Views on the News
Views on the News*
March 25, 2017
Since the November elections, the intense rage and disappointment of voters, especially those who backed Hillary Clinton, have failed to soften in some quarters. President Donald Trump has been targeted by some unreasonable Clinton supporters who cannot, or will not, graciously accept the fact that Trump won the election, fair and square, and should be supported by all Americans regardless of political party or ideological affiliation. Bereaved Clinton supporters continue to be adamant in their scorn and hatred for Trump. Such hatred has caused dangerous acts of violence which threaten the peace and security of all citizens. Conservative radio host Michael Savage of San Francisco was the victim of a brutal attack recently, all because Savage has been an outspoken and ardent supporter of Trump, both in the pre-election period and during Trump’s short time in office. Many people disagree vehemently with Trump and his surrogates like Savage. However, disagreeing with a person’s political bent is hardly justification for physically attacking anyone. After all, this is America, not some third world failed society where rule of law is countered by widespread corruption and crime! In America, Trump has every right to express his views without being subjected to threats to his life or person. The same is true for Michael Savage and his radio program. The oddity in all this is that the most vocal in their rage against Trump and Savage are often the same who preach “tolerance” to everyone else! As Americans we should all take enormous pride in our country where differences can be resolved peacefully, unlike other nations where the sword and dagger are used to settle differences. Differences of opinion will always exist, however, Peaceful resolution of differences at the ballot box is one of America’s greatest blessings and should be respected and embraced as such by all!
(“America’s Ability to Resolve Differences Through Ballot Box, Rather Than Bullets, Is Precious” by John Lillpop dated March 18, 2017 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/americas-ability-to-resolve-differences-through-ballot-box-rather-than-bull )
The election of Donald Trump, while not ideal, represents the first chance in a long time to take the country back from the infestation of liberal ideology, and especially one world government globalism. If the first two months of the Trump administration has taught us anything, it is that until liberalism is completely eradicated, it matters little who sits in the White House. Leftists have succeeded in infiltrating America like a locust plague, through our education systems, media, Hollywood, politics, churches, and the judiciary. On one hand, we see activist judges at every turn opposing Trump’s honest attempts to protect Americans. And on the other, we see unhinged liberals and their uncontrollable fits of rage, showing us what happens when a pro-America, pro-God, pro-U.S. Constitution president threatens to unseat their gods of globalism and secular humanism. Liberals have gone bonkers but, think they are normal. They see Russian boogeymen around every corner with the occasional Hitler reference thrown in for good measure. Leftism is the antithesis of the Biblical worldview and pretty much the opposite of how Americans across Main Street America think. Main Street Americans understand globalism is liberty’s archenemy because a borderless America cannot protect traditions, religious beliefs, or American culture. Main Street Americans watched former president Obama choose globalism over their safety when he ignored the rule of law concerning illegal immigration. Now they notice the hypocrisy when the mainstream media, leftist judges, and Democrats-at-large incessantly rail on Trump, yet ignored Obama’s lawlessness. America as we know it is at risk unless patriotic Americans join the fight between evil and good, wrong and right. Taking back America won’t be easy, but it is possible if good people get involved by voting out globalists at the local, state and national levels and removing them from leadership positions in their churches. Parents should micromanage what their kids are taught in school, and everyone can boycott news media that promote fake news. Think of all the money you could bank not going to movies starring Hollywood liberals who trash American values and all the time you’ll save not watching television shows which seek to shove every abhorrent liberal idea down your throat.
(“The Fight for America Has Only Just Begun” by Susan Stamper Brown dated March 20, 2017 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/susanstamperbrown/2017/03/20/the-fight-for-america-has-only-just-begun-n2301309 )
The federal budget in FY 2007 was around $2.7 Trillion, and by FY 2017 it had soared to $4.1 Trillion, but it has never been enough. Politicians of both parties have continuously added programs that benefit some people and which the politicians promise will be paid for. Once programs start, they are hard to stop because there are always some beneficiaries who will be hurt. Even though politicians promise the programs will be paid for, they obviously aren’t, which is why we owe 20 trillion dollars and have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. They either borrow or add new taxes and fees to pay for new programs and to fund previous underfunding. There is always some service or product they can tax. It is very easy to use other people’s money or to borrow to buy votes. Many times they promise to tax the rich, but most often they end up putting in additional taxes on which focus on income earners in higher brackets, people who don’t have the scale of resources to hire teams of experts, structure income in ways that minimize tax liability, and hire lobbyists. For the poor and low income, taxes may weigh even heavier, in the form of consumption taxes on essentials. With outgo always exceeding income unless they spend very carefully, each new tax increase is a challenge. Government entities at all levels steal money from motor fuel taxes and then complain that they don’t have enough money for roads and bridges. Instead of spending the money on its intended uses, they say they need to raise fuel taxes. The latest excuse is that all those government-subsidized electric cars is cutting into gasoline tax revenue. So those gasoline taxes have to be increased. It is always “How can we get more money for the government?” Surveys have shown that fewer than half of Americans can come up with $1,000 to pay for an emergency. Politicians don’t care, as they continue to raise taxes and fees and make more promises. As the politicians and government bureaucrats have enhanced their power by buying votes with government programs, they have also enriched themselves with great salaries and benefits, have protected their power by drawing voting maps to protect incumbents, have written campaign finance laws to ward off competition and have made sure that term limits don’t make it on the ballot. What the powerful politicians can’t handle is an outsider like Trump who is not beholden to either party. Entrenched politicians of both parties, therefore, seek to destroy him each and every day. They must protect themselves. They do not want someone who will actually cut duplicate and unaffordable programs. Obviously, the powerful politicians from both parties are responsible for the disastrous fiscal condition the country is in, but almost equally complicit are the significant majority of the media who support the massive spending and tax levels almost 100% of the time. They deride any attempt to cut or freeze as mean and disastrous. The media willingly trots out victims of any cuts because victims are the currency of progressives. Find some new victims and presto! there is a need for another government program. Making people dependent on government enriches the governing class and provides them with job security. The media compliantly calls anyone who wants to make government smaller and cut taxes mean-spirited, inhuman, stupid, or sums up those characteristics with the expression “right wing extremist.” They never label anyone who wants government to get bigger and more powerful a “left wing extremist.” Economies collapse because government gets too big and powerful, not because the people have too much power. It appears that we have a chance to give some of the power of the purse back to the people, and if we don’t do it now, we never will.
(“Why the Federal Government is Broke” by Jack Hellner dated March 18, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/why_the_federal_government_is_broke.html )
All addictions, whether to drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex or cigarettes, are very hard to escape. There is one addiction that may be more difficult than any other to escape, in part because it is not even regarded as an addiction: entitlements addiction, the addiction to getting something for nothing. One indication as to the power of entitlements addiction is the fact that while great numbers of people have voluntarily given up drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc., almost always at great pain, few give up an addiction to entitlements. For the majority of able-bodied people who get cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing, free or subsidized health insurance, and other welfare benefits, the thought of giving up any one of those and beginning to pay for them with their own earned money is as hard as giving up alcohol is for an alcoholic. Politicians know this, which is why it is close to impossible to ever reduce entitlements. Of course, the left knows this, which is why the left almost always wins a debate over entitlements. Every American who is the beneficiary of an entitlement backs them, and many who are not beneficiaries of entitlements would like to be. Aside from ideology, this is why the left constantly seeks to increase entitlements, because the more people receiving government benefits, the more people vote left. In this sense, the left in every country, in America, the Democrat Party, should literally be regarded as a drug dealer. Virtually every American given a free benefit becomes an addict who relies more and more on his dealer, which is exactly what the left seeks. One reason entitlements addiction is so powerful is unlike other addictions, it is not regarded as an addiction. Few entitlement addicts see themselves as addicted. To the entitlement addict, receiving entitlements is as natural and uncontroversial as breathing air. Another reason entitlements addiction is unique among addictions is that very few drug, alcohol or gambling addicts believe that they are owed drugs, alcohol or their gambling debts. Entitlement addicts, on the other hand, believe that society owes them every entitlement they receive, and often more. The very word "entitlement" conveys the message that the recipient has a right to the benefits. Not only do entitlement addicts believe there is moral virtue to their addiction but so do a vast number of non-addicts known as progressives. They believe that there is a moral imperative to give people more and more entitlements, and this, in turn, feeds the moral self-image of those dependent on entitlements. Another reason for the uniqueness of entitlements addiction is it ultimately does more damage to society than any other addiction. Other addicts can ruin their own lives and those of loved ones, and drunk drivers kill and maim people, but society as a whole can survive their addictions. That is not the case with entitlement addicts. The more people who receive and come to depend on entitlements, the sooner society will collapse economically. Society does not directly pay for drug addicts' drugs, alcoholics' alcohol or gamblers' gambling debts, but it pays every penny for entitlement addicts' addiction. In fact, the current U.S. national debt is about equal to the reported $22 trillion this country has spent on entitlement programs in the last 50 years. When you combine the addiction and selfishness of many of those who are dependent on entitlements (including middle- and upper-class Americans who receive a home mortgage deduction); the tendency for the addiction to grow from one generation to the next; the dependence of one of the two major political parties on the votes of those who receive entitlements for the party's very existence; and the belief of tens of millions of non-addicted progressives that society is morally obligated to give more and more people more and more entitlements, it becomes very difficult to see a solution. In the meantime, the entitlement state in every country is failing, forcing them to bring in tens of millions of migrants, many of whom share none of the countries' values, to keep the entitlement state alive. This addiction ultimately ruins the character of many of its recipients, the economy of all the countries in which it exists in large numbers and the value system that created the prosperity that made so many entitlements possible in the first place.
(“The Most Dangerous Addiction of Them All: Entitlements” by Dennis Prager dated March 21, 2017 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/03/21/the-most-dangerous-addiction-of-them-all-entitlements-n2301802 )
The terms health insurance and medical care are often used interchangeably. They are, however, quite different concepts, and once understood, who benefits or loses becomes apparent. For decades, Americans have been fed a lie that health insurance ensures receiving medical care. The truth is that there are many obstacles in our way when that care is needed. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), the old lie was advanced, not just in name but in deed. Insurance is a product sold based on risk, and while it can protect me from myself, it can also serve to protect me from you or you from me. If, as the name implies. Health insurance insured health, then it would be selling preventative services for injury or illness. The problem is that injury is often unanticipated and there are few ways to prevent illness. The old adage that you don’t see a doctor when you are well by and large has more than a grain of truth. So perhaps what we have is a misnomer and what pays our medical bills when we are injured or ill is actually medical insurance. Part of the basic definition of insurance is an “agreement by which a person pays a company and the company promises to pay money if the person becomes injured.” ObamaCare requires that most of us purchase a health insurance policy or pay a ‘penalty’ for what we may not want, use, or find financially beneficial. To understand human motivation is to acknowledge the role of money and power. Once that's accepted, the question becomes "who stands to gain in forcing every citizen to have a health insurance policy, with its numerous exclusions, many of which can't be anticipated, and which benefits mostly the underwriter, not the insured?" The list of who benefits is relatively short, including those on it who are quite powerful and from that power flows a stream of monetary gain. It arises from the creation of a law that's purposely ill defined, nearly impossible to understand, and requires from here to eternity to clarify, thus ensuring job security. Its culmination is the creation of companies in support of its mandates. The list of those benefitting includes: politicians, lawyers, the judiciary, the press, and CEOs of health insurance companies, hospitals and government mandated medical organizations. Now having clarified the scam that is health insurance, what does it have to do with medical care? Unlike health insurance, medical care is what patients actually benefit from. The poor will always be with us. The truly poor will always have some form of government assistance. For the elderly, Medicare should continue but be phased out over time, with younger generations hopefully making better life choices, taking better care of themselves, and limiting the effects of their choices on society. Over time, most people can be reconditioned to pay for what is routine, such as they pay for food, housing and clothing. Catastrophic plans can and should be recommended and marketed for children and most adults. Situations like the VA and certain public employees can perhaps be approached with a different lens, that of a quid pro quo. I believe we will be pleasantly surprised at how the cost of care declines once needless middlemen are removed and entrepreneurs resume their rightful role. At one time physicians were involved as such, but with the takeover of our society by the legal guild, decades of their societal intervention essentially strangled private medical practice. There certainly is room for participation by pharmaceutical companies, devise manufacturers, hospitals, etc. Regarding hospitals, they need to be restricted to a core mission of maintaining an emergency room for emergencies, operating rooms for inpatient surgery, and hospital beds for inpatients only. Since most hospitals are financially propped up by taxpayer-paid government subsidies, once their unnecessary expansion into the medical marketplace is reversed, physicians along with the nursing profession can resume their role in patient advocacy and care. Medical care is available though it's strangled through the bureaucracy of the politician's creation and their business associates involvement. Once health insurance is outed for what and for whom it actually benefits, we can focus on what we actually need: medical care.
(“Health Insurance or Medical Care?” by Steve Karp dated March 18, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/health_insurance_or_medical_care.html )
When the law goes on a vacation, rules are unenforced or politicized. Citizens quickly lose faith in the legal system and anarchy follows, ensuring that there can be neither prosperity nor security. The United States is descending into such as abyss, as politics now seem to govern whether existing laws are enforced. Sociologists in the 1980s found out that when even minor infractions were ignored, such as the breaking of windows, or vendors walking into the street to hawk wares to motorists in a traffic jam, misdemeanors then spiraled into felonies as lawbreakers become emboldened. A federal law states that the President can by proclamation "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." Yet a federal judge ruled that President Trump cannot do what the law allows in temporarily suspending immigration from countries previously singled out by the Obama administration for their laxity in vetting their emigrants. In the logic of his 43-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson seemed to strike down the travel ban based on his own subjective opinion of a president's supposedly incorrect attitudes and past statements. Some 500 "sanctuary" cities and counties have decided for political reasons that federal immigration law does not fully apply within their jurisdictions. They have done so with impunity, believing that illegal immigration is a winning political issue given changing demography. The law states that foreign nationals cannot enter and permanently reside in the United States without going through a checkpoint and in most cases obtaining a legal visa or green card, but immigration law has been all but ignored. Or it was redefined as not committing additional crimes while otherwise violating immigration law. Then the law was effectively watered down further to allow entering and residing illegally if not committing "serious" crimes. Now, the adjective "serious" is being redefined as something that does not lead to too many deportations. The logical end is no immigration law at all, and open borders. There is a federal law that forbids the IRS from unfairly targeting private groups or individuals on the basis of their politics. Lois Lerner, an IRS director, did just that but faced no legal consequences. There are statutes that prevent federal intelligence and investigatory agencies from leaking classified documents. No matter, because for the last six months, the media has trafficked in reports that Trump is under some sort of investigation by government agencies for allegedly colluding with the Russians. That narrative is usually based on information from "unnamed sources" affiliated with the FBI, NSA or CIA. No one has been punished for such leaking. The leakers apparently feel that prosecutors and the courts do not mind if someone's privacy is illegally violated, as long as it is the privacy of someone they all loathe, like Donald Trump. The logic seems also to be that we need only follow the laws that we like, and assume that law enforcement must make the necessary adjustments. At this late date, a return to legality and respect for the law might seem extremist or revolutionary. For the federal government to demand that cities follow federal law or face cutoffs in federal funds might cause rioting. Going after federal officials who leak classified documents to reporters would make those officials martyrs. To warn high-ranking IRS officials that they could likely go to prison for targeting groups based on their political beliefs might earn a prosecutor an unexpected IRS audit. There is one common denominator in all these instances of attempted legal nullification: the liberal belief that laws should "progress" to reflect the supposedly superior political agenda of the left. When the law is what we say it is, or what we want it to be, there is no law, and when there is no law, there is not much left but something resembling Russia, Somalia or Venezuela.
(“Law Takes a Holiday” by Victor Davis Hanson dated March 23, 2017 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2017/03/23/law-takes-a-holiday-n2302411 )
Now as throughout the campaign, we hear liberals and neoconservatives rail against the nationalism espoused by Donald Trump that also resonates among tens of millions of regular Americans. Nothing riles left liberals more than nationalism, which places a preference for one’s country and its unique ideals and traditions over another country’s. Nationalism is the foremost obstacle standing in the way of socialism and global transnationalism, wherein nations purposely shed and lose their identity and distinctiveness in favor of a bland, non-distinct shell. Demonizing nationalism allows liberals to impugn the motives and integrity of those who love our historic American ways, thereby marginalizing them. However, nationalism, especially in a good-willed country like America, is a positive and natural sentiment. Love of nation, place of origin and residence is a fundamental human attachment, as is family; to the contrary, indifference to nationhood and disparagement of American nationalism is what is abnormal. The incessant push for social engineering among liberals often lies in their emotional detachment and recoil from American society’s natural sentiments. It is not “white supremacism” when people with self-respect display love and admiration for their background and history, wish to defend it, and are proud of it. It is normal and healthy. The opposite is rootlessness. Nor are sincere calls for the maintenance of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian ethos, as liberals today accuse, “code words for racism”. The purpose of the shaming we now see coming from liberals against fellow Americans is to muzzle us, so that what we believe is no longer able to be heard or transmitted. It is an enforcement of our political impotence. Longer term, the never-ending demonization is designed to end our civic and religious heritage. Through left-wing bullying and scorn, our heritages are being replaced by the new theologies of progressivism and non-distinctiveness. There is also the smugness factor. Among the influential are elitists who feel morally and socially superior to their countrymen and see themselves not as nationalists but citizens of the world, apart and above the hoi polloi living outside urban beltways. For them, cosmopolitanism over Americanism is a badge of sophistication, a way of displaying their more worldly “understanding and taste.” Beyond their smugness is a desire to be a member of a ruling class entitled to govern and be well-connected, not to mention the financial benefits that come with such membership. Too many seem unable to distinguish between the toxic nationalism of pre-World War II Europe and what has been the favorable norm and condition here in America. America is not Europe, indeed it was born in rebellion against European attitudes and prejudices. American nationalism is a positive phenomenon, since it is based on the quintessential American belief of fair play, meritocracy, idealism, and is kept in place generation after generation by an overwhelmingly good willed people who are philo-Semitic and inspired by the Old Testament. The truth is that the mushrooming anti-Semitism today is found in the global Left, with its partnership with Islam, and within precincts of the Democrat party. Many making the accusations of xenophobia live in rarified societies immune from the consequences of Open Borders and would accept “multi-cultural” enclaves governed, for example, by sharia law, blithely indifferent to its effects on the normative freedoms of red-staters. Our need to halt open borders is rooted not in racism but the most profoundly normal and human instinct: the need to protect one’s self and family. This is what we mean by America First. Those against American nationalism seem to admire and push for transnationalism. Transnationalism takes power from a country’s people and imposes laws and new norms from above by a global ruling class based on a universal standard of one size fits all. Transnationalism, as practiced by Obama, Merkel, the EU, The Hague and Scandinavian leaders, is the Left’s universalist dystopia come true. It targets for opprobrium the patriotic segment of the population wishing to preserve and live by the historic values of their country. It is not American nationalism that warrants our alarm, rather the transnationalism of the American left, whose goal is the forced removal from us, in the name of a “morality and tolerance,” those things that made us who we are.
(“In Favor of American Nationalism” by Aryeh Spero dated March 21, 2017 published by The American Spectator at https://spectator.org/in-favor-of-american-nationalism/ )
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 have been made this week to the issue sections.