Friday, September 29, 2017

Trending Now On Wow! Magazine

Watcher of Weasels

A Palestinian speaks the truth at the UN -- the shock is palpable

Unmasking 'Taking The Knee'...The Real Issues At Stake

Which Women Were Given Hope? 

 Bookworm Beat 9/29/17 — the Attack of the Stupid Leftists edition 

 It’s Official: #Blacklivesmatter Is Above The Law 

 [VIDEO] South Park takes on identity politics and race 

 The EU, Jews And Hypocrisy

 The Latest: Trump Wins, NFL Caves

 Progressives’ crude political commentary about North Korea [NSFW] 

 AG Sessions at Georgetown Univ.: ‘Free speech and thought under attack on college campuses’

 Swamp dweller, Karl Rove, reacts to Judge Roy Moore’s AL-Senate runoff victory.

The Latest: Trump Wins, NFL Caves (Updated) 

 The Ghost of Trayvon Martin Takes a Knee 

 Bookworm Beat 9/26/17 — the Progressives on Parade edition 

 Are food allergies an analogy to breaking the NFL habit?

The Latest: Trump Wins, NFL Caves (Updated)



The latest developments tell a simple story; President Trump wins, NFL Caves.

League commissioner Roger Goodell held a behind-closed-door meeting Tuesday night with NFL owners, league executives and select players to talk about the national anthem protests and especially, I'm sure, the effect its having on the bottom line.

There's been massive cancellations and refunds issued by major cable providers for 'season ticket' accounts, attendance and TV ratings are down to the point where it's becoming a problem, and fan anger is becoming palpable to the point where the networks are taking care not to turn the cameras on booing and gesticulating fans, although tuning out the sound of the booing and catcalls isn't possible. Long time NFL sponsors like Campbell's soups are facing boycotts from angry former fans.

While there were the usual innocuous remarks on the meeting, especially from the player reps who attended, it's obvious that Goodell and some of the owners now realize what a serious mistake they made letting their pampered employees alienate pro football's core audience.

The day after the meeting, Pittsburgh Steeler center Maurkice Pouncey announced that the entire team will stand respectfully for the national anthem this Sunday.

After facing backlash about standing in the tunnel during the national anthem last Sunday, Pouncey says the team will stand for the anthem.

“I promise you one thing, this week we will all be standing out there for the national anthem. Trust me,” Pouncey said. This comes after the entire team stayed in the tunnel when the national anthem was played. And after the one Steeler who did come out and stand respectfully for flag and country, former Army Ranger Alejandro Villanueva was viciously attacked by the Steeler's black head coach Mike Tomlin.

The Green Bay Packers tried to have it both ways, standing for the anthem and linking arms, a gesture used before by teams like the Patriots to show 'solidarity' with the black players protesting. The Packers also tried to get their fans to link arms and made the expected remarks about unity, but for the most part that was a dismal failure, as even ESPN admitted:

Michele Steele @ESPNMichele
Vast majority did not link arms but many sang along w the anthem. Right behind GB bench a sign: "Shame on the NFL. Vets stand for the flag"
Their opponents, the Chicago Bears tried the same linked arms tactic.It didn't go over much better.

The Dallas Cowboys are rumored to be the next team to stand for the anthem, although whether they'll do the linked arms choreography remains to be seen.

After what's already happened, I have my doubts most of the fans are going to put up with half measures. I'm not even sure reversing course and having players respect the flag and the national anthem can turn things around at this point, but we'll see.

At any rate, it appears that once again, President Trump has a lot better grasp on how his fellow Americans think than people who supposedly get paid to know this sort of thing.

Or to use the short version, Trump wins, NFL caves.

UPDATE: This is becoming a farce. After insulting flag and country by kneeling during the U.S. anthem but standing respectfully for 'G-d Save the Queen' during an exhibition game in the UK, New Orleans Saint's quarterback Drew Brees told the press that the Saints will all kneel first during the anthem and then stand up. "

As a way to show respect to all, our team will kneel in solidarity prior to the national anthem & stand together during the anthem.


Get a clue, Brees. By kneeling you're expressing solidarity with those who disrespect our country and our flag. And by standing afterwards, you are simply trying to appease enraged fans because the owners want to keep the money coming in. Do you really have such a low opinion of your fans? Do you really think they're that stupid?

I actually have more respect for the kneelers. They at least have the virtue of honesty in showing their contempt for America, which has given them everything. You and those of your teammates who participate in this nonsense show nothing but cowardice.

Don't even bother.

The EU, Jews And Hypocrisy

 

There's been a lot of talk by the EU's press and certain politicians about 'Nazis' during the recent EU elections, the rise of what's referred to as the anti-semitic right and how dangerous it is for EU Jews. And of course. the politicians now in power pledge to fight anti-semitism.

Let's see how that works in real life, shall we?

Yesterday in the Israeli town of Har Adar just northwest of Jerusalem, one of the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians murdered three Jews in cold blood and critically wounded another in a shooting attack.

From left to right: Solomon Gavriyah, Youssef Ottman and Or Arish, three Israelis killed in a terror attack outside the settlement of Har Adar on September 26, 2017 (Courtesy)

Nimer Mahmoud Ahmed Aljamahad been given a job in Har Adar (so much for ideas of promoting peace by bolstering 'Palestinian' economy) and had an Israeli work permit, so he had access to the town. He simply brought his gun to work and shot the Israelis in the back from ambush. He was then shot and killed by security forces in the town.

United Hatzalah is a something of a unique organization in Israel and in some Jewish communities in the Diaspora as it mostly consists of volunteer emergency first responders. One of them, Moshir Abu Katish,from the Israeli-Arab town of Abu Ghosh, described the scene of the attack.

"I was alerted to the attack by the United Hatzalah dispatch center and I raced over to the scene [of the attack], which took place near the fence of Har Adar. Security forces had shot and killed the terrorist who had carried out a shooting attack against a group of Israelis who live in Har Adar.”

" Unfortunately, the three more seriously injured people in the attack were pronounced dead at the scene. A fourth person who was injured we treated at the scene before he was transported to the hospital for further treatment and observation."

Hamas, of course took credit fo rthe attack and celebrated this latest 'martyr.' So did Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas's party who runs the Palestinian Authority, the people Israel is expected to make peace with.



This is from Fatah's official Facebook page, which of course Facebook would never think of censoring or removing. It's a picture of the killer, Nimer Mahmoud Ahmed Aljamahad. The caption reads: "In the name of the Fatah movement, we share the sorrow of the family of the shaheed (holy martyr) Nimer Mahmoud Ahmed Aljamal who was killed in the operation today."

Fatah also wrote: "He who carried out the operation in Jerusalem is shaheed Nimr Mahmoud Ahmed Aljam"

The PA Ministry of Health claimed - wait for it - that Aljamal died because he was shot by 'occupation forces' of course not mentioning that he had murdered three Israelies. Needless to say, Aljamahad's family will now go on Mahmoud Abbas's payroll with a nice monthly stipend courtesy of all that donor aid money.

But now, let's looks at the reaction from the U.S and especially from the EU.

President Trump's Special envoy Jason Greenblatt condemned the deadly terrorist attack and criticized Hamas for praising it.

"My family & I are horrified by the attack in Har Adar. Shame on Hamas and others who praised the attack. All must stand against terror!" Greenblatt tweeted.

"We pray for the victims of today's attack at Har Adar, and their loved ones as well," he added.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman also condemned the attack, calling the shooting a “cruel” and “evil brutality” and an act of “unprovoked terrorism”.

“Once again, Israelis confront the cruel and evil brutality of unprovoked terrorism,” Friedman wrote on Twitter. “We pray for the victims at Har Adar and their families.”

The EU also formally condemned the attack.

“There can be no justification for such a crime and attempts by Hamas to glorify the attack are reprehensible. Violence and terror will only achieve more loss and pain and must stop,” said a statement from the EU spokesperson.

“The European Union offers its deepest condolences to the families of the victims of the shootings,” the statement added.

You'll notice that the EU condemnation doesn't mention Abbas and Fatah. In fact the only one who mentioned Hamas and alluded to 'others' without naming names was Greenblatt.

And now we get to the real meat of the story.

You see, Hamas and Fatah are in the process of coming to an agreement about putting a unity government in power, thanks to the aid shutdown to Gaza Abbas and Fatah were able to engineer among the donor nations. Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and other PA ministers announced a plan to take administrative control over Gaza, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' political leader, said Hamas was willing to cede control to the PA provided Abbas responds with what Haniyeh called 'practical steps.' Haniyeh is talking about Hamas retaining control of the Hamas police force (and of course, its military), retaining exclusive authority over the border crossings, and of course, an increased share of donor money. In other words, Hamas would retain practical control over Gaza using the western-backed Abbas as a shield and a cover for its activities.

Remember that Hamas is an officially designated terrorist group in both the EU and U.S. who just condemned their activities so heartily.

And here's the punchline...both the UN and EU have specifically offered help and assistance in putting these two terrorist groups together, as well as continuing to fund and empower them.

Which means you can take that 'condemnation' and flush it in the toilet for all it's worth in real terms. Apparently Hamas isn't so reprehensible to the EU after all.

Yes there's a lot of talk in the EU's media and from politicians like France's Macron and Germany's Merkel about the rise of the right and the danger to Europe's Jews. Some Jews are even gullible enough to swallow it. But here we see the reality of these same EU politicians ready, willing and able to help genocidal terrorist groups unify against Israel. And oddly enough for their supposed concern for Jews, conditions for the Jews in their countries continue to deteriorate, thanks to all the Muslims these politicians happily imported to their countries from the most anti-semitic countries on earth.

What a coincidence.

Say what you want. I certainly wouldn't imagine AFD, the Swedish Democrats, Geert Wilder's Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party For freedom) or Marine Le Pen's Front National sending money to these terrorist murderers. Or importing more of those Muslim 'refugees' who have made Jewish life in Western Europe so hellish.

No it's the Eu bureaucrats on the Left, the ones in power that do that sort of thing. They've conveniently forgotten that the Jews are just the canary in the coal mine, and figure that if they can just give the Muslims the Jews and lean hard enough on Israel, they'll have peace. But of course, it won't end there.

It never does.

When it comes to the EU, Jews and hypocrisy there are simply no limits.






Monday, September 25, 2017

The German Elections: Dead Man's Curve




The German Elections are over, and the German people mostly voted for the status quo. And in that word 'mostly' lies a possibility that rather than crashing and burning, Germany might just manage to avoid suicide and remain a western, European nation.

Angela Merkel did indeed win a fourth term, but with the worst result for her party, the CDU/CSU Union since 1949, and one that assures that in order to govern, she will need coalition partners. And that won't be all that easy to assemble. Even worse for her is a possible splintering of the long standing CDU/CSU party...and the surprisingly strong showing of the Right in the form of Alternative für Deutschland (AFD). Here are the numbers:



Mutti Merkel will need 316 seats to govern. Let's look at who these parties are...

The Union is the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands, Christian Democratic Union of Germany) , in union with the CSU (Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern, Christian Social Union in Bavaria). The CSU is to the right of the CDU, although both are pro-EU. And the CSU is seriously talking about a split, since they're concerned how Merkel's stance on unlimited Muslim migration will effect them in their Bavarian stronghold. The CSU dropped from 49% to 38.5% thanks to Merkel, and have already announced a turn to the right, particularly regarding Muslim migration.

The SPD is the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany). It's a party of the Left that supports socialism, is pro-EU and has already said it will not join a coalition with Merkel. The Social Democrats and their candidate Martin Schulz came in a distant second, with a post-war record low of 21 percent.

Die Linke, as you can gather from its name is a far Left party that includes the former German communist party (PDS). They're an unlikely partner for Merkel.

Grüne (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Alliance 90/The Greens) is a very Left party with enviro-politics as their major focus. They might be prepared to do a deal with Merkel for the right price.

The FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei, Free Democratic Party) —are more centrist and champion free market economics and traditional classic liberal freedoms, but are also pro-EU. Again, a possible partner for Merkel for the right price.

And finally, AFD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) — Anti-EU, nationalist and very much against Merkel's continued importation of Muslim migrants to Germany. This is the first them they have passed the threshold of votes needed to get them into the Bundestag, Germany's Parliament. and while the chart lists them last, in terms of seats they have now gone on to become Germany's third largest party. They not only won't work with Merkel, they have pledged to oppose her at every turn. As AFD Leader Alexander Gauland said last night when the returns came in, "We will chase Mrs. Merkel, and we will take our country and our people back!”

By gaining seats in the Bundestag, AFD has dramatically boosted its visibility and qualifies for state financing.

AFD's rise is even more astonishing when you realize that the party was essentially split between an unapologetic right wing party led by Gauland and Alice Weidel and a more moderate wing headed by Frauke Petry, who helped form the party in 2013. If AFD had been united, their results might have been even more stunning.



In fact, Frauke Petry announced just after the election that she would sit in the Bundestag as an independent in opposition AFD's future will depend on whether the party continues to splinter or is able to unify over its core issues without being distracted.



The Left's reaction to AFD's success was quite typical. Rent-a-mobs in Leipzig tried to storm the town hall, where votes were still being counted, and where the AFD was holding their election party.



The same thing occurred in Berlin where another AFD election party was being held, and elsewhere, with protesters screaming things like 'Nazis Aus!' waving signs, breaking windows and generally acting out.

Unsurprising, since the German press (largely Left leaning) branded AFD as Nazis, and even German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and other Merkelites made the idea of "real Nazis" entering the Bundestag a real issue during the campaign.

Are the AFD Nazis? While some of them likely lean in that direction and have questionable views on certain subjects, I'd have to say generally speaking that this is more a typical case of Leftist hypocrisy and frankly, projection. After all, there were no AFD brown shirts trying to violently storm CDU/CSU events! Nor does AFD regurgitate the Nazi's economic views, which were frankly socialist.

The election itself basically revolved around two main themes. Merkel is seen as the comfortable status quo. Germany is still prosperous, and a lot of its graying population (more than half of the 61 million voters are aged 52 or older) saw Merkel as a symbol of stability.

The other theme is the simple fact that many Germans feel unsafe in their own country. Women in particular are uneasy walking alone at night, riding the trains or using public swimming pools for obvious reasons. Whole areas in German cities are becoming no-go areas for non-Muslims, and the tax money needed to support the Muslim migrants is taking a huge bite out of German wallets. Many people are simply fed up, and the election results show that as well.

The German elections show a nation negotiating Dead Man's curve. If Germany continues its skid towards destruction, it will end up with Muslims ruling it under sharia as one of the most important countries in Europe literally falls to invasion. Ironically, given how Merkel touts it, that would also lead to the end of the EU, something that's pretty close to happening anyway since many nations in the EU aren't going along with the diktats of Merkel and her minions in Brussels when it comes to doing to their countries what Germany and Sweden have done to theirs.

If the Germans decide that enough is enough, if the AFD remains united and goes more mainstream, if Germany reaches a consensus on the harm Merkel's allowing a surge of Muslim migrants into Germany has done, they may yet make the turn on Dead Man's Curve and save their country.

In that case, this year's German elections may be the beginning of Germany's return to sanity.

And Mutti Merkel? She will likely end up a Chancellor again, but her term will be anything but smooth. I'd be very surprised if she finishes it.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

An American In Babylon - Trump's UN Speech

 

President Trump's UN speech attracted a fair amount of controversy among the chattering classes. It shouldn't have.

The United Nations has become a byword for useless, dysfunctional bureaucracy a mere 72 years after its founding.

Like Belshazzar's feast, it spends lavishly and conducts itself with opulence, but is rotted through with corruption and does little of any value while squatting in mordant self satisfaction.

Leave it to President Donald J. Trump to point out the wrong direction the UN has traveled since its founding in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, and to challenge it to change direction and become the force for good it was intended to be.



The president called for the UN and its members to reverse course, and to become what the UN was supposed to become on its inception...a group of sovereign, independent nations who prized freedom, democracy and peace and were willing to work together to promote them and to take action against rogue nations who threatened those ideals. If you read the original UN charter, you get a sense of just how far the UN today has removed itself from what it says.

Scandals like 'oil for food' where even the Secretary General's son was implicated in money laundering for Saddam Hussein to avoid UN sanctions abound. Countries like Iran routinely threaten genocide. And violate with impunity even UN Security Council series 7 resolutions like UNSC 1701, which called for the disarming of terrorist group Hezbollah and prohibiting UN members from rearming them. Iran and Syria rearmed Hezbollah without incurring any penalty whatsoever.

UN peacekeeping forces are more noted for trading food supplies for enforced prostitution, ignoring their supposed duties and allowing violence against civilians than for fulfilling their actual missions.

That's exactly why President Trump quoted Harry Truman, who stressed that the success of the United Nations depended on the “independent strength of its members.”

And unlike his predecessor, President Trump was unafraid to voice this simple truth;

“The United States of America,” Trump said, “has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.”

And our president was equally honest about confronting thoe rogue nations who threaten peace and security. He called out the disgusting regime of Kim Jong-un in North Korea, saying thatthe patience of the United States is great, but not inexhaustible. Asthe president explained, If North Korea persists in its policy of nuclear blackmail, the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” He continued: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

Needless to say, the Leftist press worldwide fainted away collectively at that. But what President Trump said was the simple truth. The same is true about what President Trump had to say about the equally rogue, criminal regime of Iran, one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, a foe of America who was openly complicit in 9/11.

The UN's ignoring of the Iranian regime's march towards nuclear weapons is so ingrained that they aren't even making an attempt to have it look like they're doing something. Not only has Iran has prohibited the UN from any inspection of their military facilities where there's been clear indications of manufacturing and testing nuclear weapons components, but the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog now allows Iran to self inspect their nuclear facilities that the UN is allowed to get a glimpse of. To accuse the IAEA and the UN of gross negligence whenit comes to Iran is a gross understatement.

You see, President Trump wasn't just giving a display of American resolve. This was a direct challenge to the UN, plain and simple. The UN, after all is supposed to be the forum where dangerous regimes like Iran and North Korea are supposed to be addressed and dealt with. While Trump was quite clear that America could handle these rogue regimes on their own, He said it would be far better if the UN actually did what it was supposed to do and dealt with these major threats to world peace. “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few,” Trump said in another memorable line, “then evil will triumph.”

Trump even had the intestinal fortitude to address Socialism.

No ideology has ever been so discredited by the evidence of history, but like a serially cheating wife or husband still offers hope to a long suffering spouse that this time, it will really be different. Except, of course, it never is.

Trump used the UN's failure to address the human tragedy now going on in Venezuela, once one of the richest countries on earth where Maduro's socialist regime is literally starving its population to death. It wasn't so long ago the Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and other Leftists were using Hugo Chavez and Venezuela as an example of how well socialism could work. Now, as the once rich country descends into poverty and chaos, they don't mention Venezuela any more.

“The problem in Venezuela,” Trump said, “is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

So how did President Trump's speech go over? To most of the delegates of the UN, not very well. Being publicly unmasked like that is the last thing they wanted, let alone being challenged to make the UN what it was created to be. And of course, Trump's usual political enemies in the press and in the Democrat party went predictably ballistic. But as usual, the president has hit another bulls eye when it come to talking to the American people and to friends of freedom everywhere.

Speaking truth to power is a Leftist cliche', but that is exactly what President Trump's UN speech did, in one of his finest moments.

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

A Humane And Fair Solution For DACA

 Image result for dreamers demand their rights

DACA, as most of you might know, stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It was a policy President Barack Hussein Obama implemented by executive order. It allows allows illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and makes them eligible to legally work in the United States.

DACA was presented by the former president and his allies in the press as both just and humane. After all, these 'Dreamers,' to use the catchy label coined by the president and the policy's exponents, had come here as children, this was the only country they knew and of course they should be allowed to stay, shouldn't they?

But that was only the beginning. The president's next step, in November 2014 was DAPA (Deferred Action For Parents of Americans) which was supposed to give a similar de facto amnesty to parents of the Dreamers. That led to a major influx of unaccompanied minors coming across our borders, mostly male teenagers or in some cases older and posing as teenagers. The idea was to get here, get Dreamer or refugee status and then, send for the rest of the family including Auntie, Grandpa, distant cousins and pretty much anyone else thanks to America's very lenient family reunification programs.

DAPA was merely announced by President Obama. It wasn't even dignified by a Presidential executive order, nor even a regulatory ruling. The President may have misplaced his pen, because he simply announced it, and that was that,banana republic style. A few months later, in response to lawsuits from several states, an injunction was issued stopping the DAPA program in February 2015, and President Trump finally put an end to it in 2017.

So what is to be done about DACA?
The Pew Trust,whose numbers may be somewhat inflated says that 1.7 million people might be eligible, although U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) only has received about 850,000 applications. As an aside, each application costs $450, and that amounts to a total of $382,500,000. I'd certainly like to know where that money went, wouldn't you?

President Trump has announced he is considering ending DACA. Part of his motivation is an agreement he made with 19 State Attorney generals to postpone a pending lawsuit declaring DACA illegal and unconstitutional (which it actually is) and demanding redress from the Federal Government for state funds expended because of it. The president asked them to hold off until he has a chance to study the issue a bit more. But as these states have informed the president, their patience is running out.

There are several ways this could go. The President could keep the program in force in exchange for things he wants from congress like tax reform, and ObamaCare repeal and funding for his budget. But if he does, he will lose political support from his base and get no credit from the pro amnesty Left anyway, as well as dealing with that lawsuit. Or he can curtail it,in which case he loses nothing, because the pro amnesty Left and their RINO allies will throw a tantrum no matter what he does.

The fact is that DACA is illegal. It is yet another piece of fallout from America's refusal to protect its borders and base immigration on its needs rather than allowing a tsunami of illegal migration.

On the other hand, there undoubtedly are illegal migrants who were brought here as young children illegally and consider this their home. It would be tremendously unjust to give these migrants preference simply because of their proximity to our border over the many people who want to come here and are stuck in the bureaucratic nightmare that involves. An illegal migrant is still an illegal migrant, not an 'immigrant.'

Still, I think there's actually a solution to this problem that works as far as respecting America's migration laws, retaining fairness for legal migrants and addressing the humanitarian issue posed by some DREAMers.

First of all, DACA needs to be ended. There's no question that it's both illegal and unjust. And even worse, holds people in limbo, so it solves nothing.

Some of the DREAMers could be allowed to stay under certain conditions. They would have to be able to document 10 years residency in the United States from what I call unimpeachable sources; school records, health records, employment records, DMV records if available,tax returns, that sort of thing.

They would be of good character, have committed no crimes,not be members of any questionable groups or organizations,  have learned to speak English, and not be on public assistance. They would not be eligible for U.S. citizenship but would receive a special permanent residence permit that would allow them to live and work in America.The citizenship restriction would not apply to illegal migrants who have served in our military and who otherwise qualify.

And it should clearly be understood that this residence permit is a one time act of clemency, not an entitlement or precedent. If necessary, legislation would need to be passed clarifying this.

 Related image

As non-citizens, they would not be allowed participation in any family reunification program to bring relatives to America from overseas, to hold public office or to vote.

While it might be wise to put a numerical quota on these residence permits, I believe that anywhere from 30-50% of the DREAMers would qualify to stay in America should they choose to. It would mean they have forfeited certain rights given to legal migrants, but that they could continue to live in America.


Monday, August 28, 2017

WoW! Forum: What's The Future Of Marriage?



Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's Question: What's The Future Of Marriage?

Dave Schuler : It's too early to tell. In the latest development of the great experiment we've been conducting over the period of the last couple of generations in redefining the fundamental building block of our society, the family, it has been decided that the interests of liberty and equality demand that we be unable to extend civil subsidies to traditional social arrangements without extending them to arrangements that fly in the face of tradition.

It may all work out. It may not.

 Rob Miller: Same sex marriage is by no means something new. Same sex marriage and similar arrangements were common in ancient Greece and Rome. There's a cogent argument that this had a negative effect on their societies, but that's irrelevant perhaps to the topic at hand which concerns our present day. 

I would draw a line between what I call traditional marriage, most of which has a religious background and secular civil marriage.  Traditional marriage will likely not change too much. Secular civil marriage is likely to have major changes, as well as making changes in our societies, many of them detrimental.

As I pointed out here, same sex marriage was what I call a spear point issue, meaning that it paved the way for a lot of other things  that were part of the agenda that it's proponents either weren't aware of, could care less about or simply wanted to hide.  It's no coincidence, for instance, that the majority of law professors who specialized in family law  were avid supporters of same sex marriage. Many of them even support the idea of replacing traditional life time marriage with short term renewable contracts as well as polygamy as called by its new name, polyamory. And why not? Imagine the fat fees lawyers stand to make for negotiating these contracts and their subsequent renewals or dissolutions!

We will undoubtedly see these kind of contracts, given the outsize influence predatory lawyers have when it comes to legislation.

It's also no coincidence that none of the major Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR had little public criticism on same sex marriage, in spite of what the Qur'an says about homosexuals. Can you think of a better way to ultimately get Sharia compliant polygamy,child marriages and temporary 'bought' marriages (we generally refer to them as prostitution or  one night stands in America)  legal and on the books?  

After all, once you legally change the definition of marriage, it can pretty much consist of anything people can dream up. Imagine two businessmen in partnership deciding to 'marry' in order to take advantage of certain tax laws, even if they already married to women. Why not? What legal grounds would there be to deny them? How dare we discriminate!

And as AI and robotics become more and more sophisticated, does anyone doubt that if present trends continue (and they may not), there could eventually be civil marriages between human and machine?

Laura Rambeau Lee : For centuries Western civilization had defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This is no longer the case. While several states passed laws with overwhelming majorities attempting to keep the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, in 2015 the Supreme Court overturned our votes and ruled that we must allow same sex marriages. Many of us embraced the idea of civil unions for gay couples affording them all of the rights and obligations of a heterosexual married couple but wished to keep the term marriage confined to what we have understood it to be and represent. I was against same sex marriages, not because of their wish to be recognized as a couple but because marriage is now undefined rather than redefined. Will this progression stop at same sex marriages or will bigamy and polygamy be allowed in the future?

Now that same sex couples have legally married we will see how this plays out as some will inevitably attempt to divorce. Marriage laws are primarily to protect property and children. It is not so easy once the bond of marriage has been legally established and recognized by the state to dissolve the relationship. That which has been sanctioned by the state must also be dissolved by the state.

While all this redefinition of marriage is happening at the urging of progressives in an attempt to undermine Western culture and civilization, the good news is marriage will continue to be the foundation upon which families are built. Human beings understand the intrinsic value of one man and one woman coming together and committing themselves to each other, to declare their love for one another publicly, and to raise their families. It is the natural order of things and will continue to be in spite of those who seek to destroy it.


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.

An Important New Development InThe MidEast Peace Process.

 http://www1.cbn.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/media/standard/images/jaredkushnerabbas_si.jpg?itok=aro30ySy

President Trump and Jared Kushner have actually made some progress towards achieving a Mideast peace agreement between Israel and the PLO. The progress mainly consists of shifting the entire context around. I still ultimately doubt it will be successful as long as The PLO/Fatah and Hamas are involved, but just doing that much is significant achievement..and it may just actually yield some results.

If you’ve been following the latest developments in the Mideast peace process, you know that Jared Kushner just met again yesterday with the Palestinian Authority’s leader Mahmoud Abbas. Unlike their last meeting, when Kushner insisted that the PA had to give up inciting and financing terrorist attacks on Israel, this one didn’t end in a shouting match between them.

Abbas and the other PA functionaries made polite noises this time.

“We highly appreciate President Trump’s efforts to strike a historical peace deal, a statement he repeated more than one time during our meetings in Washington, Riyadh and Bethlehem,” Abbas said at the start of his meeting with Kushner, according to the PA’s official Wafa news agency.

“We know that this delegation is working for peace, and we are working with it to achieve what President Trump has called a peace deal. We know that things are difficult and complicated, but there is nothing impossible with good efforts,” he added.

Well, except for this. The Palestinians, as they wish to be called are very frustrated by one thing.

When it comes to the peace process, they’re used to being catered to, and being offered what they demand while giving little or nothing in return as concessions. They’re also used to it being a fait accompli, an established fact that there is going to be a two state solution that gives them all or most of Judea and Samaria with their capitol in Jerusalem.

The Trump administration has backed away from guaranteeing that no matter what, an important shift in the context.

“We have clearly emphasized to the Americans the importance of having a public statement that has a commitment to the two-state solution,” Ashraf Khatib, a spokesman for the negotiation affairs department of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), told the Washington Post on Friday. “There hasn’t been any.”

Nor will there be for now, as State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert explained earlier this week. The always unworkable two state solution has been sidelined for now and won’t be automatically put back on the table without significant concessions by the PLO. Or as Ms. Nauert politely put it, “Committing to a two-state solution would “bias” the outcome of a peace agreement between Israel and the PA.”

“We want to work toward a peace that both sides can agree to and that both sides find sustainable. We believe that both parties should be able to find a workable solution that works for both of them.”
“We are not going to state what the outcome has to be. It has to be workable to both sides. And I think, really, that’s the best view as to not really bias one side over the other, to make sure that they can work through it. It’s been many, many decades, as you well know, that the parties have not been able to come to any kind of good agreement and sustainable solution to this. So we leave it up to them to be able to work that through.”

Or to put it more bluntly, President Trump isn’t going to make Israel ‘negotiate’ with a loaded gun to its head and a preconceived outcome.

For perhaps the first time in the history of the Mideast peace process, the PLO is being told that if they want a state, they’re going to have to convince the Israelis to go along with it. That’s going to mean significant concessions. And even then, it might not mean statehood. it might just end up being an autonomous enclave.

This is a major change. Obstruction and stonewalling by Abbas and company is not going to work any longer. They will have to deal to get what they want.

At a time when the only Arab leader who seems to have any time for ‘Palestine’ is Jordan’s King Abdullah and most of the Sunni states are far more concerned with putting together a coalition against Iran that will of necessity include Israel, Mahmoud Abbas and ‘Palestine’ aren’t even attracting rhetoric, let alone cash. The Arab states have slashed the aid they were giving the PA by 50%, and bi-partisan legislation is already moving forward in the US to severely limit aid to the PA because of their financing of terrorism.

Will being squeezed and marginalized give the Palestinians an incentive to actually bargain in good faith for once and come up with a reasonable proposal for Israel to mull over? I’d say no, but I’d be happy to be pleasantly surprised.

As President trump once said, the biggest asset in making a deal is the willingness to walk away. Applied to the Mideast peace process, it just might work.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

President Trump Is 100% Right - The Media's Feeding Hate And Division

 Image result for trump rally in phoenix

President Trump, whatever else he accomplishes during his term deserves major credit for unmasking our dishonest, partisan media. He's totally correct when he says, as he does here in Phoenix, that the biased media is feeding hate and division here in America. And it's hard not to believe, as President Trump says that they really don't want America to be great again, and lack love of country. And that's been evident long before Donald Trump became president.



What really happened here, as most of us know is that the biased media really thought Hillary Clinton was a shoe in. Their biased polls showed it. The Left controls most of academia, Hollywood, the publishing industry, most of the legacy media, most of pop culture, and most of the tech/Social media industry and its billions.

Much of the media actually worked for either the Clintons, Obama or both before they eased into their present sinecures.

Mrs. Clinton had the big money behind her.She had an army of the best consultants money could buy to plan strategy and carpet bomb the American people with vicious attack ads. She had the corrupt DNC in her pocket to grease the primaries so she would win easily. She had the media working fo her to provide partisan hosts and slant the debates. She even had a large contingent of #neverTrump conservatives on her side.

And against her was Donald Trump, running his first campaign ever, with a small campaign team, his plane, and not much else except well, himself.

The Left, especially the media were so convinced that they could destroy him easily, so confident of their own power that they went all out...and got careless. A lot of had already known how biased they were for sometime, but the waythey conducted themselves in 2016 pulled the Wizard of Oz's curtain away for America at large.

The media bet everything on one throw of the dice, and got snake eyes. Because against all expectations Donald Trump won the election in the biggest upset in American political history.

And the Left had a collective nervous breakdown. What happened on camera was hilarious enough, but I've heard that what happened when the cameras were off was even funnier.

Mrs. Clinton was so angry and distraught she threw a major tantrum backstage and wasn't even able to speak to her followers who were waiting to hear from her. Her campaign manager, John Podesta had to speak to them and tell them to go home. And once Mrs. Clinton calmed down, they came up with the fairy tale of 'Russian collusion' to alibi why they lost so badly.

Oddly enough it was Donald Trump who caught the heat before the election for saying that he would respect the results 'if it was an honest election.'

Remember this?



Did you ever see or hear former President Obama addressing the nation to decry the Left's disrespect for the 2016 election results? Did you see any of the legacy media excoriating Mrs. Clinton,the Obama Administration and the 'resistance' for disrespecting our democracy? Of course not, because the media was intimately involved in that disrespect and they still are complicit in it. And if that's not de facto hatred of our country, what is?

The bogus 'Russia story has been off the front pages for almost two weeks now. Instead, it's 'trump the racist,' 'Trump's insane,' and 'Trumps unfit for office' repeated over and over and over again in the classic cadence of the Big Lie.

The huge crowd of over 8,000 (put a few thousand outside who couldn't get in and braved the heat to listen on monitors) in Phoenix cheering the president on and the tiny contingent of 500 or so 'protestors' that showed up after all the hype shows us two things. That Trump hasn't lost his base and that the only place the Left's brown shirts can act out is in the solid blue enclaves sympahthetic politicans control...like Charlottesville, Chicago, Berkeley or Los Angeles. Anywhere else, the police are going to be allowed to do their jobs.

Which is of course what happened in Phoenix, which has a Democrat Mayor but one who wasn't going to let the Left run amuck in his city. Unlike Mayor Signer in Charlottesville, he ordered the police to keep the two groups separated. That angered the Left's thugs so much that as soon as Trump's crowd departed, they attacked the police...and got exactly what they deserved.

Phoenix ain't Chicago,Baltimore or Charlottesville. Not by a long shot.


Wednesday, August 23, 2017

A Look At President Trump's Strategy In Afghanistan

 Image result for Trump giving speech on Afghanistan

President Trump addressed the nation last night to outline his strategy in Afghanistan. Of course he didn't go into details,being smarter than his twp predecessors. There were no deadlines or grandiose claims, merely that America would start winning this war and that our eventual withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground rather than any arbitrary dates.

He announced five “core pillars” to the approach: getting rid of any timelines for how long U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan; using all elements of power, including diplomatic and economic; getting tougher on Pakistan; getting India to help more with economic development; and expanding authorities for U.S. forces to fight terrorists.

He said it was up to the people of Afghanistan to “take ownership of their future” and to “achieve an everlasting peace.”

“We are not nation-building again, we are killing terrorists.”

Here's what the president had to say, in his own words. And it's obvious he's thought about this quite a bit:




Needless to say, the President received quite a bit of criticism, especially from the Left.

So let's look at what the president actually had to say.

AfPak is a war we should never have gotten involved with in the first place. I never went to West Point, but I also understand that it was crazy to send an army and billions of dollars worth of equipment to a landlocked country surrounded by hostile territory - and I include Pakistan in that. Most of the equipment needs to be unloaded at Karachi and sent overland to Afghanistan via the Torkum Pass, and aside from us needing to bribe the Pakistanis with billions every year, they've cut the road and kept us from supplying our troops on various occasions.

OTOH, both commanders in chief involved in this handcuffed our troops with ridiculous rules of engagement and various other things designed to appease 'hearts and minds' of the locals.Which of course, didn't work. The Brits kept the Afghans at bay for some time by paying the chiefs 'subsidies' to keep them from raiding India. The Afghan Wars only started when the Brits stopped paying.

The president isn't talking about arbitray deadlines and 'nation building' but victory If Trump lets our troops do what's needed and especially if he brings back great combat generals like McCrystal and starts fighting the war strategically, he has a chance. it also helps that by all accounts, the Afghani government has a lot more respect for Trump than they ever did for Barack Hussein Obama.

I have a feeling Trump and Mattis are going to fight a very different war than Bush and especially Obama, who actually appeared to be aiding and abetting the Taliban on numerous occasions... like giving up 5 top Taliban commanders and a cash ransom for Bowie Bergdahl, a deserter.

I also fully agree with his statement on getting a lot tougher with Pakistan. They have no interest in a stable Afghanistan, which was heading that way in the 1950's and 1960's.

Image result for pictures of afghanistan in the 1960s

What changed things was the Soviet invasion and Jimmy Carter's well intentioned funding of the muhadajeen, many of whom were Islamists and became the breeding ground for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Since Afghanistan is landlocked, it was Pakistan who decided who get the money and arms, and they made sure it was the Islamists. That and Bill Clinton's failure to support the pro-Western Northern Alliance is what delivered Afghanistan to the Taliban. And as I mentioned, Pakistan has still given tacit support to the Taliban by periodically cutting off supplies to our troops and allowing the Taliban to have havens in their country except for periodic raids when the Taliban or allied groups have carried out terrorist activities in Pakistan itself.

One thing that could be especially effective is forgetting Afghanistan as a country to an extent and dealing with the local chiefs directly. They make most of their money selling opium, and they are forced to pay 'taxes' to the Taliban in order to be able to sell their crops at whatever price they can get...with most of the processing done in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier.

Imagine what would happen if the U.S made them an offer they couldn't refuse?

"We want to be your friends, and as our friends, they will be able to sell their crops directly to us for a fair market price, and without any more taxes.to the Taliban. And we will help our friends defend their territory from the Taliban. of course, those who are not our friends will see their fields burned, much as we'd hate to do that."

Many of these Pashtun chiefs have territories that overlap the AfPak borders, Give them some help defending their territories and the bennie no longer having to settle for whatever price they can get and with Taliban taxation and this war could take on an entirely different complexion. Especially if we took a hard line with the Pakistanis about any obstructions and the consequences.

Yes, we could also simply leave, and part of me says 'why not?' . But there are inherent and obvious problems with that. With the right leadership, this could end up being a major graveyard for jihadis.

This was a mess Trump inherited from two dysfunctional commanders-in-chiefs. Let's withhold judgement and see how he does.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Breaking! Trump Activist Executes Prominent Democrat Neighbor

ClaytonCarter

This is a breaking news item. It  apparently happened a week ago, and unfortunately fits in with the media meme about violent right wing Trump supporters.

According to ABC channel 6 news in Chester County Pennsylvania, Clayton Carter allegedly shot his neighbor, George Jennings, both 51, twice in the head outside his home in Pennsylvania in the early hours of August 8 and murdered him.

Carter was reportedly a huge Trump supporter with pro Trump signs on his lawn and a MAGA hat he frequently wore. Jennings was a prominent Democrat and actually a member of the Chester County Democratic Party Committee, and the two neighbors argued frequently. There was actually a previous gun incident where Clayon had pulled a loaded gun on Jennings, but it was diffused when police arrived.

Many people in the neighborhood spoke to the media about Carter's volatile nature and that they were very apprehensive of what appeared to be frequent fits of rage.

On August 8th Carter accused Jennings of shining a light into his eyes as he was returning home, and went inside to fetch a .380-caliber Ruger semi-automatic handgun. (otherwise know as a revolver).

Carter reportedly went back outside and parked his car up on Jennings’ lawn with his lights on full beam, according to a criminal complaint.

When Jennings came outside, they had words and Carter shot him at close range, knocking him to the ground. He then shot Jennings in the head a second time while standing over his body, as his distraught wife watched from inside the house.

This is exactly the sort of hideous violence on the Right the media has been warning us about. It's exactly what happened in Charlottesville. When will we learn?


Related image


Oh wait a minute! Actually, Clayton Carter is a left wing Democrat and Trump Hater with loads of 'resistance ' signs on his lawn And the late George Jennings was a member of the Chester County Republican committee. The rest of the story is as written.

But of course you knew that, right?  If my headline was accurate, it would be the lead story on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS, and tomorrow's front page headline in the WAPO, New York Times, Politico, the L.A. Times...and you know the rest of the list.

Of course, since Clayton Carter is a Democrat and a violent man of the left, the story will be buried quicker than yesterday's dog turds. And the reporters who put this story  out will be sent to the Gulag for some re-education, Da?


Monday, August 14, 2017

WoW! Forum: What Do you think of Trump's handling Of North Korea?




Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's Question: What Do you think of Trump's handling Of  North Korea ?

Don Surber: The United Nations (at our urging) has been at war with North Korea since 1950. This is a sign of failure by the politicians. Enter the amateur, Trump, to cut a deal.

China is using North Korea as a cudgel to beat us with over trade. China will rein in North Korea for a price. China - through North Korea -- is aiding Iran in building its bomb.

The American elite are cool with this. But the American people are not.

Trump had Chairman Xi in for a meal at Mar a Lago in April. Between courses of the meal, he matter of factly bombed Syria.

Thus, China knows he's no pushover. Look for Trump to prevail where the politicians could not.


 Rob Miller: President Trump was left to deal with a great many problems created by his predecessor, especially when it comes to foreign policy and national security. North Korea is only one of them.One of the things about this that makes me really angry is the way the press, particularly the WAPO has exploited this situation, misrepresenting it as a brand new development (perhaps to get the bogus Trump Russia story off the front opages for awhile). The intelligence showing that the Norks had warheads small enough to fit on their ICBMs was first received by the White House in 2013, when a certain Barack Hussein Obama was president. He ignored it in favor of cranking out a few more vacations, improving his golf game, giving Iran a clear path to nuclear weapons on the American people's dime  and weaponizing US intel against his political enemies.

The rhetoric that has the press wetting their footy pajamas   as well as Rex Tillerson and General Mattis's more measured language aren't addressed to Kim Jong-un. They're addressed to China, and are classic 'good cop/bad cop.

China created the Kim regime with the idea of having an aggressive pitbull on its borders they would control  as a border guard and most importantly, as a distraction for the US when needed. They probably laughed and shook their heads in disbelief when Bill Clinton actually ended up financing North Korea's nuclear program with money that was supposed to bribe them to end it! And the Russians, seeing how well it worked with China decided to do it themselves with Iran. Especially since Iran and North Korea were already trading illegal nuclear technology.

What the Chinese want is quiet and a return to the status quo. That's exactly why they voted for the increased sanctions in the UN instead of vetoing them as a gesture, especially since they could always violate the sanctions anyway later if they need to.

What the President is telling them in no uncertain terms is that this scenario is inadequate, and if the Chinese don't put this vicious junkyard dog to sleep, America will. An unsaid aside is that China's economy being as vulnerable an intertwined with America's as it is, both parties know that the  China can't afford a war, especially over Kim Jong-on

The central issue here is quite a simple one. Kim Jong-on, is a  rogue actor like the Iranian regime. Both have dangerous toys they only were able to obtain because of three weak and dysfunctional presidents who allowed this to metastasize on their watch. Both regimes would happily sell nuclear weaponry to terrorist groups and the world's bad actors without a qualm. Any solution  that would allow them to hang on to nuclear weapons is no solution at all.

The short answer? President Trump, so far, is doing exactly what he should be doing in my opinion.


Patrick O'Hannigan: I don't have a standard against which to measure President Trump's handling of the situation in North Korea, but as a general rule, I think it's better and more effective than the breathless reporting of crisis might suggest. Trump has talked tougher than Deep State operatives prefer, as Don Surber alluded to in his own answer to this question. Most of the U.S. media seems bent on a reporting ethos that amounts to "Let's you and him fight," and one side effect of that attitude is that it makes both Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump seem like a pair of crazies who deserve each other. That clumsy attempt at moral equivalence won't withstand even a moment's worth of fair-minded scrutiny, not least because Donald Trump, despite his outsize ego, was not raised to believe in his own divinity, whereas Kim Jong-un was. It's also worth remembering that missile programs don't bear fruit overnight, and Kim Jong-un has run North Korea since 2011.

All I have to back my own opinion is anecdotal evidence. But a caller to a local talk show early this week mentioned that his wife and daughter are both in South Korea, and they've told him that the South Korean press is not sounding apocalyptic. A local (North Carolina) TV station also carried network footage of an interview with some residents of Guam, including its governor, and found that Guamanians allegedly in the crosshairs of North Korean missiles do not seem to blame President Trump for "escalating tensions." It's only hard-left ideologues and "Status Quovians" who fault our president for what's going on, deliberately forgetting what Barack Obama and Bill Clinton before him did to make the North Korean regime think it would only ever face sanctions from the United Nations. President Trump's words (and simultaneous outreach to China) have at least as good a chance of curbing "Nork" saber-rattling as anything we've tried before.


Mike McDaniel: In any discussion of North Korea we have to keep in mind we have been at war with them for the last 64 years. The Korean War never ended, and we’ve been proceeding, haphazardly, under an armistice ever since, an armistice the North Koreans declared nullified in 2013. During those 64 years, we have honored the terms of the armistice. North Korea has not.

Some would suggest the armistice has been a success in that it has deterred a hot--all-out hostilities, shooting--war. By that limited measure, deterrence has worked, but it was based on three legs of a very wobbly stool: (1) We have been willing to accept unlimited covert and overt acts of war by the Norks, including: kidnapping, espionage, the murder of our, and our allie’s, soldiers and citizens, ransom schemes, counterfeiting, drug dealing, arms sales to terrorists and terror states, cybercrime, sinking of ships and the more or less constant shelling by artillery of other military and civilian assets. (2) The idea that deterrence works as long as the Norks have only conventional weapons, and old and rapidly aging conventional weapons at that. (3) Our willingness to do anything to avoid a hot war, including: allowing all of the acts of war mentioned in #1 with no meaningful reprisals, giving the Norks diplomatic cover for their aggressions, allowing them to build a vast communist gulag where their citizens are reduced to eating grass and tree bark for mere survival, and providing the Nork regime with the food, fuel, and money necessary to survive.

But we’ve imposed sanctions! Not enough, not of sufficient ferocity, and we’ve consistently mitigated any effects of sanctions by giving North Korea the goods and cash it needed to laugh at our sanctions. And now, our decades of appeasement and handing over billions have produced nuclear weapons, weapons we paid for. The North Koreans have proved, for 64 years, they cannot be deterred. With nukes in hand, the idea of deterrence is a dangerous, sick joke.

In Donald Trump we have a canny negotiator, and a man utterly result oriented. He determines what he wants, and does what is necessary to get it. His rhetoric is a refreshing change from the mealy-mouthed platitudes of Barack Obama. However, the danger is greater than most realize.

Ballistic missiles and gravity bombs are not the only way to deliver a nuclear weapon. Even a large, clumsy, WWII-tech weapon can be easily, covertly transported in a truck or ship, a danger we are not remotely prepared to defend against. There is every reason to believe they also have EMP weapons and are equally willing to use them. They are no less dangerous than nuclear weapons. In addition, the North Koreans have close ties with Iran and other terrorist states and organizations. They will sell them weapons of mass destruction. I’m sure, particularly with General Mattis as an advisor, Mr. Trump is aware of this, and of far more blood-curdling intelligence than we know.

Appeasement never worked, and it is now profoundly dangerous and unacceptable. All of our kicking the can down the road has brought us to the status quo. We have a simple choice: take out North Korea, or be willing to allow them to use nuclear weapons at times and places of their choosing. President Trump is willing to make that kind of hard choice, and the American public is behind him. The AINO press, Democrats and self-imagined elites never will be. One should never make the mistake of thinking they speak for anyone but themselves.

War is terrible, but there are worse things. Peace is not merely the absence of overt military conflict. Donald Trump understands this too. I pray when the time comes, Barack Obama has not so enervated our military we’ll suffer far more casualties than necessary.

Laura Rambeau Lee : The American policy towards North Korea has been one of “strategic patience” for decades, which brings us to the threat we face today. Reports are that Kim Jong Un has up to sixty nuclear weapons and now has the capability to launch long range missiles possibly containing miniaturized nukes which could hit our allies and even our west coast. He is threatening to launch four missiles to hit within twenty miles off the coast of Guam this week. What we have been doing has not worked and has only emboldened Kim Jong Un. His bullying and saber rattling is escalating. President Trump is meeting Kim Jong Un’s words with the same tough language. He must understand this new administration will be tougher than previous ones. He has seen that President Trump is willing to strike if necessary to send a message as he did with Syria in April after Bashar al-Assad launched a nerve gas attack on the rebel held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

We know for sure our policies in the past have not worked. We will soon see what happens with President Trump’s approach and if Kim Jong Un backs down on his threats. Dear Leader is crazy but I doubt he is suicidal.

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.