To Donna Brazile on Her New Book - Hacks
The View from the Middle
If you’re not a political junky like me, your first question may be, “Who is Donna Brazile, and why do I even care about her?” Donna Brazile is the now disgraced former Chairperson for the DNC (Democratic National Committee) during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She admitted to sharing debate questions with the Clinton campaign while withholding them from the Sanders’ campaign and now she has written a book entitled Hacks.
A hack can be a person who works solely for mercenary reasons with mediocre professional standards, like the commonly used term “party hacks”. I thought for sure that was what her book would be about; the party hacks who botched the Hillary Clinton campaign for presidency. Instead it was an excuse filled, opinion stated as fact, pity party in which she couldn’t even admit or deny her horrendous mistake of sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton. Now, it seems, her position is that she can’t remember. Isn’t that the amnesiatic explanation that Hillary Clinton invoked 41 times in her interview with the FBI about her computer server? Donna, you’ve learned from the best, or worst depending on a person’s perspective.
Obviously, I do NOT recommend her book for a number of reasons and in fact I’ll be sending my copy back asking for a refund. First, her opinion (which she constantly positions as fact) is that the Russians (if they were behind the hacking) only went after the Democratic Party, actually thought Donald Trump could win the election AND preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Let me suggest another set of possibilities.
Whoever hacked into the DNC server, and it may well have been the Russians, was trying to hack into everyone’s emails trying to compromise our entire system so that our citizens would lose confidence in our Democratic process. It just so happens that the Democrats were grossly negligent (sorry, extremely careless) with their handling of sensitive data. John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager, responded to a phishing expedition and changed his password to “password”. What an idiot. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg in a party that put servers in closets, bashed phones with sledgehammers and stored emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer.
Donna also theorizes that Vladimir Putin actually thought Donald Trump could with this election and preferred him to become president. This is opinion piled upon opinion. Let me offer you another notion. I would suggest that Vladimir Putin believed that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election like 99% of Americans, according to the Princeton Election Consortium. I don’t even think Donald Trump thought he was going to win the election on the morning of November 8th. Putin was sure that Hillary would be President, and he wanted to deal with a damaged President once the election was over.
Donna even defended Hillary’s famous “basket of deplorables” statement, which I believe actually cost her the election. Remember, this is where Hillary called half of Donald Trump’s voters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic”. She suggested that Hillary should “own” this despicable statement. She even supported Hillary’s stance that she had to say this because “her opponent’s campaign had been built on prejudice, hateful views and cruel voices”. Isn’t calling tens of millions of Americans racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes prejudicial, hateful and cruel? Donna, this is what Americans hate about our politicians. They are hypocrites, constantly talking out of both sides of their mouths and this definitely includes Hillary.
Donna, if you ever get around to taking your ideological blinders off, you’ll realize that it wasn’t the Russians who caused Hillary to loose the election. It was just Hillary. When the first three words that people use to describe your candidate are “Liar, Dishonest and Untrustworthy”, according to Quinnipiac, you have a problem. I have stated before that we had two terrible candidates representing our two parties in this election, and Hillary ended up being the worse of those two.
She insulted even more people than Donald Trump did, and that isn’t easy to do. She took the wrong states for granted and was not able to energize her base, which was evident in her pitiful campaign rally attendance and lack of enthusiasm. Her platform was “I’m a woman” and “It’s my turn” which didn’t resonate with the public. If you keep blaming the Russians, you’ll never learn the real lesson.
By the way, I do agree with you about one thing, Donna. The average American (Democrat and Republican) is honest, hard working and patriotic. Americans will put the good of the country ahead of themselves. That is what they are looking for in our politicians, but people like that are a rare commodity in Washington DC. THAT is the biggest issue we have right now, and we should be working together to fix it. How many times can I suggest Term Limits!!!
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Thursday, November 30, 2017
Why Tax Reform Terrifies Democrats
Democrats’ Strategy of Resist, Persist & Throw Hissy Fits
The View from the Middle
Just when I think that the Hypocrisy can’t get any worse in Washington, just when I think that the actions of our politicians can’t get any more ridiculous, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi show me that they know no limits. I had to actually laugh out loud when Ms. Pelosi said that Donald Trump was only interested in “stunts” (referring to the empty seat picture of the debt ceiling meeting) especially when she had just executed a marvelous stunt of her own by refusing to meet with the President in the first place. Are these people listening to themselves?
But what’s more ridiculous is the lack of any real strategy by Democrats to make our country better. If anyone out there has any evidence of what that is, let me know. And don’t show me some dusty platform document that hasn’t been touched by Democrat leadership for more than a year now. Show me what Democrats are talking about on a daily basis other than resist, persist, insist, enlist, desist (and anything else that rhymes with resist). This may be a strategy to get people elected (or not, I’m not sure) but it certainly is not a strategy that will help the country.
Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is actually following through on his campaign promises. His administration has significantly reduced regulations, put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and at least tried to repeal and replace Obamacare. This kind of promise keeping is unheard of in politics and may be one reason why Trump maintains support despite his childish and often abrasive personal style. And now, as if all those “promises kept” were not enough, he is inches away from delivering on his pledge to reduce and reform America’s taxes.
Are the bills that have been passed by the House and will be passed by the Senate perfect? Of course not, but no tax bill would, whether it was initiated by Democrats or Republicans. There are too many factions to appease. In our Congress and in our country we find everything from the ultra conservative TEA Partiers to Libertarians to moderate conservatives and liberals to the big government liberals to the ultra-liberal socialist democrats represented by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. A bill that would please all of these people does not exist.
But the bills that currently exist contain some very encouraging elements. First of all, the actual tax rate will go down for virtually every tax bracket with an emphasis on the lower brackets that impact average and lower income households. Next, the standard deduction will likely double even in the compromise bill and so will the child tax credit which has a huge affect on middle to lower income tax brackets.
Corporate rates will be dramatically decreased from the current 35% rate to somewhere in the low 20’s and both versions include an incentive to repatriate profits back to America where they can be invested to expand markets, increase incomes and create more jobs.
All of this will stimulate the economy from both the supply side (trickle down) and the demand side (bubble up). My honest assessment of this bill is that all Americans will benefit through higher wages, lower unemployment and higher job participation levels as well as just having more of their own money to spend. In the end, I predict that all of this will happen while also reducing our deficits as our economy will grow in the 3 and 4 and even 5% levels. This will drive higher revenues into the treasury which happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan and Clinton. With a little discipline on the spending side we could even balance the budget and actually reduce the debt we are currently planning to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
With all of the positive aspects of this tax bill, you ask yourself, “How can Democrats be against it?” There is a simple twofold answer. First, their whole strategy is to resist and obstruct. That’s all they have, so they must focus on the small pieces that make it “not perfect” and ignore all of the benefits. But the real answer is that they are terrified that this will actually work.
Imagine if the Republicans pass this bill in December and our economy starts growing at 3 or 4% by the midterms in 2018? Republican majorities could actually increase in both the House and the Senate. What if people do their taxes for the 2018 tax year and 90%+ notice that they are paying less taxes than they did the year before? What if 90%+ of Americans find that they can now use the short form (maybe even a postcard) to file their taxes? What if the labor force participation rate gets back to 64 or 65% (it is currently under 63%) and income levels begin to rise again? What if, because of increased revenues and lower spending, we can decrease our deficits and see a path to a balanced budget by November of 2020?
This is the nightmare that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi dream every night, and they are willing to keep all of these positive things from happening as long as they can keep their jobs and cushy lifestyles. I say, bring on the tax cuts, and I may even consider voting for Trump again if he delivers the results!!
The View from the Middle
Just when I think that the Hypocrisy can’t get any worse in Washington, just when I think that the actions of our politicians can’t get any more ridiculous, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi show me that they know no limits. I had to actually laugh out loud when Ms. Pelosi said that Donald Trump was only interested in “stunts” (referring to the empty seat picture of the debt ceiling meeting) especially when she had just executed a marvelous stunt of her own by refusing to meet with the President in the first place. Are these people listening to themselves?
But what’s more ridiculous is the lack of any real strategy by Democrats to make our country better. If anyone out there has any evidence of what that is, let me know. And don’t show me some dusty platform document that hasn’t been touched by Democrat leadership for more than a year now. Show me what Democrats are talking about on a daily basis other than resist, persist, insist, enlist, desist (and anything else that rhymes with resist). This may be a strategy to get people elected (or not, I’m not sure) but it certainly is not a strategy that will help the country.
Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is actually following through on his campaign promises. His administration has significantly reduced regulations, put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and at least tried to repeal and replace Obamacare. This kind of promise keeping is unheard of in politics and may be one reason why Trump maintains support despite his childish and often abrasive personal style. And now, as if all those “promises kept” were not enough, he is inches away from delivering on his pledge to reduce and reform America’s taxes.
Are the bills that have been passed by the House and will be passed by the Senate perfect? Of course not, but no tax bill would, whether it was initiated by Democrats or Republicans. There are too many factions to appease. In our Congress and in our country we find everything from the ultra conservative TEA Partiers to Libertarians to moderate conservatives and liberals to the big government liberals to the ultra-liberal socialist democrats represented by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. A bill that would please all of these people does not exist.
But the bills that currently exist contain some very encouraging elements. First of all, the actual tax rate will go down for virtually every tax bracket with an emphasis on the lower brackets that impact average and lower income households. Next, the standard deduction will likely double even in the compromise bill and so will the child tax credit which has a huge affect on middle to lower income tax brackets.
Corporate rates will be dramatically decreased from the current 35% rate to somewhere in the low 20’s and both versions include an incentive to repatriate profits back to America where they can be invested to expand markets, increase incomes and create more jobs.
All of this will stimulate the economy from both the supply side (trickle down) and the demand side (bubble up). My honest assessment of this bill is that all Americans will benefit through higher wages, lower unemployment and higher job participation levels as well as just having more of their own money to spend. In the end, I predict that all of this will happen while also reducing our deficits as our economy will grow in the 3 and 4 and even 5% levels. This will drive higher revenues into the treasury which happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan and Clinton. With a little discipline on the spending side we could even balance the budget and actually reduce the debt we are currently planning to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
With all of the positive aspects of this tax bill, you ask yourself, “How can Democrats be against it?” There is a simple twofold answer. First, their whole strategy is to resist and obstruct. That’s all they have, so they must focus on the small pieces that make it “not perfect” and ignore all of the benefits. But the real answer is that they are terrified that this will actually work.
Imagine if the Republicans pass this bill in December and our economy starts growing at 3 or 4% by the midterms in 2018? Republican majorities could actually increase in both the House and the Senate. What if people do their taxes for the 2018 tax year and 90%+ notice that they are paying less taxes than they did the year before? What if 90%+ of Americans find that they can now use the short form (maybe even a postcard) to file their taxes? What if the labor force participation rate gets back to 64 or 65% (it is currently under 63%) and income levels begin to rise again? What if, because of increased revenues and lower spending, we can decrease our deficits and see a path to a balanced budget by November of 2020?
This is the nightmare that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi dream every night, and they are willing to keep all of these positive things from happening as long as they can keep their jobs and cushy lifestyles. I say, bring on the tax cuts, and I may even consider voting for Trump again if he delivers the results!!
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Hillary Clinton, Criminal or Rascal? You Decide.
Hillary Clinton, Criminal or Just Rascal?
The View from the Middle
Have you heard the defenders / excusers of Hillary Clinton’s skullduggery? They point out that all of her misdeeds occurred in the past, and they want to focus on the future. While that may sound clever and even profound, just a small amount of thoughtful consideration reveals this rationale to be laughable.
Of course, they would like to forget all this and move on. So does every lawbreaker being tried for his or her crimes. What they don’t want you to realize is that all transgressions being investigated have occurred in the past. Duh! And, if every criminal were allowed to use this defense, we would have no need for a judicial system at all. Just forget all of these past offenses and focus on the future! Someone should call Paul Manafort quick. I’m pretty sure he’s being investigated for crimes of the past.
So, let’s get past this ridiculous argument and look at Hillary’s questionable behavior and decide whether it is criminal or just inappropriate. Let’s start with the most recently uncovered reality that Hillary and the DNC (arguably the same thing) paid for the now famous dossier. Hillary, of course, denies knowing anything about it, even though her campaign spent some 10 to 12 million dollars for this work of fiction. Even if she did know, she would suggest it was just “opposition research”.
Asking us to believe that she didn’t know about the dossier stretches believability to the point of its breaking point. The Clinton’s are very smart people. Bill is supposedly the fourth smartest President ever with a reported IQ of just under 150, and Hillary’s 140 IQ puts her in the top one quarter of one percent of all humans. They would have to be stupid or devious not to know about this 12 million dollar expenditure. I’ll let you make your own decision on which is most likely for the Clinton’s.
Next, was the dossier a piece of opposition research or an intentional smear job designed to cast doubt on the character of Donald Trump (like that was needed). Even though there is plenty of hanky-panky here, I have to agree with Alan Dershowitz, (an unlikely ally for me) even if intent was proven, I doubt that there is anything criminal in the dossier scandal. Sleazy? Yes! Criminal? No!
Now, let’s talk about her takeover of the DNC. Her supporters describe her as a “white knight” that came to the rescue of a bankrupt DNC. So I guess Bernie Sanders should be sending her a thank you note. I’ve read the agreement that the leadership of the DNC signed to give her control of hiring, strategy and spending when the primaries were just beginning, and it is my opinion that there is no way they could have offered Bernie the same deal. The two deals would have been in complete conflict.
But while this may have been underhanded, I again have to agree with my friend Alan Dershowitz again. This was probably not illegal. The DNC may decide to create some internal controls that would prohibit this in the future, but as of now, it is probably not illegal. Questionable behavior? For sure. Illegal? Probably not.
How about the Uranium One deal? Why would the United States allow the Russians to purchase 20% of our uranium reserves in the first place? And, was it appropriate for the Clinton Foundation to receive over $145 million from Russian entities connected with the deal while Hillary was the Secretary of State and one of the nine parties who had to approve the transaction? Don’t forget that Bill Clinton also received a measly $500,000 fee from a Russian bank invested in Uranium One for a 20-minute speech. I’m sure he’s spellbinding, but $25,000 a minute? Really?
Again, there may not be any actual laws in place that would prohibit a sitting Secretary of State from taking hundreds of million of dollars from foreign countries, but there may be some laws put in place for the future given the conflict of interest that this escapade suggested. Even President Obama asked Hillary not to do this because he knew the kind of optics it would create. Was this totally inappropriate? You bet! Criminal? Maybe not, - Yet!
Actually, the scandal that is most likely to end up in criminality is the oldest, and that is Hillary’s use of a private server. Actually, the use of a private server may not be illegal, although no other Secretary of State or President or Cabinet Secretary ever had their own private server, no matter how often her supporters try to tell you they did. Again, Congress may create a law to prohibit this in the future, and probably should, but Hillary may not have broken the law in setting up this private server.
There are two aspects of this particular scandal, however, that could get Hillary in legal trouble. First, as James Comey wrote in one of his early versions of Hillary’s exoneration, she was “grossly negligent” in her handling of classified and top secret information. He changed that language to “extremely careless” when he realized that that the terminology of gross negligence was actually used in the statute that Hillary was accused of violating. However, as legal pundit Judge Napolitano suggests, there is no real difference between “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent”. This could end up being a problem for Hillary.
Finally, Hillary deleted 30,000 emails that were under subpoena from the Justice Department. And she didn’t just delete them as you and I would. She used BleachBit to obliterate them to the point of being irretrievable. If she just wanted them out of her way, why wouldn’t she just delete them, as you and I would? Whether she likes it or not, the way she eliminated these messages reveals an attempt to conceal. This could also be a real problem for Mrs. Clinton.
It is not my desire for anyone to go to jail. What I want is for our politicians to have character so that they are repulsed by the temptation for subterfuge. But if we don’t hold people of power accountable, we will continue to have a double standard of justice. People like you and me will be punished to the full extent of the law while the rich and well connected get off scot-free. Is that the America any of us want?
The View from the Middle
Have you heard the defenders / excusers of Hillary Clinton’s skullduggery? They point out that all of her misdeeds occurred in the past, and they want to focus on the future. While that may sound clever and even profound, just a small amount of thoughtful consideration reveals this rationale to be laughable.
Of course, they would like to forget all this and move on. So does every lawbreaker being tried for his or her crimes. What they don’t want you to realize is that all transgressions being investigated have occurred in the past. Duh! And, if every criminal were allowed to use this defense, we would have no need for a judicial system at all. Just forget all of these past offenses and focus on the future! Someone should call Paul Manafort quick. I’m pretty sure he’s being investigated for crimes of the past.
So, let’s get past this ridiculous argument and look at Hillary’s questionable behavior and decide whether it is criminal or just inappropriate. Let’s start with the most recently uncovered reality that Hillary and the DNC (arguably the same thing) paid for the now famous dossier. Hillary, of course, denies knowing anything about it, even though her campaign spent some 10 to 12 million dollars for this work of fiction. Even if she did know, she would suggest it was just “opposition research”.
Asking us to believe that she didn’t know about the dossier stretches believability to the point of its breaking point. The Clinton’s are very smart people. Bill is supposedly the fourth smartest President ever with a reported IQ of just under 150, and Hillary’s 140 IQ puts her in the top one quarter of one percent of all humans. They would have to be stupid or devious not to know about this 12 million dollar expenditure. I’ll let you make your own decision on which is most likely for the Clinton’s.
Next, was the dossier a piece of opposition research or an intentional smear job designed to cast doubt on the character of Donald Trump (like that was needed). Even though there is plenty of hanky-panky here, I have to agree with Alan Dershowitz, (an unlikely ally for me) even if intent was proven, I doubt that there is anything criminal in the dossier scandal. Sleazy? Yes! Criminal? No!
