Safe Zones - Lethal to Freedom

Safe Zones – Lethal to Freedom

 The View from the Middle

In the wake of the terrorist slaughter in Paris, a discussion of “safe zones” seems a little silly.  Actually, even in the best of times a conversation about the need for safe zones in the America should sound frivolous.  In a world where we seem to see daily beheadings, kidnappings, rape of young girls, people being burned alive and suicide bombers, our entire country looks like a safe zone to me.

But, in the land of participation trophies, helicopter parents and bubble wrapped kids, safe zones could be tempting.  We must, however, take a step back and think about what we are sowing.  In our effort to keep our kids safe, are we raising children who can meet the challenges of the future or are we spawning a generation that will shrink from adversity and usher in the decline of this great nation? 

My wife, Brenda, used to have a refrigerator magnate that said, “don’t pray for an easy life, pray for strong character”.  If you are looking for evidence of the wisdom of that adage, look no further than the greatest generation of Americans that rescued Europe and the world in World War Two.  They didn’t have safe zones.  They had sacrifice zones called Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal and Normandy, and they sacrificed at home through rationing, war production (envision Rosie the Riveter) and worry.  These hardships made that generation stronger and they delivered a better country and life for their children than they inherited. 

And besides the weakening of an entire generation, there are a couple of fundamental issues I have with these so-called safe zones.  First, for whom are they safe?  If I believe in traditional marriage or if I’m pro-life or if I favor of a balanced budget amendment, am I allowed in the safe zone?   These safe zones sound more like “restricted speech and thought” zones.  And if we accept these politically correct thinking and speaking zones, how long before the bullies running them want a “safe country” as defined by their belief system.  We must be careful because we also know that these safe zone apostles are not confined by the truth.  They justify any means as long as “their” ends are met.  Before we completely throw out the first amendment maybe 1984 (the Orwellian classic) should be required reading in every high school because that is the final destination of this kind of safe zone thinking. 

Finally, I’d like to ask what these safe zone advocates think about The Black Panthers or Louis Farrakhan.  Are they as offended by terms like “cracker” and “honky” as they are about the “n” word?  Al Sharpton, may try to rationalize these words as terms of endearment for white folk, but in reality this is just racism in the other direction.    My guess is that all of these guys will be welcomed into the “safe zones”, but I won’t be.

I certainly don’t advocate using derogatory terms to describe anyone.  I constantly pray for unity in our country, and I think the vast majority of Americans are just like me.  I also believe, however, that we will always have a few idiots who will try to elevate themselves by putting others down.  Unfortunately, this is the human condition, but we can’t allow a few morons to drive us to throw out the fundamental principles on which this great country was founded - freedom of speech and thought.

On Quentin Tarantino's free speech

Quentin Tarantino's response to the police boycotts around the country is, "I thought I had free speech."

And you do, Quentin.  That's what makes this country so great.  But what you forgot is - so do we.  And we have freedom of choice.  We can choose to see your movies, or not.  So, speak away and accept the consequences.  After all, you didn't do this to promote your new movie and make a bunch of money, did you?

Obama - Divider in Chief

Obama – The Natural

 The View from the Middle

Let me start this article by saying that I am sick of the negative, personal attacks that are so commonplace in politics today.  These assaults are usually opinions stated as fact or worse yet, total fiction like Harry Reid’s claim that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years.  And people use this technique purely for personal gain.  They want to be elected and couldn’t care less what affect this negativity has on our country, which I think is substantial.

This is why I am not a big fan of Donald Trump.  His reaction to criticism of his policies is often negative, personal and very divisive.  This might work for The Donald, but it is not good for the Republican Party or for the country.  But if we really want to talk about the king of negativity, we have to consider Barack Obama.  He’s a natural at it.

He recently mocked the Republican candidates for criticizing the CNBC moderators from last week’s debate.  Despite the fact that the moderators have been universally described as biased, partisan hacks that mismanaged almost every aspect of the debate, Obama suggested that their complaints showed that they couldn’t handle Putin or the Chinese once in office.  This is a perfect example of a non-substantive comment that means nothing, but will be effective if WE fall for it.

Remember, this is the guy and the party that wouldn’t even agree to have a debate on Fox News.  Who looks scared now?  And, he has been pushed around and outmaneuvered by Putin since he got in office.  At least Trump was actually able to get a concession from CNBC when they reduced the debate time to two hours from the planned three.  We gave Iran massive concessions and couldn’t even get our four imprisoned Americans released from Iranian jails.  THAT should have been a precondition to even talk about a nuclear deal.

But we shouldn’t be surprised about Obama’s habit of spewing negative, vitriolic rhetoric.  His mentor, teacher and patron saint is Saul Alinsky, and Obama runs his playbook at every opportunity.  Here is an exact quote from Saul’s book, Rules for Radicals.  It is his rule #5.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.  It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Read his book.  It is clear that Saul Alinsky has no idea how to manage or govern anything.  He only cares about acquiring power at any cost.  When that is your patron saint, it shouldn’t surprise us that Obama is great at dividing the country, pitting factions against each other in order to win elections, but then he fails miserably at governing once he is in office.  Once you use ridicule to get Americans to hate each other, it is impossible to bring them back together in order to accomplish anything.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Obama continues to ridicule Americans who disagree with him, even in the sunset of his Presidency.  He’s a natural.  It’s like criticizing a snake for striking.  But we, as Americans, need to see through this self-serving strategy and keep them out of public service.  By the way, there is another Saul Alinsky acolyte ridiculing for your vote, and that’s Hillary Clinton.  Ah!  It all makes sense now, doesn’t it?

The Truth and Nothing but the Truth about the Debate

The Truth About the Republican Debate

 The View from the Middle

As I’ve watched the coverage of the recent Republican Presidential debate, it has reminded me of a quote from one of my favorite historical figures, Abraham Lincoln.  Abe once said, “If you look for the bad in people, expecting to find it, you surely will.”  If you read the New York Times headlines or watched the women of The View, you would get a distorted perspective of what happened on Wednesday night. 

In what I can only describe as the height of hypocrisy, Michelle Collins actually criticized Carly Fiorina’s looks, suggesting that her smile made her look “demented”.  Joy Behar quickly followed that absolutely absurd comment by saying that Ms. Fiorina’s face would make a good Halloween mask.  Wow!  Aren’t these the same women that skewered Donald Trump for making a much less obnoxious statement about Carly?

So if you are looking for a truthful review of the debate, you can’t rely on the New York Times, The View or any of the rest of the left-leaning media.  They enter with a skewed perspective and they are literally “looking for the bad” in all conservatives, even women!!  So if you want the truth, you need to come to The View From the Middle, and here it is.

To be honest, I have been disappointed with the divisive, demeaning rhetoric of the first two debates.  I’m more of a Reagan “build a big tent” moderate and believe there should be no sniping inside the tent.  In this debate I finally saw some unity and some actual support between the candidates.  The fact that they were united against the hapless CNBC moderators is irrelevant.  We need unity among the Republican candidates as much as we need unity among the American people.

And it all started with what Ben Carson described as the “Cruz” missile.  Ted Cruz, who I will declare as the big winner of the evening, laid into the CNBC moderators for their biased, disrespectful and combative questions to the approval of the audience and all open minded people across the country.  At that moment he defended Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump as he castigated the moderators.  I can only hope that this will change this entire primary election process and not just this debate.

Marco Rubio was another big winner.  He defended himself well against a small attack by Jeb Bush but he also finally exposed a couple of truths that that the country needs to face.  First, he called Hillary Clinton a liar by using her own words.  She lied to the American people about the cause of the Benghazi attack while she told the Prime Minister of Egypt the truth.  He also described the mainstream media as the “ultimate super PAC” of the Democrat Party.  Maybe we can shame the media into being non-partisan.  That assumes that they have any conscience left.

Chris Christie showed again that he is prepared, smart and works well on his feet.  I loved it when he told John Harwood that, “even in New Jersey” what he was doing was rude.  I actually thought Christie won the second debate but he was not able to use that performance to make a surge in the polls.  We’ll see if he can do better with Wednesday’s effort.

A final winner, in my book, was Carly Fiorina.  I love her message about our huge, complicated, inept and corrupt federal government and think it should be the main battle cry for all conservatives.  She also won the microphone time battle despite the fact that she is 5^th, 6^th or 7^th in the polls, depending on which one you look at.

Trump did fine, and I think I see some maturing from him as a political candidate.  He used 3^rd grade bullying tactics less often (but I wouldn’t suggest going out of the way to antagonize him) and has added more substance to his arguments.  He also actually complimented some of his opponents.  Ben Carson also did fine.  I love his message of unity and civility, but he got the 3^rd lowest speaking time despite his #1 or #2 position in the polls.  He is not a natural “interrupter” and he may have to work on appropriate ways to get his fair share, but I also blame the CNBC moderators and their total lack of control for the imbalance.

The two biggest losers were Rand Paul and Jeb Bush.  Neither made campaign-ending gaffes, but both needed stellar performances to keep them in the news and in the minds of voters, and they didn’t get it.  Their messages were not memorable and they received the two lowest levels of speaking time in the debate.  Jeb will surely hang on for the next debate because he has so much money, but Rand Paul might find himself a victim of a culling process that the field badly needs so that the major candidates can get their full messages out to the people.

Lois Lerner and our lack of Justice Dept.

…And Justice for None

 The View from the Middle

If you haven’t figured it out yet, whenever the government releases information at 5:00 pm. on Friday, it is their attempt to blow a fast one past the American people.  They are hoping that we have started our weekend and by Monday we will have forgotten, or better yet missed, the issue they are trying to hide.  This is a soft version of deception, yet very effective, and it should anger and even sicken all of us. 

So, you ask, what is the latest version of the governmental duplicity?  Last Friday as the clock stuck five, our (lack of) Justice Department announced that there would be no criminal charges filed against any IRS official in connection with its targeting of conservative groups requesting 501 (c)(4) status.  This just confirms this Justice Department’s complete partisanship and incompetence.  They can’t convict a fellow liberal comrade even with a confession.  Don’t take my word for it, let’s see what Lois Lerner said when responding to her own planted question back in 2013:

“They (IRS employees) used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate”

“They also sent some letters out that were far too broad, asking questions of these organizations that weren’t really necessary for this type of application. In some cases…they asked for contributor names. That’s not appropriate”

So, Lois Lerner admitted that the targeting happened and that extremely inappropriate questions were asked of these groups.  She also admitted that their requests were delayed.  And, from a few of her e-mails that weren’t conveniently lost, we know that she called these groups “crazies” who were determined to ruin our country.  And this doesn’t even address the fact that the tax division of the IRS also coincidentally audited these groups.  One of the victims of this abuse described all of this as the “weaponization” of the IRS.  But of course, there was no political motivation or so says Lois Lerner, and she gets off. 

So let’s get this straight.  The targeting occurred.  The damage was done.  People were abused if not destroyed, but as long as the offender says she didn’t mean it, after the fact, then all is forgiven.  Given that standard, we couldn’t convict anyone who is simply willing to lie.  This Justice Department is incapable of looking at the facts of a case and realizing that they are inconsistent with the denials of the perpetrators.  And we wonder why there is no accountability in the government.

But we shouldn’t be surprised.  This is not the first time this (lack of) Justice Department has looked down the barrel of a gun loaded with facts and simply ignored it.  Eric Holder, the Obama bundler and previous Attorney General, actually lied to congress, but paid no price.  Again, don’t take my word for it, here is what Eric Holder said to Congress when asked about abusing the freedom of the press, and in this case the press was Fox News:

“With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – that is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be wise policy”

Oops!  He must have forgotten that he had actually signed off on a warrant to snoop into James Rosen’s e-mails and to track his movements.  In the warrant, Rosen was called a potential “aider and abettor and co-conspirator”.  But what’s a little lie like this to Congress anyway?  It’s a felony, that’s what it is.  No problem.  Mr. Holder expressed remorse when he was caught in his lie so his Justice Department let him off.  I’m sure they’d do the same for you or me, right?  Personally, I think we would be rotting in jail for the exact same behavior.

This is the same Attorney General who obtained AP phone records improperly, failed to hold Black Panther activists accountable for voter intimidation and was held in contempt by Congress for not providing documents in the Fast and Furious investigation.  The contempt of Congress charge was a bi-partisan vote, but the (lack of) Justice Department decided not to investigate itself in the Fast and Furious case.  Oh, I feel better.

And finally, we have Hillary Clinton admitting that she lied to the American people and she will not be held accountable either.  Again, don’t take my word for it, here is what Ms. Clinton wrote to the Egyptian Prime Minister within 24 hours of the Benghazi attack:

“We know there is NO connection between the attack in Libya and the video.  This was a planned attack and had nothing to do with the film.”

Of course, at the same time she was telling the American people just the opposite.  The reality is that the American people would not have blamed the Administration for the attack on Benghazi.  They would have taken some heat for being unprepared and for not responding the night of the attack, but that is minor compared to the wrath that the American people have heaped on Hillary for lying to them.  The cover-up is always worse than the original sin.

What is sad about all of these cases, and what infuriates most Americans and me is the lack of accountability in our government.  There seems to be different rules for government employees than for us regular folks.  The good news is that I feel a growing anger in the country about this double standard.  “We the People” are seeing the government for what it is – a huge, inefficient, corrupt, irresponsible and unaccountable blob that needs to be reeled in. 

What we need is a good political outsider for President and term limits in the Congress.  There, now I do feel better.