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.

SCOTUS Cooks Up Justice for Colorado Baker

SCOTUS Cooks Up Justice for Colorado Baker
The View from the Middle

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided yesterday in favor of Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop business in a resounding 7-2 decision with liberal judges Breyer and Kagen voting with conservative judges Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. Before I get into the facts of the case and the decision, I would like to offer honorary memberships in “The View From the Middle” to all the Justices for coming up with a decision that I believe struck a perfect balance.

In 2012 a gay couple approached Jack Phillips to create a wedding cake for their wedding reception. They were being married in Massachusetts because gay marriage was not legal in Colorado and the time but were planning their reception in Denver. Phillips informed them that he was willing to sell the couple ordinary cakes, cookies or brownies, but he saw his wedding cakes as an expression of his faith and that creating this cake would be seen as an endorsement of same sex marriage.

Jack was a devout Christian and held sincere religious beliefs and convictions. He believed that being forced to produce this cake violated his first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. His business was named “Masterpiece Cakeshop” for a reason. Wedding cakes are more than just taste treats to Jack.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission disagreed. They ruled that Jack Phillips’ actions were tantamount to discrimination against the gay couple and a violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They suggested that Mr. Phillips actions violated the “public accommodation” clause in CADA. This clause says that no one can be denied, “full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodation of a place of public accommodation.”

This is where the basic problem erupted. What do you do when two fundamental rights come into conflict? And this is where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made two fatal errors, at least according to Justice Kennedy. First, they totally denied Jack Phillips his protected right to free expression of his religious faith. In fact, one commissioner suggested that, “Phillips can believe whatever he wants, but he cannot act on his religious beliefs if he decides to do business in (Colorado)”.

Second, the Commission was openly hostile to Mr. Phillips’ religious convictions. At one of their meetings, one of the commissioners actually compared Mr. Phillips convictions and refusal to bake this particular cake to the institution of slavery and the Nazis execution of the Holocaust. WOW! He went on to say that freedom of religion, “is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others”. Can I say WOW again?

I think Justice Kennedy really nailed it in his opinion. First, he suggested that in one sense, this was a narrow decision. To quote Kennedy, “cases like these…must await further elaboration in the courts.” Not every future case will include the hostility projected by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to Jack Phillips’ sincere religious beliefs. Their disregard for his rights bordered on absurdity, especially when you consider the task, even duty, of that Commission.

But in another sense, this case will have a broad impact. This opinion will be used as a reference and precedent in every future case that involves the free exercise of a person’s religious rights. It will also discourage groups, particularly the LGBT community, from “targeting” bakers, florists, wedding planners and more whom they know have these strongly held religious beliefs. This 7-2 decision will send a message that cases that used to be seen as “slam dunks” may even be viewed as frivolous in the future. In the minority opinion, even Justice Ginsburg hedged her bets. The first line of Ginsberg’s opinion stated, “There is much in the Court’s (majority) opinion with which I agree.”

Finally, I believe Justice Kennedy struck the perfect balance of justice and civil rights in the final paragraph of his opinion. He said, “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Nailed it. A real View From the Middle.