Now, let’s talk about her takeover of the DNC. Her supporters describe her as a “white knight” that came to the rescue of a bankrupt DNC. So I guess Bernie Sanders should be sending her a thank you note. I’ve read the agreement that the leadership of the DNC signed to give her control of hiring, strategy and spending when the primaries were just beginning, and it is my opinion that there is no way they could have offered Bernie the same deal. The two deals would have been in complete conflict.
But while this may have been underhanded, I again have to agree with my friend Alan Dershowitz again. This was probably not illegal. The DNC may decide to create some internal controls that would prohibit this in the future, but as of now, it is probably not illegal. Questionable behavior? For sure. Illegal? Probably not.
How about the Uranium One deal? Why would the United States allow the Russians to purchase 20% of our uranium reserves in the first place? And, was it appropriate for the Clinton Foundation to receive over $145 million from Russian entities connected with the deal while Hillary was the Secretary of State and one of the nine parties who had to approve the transaction? Don’t forget that Bill Clinton also received a measly $500,000 fee from a Russian bank invested in Uranium One for a 20-minute speech. I’m sure he’s spellbinding, but $25,000 a minute? Really?
Again, there may not be any actual laws in place that would prohibit a sitting Secretary of State from taking hundreds of million of dollars from foreign countries, but there may be some laws put in place for the future given the conflict of interest that this escapade suggested. Even President Obama asked Hillary not to do this because he knew the kind of optics it would create. Was this totally inappropriate? You bet! Criminal? Maybe not, - Yet!
Actually, the scandal that is most likely to end up in criminality is the oldest, and that is Hillary’s use of a private server. Actually, the use of a private server may not be illegal, although no other Secretary of State or President or Cabinet Secretary ever had their own private server, no matter how often her supporters try to tell you they did. Again, Congress may create a law to prohibit this in the future, and probably should, but Hillary may not have broken the law in setting up this private server.
There are two aspects of this particular scandal, however, that could get Hillary in legal trouble. First, as James Comey wrote in one of his early versions of Hillary’s exoneration, she was “grossly negligent” in her handling of classified and top secret information. He changed that language to “extremely careless” when he realized that that the terminology of gross negligence was actually used in the statute that Hillary was accused of violating. However, as legal pundit Judge Napolitano suggests, there is no real difference between “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent”. This could end up being a problem for Hillary.
Finally, Hillary deleted 30,000 emails that were under subpoena from the Justice Department. And she didn’t just delete them as you and I would. She used BleachBit to obliterate them to the point of being irretrievable. If she just wanted them out of her way, why wouldn’t she just delete them, as you and I would? Whether she likes it or not, the way she eliminated these messages reveals an attempt to conceal. This could also be a real problem for Mrs. Clinton.
It is not my desire for anyone to go to jail. What I want is for our politicians to have character so that they are repulsed by the temptation for subterfuge. But if we don’t hold people of power accountable, we will continue to have a double standard of justice. People like you and me will be punished to the full extent of the law while the rich and well connected get off scot-free. Is that the America any of us want?
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Russia vs Trump, Sessions, Hillary and Wasserman-Shultz
Who is Winning in the Russian Collusion Scandal?
The View from the Middle
Oh, what a tangled web someone is weaving. It seems that there is another shoe to drop every day on the Russian collusion scandal here in America. I think it started with the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails. We may never know for sure if the Russians were involved, but it certainly wouldn’t shock me if they were. And the big losers in this piece of the scandal were Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Then there was the Russian dossier. This dossier was so salacious and uncorroborated that most of the media passed over this story until BuzzFeed released it in its entirety in January. Even though most, if not all, of this file was pure fiction, the big loser was Donald Trump.
And let’s not forget the outreach by Russian Ambassador Kislyak to Jeff Sessions. These were hardly shocking meetings. One was a handshake in front of hundreds of witnesses, but this forced Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the Russian investigation after he was appointed Trump’s Attorney General.
We certainly can’t leave out Donald Trump Jr.’s 20 minute meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer with supposed connections to the Kremlin. Donald Jr. left this meeting early and no action was ever taken as a result of this little powwow, but real damage was done to Don Jr. and Paul Manafort.
And now we have the boomerang effect of the Russian dossier story that doesn’t focus on the contents of the dossier itself, but on who paid for it. The big losers in this saga are Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Podesta brothers.
So let’s list the losers in the Russian collusion scandal – Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Hillary Clinton, John and Tony Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and might I add the American people and our entire democratic system. Neither party nor gender has been able to avoid the stigma of this narrative. So is anyone winning the Russian corruption story? Yes, Vladimir Putin!
I have heard the talking heads claim that they could read Putin’s mind and are absolutely sure that he preferred Donald Trump to win the Presidency. Let me give you an alternative theory. Putin, like 99% of Americans (according to the Princeton Election Consortium), thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win the 2016 election. And given her policy positions, he probably would have preferred her to win. What Putin really wanted was a damaged American President and a weakened confidence in our Democratic system. And we are giving it to him on a silver platter.
There are at least two visible Russian strategies that support my theory. First, virtually all of these contacts, from Kislyak to Veselnitskaya to the Russian officials who approached Christopher Steele (of the Russian dossier), were initiated by the Russians. Does this sound like a coincidence or a plan? Second, the major aspects of the scandal, the Wikileaks email acquisition and release and the Russian dossier, were both two sided swords. They could be used to incriminate operatives on both sides of the political spectrum. This is not just a plan; it’s a sinister plot.
In my opinion, both of our political parties and our boneheaded lame stream media have been and continue to be “played”. Putin was counting on their lesser angels (greed, thirst for power, hypocrisy and hate) and bated them with the most tempting morsels of depraved innuendo he could find. And when he couldn’t “find” anything, he just made it up. He has worked both sides of our political fence, pitting each against the other, while he sat back and enjoyed the chaos he has created.
