Views on the News

Views on the News*

March 3, 2018


There is a lot of concern in Washington about the low level of trust in government.  Pew Research found last May only 18% of Americans had even a sliver of faith in the federal government, something which shouldn’t be surprising since it’s been hovering in the 20’s since 2006.  Pew seemed relatively surprised at the downward trend since 75% of Americans trusted government in the 1950’s.  The hardworking men and women of this country look at Washington, D.C., and see story after story of corruption, lack of transparency, and mismanagement.  Officials have lost sight of their mission to serve We, the People.  People make a fatal error in comparing the government to private industry.  When private industries fail, individuals are able to find alternatives relatively easy. Government alternatives exist via the private sector, but the government is loathe to surrender power.  The system is failing, but it isn’t known what solution will be picked as the answer.  People who have the misfortune to live in low-trust societies tend, paradoxically, to want more, not less government.  A recent Reason.tv report notes that “it turns out that government may be growing not in spite of our lack of confidence in it, but because of our lack of confidence in it. This self-defeating spiral will only get worse if the United States fails to stem its slide toward being a low-trust country.”  Americans didn’t trust the authoritarian Obama (or the authoritarian Hillary Clinton), so they elected Trump, instead of less authoritarian candidates.  People see the failures of the FBI and other law enforcement entities, and want to give more power to government in hopes of keeping them safe, instead of less power.  Incumbents get re-elected all the time, despite criticism of their policy and votes on FISA or ObamaCare or the farm bill or new regulations on financial institutions.  Local and state governments want people to trust them, despite obvious cronyism issue.  There are examples where Americans perform better than the government.  A civilian helped stop the Sutherland Springs attack last November.  Locals got together to help people after Hurricane Harvey.  There are churches and non-profits doing what they can to fight poverty without government assistance.  Private entities are better than any kind of government bureaucracy because they are accountable.  There are countless stories of businesses failing because they didn’t embrace change.  There are other stories of businesses thriving because they embraced innovation, and worked hard to regain the public’s trust after scandal or poor customer service.  People will fail; government institutions will fail; but which do you trust more to make changes; it’s individuals because the government has no real inclination to change its ways.

(“Americans don’t trust the government because it’s failing” by Taylor Millard dated February 25, 2018 published by https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/25/americans-dont-trust-government-failing/ )

Liberals really do hate ordinary people and the distinction between the "dumb masses" and their enlightened selves renders life meaningful.  Disdain for ordinary folks is not just an ancillary trait of liberalism, it’s fundamental to its nature.  At its heart, liberalism is a gnostic religion, and the essence of that religion is the believer's faith that he possesses the means of changing the world for the better.  The belief that the world must be changed requires there to be a mass of individuals whose lives are in need of change.  Following this logic, it is the liberal, not those deplorables in need of change, who knows what must be changed.  For liberals, there must be a mass of people in need of this knowledge for life to make sense.  Above all, liberalism is a hubristic faith.  Its followers share the fatal flaw of pride in their own intellectual capacity.  This is why liberalism appeals so strongly to those in the knowledge trades: teachers, journalists, writers, psychologists, and social workers. The sense of "knowing more than others" is its strongest attraction, particularly to the young, who otherwise know so little.  Liberalism confers, or seems to confer, almost immediate power and authority to those who embrace it.  The problem for the liberal is that most people do not want to be transformed.  They want life to be better but not qualitatively different.  It is only the liberal, or the "progressive," who welcomes revolution and relishes the violent tactics necessary to bring it about.  For the progressive, it is an article of faith that the masses will resist change and must be forced to swallow it.  This is a crucial difficulty, and it gives rise to all sorts of persuasion, nudging, compulsion, and outright violence.  If the masses don't know what's good for them, they must be made to change.  In other words, liberalism is a temper, not a philosophy.  It has no fixed content; it can be either communistic or fascistic, racially "progressive" or virulently anti-Semitic, pacifistic or militaristic, but in one respect, it never changes.  It exerts control and demands obedience.  At its core, liberalism can be defined in gnostic terms as the human mind's idolizing of itself.  The liberal mind really is what the liberal mind has been waiting for.  What it seeks is not, however, goodness, or security, or higher living standards, or even better health care.  What it seeks is the celebration of its own brilliance.  "Smug" is a small word that perfectly captures the nature of the progressive mind.  This gnostic trait is the source of all of the damage liberalism has wrought for more than 300 years.  From the French Revolution to the Third Reich, from Stalinism to North Korea, liberalism has brought with it repression of liberty, death camps, and executions on a mass scale.  What's often not well understood is the fact that violence and repression are inevitable because liberalism seeks to change what does not wish to change, and it does so not for the purpose of making things better, but as an attempt to confirm the superiority of the liberal mind and its ability to manage society.  Most Americans find this conception of existence repulsive.  Most Americans follow the true path of love, marriage, childbirth, hard work, and faith in God and country. Liberals actively seek to destroy this conception of existence because it rejects their mission of transforming society.  It's either the true path or liberalism, because both cannot be true.  To succeed, liberalism must acquire and retain clients in need of change.  It is not in the interest of the liberal to solve problems.  What the liberal needs is continually to discover new problems and hold them up as in need of solution.  There are fewer pawns lately, what with President Trump's determination to actually solve problems rather than exploit them.   As the 2018 and 2020 elections draw nearer, there will be an explosion of media accounts of victimization.  It will be theater nonstop, and it will express perfectly the liberal's need to transform the world whether it wishes to be transformed or not.  There is a point at which liberalism's hubris turns into bloodlust.  The act of exerting force becomes reflexive and then pleasurable.  Every smug theorist of liberalism has morphed into a vicious mass murderer: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung were all brilliant theorists who grew to savor violence.  It is chilling to realize how imperiled we are in the USA.  No country is now at greater risk than America, where the young have been warped by state education and the nation intentionally divided along lines of race, class, and sex.  Our task as conservatives is to speak out against liberalism, with its inevitable tendency toward compulsion and violence, and to offer an alternative that is truer and more generous.  The alternative of liberty and freedom is not the construct of the human mind, but the natural condition of mankind wrought by our Creator.

(“Leftists versus the People” by Jeffrey Folks dated February 24, 2018 published by American Thinker at https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/leftists_versus_the_people.html )

It becomes more and more obvious by the day that we are rapidly heading towards a second American civil war.  As the leftists become a smaller and smaller minority, their frustration and desperation are driving them to more and more extreme positions, and more and more frequently, to violence of word and deed.  The middle ground has disappeared under this rising tide of angry, threatening rhetoric.  Debate is no longer an option.  The left demands we agree with them, or suffer dire consequences.  In the aftermath of the school shooting in Florida, the recent concerted attacks, mostly from the rabid running dogs in the “mainstream” media, on the 2nd Amendment, the NRA (National Rifle Association), and the supporters of both, epitomize this.  Instead of focusing on the shooter, and how he managed to pull off his barbaric, insane massacre, the left pounced on the tragedy as a means to push for “common sense gun control”.  Using still traumatized students, already brainwashed and indoctrinated by their leftist “educators”, and terrified liberal parents, they fed them “questions” and turned them loose like attack dogs on a Republican senator and a representative of the NRA.  The fact that the NRA had absolutely nothing to do with the tragedy made no difference, nor did the fact that what the shooter did was already totally illegal.  They were made to appear more guilty than the murderous psycho, a psycho, by the way, well known to law enforcement for threats and violence, but allowed to engage in those behaviors unmolested.  What the left means by “common sense” is, their definition of what is right and wrong, good and bad, fair and unfair, allowable and forbidden.  Anything else is rejected out of hand and is not up for discussion.  What the left mean by “common sense gun control” is only one thing: complete gun confiscation.  Most conservatives and constitutionalists are aware of a number of facts regarding the right to keep and bear arms, though many have had trouble seeing the basic, underlying relationship among them all. They know that the big, Democrat-run cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C., have the strictest gun control laws in the country, and yet have appallingly high murder rates, with minorities constituting the majority of perpetrators and victims.  Many, too, are aware that places where concealed carry is lightly restricted, crime rates go way down.  This is not just a phenomenon limited to America.  Both the UK and Australia confiscated private firearms and saw their crime rates, especially violent ones, skyrocket.  Contrast this with Switzerland where firearm ownership is mandatory.  Those who have studied history, especially that since 1900, are aware that strict gun control and confiscation were common to all the brutal, murderous, totalitarian dictatorships worldwide, especially the communist ones.  The sometimes hard to see threads tying these facts all together are involvement of leftist/progressive/communist/fascist individuals and organizations, and the ultimate aim of not gun control, but gun confiscation, the disarming of the civilian population and thus, people control.  An unarmed citizen has been accurately described as a subject.  Who is funding and organizing these supposedly student-organized “protests” and “marches” is not something the “mainstream” media has any interest in doing.  They’re pushing the fiction, the Big Lie, that children in high school are spontaneously doing this themselves.  It stinks of Soros money and meddling, but since the “mainstream” media is actually the Ministry of Leftist Propaganda, we may never know.  Clearly, the hysterical demands for “common sense gun control” from leftist media and left-leaning politicians is aimed at, panicking the public into believing there is an immediate, life-threatening crisis; creating fear and hysteria in the already fearful and hysterical Democrat base, aimed at phony scapegoats like the NRA and Republicans; using this to pressure Congress into submitting to unjustified demands for what amounts to undercutting the Constitution, and another step towards total gun confiscation.  However, in a change from the past, a majority of We, the People, are not sitting back quietly and allowing ourselves to be ridden roughshod over by the anti-freedom, anti-Constitution left.  It’s likely that most of the left’s current efforts will fail.  It’s also likely that being frustrated in this will drive them to even more outrageous lies, threats, and acts of violence.  Most Americans are too young to remember the assassinations and attempts of the 1960s and 1970s, virtually all of them committed by deranged leftists.  They’ve forgotten too that nearly all of the mass murders in the last couple of decades were by registered Democrats or their supporters.  It’s only a matter of time, it seems, before it happens again, only this time, it may be the spark that sets the nation on fire.

(“Rabid Running Dogs” by Michael Oberndorf dated February 25, 2018 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/rabid-running-dogs )


President Trump is already making announcements about his next campaign.  I feel comfortable saying that he has this thing in the bag.  Trump is an uncouth, mean-spirited, delusional narcissist hated by the media.  So was Richard Nixon in 1972, and he won re-election that year in the biggest landslide in American history.  Like Nixon's, Trump's appeal among his base is foolproof.  Even the slightest accomplishment can be presented as evidence of his deal-making savvy.  Every promise he has failed to keep on health care, trade, immigration, or The Wall can be answered away by invoking the specter of his enemies.  The same media that made Trump's rise possible by investing his every moronic utterance with world-historic significance is trying desperately to pose as a check on his authority.  The 2016 election was the story of CNN allowing Trump to phone in his extemporized thoughts on nothing in particular while Rand Paul and Jeb Bush sat waiting in the wings with their boring white papers on criminal justice reform.  Now Chris Cuomo thinks the pain the first lady no doubt experiences upon being informed of her husband's adultery is uproariously funny.  The press is made up of dilettantes, and their ability to influence voters' decisions has never been more limited.  For Trump to lose, the Democrats will have to find an even marginally appealing candidate, preferably one younger than Abraham at the birth of Isaac.  I continue to believe that their best bet is Oprah Winfrey, but she has made it clear that she no interest in running.  Bernie Sanders, who could also beat Trump, will be 80 years old in 2020.  Joe Biden, who is not lacking in charisma of a kind, will be 78.  The most popular Democrat governor in the country is John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, a pro-life, pro-gun throwback figure who is as repulsive to the party's committed base of 22-year-old Teen Vogue editorial interns as he might be attractive to voters in purple states, but he has never hinted at wanting to run.  Instead, the governor most likely to get involved is California's Jerry Brown, another octogenarian whose appeal would be as mysterious to most Americans as it indeed is to the average resident of the Golden State.  Of senators likely to run, the most viable is Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, but by "viable" I mean capable of winning a general election, not capturing the Democrat nomination.  For the first time since 1992, the Democrat Party is going to be forced to decide what it stands for, not simply what it is against.  Is Clintonism still the way forward, or is the next Democrat president going to be something this country has not seen since Lyndon Johnson, a genuine fighting progressive in the White House?  For the powers that be in the Democrat Party, the answer is obvious.  There is no reason to believe that the DNC led by Tom Perez will be any less in the tank for the party's neoliberal establishment than it was under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who more or less openly colluded with Hillary Clinton against Sanders.  The only way Gillibrand will make herself acceptable to leadership is by abandoning her principles.  If she decides that single-payer health care is aspirational rather than imperative and that the war in Afghanistan worth fighting after all, she might be a goer.  If she looks like the genuine article, she will be stonewalled in favor of Terry McAuliffe, who will raise more money than any candidate in history and lose by at least 100 electoral votes.  The same goes for Elizabeth Warren, whom the party finds useful so long as she is in opposition, like Sanders.  Kamala Harris has a better chance of being the nominee than either of these women for precisely the same reason that she would fare worse in a general election, namely her gruesome obsession with punishing opponents of abortion.  She would be acceptable to the NARAL wine-and-cheese crowd in a way that is not quite imaginable for Warren, who considers pocket-book issues more important than anything else.  A contest between a generic neoliberal and Trump would be a battle of airs and grievances, a duel for feigned moral superiority utterly divorced from practical moral and economic questions.  It would be phantasmal, like the rest of our political life.  Only a progressive candidate who could articulate the ways in which the Trump administration is a continuation of all the ills, the shocking accumulation of unimaginable power and wealth by a handful of large tech companies, the relentless financialization of the economy, the absence of meaningful and well-remunerated full-time work, the crippling debt, the social breakdown that has made family life a privilege for the upper-middle class, of his last three predecessors would meaningfully alter the terms of the engagement.  In a contest of images, don't bet against the reality TV star, Donald Trump.

(“Why Trump will win in 2020” by Walter Kauzlarich dated February 28, 2018 published by The Week at http://theweek.com/articles/757831/why-trump-win-2020 )


The liberal national news media have been predicting for months that Republicans will likely lose their Senate majority in this year’s midterm elections, and suffer losses in the House, too.  It’s a bit premature to place your bets on the 2018 congressional sweepstakes, for several reasons: forecasts that the economy will take off later this year as a result of the GOP’s massive tax cuts, increasing incomes and jobs, not to mention that the Democrats are having problems of their own.  The Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the tax cut plan in December, predicting it will add over $1 trillion to the federal budget deficit, and benefit only the rich, and that the issue would be a major weapon against the GOP in the fall, but that’s not what’s been happening since President Trump signed the tax cuts into law. Millions of workers are getting raises and bonuses; capital is flowing back to the U.S. from overseas companies that are investing in new plants here at home; and there are reports of new factories being opened, or expanded, in the Midwest and elsewhere in the country.  The new tax law is rising in popularity as businesses trumpet bonuses and bigger paychecks.  Republicans are united in touting the tax cuts and slamming moderate Democrats who voted against them.  As voters have begun to see more income in their paychecks, political polls are finding growing support for the tax cuts.  Democrats are defending 10 Senate seats in key states that Trump carried in the 2016 election, including four that he won by double-digits: Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri and West Virginia.  Republicans cling to power in the Senate by a slender 51-to-49 seat majority.  Republican strategists believe the tax cuts will be the winning issue that will fatten their margin in the upper chamber.  The Democrats who fought against the tax cuts chose partisan politics, and they may pay the price at the ballot box.  Democrats need to flip 24 seats to take back the house.  There are 19 Republican seats rated Toss Up or worse.  Democrats will need to win all 19 of those seats and pick off five other seats in the Lean Republican column.  Realistically, Democrats will not win 100% of the seats in Toss Up or worse.  As for the Senate, Democrats need only two seats to take control of that chamber, and there are three GOP seats in the Toss Up column: Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.  While it’s possible for Democrats to win the two seats they need, it will also be an uphill battle.  Democrats are defending 26 seats compared to Republicans who are only defending eight.  Democrats must also defend 10 seats in states that Trump won.  Five of those seats are in states Trump won by 19 points or more.  You won’t hear this on the nightly network news, but liberal Democrats are having their own troubles, from leftist extremists.  I’m betting that Republicans are going to do better than expected on November 6th.

(“Why Republicans Will Keep Control of Congress in the Midterm Elections” by Donald Lambro dated March 2, 2018 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2018/03/02/why-republicans-will-keep-control-of-congress-in-the-midterm-elections-n2455687 )


There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  Updates have been made this week to the following sections:

·    Latin America at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/latinamerica.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY