Forum: Is Demonizing Putin And Russia A Smart Move?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! staff, community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:Is Demonizing Putin And Russia A Smart Move?

Don Surber: "Is Demonizing Putin And Russia A Smart Move?"

No, but it is one Democrats are stuck with. In order to legally spy on The Donald's campaign, they had to convince a FISA judge that Putin was in cahoots with Trump.

As Trump exposes the espionage, I believe most Americans will have a what-the-feathers moment and side with President Trump. We do not like wiretapping.

 Rob Miller : Ahh, Russia! A mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a wonderful sandwich of that Russian black rye,  turkey or roast beef, spicy Russian mustard and pickle with kasha on the side and a Stoly chaser (Sorry, Sir Winston).

First, let's not forget that Barack Hussein Obama and his $ecretary of $tate  Hillary Clinton gave Putin whatever he wanted in the beginning. They literally betrayed Poland and the Czech Republic by reneging on America's commitment to put missile defense units in those countries and all Putin had to do was glower a bit. 

 Russia's nukes at the time of the Hillary  'reset' were outmoded and out of date, So Obama and Hillary put together that ridiculous START treaty, which not only had the U.S. decommissioning state of the art American nukes on parity with Russia's obsolete ones, but giving Russia access to our top anti-missile technology like Shoot To Kill, with no quid pro quo from Russia at all. And that doesn't count Hillary giving Russia control over a chunk of America's uranium production in exchange for a nice donation to the Clinton Foundation and a $500K speaking fee for Bill. What the Clintons and Obama gave Russia hurt America worse and  was worth far more to Putin than  they and their surrogate's wildest accusations about anyone in the Trump Administration!

 But as to the question at hand... 

The major challenge of our age is the War on Jihad. Nothing else comes close. This isn't a clash between civilizations as Samuel Huntington put it, but a clash between civilization and totalitarian barbarity.  And the Russians know that first hand.

 In the 13th century, the Mongol invasion of the early Russian state of Rus was a catastrophe. Rus lost most of its territory to the Mongols and to the Polish/Lithuanian kingdom.  The Mongols devastated whole,entire cities and left them in ruins.Whatever was left of Russia had to pay tribute in slaves and treasure to the Tatars, the Muslim successors to the Mongols. And that lasted until  the 15th century, when the Russians finally drove them out. The Russians have been fighting jihad for centuries, and have recent, first hand experience of  jihadi brutality...like the 2004 takeover of a school in Beslan by jihadis and the subsequent rape, murder and torture of the children , teachers and other adults they held hostage. Even the most savage beasts would never have behaved in such a fashion. Beslan, Mumbai, Nairobi, Paris, Nice, Ma'alot, Orlando...it never changes except for the details.

If civilization is to triumph over barbarism, we must remain united,whatever our differences. That is how the West won at Lepanto and at Vienna. Different kingdoms put aside their differences to fight the greater threat.  And we will need security cooperation with Russia to win the War on Jihad.     

The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that Putin and Russia have been the ones fighting jihad, while Barack Obama and his cabal have been complicit in financing, empowering, arming and training it. It was Obama, after all,  who destabilized the Middle East, destroyed America's relationship with Egypt by trying to turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood, distanced us from the region's Sunnis by empowering Iran, and helped create ISIS and backed 'moderate Syrian rebels' who were al-Qaeda affiliates.

The entire Crimea dust up is the most ridiculous of all. What we did to Russia and the Serbs with Kossovo is far worse than what Putin did with the Crimea. And what's more, we didn't even have any national interests at stake there. It was simply wag the dog, to distract the news headlines from Bill Clinton's intern problems and look good to the Muslim world, particularly the Saudis. And it has negatively affected our relationship with Russia severely to this day. Memories are long in that part of the world.

Russia needs the Crimea as its sole outlet to the Mediterranean, and the warm water ports it can reach via the Black Sea. That's also one of the main reasons behind Putin's involvement with Syria...Russia's vital naval bases, the Syrian ports at Tartus and Latakia .

Putin might not be a leader Americans would appreciate, but Russia is a different place, where the country has only prospered under strong, autocratic leaders.  Putin is a Russian nationalist, but he also keeps his agreements. A sit down between Putin and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who Putin knows and respects  as a man of his word is likely to yield some important and necessary fruit.

