Views on the News

Views on the News*

  June 18, 2016


Our beloved country, the United States of America, freedom’s last safest place, is being taken over by godless secularists and Marxists.  They said they would do it and we let it happen.  We bought it with the lure of liberalism, social justice, and fair play, and we were lazy and apathetic.  Fully half of the population of this nation is willing to vote for a candidate that is thoroughly corrupt and a serial liar.  These people, for the most part, know she is rotten to her very core, but are willing to vote for her because, after 50 years of Marxist indoctrination in our schools and universities, if given the choice, they prefer a country without God, without limits, without a moral standard, without an economic system that requires individual achievement.  They are demanding what the socialist system has always promised, Nirvana.  Never mind the spectacular failures of the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, Communist China.  Never mind the millions of dead and whatever good intentions there were.  According to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, they didn’t do socialism correctly.  Young people today, in numbers like never before, would rather be given a check than earn it.  51% of Harvard students between 18 and 29 support socialism over capitalism.  Just 42% are in favor of capitalism, the economic system that has afforded the people of this country the highest standard of living the world has ever seen.  Regardless of Hillary Clinton’s countless deficiencies, many people think she can give the people the level playing field, the social justice, the environmental justice, the free cell phone, whatever.  Progressives have successfully convinced a multitude that they can have it all at little to no personal cost.  All they have to do is give them the power.  The progressive hidden agenda is simple… the oldest desire in the world… to be as God, knowing good and evil...  but, unlike God, choosing evil.  We let it happen, and I pray it is not too late.

(“We Let It Happen” by Ray DiLorenzo dated June 10, 2016 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/we-let-it-happen )

Congratulations, Democrats: With Tuesday’s voting, you’re making history: the first major US political party to nominate a woman for President, but too bad it had to be Hillary Clinton.  OK, she “earned” it — all those years supporting (and enabling) Bill; all that tedious work in the Senate; all those frequent-flier miles at State.  Not to mention the diligent fundraising for the Clinton Foundation, and the drudgery of endless speeches to Goldman Sachs and the rest of the 1%.  Showing up” may be 90% of life, but it seems to be 100% of Clinton’s record of achievement.  Yes, she won the nomination fair and square, but she only wrapped it up on the last real day of the primaries, and her only opponent was a vintage socialist.  To beat him, she had to flip-flop on everything from free trade to crime, disavowing the entire Bill Clinton legacy.  She turns to the general election as one of the most unpopular nominees in American history, in trouble even with women, the group that was supposed to flock to the ultimate glass-ceiling-breaker.  She’ll have the media on her side, eagerly calling every criticism “sexist.”  Most slams will land because she’s Hillary Clinton: a leader so paranoid, she just had to use that home-brew email server to keep her communications secret; so grasping that she couldn’t say no to Goldman and the rest, even though she and Bill were (somehow) already stinking rich.  She and her husband have spent their lives blurring every ethical line. “No Smoking Gun” is practically the family motto.  The hits that matter won’t have a thing to do with her gender: Hillary Clinton’s record is all the target the Republicans need.

(“Democrats wasted a historic moment nominating Hillary” dated June 8, 2016 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2016/06/08/dems-make-history-with-first-woman-nominee-too-bad-its-hillary/ )

In its final months, the Obama administration has set up a strategy to bring inner city living to the suburbs by deploying three federal agencies to dictate to states and local communities how to set up schools, housing and mass transit.  It’s all part of a federal push to reduce economic and racial segregation in favor of diversity.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expanded the reach of its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule to two other federal agencies: the Department of Transportation and the Department of Education.  AFFH is a rule established by HUD last year that requires any nationwide locality that receives block grant funding from the agency to rezone neighborhoods based on income and racial prerequisites.  It’s based on the 40-year-old Fair Housing Act. “We recognize that a growing body of research supports the benefits of socioeconomic and racial diversity in schools and communities, and that such diversity can help establish access points for opportunity and mobility,” HUD Secretary Julián Castro, Education Secretary John King and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx wrote. “We also recognize that children raised in concentrated poverty or in communities segregated by socioeconomic status or race or ethnicity have significantly lower social and economic mobility than those growing up in integrated communities.  Through AFFH, the secretaries want local leaders to “identify impediments to accessing opportunity” and provide solutions to what has been identified as an issue and “provide broad-reaching benefits… to ensure that every child and family is provided with transportation, housing, and education tools that promote economic mobility.”  The three federal agencies also want their local and state education officials to “consult with transportation and housing authorities and housing development agencies” when planning a school site.  The federal authorities want local and state transportation officials to create mass transit plans and more public transportation routes, as well as include local school districts, housing authorities, Head Start programs, community colleges and similar entities in putting together the mass transit plan.  Westchester County, N.Y. Executive Rob Astorino, who is battling HUD in court over the agency’s demand for more section 8 housing in his county, said the letter is what he been warning about.  The federal government is planning to take control of the American suburb and forever change it in the false name of equality.  If HUD gets its way, small town America will literally disappear, because it will be forcibly urbanized by Washington social engineers.

(“Federal Officials Push to Urbanize Under New HUD Regulation” by Kerry Picket dated June 10, 2016 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/federal-officials-push-to-urbanize-suburbia-under-new-hud-regulation/ )


What leftists hate to admit is that before one of their own engages in violence, whether on a street in Chicago, or at a Republican campaign event, or a nightclub in Orlando, myriad other deviations from psychological-normal must have had to occur. Well-adjusted, intellectual people do not default to violence to achieve their goals.  The Orlando shooter was both a radicalized Muslim and a Democrat.  It is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the two in terms of methods and tactics in pursuit of their ideological goals.  Perhaps it is not coincidental that leftists, who are practiced apologists for militant, violent Islamism, appear to have become increasingly open to the use of violence by their own street-level followers in advancement of their agenda of dismantling this country and its founding principles.  They are increasingly using violence as a tool to subvert incompatible American culture in order to implant their own.  Leftist members of academia and politicians are more comfortable musing about how their political opponents deserve to be tortured or killed for rejecting the goals of these fascists.  In a civilized culture, rational people refrain from broaching a discussion of who should be imprisoned or killed for political disagreement.  The left has begun to step fully over that forbidden line, albeit much more recently than Islam and Sharia, and it should concern every American who has read a speck of history that leftists are becoming more comfortable both advocating and publicly ignoring acts of violence by their fellows against their opponents.  History is replete with political movements which progressed from whispering of such things, to speaking openly of them, to then putting them into practice as soon as they believed they could do so safely, that is, without fear of retaliation.  In an uncivilized culture, where coercion and violence are acceptable tools of governance, such talk is common among the mental defectives who have declared themselves the cultural and political winners.  Their opponents are the literal embodiment of all of the propaganda they have ever been fed, even when they cannot see or identify a single person in their own experience who demonstrates in person what they claim to abhor. When the individual they seek to injure or kill is just an illusion they have imposed upon that fellow human being, practicing evil as only they have defined it, then everything they do can be justified to their theology/ideology.  Increasingly, both radical Islamists and radical Democrats appear to share the mindset that it is their right to injure or perhaps kill those who oppose them.  The fault always lies with the victim or the weapon, but never with the radical who does the harm.  They rationalize, he or she was pushed to act, so any action they were forced to take was understandable, at least to the offended radical.  As if to prove this point, in response to the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida Imam Muhammad Musri equated the terrorist event with “mass shootings” generally, purposefully ignoring the ideology of the shooter.   Anti-American leftist marinate in a cult of intolerant extremism in its unhinged rejection of all forms of disagreement.  Adherents to this ideology and its secular religion of anti-American multiculturalism are becoming more brazen and fearless in their verbal and physical attacks on those who express support for this country’s tradition of individual rather than collective rights, or support for a certain presidential candidate who says he will slow the left’s wreckage.  It is this ideology of increasingly intolerant extremism, rooted deeply in the Democrat party that has led us to fear the ability of other Americans to do us harm.  It is shared among millions of deluded liberals, who pretend that we can stuff this country as full as possible of incompatible cultures, traditions, values, languages and beliefs, or force any other cultural aberration upon an unwilling populace without national discussion or unity, and that violence and threats of death are appropriate methods of persuasion should we disagree.  As we have seen at recent political rallies and gatherings, leftists are increasingly adopting the Islamist perspective that violence against nonbelievers in the advancement of their intolerant extremism is perfectly acceptable, because their opponents deserve it for their apostasy.  This often takes the form of actual physical violence, but it can also take the form of an entire police force, let’s say in San Jose, standing passively by while those citizens who support an accountable government are pursued, assaulted, and beaten by a radical mob with whom the local government shares its political beliefs.  By refusing to intervene, the radical local establishment uses like-minded, violent leftists as a goon squad, carrying out the political punishment the politicians don’t feel they can enforce against defenseless citizens.  The hate-mongers, whether religious or politically liberal, prefer we assume theirs is a religion or ideology of peace for as long as possible.  Violence is on the rise around the world and at home, practiced by those who share a hatred for an America which resists totalitarianism and servitude to radical ideologies, we do ourselves a disservice by not admitting that all radicals eventually resort to violence.  If radicals get the war that comes from social overload and collapse, the war must deal with them as coldly as they deal with us.  Ideology is enforced or defended against only by those who can still defend themselves.

(“Islamist or Progressive? It’s getting hard to tell the Difference” by Jeffrey T. Brown dated June 13, 2016 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/islamist_or_progressive_its_getting_hard_to_tell_the_difference.html )

Islamic violence is nearly impossible to deny.  Koranic verses call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, which certainly covers the theological basis for Islamic violence.  It fails to explain why Muslims continue to practice it, even against each other.  Violence has become the defining form of Islamic exceptionalism.  Optimists speak of reforming Islam, but such reforms had over a thousand years in which to take place.  Islam is an ideology, and violence is its strategy.  Mohammed chose to use force to spread his ideology.  He needed to recruit fighters so he preached the inferiority of non-Muslims, the obligation for Muslims to conquer non-Muslims and the right of his fighters to seize the property and wives of non-Muslims as incentive for them to join his fight.  Furthermore he even promised them that if they should fall in battle, they would receive loot and women in paradise.  The strategy was barbarous, but quite effective. Mohammed had created a new super-tribe in a tribal society. Islam united different groups in a mission of conquest.  Within a surprisingly short amount of time the chain of conquests made Islam into a world religion.  Islam made the standard tactics of tribal warfare far more effective.  Its alliance was harder to fragment and its fighters were not afraid of death, but at the same time Islam remained fundamentally tribal.  It codified the tribal suspicion of outsiders and women into a religious doctrine, and that still drives Islamic violence against non-Muslims and women today.  Yet Islam could have reformed, if it chose a different civilizational strategy.  The current clash of civilizations is between cooperative societies and hierarchical tribal societies.  Western countries are cooperative societies.  They succeed by bringing together a variety of peoples into cooperative organizations.  These organizations negotiate and exchange everything from goods to mutual defense.  Cooperative societies emphasize internal conscience over external posturing.  Religion is a matter of personal morality, rather than collective conquest.  Economic resources are developed by harnessing new ideas and techniques to provide wider benefits to the society.  Islamic tribal societies are governed by extended family groups and other hierarchies that, like Islam, serve a similar role.  While such societies can be locally stable, albeit backward, expanding them is difficult because their only point of unity comes through conflict with outsiders.  Without external conflicts with non-Muslims, tribal societies degenerate into internal tribal conflicts.  That is what happened in Iraq and Syria, not to mention Yemen and Libya.  Most Muslim countries are delicately balanced on the edge of a precipice and they can be very easily tipped into horrifying violence between different groups if their fragile internal order breaks down and there are no outside enemies.  The Muslim expansion became unsustainable once the external spread of conquest limited the access of Muslim armies to non-Muslim victims.  Islamic unity did not survive Mohammed for very long.  Stability came through feudal societies which were slow, backward and unwieldy, but prevented conflict.  Ultimately the only stable Muslim society is a slave state.  Modern dictatorships, which strive to imitate modern countries by building up professional elites of doctors, engineers, lawyers and generals, are eventually undone by them.  It’s the genuinely backward kingdoms that rely on oil wealth and slave labor which best weathered the changes of the past generations and maintained their ruling privileges.  Islamic civilization is fundamentally unstable and unsustainable.  Contact with the modern world destabilized it setting off a series of chain reactions.  Islamic civilization, particularly in the Middle East, could not make the transition to modernity.  Those countries that had oil could buy their way out of the problem with generous subsidies at home while purchasing influence abroad.  The Saudis made their own people rich while controlling the West. They financed wars without needing generals by funding terrorists.  They kept a tribal society going by hiring foreign professionals to do most of the technical work.  The latest strategy is the mass migration to Europe.  Western cooperative societies eagerly welcome Muslim migrants because they expect them to cooperate and contribute, but that is not happening.  Muslim societies are hierarchal, not cooperative.  The new arrivals expect to fit into a hierarchy.  If they don’t encounter a strict hierarchy, they seek to “conquer” by establishing their hierarchy with the supremacism of the Koran as their guide.  Western societies seek to settle permanently, because they plan for the long term. Nomadic tribals burn through resources, viewing cities and institutions as assets to strip, raid and dispose of, before moving on.  The Islamic migration is not a new phenomenon and Europe is not meant to be its stopping point.  This is just a variation of Mohammed’s old strategy.  While some Islamic groups, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, stay behind to battle for the dying lands of the Middle East to establish their own perfect society, large numbers of Muslims are choosing to move on to fresher pastures. This cycle will only repeat itself, and this strategy is why Islam continues to be violent.  It’s why exporting democracy is useless.  Democracy works in cooperative societies.  It can only work within tribal societies as a democracy of groups, and it requires that these groups prefer cooperation to conflict as a civilizational strategy.  Islam favors conflict over cooperation.  In the absence of outside enemies, its doctrine allows its quarreling groups to name each other as infidels, heretics and enemies.  To reform Islam, Muslims would have to make the civilizational transition to a cooperative strategy, but they would have to fundamentally change their values, their priorities and how their societies function.  Islamic civilization becomes unstable once it expands beyond its tribal limits.  Its only coping strategy for that instability is violence, whether directed externally at non-Muslims or internally at other Muslims.  Its economic development tools are limited and make supporting a modern society very difficult because they emphasize maintaining internal hierarchal stability over innovation and progress.  Islam is violent because it’s unstable and its only tool is violence.  Its societies exhaust their limited resources and then invade their neighbors, and they repeat the same strategy until they are stopped.  Then the exhausted Islamic civilization becomes a staid slave society that is stable, but backward.  If the Islamic society is disturbed, then the egg cracks and the whole horrible process of war, invasion and exhaustion begins again, and that is what we are experiencing right now.

