A Sad State

A Sad State
The View from the Middle

Many a President has started his State of the Union speech by saying that, “The state of our union is … Strong”, and President Trump could use that same language in his upcoming address. The unemployment rate is under 4% and has hit record low rates for African Americans, Hispanics and women. The US economy is growing at annual rate of over 3% for the first time in ten years and North Korea isn’t testing nuclear bombs or launching missiles over Japan and ISIS is a shadow of its former self. With these realities in place, ANY President would say that the state of our union is strong. But I would argue that Trump should say that the state of our union is sad – disgusting – pathetic or at best dysfunctional.

It saddens me that as the market fell almost 4,000 points in December, I pictured Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi celebrating. And when the market set a record one day gain on Wednesday, you have to know that they were cursing. They have made it clear that they would rather see America, and thus the American people, suffer than to allow Donald Trump to succeed. Their hatred for this President is so rabid that they would rather have American citizens lose their jobs, lose their houses and even go hungry than have this President be successful or be the person who actually solves the illegal immigration problem.

When Mitch McConnell suggested that his most important objective in 2009 was to make sure that Barrack Obama did not win a second term, I condemned him. And when Rush Limbaugh declared that he wanted President Obama to fail, I rejected that idea, because if our President fails, the American people pay the price. This two person, single statement example, however, pales in comparison to the entire Democrat party who has proudly announced that they will resist and obstruct everything Donald Trump proposes no matter how good it is for the country and its people.

Not a single Democrat voted for Trump’s tax cuts, which all fair minded people would have to agree was good for our economy and job creation. Democrats not only didn’t support his foreign policy moves, but some, like John Kerry, actively tried to sabotage it. And now we have a second “Schumer” shutdown over Trump’s insistence on five billion dollars for a wall as part of his plan to secure our southern border.

It’s not about the money! Five billion dollars represents only about one tenth of one percent of our country’s budget. Hillary Clinton lost (or more graciously mismanaged) six billion dollars just while she was Secretary of State. According to Bob Woodward, the Pentagon wasted $125 billion over five years. Our government squanders over five billion dollars a week in waste, fraud and abuse according to some estimates. It’s not about the money. It’s not about a wall or even about border security. It is about a political calculation that Democrats and their co-conspirators, the main stream media, are making. As long as they believe they are gaining a political advantage they will gladly shower Americans with misery and suffering.

It’s also about an almost irrational hatred for this President. Some call it “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, but whatever you call it, it’s pathetic when our politicians actually cheer for the collapse of our markets and the failure of our country so that they can experience revenge or political gain. This is what makes the real state of our union – Sad!! What we need is term limits to force all of these selfish jerks out of office!!

The Truth About Walls

The Truth About Walls
The View from the Middle

I’m amazed at how our politicians in Washington can lie right to our faces and do it with “academy award winning” fake sincerity. The new line in Washington, especially on the left, is that, “Walls are a 15th century solution to a 21st century problem and they just don’t work.” Almost that entire statement is a lie except for the reality that we do have an illegal immigration problem in the 21st century. It’s like the “big lie” that Joseph Goebbels used in the second World War to peddle his genocidal, mass murder plans to the German people as a righteous response to what he suggested the Jews did in WWI. Don’t be fooled. Let me reveal some truths about walls that will shed light on the big lie.

First, the wall is not a 15th century idea. They were first used over 4,000 years ago or about the year 2,000 BC. They can’t even get that fact right. They have been used ever since for one big reason - they work, which we will demonstrate later. They also subtly suggest that if an idea is old, it can’t possibly work today. Another lie. The wheel, for example was invented over 5,000 years ago and still works remarkably well today. Anyone want to take the wheels off their cars, bikes, roller-skates or scooters today? The door lock was invented over 6,000 years ago and is still in broad use today. In fact, they are almost everywhere. Want to take the locks off your house? Probably not.

The wall, the wheel and the lock were classic, game changing ideas because they worked and they still work today. 65 countries around the world TODAY use walls on their borders to protect their sovereignty and help them manage their legal immigration programs, because they work.

Israel, for example put a 150-mile wall on their southern border to stop people from illegally entering their country. They saw an almost immediate decline in illegal crossings by 99%. Walls work. Hungary put up a wall on its border with Serbia in 2015 because illegal entries across that border had exploded to 391,000 per year. Within two years, illegal crossings had fallen to just over 1,000. That’s a 99.8% reduction. Walls work. Even in the United States, NPR reported that the wall between San Diego and Tijuana had reduced illegal entries into the US there by 95%. Walls work. It is a part of the “big lie” to deny this.

Another part of the big lie is that Trump is suggesting a 2,000-mile-long wall across our southern border. To the average person, that sounds excessive and even impractical. The reality is that we already have 700 miles of walls and or fences across our southern border and the current administration is only asking for an additional 550 miles in strategic places to bring that total to 1,250 miles of walls.

But let’s not listen to politicians concerning the need for this additional border wall mileage. Let’s listen to the people that do the work of protecting our border. According to The Washington Times, the National Border Control Council overwhelmingly supported Trump’s plan for additional wall systems in strategic places on our border with Mexico. In fact, 89% of the agents support this proposal while only 7% disagreed. Oh, by the way, this group also opposed our current “catch and release” policy.

There is another aspect of the “big lie”, and that is what politicians won’t tell you. Did you know, for example, that 26 Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, voted in favor of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which approved hundreds of miles of additional fencing/walls along our southern border. That bill passed by a whopping 80 to 19 margin in the Senate that year. Schumer, Clinton and Obama also supported the 2013 immigration reform law that approved walls and fences along our Mexican border. Their objections today are purely political. Illegal immigration has been an issue for decades and they don’t want Trump to solve it, even if it will benefit the entire country to do so.

I’ll be the first to admit that walls and fences along our southern border are not the total answer to our illegal immigration problems. We need to embrace technology, stop catch and release, change chain migration, improve our work visa program and punish employers here who enable and even encourage illegal immigration. But, to suggest that a strategically placed wall system is not part (a big part) of the solution is a “big lie”. Don’t fall for the lies. The truth will set you free.

Media Coverage of Bush 41 - Pathetic

Media Coverage of Bush 41 - Pathetic
The View from the Middle

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a little sick of the mainstream media’s coverage of our late President, George H.W. Bush. It isn’t the actual content that bothers me. Bush “41” was a very accomplished, principled and courageous man. It is the source of the coverage that makes me ill. Having the lamestream media gush over the late President is a little like listening to David Duke deliver the eulogy for Martin Luther King. Even as they celebrate his life and enumerate his accomplishments and praise his character, their coverage is tainted by their hypocrisy and bias.

Let’s do a reality check. The media crucified George Bush Sr. during his Presidency every chance they got. They called him stupid, out of touch and even went so far as to call him a “Wimp” on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And if you haven’t seen Dan Rather’s ambush of then VP Bush on national TV in 1988, look it up. It was disgusting.

But now, in death, he is beloved by the media who suggest that they had a great relationship with him and, of course, he would have never have called them the “enemy of the state”. He did say that they were fast and loose with the truth (fake news) and were constantly impugning the motives of both he and his son, “43”. He said that the mainstream media was arrogant, had lost its objectivity and had become advocates of the Democrat party. This rosy relationship between Bush Sr. and the media exists only in their imaginations.

Once we have washed off the stench of the mainstream media’s self-serving and completely insincere coverage of Bush Sr. we can take a truthful look at the former President’s life. This Yale grad and WWII fighter pilot was clearly not stupid and certainly not a wimp. He, in fact, may have been the most qualified person to become President unlike the false claim made by Hillary Clinton sycophants. After his military service he became a successful business man, Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, Chairman of the RNC, first envoy to China, Director of the CIA and Vice President of the United States for eight years under Ronald Reagan. Now those are actual qualifications for the top job.

He was a decent man who wanted a “kinder and gentler” country and advocated a “thousand points of light” solution to many of our national problems, tapping into the inherent generosity of the American people. He was also an honorary member of The View From the Middle for his ability to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. His bipartisan legislation to reduce the budget deficit, the passing of The Americans With Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act are just a few examples of his unbiased approach to governance.

He, in fact, would have been a two term President if the media had given him any sort of fair coverage on the economy and if Ross Perot hadn’t sabotaged his second campaign. Even today, the media will try to convince you that Bush 41 passed on an economy in shambles to Bill Clinton. In reality, after the recession of 1991 the Bush Administration delivered an economy that grew almost 4% in 1992 which Clinton then rode for the next eight years. Fair coverage would positively impact Bush’s chances in that 1992 election.

However, the biggest reason the George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 was the fact that the conservative Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate, syphoning off almost 20 million votes that would have largely gone to George Bush. Perot, a sort of 1992 version of Donald Trump, captured 19% of the vote, the most by any independent candidate since Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912 with his “Bull Moose” Progressive party. Just as Teddy ruined President Taft’s chances for a second term and handed the Presidency to Woodrow Wilson, Perot handed the Presidency to Bill Clinton.

Yes, George H.W. Bush was a decent, accomplished person who may go down as the best one term President in our History. You just needed to hear from someone who actually liked him instead of the people who trashed him at every opportunity while he was in office.

Happy Thanksgiving

Americans Have Much to be Thankful For
The View from the Middle

At a time when Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, has said, “America has never been that great”, and other politicians see racism, bigotry and misogyny around every corner, it is important for us to give thanks for the blessing of being born in this great country.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson knew exactly what he was committing to when he said, “That all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. At the time he wrote that famous phrase, that was definitely not true, but he was pledging that this new nation would make that promise a reality. From Jefferson to Lincoln to FDR to LBJ to today we have worked to make that dream come true.

In 1965 we had only five African American members of the House of Representatives and none in the Senate. In the 116th Congress which will start in January of 2019, we will have 54 black House members. This is not only more than ten times the membership of 1965, but will bring African American representation very close to their proportion of the general population (12.4% of the House – 12.6% of US population). This is hardly a sign of a racist America. In fact, it is an indicator of a promise being kept by generations long after the original pledge.

In 1956 there were only 17 women in the House of Representatives. In the 116th Congress there will be 100 or more when all the races are decided. Is this a misogynistic trend? I think not. There are many men who vote for women running for office. Remember, I voted for Carly Fiorina in the Presidential primary. This is just another sign of the self-correcting nature of the country that we should be proud of.

After the “Debbie Downer” politicians have put the country in a state of depression, along comes the lame-stream media with their caustic, hyperbolic drivel to add rage to our already despondent psyches. They tell us daily that our country is in the middle of a crisis of our democracy. Even as they spew this rubbish, we complete yet another peaceful election which ushers in a transition of power in the House from the Republicans to the Democrats without guns firing, torches blazing and pitch forks raised. This is how our Republic is supposed to operate.

They cry that we are also experiencing an assault on the freedom of the press, while their coverage skews 90% negative against the person in power, Donald Trump. Wouldn’t that ratio be reversed if our press was truly being controlled or threatened by the government? Isn’t this actually a sign of real freedom of the press? Even Jim Acosta (let’s face it, he is a jerk) got his White House press credentials back. Only in America.

Finally, the press will suggest that we are also experiencing a constitutional crisis. They do love a good crisis, don’t they? They say that if the President fires Robert Mueller he will be violating our constitution. Unfortunately for the lame-stream media, they and the Democrats are the only ones talking about taking such action. Trust me, the President has no intention of firing Robert Mueller. My prediction is that Mueller will be allowed to deliver his report and the whole Russia collusion conspiracy will die with a whimper instead of a bang.

Don’t be duped by the detractors who will try to tell you that “America never was that great” or that we are the cause of the world’s problems and not the solution. America is the kindest, most compassionate, most powerful, most blessed, most generous country in the world. The American people are the most generous, most industrious and the most determined people on the planet. So, reject the politicians’ and news commentators’ suggestions that we should all hate at least half of our citizenry.

Yes, on this day of thanksgiving let us be thankful for this country and this people. Be thankful for our founders who established a government based on freedom and liberty and the idea that the state is servant of the people and not the other way around. Be thankful for the progress we have made through the years to make this country even better. Be thankful for our soldiers and police and first responders who put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms. Be thankful for your friends and family who bless you every day.

The list of things to be thankful for could go on and on, but on this day let us be most thankful for each other and for the blessing of being born in this great country. God bless you all, and may God bless America. It truly is a great country.

Mid-Term Election True Analysis

Blue Wave? More Like a Ripple
The View from the Middle

Let me give you, my readers, a true analysis of last night’s mid-term elections while the mainstream media is busy covering their collective butts after projecting a blue wave just a few months ago. For perspective, Barack Obama lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives and thus lost control of the House and put Nancy Pelosi out of the Speakership in his first mid-term election. Democrats also lost six Senate seats and lost control of dozens of state legislatures and six governorships. To quote then President Obama, his party took a “shellacking” in his first mid-terms. Did the media call it a red wave. Nope! There were excuses galore. The party that controls the White House always loses seats in the mid-terms! The base didn’t show up! The independents took a right turn! The mainstream media, forgetting what their actual job was, acted quickly to cover up the shellacking and then quickly change the subject.

Now, let’s take a look at what really happened last night. First, we must understand the backdrop of last night’s elections. Republicans had to deal with an unprecedented 42 retirements in the House. Given the power of the incumbency in today’s politics, holding the House was going to be almost an impossibility for Republicans. With this in mind, not only can’t you call what happened a “blue wave”, you would probably have to call last night’s results a Trump win.

The Democrats did take control of the House, but they did that by switching around 35 seats in the House, about half of what Obama lost in 2010. Again, with 42 retirements, that was be expected. Then, it looks like Republicans will pick up about four or five seats in the Senate, and we really need to treat Marsha Blackburn’s win in Tennessee like a pick up. The current senator, Bob Corker, had decided to retire, and Blackburn was running against the very popular X-governor, Phil Bredesen. And, if Marsha McSally holds on to win in Arizona, where Jeff Flake had retired in anticipation of an electoral trouncing, Republicans could hold a commanding majority in the Senate. Democrats and the media, although I repeat myself there, will have to admit that this performance in the Senate was unprecedented and even unexpected just a couple of months ago. This was a huge win for Republicans and some credit must go to President Trump.

But this could all work out for the American people. First, with Republican control in the Senate, Trump’s economic plan is guaranteed stay in place, and Nancy Pelosi has even spoken words of bipartisan compromise in the House. She may well understand that two years of frivolous investigations with no progress on things like infrastructure and immigration could spell disaster for Democrats in 2020. Infrastructure is a bipartisan issue and I believe Trump, the great deal maker, will revive his “wall for dreamers” proposal which will be an offer Democrats can’t refuse.

If you have any doubt about the impact on ordinary Americans as a result of yesterday’s election results, look no farther that the Dow Jones Industrial Average which was up over 500 points on Wednesday. The market loves a divided government. At a minimum, it could spell gridlock, and when the government passes no meaningful legislation to restrict business it actually is enabling our economy.

So let’s be honest, the blue wave, which the mainstream media has been projecting for the last six months, didn’t happen. But, what DID happen is probably the best thing for us. Both sides of the political spectrum have something to feel good about and it may drive some compromise progress that will be good for the country. It may turn the party of “resist, insist, persist and throw hissy fits” into the party of action that could work with the great deal-maker, Trump. I’m even hopeful both parties could come together to address our debt and deficits. Hope springs eternal.

None so Blind as Those Who Will Not See

None So Blind as Those Who Will Not See
The View from the Middle

It was John Heywood, 16th century playwriter, who coined the phrase, there are, “None so blind as those who will not see.” The staying power of this maxim speaks of its simplistic wisdom. Notice, that he said “will not see” and not that these people cannot see. There’s a big difference. But before we give John Heywood all the credit, many people suggest that John was just paraphrasing the Prophet Jeremiah, chapter five, verse 21, where he said, “Hear this you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear.” Yes, it is foolish to simply not listen or not see the obvious truth just because it conflicts with our political objectives, but that’s where we are today.

Today, the extreme left, which includes most of the mainstream media, has the uncanny ability to accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing. They often condemn certain behavior or policy positions but then exhibit that same conduct or support those same beliefs within weeks, days, hours and at times even within seconds of their condemnation. While these politicians obviously can’t hear their own contradictory and hypocritical rhetoric, WE, the citizens of this great country need to be able to discern the duplicity.

Left wing politicians and media pundits, like Joe Scarborough and Elie Mystal, have denounced Donald Trump for his “hateful” rhetoric. But no sooner have they made their condemnation, then they turn around and compare Trump to Hitler and anyone who voted for him to Nazis. Really? Are these people listening to themselves? Do they have ears to hear?

Hillary Clinton condemned the vitriolic rhetoric in politics in America today, but within a few days she announced that Democrats “can’t be civil” to people who just happened to disagree with her on policy issues. The good news is that she and Nancy Pelosi have suggested that somehow if they regained power that civility would return to the American political landscape. How can people denounce incivility one day and then claim that it (incivility) is somehow a virtue for them in the same interview. It really boggles my mind.

Maxine Waters, Corey Booker and Eric Holder have accused the President of inciting violence across the country, yet each of them has encouraged the exact same behavior that they condemn. Maxine Water and Corey Booker have extoled their followers to “get in the face” of their political opponents, to “harass” them and to let them know that “they aren’t welcome here anymore”. Not Welcome here? In America? What America is Maxine Waters talking about. And Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, the defender of justice in this country, suggests that Democrats should “kick” Republicans when they’re down. Do these people understand the absurdity of this kind of hateful double standard?

But it was Don Lemon of CNN who set a new land speed record for portraying piety followed by hateful bigotry in his interview with the morally and intellectually challenged Chris Cuomo. Lemon actually said, “we have to stop demonizing any one group or ethnicity” which is a statement that I absolutely support. Unfortunately, he followed that thought in the same sentence by announcing that, “the biggest terrorist threat in this country is white men.” To be clear, he “demonized” an entire group of people in the same sentence where he condemned demonization. And of course, the deep-thinking Chris Cuomo didn’t even catch this soft ball gaffe and simply agreed with him wholeheartedly.

I have in the past, and will again today, condemn Donald Trump’s rough and even crude insults to those who attack him. He is not a politician, and in that way exposes himself as such. Real politicians would insult you and then, within seconds, deny doing it and condemn others of the sin they just committed. And I will allow the Democrats to criticize Trump for those insults. Maybe he will learn. It would certainly be better for him and the country if he could soften his tone.

But, for Democrats to claim some sort of moral high ground in the vile rhetoric contest is ludicrous. From Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment to Maxine Waters’ lynch mob pep talk to the disgraceful treatment of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have proven that they are still the front runners in the race to the bottom of human behavior. “We the People” need to hold all of these hypocrites accountable at the polls next Tuesday. Vote now or forever hold your peace.

Killing the Golden Goose

Killing the Golden Goose
The View from the Middle

No, this isn’t the title of Bill O’Reilly’s newest book, but it should be. Hopefully you’ll all remember the Aesop’s Fable of the Goose that laid a golden egg each morning for its owners making them, as you might guess, quite wealthy. At some point, however, this “one egg per day” delivery system was not enough to gratify the greedy owners. They theorized that the goose must be full of gold to produce its eggs, so they cut the goose open to have access to all the gold at one time. Of course, this just killed the goose and deprived the owners of their steady and even generous income.

The United States is the modern-day version of the Golden Goose. It provides the world with a steady flow of wealth through its generosity and ingenuity. The US economy, for example, is about $20 trillion per year. That’s 25% of the world’s GDP, which is remarkable since we represent only about four percent of the world’s population. Every country in the world wants access to this huge market, and the US is very accommodating, importing about three trillion dollars worth of goods and services from them.

The United States is also the most generous country in the world. The citizens of the US give about $300 billion dollars to charity, which represents 1.4% of our annual GDP. No other country is even close to that number. In fact, the next closest country in terms of giving is New Zealand, whose people give .8% (that’s less than one percent) of their GDP. That’s only about half of the rate of the US citizenry, but since their economy is so much smaller its absolute dollars given is dwarfed by the US.

And our government is also the most generous in the world, giving about $40 billion in 2017 to over 100 countries around the world. And this, of course, is just another example of the citizens of the United States giving, because, as I have told you many, many times – THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY. Every dollar our government spends or gives away comes from its citizens or is borrowed in our names. We, The United States of America, are truly the world’s Golden Goose.

So, how and why would anyone want to kill this Golden Goose? Let’s look at “how” first. The easiest way to kill this Republic is to just overwhelm it. As this 7,000-person caravan (the nice term for this invading army) approaches our southern border, it’s a good time to talk about the cost of illegal immigration to the United State. And don’t forget, since the government has NO money, the cost is actually yours.

The cost to you for every illegal immigrant is $8,075 per year for a total of $135 billion dollars in 2017. Education is the biggest burden, accounting for $46 billion of that total, with medical care coming in at almost $30 billion. Public education is, of course, free to them, and while they don’t buy many insurance policies, most of these illegal immigrants use our emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Welfare and Judicial costs round out the top four economic burdens this group places on our budgets, combining for another $32 billion per year.

Of course, this assumes that we have only 12.5 million illegal immigrants in our country today. Yale University has just done a study that estimates that we are more likely to have 22 million illegals in our country. If this is true, our annual costs go up from $135 billion a year to about $240 billion. The caravan / invading army of 7,000 alone could cost us over $56 million dollars next year, provided they all get in.

As a country, we need to understand and control these costs. We are compassionate, as our giving proves, but we do not have unlimited resources. We also have a culture, a constitution and an economy to protect. Are these people assimilating into our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” republic? What are our national employment needs? Do we need more low wage earners? Do we need more professional people? These are all things that must be managed if we are to survive.

But there are some who do not want America to survive as a free people and free market country. Back in 1966, American socialists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven proposed a strategy to overwhelm and thus destroy America’s welfare system through a guaranteed income program. This plan is still being pursued today by many politicians on the left. Unlimited illegal immigration, or even uncontrolled legal immigration, is simply an extension of that “overwhelm the system” strategy that is aimed at our entire constitutional republic.

We are the most compassionate and generous country in the world. We are the Golden Goose. Don’t be fooled into disemboweling the foundations of this great country by the misguided and fallacious promises of those who want to destroy America as we know it. Perfect we are not, but this still is the greatest country in the world which will only get better because of our people, our culture and our constitution.

First Woman President? Not Hillary!

The First Woman President of the United States
The View from the Middle

Friday afternoon, after I heard Senator Susan Collins’ speech about her decision to support Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court, I was certain I had the topic for this week’s article. Her speech was fantastic. It was well constructed, well-reasoned, compassionate, thoughtful and courageous. It will be talked about for years to come, maybe decades to come. It was the perfect speech for the perfect time in many ways, and I will write about it next week. But for this week, I have to talk about Nikki Haley.

Out of the blue this morning, Nikki Haley announced that she was retiring as our Ambassador to the UN. While many people were shocked by this news, I was not. First of all, she took this role to get the international experience that I think she knew she would inevitably need, and she took it at a time when the world was a mess. North Korea was launching missiles all over the Pacific Rim and testing nuclear devices on a regular basis. ISIS still had hopes of completing their califate. Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator was using chemical weapons on his people, obliterating President Obama’s red line. China was stealing our intellectual capital, manipulating their currency and blocking any fair participation in their markets. And Russia was being – Russia. The world was a real mess.

And in less than two years, Nikki Haley (along with Mike Pompeo and President Trump) has brought the world to a place that Obama could only have dreamt of. North Korea isn’t launching or testing anything. They have returned our prisoners and we didn’t have to send them plane loads of cash to get them, and now they have offered to allow us to inspect some of their nuclear testing and development facilities. Syria stepped over the chemical weapon red line and got 60 Tomahawk missiles in their ear for their effort. Iran’s economy is in shambles and on the edge of making a new, realistic nuclear deal. China is watching Canada, Mexico and soon, at a theater near you, the European Union making reciprocally beneficial trade deals with us and wondering how they can do the same and still save face. Let’s face it, the world is in a better place than it was in 2016.

And the rest of her resume is equally impressive. She started her career in the South Carolina state legislature, so she understands the law-making process. She was a very successful two-term governor of South Carolina. Next to the Presidency, a governorship is the highest executive position in politics.

She’s a low tax, small government fiscal conservative. She’s a compassionate pro-life social conservative, and if you should listen to anyone on immigration, it should be Nikki Haley. Both of her parents are legal immigrants from India, and she is a strong advocate for legal immigration and for an e-verify system that puts pressure on employers to be honest participants in that process. Nikki Haley’s only problem is what to do in the next four years until she starts her official run for the White House.

A stint in the US Senate would be a perfect finishing touch on her political resume, but South Carolina already has two Republican Senators, Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham. Both of these gentlemen are popular and young (Scott is only 53 and Graham 63) especially when you compare them to the likes of Diane Feinstein who is 85 and running this year for another six-year term that would keep her in the Senate until she is 92. What to do with Nikki Haley?

First, she needs a rest. So, let’s give her the next few weeks off. Then, I think she would be the perfect replacement for Jeff Sessions, Trump’s current Attorney General. I was actually in favor of Sessions’ appointment back in 2017, but the fact is he has been an absentee Attorney General ever since he recused himself from the Russian probe. Her appointment would continue to round out Nikki’s resume while giving Trump someone he can trust in that role and someone who can actively perform every aspect of that job.

So, you’ve heard it here first. Nikki Haley for President in 2024. The Democrats will have to show their true colors as they will try to trash this truly qualified woman. Nikki, however, will have the energy (she will only be 52 in 2024) and the resume that that Hillary Clinton didn’t have in 2016. Note to Nikki Haley – You go girl!!

Merrick Garland - The Question

I would appreciate your help in an unscientific survey, and I will be glad to share the results no matter what they are within two weeks of this post.

The question - In an effort to unite the country and reach out to Democrats, should President Trump add Merrick Garland to his list of potential Supreme Court Justices? Merrick Garland is the Circuit Court Judge who President Obama nominated for the Supreme Court, but was never considered because Mitch McConnell sighted the "Biden Rule" which suggests that the Senate should not entertain a Supreme Court Justice in a Presidential election year.

A simple "Yes" or "No" in your Facebook comments section or on my blog page will suffice. Add any other comments you like, but a yes or no is all I need. And as always, pass this link on to your friends and family to improve the reliability of the results.

Thank you, Kevin C

The Lynching of Brett Kavanaugh

The Truth About the Lynching of Kavanaugh
The View from the Middle

It started with fill-in-the-blank protest signs and social media posts about the next Supreme Court Justice nomination. Some of these mindless, zombie protesters didn’t even have the brains to actually fill in the blank before they released their messages. Some twitter and Facebook messages were actually released with “Put Nominee’s Name Here” space saver slots still in them. The left didn’t care who the nominee would be. They would oppose Mother Theresa if Trump nominated her.

This was followed by the delay, resist, persist and throw hissy fits offensive in the Judiciary Committee’s opening meeting. Before Senator Chuck Grassley could even start the meeting, Democrats called for a vote to adjourn. This was followed by one delay tactic after another. And if they weren’t using some procedural tactic to postpone the proceedings, they were employing the “heckler’s veto”. Rabid, and in all probability paid, protestors interrupted judge Kavanaugh at every opportunity. It was clear that the left was not interested in actually listening to the nominee.

And, when all this failed, Senator “I’m way too old for all this” Diane Feinstein released an unsubstantiated accusation of Brett Kavanaugh despite the accuser’s request to stay anonymous. This, in my opinion, turned both Judge Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford into victims. But that was OK for the Democrats. Any life is worth trashing if it serves their cause. After that, the Democrats brought in the “hypocrisy train” to try to derail the proceedings and the Kavanaugh nomination.

First, Richard Blumenthal, the Senator from the state of denial, demonstrated he has no sense of shame or propriety when he quoted the jury instruction, “falus in uno, falsus in omnibus”. This saying translates generally to, “If a witness lies in one area of a testimony, the jury ‘can’ reject all of his testimony”. This is the guy who lied to all of America when he claimed that he had served in Vietnam. Given the principle of “falus in uno, falus in omnibus” tricky Dick Blumenthal should certainly not be on the Judiciary committee of all things and should probably have been censored by the Senate. Also, if irony were a crime, Richard Blumenthal should get life in the electric chair.

And then we have Corey Booker, Senator from the state of delusion, who has admitted to sexually assaulting a woman while he was in college. Now, he is trying to hold a man who has categorically denied such activity to an entirely different standard. How can these guys do this with a straight face?

They are all trying to turn our entire system of justice and our national culture of “the presumption of innocence” on its head. Something may have happened to Ms. Ford, but she can’t remember the date or time of the event that occurred 36 years ago. All the people she has mentioned in her accusation not only don’t remember it, but deny it ever happened. While she can’t remember how she got to the party or how she got home, her memory is selectively vivid. She also provides no contemporaneous corroboration. While many women hesitate to report a sexual assault to the police, they frequently share the experience with a friend, a teacher, a coach, etc. Ms. Ford did not. Even Rachel Mitchell, the sex crime expert who questioned Dr. Ford for the Republicans, concedes that she couldn’t take this case anywhere near a courtroom. In fact, she admits that she couldn’t even seek a search warrant given the facts in this case.

Finally, the Democrats have created a new phenomenon. It’s called “group hypocrisy”. In their final interview with Judge Kavanaugh, virtually every Democrat Senator asked the judge to demand an extended FBI investigation into this matter. In fact, this was their primary demand. Yet, when this wish was granted, not a single Democrat voted to move this nomination out of committee for a vote before the entire Senate. They lied. They couldn’t care less about what is revealed from this extended investigation. They’re not interested in facts. Their goal has always been to resist and delay. It is obvious to me that truth and progress are not their motivations.

Here’s some advice for Democrats that will be good for their future and for the future of this country. Stop your hysterical, hyperbolic, deceptive character assassinations. You have already called virtually every conservative person in America misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, racist bigots. Now you’re attempting to publicly lynch a man who has spent his life in the service of this country without providing a shred of actual evidence. In the short term, this tactic will energize the conservative base. In the long term it will destroy the character and believability of your party. For, to summarize Alexis de Tocqueville’s two volume work, Democracy in America:

“America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

New Dem Strategy - Men, Just Shut Up!

New Dem. Strategy – Men, Just Shut Up!
The View from the Middle

The old Democrat message used to be - if you disagree with us, you are just deplorable. If you are pro-life, you’re a misogynist. If you are concerned about border security, you’re a xenophobe. If you support law enforcement, you’re a bigot. If you are in a traditional marriage, and a Republican, you’re a homophobe. If you were to suggest that there is a radical and violent element within the Muslim religion that will use terroristic tactics in their effort to create a world caliphate, you’re an Islamophobe. Even President Obama recently indicated that this approach will not attract independent or moderately conservative voters. But, I think I have discovered their new message, and it is, “if you disagree with us, Just Shut Up!”

It was Mazie Hirono, Democrat Senator from Hawaii, who recently announced it and virtually shouted it to America. In front of an array of TV cameras and microphones, Ms. Hirono said that when it comes to Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations of Brett Kavanaugh, “men should just shut up!” There were no qualifiers before the word “men”, so I’m left to deduce that she meant all men, about half of the voting public. Then, as if that was not outrageous enough, she went on to say that men should just, “step up for a change.” For a change? So, no men have ever been noble? No men have ever been supportive of women? No man has ever made the ultimate sacrifice for women and children, like on the Titanic, or in World War I or II? Or like every stinking day! I have a wife and two daughters. Do you think I don’t honor, respect and even sacrifice for them every day? How dare you suggest that I need to “step up for a change”!

So, let me get this straight, Ms. Hirono. If I am even skeptical of a 36 year old accusation, with no contemporaneous corroboration, where the alleged victim can’t remember the date or location of the offense, and the only other witness named in the accusation has denied it ever happened, and the accused has denied it happened, and women have lined up to support the accused for his good character and integrity and support for women throughout his life – I have no right to be skeptical? And I should ‘just shut up”? Really? What happened to the first amendment?

And she’s just the tip of the iceberg. She is the piece of the resistance that has poked its head, maybe inadvertently, out of the water. We have seen this “shut up” campaign for a while now, but it became official when Maxine Waters, Democrat Representative from California, told a crowd in her district, “ If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” They’re not welcome anywhere? In America? Anymore? Really?

And then the attacks began. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was harassed inside a restaurant in DC, to the point she had to leave. Pam Bondi and her date were assaulted as they came out of a “Mr. Rogers” movie. I guess they weren’t welcome in that neighborhood. Isn’t that a little ironic? And Candace Owens, a black conservative woman, and Charlie Kirk were hassled outside a restaurant in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love. Are they planning these ironic twists? Don’t be confused, however. This harassment tactic is just a plank in the broader “shut up” strategy.

Then we have the “heckler’s veto” which we saw during the Senate confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh. Of course, these hecklers only jumped up and shouted insane rhetoric when either Judge Kavanaugh was speaking or when a Republican Senator was trying to form a question. Again, don’t be confused. This is just another version of the “shut up” strategy. Their sick, twisted plan is to completely silence the other side so that they can win every argument. No need for debate, negotiation or compromise with the “shut up” strategy.

And, for now Ms. Hirono and the Democrats have aimed this message at men, but women won’t be far behind. If you are a pro-life woman, you can bet that they will eventually tell you to “shut up”. If you are a gay man (or woman for that matter) who supports border security, you will be told to “shut up”. If you are a black man who supports President Trump’s policies, you will be told to “shut up”. Just look at what the left has done to Kanye West. He has been vilified, called a no-talent idiot and an uncle Tom, and that is just another way to say – shut up !!!

If this doesn’t scare you or anger you, then you haven’t been told to “shut up” – YET. We need to get rid of this sort of vile rhetoric from our political process. The way our founders planned for us to do that was to vote these vermin out of office. So, start looking for the intolerant “shut up” proponents and send them home for the holidays - permanently. That will finally deploy their own strategy back onto them.

Nike / Obama Fraudulent Messages
The View from the Middle

Nike just launched an ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick with a message that says, “Believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything.” The first problem I have with this message is that Kaepernick isn’t “sacrificing everything” for a cause, which I actually support. He didn’t lose his starting role with the 49ers because of his protest, in fact Jed York, the CEO of the 49ers, supported him publicly and coordinated a million dollar donation to groups that supported his cause. He also started eleven games, including three pre-season games, after he first sat and then knelt for the anthem. After the 49ers went 2 and 6 to start the season, Kaepernick lost his starting job. He lost it for poor performance, not for his protest position. He didn’t sacrifice anything for any cause.

My second problem with this ad campaign is that Colin obviously doesn’t understand what the ultimate sacrifice is. Since World War II we have had over 500,000 men and women “sacrifice everything”. We have had almost 7,000 of our soldiers give the ultimate sacrifice in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone. Over the last ten years we have had over 1,500 police officers die in the line of duty and we had 750 law enforcement officers make the ultimate sacrifice as a direct result of their efforts to save the lives of their fellow Americans on 9/11. THAT, Colin, is what it means to “sacrifice everything” for something people believed was more important than their individual lives. Making millions of dollars off an ad campaign after losing your job for cause is NOT the definition of sacrificing everything.

Kaepernick can also suggest, now, that his protest was not meant to disparage our military. Unfortunately, Colin didn’t do his homework. If he had gone to official American flag protocol sites, he would have found that the number one reason we stand for our national anthem is to honor those who have actually made that ultimate sacrifice to insure Kaepernick’s freedom to do exactly what he is doing. In fact, 62% of US veterans believe that Colin and his followers have the right to kneel during the national anthem, and I’m with them. But 40% of those same veterans have also vowed not to watch an NFL game until the kneeling stops. I am also with them, and I believe I’m in good company.

Beware Nike. Beware NFL. Beware NFL players. If you lose anywhere near 40% of your customer base, you’ll all be bankrupt. There are ways to draw attention to this issue, but sitting or kneeling for our national anthem is not one of them.

And while Nike is spewing its ludicrous message, President Obama is busy rewriting history. It started a few weeks ago when he described his administration as “scandal free”. This was the administration of Benghazi, where four Americans were murdered in a terrorist attack which they blamed on a video. It is the administration of Lois Lerner and the weaponized IRS that selectively brutalized conservative organizations. Obama’s DOJ attacked the media when it surveilled James Rosen of Fox News and his parents and the AP wire, and then lied to America as Eric Holder denied it. And don’t forget Loretta Lynch’s “call it a matter” order to James Comey, then FBI Director, as it tried to whitewash the Hillary Clinton investigation. Obama also must have forgotten Hillary Clinton’s private server and the fact that she used bleachbit on 33,000 emails that were under subpoena. This last one is still an active investigation and I believe will come back to bite the first lady of Democratic politics in the butt. Google would have to come up with misdirecting algorithms and the country would have to suffer from a national amnesia for all the Obama scandals to be forgotten, although he will get the support of the “lap dog” media in that effort.

Most recently, Obama has tried to take credit for an economic surge that he claimed couldn’t happen. Remember, 2% GDP growth was the “new normal” and 3% to 4% annual growth was just not possible. Now that it is all but certain that we will reach that 3% growth number in Trump’s second year in office, the “you didn’t build that” President is trying to take credit for it.

Finally, I’m amazed at how President Obama can condemn divisiveness and simultaneously divide the country in order to influence the midterms. In his speech at the University of Illinois he first slandered the rich and successful in America, accusing them of using race, ethnicity and religion to continue to divide us. Of course, I’m sure “his” billionaires are all saints. He then turned on the entire Republican party calling them bigots and fearmongers. With those comments he has demonized 100 million voters, according to the Pew Research Center. That is not just prejudice. It is super, colossal, mammoth prejudice. Then, amazingly, within a few sentences of accusing 100 million people of being fearmongers, he somberly tells the crowd that “these are dangerous times!”. No fearmongering there!

But he finished with something that I totally agree with. He said, “We won’t win people over by calling them names or dismissing entire chunks of the country as racist or sexist or homophobic.” But didn’t he just do that? The hypocrisy of our politicians will never cease to amaze me.

Algorithms - Masters or Servants?

Algorithms – Master of Servant?
The View from the Middle

Maybe the greatest mismatch in history is currently on stage in Washington as tech giant CEO’s like Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) match wits with congressional committees filled with 50 to 60-year old’s who barely know how to turn their computers on. Even though Zuckerberg and Dorsey have both admitted to left leaning bias and more than 100 Facebook employees have formally complained about it, our congressmen and women seem to just flail around as the tech CEO’s dazzle them with an avalanche of BS and blame their algorithms for the problems.

They talk about their algorithms as if they all-knowing, all-powerful forces of nature that they are at the mercy of. When asked, “how is it that Diamond and Silk get blocked by your system?”, they just answer, “oh, our algorithms do all of that”. What about the “shadow banning” of Donald Trump Jr. or Ronna McDaniel, the RNC Chairwoman, by Twitter? I’m sure the same BS answer is coming – the algorithms did it. You’ll never get the truth out of these guys, so let me fill you in.

What is an algorithm? According to the dictionary, an algorithm is simply “a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps”. And who creates these algorithms? Facebook, Twitter and Google, et al create them of course. While Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey will try to convince you and our congressional representatives that they are slaves to their algorithms, you need to know that they are, in fact, the masters of them.

There are two maxims that I learned from P&G early on in my career as computers were becoming more and more commonplace. The first was, “garbage in, garbage out”. This, of course, is saying that for errors in your volume forecasts or estimates of your product needs. The computer just does what YOU tell it to do. If you put in the wrong information or create an inaccurate formula, the computer is just going to execute what you put in. It isn’t going to ask you, “are you sure you want to do that?” Garbage in, garbage out.

The second maxim I was taught was, “every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results it produces.” Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey know exactly what results their search engines are producing. Zuckerberg knows, for example, that Facebook is blocking conservative people and sites at a vastly higher rate than liberal people and sites. Jack Dorsey knows that Twitter is “shadow banning” enormously more conservatives than it does liberals. They just don’t care, or, even worse, that’s exactly what they want their algorithms to do.

If Facebook, Twitter or Google wanted to make their platforms emphasize “truth” or “balance”, they could do it in a heartbeat. They are masters of their algorithms, not servants of them. But, until we get real competition for Google, Facebook and Twitter we will see slow to no progress. If I was offered a conservative friendly alternative to any of these big three tech giants, I (and about 100 million other Americans) would jump all over it. Now, THAT might get Zuckerberg’s and Dorsey’s head out of their…well it might get their attention. I’ve heard Donald Trump Jr. is looking into creating or supporting such a venture. We should all hope he is successful and I would be OK if he made a few billion dollars in the process. If you see it coming, buy into it.

Is Fake News Earning Their Label?

Is “Fake News” Earning Their Label?
The View from the Middle

It seems that the lame-stream media has shifted into overdrive this last week to prove that they are sloppy, imbalanced and sometimes downright dishonest. It was started by Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen’s lawyer and Clinton sycophant, who made two erroneous statements (the generous interpretation) or lies (my interpretation) to the press. First, Lanny leaked that his client, Michael Cohen, would testify that President Trump not only knew of the famous Trump tower meeting with Russian Lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, but that he approved it and even directed it.

There are two problems with this story. First, it is not true and Lanny retracted it later, but not before virtually all of the lame-stream media had a chance to report it. Second, that meeting was not illegal and there was no action taken as a result of it. Lanny also lied (there is actually no way to be generous here) when he told Anderson Cooper that he was not the anonymous source for the story. He has since admitted that he was. The New York Post, Washington Post and the network news have made retractions (however obscure I’m sure), but CNN seems to know Michael Cohen’s mind even better than Michael Cohen and they are sticking to their story.

In an ironic twist to this whole episode, Lanny Davis has set up a “Go Fund Me” page to support Michael Cohen’s dilemma, basically to pay Lanny Davis, and it is called “The Truth Fund”. As you might expect, refunds have been requested.

Next, in a desperate attempt to tie every comment made by Donald Trump to racism, Jeffrey Toobin of CNN claimed that Trump’s criticism of Anitfa was racist because Antifa was a “black” organization. Maybe Jeffrey was confused by their black masks, hoods and clothing. I’m not sure if this comment was pure stupidity, blind ignorance or a straight out lie to connect two dots that don’t deserve to be connected. There is ZERO evidence to support that claim. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

Here’s just one of the great comments that I’ve seen in response to Toobin’s claim. “Antifa is whiter than Pat Boone making a mayonnaise sandwich on Wonder Bread in a Minnesota snow storm.” Jeffrey Toobin just assumed that any violent, destructive group in America had to be black. Who’s the racist now, Jeffrey?

Finally, the Fake News is even misleading people about “lying”. You have all probably heard the claim that Trump has lied over 3,000 times since becoming President. Let me enlighten my audience as to how these “lie counters” aggregate their totals. Trump has made the statement that his tax cuts are the largest in our country’s history. The lie counters say that is false because “as a percentage of GDP” it is the seventh largest tax cut. But did you notice that they added the qualifier “as a percentage of GDP” to Trump’s statement to make it a lie. If Trump is talking about the biggest tax cut in sheer dollars, he has a strong case that it is the largest ever. I’ve run the numbers.

Here’s the other part of this deception. You, of course think that this is just one of Trump’s 3,000 “lies”, right? Not so! Since they say that Trump has said this over 100 times in different speeches and venues, they count it as 100 lies. So, 3% of his “so called” lies is actually just one statement. Are there 30 more example of this type of misrepresentation in their count? I’ve read them all and I believe there are. That would mean that 90% of what the “lie counters” report is actually false, misleading and Fake!

If you would take the false reports made by the media, like the Lanny Davis lies, times the number of outlets in which it was reported, times the number of times a day it was reported on newscasts and in discussions on TV, times the number of days it was reported (remember CNN first reported the Lanny Davis lies back on July the 26th) the media “lie count” might reach 100,000 just on Lanny’s lies!! Their total lie count on Trump, just since his inauguration would be in the millions!!!

Does it surprise anyone that the public’s confidence in the news is at an ALL TIME LOW of only 22% for newspapers and just 18% for television news? But I have to admit – They’ve Earned it!!

Andrew Cuomo - A Historian You're Not!!

Gov. Cuomo, A Historian You Obviously Are Not
The View from the Middle

Just when I think politicians can’t show themselves to be more despicable, self-interested, narcissistic and feebleminded, along comes Governor Andrew Cuomo to demonstrate that there is no limit to their depravity and stupidity. In a speech on Wednesday, Cuomo actually said that, “(America) was never that great”. Wow! Actually, Michelle Obama said something similar back in 2008 when it became clear that her husband was going to be the Democratic nominee for President. She actually said, “For the first time in my life, I am proud of my country.” Some have restated her comment to say that, “she was never proud of her country” until her husband became the apparent nominee. Personally, I think that is actually a fair interpretation of her words.

As you would guess, I strongly disagree with both Cuomo and Michelle Obama. Let me just walk you through a few reasons why I believe this is not only the greatest country on earth today, but the greatest country that has ever existed.

Slavery was a cruel and tragic practice that started on this continent in 1619, and which our country inherited in 1776 when we declared our independence from Britain. I think, however, that it was no accident that the brilliant Thomas Jefferson put the words, “all men are created equal” in our Declaration of Independence. He knew that while it was not possible to correct that horrible custom that day, he used that opportunity to begin the corrective process.

We, as a country, have struggled to rectify that situation. We have fought a Civil War over this issue. We’ve overcome Jim Crow laws and even continue to battle against prejudice and discrimination today, but we have made tremendous progress. The first black members of Congress were not elected until 1870, and there were only three. Even by 1964, the year of civil rights legislation, there were only four African Americans in Congress. Today we have 51 black members in Congress and in 2008 we elected our first African American as President. While I disagree with Barack Obama on most policy stances, I am proud of our country for electing him. Michelle, I do agree with you in that sense, but it’s not the first thing our country has done that has made me proud.

I also believe that America’s ingenuity is amazing. It was The United States that began the Panama Canal in 1904 under Teddy Roosevelt, continued it under William Taft and completed it in 1914 under Woodrow Wilson. At the time it was arguably the most challenging engineering project the world had ever seen. Since this 51-mile-long canal has connected the Atlantic and Pacific oceans it has literally saved ships millions of miles of hazardous and costly travel and vastly improved trade for North and South America as well as for China and Japan.

And what might be more astonishing than the canal was America’s determination to win the race to space. John Kennedy announced in 1962 that The United States would put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth before the decade was out. Of course, we all remember now that we did land Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon in 1969 and returned them safely to earth. I am extremely proud of this country’s dogged determination and imagination.

And how can you not be proud of the resourcefulness and bravery of the American military. Not only did we defeat the most powerful force in the world during the Revolutionary War, but we did it a second time in The War of 1812. Then, more than 600,000 men gave their lives to insure the freedom of all men in The United States during the Civil War. And let’s not forget that a similar number of soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice to save Europe during World Wars I and II. Even in wars that were less popular like Vietnam and the Iraq War, I am amazed and proud of the bravery and even nobility of our soldiers.

It was the wisdom of our Founding Fathers to limit our federal government and to unleash the power of the American people through individual liberty, personal responsibility and free markets that has made America what it is today. The United States is the most powerful and influential country in the world. Our 20 trillion-dollar economy is the largest in the world. It represents 25% of the world’s total economy despite that fact that we represent less than 5% of the world’s population, and our military is the strongest in the world. In 2017, our $700 billion defense budget represented over 40% of global military spending. I am proud and comforted by our capability and can’t imagine the state of world peace and prosperity if any other country would replace us as leader in these categories.

This article would become a book if I were to go on and talk about every amazing aspect of this country that I am proud of. The impact of capitalism on global poverty, for example, is absolutely astonishing. Capitalism, the bedrock of our economic system, has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic or governmental system in the history of the world. I take pride in the system and the impact that it has had for good here and around the world.

To Andrew Cuomo I would say – take your blinders off, read a book and just apologize to the people of New York and the entire United States. Then, go someplace where you can feel more comfortable and prouder. There are millions of people around the world who would gladly take your place. In fact, thousands of people risk their lives every year to get here. That alone should tell you how great this country is. If expense is an issue, I will personally volunteer to buy you a one way ticket to any country in the world that will accept you.

Don't Confuse the "What" with the "How"

Don’t Confuse the “What” with the “How”
The View from the Middle

I was listening to the gaffe-master, Nancy Pelosi, this morning on MSNBC and it reminded me of two things; the incompetency of the press and then hollowness of the political debate in this country, especially from Nancy. I came to this conclusion because of something I learned while working for Procter & Gamble. In order to keep us focused on being productive versus just dreaming about the end result, P&G had a motto that went like this, “Don’t confuse the ‘what’ with the ‘how’.” It is fine to have a vision of what a positive result looks like (the what), but you must also have a plan that will deliver that result (the how).

When Nancy Pelosi was asked what policies she and the Democratic Party supported, she said, “We are for the people. We are for lower healthcare costs, and the reduction of prescription drug costs. We are for bigger paychecks for Americans and good paying jobs for our citizens.” Now if the MSNBC correspondent had more than two brain cells to rub together, he would have noticed that none of the things that Nancy mentioned were policies at all. These are all outcomes, or as P&G would say, they are “what” both parties are trying to accomplish. Which party, Nancy, is running “against the people” or for “higher healthcare costs” or “lower wages and poor paying jobs”?

But this is exactly what Nancy wants. She wants “We the People” to believe that if she claims these obvious and common outcomes or “whats”, the other side must be against them. Again, if the MSNBC reporter had any journalistic skills or instincts he would have confronted Nancy with the reality that her statements were all outcomes and forced her to explain what policies she proposed (the how’s) to deliver these results.

Let me take just one of these issues to demonstrate the difference between the “what” and the “how” and the difference between the liberal and conservative positions. Let’s talk about better paying jobs for all Americans. First, we have to accept that both parties are in favor of higher wages. Once we accept that, we must ask each party “how” they plan to achieve that goal.

The Democrats will propose big government solutions like raising the minimum wage to something like $15 an hour. I can see, however, a number of problems with this kind of approach. First, it allows federal bureaucrats, who have probably never run a business in their lives, to dictate to businesses what they must pay their employees. It sounds good, right. Government just passes a law that people have to be paid more! Problem fixed! But what they won’t tell you is that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that a move like that will cause the elimination of 6.6 million jobs across the country. So when you add all of those zeroes to gains recognized, a minimum wage increase would barely move the needle in terms of real increased wages here in the good old US.

The Republicans should be supporting more of a free market solution. Remove regulations that hinder business startups and growth so that more people are employed. This will reduce unemployment and force businesses to compete for labor by paying their employees more money. Also, a policy aimed at eliminating unfair trade barriers and tariffs would bring back some of the five million manufacturing jobs we have lost just since the year 2000. Those manufacturing jobs are the really good jobs that paid over $20 per hour even back in 2014.

And, these are the very policies that the Trump administration has been pursuing for the past 18 month, and the results are just now coming in. GDP growth hit 4.1% last quarter and is projected to end the year with over 3.1% growth, which hasn’t happened since 2005. The unemployment rate is now below 4% and the labor market is tightening up putting pressure on wages. Average wages are growing at almost a three percent rate and faster than any time since 2009.

Personally, I’m willing to let these policies play out. I am concerned about the country’s debt but I will wait for year one results and year two projections to make that judgement. My counsel, however, for you my readers is not to confuse the “what” with the “how”. Both sides want economic growth, smart kids, affordable healthcare and equal opportunity for all people no matter their race, gender or sexual orientation. When you hear candidates try to claim those end results, remember to seek “how” they plan to deliver them so that you can judge the likelihood of their success.

Advice for Trump and the NFL

Advice for Trump and the NFL
The View from the Middle

There are two national quarrels that I just don’t understand. The answers to me seem so simple, yet in each case both groups seem as bullheaded and inflexible as the north-going and south-going Zax of Dr. Seuss fame. If you haven’t heard that story, below is a link to a short video that will inform and entertain you while it helps you picture the ridiculous nature of these conflicts. Copy and paste into your browser.

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

I am amazed, for example, at how Roger Goodell and the NFL continue to trip over their own feet with their national anthem protest. The truth, which the NFL should be trumpeting, is that the vast majority of NFL players (I’m saying 99%+) believe that the United States is the greatest nation on the earth, even though it isn’t perfect. Where else could these players go to make the millions of dollars they pull in each year. The fact is, America’s capitalistic system has created a professional sports industry that has made them millionaires and even billionaires. There is no other country that offers this opportunity.

I also believe that the same percentage of NFL players would like to honor and respect our military, past and present. Who actually has disdain for the soldier that stormed the beaches of Normandy to help free Europe? A person can disagree with the conflict, like the Vietnam War, but the vast majority of Americans, which includes NFL players, appreciate the sacrifices that our soldiers have made for our benefit. In some cases, of course, these soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice.

I even believe that the vast majority of NFL players support our local police who risk their lives to protect all of us every day. I’m not asking NFL players to ignore any cause they see as important, but I would suggest that players stand for our anthem to honor all of the good members of our military, police and first responders. They have plenty of camera time between games to bring awareness to their issues. They could even petition the NFL to wear distinguishing apparel (like pink shoes for breast cancer) to signify their concern for equal justice and treatment of black America. This would not only show honor to our soldiers, etc. but also shouts their message for two hours instead of just two minutes without alienating fans. In a year when the murder of police officers is heading for record high numbers and deaths of unarmed black men may hit a record low, maybe it’s time lower the rhetoric and give respect to all concerned. Hopefully the NFL can figure out how to show respect for their players and fans at the same time.

Now, for the Trump team. Yesterday I saw Jim Acosta of CNN virtually beg Sarah Sanders to simply agree with Ivanka Trump and say that the media is not the enemy of the people. Believe me, I am no fan of Jim Acosta, but I think this is another example of a group, in this case the Trump administration, missing the obvious and easy answer in this contentious issue.

The truth is, the media is the fourth estate with a legitimate role to be an advocate for the people and to be a watchdog to ensure that our government is honest and true to their role to represent and protect our citizens. That does, however, require them then to be accurate, unbiased and balanced. None the less, much of our media is failing in that responsibility today. Over 90% of the coverage of President Trump by the major networks is negative, and no other President has even been close that number. The media, which is overwhelmingly liberal, continually ignores or under reports positive news or even somehow gives a negative spin to positive economic or domestic policy news. In fact, the coverage of Trump’s actual policies is also at an all-time low. Almost a quarter of their coverage, for example, is on one subject – Russia collusion, of which there is no actual evidence.

In my mind, the proper answer by Sarah Sanders to Jim Acosta’s question was a layup. She certainly was justified in pointing out the media’s horrible attacks on her personally, but she should have followed that with this statement. “Jim, you are right. An unbiased, accurate, balanced media has a very important and even critical role in the American society. It has special rights protected by our constitution, but it also has a tremendous responsibility to be fair, accurate and balanced. Today, many in the media are failing to perform that honorable and critical role for the people of The United States.”

To the Trump administration - the obstinate, hardline, “enemy of the people” rhetoric is over the top and a loser. To Jim Acosta and CNN - put some balance and truth in your reporting and you will make good on the vital role you should play in our society. You may even see your floundering trust and viewership numbers go up.

Trump's Tariffs - Terrible or Terrific?

Trump’s Tariffs – Terrible or Terrific?
The View from the Middle

As my readers will already know, I am always skeptical of our government’s implementation of taxes. I think that our government is the worst manager of our funds and I would gladly reduce the size of the leviathan that we call the federal government in order to allow our citizens to keep more of what they earn. And tariffs are taxes, are they not?

Yes! And, in fact, tariffs are taxes with a double negative impact on the world’s citizens. First, a tariff punishes the workers of the exporting country by unjustifiably raising the costs of their goods to the importing country thus making it less competitive. Second, tariffs raise the cost of those goods for the consumers of the importing country. In other words, even when we slap a tariff on an import, our government gets the revenue but our citizens pay the tariff in higher prices. So, the Trump tariffs must be terrible, right?

Not so fast. If the goal of our increase in tariffs on China, the EU, Japan, Mexico and Canada is to reduce if not eliminate tariffs in the future, then they are a good thing. Can you imagine a world without tariffs, without trade barriers or subsidies of any kind? Citizens around the world will benefit from a cheaper cost of goods and the America worker will win big time! The elimination of tariffs allows the American worker to compete on an even playing field with Europe, China and the rest of the world and I have complete confidence in our workers and in our system to win in that environment.

So how did we get to where we are today? After World War II, we (America) went on a campaign to rebuild Europe and Asia. We became the marketplace and Europe and China became the marketers. This was probably appropriate for the world at the time, but times change.

Over the next 60 to 70 years we have allowed the gravy train to continue at the expense of the American people. We kept tariffs down on our imports (their exports) and allowed their tariffs to increase to the point the world’s tariffs are about twice the rate of ours and China’s tariffs are about three times our rate.

In addition to this ridiculous tariff imbalance, we have allowed China to manipulate their currency, which also disadvantages American goods sold in China. If all that was not enough, we have allowed China to create barriers to American investment there. If an American company wishes to open a business in China, for example, they MUST acquire a Chinese partner to do so. Their plan is to have that “partner” steal all of the American company’s intellectual capital and then eventually take over the company completely. We did all this with the hope of getting fair and free access to the 1.4 billion people there. Obviously, that was not THEIR plan.

And, what have the decades of appeasement delivered for America? We currently have a total trade deficit of almost $600 billion and our deficit with China alone is almost $400 billion. Germany, Mexico and Japan have also manipulated their way to $70 billion surpluses for themselves. And Trump’s tariffs is his way of saying that the days of unbalanced tariffs, trade barriers, subsidies and currency manipulation is over. And I think we can all agree that would be a great place to be.

Trump took his battle against tariffs to a new level this last week with his announcement of $12 billion in aid to farmers hit by retaliatory tariffs from other countries, especially China. Personally, I would make clear that we will spend every penny we receive in tariffs, especially new tariffs, to support the very industries they have targeted. This should drive home the senselessness of their desire to maintain their trade advantage and usher in a new era of world-wide Fair Trade!!

The European Union (the second largest market in the world outside of the US) was the first to blink. Yesterday, President Trump and the European Commission President announced a deal for the EU to make commitments to purchase American soybeans and liquified natural gas (two very strategic choices!!) on their way to a world of massive tariff reductions if not total elimination. My guess is that Mexico is next on our path to a world of zero tariffs or at least free and fair trade.

PS – China has a program called “China 2025”. The ultimate goal of this push is to have China replace the US as the economic leader of the world by that date. Imagine a world where the #1 economic power is a brutal, unscrupulous power with little to no concern for the rest of the planet instead of the free market capitalists of America. Let’s say this country also holds trillions of dollars of our debt. They will be savage task masters to our children. We don’t have time to play polite diplomatic games any more. This problem needs to be addressed right now. If you have a better plan than Trump’s tariff plan, let me know. Just saying “pretty please” is not going to cut it.

Beware of Clever Rhetoric, especially on Brett Kavanaugh

Beware of Clever Rhetoric, Especially on Brett Kavanaugh
The View from the Middle

You’ve probably heard the old joke, “How do you know when politicians are lying? When their lips move!” These people will say anything to get their way and to eventually get re-elected. Consequently, we must be vigilant to sort through the mountains of their BS to glean the tiny particles of truth hidden underneath.

“But” you say to me, “this duplicity goes on every day. What set you off?” The other day I heard the Representative from Texas, Henry Cuellar, try to defend his lack of support for enhanced security on our southern border. He said that a wall is a, “14th century solution to a 21st century problem.” Now, I thought, that sounds clever, and if you don’t scratch at all below the surface, you might accept his implication that walls don’t work because they are an old idea. The problem for Representative Cuellar is that neither one of these insinuations are correct.

Some very old ideas are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago. The wheel, for example, was invented more than 5,000 years ago and is still working just fine today. Anyone want to get rid of all of our wheels today? The door lock was invented over 6,000 years ago. How many locks are on your house today?

The wall was actually used for the first time over 4,000 years ago, so let that be the first correction to Mr. Cuellar bogus statement. And, look around you. Count how many walls or fences or barriers you see today. Why are we still using them? Because they work. Just ask Israel or San Diego where walls delivered a 90% reduction in illegal crossings. And just consider the effectiveness of the Berlin wall. Of course, we were all appalled by its purpose, but no one can argue against its effectiveness. Don’t believe the bombast. Walls work!!

Here are some more contradicting terms that may sound good to you until you unpack their true meaning. Safe spaces. Safe for whom? Remember the University of Missouri professor who had conservatives threatened physically for entering her “safe zone”. Pro Choice. Again, for whom? Certainly not for the baby in its mother’s womb. That new person has “no voice” and “no choice”. This should be called the “No Choice” movement.

And what about the claim to “go high when they go low”. This statement couldn’t be more ludicrous and ridiculous. So now the definition of “going high” is to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi. Now, they have defined “going high” as screaming in Pam Bondi’s face (Florida AG) so fiercely and so closely that they actually spit in her face. Then they taunted and threatened her date, and to add a touch of irony to this disgusting scene, they did this after Ms. Bondi and her date attended a movie about Mr. Rogers called, “Won’t You be My Neighbor”. So, I guess Maxine Waters is the new face of “the high road”. If that doesn’t give you a chill, nothing will.

The other way they mislead and divide us at the same time is through the constant use of hyperbole. Remember Nancy Pelosi suggesting that President Trump’s tax cuts would lead to “Armageddon”. It also seems like Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” statement just doesn’t go far enough these days. Now, if you support increased border security or, heaven forbid, voted for Donald Trump, you are a Nazi. Worse yet, you are Hitler himself. Wow, do you think we actually have 60+ million Hitlers in this country? This rhetoric is an insult to Jews, Catholics and the entire gay community who were prime targets of the real Hitler and his Nazi party. This drivel is not only absolutely false and divisive, it is an insult to history.

And just to make sure these over exaggerations are still the accepted practice, the Left has now suggested that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to The Supreme Court would cause, “the death of our democracy as we know it” and that, “thousands of women will die”. Really? Brett Kavanaugh is a Yale Law School grad who was hired by Elena Kagan to teach at Harvard. He has worked on The DC Circuit Court for a dozen years, written over 300 opinions and his decisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court a dozen times. This man will be “the death of our democracy”? This man will kill thousands of women? By the way, he reveres his mother and his wife and coaches his daughter’s basketball team. Far from a threat, I see him as a blessing to our country.

When will we learn? We, as a people, need to not only disregard this bizarre, hypocritical, divisive rhetoric, we need to punish it. And our only recourse is to use our votes wisely. But, before you vote, do as Professor Harold Hill pleaded in “The Music Man”. “Think, men. Think!”

Krauthammer and Me on Immigration

Would Krauthammer Support Trump’s 4 Pillars?
The View from the Middle

I will sorely miss Charles Krauthammer’s point of view on just about everything. I always felt comfortable when I agreed with Charles, and we agreed on much, including Ronald Reagan’s policies, climate change and abortion. Even when I didn’t agree, I appreciated his intellectual honesty, his dependence on facts not allowing emotion to sidetrack his logic and also his civil treatment of his opponents. Now, let me try to apply those principles to the argument of separating families and immigration in general.

The first truth that Charles espoused is that we do have borders. In fact, every country on earth has borders and every country has the right to control who comes across those borders and for what reason. Neither side of this argument will ever suggest (or admit) that they are for open borders because 80% of Americans oppose that idea. So, open borders is a losing concept existentially and politically in America and virtually every country in the world, even in Germany. Ask Andrea Merkel how her policy is working out.

Fact number two is that virtually all of these people are making these long, treacherous and sometimes fatal trips because America is an opportunity for safety and prosperity when compared to their home countries. However, as much as our hearts ache for these refugees, we as a country do not have an unlimited ability to care for them. Every person who comes into this country puts pressure on our schools, hospitals, law enforcement, etc. which are all funded by the taxpayer. I often have to remind people that the government has NO money. Anything that our government provides is underwritten by the taxpayers. Helping the origin countries solve their economic and gang (violence) problems at home would be cheaper and more effective for us.

Fact number three, our policies send signals to the people in these dysfunctional countries. Establishing a policy that allows adults with children to be released into this country with a promise to return at a later date for a court hearing would cause a stampede of illegal adults with children crossing our border. And the fact is, currently 97% of our “catch and release” illegal aliens do NOT return for their day in court.

Dianne Feinstein has a great idea. Her proposed legislation would prevent our law enforcement people from arresting suspected illegal aliens anywhere within 100 miles of our borders. Since her proposal doesn’t differentiate between the Mexican or Canadian borders or even our coastlines, that would create a safe space for illegal aliens in America the size of the country of India. It is a space that is six times the size of France, and I haven’t even included Alaska in my calculations. What do you think the result would be of passing Senator Feinstein’s bill? The result would be the unmooring of American sovereignty in an area larger than the states of California, Alaska and Texas combined.

Three other facts that I’m sure Charles Krauthammer would agree with is that the detention camps being created to house these people are not the equivalent of Auschwitz, Trump is not Hitler and Trump voters are not Nazis. This rhetoric trivializes one of the darkest eras in human history and demonizes tens of millions of Americans who sincerely believe that strong border security is not only the most prudent policy but even the most compassionate.

Ben Shapiro, author and political commentator, suggested that people who make these vile and ridiculous claims should “read a book”!! We’ve all seen the pictures of starving, emaciated prisoners inside the Nazi concentration camps, and those were the survivors. Compare that to the pictures of the young people who were caught illegally entering our country carrying cafeteria trays with hamburgers, pizza and fresh fruit back to their picnic tables three times a day or watching the world cup on big screen TV’s or playing video games. The contrast cannot be more stark and it is an insult to Holocaust survivors and their families to compare the two. Hitler and the Nazis murdered 11 million people in those camps from Jews to Catholics to homosexuals. Charles, I’m sure, would suggest that these super-hyperbolic comparisons are signs of weak minds and weak arguments.

Finally, Charles Krauthammer and I totally agree on the solution for our current immigration problem. I’ve attached a link below to a short video that Charles did for Prager University. It’s only 5 minutes long, but it is well worth the time investment.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/19/krauthammer_gives_prager_u_commentary_build_the_wall.html

Just copy and paste this link into your browser to view.

His point is simple. We need to secure the border, before we do anything else. He suggests a wall, technology and people, and I agree. Once we secure the border, that act will send a message to the people in Central America or Mexico not to even attempt the treacherous journey north to come to The United States. This is actually the most compassionate thing we can do for those people. We don’t even have statistics on the rapes, robberies and murders that occur during that journey, but I would suggest that our detainment camps look like an oasis compared to the perils experienced on the way.

Then, and only then, can we look to the 11 million illegal aliens we already have living here. Charles suggests legalization for this group, with which I concur. I would go even further, as President Trump has indicated, and offer a path to citizenship to the DACA kids, which my wife constantly reminds me are adults now.

For the most part, all of this is already on the table through President Trumps “Four Pillars” plan, but as of now that plan doesn’t have quite enough Republican support and does not have a single Democrat vote in either house. This would suggest that our politicians would prefer to have this problem as a divisive wedge than to solve it. A curse on both their houses, but Democrats must begin to explain why they will not support a plan that involves a path to citizenship for almost two million DACA immigrants.

FBI IG report falls short.

Koo Koo Ka Choo Mr. Horowitz
The View from the Middle

I have to admit that when I heard the coverage of Inspector General Horowitz’ long awaited report on the Clinton e-mail investigation (oops, should I have called it a matter?) I suffered a tremendous feeling of déjà vu. To me, this was James Comey’s combination indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton back in July of 2016 all over again. You will remember that Comey castigated and condemned Hillary Clinton for at least 10 minutes for her “extremely careless” handling of her classified, confidential and even top-secret emails. He originally called her actions “grossly negligent” but Peter Strzok suggested he change the language because “gross negligence” violates the statute she was accused of breaching. Comey added that “any reasonable person should have known” that her server was no place to store or transmit these work-related emails. Then after he had shared all these damning findings, James Comey suggested that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” What?

And the same thing happened with IG (Inspector General) Horowitz’ 500+ page report of that investigation. The IG report was filled with example after example of disgusting political prejudice by much of the FBI leadership including Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andy McCabe (Deputy Director of the FBI). Peter Strzok, who was the lead investigator in both the Hillary Clinton matter/investigation and the Russian collusion investigation, for example had this classic exchange with Lisa Page – Page: (Trump’s) not ever going to be President, right? Right? Strvok: No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” Other people working on his team called Trump a F---ing idiot and a loathsome human. But their contempt didn’t stop there. They went on to call all Trump voters (over 60 million people) “poor, uneducated, lazy POS (Pieces of Shit).” Is this the kind of prejudice and bigotry we are willing to accept from the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

But just like the disconnect between James Comey’s verbal indictment of Hillary Clinton and his implausible vindication of her actions, somehow Michael Horowitz concluded that the sea of political bias that he discovered at the FBI did not impact the end result, which was an exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Really? I was as astounded by this conclusion as I was with Comey’s absolution of Hillary Clinton. Hey Michael, maybe Comey’s exoneration of Hillary is at least one example of that apparent political bias in action. But in case that’s not enough, let me give you some more evidence.

During the investigation of Hillary’s e-mails, six people within her inner circle were given immunity, including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Heather Samuelson. And what exactly did we get for those immunity deals? Nothing! How many immunity deals have been given to the Trump inner circle in the Russian collusion investigation? None. Instead we get the pre-dawn raid of Paul Manafort’s home and the destruction of Michael Flynn’s life for allegedly lying to the FBI while the agents involved can’t even agree to whether he lied at all. Is that equal treatment or signs of bias manifesting itself in investigative actions?

Next, let’s look at the Hillary Clinton interview. Remember, James Comey had written his speech clearing Ms. Clinton weeks before this interview took place. Lisa Page then warned Andy McCabe (#2 guy at the FBI) to limit the number of agents and prosecutors in this interview to “2 and 2 because she might be our next President” and they didn’t want to get her angry!! They also didn’t tape this interview or put Mrs. Clinton under oath and allowed her to answer “I don’t recall” or “I don’t remember” 40 times during this interview. Gee, I wonder if she actually answered any questions?

Finally, Mrs. Clinton had four lawyers with her at this interview, so her party actually outnumbered the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. Is that normal? Also, one of the lawyers in that meeting was Cheryl Mills who was at least a witness if not a subject of this same investigation (or was this a “matter”, I’m so confused by now). Cheryl Mills, remember, had received immunity and had been barred for representing Mrs. Clinton in this matter. So, what the heck was she doing there? The National Review called this “mind boggling” and “astonishing”, but I guess Mr. Horowitz didn’t see anything odd about it.

So, koo koo ka choo Mr. Horowitz for finding the mountain of political bias that has infected the FBI, but as for your conclusion, I’m with Lindsey Graham when he said during Monday’s Senate hearing, “I’m not buying it”. What the American people want is equal justice. If Kristian Saucier (the sailor who took six pictures on a submarine) was sentenced to a year and a half of confinement, what should Hillary Clinton get for taking BleachBit to 30,000 subpoenaed emails? What should James Comey get for lying to Congress and illegally leaking classified information? Hopefully you’ll do better in the next report you’re doing on the initiation of the Russian investigation.

North Korean Summit - What you're not hearing.

North Korean Summit, What You Aren’t Hearing
The View from the Middle

When it comes to the long-term potential of the recent Trump – Kim Summit in North Korea, mark me down as hopeful but cautious. I’m not cautious because of Donald Trump or because the agreement Kim and Trump signed is too vague. I’ve read the actual agreement that they signed and I encourage you to do the same. It’s just over one-page long. Don’t take the pundits’ word for it. Decide for yourself. Personally, I thought the agreement was fairly positive, committing both parties to the expected actions roughly agreed to before the summit began. I think the key sentence appears about half way through the document, and it says, “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

I don’t know about you, but that is actually encouraging to me. Kim commits to “complete denuclearization” and Trump promises not to kill him or Nuke his country in return, as long as Kim keeps his commitment. Chuck “head of the resistance” Schumer says that we gave up too much and got nothing. What exactly did we give up? We allowed Kim Jong Un to have his picture taken with President Trump. Actual Cost? Nothing. We allowed the North Korean flag to be positioned next to ours. Cost? Again, nothing. Plus, what would Chuck suggest as a backdrop for this meeting? Did he want or expect pictures of Kim hung in effigy between our flags? That would set a great atmosphere for this first, historic negotiation meeting between our two countries. We also agreed to suspend our joint military exercises with South Korea as long as Kim is behaving himself. Cost? Again, nothing, in fact we will be saving millions.

So why am I cautious? I’m cautious for the same reason many Americans are. I don’t trust the North Koreans. They have hoodwinked every American President since Clinton as we sent them $1.3 billion in currency and aid over those years. That doesn’t sound like much, but to a country whose entire GDP averages just over ten billion dollars a year, that’s a windfall. But there is some reason for optimism with Kim Jong Un.

Kim Jong Un was actually educated in Switzerland and reportedly showed a real appreciation for the Western life style. He supposedly had a particular love for American basketball. This is where Dennis Rodman comes in. Seriously, all things Western, including Rodman is clearly a positive note in this endeavor for Korean/World peace.

But the most encouraging news is the statements which Kim Jong Un made this April that North Korea’s nuclear arms effort had been “successfully concluded” and that there was no need to operate their nuclear test facility because that work “was finished.” He went on to say that he was going to be pursuing a new “strategic line…by concentrating our efforts on socialist economic construction.” This sounds like a man who is trying to move a country in a new direction by convincing friends and foes alike in his country that the benefits of this new direction will be more advantageous to the average North Korean than the costly pursuit of nuclear weapons.

This is something that you haven’t heard from any pundits as they comment on the possibilities of this newest effort to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. To repeat, I’m hopeful, but cautious, with an emphasis on hopeful. And if that isn’t hopeful enough, we can always bring in Dennis Rodman.