RTCS

Views on the News

September 29, 2012

Views on the News*  

For those of you fretting over the latest "FoxNews / ABC-CBS-NBC / Wall Street Journal / USAToday / Perth Amboy Times / And Whatnot" poll showing Obama 300 points ahead of Romney in the race for the Presidency, do yourself a big favor - ignore it, and everything like it.  Most polls commissioned by news outlets are done not to reflect reality, but to distort it.  In the same way Hollywood has discovered it can cheaply fill airtime with so-called "reality shows," news outlets have found they can fill their pages with polls.  Romney's going to win this election in a romp come November.  I'm certain of this because there is a key factor that's being overlooked this time around -- blacks have lost their passion for Obama.  Back in 2008, when blacks spoke of Obama, it was like they were describing an encounter with the divine.  Obama was "The One" and the "savior of the black man," as my Aunt Gladys shouted over the telephone to me after learning I was backing McCain.  Now what I'm hearing are sentiments more in line with "Give the man a chance" and "He needs more time to turn things around."  Blacks are clearly engaged in excuse-making for a failed deity.  When it comes to their waning ardor for Obama, blacks put up a good front, especially around whites, i.e., pollsters.  Blacks have discovered Obama for what they suspected he was to begin with: the newest in a long line of black would-be-messiahs/hucksters who were also at first described as charismatic, inspirational, visionary, and eloquent.   Black politicians -- especially of the liberal Democrat bent - are all doomed to failure because each one believes he's the second coming of Dr. Martin Luther King.  Their shtick is all the same: lofty rhetoric, pretensions of divinity, charm that inspires unquestioning, religious-like devotion (sound familiar?).  Let's face it: for all his greatness, Dr. King would have made a lousy President.  Some black pastors are encouraging their congregations not to vote on Election Day, given the choice between the Rock Star in Chief and a Mormon.  Polls are largely not picking up on blacks' massive loss of passion for Obama.  No longer motivated by passion, you can expect 2 million fewer blacks to pull the lever for Obama this time around, spelling doom for his re-election prospects.

(“Why Romney is Going to Romp over Obama in November” by The Drive-by Pundit dated September 21, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_romney_is_going_to_romp_over_obama_in_november.html )

The major polls that are appearing on the daily newscasts, in the newspapers and on the internet have become incredibly important since they are meant to accurately reflect the views of the nation, but these polls today have unfortunately turned into a partisan weapon.  Many major organizations have skewed their polls as of late. They do this a couple of subtle ways that most people will not notice unless they bother to do a little digging. By over-sampling Democrat voters and under-sampling both Republicans and Independents, the poll organizations have been able to make it appear as though President Barack Obama has a decisive lead over former Governor Mitt Romney.  Thankfully, some people have "unskewed" the polls, showing what looks to be a much different race than what we’ve all been fed by the mainstream media.  A look at the unskewed polls shows us a spread of Mitt Romney being nearly 8 full points ahead of President Obama.  Unskewed approval ratings shows Obama’s disapproval high than approval in every poll.  Polls can be used as a weapon. The result is a de facto means of voter suppression. Those that may be hoping for a Romney victory may see poll after poll with President Obama supposedly in the lead, and believe that it’s not worth voting.  This is not the result of some grand liberal media conspiracy. Rather, it is a time honored technique that liberal-leaning groups have used for years.  Recently two Gallup polls should have the Obama administration worried. Even though the numbers were slightly lopsided and they were polling registered voters instead of likely voters, the polls showed bad news for President Obama. One poll showed Obama and Romney tied at 47% each, while the other showed Obama’s approval rating back down 46%.  The truth becomes clear that Obama does not have an unsurpassable lead, and Romney is not a weak candidate, and Romney will win in November.

(“Obama vs Romney Polls: When You Crunch the Numbers, Romney is Actually Doing Very Well” by Jesse Merkel dated September 25, 2012 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/jessemerkel/2012/09/25/obama_vs_romney_polls_when_you_crunch_the_numbers_romney_is_actually_doing_very_well )

The mainstream media (MSM) is on its knees in it's the customary position of worship of Barack Obama, their chosen "one," and the MSM future is directly linked to his political fortunes.  He is the man they told us would halt the rise of the oceans and heal the planet, the man who had game like Lebron, knew more than his advisers, was more brilliant than all brilliance, the smartest man to ever be President, the winner of a Nobel Prize and 2 Grammy awards, who was like Lincoln, then FDR, then JFK, then Reagan, the man who would make America loved and respected the world over, the man who would balance the budget and usher in a new era of racial tolerance, with no white America or black America, one America, the man who would get us out of our cars and break our dependency on foreign oil, who would change the economy into a green energy powerhouse, the man who would solve all the ills of all the world, the man who would change everything.  He was new, he was different.  He was better than the common man; he was more than us; he was like a god.  Three and a half years later, the only thing Barack Obama has improved is his golf game.  For the media, when their messiah is 0 for a zillion, what can they do?  It's too late to quit.  They are all in.  They have to double down.  Mitt Romney makes a comment about how 47% of Americans are "dependent" on government handouts, and the media is outraged that he would tell the truth.  The rest of America is outraged that the figure is 47%.  This is why Americans cannot believe the media message that the President is winning.  The press has to pretend, and they will, right up until November 6, when he will lose in a landslide.  Strip away the Obama myth, and what are you left with?  You are left with a man who is nothing more than an illusion.  There never was and never will be a Barack Obama, because he is not real.  The man reading from the teleprompter is nothing more than the sum total of the audacious hopes and dreams of delusional progressives, touted endlessly by a submissive press.  There was a time when the mainstream media dictated the conversation while hiding behind the veneer of impartiality, and Americans deferred to their wisdom.  Despite having always been partial, at least in the past they made some pretense of neutrality.  A defeat for Barack is a defeat for them.  No longer will they be the exalted press, the arbiter of truth and justice.  After the debacle that is Barack Obama, the mainstream media will be seen for what they are: publicity agents for progressivism.

(“The Audacity of These Dopes” by William L. Gensert dated September 21, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_audacity_of_these_dopes.html )

 

If President Obama wins his reelection bid and gets his tax increases implemented, we will get the “Obama recession” of 2013.  The last recession has been officially over for more than three years, though it certainly doesn’t seem that way to millions of struggling and unemployed Americans; and the country is perilously close to falling back into another.  The economy is staggering under the load of Obama’s policies, making it increasingly likely we will soon slip into a double recession.  The Federal Reserve Bank is so concerned that it jumped back into the economy with its third quantitative easing (QE3).  But the Fed’s efforts to flood the economy with money, $2.3 trillion since 2008, won’t save us from another recession, and may actually exacerbate the problem, if companies and entrepreneurs refuse to invest in new opportunities, equipment and people.  There are at least three reasons why an Obama victory will almost surely lead to a recession in 2013:

o Obama’s version of the “Wealth Tax.”  Obama wants to impose a number of new taxes on those he considers wealthy—individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000. 

o The certainty of uncertainty.  The uncertainties created by the explosion of regulations, taxes and mandates (e.g., most employers must provide health insurance) will encourage businesses to remain hunkered down and sitting on their cash, unsure what challenges and costs they face when hiring and expanding.

o The government-spending binge. Obama increased government spending from about 20% of GDP under George W. Bush to nearly 25%. To sustain that level of spending the government must dramatically increase the tax burden and/or borrow like a drunken liberal.  The President has done both, $5 trillion worth of new debt, and will do a lot more.  Both actions suck capital from markets and the private sector that is needed to boost real economic growth.

Obama says he wants to “invest” in the U.S., by which he means confiscating trillions of dollars from the private sector to squander on “investments” the administration thinks are beneficial—especially to his political future.  If a President-elect Romney were to make it clear that he would cut government spending immediately, not raise taxes and curb or eliminate the Obama regulation-palooza, companies would begin to invest the trillions of dollars they are currently holding—because that’s what companies do when it makes business sense to do so.  While it might not be enough to save us from another recession, it would be minor compared to the economic hit we’ll take if a reelected Obama is able to get his agenda passed.

(“The Coming ‘Obama Recession’ of 2013” by Merrill Matthews dated September 21, 2012 published by Forbes at http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/09/21/the-coming-obama-recession-of-2013/ )

 

All the great religions, the ones that have grown over thousands of years, have had periods of violence and war, but all the great religions except Islam have given up war and now practice peace and that's the big difference.  Ninety percent of Muslims today may be peaceful, but they tolerate in their midst an explosive minority who can cite the Koran on violent jihad to convert the whole world.  Islam is only 1.4 billion out of 7 billion people on the planet, so the arithmetic, contrary to liberal defeat-mongers, does not favor Islam.  It favors tolerance, with the ongoing spread of Christianity (in China, Russia, and Africa), the existence of the State of Israel providing self-defense for the first time in two millennia to the Jews, the worldwide spread of Buddhism Lite (it's rarely real Buddhism) and Vendantist Hinduism.  Liberals are historically ignorant, arrogant, and stupid, and they are happy to surrender and be lied to on behalf of neo-fascism of the nuclear Muslim variety.  With suicidal Western policies, the new rise of religio-fascism with nukes could well succeed.  Our leftist parties have happily betrayed their countries for money, oil, and power to beat domestic enemies.  The fact that politicians in Europe are routinely bought off by Saudi oil billionaires shows how decadent and corrupt they have become.  Muslim radicals know perfectly well how corrupt and morally feeble we are. They test us and see it every day.  The problem is not that "all religions are violent."  That is sheer, unadulterated historical nonsense.  The Jews had a war against the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 CE.  Christians fought the Crusades against Muslim invaders of Europe from the south and east, and Protestants fought Catholics until 400 years ago.  The Hindu Bhagavat-Gita is about a warrior's dilemma: can I kill my cousins in war without losing my spirituality?  But all in the remote past, except for Islam. Modern warfare is about secular pseudo-religions.  The last two centuries have seen little religious war, and mostly secular mass killings.  The whole liberal complaint about religion is two centuries out of date, except in the case of radical warlike Islam, where it is all too timely.  The liberal answer to Mohammed is Marx, one reactionary extremist from the Arabian desert of thirteen centuries ago against another one from the Prussian Empire of 1848.  Mohammed and Marx both agitated for world-conquering imperialism, and dumbed-down liberals think that the Marxist mass-murdering ideology is "progressive."  Obama represents the third or fourth wave of Marxism, in which the left forges an alliance with the biggest medieval throwback ideology in the world: desert Islam, as propagated by oil-fueled Wahhabi imams; Iranian Islam, which conquered the civilization of Persia and set it back so far that it has never recovered, now run by the Armageddon sect of the Twelvers; and yes, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, we now have the ur-fascists of the Muslim Ascendancy, the Muslim Brotherhood, in control of Egypt.  Obama has not been a naive bystander in this process of massive cultural regression, in which countless millions of women have been locked up in their homes, unable to even walk outside without a male family escort.  At every step in the last four years Obama hasn't hesitated to make everything worse, because Obama is a Leninist -- a third-world Marxist, as he tells us with overweening pride in Dreams from My Father.  His bio-dad was a Kenyan third-world Socialist, too.  Lenin's famous maxim was that you have to make things worse to make them better by taking over in a crisis and controlling society and Obama is trying to do exactly that.

(“Obama and religious War” by James Lewis dated September 21, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obama_and_religious_war.html )

As we wind down our presence in Afghanistan, conditions appear not as bad as they were in Vietnam in 1967 or in Iraq in 2007 because the overall level of violence is much lower, and there has been demonstrable progress as a result of President Obama’s surge.  Coalition troops have managed to clear the Taliban out of many of their sanctuaries in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces. The buildup of the Afghan security forces, which are now 350,000 strong, is proceeding despite the dangers posed by insider attack. There have even been some scattered successes in improving the delivery of local services in districts that have been major centers of coalition activity, but let’s not kid ourselves. The Taliban (and related groups, such as the even-more-fanatical Haqqani network), are far from defeated. They remain secure in their Pakistan sanctuaries, which a decade’s worth of American efforts have done nothing to dislodge. The Taliban even maintain many sanctuaries within Afghanistan itself, particularly in eastern Afghanistan, where the coalition has never had enough troops to do the kind of “clear, hold, and build” operations that have been conducted in the south. And the state of Afghan governance remains poor, with outrageously corrupt and abusive officials—the greatest recruiting agents the Taliban could possibly have, still in office despite half-hearted American efforts to root them out.  The greatest cause for despair is the lack of Presidential leadership. President Obama notoriously refuses to talk about the war, to explain setbacks, and to tell the American people how his plan for victory will work. Instead he talks mainly about how he is “ending the war,” by which he means pulling U.S. troops out, thereby making a bigger war more likely. Obama never granted the generals as many troops as they requested, and he pulled out the surge troops faster than the generals wanted.  Obama’s determination to withdraw is plainly evident to Afghans, friend and foe alike, and undercuts the assurances of continuing American commitment contained in the U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement signed earlier this year. The Taliban are obviously expecting, with all U.S. combat troops gone by the end of 2014, that they will be able to make up lost ground. And those Afghans who are allied with the United States are visibly nervous, wondering if they should make accommodations with the Taliban lest they wind up on the losing side.  In some ways the current situation—with an uncertain and likely deteriorating situation on the ground accompanied by unconvincing assurances from the top that everything is much better than you think, reminds us of Iraq in 2006. Only a surge of troops and a change of strategy, making victory rather than withdrawal the military objective—saved us from defeat in Iraq.  We sympathize with the criticisms that lawmakers are making and agree it is high time for President Obama to reevaluate his strategy and to explain more fully to the American people just what we are doing in Afghanistan and how we are doing it. Bad as the situation is today, we should not ignore the probability that an American pullout could make things far worse.  We can’t imagine how America’s security could be improved by a hasty departure from Afghanistan. Our withdrawal would probably plunge the country into civil war. The last time that happened, in the 1990s, the Taliban emerged victorious. There is every reason to expect that, with Pakistan’s support, they would come out on top again. Taliban leaders have promised not to allow their territory to be used as a staging ground for attacks abroad, but there is no more reason to trust them now than in the 1990s. The Taliban have had numerous opportunities to break with al Qaeda and other malign groups and they have consistently refused to do so. The Haqqani network is even more closely linked to the terrorist nexus in Pakistan.  If the Taliban do take power in Afghanistan, it is certain to have a corrosive impact on Pakistan’s already fragile stability, raising the nightmare possibility of jihadists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. And, of course, a victory for jihadists over the last remaining superpower, which is how an American pullout from Afghanistan would be perceived in the Middle East, regardless of how it was spun by the White House, would be a big boost for al Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist groups which already have found openings in Libya, Syria, and other countries thrown into turmoil by the Arab Spring.  The present path in Afghanistan is discouraging, but hard as it may be to swallow, Republicans, including their Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, need to avoid the counsels of despair and to push for a robust, long-term American engagement that can stabilize Afghanistan and prevent al Qaeda’s allies from once again taking over.

(“Retreater in Chief” by Max Boot dated October 1, 2012 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/retreater-chief_652886.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 issue sections:

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

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

People are discouraged, and many don't believe we are in a recovery because the GDP is above its pre-recession high and we hear about how many jobs have been created over the past couple of years, but people also see that fewer are working today than who were working in 2007.  People think that we are in a recession because they are poorer than they were prior to the recession.  The average American's wealth is down $39,000 or about 16% from its pre-recession high in 2005 dollars.  Not only are Americans poorer than they were at the beginning of the recession, their income is down too.  Americans are poorer than they were, and their income is lower, and they are out of work or they know someone who is out of work.  Of course they don't believe we are in a recovery.  This recession has hit sectors like construction and manufacturing disproportionally hard, and people who work in these sectors are not well represented in the chattering class.  Small businesses have also been badly hurt, but the media doesn’t talk about them.  Education, healthcare, government, and professional services have each faced challenges, but these sectors' job losses have been small compared to the most hard-hit sectors.  One result of the different patterns of job losses across sectors is that we've seen an increase in income inequality.  Even worse, the increased inequality may be accompanied by declining upward mobility.  Income inequality without upward mobility is prescription for social trouble and slower economic growth.  Huge numbers of young people have failed to find jobs.  Unemployed and disillusioned young people are another prescription for social trouble.  Our leaders don’t seem to be doing anything.  Congress is gridlocked and the President is campaigning.  Government spending is the problem.  Government at all levels is now about 37% of the economy.  This is higher than it was during World War Two.  It needs to become smaller as a percentage of the economy, but not by cutting.  Until we fix the underlying economic problems, the public sector will suck the life out of our recovery and people will never return to work.

(“Here’s Why People Don’t Think We’re in a Recovery” by Bill Watkins dated September 27, 2012 published by New Geography at http://www.newgeography.com/content/003105-heres-why-people-dont-think-were-a-recovery )

Everybody knows that this election is supposed to be all about the economy, but both Democrats and Republicans seem to want to have a debate about the individual, society, and government in American life.  Employment, income, growth, and America’s credit rating are too low, while spending, borrowing, deficits, poverty, and gas prices are too high, and voters must decide whether President Obama is responsible for all of that or whether Mitt Romney could do better. Polls certainly suggest that these questions are highest on voters’ minds.  Each party is pulled into this debate by what it sees as the deeply misguided views of the other. Democrats listen to Republicans and hear a simpleminded and selfish radical individualism​.  They hear people who think that being successful and rich means you’re smarter than everyone else or work harder than everyone else, and who therefore have no regard for those in our society who are in no position to start a business or get a loan.  Republicans listen to Democrats, meanwhile, and hear a simpleminded and dangerous radical collectivism.  They hear people who think that no success is earned and no accomplishment can be attributed to those who took the risks to make it happen. They hear people who think there is no value in personal drive and initiative, and who would like to extend the web of federal benefits as far and wide as possible to shield Americans from the private economy and make them dependent on government beneficence and on the liberal politicians who bestow it.  Republicans accuse Democrats of ignoring individual achievement and overvaluing government achievements; Democrats accuse Republicans of ignoring government achievements and overvaluing individual achievement.  Simply put, to see our fundamental political divisions as a tug of war between the government and the individual is to accept the progressive premise that individuals and the state are all there is to society. The real debate forced upon us by the Obama years is about the nature of that intermediate space, and of the mediating institutions that occupy it: the family, civil society, and the private economy.  Progressives in America have always viewed those institutions with suspicion, seeing them as instruments of division, prejudice, and selfishness and seeking to empower the government to rationalize the life of our society by clearing away those vestiges of backwardness and putting in their place public programs and policies motivated by a single, cohesive understanding of the public interest. Progressive social policy has sought to make the family less essential by providing for basic material needs, particularly for lower-income women with children. It has sought to make civil society less essential by assigning to the state many of the roles formerly played by religious congregations, civic associations, fraternal groups, and charities, especially in providing help to the poor. And progressive economic policy has sought to turn the private economy into an arm of government policy, consolidating key sectors and protecting from competition large corporations that are willing to act as public utilities or to advance policymakers’ priorities.  Conservatives have always resisted such a gross rationalization of society and insisted that local knowledge channeled by evolving social institutions will make for better material outcomes and a better common life. The life of a society consists of more than moving resources around, and what happens in that space between the individual and the government is vital​, ​at least as much a matter of character formation as of material provision and wealth creation. Moral individualism mixed with economic collectivism only feels like freedom because it liberates people from responsibility in both arenas, but real freedom is only possible with real responsibility. And real responsibility is only possible when you depend upon, and are depended upon by, people you know.  What happens in that space generally happens face-to-face​,between parents and children, neighbors and friends, buyers and sellers. It answers to immediately felt needs, and is tailored to the characters and sentiments of the people involved. This is both good and bad, to be sure.  All of this, of course, forms citizens, too, and gives shape to our political life.  There is no question that America’s government is one of those sources, and a very important one. Government could never be a substitute for the mediating institutions of our society, but those institutions could not exist without the environment created and sustained by our system of government. While the progressive view of government has long involved the effort to shrink and clear the space between the individual and the state, the conservative view of government has long seen the purpose of the state as the creation, protection, and reinforcement of just that space.  This means that government is crucially important, but it also means that limits on government are crucially important. Without those limits, the state can gravely threaten the space for private life that it is charged with protecting. It can do so by invading that space and attempting to fill it, and by collapsing that space under the weight of government’s sheer size, scope, and cost. Both dangers have grown grave and alarming in our time, the first as an explicit goal of federal policymakers, the second as an unavoidable consequence of their actions, and the space between the individual and the state seems now to be in very real peril.  It has become increasingly apparent in recent decades that the trajectory of our welfare state is not consistent with the survival of this way of life. Left on its current course, the federal government will take up a greater and greater portion of our economic output (increasingly starving other social institutions and burdening future generations with debt) and will become less and less able to perform its own crucial tasks (as the costs of benefit payments to individuals overwhelm all other functions). Meanwhile, the character of some of those programs of benefit payment threatens to undermine the character of our citizens.  Conservatives must take a broader and deeper view of what they are defending and why. They stand not so much for the individual against the state, but for a vision of American life that consists of more than individuals and the state. Conservatives stand for American society, citizens, families, communities, civil society, a free-market economy, and a constitutional government. Conservatives stand for a way of life now increasingly endangered, and well worth preserving and modernizing​,a way of life that is decidedly not better off than it was four years ago.

(“The Real Debate” by Yuval Levin dated October 8, 2012 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/real-debate_653224.html )

 

Americans may think they know what President Obama would do if he wins four more years, but, in reality, they have no idea just how radical and far-reaching his agenda would be.  Obama himself has been clear about using another term to “reform” our financial sector and ensure the implementation of ObamaCare. The President also has said he would attempt progressive-style immigration reform, with the presumption of amnesty for illegal aliens.  Many figure Obama would continue his relentless expansion of federal government power; increasing even further his crushing, multitrillion-dollar intergenerational debt; and pursue a weak foreign policy coupled with the evisceration of America’s military.  Obama’s first-term strategy did not materialize out of thin air. The President’s signature policies, including the “stimulus,” defense initiatives and even ObamaCare, were crafted over years by key progressive think tanks and activists, usually first promoted in extensive research and policy papers. Some first-term plans were even recycled and modified from older legislative attempts that had previously been pushed by progressive Democrats.  Many of these same progressive groups and activists have been hard at work planning Obama’s second-term strategy: jobs, wages, health care, immigration, defense, even electoral reform.  Here are some of the second-term plans:

·    The re-creation of a 21st-century version of FDR’s Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs;

·    An additional government-funded jobs program that provides “good jobs” capable of supporting a family with a “decent standard of living.”

·    A new government mandate to force businesses to provide twelve weeks of paid benefits to employees who need time off to care for a new child, a sick family member, or their own illness.

·    A higher, required minimum wage that would raise the floor for all employees.

·    An expansive, de facto amnesty program for illegal aliens via both executive order and interagency directives linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol.

·    Plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-1B visas and green cards.

·    Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and health care centers. A “federal solution” to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated “equitably” across the United States.

·    A National Infrastructure Bank that would evaluate and finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance” and would finance “transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, wastewater, and other infrastructures.”

·    The wresting of control of the military budget from Congress by placing an ”independent panel” in charge of military spending and slashing  the defense budget in shocking ways.

·    Spreading the vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces even thinner by using them to combat “global warming,” fight global  poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and step up use of  “peacekeeping” deployments;

·    A new “green” stimulus program and the founding of a federal “green” bank or “Energy Independence Trust,” which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in “clean energy. “

·    A “green Manufacturing” revolving loan fund to create 680,000 manufacturing jobs and 1,972,000 additional jobs over five years

·    Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the federal government.

It was Bush who must be credited with dusting off an old American saw that well applies to his White House successor: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” and the question is whether the American people will allow ourselves to be fooled again?

(“Obama’s second-term agenda will prove devastating to U.S.” by Aaron Klein dated July 27, 2012 published by Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/27/obama-second-term-agenda-will-prove-devastating-to-us/ )

 

The Islamic jihad against modern society reflects the inability to participate in the global society, because we know that, albeit reluctantly, we are at war with Islam as represented by its radicals.  Islam and Islamists have grown into dominant topics. One reason is the nuclearization of the creed. Prophets with guns are dangerous: with nukes, they are a peril.  The expression “modern world”, Jihad’s target, needs attention. Many would say “West”. That would wrongly indicate that a phenomenon limited to a geographic area causes the outrage. True, Western Europe has been the birthplace of the resented modern world. Nevertheless, the significance of that product is not limited to the place or its ways.  The West surpassed its contemporaries. Europe developed dynamism and growth with an ideal that pursued a better tomorrow instead of being content with a stable present and the conservation of existing achievements. In doing so, having lost its fear of change, Europe managed to widen the gap to its competitors. This process provided superior means of power that enabled it to impose its rule globally.  The West invented “progress” as an ideal and not as a feared foe as did the stagnant traditional civilizations. Thereby the west of Europe’s tentacles penetrated the world. In time progress became the goal of non-western cultures including Eastern Europe. Those societies whose cultures facilitated “learning from the enemy” fared well. By emulating, they could become modern without being of the “West. This process of assimilation continues in the present. Its participants are converging causing global trends, lifestyles, businesses, products and aspirations. Even more important is that the developmental gap, the variance between the pioneers and the late starters, is narrowing.  The opportunity to absorb the defining elements of a successful model has not been universally exploited. Islam’s world ailed from an inability to accept the preconditions of the access to modernization and its values.  Islam defined success in terms of power. Its encounters with other cultures have tended to be collisions.  The defeat of the Ottoman Empire (along with the Habsburgs, the Hohenzollern and the Romanovs) forced the rethinking of the Muslim world.  In its way stood the Caliphate that tied the state and Islam together. Islam is a value system that had prevented modernization in the past and would do so in the future.  The failure of decolonized Muslim states to close the “developmental gap is at the root of Muslim hostility toward modernity.  The inability to cope through participation is caused by the fear of losing its soul and identity. Islamism is a radical response to a pre-programmed failure that would be impossible without it. The antidote of wanting something that is feared, misunderstood and rejected, is to articulate two pretentions.  One is that the conspiracy of the unbelievers is the cause of all perceived deficiencies. The other asserts that Islam, as a religion, a culture and a way of life is, regardless of its material backwardness, morally superior to other models. This primacy is tied to the correct application of the faith. The result leads to a fanaticism that precludes the selective adaptation of any new and alien ways.  Dogmatically, only the enemies of God can doubt the “final victory.”  The proper response to backwardness and collective weakness is not development but the destruction of the satanic structure of the unbelievers.  The ultimate success of destroying what cannot be participated in implies a new Islamic global order, according to Allah’s command, which is the only path to unity and equality of mankind.

(“Modernization: Rage and Refusal” by George Handlery dated September 28, 2012 published by Intellectual Conservatism at http://intellectualconservative.com/index.php/duly-noted-modernization-rage-and )

 

* 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:

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

·  Foreign Trade at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/trade.php

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

NE-->