Mike McDaniel : onald Reagan’s 11th Commandment was “thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans. Immediately after he left office, the Republican Party abandoned that common sense idea, which was equally immediately seized upon by the Democrats, who have rigorously observed it, and practiced the opposite: “though shalt speak ill of every Republican.”

Speaking ill of the Russians is, mostly, a no-lose proposition for the Democrats. Sure, it’s insanely hypocritical for the party of Ted Kennedy, who actually sought the aid of the Soviets, an evil empire bent on the destruction of America, to help him sabotage Ronald Reagan. The same party’s presidential candidate, John Kerry, betrayed his fellow military members, and his picture hung, for decades, in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero of the struggle against America. The dishonor role goes on and one, yet it is the same party now indignant that members of the Trump Administration may have had the slightest contact with the Russian Ambassador, a man whose job it is to have as much contact with Americans as possible.

President Trump, with his too friendly comments about Vladimir Putin only painted a bigger target on his back. On one hand, we certainly want relations with Russia to be as good as possible, consistent with America’s national interests and those of our allies, but it wouldn’t hurt Mr. Trump, even now, to take a bit of a rhetorically harder line with Russia.

Still, the Democrats are riding any mention of Russia like a rented mule, and their goal is to use that ridiculous, lame topic to do as much damage to Mr. Trump--and to the nation--as possible. They don’t care how much America is harmed in the world in the process, as long as they get Trump, and perhaps, even seize power again.

Putin is doubtless laughing uproariously. He could care less if the Democrats say bad things about him. He knows, no matter what, they will always be useful idiots, easily manipulated to the detriment of America. He could easily be working with Democrats to harm Trump, who any rational leader must understand is not going to be the feckless pajama boy and useful idiot Barack Obama was. Any weakening of America is to Putin’s advantage, and our Democrat Party is working for him, whether intentionally or not.

Until Trump, and the Republicans can agree to fight back and not give an inch, the Democrats, and Putin win. Merely acknowledging their false accusations and faux outrage surrenders without resistance. The media will, of course, do everything it can to attack Trump and help the Democrats. Unless they want to surrender the majority, and give the Congress and White House back to the likes of Barack Obama, Trump and the Republicans had better put on a unified front, and say: “yes, members of the Trump Administration have talked to the Russians, and they’ll talk to the Russians in the future, just as they will talk to representatives of every other nations. That’s what we’re supposed to do. You’ll see the result in our foreign policy. That’s all we will have to say on this issue, now get the hell out of my office.”

The Democrats do have a risk: Americans are sick of fake outrage and fake news. However, the Administration and Republicans need to show them they’re on their side. Thus far, Republicans seem determined to squander everything that fell into their laps. The real battle is an offensive one against Democrats who are subverting our republic, not a defensive battle against non-scandals.

Demonizing Russia may be a smart move, if Republicans continue to do more damage to Mr. Trump than the Democrats. It won’t take long to find out.

Bookworm Room: My glib answer is that, if the Democrats are doing it, is is ab initio a bad idea. Russia is exactly the same as it was when Obama promised Putin flexibility and then handed the Middle East over to it; when Hillary, in exchange for sizable bribes, was nice enough to give Russia control over vast quantities of uranium; or when Podesta did whatever it was he did to increase his wealth thanks to dealings with Putin's Russia. The problem is that, by playing this public game of demonizing Russia when nothing has changed, the Progressives are trying to force both Putin and Trump into an adversarial relationship that may not be to America's benefit.

In this regard, it's important to keep in mind that the Progressives have been unable to articulate an ideological rationale for this demonizing. This distinguishes the situation from that prevailing during the Cold War, which saw America stand worldwide for freedom and the Soviet Union stand worldwide for tyranny. It's true that Putin is a KGB oligarch and tyrant, as well as Russian who wants what Russia has always wanted: Control over vast tracts of land and people. Having said that,though, this is not the Cold War and we are not in an ideological stand-off with Putin or Russia. Progressives have simply chosen him as the Bogey Man because they can.

My take is that allowing Trump, who truly loves and "gets" America, to have a free hand in his dealings with Russia is probably the best situation. In that way, Trump can respond as needed to whatever situations arise, whether in the Middle East, in Europe, or domestically. Creating an artificial enmity, where none has existed for the preceding eight years, gains nothing and risks much.

So, back to my first point: As is true for all Democrat/Progressive ideas, demonizing Putin and Russia is a dumb move.

Laura Rambeau Lee : The Cold War never ended no matter how hard the left tries to convince us otherwise. Progressives love to demonize Russia and blame them for every bad thing. A lot of it is true, such as them trying to influence our political elections. They have been doing this for a very long time and are expert at disseminating propaganda and disinformation.

The dirty secret is the progressive left (many within the media and in high political office) is working towards the same goal as Putin – the destruction of the United States of America. We need to be very clear that Putin is a hard core communist and has illusions of restoring the old Soviet Union.

But demonizing Putin and Russia is not a smart move. We have been dancing this dance with Russia for decades; utilizing them as allies when it serves our shared interests and placing sanctions on them when they step out of line. Maybe with Gorbachev President Reagan could “trust, but verify.” With Putin there can be no trust, and always verify. But as a world power we will continue to need to keep diplomatic lines of communication open with Russia. Demonizing them will only make our tenuous relationship more difficult to maintain.



Well, there it is.

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

Trending Now On WoW! Magazine

How The Leftist Media Obsession With Attacking Trump Is Hurting America 

 Cynical Political Manipulation 

 It’s time to turn a spotlight on Barack Obama — the real Barack Obama 

 Jeff Sessions Is GUILTY…Of Nothing. The Real Non Fake News Story 

 Bookworm Beat 3/1/17 — the post-SOTU edition and open thread 

 And now for a brief public service announcement 

 Trump’s Speech To Congress… A Shining Moment in American History 

Where Females Fear To Tread – A Report From Sweden 

Donald Trump: Representing The United States 

 Mack Beggs, transgender wrestler, should not eat her cake and have it 

 Thomas Perez As New DNC Head And What It Really Means 

 Second Amendment: Faith Of The Public 

 A Little Israeli Humor… 

 Dying Is Easy; Comedy Is Hard

How The Leftist Media Obsession With Attacking Trump Is Hurting America

 

Victor Davis Hanson, not exactly a Trump cheerleader, has an interesting piece on the subject of fake news. Not only does he call out what he calls ‘the contemporary mainstream media’ as purveyors of fake news, but he accuses them of dereliction of duty when it comes to the role of journalists in a free society, to act as disinterested, neutral reporters who act as a brake on power by informing the American people.

Donald Trump conducted a press conference recently as if he were a loud circus ringmaster whipping the media circus animals into shape. The establishment thought the performance was a window into an unhinged mind; half the country thought it was a long overdue media comeuppance.

The media suffer the lowest approval numbers in nearly a half-century. In a recent Emerson College poll, 49 percent of American voters termed the Trump administration “truthful”; yet only 39 percent believed the same about the news media.

Every president needs media audit. The role of journalists in a free society is to act as disinterested censors of government power—neither going on witch-hunts against political opponents nor deifying ideological fellow-travelers.

Sadly, the contemporary mainstream media—the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), the traditional blue-chip newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times), and the public affiliates (NPR, PBS)—have lost credibility. They are no more reliable critics of President Trump’s excesses than they were believable cheerleaders for Barack Obama’s policies.

Trump may have a habit of exaggeration and gratuitous feuding that could cause problems with his presidency. But we would never quite know that from the media. In just his first month in office, reporters have already peddled dozens of fake news stories designed to discredit the President—to such a degree that little they now write or say can be taken at face value.

No, Trump did not have any plans to invade Mexico, as Buzzfeed and the Associated Press alleged.

No, Trump’s father did not run for Mayor of New York by peddling racist television ads, as reported by Sidney Blumenthal.

No, there were not mass resignations at the State Department in protest of its new leaders, as was reported by the Washington Post.

No, Trump’s attorney did not cut a deal with the Russians in Prague. Nor did Trump indulge in sexual escapades in Moscow. Buzzfeed again peddled those fake news stories.

No, a supposedly racist Trump did not remove the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the White House, as a Time Magazine reporter claimed.

No, election results in three states were not altered by hackers or computer criminals to give Trump the election, as implied by New York Magazine.

No, Michael Flynn did not tweet that he was a scapegoat. That was a media fantasy endorsed by Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, Daniel Payne of the Federalist has compiled a lengthy list of sensational stories about Trump’s supposed buffooneries, mistakes, and crudities that all proved either outright lies or were gross exaggerations and distortions.

We would like to believe writers for the New York Times or Washington Post when they warn us about the new president’s overreach. But how can we do so when they have lost all credibility—either by colluding with the Obama presidency and the Hillary Clinton campaign, or by creating false narratives to ensure that Trump fails?

Ezra Klein at Vox just wrote a warning about the autocratic tendencies of Donald Trump. Should we believe him? Perhaps not. Klein was the originator of Journolist, a “left-leaning” private online chat room of journalists that was designed to coordinate media narratives that would enhance Democratic politicians and in particular Barack Obama. Such past collusion begs the question of whether Klein is really disinterested now in the fashion that he certainly was not during the Obama administration.

Recently, New York Times White House correspondent Glenn Thrush coauthored a report
about initial chaos among the Trump White House staff, replete with unidentified sources. Should we believe Thrush’s largely negative story?

Perhaps. But then again, Thrush not so long ago turned up in the Wikileaks troves as sending a story to Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta for prepublication audit. Thrush was his own honest critic, admitting to Podesta: “Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything.”

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has become a fierce critic of President Trump. Are his writs accurate? Milbank also appeared in Wikileaks, asking the Democratic National Committee to provide him with free opposition research for a negative column he was writing about candidate Trump. Are Milbank’s latest attacks his own—or once again coordinated with Democratic researchers?

The Washington Post censor Glenn Kessler posted the yarn about Trump’s father’s racist campaign for New York mayor—until he finally fact-checked his own fake news and deleted his tweet.

Sometimes the line between journalism and politicians is no line at all. Recently, former Obama deputy National Security advisor Ben Rhodes (brother of CBS news president David Rhodes) took to Twitter to blast the Trump administration’s opposition to the Iran Deal, brokered in large part by Rhodes himself. “Everything Trump says here,” Rhodes stormed, “is false.”

Should we believe Rhodes’s charges that Trump is now lying about the details of the Iran Deal?
Who knows, given that Rhodes himself not long ago bragged to the New York Times of his role in massaging reporters to reverberate an administration narrative: “We created an echo chamber They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” Rhodes also had no respect for the very journalists that he had manipulated: “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Is Rhodes now being disinterested or once again creating an “echo chamber”?

His boss, former UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor in the Obama administration, Susan Rice (married to Ian Cameron, a former producer at ABC news), likewise went on Twitter to blast the Trump administration’s decision to include presidential advisor Steven Bannon in meetings of the National Security Council: “This is stone cold crazy,” Rice asserted, “After a week of crazy.”
Is Rice (who has no military experience) correct that the former naval officer Bannon has no business participating in such high strategy meetings?

In September 2012, Rice went on television on five separate occasions to insist falsely to the nation that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were the work of spontaneous rioters and not a preplanned hit by an al Qaeda franchise. Her own quite crazy stories proved a convenient administration reelection narrative of Al Qaeda on the run, but there were already sufficient sources available to Rice to contradict her false news talking points.

There are various explanations for the loss of media credibility.

(read the rest here)

Jeff Sessions Is GUILTY...Of Nothing. The Real Non Fake News Story

 

The Democrats and their trained seals in the media are hyperventilating with excitement. New attorney general Jeff Sessions is a pawn of Putin's! He talked to a Russian ambassador and didn't disclose it! He was part of Trump's plot to have the Russians hack the election! Gasp! He must resign immediately!

Sheer fake news horse manure.

The Left simply can't accept that they lost the election. So they continue to try to deligitimize President Trump, and the fairy tale they continue to tell is that Russia somehow hacked the election to spoil Queen Hillary coronation. President Obama had something to say about that:



Of course, that was before the election, when President Obama, the media and the usual suspects all knew Mrs. Clinton would win. When she didn't, President Obama changed his mind about that and a lot of other things, including that peaceful, smooth transition. But I digress.

Here's exactly what happened.

In January, Sessions was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) for answers to written questions. One of them wasg if he had “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after Election Day?”

Sessions answered no. Notice exactly how the question was framed. The attorney general wasn't asked if he had been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government for any reason during the entire course of the year. He was asked specifically if he had been in contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election.

Now as it happens, Jeff Sessions, as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee, met tw3ice with Russian diplomats in connection with his work on that committee. This, by the way, is standard operating procedure for senators. It's part of the job. His meetings were leaked by 'intelligence sources' to the Washington Post, now an official organ of the Democrat Party and the 'Resistance'.

Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri, a Democrat, stepped into this one full force and ended up with manure all over her shoes. To witness, check out these tweets:

Follow

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc

I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.

4:06 AM - 2 Mar 2017

• 10,794 10,794 Retweets
• 16,388 16,388 likes

 Except it turns out she has met with the Russian ambassador a few times:

Follow

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc

Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework

4:49 AM - 6 Aug 2015

• 328 328 Retweets
• 162 162 likes

Follow

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc

Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.

7:25 AM - 30 Jan 2013

• 470 470 Retweets
• 214 214 likes

Whoopsie! Good ol' Claire McCaskill, the original $5 girl in a $10 town...

And AG Sessions? Here's what he had to say about the matter:

“I have not met with any Russians at any time to discuss any political campaign. And those remarks are unbelievable to me and are false. I don’t have anything else to say about that.”

Are we at war with Russia? I know there are a few crazy politicians who'd love that, but it hasn't happened yet and hopefully won't. It isn't a crime to talk to Russian diplomats. There's absolutely no evidence of 'Russian hacking' as even Obama's DNI James Clapper testified before congress and Assistant Director of the FBI McCabe reiterated. And Session's talks with Russia's ambassador were both normal and a part of his duties as part of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And finally, even if Jeff Sessions did mention the campaign (and there's zero evidence he did) where's the crime? Former AG Micheal Mukasey schools CNN talking head Erin Burnett, who apparently has never read the Constitution and has no idea what treason consists of:



The Democrats have two things in mind here. Along with their creatures in the media, they want to keep the water boiling in the Democrat fever swamp fantasy land about Russia hacking the election. And having failed to stop Jeff Sessions from being confirmed, they're attempting to delegitimize him and take him out because he's a white Southerner, scary smart and because of his views on enforcing our laws on illegal migration.

Their first objective is disgusting and shows their vile nature and their essential disrespect for our democracy. The second will be an exercise in failure.

UPDATE: AG Sessions has apparently agreed to recuse himself when it comes to the House's bogus 'investigation' into Russian hacking. On the one hand, it's a mistake, since the entire charge is bogus and this gives it a slight appearance of credence. On the other hand, it shows that Sessions is an ethical man not worried about his actions who wants to avoid even the appearance of bias.

Pretty different then the last two corrupt figures we had for attorney generals, that's for sure.

Trump's Speech To Congress... A Shining Moment in American History

President Donald Trump made a speech last night to a joint session of congress. During the preceding day, the usual suspects in print and broadcast media put out a narrative that Trump's s speech would 'tone down Trump' and show a new 'moderation.' There was talk about Trump compromising on his agenda and accommodating the Democrats (and certain Republicans) on key issues like amnesty for illegal migrants.

What they got was something entirely different.



The best way I can characterize President Trump's magnificent speech - and there is no other word for it-is is shock and awe. It was that rare thing,a speech not only of substance but of inspiration and hope. This one will go down in American political history.

The Left has never really understood Donald Trump, because outside their narrow bubble and identity politics, they don't really understand most Americans. Reassured by their trained seals in the media, it was enough for them to simply assume Trump was a buffoon, a fascist, a racist, what have you and to tune him out. What they expected was capitulation. What the president hit them with was so dynamic, so precise and so powerful that most of them literally didn't know how to process it. And still don't.


The first inkling of this was the 5 minute standing ovation that greeted President Trump as he was introduced and made his way to the podium. True, it was mainly Republicans, joined by the odd Democrat like West Virginia's Joe Manchin. But it was impressive just the same. Most of the Democrats stayed seated with their arms folded.

And then The Donald began to speak and what did he start with? A shout out to black history month, and revealing an agreement he and Canada's PM Justin Trudeau had made to promote and increase support for women entrepreneurs. When he announced that one, Fauxahontas and NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand didn't applaud, but looked at each other like someone had hit them both with a taser. Then they began hanging over each other, whispering together and scribbling notes.

It went on and on, with Trump reminding Americans of what he had promised when he ran and what progress had been made thus far. Without mentioning Obama's name, he didn't to gloss over the mess that had been inherited, but he also pointed out how many signs there were that the country was slowly but surely turning around - the 3 trillion increase in the stock market, and the companies already committed to building, investing and hiring in America. He eviscerated ObamaCare, and talked about what was necessary to replace it and what steps had already been taken. And he explained his positions on trade, tax reform, school choice, illegal migration,national defense and the travel ban in such common sense, effective terms that most Americans understood him immediately.

And most importantly, he threw the ball right at congress, calling for them to end the partisan nonsense and work for the American people to get things done. Or as Trump put it:

Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope.

Our citizens deserve this, and so much more –- so why not join forces to finally get it done? On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country, and for the good of the American people.

Needless to say,that got hisses and thumbs down from the Democrats.

You see, Donald Trump accomplished a number of objectives last night. Trump's speech reassured his base that this was not going to be another case of a Republican saying one thing on the campaign trail and another is Washington. And he gave the 20% or so who get their news and views from the likes of CNN, NBC and the Washington Post a chance to see who Donald Trump really is as opposed to the cartoon the Leftist media has created.

He also revealed, on national television exactly what most of the Democrat congress consists of - a bunch of nasty, dysfunctional spoiled children. A particular moment that stood out for me and I think a lot of other people was when President Trump honored the sacrifice of Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens in front of his widow, Caryn:



This was a moment when all real Americans were, or should have been one in honoring an American hero and his grieving widow. Yet many of the Democrats remained seated and did not join in the applause including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and new Assistant DNC head Keith Ellison:




A great many Americans saw this display of heartlessness and frankly, anti-American sentiment. And the story is already spreading about how Democrats have viciously attacked Carryn Owens in social media in the most disgusting terms for being 'a pawn of Trump.'

Odd, we never heard any of them complain about this.

Even Trump's mention of a special DHS group to highlight victims of  illegal migrant violent crime and deal with the perpetrators got boos, groans and hisses from the Democrats.

All else aside, the Donald has just set a nasty trap for the Democrats. For six weeks now they have had a wonderful time exhibiting scorched earth politics and the resistance' which has absolutely delighted their base. They've done their best to obstruct  Trump's cabinet picks in a way that's never been seen before.

During his speech Trump called for congress to work together for the good of the country. Every time he did that, most of the Democrats sat on their hands, hissed  and gave thumbs down, showing how little they care about working together with the president or the Republicans. they even did that when he talked about destroying ISIS, believe it or not.

Democrat Minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer has already stated that he sees no grounds to work with the Republicans or the president, which is hardly surprising. And Pelosi?



And  that's the trap the Democrats now find themselves in, courtesy of Donald Trump. Their radical base loves that scorched earth kind of politics. They won't stand for any kind of cooperation with 'Trump/Hitler' or the Republicans, and they're all caught up in the faux-romance of  'the resistance.'

Meantime, America saw President Trump calling for congress to work together on the bread and butter issues.

Which leaves these swine with an unpleasant choice.  They can continue to pander to their radical base and lose the more sane, more centrist part of the party, which might even include a few Senators who are currently Democrats the way the midterms are shaping up for them. A lot of those people saw a lot of common sense in what Trump had to say last night.  Or, they can decide to cooperate with President Trump on things like ObamaCare, spending, jobs and infrastructure and alienate their radical base.

Based on how the party has behaved in the past and continued its leftist tilt,  I think they'll choose option one.

As Spinal Tap's manager in the film of the same name told a reporter when he was asked whether bookings in smaller halls then before meant the band's audience was disappearing:



There were a few media people who said the Democrat Party 'died last night.' 

I respectfully disagree. They still have access to lots of money. They still control pop culture, education,  and most of the legacy media, and they have highly organized cadres prepared for riots and insurrection. But it's also obvious at this time they have lost a certain amount of political control over much of the country and the tide appears to be turning. If President Trump is able to keep the economy moving in the direction it's going  and continues to keep his promises and communicate with the American people like this,  that tide might become a tsunami.

A Little Israeli Humor....

Thomas Perez As New DNC Head And What It Really Means

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forum: Civil War?

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

 Don Surber: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there it is.

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

Trump Scores At CPAC With A Rousing Speech

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

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

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

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

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

 

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



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

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

An excellent beginning. It's about time.

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

 


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

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

 
Ready, aim, fire!

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

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







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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Forum: Who's Your Favorite President?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Coolidge's response? "You lose."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Well, there it is!

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

Trump Triumphs - A Press Conference Like No Other

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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