Views on the News
Views on the News*
November 17, 2018
The time is now, America, because we have had enough of the past few years to say we need to go in a new direction. Ronald Reagan spoke to all of us in saying that “it is morning in America.” Now, it is twilight in America, and our light from the sun has crossed over us and we are in the gloaming. The time is now, America, to take a new direction and the light will return and a new day will dawn. The time is now to put behind us any notion that this great nation is a colored map, with some states red and others blue. The time is now, America. We are one people: Americans. No nation in the history of this world has ever done what we have done in the past. No nation in history has the ability and the opportunity to do what we can do in the future. The time is now, America. We can no longer afford to think of ourselves only as Republicans or Democrats; we are Americans. We are a nation built on the premise of freedom for all. We are not going to allow ourselves to be led by fear. We are not going to be led by lies and inflammatory language. We are no longer going to see ourselves as divided by states, regions, religion, gender or ethnicity. We are America and our time is now. We have led the world to advances in science, engineering, education for all; a country that respects every person’s religion and heritage, and every person’s color. We have lost our way a bit, but we are here to lead us through the short night ahead and into a new morning in America. We will not be defined as the leader of the 20th century, but not the 21st century. We have led with our heads high and the awe and respect of the world and we will continue and resume our unique way as Americans. We have freedom and freedom will always win out. Hate is not part of our DNA. Hate is for fools, for the shallow. Freedom is for winners, and we Americans are winners. We are, as the very name of our country has proudly said for almost two and a half centuries, the United States of America. The largest political party in America is not the Republicans or the Democrats. The largest political party is the voters who did not cast ballots and the Americans who have yet to register as voters. Those folks are the largest political party in our nation. We will show them that the Republican Party is their party. We must include them and get them to know we hear their voices and their disconnection and apathy. We will appeal to them with truth, not fear. We will appeal to them with no eye for color or ethnicity, no eye for religious preference or gender. The world may have changed. Many nations now have a raised standard of living, excellent health care and a growing middle class. We have led them and we will resume our role. We have been the envy of the world and we will be the envy of the world in the future as well. We have done that with our great history, our Constitution, our rule of law and our education. Most of all we have led by showing that freedom will always win out; that truth will always win out and that there is no place for fear and division. As Republicans we are not going to reach across the aisle, we are going to forget there is an aisle. Let’s put away the language of division and work together for our young and our seniors. A gentler America will be a much wiser America. Let us light up the night with our good sense. Let’s help each other through the night, not as citizens of a red state or a blue state, but as Americans. The Republican Party has in our history, and will in our future, lead the way into the new dawn and once again it will be Morning in America. The time is now, America and God bless the United States of America.
(“The Time Is Now to Choose Freedom Over Fear” by Harry Schaffner and Stu Spencer dated November 14, 2018 published by Real Clear Politics at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/14/the_time_is_now_to_choose_freedom_over_fear_138646.html )
Trying to play the role of healer and unifier has been a weakness for Republicans, such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. They and others, including Reagan and even McCain, tried to various degrees to act as healers and unifiers, but the other side had no intention of letting them get away with that. These Republican presidents and candidates let themselves be turned into punching bags taking the crap thrown at them while trying to be perceived as "presidential" by remaining above it all. Remember, "Bush lied, people died!"? Remember the full pass McCain and Romney both gave Obama on so many critical issues including his relationships with Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, and George Soros? Now, the liberals and progressives are outraged that President Trump refuses to play traditional Republican, that is, refuses to play patsy. Their heads have been exploding since the 2016 election. Then there’s the media itself, the big three broadcast networks, CNN and MSNBC. Trump has been called a “white supremacist,” a “Nazi,” a “virus,” “unfit to be human,” a “bigot” and other lovely terms. The abuse and hatred, starting the moment of his inauguration, has been unprecedented. It explains perfectly why the role of healer has not only been not possible, but not appropriate. It's the same reason Israel has not been able to make peace with the Muslim Arabs. Much of the other side doesn't want peace except 100% on their terms. We are in a low-grade civil war. These are the people who intimidated and basically destroyed the reputation and presidency of George W. Bush (who, regardless of what you thought of his politics was one of the most decent men to ever be president). He was totally disrespected and made to look weak, setting the stage for Obama. This is why we love Trump; he is our Netanyahu. The opportunity for healing at present is minimal. If Trump doesn't fight to protect America from these people, our country will irreversibly slip into socialism or worse and will be totally taken over by Antifa thugs, the leftist academics who have already shut down free speech in our universities, the progressives who are demanding open borders, the left wing media that has become cheerleaders for the Democrat Party, the Democrat election fraud ballot stuffers, anti-Semites, and the likes of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour, Louis Farrakhan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the rest of them. What Trump says is ignored. He made a number of conciliatory statements during his press conference that any fair person would say were attempts at unifying the country:
“Hopefully, we can all work together next year to continue delivering for the American people, including on economic growth, infrastructure, trade, lowering the cost of prescription drugs. These are some of things that the Democrats do want to work on, and I really believe we’ll be able to do that… Now is the time for members of both parties to join together, put partisanship aside, and keep the American economic miracle going strong. It is a miracle. We’re doing so well.”