Why would he do this? First, he just hates America and what it stands for. Second, he needed to distract his people from the ravages of an anemic Russia economy and his stalled promise to reunite the old Soviet Union. Despite all his failures, his approval rating in Russia is still over 80%. And part of that popularity just might be that his people know exactly what he is doing to us, and they love it!
When are we going to learn? When we abandon all respect for each other (and I accuse both sides of this) we stop listening to each other and begin to demonize real and rational concerns of good, patriotic Americans who love this country. There are real and meaningful compromises that can be made on Healthcare, Immigration, Taxes and even abortion if we start listening to each other. Our parties must give up their strategies of “I can’t hear you” and “Resist everything” and look for the areas on which we agree. Freedom, equality of opportunity and individual responsibility are good places to start, or else we will continue to play checkers while Putin plays chess with our heads!!
The View from the Middle
Oh, what a tangled web someone is weaving. It seems that there is another shoe to drop every day on the Russian collusion scandal here in America. I think it started with the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails. We may never know for sure if the Russians were involved, but it certainly wouldn’t shock me if they were. And the big losers in this piece of the scandal were Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Then there was the Russian dossier. This dossier was so salacious and uncorroborated that most of the media passed over this story until BuzzFeed released it in its entirety in January. Even though most, if not all, of this file was pure fiction, the big loser was Donald Trump.
And let’s not forget the outreach by Russian Ambassador Kislyak to Jeff Sessions. These were hardly shocking meetings. One was a handshake in front of hundreds of witnesses, but this forced Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the Russian investigation after he was appointed Trump’s Attorney General.
We certainly can’t leave out Donald Trump Jr.’s 20 minute meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer with supposed connections to the Kremlin. Donald Jr. left this meeting early and no action was ever taken as a result of this little powwow, but real damage was done to Don Jr. and Paul Manafort.
And now we have the boomerang effect of the Russian dossier story that doesn’t focus on the contents of the dossier itself, but on who paid for it. The big losers in this saga are Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Podesta brothers.
So let’s list the losers in the Russian collusion scandal – Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Hillary Clinton, John and Tony Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and might I add the American people and our entire democratic system. Neither party nor gender has been able to avoid the stigma of this narrative. So is anyone winning the Russian corruption story? Yes, Vladimir Putin!
I have heard the talking heads claim that they could read Putin’s mind and are absolutely sure that he preferred Donald Trump to win the Presidency. Let me give you an alternative theory. Putin, like 99% of Americans (according to the Princeton Election Consortium), thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win the 2016 election. And given her policy positions, he probably would have preferred her to win. What Putin really wanted was a damaged American President and a weakened confidence in our Democratic system. And we are giving it to him on a silver platter.
There are at least two visible Russian strategies that support my theory. First, virtually all of these contacts, from Kislyak to Veselnitskaya to the Russian officials who approached Christopher Steele (of the Russian dossier), were initiated by the Russians. Does this sound like a coincidence or a plan? Second, the major aspects of the scandal, the Wikileaks email acquisition and release and the Russian dossier, were both two sided swords. They could be used to incriminate operatives on both sides of the political spectrum. This is not just a plan; it’s a sinister plot.
In my opinion, both of our political parties and our boneheaded lame stream media have been and continue to be “played”. Putin was counting on their lesser angels (greed, thirst for power, hypocrisy and hate) and bated them with the most tempting morsels of depraved innuendo he could find. And when he couldn’t “find” anything, he just made it up. He has worked both sides of our political fence, pitting each against the other, while he sat back and enjoyed the chaos he has created.
Why would he do this? First, he just hates America and what it stands for. Second, he needed to distract his people from the ravages of an anemic Russia economy and his stalled promise to reunite the old Soviet Union. Despite all his failures, his approval rating in Russia is still over 80%. And part of that popularity just might be that his people know exactly what he is doing to us, and they love it!
When are we going to learn? When we abandon all respect for each other (and I accuse both sides of this) we stop listening to each other and begin to demonize real and rational concerns of good, patriotic Americans who love this country. There are real and meaningful compromises that can be made on Healthcare, Immigration, Taxes and even abortion if we start listening to each other. Our parties must give up their strategies of “I can’t hear you” and “Resist everything” and look for the areas on which we agree. Freedom, equality of opportunity and individual responsibility are good places to start, or else we will continue to play checkers while Putin plays chess with our heads!!
Friday, October 27, 2017
Of Trump, Clinton, Flake and others...
Washington Produces Narcissistic, Selfish, Back Stabbing, Lying, Hypocritical Bigots
The View from the Middle
In Romans 3:10, the Bible says that, “There is no one who is good, not even one!” As if to put an exclamation point on that thought, this week Washington D.C. put on a display of the most childish, crude, disgusting, dishonest and downright despicable behavior I have ever witnessed. To be clear, our politicians proved last week that no person or party holds the moral high ground in our nation's capital. In fact, I doubt they can even see the moral high ground from the sewer system they all occupy.
First, our President continued his 3rd grade, name-calling tweets that most of the country wishes he would stop. Even for those people who agree with his policies, it makes it difficult to defend him. But for those of you who believe Washington was ever an oasis of camaraderie and harmony, wake up! Before Trump, people in Washington would smile in your face and shake your hand and then try to destroy you behind your back. Some people say Trump is the most transparent President in our history and they applaud his blunt honesty. I personally don’t like the name-calling or the backstabbing but prefer that people actually show respect for each other and work together to solve problems.
Then you have Frederica Wilson’s hit job on the President. Even when the President has the best of intentions, there are some who will try to politicize it for their own benefit. Frederica said she was invited on this call. By whom? Did Trump invite you, Frederica? I doubt it. Did Trump even know you were listening? Even if what she did were not illegal, speakerphone etiquette would suggest that you should identify yourself if you are listening. Frederica, your 15 minutes are up. Go howl at the moon.
Then you had two Republican Senators, who didn’t have a prayer of re-election, stoop even below the President’s low bar for decorum and throw public verbal tantrums as they left. They kind of reminded me of Hillary Clinton. Which brings me to Hillary. Where should I start?
After denying any connection to Fusion GPS for months, it has been proven that Hillary and her campaign and the DNC not only knew about these slime balls, but they funded their work. And let’s stop calling this “opposition research”. Every politician does research on their opponents to find out what they have supported in the past or if there is any hypocrisy with their positions today. The word “research” implies a search for actual FACTS. What Hillary and the DNC did was to create a dossier of total BS that they could peddle to the media hoping to get someone to dip so low as to publish it. Their hope, I’m sure, was that by the time the actual truth came out, the election would be over and she would have won. This was a “smear job’ not opposition research.
And now we have the Uranium One deal, where we (that is Hillary, Eric Holder and others) decided to sell 20% of America’s Uranium supply to the Russians. Go back and read that sentence again. Does that even make sense? Now let’s add to this story the fact that the Clinton Foundation received $145 million from Russian companies connected with the Uranium One deal and Bill Clinton received a half million dollars for a twenty minute speech from a Russian bank with ties to Uranium One.
Of course, Hillary will claim that there is no connection between these payments and her decision to approve the deal. The Russians were giving money to the Clinton Foundation because of all the good work they do. Yah! And Bill’s inspiring words are worth $25,000 a minute (plus expenses of course). There are a few people who will fall for that line of bull, but the fact is even President Obama asked Hillary not to accept funds from these sources because of the optics it created. I have to agree with our former President on that.
Hillary has used the “I misremembered” and “I don’t recall” defense to keep her out of jail up to now. James Comey let her off the hook for her improper server because he couldn’t prove “intent” to break the law, but at some point in time we all have to admit that some facts speak for themselves. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton should not have been taking money from foreign entities while making decisions that impacted those same countries. Would you want Trump to sell Alaska to the Russians and then build a hotel in Moscow for free the next week? No connection of course.
Yes, this week has simply validated in my mind that Washington is full of narcissistic, selfish, backstabbing, lying hypocritical bigots on both sides of the political spectrum. The only question is – do they come there with that disposition or does the atmosphere of absolute power in Washington produce them over time. I believe it is the latter, so term limits will slowly weed out the converted, while not creating new ones and allow our government to work for “we the people” as our founders intended.
The View from the Middle
In Romans 3:10, the Bible says that, “There is no one who is good, not even one!” As if to put an exclamation point on that thought, this week Washington D.C. put on a display of the most childish, crude, disgusting, dishonest and downright despicable behavior I have ever witnessed. To be clear, our politicians proved last week that no person or party holds the moral high ground in our nation's capital. In fact, I doubt they can even see the moral high ground from the sewer system they all occupy.
First, our President continued his 3rd grade, name-calling tweets that most of the country wishes he would stop. Even for those people who agree with his policies, it makes it difficult to defend him. But for those of you who believe Washington was ever an oasis of camaraderie and harmony, wake up! Before Trump, people in Washington would smile in your face and shake your hand and then try to destroy you behind your back. Some people say Trump is the most transparent President in our history and they applaud his blunt honesty. I personally don’t like the name-calling or the backstabbing but prefer that people actually show respect for each other and work together to solve problems.
Then you have Frederica Wilson’s hit job on the President. Even when the President has the best of intentions, there are some who will try to politicize it for their own benefit. Frederica said she was invited on this call. By whom? Did Trump invite you, Frederica? I doubt it. Did Trump even know you were listening? Even if what she did were not illegal, speakerphone etiquette would suggest that you should identify yourself if you are listening. Frederica, your 15 minutes are up. Go howl at the moon.
Then you had two Republican Senators, who didn’t have a prayer of re-election, stoop even below the President’s low bar for decorum and throw public verbal tantrums as they left. They kind of reminded me of Hillary Clinton. Which brings me to Hillary. Where should I start?
After denying any connection to Fusion GPS for months, it has been proven that Hillary and her campaign and the DNC not only knew about these slime balls, but they funded their work. And let’s stop calling this “opposition research”. Every politician does research on their opponents to find out what they have supported in the past or if there is any hypocrisy with their positions today. The word “research” implies a search for actual FACTS. What Hillary and the DNC did was to create a dossier of total BS that they could peddle to the media hoping to get someone to dip so low as to publish it. Their hope, I’m sure, was that by the time the actual truth came out, the election would be over and she would have won. This was a “smear job’ not opposition research.
And now we have the Uranium One deal, where we (that is Hillary, Eric Holder and others) decided to sell 20% of America’s Uranium supply to the Russians. Go back and read that sentence again. Does that even make sense? Now let’s add to this story the fact that the Clinton Foundation received $145 million from Russian companies connected with the Uranium One deal and Bill Clinton received a half million dollars for a twenty minute speech from a Russian bank with ties to Uranium One.
Of course, Hillary will claim that there is no connection between these payments and her decision to approve the deal. The Russians were giving money to the Clinton Foundation because of all the good work they do. Yah! And Bill’s inspiring words are worth $25,000 a minute (plus expenses of course). There are a few people who will fall for that line of bull, but the fact is even President Obama asked Hillary not to accept funds from these sources because of the optics it created. I have to agree with our former President on that.
Hillary has used the “I misremembered” and “I don’t recall” defense to keep her out of jail up to now. James Comey let her off the hook for her improper server because he couldn’t prove “intent” to break the law, but at some point in time we all have to admit that some facts speak for themselves. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton should not have been taking money from foreign entities while making decisions that impacted those same countries. Would you want Trump to sell Alaska to the Russians and then build a hotel in Moscow for free the next week? No connection of course.
Yes, this week has simply validated in my mind that Washington is full of narcissistic, selfish, backstabbing, lying hypocritical bigots on both sides of the political spectrum. The only question is – do they come there with that disposition or does the atmosphere of absolute power in Washington produce them over time. I believe it is the latter, so term limits will slowly weed out the converted, while not creating new ones and allow our government to work for “we the people” as our founders intended.
Monday, October 16, 2017
The Real Disgrace in the Harvey Weinstein Case
The Real Disgrace in the Harvey Weinstein Case
The View from the Middle
The levels of disgrace in the Harvey Weinstein scandal are as numerous and disturbing as the circles in Dante’s inferno. First, there is Harvey himself. His actions, over decades, are as disgusting and disturbing and deranged as they can be. Harvey has been a serial rapist, a chronic abuser and a regular insulter of women. And when I say “insulter” I’m trying to describe how a woman might feel as Harvey masturbated in front of her. I’m insulted that I even have to write that sentence.
The second layer of disgrace comes compliments of the slime ball, scumbag politicians that took Mr. Weinstein’s money in the name of social justice and women’s rights. This would be the equivalent of B’nai B’rith taking money from Hitler. It would be like the NAACP taking money from David Duke. It would be like the International Union of Chickens taking money from Colonel Sanders.
And the people who took millions of dollars from Harvey Weinstein read like a “who’s who” from the Democrat party. Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are just a few of the hypocrites that gladly took Harvey’s contributions while knowing FULL WELL what he was doing. And if there is a Republican who took money from this jerk, I condemn you too!!
Most of these politically correct narcissists are now saying that they will give his money back. Might I just suggest that the press should keep an eye on these people and make sure that they actually return these funds. I think that these people are no more likely to return Harvey’s money than those Hollywood stars who promised to leave the country if Trump got elected made good on those vows.
But I have to give it to Hillary Clinton who basically said that she’s going to keep the money. Now, we all have to read between her muddy and murky lines to get to that truth, but that’s what she said. When asked what she was going to do with his money, her actually words were, “There’s nowhere to give it back to!” Besides being a very poor example of the English language, that is factually incorrect. She CAN give it back to Harvey himself, or she could give it to his company. There are no laws that prevent her from doing that. So basically she is either lying or terribly misinformed.
Then, when reporters suggested that she could give it to charity, she said, “I give 10% of my income every year, so this will be part of that.” In other words, she is going to deduct Mr. Weinstein’s contributions from her normal giving and thus reduce the amount of her own money that she gives to charity. Wow, how cheap can she be?
The acceptance of Mr. Weinstein’s money also serves as a soft endorsement of his activities. This gives a green light to his minions, like Ben Affleck, that his kind of behavior will be tolerated, as long as they support the right people financially.
But the final and deepest and darkest disgrace in this whole story is that these people knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing for decades. He has been publicly outed multiple times by the likes of Seth MacFarlane. He even had a clause in his contract with his company that allowed this behavior as long as Harvey paid off litigants to keep the stench down to an acceptable level.
Yes, they all knew what Harvey was doing for decades, but here’s the big sin. They did nothing about it. This allowed him to rape and abuse women for years and blackmail women with threats to their careers to gain their silence. How many of these women could have been saved the humiliation if Mr. Weinstein’s practices had been exposed at the very beginning. At least Jane Fonda (and believe me, I’m not a fan) had the decency to admit that she was “ashamed” of her silence.
The saddest note of all is that this simply exposes the absolute depth of hypocrisy that exists in Washington and Hollywood. When will we learn that these people do not serve the public that pays their salaries through their taxes and box office support? They serve only themselves and their unquenchable thirst for power, money and an unlimited need for self-adulation.
There are two small things we can do. We can create a constitutional amendment that will limit the terms of our congressmen and women and we can stay home and play charades instead of going to the movies. We might actually get to know each other better.
The View from the Middle
The levels of disgrace in the Harvey Weinstein scandal are as numerous and disturbing as the circles in Dante’s inferno. First, there is Harvey himself. His actions, over decades, are as disgusting and disturbing and deranged as they can be. Harvey has been a serial rapist, a chronic abuser and a regular insulter of women. And when I say “insulter” I’m trying to describe how a woman might feel as Harvey masturbated in front of her. I’m insulted that I even have to write that sentence.
The second layer of disgrace comes compliments of the slime ball, scumbag politicians that took Mr. Weinstein’s money in the name of social justice and women’s rights. This would be the equivalent of B’nai B’rith taking money from Hitler. It would be like the NAACP taking money from David Duke. It would be like the International Union of Chickens taking money from Colonel Sanders.
And the people who took millions of dollars from Harvey Weinstein read like a “who’s who” from the Democrat party. Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are just a few of the hypocrites that gladly took Harvey’s contributions while knowing FULL WELL what he was doing. And if there is a Republican who took money from this jerk, I condemn you too!!
Most of these politically correct narcissists are now saying that they will give his money back. Might I just suggest that the press should keep an eye on these people and make sure that they actually return these funds. I think that these people are no more likely to return Harvey’s money than those Hollywood stars who promised to leave the country if Trump got elected made good on those vows.
But I have to give it to Hillary Clinton who basically said that she’s going to keep the money. Now, we all have to read between her muddy and murky lines to get to that truth, but that’s what she said. When asked what she was going to do with his money, her actually words were, “There’s nowhere to give it back to!” Besides being a very poor example of the English language, that is factually incorrect. She CAN give it back to Harvey himself, or she could give it to his company. There are no laws that prevent her from doing that. So basically she is either lying or terribly misinformed.
Then, when reporters suggested that she could give it to charity, she said, “I give 10% of my income every year, so this will be part of that.” In other words, she is going to deduct Mr. Weinstein’s contributions from her normal giving and thus reduce the amount of her own money that she gives to charity. Wow, how cheap can she be?
The acceptance of Mr. Weinstein’s money also serves as a soft endorsement of his activities. This gives a green light to his minions, like Ben Affleck, that his kind of behavior will be tolerated, as long as they support the right people financially.
But the final and deepest and darkest disgrace in this whole story is that these people knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing for decades. He has been publicly outed multiple times by the likes of Seth MacFarlane. He even had a clause in his contract with his company that allowed this behavior as long as Harvey paid off litigants to keep the stench down to an acceptable level.
Yes, they all knew what Harvey was doing for decades, but here’s the big sin. They did nothing about it. This allowed him to rape and abuse women for years and blackmail women with threats to their careers to gain their silence. How many of these women could have been saved the humiliation if Mr. Weinstein’s practices had been exposed at the very beginning. At least Jane Fonda (and believe me, I’m not a fan) had the decency to admit that she was “ashamed” of her silence.
