Views on the News
Views on the News*
March 19, 2016
Almost nothing Obama says reveals who he really is. Any clear-minded individual can see that Obama wants an empowered government over a weakened citizen. If Obama had his way, there would be gun confiscation, total control over health care and education, European-style socialism, a re-written Constitution, a wiping away of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and, in the Middle East, a complete switch of enemies and friends. Obama has shown little interest in re-building America after the 2008 economic collapse. His 5% unemployment rate is more like 10 or 11%. Obama has more passion for World Climate Change, as a tool of power, than fixing our ‘boring’ dilemmas here at home. Race relations have descended to almost sixties levels. In spite of what he says, Obama is obviously more comfortable with Islam than he is with Christianity or Judaism. These past seven plus years have shown his talk to be more powerful than his deeds here at home. Obama believes he is a ‘global man of the future’, looking down on people stuck in the past, infinitely more intelligent and clear-thinking than the rest of us and we should be in awe of his every move. Obama is frustrated with the American system of government, especially our Constitution and system of checks and balances. Obama is very much an international man, having lived in other parts of the world. In spite of our success, he believes America is a flawed country having created many of the planet’s predicaments. Obama is very much the enigma, because he is an un-American American, who would much rather be president of the world.
(“Obama… The (Un)-American American” by Ray DiLorenzo dated March 11, 2016 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/obamathe-un-american-american )
Obama came into office promising an era of cohesion and unity. So his succeeding in creating the greatest political divide in the history of this country compounds his failure to unify. To promise to join and to vociferously separate is a deleterious lie that hurts the spine of our country. Since Obama arrived on the scene, Democrats and Republicans hate each other, blacks and whites have gone back to the era of Watts and the economic divide has become cliff-like in proportions. He then pretended that it’s the Republicans and the media that have actually produced the divisiveness that he’s responsible for. Obama pretends he believes in a common cause, the cause of his implementing his simple minded progressive ideas. Obama didn’t give a damn that no Republicans voted for his ObamaCare, since he could have scrapped it for lack of uniformity, but he had to have his little myopic way. A new Gallup poll shows that Americans are the most divided in history, which translates to good work, Obama, rhetoric without accomplishment. Obama doesn’t have to say anything to be divisive. The air he exhales fractures into covert prejudice and spleen. Obama’s approval rating averages a 69-point gap between Republicans and Democrats. In almost every speech the great unifier has something negative to say about Republicans. How could Republicans get behind Obama when he thrust ObamaCare down our throats, consistently calls killer Muslims good people, invites murderous Syrian refugees into our country and celebrates traitor Beau Bergdahl? At a time when Americans are skeptical about Muslims, Obama brings them into his administration. Obama also divides us by emphasizing climate change, national healthcare and income inequality instead of beheadings by Muslims. He does little to stop ISIS when he actually created ISIS by removing our troops from Iraq. Obama does not always act divisively but his essence is divisive, so he makes pragmatic Republicans hate his childish, utopian, liberalism.
