Advertisements

November 21, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: The #MeToo Accusations; A Positive or Negative Development?

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: The #MeToo Accusations; a Positive or Negative Development?

  Don Surber: In the 1980s, there were a rash of stories, and a witch hunt over child molestation at day care centers. The McMartin family was absolutely innocent, and absolutely ruined by Los Angeles District Attorney Ira Reiner.

But there also was the Tailhook Association’s convention in Las Vegas in 1991. It was a gathering of Navy pilots past and present, as tailhook refers to the device that grabs the wire on an aircraft carrier. About 1,500 attended — and they drank and chased women. In the end, 83 women and 7 men were sexually assaulted. 300 men ruined their careers (including admirals) by acting like animals.

About that time, Clarence Thomas stood accused of putting a pubic hair on a can of Coca Cola — and others strange things — by Anita Hill. Her false charges of sexual harassment almost cost him a seat on the Supreme Court.

False stories of gang rape surface from time to time: Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse team, and that frat at the University of Virginia.

The latter triggered a witch hunt over campus rape, pushed by Obama.

Now we are in a witch hunt over sexual abuse by men in power. What should guide us is past experience. 1. Hear the women out (Tailhook). 2. Hear the men out (Duke lacrosse). 3, Assume nothing. Allegations and accusations are gossip, not facts.

We do know that Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Al Franken abused people sexually. They admitted it.

George Takei and Roy Moore vehemently deny such allegations. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Those who advise Alabamans to not vote for Moore are opportunists. If he’s guilty, he can be removed from office. But if he is innocent and his opponent wins, guess what? His opponent cannot be removed from office.

Many conservatives made a big deal about Bob Menendez who is on trial for bribery. I did not. Federal prosecutors are ruthless. Look how they railroaded Ted Stevens and withheld exculpatory evidence to convict him — a conviction overturned because of their behavior. It was too late. Stevens had lost that election.

What can we as conservatives do? Adhere to principles. Paramount is the presumption of innocence.

 Rob Miller : Ah,yes, the #Me Too accusations. Definitely a two-edged sword that cuts both ways.

Let’s examine the positive and negative aspects.

It’s notable that the accusations are almost entirely coming from two areas, show biz and politics.

The so-called casting couch has been an entertainment  business reality almost since the industry got started. The idea was always very simple…a man or a woman seeking to advance their career would be told to submit to the sexual desires  of someone in power in the industry in exchange for a contract, a part, or other help in their career. Some refused. Others succumbed. Many times they got what they were seeking, other times they were simply cynically used, discarded and nothing came of it.

It was hardly a secret that this was going on. No one seeking a career in ‘the Business’ could hardly claim to be unaware that they might be approached that way.

The problem with the latest flood of accusations is that in most cases, they occurred a long time ago and the women (and men) involved made a choice to keep their mouths shut, whether they gave in to the sexual demands or not. One of the things that struck me about the Cosby case is how many of the women who were drugged and raped realized what had happened, yet they came back to Bill Cosby and let it happen again, because they wanted to take advantage of his  promise of help with their careers.

The problem here is twofold. First, by keeping their mouths shut the women enabled a sexual predator, often because they felt it would help their careers. And second, by keeping silent, they allowed other women to be victimized.  There’s no doubt many women would have been spared a degrading and harmful experience if many of these women had not decided to stay quiet, to go along to get along.  And it’s not just the women. I have no doubt that a lot of male associates of the Harvey Weinsteins and Kevin Spaceys in Hollywood also knew what was going on, and also kept silent.

Another problem with the Hollywood accusations is that far too many people  outside the business have a pretty good idea of what was going on in Hollywood even if they didn’t know the details. These are, after all, the same folks who covered up for perverts like child rapist  Roman Polanski. So just like the the recent virtue signaling in the outing of Bill Clinton as a sexual predator years after it would matter, the element of outrage and surprise is missing and comes across as somewhat phony to many people. It simply doesn’t matter as much anymore after all these years.

 The political angle is slightly different. Washington DC has aptly been called Hollywood for ugly people. There’s also no doubt that a lot of young interns,  congressional assistants, secretaries  and pages are preyed on in the same manner as actors and actresses in the ‘other Hollywood.’ Some of the perps have been busted and disgraced, others have not, depending on how indiscreet  or how influential they were. What’s new is its use as a political weapon, a selective political weapon used by the Democrat Party against Republicans, and designed to promote fundraising and gin up turnout from women of a certain ideology. 

The real author and enabler of this was former President Barack Hussein Obama.

The  Obama White House and  Department of Education pressured  colleges to change the burden of proof standard that they used in disciplinary proceedings over sexual harassment and sexual assault in 2011 or lose federal funds. And unfortunately, given the politics, many colleges didn’t have to be pressured at all.

They  routinely restricted a male student’s right to due process by using ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as the new, lower standard of proof instead of the higher ‘clear and convincing’ standard.According to the Obama administration’s Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), “Preponderance of the evidence” meant that if the University inquisition thought  there was as  little as a 51 per chance that the accused is guilty, (or the girl involved was decent actress) the accused could be disciplined and expelled.

These are the same people who claim to want to ‘protect women’ on campus by refusing to allow them to carry arms…with  predictable results.

Among other things, the new guidelines demanded that students “not be allowed to personally cross-examine each other.” Court rulings like Donohue v. Baker (1997), concluded that cross-examination must be allowed in campus disciplinary hearings, but Obama made sure that wasn’t being taken into consideration anymore. Frequently, male students weren’t t even allowed an attorney in these college inquisitions.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss has made heroic efforts to correct this, but many universities still operate this way. If you think  I’m exaggerating? Here are just a a few examples that ought to change your mind.

Third stream feminism has been largely responsible for the hookup culture, the sexualizing of women’s view of themselves and the devaluing of the ideas of traditional marriage, courtship and family life.*  The response of many men was simply to enjoy the relaxed morality this brought about and utilize it for their own pleasure, to objectify women, and to treat them with less respect than women formerly enjoyed.  It is possible that this is a new trend of women insisting on the old style standards of respect may mark the beginning of a backlash to third stream feminism and its extremism.  It’s too early to tell at this point.

Unfortunately,at this point any positive aspect  is offset because the current rash of accusations largely has a hollow ring to them for the reasons I mentioned, which negates their effect
*It should be noted that the attitudes created by third stream feminism did not make much headway in Americans who were part of religious communities and certain immigrant groups and their traditions. Orthodox Jews, religious Catholics, Evangelicals, Many East, Southeast and South Asians,  Mormons and other religious and some ethnic communities resisted these attitudes and  still remain largely practitioners of traditional courtship, family life and marriages. They also tend to have more children and fewer divorces. Selah.

Puma By Design: The people who are buying into this “Me too” propaganda are the same individuals who last winter donned “pink p***y hats,” and took part in the not all “Women’s March” the day after President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated.

The question, of course is: The #MeToo Accusations; a Positive or Negative Development?

I dare to say that considering the spin comes from the left, “negative” but not for the reasons that some would think.

The “#MeToo” meme/accusations are a propaganda tool/stunt to bring about the desired means to an end favorable to the Progressive agenda.

#Me Too, Another Sandra Fluke Moment.

The #Me Too” meme is meant to be another Sandra Fluke moment.

In 2012, during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, Georgetown activist/Progressive, Sandra Fluke, called for free contraceptives because she did not believe that college students or women having sex should have to foot the bill for their choices, i.e., sexual activity.

Rush Limbaugh had his say, advertisers hit back at Rush and then Gloria Allred (what else is new) got involved. Eventually, the insanity backfired on the White House because of the habit by Progressives to spike the football ten times too many after Fluke became the Progressive darling, at least until she failed to garner enough support from Progressive Californians in 2014 to run for the Senate.

SIDEBAR

Fluke may have put the nail in her campaign when in 2014 right after the 200 Chibok girls were kidnapped and enslaved by Boko Haram, Miss Looney Tunes said during a radio interview with KCRW host Madeleine Brand stated that:

“I must say that as dire and barbaric as these Boko militants in Nigeria seem, we have to remember that if these girls are released and come to America as political refugees, they could end up working for Republican lawmakers here in California or in Washington, or end up living in a Red state in the South, which would no doubt make them wish they were still in the clutches of militant al-Qaeda-linked rapist terrorists…”

Career over

END OF SIDEBAR

What’s my point? The #Me Too” meme is 2017’s Sandra Fluke moment.

Fluke whose primary talking points were sexual reproductive rights for women and human trafficking did not cut the mustard and neither does the “Me Too” meme.
#Me Too is hypocritical, selective and a weapon.

Let’s be real, it was a little more than 12 months ago that Progressives were ruthlessly attacking Bill Clinton’s victims while placing both Bill and Hillary on a pedestal.

It was less than ten months ago, correction a six months ago month week (never mind) that Progressive pro-abortion women blocked pro-life women from marching with them.

Several weeks ago, Michelle Obama insulted women who did not vote for Hillary Clinton and just recently, a propagandist at the L. A. Times fat-shamed, Sandra Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary.

Of course, there is Hillary Clinton who used sexism and the war on women as a platform when she ran in 2016 despite having for decades took advantage of her power, position and access to the bully pulpit, to silence, strike fear into, denigrate and destroy Bill Clinton’s victims for three plus decades.

Feminists who continued their undying support Bill Clinton were no better and didn’t think twice to follow Hillary’s lead.

Through their demands for free birth control and reproductive healthcare, Progressives have no regard for the sanctity of life, support the murder of the unborn, recently born, ignore pedophilia and child rape.

Thus, the #Me Too hashtag is nothing more than a fluke (no pun intended…oh, who cares) in that it is selective and hypocritical. (Yeah, I really thought this through.)

Progressives now on a witch hunt have weaponized the allegation of rape and sexual misconduct. Due process means nothing.

Innocent until proven guilty does not play a role in their agenda.

Can it be because as we have over the past eight years that in the shootings in which a Black man died in the hands of law enforcement, prosecutors knowingly overreached in their quest to Obama’s bidding and to inflame the masses.

Such pursuits, for eight years, was in full force under Barack Obama’s Department of Justice with prosecuting attorneys across the country appearing to willfully incite people into the streets to riot.

Of course, if Progressives via the women’s movement could drive people into the streets because a woman levies charges or sexual assault or misconduct against someone, they would gladly do it but again, it’s not about justice.

This is about power, control, elections and has nothing to do with justice for the victim. We’ve seen this dance before. Progressives should stop weaponizing their so-called causes.

Dave Schuler: Both. I think there’s a genuine problem with sexual abuse and harassment and there’s so much silence surrounding it we don’t actually have a good handle on its scope. Given that understanding shedding more light on the issue is good.

On the other hand destroying lives and/’or careers on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations is obviously problematic. When even Maureen Dowd is pointing out the political motivations of some of these allegations it isn’t too much of a stretch to think there’s something to the idea.

I honestly don’t know how to strike the right balance.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : We have to consider the current accusations of sexual harassment and sexual assault by looking back over the changes that have occurred in American culture over the past half century or so, especially since some of the accusations go almost that far back. Back in the 1960s and 1970s (some of us remember it well) the sexual revolution was upon us. Women’s liberation proponents convinced young women we were victims of a patriarchal society and we demanded equal rights. We burned our bras to show we were no longer bound by worn out social dictates. Up until that time women who chose to enter a profession generally became teachers or nurses. These were socially respectable professions and could be managed while raising a family. With this new awakening we believed we should be able to go to college and work in the same jobs as men if we so chose and make the same amount of money. Unlimited opportunities opened up for women. This was the positive side of the women’s movement as millions of women joined the workforce in many different professions.

Along with their new careers young women were exposed to more encounters with men in the workplace. At this same time the left, with assistance from Ivy League professors and scientific experts, convinced us women were no different than men when it came to our sexuality. We should not be ashamed of our sexual desires as society now “permitted” us to act upon them. We were encouraged to have sex without the need for emotional attachment. Thus began the sexual revolution which truly was a war on women. In addition during this time the invention of birth control pills eliminated worries of unwanted pregnancies, and once Roe v Wade became the law of the land in 1973 if we did become pregnant we could legally “take care of it.” Men no longer had to worry about taking responsibility or doing the right thing if a sexual partner became pregnant. Pregnancy became her responsibility alone. Abortion became a right and today many liberal women vote solely on this single issue – the preservation of their right to kill their unborn child. This single decision has harmed our society and our culture more than anything else in the last century.

Relationships between men and women have suffered with all this newfound sexual freedom. Men were led to believe women wanted sex even if they protested they did not. If women’s urges were the same as theirs what else could they believe? Does no mean no or does no mean yes… or maybe? Are women just playing hard to get? Where should one draw the line? How far can one go before they stop? Remember the old first base, second base references? Is there a point of no return? Women engaged in casual sex with multiple partners not realizing the emotional toll it would take on their psyche. How many of these current accusations were misinterpreted flirtations that went too far? And who is guilty in such situations? It may sound unforgiving to some, but men can be victims as well as women in some of these cases because of the beliefs of the time, short of molestation, rape or pedophilia. And the fact that these women are speaking out now after decades does not help their case. If they truly were molested or assaulted they should have reported it to the police then, not years later when the accused is running for political office.

In addition, much of the moral decline within our society falls directly on Bill Clinton and his dark history of sexual harassment and sexual assault throughout his time as governor of Arkansas through his two terms as president of the United States. During his first run for president his victims spoke out about his sexual assaults. They were ridiculed and called liars while those in the media covered for him. Hillary Clinton was complicit in these crimes as she threatened and intimidated his victims. It is surprising to see the 180 degree turn in the minds of some on the left who covered up for Clinton during the 1980s and 1990s who are now saying he should have resigned as president for his very public adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky. They are a little late in acknowledging his crimes and are now saying these women who make accusations today should be believed. One has to wonder if their newfound beliefs are solely motivated by politics as the social and political winds have shifted. Sadly, an entire generation of young children grew up believing oral sex was not sex thanks to President Clinton. Many men have taken advantage of the sexual revolution to intimidate and coerce their victims as we have seen in the unfolding Hollywood scandals. Many people knew and said nothing.

This sexual uncertainty and confusion is a direct result of communist propaganda and indoctrination demoralizing our culture and society. The women’s movement led to the sexual revolution which led to the breakup of the family unit. Today we have staggeringly high percentages of children being born to single mothers with no help from the father, while government encourages dependence on it to meet their every need.

Hopefully the pendulum will swing back, but not all the way back. It is good that women do not have to suffer shame or public ridicule for their sexual behavior. Many of us remember the girls in school who were easy and called horrible names. But we must recognize there is a difference between the sexes. This will never change. We should instill pride and self respect in children of both sexes and help them to understand the personal and emotional ramifications of being sexually promiscuous. Sex should not be taken lightly nor be used for coercion or advancement. When a woman, or a man for that matter, has been sexually molested or assaulted they should report it to the police immediately. Perhaps all of this will lead to timely reporting of such incidents, which might save future victims from being assaulted or molested.

Perhaps this will be a positive shift in our society as we move towards a more moral center.

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...

October 30, 2017

0 Comments

Weekly Forum: Should Robert Mueller Be Fired?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the WoW! Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:Should Robert Mueller Be Fired? 

 Don Surber: Robert Mueller poses no threat to anyone but himself. His arrogance — hubris — will do him in because he does not know whom he is dealing with. Mueller is a perfect media darling because he reflects so many of the swelled heads in the newsrooms.

Donald Trump is no ordinary billionaire, if such a beast exists. He knows the law well, the politicians better, and the press best of all.

Trump hires best lawyers. Roy Cohn was his first attorney. Ruthless. Prosecuted the Rosenbergs and got them executed. When the feds charged Trump with housing discrimination, Cohn countersued for defamation and demanded that the feds file an actual lawsuit, not just an administrative action.

