March 19, 2018


Weekly Forum: Who Wins The War Between Trump And California’s Sanctuary Policies?

Every week, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:Who Wins The War Between Trump And California’s Sanctuary Policies?

Dave Schuler:Honestly, I have no idea. I think that while it’s possible for the federal government to win the fight it’s likely that California will. It’s also possible that California’s politicians will overreach, make a misstep, the president will invoke the Insurrection Act, and California’s state government will be removed.

I think it’s clear that California is presently an outlier in an number of ways ranging from politics to demographics to economy. Under the circumstances just about anything can happen.

Rob Miller : First, it’s important to look at the real issue here. And it isn’t some kind of humanitarian ‘immigration’ issue. It’s about ethnic politics and political power.

Over the past three decades or so, the state’s population has largely been deliberately replaced, especially in the coastal areas where the population is. It was done using open borders, sky high taxes, massive and complex ‘regulations’ on businesses and punitive laws favoring illegal migrants and ‘takers’ rather than makers.

Well funded political organizations like MeCHA, La Raza and MALDEF based on creating and exploiting ethnic grievance also played a role. As things rolled along, laws making it easy for voter fraud to occur and for illegal migrants to vote have exacerbated things. Meanwhile, small business owners, new college graduates, and many working families have simply left because of the artificially created high cost of living and doing business. Large corporations are also starting to leave the not-so-Golden State, because of the high taxation, strangling regulations and the difficulty in attracting employees because the high cost of housing and daily living. Even Silicon Valley has started to move to places like Boise, Idaho,Texas, Phoenix and Colorado among other places.

My point is that this is a political issue that has nothing to do with immigration or humanitarianism.

So who wins? Well, the Constitution says plainly that immigration is one of those powers the Federal Government has reserved for itself, like coining money or issuing postage stamps. Since California’s sanctuary laws are in violation of federal immigration laws, it would seem that once this gets to the Supreme Court, if it does, that President Trump wins this one. However, since a lot of appellate judges, especially Obama’s appointees seem far more concerned with political posturing rather than the law, it’s likely to be a real cobra vs. mongoose battle.

One thing the president could do to bring things to a head is to send federal marshals to Oakland to arrest the mayor, Libby Schaaf for obstruction of justice (a felony) prosecute her, and sentence her to a jail term. Ms. Schaaf is the mayor who warned illegal migrants of ICE activities that she was informed of in advance by ICE. Because of her actions, an estimated 800 illegal migrants with felony convictions are still running around loose. I believe that putting a few examples like Ms. Schaaf in prison would do a great deal to end this standoff, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if President Trump does just that. If I were placing a bet, I’d put it on President Trump to win this one.

Image result for Trump Smiling

Fun fact: It’s no secret that one of the Supreme Court justices is planning to retire this summer, and the name that keeps being mentioned is 81-year-old Anthony Kennedy. A Trump nominated justice definitely affect how this goes.

Laura Rambeau Lee: The majority of Americans understand we have a very real problem with illegal immigrants who have entered and are continuing to enter our country. They are undermining the fabric of our society; driving down wages for low income and mostly minority workers; and bankrupting our states with the additional costs expended for education, medical care, and other government entitlements paid out to them. It seems daily we are hearing reports of illegal immigrants committing crimes against American citizens and getting away with them. All too often our system is protecting the criminals and not delivering justice to the victims.

This battle being fought between the Justice Department and the State of California presents a constitutional crisis for our country. California has officially become a sanctuary state and recently passed three laws which the Justice Department says violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a son of legal Mexican immigrants, not only refuses to comply with federal immigration policies, he recently asserted his department would prosecute any business that willingly complies with federal law by allowing federal immigration officers on their property.

Putting an end to illegal immigration was the primary issue of Trump’s campaign and the reason he won. We know the majority of Americans are behind him and his efforts to build the wall, end illegal immigration, and find an acceptable solution to deal with the illegal immigrants already living here.

The federal government must win this war.

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...

March 10, 2018


Weekly Forum: Should Prostitution Be Legalized And Under Government Control?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there it is!

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


Continue reading...

February 27, 2018


How Do We Stop Mass Shootings?

