Advertisements

September 4, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: Should DACA Be Ended?



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
: Should DACA Be Ended?

Don Surber: We need to go back to having Congress pass laws, and presidents upholding them.

Sadly, we now live in a post-judicial world in which the courts oppose enforcing immigration law because the judges know better than we do. All of Washington does. They dare not reform immigration law because we deplorable people will not stand for it.

And so they rewrite it without ever being held accountable. DACA is an unconstitutional overstep of presidential authority.

There is no DREAM Act either. Never voted on.

And yet they are treated as law. I do not understand it. The judges want Joe Arpaio in jail, and the courts struck down Arizona SB 1070. Why? Because the federal judges do not want real laws upheld.
Just fantasy ones. Fake Laws like DACA and DREAM.

Yes, end DACA.

Dave Schuler : Yes. IMO mercy requires that some reasonable accommodation be arrived at for illegal immigrants brought here as children and who’ve never known any home other than the United States. But such a program should be implemented via the ordinary legislative process rather than by executive order.

  Rob Miller:I pretty much said what I had to say about this here. There’s a legal, humane and just solution for this problem interested parties can read  at the link.

There are a couple of points I think bear repeating. First, let’s remember that many of the DREAMers didn’t come here as young, unknowing children. A lot of them came here as unaccompanied teenaged males (or even older, but posing as teenagers to qualify) after President Obama expanded DACA  and foisted DAPA on the American people  in 2014 to legalize illegal migrant parents without even bothering to craft an executive order. El Jefe spoke and that was that.  The idea was for the unaccompanied minors to be accepted as ‘refugees’ or DREAMers and then bring mom, dad, auntie, the cousins and who know who else under America’s generous family unification rules.

Second, giving certain illegal migrants preferred status just because of their proximity to our border, or because they belong to a certain demographic that is likely to vote for a certain political party is unjust. It discriminates against millions of people who would love to come to America LEGALLY  but are caught in the byzantine web of bureaucracy and are forced to spend large amounts of time and money coping with ‘the system’ many times for years.

Again, for those DREAMers who were actually brought here as young children, there’s a fair, just and workable solution. I welcome your comments on it.

According to some recent reports, President Trump is going to kill DACA, but give Congress 6 months to craft a legislative solution. Ordinarily, it would be a welcome change from the days of El Jefe legislating from the Oval Office and illegally changing legislation whenever he felt like it. But given the number of amnesty favoring congress member of both parties, I doubt that whatever solution they throw together will be viable…or benefit the country.

Laura Rambeau Lee :With the stroke of his pen President Obama signed an executive order in June of 2012 creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA). DACA allows illegal immigrants who came to the United States as minors to receive a renewable two year period of deferred action from deportation and are eligible to obtain work permits. To qualify these persons must have entered the United States prior to their sixteenth birthday and before June 2007. They must be currently in school, a high school graduate, or be honorably discharged from the military. They cannot have any felony convictions or significant misdemeanors or be a threat to national security. DACA does not give them a path to citizenship. If President Obama had worked with Congress on real immigration reform instead of going it alone DACA might have been a part of such legislation.

Now President Trump faces the challenge of rescinding Obama’s illegal executive order. This could be his opportunity to get Congress to finally address the issue of illegal immigration. Perhaps he could allow DACA to stand for a limited period of time with a time certain end date while insisting Congress work together and craft a bill they can pass and he can sign into law. He could use this as leverage to get funding for the wall. Americans would be much more open to immigration reform and address the issue of the illegal immigrants already here if they saw a real effort to end illegal immigration.

We have already seen a significant decrease in those coming into the country illegally since President Trump was sworn into office. Perhaps something similar to DACA can be included as it seems a reasonable policy for the children who as minors were brought to the United States and grew up here. They are not the criminals, their parents or the people who brought them here committed the crime of illegal entry into the country. As for those who came here legally and overstayed their visas or who came here illegally in the first place the law should be made clear as to how we should deal with them. And the law should be enforced. First and foremost, anyone here illegally who has been convicted of a crime should be deported immediately. Perhaps those who have lived here for many years, who have not committed a felony, voted illegally, nor received public assistance could be given work permits and allowed to remain in the United States. They would have to leave for two weeks every year or be deported if they remain unemployed for over sixty days, the same as others who come here on a guest worker visa. They should NEVER have a path to citizenship nor be permitted to vote. This is their punishment for coming here illegally. If they desire a path to citizenship they must return to their home country and go through the proper channels for legal immigration.

Despite his portrayal by the main stream media as arrogant and heartless we have witnessed the compassion of President Trump. The entire country saw this in the past week as he visited the victims of Hurricane Harvey in Texas and Louisiana. The media found it hard to criticize his response to this devastating tragedy as he took control and set the tone for the rescue, recovery and relief efforts. We saw the stark contrast of people coming together as Americans and helping each other without concern for race or politics while the media continued to espouse their agenda of divisiveness to an ever decreasing audience.

Hopefully President Trump can build on the good will of the past week to encourage Congress to do their job and pass real immigration reform.

 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.

Advertisements
Continue reading...

August 28, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: What’s The Future Of Marriage?

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

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

It may all work out. It may not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there it is!

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

Continue reading...

August 21, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: Should Monuments, Street Names, Etc. Referencing The Confederacy Or Slave Owners Be Removed?


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: Should Monuments, Street Names Etc. Referencing The Confederacy Or Slave Owners Be Removed?

Doug Hagin: I do not think I can think of a more foolish venture than to cede control of what is acceptable to the Left frankly. There are those who have a genuine desire to appease the feelings of others. But, make no mistake, most folks do not care about where those monuments, etc. are located. And, many people, who had ancestors in the Confederate army will be deeply hurt by their removal. But the biggest issue here is who is driving for the erasing of history. Make no mistake, it is the Left, and their agenda is to eradicate all of American history. One way to destroy a nation is to destroy its history/heritage/culture Allowing the Left to dictate is as foolish as allowing the Left to dictate our immigration policies. Giving these miscreants their way is as bright as pouring gas on a kitchen fire. President Trump was correct, today it is Confederates, then the Founders, and so on.

The second thing here is this. As someone who has studied the War Between the States since I was nine, I have learned the war was clearly about numerous things. Dumbing it down to being “all about slavery” or painting the Southern side as evil is intellectually lazy and requires ignoring many factors and the reasons for secession. Several states, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee seceded only after Lincoln call for troops. In short their reason for leaving was that they felt secession legitimate, and refused to fight against states that had chosen that path. Again, historical reality demands we do not allow narratives dictate what parts of history is preserved.

Further, to allow the demonization of Lee, Jackson, Davis, and many other Confederates is a despicable cat of moral cowardice. Those men were not perfect, but the Left readily paints them as comparable to Hitler and as fighting for slavery, and slavery alone. Some on the Right insist on adopting this historically inaccurate narrative. Some even go so far as to paint all Confederates as 19th Century leftists. That is tragic to me. A large part of what drove the nation apart was a disagreement over the proper role of the federal government. That, more than any other fissure caused various states to secede, albeit it over different issues.

What is needed is open debate on the war, its causes, that yes included but was not limited to slavery. We will never get any such dialogue if we allow the media and the Left, but I repeat myself, to use their fake moral outrage to erase history. I have had the privilege to work alongside re-enactors who bring the history of the war and the soldiers to life. I have seen them talk to students of all races about the war, and what soldiers experienced, how they dressed, etc. I have seen their faces engrossed as these walking pieces of history talked to them.

Lastly, as a man who had dozens of ancestors who wore the butternut and grey, I refuse to allow any racist, white nationalist, of any other bottom feeding scum to define the symbols my family blood was shed over. What they do is tantamount to spitting on the graves of my ancestors.

Don Surber:The attempt to liberal-wash history is an element of totalitarianism. A tool. Black history month no longer is not about giving African-Americans pride — its stated purpose originally. This has evolved into a blanket revision of history with communism as the font of all that is good in America. Black Republicans slowly fade away in favor of black Communists such as Paul Robeson.

The abandonment of the victory of the Civil War is part of that revisionism. In dividing the races, liberals have eliminated acknowledgement of the sacrifice of white men to end slavery.

“The Battle Hymn of the Republic” got a rewrite eliminating the line “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!” This eliminated the role of Christianity in ending slavery, while erasing the death of 300,000 young white men — a considerable portion of the North’s manpower. This was a lot generation that led to the rise of immigration later in the 19th century.

Quite a sacrifice for a still young nation.

President Obama ignored the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg, Appomattox, and even the assassination of Lincoln because it ill-fits the liberal rewrite of history, in which whites are evil and everyone else is good.

As for statues, communities should decide what they choose to honor.

Right now, thugs are taking down statues. They serve a purpose for other powerful people. That is what pawns do.

 Rob Miller: As I’ve written elsewhere, it’s obvious to me that Charlottesville was planned and was no accident. The coordinated attacks that broke out afterwards make that obvious, and they include the shooting of 6 police officers over the weekend by #blacklivesmatter thugs.

Meanwhile, prominent ‘Confederate’ Abraham Lincoln  had his statue vandalized in his home state of Illinois.  In the same city, a black pastor from a black liberation theology church is making headway in renaming George Washington Park, actually comparing the Father of our Country to nazis by saying ‘Jewish people wouldn’t want a park named after Auschwitz.’   Andrew Jackson, who saved the City of New Orleans and whose statue has been a landmark  for years in the French Quarter had his statue vandalized so badly by #blacklivesmatter and AntiFa  it had to be crated as the city decides what to do about it. The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC is being pressured by The Trust for the National Mall, a major fund raiser to ‘remake’ the exhibit to emphasize that Jefferson was a slave owner and is threatening to withhold funds unless that happens.

What the Left is doing, of course, is working on rewriting history in their own way. After all, if you can make the Founders despicable, why not the Constitution they wrote? That’s the Left’s end game, along with stifling freedom of speech and ‘thought crimes’ by any means necessary. The Taliban, ISIS, The Soviets and the Nazis  used the same tactics.

And of course, the Left is omitting any removal of statues of name changing for their own heroes with far more questionable  deeds then men who happened to own a few slaves. Chicago boasts a statue of Lenin, a man who murdered millions. So do Seattle, Los Angeles and  New York City. There are several statues and busts of Paul Robeson, who was a Soviet agent and propagandist. Malcolm X  has numerous statues, buildings  and streets named after him, as well as numerous portraits of him hung in various locations. He even has exhibits lauding him in the Smithsonian and the National Museum of African American History.

In 1961, Malcolm X introduced  George Lincoln Rockwell, the leader of the American Nazi Party, on stage at a Nation of Islam rally, and led a standing ovation for Rockwell.

Shortly before that, Malcolm X had met with Klan leaders, including  J.B. Stoner who was later convicted of bombing of the Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham.   Malcolm X bonded with the Klan over the same issues he had in common with the Nazis – a belief in separation of the races, opposition to the Civil Rights movement and virulent, hateful anti-semitism, something Malcolm X never made any attempt to hide or apologize for. Here’s a quote from Malcolm X: “The Jew is behind the integration movement, using the Negro as a tool.”

 Malcolm X’s Klan meeting cemented a sort of  alliance  between the Nation of Islam and the KKK against the  Civil Rights Movement.  As Malcolm X himself admitted, The Nation of Islam received protection for its mosques from the Klan as its part of the deal.

 “I sat at the table myself with the heads of the Ku Klux Klan,” Malcolm X later admitted. “From that day onward the Klan never interfered with the Black Muslim movement in the South.”

This is the man held up as an icon for young black Americans. And no one is talking about erasing him from history or even looking at him with any honesty.

So when it comes to demonizing men who were simply defending their homes against armed invasion or the false equivalency of taking men who grew up in different times with different customs and committing the false equivalency of judging them by today’s customs and today’s political correctness, I call that rampant hypocrisy and I call it intolerable.

America would be far better off if those ‘Americans’ who conceive of America as racist, criminal and illegitimate made the  decision to leave the country they hate so much. We’d be far better off without these treasonous swine, and they would be able to talk about how superior they are to us while living somewhere more in accord with what passes for their values.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz: I can not possibly add anything to what Doug said so eloquently

Mike McDaniel: All Americans, as opposed to AINOs, must oppose the left’s demands to remove any public monument or erase any public symbol. The only reason necessary is because they want it. We are in a critical phase of a culture war preceding the Civil War, and if we want to preserve America, we must oppose the left at every turn, for as never before, they have revealed precisely what they want to accomplish: the transformation of American into Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or any other socialist/communist state. As Margaret Thatcher so presciently said, the trouble with socialism is you always run out of other people’s money. And inevitably, you imprison torture and kill millions upon millions of your own people on that great socialist path for daring to yearn for liberty.

In this particular front of the culture war, the ultimate question is who decides? Who decides what to name streets and public buildings? Who decides which monuments and statues to erect? Who decides what to tear down and rename?

The only legitimate way to make such decisions in our republic is through the legitimate political process. Political correctness and particularly, mob rule, must always be decried for what they are and ruthlessly stamped out. This is also a facet of federalism, of local control, which leftists hate with burning, red-faced, spittle-slinging rage. In such matters, the will of the electorate must lawfully prevail.

The destruction of historic symbols is, virtually without exception, a bad idea. Within a generation, even a handful of years, every lesson that could have been learned is forever lost. We consign future generations to an uncertain future, grounded in nothing more than political correctness. If we don’t know where we’ve been and what we did to get where we are, we have no idea who we are or what we aspire to be. They that have destroyed the past that none may learn from it are surely doomed to repeat its worst and most horrible mistakes, in fact, that’s what they intend.

And should the left win, what will be left? They’ve already suggested the destruction of Mt. Rushmore, anything relating to Washington, Jefferson and even Lincoln. Imagine what will remain: statues of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, various communist thugs and murderers, cop killers, traitors and corrupt leftist politicians. We would surely see monuments to Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and other demigods of the left in our nation’s capital. And what of our memorials to the men and women that gave their lives in war to preserve liberty, that gave that last, full measure of devotion to save the intensely ungrateful nations of Europe? Surely none of them would stand, for war is evil, except war to establish the utopia for which the left yearns.

Slavery is, of course, unconscionable, but we cannot judge the past by contemporary measures. America has always been the moral light of the world, the leader in fighting for equality and the rule of law. We overcame slavery and its legacy. The Judeo/Christian tradition triumphed. This is truly what is at stake here, and every monument defaced or destroyed by a leftist mob is one more stake driven into the heart of liberty. Whatever the left wants, oppose it.

Dave Schuler : Communities have and should have the power to erect or remove whatever monuments they care to. In some cases removing Confederate monuments is the right choice. That a century ago the residents of a state or city chose to honor generals who were traitors to the Union does not mean that the present residents should be forced to allow them to remain.

In some cases the monuments should be removed; in others they should be retained but additional context should be added to reflect today’s understandings. As I noted in my post on the subject, in some cases they should remain.

Process is important. The decision should be made with due consideration and with due and democratic process. The decision should not be ceded to whoever is the most outraged.

Patrick O’Hannigan: My friend Felix and I were discussing this question over coffee, and in an effort to steer a middle course between “tear them all down” and “leave them alone,” he said that he thought statues of Confederate soldiers ought to be relocated away from where many of them are now, and into museums or other such places (like old battlefields) where they would be in “historical context.” That approach at least attempts something like conciliation, but I don’t think it will work, because the end game for progressives isn’t “Confederate statue removal,” it’s safe (sanitized, infantile) space everywhere.

Yale University was named for a slave trader, as Instapundit gleefully noted, but by erasing reminders of our history we’ll invoke the law of unintended consequences, either by re-fighting old conflicts or by losing any frame of reference for even righteous valor (Remember Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary series for PBS of more than a decade ago? If you were inspired by what soldiers like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did while wearing Union blue, it’s because their courage was tested by men wearing Confederate gray and butternut. Take “Johnny Reb” out of the picture, and “Billy Yank” will fade away, too). Not only that, but iconoclasm tends to be poorly informed. Exhibit A in evidence for that assertion would be the people who defaced a statues of Joan of Arc (!) in New Orleans and Fray Junipero Serra (!) in California.

Laura Rambeau Lee : Whenever the old wounds and scars of our past begin to heal and race relations improve the left charges in to pick at the scabs and make sure they continue to fester. We must never forget our history as we came very close to losing our republic in the Civil War. Only by the grace of G-d were we able to abolish slavery and rebuild our divided county. But it seems every generation or so this evil begins to stir again creating unrest, division, and chaos.

Many of the Confederate monuments and memorials we see today were erected in the early 1900s and were associated with campaigns promoting the Jim Crow laws in the South. This occurred at the height of the second inception of the Ku Klux Klan which ran from 1915 to 1944 and had between three and six million members over that period of time. We can only surmise their purpose was also meant to intimidate blacks.

People in the Southern states, today unaware of the purpose or what was behind their original erection, view these memorials as honoring those who fought, served, and died in defense of their cause and should not be removed. They believe this is our history and no matter how shameful a time this was in our country we can still honor those brave souls who were their ancestors. As conservative Americans we should view them for what they are… historical symbols erected by Democrats to continue to divide the races in our country.

Once the idea of tearing down Confederate monuments arose people on the left across the country jumped on the bandwagon. They do like to follow their “masters.” Here in our county they have been attempting to remove a Confederate statue, originally introduced by a Democrat county commissioner. Just this past week the commission voted 4 to 2 to remove it but required private funds of $140,000.00 be raised within thirty days, which is about half of the cost to remove it. A Go Fund Me page was started and by this weekend it states the money has been raised. Tampa’s Democrat mayor Bob Buckhorn wrote a personal check for one thousand dollars stating he has a moral obligation to do his part. Our local sports teams have also contributed to the removal of the statue. This is not about morality, it is about appeasement.

If a majority of the people want these statues removed and schools and streets renamed it should be put to a vote. As it stands, the very vocal minority is intimidating our officials into removing these Confederate monuments, some in the dead of night.

What I do not understand is why Republicans have not set the record straight. This could be a very important and enlightening teachable moment for everyone who does not know our country’s history and the racist history of the Democrat Party. Instead our Republican representatives are allowing conservatives and Trump supporters to be labeled bigots, racists, and white supremacists.

How far will we let this go?

 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.

Continue reading...

August 20, 2017

0 Comments

Another Fake Racial Crisis Created by the “Jefferson – Jackson” Democrats

Great synopsis of the contrived events in Charlottesville, Va this past week, that led to the death of a young woman. You see, they don’t care who gets hurt or dies. It’s always about the revolution, and the means justifies the end.

Rockin' On The Right Side

The stock market and corporate profits are up.  Unemployment and food stamp dependence is down.  Wages are increasing.  Illegal immigration is decreasing.  Consumer confidence continues to outstrip expectations.

The quality of life for Americans of all sizes, shapes, sexes, colors, and beliefs is on the upswing, there’s no denying it.  If you ask your neighbors and friends how things are going, you will almost certainly hear that life is good here in America, and getting better.

But according to the liberal news media and all Democrats, America is in desperate crisis.

There is indeed a desperate crisis, but it’s not America that is in peril.  It’s the Democrat party.  Having lost the House, the Senate, and now the White House, plus a vast majority of state and local offices, Democrats face extinction if they can’t stop their slide to the ash heaps of political history.

At the close of…

View original post 669 more words

Continue reading...

August 15, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: What Do You Think Of Trump’s Handling Of North Korea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there it is!

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

Continue reading...

August 7, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: What Do You Think Will Be The Major Tech And Science Breakthroughs In The Next 10 Years?

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 Will Be The Major Tech And Science Breakthroughs In The Next 10 Years? Mike McDaniel:Whooooo, as one of […]

Continue reading...

August 1, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: What’s Your Reaction To The White House Staff Changes?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s Question:What’s Your Reaction To the White House Staff Changes? Don Surber:Trump is a CEO. He expects performance. Priebus and Spicer failed. They […]

Continue reading...

July 25, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: How Would You Rate Trump’s Performance After Six Months?

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:How Would You Rate Trump’s Performance After Six Months? Don Surber: My 401-k — fully invested in Bogle’s S&P 500 stock index […]

Continue reading...

July 10, 2017

0 Comments

The Forum Is Up: Will Media Outlets Like CNN Ever Practice Journalism Again?

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, courtesy of Don Surber: Will Media Outlets Like CNN Ever Practice Journalism Again? Mike McDaniel: No. OK…back to that article I […]

Continue reading...

July 3, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: Are President Trump’s Tweets Effective Communication or National Embarrassment?

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: Trump’s Tweets – Effective Communication Or National Embarrassment? Patrick O’ Hannigan: On the question of whether President Trump’s tweets are an […]

Continue reading...