Fixing Gaza...Permanently

Since March 30th, much of the world's press and a chunk of the so-called 'international community' has been focusing on a series of what can only be called violent riots emanating from Gaza against Israel's border.

Of course the media refers to them as protests, and the rioters as protestors and the UN as well as the usual channels refer to what has happened as 'war crimes.' So as a beginning, it's perhaps helpful to describe these so-called protests and let the reader judge.

Israel understandably has a border fence with Gaza, a precaution against the numerous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Iranian proxy Islamic Jihad that have occurred in the past. The protests weren't composed of people carrying signs and making a few speeches. They were mob attacks on Israel's border, specifically on points Hamas had advised the mob were vulnerable. The mobs attacked the fence directly with Molotov cocktails, small arms fire, axes, wire cutters, explosives and knives. They used women and children as human shields, and had support from Hamas missiles and mortar shells. In other words, this was an attack, an act of war carried out against a sovereign nation.

The IDF responded the way any country's military would faced by this attack on their borders. After warnings to the mob in Arabic not to approach the border fence and tear gas didn't stop them, the IDF soldiers opened fire when the mob charged the fence in response. It is a testimony to the cool heads, marksmanship and professionalism of the Tzahal that there were so few casualties, and that even Hamas admits almost all of them were Hamas or Islamic Jihad members. If a group of Jewish women and children had approached Gaza with an actual protest asking Hamas to stop firing missiles and mortar rounds at Israeli towns, does anyone doubt Hamas would have killed every one of them and celebrated afterwards?

Hamas's Leader Ismail Haniyeh has made it clear that the riots and assaults of the fence will continue 'until Jerusalem is liberated.' And true to his command, the riots have continued, usually of Fridays after the imams have had a chance to stir up the mobs.

Another assault has been launched from the air. Incendiary kites, balloons and even inflated condoms have been launched towards Israel, resulting in fires that have already destroyed hundreds of dunams of Israeli land. One balloon containing an explosive device and a booby trapped detonator attached to the string was launched to be landed near an Israeli kindergarten only a half hour before the children were scheduled to arrive for class. Here's what it looked like:



The leftist press reacted as expected. The AP, for instance in an article I won't bother to link to had a whole sob story about how there's such limited electricity nowadays and that it was making medical procedures like tending the wounds of would-be jihadis so difficult. Of course, what this Hamas PR piece didn't mention is that the electricity in Gaza is so limited because a Hamas missile accidentally hit one of the Israeli towers that provides electricity to Hamasastan. And to add to the smell of what the AP and others are peddling, the Israelis aren't able to make repairs because of the danger to Israeli repair crew.

The UN also played its traditional role. An extremely biased UNSC resolution damning Israel for 'war crimes' was unable to pass thanks to a U.S. veto, but the same resolution passed in the General Assembly, 120-8, with 45 abstentions. About half of the EU voted for the resolution, including Spain, France and Belgium, with Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland and Norway also voting in favor. The UK and Germany abstained. Of the major U.S. allies, only the Australians had the guts and decency to vote against this travesty openly...Advance Australia Fair indeed.





An amendment advanced by U.S Ambassador Nikki Haley condemning Hamas actually passed by a majority, but was disallowed by General Assembly president Miroslav Lajcak. While the resolution has the legal force of a stale piece of take out pizza, the fact that the UN was willing to vote to not condemn a clear aggressor against a democracy, and to actually vote in favor of establishing 'an international protection force for the occupied Palestinians' tells us quite a bit of what the UN has become. As Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon put it, if the UN approved the Palestinian resolution, “it will have signed in writing its unequivocal support for terrorism against Israel.”

“Let us not pretend,” Danon said. “If ISIS were to attack Stockholm tomorrow, ISIS would be held responsible for the attack. If al-Qaeda assaulted Paris, the UN would issue the strongest condemnation of al-Qaeda.”

“Only when Hamas attacks Israel does the UN seek to blame Israel.”

Well they did approve it, and a large part of the UN does approve terrorist attacks on Israel. And they have for a very long time.

So, how to fix this sorry situation?

Obviously the Israelis cannot depend on any cooperation at the UN. Nor can they depend on Hamas to stop attacking them or trust any negotiations they make with them. The latest laugher was Hamas's offer for 'comprehensive negotiation.' You know what Hamas proposed? They will return the remains of two Israeli servicemen,Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul they've held since the 2014 Operation Protective Edge. And they will return two kidnapped Israeli civilians Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, prisoners who the Red Cross has not even been permitted to visit.

What do they want in exchange? Oh, just to build a seaport and an airport. When you realize the Iran has now joined Turkey as Hamas's paymasters, it's easy to figure out they don't exactly want these things for the tourist trade, but to fly and import weapons and missiles. The Iranians are particularly noted for using civilian airplanes for this purpose. And these attacks on Israel's border are largely at Iran's request, to open up another front against Israel and distract from Iranian attempts to militarize Syria.

And no mention of an actual peace treaty, of course. Israel is never going to be able to negotiate anything like that with people who would use a pretty, kid friendly balloon as a booby trap in hopes of murdering  Jewish children.

What Israel has done to date since the Hamas takeover is to wall Gaza off, destroy the terrorist tunnels into Israel and do their best not to allow Iranian heavy weapons to get into Hamas's hands. Whenever the missile firings and mortar shelling get too intense, Israel engages in  what they refer to as 'mowing the grass' to take out as many Hamas military assets as possible and calm things down until the next time. Followed, of course by the usual media and UN hysterics,

This strategy actually helps Hamas, who care very little about the people they rule or about peace with Israel.It has become, essentially a war of attrition which favors Hamas.

I have a different solution, and it's one I would implement if it were my decision to make.

Wars are won (or lost) when certain things occur. To end a war or the active threat of war, one side occupies enemy territory and subdues it while protecting its own. Or  one side simply destroys an enemy's capacity to wage war and forces them to seek terms of surrender and peaceful coexistence.

Of course, not all wars are decisively won or lost, but that is how a war in which one side is victorious ends.

My proposal is that Israel treat this like the war that it is and do what's necessary to end it. It would not be without cost, but is entirely possible. And certainly an improvement on the status quo.

First, I would inform the civilian population to leave to avoid undue hardship. Then, I would send the IDF over the borders, after announcing publicly to Hamas and the world that any hospitals, mosques, civilian dwellings or schools from which any missiles were fired would be considered  legitimate military targets and dealt with accordingly. After all, the UN is going to condemn anything Israel does anyway, so it makes sense to deal with this Hamas tactic properly, once and for all.

I would then shut off all electricity and water to Gaza. which is now provided by Israel. Men have survived for centuries without electricity, but never for very long without water. The IDF could simply dig in and besiege Gaza City and Khan Yunis while the air force and attack choppers took out the missile launching sites and anything else that was appropriate. Hamas would eventually have to come out to either face the IDF's firepower or to surrender.

After vetting them, the Israelis could definitely let a large part of the civilian population flee to Egyptian Sinai and then close off the Rafah crossing while turning over the Hamas small fry that were captured directly to Egypt's Mukhabarat for a nice, leisurely interrogation. Getting their hands on bunch of Hamas operatives is something I'm sure Egypt's al-Sisi would appreciate, especially when they spilled the beans about their fellow Muslim Brotherhood comrades in Egypt. The Hamas leaders could be subjected to a nice sit down with the Shin Bet, who are noted for their hospitality and encouragement of interesting conversation in these situations. Most of the Hamas leaderrs could probably be turned over to the Egyptians afterwards. Sharing is caring, nachon?

At that point, the Israelis would control previously hostile territory, eliminating an Iran proxy and a probable war front. Mahmoud Abbas would certainly want it turned over to him and the corrupt PLO, but Israel could and should refuse outright, and annex the Gaza Strip. They could then start doing what Israelis seem to do so well, rebuilding and improving the mess, exactly what they did to Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War. There would be no more missiles from Gaza, and not much of a Hamas threat. Perhaps even some of the inhabitants from Gush Katif could resettle there, along with other Israelis. It could even become a haven for Arab and Middle East Christians and Yazedis, whose young men would become as good soldiers defending their new country as the Druse, Bedouin and Arab Christians have been. South Africa's Jews, who are increasingly under threat from the government of their native land might be another good source of population.

And Gaza itself? It would become what it could easily have been with different rulers, a second Singapore rife with trade and prosperity. While Egypt might whine a bit about a large part of Gaza's population settling in Sinai, the increased trade between Israel and Egypt, which Egypt badly needs would be a consolation. Egypt could also probably apply to the UN or elsewhere to get some support money for these new refugees.

The UN and the usual media clowns would go insane. But they do that anyway whenever Israel takes the least step to defend itself. They would never recognize Israel's annexation of Gaza, but so what? They don't even recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, or Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, which is 50 years old. Some European nations might not accept products from Gaza, but there would be plenty of trade with Asia, Eastern Europe and the Arab world to make up the slack.

Wars end with victory. It's time this one did.

Forum: Should The U.S. Leave The UN?

Every 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 The U.S. Leave The UN?

James Kirwan: Good question. I believe the US should leave the organization and turn the building into rent-controlled apartments on Turtle Bay to help alleviate the dearth of affordable apartments in NYC. I’d love to see the General Assembly turned into a food court: they could even keep the flags if they add Panda Express and Taco Bell.

The truth is the current administration could simply walk out of the organization. Nikki Haley would resign her position and the President and Secretary of State would refuse to submit her replacement. Since the position is appointment, there is nothing Congress could do about it.

If Congress wanted to support the move, it could defund the organization by submitting and approving legislation to the President to do that. During both Bush administrations the USA withheld dues to the organization, but succeeding presidents Clinton and Obama reversed those moves.

Such moves would be temporary. The next Democratic administration could simply return to the organization by paying the dues and appointing a UN Permanent Representative.

Permanently leaving the UN would be a major change in diplomatic policy, and major changes are difficult to get done in a huge, bureaucratic organization with checks and balances built in. There would be significant bureaucratic resistance to doing so, with every step likely fought in the courts. It would take years and require like-minded Democrats - something that I don’t see happening without a major screw up by the UN. And an organization that promotes anti-Semitism, protects child rapists, and is incapable of protecting villages from genocide or the world from a nuclear North Korea proves it has staying power after some pretty serious screw ups.

But the truth is that the UN has little clout and with each scandal it loses more. Perhaps the best solution from the perspective of those of us who want the USA to leave the UN is to ignore it and allow the organization to sink into complete irrelevance through its own mistakes.


Now Renting - Great Location and Excellent Views

Doug Hagin:WE should leave post haste frankly. The UN (Useless nations, as I call it) is a nest of miscreant nations which always seem to favor dictators and terrorists while bad mouthing the western nations. Especially the US and Israel.


Rob Miller: Why now? Why not 30 years ago?

The UN was a good idea on its face after WWII. Unfortunately, FDR, the first world leader to recognize the Soviet Union insisted that 'Uncle' Joe Stalin have a major seat at the table and a veto. President Truman had a whole host of Soviet sympathizers and outright spies like Alger Hiss advising him that he inherited from FDR's administration. So he likewise compounded this grave error, even giving Soviet satellites who were basically colonies of the USSR their own seats and votes. Big mistake...totalitarian dictatorships never play well with democracies. That of course opened the door for all sorts of dictatorships and failed states to destroy the original premise like termites while milking western democracies for all kinds of cash.

The UN Human Rights Commission(UNHRC) was always one of the laughable misnomers ever. It was constantly dominated by some of the most despotic countries in history, and it's main objective, really, was demonizing Israel which made it a great group to be part of as far as Barack Hussein Obama was concerned.

A year year after it was established, in 2007, the UNHRC passed what they called Permanent Agenda Item 7. What it did was to establish a separate standard for judging anything Israel did. It provided a platform to automatically 'investigate' Israel and condemn it for just about anything it did to defend itself, while taking for granted any Palestinian libel against Israel.

In other words, special standards for Jews and Israel and a different one for say, Iran, Venezuela or Pakistan. There's a word for that.

To show you how this worked in practice, out of 135 resolutions the UNHRC passed, 68 of them condemned Israel for 'human rights violations.' By contrast, Iran was mentioned just six times.

UN organizations like UNESCO and UNWRA operate on similar levels. They're all simply just money pits for the U.S. taxpayer.

We get nothing out of it, and nothing of any value whatsoever is accomplished based on the UN's original goals. There's no reason for America to stay in the UN.




Laura Rambeau Lee: With a total of 193 member nations, the United States is assessed 22% of the United Nations regular budget and 28% of its peace keeping budget, which they calculate as our “fair share” contribution to this organization. This translates to over eight billion dollars annually our government is taking of our hard earned tax money which is being turned over to be redistributed to other member nations as they see fit. The United Nations is at the forefront of the climate change hoax, which is a scheme to redistribute wealth from developed to developing countries. Even more insidious is the impact the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has on our educational system. What started out as the International Baccalaureate programme, a high school charter school, now has programs beginning in elementary school and continues through middle and high school. The agenda has been to promote cultural diversity and indoctrinating our youth to believe they are citizens of a global community. This is pure Marxist and collectivist ideology and it is being inserted into much of the curriculum to which our children are being exposed. We should absolutely pull ourselves and our money out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.


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 'net. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.

Forum: What's Your Reaction to the FBI IG Report?

Every 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's Your Reaction to the FBI IG Report?

Bookworm Room: The report seems like a proper, and rather ironic, companion piece to Comey's July 5, 2016 press conference. Back then, Comey laid out facts that ought to have sent Hillary to prison for 100 years. Just as we were all expecting him to say, "So we're going to arrest her," though, he abruptly announced a nonexistent legal standard, assured us that Hillary didn't mean to do something naughty under this new standard, and gave her a get out of jail free.

The IG report does the same. Horowitz blandly dismisses any FBI actual wrongdoing affecting the outcome of the Hillary investigation, but lays out facts that ought to send all of the FBI's upper management for 100 years. The only exception to that bland dismissal on those ugly facts is . . . Comey. There's irony for you.

I find delusional the IG's definition of "bias." Here's the way it goes if you're a lawyer, sizing up a jury: Everyone has biases, or filters, filters through which he or she views the world. In many situations, biases are are acceptable. For example, the fact that you are fond of cops because your dad was a cop is a fairly irrelevant matter in most areas of life. You might like donuts more than the next person, or follow a police-friendly feed on Twitter, but your preference (or bias or filter) does not affect justice or safety or honor. However, if you're being sized up for a jury in a DUI case, and the defense is police malfeasance, your strong fondness for cops is an unacceptable bias. The defense attorney will act strenuously to ensure that you're not on the jury.

Likewise, if you're an FBI agent who loathes Trumps and loves Hillary, but your beat is organized crime in North Dakota, your political preferences in the run-up and follow-up to the 2016 election are irrelevant. However, if you have those same biases and you're working on either the Hillary or the Trump investigation, those biases should presumptively disqualify you, in the same way that the cop lover shouldn't be a jury on a case that has as its central issue police behavior.

Once Horowitz identified the blazing, oozing contempt that animated top FBI officials on the Hillary and Trump cases, that should have been game over. Just as Comey overreached by imputing a lack of intent to Hillary, so did Horowitz overreach by stating that, manifest bias notwithstanding, it was still possible that this bias did not affect the FBI agents' behavior. It was not Horowitz's responsibility to speculate about the effect of the bias. It was enough that the bias was there and that the FBI not only didn't bar these agents from working the cases, it encouraged them. (And yes, I'm perfectly aware that the facts Horowitz adduced showed that the Fibbies repeatedly acted on their bias, all to Hillary's benefit. I'm just challenging Horowitz's own standards, rather than making a whole argument about his erroneous conclusions.)

I applaud Horowitz for honestly reporting the facts; I consider him a coward and a failure for refusing to reach the obvious conclusion to be derived from those facts: the Clinton investigation was completely, irreparably, and possibly criminally compromised by agents whose biases went to the heart of the case.


Patrick O'Hannigan: I agree with Bookworm's answer to this question. Another thing that strikes me about the Inspector General's report (which I've only read summaries of) is that IG Horowitz seems to have left his office some wiggle room, and his presumably careful word usage has so far gone unremarked. What I mean is that the conclusion that media outlets have been pegging their report stories to, namely, that there was allegedly "no political bias" in the FBI's conduct in the run-up to and aftermath of the 2016 election, isn't just a denial of the obvious; it's also an evasion of Clintonian proportions, and the kind of thing that Barack Obama would have introduced by saying "let me be clear..."

If you fixate on that "no political bias" conclusion like a kitten chasing the red dot made by a laser pointer, you forget that senior FBI officials had other investigatory handicaps. That's why the Inspector General's report runs more than 500 pages. You don't need "political bias" against Republicans to fuel talk of double standards. The players whose names have become tiresomely familiar to anyone following national news all had the functional equivalent of political bias. They suffered from personal animus against Donald Trump, or deranged hatred of the man and blistering contempt for the people who voted him into office.

In other words, the IG report makes it too easy to trip over that adjective, "political." Hillary Clinton would have whined just as much about losing to Carly Fiorina or Ted Cruz as she has about losing to Donald Trump. and the upper echelons of the FBI would still have been populated by craven hacks willing to do her bidding, and people who think that Eric Holder and Barack Obama were right to weaponize the Justice Department against their ideological opponents. But there are other kinds of biases in play. too.


Rob Miller: It's time we stopped kidding ourselves. The IG report struck me with its similarity to James Comey's whitewash of Mrs. Clinton. 'Mistakes were made, policy was violated but no evidence of political bias.'

Horse manure, when you have dozens of agents receiving gifts and incentives on the side from reporters to leak info that was designed to hurt the Trump Administration, when Comey and his wife were linked to Hillary financially. Sheer coverup when a FISA warrant was obtained under false pretenses to spy on an opposition campaign during an election year.

This was an attack on a sitting duly elected president.

With all respect to my esteemed colleagues, while I could be wrong I doubt Jeff Session is going to do diddley squat with this report. That's exactly why he and Rod Rosenstein need to be fired forthwith and a new attorney general hired who will hire a special prosecutor to investigate Mueller's bogus investigation, the many felonies Hillary Clinton committed as Secretary of State and FBI collusion in the cover up and in attempting to bring down President Trump.

Of, course, this all leads back to Barack Hussein Obama. He's the only one who could have orchestrated this and given the orders to follow through. Since he's no longer president, he is chargeable and indictable if evidence arises of his part in it from say, Loretta Lynch or others who can be squeezed to drop a dime on BO in exchange for not doing hard time in a federal penitentiary. Trump might choose to pardon him if he's found guilty, but the truth would be out at least and his 'legacy' would be revealed for what it is as well. Yes, simply trying him would likely cause some civil unrest, but there's a time tested and efficient remedy for that too, if necessary.

Famous But Incompetent started out as a fairly sleazy and corrupt home for chair warmers benefiting from political patronage. Then J. Edgar Hoover took over and changed it into an incorruptible entity feared by wrongdoers and noted for its dogged efficiency and success in its mission. If I  were the president, I'd seriously consider putting together a new organization for the FBI's mission, disbanding Famous But Incompetent,  getting rid of the corrupt agents and other deadwood ASAP while keeping the agents with integrity... and finding another Hoover to run it.

If these swine are allowed to get away with this, we might as well not have a republic or even any laws anymore.


Dave Schuler: I thought this was the most significant passage in the IG's report:

Comey’s description of his choice as being between “two doors,” one labeled “speak” and one labeled “conceal,” was a false dichotomy. The two doors were actually labeled “follow policy/practice” and “depart from policy/practice.” Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment.

Following policy should be a shield from accusations of wrongdoing. Contrariwise, departing from policy is damning. The obvious conclusion is that Trump was right to fire Comey.

As John Kass pointed out in a recent column the "lack of political bias" finding is persiflage. If Comey and the other FBI officials who violated policy were doing so to protect the FBI, they failed miserably, accomplishing exactly the opposite of the presumed objective.

A more reasonable inference is that they were acting, not to protect Hillary Clinton, but to protect Obama. Since Obama clearly knew about Hillary Clinton's pirate email server and lied about it, you couldn't recommend Hillary Clinton to a grand jury without accusing Obama as well. Protecting the president by violating established policy is political bias.


Laura Rambeau Lee: What the FBI IG report told us was that what most reasonable people might consider to be political bias was determined to be a serious error of judgment but in no way affected the outcome of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton investigation… I mean “matter”. The IG report confirmed the political bias of FBI employees at the highest levels in the agency through their texts and emails, particularly FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok who steered both the Clinton email matter and the Trump-Russia investigation. And when it became clear that Trump would be the Republican candidate running against Hillary Clinton, Strzok sought to quickly wrap up the Clinton matter so they could invent and pursue a case against Trump to make sure that he would not be elected or that they would have a case for impeachment if he were to be elected.

The IG report does nothing to settle this matter in the eyes of most reasonable people. We know these two investigations have not received equal treatment under the law. We know the political biases of the investigators guided their actions, decisions, and judgment in both investigations. We know this because although the IG report deemed no political bias influenced the Hillary investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray ordered anti political bias training for agents working in the FBI.


Don Surber: A reader who is a corporate compliance officer read the IG report with different eyes. He believes Horowitz did exactly what needed to be done. He gave his boss, Sessions, the facts and the tools to make his own decision about the FBI. Sessions has already selected John Huber of Utah to decide whether there should be prosecutions.

We shall see.


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 'net. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.

Forum: Is Trump Improving Race Relations?

Every 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: Is Trump Improving Race Relations?


Doug Hagin: Frankly, race relations have been improving steadily. Of course President Obama did his best to reverse that course, and the left makes every effort to divide people along every possible demographic. I find President Trump to be a person who is reversing a lot of he damage his predecessor did.

At their heart, people are people, regardless of skin tone. Our president understands this, as most of us, of all colors do.

Puma By Design: Now that Barack Obama is out of office, race relations is improving.

I have noticed the change in conversation from neighbors, family members, my son's friends and friends of my nieces. Many folks who throughout the 2016 presidential campaign season and Obama's reign of terror fell for the Trump is racist and Trump supporters are racist, too storylines are now viewing the President through a not so tainted lens.

Of course, the race baiters, pundits, NeverTrumper, Communist media complex, deep state, their globalist masters and the Mueller investigation helped. The 24/7 anti-Trump derangement is annoying and causing people to question the agenda which leads them to re-visit their original views of President Trump.

Enter Kanye West, the pardons of Jack Johnso and Alice Marie Johnson, the tax cuts, jobs, an improved economy, the President's stand against illegal immigration which is detrimental to the nation and devastating to the Black community. Obama offered none of this.

As a matter of fact, Obama, while hiding behind identity politics, in particular, the race card proceeded to set Black America back decades.

I am often reminded of my travels throughout Brooklyn, New York during George W. Bush’s final two years in office. Black communities that were destroyed in the late 60's to mid-70’s had returned to what they once were. While not perfect, they had become thriving communities dotted with small businesses everywhere. The businesses, many of them were owned by Blacks who were finally living the American dream.

In 2008, these same communities and businesses elected Barack Obama. By January 2010, these same businesses were now fighting to keep their heads above water and by the spring of 2012, all that was left of most of the businesses were the awnings and shuttered gates.

In two years under Obama, Black communities across the country had regressed to pre-2005 status or much earlier.

So yes, those paying attention realize that President Trump is not the monster that ideologues make him out to be.

As for the ideologues, expect them not to stand down. Out of touch, they are in their own zone as are many of the useful idiots who question nothing. They are whom Kanye West has referred to as physically free but mentally enslaved.

Ignorant to the horrors of Communism and that their disdain for President Trump is beyond all rationale, they welcome Communism with open arms.

Those who are the real racists will always choose to believe that President Trump is racist and dividing the nation because Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and queen, Don Lemon, tells them so.

My son’s mother-in-law (yes, her again) hates non-Blacks. I believe that she, an immigrant from Jamaica, also hates Americans but she hides her bias because there is a grandchild involved (that and the fact that I make no secret about my love for country which has led me to suggest once or twice that she could always return to Jamaica).

Moving on…This woman hangs on to every word from Al Sharpton, Joy Reid, Don Lemon and her hero, Barack Obama.

She sees every attack against President Trump by the usual suspects as vindication of her belief that the President is evil.

Then there are those who live in poor Black communities who have spent their lives in poverty because they have convinced themselves that all whites (and Trump supporters) are prejudiced and responsible for their plight even though most have never lifted a finger on their own behalf to “upgrade.”

While these individuals despise the President, they worship Obama whose legacy to them and their neighbors is several Obamaphones and a food stamp card. As it turns out, many of these same people despise working Blacks, especially those who refuse to live on the Democratic plantation. Such Black are viewed as “uppity,” "stupid" and deserving to be abused or worse, used as a bank account for freeloaders.

When challenged on their bias, they cannot explain it and/or produce facts to back up their argument or lack thereof. It is at this point that many become hostile.

Below is a video that I ran across a few days ago on YouTube. Conservative activist and pastor, Jesse Lee Peterson took to the streets of Los Angeles where he questioned Black folks, most of whom are mentally enslaved.

Even though I have long distanced myself from the mentally enslaved, the video was painful to watch.

For the record, I made it a little more than half-way through. These are the people that I warned my son and nieces about when they were children.

Warning: Raw language, really bad vibes, ignorance on full display.

https://youtu.be/RVd0kWmEAwM


Rob Miller: My answer is it depends who you ask.

I don't think President Trump is actually trying at this point to target race relations per se, especially when it comes to blacks. He did try that in the beginning, and it worked somewhat (remember 'a New Deal for the black community') but black voters stayed home or mostly voted Democrat like always. More on that particular group later.

Asians are a very diverse community, which includes East Asians as well as Indians and Pakistanis as well as Southeast Asians like Thais and Vietnamese. My personal observation is that most of the Koreans and Chinese I run into seem to appreciate Trump because they are very into business and feel his efforts and policies are improving the economy. Like most East Asians, they also respect age, so Trump is a natural. Indian Hindus tend to like Trump, Indian and Pakistani Muslims not nearly so much.

An additional factor is that Asians are realizing that traditional values they have always held dear like diligence in education, studying hard and reaping the benefits mean nothing to today's Democratic Party and its minions. Even East Asians who vote Democratic now understand that they've been sold out.

Hispanics are another diverse group. Again, there was no 'beautiful brown wave' in 2016 like the media assured us there would be. Many Hispanics stayed home, others voted Democrat and a surprising number, especially in certain communities voted for Trump because they realized how the surge of illegal migrants was affecting jobs, housing and thew schools their kids go to. Now that Hispanic unemployment is at record lows, they might not vote Trump but they aren't going to vote Democrat either. Peer pressure in their communities will ensure that Trump voters will keep it to themselves.

Much of the politicized class of Hispanics in the universities and various companies like Telemundo or who were heavily involved in the amnesty movement of course voted for Hillary. So did a lot of the illegal migrants in places like Nevada and California. California in particular is voter fraud heaven. These Hispanics still hate Trump and always will.

Some of what I said about Hispanics applies to blacks. I don't think relations have gotten better for several reasons.

During the Obama administration, blacks were encouraged to think of themselves as victims and as entitled because of various antiquated grievances both real and exaggerated, or just because. As I explained here, Kanye West was more correct than he realized when he said that "400 years of slavery? That sounds like a choice."

While some blacks are finally waking up, many still cling to that choice and can't let go. To do so would mean abandoning the slave mentality and embracing self reliance, discipline and meritocracy. This kid of mindset, by the way, is quite prevalent among blacks in America who came originally from the West Indies and some of the former British colonies in Africa. They grew up with the British school system and came largely from married, two parent families who prized education as the way up. Many if them voted for Trump because they understood his message. So did blacks (very quietly) who understood what illegal migration was doing to their communities.

For many blacks, to abandon the eternal grievance attitude would mean losing a powerful political weapon, one very useful at election time when it comes to certain black demographics. With time, and given the jobs Trump has already created, that attitude may fade, but it will never disappear as long as it remains useful.


Laura Rambeau Lee: We are hearing and seeing less racial tensions erupting around the country since President Trump took office. He refuses to engage in the politics of race, genuinely wanting everyone to realize their dreams. People are feeling better about the economy. I believe he has improved race relations by enacting policies that are allowing the economy to grow and reducing unemployment, particularly in the black and Hispanic communities where unemployment numbers are at historic lows. Gainful employment improves self-confidence and reduces the feelings of victimhood. Working people do not have the time to be manipulated by the social justice warrior instigators. As the proverb says: Idle hands are the devil’s tools.


Patrick O'Hannigan: I think President Trump is improving race relations for two reasons: First, in contrast to his immediate predecessor, he does not seem to see himself as a teacher or mentor for his fellow citizens, and does not therefore give speeches steeped in the idea that "real" Americans should share his own attitudes. Trump seems to have an "executive ego" rather than a "professorial ego." Secondly, POTUS is notable for being what his enemies call uncouth and his friends call refreshingly honest. His straight talk can trigger arguments, but its singular virtue is honesty, which in the end will do more to improve race relations than "sensitivity training" in its various forms. Activists who try to paint Trump as racist do so because they have ideological differences with him, and that's obvious to anyone who looks his Cabinet picks or business record.

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 'net. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.

The Lion Begins To Roar...Massive Protests in London To Free Tommy Robinson (videos)

 

Tens of thousands of Brits attended a demonstration in London to free Tommy Robinson yesterday and it was not your typical demonstration. These people were energized and angry. Here's is Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who addressed the crowd:



Here's what the crowd looked like outside Number 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister's residence. The 'Tommy Tommy' chant will be familiar to those familiar with Brit football chants:



When the London Police tried to suppress things, the crowd actually attacked them and a number of the police simply ran from the crowd.



Now, we've seen the British police run from Muslim mobs before. But this is the first time they've ever had to run from the British people. And high time too.

The cops finally regrouped to block the demonstrators as they approached Buckingham Palace while the royal family was present inside.

British media is covering this as 'a small demonstration of far right groups' if they're covering it at all. You take a look at these videos and tell me this was a small demonstration!

Wilders, of course had the right of it when he asked the ultimate question. Who was more guilty of disturbing the peace, Tommy Robinson or the British police, prosecutors and politicians who knew full well what was going on,  how children were being raped, tortured and prostituted by Muslim gangs but did nothing about it for years? The police even ignored the victims who came forward to report what was happening to them.  In fact, they actually did their best to cover it up and to discipline,threaten,  silence or fire any law enforcement personnel, journalist or social workers who dared to try expose what was going on.

The British establishment wants this sordid, shameful scandal buried and out of the public eye, knowing how the details would outrage the British public, as will the relatively light sentences many of these culprits will likely receive. That story's bound to be censored as well. And the outrage wouldn't just be concentrated at the perpetrators and their ilk but aimed right at those who protected them and allow this disgraceful exploitation to go on for so long.

It's also obvious that Tommy Robinson's arrest was planned well in advance. . There was no 'disturbance of the peace.' There were no crowds of angry Muslims howling for blood. There were no crowds of any kind, just a handful of people hanging around in front of the courthouse including Tommy Robinson recording his commentary.

Yet a mob of seven police in a special security van were at the ready and just waiting for a plausible opportunity and the receipt of orders to catch Tommy Robinson unawares and spirit him away for his brief 'trial' and sentencing. According to Robinson's solicitor, the judge actually lied to the solicitor over the phone, saying that Robinson had been released and there was no need to come to the Leeds courthouse.

This whole scenario was so obviously reminiscent of the way Stalin used to handle this sort of thing that even a number of people on the Left who are not Tommy Robinson fans in the least are upset by it.

My original thought was that Robinson's fate was a warning to others that you too can disappear and the papers won't even write about it. They wanted to make an example out of him. They were probably going to wait a few months for the furor to die down and then have Tommy Robinson conveniently murdered in prison.

That plan seems to have failed miserably. Instead, they have made Tommy Robinson far more popular and a symbol of how the UK  is no longer a free country. If they keep him locked up or if they free him, he will remain a popular hero. And I don't doubt they realize that murdering him in prison would make him a martyr as well.

What they've done is to awaken the British people, many of whom appear to have finally had enough.

Like tyrants everywhere, they overreached.

Forum: What Are The Most Influential Books In Your Life? Why?

Every 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 Are The Most Influential Books In Your Life? Why?


Don Surber:The Bible. Of course. I've never read the whole thing. Most people don't. But religion tames men and gives us hope and shows how utterly insignificant and irreplaceable we are.

The Little Red Hen was very valuable in showing that you must work to eat. My late mother lived that life, planting the seed, harvesting the crop, etc. to feed five kids.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf taught me the lesson of telling false tales. I avoid it and avoid people who lie.
Chicken Little taught me the danger of following the crowd. In retrospect, Foxy Loxy gave them the ending they deserved.

Fahrenheit 451 deserves a mention. I mean, how can you love books and not admire those who memorized them to keep the books alive? But it did not shape me as much as those simple childhood books. And the Bible on which our civilization is based.

Mainly the Bible. Hope.


Doug Hagin:First the Bible, for very obvious reasons.

Next Animal Farm, what a great book. I opened my eyes to the evils of Marxism. I read it at 12, The line ...but some animals are more equal that others is etched in my mind.

The third book was called Democracy vs Communism. Animal Farm kind of led me to this one. It detailed the horrific thing done under Lenin, Stalin, and under Communism in other nations.

Fourth, was a three volume set by Douglas Southall Freeman. Lee's Lieutenants. What a great work looking at Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. I have re-read it a few times. It gives great insight into how an army worked at that time, and into the generalship of Lee, and his generals

Last, I would say, The Federalist Papers.Anyone wishing to grasp America, Federalism, why we are NOT a democracy, etc must read this.

Bookworm Room: Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People, which taught me that respect is a powerful motivator.

Neville Shute's A Town Like Alice, which taught me that even bad life experiences can lead to good things.

Max Dimont's Jews, God & History, which helped me understand how important Jewish ideas have been in the West.

Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, which taught me that it's not always easy to do the right thing, but that you still have to try to do the right thing.

Giovannino Guareschi's Don Camillo books, which gracefully explained how horrible communism is.

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, a brilliant book about Leftist totalitarianism, and a book that leaves me confused about Goldberg's intransigent NeverTrumpism.

John McWhorter's Losing the Race, the first book that made me aware of the way in which the modern welfare state devastated American blacks.

R.F. Delderfield's To Serve Them All My Days, which introduced me to the notion of "Few rules, but unbreakable," which I've applied to child rearing and think should be applied to government.

Keith Richburg's Out Of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, which makes the argument that, although slavery in America was a deep moral failing, those blacks whose ancestors were brought here should be grateful, because it's no fun being a black in Africa.

Jane Austen's books, all of them, which remind us that ethical dignity, with a dose of acerbic humor, is a good way to go through life (not that I've ever met Jane Austen's standards)

Leo Rosten's The Joy of Yiddish, which is allegedly a lousy book when it comes to Yiddish purity, but is a wonderful book about Jewish American culture in the early 20th century.

And most recently, Dennis Prager's The Rational Bible : Exodus, which is a book everyone should read to grasp core moral principles that lead to a free, functioning, highly successful society wherever they are applied.

I have to amend my list, because Doug reminded me about 1984. Second, I have to boast a little: I have read the whole Bible. I can't imagine any school in America offering it anymore (including a Divinity school), but at Cal I took a class called "The Bible as Literature." We read the whole thing, both Old and New Testaments. The teacher was boring, but the book, except for the begats and the rules in Leviticus was fascinating. Looking back, I suspect that laid the groundwork for me to become a conservative one day.

I'd better stop now or I'll never stop. I keep thinking of more books.


Dave Schuler: Max Dimont was a family friend. Shortly after the first edition of Jews, God, and History was published my parents invited him over for dinner. Nearly 60 years later I can still remember the evening vividly.

Patrick O'Hannigan:Fun question!

Hard to narrow my list of influential books.

I'll put the Bible on that list because it has influenced me, but unlike some of my illustrious colleagues, I haven't read it all the way through!

The Court-Martial of George Armstrong Custer, by Douglas C. Jones, is the book that showed me how interesting and thought-provoking "alternate history" could be.

Red Sky at Morning, by Richard Bradford, is still the wisest and funniest "coming of age" tale I've ever read.

J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy introduced wild new vistas to my imagination, and convinced me of the perennial worth of heroism and persistence.

Last but not least, the WW2 prisoner-of-war memoir Give Us This Day, by Sidney Stewart was memorable not simply because Stewart survived not just the Bataan Death March and a long stint in a Japanese concentration camp, but also because my dad read it aloud to my brother and I over a summer when we were teenagers. He meant that as a character-building exercise, and although I was initially embarrassed that our neighbors could see these sessions (at a public table in front of our townhome), I realized later that my dad was right.


The Razor: All of these books are on a nearby shelf. There are many more but I chose some that others likely did not.

PJ O’Rourke, Holidays in Hell. How I discovered the conservative satirist – while I was a flaming liberal no less. I still remember what he said about Korean democracy when he was asked about it after attending a rally where he was tear gassed: “Tastes terrible.” This book made me want to see the world. I carried it with me to Japan and Africa.

Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. This book helped me weather the storms of young adulthood and later helped again when I had to quit drinking. To me it’s an American classic, a psychological On the Road.

Dietrich Dorner, The Logic of Failure. This book traces the path towards failure in complex systems and explains how individuals and groups create failure. As our world gets increasingly complex the lessons of this book are critical. I’ve written the author and begged him to update it or write a sequel but was ignored.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan. One of my co-workers begged me to read this for months. Finally just to shut him up I read it – and found one of my top 5 books. It explains everything from why only a few writers and musicians are able make a living while most scrape by, and why economists are the modern equivalent of the ancient augurs who sacrificed animals then poked around their innards to divine the future.

Philip K. Dick, Ubik. His best work in my opinion and one deserving of a movie. Explores the nature of reality in ways that are only now being discussed. Dick was a true visionary and prophet and one of the 20th century’s great writers, and I have never forgotten that my mind is locked in a dark case with only a few limited sensory inputs into it.


Laura Rambeau Lee: There are so many books that have influenced my life, but I will narrow it down to the following six:

As a precocious youth searching for meaning and truth I discovered and read A Pillar of Iron by Taylor Caldwell and was introduced to Cicero. It is a historical fiction about his life during the time of Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire and many of his writings are scattered throughout the book. Since then I’ve read pretty much everything Cicero has written as his observations on philosophy, life, and politics rang true in his time and are sustained throughout the existence of humankind.

Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand convey the importance of the individual and our inviolable right to self determination and to fully enjoy the rewards of our labor. Her works are a warning to us about the evil that exists in the world in the form of communism/socialism/Marxism and those who attempt to strip us of these rights.

When I attended college in the mid 1970s I took many classes with a particular German professor because I was interested in hearing him speak about his experiences growing up in Germany. Many years later Professor Rainulf A. Stelzmann wrote his memoir titled Thinking of Germany at Night: A Personal View of the Years 1927 to 1956. His book is a must read for anyone who has wondered what it was like for an average family living in Germany during the rise and fall of the Third Reich.

Imagining Argentina by Lawrence Thornton is a fictional story surrounding the disappearances of over thirty thousand people into the general’s prisons and torture chambers in the late 1970s and early 1980s in Argentina. The main character is a man who has visions of the fates of those who have disappeared and people come to him eager to know what happened to their loved ones, although when his wife, a journalist, disappears he is unable to “imagine” what happened to her. It is a powerful story of the human need for closure no matter how horrific the details may be, and also how uncertainty and randomness are the ultimate tools of evil. Uncertainty causes paralysis and inability to act allowing evil to grow and take hold. We can and must have certainty and control within our personal lives in order to deal effectively with the chaos and evil around us.

The Bible tops my list of influential books, for it conveys through its stories and parables the moral codes and immutable natural laws that guide us all. What it teaches us is that all human beings have the capacity for both good and evil within them and that no matter how difficult and challenging even when we fail we can be redeemed.


Rob Miller: I love books. I always have.

A fascinating topic, n'est pah? As I think about books that influenced my thinking, it seems they can be categorized to a degree. So I'm going to try to work that in.

The first book I recall as a major influence was Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. I read it at 16. I got it out of my high school library and the last time anyone had checked it out was 9 years ago. I devoured it and it gave me a fascination with history that still lasts. Some of Gibbon's research is now antiquated, but his delightful use of language and his clarity in communicating how freedom and morality can disappear and degenerate over time is unchanged. With that and an assist from Shakespeare (who got a lot of his plots from him) I managed to get hold of Plutarch's Lives and other chroniclers of those times like Livy, the Plinys and Thucydides. Other history I've  particularly enjoyed? Churchill's history of WWI, The World Crisis, his six volume history of WWII, Shirer's two great histories The Rise and Fall Of The Third Reich and The Fall of France, which more Americans should read because of certain similarities to our own politics  in the last quarter century. I've also enjoyed Barbara Tuchman's books, in particular A Distant Mirror, her history of the 14th century, The First Salute, about our  Revolution and  The March of Folly, which discusses how great nations screw up. Two other books I particularly like are The Discovery And Conquest of Mexico by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who was there with Cortez and William Prescott's The Conquest of Peru, which will give you an account of the only society where socialism ever worked, and why it failed. Castillo's book will tell you exactly why Cortez was able to conquer Mexico and why the myth of 'Atzlan' popular in some circles is total nonsense when you look at who the Aztecs were and the vicious tyranny which characterized how they ruled.

Looking at the shelves, I also seem to have a weakness for biographies and first person accounts,especially of people I admire...or really don't admire at all!

Fiction? Favorite Authors include Taylor Caldwell (Favorite book, Dialogues With the Devil which maybe Laura has read) Homer, Virgil, Somerset Maugham, Aeschylus, Herman Melville, Arthur Conan Doyle (all the Sherlock Holmes stories), Victor Hugo, Jack Kerouac, and JRR Tolkien. I have pretty much everything he wrote,  including the marvelous Silmarillion.  The message of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is of course quite relevant to our own times. We too must drop appeasement and those who practice it as we destroy evil. I seem to have a weakness for tales of heroism and standing up for basic  principles even when it is costly and even dangerous. Gotta include Brave New World,  Lord of the Flies and A Clockwork Orange on this list

Political stuff? David Horowitz's Radical Son which shows exactly how the commies attacked America with Gramscion warfare to penetrate our culture and institutions. Tammy Bruce's The New Thought Police. Most of  Ann Coulter (selectively) and Rush Limbaugh's books. And Machiavelli's The Prince, an amazing primer on politics and leadership.

OK  now we get to the real meat, religious, occult  and metaphysical stuff.  At any rate, I had an experience in my early teens that convinced me beyond any doubt  that there is a world outside that which we see and process.Growing up in a very secular home, it opened me up to a lot of inquiry about what I'd experienced.

The occult stuff  included what's known as the Apocrypha, which is scripture that didn't make it into the Bible like the Book of Noah, which details what really happened during the Flood and why. Another key book was Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which is essentially an examination and compendium of various forms of occult practice, shamanism and what's known as ceremonial magic. It'a fascinating read, and led  me to other sources on the subject that were valuable and definitely influential as far as teaching me certain values, self control and mental concentration. Caveat:   I would NOT recommend anyone getting into this stuff unless you really know what you're doing, have the proper goals and attitude in mind  and are mentally prepared to handle it.

Religious literature? I've read the Bible at least 3 times, including not just the Torah but the whole shebang including the prophets and the writings. Ecclesiastes (Kohelas to the Tribe) is a compelling account of what is truly important in life, written by King Solomon, obviously one of the wisest men who has ever lived.   I've also read certain commentaries like the ones by Rashi and a fascinating Torah copy with translations of  commentaries by the Lubavitcher Rebbe  ..what an amazing  mind that man had! As one of my favorite Ravs once ribbed me during a little debate we had, "The Bible's a great book! You oughta read it sometime!"

Ah, Brooklyn! Gotta love it.

One book I think a lot of people might find interesting and clarifying is Biblical Literacy, written by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, another incredible mind. It goes over the text and explains it in very accessible and I dare say entertaining  language.

I first read the New Testament in junior high, thanks to an amazing teacher who befriended m,e a Evangelical Christian named Bert Ortrum. I read  the Qur'an (Pickthall translation), Sunnah and a gob of the Hadiths after 9/11, not satisfied with what President Bush was trying to feed us. I also have a copy of the Book of Mormon, given to me by a close friend. I found it interesting both in terms of understanding the LDS faith, why so many of the Mormons I meet (lots of them around my neighborhood)  are such admirable people and why we get along so well. Of course, I never met Harry Reid so...

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 'net. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.