(“Obama’s Political Divide” by David Lawrence dated March 15, 2016 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/obamas-political-divide )
Authoritarianism is often identified by the unrelenting desire on the part of a leader to eliminate his or her adversaries. While Iran and Obama purport to have two very different worldviews, both are religious in fervor when dealing with those who deviate from the faith. In Iran there are mullahs who safeguard Islam’s sacred law. In America there is a President who thinks he is a law unto himself. Iran wants to nuke Israel and the U.S., and Obama is nuking the Constitution. The news that Attorney General Lynch reviewed the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change skeptics (“deniers”) was as disturbing as the report that Iran recently tested two ballistic missiles. Most would agree that it is easy to identify what motivates the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is zealous in its hatred for America, the country led by a Muslim-sympathizing President that agreed to help the genocidal terrorist state acquire an atomic bomb. Since the Islamic belief that, on the delicate wings of a mushroom cloud, chaos will usher in the 12th Imām, Mohamed al- Mahdī, Iranian leaders remain primarily fixated on how to annihilate their ancient enemy Israel. Until that great and terrible day arrives, the Islamic theocracy continues to deal harshly with capital offenders who Iran’s leaders believe “spread corruption.” The type of depravity that the Iranian government views as a threat to social and political wellbeing include criticism of the regime, offending the Prophet and defying Islamic standards with speech or printed material. Sometimes, at first, Iranian government goon squads called “religious police” monitor suspected blasphemers. Other times, offenders immediately endure persecution and/or spend extended time in a jail cell. But, more often than not, those who “spread corruption” are tortured and executed. Put simply, if a citizen dares to disagree with the theocratic ruler of Iran, the punishment that follows is severe and unforgiving. In Washington D.C., the seat of American government is beginning to resemble an Iranian theocracy. When differing opinions arise that contradict the sacred text concerning gun control, abortion, and climate change, he does find a way to overtly impugn the credibility of those whom he feels spread corruption. Based on the Attorney General’s remarks, it’s hard to believe that what was once a Constitutional right to individual thought and belief, may now be one step closer to an Iranian-style regulation overseen by a hierarchy of American mullahs. The problem that remains for America is that our President truly does believe with a mullah-like fervor that the emission of greenhouse gas is more menacing an activity than massacring an unborn child. Now, the man who commends those who make a living harvesting and selling dead babies for profit is leaning toward making the sale of fossil fuel grounds for litigation. The question that arises is whether an administration that doesn’t consider an undocumented felon a criminal will actually target a global warming skeptic who refuses to believe that a polar bear floating on a chunk of ice substantiates man-caused climate change? One can’t help but wonder whether Loretta and Barry may also be secretly plotting to “take action” against anyone who has a firearm, or who sides with the investigative journalists indicted for exposing that Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts for money. In America today, it seems that the only way to prevent being monitored by a western version of the Iranian “religious police” is to go green, relinquish the guns, and to stand, in unflinching unanimity, with the proprietors of the baby body parts chop shop.
(“Barack Goes Ballistic” by Jeannie DeAngelis dated March 13, 2016 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/barack_goes_ballistic_.html )
Professional Protesters have arrived in Chicago, and scored a win for their efforts to silence opposition to liberal left politics because they believe their freedom of speech is more important than anyone else’s, and all others must be silenced. Anti-Trump protesters, some violent, pretty much all of them calling The Donald a racist, or chanting “Black Lives Matter,” had nothing to do about Trump, and everything to do about the culture of intolerance and divide created by the Obama administration. Donald Trump is the Republican Party front-runner, so he was the target, but if it had been Cruz in the lead, the same thing would have happened to him. These people believe the propaganda they are being fed by the leftist establishment, and the tilted media coverage, which tells them that all Republicans are evil racist bigots, despite the fact that the argument is based on lies, bad politics, and is in reality a projection of Democrat Party candidate attributes. These people were taught to be agitators, in the style of Saul Alinsky, by the most famous Alinsky community organizer of all time, Barack Obama. Obama has created division in this country, and if anyone dares disagree with the leftists, the result is violence, intolerance, and a call to silence those who dare to disagree with the leftist views. They want revolution that will bring about their leftist age of socialism. Donald Trump cancelled the rally in Chicago under the advice of the police, as the animals of the left made fools of themselves, and this country. The kind of violent agitators we saw in Chicago do not come a dime a dozen. These people remind us of the agitators that brought about the French Revolution, or the Bolsheviks who brought about the Russian Revolution: angry, violent, and trained to believe the same poppycock that has brought down a long list of republics in history - and fails every time. The drive is social change and upheaval that reaches way beyond the mere community. The concept of community organizing at work here is a collectivist game, ignited by violence, fear, and the attempt to silence all opposition. This protest has been in the plans long before Trump even emerged. The liberal left believes they have America headed in the proper direction for their agenda, and they will do anything and everything to stop any opposition. This protest was the work of community organizers, socialists who know the Alinsky plan. This protest was orchestrated carefully, and it has less to do with Trump, and more to do with the fundamental transformation of the United States. Statism has convinced the public that it is they who care about community, while their opposition believes in the selfishness of psychotic individualism. Community efforts to accomplish fantastic humanitarian efforts are heavily populated by statists, and out of those efforts arise community organizers who may be destined to be the next great political organizer, and statist leader. Community organizers do not emerge by accident. They are educated by other leaders in the statist movement, attending “long conferences on organizational problems, analysis of power patterns, communication, conflict tactics, the education and development of community leaders, and the methods of introduction of new issues.” The statists are tireless, and patient. This is only the beginning. Eternal vigilance is the key, because the fight will never end, and therefore we must not only do the best that we can do to defeat statism, but train up the next generation, and then hand off the baton to them when they are ready. An advocate for liberty is constantly educating, encouraging, and planning. Community organizers and agitators like we saw in Chicago are the ground troops of statism, communitarianism, and socialism. Human nature is our enemy, because it is in our nature to seek the path of least resistance. Defending liberty is hard work, and can even be dangerous. Being angry and foolish, and led by the nose, like agitators, is easy. Our instinct of self-preservation instructs us not to go in the direction that is necessary to fight against statism. We wish to call it a movement, instead of a fight, because we don’t like the discomfort of battle, and we don’t want to offend anyone along the way. We are told not to burn bridges, but to find common ground, if we can, but the fight is not one for the squeamish. The liberal left is willing to do anything to win, including engage in thuggish tactics. Statist agitators clothe their efforts in proclamations of peace, love, tolerance, diversity, multi-culturalism, and community, when in reality the goal is to silence the opposition angrily and violently. They claim the other side is hateful, and racist, when it is them who are acting with hate, who are filled with violent anger, and who spew their own racial division. They want to stop their opposition, no matter what it takes. Karl Marx believed that once communism was achieved, the big government system of socialism would fade away. But, in his theories, he admitted that the way to achieve utopia was by force, through big government control, violent statism and individualism-crushing bondage. Remember, the ends justify the means, so there are no limits to what they are willing to do, and they become more emboldened to seek unsavory methods as the level of leftist power grows, and they believe they are within reach of the ultimate prize. Trump’s response was to follow the advice of police, cancel the event, and then spend some time on television making some very good statements. Trump was careful not to feed the beast. The Alinsky radical and agitator is a well-integrated schizoid, is narcissistic and arrogant, diplomatic while unbending, claims to be open-minded as long as you agree with him, and claims that the same old statism being offered is somehow a new and different form of change and hope. The statist community organizer wants power, and is willing to do all he can to achieve that power. Don’t be fooled: the Protest was well-orchestrated, and years in the planning; and was planned for whoever was the leading candidate. The protester’s freedom of speech shut down someone else’s freedom of speech, which is no problem since tolerance is only a one way street with these people.
(“Chicago Protests Not About Trump” by Douglas V. Gibbs dated March 12, 2016 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/chicago-protests-not-about-trump )
With Bernie Sanders running for President, Americans are being presented with a clear choice of a socialist for President. Barack Obama, also a socialist, got into office denying his socialist convictions, yet paved the way for an open socialist to run as a Democrat to replace him. As our educational institutions have steered away from teaching students the capitalist economics that made America great, we are seeing more people than ever before lured by the false promises of socialism and Marxism. At the same time Marx was developing his theoretical system of heavy-handed government, America was putting into practice a new kind of economic and political system of limited government, based on independence and self-reliance. A governmental system of federalism meant that the national government would be limited in its function by a Constitution, and any other power and decision-making would be in the hands of the states and the people. The United States of American then proceeded to prove the capitalism and participatory government were indeed a better alternative to centralized governments dictating right and wrong to the masses. As the American experience developed, liberty showed its advantages over monarchies and the post-monarchical centralized governmental systems which would eventually give us the extremes of Italian and German fascism and Soviet Communism. Fascism and communism were flip sides of the same coin of authoritarian government. Those who get their inspiration from European socialism reject the second revolution that took place in America, and all without guns or centralized directives, America’s industrial revolution. The modern society of today was accomplished because entrepreneurs had the freedom to build their businesses apart from centralized directives. People were able to live their lives free from oppression not because a powerful overlord was protecting them, but because of limited government. In addition to the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free expression, our nation was built on free enterprise capitalism. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was give free reign in the U.S. and worked with flying colors! The new nation’s economic system flourished as European nations found themselves repeatedly at war with each other in their competition for a finite amount of colonial territory in Africa and Asia. As the colonial empires crumbled in the aftermath of two world wars, the U.S. emerged as the dominant economic power in the world. At the same time that the U.S. was racing toward modernity in the 20th century, Karl Marx’s communism was being put to the test for the first time by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party after they took over Russia in a coup d’etat in 1917. The people of Russia were freed from an oppressive monarchy, only to be put in subjection to a Karl Marx inspired Communist Party that stripped away individual rights and made them subjects of the Party’s Chairman and his Central Committee. While Marx described his ultimate goal of communism as a stateless society where everybody gets along, doing whatever they want, with everyone equally taken care of by society, the reality of Soviet Russia showed this goal to be only a pipe dream. What developed instead was one of the most oppressive dictatorships in history. This is because the path to it was based on the imposition of a supposedly temporary authoritarian system called the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” where dependence on a very centralized political apparatus was necessary to bring and maintain order. This system, however, did not begin to fade away, as Marx predicted, but instead became permanently entrenched. But it couldn’t be sustained economically, and began to collapse in the 1980s. In 1989 the Eastern European satellite countries gained their freedom from Russia and abandoned communism. Then in 1991, the Communist Party was abolished and the 12 nations that composed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) split apart. A true people’s republic, the United States, grew and flourished throughout the 20th century while communist governments came and went, impoverishing their people while Party leaders became rich. Eastern European countries, bearing false names such as “people’s republic” and “democratic republic,” were actually dictatorships and colonies of the USSR. Most current-day Marxists (called progressives or democratic socialists) have abandoned the “dictatorship of the proletariat” approach and instead have chosen to impose socialism through the ballot box.
(“Relegating Marxism to the dustbin of history” by Ralf Yungclas dated March 15, 2016 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/relegating-marxism-to-the-dustbin-of-history )
Since the time of Adam Smith, economists have understood that free trade is good for countries as a whole. Trade creates winners and losers, with the winners being Wall Street and the losers being ordinary people. However, the latest research suggests the opposite is true. The biggest winners from free trade are in the bottom half of the income distribution. What’s more, these gains are so large that if real income were measured properly, inequality in the US has been falling not rising, precisely because of increased trade. The argument for trade is straight forward because trade is ultimately the trade of goods for goods. In any voluntary exchange, both parties are made better off, because both give up something they value less for something they value more. When other countries sell more to us than they buy from us, that is a trade deficit. It turns out that trade deficits aren’t bad. It means we get to consume the goods from that country and instead of buying goods from us, that country can increase the size of our capital market. Capital is something poor countries lack. Financial capital buys newer and better factories and equipment. It makes workers more productive and allows them to earn higher wages. More trade almost always means more jobs and higher wages in our exporting industries. It tends to mean fewer jobs and lower wages in the industries that compete against the imports. These changes are not small. However, there is no evidence that trade reduces employment overall. More trade also means lower prices for the consumers of imported goods. That means their incomes stretch farther. That means their standard of living is higher. Imports are holding down price increases the most for the types of consumer goods lower-income households buy. There will always be winners and losers from trade, but trade appears to make incomes more equal, not less so.
(“Is Free Trade Bad for American Workers?” by John C. Goodman dated March 12, 2016 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2016/03/12/is-free-trade-bad-for-american-workers-n2132490 )
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. No updates this week to the issue sections.