Views on the News
Views on the News*
July 23, 2016
With Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton preparing for their own nominating conventions, voters are filled with frustration at the candidates and the political system that propelled them to victory. Trump and Clinton will each try to paint a rosy picture of life under their leadership during their back-to-back conventions, but it seems unlikely either can quickly shake Americans out of their bad mood. A stunning 79% of Americans now believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, a 15-point spike in the past year, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. Voters are strikingly unhappy with the candidates who will be on the ballot this fall, with only 22% saying they would be proud to see Trump win and 27% to see Clinton. America's palpable pessimism can appear at odds with the country's economic and security standing. The economy is growing, jobs are being created and unemployment is low. Tens of thousands of American troops have come home from dangerous war zones during Obama's presidency. Crime is down nationwide. The improving economy is no doubt a changing one, leaving some Americans without the skills they need for the jobs available. Terrorism fears have been heightened in the U.S. after a string of deadly incidents in the West. As Americans looked toward the Presidential candidates and other political leaders, some saw little sign of readiness to meet a challenging time. More than any other candidate in this election, Trump has latched onto the public's fears. He promises to "Make America Great Again," pledging to bring back manufacturing and mining jobs. With coded, and sometimes not so coded, language, he's cast aspersions on immigrants seeking to come to the United States and on Muslims already here. Three-quarters of Americans consider Trump to be only slightly or not at all civil, and half say he's somewhat racist, according to the AP-GfK poll. But three-quarters consider Clinton to be only slightly or not at all honest, and most think her use of a private email address and server while she was secretary of state broke the law, including 4 in 10 who think she did so intentionally. Asked whether he believes Clinton or Trump could do any better, voters are disappointed with their choices.
(“8 Years After Hope & Change, Voters Are Angry, Anxious” by Julie Pace dated July 16, 2016 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/16/8_years_after_hope__change_voters_are_angry_anxious_131215.html )
No political leader since Ronald Reagan has created the excitement and buzz that Donald Trump has. He is the first politician since that late, great President to go over the heads of the media and elite ruling class and speak directly to the American people. He is concerned that our country is no longer a country, and that America has sold out its sovereignty to a non-democratic internationalist order, at the expense of the American worker and of American jobs. Trump is an exciting political presence, responsible for drawing new people into the political process. The American people today are frustrated. They feel our whole political process is unresponsive. They continually vote for political reform, sending people to Washington hoping they will do something, and are then betrayed as the newly elected representatives become a saccharine travesty of the reform they clamored for. What makes a country a country is its sovereignty. A country that has no borders, and whose independence is restricted by internationalist agreements, is no longer a sovereign nation. The Democrats and, sadly, some Republicans would allow non-citizens the right to vote, provide free college tuition for them, and would provide welfare benefits while letting more of them stream over our unprotected borders. It must be reiterated that Trump is not against immigration. He advocates legal immigration. Trump believes the process must be legal, as it was for the millions of those who came to America’s shores over the past two centuries seeking the American dream of economic betterment, peace, and prosperity. Trump’s popularity is perplexing to the establishment, but it is readily understood by the majority of Americans. Trump speaks for the average American worker. He wants prosperity at home and peace abroad. His conservatism is not a dogma. Trump seeks to conserve our best values at home, and not go abroad promoting monolithic internationalism. Trump has been under political assault by the media and establishment because he is beholden to no one. He has let forth a cry to Washington insiders and the corrupt political establishment: “You’re fired!” - a cry like a voice from Mount Olympus that echoes in the hearts of the American people and will put Trump in the White House by a landslide.
(“Why Donald Trump will win” by Lou Murray dated July 18, 2016 published by The Boston Globae at https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/17/why-trump-will-win/qQSwYvfpN5mWFaslAS3LwI/story.html )
Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming President of the United States. Her corruption has many dimensions, since it encompasses her personal, professional, and political life. Her use of a private email server engulfs all three aspects. With Clinton, one never has to exaggerate, because her malfeasance speaks for itself, loudly. She lies to get out of trouble and fool the press and voters. She also lies gratuitously, when it's not required to avoid trouble. Face to face with the parents of CIA commandos who were killed in Benghazi while protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens, Clinton lied. She said an anti-Islam video had prompted the fatal attack, which she knew wasn't true, when she could have simply expressed her condolences. Clinton has a masochistic relationship with the media. She spurns them, while they protect her. She skillfully spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. When you pack them together, as Congressman Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they're shocking. As pernicious as Clinton's lies have been there's a far more serious problem with her as President. It's twofold: her indifference to protecting national security secrets and her exploitation of the foreign policy and diplomatic process for personal gain. Comey spared Clinton the criminal prosecution a lesser State Department official would surely have faced for treating classified emails so cavalierly. He was unforgiving in discussing her lackadaisical approach to "very sensitive, highly classified information." It was the equivalent of an indictment, only one not to be prosecuted. Though the FBI found no "direct evidence" of "computer intrusion by hostile actors," it's obvious Comey believes there was plenty of it. He said adversaries had hacked into the email of those with whom Clinton was in "regular contact from her personal account." The absence of clear evidence of hacking was a signal to experts and government investigators that her email likely "had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work." The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons' methods of enriching themselves make Clinton unfit for the presidency. Peter Schweizer, in his 2015 book Clinton Cash, examined the Foundation and discovered how it allowed the Clintons to make foreign policy pay. Donate to the foundation or give Bill Clinton an exorbitant fee for a speech and good things often happened. Bill and Hillary Clinton made $229,319,855 between 2001 and 2014. The Clintons created a structure whereby foreign governments, businesses, and financiers could buy access to American politicians. Foreign entities are prohibited by federal law from giving to political campaigns and super-PACs, but with the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees, foreign entities can sidestep what has been a longtime consensus point in American politics. With the Clintons, foreign policy is politics by other means. The examples of the Clintons' paying themselves with help from holding high office are numerous. He got $16.5 million from Laureate International Universities, the parent company of an online diploma mill, as honorary chancellor for five years. Laureate Education Inc. got $55 million in State Department grants. The Clinton Foundation, more a slush fund to finance the family's living expenses than a charity, signed a document promising to disclose any donations from foreign entities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton was stung by the email case, but she's sticking with the family formula when caught red-handed: stonewall and confess to nothing and eventually the problem will go away. Voters have no excuse, now that we know who Hillary Clinton really is.
(“Yup, She’s Crooked” by Fred Barnes dated July 25, 2016 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/yup-shes-crooked/article/2003312 )
Political correctness kills because this leftist philosophy conflates dishonesty with virtue and costs lives. The lie that young black men live under threat from the police obscures the hard truth that tough policing protects young black men from the true threat of other young black men. The resulting protests and anti-police violence and hostility cause cops to retreat from the areas where they're needed most and the violent death rate increases. Likewise the left's childish notion that it is bigoted to notice that most terrorists share the same religion causes people to turn away and fail to report the radicals in their midst, letting terrorists strike at will. Our sympathy for those who suffer unwanted suspicion doesn't change the fact that those who suspect them are not acting irrationally. They are assessing threats and making rational choices about where those threats lie. Black people commit a disproportionately large number of murders in America so a cop looking for a troublemaker is completely justified in looking at a black man first. You can call it racial profiling all you like, but it is basic police work. In the same way, a person trying to spot a terrorist would do well to keep his eye on a Muslim. It seems to me if you are an innocent black person being troubled by the cops, if you are an innocent Muslim under suspicion from your neighbors, the people you should be angry at, the people to blame, are not the people acting on rational suspicion. The people at fault are the bad guys who have drawn that suspicion unfairly onto you. A black man targeted by the police shouldn't be angry at the police, but instead angry at the thugs and criminals who look like him and make his race a target. Before Muslims blame non-Muslims for the prejudice against them, they ought to look to, and openly condemn, those Muslims who have given their religion a very bad name. The problem is prejudice, but it's the tribal prejudice that says we should blame others before we blame "our own."
(“Who is to Blame for Bias?” b Andrew Klavan dated July 17, 2016 published by PJ Media at https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/07/17/who-is-to-blame-for-bias/ )
The reality is that in the 2016 election it now takes more than a majority for a Republican to win. Electoral cheating has probably existed since the second election, but cheating by American Democrats has now reached levels never seen before in a major democracy. Democrats pursue four closely linked, long term, and deeply dishonorable, national policies:
· Democrats hide the extent of fraud by combining a line of patter denying the existence of voter fraud while accusing Republicans of it with media blitzes publicizing and denigrating isolated, and often not very credible, claims like those that some voting machine somewhere mis-recorded a few conservative votes as liberal.
· The Secretary of State Project seeks to put Democrats in charge of both the voting, and the vote counting, processes now succeeded to the point that a majority of American voters are affected. Key strategies implemented by these apparatchiks include:
o fighting the use of voter id and/or voter list verification though any means possible;
o perpetuating ineffective processes for delivering or counting military ballots;
o refusing to reform equally incompetent and ineffective processes for preventing felons, illegals, or the dead; and,
o extending the duration of, while weakening eligibility and verification criteria for, all forms of advance voting.
· Democrats use litigation, and the threat of litigation, to sway electoral process decisions. They see lawfare, and more importantly the threat of lawfare, as a perfectly legitimate way to win elections. Their tendency is to publically stress their commitment to having lawyers present during the counting and related processes for close elections, coupled with their actual commitment to challenging all close losses by filing lawsuits naming everyone involved anywhere in the process, forcing electoral officials facing difficult decisions to choose between the mild criticism they can expect from Republicans if they decide for the Democrats and the near certainty of a starring role in Democrat lawsuits to be heard by Democrat judges amid unrelenting, unprincipled, and deeply personal media attacks if they decide against the Democrat.
· Democrats encourage disconnects in advance voting and vote counting processes. Abuse of the Help America Vote Act (2002) has enabled Democrats to insert significant new opportunities for voting fraud into the system. Democrat judges can be counted on to admit missing ballots produced at leisure and "found" in a car or a church basement in the rare event that the Republican hangs in long enough to force a physical count.
Something must change if the 2016 and subsequent American elections are to be won by 50% + 1, and not by combining 40 something percent with fraud and a compliant judiciary. It's too late to radically change the voting or vote management processes for 2016. Meanwhile legislators now in office can move immediately to remove or limit the use of lawfare to affect electoral process decisions.
(“How Democrats Steal Elections” by Paul Murphy dated July 19, 2016 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/how_democrats_steal_elections.html )
Opponents of a central bank should take advantage of the post-Brexit vote revival of secessionist sentiments to promote a secession from central banking, or “Fed-exit.” Ending the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money is the key to restoring and maintaining our liberty and prosperity. By manipulating the money supply to fix interest rates, the Federal Reserve engages in price fixing. Federal Reserve attempts to override the market rate of interest with a Fed-favored rate distort the price signals sent to businesses, investors, and consumers. The result of this distortion is a Fed-created boom, followed by a Fed-created bust. The Fed’s action affects the entire economy and impacts the lives of all Americans, as well as of people around the world. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the attempt to fix interest rates is the most harmful example of price fixing. Supporters of a “rules-based” monetary policy claim that a rules-based approach will bring stability and predictability to monetary policy, and thus put the economy on a path to permanent prosperity. But under a rules-based monetary policy, the Federal Reserve retains the power to manipulate interest rates. So under a rules-based approach, investors and entrepreneurs would still receive distorted price signals, which would still result in a boom-bust cycle. No rule can fix the flaws inherent in our system of monetary central planning. Progressive Fed critics often focus on the ways the Fed’s policies benefit big banks, Wall Street, and other special interests, and how the policies harm average Americans. Many progressives do not want a free market in money. The Fed’s progressive critics are correct that big banks together with powerful financial institutions have too much influence on monetary policy. While implementing progressive reforms may reduce Wall Street’s influence on monetary policy, it will likely also strengthen the influence of the deep state - that network of crony capitalists, lobbyists, congressional staffers, and others who work behind the scenes to control our economic and foreign policies. Many progressives believe that middle- and working-class Americans would benefit from a more “stimulative” (meaning inflationary) monetary policy. Middle- and working-class Americans are the main victims of the Fed’s inflation tax. The true beneficiaries of inflation are crony capitalists and big-spending politicians. Instead of fruitless efforts aimed at “reform” of the Fed, those concerned with restoring a true free market, reducing economic inequality, and promoting peace and prosperity for all should work for a “Fed-exit.” The first step, of course, is to pass Audit the Fed. Once Congress and the people learn the full truth about the Fed, they can begin to consider the best ways to Fed-exit.
(“Don’t Reform the Fed, Fed-exit” by Ron Paul dated July 20, 2016 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/ronpaul/2016/07/19/untitled-n2194788 )
We’re in the midst of a war, but you’d never know it by watching the news or listening to the White House. The JV team keeps piling up bodies and Western leaders continue pledge to stand together as the blood dries. That’s all well and good, but when “standing together” is the entirety of the strategy, winning has not become the priority. To win a war, to defeat an enemy, you have to first admit you’re in a war and have an enemy. No terrorist attack, no matter the body count or how great the horror, has shaken Western powers into admitting radical Islam is a cancer on humanity and needs to be exterminated. Yet Western leaders, from President Obama to French President François Hollande, treat this evil as a distraction; a kid kicking your chair on a long flight, but this is one annoyance that will only grow bigger if not stopped. Unfortunately, in the wake of every wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings, “Western elites” circle the wagons of denial and lament the prospect of “blowback” against Muslims that never materializes. It’s like lecturing Jews not to be harsh toward Nazis as they’re being rounded up for shipping to death camps. They aren’t denying reality, they’re ignoring it completely. It’s not going to change until we change it. Islamo-fascists will stop murdering people only if they’re dead. We in the civilized world should make them dead. We have the tools, we have right on our side, but those in position to lead do not have the will. Both ISIS and President Obama want to “fundamentally transform” the world. Only ISIS is willing to destroy it in the process, but Obama simply ignores its destruction in hopes it comes out his way. He’ll use the bodies of their victims to do it when he can, and ignore them when he can’t. We’re in a war, whether we want it or not, whether our leaders acknowledge it or not. It’s a winnable war, but not if we don’t fight it the way wars have been fought and won since time began. Radical Islam will always exist, but we must fight to ensure it does so only in the heads of a few afraid for their discovery. We have to fight the war against it like a war; with every weapon at our disposal. Our distaste for casualties has not spared lives. It has only prolonged suffering, and it must be overcome. Newt Gingrich is right that they are barbarians and need to be destroyed. The civilized world has to embrace a little of the incivility which allowed it to defeat evil in the past and thrive if it is to do so again. We must fight like our survival depends on it, because they will, and it does!
(“The One-Sided War” by Derek Hunter dated July 17, 2016 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/07/17/the-onesided-war-n2193717 )
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.