The event was overshadowed by the antics of Jim Acosta and another reporter who tried to bait the President with a white nationalist comment. Trump aggressively and appropriately pushed back. These reporters refuse to understand Trump, because they don’t want to understand him. They hate him so badly, they can’t do their jobs. Trump tends to see Americans as just Americans regardless of sex, color, gender or any other inherited characteristic. He doesn’t play the identity politics game that the left thrives on. For America, Trump is the right man for the times we are in. He’s a fighter and a brawler. He has been belligerent and rude and, at times, even over the top. Any fair-minded person can see this is what Trump has been faced with from the beginning. Trump is both a patriot and a nationalist who puts America and Americans first, and wants to see it succeed.
(“Trump’s a Nationalist. That’s What All Presidents Should Be!” by Frank Hawkins dated November 13, 2018 published by American Thinker at https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/trumps_a_nationalist_thats_what_all_presidents_should_be.html )
The Democrat Party's emerging radical bloc is alarming, but the leftist group's youthful intemperance could backfire and re-energize Republicans' 2020 electoral prospects. Even before all the hanging chads and miraculously divined ballots have been examined in Florida, newly elected leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already engaging in activism in the halls of Congress. The future representative from New York joined a protest organized by the Sunrise Movement outside the offices of Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi to demand immediate action on climate change, as if the dinosaur wing of the Democrat Party weren't sufficiently extremist on environmental issues. Ocasio-Cortez, who validates the maxim "youth is wasted on the young," is part of the Justice Democrats, which promoted leftist challengers during the 2018 Democrat primary cycle. The Sunrise Movement is demanding House support of a "Green New Deal," which contemplates forming a committee to write policies aimed at creating jobs by moving the nation off fossil fuels, as counterintuitive as that may strike you. Waleed Shahid, the Justice Democrats' communications director, insists that the Democrat Party's leadership must get serious about the climate and the economy. They must get moving before any more of Al Gore's hysterical doomsday predictions fail. The adage "with age comes wisdom" is biblically based and objectively observable, except in the case of Pelosi and her old-guard Democrats. They have invited all types of radicals into their coalition, so they can hardly complain when the fruit of their poisonous tree begins to blossom. Accordingly, Pelosi pretended to support this presumptuous upstart's mini-rebellion. Pelosi is reinstating a 2007 committee tasked with investigating the harms of climate change. The newest members want specific plans matching the urgency and scale mandated by the UN's IPCC report on catastrophic climate change. The current plight of the Pelosi Democrats is that they have made their bed and now have to lie in it. For the next two years, they're going to be lying in the same bed as the rebels, a bed that has two left sides. The Democrats have lived by the sword of radicalism, embracing every last crazy idea of the extreme left and incorporating it into their agenda, and may they electorally die by that sword in 2020. Democrats used to tack to the center during general election season, knowing America has been a center-right nation. Since Obama's presidency, they've begun playing their left hand more openly. In the bluest of areas, they can afford to reveal their outright socialism, which explains Ocasio-Cortez's unapologetically socialist campaign message. In other venues, such as Arizona, their radicals have to feign centrism, which explains Kyrsten Sinema's chameleonic transformation to would-be centrist. The developing schism in the Democrat Party is a positive sign for Republicans, who should greatly benefit from Democrat fissures, especially if they lead to the Democrat Party's moving even further to the left and exposing its radicalism. Though the electoral demographics seem to be shifting leftward, and though our public schools, universities and dominant media culture are indoctrinating more Americans every day, it's unlikely the majority of the country will be comfortable with leftist extremism as soon as 2020. But this is hardly something Republicans can rejoice over, because until they get their own act together, they won't be able to properly capitalize on intramural conflict among Democrats. Anything that awakens a complacent America to the existential dangers posed by the radical left, which increasingly controls the Democrat Party, represents cause for hope and optimism.
