Views on the News

Views on the News*

March 14, 2015


Our government is full of liars, so how can you possibly believe anything they tell you?  I’m not just talking about the Obama White House; I am talking about government in general.  Isn’t there anything in them that makes them feel queasy when someone catches them “miss-speaking” or “miss-remembering?”  I feel bad when I lie; I feel bad when I repeat something that is not true even if I thought it was true at the time I repeated it; and I feel bad whenever I say something that someone took the wrong way.  But we are governed by people who no longer have a functioning conscience.  Lying is one thing; not being bothered by lying is something worse.  Let’s face it; those who are supposed to protect the “public trust” are liars.  According to a DOJ report, the entire narrative about Ferguson, Missouri was a lie.  The “hands up- don’t shoot” slogan was a complete lie.  Al Sharpton repeated it.  Eric Holder fomented the racial rage.  President Obama knew it wasn’t true.  A city was burned.  Businesses were destroyed.  Individual citizens’ lives were destroyed.  An innocent police officer had his life destroyed merely for trying to protect himself.  Will anyone be held accountable?  Don’t count on it.  Lying is no longer a sin.  The Republican Party is also full of liars.  Boehner and McConnell are liars.  They haven’t done anything that they told us they would do.  They parry and parse words, as they make excuses for why they don’t keep their word.  The Obama Administration is full of liars.  Obama lies; Hillary lies; the IRS lies; and the MSM lies.  Sharing only part of the truth is also lying.   Just gives us the truth.  Truth is not fair and balanced.  Truth does not have two points of view.  There are not two sides to the truth.  Truth stands on its own.  Truth clears the smoke of confusion.  Truth is not an opinion.  We have become a nation built on lies.  If the church will not call out sin how can we expect our government to be honest?  If the church permits dishonesty, why are we surprised when the government practices it?  We have permitted the world to determine what Christians can say, what Christians can support, and what Christians can oppose.  The courts have replaced the church as the keeper of the flame.  How can we complain about politicians saying only what the people want to hear when the pulpits are doing the same thing?  Lying is rampant in the world, so we get the leaders we deserve.

(“What a Bunch of Liars” by Dave Daubemire dated March 6, 2015 published by American Clarion at http://www.americanclarion.com/what-a-bunch-of-liars-36924 )

Barack Obama’s supporters and detractors don’t agree on much, but as the President enters his final two years in office, they have voiced a common complaint: the President lacks competence.  They cite multiple management breakdowns, such as the disastrous rollout of the ObamaCare health-insurance website, which have eroded public support; his lack of engagement with Congress, which has impeded his legislative agenda; and his chronic inability to address serious problems before they become full-blown crises, undermining Americans’ confidence in his leadership.  There is no doubt considerable truth to these charges, but Obama’s fundamental problems stem less from incompetence than from his philosophy of governance.  Obama embraced a theory of dramatic political change that of progressivism, which dates its American origins to an early-twentieth-century era of social and political reform, and he has adhered to it, despite some of the worst midterm election defeats faced by any two-term President.  Progressivism’s vision of the role of the state conflicts with the system of government envisioned by America’s Founders.  The Founders wanted citizens to be free to pursue their affairs individually and in voluntary association; the powers of the federal state were to be tightly constrained.  In the early twentieth century, progressives introduced new entitlements against the backdrop of low federal spending and a much smaller federal government.  Today, the federal government spends more than five times as much, as a percentage of GDP, than it did at the beginning of the last century, and twice as much as when Social Security was introduced.  Today’s progressives must resort to more misleading and sometimes coercive measures, as they seek to bring about equality through collective responsibility; they must rally support by looking beyond economics, to cultural and social identifications, in a bid to maintain the support of voters with little need for government intervention. They also want to limit the voices of citizens at election time, and thereby magnify the influence of the press and academia, which lean sharply in the progressive direction.  Nothing shows the progressive dependence on subterfuge more starkly than ObamaCare, which, by imposing a personal mandate to buy insurance in an effort to bring health care to all, will restructure one-sixth of the American economy.  The recently publicized comments of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber about the deception involved in promoting the Affordable Care Act demonstrate that such chicanery has become intrinsic to modern progressivism.  American affluence also proved a political obstacle for the law’s drafters.  Most Americans already had health insurance and a doctor with whom they felt comfortable.  To secure support for the ACA, therefore, Obama had to promise repeatedly that those happy with their current health plans (and doctors) could keep them, which proved the most damaging blow to Obama’s credibility.  Modern progressivism’s business model requires obscuring the reality that new programs have winners and losers, and the losers are spread throughout the general population, not confined to members of the so-called 1%.  If people had known the truth about ObamaCare in 2010, the bill would almost certainly have been defeated.  If they had known it in 2012, Obama would likely have lost his reelection bid.  Even before ObamaCare’s false promises were revealed, the law was not popular with middle-class voters, who felt that Obama was less interested in restarting the stagnant economy than in creating a new welfare program.  Today’s progressivism needs more than wide-ranging discretion to adapt laws to new circumstances when its coalition no longer controls Congress.  Progressives also want to transform the rights provisions of the Constitution to improve their chances of political success.  The President was so concerned about the Supreme Court’s protection of free speech in political campaigns that he attacked its Citizens United campaign-finance decision, which abolished restrictions on independent political expenditures by nonprofit groups.  The freedom of citizens to pay for political messages poses a threat to progressives because it endangers the control over political and social discourse that the Left otherwise enjoys. The media lean overwhelmingly Democratic, with some studies estimating the imbalance between Democrats and Republicans at more than four to one.  Academia is even more lopsidedly left-wing.  This ideological imbalance provides progressivism with one of its most powerful weapons.  Obama’s exercise of executive discretion extends further still.  Most recently, in a move decried by conservative constitutionalists, he signed an executive order deferring the deportation of some 4 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to work legally in the United States.  While his stroke of the pen cannot grant citizenship, it can create a new political reality, making it harder to resist the main political prize for progressives: guaranteeing a path to voting citizenship.  The new progressivism must enlarge its agenda to include social issues, engaging in the wars of culture as well as class.  While the old progressivism focused almost exclusively on economics, the new progressivism seeks a panoply of new entitlements, from on-demand contraception to same-sex marriage.  Today’s progressive enthusiasm for creating new constitutional rights out of the latest social cause expands progressivism’s appeal to more affluent, secular voters, for whom bending the arc of history gives meaning to life.  Today’s conservatives must strengthen the rule of law.  The response to modern progressivism’s desire for a dispensing power should be statutory requirements that expressly forbid the president from modifying laws with which he disagrees, together with statutes that widen the ability of citizens to challenge such executive illegality.  The new Republican Congress should enact amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act that require congressional approval for major exercises of executive discretion.  For reasons of both principle and tactical necessity, conservatives should re-embrace a notion of limited government based in congressional, not presidential, power.  Countering the progressive drive to reduce the speech rights of those outside the symbolic class, conservatives should emphasize the principle of equality before the law.  Congress should commit itself to operate by evenhanded rules of appropriate generality and thus ban earmarks, targeted regulatory relief, and other favors often used to reward political support.  Devotion to the rule of law can also contain corrosive culture wars.  By decentralizing decision making and diffusing debate in this context, federalism lowers the temperature of national politics and allows the national government to focus on defense and other issues to which it is uniquely suited.  Decreasing the payoff to victory in the culture wars lessens progressives’ motivation to use social appeals to rally a coalition that might otherwise fracture.  From its inception, progressivism has posed a threat to constitutional government.  It has sought to replace limited and decentralized governance with dynamic, centralized authority in order to force “equality” on the nation.  Progressivism depends on empowering administrators to impose its frameworks while disempowering citizens from resisting these coercions.  The Obama administration’s push for unilateral Presidential authority to disregard the law is thus the logical extension of the progressive program, and opposition to this program requires nothing less than a rededication to our Founding ideals: our nation must be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of an elected monarch or of a legally privileged aristocracy.

(“Why Progressives Mislead” by John O. McGinnis dated Winter 2015 published by City Journal at http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_progressives.html )

Here’s the bottom line of the latest HillaryWorld scandals: Clinton Inc. embodies what’s wrong with America.  It’s about getting stinking rich from the inside connections forged in a life of public service; it’s about using your “charity” and your high government office as adjuncts of your political machine; and it’s about refusing to play by the rules even as you want to set the rules for everyone else.  Start with the latest shocker, the email lunacy.  You don’t get to keep your government work a secret from the government. That the question never occurred to Hillary is just one more sign of her overinflated sense of entitlement, as is the fact that she set the whole thing up right when she was taking the job.  Nor was that the only rule-for-everyone-else that Hillary blew through at State.  The email revelation came atop the news that, despite previous denials, the Clinton Foundation took in countless millions from foreign sources while she ran the State Department. What, indeed, to make of the entire nonstop flow of corporate and foreign money over all the years since her better half left office, when she’s plainly been the single person in America most likely to someday become President?  The New York Times, to its credit, outlined more than a year ago how the Clintons have used the foundation to pay their operatives between campaigns, all without any need for those awkward Federal Election Commission filings.  The Clintons were going to do fine no matter what after Bill left the White House: Book deals, speaking fees, a few beyond-reproach corporate-board memberships would be enough to cover their legal bills and leave them comfortably in the 1%.  Instead, they just had to set up something new and messy, something that would let them leverage their connections into a whole new machinery of power and influence.  We’re still not done with Hillary’s rule-shredding at State.  She also selflessly ensured that her protégés didn’t leave their government service dead broke.  Secretary Hillary granted waivers so her top State councilors could work on the side as consultants.  Her closest aide, Huma Abedin, apparently pulled down $135,000 from Uncle Sam for her work at State while “earning” $355,000 as a consultant for outside interests.  Huma, incidentally, was one of the select few also granted a clintonemail.com account, which means the only official records of Hillary’s on-the-job correspondence with her closest aide are those emails that HillaryWorld now chooses to share.  It’s all just a big, stinking ball of taking care of yourselves while you do the people’s business. Hillary’s consultants are busy working out her themes for 2016, and apparently, a big one is going to be pushing for economic fairness”… Henhouse, meet fox!

(“Clinton, Inc. is what’s wrong with America” by Mark Cunningham dated March 8, 2015 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2015/03/08/clinton-inc-is-whats-wrong-with-america/ )


President Barack Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union address "But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," but saying the debate is settled is nonsense.  Global-Change.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.  That's not what the environmentalists are talking about: It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!  There's a problem with that reasoning.  Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million.  This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods.  For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today.  Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades:

·    At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

·    C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

·    In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million."

·    In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."

·    Senator Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75% and 85% of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

·    In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Union of Concerned Scientists made doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the U.S. for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."  The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.

(“Global Warming” by Walter E. Williams dated March 11, 2015 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847 )


The Obama administration proposal that a jobs program be created for the militants in the Middle East was met with appropriate derision because what the jihadists need is killing.  That’s what jihadists are doing to Christians, Jews and others in the Middle East and elsewhere.  Military force is a rational and often necessary response to the wanton slaughters of children, mass kidnappings of schoolgirls, and beheading of innocents, but military force alone won’t achieve victory.  History as recent as the mid-20th century is proof enough that the military defeat of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan was the only thing that ended the threat they represented.  The real question the Obama administration has to answer is why has he been systematically reducing the military power of the United States?  By pulling our troops out of Iraq he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State (ISIS) that threatens the entire Middle East and parts of North Africa.  He has since curtailed plans to pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan.  In the last three years, the Army’s strength has been cut by nearly 100,000 soldiers; the Navy’s contingency response force is at one-third the level of what it should be; less than half of the Air Force’s combat squadrons are fully ready; and almost half of the Marine Corps non-deployed units lack sufficient personnel, equipment, and training.  These were facts set forth in the National Defense Panel’s July 2014 report.  It warned that if sequestration takes effect in fiscal year 2016, the U.S. would be facing an “immediate readiness crisis.”  As we fight this new Cold War, Western leaders need to relearn the old lessons of crisis management and deterrence that defeated Mr. Putin’s Soviet predecessors, and relearn them quickly.  An example of the idiotic political correctness, scarce Pentagon resources are being diverted to a plan to generate 50% of the Navy’s energy needs from “alternative sources” by 2020, including $3.5 billion for biofuels.  You cannot fight a global war if the Navy cannot swiftly and easily acquire oil to run its ships that are not nuclear-powered and fly its aircraft.  At the same time, the U.S. has been reducing its stockpile of nuclear arms.  The nation’s stockpile of active weapons is down 85% from maximum cold war levels, falling to 4,804 in 2013 from a high of 31,255.  This completely ignores nuclear nations like North Korea who have bad intentions toward the U.S. and their neighbors and it runs completely contrary to the U.S. negotiations with Iran that would permit it to become a nuclear armed nation.  It is a plan for national suicide.  Russia and China have placed their highest priority on building up and maintaining strategic nuclear forces.  If you want to know what is wrong about the entire approach to our nation’s military needs, consider that since 2009 when Obama took office, the Pentagon’s civilian workforce has grown about 7% to almost 750,000, while active-duty military personnel have been cut by approximately 8%.  At the same time, dozens of military-equipment and weapons programs have been canceled, including a new Navy cruiser, a new search-and-rescue helicopter, the F-22 first-generation fighter, the C-17 transport aircraft, missile defense and the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.  The United Stated is not prepared to fight a war and now you know why.

(“America’s Military Power in a Steep Decline” by Alan Caruba dated March 8, 2015 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70289 )


* 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:

·    Gun Control at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/guncontrol.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY