Ann Coulter Forced To Cancel Speech At Berkeley - And How We Fight back

Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at UC Berkeley after the city of Berkeley's Police Department told her they could not (read, would not) guarantee her safety. That should be no surprise, since they essentially followed orders from the mayor and police chief to stand down and allowed radical antifa and black prog-facist terrorists to freely assault and seroiusly injure people whose only crime was to be in line to hear Milo Yiannopoulos speak. Not to mention the over $100,000 in damages to private property they were allowed to act out and commit before the police finally got the OK to quash the carnage.

The university made a show in the beginning of permitting Ann Coulter to speak, but there were so many additional fees and numerous conditions they insisted on designed to limit access and reduce turnout for the event that it was obvious they were attempt in to quash it. Needless to say,no radical Leftist (and Berkeley has had a number of those creeps speakers there) has ever been subject toanything like these special fees and conditions. When that didn't work, they simply banned her because of course, they weren't going to have the campus police protect her.

So in the end University officials sent the Berkeley College Republicans, who were hosting the event  a letter Tuesday, saying that in their wisdom, they had determined it was just too much of a security risk to allow here to speak.

“We have been unable to find a safe and suitable venue,” said the letter from Vice Chancellor Scott Biddy (what a perfectly surnamed official) and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Stephen Sutton. Especially when you'd much rather avoid having someone speak whom might challenge what's being poured into the lil' snowflake's heads (horrors, they might learn something!!) and anger the mob.

La Coulter toyed with the idea of speaking in public at Sproul Plaza, where Mario Savio started the original free speech movement and which is open to the public. After which the powers that be in Berkeley who are responsible for law enforcement let her know that they weren't going to do much to protect her either.

You can't really blame the Berkeley Police. Like most cops, I'm sure they are admirable people who take their jobs seriously, a job most of us wouldn't do for any money. But they are also human beings with pensions to protect, bills to pay and families to support. When the word comes from upstairs to knuckle under and not get in the way of some of the Lefty brown shirts beating up on people who came to hear the latest subject of the Two Minute Hate commit thought crimes,  they going to obey.

So, the Young America's Foundation decided it was too risky to participate,Berkeley College Republicans are suing the university and Ann Coulter is staying home.

And the powers that be in Berkeley? The college administrators are undoubtedly getting a few fist bumps and atta boys in the faculty room. And Jesse Arreguin, the mayor, who has deep ties with the Antifa group By Any Means Necessary and publicly supports them is enjoying another win. After all, why do you think he was elected mayor of a place like Berkeley in the first place if not to suppress thought crimes in Lenin's Little Acre?



He's not facing re-election until 2020, and anyone who participated in Black Lives Matter protests and the Occupy Movement. and called - officially - for the impeachment of President Trump is not worried about his job or reputation when it comes to anyone he thinks counts.

So if you're expecting any remorse or even mild embarrassment over this blatant display, forget about it.

With increasingly rare exceptions, the Left feels the same way about free speech as they do about democracy in general. They only approve of it when it applies to them and works for The Cause. They are totalitarian to the core, and Berkeley is a yet another superb example of what happens when they actually have power and hold all the cards.

Milo was making some noise earlier today about invading Berkeley with what he called 'a free speech army' in the future. As far as I'm concerned, that is a uniquely futile gesture. What it would do, unless it happens earlier is to simply become the occasion when someone who merely wants to exercise freedom of speech gets murdered by the Left's brownshirts. And when that happens, you're going to see people defend themselves. Which is exactly how brownshirt street thug Horst Wessel became a 'martyr' and got famous. He simply tried to beat up on the wrong person and a virtual civil war erupted. And those of you saying 'bring it on' might perhaps have noticed that Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the rest of the Left's violent cadres only really operate in areas where they know they're going to be protected by the local authorities; university campuses like Berkeley and Blue fifedoms like coastal California. So don't expect justice when it comes to defending yourselves.Or count on the police to protect you.

A better way to fight this? Sure there is. What tactics work?

• Lawfare: There's no question that the City of Berkeley and UCSB are guilty of violating the civil rights of the people who were beaten up while police stood by. Or that Ann Coulter's civil and Constitutional rights were violated  as well as those whom wished to hear her speak...just read the First Amendment. There is also a clear claim based on unequal treatment, since she and the College Republicans were subjected to fees and regulations Lefty speakers weren't. Second wave feminists cut a path on that one.The Berkeley PD can also probably be sued for negligence by those whom were injured. Sue the bastards and make them pay through the nose. And remember, Judge shopping works two ways.

• Boycotting: Berkeley is a public university and receives public funds. But it also receives money from alumni and from the proceeds of its sports event as well as merchandising. Don't go to Berkeley sporting events. Don't attend concerts or exhibits at the university's facilities.If any TV or radio shows carry their games, don't watch or listen and write the companies that sponsor the games  that you don't patronize companies that aid and abet such fascism. Don't buy their tee shirts, mugs or other garbage.  Picket and disrupt any speakers from Berkeley who do events in Red States. Make it expensive security wise for universities to invite them. And one way of disrupting them is to ask them how they can continue to represent such a fascist institution.

• Ridicule, shame and target Berkeley's prog-fascist view point as socially unacceptable at every opportunity: Remember back in the old days of the fledgling  civil rights or women's lib movement? Remember how you and perhaps other people responded to remarks and 'jokes' that were racist or misogynist, with a nasty look and a remark to the effect that you didn't find that funny but offensive? Make Berkeley's prog-fascist attitudes just as socially unacceptable when you run across them. In public. Make 'Berserkeley' a figure of ridicule.

• And yes,  be aware at anytime that you might just have to physically defend yourself and conduct yourself accordingly: Bullies like the antifa crowd are usually physical cowards who hide their faces and only attack in mobs where they can get away with it. Faced with opposition, especially in areas the Left doesn't control,they can be beaten badly at their own game.

Trending Now On WoW! Magazine

Georgia’s Special Election…A Lesson The Democrats Just Won’t Learn

 Exposing the real agenda behind the push for an Article V convention 

 Forum: What Would Real Tax Reform Look Like? 

 The French Election – It’s More Of The Same Versus A Change Of Course

 Venezuela: Rachel Maddow, please stop embarrassing yourself 

 In the ongoing battle against social justice warriors, there’s no room for daintiness 

 Pope Francis Viciously Insults The Jews – Again 

 Members of the Gore Cult of Climate Change working harder to indoctrinate our kids 

 A microcosm of the maddening mix of Progressive hate, ignorance, and nonsense at an American college 

President Trump Signs Financial Services Executive Orders 

Media lies, and a death in Paris 

 Religious Police: Coming To A Town Near You?
 

Tucker wipes the floor with Junk Science Guy, Bill Nye. (video) 

  Dear Nicholas Kristoff: Trump isn’t the scary guy. Obama gambled with America.