(“Let the Democrats Keep Showing Their Hand” by David Limbaugh dated November 16, 2018 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2018/11/16/let-the-democrats-keep-showing-their-hand-n2536042 )
The World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, said he “was devastated” by how the internet has been used in elections, including our presidential race, and that he’s working to create a new system now that "the web had failed instead of served humanity, as it was supposed to have done, and failed in many places.” We saw the tech industry as a refreshing alternative to the staid old corporate establishment, a entrepreneurial environment where all kinds of thoughts and images would have free rein. As the industry has evolved, it has become one of the most concentrated and monopolistic America has ever seen, determined to stamp out prospective rivals and expand control of both media and politics. The early phases of the digital revolution were shaped by relentless competition between upstarts and firms that, just a few years earlier had been upstarts. Scores of companies launched their own personal computer lines, software and peripherals. A handful of companies that have colluded to keep wages down and dominate the digital economy, in part by buying up any emerging competitors. Once we had a vision of the internet helping to create an ever-expanding realm of options in the arts and journalism. We now have Google controlling nearly 90% of search advertising, Facebook almost 80% of mobile social traffic, and Amazon about 75% of American e-book sales, over 40% of all online sales and, perhaps most important, nearly 40% of the world’s “cloud business.” Together, Google and Apple control over 95% of operating software for mobile devices. Microsoft still accounts for over 80% of the software that runs personal computers around the world. Rather than the old science fiction meme of tyranny through machines, the tech giants are expanding their control of how we think. Rather than simply seeking to provide speedier pipelines, they want to control what is in the pipe. Nearly two thirds of readers now get at least some of their news through Facebook and Google, companies that employ no reporters and are often in fact hostile to them. This dominance is even greater, in both the U.S. and the U.K., among millennials who are almost three times as ikely to get their information from these platforms than from print, television or radio. Overall print publishing (books, newspapers, magazines) has lost 290,000 jobs, 40% of its 2001 job base. With Facebook and Google accounting for over 89% of the growth of the growth in online advertising in 2017, it’s exceedingly difficult for new publications to survive online given the dominance of the oligarchic platforms. Here’s one sign of their dominance: When Facebook went down for 45 minutes in August, direct traffic to publishers immediately shot up: by more than 10% to website and 20% to mobile apps. Search traffic to publishers went up by nearly 10%, and overall web traffic went up by about 2%. Having eclipsed the news business, the tech bosses are now looking to outright buy its remaining trusted brands. First Zuckerberg’s college roommate bought the New Republic in 2012 and then Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post in 2013 while Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of the Apple founder, bought the Atlantic. This year, Marc Benioff, founder of San Francisco-based Salesforce.com, purchased long-distressed Time magazine for $190 million. Google is also promoting bot-produced media, while planning to invest $300 million into subsidizing favored reporters. In China, the estimable South China Morning Post is now owned by Alibaba.com, the country’s equivalent to Amazon. Since the takeover, the once fiercely independent paper promotes a more positive view of the Chinese dictatorship for the rest of the world to read. News media is hardly the only content the oligarchs seek to dominate. Amazon has achieved enormous influence over the book industry of which it is by far the largest seller, constituting nearly 40% of all books sales, and upwards of 90% of eBook sales. Great publishing chains such as Hachette and Macmillan have found themselves hostage to Amazon’s requests. YouTube, which was acquired by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion in stock, has become determinative in the music industry, even as it hardly pays artists. Hollywood also is clearly in tech giants’ sites. Netflix, a company financed by Silicon Valley venture firms, is now worth about as much as Disney and, along with Amazon, produces an ever-growing share of the award-winning programming on television. Both Netflix and Amazon each have well over 100 million subscribers, an unprecedented clientele for video production, yet the paychecks of many middle-class Hollywood workers are shrinking as these companies grow and exert ever more control over what people do on sets of movies they finance, including a ban on asking for phone numbers of co-workers or even looking at people for more than five seconds. These new titans offer ritual denials from these new owners that they won’t influence content, but don’t believe it. Oligarchs historically have tended to buy media, art or even office buildings not necessarily just to protect their wealth, but also to serve their own “vanity and advance their points of view.” Some on the left may be tempted that given the tech oligarchs ostensibly “progressive” positions this takeover is a good thing. They certainly don’t want conservative billionaires, like Sheldon Adelson or the Sinclair’s, buying media, although what they own are usually local outlets with limited reach. Most oligarchs, including the granddaddy of the current wave, Michael Bloomberg, concentrate on the bigger markets, and those with the most influence. The Bloomberg’s and Bezos’ are more like all autocrats seeking control than the great defenders of democracy that their publicists like to portray. Like all good upper-caste members, they seek to control the mores of society against both the depredations of louts like Trump and any grassroots attempts to undermine their oligopolies. Bezos and Bloomberg are hardly alone in their passion to instruct others. The need to maintain control is critical to all oligarchies. Facebook’s attempts to “curate” content not only takes out open racists and Russian bots, but also simply contrary and largely conservative views. Due to their new monopoly status, these firms don’t have to “worry about competing with anyone,” allowing them to indulge their own particular prejudice to a greater extent than those who might have to worry about alienating customers. Short of anti-trust action, not much can impact monopolists with unlimited funds. Over 70% of Americans, notes a recent Pew study, believe social media platforms “censor political views.” This isn’t the future we’ve hoped for, but here is a chance for Trump to smash some of the right idols for a change.
(“To Make the Internet Great Again, Trump Must Smash Facebook and Tech Oligarch Friends” by Joel Kotkin dated November 10, 2018 published by Daily Beast at https://www.thedailybeast.com/to-make-the-internet-great-again-trump-must-smash-facebook-and-its-tech-oligarch-friends?ref=scroll )
One world government is an agenda to supersede the nation-state concept that is perceived by its backers as fundamentally selfish, and as having misguided assumptions about life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The United Nations made it very clear that it intends to supervise a program that will change every aspect of life on our planet by 2030 by issuing its statement “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” One world government is built around four basic assumptions about human nature and the purpose of government. These basic assumptions comprise the acronym MUCK. The first is Magnanimity (M) as needed towards the masses of humans on the planet. The idea of a world divided into Developed Countries, Developing Countries (DC’s), and Less Developed Developing countries (LDDC’s), is perceived by many of the neo-Marxist, secular humanist, needs-oriented, dogmatic globalists as itself a form of stratification. The idea was to lend a helping hand up to our poorer brothers. The better off developed countries would pour assistance into the poorer and poorest countries through the IMF and World Bank, along with the UN until those countries reached an economic place. At that point they would be generating enough surplus capital to invest in their own growth. However, this takeoff stages never took place on a grand scale. Liberal dogma began to modify, so instead of thinking of three levels of economic development, the more unifying idea of environmental needs began to take hold. All societies have an environment, and the environment of even the poorest society may impact even the richest societies, and vice-versa. Thus, all economies could be unified around a common concern taking care of and even “fixing” our planet’s environment. So there gradually was a shift from reaching a hand down to help the downtrodden, to joining hands in global unity to deal with problems that impact rich and poor alike. This type of thinking has led to the elevation of striving for Unity (U) as the key to the need for world government. There are too many have nots, and the haves are themselves divided between the have-too-much, the normal haves or the “prosperous people,” and the marginal haves who are in danger of becoming have nots. Working on a common, seemingly scientific goal of environmentalism allows the abridging of liberty for a common good that would be acknowledged by poor and rich alike. Hence, an abridgement of liberty for the sake of unity is likely to produce a peacefulness that thoughts of liberty and pursuit of happiness, with the implied multi-strata of classes, can never hope to produce. Thus, Unity is wedded to the idea of Collectivity (C). The difference between unity and collectivity is this: Unity is a concept that could still emphasize individuality. The motto of the collective mind would be a simplified “all for all,” identified with the collective from beginning to end. Marx’s slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is somewhat misleading by using the words “each” or the singular, possessive pronoun “his.” In the evolved Marxist dogma, the thinking driving the citizen mindset is that he or she is a proletarian, not an “I” or “me” to be integrated in the “greater good.” The greater good for Marxists and neo-Marxists is whatever the Workers’ Councils is able to implement. Marxism thus is not merely a hyper-utilitarianism. The last term in our acronym is Knowledge (K). Here, a form of scientism or objective knowledge of society is seen as the proper alternative to bourgeois subjectivism. Liberty, enjoyment of our possessions, and the pursuit of happiness are grim reminders of the inequalities of our world, and of our ever-present dissatisfaction with living in society with our fellow humans. The idea that man’s reach should exceed his grasp is so much bourgeois claptrap. The liberty ideal leads to alienation, uncertainty, and unhappiness, the very condition it purports to uphold. Under the claimed holism of a Marxist or neo-Marxist society, uncertainty will be eliminated as our basic needs are provided for, and special interests will not control the everyday lives of the citizens. As wealthier countries see their own standard of living, employment, and bourgeois satisfactions diminish, these losses will not appear as suffering, but as joyful self-sacrifice to a better vision of life. The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a term that repels the wealthy Western countries, so instead the scions of the New World Order will talk about establishing new, more democratic institutions. However, an elite will be needed to transition into this new phase of “greater democracy.” At this point, the leftist elitists make room for their dictatorial takeover in the name of a newly structured, more equal, worldwide democracy. So far, all we really see are vast bureaucracies of pre-world government organizations like the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union producing millions of pages of rules and regulations, and endless conferences and meetings as the servant classes carry around trays of martinis and hors d’oeuvres. The world leftist establishment is moving ahead towards the conceptualization and implementation of world government. Their goal is to MUCK up the whole world based on assumptions completely at odds with personal autonomy, individual liberty, the enjoyment of private property, and the political rights of man. Our job as free men and women in a constitutional republic is to resist their efforts in ways both large and small.
(“World Government Advocates Want to M.U.C.K. Up Our World” by E. Jeffrey Ludwig dated November 11, 2018 published by American Thinker at https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/world_government_advocates_want_to_muck_up_our_world.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. No updates have been made this week to the issue sections.