Views on the News

Views on the News*

December 19, 2015


Much of what we're starting to hear about Ted Cruz has an eerily familiar ring: Too extreme; Unelectable; Scares people; A radical, not a conservative.  Ted Cruz represents the mainstream of conservative thought in this country, just as Reagan did two score years ago.  Reagan's victory vindicated everything he'd been saying for twenty years, and a Cruz win next year would do so again.  Precisely 36 years ago Reagan was on his way to the Republican nomination.  Reagan was just too conservative to get elected.  The reasonable, establishment Republicans settled on Bush 1 as their candidate, and it was game on.  Marco Rubio is, or will be, their choice this time.  Reagan never led in the polls.  In the weeks leading up to the election no reputable national pollster was calling for a Reagan win.  The consensus was a coin toss.  His ten-point margin was predicted by absolutely no one.  There were doubts about Reagan right up to the end.  People had soured on Carter, but weren't ready to hand the nuclear button to Reagan until the last days of the campaign.  In the very end they decided he really wasn't an extremist, and the dam broke.  If Cruz is the nominee I expect a similar dynamic in 2016.  People don't want to elect Hillary, but will hesitate before going for Cruz.  Once Cruz clinches the nomination he will be able to address these concerns, just as Reagan did so long ago.  The conservative case is strong, and we could have no more able of a champion than Ted Cruz, one of the most skillful advocates in the country.  If we believe in our principles we, and he, won't hesitate to lay them out for the public to judge.  As a campaigner and a natural politician, Cruz is no Reagan, or Rubio, for that matter.  He's more comfortable, and at ease, arguing a case before the Supreme Court than he is as a political speaker.  He'll get better as the campaign unfolds.  Reagan probably would have lost to Carter in 1976, just as Cruz probably would have lost to Obama in 2012.  Ronald Reagan was the direct political descendant of Barry Goldwater, who had been destroyed in 1964.  People were only receptive to Reagan in 1980, not before.  There are a lot of parallels between 1980 and today.  Economic malaise, war weariness, and a general sense that things are spinning out of control.  Carter and Obama have both been weak commanders in chief.  Back then we were worried about the Soviet Union; today it's radical Islam.  In 1980 we had Reagan; in 2016 we have Cruz. 

(“Reagan and Cruz: Unelectable” Fritz Pettyjohn dated December 14, 2015 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/reagan_and_cruz_unelectable.html )


Conservatives and Republicans refuse to name what they are fighting -- namely, leftism and the left.  Republicans, from the highest ranking politicians to rank and file members of the party, fight Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and all other Democrats, but they don't fight the left and leftism.  The implication is that if only we could defeat this or that Democrat, we would be on our way to a much better America.  However it's not true, because if extraterrestrials came to our planet and absconded with every Democrat holding office from Barack Obama down to every Democrat city councilman in America, nothing would change.  Other Democrats with the same left-wing views would take their place.  Leftism is ruining America, but almost no Republican ever says this. 

·    The universities of this country have become a laughingstock, because leftism has infected them.

·    According to Pew Research, 40% of millennials do not believe in the principal of freedom of speech if the speech might hurt the feelings of a member of a minority group, because leftism won’t allow it.

·    The Islamic State arose in Iraq after that country had been pacified by American troops and the Sunni uprising, because a leftist President, the left-wing Democrat Party, and the left-wing media demanded a complete American withdrawal from Iraq.

·    Race relations deteriorated despite the election and re-election of black president, because of the left-wing lies about "systemic" racism.

·    It is harder to open and sustain a small business than at any time in American history, because of the left and their endless regulations.

·    The national debt is the highest in American history, because the left keeps expanding the size of the government.

·    More Americans are on public assistance than ever before, because left-wing policies are designed to get more and more Americans dependent on government.

·    Americans are increasingly separated into ethnic, racial and religious identities, because of the left-wing belief in multiculturalism and the left's neo-fascist emphasis on the importance of race.

·    More Americans are born to women without husbands than ever before, because, ideologically, the left has determined that children do not need fathers, and because, policy-wise, the left has enabled mothers to depend on the state rather than the man who fathered her children.

·    The American military is weaker and less feared than at any time in the last 50 years, because the left doesn't want America to be the strongest country in the world.

In addition to criticizing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Republicans need to tell the American people over and over that the only thing that can stop the further degradation of the United States of America is conservatism and the Republican Party

(“Why Don’t the Republicans Identify What They Are Fighting?” by Dennis Prager dated December 15, 2015 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/12/15/why-dont-republicans-identify-what-they-are-fighting-n2093722 )

Obama took office with the deliberate intention of transforming” United States, a process that has been in many ways almost as painful and destructive as a revolution.  That process, like classic revolutions of the past, now appears to be entering its most dangerous and radical phase.  It is evident in Obama’s increasingly desperate attempts to remain relevant and press his agendas through any means possible, for example through unconstitutional executive actions.  It is evident as well in the rise of extremist movements like Black Lives Matter.  We can see the artifacts of this radical phase in many developments that mirror violent and disruptive revolutions of the past.  Radical revolutionaries almost always attempt to remake the military, as in the final analysis, it is the locus of the state’s coercive power.  The Roundheads created the New Model Army, the French the levee en masse, the Bolsheviks the Red Army.  Each was a highly politicized force, raised not only to serve the national defense, but to bolster the radical revolution.  Obama has attempted to do much the same with the American military, effectively purging officers not sufficiently compliant to his ideological outlook.  Obama has also undermined the military justice system through his interference in the Bergdahl case, and oversaw the prosecution of General David Petraeus (for less serious offenses than those committed by a still uncharged former secretary of State).  Finally, his administration has taken the historically unprecedented step of opening of all combat posts to women, even though the country is not at war, thus distinguishing the United States from countries like Russia and Israel which have allowed the practice, but only during their most desperate wars, this step an attempt at a pure political remaking of the armed forces, having nothing to do with military efficiency or necessity.  The radical phases of revolutions are also marked by violent disturbances and expansive civil unrest, something that we see increasingly in America today, from riots in Missouri and Baltimore, to campus “protests over largely invented slights.  These movements are being led by leftists who at least appear more radical than the president and are successfully pushing all of them to adopt or promote more extreme policies. This again resembles the situation of historic radical leaders who watched their own outlandish programs spin out of control, in most cases consuming them.  Weakness and unrest get the attention of enemies, and historically the radical phase of revolutions attracts foreign attack.  It is no accident that after a long period of domestic security following the 9/11 attacks, Islamist terrorist have struck repeatedly at Obama’s America, even as he tries to appease them.  Obama’s ideological confusion, disorganization, and intellectual incoherence will almost certainly encourage more.  These attacks in turn will allow Obama to shift blame against his domestic enemies on the right furthering his own waning agenda, and deflecting pressure from the most radical leftists.  Also inevitable are the false crises, the blaming of inexplicable forces, the hatred of the domestic opposition more than any true enemy of the state.  All these factors tended to roil the radical phases of revolutions, as leaders sought to defer and deflect popular anxiety and anger.  We see it today in the phony elevation of climate change to an inchoate existential danger, while both Obama and Hillary Clinton portray Republicans as American enemies, not much differently than the Second Estate or the Whites were in the French or Russian revolutions.  Throughout, the radical revolutionary leader always pretends to be above it all, smarter than the mob, confident of riding the tiger to the end.  The incorruptible Robespierre, the analytical Trotsky, all came a cropper in the end though, not as tough, honest, or smart as their apologists pretended.  Obama too takes this tone of superior detachment as the West is under attack, unwilling to admit mistakes and so unable to learn from them.  The radical phases of revolutions collapse under the weight of their own chaos and confusion.  The worse the situation becomes, the more it motivates and radicalizes opposition.  The English Revolution ended with the last failed Stuarts, the French Napoleon, and the Russian Stalin.  Obama’s radical reign has created the person of Donald Trump, who is skillfully channeling the fear and rage of a significant part of the populace.  It’s not even hard to believe that Obama is flat-out encouraging the phenomenon, in the expectation that it will upend what might otherwise be a relatively easy Republican victory, given the sorry state of his governance.  America is a stable republic, populated by history’s most reasonable and moderate people.  It is highly unlikely to end in the disasters that marked similar stages in other countries through history, but a lot more damage might be done before it ends, and before we get a good idea of what a new beginning might be like.  

(“The Obama Revolution Enters its Radical Phase” by Jonathan Keiler dated December 11, 2015 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_obama_revolution_enters_its_radical_phase.html )

There is no reason that the United States must take any Muslim refugees.  Apart from the terrorist dangers surrounding the vetting issues, we no longer have the resources to take in refugees or any new immigrants.  It may be altruistic to welcome newcomers, according to the MSM, the establishment politicians, and the “We care so much” liberals, if you have the ability to take care of them or a job for them.  The reality is, the U.S. cannot take care of its own citizens, much less take care of everyone who wants to come here, whether legally or illegally.  We don’t have enough jobs for the citizens of this country, much less jobs for new arrivals.  We already have over 94 million working-age adults not working, most because they cannot find jobs.  Our welfare and Medicaid rolls are already overflowing with citizens and immigrants. The U.S. government is broke and paying for this welfare with borrowed dollars, all funded on the backs of taxpayers.  Our employment picture is likely to get worse as manufacturing is contracting while inventories are overstocked.  Sales, both wholesale and retail are declining, and the transportation of goods by rail and trucking is decreasing even in the Christmas busy retail season.  The nosedive in commodities’ prices shows a world and a U.S. that is moving into recession.  The economic figures of a growing recession, stacked up against overwhelming private and public debt brought to us via the central banks, are only going to get worse in 2016 when recession layoffs begin in earnest.  We have the lowest homeownership since 1965 because housing prices are back to 2008 levels, or higher, at the same time that wages are stagnant or declining.  We have $1.3 trillion bubble in student loan debt, a bubble rise in sub-prime auto loans and extended loan repayment terms, and skyrocketing healthcare costs and tuition. Many Americans are maxed out when it comes to debt and disposable income.  Yes, gas prices are lower, but healthcare costs, thanks to ObamaCare, have more than eaten up any savings at the pump.  At some point the federal government and blithely unaware citizens are going to have to face the facts.  The federal government is borrowing almost a million dollars a minute, making debt slaves and tax slaves of us, our children, and grandchildren to subsidize a bloated nanny state and irresponsible government spending.  Social Security and Medicare are both edging closer to insolvency.  We have over $211 trillion in present and future unfunded government liabilities on top of the much publicized $18.5 trillion debt.  This perilous economic situation is not confined to the federal government. State and local governments all across the country from California, Illinois, and Kentucky, to the fiscally conservative state of Virginia, are facing deficiencies in funding their public retirement programs.  Private retirement programs are facing the same scenarios with some of the unions actually cutting current retiree benefit payments.  The average American will pay into infinity for all of this Keynesian monetary economic control and government liberal altruism and irresponsibility.  If we accept Muslim immigrants, we should also tell them that their free ride or their hope for a job might not be realized because the U.S. is already way overbooked and heading toward bankruptcy. 

(“Why Are We Taking in Refugees?” by Catherine Sellers dated December 12, 2015 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_are_we_taking_in_refugees.html )

If generating headlines and press releases about making history were the metric for anything, the Paris climate agreement might be as consequential as advertised.  The agreement is about the agreement, never mind what’s in it or what its true legal force is nil.  Paris is a legally binding agreement not to have legally binding limits on emissions.  It might be the most worthless piece of paper since the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war, about a decade prior to the outbreak of World War II.  The Paris summit operated on the principle of CBDRILONCWRC, or “Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Light of National Circumstances With Respective Capability.”  That means nothing was actually mandated on anyone because that proved dealing with all the countries in the world is completely unworkable.  Instead, countries came up with so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, which is climate bureaucratese for “You make up your emissions target, whatever it is, and we will pretend to take it seriously.”  Even if you believe the extremely dubious proposition that somehow the climate “consensus” perfectly understands perhaps the most complicated system on the planet, and can forecast with certitude and in detail what the global temperature will be a century from now, Paris is a charade.  The best estimates are that, accepting the premises of the consensus, the deal will reduce warming 0.0 to 0.2 degrees Celsius.  President Barack Obama praised 180 countries for coming to Paris “with serious climate targets in hand,” which was ridiculous climate grade inflation.  China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, promises to reach peak emissions around 2030, when one U.S. government study estimates that it would hit peak admissions anyway.  The more China promises to confront climate change, the more it stays the same.  India’s assurance that it will make a roughly 30% improvement in carbon intensity is also about where it was projected to be headed anyway.  India still wants to double its output of coal by 2020.  The agreement’s celebrants believe that by making countries report their progress on cutting carbon emissions and by sending a stern signal against fossil fuels, Paris will catalyze painful cuts in carbon emissions somewhere off in the future.  It speaks to a naive belief in the power of global shame over the sheer economic interest of developing countries in getting rich (and lifting countless millions out of poverty) through exploiting cheap energy.  If this is the best hope of the climate alarmists, their global campaign will be a welcome fizzle. 