Pope Francis Viciously Insults The Jews - Again

Last Saturday, Pope Francis referred to EU refugee centers as "concentration camps."

“These refugee camps — so many are concentration camps, crowded with people… because international accords seem more important than human rights,” Francis said in impromptu remarks. Ironically, this happened while he was  attending a ceremony in memory of modern-day Christian martyrs and mentioned an anecdotal story of a Christian woman murdered in front of her Muslim husband.

He went on to say that he had met the woman’s husband during his visit to a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos last year. “I do not know what happened to him, if he managed to get out of his concentration camp, and get to somewhere else.”

If the story's true, who does he imagine murdered that Christian woman 'for her faith' if not Muslims?

And that basically tells us a lot of what a leftist ideologue and tool the current Pope is. During Easter week, the Pope gave a 20 minute speech about the plight of the Muslim migrants. Yet his reaction to the massacres of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims, especially the mass casualties from the bombing of Coptic churches in Egypt, his response was something along the lines of 'Isn't it wonderful that Christians would give their lives for Jesus Christ?'

Even more hypocritically, the Pope has consistently demanded that western nations open their borders to more of these 'refugees' and foot the huge bills for their housing, care and feeding. Not to mention the horrendous security problems, the rapes, murders and other crimes that every nation who has done what Pope Francis suggested has suffered. Oh, and the Vatican? They have not taken in a single refugee. And in spite of the fact the Church still has plenty of money even after being sued multiple times for shielding and attempting to cover up the activities of pedophile priests, it has contributed virtually nothing to help pay for these 'refugees' the Pope wants other countries to foot the bill for.

To add insult to injury, Pope Francis, who is no friend of Israel made these remarks just before Yom HaShoah, the day Jews worldwide memorialize the victims of the Holocaust. No accident there, I guarantee you.

Yet, to be charitable, perhaps Pope Francis is like many people today, who simply don't comprehend what a concentration camp is what a Holocaust really is. As the elderly people with the numbers forcibly tattooed on the arms fade into history, these words get used commonly for situations they don't remotely resemble. So perhaps Pope Francis merely needs a bit of understanding of what a concentration camp actually was.

The phrase 'concentration camp' was actually a Nazi euphemism for 'murder factory.' Its working principle was, first, to sort out the elderly, the infirm and those who hadn't managed to do so well after being shipped east for miles in unheated boxcars. Those were murdered immediately, usually in gas chambers, after which their bodies were plundered for hair and for gold and silver dental work and either burned or buried in mass graves, depending on what means were available.The end result looked like this:



Seen anything like that on Lesbos or any other European refugee center, Pope Francis? Do tell.

In the camps like Auschwitz where huge crematoriums were constructed, you could literally smell the odor of burning flesh for miles. Tell us, Pope Francis, did you smell anything like that? Or see anything like the ovens at Auschwitz in those refugee centers?

 

Now, the ones that survived the initial selection became slave laborers. They were put on starvation rations and literally worked to death, unless some of them, particularly children were subjected to hideous medical 'experiments.' Young women were frequently put into brothels and forced into assembly line prostitution, something that also usually resulted in a fairly quick demise. And the remnant that managed to survive? They were human skeletons when they were liberated.

 

Tell us about the living skeletons you saw at Lesbos, Pontiff. What, none? Surely you must have seen something, to call in a concentration camp.

Look into those dead eyes, Pope Francis. Along with the Jewish people, this is who you have defamed, trivialized and insulted,beyond what they suffered while your Church did NOTHING, although individual Catholics certainly did. Not a single Catholic was ever excommunicated for their part in perpetrating or cooperating with the Holocaust, even after the war.

Again, just so you fully understand what's coming out of your mouth...this is what a concentration camp looks like. This is what it is.

Seen anything like this in Lesbos or any other refugee center Pope Francis?

Seen anything remotely like it?

I didn't think so. What was that the Scriptures say about bearing false witness?

Pope Francis is the second Pope in a row to have the distinction of being an utter failure. At a time when Christians in the Middle East are in danger of extermination, he has spent his time attacking Israel, the one country in the region where the Christian population is actually growing.At a time where Christians are being assailed by Muslims in Pakistan, Turkey, Europe, Nigeria and elsewhere by Muslims, he has opted to appease the Muslims and confine his remarks to the joys of Christian 'martyrdom.'

Benedict, his predecessor started out as the leader the Church needed by became so frightened by Muslim reaction to his linking the fate of the Church to that of the Jews that he became a servile, terrified tool of Islamism. On a visit to Turkey and its Islamist ruler Tayyip Erdogan, he was so cowed that he followed Erdogan's orders not to even look like he was praying at St. Sophia, formerly the largest cathedral in Europe. And before it became a museum of sorts,  a mosque sanctified, as it were, by the blood of thousands of  unarmed Christians who were slaughtered in cold blood when the Turks captured Constantinople* and entered it. 

At least Benedict had the decency to realize what an utter failure he had become and resign.

Pope Francis shows no such signs of doing so. And both men have consequently forfeited all claim to any moral authority whatsoever., not to mention hurting the Church and weakening it immensely.


* Now Istanbul.

Forum: What Would Real Tax Reform Look Like?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! writers, communityand our invited guests weigh in at the Wow! Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Would Real Tax Reform Look Like?

Don Surber: Real tax reform would be 20% of all income over $120,000 with the end of all tax credits. But good luck getting rid of EITC. Until we stop using the tax code as welfare -- corporate and personal -- we will never see real tax reform.

But we live in a world where we can simplify income taxes.

Doug Hagin : Well, I would eliminate most deductions, loopholes, etc. The fewer of these we have, the fewer ways to cheat. The less ways to cheat, the less need for enforcement. Thus a smaller IRS. A far better system would be for everyone to pay 10% on income after the first $25,000. You make $35,000 you pay $1,000, you make $350,000, you pay $32,500. For dependents, an exemption of $10,000 each. For corporations, businesses, a flat 10%. In short, it should be fairly easy to file your taxes. CPA's and tax attorneys would hate my plan but, oh well.

In addition, I would eliminate or shrink most government agencies, and reign in foreign aid to nations that are not our friends. At some point the discussion has to be about spending less. There are things the federal government should fund, our military, veterans needs, protection for our coasts, borders, etc.

This is, of course never going to happen, it makes too much sense. And too many people are invested in the convoluted mess that our tax code has become.


Fausta Rodríguez Wertz: What Doug said!


JoshuaPundit: Whooo, tax reform! I have something of a contrary view. First off, let's remember where all these handy dandy deductions originally came from. They were efforts by the Feds to promote different industries and different social behavior at a given time, and while they might have been good ideas then, they've largely stayed on the books and been abused. And some of the good ones that still make sense were eliminated. F'rinstance, people in arts and entertainment who had been  struggling for years  to get a record contract, a book/script  deal or a movie contract  used to be 
able to divide that sudden huge chunk of moola by the years they had been struggling and reporting any arts income they made and pay taxes on just a percentage of the income they made during that first reasonably fat year instead of getting killed. Ronaldus Magnus took that one away. GRRR! OK, forgiven.

So the first thing to think about is what the goals are here, and here's my two cents (agorat for the initiated ; )

President Trump's skillful handling of the Chinese is going to eventually lead to the same thing that happened with Japan. To avoid tariffs (the stick hidden behind the carrots) they will build plants here, hire Americans and pay U.S. taxes provided they're competitive. Ditto with American companies. So the first thing we need to do is start more manufacturing here, which will create a great deal more activity that can be taxed and thus more revenue.  So the first goal is to lower the corporate income tax. Ditto with capital gains which means you pay twice for the same damned money.

The second goal is to simplify the IRS tax code. I never used to be a flat taxer, but I've gradually come over to that view as I realized the truth of  something a very wise fella once said to me once : "If it ain't yours, you don't worry about it."

Too many folks aren't paying taxes? Well yeah, but a lot of those people actually are because of legitimate itemized deductions deductions, or because of taking less W-2 exemptions which are subtracted from their gross income. That's not exactly unfair when you think about it. If you're self employed and have to pay money out to run your business, should you have to pay taxes on that money? So the first part of reforming our byzantine tax code is to go through it and eliminate deductions that once might have made sense but perhaps no longer do, like the oil depletion allowance perhaps. I'm a little wary about starting anew because some deductions actually pay for themselves and then some, like R&D. Goal number three is to parse the tax code and eliminate what no longer makes sense.

However, if we were going to start fresh with personal income tax, the best way is probably four brackets. I'd have to sit down with the numbers crunchers to come up with actual percentages, but say, 10% of income $20,000 and below, 15% on income $20,000 to $200,000, 20% on income from $200,000 on up. I would still allow a certain amount of deductions to the self employed. You want to promote small business..it pays in the end and cxreates more revenue.

I'd also keep the child credit for now. America's birth rate needs to pump up a bit so perhaps we're not so dependent on immigration. Whole countries in Europe aren't reproducing at replacement rates, and I  think you see how well that's working out with what they've imported to make up the numbers.

The bee-eeg enchilada, the home mortgage deduction? I would allow it for one, count 'em one family residence. The original idea behind that one was to promote home ownership, and that has a lot of sociological benefits. If people have a stake in things, they tend to care more about their neighborhoods, et cetera, et cetera et cetera.



And when people pay taxes, they also get concerned about the money the government is wasting.  Like my friend said, if it ain't yours...but OTOH, if it is, you definitely make it your business to get worried about it.I think the American people would go for that. it would suck for me personally, but there's always my old friend depreciation and some of the stuff's free and clear anyway, so I'd  swallow it. Grr again. Ehh!

Another problem with the tax code nobody wants to mention is the waste and fraud involved dealing with illegal migrants. We spend billions on earned income credits for people working here illegally and for child credits for children not in America whom may not even exist. Read the link to find out how that scam works.

Finally, as much as people dislike the IRS, I think fantasies  about eliminating them are just that. Some people simply won't  pay taxes. As ol' Ben said, if men had their way none of them would be taxed. So there needs to be enforcement, accounting and record keeping. Also, if we're going to eliminate the IRS, you're talking about a huge amount of unemployment for a class of people who make enough money to buy houses, cars, refrigerators, tires, clothes, food and other consumer items, all of which create economic activity that can be taxed. So while a hiring freeze and/or transfers into a different civil service branch correct this scenario, I think simply axing them is not too bright, as much as some of them may deserve it.

Off topic, one thing The Donald absolutely ought to get into is civil service reform that would allow these so-called public servants to be transferred to different job categories or face layoffs. It can be done, and Jeb Bush of all people did it in Florida, saving the state millions.



Bookworm Room :Real federal tax reform: A 10% sales tax on everything but food basics (milk, meat, produce, bread, etc.). It sounds regressive, but it's not because people's consumption tends to be consistent with their income and lifestyle. Marin's wealthy shop at Whole Foods, drive expensive electric cars, and buy their clothes at Nordstroms and Neiman Marcus. Marin's less wealth shop at Safeway, drive cheap cars, and buy their clothes at Goodwill or Costco.

Alternative federal tax reform: A 10% tax on gross income over $20,000. Those earning $20,000 or less would pay a 5% tax. Everyone should pay tax.


David Schuler : I'm not sure I can discuss this question adequately in brief but here goes. It depends on your operative definition of "real". I would say that real tax reform would have the following characteristics:

• It would not be financed by adding to the debt. That means it should either be revenue neutral or increase revenues.

• It must be politically possible.

• It must be either economically neutral or benign.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no tax reform involving a reduction in the marginal personal income tax rates would be real reform under that rubric. Tax cuts only pay for themselves under very specific circumstances. Neither today's tax rates nor economy are the tax rates or economy of the 1980s. We don't make enough of what we consume for the Keynesian stimulus of putting more money in people's pockets to boost incomes to be effective and the prospects for a tax cut resulting in increased domestic investment are bleak. If a tax cut stimulated the economy it would be China's economy that would be stimulated not ours.

Cutting spending is equally problematic. About 75% of the budget is just four items: defense spending (including military pensions and the VA), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and interest on the debt. With just paying for the federal courts and a minimal regulatory state, that would account for about 85% of the budget with the other 15% already being paid for by borrowing. So, no cuts in marginal rates.

The present deductions are fiercely defended by those who depend on them for their incomes. The biggie, the home mortgage interest deduction, will be defended to the death by the real estate industry. The deductibility of charitable contributions will be defended by not-for-profits. The deductibility of state and local taxes will, unsurprisingly, be defended by state and local governments.

From time to time you hear a national sales tax floated as a replacement for the income tax or a way of reducing marginal tax rates. That's not real, either. Sales tax is a matter of life and death for state and local governments and retailers.

And so on.

IMO the only prospect for real tax reform is that we might be able to reduce the corporate income tax to fall within OECD norms rather than their present very high level. The corporate income tax accounts for about 11% of present federal revenues. Cutting them in half would require about $180 million in cuts. That can be accomplished in any number of ways including reductions in military spending, trimming the budgets of some federal agencies, or even by a surtax on personal incomes over $1 million. Bringing the corporate income tax down would reduce the incentives for inversions and encourage companies to repatriate some of their overseas earning. That's something anyway.


Michael McDaniel:
I haven’t spent sufficient time on the issue of tax reform to propound at length, and with any special insight, to say nothing of the nuts and bolts of specific proposals, but I can suggest a few general principles that might have a positive effect:

Everyone needs to have skin in the game. At present, only about 47% of the public pays taxes, and a great many of those that don’t get tax refunds. Think about that one: refunds on taxes they don’t pay. Even the poverty stricken can afford a few hundred a year. Until everyone is a taxpayer, we can’t hope to have meaningful tax reform.

There is no reason individuals can’t pay their taxes on a post card. The simpler, the better.

We absolutely must dramatically reduce business taxes. Our current “progressive” tax system is among the most regressive in the world and is badly damaging our economy. It has been for a very long time.

There should be very few, and highly specific deductions, available only to those that actually pay substantial taxes, such as the middle class. A home mortgage deduction, deductions for dependent children, and perhaps for adults caring for elderly parents--an issue that becomes more common and pressing by the year--can be retained, and easily citied when filing one’s form 1040 postcard.

There must be no tax loopholes or exemptions for members of Congress or any other governmental employee. They sink or float in the same boat as the rest of us poor deplorables.

It should go without saying that corporate tax welfare is out. Temporary incentives to stimulate plant building, etc., sure, but we must let free enterprise do what it does best and get government out of the market.

Constitutional Amendment: the Federal Tax code may not exceed 50 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman, 12 font. Felony penalties for anyone adding a period more.

Of course, none of this will be possible without repealing Obamacare, restoring sane immigration policies designed only to directly benefit America and Americans, and without dramatically reducing the size of government. President Trump is making a good beginning, but this is going to be a multi-generational project. Until Americans give up the idea that government can and should provide for all their needs, taxes will never be under control. And of course, whenever progressives are in power, we’ll be skyrocketing in exactly the wrong direction.

Doing this will have one additional useful effect: the IRS can be reduced to a fraction of its current size and power. Oh yes, felony penalties for any IRS employee that abuses their power, including total loss of employment, benefits and pension.



Right Reason :Tax reform cannot be accomplished overnight but we should set a goal to eliminate personal and corporate income taxes completely and stop the federal government’s theft of the hard earned wages of American workers. We have to starve the beast. Government must be forced to operate within a balanced budget. We can eliminate several cabinet departments such as the EPA, DOE, Dept of Ed, FHA… which have no legitimacy from a constitutional perspective. The federal government should operate the way any business is required to operate, spending no more than it takes in.

The federal income tax system is confiscatory theft. The American taxpayers are debt slaves to an out of control and too powerful federal government. As we saw under the Obama Administration the Internal Revenue Service became a political weapon of the left, targeting conservative organizations in an effort to keep them from being able to obtain 501c3 status. This seriously hindered their ability to operate and advance the conservative message going into the 2010 and 2012 election cycles and one might argue a major contributing factor to President Obama’s re-election in 2012. The Internal Revenue Service needs to be stripped of its power and reduced to a simple accounting division of the federal government if left to exist at all.

Real tax reform would be the implementation of a flat tax (a set rate based on income) or a fair tax, which is a consumption tax. I would prefer to see a fair tax replace the current system. Under a fair tax everyone would pay for the products and services they purchase. This fair tax would exempt food, medical care, medicines, and certain other products or services of necessity that could be negotiated and agreed upon by our legislators. We do not want the fair tax to be a regressive tax that would harm low income, elderly, and disabled citizens, but the less people consume the less they would pay. With a consumption tax everyone would contribute towards the operation of the government. Having skin in the game is the only way to make people aware of and care how their money is being spent. Today nearly half of Americans pay no income tax and many actually receive money and benefits without paying anything into the system. As long as they continue to receive government handouts they have no incentive to fix this broken system. A fair tax would also eliminate the need to file federal income tax returns.

Progressives love to tell us the rich don’t pay enough taxes while the fact is they pay the majority of taxes received by the federal government. The current system is pure wealth redistribution, which has been the goal of socialists since the implementation of the federal income tax nearly one hundred years ago.

The more money we pay in taxes the more the government spends. It is never enough. The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare was a tax and therefore constitutionally legal. Americans are seeing higher taxes and health care premiums and costs while experiencing less health care and less discretionary income. It appears the federal government’s goal is to take every last penny we earn to redistribute as it chooses. The national debt is nearing $20 Trillion Dollars. The government has borrowed on our future earnings and the labor and earnings of our children and grandchildren. It is theft and if not criminal it is most certainly immoral.

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.

Were Slaves Immigrants? The Truth Of The Matter

 

Dr. Ben Carson came under quite a bit of fire  last month for remarks he made calling slaves immigrants while speaking to Housing and Urban Development employees Monday about his vision for the department’s future:

“That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity,” Carson said, speaking about immigration.

“There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

“And do you know of all the nations in the world, this one, the United States of America, is the only one big enough and great enough to allow all those people to realize their dream. And this is our opportunity to enhance that dream.”

Poor Dr. Carson! Not only did he challenge the Perpetual Hymn of Eternal Black Grievance, but he actually had the unmitigated gall to challenge its very heart, that unlike anyone else brought to the New World, blacks were brought against their will. And he even implied that blacks coming to America, even as slaves, was something that ultimately benefited them and their descendants.

The hate that exploded on Twitter was amazing. Actress Leslie Jones actually threatened Dr. Carson with violence, saying she wanted to punch him out:

Follow

Leslie Jones ✔ @Lesdoggg

I want to fight Ben Carson!! Cash me outside muthafucka! How bout dat!! #Slaveswerenotimmigrants FUCKFACE!!

8:41 AM - 7 Mar 2017

• 2,521 2,521 Retweets
• 14,246 14,246 likes

Actor Samuel L. Jackson weighed in as well:

Follow

Samuel L. Jackson ✔ @SamuelLJackson

OK!! Ben Carson....I can't! Immigrants ? In the bottom of SLAVE SHIPS??!! MUTHAFUKKA PLEASE!!!#dickheadedtom

1:04 PM - 6 Mar 2017

• 139,576 139,576 Retweets
• 252,176 252,176 likes

And that always amusing font of information, Chelsea Clinton :

Follow

Chelsea Clinton ✔ @ChelseaClinton

This can't be real. Slaves were not & are not immigrants. 2017. https://twitter.com/aterkel/status/838850157764562944 …

1:17 PM - 6 Mar 2017

• 6,267 6,267 Retweets
• 16,130 16,130 likes

And those were some of the calmer, more polite comments. Are they right?

Let's ignore the fact that a certain Barack Hussein Obama said pretty much the same thing and no one said 'boo' about it. Let's ignore that both Ms. Jones and Mr. Jackson have a history of making remarks that a lot of folks would consider racist. Let's even ignore the obvious hypocritical political factor involved since Dr. Ben Carson is being attacked mostly because had the strength of character to get off the Democrat plantation and take the job offered to him by his friend President Trump, putting himself in a position where he can actually improve the lives of black Americans.

Instead, let's simply look at what was said and see if there's any truth to it.

Slavery started in America around 1619, and the importation of slaves ended in the early 1800's after America outlawed it in 1804 and had the American Navy, along with the British crack down hard on the slave traffic. Actually, most colonies outlawed the importation of slaves as early as 1770, well before America won its independence. What isn't remembered is that for much of that period slavery was multi-racial. And so was ownership.

Britain's economy was flourishing during that time, but very little of that wealth trickled downhill. There were a lot of Britain's population who barely made ends meet and that often led to petty crime. The English Civil War of the mid-seventeenth century also led to the creation of a lot of political 'undesirables', people who were considered traitors to the Crown. The people of these two groups who weren't hung were frequently sentenced to transportation as indentured servants.It was a cheap, convenient and easy way of getting rid of them and actually making a profit on the deal. There are many recorded historical cases of people being sentence to transportation and indentured servitude for the crime of stealing a loaf of bread or a handkerchief.

Rest assured that these people were brought to America against their will. And the conditions they faced when being brought to America were hardly different then black slaves from Africa. The idea, just as with black slaves was to get them to America or the West Indies as cheaply as possible where someone would buy them at auction. And those someones included free blacks, at least until the 1720's and in some colonies even later.

Another inconvenient fact that frequently gets glossed over was that as the trade developed, far more care was taken transporting black slaves than whites, because blacks were more in demand and fetched a higher price.The reason was simple - they could take the climate in places like Georgia, the Carolinas and the West Indies far better than whites from England or Ireland could. As larger plantations were established in these areas for sugar, rice,indigo and cotton, black slaves  fetched a higher price not just for the above reasons, but because the method of obtaining them was different from white bond slaves and far more costly.

Dealing in white English bond slaves involved very little outlay or overhead beyond the actual cost of sailing the pond and some meager provisions to keep the merchandise alive. That's why white bond slaves sentenced to transportation were frequently chained up and  thrown into the hold of cargo ships making the trip anyway as an 'extra.' The money on these bond slaves was made on selling them and their indentures at auction, from which the Crown took a nice percentage that was paid after the return to England. Aside from them not being used to the climate, another reason white slavery died out gradually while black slavery didn't was because there was far less money to be made.

Africa in the 17th and early 18th century was a huge unknown to most Europeans except for certain coastal areas.  To obtain those more desirable black slaves, you had to front the overhead for a ship to travel to the West African Coast and hope there was merchandise waiting for you. That's where the slave traders, predominantly Arabs, would bring black slaves to market after collecting them in the interior by either buying war captives from local tribal chiefs or raiding the villages themselves. If no merchandise was there, you waited until it was. Then, you had to shell out money to the slave traders and buy your cargo, as well as more provisions to make it to your destination.. So there was a lot more overhead paid out before seeing any profit, hence the higher price. And hence, the incentive to get as much of your cargo alive to your destination as possible. Yes, there were those horrific times slaves were thrown overboard, particularly after the American and British navies started cracking down. But losing a cargo like that not only meant a major financial loss for the ship's owners but likely a permanent end to employment for any captain who was caught in that situation. Again, the idea was to get as much of the slave cargo to its destination in reasonably good condition as possible.

Given what sailing was like at that time in history, it was no pleasure trip for the crews, let alone their human merchandise,white or black. And the existence of a slave was miserable if you managed to survive the trip no matter what color you were. Anyone doubting this ought to read something like The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes, which tells in detail exactly how British 'criminals' sentenced to transportation, particularly young women were treated in Australia, another dumping ground for the Empire's unwanted.

And ponder this. Let's say that no black slaves had come to America. What would their lives and the lives of their descendants been instead?

True, they would have been free in a sense. But that 'freedom' would also have included freedom to starve, freedom to be killed in Africa's never ending wars, being subjected to rule by corrupt,despotic regimes, famine, disease, living in dire poverty and in general an existence for most of them that would make even the most poverty stricken lives in America's ghettos look luxurious by comparison.A good indication of how true this is is that only a handful of former slaves left for Africa after the Civil War, even with the Freedman's Bureau offering them free land in West Africa, passage and financial assistance once they arrived. And to be honest, I don't see many American blacks making that choice either, do you?

The promise of America is that one can, with sweat, endurance and a little favor from the Almighty live a better life than the one you left behind. It may take some time or even a new generation, but the promise is there. And it's largely been kept.

They may have been unwilling immigrants, but immigrants they were. And believe it or not, that unwillingness was shared by most of America's non-black immigrants as well.

The great wave of migrants in the mid to late 19th century was largely sparked by various revolutions in Europe, and charming episodes like the Potato Famine in Ireland, The Highland clearings, violent pogroms and oppression in Eastern Europe, crop failures and dire poverty in southern Italy and famine and wars in China.

Most of the people who came to America came because the alternative was starvation, death or prison, depending on where you happened to be situated. Most of them came in the aptly named steerage. And while they weren't chained, no huge effort was made to ensure them a safe passage. Ditto once they came here. America had no huge welfare state then, so these people our immigrant forefathers were often rolling the dice.At best, they might have had a family member, relative or some one they knew from back in the old country to give them a slight helping hand. If they didn't, they either found a place for themselves or starved, and in American society at that time there weren't many people who particular cared  all that much which it was.

Most of those non-slave immigrants who made their way here came not because there was any hunger to be Americans,  but because there was no life worth living where they came from. And at least in America, if you could get in, offered something of a fresh start, rough as the transition often was. And millions of immigrants parlayed that fresh start into a better life for themselves and for their children. The same thing applies to many blacks who have come as immigrants  to America from places like Haiti, Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, Nigeria and other far away places. And it applies to many black Americans whose ancestors once were slaves,just like Dr, Carson said.

Immigrants were they all, from all races who came to America.

Ben Carson, of all people has reason to understand that, coming from the background he did.  He knows full well it's a land of dreams and opportunity indeed.

Another Terror Attack In The Heart of Paris - Are The French Fed Up Yet?

 


Right at the heels of our own local jihadi's murder spree in Fresno, Jihad strikes again in a new terror attack in the heart of Paris on the Champs-Elysées, one of the most famous streets in the world. This time, the jihadis ambushed policemen, and left one gendarme dead and two badly wounded.

Ah, springtime in Paris! Witnesses said the attacker pulled up beside a parked police vehicle and fired through the window.

"He parked just behind the van and he got out with a Kalashnikov and I heard six gunshots," a witness named Chelloug said.

"I thought they were firecrackers, because we all looked around the road and there was no one.

"In fact, he was hidden behind the van and shooting at the police.

The attacker in question was shot dead, but police think one or more suspects escaped. In fact, the latest is that a second subject is at large and was firing at a shopping mall in the area.

For those not familiar with Paris, this is one of the poshest, most touristy parts of the city. The Arc de Triomph is in this area, at one end of the street. This part of the Champs-Elysées (it's name means 'Elysian Fields', from Greek mythology)is clogged with high end restaurants, cafes, bars, clubs, shops and hotels. Ordinarily, at 9PM local time on a Spring evening, people would be dining, strolling and window shopping or enjoying a glass of wine or an aperitif at one of the cafes. Instead? Regarde ça!




President Francois Hollande said officials were "convinced" the incident is a terror attack, even before ISIS claimed responsibility. From here, it gets into Clouseau territory.



This terror attack (I prefer jihad attack myself) came right after 2 jihadis were arrested in the port city of Marseilles a few days ago. They had guns, ammo, and explosives and were reportedly planning an attack as well to disrupt France's election, which takes place in 3 days. Yet the jihadi who was killed - now identified as Karim C. was known to security services as a Muslim extremist and the police had tips from their informers that he was seeking to obtain weapons to kill policemen in a 'terror attack.' Apparently, he succeeded in putting together what he needed.Previous information that Karim C had come to France from Belgium have been debunked.In fact,he was living in the eastern  Paris suburb of Chelles.

Not only that, but Karim was previously jailed for 20 years for - wait for it - shooting at cops in 2001, after being caught driving a stolen car! Not only was he released early, but he wasn't even deported! What was he doing in France at all? He wasn't even a citizen, but just another jihadi granted early release and continued status as a 'refugee' by France's insane Socialist government.

The prefect of police is saying that an inquiry is planned. I'm sure the families of the dead and wounded policemen are glad to hear that.

I'm unsure what effect this will have on France's election. Marine Le Pen, Emmanuel Macron and Francois Fillon cancelled campaign events planned for Friday.

With 10% unemployment, the highest in Western Europe, a lot of French voters were concerned about joblessness and repairing the damage the Socialist regime has done to France's economy. But as the Islamist attacks on the heart of France continue (and make no mistake, the location of this last one was deliberate) more and more French feel unsafe in their own homeland.

There is a choice to be made. Both Macron and his farther Left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon promise more of the same, and many French regard Fillion, justifiably, as simply corrupt. Only Marine Le Pen promises a change from the status quo, and an end to events like today's assault, or should I say, 'terror attack.'.

In his remarks on the subject in a press conference, President Donald Trump said that "it looks like another terrorist attack. What can you say? It just never ends."

Do the French want it to end? It's a decision the French will have to make this Sunday.

Trending On Wow! Magazine!!

Dear Nicholas Kristoff: Trump isn’t the scary guy. Obama gambled with America. 

Yet Another Terror Attack In The Heart of Paris – Are The French Fed Up Yet? 

Were Slaves Immigrants? The Truth Of The Matter 

First comes disarmament, then comes an end to human rights  

 From The Korean Press; Praise For President Trump

Bookworm Beat 4/20/17 — thank goodness for friends edition  

 Fox News To Become MSNBC Clone 

 Seattle Council Appropriates $1.3M in Legal Aid Funding for Illegal Aliens 

MUST-SEE VIDEO] Rabbi Sacks on antisemitism and its danger to all people   

If It Walks Like A Duck… 

 A Good Day for Our Veterans – Trump Signs “The Veterans Choice Program Extension and Improvement Act (S.544)” 

 FOX News: Authors of Clinton’s Campaign Tell-All “Hillary Never Saw Trump Win Coming.”  

 Venezuela: Arming the thugs 

 A few more funny United Airlines memes for you to enjoy

Socialists In France Use 'Computer Error' To Try To Rig Election Against Le Pen

 

While Marine Le Pen is leading in the polls for the first round of France's election, the current Socialist government has apparently found an underhanded way to defeat her...by massively rigging the votes due to a 'computer error.'

Over 500,000 French citizens living outside France received two voting cards and thus have a chance to vote twice in the first round.

As the UK Express reports, France’s Interior Ministry has said it will not be invalidating the election because of the duplicate voting glitch, and French authorities confirmed they would not be investigating the potential electoral fraud until AFTER the election.

Chief beneficiary here is likely to be Emmanuel Macron, who is running as an independent but is a long time prominent member of the Socialist Party. In fact, he was formerly an under-secretary in Socialist François Hollande's first government in 2012 before being appointed Hollande's Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in 2014. He and Hollande still have very close personal ties.

Most expatriate citizens of France are not on the Right, and many are pro EU because they feel it benefits their expat status. We are talking about potentially half a million votes here, more than enough to swing a close election.

Voting twice is a crime, but the only way to find out who committed in ifs if the authorities run a thorough check through their computer systems. If the Socialists return to power via Maron, I'd call that a pretty unlikely possibility.

Forum: Should 'Hate Crime' Laws Be abolished?

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: Should 'Hate Crime' Laws Be Abolished?

Don Surber: All crimes of person and many crimes of property are hate. All the hate crimes law does is politicize criminal prosecution. They are de facto blasphemy laws only against Muslims.


Michael McDaniel:Hate crime laws are inherently anti-American. They pick winners, and assert that some people, some victims, are of greater value than others. This is why progressives and Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters become so outraged when anyone dare suggest all lives--including black lives--matter. They claim special, exalted status. Such laws make a mockery of equal justice for all by giving preferred victim groups greater status before the law, greater value as human beings. As such, hate crime laws are a particularly vile form of virtue signaling.

A primary argument for such laws is as a sort of expiation of guilt for the mistreatment of Blacks in the past. Thus do contemporary Americans, who have trespassed against none, need to make atonement for the sins their ancestors--for the most part--didn’t commit. This too does not comport well with the principle of equal justice for the law, which holds all men equal before the law, taking them as they come, not dragging with them the sins--or none--of their ancestors of ages past. No man facing criminal charges should be forced to carry the sins of the ages with him into court.

There is a great deal of irony involved as well. It is progressives that commonly support these laws, virtue signaling being a primary way by which they identify themselves, and live. Yet it is the same people that work tirelessly to lower the sentences of vicious criminals, to shut down jails, to release offenders as early as possible, and as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, to actually immunize Blacks from arrest in the first place. It is these people who make folk heroes of cop killers and traitors.

And who are the criminals they wish to lionize and free? Usually blacks, who commit crimes out of all proportion to their population distribution, and usually against other blacks. However, hate crime prosecutions are virtually never applied when black criminals kill each other, or even black innocents. They are also virtually never done when black criminals kill white people, the social justice theory being that white people cannot, by virtue of their privilege, be discriminated against. No need to peer into the thoughts of black murderers; their race absolves them of all hate.

Hate crimes are reserved for those that commit crimes against favored victim groups.

Prosecution for hate crimes also requires far less proof--less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt--for conviction. Those pushing hate crime laws would deny this, and some even argue those that are accused of hate crimes deserve to be convicted regardless of a lack of evidence. That’s the point of the laws in the first place. Hate crimes, you see, are proved by mere race. A white person accused of assaulting a black person must, by virtue of their race, be guilty of hate. The principle has come to be applied to the LGBTQWERTY victim community. When one of these people is the victim of an assault, or virtually any other crime, the motivation must be hate. No other possibility exists by virtue of the victim’s favored gender/sexual preference, social justice status. This is why, in many cases, and in many places, it is nearly impossible for defendants to receive fair trials.

Another pernicious factor is the determination of hate must involve the establishment of thought crime. Juries and judges are required to read the minds, to determine the motivations, of defendants. For defendants choosing to stand on their Fifth Amendment rights, the prosecution may weave any outlandish theories of hate they wish, and because hate crime prosecutions always rest on an ever-shifting foundation of emotion and political correctness, conviction may be very easy indeed to obtain.

If the penalties for a given crime are insufficient, it is an easy matter for legislatures to correct such oversight. If legislators wish to add enhancements for specific criminal acts, that too is easy to do. The law, if it is to be equal for all, if we are to have a rule of law, must be race, gender and religion blind. Thought crime can have no place in a constitutional republic. How can any man know which thoughts are criminal and which are not, and under which circumstances?

Hate crime laws do not serve the public interest, only the narrow and vindictive political interests of Progressives. They are an element of social justice, not the rule of law.

Dave Schuler : "Hate crimes" should not be distinct crimes. There's a reasonable argument for taking hate into account at sentencing but not for "hate crimes" to be distinct crimes.

Bookworm Room: Hate crimes should definitely be abolished.

Murder is a criminal act, regardless of the victim. Assault is a criminal act, regardless of the animus driving the perpetrator.

A crime is a crime is a crime. Our government should never declare that some lives are more or less valuable than others in the hierarchy of criminal events, no matter how well-intentioned that declaration may be.

JoshuaPundit: Hate crimes? Nothing but a sop to 'protected' groups. You'll notice that blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics (especially illegal migrants) and Muslims are rarely if ever charged with them, no matter how egregious and racially motivated the offense. No, hate crime charges are largely limited to white males. The entire premise is ridiculous anyway. If a crime is committed with malice aforethought, that ought to be a sufficient basis for a trial and for sentencing.

Oh and by the way, let's bring back Ol' Sparky for capital offenses, shall we? A painless injection is no deterrent.

 


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.

A Message For Easter

Christ is risen from the tomb, conquering death by death- Old Russian Easter hymn.


Today is Easter Sunday, the day Christians the world over celebrate the Resurrection that is at the heart of their faith.  And I want to wish all of my Christian friends and readers a joyous and inspiring Easter.

This week has been a celebration of hope and freedom, with Passover starting last Monday night and continuing through the weekend until next Tuesday. Which of course also coincides with Holy Week which culminates this weekend with Easter Sunday. This linkage is entirely appropriate, since Jesus had come to Jerusalem for the Passover ceremonies and the famous Last Supper was a Passover Seder...the ritual meal where Jews all over the world retell the story of the Exodus, celebrate their G-d-given freedom and eat the unleavened bread, matzoh, to commemorate their ancestor's journey and deliverance from bondage and slavery. The bread Jesus spoke of as recorded in the Gospels was none other than the humble matzoh, the unleavened bread the Hebrews made because they were 'in haste to depart' from Egypt and had no time for it to rise.

 

The story of the Resurrection is a story of freedom too...freedom of the soul, and a promise of eternal life to believing Christians who understand what the rolling away of the stones means for them.

At this time, when religious freedom is under attack in ways and in places where we never supposed it ever would be, it is important to reflect on the message of Passover and Easter, and how that message can free us from bondage...especially the chains we forge ourselves, either by our own choices or by acquiescing to the evil choices of others.

Just over one year ago, last Easter, Muslims in Pakistan decided to celebrate the holiday in their own way. In Lahore, Pakistan, Gulshan-e-Iqbal park set aside a special area for Christian. Many of them took their children to the park for a special Easter treat.

At midday,when the park was crowded with families, a Taliban faction called Jamaat-ul-Ahrar set off a huge bomb in the parking area, right near the swings, the picnic area and the children's rides, with the exploding vehicles in the parking area adding to the carnage.

According to Senior police official Haider Ashraf, ball bearings were found all over the crowded park. That's a common tactic, one frequently used by the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians against Israeli civilians in Arafat's Second Intifada. The blast force turns the ball bearings into high velocity anti-personnel weapons, rather like shrapnel.

As Jamaat-ul-Ahrar spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told the Associated Press in a phone call, "The target was Christians."

It was indeed. It was their way of saying 'Happy Easter, infidels.'

This year, it was the Copt's turn. On Palm Sunday, at least 45 victims were killed in an Islamic terrorist attack on two Coptic churches in Egypt and hundreds were injured. The first suicide bomber hit St George's Church in Tanta. The second struck northwest, at St Mark's Cathedral in Alexandria, formerly one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. COptic Pope Tawadros II had just left the cathedral after hearing about the Tanta attack. The jihadis came within minutes of killing the Coptic patriarch while he was at worship on Palm Sunday.

Jihad is doing its best to exterminate Christianity not just in the region that gave it birth, but worldwide.

So why do I mention these far away horrors in an article on Easter?

Partly because the horrors aren't so far away anymore. We've been importing them.

Our Department of Justice just arrested the first Muslim doctor in the U.S. multiple counts of female genital mutilation (FGM). Detroit emergency room Doctor Jumana Nagarwala is accused of performing illegal female genital mutilations (between 2005 and 2017. Her victims are minor girls, some as young as six years old.

According to the criminal complaint, Nagarwala performed these procedures in a "medical clinic" outside of the hospital. Girls as young as 6 or 7 from next door Minnesota (where there's a huge Somali community) were also brought by their parents to Nagarwala for FGM. They were reportedly told by their parents that they were being taken on a special "girls trip" and needed to go the doctor for a "stomach ache" and to "get the germs out."

The parents were also interviewed by the FBI and could face charges.

Like 'honor killings' this has been going on in America for quite some time. It's just that until now, no one in law enforcement was given support by our government to try and stop it. In the U.S. as well as other Western countries with large Muslim populations, aside from the local FGM doctors, a favorite tactic is to send the girls back to the old country where relatives will see to it that the children are mutilated for life.

And of course, there is a bevy of the usual attacks on the infidels...Stockholm, Jerusalem, St. Petersburg, ad nauseum. It's become the new normal. Meanwhile the current Pope and others like the Archbishop of Canterbury urge the west to import more of the same poison en masse. Indeed, in London itself, 500 churches have been closed while 423 mosques have been opened.

Christianity  and indeed the entire Judeo-Christian ethic that formed western society  is under attack, not just from Islamism but from the secular, anti Judeo-Christian Left.

Today is a day of  holiness and joy. But as you celebrate with your loved ones, remember that the freedom to do so is not a given, and must be fought for and won to be maintained. And take strength from the message of Easter, that there is light and hope even in the darkest times.

NYT: 'Texas, CA Belong to Mexico. US Must Give Migrants Amnesty To Keep Them

Pravda-on-the-Hudson has been caught dissembling quite a few times. But this op-ed they chose to publish asserting that Mexico has a claim to all the territory ceded to the U.S. at the end of the Mexican War in 1848 has a special place in their disgraceful history. And I'm actually glad they did run this,because it unintentionally reveals the true core of the argument that illegal migrants are 'immigrants' and thus entitled to what are referred to as 'immigrant rights.'


 


The piece, written by one Señor Enrique Krauze who is described as 'a historian, the editor of the literary magazine Letras Libres and the author of “Redeemers: Ideas and Power in Latin America.”' His premise is this...and note certain key words I've emphasized:

The United States invasion of Mexico in 1846 inflicted a painful wound that, in the 170 years that followed, turned into a scar. Donald Trump has torn it open again.

Among the many lies that he has constructed, none is more ridiculous than his attempt to contradict history by presenting the United States as a victim of Mexico, a country that supposedly steals jobs, imposes onerous treaties and sends its “bad hombres” across the border.

To confront this fake history, some Mexicans are proposing to remind Mr. Trump exactly what country was the first victim of American imperialism. They are calling for a lawsuit that would aim to nullify the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (signed on Feb. 2, 1848), in which Mexico — invaded by American soldiers, its capital occupied, its ports and customs stations seized — was forced to accept the American annexation of Texas and concede more than half the rest of Mexican territory, now including most of the states of Arizona, New Mexico and California.

He continues by naming some radical Left 'statesmen' (his term) behind the idea of an (International Criminal Court (ICC) lawsuit and says, "If the present Peña Nieto government does not adopt Mr. Cárdenas’s project, an opposition candidate (of either the populist left or the nationalist right) could legitimately assume it as a banner for the presidential elections of July 2018. Such a new president could make that lawsuit a reality."

He goes on to cherry pick a few quotes from Americans who disagreed with the war, including misrepresenting soldiers like Robert E. Lee who merely expressed human sympathy for the loss of life that occurred during the war. And finishes thus:

For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest. Surely not the physical reconquest of the territories that once were ours. Nor an indemnification that should have been much greater than the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land. We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.

But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.

Let's look at what Señor Krause is actually saying. The United States viciously invaded Mexico for no reason whatsoever and committed war crimes inspired by racial prejudices and greed. So Mexico should annul the treaty that ended the war and sue for 'reparations' at the ICC. But because such a suit might not succeed, the U.S. needs to recognize its guilt, flagellate itself and provide amnesty for 11-20 million 'immigrants' no matter what, simply because they're Mexican. Because you see, they have rights other immigrants don't have, because America stole territory that rightly belongs to Mexico.

That is exactly what La Raza, MeCha and other 'immigrant rights' groups have been really saying for some time. That illegal migrants,or as they like to call them immigrants from Mexico have the right to come here and settle en masse because of this history.

Let's examine this, shall we?

In the first part of his screed, Señor Krause makes much of the violent, unprovoked war of greed and conquest America waged against Mexico. Then, towards the end this 'historian' mentions in passing 'the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land.'

When was the last time you heard of the victor in a war of greed and territorial conquest giving any money to the losing side in a peace treaty? N-E-V-E-R.

And that 'feeble amount?' In today's money, that translates into over $460 billion dollars for land that was mostly unsettled and undeveloped. Not exactly the kind of money 'conquerors' dole out to the vanquished, is it? For that kind of cash, we should have gotten the Mexicans to throw in Baja and a nice piece of Sonora as well, ¿No es así??

Mexico was desperately in need of that money, after years of dysfunctional, corrupt government from various dictators like Presidente General Santa Anna. They happily agreed to what was a seller's price they had no reason to expect after starting a war.

Texas, by the way had already broken free from the Mexican yoke. One of the chief causes of the war was the U.S. accepting the Lone Star Republic as the the 28th state of the Union. Mexico had never gotten over getting their behinds handed to them by the Texans a few years back in spite of the Treaties of Velasco they made with the Texans. They still regarded Texas as theirs, even though they no longer controlled it. They were enraged when it became part of the U.S. and publicly called it a causus belli, a cause for war.

California was also on the verge of revolt, because neither most of the Califonios (Mexican living in California) or the American settlers liked Mexico's tyrannical government or its high taxation and corruption. California's Bear Flag Republic broke free from Mexico during the war, in 1846.

What 'historians' like Señor Krause conveniently forget if that prior to the war, President Polk tried to stave off hostilities by having U.S. diplomat John Slidell travel to Mexico offering a sum of 30 million dollars (nearly a trillion dollars!) for New Mexico and California and a border at the Rio Grande. (Mexico claimed the border started at the Nuences River, which the U.S. and Texas disputed). The Mexican government refused to receive him or negotiate anything.Ayi, those greedy Yanquis! And when General Zachary Taylor and his troops were ordered to travel down to the Rio Grande to maintain the disputed border of Texas they were fired on by the Mexican army.

Hmm, so much for an unprovoked war, Señor   Krause. Who's dealing in fake history now?

 And Mexico got even more money a few years after the war via the Gadsden Purchase, $10 million 1853 dollars (about $240 billion today) for what was simply desert wasteland and served to give Mexico a contiguous border. So much for the greedy Yanquis, si?

So now that we've established that the U.S engaging in the Mexican War was not unprovoked, that Mexico could have prevented it, that Mexico was the aggressor, that the land was bought and paid for at a more than fair price, and that the  United States was surprisingly generous in victory to a country that had attacked them, let's briefly examine the argument this horse manure is based on.

 

Mexico today still has a corrupt, dysfunctional government. Part of the reason that kind of government survives is because illegal migration from Mexico aids and abets it. They do it by sending billions of dollars back to Mexico to prop up the status quo, and by importing billions in social welfare cost to America because Mexico prefers to aid and abet illegal migration rather than take care of its own people. Illegal migration is Mexico's safety valve that helps keep the status quo in power.

There are a lot of governments like Mexico, and a lot of people who want to come here for various reasons. Over 3 million people are currently stuck in bureaucratic limbo with ICE as I write this. If you doubt this, talk to any American who married a spouse from a foreign country and went through the red tape and expense to bring them here legally. To say that Mexican illegal migrants  have special rights over people who are actually obeying our immigration  laws to come here legally and get to jump the line simply because of their proximity to our border,  some complicit American politicians and peddlers of fake history like Senor Krause is racism. Plain and simple.

An obvious ideologue like 'historian' Señor Krause is one thing. But For Pravda-on-the-Hudson to run this sort of propaganda and take it seriously(they even translated this bilge) gives a new meaning to complicity. It's embarrassing that they're not embarrassed.