The saddest note of all is that this simply exposes the absolute depth of hypocrisy that exists in Washington and Hollywood. When will we learn that these people do not serve the public that pays their salaries through their taxes and box office support? They serve only themselves and their unquenchable thirst for power, money and an unlimited need for self-adulation.
There are two small things we can do. We can create a constitutional amendment that will limit the terms of our congressmen and women and we can stay home and play charades instead of going to the movies. We might actually get to know each other better.
Monday, October 2, 2017
NFL - Look to Vegas
NFL – Look to Vegas for Answers
The View from the Middle
Yesterday, I didn’t watch any NFL games, but I did hear some news reports about what was happening around the league. At the New Orleans Saints vs. Miami Dolphins game, the players knelt before the national anthem and stood with looked arms during it, taking a hint from the Dallas Cowboys. They announced that the players were standing because they love our country and had respect for out veterans and current armed forces personnel. While that was a step in the right direction, they left off a couple of other groups that they should honor - our police and first responders.
This morning, I woke up to the horror that occurred in Las Vegas last night. A mad man took an elevated position and sprayed bullets on an audience of over 20,000 people attending a country music festival, killing 58 and wounding over 500 innocents. It was chaos. People were running for their lives, but one concert attendee pointed out that there was one group that was running towards the gunfire, shielding civilians and giving badly needed direction to those who were fleeing. Who was that group – The POLICE, on and off duty.
It is easy to forget (at least for the NFL) the millions of heroic, compassionate and unselfish actions our police take for us all when we close our eyes to all of the good and focus only on the sliver of bad. Let me quote Abraham Lincoln again who said, “If you look for the bad in people, expecting to find it, you surely will.” The NFL can kneel in protest of the police, protected by whom? The Police! Black Lives Matter can march and chant, “What do we need? Dead cops! When do we need them? Now” protect by, guess who? The Police. Colin Kaepernick can wear socks with policemen depicted as pigs, and who protects him? The police. Marshawn Lynch can even wear an anti-Trump t-shirt (which totally misses the point of this protest) and he is protected by the police.
And while our police are getting verbally abused and literally spit on, they continue to protect us from ourselves. Last year 135 policemen and women were killed in the line of duty. 21 of those officers were ambushed or assassinated, which demonstrates planning and intent. These were no accidents. Note that this is five more than the number of unarmed black men who were killed by police in the same year.
The NFL is condemning an entire group of people for the sins and or mistakes of a tiny few. What do you call that? Oh yah, PREJUDICE! So the NFL is crying prejudice as they perform prejudice against all of our men and women in blue. Is that ironic, paradoxical or just plain stupid? You tell me.
The players in the NFL have driven the league down a dead end alley and now it is trying to scratch and claw its way out. Until they figure out how to express their love for this country and support for our soldiers and veterans and law enforcement officers and first responders, the players and the league will not win over the country to support their cause.
Let me give the NFL a solution. The players can kneel, lie down or stand on their heads before the national anthem, but they must tell the crowds that they are doing it to unite the country in the support of equal justice for all. Then they must stand for the anthem and announce that they are doing that to show love for our country and appreciation for our soldiers, veterans, policemen and women and first responders. THIS will shine a light on the issue and win the hearts of the fans, supporters and ticketholders.
The View from the Middle
Yesterday, I didn’t watch any NFL games, but I did hear some news reports about what was happening around the league. At the New Orleans Saints vs. Miami Dolphins game, the players knelt before the national anthem and stood with looked arms during it, taking a hint from the Dallas Cowboys. They announced that the players were standing because they love our country and had respect for out veterans and current armed forces personnel. While that was a step in the right direction, they left off a couple of other groups that they should honor - our police and first responders.
This morning, I woke up to the horror that occurred in Las Vegas last night. A mad man took an elevated position and sprayed bullets on an audience of over 20,000 people attending a country music festival, killing 58 and wounding over 500 innocents. It was chaos. People were running for their lives, but one concert attendee pointed out that there was one group that was running towards the gunfire, shielding civilians and giving badly needed direction to those who were fleeing. Who was that group – The POLICE, on and off duty.
It is easy to forget (at least for the NFL) the millions of heroic, compassionate and unselfish actions our police take for us all when we close our eyes to all of the good and focus only on the sliver of bad. Let me quote Abraham Lincoln again who said, “If you look for the bad in people, expecting to find it, you surely will.” The NFL can kneel in protest of the police, protected by whom? The Police! Black Lives Matter can march and chant, “What do we need? Dead cops! When do we need them? Now” protect by, guess who? The Police. Colin Kaepernick can wear socks with policemen depicted as pigs, and who protects him? The police. Marshawn Lynch can even wear an anti-Trump t-shirt (which totally misses the point of this protest) and he is protected by the police.
And while our police are getting verbally abused and literally spit on, they continue to protect us from ourselves. Last year 135 policemen and women were killed in the line of duty. 21 of those officers were ambushed or assassinated, which demonstrates planning and intent. These were no accidents. Note that this is five more than the number of unarmed black men who were killed by police in the same year.
The NFL is condemning an entire group of people for the sins and or mistakes of a tiny few. What do you call that? Oh yah, PREJUDICE! So the NFL is crying prejudice as they perform prejudice against all of our men and women in blue. Is that ironic, paradoxical or just plain stupid? You tell me.
The players in the NFL have driven the league down a dead end alley and now it is trying to scratch and claw its way out. Until they figure out how to express their love for this country and support for our soldiers and veterans and law enforcement officers and first responders, the players and the league will not win over the country to support their cause.
Let me give the NFL a solution. The players can kneel, lie down or stand on their heads before the national anthem, but they must tell the crowds that they are doing it to unite the country in the support of equal justice for all. Then they must stand for the anthem and announce that they are doing that to show love for our country and appreciation for our soldiers, veterans, policemen and women and first responders. THIS will shine a light on the issue and win the hearts of the fans, supporters and ticketholders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)