(“Obama is Only Pretending to Save the Planet” by Rich Lowry dated December 16, 2015 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/16/obama_is_only_pretending_to_save_the_planet_129052.html )


Since the beginning of the post World War II era there has been one constant that has been the stabilizing force in the world: the stature, power and influence of the United States In the matter of a few short years the Obama presidency has deliberately and overwhelmingly eroded that distinction resulting in his goal of global instability.  Barack Obama assumed the office of the Presidency as a man brought-up and steeped in 1960’s radicalism as well as his Kenyan father’s rabid anti-colonialism, which advanced the doctrine that America, as the lone Western super-power, represented the evil nature of colonialism and capitalism’s exploitation of the masses.  Whether there was any truth in this assertion or the U.S. had ever been guilty of these sins was irrelevant.  The material and military success of America and the West could only have come about from expropriating the wealth and labor of the peoples of the world, therefore what is defined as western civilization must be destroyed.  Mankind always has and always will have as their preeminent trait the need to survive, and to that end human beings are susceptible to committing crimes and exploiting their fellow man.   Thus any society will always have many failings, but the key measure of any civilization is what it does to control these tendencies and strive for an equitable culture.  No nation or culture in history has done more to advance the well-being of mankind than the United States and Western civilization.  However, to the mindset of Barack Obama, under no circumstances can he defend or profess admiration for his country; instead he must not only transform the U.S., but destroy any vestiges of its accomplishments in order to permanently retain control over the populace and exact revenge for the alleged transgressions of the West.  Barack Obama has spent his entire life wallowing in this mindset, and is thus incapable of change or being receptive to any other viewpoint, as that would be an admission of failure.  His chief concerns are the retention and expansion of government power and the permanent erosion of Western influence rather than the suffering of the average American citizen facing economic ruin and the very real threat of Islamic terrorism within the nation’s borders.  To Obama the radical jihadist movement is the tip of the spear to bring down Europe and the West.  Obama and his fellow-travelers can justify bankrupting the country as well as promoting unfettered legal and illegal immigration as a necessary part of the re-making and absolution of the U.S.  He has no compunction in forcing Israel, as an outpost of Western civilization, to compromise and bend to all the demands of the Palestinians knowing those concessions will eventually spell the end of the Jewish state.  He continues to pursue a veneer of a war against ISIS and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while taking steps designed to assure the conflict will not be won in the long-term.  Any minor terrorist attack within America and Europe is a mere inconvenience and understandable due to the past sins of the United States and the West.  Meanwhile he willingly discards old allies in the Middle East while turning a blind eye and tacitly promoting the radicalization of many countries in the region.  The 1980’s were the high-water mark of competent and viable American and international leadership in the post World War II era.  Today, the international scene is led by arguably the most incompetent and easily intimidated democracies since the 1930’s, as the majority of world leaders consist of those whose interest are themselves and the trappings of office.  They are unwilling or unable to challenge the ruinous economic and foreign policies of Barack Obama.  The leadership in Europe is essentially non-existent, as those nations have embarked on what is now a path of inevitable societal upheaval.  The population of the continent is quickly aging as the result of a catastrophically negative birth rate, the end product of nearly 115 million abortions since 1970.  As a potential solution to this dilemma, the countries of Western Europe, over the years, have flung open their borders to immigration from Muslim nations in Africa and the Middle East.  Yet nowhere in Europe over the past forty years have the Muslim populations truly assimilated nor will the overwhelming majority as their religion is anathema to western culture and values.  The most insidious trait of the world’s so-called “best and brightest” is that they are incapable of admitting their mistakes.   Instead of dealing with the harsh realities of the world today, far too many seek shelter in promoting vague climate change theories that may or may not happen in the next 100 years.  Until the narcissism and ideology of today’s global ruling class, particularly in America, are replaced by those willing to face reality and act accordingly, the world will continue to become an exceedingly dangerous place.  This mindset combined with a lack of forceful leaders will result in another financial catastrophe, the rise of a hegemonic China, an inevitable military conflict in the Middle East, and the spread of radical Islam.  The ultimate goal of the fall of western civilization will then be realized, but at a massive and bloody cost.  Thus the 2016 Presidential election has evolved into the most critical in over a century for not only the U.S. but the survival of western civilization, as only the leadership of this nation can bring the globe back from the brink of chaos.   This is not the time for the electorate in both parties to succumb to the siren call of demagoguery or emotional reaction to platitudes or infatuation with celebrity in choosing their party nominees.  Instead what is needed is a President who can tame the Washington cartel, appreciates that the Constitution is a limit on government, understands that the most immediate enemy on the world stage the nation must confront is Islamic supremacy, and above all has the intelligence, demeanor, and ability to assume global leadership with quiet but firm self-confidence. 

(“Barack Obama and the End of Western Civilization” by Steve McCann date December 15, 2015 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/barack_obama_and_the_end_of_western_civilization.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.


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY