Views on the News
Views on the News*
October 19, 2019
With the constant drumbeat from the mainstream media, Democrats now hope that the whirlwind in Washington of the so-called impeachment investigation will spread so much smoke that people won’t be able to see what’s going on, except to subliminally conclude that with all that smoke around Donald Trump, there must be a fire, and that it’ll die down with his removal from office. In fact, President Trump has so much smoke around him because history has thrust on him the role of American fire-fighter-in-chief charged with extinguishing corruption in government and in the media, as well as fighting a myriad of other battles: from protecting the nation’s sovereignty and borders and redressing unfair trade deals and cost-sharing of military defense alliances to promoting policies to secure energy independence and drive economic growth, with a particular passion to deliver opportunity for those at the bottom. With a second term, Trump is likely to become a historically consequential political realignment leader. He has already broadened the base of the Republican Party, and with a little more political jujitsu he can easily make more inroads and gain support from minorities and other constituencies who feel they’ve been neglected, or have been used as political pawns by the Democrat Party elites, election cycle after election cycle. The United States is absolutely unique in human history being founded on two bedrock tenets. First, the American people are endowed with unalienable individual rights that come from God and not the state: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, along with privacy rights, due process and a presumption of innocence. Secondly, the legitimacy of the American government established by the Constitution comes solely from the will of the people determined by their choice through elections. States and districts choose their senators and representatives by popular vote, but the chief executive, the President, is elected by an Electoral College system, with electors being proportionally equal to each state’s number of U.S. House Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. The founders’ wisdom regarding a need for an Electoral College thus established a blueprint for a governing a large and diverse country by balancing the preferences and will of the people living in sparsely populated states with the different priorities of densely populated states and urban areas that typically have a greater concentration of government dependency and welfare, and the sort of patronage and political corruption that comes with that. Few can deny that the ascendance of the United States from colonial poverty to the world’s top economic and military superpower in just 200 years is a historic miracle. It is attributable to a few key differentiating factors: Judeo-Christian beliefs and work ethic, family values and the rule of law enshrined in the founding documents of Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Essentially, America was unique in its birth creating a system of limited government and the empowerment of its citizens to take risks, innovate and build. So it should come as no surprise that America’s social and cultural decline that has accelerated in the last 50 years has coincided with growing secularism, a loss of respect for and practice of religion, the decline of traditional family values and work ethic, as well as the fraying of the U.S. Constitution and the corruption of the nation’s law enforcement and judicial order, culminating in a two-tiered justice system. It may not be a crime to engineer the manipulation of public opinion, but it certainly is a multiple count felony to conspire and submit false information to a FISA court to obtain surveillance warrants to spy on a presidential campaign, an actual U.S. intelligence operation initiated on July 31, 2016 against the Trump campaign, known as “Crossfire Hurricane.” The justification for surveillance was that allegedly the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian operatives in their efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. The real reason for spying can be deduced from FBI Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who referred to Crossfire Hurricane as an “the insurance policy,” the purpose of which was to seed the media with enough dirt on Trump to discredit him and sabotage his campaign leading up to the November election. The evidence assembled in the last two or three years now shows that it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that got support from the Ukraine and knowingly or unknowingly colluded with the Russians by paying for opposition research in the form of Russian disinformation that constituted the bulk of the Steele Dossier. That phony dossier was used to sully and discredit Trump through the media and then used to politically weaponize the U.S. intelligence agencies. The Department of Justice and the FBI used the dossier as the primary evidentiary source content in the affidavits submitted to obtain a FISA warrant in October 2016 authorizing surveillance on the Trump campaign. Three additional renewals every 90 days thereafter were made after Trump became president. The Steele dossier was also used by cabinet members in the Obama Administration, notably the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies, specifically CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey. It was included in their January 2017 official report, “Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election,” that conclusively suggested the incoming Republican president was compromised by the Russians. Thus, the way was paved for what would be the Mueller investigation, which became a two-year probe that ended with the exoneration of Trump from collusion charges with any Russians. In hindsight, so much of what transpired appears to have been choreographed, making this attempted coup against a legitimately elected President of the United States a conspiracy. There is simply no greater crime against the United States, its Constitution and its people than subverting the government that is duly elected by the people. The evidence that this crime was committed with the consent and support of the aforementioned individuals working independently and in concert with many others is now overwhelming. The few wise people left in the Democrat Party know their presidential candidates’ embrace of a panoply of unfunded leftwing policies is a losing proposition juxtaposed to the persona and policy success of Trump, who has delivered results against almost impossible odds in the face of unprecedented hostility. The nation has also witnessed the Democrats cave in to the extremism of AOC and the “Squad,” pushing to modify both the First and Second Amendments and embrace the tactics of Marxist-anarchist Saul Alinsky whose primary weapons including lying, character assassination and denying their opponents due process and the presumption of innocence. As this all sinks in with the electorate as the 2020 election approaches, it may be a landslide victory for Donald Trump simply because after voters digest what the Democrat Party has become, it’s likely to be a small minority that is willing to take the chance on vesting the Democrat Party with the power of the presidency. At the same time, part of the crescendo of frenzy in Washington reflects fear that the hammer of justice is coming with indictments, trials and jail time from the work of the Barr-Durham-Horowitz trio, who share with Trump, the weight of history. This was not dirty politics as usual, but a culmination of political corruption in America. It’s become increasingly visible for all to see in the two-tiered justice system that the liberal global elites count on for protection and then use against their enemies, such as shielding the Clinton crime syndicate from prosecution for multiple felonies that compromised national security and then engineering a coup against outsider President Donald Trump without factual evidence of any crime. It’s obvious that the so-called Deep State elites are desperate to destroy Donald Trump before he can deliver on another campaign promise to drain the swamp and beat back government corruption which if successful, would fundamentally change how Washington works. If unchecked, such corruption will surely destroy freedom and prosperity in the United States as we have known it and in short order. Most everyone is on to the Pelosi-Schiff impeachment investigation hearings as being all form and little substance behind closed doors, and being nothing more than the next phase of an illegitimate coup, whose secondary purpose is to create smoke to obfuscate and prevent seeing the real story. Like him or not, Donald Trump was chosen for such a time as this, when unusual courage and energy are critically necessary to persevere with the priorities to save the nation from self-destruction.
(“Like Him or Not, Trump is Uniquely Suited for Such a Time as This” by Scott Powell dated October 18, 2019 published by Canada Free Press at https://canadafreepress.com/article/like-him-or-not-trump-is-uniquely-suited-for-such-a-time-as-this )
Since Donald Trump’s election in 2016, the mainstream media has shed its once-noble mission, the pursuit of the truth, and instead adopted a new purpose: to take down the president. The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. The Post helped this Democrat effort to hide impeachment information from the public. The cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.” This came from a newspaper with a tagline of “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” The press is liberal and biased, but at least in the past, that bias was largely a function of insularity. Most reporters weren’t even fully aware they were prejudiced politically; everyone they worked and socialized with held the same left-of-center views. That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse. This media war is extraordinary, overt and increasingly damaging to the country. The latest installment of this Democrat-media tie-up is the Ukraine story. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff explained that the intelligence community IG wanted to transmit an anonymous “whistleblower” complaint to him but had been stopped by the Trump administration. Schiff has been obsessing over how to impeach Trump, so his claim merited great skepticism, but the media ran with it anyway. Even as it acknowledged that it did not know the subject of the complaint, or the background of the accuser, it began running stories postulating that the Trump administration had engaged in a cover-up. It later accepted the whistleblower’s hearsay accusation that Trump had demanded a Ukrainian investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden as a condition of military aid, before even seeing a transcript of the Trump call. The New York Times was so eager to push the impeachment narrative forward (and give it credibility) that it divulged the sensitive detail that the whistleblower was a CIA officer detailed to the White House. The election of Donald Trump has led to the greatest disintegration of press standards in modern history. For those wondering if they are getting the “real story” in the Ukraine impeachment drama, it’s worth taking a walk back through the past few years of what we now know was the Russia-collusion hoax. One particularly bad decision helped drive all the rest of that false narrative: The press became willing advocates for government actors. This is the reverse of the role the press is supposed to play. The media exists to be a government watchdog. When it comes to Trump, the press rides herd on every issue. When it has come to former Obama officials (Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan), the media has swallowed everything it is told. It’s hard to explain just how big a dereliction of duty this is. The FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation fell clearly into a government-abuse-of-power story, of the kind the press exists to expose. It came laden with red flags: opposition research from the rival campaign, backdoor channels to the IRS, surveillance of American citizens, and yet anything the former people of power told the press to write, the press wrote. Willingness to cast aside facts in favor of theory is what has fed years of hysterical collusion conspiracy theories. The best example is that infamous New York Times story about the “origin” of the FBI probe. In late 2017, when former House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes finally came close to winning his battle with the DOJ to see documents about the infamous Steele dossier, FBI protectors panicked. They knew how terrible it would look that they had used opposition research from a rival campaign to get surveillance warrants on at least one Trump campaign official. Someone called The New York Times for help in getting ahead of the story, so they published: “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt.” The story was all about how George Papadopoulos, which inspired the FBI’s probe, and it flat-out narrated what would become the FBI line about its origins. It also flatly dismissed the dossier. The Papadopoulos allegation so alarmed American officials that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election. The dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign was cast aside. The willingness to be spoon-fed is what drove so many big press bloopers. CNN decided to run a story, based on one unnamed source, claiming a presidential adviser, Anthony Scaramucci, was under investigation for his ties to a Russian investment fund. CNN had to retract the story, and three of its journalists resigned. In December 2017, CNN announced a scoop for the ages. It claimed it had evidence that Donald Trump Jr. had been offered by advance access to hacked Democratic emails. It later came out that the outlets had gotten the date on their evidence wrong. Donald Trump Jr. had been sent an email directing him to look at the WikiLeaks dump, after WikiLeaks had made it public. BuzzFeed reported that President Trump personally directed his attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower project in Moscow. The problem was that it never happened. Even special counsel Bob Mueller’s team made a rare statement, denying the BuzzFeed report. There are plenty more: the Washington Post claimed Russians had accessed the US electrical grid through a Vermont utility; Slate claimed a Trump server had been communicating with Russia; the Guardian claimed that Paul Manafort had visited Julian Assange in his hideout at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London three times – all of these were “fake news.” The media has displayed a willingness to run fact-free accusations. The specific charges are never proven, but the media repeated the claims ad nauseum, rarely bothering to note the partisan motivations behind its creation. This willingness to cast aside facts in favor of theory is what has fed years of hysterical collusion conspiracy theories. By embracing hypothetics (rather than tracking down facts), the press indulged in endless “connect the dots” exercises. All reporters sometimes bend a rule, or go out on a limb or get something wrong, but the important thing is that they usually do this in aid of getting truth to the public. What has defined the media breakdown that started in 2016 was the press’ abandonment of standards in aid of peddling a narrative, rather than reality. A Monmouth University poll in early 2018 found that a whopping 77% of Americans believe traditional TV and newspaper outlets report “fake news,” and 42% of respondents said they believed outlets did this specifically to promote a political agenda. These kinds of numbers are alarming for civil society, because the more Americans are turned off from traditional news, the more they turn to dubious sources and read and listen only to things with which they agree.
(“Inside the media’s relentless crusade to destroy President Trump” by Kimberley Strassel dated October 13, 2019 published by New York Post at https://nypost.com/2019/10/13/inside-the-medias-relentless-crusade-to-destroy-president-trump/ )
The Democrats’ presidential contest is not so much between candidates as it is among competing groups on the Left. The real Democrat race is between blocks of voters. The first, between Democrats’ establishment/moderates and the Left. With its collective strength now approaching two-thirds of every poll’s respondents, the Left has pulled away, but it is also pulling apart. The Democrats’ contest is now being waged within the Left, between its old and new wings. The fight is personified in the one between Sanders and Warren, who together account for roughly 40% of Democrats. It also spills into the “remaining Left,” those second-tier leftist candidates who collectively account for approximately one quarter of Democrats. Sanders leads the old Left. The old Left follows the traditional economic-based agenda; akin to historical socialist orthodoxy, it is an ideological association Sanders has embraced. Historically, its mainstay support was unions, and its issues are bargaining- and wage-based. Control of the economy is its end, with the conviction that the rest of society’s ills will be righted once this control is achieved. Warren is the new Left. The new Left follows the more traditionally liberal, social-justice agenda. Its support resides in cause-based organizations and identity politics. Control of the economy is its means, the economy’s reshaping being justified as necessary to address society’s ills. Both old and new Left have their handicaps. The old Left has always found its agenda undercut by America’s prosperity and opportunity. Its economics-focused similarity with doctrinaire socialist regimes abroad has tended to define it as adhering to a “foreign” ideology. As a result, an explicitly socialist party has never had significant success in the United States. The new Left is hindered by its lack of a unifying focus and agenda. Lacking the old Left’s primary concentration on the economy, the new Left’s focus on various liberal initiatives, exemplified by identity politics, has led to a seemingly ad hoc approach in which disparate issues commingle. The result can be a disjointed confederation in which the various groups have little shared interest. In the past, the combined minority status of the old and new Left in the Democrat Party served to reduce the handicaps of each. Lacking another acceptable political outlet, both old and new Left had little choice but to accommodate their priorities to the Democrat Party’s, and each other’s, or risk having them ignored altogether. Each picked their opportunities, advancing issues as circumstances and leverage permitted. The Left’s decisive current rise to majority status in the Democrat Party has reversed the historical internal political dynamic that forced them together. While minority status argued for passive accommodation, the opportunity to seize the agenda and achieve one’s own interests argues for aggressive competition. Having always had divergent interests, and frequently conflicting ones, the old and new Left now see that long-suppressed fissures have come to the fore in the Democrats’ 2020 race. A purely candidate-based view of this race misses that the candidates are actually much more than they appear. They are personifying the Left’s cleavages. The Sanders–Warren contest has merely been the most prominent, but the second-tier Left also embodies it. Presented with what could be a unique opportunity the Left’s two branches are fighting to determine not just which nominates the Democrat Party’s candidate in 2020 but also who will define the Left in America.
(“The Real Democrat Contest is Between the Old Left and the New Left” by J.T. Young dated October 15, 2019 published by The American Spectator at https://spectator.org/the-real-democrat-contest-is-between-the-old-left-and-the-new-left/ )
The leftward propulsion of American socio-political-economic life during the New Deal and in the 60s has converged with collapsing family values during the past sixty years. Contempt for the family is part of the communist program going back to 1848. The voices of hateful anti-America protest continue to promote communism as the answer to our society’s issues. America is now in disintegration mode despite President Donald Trump’s desire to reinstate some respect for our institutions after decades of neglect. The voices of socialist potentiality began to move with greater confidence during the New Deal, but they had not wrested total control over the Democrat Party. After the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, expansion of the federal government’s economic and political authority accelerated. The Constitutional “balancing,” which was really an imbalance in favor of the States, began to erode as the cash flow to the federal government through government borrowing (deficit spending) increased. Decisions that were outright against the liberty established at the founding of our country were justified as needed to take us out of the Great Depression. FDR set up what came to be called the alphabet agencies, which vastly expanded federal control over industry and agriculture, the two biggest sectors of our economy. Both laws would be declared unconstitutional, but the mindset that gave rise to those legislative acts continued to accelerate. All these new agencies and new prerogatives for the federal government, representing a major shift towards socialism, were put into effect by FDR on the grounds that they were needed to take us out of the Great Depression. Just as the Federal Reserve did not prevent us from getting into the Depression, the New Deal draconian measures of expanded federal power only reduced unemployment from 23.6% in 1932 to 19% by 1938, and 17.2% in 1939, which were still unacceptably high. Thus, the quasi-socialist programs did not deliver on recovery. In 1948, the Democrats, although they had already moved strongly to the left in the New Deal, rejected the more pro-communist goals of Henry Wallace, who broke with the Democrats and started the Progressive Party, while the Democrats nominated Harry S. Truman who won the election. Only a few years later, the communists became galvanized under the banner of the anti-Vietnam War movement. The antiwar movement galvanized the Left. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the even more violent Weathermen were organizations determined to challenge the War and the government waging that war in the streets. They in turn joined hands with the violent, left-wing Black Power wing of the civil rights movement in the late 1960s, not with the M.L. King branch under the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) banner. Instead of kneeling, black athletes were holding their fists in the air in emulation of Huey Newton, who headed the Black Panthers, Eldridge Cleaver (also a Black Panther), and Stokely Carmichael who headed up the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Black rights were presented in a context of hatred for whites and insistence that Constitutional guarantees of freedom were not flexible enough for the black community to grow in freedom and equality. At the same time as communism and a leftist worldview was becoming rooted in U.S. society, a serious breakdown in the family life of the country was taking place. In 1960, 5% of the nation’s children were born out of wedlock; but in the last few years, the percentage is hovering around 40%. Sexual immorality is further intensified by promotion of sexual activity in our public schools. Free condoms are regularly distributed in our educational institutions. Some states have clinics where, after a ten-minute interview, young girls are given referrals to get an abortion. In many states, at least one parent must be informed, but consent is not required. Little children are sitting on the laps of drag queens in library “readings” and some of those drag queens have records of pedophilia. Homosexual marriage is now the law of the land. A million babies are aborted a year, not for “women’s health” in 90+% of the cases, but because of women’s priorities. These changes in our sexual mores have led to the disintegration of the family. The strength of the family depends upon a belief in the unity of sex, love, and marriage. However, for growing millions of persons, these three are now independent variables. This collapse in family values and sexual mores leads to a decline in stability. A man or woman looking for stability and love is easily tempted into believing that Big Daddy and/or Big Mommy government will provide that stability. A sense of worth and of a future that can be grasped comes from family and no social program can reproduce that family experience. The communist liars are there to state otherwise. Trump, the embodiment of capitalism, has become the personification of all the left hates. The politics of impeachment is powered by inhuman forces of rage, deception, and immorality. Those spitting in the faces of those with MAGA red hats have contempt for the Golden Rule as well as for the simple laws that stand against assault of one citizen by another. The bullies and street punks of the sixties are still with us as bullies and lawless anti-Americans, and are attracting desperate sex-obsessed partisans who are the products of declining family values. The Democrat leaders have shifted into full statist mode with a large dose of anarchism as well. They oppose ICE and support other lawless behavior such as the disrespect of the Senate during the Kavanaugh hearings. They advocate healthcare for all even though 180 million Americans would lose their present healthcare. This is nothing short of totalitarian communism. As the momentum increases, and the leftist screams and riots start to reach a new level of intensity, we who are on the side of right, law, and family, who are stable citizens of an unstable society, must remain resolute.
(“Social and Political Disintegration is Accelerating” by E. Jeffrey Ludwig dated October 15, 2019 published by American Thinker at https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/social_and_political_disintegration_is_accelerating.html )
When Democrats say America must “do something” about global warming, they never fully explain what that “something” is. Instead, they talk in nebulous terms about “cutting back” on the use of fossil fuels. There’s a reason Democrats obfuscate, because if voters find out what they have in mind, they’ll be routed in 2020, and they know it. Having embraced the extreme “do something” plan known as the Green New Deal, Democrats have an nasty surprise in store for voters who haven’t looked beneath the lipstick and mascara that’s being troweled on in pancake-thick layers to conceal the linchpin of their plan to “save the planet”: a massive punitive tax on the consumption of fossil-fuel energy. As reported by Forbes, a United Nation’s special climate report calls for a global carbon tax of $49 per gallon of gasoline within 12 years. At roughly 100 times the average state and federal gasoline tax, the UN’s carbon tax “suggestion” would raise the cost of a 13-gallon fill-up to over $600, just for the carbon tax. Think about the economic implications of that. The mega-rich climate shills who bellow the loudest about the alleged perils of global warming can easily absorb a gasoline tax of that magnitude. To be sure, there are other ways than gasoline to slap a tax on man-made CO2 emissions to put a hammerlock on America’s capitalist economy. Whatever form of carbon tax they ultimately choose, Democrats intend to control virtually every aspect of your life: where you can live, the size of home you can have, the minimum number of residents in your home, whether you’re allowed to have a second home, the amount of air-conditioning you’re allowed to use, the kind of car you can have, the number of cars you can have, what you’re allowed to eat, and whether you’re allowed to travel by air or take your family on a cruise. Democrats will use punitive carbon taxes to impose draconian limitations on every facet of your life, except your healthcare, which they will limit by wiping out employer-sponsored health insurance in favor of government-run Medicare for all. Few people know about the UN’s demand for a $49 per gallon gasoline tax, and progressive journalists in the complicit western media have helped the climate crisis lobby keep it hidden. No intelligent person can fail to see that such taxes would destroy the U.S. economy, and with it the lifestyle of all but the wealthiest Americans. Democrats say the green jobs economy they’ll create will lift all ships. They’ll tell you to trust them, because “studies” done by “experts” using “economic modeling” have found their carbon tax plan will be “revenue neutral” and will have only “a modest impact” on the lives of ordinary Americans. What they won’t tell you is that a few years back, ordinary citizens in Spain, Italy, and Germany, and this year, in France, openly revolted after realizing they’d been lied to about the crushing impact punitive carbon taxes have on the western way of life. When Democrats say their carbon tax plan will invigorate the economy, they’re lying through their teeth. Ask yourself how the economy can possibly function when ordinary wage-earners, the engine upon which economic stability depends, are saddled with a gasoline tax that disembowels their family budget, and thus their ability to even get to work.
(“A $600 fill-up?” by John Eldson dated October 12, 2019 published by American Thinker at https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/a_600_fillup.html )
We are living through the death of the Democrat Party, and watching it being replaced by a new Democratic-Socialist Party. Imagine what would have happened if any Democrat candidate had the courage (or lack of sense) to actively defend President Bill Clinton’s policies on welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts and balanced federal budgets, or his 1996 State of the Union assertion that “the era of Big Government is over.” Imagine that any candidate had agreed with President Barack Obama’s original 2008 position that “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Imagine that a candidate had defended ObamaCare as the solution to health care in America. When the last two Democratic presidents can no longer be defended by the men and women hoping to become the next Democrat president, something profound has happened. We have already seen the old Democrat Party being eclipsed by “the Squad.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now the spiritual leader of House Democrats. Every major Democrat presidential candidate has endorsed radical Green New Deal-type proposals that would expand government, destroy the energy industry, radically change America, and plunge the economy into a depression. The Democratic-Socialist Party wants to outlaw private health insurance, punish the successful (especially the wealthy), and expand government control over virtually everything. The Democratic-Socialist candidates embrace policies ranging from wanting to confiscate guns; forcing the radical California gender curriculum on every state; removing the tax exemption for every church, synagogue, and mosque that defines marriage as between a man and a woman; providing free (meaning taxpayer-funded) health care to people living in our country illegally; and opening the border so anyone and everyone will be able to enter the United States without having to worry about immigration laws. Some of these radical candidates favor tax-paid sex-change operations in prison, and genderless prisons so male criminals could declare themselves female to be sent to women’s prisons. Imagine that one of the candidates had said he or she was against abortion, because the result might have been a riot, and at a minimum an expulsion of the heretic. The Democratic-Socialist Party stands for abortion on the last day of pregnancy, and its most radical acolytes are now for infanticide after delivery as long as “the infant would be kept comfortable.” Imagine that candidate attacking the National Education Association’s pledge that “educators must acknowledge the existence of White supremacy culture as a primary root cause of institutional racism, structural racism, and White privilege. ...the Association will actively advocate for social and educational strategies fostering the eradication of institutional racism and White privilege perpetuated by White supremacy culture.” White supremacy culture is left-wing code for American history, American exceptionalism, the rule of law, the Constitution, and the various habits and patterns that made America the most prosperous and powerful nation in history. Imagine one of the candidates in the debate arguing that our schools should not be centers of anti-American indoctrination dictated by left-wing unions. As The Wall Street Journal put it in an editorial headlined “Warren and Sanders, Policy Mates.” the pattern is overwhelming:
· They both would force these companies to get a new federal charter requiring them to consider ‘stakeholders’ rather than shareholders in their business decisions.
· They both want to reimpose the old Glass-Steagall fence between commercial banking and investment banking.
· Sanders likes to say 'The business model of Wall Street is fraud.’
· Warren also thinks bankers are crooks: 'Wall Street is looting the economy.’
· They both agree the U.S. Postal Service should become a bank that offers government checking accounts and would compete with private banks.
· The both agree on college as an entitlement.
There are a scattered handful of traditional liberal Democrats in the House and Senate, but none have any chance of ever being a national candidate in the emerging Democratic-Socialist Party. We are watching a historic moment in which a once-great American political party is transformed into an anti-American engine of radical change. Every Democrat candidate will have to defend a national party that is now the Democratic-Socialist Party.
(“RIP Democratic Party – You’re being transformed into an anti-American engine of radical change” by New Gingrich dated October 16, 2019 published by Fox News at https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-rip-democratic-party-youre-being-transformed-into-an-anti-american-engine-of-radical-change )
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.