We will never be able to stop ALL mass shootings in America no matter what actions we take.  What we must do is eliminate the conditions, causes, and motivations enabling mass shootings.

Step 1: Eliminate gun free zones.

Step 2: Encourage traditional family values.  Many of these mass shootings have one common denominator, the lack of a father figure in their lives.

Step 3: Value ALL life, born and not yet born.

Step 4: Prohibit sale or distribution of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18. These video games are extremely graphic and damaging to the developing brain of a child.  They negatively impact emotional development and blur the lines between right and wrong, moral and immoral.

Step 5: Stop forcing children to read age inappropriate materials in schools.  It is purposely desensitizing.

Step 6: Get rid of the Marxists teaching our children a dystopian vision of the world, convincing them they have no future, no purpose; and if they are white boys they should be ashamed of their “privileged” status in society. The results we see are a generation of nihilists angry at the world and crying out for purpose and direction.  They are easy pickings for social justice warrior and leftist groups.

Step 7: Restore certainty in the rule of law. Violations of existing gun laws must be prosecuted. Make it a capital crime if a criminal uses a firearm in the commission of a crime whether or not they actually shoot a victim.  There should be no tolerance or concessions, period. The criminal would face life in prison with no parole or the death penalty depending on the laws of the state in which the crime is committed.

Step 8: Eliminate federal interference with local schools and law enforcement. Under the Obama Administration the Department of Justice and the Federal Department of Education teamed up to reduce the number of arrests of students, especially minority students.  Essentially, in order to receive coveted funding dollars, schools stopped reporting juvenile crimes and the crime rates dropped.  Not because they weren’t being committed but because they weren’t being reported.  Too many crimes are going unreported and unpunished.  No one was surprised at this recent mass shooting.  There were over three dozen contacts with local and federal law enforcement agencies, all which went nowhere.

Step 9: Don’t exploit young victims to drive political policy.

Step 10: Protect our schools by allowing teachers to conceal carry in the classrooms if they choose to do so. Our schools should have the same security procedures we see at airports, banks, federal buildings and courthouses.  We protect our “trusted servants” and our money; we must value our children as much.

America does not have a gun problem.  America has a moral problem.

Continue reading...

February 13, 2018


Weekly Forum: What Do You Think Of The New Budget Deal?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Do You Think Of the New Budget Deal?

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

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

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

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

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

This all takes money to fix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very disappointed.

Well, there it is!

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


Continue reading...

February 6, 2018


Weekly Forum: What Did You Think of Trump’s State Of The Union Speech?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Did You Think Of Trump’s State Of The Union Speech?

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

If you want to convince Americans that your tax policies are working, show the company that rebounded — and the welder who got a bonus and whose paycheck is bigger.

If you want to convince Americans that DACA has a down side, show the parents of MS-13 murder victims.

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

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

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

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

The very next summer, the same thing happened. Hillary holed up in August. Trump continued to rally. She spent twice as much and did worse than any Democrat since Dukakis.

You don’t need me to tell you his speech was a home run. Congress did, when it chanted USA! USA! USA! It sent the detestible Congressman Luis Guitteriez running from the gallery to his safe space: Univision.

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

But Trump did Reagan one better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there it is!

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


Continue reading...

January 29, 2018


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

Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Will The Memo Be Released? Why Or Why Not? Bookworm Room : Scott Adams suggests that the memo’s strength lies in […]

Continue reading...

January 16, 2018


Weekly Forum: How Would You Deal With The DACA Issue?

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 Deal With The DACA Issue? Patrick O’Hannigan: I don’t know what a viable legislative solution to the DACA […]

Continue reading...

January 10, 2018


Weekly Forum: What Are Your 2018 Predictions?

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 Are Your 2018 Predictions? David Schuler: I’ve given up doing predictions at the end of each year. I had an annual […]

Continue reading...

December 18, 2017


The Weekly Forum: Trump and Jerusalem: Strategic Mistake or Smart Move?

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 And Jerusalem: Strategic Mistake Or Smart Move? Bookworm Room : It’s not a smart move. It’s a brilliant move. Let me […]

Continue reading...

November 21, 2017


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 […]

Continue reading...