Views on the News

Views on the News*

  June 25, 2016


After an onslaught of highly liberal biased polls against Donald Trump, it was refreshing to see an only modestly biased poll by Gravis, showing Trump only 2% behind Hillary Clinton in the head-to-head matchup, far below the ridiculously large Clinton leads of up to 12% that Bloomberg and other leftist media outlets had been oozing of late.  Once we corrected for biases in this Gravis poll, Trump is undoubtedly now well out in front of Clinton.  In the poll's demographics, 40% of respondents said they were Democrats compared to just 33% who were Republicans.  This 7% Democrat advantage is almost assuredly about 6% above where it should be, meaning Clinton's narrow 2% lead should likely be upwards of at least a 4% deficit behind Trump.  Further evidence of liberal bias in the poll comes from questions about Tea Party support, abortion, religious affiliation, and education.  Just 11% of those surveyed said they were members of the Tea Party.  This value should be about 17%, suggesting, as with the party affiliation, about a 6% liberal bias.  The poll also shows a 17% advantage to pro-choice over pro-life, well above the known 6% spread in favor of pro-choice.  This signifies a major liberal bias in the demographics, as the pro-choice side has not had an advantage larger than 10% since the 1990s.  When it comes to religious affiliation, the poll over-sampled Muslims (2% versus 1%) and Catholics (25% versus less than 21%), and looks to have massively under-sampled Evangelicals (10% versus 25%), resulting in more liberal bias. Evangelicals will vote dominantly for Trump, whereas Muslims and many Catholics are likely to lean towards Clinton.  A full 50% of the poll's respondents had a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 34% in reality, introducing more liberal bias.  Based on the full range of liberal biases present, a reasonable estimate of Trump's actual lead over Clinton is in the range of at least 5% once the polling data is corrected.

(“Corrected Gravis poll has Trump well out in front of Clinton at national level” by Sierra Rayne dated June 20, 2016 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/corrected_gravis_poll_has_trump_well_out_in_front_of_clinton_at_national_level.html )

Father’s Day is a time for black America and our first black president Barack Obama to tell black men to man up, start marrying their women and stop killing each other.  More black babies (72%) are born out of wedlock, without fathers today, than into married homes.  It’s no wonder that young black men end up being gang bangers, toting guns in the hood, or killed by another black.  In 1963, that figure was 23.6% for blacks, and 3% for whites.  Nothing has changed for blacks, instead, things have gotten a whole lot worse.  Why won’t Obama address the nation and tell black men to start being fathers, getting married before they have babies, and to be a parent to the babies they have? This would be a great way to demonstrate that black lives truly matter.  Bill Clinton declared, “Governments don’t raise children; parents do and you should.”  Sadly, that’s exactly what’s happening to blacks, the government takes responsibility for raising blacks from cradle to prison to grave.  According to a 2009 Brookings Institution study, if a person doesn’t finish high school, doesn’t marry and has a baby before age 21, his or her chance of becoming poor is 74%.  From public housing programs, to government-funded day care in public schools, for teen moms, blacks are the largest consumers per capita of welfare programs.  It’s also no surprise that blacks represent roughly 13% of the population, but make up a larger percentage of federal and state prisoners (38%) compared to whites (34%).  Black males are 6.4 times more likely to be incarcerated. Blacks are procreating with irresponsibility, like they’re killing each other.  Today Democrats express open hostility toward anyone remotely suggesting that blacks’ choices may be responsible for the misery our race is trapped in, or that we should take individual responsibility to clear it up.  When will Obama and Democrats demand black fathers be part of the black family equation?  Better yet, if Hillary Clinton believes in feminism, why doesn’t she tell young black women to respect themselves more, focus on graduating high school, delay sex until marriage, and use birth control so their lives and their future children’s will matter?  When you don’t know what a father or husband is, you have no example to live up to.  Isn’t it time for Democrats to be honest about the deviancy they’re perpetuating in exchange for votes, power and huge costs to society and taxpayers?

(“Where Are The Black Fathers?” by Crystal Wright dated June 17, 2016 published by Front Page Magazine at http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263188/where-are-black-fathers-crystal-wright )

The Federal Reserve acknowledged the economy is doing more poorly (again) than previously hoped.  The Fed admitted that sluggish growth that caps out at 2% is with us for as far as the eye can see, or at least through the next two years.  This should finally mark the last rites for Obamanomics.  Throw it in the dustbin of history alongside all the other failed liberal economic experiments.  The previously bullish Fed finally and openly acknowledged that sluggish growth is the long term new normal for America.  The growth rate has limped out of the 2008-09 recession at a 2% pace now for seven years.  The Joint Economic Committee of Congress tells us a normal recovery gives us about 3.5% growth and the Reagan and JFK booms were closer to 4%.  So the GDP today thanks to President Obama is about $2 to $3 trillion smaller than it should be.  Instead of speeding up to recover all this lost ground, we’re decelerating.  Growth was 1.4% in the 4th quarter of 2015.  It was 0.8% in the first quarter of this year.  The Fed now has downgraded growth now to less than 2% for the rest of 2016, down from an original forecast of 2.4%.  No one is more surprised by this turn of events than Obama himself.  The Obama economists have consistently overestimated growth for seven years now to the tune of $2 trillion accumulated lost growth.  All of this comes atop the lousy jobs report, the finding that 95 million Americans over the age of 16 aren’t working, and that still 40 million are on food stamps.  The business sector is in especially worrisome shape with industrial production down 1.4% over the past year, investment slumping, and corporate profits flat lined.  The lesson of the Fed under Ben Bernanke and now Yellen is that easy money is no economic solution to this decade-long malaise.  As economist Larry Kudlow puts it: “The Fed can print money, but it can’t create jobs.”  Washington regulations and mandates are suffocating our businesses.  Meanwhile, Republicans are stone silent on the economy and jobs, and are beating up Trump rather than Hillary and Obama for their economic malpractice.  Every poll over the last three years finds the economy and jobs are by far the biggest voter concern.  Where is the Republican tax cut?  Where is the Republican regulatory freeze?  Where is the Republican bill suspending the ObamaCare 50-worker rule or the 30-hour-a-week regulation that has forced millions of Americans into part-time jobs?  Why haven’t they suspended the Clean Power Plant rules by the EPA that are putting coal miners out of work?  Congressional Republicans like to blame Trump for their precarious political predicament and lousy poll numbers, but maybe they should look in the mirror.

(“Obamanomics: R.I.P.” by Stephen Moore dated June 19, 2016 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/19/americas-sluggish-economic-growth-the-new-normal/ )


Faced with fear-mongering status quo addicts warning them of the dangers of real change, British voters chose to take a stand for sovereignty, borders and national identity.  Now we’ll see if America will do the same in November.  Displaying a courage and clarity that seemed decidedly American in flavor, the UK has cast off the suffocating blanket of the European Union.  This should serve to inspire other countries on the continent who are noticing that their national identities are being smothered by globalist instincts to homogenize their societies for some ill-conceived greater good.  Forged by post-World War II economic partnerships and honed under the European Economic Community (EEC) title from the late fifties until the official EU designation in 1993, the concept of a partnership to exploit common interests has morphed into a burdensome anvil that restricts the properties that allow Europe’s nations to excel on the engines of their individual merits.  Any EU nation passport is recognized in all EU nations, a lovely convenience for tourism but a nightmare in an era when unfettered immigration is diluting once-distinct European societies.  A European Court of Justice rules on EU laws, ruling against many appeals brought by the British government.  British immigration is out of control.  Now Britain has voted to kiss this folly goodbye, along with its massive net costs and few net benefits.  If American voters can muster the same strength, we can show the world that we too have regained our senses after years of being mashed into an internationalist puree, not by a multinational external nanny state but by our own leaders.  Leading from behind; subjugating American interests to foreign sensitivities; downplaying U.S. values as inferior against a backdrop of a world losing its grip on basic values: these slides have consequences, and some Americans have had enough of it.  Those passions were atomized across a field of Republican candidates, but most gathered around the candidacy of Donald Trump.  The core of Trump followers, with differences on foreign policy, taxes and social issues, unite under a shared hunger: a return to a time when our leaders considered the interests of our people, our economy and our borders first.  Some conservatives are tied up in knots when they know deep down that they must vote to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency:  the Trump Train was hardly the vehicle they envisioned as their ticket to escape the Obama era.  November provides us a chance to echo the inspiring audacity of our British cousins, beefing up our borders and standing up for sovereignty after decades of neglect at the hands of both parties. British voters trusted their instincts that several fundamental things in their nation were going very wrong, mostly at the behest of ideas that had subjugated their national identity.  The same has happened in our own nation, and if we have the guts to vote accordingly in November, we can engineer our own exit, from years of inattention to the characteristics of a strong nation: borders that mean something, pride in who we are, and priorities that favor our own citizens.

(“America Should Embrace the Brexit Spirit” by Mark Davis dated June 24, 201 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/2016/06/24/america-should-embrace-the-brexit-spirit-n2182950 )

We all know that Barack Obama was nominally a lawyer at some point in his past, not a good one, by anyone's account, but he was one.  Assume that Barack Obama had as his client The Muslim Brotherhood, or CAIR, or Hamas, or any one of dozens of organizations dedicated to taking down the United States, could he possibly have done a more effective job of hiding his client's actions or intentions while they went about conducting criminal operations unmolested as he has for seven years?  Could he have been more successful at misdirecting and obfuscating and lying about their intentions and deeds than he has already been?  Though not every lawyer shares a client's philosophy, the zeal with which an attorney does his job can sometimes be proportionate to his identity with the client's goals and objectives.  The President certainly is a zealous fellow when it comes to radical Islam.  We know he won't call it "radical Islam," claiming that that is a distraction or a talking point.  Perhaps the real reason is that he doesn't believe that what the Islamists he supports are doing is radical at all.  Maybe the actual issue is that he believes in and supports their efforts to infiltrate and subvert the United States.  It's the American people who continue not to get it.  It is ironic that so many of those who are angry that the President won't say "radical Islam" themselves won't openly say that he is and always has been the patron of radical Islamists, and he protects them for that reason.  The President points to his limited efforts to eradicate certain violent Muslims through drone strikes and minimal military operations, as if this proves he is "one of us" and is working to protect the United States.  We have seen increasing levels of terroristic violence across the country committed in the name of Islam by its perpetrators want the President to name the threat for the simple reason that his failure to do so, when viewed with all the other things he has done to protect and promote Islamists to weaken our military, our national government, and our security, tells them that he is in league with them and that he will not betray them while he repeatedly betrays us.  He refuses to identify them because he is their strongest supporter and their most steadfast protector.  We have seen news reports of FBI analysts, whose work was to connect the dots, having their files erased of all Muslim suspects who were actively plotting against us.  We have heard of how the FBI's hands were tied, and the new rules required that they drop their surveillance of Muslim suspects against whom concrete evidence had not yet been found and how those suspects went on to commit mass murder, including this week in Orlando.  We have heard how employers and neighbors of Muslims who engaged in terrorism here were afraid of saying anything against the terrorists because they were Muslim, including both Orlando and San Bernardino.  Our government has vowed to punish those who express legitimate fears about Muslims behaving suspiciously, which the government deems Islamophobia rather than domestic or national security.  The Department of Homeland Security has come out with new prohibitions on words that might offend those who most want to destroy this country, such as "jihad" and "sharia."   Those who work within this administration to harm the United States in the name of Islam have been serving at the president's pleasure, or with his blessing.  If that were not true, he would purge the government of all such anti-American and pro-Islamist enemies of the country.  This is his administration and these are his surrogates.  They are the vehicle by which his policies, his goals, and his beliefs are being put into effect.  There is no other explanation for them populating our government at every level, but particularly the highest ones.  Those who most vehemently represent the President's views are rewarded with the opportunity to destroy this country from within, along with complete immunity from punishment or retribution for expressing their desire to do just that.  Americans must pay the price for what was done to them.   It's time we admit the obvious, that radical Islam isn't radical to this President, because it's simply a means to an end... our end!

(“Why Not Admit the Obvious: The President Won’t Blame Them because He Agrees with Them” by Jeffrey T. Brown dated June 17, 2016 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/why_not_admit_the_obvious_the_president_wont_blame_them_because_he_agrees_with_them.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:

·    Bibliography at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/welcome/bibliography.php

·    Politics at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/politics.php

·    Family at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/Culture/family.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY