Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Forum: Is Europe Doomed?

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

Can it survive the Muslim migrant invasion? Will the EU separate into different factions? Will relations with the U.S. deteriorate? Will it collapse financially

Patrick O'Hannigan: Yes to all of the above. Europe can survive the mass Muslim migration into its borders, but not with its heritage intact. The Brexit vote in England and the more recent results of elections in Italy both suggest that the continent is split by different factions already. Relations with the United States will deteriorate if and when your prism for analyzing bilateral relationships between countries depends exclusively on the longstanding prejudices of career diplomats and "community organizers." For a more hopeful outlook, you have to talk to people not in the upper echelon of politics (as President Trump seems to understand, and Marion Le Pen of France made clear in a rousing speech at CPAC this year).

I don't follow European economic news as closely as some of my friends do, but as far as I know, the EU still depends on Germany to be its economic engine, and Germans are increasingly tired of subsidizing Greek pensions (for example).

When the truth-tellers in Europe realize that Western patrimony is worth preserving, and courageous politicians push assimilation into Western ways rather than suicidal accommodation with people who don't care for European culture but have made their way into its sphere of influence for economic reasons, then we'll all be better off. There are hopeful signs of developments like that in places like Poland, although you have to read past charges of "insensitivity" and "xenophobia" in the mass media to intuit as much.

My guess is that the people who think Europe should roll over are the same people who would have faulted Saint Patrick for taking the Druid priesthood of his adopted country to task, back in the fifth century.

Bookworm Room: Can Europe survive the Muslim migrant invasion? No. If Europe does not put a stop to the Muslims pouring in from Africa and the Middle East, Europe as we know it will be gone in a few decades. Just look at Sweden. Things are so bad there that even the New York Times can no longer pretend that Sweden is still the sweet, crime-free, gender-equal, completely Progressive country it once was. Already ten years ago, British people were telling me that vast areas of Northern England had turned into no-go zones. Indeed, one of the things the Muslims did was deliberately settle into Jewish neighborhoods and then harass them into leaving. One only has to look at the constantly rising antisemitism in France to see how that works once the Muslims reach a comfortable critical mass.

This is not racism on my part, because Muslims are not a race. This is "ideology-ism" because Islam is a mindset, just as Naziism was -- and it's as foul a mindset as Naziism was. I won't belabor the obvious commonalities here. The only real differences between the two are that the Nazis saw themselves as a race, which, as I noted, Muslims do not; and that the Nazis were fairly supportive of female equality. Otherwise, in terms of their approach to the greater world (rather than the sufferings they visit on their own acolytes), they are the same: antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-free market, totalitarian, hungry for world domination, excessively violent and cruel. No wonder Hitler greatly admired Islam and Islamic leaders.

No nations can survive the sustained physical and cultural invasion Europe is experiencing, especially because European leadership, not only resolutely refuses to fight back, but is encouraging the invasion. Keep in mind that Europe rebuffed Hitler for two reasons only: Britain (through Churchill) and America. Today, though, Britain is in the forefront of cultural Islamisization and, over the protests of the ordinary people, importing more Islam. Meanwhile, America would be a fool to step in if war breaks out in Europe between Muslims and a few stalwart remaining traditional Europeans. It would be like Afghanistan, only much worse. The Wilson doctrine of saving an ungrateful world is finally over. Under Trump, America is appropriately interested in saving herself. The only reason for America to intervene, therefore, would be if one could credibly believe that, if the Muslims take over Europe, America is next.

Will the EU separate into different factions? It should, but inertia says it won't. As we see in England, despite the Brexit vote the British government is doing so much foot dragging it's unlikely that it will ever really separate. Slightly more than 50% of British voters hate this fact, but they seem incapable of addressing it. The EU has inextricably intertwined itself into British law, culture, and politics. The same will hold true for the rest of Europe excepting, perhaps a few Balkan nations. Unfortunately, both Poland and Hungary, having started the "emotional" process of separating from the rest of Europe, are falling back on their old friend antisemitism.

Will relations with the U.S. deteriorate? As Europe becomes more and more Muslim, yes, relationships will deteriorate -- that is, as long as we have Trump or other true conservatives in the White House. If we get Obama Part II, the U.S. will reach out to Islamic Europe and attempt to recreate the same scenario in America.

Will Europe collapse financially? Yes. As Linda Sarsour foolishly boasted, the great thing for everyone if sharia comes into play is that we'll no longer have to pay interest on loans or credit cards. She's too dumb to realize that part of what powers the Western World's economic engines is the ability to borrow money and buy on credit. If that system is abused, both lender and borrower suffer. If it's mostly a functioning system, though, it provides the capital necessary to keep the economy moving and growing. The only reason that Muslim nations in the Middle East have succeeded financially over the past decades is oil money. Take that away and there's nothing left. They have a little bit of trade, but that's it. Bring that Muslim economy to Europe and in a few short years, Europe will look like Zimbabwe or Yemen.

Rob Miller: The answer to the above is, it depends on who you're talking about. Donald Rumsfeld, one of our most underestimated and unfairly maligned public servants had it exactly right when he talked about 'new Europe' and 'old Europe.'

'Old Europe' largely consisted of the traditional Western and Northern European states. Thanks to the American taxpayer paying for their defense and America's willingness to incur trade deficits, these countries slacked off on spending any money for defense and gradually put together socialist welfare states instead. 'New Europe', placed under Soviet domination experienced communist barbarism, brutality and real socialism.'Old Europe'has gradually has let its liberties, its individual sense of nationalism and freedom slip away as it embraced the EU and became more hardcore socialist. 'New Europe,' freed in the 1980's has become more nationalistic and far more insistent on its freedoms.

Like Muddy Waters once sang, you can't miss what you never had.

So, will Europe survive the Muslim migrant invasion? Most countries probably will, some may not. The countries of 'New Europe' likely will, because they have simply refused to respond to Mutti Merkel and Brussel's arm twisting and take the Muslim migrants she insisted on bringing to Germany off her hands. Denmark, Norway and Switzerland (the country that outlawed Minarets and refuses to grant citizenship to migrants on welfare) will likely survive as well, since all three are fairly independent minded by nature and aren't really letting Muslim migrants enter in large numbers...nor are Norway or Switzerland EU members by choice. The Norwegians have actually been deporting a number of their Muslim migrants and if memory serves me, have built a border wall on their northern border with Sweden. Austria and Italy look promising, having changed their governments recently after having numerous incidents with the migrants that horrified the electorate in both countries.

France, I think, will survive, but it will not be without bloodshed or a change in government. The French still have a strong sense of nationalism, albeit diluted by the always pernicious French Left...merde a la Gauche! On the plus side, France actually has an army (most of which is deployed in her cities) and now that the general public realizes how badly they were fooled and lied to by the socialist Macron, we may see things changing for the better.

The major countries most in danger, IMO are Sweden, Germany and the UK, with Belgium and the Netherlands not far behind. Sweden's story is so well known that it needs scant retelling here. We are talking about a country where grenade attacks by Muslim gangs have become commonplace and Sweden's National chief of police is begging the government to mobilize the military to help restore some kind of order. The Swedes are actually being moved out of their homes by government order to provide houses for the increasing number of Muslim migrants, and the already high taxes need to be increased to pay for their welfare benefits.

Germany's situation is dire, since Merkel has now resumed the chancellorship in a coalition with the Socialists in a successful bid to keep the right leaning, euroskeptic and migrant critical AFD Party out of government. Merkel's government is so well, anti-German as to go out of its way to promote sexual relations and Muslim conversion for young teenage German girls with adult Muslim males, and to give Muslims coaching on how to pick up young German females. The end result of many of these relationships is quite forseeable.

Germany has other problems as well. For one thing, the Bundeswahr is a joke and incapable of fending off any major threats from within or without.  And many of the migrants, instead of working and paying taxes the way Merkel and her friends planned are simply living the good life on welfare and assorted freebies while making German cities increasingly dangerous, especially for women. There are some signs the peasants are revolting...AFD's strong showing, certain cities that have defied the government and refused to take in migrants and general unrest in Catholic Bavaria, where the bringing in of Muslim migrants is far from popular. So we'll see.

The UK is also in major trouble. The population is disarmed, Scotland Yard admits there are thousands of jihadis with British citizenship back from Iraq and Syria they can't account for, no go areas in London abound and the government, under the fatuous Theresa May is far more concerned with curtailing free speech and keeping anyone even remotely critical of the current state of affairs banned from entering the UK. 

London itself is ruled by Mayor Saddhiq Khan, a man with Islamist ties who after the slaughter on London Bridge famously said that London needs to get used to terrorist attacks every so often.

Britain's birth rate is down except among Muslims, the country has nothing like the leadership it will need to survive as it is and things show few signs of changing. Even the defiance of Brexit seems muted these days, largely because of Theresa May's opposition - she was a staunch remainer.

Another cheery wild card when it comes to who survives in Europe is Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan, who has the largest conventional army in Europe...and Muslim outposts like Kosovo en route along the old Ottoman path of conquest, not to mention Muslim supporters embedded in Europe's cities. So again, we'll see.

Will the EU fragment? It already has, as I described above. The EU has at best another five years left. And the finances are, yes, a part of it. The entire EU bureaucracy basically was designed to benefit Germany and allow them to export in euros rather than higher value Deutsche marks.  At this point, what was once a profitable scam has now backfired, with German taxpayers paying for Greek and Spanish pensions...along with all those migrants. That can't last much longer. And President Trump's long overdue tariffs are going to hurry the collapse of one of the most illegitimate attempts at 'unity' in history.

Relations with America will likewise vary, depending on the country.  A look at the British and German press and their hostility to President Trump and American policy generally doesn't seem to forecast close relations in the future. Nevertheless, particularly when it comes to the UK and France, America might once again step in to save their sorry behinds, if for no other reason than to keep their nukes out of unfriendly hands. Our eastern European allies are likely to be quite a different story, with good relationships with America, especially the Visograd countries.

Laura Rambeau Lee : In the mid 20th century many European countries encouraged Muslims to immigrate as they needed low skilled, low wage workers. Over a couple of generations while their numbers were low these Muslim immigrants appeared to assimilate into Western culture and improve their social status. While their populations were small these countries did not have to deal with the cultural differences they are experiencing today. As their populations have increased the cultural disparities are becoming alarmingly evident. What we are seeing is civilization jihad, where young Muslims have been groomed to become bankers, businessmen and lawyers and run for political office. The city of London, along with several other cities in England and in Europe, has elected a Muslim mayor.

In more recent years the influx of young Muslim men into Europe seems more like an invasion. They have not been exposed to Western culture and are intent on transforming their newfound country into a Muslim dominant society controlled by Islamic law. They have become more brazen and violent against non Muslims as we have seen in the sexual grooming of young girls, and the violent attacks and gang rapes of young women in recent years. There are some areas in large cities where local police will not venture and Islamic law is practiced. Non Muslim girls and women dare not leave their homes for fear of being attacked and raped. And strict gun control laws prevent them from protecting themselves.

Europeans who do not want their countries and culture destroyed by Muslims are called intolerant, racist, and white supremacists – all to intimidate and silence them while the Muslim population grows large enough to take control through democratic processes. They are using Western laws to overthrow Western governments.

The leaders of these European countries willingly opened the floodgates to allow hordes of Muslim males invade their countries with no concern for the consequences of their actions. It will get worse and it looks like there will have to be a new crusades to drive Islam out of Europe. Does Europe have the determination and will to drive out the Muslim invaders? That is the real question isn’t it? It seems inevitable that a continued tolerance of non-Western cultures will be the death of Europe.

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.

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

How To Stop Mass Shootings In America

Is there a way to stop mass shootings in America?

The latest tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida  cost 17 young lives.

What strikes me is how similar the response to these things always is.  Someone of my acquaintance who works in the administration of a large city in my area told me that less than 15 minutes after the news was reported, several busloads of 'protesters' with ready made signs were already descending on the lawn outside City Hall. The usual suspects in Hollywood and in DC were making statements calling for massive gun control and their friends in the media were doing their bit. CNN even staged what amounts to a faux 'town hall' where a couple of target 'conservatives were subjected to what was obviously a staged, scripted event. It was a blatant example of how America's children are being indoctrinated and taught not to think critically.

This stuff has been going on since Columbine. Let's examine some  interesting similarities these mass shooting events seem to share as well as what's been tried in response. Maybe we can come up with an answer.

Here are some similarities:

Most of these shootings were carried out by people already known to be people of interest well known to local authorities. They were known to be moody trouble makers already on the edge. The most recent Florida shooter fits the profile perfectly.

In many mass shootings, certainly Sandy Hook as well as this most recent one, even basic security practices were not followed. Adam Lanza was known to be trouble, yet someone let him into Sandy Hook Elementary, where he murdered 20 young children. This was a direct violation of the school's lockdown procedures, and we've never found out who let him in. At Stoneman Douglas, there was an actual Broward County Sheriff designated to guard the kids. Somehow, the shooter got past him, and when the shooting started the sheriff refused to go into the schoolroom to confront him and take the shooter out. The deputy resigned in order to avoid a suspension and probably a later dismissal. The Gabby Giffords shooting was a similar case, with yet another troubled loner well known to local police  able to shoot a number of people including Congresswoman Giffords because the local sheriff didn't see fit to assign a couple of men to oversee security in a large, open crowd at a shopping mall. This pattern is a recurring one.

Each shooting was followed immediately by calls for increased gun control laws, lots of media hubris and political posing and absolutely ZERO action that made any difference. Remember this one, we will explore it in a bit more detail later.

Let's look at the kind of action proposed and sometimes implemented  to solve this problem. It always ranges from confiscation to laws that make it difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to own firearms to protect themselves. Heavy taxation on guns and ammo, outright banning of many weapons, bureaucratic resistance to concealed carry laws or firearms permits, all have been used, especially in Democrat controlled urban  kingdoms and states. How well have these policies worked?

Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC have incredibly strict gun control laws. They haven't decreased homicide rates. Apparently people bent on evil aren't having any trouble getting their hands on firearms. France has even stricter gun control laws, there being no 2nd Amendment. That didn't stop the Bataclan jihadis frrom getting their hands on actual military assault weapons and murdering a large number of people in Paris, and that is by no means the only time this has happened. The Russian Federation has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, virtually eliminating private ownership of firearms.  Just today, four people were shot leaving church after Lent services in Dagastan by a jihadi, and there have been other similar incidents.  I could cite many more examples of where extreme gun control doesn't stop killers from obtaining weapons.

Obviously, severe gun laws or prohibitions don't stop people intent on obtaining guns from getting them.

Even more interesting, in a number of places where gun controls are fairly lax, mass shootings are reare or even non-existent.  I'm thinking of two countries in particular, Israel and Switzerland. Israel has mandatory conscription for most of its population, and reserve duty afterwards. People actually keep real, fully automatic military assault weapons as well as emergency rations, ammo and even hand grenades at home.  Yet there are hardly any mass shootings. In fact, the last major school shooting was carried out by  'Palestinian' terrorist who attacked a school in Ma'alot. It began when three armed 'Palestinians'  attacked a van, killing two Israeli Arab women while injuring a third and entered an apartment building in the town of Ma'alot. There they murdered a couple and their four-year-old son in cold blood.From there, they headed for the Netiv Meir Elementary School, where they took more than 115 people including 105 children, many of them children on a field trip. They ended up slaying 25 hostages and injuring 68 more. This happened in May, 1974.

After the initial horror faded, the Israelis ramped up border security. Since many of the schoolteachers actually served in the military, they also implemented plans for enhanced school security. The teachers all took firearms and ammo to class, and needless to say, they knew exactly how to use them and had contingency plans to secure the schools. It's a strange sight to American eyes to see a couple of young schoolteachers escorting kids on a field trip with Uzis in hand, but it also is a secure one, because you know these children aren't going to be slaughtered like the ones in Ma'alot.

In Switzerland, nothing like Ma'alot ever occurred and compulsory conscription was recently ended, but many Swiss still train with the reserves and likewise keep weaponry in their homes that would make the average America Leftist politician faint. Again, no mass shootings, and crime is more likely to involve ledgers and computer programs than firearms.

There are other reasons why these two countries lack mass shootings and have what I'd call a healthy gun culture, but the bottom line is that gun control doesn't prevent mass shootings and lack of it doesn't cause them. The state in the union with the loosest gun laws also has the lowest gun homicide rate per capita in America...and that's Vermont.

Confiscation and bans don't really work either. Just ask the Australians.

One thing we do know for certain is that after all the rhetoric from the Left, nothing much has been done to stop mass shootings. Why do you suppose that is? After all, since Columbine, the Democrats have controlled both Houses of Congress with veto proof majorities on different occasions. They never came up with anything to solve the problem, have they? And you can't blame the NRA, since they have little or no influence on Left leaning Democrats. So why has nothing been done,  if they're so passionate about 'protecting kids?'

Well, I live in reality. I  think what the Left really cares about is confiscating firearms and disarming the American populace. Like most totalitarians, the Left salivates over the idea of an America where  they and the government forces they control are the only ones legally allowed to bear arms. And people cheering for that need to digest one of my favorite Machiavelli quotes; "When you are disarmed, you are not only helpless, you are despised."

That's the only logical reason for why the Left refuses to actually address the problem of mass shootings. To come up with a real solution would  get rid of their entire cause celebre', banning and confiscation. They're still hoping that after a few more incidents like this, they will eventually get popular support for that. It's a fool's hope in my opinion, but apparently they're willing to risk kids' lives to take a shot at it, no pun intended.

The answer to the question I pose is an obvious one. Yes, mass shootings can be severely curtailed and perhaps even ended with time. But here's what it would take:

1) Far more emphasis on school security. Non -students should not be allowed on campus without explicit permission and should be walked through a metal detector. At my former high school, a fence surrounded the place and a police patrol car circled the place all day long and at night for things like athletic matches. It worked for the most part. Arming members of the faculty, particularly those who know how to use firearms effectively and safely would be a pretty good idea as well. School kids should also be drilled on exactly what to do and where to go in the event a killer gets in.

2) When local police have knowledge of a potential shooter who fits the pattern of almost any of the killers who pull this stuff off, there's no reason a confidential list couldn't be circulated to local gun dealers to put a hold on purchases. This won't always work (the Sandy Hook killer was actually refused an attempted purchase and simply murdered his mother and took her guns) but it would definitely help. Local dealers would absolutely cooperate, too. Contrary to what you might hear on CNN or MSNBC, most gun dealers are scrupulous in cooperating with law enforcement on matters like these. Being on the 'hold' list would also have to be subject to appeal in the courts, of course.

3) I've always believed that an effective way to cut way down of gun crimes is simply to make use of a firearm to commit a felony a capitol crime. It might not effect the kind of born losers who commit mass shootings overly much but would definitely effect a lot of other gun criminals. After all, somebody aiming a .32 at the head of a convenience store clerk is signifying his or her willingness to kill that person and take their life. And more than one helpless person has been murdered merely to make sure they won't bear witness against a criminal, even in robberies that involved an insanely small sum of money. A death penalty for using a firearm in this way might make a lot of people think twice and help remove those from society who don't. It could also have a significant effect on America's gun culture, which used to be healthy but which now, thanks to Hollywood and the music biz tends to lionize such thuggish behavior.

4) We need to totally remake America's gun culture. Aside from the above step, we need to train kids so that they see guns as protection and defense used by responsible adults rather than things used to obtain instant gratification and coercion. I think Hollywood, the music industry and the game industry could be persuaded to help here. A big part of the poisoning of America's gun culture can be traced to certain changes in the entertainment business in terms of what kind of behavior it promotes. That applies to a lot of things, but definitely in how America's young view guns, particularly in certain communities. If the Left really wants to strop these mass shootings, they ought to be willing to go along and encourage the entertainment biz to go along...unless. of course, they're more interested in mega-donations from that industry rather than kid's lives, right?

I'd also like to see a re-establishment of the cabinet post of Secretary of Civilian Marksmanship. Yes, we actually had one of those, who worked with the NRA on programs to teach kids how to safely and effectively use guns properly and see them in their proper context in society. An increased emphasis on discipline and proper behavior in the public schools wouldn't hurt either.

Kids really do live what they learn.

Taking these four steps might not eliminate mass shootings. But it would definitely make them very rare.

Forum: Should Prostitution Be Legalized And Under Government Control?

Every week, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:Should Prostitution Be Legalized And Under Government Control?

Bookworm Room: Wow! That's a seriously good question -- and one that's not very pleasant to think about because, no matter how you frame your answer, the core issue is how we as a society deal with the inevitable fact that people are forced to, or sometimes want to, have sex with strangers in exchange for money.

I think an honest appraisal of facts says that we're never going to do away with situations in which people use their bodies for sex in exchange for food or money, with some doing it out of desperation, some doing it because they are forced into it through violence, and some doing it because it's a good money maker. That being the case, the real question is whether we can structure a free society in a way that best protects those people driven into prostitution due to desperation or force.

One obvious thing that limits prostitution is a wealthier society. Wealth means fewer people need to sell their bodies to survive. Donald Trump's economic policies, by driving down unemployment and driving up real wages, can be seen as a tremendous blow against prostitution. Most people who can earn money in ways other than selling their bodies for sex will do so.

Another thing we can do is have a society that encourages fatherhood -- by which I don't mean the procreative act of providing sperm to create babies. I mean a society in which men marry the mothers of their children, and then stay with and provide for the family.

We know that children raised in a home with a father are more successful. The boys are less likely to get in trouble with the law, which means they're more likely to earn money, have stable lives, and not need prostitutes. Even more importantly, the girls are more likely to grow up with high self-esteem, making them infinitely less vulnerable to pimps or gangs such as the Rotherham Muslim gang that prostituted over 1,200 non-Muslim girls in England.

Encouraging fatherhood is not a matter for law enforcement. It's about cultural pressure. This pressure would challenge the Progressive paradigm holding that men are toxic, vile creatures, and that women do better relying on Mr. Welfare than they do relying on their children's father(s).

Incidentally, having fathers present would also mean that fewer children would be exposed to their mother's boyfriends. Study after study shows that these boyfriends are exceptionally dangerous to children that are not their own, whether they beat them or rape them. Children who are subjected to this abuse, if they survive, either become runaways who survive through prostitution or, even if they do not run away, their egos are so horribly damaged that they are easy prey for pimps.

Theoretically, then, economic and societal changes can diminish the number of people who seek out prostitutes or who are forced through poverty, fear, or low self-esteem into prostitution. That's certainly a good start for dealing with a bad problem.

But as I noted above, there are always going to be people who slip through the cracks and end up selling their bodies and there are always going to be buyers for those bodies. (Strange at is seems, there will also always be people willingly earn a living on their backs because, for reasons most of us cannot understand, they want to or even like to.) So, having theoretically used economics and cultural pressure to shrink substantially the number of people buying or selling sex, what do we do with the remainder?

For starters, I would arrest anyone who has sex with an underage prostitute or who pimps out such a prostitute. Moreover, I would make the penalty incredibly harsh. In theory, doing so would make potential customers very nervous around any prostitute, male or female, who looks even remotely within statutory range and make children less profitable for pimps. I'm sure there's a law of unintended consequences lurking somewhere within this idea, but I'm not seeing it now.

After that, I'd be tempted to go the Nevada route and legalize prostitution, confining it to licensed houses -- with any other forms of prostitution being subject to criminal consequences for both the prostitute and the customer (and any pimps, of course). The goal would be to protect women (and men) from human trafficking and violent coercion by placing them in environments with some level of oversight (not that the government seems up to the job of oversight more often than not). It might also slow the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

An excellent question and one for which I do not see any easy answers. Instead, there are just a lot of incremental, societal steps, plus a little law enforcement to protect the most vulnerable.

Don Surber: My objection to legalized prostitution is we would tax it. Government keeps legalizing vices to collect taxes. Money is power and power corrupts. States are rather slimy in legalizing vice.
Let me give you an example from West Virginia. Our state constitution prohibits gambling.

We voted to allow a lottery in 1984. Within six years, that was interpreted as allowing slot machines at the two dog tracks and the two horse tracks. We turned them into racinos, ostensibly to protect the jobs of track workers.
To promote greyhound dog breedinbg, we set up a slush fund. Freda Tomblin, mother of the state Senate president (and later governor) received $250,000 a year from this slush fund.

Quickly 10% of the state budget came from gambling, even though the state constitution bans it.

There were good reasons we banned gambling, drugs, and prostitution.
But now to make a quick buck, we will legalize sin -- if you pay an indulgence.
In 500 years we have gone from popes doing this to the government doing it.
Who says there is no state religion? The religion of the state is the state.
Pit me down for a no on legalizing prostitution.

There is enough vice in the world. We need more virtue.

Dave Schuler: No. I've known prostitutes socially (not professionally) and IMO it's inherently abusive. Most prostitutes are coerced in one way or another. You may be able to find exceptions but they're exceptions.

Rob Miller: My answer would be a very qualified yes.

As I'll point it, legal or quasi legal prostitution already exist in America.

But before we go there, here are two examples of legalized prostitution as most people think of it, one that works fairly well and one that works horribly.

The one that works is in certain counties in Nevada in places like the famous 'Bunny Ranch.'
Having never been a patron, I can only go by reports on these places. The workers appear to be treated well and paid well, to be able to come and go freely to their own dwellings when they're off work, to be protected by bouncers, to be subjected to health checks and and overall, a fairly safe work environment. In other words, willing buyer, willing seller.

Germany legalized prostitution nationwide in 2002, but has found that there were major problems with it. Essentially, a lot of the unsavory characters whom used to pimp and engage in trafficking now import impoverished young girls from Southeastern Europe openly, where they're installed in 'cut rate' brothels under terrible conditions and the pimps who manage the establishments deduct hefty fees from their earnings.

According to the law as originally passed, a 'manager' could be considered 'exploitative' if he took over 50% of a girl's earnings, and safe conditions with normal hours were mandatory. However, as the Germans found out, it was very difficult to prove violations since the girls knew what would happen to them if they didn't keep quiet.  Many women ended up being forced to service numerous clients on a daily basis around the clock, earned very little money and were actually made to live in the rooms they worked in...for a hefty rent which came out of their earnings. In spite of the laws, very few of the women appear to have actually signed an employment contract, let alone have it honored.

Frankly, one of the big differences here is that the German brothels are largely run by Muslims - mainly Albanians, Chechens and Turks. Many Muslim men have a certain attitude about women, especially infidel women whom the Qur'an teaches them to regard as booty, 'what thy right hand possesses.'

Americans, by comparison tend to treat women relatively well, no matter what the usual feminist harpies are screeching. Also, Americans, being better businessmen and businesswomen know that happy, heathy workers have far more productivity and tend to last longer.

If we were to have legalized prostitution, it would be better to follow the Nevada model, obviously, where local jurisdictions could vote to allow it or not. A commission to award licenses would be essential, and like Vegas, people with any history of involvement in pimping, organized crime or human trafficking would be barred not just from a license but from any employment in brothels. The commissions could also oversee conditions to make sure the sex workers weren't being exploited, which is how it's run in Nevada today.

My primary interest in this topic comes from my revulsion and disgust at the scourge of human trafficking. Legalized brothels and harsh new laws would go a long way towards curtailing it, at least in America and a few other civilized nations. One reason it's so prevalent is because the profits are high, in many countries the chances of ever serving any time are low and even when caught, sentences can be fairly low. The UN certainly won't do anything, since their Blue Helmets and 'aid workers'are some of the worst offenders, again not a surprise when you find out what countries they mostly come from.Personally, I'd love to see a death sentence limited to one appeal for anyone caught pimping or involved in human trafficking in America. These ghouls steal people's lives, and only the possibility of losing their own miserable skins might make it worthwhile to them to get out of their 'business.'

Whether people realize it or not, prostitution already has legal standing in every state in the union, and not just in a few counties in Nevada.

Strippers who want to make more money routinely offer private 'lap dances' to customers for a fee, which involves the stripper gyrating in the man's crotch until he has an orgasm. And many massage parlors offer 'happy endings' to customers willing to pay for it.

Both by definition are sex for money, AKA prostitution. And they're legal, at least de facto in most communities.

My own experience with sex workers has always been social rather than professional, as Dave says, but my overall impression was different.Many of the ones I met seemed to enjoy the money they were making at work if not the overall experience, something they have in common with a lot of people!

That started when I met a cute girl at a laundromat and agreed to meet her for drinks after work at the club she worked at, which yes, was a strip club.

I'll skip the amusing details, but I thought she was a cashier or waitress or something, not part of the entertainment! We ended up dating for awhile, until I found out that she wasn't exactly being truthful about our deal that she give up offering lap dances to the clientele since we were seeing each other. Sweet girl, but...

The environment itself was safe, bouncers kept the girls from being treated inappropriately and my friend and most of her buddies seemed perfectly happy, at least at work.

If legalizing prostitution and cracking down on human trafficking can rid the earth of this scourge, at least in America, I say do it along the lines I've mentioned. Virtue can unfortunately not be legislated, but practices some of us might consider not virtuous can at least be legislated so as to do as little harm as possible.

This issue is going to take an interesting turn as sex robot brothels become more common.

Laura Rambeau Lee: Trading sex for money will always have a social stigma in our country and the reasons people engage in the practice either as a prostitute or a customer are as varied as one can imagine. Realistically we know that prostitution will continue whether legalized or not. Making it illegal only keeps it in the shadows and makes it more difficult to protect those who are forced into human sexual trafficking and sex slavery, which have reached alarming numbers in the United States. Leave it up to the states and the people of a state to legalize prostitution. If the people agree to legalize prostitution then yes the state government should make laws to regulate it. The laws should protect both parties involved in the transaction. Voluntary sex workers should be monitored for sexually transmitted diseases and should also be protected from abuse by their managers and their customers. Legalizing prostitution would give us the opportunity to monitor sex workers and the places they work, and make sure no one underage is involved or someone is being forced to engage in it against their will.

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.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Forum: When Do The Mueller Investigations End? With What Result?

Every week, 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: When Do The Mueller Investigations End? With What Result?

Dave Schuler: I figure I may live to see it.There will be more indictments for lying to the FBI or perjury.They won't find an underlying crime.

Laura Rambeau Lee : The Mueller investigation will go on through at least the 2018 elections if only to perpetuate the uncertainty of foreign governments interfering in our election process. In the end there will be no substantial indictments or convictions related to the investigation with which he was tasked.

Rob Miller : How long? A couple of possibilities. What Mueller is doing, with the help of the complicit media is indicting people on 'process crimes.' As we saw from the way Scooter Libby was railroaded, that can be as little as mistaking a date previously given during a prior interrogation by the Famous But Incompetent. That's not really enough to go anywhere with  after millions of dollars and almost two years. Let's also remember that Mueller is concentration on supposed Republican collusion with Russia and the Trump campaign rather than his original mandate to explore any Russian interference in our elections. If this swine was really doing that, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and a number of others would be under indictment since it's become all too obvious that thereal collusion with the Russians came from Hillary, the DNC and the Democrats.

But of course, that would be getting a little too close to home for Mr. Mueller, nicht wahr? I still wonder why a second special prosecutor isn't investigating the Uranium One affair, which involved bribery and collusion at the highest levels of government, greatly involved national security...and happened on Mueller's watch while he was head of the FBI and went through without a single caution or objection from him.

Much depends on how the midterms turn out. If the Dems make significant gains, the faux investigation/witch hunt will get some new oxygen, although no real results will occur, which is generally what happens when you deliberately look in the wrong places. If, as is more likely, the Dem's gains are slight and both houses remain in Republican hands, Mueller's 'investigation will take a few heads for process crimes and nothing else. J. Edgar would weep to see what the once fine organization he built from the ground up has degenerated into.

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.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Don Surber's New Book is Another Home Run

Fake News Follies of 2017 by [Surber, Don]

Don Surber's two previous books on Trump's ascendancy explored the 2016 election and exactly why the pundits got it so wrong.

Both of these bestsellers were written in a delightful, cutting edge fashion that had me either laughing out loud or saying to myself, 'boy I forgot all about that .'

This book is no different. It's a superbly written account by a journalist with over 40 years experience  of exactly how and why most of the press became swamp creatures as they printed deliberate falsehoods and forsook all semblance of journalistic ethics once Donald J. Trump became president, to their shock and dismay. His  attention to detail and his style in conveying it would have pleasantly surprised me if I wasn't familiar with his other works.

As with Don Surber's other books, it's a great read and one you will have trouble putting down. I believe that in the future when people look back at these times, Don Surber will be one of the chroniclers they'll be reading.

Highly recommended. Like his other books, Available at Amazon in Kindle or paperback.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Forum: What Do You Think Of the New Budget Deal?

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 the New Budget Deal?

Rob Miller:I've never been a fan of debt unless it's tax deductible.

But as we all know sometimes, it's a necessary gamble and government has its own rules, after all. Sometimes, you really do have to spend money to make money, and other times there are simply necessary expenses you have to finance.

I think this deal was necessary for a couple of reasons. And I think President Trump as a businessman is well aware of this.

First, it gets rid of Barack Hussein Obama's sequester nonsense and allows for badly needed defense spending. Most Americans have no clue as to how badly Barack Hussein Obama and his minions damaged our military.

American military policy since the beginning of the 20th century has been to have the naval strength to project our power globally and to have the ability to fight a two front war if necessary. The more candid members of our military admit we no longer have this capacity. Not only is our Navy way behind in the ships it needs, but a number of our weapons, including our nuclear arsenal are outdated and in need of upgrades and modernization. And since Mrs. Clinton and President Obama gave the Russians free access to a number  of our top secret missile defense assets like Hit-To-Kill as part of the so-called reset, that needs major upgrading too.

This all takes money to fix.

This period also saw our military reduced  to a 'social justice' and 'diversity' experiment, with a number of experienced NCOs, enlisted men and officers who wanted to make the military their career being tossed out and in many cases replaced by new recruits who were far less capable but belonged to groups more likely to vote Democrat. And a number of our top combat commanders like Stan McCrystal and then Marine General Mattis saw themselves forced into 'retirement' and passed over for promotion. President Obama's war on religion in the military and insistence that chaplains officiate at same sex marriage not only saw many chaplains resign their commissions but had a definite effect on re-enlistments. Rebuilding our military from a personnel standpoint will also take money and commitment.

Second, America's infrastructure very badly needs repairs. That also takes money and is a national security issue as well as an economic one.

Finally, this is a political victory. It is a two year funding bill, and it was done without the concessions for the illegal migrants known as 'Dreamers' the Democrats formerly demanded. They signed onto this bill for nothing more than a promise of a debate in congress. And they did it understanding that the promise means nothing.. President trump will not sign any bill that doesn't end chain migration, end the ridiculous 'diversity visas' hire more border patrolmen and pay for the border wall, and the Democrats will never concede these points. In other words, they have, for all practical purposes cut the Dreamers adrift except for some nasty, meaningless rhetoric that can be used as CNN soundbites for the True Believers.

And don't think that the Dreamers and their vociferous supporters don't know they've been shafted. That could have some interesting implications in the midterms when it comes to Democrat turnout.

Another point worth mentioning is that much of what President Donaldus Maximus wants to spend the deficit spending on is going to lead to a great deal of economic activity, all of which can be taxed, not to mention real job creation which will also brings lots of money into the economy. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the taxable revenue created pretty much disposes or even exceeds the amount of deficit spending required.

I actually like Senator Rand Paul a lot and I think his late night showmanship in congress was actually necessary to remind his colleagues that they're spending other people's money and that fiscal competence is desired. But I see the benefits to be derived as far outweighing the possible consequences.

Dave Schuler: Rand Paul had it about right when he said that when the Republicans are in power there is no conservative party.

The CBO calculates that the new budget will result in a deficit of about 955 billion in 2018. That's kind of high when the economy isn't in recession—about 5.25% of GDP.

Its consequences will depend on how fast the economy grows. We can safely run a deficit less than or equal to the increase in GDP just about indefinitely. If the economy grows faster on an annual basis than it has since Ronald Reagan's first term, we should be okay.

One major difference between now and Ronald Reagan's first term is that the national debt is much higher both in absolute terms and related to GDP than it was then. The scholarship on that suggests that higher levels of debt are a drag on the economy. So, we're conducting a real life experiment.

Laura Rambeau Lee:We conservatives spent many hours and contributed our hard earned money to help elect candidates who promised they would cut spending and reduce the debt. Through nearly a decade of hard work and dedication we delivered the House, Senate and ultimately the White House to Republicans. We expected our “trusted servants” to deliver on their promises. It has become obvious there is very little honor in Washington, only betrayal. This budget deal will not bode well for Republicans in the upcoming elections.

Very disappointed.

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.

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Forum: What Did You Think Of Trump's State Of The Union Speech?

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 Did You Think Of Trump's State Of The Union Speech?
Don Surber: President Trump changed the presentation of the annual State of the Union by incorporating the stories of amazing people. His speech was an excellent example of see-not-say writing, which is the most persuasive form of the art.

If you want to convince Americans that your tax policies are working, show the company that rebounded -- and the welder who got a bonus and whose paycheck is bigger.
If you want to convince Americans that DACA has a down side, show the parents of MS-13 murder victims.

If you want to convince Americans that your Korean policy works, show the man who lost a leg and an arm escaping tyranny.

They were not just guests in the audience called out by Ed Sullivan, something presidents from Kennedy to Obama did.

They were real people who helped sell the policy. He didn't interrupt his speech to point them out. He pointed them out to tell his speech. In school you had Show-and-Tell not Tell-and-Tell.

Trump specializes in changing the game. He took large donors out of the equation in his presidential nomination. While his 16 rivals spentthe summer of 2015 raising money, he spent the summer holding rallies and hogging the spotlight.

The very next summer, the same thing happened. Hillary holed up in August. Trump continued to rally. She spent twice as much and did worse than any Democrat since Dukakis.
You don't need me to tell you his speech was a home run. Congress did, when it chanted USA! USA! USA! It sent the detestible Congressman Luis Guitteriez running from the gallery to his safe space: Univision.

Trump had rhetorical flourishes. Sure. "Americans are dreamers too!" was an excellent co-opting of the other guy's message, reminiscent of Reagan telling the 1988 RNC (which nominated his successor) "We are the change."

But Trump did Reagan one better.

We are in the midst of the best 8 years of our lives.

Patrick O'Hannigan:I only caught the last 25 or so minutes of the SOTU. I remember thinking that what turned out to be an 80-minute speech was perhaps 30 minutes too long, but that was a reflexive reaction based on youthful training in speech and debate. What I was able to watch was memorably good. I was particularly taken with the way President Trump singled out North Korean defector Ji Seong-ho for praise. I also noticed that while the president's diction is average at best, his public speaking style sounds more natural and less condescending than his immediate predecessor's. Trump was making a case -- and looking (however ironically) for virtue worth celebrating -- in the same situation where Obama always seemed to be lecturing a class or pointing to failure. On top of that, President Trump's optimism seems contagious. It contrasted well with the pleading tone of the main Democratic response.

Rob Miller : Donald Trump's first State Of The Union Address was a triumph. Not just because it was a great speech that showcased our president's achievements, his goals for the future and his willingness to work together for the good of the country...but because the disgraceful disrespect of the Democrats in attendance showed America who really has the good of the country at heart and who is content to swim in the sewer of hyper partisanship, obstruction and yes, sheer hatred.

CBS, of all people published a post speech poll which had 75% of the Americans who watched the speech; heartily approving of it.

The Democrats in attendance were barely civil. When Trump mentioned how happy he was of the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded, those Democrat members of the Black Congressional Caucus who bothered to attend sat there stone faced.

I particularly chortled over Trump's DACA 'plan.' To most of America, it sounded like a reasonable compromise and the president presented it as such, only to have the Democrats hiss and boo him. What made me laugh out loud is that Donaldus Maximus had already presented this to the Democrats before his SOTU speech and it was soundly rejected by them...and President Trump knew it. By restating it in the speech, he made the Democrats look like the ill behaved, destructive children most of them are, in front of a record 48 million viewers...masterful!

And, in contrast to the egotistical post-America socialist  who was his predecessor, President Trump rarely used the word 'I'  but constantly referred to 'we.' Nor did he ever refer to that predecessor, who left us an awful mess to clean up by name.

What our president was tapping was a deep seated quality of the American people, our optimism. Like most socialists, the Dems are selling pessimism and trying to bribe people with class envy, divisive rhetoric and pessimism, with the promise of free goodies at the expense of 'the enemy' and 'resistance' as their only selling points. I doubt that's a winner.

Bookworm Room: Would I sound over the top if I said I absolutely adored Trump's State of the Union Speech? I'll say it anyway, because it's the truth.

Trump's SOTU was optimistic, forward looking, and keyed into classic and core American values. It was about "we, the People," not "I, the Obama god head." After eight years of scolding, hectoring, and condescension, it was just lovely to have the people's representative in chief stand up there and tell us that, as a nation, we're looking good and that we are one people with common values such as liberty, a work ethic, innovation and, most importantly, Dreams.

Honestly, there is nothing I love more than good verbal judo. Trump has forever after destroyed the Left's power to celebrate people illegally in America as "Dreamers" -- even while they castigate native-born citizens as "Deplorables." Standing alone, his statement that "Americans are dreamers, too" was worth the price of admission.

The speech was also wonderful because it was not hedged about with politically correct language or caveats or any of the other obfuscation that usually characterizes political speech. The beauty of clear speaking is that, when Democrats refused to applaud, we knew what they hated:

They hated that blacks and other minorities are finally doing well-economically, because that spells the beginning of the end of minority dependence on the Left's welfare plantation.

They hated that America's entire economy is surging, because that puts the lie to their claim that the economy was dead anyway, justifying their propping up its corpse with high taxes, redistribution, and social justice regulations.

They hated that Trump spoke of respect for the military and the flag, stripping away the thin veneer of patriotism the Democrats started apply to themselves after the First Gulf War.

They hated that Trump's invited guests showed that illegal immigrants include among them some of the worst criminals in America and that their prey is often the black Americans who live next to them (unlike well-placed Democrats, both black and white, who live behind nice protective walls in well-policed enclaves).

They hated that, after all their efforts to demonize Trump as the ultimate Hitler, Trump showed them evil's true face when he introduced Otto Warmbier's family and Ji-Seong ho. Ji-Seong, especially, highlighted that there's nothing brave about donning black masks and beating up a few people on campus. True bravery is when someone escapes a totalitarian state with only one arm, one leg, and a cruel pair of crutches.

I knew the speech was a good one when, a short time after it ended, I spoke with a Progressive who characterized it in one word: "Revolting." That pretty much proves that Trump was on the right track.

Laura Rambeau Lee :If you are a patriotic American President Trump’s State of the Union speech affirmed his love of country and solemn understanding of his position as President and Commander in Chief. He spoke of his respect for our military, our need to secure our borders and protect our citizens, and our adherence to the rule of law. If we were not one hundred percent sold on a Trump presidency when we cast our ballot in November 2016 we can be assured we made the correct decision. Since he took office we are experiencing record economic growth and lower unemployment numbers across all demographics. After his first year in the White House, many of us share a more positive vision for the future for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, and America’s position on the world stage.

One thing most evident was the abhorrent display by the Democrats of their absolute hatred for President Trump and all he stands for. Several refused to attend and those who did sat scowling and sneering and refused to clap at the positive reports of an improved economy. Their contempt was obvious and I hope did not go unnoticed by those who watched his speech. The Congressional Black Caucus members shrouded themselves in their cloaks of tribalism reminding us of their interminable victimhood. Their dystopian view of America is falling apart. It is hard to understand any American who can continue to support their anti-family, anti-religious, everyone is a victim, anti-American ideology.

Perhaps the best line of the speech was when he stated “Americans are dreamers, too!” President Trump’s SOTU was refreshingly positive and pro-American. His tone was genuine and composed. He restated what most of us grew up believing about America. That no matter where you come from, if you work hard and believe in yourself, “you can dream anything, be anything, and together we can achieve absolutely anything.” We are seeing a restoration of The American Dream. It’s about time.

Dave Schuler :As I wrote in my post on the subject, I thought it was okay as these things go. Prolix. I don't think the Democrats did themselves any good with their sullen churlishness. When I mentioned that in my post some of my more highly partisan commentators complained that the Republicans had done the same thing at Obama's SOTU messages. Besides two wrongs not making a right, that view has another problem. The Democrats' and the Republicans' positions are not reciprocal and, consequently, the Democrats can't afford to simply be rejectionist. Getting the base out isn't sufficient to win the presidency; they need independents, too, and they won't appeal to them just by being anti- Trump.

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.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

How Israel Handled Its Illegal Migrants Problem


One of the frequent talking points about illegal migrants, especially in Europe is that it's 'inevitable and we have to accept it.'

Israel is a first world, prosperous nation in the midst of a number of countries who are anything but that.It had a similar problem with illegal migrants. Here's how they solved it.

It should be mentioned that aside from being a haven for Jews, Israel has been relatively generous to real non-Jewish refugees*, considering how small the country is. In the 1970's, Israel took in a number of Vietnamese boat people fleeing communist gulags and they're still there. They also took in a number of Muslim Bosnian refugees, some who stayed and some who returned after the war ended. Israel is also the only country in the Middle East where the Christian population is actually growing. Israel is also home to the headquarters of the Baha'i faith, who were horribly persecuted in Iran once the ayatollahs took over in 1979.

That said, let's move on and see how the problem developed and how Israel solved it.

Almost all of the illegal migrants were Muslims who came from Sudan, Eritrea and other countries in the region. As in Europe, they came to enjoy Israel's welfare benefits but showed few signs of ever assimilating. They mostly came through Israel's back door, its border with Egypt and Gaza.

At first, the Israeli government didn't devote much attention, which meant that the numbers began to increase. Many of the migrants gravitated to South Tel Aviv, where they terrorized the local inhabitants and became a major factor in the area's increase in crime, especially thefts, sexual assaults, murders and muggings.

The Israeli government finally took action and built a fence across the part of its Egyptian border not covered by the border wall with Gaza. That cut the number of illegal migrants to zero. But before the fence was finished, The number of illegal migrants reached about 50,000, and were still a problem to be dealt with since their behavior hadn't changed.

These illegal migrants, by the way were referred to as 'infiltrators' by many Israelis in and out of government since they had penetrated the borders illegally in a very security conscious country. No one to my knowledge, not even the Israeli Left referred to them as 'immigrants'. The Left preferred to call them 'refugees' in an attempt to equate them with the other refugees Israel had given a home to, both Jews and non-Jews. However, the Left is not exactly ascendant in Israel these days.

Originally, the government put together a detention center to try and evaluate actual refugees from criminals and welfare scroungers. Israel's Supreme Court originally ruled against that, which meant that a different solution was called for. What the Israelis finally did was simply to identify refugees who had real claims for asylum because they came from a war zone and give them a different status than the others. The ones from Eritrea and Sudan are mostly bring returned immediately to their home countries, which takes care of the majority of the illegal migrants. Any of the others who put in a legal request for asylum by Dec. 31, 2017, and whose request has not yet been processed, especially if they came with children won't be deported until a decision on their status is reached. A total of 14,700 asylum requests were submitted in 2017,over half of them from Ukrainians.

The other illegal migrants are being given a choice. They can leave voluntarily before March 31st, receive free air fare and the equivalent of $3,500 USD. A couple of African countries have offered to take them in (which probably required some additional baksheesh from the Israeli government). Or they can refuse to leave and be detained in Holot Detention center until they're deported.

The Israelis will probably allow most of the 14,700 asylum seekers to stay if they have a legitimate claim, especially if they came with children. Israel can easily absorb them, and they will become another part of Israel's fascinatingly diverse population. It never fails to crack me up when some idiot who has never been to Israel calls it 'apartheid.'

The others will eventually be sent home, and since no more infiltrators are coming in...well, problem solved.

Just imagine if the Europeans and the U.S. solved their problems with illegal migrants like that!

* For the record, I do not consider those refugees who are serviced by UNRWA and call themselves 'Palestinians' to be real refugees, not after 70 years. There are actually only about 20,000 Arabs that could be called 'refugees' from 1948 left alive today, and for a significant number of them there's no real proof they ever resided in what became Israel anyway, since by its own admission UNWRA never checked.

Your results may differ.

Forum: Will The Memo Be Released? Why Or Why Not?

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: Will The Memo Be Released? Why Or Why Not?

Bookworm Room : Scott Adams suggests that the memo's strength lies in its existence, not in its contents. That means that the Republicans are running on con on the Democrats by hyperventilating about the memo's contents to draw the Democrats out into the open by forcing them to defend themselves and their institutions, which should stop them from attacking Trump.

For once, I think Adams is too clever by half. The FBI's known conduct over the past two years has been so heinous -- engaging in a deliberately improper investigation into Hillary's conduct; using the Steele memo, which the Fibbies knew was unsupported, to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump's campaign; engaging in a KGB/stasi-style raid on Manafort; forcing pleas from people who committed no wrongdoing other than being foolish enough to talk to the FBI; refusing to produce documents for Congress; etc. -- there's every reason to believe that its unknown conduct is even worse.

I'm therefore betting that there is in fact something explosive in that memo, although I don't know whether it's going to blow up the FBI, Holder's and Lynch's DOJ, or the Obama White House itself. Trump, though, is nothing if not a showman. He understands the wonders of giving his opponents enough rope to hang themselves before pulling the trap-door lever on the gallows. That is, he's not going to allow premature lever-pulling. He probably wants to go a few more rounds before springing that fatal door. As Sean Hannity says, "tick-tock."

Now that we're in 2018, I wake up every day asking myself "what marvelous thing will Trump accomplish today?". In 2017, Trump followed Scott Adams' predicted path, going from Hitler, to incompetent, to "competent but we don't like him." But what we now know he did as well was to start laying traps for his opponents. That's why 2018 is so great: he's unfettered his competency and is springing those traps left and right.

If my understanding of Trump's trajectory is correct, there's no reason to believe that the memo will be as ephemeral as Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was. As you recall, Obama effectively used the idea of a birth certificate to bait those who opposed him. When push came to shove, though, he didn't actually release a birth certificate. Instead, he released a PDF that was manifestly created from scratch on a computer. In other words, he didn't produce red meat. He produced tofu disguised as red meat and amused himself watching his opponents lash themselves into a frenzy fighting over those fake crumbs.

(For the record, I believe Obama was Hawaiian born. I also think the fake PDF was just more clever baiting, intended to make his political opponents look irrational. What I think was really happening is that Obama falsely claimed to be a Kenyan national in order to leverage himself into colleges that, from 1978 onward, could no longer practice open affirmative action because they were hamstrung by the Supreme Court's Bakke decision. Obama, an abysmal student, was counting on affirmative action. When that failed, he got creative.)

For now, I'm stocking up on popcorn. Whether the memo gets released or not (although I think it will), I know that Trump the showman is going to give me a spectacle I can enjoy.

Don Surber: Well, who am I to argue with Bookie?

Devin Nunes appears to have the goods on the FBI thanks to an honest inspector general. But Nunes has to get the public to care about this issue. It is tricky. The memo is a trick. And Bookie's explanation of the Kenya deal is excellent. By the way, even if he were born in Nairobi, Obama would qualify as an American native. He never had to be naturalized, and that is the test. Heck, his 2008 opponent was born in Panama!

Trump likely is in on this memo deal, and maybe he advised Nunes on teasing it out there.

Rob Miller: A week ago, I would have said no to this question. The memo almost certainly documents several things...interference in a federal election, obstruction of justice and what amounts to an attempt at at a coup de etat against a legally elected, sitting president by members of the FBI and others in the deep state It also likely documents blatant misuse of the FISA court system and violations of the Fourth Amendment.

The reason I thought it wouldn't see the light of day is because the FBI agents and others involved would never have done this on their own. They got their orders from above, which means then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, head of Obama's Department of Justice. And if Lynch sings in exchange for no jail time, obese that trail leads back to her boss, our historic first black president. Ditto with Mrs. Clinton and Huma Abedin.

Needless to say, any legal proceedings involving Barack Hussein Obama would spark a great deal of what's usually referred to by the euphemism of 'civil unrest' in America's urban areas. Which, I think is exactly why Jeff Sessions has resisted making this public or appointing a Special Prosecutor.

Again,I would have said non,pas impossible a week ago, but now I'm not so sure. It appears that after mulling it over, President Trump apparently wants the Nunez memo released. Since Sessions serves at the President's pleasure,he will either comply or retire 'for health reasons' or' to spend more time with his family.'

Today's news about FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe being allowed to 'retire' prior to his retirement date and collect his full pension rather than being thrown in jail is another proof that this is going to come out. McCabe's wife received $700,000 from the Clintons via their favorite bag man Terry McAuliffe, and that obviously had a lot to do with what we know aboput how the investigation into Hillary's numerous felonies was handled by Famous But Incompetent. McCabe as Deputy FBI director and Comey's number two was obviously a part of what went down, and my take is that  McCabe obviously decided to sing like a bird in exchange for being allowed to get out from under quietly. He won't be the last.

If it is released, it's going to be very difficult to keep up the fiction of the Mueller probe except among the True Believers, and the whole Trump/Russia/Collusion narrative is going to fall apart. Obama will probably NOT be involved, since we don't put presidents in jail and they will either cut off the investigations below his level or Trump will make a deal with him in exchange for a presidential pardon. There's something very humorous I could write here, but I'll censor myself.

BTW, my own take on the whole Obama natural born citizen mishugas...I do think Obama was born here, although I doubt his father was Obama Sr. The Bamster closely resembles Frank Marshall Davis, the radical black communist activist his grandparents allowed the young Obama to spend a great deal of time with and who Obama himself has described as one of his mentors.

Davis also wrote a detailed and very realistic pornographic memoir of his relationship with a 19-year-old white girl very much like Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, that occurred about the same time Obama was born. And some interesting photographs of Ms. Dunham have since surfaced as well from that same time period. So who knows???

I actually think  that the real problem has to do with Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Muslim who was Anne Dunham's second husband and who legally adopted Barack Obama.  Remember when Hawaii's governor and Obama ally  Neil Abercrombie swore that he was going to find Obama's long form birth certificate and then couldn't?

Simple explanation. Under the laws of most states, including Hawaii, when a step father adopts a minor child, a new birth certificate with the original DOB is issued with the child's new surname. The governor couldn't locate it because it was likely filed under Soetoro.

Since a key part of Obama's mythology involved identifying with his supposed father Barack Obama Sr. and using that as his name, there's a major problem if this is what happened. Every piece of legislation, judicial appointments, pardons, et al that were signed by what amounted to Barack Hussein Obama's 'stage name' would be null and void.

Reason enough, I think for him to do whatever needed to be done to keep this a secret.


Laura Rambeau Lee : President Trump has requested that the memo be released to the public. Many of us have long suspected the Obama Justice Department abused its power numerous times over the course of his administration. There is a lot of public pressure being put on Congress to release it, and several Congressmen who have read it have intimated publicly that it confirms the Obama Administration’s abuse of power in using the infamous and highly suspect Trump dossier to obtain FISA warrants to tap the phones of members of candidate and later President-Elect Trump’s campaign and transition team. The success of our republic depends on its transparency. The memo should be released and I believe it will be.

The American people must know for certain whether Obama’s Justice Department and FBI had political actors intent on assuring a Clinton win, and in the off chance she did not win to obtain dirt on members of Trump’s team that could be used to take him down. We the American people demand to know the truth. And once confirmed we expect these abuses of power to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Our confidence in the integrity of our Justice Department and its adherence to the rule of law must be restored.

 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.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

(Video) What British Muslims Really Think

This video on what British Muslims think is especially interesting. First, because it involves a survey that was conducted by Trevor Phillips, the former chair of the British government's Equality and Human Rights Commission, someone who was actually part of the bureaucracy involved in bringing so many Muslim migrants to Britain. Second, because it involved an extensive study by a well known and renowned survey company with a much larger than average sampling using techniques that were especially designed for accuracy rather than speed or cost effectiveness.

Mr. Phillips, to his credit, appears to analyze the results in a non-biased way, openly admits his surprise at the results and acknowledges what they mean. Well worth a watch, as this applies to more countries than just the UK:

On the other hand, (spoiler alert) I disagree with his conclusion that more forced integration of Muslims into non-Muslim British society in the entire solution.

Most British Muslims, according to the results of very study he uses would never agree to it. A significant number would never consent to giving up their sharia courts, or be capable of changing their innate beliefs on the treatment of women, Jews, homosexuals or infidels in general. Instead, they would insist on British society changing so that their beliefs and practices would be the new norm. Anything else they would loudly scream is 'racism.'

Given the craven way the the British government has comported itself thus far when it comes to appeasing Islam domestically, Mr. Phillip's suggestion would simply mean exactly that, a major change in British society to accommodate Islam, sharia and everything that involves.

This is, after all, a country where the police spend their time 'cautioning' (Britspeak for the police threatening fines and arrests) people who merely express their opinions on certain subjects like the problems involved with the Muslim migrants instead of tracking down British Muslims who are home now from fighting for ISIS, conducting surveillance on certain suspicious jihadi mosques or cracking down on 'Asian' sex grooming gangs targeting young, often underage British girls. And in England,that can mean girls younger than 15.