(“Islam’s Violence is Rooted in Instability” by Daniel Greenfield dated June 10, 2016 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/article/islams-violence-is-rooted-in-instability )

No one believes that the phrase "radical Islam" is magical or is a strategy (even though Obama sent a clear message in his 2009 speeches that his words are magical and the new administration would fix things).  What we deny is that ISIS and al-Qaeda are the only groups in Islam who intend to make this a war between Islam and the West.  All throughout the Islamic world, calls go forth from mosques that America is decadent and must be taken down by the will of Allah.  This sort of ideology is what motivated Islamic jihad during Muhammad's lifetime and continued for four hundred years before the Church finally called for a Crusade to stop Islamic aggression.  Islam declared war first.  What Obama misses are sharia and an Islamic legal system and government.  There are six hallmarks of civilization that are impacted, in the USA and Europe:

·    We keep government and religion separate and distinct; Islamic civilizations fuse together mosque and state in a mishmash. 

·    Free speech is honored over here, even if citizens criticize religion.  In Islamic civilizations, such criticisms can land the critic in jail and getting lashes, and possibly execution.

·    Freedom of religion is allowed over here, but in Islamic countries such freedom is suppressed, and religious minorities are barely tolerated. 

·    Womankind can express themselves in whatever ways they deem appropriate.  In Islamic civilization, womankind is oppressed, even to the point of domestic violence.

·    Punishments here in America differ and we treat private behavior as private.  In Islam, sexual misconduct is treated as criminal, leading to lashes, prison, and even death.

·    In the USA, there is no forced religion tax, but in Islamic civilizations the jizyah for religious minorities, under threat of death from the Muslim military, or charity tax are imposed.

Obama is confused about the nature of the struggle.  He thinks the Orlando massacre and ISIS are all that he has to oppose, but it goes much deeper than that.  The struggle is in fact with Islam as a religion and civilization.  With a weak military, Islam is aggressive in slow motion, as Muslims refuse to assimilate in the "dirty" West and open up sharia courts in the U.K., for example.  All of those six points flow from Islamic law.  This is the Second Hundred Years War, a slow-grinding, gradual war with occasional flare-ups as we saw in the Paris and Orlando massacres.  It will last past 2100.  The real war is ideological and fought in the minds of our citizens, but it's an open question whether we'll win it.

(“Obama confused about our civilizational struggle with Islam” by James Arlandson dated June 15, 2016 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/obama_confused_about_our_civilizational_struggle_with_islam.html )


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:

·    Immigration at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/Culture/immigration.php

·    Homeland Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/homelandsecurity.php

·    Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY