Ferguson and The Boston Tea Party the same - hardly

Yale Prof Compares Ferguson Looters to Boston Tea Party Patriots

 The View from the Middle

I was driving to my daughter’s house today, listening to the news on the radio when I heard a story from bizarro world.  It seems that Yale University allowed Black Lives Matter activist, DeRay McKesson, to be a guest lecturer, and compare the thug, arsonist looters in both Ferguson and Baltimore to the patriotic Sons of Liberty and their Boston Tea Party back in 1773.

Of course they had the left-leaning Julie Roginsky on to defend this wacko.  To her credit, she didn’t defend his premise, but argued that all sides need to be understood when studying any issue or situation.  After all, she read Mein Kampf when she was in college and that didn’t make her a Nazi sympathizer.

That’s true, Julie, but the most important thing that should be brought out by any teaher when trying to get young minds to understand an issue is – The Truth.  And the truth is that these events are as similar as night is to day.  Let me remind everyone of the real differences between these incidents.

First, The Sons of Liberty were focused on the tea.  They were protesting the 1773 Tea Act, which taxed the tea coming into America, and more broadly the concept of taxation without representation.  There was no damage to any of the three ships involved, in fact, The Sons of Liberty actually cleaned up the ships after the tea was deposited into the harbor.  They went to great lengths NOT to damage the ships or local businesses in their protest. 

By contrast, the rioters in Baltimore and Ferguson inflicted random, indiscriminate and massive damage.  In Baltimore alone there were 250 buildings damaged and over five times the damage as the Boston Tea Party in today’s dollars.  Maybe the worst atrocity is that many of the businesses destroyed in Baltimore and Ferguson were actually minority owned.

The second difference in these events is that the tea from the Boston Tea Party was not stolen or looted, but destroyed – tossed in the harbor.  In Baltimore and Ferguson theft and destruction was the goal.  We’ve all seen the videos of people walking out of stores with shopping carts or arms full of product.  Many have suggested that most, if not all, of these looters just took advantage of the situation to make a few bucks at the expense of others.  Hardly a noble cause.

Finally, the Sons of Liberty were lead by some of America’s most honorable and patriotic men like Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock and Paul Revere.  The only “leader” I can think of from either of these riots was Michael Brown’s stepfather (can you even remember his name?) as he stood on a car and yelled, “burn this bitch down.”  To compare the looting thugs of Ferguson and Baltimore to The Sons of Liberty is a manipulative deception of the highest (or lowest) order.

It saddens me that Yale University would allow this kind of distortion to be presented to their students as if it were truth.  I wish I could say that this sort of distortion is the exception, but unfortunately, it is the rule as left leaning academics put ideology ahead of truth.  And, whenever that happens we are all the losers.

A Review of the movie "The Martian" and more!!

The Martian – A Review and More

 The View from the Middle

Last night, my wife and I went to see the movie “The Martian”, and we were not disappointed.  This movie offered a very engaging story line and the cinematography was so well done that when my wife asked me where it was filmed, I jokingly said, “I think it was done on location.”  It made me feel like I was on Mars or in space, depending on the scene.  It was very well done and the acting was excellent as well.  In addition, there were a couple of great comments this film made about man (and when I say “man” I mean men and women) particularly in the US.

The first comment it made was about the resourcefulness of man.  As you might guess, when Mark Watney (played by Matt Damon) was stranded on Mars, there were a number of problems that he had to resolve or obstacles he had to overcome.  Once the people on earth figured out that Mark had been abandoned on Mars, NASA and the mission ship were faced with problems and issues of their own. 

As all of these obstacles were overcome it reminded me of how obstinately clever man can be.  When you combine our innate creativity with the hard work and study that virtually every character in the movie had obviously done, it allows us all to see the true potential of man.  Of course, I would add - a man created by God.

The second comment that this movie made in a big way was the value that we humans place on life.  The movie strands a single human on Mars, and much of the rest of the movie focuses on what we would do to get that single life back.  The movie suggests that we Americans would spend countless man-hours and literally millions if not billions of dollars in that effort. 

At one point I asked myself, “Is this believable?”  And, my answer was “yes”.  I could actually see our government making this kind of effort and spending this kind of money, and, more importantly, I could see the American People being behind it.  It made me proud to be an American human being that would place such a high value on life. 

Almost simultaneously, I became aware of the great dichotomy that exists in our culture today when it comes to valuing life.  We WOULD spend billions of dollars to save one life that desperately needed our help.  Our hearts yearn to act in this heroic and unselfish way.  Yet, while we can be this noble being in one second, we can be absolutely barbaric the next, allowing a partially born baby to be killed in the most brutal fashion as a matter of “choice”, not necessity. 

What have we done to our own consciences that would allow us to be this noble human in one second and a heartless, callous brute the next? My hope is that this movie might inspire that decent, principled side in all of us when valuing life in all the stages of its development. 

Finally, will someone please send a link to this article to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, and tell her that I will gladly buy her a ticket to see this movie. 

The Pope in front of Congress

El Papa in front of Congress, 

Thomas Merton-5, Jesus Christ-0

 The View from the Middle

This is a very difficult article for me to write.  I’ve just watched Pope Francis deliver his address to Congress and I’m watching the pundits slobbering all over themselves with glorious praise for his speech.  How can a person criticize a man who just talked about love, liberty and the importance of taking care of the poor? 

He may as well have come out in favor of mom, apple pie and the flag.  I guess he could have also come out in support of puppies.  Oh, and let’s throw the golden rule in there just for good measure.  One pundit did touch on the flaw in this speech, although it wasn’t positioned as a flaw.  She said the Pope offended no one except possibly ISIS and arms dealers.

And that is the problem I have with the Pope’s address.  He had the attention of the entire US Congress, the President, the Vice President and millions of Americans and he played it safe.  He spoke in vague generalities and on subjects that almost no one would disagree with when he could have challenged us to look deep inside ourselves and at the character of our nation.

About half way through his delivery my heart began to beat a little quicker when he said that we should protect human life during every stage of its development.  I thought to myself, here we go!  He’s going to segue into a discussion of partial birth abortion or Planned Parenthood’s barbaric practice of selling baby parts for profit.  I was truly excited.

But where did the Pope go?  To a global ban on the death penalty.  Don’t get me wrong, I have some real reservations about the death penalty.   Last year, however, only 35 people were put to death in the US penal system, and that number has been trending down since 1999 when we executed a total of 99 people.  This compares to over a million babies who are aborted every year in the United States and over 40 million worldwide.  

Pope Francis barely grazed on issues like abortion (that word was actually not mentioned), religious liberty and the traditional definition of marriage (I’m assuming that’s what he was addressing when he talked about marriage and family), but spent big chunks of his speech to talk about global warming and immigration.  Are these big issues?  Yes.  But does he risk becoming the Papal meteorologist instead of the Pope?  Should his goal be to make us feel comfortable or to challenge us to be better, or is it a little of both?  Today, he clearly erred on the comfort side.

Finally, as a Christian and former Catholic, I was disappointed that the Pope never mentioned the name of Jesus Christ either day.  Jesus separates us from all other religions and is the centerpiece of God’s plan to save the world.  He’s also a model for all of us to use if we want to be better people.  He mentioned Thomas Merton five times today.  God bless Thomas Merton, but he’s no Jesus Christ.

PS – The Pope did deliver a one liner about the importance of unity early in his address.  Personally, I think lack of unity and civility are huge problems in Washington, and this could be the closest thing to a controversy that that pundits could point to, if they even notice.

Ben Carson on a Muslim for President

Hassan Rouhani for President?

 The View from the Middle

Hassan Rouhani is the President of Iran, and obviously a real Muslim.  Could he be the President of The United States?  Sure, if he went through our rigorous vetting process called the primary and general elections and received enough votes.  The bigger question is “should” he or “would” you vote for him?

THAT is what Chuck Todd of NBC News asked of Ben Carson, and Mr. Carson answered honestly to those questions, which is a rarity in politics today.  I’m confident that Ben knows that a Muslim has a legal right to run for President.  He’s a pretty smart guy.  But he was specifically asked, “Should your faith matter to voters” and “Do you believe that Islam is consistent with our constitution”.  In effect, he was asking Carson if he would vote for a Muslim for President.  So, let me ask each of you if you would vote for a true Muslim for President.

Chuck Todd did not qualify his definition of Muslim to include Westernized Muslims who reject much of the Islamic doctrine, so Ben could only assume that Chuck was talking about a true Muslim.  So what does a true Muslim believe?

They believe that God is called Allah.  I don’t think that’s a big deal.  And they believe that Jesus was a prophet.  I think he was much more, but I don’t think that disqualifies them from holding office.  They do believe in the Quran, however, and that’s where the conflicts begin.

The Quran suggests that all non-Muslims and infidels must be converted or killed.  That doesn’t sound like it’s consistent with the first amendment of our Constitution, so let’s keep that in mind.  The Quran also encourages Muslims to lie to their enemies or infidels (we qualify as both) if it will help them overcome us.  In the United States, we take an oath on the Bible to tell the truth.  That’s a conflict!!

If you are a woman or gay in a Muslim country, things can get a pretty dicey.  Women must hide their faces in public.  In many countries they can’t drive a car or even walk on a public street without a male escort.  If you are gay, life is not even a given.  We’ve all seen videos of young gay men being thrown off rooftops to the concrete sidewalks below.  Talk about denying someone’s civil rights!

Finally, a Muslim believes that Sharia law should supersede the laws of our country, including our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  There are many conflicts with Sharia law and our constitution; for example, according to Sharia law if a person leaves the Muslim faith, the penalty is death.  Under Sharia, the penalty for stealing is to have your hands or feet cut off.  I think this might qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.  And under Sharia, women are held to a different and stricter rule of law than men.

So, the question is, would YOU vote for a true Muslim for President of the United States.  I commend Ben Carson for his thoughtful and truthful answer.  Now, I think THAT (being thoughtful and honest) is a good qualification for President of The United States.  Go Ben!!

El Papa Disappoints, So Far

El Papa Disappoints, So Far

 The View from the Middle

Don’t get me wrong.  I love Catholics.  Most of my family is Catholic, and I revere the office of the Pope.  But when the Pope gave his first speech in America with the President of the United States at his side, he had the opportunity to talk about a plethora of spiritual and religious issues.  And what did he open with – global warming?

I agree that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet, but global warming is a theory and an area where the Pope speaks with the least amount of authority.  Even if you agree with all those who suggest that man is the problem and New York will be under water by next week, wouldn’t the Pope have been better off talking about this issue with China and India?

There are huge issues in this country where the Pope has much more credibility and where I think he could make a big difference.  The United States, for example, still aborts over a million babies a year and some in a most barbaric fashion called partial birth abortion.  Given that the Pope is familiar with the bible passage that suggests that God knew us while we were still in our mother’s womb, he could have begun to address this issue immediately.  He could have and should have taken a stand to protect the voiceless unborn children of God, but he didn’t.

Religious liberty is under assault in the US.  The Little Sisters of the Poor and Notre Dame are being forced to provide abortifacients, which cause an abortion to occur, for the people who work for them.  Make no mistake; these are not your mother’s birth control pills.  They cause a fertilized egg to be rejected by the mother’s womb, which is contrary to the Catholic Church’s teachings.  El Papa could have brought that subject up in front of the President and millions of Americans watching on TV, but he chose to highlight global warming.

The Catholic Church believes in the traditional definition of marriage.  While no one would suggest that the gay community should be persecuted, the Church should be standing up for a traditional definition of marriage and for all who embrace it.  The Pope should stand with the bakers who serve gays everyday in their shops, but find that providing a wedding cake for them would cause them to abandon their religious beliefs.   This doesn’t violate the civil rights of that gay couple (a cake will be provided by someone else) but it upholds the religious liberty of the baker.  The Pope could have started that discussion or many, many more, but he didn’t.

El Papa has another big opportunity to stand up for Catholics and other Christians everywhere when he addresses Congress tomorrow.  If he only discusses global warming, the minimum wage and universal health care, I will consider this visit a bust.