Hillary Clinton's War on Women

Hillary’s War on Women

The View from the Middle

Maybe the greatest offense that Hillary Clinton perpetrates on women is the sin of trying to convince them that there is a war on women.  That phrase “war on women” is a clever tactic to get votes and thus get elected, but it turns an entire gender of strong, intelligent, industrious people into victims.  Next, she breaks all the rules she expects others to follow and finally she falsely accuses others of crimes they did not commit, for personal benefit.

I have five sisters, two daughters and a wife.  Even my dog, Sophie, is a girl.  I love my sisters.  I love my daughters and I love my wife (Sophie too).  I want the very best for the women in my life, and to be honest, I want the best for all women in America because I think that is best for our country.  Yet, I have different positions on some key issues that affect women.  I don’t disagree with feminists on “What” the goal is.  The goal is to create equal opportunities for women in every aspect of their lives.  I differ on “How” to accomplish those goals.

Let’s start with an easy one; equal pay for equal work.  Hillary continually uses the popular but flawed study that suggests that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.  The basic flaw in this number is that it does not compare salaries for like jobs.  This compares a woman who has decided to teach in elementary school vs. a man who decides to be an elevator installer (a high paying blue collar job) or a doctor.  When you compare like jobs, the ratio is about 95 cents on the dollar.

And you ask, why isn’t it 100%.  A big factor driving this 5% difference is that women make different choices than men.  They tend to take more time off than men, and tend to turn down promotions, more often, for personal reasons.  I’m not even saying that these are bad choices.  This may contribute to the fact that women on average live seven years longer than men.

So, how is Hillary doing in this area?  Even using the bogus 77% ratio, Hillary is failing.  When she was a Senator, she paid her women staff 72 cents for every dollar her male staffers made.  How hypocritical can a person be?  No wonder she’s also featured in the book “Do as I Say, Not as I Do”.  I do not know of a person, particularly a politician, who supports unequal pay for equal work.  Check for yourself, but this should not even be an issue in politics today.

How about birth control?  Hillary keeps saying that Republicans want to take away a woman’s right to use birth control.  I would like her to name one politician from either party who holds that view.  Now, let’s not confuse birth control with abortifacients.  I hope we can all understand the difference.  But, even I don’t want to deny a woman’s right to her pill.  I just don’t want to pay for it when my help is not needed.  Why should I, for example, pay for Chelsea Clinton’s birth control pills, or even my daughters’ birth control?  They don’t need the help.  If a woman truly needs help to buy birth control then I will support helping them buy it, but Chelsea Clinton or (you name the rich person) doesn’t need anyone’s help. 

Mrs. Clinton also confuses being pro-life with being anti-woman.  She hangs her hat on another clever cliché, “A woman’s right to choose”.  As she babbles her platitude, she forgets two things.  First, over half of abortions are performed on female babies.  How can she argue this as a positive thing for women?  Second, abortions are also terrible for the mothers.  There are surgical issues of an abortion that include DEATH.  Plus there are psychological risks that these women face after surgery such as eating disorders and depression.  A woman who experiences an abortion is six times more likely to commit suicide than a woman who gives birth.  Hillary should be fighting for fewer abortions instead of vilifying her opponents for a few votes.

But Hillary’s most egregious offense might be her actual treatment of women.  I can’t blame her for Bill’s indiscretions, but I can hold her accountable for her complicity.  Some would suggest that Hillary had no idea of what Bill was doing until after Monica Lewinsky’s revelation.  Really?  Bill’s sexual escapades started back in 1969 and include accusations from at least 17 women that I know of.  It strains credulity to think that Hillary had no idea of what was going on.  If she ignored Bill’s bad behavior she at least enabled him to assault the 16 women that followed Eileen Wellstone who accused him of sexual assault back in 1969.

But Hillary went way beyond that.  She participated in or orchestrated the character assassination of every woman that accused her husband of abuse.  This is far different than the behavior she suggests today, which is that every rape or abuse victim needs to be listened to and believed! 

She personally called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash” and referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic looney tune”.  She also allowed her surrogates like James Carville to slur Bill’s victims.  Mr. Carville suggested that Paula Jones was nothing but a trailer park prostitute when he said, “If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find”.  I’m actually shocked that the lame-stream media would let James get away with that.  There are many other stories of intimidation and slander that greeted Bill’s victims.

These are Hillary’s actions, not Bill’s, and they truly anger and disgust me.  Make no mistake; Hillary is no champion of women.  She will destroy anyone who gets in her way, man or woman.  She will deceive and compromise any principle to get what she wants, which is power.  The bottom line is, if you are looking for a President that you can trust, Hillary is not your gal.

Who would not vote for Reagan after this speech?

Reagan Is Still Relevant

The View from the Middle

As we launch into a new and hopefully prosperous year, I would like to take you back 35 years, almost to the day.  It was a relatively warm and pleasant day in Washington DC as the new President, Ronald Reagan, made his first inaugural address.  He was gracious to departing President Jimmy Carter.  He spoke of his faith in average Americans and he talked about the power of unity to make this country great.  He was unapologetically proud of The United States, despite its flaws, and painted a vision of an even better and brighter America.  We need this message even more today, and to help you all experience it, I’m providing a link to that address below.  Obviously, I encourage you to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPt7xGx4Xo

This brief walk down memory lane reminded me of the biggest difference between President Obama’s thinking and mine.  It seems that Mr. Obama’s solution to every problem we face involves a bigger and more intrusive government.  This is despite the fact that two thirds of Americans already think that the government is too big, and 75% believe that there is widespread corruption in Washington.  Back in 1981, President Reagan captured this sentiment with one, now famous, line in his inaugural speech.  He said that whatever the issue is, “Government is not the solution to the problem.  Government IS the problem.”

He recognized what Carly Fiorina has been trumpeting throughout her campaign.  She has continually said that “our government is too big, too powerful, too complicated, too costly, too corrupt, and too inefficient and it is crushing the rights of our citizens.”   Let me add that I believe our four trillion dollar a year bureaucracy is clumsy, insensitive and heavy-handed.

Just ask Aaron and Melissa Klein of Oregon who were fined over $150,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.  No matter how you feel about the LGBT community, you must understand this couple’s right to follow their religious beliefs.  But our government has no feelings. It just crushes anything that doesn’t line up with its impersonal, callous, collective regulations.  Even gay baker Jesse Bartholomew made a video in support of the Klein’s and expressed disgust with those brutalizing the Oregon bakers.

Even if you would like to deny the Klein’s their right to choose not to bake the cake, you must agree that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.  Do you think it is proper to fine small business owners $150,000 and destroy their lives and their business for not baking a cake?  But that is how our inept, heartless, oppressive government acts.  And that’s when it isn’t abusing its power, which we all know it can.

Remember the Director of the EPA who was teaching his people how they needed to “crucify” a few businesses in order to get them in line, just like the Romans did back at the time of Christ.  And do you remember Lois Lerner and the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit.  Recall the nightmarish stories of bureaucratic red tape and government intimidation that these groups experienced at the hands of our government?  Whether you believe it was intentional or not, just imagine the frustration you would experience dealing with our bungling, cold-blooded, complicated, brutal government.

Who wants more of anything that is already huge, incomprehensible, overly expensive, corrupt and inept?  And that is what the vast majority of Americans think of government, and for good reason!!  So, when you hear politicians propose free college, free (government run) healthcare, free family care, expanded Social Security, remember two things.  First, the government has NO money.  Whatever they are proposing, these politicians will not be writing personal checks to cover it.  They will be spending YOUR money.  And why would you want to give more of your money to any entity that is recognized to be clumsy, heartless, incompetent and corrupt?  You wouldn’t.

Finally, beware of any politician who isn’t proposing a smaller government.  No matter what party they represent, if they aren’t striving to minimize government, then they are proposing to expand it, because government will naturally grow larger if it is not intentionally constrained.  If you don’t want to live a real-life “Hunger Games”, vote for smaller government at every opportunity.

Obama on Snooze-Control

Obama – On Snooze-Control

 The View from the Middle

There was actually some great news for many Americans in President Obama’s final news conference of 2016.  A recording of this event will be made available through YouTube for the millions of Americans who suffer from occasional to chronic insomnia.  And it really works.  This is just my own personal testimony, but I had to watch it four times because I fell asleep during the first three viewings.

It’s also hard to be humorous and boring at the same time, but our President was able to pull it off.  At the end of his prelude to the news conference, the President was talking about his plans for his final year in office.  His actual words were, “I’m going to leave it all on the field”, which to any sports enthusiast suggests a supreme effort.  However, he said it with so little emotion that I didn’t know whether to doze off or laugh. 

Then the President segued into what I'll call “statistical babble” in an attempt to convince us that things couldn’t be better here in the good old US of A.  For example, unemployment has been cut in half to 5%.  Wow, that’s great.  Of course, he didn’t mention that’s because his administration drove it up to 10% after promising it would never go above 8%.  He also didn’t point out that the labor participation rate is at its lowest level since 1978 and in its longest decline – EVER.

Blah, blah, blah.  By the time he got done spewing his selective data I thought I was living in Whoville (after the Grinch returned Christmas) instead of the United States. He then went on to congratulate Congress on the great work they just did on the budget deal.  He said it’s a big win, and I’m sure it is – for somebody, but certainly not for the conservative Republicans who control the House and the Senate.  The Republican Congress getting kudos from Obama is like Hillary Clinton getting al-Baghdadi’s endorsement for President.  That analogy actually works for any American Presidential candidate.

Of course, he had to report that ISIS is on their deathbed - again.  And he was tricked into saying ISIS instead of ISIL.  Please do not call these thugs ISIL.  It is an aspirational label, and if you don’t believe me just look up what “The Levant” (the “L” in ISIL) includes.  And for God’s sake, he suggested, use your common sense and say something if you see something, unless you see a Muslim kid carrying what you think could be a briefcase bomb into a school.  In that case you’ll be vilified and sued and Obama will invite the kid to the White House.

And then he finished with what’s on top of everyone’s mind - we must close Gitmo.  Actually, I could not find a single recent survey of the American people where “closing Gitmo” even registers as a concern.  And making a financial argument by this administration to close Gitmo is a farce.  We spent more money training five Syrian rebels (that’s right 5) than it would take to fund Gitmo for a year.  There is plenty of waste in Washington that can be eliminated if we want to balance the budget.

He did finish strong, however.  He really perked up at the end when he talked about seeing Star Wars and going on vacation.  You may want to delete that part from your sleep inducing video, however.  It might actually wake you up!

Sam's CEO Rosalind Brewer on Diversity

Diversity for Diversity’s Sake

Just yesterday, CNN reporter Poppy Harlow interviewed Sam’s CEO Rosalind Brewer.  Ms. Brewer is a black female and part of the interview focused on diversity in the workplace, which has led to some screams of racism (or reverse racism if you prefer).  Being a 63-year-old white guy and a diversity agnostic, I thought I should check it out.

I have to admit, the claims of racism are way overblown.  Most of the interview was a substantive discussion of compensation for Walmart and Sam’s employees in the form of salaries and benefits.  Not only did I agree with her positions, but I also thought she conducted herself extremely well.  She was articulate and thoughtful and came across as a great role model for anyone climbing the corporate latter, no matter your race or gender.  I particularly liked her stance that companies should be responsible for the decision to provide certain benefits like paid family leave, versus government mandate.

At the very end of the interview Poppy asked Ms. Brewer what was she doing to get more people like herself into leadership positions at Walmart and Sam’s.  She suggested that it starts at the top and she was trying to do her part to mentor young black women and men.  I certainly don’t object to that, in fact I applaud it.  She didn’t say that she didn’t mentor old white guys like me.  I’m sure she does that also, but if truth be told, young black men and women are in need of positive role models and if she can be an example, I’m way OK with that.

But, I rarely agree with 100% of what anyone says, so I would have a small caution for Ms. Brewer.  At the end of her interview she talked about a company that was meeting with her that was represented by all white males.  This seemed to bother her.  My first warning to Ms. Brewer is that diversity is about more than skin color or gender.  Even if members of a group look the same, they could differ in levels of experiences, ways of thinking (brain styles if you wish), work ethic, etc.  The point is, diversity should be about results, not just looks.

I love to use sports as the example here.  The NBA has a real shortage of short, slow white guys.  Do you think they care?  They simply want to win and are willing to bring anyone onto the team that can help them do that.  However, they are looking for what I’ll call “good diversity”.  Shaquille O’Neal was a great player.  He was the NBA’s MVP and won four NBA titles with the Lakers and the Miami Heat, but can you imagine a team of five Shaqs?  They wouldn’t get the ball over mid court.

NBA teams want people with different skills.  Some need to shoot from the outside and some need to handle the ball and some need to dominate the paint, like Shaq did.  But the key to the diversity they are looking for revolves around winning, and so it should be with business.

As Ms. Brewer looked at the collection of white males, she should be asking, “how are they delivering for me?  Is there something missing from this group that is causing them to deliver a poor product to me?”  This will more likely deliver meaningful diversity that can make a positive difference.

In the mean time, I encourage Ms. Brewer to mentor and encourage all of the young people she can.  The world would be a better place with more Rosalind Brewers in it.

Climate Change and Terrorism

Climate Change Causes Terrorism?

 The View from the Middle

How would you like to create the perfect argument?  This argument would have to be invulnerable to actual statistics, impossible to totally understand and would not be reliant on any future results.  It would be impossible to prove wrong (or right for that matter).  And wouldn’t it be great if you could make millions if not billions of dollars supporting that argument!   Well, stop working on it.  It’s already been invented and it’s called “Global Warming”.   Oops, I mean “Climate Change”.  See, you can’t even tie these guys down to a name!

Remember, it was less than 40 years ago when Stephen Schneider, a top climate advisor for Al Gore, and a hoard of his fellow scientists were warning all of us of an upcoming “Ice Age”.  He also warned “we can't predict with any certainty what's happening to our own climatic future”.  Obviously, in the last 38 years Al has set him down and said, “Hey Steve!  Let’s go with warming instead of freezing and let's say we CAN predict what’s going to happen!”  That makes all the difference in the world.

Of course, Al and Steve stumbled out of the gate by making some actual predictions.  They said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010, and New York and Miami would be under water.   But these missteps are no problem for the perfect argument.  They just denied those predictions for a while and then changed them when they got caught.  Now these catastrophic events will happen in a hundred years if we don’t act right now.  Of course, Al and Steve will be long dead by then and Al's children’s, children will be spending his billions on some other con game they can perpetrate on America.

And now they’ve changed their cause’s name to “Climate Change”, because temperatures have not been increasing for the past 20 years of so.  This allows them to use any weather related event in their argument.  If we have a year with a lot of hurricanes, it’s Climate Change.  If we have a year with very few hurricanes, it’s Climate Change.  If it rains – Climate Change.  If it doesn’t – Climate Change.  Tornadoes – Climate Change.  No tornadoes – Climate Change.  I think you get the picture. 

But the inaccurate predictions and claims that every event supports their theory have begun to make many of us a little skeptical.  Moving the goalpost for their prophecies to a hundred years from now was the straw that broke my climatological back.  Charles Krauthammer also became suspicious of the all-inclusive claims.  He pointed out that, “if everything supports your hypothesis, then nothing supports it!”  I’m with Chuck!

And now President Obama and Bernie Sanders are trying to claim that Climate Change is causing radical Islamic terrorism.  Wow, how do you disprove that, or prove it?  Don’t worry.  That’s the great thing about the perfect argument.  You don’t have to prove any of this stuff.  You just have to throw it out there and let the rest of us argue about it while you develop your next line of bull.  I’m going to take a big risk here and suggest a counter argument to the President and Bernie.  I think radical Islamic terrorism is caused by a relatively small but growing fanatical, religious group whose goal is to bring the entire world under their control.  Call me silly, but that’s what they say, and I take them at their word.

It finally dawned on me the other day, as I watched the President suggest that Climate Change caused terrorism that even the eventual results don’t matter.  If temperatures fall or maintain, Al, Mr. Obama and Bernie will take credit.  I can just hear them now.  “If we hadn’t done X-Y or Z we wouldn’t have seen these results”.   But, if temperatures go up, it will be because we didn’t do enough.  No one will be able to prove it either way.  And that’s when it hit me.  These guys are full of it, but they have invented the perfect argument.

Now, I’m not suggesting that we should trash the earth, but I am suggesting that no one totally understands how our climate works.  Even climatologists will agree that it is a VERY complex system.  We’ve been through these cycles before when man was clearly not the cause.  This could be a natural process that God put in place when He created the world and we can have little to no impact on it.  If you’re an atheist you can substitute “Mother Nature” for God.   Whatever!

But before we start trashing our economy by destroying the fossil fuel industries, we need to do a lot more honest study on this subject.  There are even some scientists who believe the warming that the President is predicting could be beneficial to the earth.  Whatever you do, feel empowered to be skeptical.  Don’t fall for this unprovable argument.  Don’t trust anyone who tells you that you have to give them money today in the form of carbon taxes or subsidized energy costs or the world will end in 100 years.  Conveniently for these doomsayers, anyone who is reading this article will be dead by then. 

If you aren’t skeptical yet, remember Rahm Emanuel’s famous saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”  He was implying that he would use any crisis to advance his ideological agenda.  And if you don’t have a real crisis lying around, just make one up.  Can anyone say “Climate Change”?