In Defense of John La Tour

In Defense of John La Tour

The View from the Middle

Abraham Lincoln, one of my favorite Presidents, once said, “If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”  Tucked inside this witticism are two fundamental truths.  First, we have all done things that we regret, things that are wrong.  Second, we can all distort the reality of a person’s character if we focus only on the bad, and even exaggerate it, while ignoring the positive.  And that’s what’s happening in Fayetteville with John La Tour.

I think it is important for the people of Fayetteville to hear about John Latour from someone who has known John for more than the 15 minutes he recently spent in Arsaga’s.  Some people, like Garvin Smith, have written lengthy, bordering on libelous, pieces about John without really knowing him.  Mr. Smith, I have talked to the barista in question and I have concluded that if you had any decency you will write a retraction immediately.

I have known John for 25 years, and one of the first things you’ll notice about John is that he is different.  You would think, however, that this is something that the LGBT community would not only accept, but embrace.  It’s actually one of the first things that attracted me to John. 

John is a conservative.  I hope that’s OK in Fayetteville these days.  Actually, in his conservatism he is a liberal’s dream come true.  If the world, or at least Fayetteville, were full of John La Tours, there would be no need for the Uniform Civil Rights Protection Ordinance.  John doesn’t and wouldn’t discriminate against anyone for any reason.  He wants civil rights for everyone and special rights for no one.  You can disagree with that, but don’t misrepresent it.

John is a self made man and an extremely intelligent businessperson.  He owes his success to no man and to nothing but his own hard work and his willingness to take risks (and he would add – to the grace of God).  The City Council could actually learn something from John if they weren’t so busy trying to assassinate his character at every turn simply because he has a different point of view. 

I’ve heard the council complain that he is always the “no” vote, but let me ask them a question.  Has John ever voted against his already stated principles?  One man’s obstruction is another man’s consistency, you know.  To the rest of the City Council members I would ask, “Have you always voted consistently with your values?”  I hope the answer to that question is “yes”, and I’m sure you’re proud to say that you did.  Shouldn’t you be just as proud of John?

I have considered John La Tour to be a friend for 25 years and I’m glad for it.  As a friend, I have found John to be kind, staunchly supportive and uncommonly generous.  He’s not just a friend but a model of friendship, just as he is a model citizen. 

John is not just a population statistic for Fayetteville; he is an active citizen who is a leader in his church and community.  On the morning in question he wasn’t just “meeting with acquaintances”, he was leading an accountability group.  He’s not just a member of his church, he is a servant leader, and he is the same for the city of Fayetteville. 

John didn’t need to run for City Council.  In fact, he feared that he would be persecuted for his beliefs, and sadly those fears have been recognized.  John just wants Fayetteville to be the best city it can be.  But unless Fayetteville wants to become the ideologically unbalanced and extreme government that our founders suggested leads to despotism (think Hunger Games), they need more John La  Tours on their council, not less.

Finally, the hypocrisy in this situation is palpable.  People have accused John of being a bully, yet what they have done to him in the paper and on social media is the very definition of bullying.  The truth has been twisted and even disregarded, and if you’ve ever heard the term “piling on”, this will be the new case study.

Those 15 minutes at Arsaga’s were probably not John’s finest quarter hour.  He could have been more insistent that they turn the music down.  He could have expressed himself better.  He could have just left and gone to a different restaurant (although that suggests that the gay couple in Oregon should have found another bakery).  Whatever the case, I think it’s time that we all put this situation into perspective.  If you are a friend of John Latour, give him a call.  He could use a verbal hug today.

Merrick Garland SCOTUS Nominee

Merrick Garland – One More Example…

The View from the Middle

Before I talk about Mitch McConnell’s handling of Merrick Garland, Obama’s recent nominee to the Supreme Court, let me vent about why we are, where we are.

The American people have been ignored and abused by everything Washington for at least the last seven years from both sides of the political spectrum.  We’ve had Obama, The Divider in Chief in the White House, King Harry Reid in the Senate, out of control spending and a foreign policy that is spinning out of control.  Is it any wonder that approval ratings for every aspect of our government (executive, legislative and Supreme Court) are all at historic lows? 

Should we be surprised that nearly two thirds of all Americans are supporting candidates that want to blow up Washington and start over?  Sure, we have Donald Trump and Ted Cruz on the Republican side of the equation, but we also have Bernie Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, giving Hillary Clinton an unanticipated run for her money of the other side.  We are all fed up and tired of being disregarded.

And now we have Mitch “I’m going to take my ball and go home” McConnell confirming that the childish tantrums aren’t isolated to the Democrats.  Justice Scalia was my favorite Supreme Court Justice.  He was deeply intellectual, humorous and engaging.  He was best buds with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for crying out loud, but still a protector of The Constitution.  With Scalia the court was very balanced indeed. 

We had Scalia, Alito and Thomas leaning right and we had Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan firmly planted on the left with Kennedy and Roberts in the middle, as witnessed by Roberts’ Obamacare decisions.  Whoever replaces Scalia will have a profound impact on the nature and rulings of this new court.  For the good of the country, I believe we should be looking for a constitutional protector like Scalia to keep the court in balance.

So what does America get?  Before Scalia is even in the ground, Mitch McConnell boasts that the Senate will not even consider a justice nominated by President Obama.  What?  He quotes the “Biden Rule” which only proves that he can be as partisan as the worst Democrats when it comes to governing. 

He should have recognized that the President has the right and even obligation to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, and that he and the rest of the Senate should give their “advice” for sure and consent if appropriate.  There is nothing in The Constitution that suggests that this process should not occur in a Presidential election year.  Just do your job Mitch and stop playing politics with a process that should be apolitical.  In fact, if Mitch was smart, he could point how partisan Democrats like Biden had been in the past, and demonstrate that Republicans would bring a new rational sheriff into town.

Now, I’m not saying that the Senate would even confirm Merrick Garland as a replacement for Scalia.  His actions in gun control cases and affirming of executive actions demonstrate that he is far from a moderate.  There are even Democratic Senators like Joe Manchin of W. Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota that might struggle with Mr. Garland’s views.  Have the confirmation hearings and give your advice to the President, and that advice might be to find a different guy!

We’re sick of the political games.  Step up and do your jobs.  It will still take years of adult behavior to win back the trust of “We the People”, but every journey must start with a single step.  Take that first step by having hearings on Merrick Garland.

Free Speech for All, Even Donald Trump

Free Speech for All, Even Donald Trump

The View from the Middle

I don’t know how many articles I can start with this statement, but I am NOT a Donald Trump supporter, yet I continue to find myself defending him.  I’m tired of his 3^rd grade tactics, calling his opponents “Little Marco” and “Lying Ted”.  What does that mean, anyway?  But I’m also sickened as I watch Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals being executed with manipulative, surgical precision to deprive him and his supporters of their fundamental rights of free speech.

Saul Alinksy, who was Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton’s mentor, was a hired agitator of the first order.  Mr. Alinsky specialized in shifting power from one group to another, but had no idea what to do with that power once his clients achieved it.  He was a divider, a creator of hate, animosity, havoc and disorder.  So as you see his rules being executed, it should reflect on the tormentor (MoveOn.org), not the target (Donald Trump). 

So that you can recognize Mr. Alinsky’s vicious, dehumanizing tactics when you see them being executed, let me layout a couple of his favorite tactics which are currently being used against Mr. Trump.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. 

Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

It is “rule 13” that is generating the mayhem at Mr. Trump’s rallies, and we should all be denouncing these tactics whether they were being used to silence Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.  I personally disagree with much of what Bernie Sanders professes, yet I will defend to the death his right to express them.

In my opinion, Mr. Alynsky was a slime ball, hired gun who couldn’t care less who his clients were or what their causes were.  He wanted power first and foremost for himself.  If you think there were any noble purposes behind his efforts, remember that he dedicated his book to Satan.  Yes!  Satan!

Cruz, Rubio and Kasich should be ashamed of themselves for blaming this violence on Trump.  This is political expediency at its worst.  If Marco Rubio really believes in not abandoning his “principles, he should be defending Trump and condemning the rioters.  It is not the Trump supporters creating the mayhem, it is the hired, professional demonstrators.  They want to prevent him from delivering his message and deny people their right to hear it.  These tactics should outrage every American.

 Savagery is exactly what these goons want.  It is their intent to create it, so when it happens, we must all know who to credit.  There are legal ways to make your opposition known, but preventing someone else his or her right to express theirs is not one of them.

MoveOn.org has openly claimed responsibility for the violent disruption of Trump’s rally in Chicago.  They have also endorsed Bernie Sanders in this primary campaign.  Will Bernie Sanders disavow their actions?  Will he return any money received by the organization or its members?  Let’s see if Bernie really cares about everyone or if he believes he has more rights than Donald Trump!!

Mud Wrestling to Debating

From Mud Wrestling to Debating in One Night

The View from the Middle

Last night I tuned into CNN to watch the 11^th Republican Mud-wrestling contest, when a strange thing happened.  An actual debate broke out.  I’m sure some of this change had to do with the candidates.  Rubio had suggested that he was going to return to his normal behavior, Trump had suggested that he was going to turn “Presidential”, and Kasich has always been Mr. Positive, so chances were good.  However, some credit has to go to the moderators.

Up to now, I believe the moderating in the Republican debates has been atrocious.  Wolf Blitzer was incompetent and Fox News has been uncharacteristically slanted (except for Neil Cavuto) and CNBC was their usual awful self.  But last night Jake Tapper and crew did an excellent job.  Their questions begged for policy details instead of inciting riots between the candidates, and they (the moderators) blended into the background of the close-up on the candidates.  Hats off to Jake!

What this debate revealed, is that there is much more agreement than disagreement between these candidates.  For example, everyone is for boarder security.  All want a wall and human patrols of the boarder.  From previous debates we also know that they are for electronic surveillance, ending sanctuary cities and managing visas more efficiently.  If there is a difference, it might be with the existing illegal aliens, but even there it seems they are coalescing around a path to legalization (not citizenship) for good people and sending the criminals back to wherever they came.  And actually, that’s a plan I can support.

They are also in broad agreement on trade.  We need to make better deals.  No one says it more plainly or bluntly than Donald Trump, but all of these candidates have finally agreed that we need to level the playing field so that our companies and people can compete.  Even Ted Cruz finally agreed to some protectionism, whether he would like to admit is or not.  Ted said he would not tax our exports but would tax imports.  He tried to suggest that somehow HIS taxes on imports would not raise prices to Americans, but somehow Trump’s tariffs would.  I guess it’s all in the name. 

The reality is that a tax on imports (or tariffs if you like) runs the risk of raising some prices on goods sold in America.  There are, however, many benefits that offset those risks.  American companies will be encouraged to manufacture goods here, creating American jobs, driving up average wages and reducing unemployment.  That would have a side-affect of reducing our unemployment expenses.  This is another plan I can support.

Everyone wants to support Israel and everyone wants to beat the snot out of ISIS.  I even think that I heard that every candidate was willing to consider the use of large numbers of American ground troops to get the job done.  All would also agree that we need commitments by middle-east countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well as European countries like Germany, France and the UK to get it done.  My only concern here is that Trump and Kasich talked about getting out of Iraq when that mission was accomplished and leaving the peace making to Iraq and its neighbors.  My fear is that would be the same as President Obama’s failed SOFA and withdrawal.  I believe we need a peacekeeping presence in Iraq until that country is truly self-reliant.  But I’m on board with kicking ISIS out of Iraq and committing troops if that is necessary.

The final agreement was on education.  Everyone was for pushing education money and responsibility down to the state and local levels.  Choice and competition are the answers.  I heard about charter schools, vouchers and even home schooling.  No one suggested that we stop offering a public school option, but if our people are going to compete in the future, our schools need to compete in the present.  Choice and competition is the answer.

The only real difference between these candidates came during the discussion of Social Security.  Rubio, Cruz and Kasich are for extending the retirement age for those not close to retirement and means testing the benefits.  Trump suggested that we could save enough money by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse (not just in SS, but across government) to leave SS as it is.  Is it OK to say that I feel strongly both ways here?  I’m good with changing SS, but I also want to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse to cut our deficits in other areas.

Was this enough to save Donald Trump and the Republican Party?  Only time will tell.  Here are some measures to follow.  Will Donald Trump’s “unfavorable” numbers come down?  He has an unfavorable rating with 60% of Americans today.  If that comes down after last night’s performance, then he, in effect, won the debate. 

In my opinion, Marco Rubio technically won the debate last night.  His answer on the climate change question was classic.  He said, “America is not a planet”, and suggested that any legislation that we could pass would destroy our economy and drive up prices of electricity to the struggling masses, while not having any impact on our climate.  If climate change is caused by man and is reversible, the answer lies with China and India and countries like them.

I think it is too late for both Marco and John Kasich, but I predict that they will stay in as long as they can so that they can have some influence at the convention.  As for Trump and Cruz?  This next week will tell us a lot!  No matter what happens, I like these candidates much better than the ones who have been slinging mud for the last 10 debates.