick.

Some fake news articles from the usual sources have mentioned that  'officials' are reaching out to the Arabs whom call themselves 'Palestinians' ot reassure them nothing's changed.  It's news to their leaders, who are literally going berserk. President Trump not only froze $21 million Obama gifted to 'Palestine' indefinitely, he's also defunding UN bodies who recognize 'Palestine' like UNESCO. And the U.S. just blocked a UN appointment for former 'Palestinian' PM Salem Fayyad. In contrast, Trump selected as U.S. Ambassador to Israel none other than David Friedman, who supports moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem as well as the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

What Trump is doing with the 'Palestinians' is the equivalent of training a puppy. He's letting them know there are consequences for their incitement, violence and intransigence and that if they want to receive certain privileges like anything resembling statehood they had better behave appropriately.

This is something they have never have had to deal with before, and it might actually result in peace if they get the message. The Donald is just setting up the climate for a shot at making a deal, and if Abbas wants anything at all he's going to have to be willing to come to the table with real concessions that mean something or wind up with NOTHING.

Don't be surprised if Abbas ends up with demilitarized autonomy in Area A and perhaps some of Area B when and if a deal gets made...exactly what they were supposed to get under Oslo, rather than 'statehood.'

Another piece of the puzzle has to do with so new legislation passed by the Israeli Knesset.

Israel's newly passed Regulation Law, legalizes Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that were unknowingly built on land that may have been privately owned by Arabs or where the inhabitants had permission from the Israeli government to do so.

The law provides for a legal settlement to owners of private land who can prove their claims of 125% of the land's assessed value or the equivalent of 20 years rent on the raw land.

Basically, this is eminent domain, similar to laws in many other countries that allow private land to be acquired for public benefit. In many cases, title would have transferred by adverse possession (open use of the land for a statutory period without an objection from the owners) without compensation being required. Again, most countries have this kind of law, so the Israeli government is actually being more lenient in passing this law then they need to be.

This is direct defiance  to the UN's bigoted Resolution 2334, which sought to impose a ridiculous settlement with no regards to Israel or to previous agreements whatsoever.

You'd never know it listening to the UN squawk, but in actual fact,  the Regulation Law changes very little. All of the Israeli communities and almost all of the Israeli population live in Area C, which was always under Israeli sovereignty according to Oslo and was always supposed to be retained by Israel in any peace settlement, at least until Barack Hussein Obama came along. The governing authority, in some cases the Israeli government and in other cases the IDF is already permitted to acquire privately owned land for public benefit just as governments in most countries do.

What the new Regulation Law does is simply this; in places where Israelis built settlements on privately held Palestinian property without knowing it was privately owned or received the government’s consent for building  there, the Israeli government is now required to impose eminent domain and compensate the owners as described above, either 125% of the land's assessed value or the equivalent of 20 years rent on the raw land. As opposed to evicting people whom may have lived on the land for decades.

While Israel's Supreme Court might challenge this law, there's a decent chance it won't. Israel Supreme Court is far more to the Left than the Israeli government or even the majority of most Israelis, because of the bizarre way the justices are chosen...they pick their own successors. There's currently legislation pending to change that, and since a thumbs down on the Regulation Law might be an incentive to the Knesset approving this  legislation on how Supreme Court justices are chosen, the Court may choose simply to not address it.

The 'Palestinians' saw Resolution 2334 as a victory, giving them everything they wanted while giving up nothing. Trump's actions and the Israeli Regulation Law are showing them how wrong they were. The 'Palestinians'  are now being shown in no uncertain terms that they had better be prepared to make real concession and actually negotiate in good faith for once if they want anything at all. Whether they take that opportunity is anyone's guess, and I personally doubt they will. But if they actually do, than Trump's polices and Israel's new law could actually lead to real peace.

Really Want To Understand The 2016 Election? Read 'Trump The Establishment'

Earlier in the year, I came across Don Surber's marvelous 'Trump The Press,' an account of exactly how Donald Trump, a rookie candidate won the Republican nomination against all the odds.

Well, Surber, a retired journalist with forty years experience writing about American politics has done it again with a sequel, 'Trump The Establishment'.  It continues the story  to  cover the election and tells us exactly how Donald Trump became president when the polls, the media and the political establishment all predicted his defeat and said he had no chance of winning.

For those of you who still can't understand how Donald Trump won in spite of breaking all the established rules of campaigning, with elements of the mainstream press actually colluding with the Clinton campaign and with even his own party's establishment against him, 'Trump The Establishment' will be a revelation.

Like his previous book, Surber's eye for detail and his recording of details and events that even many people who follow politics might have forgotten make this a vital and impressive read. What we have here is a lively, well written account of one of the most amazing upsets in American political history combined with its predecessor 'Trump The Press,' 'Trump The Establishment' is nothing less than a classic work on an election like no other.

Five stars plus...available on Amazon and Creative Space...