Two years later they settled with Trump paying no fine and making no admission of any guilt.

Trump is not a man to be trifled with.

Trump has been involved in 3,500 lawsuits. He knows the courts better than any president not named Lincoln. Some cases he won. Some he lost.

Mueller should know this. He does not seem to know. He has been a federal prosecutor too long. They have nearly unlimited power.

But I think he has met his match.

Name someone who began a feud with him who prevailed. You cannot. Rosie O’Donnell went from the queen of nice on daytime TV to whatever she is today.

Megyn Kelly got a nice deal with NBC — and is watched by fewer people now than she was at Fox News.

And so on.

The Russian dossier is fiction by a retired British intelligence officer. In nine months since it was made public, no one has independently verified any of the 35 allegations.
Trump lawyered up anyway, and it will pay off.

The leak of grand juries on Friday night was a breach of ethics. Mueller has nothing on Trump, and Manafort is nothing to him.

Mueller tried to get Trump through his kids. That was a low blow.

Firing Mueller now makes this swine a martyr.

Keep him.

He has nothing. He will whither on the vine.

 Rob Miller: Mueller shouldn’t be fired, at least not right now. But he needs to be neutralized by destroying his credibility in public.

The twin scandals of Fusion GPS, the spying and illegal wiretapping by the Obama Administration on a political campaign by the opposing party during an election year, and Uranium One, which Mueller appears to be directly complicit in have already been revealed.The Democrat’s servile media minions are doing the best they can to twist things around and muddy up the details to confuse the American people, but I unraveled the facts last week in an easy to follow article, and when they’re presented in a straightfoward manner it’s obvious that the very people ranting about Donald Trump and ‘Russia collusion’ were the ones colluding with the Russians themselves.

 Robert Mueller is clearly implicated in the Uranium One Scandal, which happened during Mrs. Clinton’s term as Secretary of State in 2010 Certain Canadian investors working on behalf of the Russian government wanted to acquire ownership of certain assets amounting to one fifth of U.S. uranium production. They were represented by the Podesta Group ( yes, that would be John Podesta and his brother Tom), who lobbied Washington for them.

Since this involved strategic materials, it needed oversight and a green light from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. That green light was obtained after these same investors ‘donated’ $148 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation and arranged for Bill Clinton to receive $500,000 for a speech in Russia, more than double his usual fee. There are also some indications a donation to the Clinton Library was involved as well.

As the Hill revealed recently, the FBI had uncovered a bribery plot involving the Russians and uranium transactions in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They had substantial evidence, including eyewitnesses. The investigation also revealed that the deal involving the Clintons was part of the illegal bribery scam. Yet someone ordered the FBI not to reveal the details of their investigation or even to disclose it to Congress. Essentially, things were stonewalled for four more years,until 2015, after Obama’s re-election.  So the deal went through, even though the Obama Administration was fully aware of what the FBI had uncovered.

The head of the FBI when this was going on was Robert Mueller. Either he personally quashed the bribery investigation or he was told by his boss Eric Holder to do it and complied. There’s no way he couldn’t have known the national security implications of the Uranium One deal, yet he stonewalled the investigation until after Barack Obama was re-elected.

Meuller was always going to come up with something, and I imagine it will be trumped up charges involving  Paul Manafort or perhaps against Donald Jr. for taking a meeting with a Russian lawyer withsome connections to the Russian government  about – wait for it – adoptions!

It’s also pretty obvious that Mueller whipped this stuff up in a hurry to try and spin the news cycle and bury the facts about who really colluded with Russia.

That’s why the President needs to immediately name a special prosecutor to investigate these scandals, and especially, to investigate Robert Mueller among other things. He obviously knew about the bribery. Why did Mueller stonewall the investigation?  Did he receive orders to do it, and if so, from whom? Is there any evidence in his bank records that he received a sum of money or profited via an investment? And as head of the FBI, what made him be so negligent as to turn his back on something so vital to national security, keep his mouth shut and attempt to bury it?

The Democrat’s Trump Russia lie is already on life support. A solid special prosecutor  ought to be able to finish the job and turn the spotlight on some of the most corrupt people ever to hold public office and betray the public trust.

Patrick O’Hannigan: I agree with Don that Robert Mueller will likely “wither on the vine,” but I still think that President Trump should fire him rather than waiting for that to happen. There would be political repercussions to firing Mueller, because the anti-Trumpers and the Left would indeed treat him (undeservedly) as a martyr, and would have another fig leaf with which to try to cover bad behavior by the Obama administration and its notoriously tone-deaf Secretary of State. On the other hand, there is, I think, a significant up-side to demonstrating (by letting Mueller go) that the rule of law actually requires prudent exercise of responsibility in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government.

Robert Mueller, when he was running the FBI, had to have known more than a little of what the rest of us are now learning about the extortion and backroom-dealing behind Uranium One. He would also have realized that the Clinton Foundation was little more than a global money laundering operation. He probably figured that going after the Clintons or the Russians was a waste or resources. You can argue the merits of that inactivity, but it’s ridiculous to make him the point man for an investigation into “collusion with Russia” now when he did nothing about it then.

I was once sympathetic to the argument that Mueller ought not be criticized for staffing his current investigation with donors to the Democrat party, because every big law firm donates to the party in power, so the pool of investigative talent was always going to be in the shadow of the DNC. That argument no longer persuades me, because Mueller himself has been so obviously partisan. He was touted as having earned “bipartisan respect,” but what that means today is that other agents of the “administrative state” recognize him as one of their own. And let’s not forget the President Trump was elected in large part on his promise to Make America Great Again. He was going to do that not just in positive ways (such as tax reform and repeal of “Obamacare”), but also in negative ways, by “draining the swamp” that Washington, D.C. has become. Mueller is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Firing him would be akin to saying (correctly) that when President Obama created the DACA program and the immigration machinery around it, he did that in an unconstitutional manner, by executive order.

Let’s not forget that Robert Mueller and James Comey are friends, either. I don’t know either man and can’t fairly judge their characters, but Comey’s record has been less than stellar, and friends ought not be put in charge of “investigating” each other. Mueller and his acolytes continue looking at President Trump while the media breathlessly reports even uncorroborated “findings,” but Mueller’s activity looks more and more like willful misdirection every day. By looking at Republicans (or even alleged Republicans), Mueller helps his Democrat friends avoid the spotlight that should be on them. For example, people are talking about Uranium One because Hillary Clinton is still a high-profile name, but how about Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and her unusual IT staffing arrangements? Those had national security implications, too.

Laura Rambeau Lee : Robert Mueller should have recused himself at the outset of this investigation. The fact that he did not in spite of his obvious and many conflicts of interest leads me to believe his job as special counsel is to make sure the truth of what really transpired between the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the Russians never comes to light. It appears the establishment Democrats AND Republicans seem bent on taking down a duly elected President Trump. A Friday leak revealed the Mueller team has filed the first charge or charges in the case with a federal grand jury, although the charges have been sealed by a federal judge. We may find out who has been charged and what the charges are as early as Monday. Will it be someone connected to the Trump campaign? All of this high drama is a smoke screen to keep us from finding out the real truth. Congress should end this investigation now.

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...

October 2, 2017

1 Comment

Weekly Forum: What’s Dumber? The NFL Knee Or Refusing Free Books From The First Lady?

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: What’s Dumber? The NFL Knee Or Refusing Free Books From The First Lady?

 Rob Miller:You can’t make this stuff up.

The NFL commissioner and the team owner’s refusal to rein in their pampered millionaires from disrespecting flag and country and obey NFL rules has already affected TV ratings, game attendance, and sales of NFL merchandise. It’s even costing NFL games TV and radio sponsors as what amounts to an NFL boycott by their fan base spreads.

Don Surber’s Question calls for a comparison..to this.

First Lady Melania Trump loved reading Dr. Seuss books to her son Baron when he was small, and the books themselves have long been associated with helping children learn to read and improving children’s literacy.Even the National Education Association’s annual “Read Across America” day — when cities and towns across the country host events to celebrate reading — is on March 2, Seuss’s birthday. So the First Lady decided to purchase a complete set of the beloved books and sent the set as a gift to the librarian of the Cambridgeport School in Massachusetts, one Liz Phipps Soeiro.

Soeiro not only refused the gift, but wrote a rude screed to the First Lady,criticizing Trump administration education policies and calling the pictures in the books “steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes.”

I suppose that means President and Michele Obama are racists too, what with all the times they read Dr. Seuss to school kids.

She also accused the First Lady of using the ‘racist’ gift to brainwash children. Which makes this nasty little attention whore a major hypocrite:

CPORT | Specialists @Cport_Special

Happy Birthday Dr. Seuss! K and 1 celebrated with a green egg breakfast! @Cport_School @cambridge_cpsd

My goodness, here’s Ms. Phipps Soeiro- or someone who looks exactly like her, works at the same school library and has the same Twitter account – promoting ra-aaa-aa-cism and brainwashing small children by dressing up as The Cat In The Hat and pushing the racist Dr. Seuss’s book!

And speaking of brainwashing, just look at how this  radical mind raper has the school library set up:

Was Ms. Phipps Soiero disciplined at all? Did the school even apologize to The First Lady? Of course not, this is Massachusetts! All the Cambridge school system did was to release a statement saying the librarian “was not authorized to accept or reject donated books on behalf of the school or school district.”

They also claim they counseled the librarian ‘on all relevant policies.’ Which means they went to the teacher’s lounge, had some coffee,  a good laugh and an ‘attagirl’ moment and just told her to be a little less obvious in the future.

So what’s dumber? I’d say the knee was, since it is actually going to cost the perpetrators themselves $$$$ in the long run. Whereas this Massachusetts librarian was merely depriving and damaging others, not herself. But in terms of real damage, it’s the librarian hands down.

When I was younger, a public library was a wonderland to me. I had to walk about a mile and a half to get to the two closest ones, but there were always amazing things to inspire me and learn from.

Libraries and librarians have changed quite a bit. When you look at what they’re stocking nowadays unless you special order, it’s a clear example of how the Left has destroyed education since they took it over.

Don Surber: Answering my own question, both stories are symptoms of how the cultural war has expanded beyond Hollywood. We blew off the HUAC hearings on godless communism’s influence on movies following World War II. Oh, a few guys lost their jobs, but the leftward march of Hollywood is clear. After turning Joe McCarthy (whose hearings were on government infiltration) into a pariah, the word communist was effectively banned.

The left has attacked football for decades because it helps boys. Helping girls is fine, but boys are a threat to the left because they tend to grow up to be men. Sexist? Look at how Boy Scouts are treated, and how Girl Scouts are. Anyone encouraging boys specifically on STEM?

Calling Dr. Seuss racist because he drew cannibals in an ad for an anti-mosquito spray in the 1930s is absurd. He stood up for civil rights in editorial cartoons. But he served his purpose to the left. The racist libel is well established in academia as a fact, just like global cooling, global warming, and all their other quackery.

Which is worse? One takes football from boys, the other takes reading. That is what they attack. They couch it in attacking racism. I would say attacking football is worse because we need men in a nation that is emasculating itself.

And foolishly so.

Laura Rambeau Lee : These acts are not dumb; they are dangerously contributing to the destruction of our country. They are the result of the Marxist indoctrination going on for years in America, in our schools and disseminated via the media. It cannot be stressed enough that the election of President Trump was a terrible shock to the left, who were certain their agenda would be continued with a Clinton presidency. They were so close to the fundamental transformation of America and they are not about to give up. This is an all out war and hopefully Americans are waking up in time to put an end to this evil for good.

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...

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.

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 […]

Continue reading...

August 20, 2017

0 Comments

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

Originally posted on 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…

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 […]

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...