Views on the News
Views on the News*
December 6, 2014
America’s torture and pain whilst Barack Obama has been in office has been insufferable, and beyond the call of duty. His departure from Washington in 2017 will be celebrated by millions of cheers, voiced in spontaneous unison, from coast-to-coast. There is the possibility of a recurrence of the Obama travesty if enough “stupid” Americans vote to replace him with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton and Obama share many despicable character traits and fundamental faults:
· Both are congenital liars, neither blanches at the use of lies, deceit, and fraud to secure and execute political power.
· Both are opposed to American capitalism and “indecent” profits, excepting when enrichment of their own portfolios is concerned.
· Both are pro-infanticide abortion freaks who hate religious faith and the stupid people who practice it.
· Both believe that big government is urgently needed to keep private enterprise in check with oppressive regulations and onerous taxes.
With few exceptions, voting for Hillary Clinton would be like giving Barack Obama a 3rd term! Don’t forget that Hillary would bring her sex-addicted hubby with her, further denigrating the stature and history of the White House. Hillary Clinton must NOT be allowed to continue the tyranny of Barack Obama, so she must be defeated at all costs!
(“Electing Hillary Would be Akin to 3rd Term for Obama” by John Lillpop dated November 30, 2014 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67950 )
President Obama likes to claim he’s been forced into rogue executive actions, laying the blame on an intransigent Congress, but, in fact, his lawlessness is coldly calculated, dating back to his days as a Chicago community organizer. Learning to run around American law was his main purpose in attending Harvard Law School, where he quickly sidled up to Professor Derrick Bell, who bashed the Constitution as a form of “original sin.” Obama didn’t study federal statutes to defend them, but instead he studied them to game them, sabotage them, and to abdicate them. The President’s authority to grant amnesty is limited to illegal aliens facing emergency situations, such as wars, earthquakes, floods and droughts, that prevent their safe deportation, but the almost 5 million illegals getting a pass from Obama face no such hazards. The Supreme Court in its 1985 “Heckler v. Cheney” decision struck down Presidential policies that abdicate statutory duties. There is little doubt that ordering Homeland Security not to remove half the illegal population is an “extreme” policy. The President has “consciously” decided to abdicate the statutory duties Congress assigned him in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly mandates illegal aliens “shall be detained for removal proceedings.” Obama has directed his Education Secretary and Attorney General to pressure public school districts to limit the number of minority students they suspend, adopting de facto racial quotas in discipline. Obama is also illegally rewriting both the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in order to pressure lenders and insurers into setting quotas for minority homebuyers. In the name of “racial equity,” he’s trying to eliminate risk-based pricing not only for home insurance policies but also home loans. Meanwhile, EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, a former NAACP activist, is unlawfully expanding enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to pressure employers to hire minorities with criminal records. Over and over, this administration has run roughshod over the stated will of legislators, even rewriting statutes to suit its radical agenda. When Obama swore to faithfully execute the nation’s laws, he clearly intended to do no such thing.
(“How Obama blatantly disregards the law” by Paul Sperry dated November 30, 2014 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/how-obama-blatantly-disregards-the-law/ )
Barack Obama will end his tenure with the ruin of Hope and Change. Survey the wreckage: The hope-and-change therapeutic approach to foreign relations ended logically with historic cuts in defense, lectures about American culpability, pink lines and the end of Syria, farcical Iranian talks, in Libya the short trip from “leading from behind” to Benghazi, the self-induced suicide of Iraq, the empowerment of Putin, a pivot to Asia that invited ridicule, and the charade of a war against ISIS. Obama’s immigration legacy will be the juxtaposition of his serial insistence that he was not a king or an emperor, and could not contravene the Constitution by granting a blanket amnesty, with his efforts to do just that when it was no longer politically inexpedient. The vast majority of Americans accept that when federal law is ignored, chaos ensues. The burdens of the attempt to grant federal exemption to millions of foreign nationals who have never followed U.S. immigration law inevitably fall on the middle-class taxpayer and the entry-level worker. We will also soon learn that over 11 million illegal aliens are not all Dream Actors. The demand for immediate action for those who would qualify for Obama’s amnesties begs the question of whether there would be commensurately quick deportations of those who do not. With Global Warming, once the planet did not heat up in the last 18 years, and once the ice of the polar caps did not melt away, global warming begat climate change. The new name was a clever effort to link all occasional weather extremities to some fundamental climate disruption. Global warming seems to have grown up largely as a late-20th-century critique of global market capitalism by elites who had done so well by it that they had won the luxury of caricaturing the very source of their privilege. Global warming proved a near secular religion that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning among mostly secular Western grandees. The natural outcome of the reactionary approach to race relations: identity politics, the salad bowl in lieu of the melting pot, the effusions of trillions of dollars over the last half-century into Great Society dependencies, is Ferguson. The anti-empirical insistence that the facts of the shooting of Michael Brown did not matter much; critical legal theory, which ignored the time-honored role of a disinterested grand jury; the tolerance of illegality as some sort of acceptable protest against the system; and the liberal media’s hyping a crisis on the understanding that the ramifications of the violence were safely distant from their own neighborhoods, schools, and restaurants. The bitter truth is that Barack Obama himself is a figure who has always trafficked in racial divisiveness, from his candid admissions in his memoir and his acknowledged dutiful discipleship at the feet of the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright to “typical white person,” the clingers speech, “punish our enemies,” and the racial spin on the ongoing Skip Gates, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown cases. ObamaCare was little more than a clumsy effort to take over the health-care system by redistributing resources from the supposedly too-well-off to the more noble less-well-off, with billions of dollars siphoned off to expand government bureaucracies and enrich crony capitalists. The point of the program was not to provide coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, which could have been done far more cheaply through existing programs, but to create a vast new federal bureaucracy to redistribute health-care resources. The legacy of the ACA will not be the diversion of the indigent from the emergency rooms and state and federal public clinics, but the spiking of health-care costs through bureaucratic bloat and the rising deductible. Finally, and most importantly, Obamism did not deliver on its extravagant promises of a new ethos of ending crony capitalism, the revolving door, lobbyists in government, and government corruption. Obama will go down in history as presiding over the most corrupt administration of the last half-century, when historians finally collate the IRS, VA, GSA, and Secret Service scandals; the erosion of constitutional jurisprudence; the serial untruths about Benghazi, amnesty, and ObamaCare; the harassment of journalists; the record shakedown of Wall Street lucre in 2008 and 2012; and the flood of lobbyists into and out of the Obama administration. Six years after the summer of hope and change, no one in the Democrat Party is showcasing American foreign policy, pushing for cap-and-trade legislation, singing the praises of ObamaCare, bragging about the way amnesty was handled, or pointing to a new cleaner and more transparent federal bureaucracy. What started out with “hope and change” and “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” ended up with a President who habitually misleads his countrymen, a baffling array of scandals, the discrediting of the obsequious media, and policies that not only did not work but by any historical model could never really have worked.
(“Liberalism in Ruins” by Victor Davis Hanson dated December 2, 2014 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393713/liberalism-ruins-victor-davis-hanson )
There is a humane, transparent, and constitutional way to address illegal immigration, but unfortunately, President Obama's unilateral plan to exempt millions of residents from federal immigration law is none of those things. Obama said he had to move now because of a dawdling Congress, but he forgot to mention that there were Democratic majorities in Congress in 2009 and 2010, yet he did nothing, in fear of punishment at the polls. Nor did Obama push amnesty in 2011 or 2012, afraid of hurting his own re-election chances, and worries over sabotaging Democratic chances in the 2014 midterms explain his inaction from 2012 until now. Given that he has no more elections and can claim no lasting achievements, Obama now sees amnesty as his last desperate chance at establishing some sort of legacy. Obama cited empathy for undocumented immigrants. But he expressed no such worry about the hundreds of thousands of applicants who wait for years in line rather than simply illegally cross the border. Obama has downplayed Americans' worries about social costs and competition for jobs, but studies show illegal immigration has depressed the wages of entry-level American workers while making social services costly for states and burdensome for U.S. citizens. Obama says he has the legal authority to rewrite immigration law without working with Congress. Yet on more than 20 occasions when it was politically inexpedient to grant amnesties, Obama insisted that he would not or that such a move was prohibited by the Constitution. By setting aside settled immigration policy and ignoring statutes he finds inconvenient, Obama has set a new precedent that a President can arbitrarily declare what is valid and what is not valid. Past non-enforcement of immigration law helped lead to the explosion in illegal immigration of recent years. Obama will immediately reward millions of undocumented immigrants with exemption from immigration law. Those who committed felonies or serious misdemeanors, who have no sustained record of work, or who have been in the United States for only a year or two, will now face deportation. Since Obama has serially misled the American people on key issues such as ObamaCare, the Benghazi attacks and his own prior constitutional inability to grant amnesty, there is no reason to believe him on the details of his new immigration move. Assume that Obama sees his executive order simply as a first step in a continual effort to dismantle immigration law that he finds incompatible with his own larger agenda because, for Obama, federal law is inconvenient and therefore irrelevant.
(“Obama’s Arguments Are a Pack of Lies” by Victor Davis Hanson dated November 28, 2014 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112814-728346-obama-amnesty-arguments-are-a-pack-of-lies.htm )
The grand jury in Ferguson issued a searing indictment, but not against Police Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of an unarmed African-American teen, Michael Brown, but against all the racial hucksters and victimhood-mongers that are doing untold harm to the nation in general, and to blacks in particular. From the very beginning of this case last summer, there seemed to be sufficient doubt that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to convict Wilson. There were conflicting reports about what happened in the confrontation between the police officer and Brown. There was the video from the store, where it surely appeared Brown had committed a crime, shoving the store’s manager. That not only raised questions about Brown’s mood (if not his character), but also what might have been on his mind when confronted by Wilson shortly thereafter: He might be arrested for his actions in that shop. Since then, other information leaked out casting more doubt on Wilson’s “culpability.” The Reverend Al Sharptons of the world flooded in, insisting that Wilson was indeed guilty, and never mind the facts. Even President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder encouraged resentment of the “injustice” perpetrated by a white police officer. These flame-throwers told folks to take the accusations against Wilson as fact and to protest until the day he was thrown in jail. Protest, you see, was essential merely because a white cop had shot and killed a black teen and no other facts were needed. Indeed, the accusations themselves were incontrovertible evidence of nationwide racism that is to this day rampant and holding blacks down. If the African-American community hoped to get ahead, indeed if it hoped to survive, it would have to conquer this debilitating racism. It’s hard to think of a more destructive, self-defeating and untruthful message. Fighting racism is not even necessarily the best route upward for even groups that are true victims. Think of the long history of hatred and discrimination in this country against Catholics, Chinese, Jews, the Irish, Italians, Muslims, those with physical disabilities and countless others. The opportunity offered to individuals of any race, creed or color in this country is absolutely boundless. Jews and others have prospered not by having spent their days focused on protesting anti-Semitism, but by taking advantage of the opportunities. Too often, blacks have taken a different approach. Rather than look at the high crime rates in their communities, for example, and crack down on the perpetrators, there’s too often a tendency to blame others: “racist” cops, a “racist” system. This tendency is fueled by race-mongers and racial arsonists like Sharpton. It’s tragic, because there is no reason blacks can’t succeed in America. President Obama himself is testament to that. Then again, you can’t entirely blame the racial mischief-makers either for misleading African-Americans. Like the scorpion who stings the frog, it’s in the instigators’ nature. Rather, it will take the community itself, and well-meaning leaders within, to tell the truth about racism and encourage a better path for their people than protesting a wholly innocent tragedy.
(“There was an indictment in Ferguson” by Adam Brodsky dated November 25, 2014 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2014/11/25/there-was-an-indictment-in-ferguson/ )
The six years of Barack Obama’s foreign policy have seen American influence and power decline across the globe. Traditional rivals like China and Russia are emboldened and on the march in the South China Sea and Ukraine, and Iran, branded as the world’s deadliest state sponsor of terrorism, is arrogantly negotiating its way to a nuclear bomb. Bloody autocrats and jihadist gangs in the Middle East scorn our president’s threats and behead our citizens. Countries in which Americans have shed their blood in service to our interests and ideals are in the process of being abandoned to our enemies, and allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia are bullied or ignored. A vacuum of power has been created by a foreign policy sacrificed to domestic partisan advantage, and characterized by criminal incompetence. A clear sign of American retreat is the precipitous decline in military spending. In the name of budgetary savings, the Army is returning to its June 1940 size, and the Navy put fewer ships at sea at any time since 1916. The Air Force is scheduled to retire 25,000 airmen and mothball 550 planes. Our nuclear forces are being cut to meet the terms of the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia, even as its nuclear arsenal has been increasing. Meanwhile Obama issues empty threats, blustering diktats, and sheer lies that convince world leaders he is a “self-infatuated weakling.” Unfortunately, 52% of the American people agree that the U.S. “should mind its own business internationally,” and 65% want to “reduce overseas military commitments,” including a majority of Republicans. This broad consensus that America should retreat from global affairs reflects our age’s bipartisan isolationism. On the other end of the political spectrum, isolationists like Republican Senator Robert Taft feared the “enemy within,” the “’infiltration of totalitarian ideas from the New Deal circle in Washington,’” more than foreign aggressors. He believed that American foreign policy should be limited strictly to fending off obvious threats to the security of and interests of the American people, which Taft narrowly defined as a military attack on our soil. Isolationism has not been the only danger to American foreign policy success. The “freedom agenda” of the sort George W. Bush tried in Iraq and Afghanistan, has misdirected our efforts and squandered our resources in the pursuit of impossible goals. The success of the Cold War and the subsequent spread of democracy and free-market economies suggested that the world could be not just protected from an evil ideology, but “redeemed” by actively fostering liberal democracy even in countries and regions lacking the necessary network of social mores and political virtues upon which genuine liberal democracy rests. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy writing their own retreat doctrine in the name of small government, civil liberties, fiscal restraint, ‘realism,’ a creeping sense of Obama-induced national decline, and a deep pessimism about America’s ability to make itself, much less the rest of the world, better. The “retreat doctrine” is dangerous because global disorder is a constant contingency. The immediate goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to arrest the continued slide into a broken windows world of international disorder. This foreign policy would require increasing U.S. military spending to 5% of GDP, with a focus on increasing numbers of troops, planes, and ships rather than on overly sophisticated and expensive new weapons. It would mean stationing U.S. forces near global hotspots to serve as a deterrent and rapid-reaction force to snuff out incipient crises. It would require reciprocity from allies in military spending, who for too long have taken for granted the American defense umbrella. It would focus attention on regions and threats that really matter, particularly the borderlands of free states, in order to protect global good citizens from predators. It means acting quickly and decisively when conflict does arise, rather than wasting time in useless debates and diplomatic gabfests. It would require that Americans accept that their unprecedented global economic, cultural, and military power confers on us both vulnerability to those who envy and hate us, and responsibility for the global order on which our own security and interests depend.
(“America in Retreat” by Bruce Thornton dated December 1, 2014 published by Frontpage Magazine at http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/america-in-retreat/ )
* 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 sections:
· Agriculture at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/agriculture.php
· Employment at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/employment.php