Views on the News

Views on the News*

September 20, 2014


President Obama’s plan to deal with the Islamic State wasn’t really about terrorism and launching a new war, but rather about saving Obama’s Presidency.  His legacy is sinking fast and could soon pass the point of no return, and it may already be too late to save the SS Obama.  The whole second term has been a string of disasters, with the toxic brew of his ObamaCare lies, middling economic growth and violent global breakdown casting doubt on the President’s stewardship.  Six years into his tenure, nothing is going as promised.  Earlier on, he could have trotted out his tele-prompters and turned public opinion his way, or at least stopped the damage, but the magic of his rhetoric is long gone, and not just because the public has tuned him out.  They’ve tuned him out because they’ve made up their minds about him that they no longer trust him and don’t think he’s a good leader.  Most ominously, they feel less safe now than they did when he took office.  Americans know the war on terror isn’t over, no matter what their President claims.  The President’s problem is that he has been wrong about virtually every major issue.  His worldview, his politics, his prejudices, his habits - they’ve been a mismatch for the country and its needs.  He has been a dud even in the one area where he seemed a lock to make things better, racial relations.  Only 10% believe race relations have improved under him, while 35% said they are worse, according to a New York Times survey.  Barack Obama was not ready to be President, and still isn’t.   It is a fantasy to believe he’ll master the art in his final two years.  It is reasonable to assume the worst-case scenarios about national security are growing increasingly likely to occur.  Obama’s fecklessness is so unique that our adversaries and enemies surely realize they will never face a weaker President.  They must assume the next commander in chief will take a more muscular approach to America’s interests and be more determined to forge alliances than the estranged man who occupies the Oval Office now.  There is a possibility that America could rally around the President in a crisis, and there would be many voices demanding just that.  A national consensus requires a President who is able to tap into a reservoir of good will and have his leadership trusted, but that’s not the President we have!

(“Obama’s ship is sinking” by Michael Goodwin dated September 14, 2014 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/obamas-ship-is-sinking/ )

After over six years of the Obama Presidency, the scales are finally falling off the eyes of some liberals, as liberals are saying the same things about President Obama as conservatives have been saying since 2007 when he first announced his candidacy. It is as though liberals have been intoxicated for years and have just sobered up.  I am encountering liberals describing President Obama as a Muslim sympathizer, incompetent, weak, indecisive, and inexperienced.  All of this was obvious during his campaign for anyone that did an honest examination of the candidate.  Former Obama supporters said that the choice between Republicans and Democrats was a toss-up between two evils.  It is impossible to name one Democrat policy that has been a success.  The only explanation to not to see what is obvious is for him or her to chooses to ignore facts or deny reality.  Ignoring and denying facts involves work.  Accepting facts does not require work.  In fact, it is easy and less stressful to accept the obvious.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.  Two plus two equals four.  Liberals will twist themselves into a pretzel in order to ignore facts, deny reality and explain away failure.  Liberals are constantly spinning lies to explain away every failed liberal policy from the New Deal, ObamaCare to the so-called Stimulus Package (the not-so-shovel-ready jobs bill). Liberals live in a fantasy world and when faced with reality, they blame others.  One hundred and fifty years after slavery was abolished and fifty years after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, Liberal intellectuals are hard at work inventing new theories and words such as white privilege, systemic racism, and micro aggression to explain the state of the black community. On the other hand, conservatives have simply acknowledged the reality that the problems afflicting the black community stems from the breakdown of the family.  I will admit that I honestly believe that Liberalism is a mental disease, especially those in the media. How exhausting it must be to be presented with facts on a daily basis and have to think of ways to spin it to favor your political position.  The mainstream media abandoned its job of keeping government honest and instead has been spinning lies for the current administration for over six years.  Now that America is reaching a breaking point, some in the media are slowly jumping off the sinking ship.  The media lied to the American people (along with the Obama and the Democrats) about what ObamaCare would and would not cover.  We now learn that taxpayer funded abortions will be covered under ObamaCare.  Honesty, common sense, and a sound mind alone would prevent individuals from lamenting six years later that President Obama somehow duped them when he was running for president.  A lie is still a lie regardless to how eloquent it is spoken, so if one has a sound mind and listens (without distraction) to the words of the speaker, he or she will not be duped.

(“Honesty, Common Sense, and a Sound Mind” by Patricia L. Dickson dated September 19, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/honesty_common_sense_and_a_sound_mind.html )


The demographic groups that voted most heavily for Barack Obama in 2012 have suffered the most from this President's economic policies.  Maybe the people in these demographic groups (blacks, Hispanics, single women and young people) are economically uninformed when it comes to voting, it's not the economy, stupid.  Sentier Research found that five years into an "economic recovery," real median household income "is now 3.1% below that of June 2009 when the 'great recession' officially ended."  Meanwhile Obama claims that "by nearly any measure, the economy is doing better," but actually, for more than half of Americans, their personal financial situation is worse.  The demographic groups that were crucial to Obama’s victory were: young voters 60%, single women 67%, Hispanics 71% and blacks more than 90%, and these groups have fared poorly since Obama became President.  According to the Sentier research, single women with and without children present saw their incomes fall by roughly 5%.  Those age 25-34 experienced an income decline of 4.4%. Black heads of households saw their income tumble by 7.7%, while the income of Hispanic heads of households fell 5.6%.  In other words, many of these groups experienced double the income fall than the average voter.  The poor and unskilled that Obama says he cares so much about saw their incomes fall by 7.4% for those with less than a high-school diploma and 8.2% for those with only a high-school diploma.  The jobless numbers show pretty much the same pattern. July's Bureau of Labor Statistics data show a national unemployment rate of 6.2%. The highest jobless rates by far are for key components of the Obama voter bloc: blacks (11.4%), Hispanics (7.8%), those with less than a high-school diploma (9.6%); and for teens, it's 20.2%.  In the 1980s and 1990s, it was blacks and women who had the largest percentage income gains.  Now that progress in reducing racial and gender income gaps has reversed course under Obama.  Income redistribution isn't an economic strategy for growth.  It's a lifeboat strategy. It would be hard to point to a single initiative the Obama administration has proposed that would help businesses grow and invest.  The poor and minorities have taken the big hit, and that's the real injustice of Obamanomics.

(“Obamanomics and its victims” by Stephen Moore dated September 12, 2014 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/12/moore-obamanomics-and-its-victims/ )

The media has woken up and noticed that the Republican Party which should be on the precipice of enjoying a massive electoral victory based upon the unpopularity of President Obama, the economy and the number of red states Democrats are being forced to defend in the Senate, are not realizing that advantage in voter polls.  The expected landslide scenario has been slow to develop as Democrat candidates remain close or ahead in the key takeover states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire.  This is a natural backlash against the national Republican Party, which has spent the past three years bashing conservative voters.  Only 35% of voters in the most competitive House and Senate races approved of Obama’s handling of immigration with a whopping 64% disapproving.  The answer is found when the poll asks which political party voters trust on immigration, revealing that only 34% of these voters trust the Republicans, while 31% trust the Democrats.  A full 35%, an overwhelming majority of which disapprove of Obama’s policies, simply don’t trust Republicans to do any better.  The months of Republican leadership waffling and failing to plant a flag in the ground against Obama’s ill-conceived plan, have resulted in the issue being squandered with the Democrats accruing the benefit.  The Republican Party as a whole finds itself perceived as being untrustworthy by those who oppose amnesty, and it is this mistrust in general that is the greatest single impediment toward the GOP picking up 20-25 seats in the House and 10 in the Senate to a much smaller victory.  The same Republicans who castigated conservatives for nominating through the primary process candidates who took strong stands on issues in 2010 and 12, now find themselves in the position that their constant footsie playing with those who support amnesty may be biting them on election day.  It is no surprise that Democrats and the left don’t trust Republicans, but when those who take conservative positions don’t trust them, it signals a bigger problem.  On the issue of illegal immigration, it appears that voters are not willing to settle for the lesser of two evils political party.  In a mid-term election that depends upon turnout, this failure to differentiate is the difference between winning big and getting by.  2014 was the year, like 2010, to run a hard core conservative campaign led by the House Republicans, but instead Republicans have curled into a relative fetal position hoping that not being Obama will lead them to victory.  Choosing to run the exact wrong campaign, the hope for those on the right is that in spite of their risk averse, milquetoast effort, that voters will settle in a hope of reining in Obama in his last two years.  Unlike 1994 or 2010, if Republicans win in 2014, it will be in spite of themselves.

(“GOP blundering toward the finish line” by Rick Manning dated September 16, 2014 published by Net Right Daily at http://netrightdaily.com/2014/09/gop-blundering-toward-finish-line/ )

Third-party payer exists when someone other than the consumer is paying for something, and it’s a problem because people aren’t careful shoppers when they have (proverbially) someone else’s credit card.  Sellers have ample incentive to jack up prices, waste resources on featherbedding, and engage in inefficient practices when they know consumers are insensitive to price.  Is the damage of third-party payer sufficiently obvious when you see a chart showing that prices for cosmetic surgery, which generally is paid for directly by consumers, rise slower than the CPI, while other health care expenses, which generally are financed by government or insurance companies, rise faster than inflation?  Is it clear that third-party payer leads to bad results when subsidies for higher education simply make it possible for colleges and universities to increase tuition and fees at a very rapid clip?  When prices have increased in various sectors over the past decade, the sectors of our economy that are subsidized (mostly by third-party payer) are the ones plagued by rising prices.  It’s amazing to see that TVs, phones, and PCs have dropped dramatically in price at the same time that they’ve become far more advanced.  Yet higher education and health care, both of which are plagued by third-party payer, have become more expensive.  So think about your family budget and think about the quality of PCs, TVs, and phones you had 10 years ago, and the prices you paid, compared with today, you are probably happy with the results.  Now think about what you’re getting from health care and higher education, particularly compared to the costs, and that’s the high price of third-party payer.

(“Subsidies and Third Party Payer = Inefficiency and Higher Prices” by Daniel J. Mitchell dated September 19, 2014 published by Town Hall at http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2014/09/19/subsidies-and-thirdparty-payer--inefficiency-and-higher-prices-n1893795 )


The so-called gender pay gap” between men and women reached a record low, with women earning 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, due to personal choices and pursuit of happiness.  This does not mean that a woman who performs the exact same job as a man gets paid 22 cents less on the dollar.  If companies behaved that way, they would face lawsuits.  The pay gap results from the choices women make.  Once factors such as career choice, education and experience, hours and work schedules, and career interruptions are taken into account, the so-called pay gap falls to about 5 cents.  Other factors, such as the cost of fringe benefits, likely explain some or all of the remaining gap.  Differences in career choices do significantly affect earnings differentials between men and women.  While it may be true that the average women earns less than the average man, most women don’t measure their worth by the size of their paycheck, but rather their ability to freely pursue their own choices and happiness.

(“Do Women Really Earn 22 Percent Less Than Men?” by Rachel Grezler dated September 17, 2014 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/17/women-really-earn-22-percent-less-men/ )


Comprehensive immigration reform, as a catchphrase, been widely invoked and yet so poorly defined.  Most Americans insist that existing federal immigration laws be enforced first.  They are adamant that the border be shut tight to all unlawful entry.  They also prefer legal immigration to reflect merit, diversity and ethnically blind criteria.  If those protocols were first established, half the public might also consider a pathway for legal residence for millions of foreign nationals already living in the United States without legal authority, but only if they could prove that they were without criminal records, not on public support, and have resided here for some duration.  Unfortunately those classically liberal ideals are not driving Barack Obama’s promise to grant blanket amnesties through executive order after the midterm elections.  His planned gambit is an admission that he has neither public support nor congressional sanction nor the force of settled law nor a logical or ethic argument.  The effort is instead fueled by an agenda of perpetual big government and a concern to expand future constituencies, allay the anger of Latino activists, and accommodate wealthy business donors.  Obama has all but suspended enforcement of immigration law as a way to force lawmakers to his point of view.  If the traffic at the border builds, if chaos ensues, then Obama believes that his opponents will eventually concede.  So far such assumptions have backfired, but we must wait until after the midterm elections for the ultimate verdict on his ploy.  The great unspoken fact of illegal immigration is that it is utterly anti-diversity and ethnically chauvinistic, outsourcing immigration policy to the Latino-Democrat-employer lobby, and dubbing any who object to such racialist criteria as racist.  Illegal immigration divides classes.  Amnesties and non-enforcement of existing laws are supported by many affluent employers who want far more access to inexpensive labor.  Equally taboo is any honest discussion of the effect of illegal immigration on the American poor and middle classes in schools, emergency rooms, and social services.  We are not supposed to worry that at a time of terrorist threats and the specter of epidemics, we have no idea of who arrives or from where or under what conditions.  All that concern is dismissed as xenophobia, racism, and nativism.  The current influx of Central American children will not find sanctuary at the elite prep schools of America.  Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform should delineate exactly what they mean and do not mean by their vague rhetoric.  They need to be exact in ascertaining who would deserve legal residence, and who by past misbehavior would not.  They must bring these proposals to the Congress, have an open debate, seek to pass the necessary legislation and then have it signed by the President.  If they insist on smearing skeptics who are appalled at the present chaos on the border, they should remember that diversity, legality, meritocracy, integration, assimilation and the irrelevance of race once upon a time used to be liberal ideals, but apparently not anymore.

(“What Exactly Is Comprehensive Immigration reform?” by Victor Davis Hanson dated September 14, 2014 published by PJ Media at http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/immigration-reform/ )

Back during the 2008 presidential campaign a lot of conservatives predicted that if Obama were elected President his administration would amount to Jimmy Carter’s second term, but little did anyone at the time realize just how prescient those predictions turned out to be.  It was Jimmy Carter that enabled Islamic fundamentalism to take root in Iran through his support in deposing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  The witless Jimmy Carter was very concerned about human rights abuses in Iran and through his various machinations created the conditions under which Ayatollah Khomeini was able to seize power from the Shah, and thus replace the hated SAVAK with the current SAVAMA, an organization whose brutality far exceeds that of SAVAK.  Khomeini rewarded the hapless Carter by invading the US Embassy in Tehran and holding American Diplomats hostage for 444 days, releasing them on the very day Ronald Reagan was sworn is as President.  Thus Jimmy Carter’s “foreign” “policy” is directly responsible for the resurgence of fundamental Islam in the Middle East, among numerous other disasters, both foreign and domestic.  Nearly 4 decades later another Democrat President takes up where Jimmy Carter left off, naively and narcissistically believing that he could tame the Islamist beast.  He started with his Cairo apology tour, recounting how evil America had in the past mistreated Islam and under his administration this mistreatment would be rectified.  In fact, the damage this President has done far exceeds anything for which the clumsy and misguided Carter is responsible.  The so-called Arab Spring was a Pollyanna fantasy that belied reality.  Obama’s claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization is akin to claiming that the Vatican isn’t Catholic.  Thankfully, the Egyptian army couldn’t stomach Egypt regressing into a medieval cesspool and quickly eliminated the Islamists, including the despicable Mohammad Morsi, whose favorite names for Jews was “pigs” and “monkeys.”  I once believed that Obama was evil, but I have since then become convinced that this is not the case.  Obama isn’t evil, but merely hapless, naïve and lost in a fantasy world where he believes things are as he wishes rather than as they really are.  Obama’s “red line” in the Syrian sands stands as one of the modern age’s all-time powder puff bluffs, as Bashar Assad blithely eradicated that line by using his chemical weapons against his enemies.  Someone has finally convinced this deer-caught-in-the-headlights President that he needs to take action against ISIS before there is public demand for his impeachment.  His reaction to the ISIS outrages is too little too late, in that most military experts believe that ISIS cannot be defeated through aerial bombardment.  Having someone like Carter and Obama in the White House isn’t so much a reflection on either of the two, as it is on the American people.  It appears that Americans are suckers for anyone that promises them an easy ride. It didn’t work with Carter and it’s not working with Obama. America can survive a Jimmy Carter and a Barack Obama, but the real question is, can America survive its misinformed, class envious and easily distracted citizenry?

(“A legacy of failure” by Klaus Rohrich dated September 13, 2014 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65999 )


* 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 issue sections:

·  National Service at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/service.php

·  National Culture at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/Culture/philosophy.php

·  Welfare at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/Culture/welfare.php

·  Elections at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/elections.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY