Forum: What Effect Will Michael Cohen's Plea Bargain Have?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:What Effect Will Michael Cohen's Plea Bargain Have?

Rob Miller: This is pretty simple to understand. Mueller has Cohen cold for massive tax evasion, none of which had anything to do with the president. In exchange for leniency on those actual crimes, Cohen was prepared to say absolutely anything Mueller wanted.Mueller was even allowed to violate attorney-client privilege to set this up.

The plea bargain works for both Mueller and Cohen quite well, because now these allegations won't go to trial because there won't be one. It will be simply Cohen's word against the president, with the media of course trumpeting Cohen's nonsense and any other garbage Mueller twists his arm to make up...just more BS to float on the water and dirty it. and meanwhile, the Left can keep yelling 'impeachment! impeachment! just to keep it in the voter's minds until the midterms.

As for Lanny Davis, he should be disbarred for (a)not lodging motions protesting against the violation of attorney -client privilege (b) allowing his client to plead guilty to a non-existent crime and (c) damaging his cliet's chance for a pardon from Trump by deliberately telling the world Cohen won't accept one! No legitimate lawyer representing his client would ever be this derelict, but of course Lanny Davis is in this for Bill and Hill and isn't interested in actually representing Michael Cohen except as it suits Mueller. Davis is in this up to his neck.

To fully understand what a partisan jihad is going on here, consider this...Mueller's assignment from Assistant AG Rosenstein was to investigate Russian collusion that could have influenced the election.Mueller has never investigated Hillary Clinton and the DNC's collusion in commissioning Fusion GPS's bogus 'pee dossier' which was oppo research definitely designed to influence the election, now has he? Nope, it's all about Trump and certainly not about possible Russian collusion in the election.

Jeffrey Avalon Friedberg: The actual purpose of a plea bargain is to “lock in” or guarantee an outcome of the arrest and prosecution of an accused perpetrator. It saves either side from getting a worse result than might be expected, and either side profits in some way by the “bargain.”

The defendant gains a concession from the prosecutor. The prosecutor secures a guilty “plea” from the defendant.

However, the real, legal effect on President Donald H. Trump will be zero. Cohen must walk a tightrope. If he f*cks up again he faces a much more powerful enemy in Trump than Mueller.

All sorts of local color, media innuendo, and Chyron generated flash will fly, but, in the end, the only ones truly affected will be der Jude, und Herr Sonderstaatsanwalt.

Laura Rambeau Lee: Not one of us who voted for Trump believed he was of impeccable character. Nothing that has been revealed rises to the level of impeachable or illegal activity. Hey, at least he used his own money to pay off porn stars and bimbos, unlike Congress which had a slush fund of taxpayer money just for the purpose of paying off and silencing their accusers. Michael Cohen’s plea bargain will have no effect on President Trump, except for the non-stop media analysis and legal conjecture. The frenzy must continue, relentless and at all costs.

James Kirwin: Unfortunately more effect than it should have. Judging by the non-stop media coverage you would think Trump had been the Manchurian Candidate controlled by Putin and elected through Russian manipulation of the election.

Instead what I’ve had to remind myself is that the Russians spent a few hundred grand on Facebook and Trump paid off an accuser for ½ as much as #METOO Queen Asia Argento did – or rather Anthony Bourdain did on Argento’s behalf. Maybe Bourdain should have hired Cohen. Evidently that lawyer knows how to cut a deal.

I also have to remind myself that nothing Trump did with these women was in the Oval Office unlike the mess Bill Clinton left on an intern’s dress, and which he twisted the meaning of the simplest verb in the English language: Is.

Meanwhile Clinton’s wife operated a server hacked by everyone and received no punishment – unlike a sailor who took a picture of a submarine interior to brag to his family and received a court martial and prison sentence that took Trump’s pardon to fix.

After a year and a half and tens of millions of dollars, is this the best Mueller can do? I’d almost like to see Trump tweet, “Yeah I did it with a porn star. I apologized to my wife and paid her off with my own money, but hey, it was a porn star and not an intern – and not in the Oval Office.” So what? French President Francois Mitterand’s mistress walked behind his casket at his state funeral alongside his wife. Kissinger said “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” and Trump had its runner-up money. Is he an idiot for cheating on his (admittedly hot) wife? Sure – but as someone who doesn’t care about who he sleeps with and is concerned about the future of our country, I am more worried about jobs and the strength of America’s enemies abroad.

So far the Economy is doing the best since the Reagan era, and our enemies abroad are the weakest they’ve been since 9-11. I am pleased with both and credit Trump for their successes.

But the constant media frenzy conflating Stormy Daniels with Putin will likely continue. And it sucks.

Dave Schuler:An impeachable offense is anything the House thinks it is. A Congress with a Republican majority will never impeach an even notionally Republican president with an approval rating of 43% let alone try and remove. With as much fan-dancing as they've been doing for the last year and a half a Congress with a Democratic majority will find it difficult not to impeach and, possibly, remove. This despite that a President Pence is probably their worst nightmare.

I have no idea. I think that the Mueller investigation will continue until one of three things happens: something serious is uncovered (a prospect that becomes less likely with every passing day), Trump is no longer president, or Mueller is dismissed.

Don Surber: The effect is the Left has succeeded in ending lawyer-client privilege. There is nothing in civilized society that the Left would not destroy for an edge. Ruthless.

 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: Are China And The US Headed For War?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Are China And The US Headed For War?

Jeffrey Avalon Friedberg: War?

No.

One thing China is not: is stupid.

China can do much better on its Long March by simply stripping Earth away from the Americans, one sliver at a time, piece by piece, bit by bit.

They can do this in terms of physically taking things, such as our technology, American real estate, or by extending influence, as in Latin America, and actually being welcomed in.

Then, one day, poof! They are the majority—at a pinnacle of the majors—and are in control.

In this non-nuclear manner they can preserve a lot of real estate and personnel. I mean—none of the Chinese leaders want to live underground or in a nuclear cook-oven, am I right?

Right.

In the interim—there’s no rush. And it’s just a game. When the time comes, they can win. And nobody—like maybe the Rooskies—will be able to step in and take over the hand they are playing.

In a nuclear war with the USA they will be degraded militarily, financially, and morally, to a point where they will probably be overthrown by a sea of people who just want to eat....

...And who want to have some fun in life and living.

Rob Miller: To answer this question properly, it's helpful to know something about Chinese history and culture.

China has always been more concerned with keeping the quong fai (foreign devils) out then in expanding it's own territory. That's what the Great Wall was all about. Like Japan, China essentially was a closed society for centuries.

In the 1400s, China had the greatest seagoing fleet in the world, up to 3,500 ships at its peak.  Some of them were five times the size of the ships being built in Europe at the time. But by 1525, all of China's "Treasure Fleet" ships had been destroyed -- burned in their docks or left to rot by the government as the Ming Dynasty entered a 200-year-long period of isolationist slumber.

That ended with the Opium wars of the mid-nineteenth century, referred to quite accurately by the Chinese as 'the years of humiliation. Essentially, the Chinese wanted the very lucrative opium trade the British enjoyed stopped. The British actually went to war in 1839 to force the Chinese to keep importing this poison, and ended up with China ceding the Hong Kong island to Britain as well as 'treaty ports' at Shanghai, Canton, Ningpo (Ningbo), Foochow (Fuzhou), and Amoy. France secured concessions on the same terms as the British, in treaties of 1843 and 1844.

The second Opium War, fought from 1856–1860 actually increased the concessions to Britain and other European countries as well as the amount of the trade in opium. Russia also seized Chinese territory. And the hideous invasion of China by Japan was a major disaster. Aside from the loss of territory, the Japanese committed major atrocities.An untold number of Chinese civilians were literally murdered, whole cities were destroyed, thousands of Chinese young women (as well as Koreans and Filipinas) were kidnapped and forced into prostitution as 'comfort girls' for the Japanese military, and bizarre 'experiments' on human beings were conducted, especially in Manchuria (Manchuko).

My point here is that all this emphasized something to the Chinese...that foreigners were not to be trusted, and neither were China's corrupt governments. Most Americans underestimate the enormous achievement of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in overcoming all this history and opening up China again.

I've been fascinated with Chinese culture for quite some time. In fact, I almost married a delightful Chinese girl who lived in Queens, the only woman I ever seriously considered marrying until I met my beloved. Among other things I learned from my Chinese girlfriend was how to play the Chinese game of Go. Understanding Go is a key to understanding how the Chinese think.

Western tactics are based on chess, which involves 'killing off' your opponent's power pieces, occupying territory on the board and surrounding the king to the point that any move the King makes results in the king's 'death.'

In Go, the idea is to not to occupy territory but to control access to territory, to make your opponent's 'soldiers' useless. There are no power pieces per se.

That's what the Chinese have been doing for some time, with trade agreements and lately, using a strategy of loans to both developing and developed countries like South Africa. It works like this...the Chinese loan money to these countries in exchange for trade concessions, with economically or strategically  beneficial resources as collateral. When the loans (which deliberately have terms very difficult for these countries to meet) are defaulted on, China gets control, sometimes with an additional loan as a sweetener. These are Go tactics.

Are the U.S. and China headed for war? Possible, but I doubt it.

For a quarter of a century, China enjoyed dealing with three of the worst U.S. presidents in history. The corrupt Bill Clinton, who the Chinese bought via a one million dollar loan after he lost the New Hampshire primary via his China connection, his  old friends and campaign donors the Riyadis. And
 then there was the Clueless George W. Bush, and the openly anti-American Barack Hussein Obama.
All of them allowed the Chinese as well as friendly American companies to export jobs wholesale to China while allowing cheap Chinese goods to flood the market. Both Clinton and Obama also cut back hugely on America's military. Clinton even  used heavy Democratic party donor and defense contractor Loral to funnel advanced military technology to the Chinese as fast as he could sign the paperwork. Most military analysts estimate that the Chinese made a Great Leap Forward of at least two decades in military technology during the eight years of Clinton's two terms.

A big part of the recent tension has to do with the fact that  the Chinese, having grown used to pushovers like this are now faces with an entirely different president in Donald J. Trump. The concept of intellectual piracy, copyrights and patents are foreign to the Chinese. They now have a president to deal with who insists on their honoring these precepts, and who is willing to use tariffs and even sanctions to change the unequal trade deals China has enjoyed for years.

What the Chinese are doing now, I think, is circling the wagons. Many of the armaments, like shore to ship missiles are designed to be defensive in nature, and it's worth remembering that China has only engaged in wars on their borders, in places like northern India, Tibet and North Korea. Even their new island fortresses in the China Sea could reasonably be seen as defensive in nature.

I see Xi's new role as emperor ( and I wouldn't call it anything else) and its more recent totalitarian conduct on the home front to be troubling signs, even something of a throwback to the bad old days of the Cultural Revolution, but not necessarily signs of upcoming hostilities. China needs the American market badly, a war would gain them nothing and might even result in domestic turbulence as jobs disappear and domestic supplies of staples increase in price.

Another sign is that Chinese with money have heavily invested here in America, especially in real estate. They understand that if their money's here, the Chinese government can't confiscate it. Remember what I wrote earlier about the basic Chinese skeptical attitude towards their government.

Don Surber:Red China and the USA are in a trade war and have been for 20 years. The Bushes and Clinton allowed Red China to steal technology, manipulate currency, and otherwise wreak havoc with trade.

The weasels who call this free trade are traitors. Let's look at the facts. For every $1 we sell in goods to China, we buy $4 worth of their goods. We are a thoroughbred running against a plow horse and losing because we are hobbled by environmental, labor, and other regulations.

Consider coal mining. The nation's coal mines recorded 15 deaths last year, including eight in West Virginia.

According to Xinhua, the number of deaths in 2017 in China's coal sector was 375.

We finally have a president who is a master of negotiating and an astute student of Sun Tzu. Scot Adams of Dilbert fame calls President Donald John Trump a wizard. Everything you know about President Trump through the media is a lie because he throws them off scent every step of the way.

The Chinese cannot fathom him. They are communists, a sheeplike people with great credentials but no intellectual curiosity. Their ideology requires a conformity that would be amusing if not for the deaths of tens of milions in the name of their religion. Muslims are nowhere near as bloody.

President Trump is an entrepreneur who thinks outside of the box. He lives to negotiate. He already has plucked the Korean Peninsula from Red China. Korea has been a protectorate of China going back 1,400 years although the Japanese held it from 1910 to 1945. (You could say World War II began before World War I.)

There is no doubt that Kim Jong Un is on our side. He is dismantling his nuke program. Compare how healthy and alert the last three hostages Kim gave us compared to the condition of Otto Warmbier. Something happened between June 2017 and May 2018 that turned Kim around. Just what, we can only guess at. Why, we know. President Trump flipped Kim, likely on a personal level as he did with Kanye West.

The answer to your question is yes, we are in a war -- a trade war - and we have turned the tide. Chairman Xi should surrender now while his economy is damaged but still alive.

Iran is on deck, and Russia needs to clean up its act.

Meanwhile, the European Union wants to cut a deal. Mexico is cutting a deal. Japan and South Korea have made their deals.

While he is doing all this, President Trump also has to deal with a witch hunt, work on immigration, and get his judges and justices confirmed.

He still finds time to golf on weekends.

Doug Hagin:Very doubtful. Not anytime soon anyway. And our currently having a strong president is a large deterrent to China. Another reason 2020 is so important.

David Schuler: here's more than one answer to that question. The first answer is that we've been at war with China for at least the last 20 years and maybe as long as the last 70 years. For the last several decades American companies, looking at a market of a billion prospective customers with dollars signs in their eyes, have convinced the politicians of both political parties that we're not. You need only look at the precipitous drop in U. S. manufacturing employment after the admission of China to the WTO, pictured below:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kRPz

to recognize that as nothing short of economic warfare. Additionally, if you take the various pronouncements of Chinese officials on trade and foreign policy it is quite clear that they view them as zero-sum games, transactions with one winner and one loser.

The other answer is that we need not be headed for war with China. It would be a choice not an inevitability. If the Chinese leadership realized just how deadly war with the U. S. could be for them and everything and everybody they know, there would be no chance of war. But there are so many saber-rattlers on both sides of the relationship I think there is a genuine danger of war with China.

Laura Rambeau Lee: Yes, it appears China’s goal is to draw us into a war and we better be prepared. We are late in realizing just how great a threat China is to the west and the free world. We must secure our alliances and assure them we will be there to fight with them to oppose this existential threat. It’s not a matter of if, but when.

 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.

Judge Sets Leaders of New Mexico Terrorist Training Camp Free

A radical Judge has set the leaders of a violent New Mexico terrorist training camp free.

Judge Sarah Bacus ruled that five Islamic radicals in charge of what amounted to a jihadist terrorist training camp on a $20,000 “signature bond,” which requires no payment.

She did this in spite of police warnings that children being trained and indoctrinated in the camp were being trained with guns to carry out school attacks. According to the Albuquerque Journal Judge Sarah Backus concluded that the radical Islamists aren’t “a danger to the community,”



Thank you, infidel!

Here's what local law enforcement had discovered.

Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 39, Lucas Morton, 40, Jany Leveille, 35, Hujrah Wahhaj, 38, and Subhanah Wahhaj, 35, operated what amounted to a terrorist training camp, where they trained 11 children to use firearms and to attack schools. The compound had been under surveillance for awhile but police only launched a raid when one of the children texted that they were all in need of food and water.

The police found found rifles, handguns ammo and a shooting range, as well a various signs with Islamist slogans posted around the camp. In a tunnel outside the compound they found the remains of a boy later identified as Abdul-Ghani Wahhaj. According to his mother, he took medicine for seizures but the Islamic radicals thought he was possessed by evil spirits.

They also found 11 malnourished children. and Prosecutors also alleged that the suspects planned to commit violent acts and that Siraj Wahhaj had trained at least one child at the compound to use firearms to conduct school shootings.

Siraj Wahhaj has a interesting jihadist background. His father is none other than Siraj Wajjai, an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who got off due to a technicality. The Imam, a former CAIR advisor, offered prayer at a Democratic National Convention event in 2012. The elder Wahhaj is also close to Linda Sarsour, an anti-semite, Democrat darling and frequent speaker who encourages Muslims to radicalize.

With all that evidence, the prosecutors only charged the five defendants with child abuse. And Judge Backus simply let them go free, without even posting bail.

From the Grant County Beat:

"Judge Sarah Backus made the determination the suspects weren't a danger to the community following several hours of testimony and evidence being presented by prosecutors…State prosecutors outlined evidence suggesting that at least some of the suspects could have been planning some sort of attack…Various weapons and ammo were found during the raid on August 3, and several more firearms were discovered in subsequent searches. The children were allegedly taught how to load and fire assault rifles…In addition, prosecutors described a letter sent to Siraj Wahhaj from his brother allegedly inviting him to come to New Mexico and die as a martyr." (KOB, 8/13/18)

"These suspects face serious charges that they intended to inflict mass violence, possibly through school shootings," added Rep. Bill Rehm (R-Alb), a retired law enforcement officer. "This, combined with the discovery of the remains of a young child, is strong evidence that they pose a high risk of violence and should be behind bars. People who are suspected of killing children and orchestrating mass shootings should not be allowed to walk out of the courthouse and back into their communities with almost zero guarantee that they will ever show up to trial. Regardless of political party, New Mexicans can recognize the danger of the judge's ruling and the risk it poses to public safety. This is Exhibit A as to why we need to pass a new constitutional amendment that would require judges to keep dangerous criminals like these in jail pending trial."

So why would any judge do something like this? These people are a definite flight risk and will likely never show up for trial.

A look at the judge's background sheds some light. She's essentially a San Francisco Bay area transplant. She's a graduate of the University of California Hastings College at UC San Francisco and served as a deputy public defender and deputy attorney general in San Francisco.

As such, it's safe to assume that Judge Backus's ideas and priorities are warped in that direction, and a look at other cases she's handled also give a good indication of that.

Letting a bunch of jihadis go free on their own recognizance is far far, more important than public safety to her.

Oddly enough, she was appointed to fill a judicial vacancy by none other than New Mexico's Republican governor, Susan Martinez, after which Judge Backus ran for the office and won as a Democrat. Needless to say, Governor Martinez is desperately trying to distance herself:

"Unfortunately, it (the verdict) highlights how extreme the New Mexico Supreme Court has been in dictating pretrial release for all kinds of dangerous criminals."

And you're going to do what about this, Governor? Do tell.

Forum:Pope Francis Now Opposes Capital Punishment. What Say You?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:Pope Francis Now Opposes Capital Punishment. What Say You?

James Kirwin: As I’ve gotten older and become more mistrustful of government, I’ve had to reconcile that with my support of capital punishment. Giving the State that power when you don’t completely trust it seems contradictory, and the number of people exonerated after years on Death Row should give everyone pause.

I still support it at this time, but it’s not a strongly held, non-negotiable position like my support of Israel or gun rights is. The fact that this dippy Pope, who I have little respect for, opposes it really doesn’t affect my decision one way or another.

Jeffrey Avalon Friedberg : I was once blessed by a Pope when he came to visit Atlantic City, waayyyy back in the 1950’s, and blessed the entire ocean—with me in it.

I liked the just-previous Pope, and others prior to him. I like benign religion that gives people happiness and hope. Solace. A good and creative life. A beneficent Way to be. Order out of chaos.

I have been following the diatribes and rants of this current Pope. Catholics, have you had enough yet?

I have.

Without reading his statement on capital punishment I am going to disregard anything he says—based on his past performance as Pope. To me he is irrelevant in wisdom or religion. To me he is irrelevant as a thinker. He is irrelevant as a man. He is irrelevant.

To me, he is a foreign-born, socialist fraud. How he got to be Pope is a mystery—at least—to me. I speculate he was handpicked to help destroy America and bring the Church down further than it had already fallen.

At any moment I expect him to order Catholics to celebrate Ramadan. And some ancient Aztec feast.

Don Surber: Capital punishment was pivotal in the story of Christ. No execution, no resurrection. Life imprisonment is cruel, but sadly no longer unusual.

Patrick O'Hannigan: The reading I've done asserts that Pope Francis has modified the Catechism of the Catholic Church to say that the death penalty is "inadmissable." This in contrast to what it had said, which was basically that the death penalty could only be legitimately applied in extreme circumstances where there were no other means of safeguarding the public. In the old days, the Papal States (precursors to Vatican City State) applied the death penalty.themselves, and even employed an official executioner. I fear that the change in perspective is a concession to self-proclaimed social justice warriors rather than an honest development of doctrine.

Death penalty opponents typically say that the problem with that is its finality. They mean that when you're dead, it's too late to repent of your sins, and preserving at least the chance for repentance is a recognition of inherent human dignity. That's true as far as it goes, but it ignores potential similarities between capital punishment and the "death bed conversions" that you sometimes read about. Repentance need not take long. It need not come at the expense of justice, either.

Latin remains the official language of Church documents. That said, the word choice (in English) as it has been reported is telling, because it seems to leave a little wiggle room, in a kind of embarrassed acknowledgement of what the Catechism used to say. "Inadmissable" is a lawyerly word, not something typically found in moral theology texts. I'm reminded of the difference between "right" and "legal" (or "evil" and "illegal"). It's a stretch that lay Catholics should not have to make, but something can be "inadmissible" without being "intrinsically evil."

I also can't help but wonder what this pope would make of "By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment," which is a book that came out just last year. Edward Feser, one of the two people who wrote that scholarly but accessible book, has pointed out that popes have explicitly endorsed the death penalty on several occasions. He was also brave and smart enough to point out that slapping the label "development" on a contradiction does not make the so-called development a non-contradiction.

Laura Rambeau Lee: I suspect at least one reason my ancestors left Germany to come to the Colonies in the 1700s was to escape Catholicism, as they were Protestants and members of the German Reformed Church. Protestants believe no mortal man is a direct conduit to G-d and that our relationship with our Creator is a personal one, as is our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Pope Francis is advancing a globalist Marxist agenda under the guise of a holy man. His beliefs may very well bring about the destruction of the Catholic Church.

When there is no doubt of the guilt of the person and the crime was premeditated, capital punishment delivers justice and brings much needed closure to the loved ones of the victim. The reality is every one of us is going to die. Why should a murderer be permitted to take breath and enjoy this precious gift of life when they callously and cruelly chose to deprive another human being of this gift? Let the guilty repent and receive redemption from G-d in the afterlife, but here on earth they should be required to pay the ultimate price.


 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: Why Is Racism Directed At Whites And Asians Largely Ignored?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Why is Racism Directed At Whites And Asians Largely Ignored?


Scott Kirwan:Because in the eyes of those who worry about such things it’s all about power, and they believe that whites have power. As for the Asians, well, they just don’t fit into that belief so they just ignore them.

The whites who believe this tend to come from upper class backgrounds where, surprise! They grew up with wealth and privilege and think their skin color had something to do with that.

My parents, on the other hand, had trouble making ends meet and as late as the 1950s skipped meals so their kids had full bellies. Depression-era survivors they inculcated a belief in us that all that mattered was education and hard work to succeed in life. Skin color didn’t matter, especially to my father who worked menial jobs alongside blacks and Hispanics until he died on the job in 1977.

Where was his white privilege? Or for that matter where was my mother’s who died 3 years ago, penniless after working until her mid-80s?

The SJWs don’t come from the South Side Chicago: they come from places like Martha’s Vineyard and Beverly Hills – and their guilt of being born with a silver spoon in their mouths gets transferred to their skin color, making it about the broader issue of race instead of the narrow topic of being born into great wealth. In a sense it’s the same ignorance and myopia that drove upper class Victorians to shoulder “the White Man’s Burden.”

Currently they hold the megaphone on race so until blacks, Hispanics and Asians rip it away from them, then all white people – including those of us not born into wealth – will be subject to their masochism.

Rob Miller:Actually, I see racism as a very useful tool of the Left.

For one thing, when you convince a portion of certain demographic that America is racist, and that only one political party is their sole guarantor of not only their basic rights but freebies they have become accustomed to because of course they deserve them, it gives you a solid voting bloc, particularly in urban fortresses where voter fraud is easy, and where a bloc vote can result in carrying a state. President Lyndon Johnson, among others knew this when he raided the Social Security trust fund to pay for the so-called war on poverty program to the tune of over a trillion 1960's US dollars.

Not only that, but when you reward certain behavior like urban riots with that kind of largess and center blame on society rather than the perpetrators, something else happens. The behavior gets repeated and held over society's head as a threat. Because it works.

Even the very idea of what racism is becomes distorted, because it becomes not just accepted but actually rewarded...depending on who it comes from.

Another thing that happens is that various parts of civil society start to become unraveled...like the idea of law and order applied equally, the ability of the police to keep civil order and the main concept America has always been based on, that it is a meritocracy, or at the very least a place where you can better yourself based on your own efforts. Once you start giving preference to people based on their race rather than their qualifications or their actual accomplishments, it destroys that ethic, and has the effect of lowering standards across the board as well as building resentment in the non-favored who lose out in the name of 'diversity.'

That's exactly why Asian civil rights organizations are suing the Ivy League colleges for rejecting Asian students based on race. Jews, Asian Indians and other minorities are similarly discriminated against unless their families have alumni who contribute large amounts to the college in question. And it is by no means only Ivy League colleges that do this. Some public funded state universities are also notorious for their worshiping at the graven idol of diversity rather than accepting students and doling out financial aid based on their accomplishments and qualifications rather than their ethnicity. and both Harvard and Yale are openly saying that they will continue to use race as a criterion for admissions.

This story is hardly being covered in much of the media. Imagine the uproar if Harvard was discriminating against blacks, Muslims or Latinos instead of Asians!

Another thing we have to understand is the collusion of whites on the Left with this scenario. Having made this a successful political tactic in grievance politics with one group, the Left is now trying to repeat this tactic with other groups. The idea, of course is divide and conquer, with those not in the select groups, particularly white men being the target.

The way to counter this tactic is (a)not to cringe and cower but to respond aggressively and expose those using it as the real racists they are...ridicule works particularly well (b) use the court systems to punish those who use discrimination as 'virtue signaling' (3) Boycott companies, media sites and universities who practice, promote or reward this kind of bigotry. (4) Use our DOJ to prosecute those who violate our laws on this matter where applicable and have zero tolerance for violence that is race based or attempts to silence critics of this kind of racism...provided someone either wakes Jeff Sessions up from his nap or 'retires' him.


Laura Rambeau Lee: Racism directed at Whites and Asians is a tool the left uses to engender feelings of victimization in minorities. It’s easier to blame an unjust society for ones failings than to take personal responsibility. It’s also easier to manipulate people if they have been told their circumstances are no fault of their own, and that Whites and Asians are born with an undeserved privilege and have reaped the rewards of this privilege with little to no work or effort.

 The problem is there is no way to fight this kind of racism. There is no worse thing that can happen to someone than to be labeled as racist. It has destroyed people’s livelihoods and lives. Look at what happened to Roseanne Barr for a stupid Tweet. I believe we understand this and also understand no matter how we react we cannot win. If we are proud of our heritage the left labels us white supremacists, Nazis or KKK supporters. A rational person understands that one can be proud of their heritage without diminishing the heritage of others. Unfortunately we are not dealing with rational people when it comes to the left. Their entire ideology plays on the emotions of others to build their embittered ranks.

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.