A friend of mine and I organized a bipartisan group, 5 liberal and 5 conservatives, to discuss important issues and, more importantly, come up with read solutions on which we all could agree. Given today's crisis on our southern border I felt that it would be appropriate to share the highlights of our discussion and the solutions on which we all agreed. Enjoy.
Background:
We have a 2,000-mile border with Mexico, and about 700 miles of that distance is already protected by some kind of fence or wall. 65 countries around the world use fences or walls to protect their borders and there is significant evidence that these fences/walls are effective at reducing illegal entries. Also, the experts (border patrol agents) have been surveyed and they have asked for 200 to 300 miles of additional walls as part of their three-pronged plan to stem illegal immigration.
Pew research suggests that we have about 11 million illegal aliens in our country today. A Yale study estimated that number is somewhere between 16 million and 29 million. The number is irrelevant. Whether that number is 11 million or 29 million, there is no way we can round up that many people and return them to their countries of origin. It is logistically impossible and it would be a moral and economic catastrophe for our country. Most of these people are hard-working, law abiding people whom we want and need in this country, but illegal immigrants simply do not assimilate into our society as well as legal immigrants for a variety of reasons.
The United States will always be a magnet for people in Mexico and Central America. They crave the freedom, safety and prosperity that our country offers, and are willing to make the treacherous, life threatening trip across Mexico to get here. Our laws, like “catch and release” and our sanctuary cities only add power to that magnetism. While the flow of illegal immigration will rise and fall based on the economies of the countries on both sides of our border, DHS estimates that we will apprehend a million illegal immigrants in 2019. You can call this an emergency, a crisis or just a problem, but to suggest it is not an issue is disingenuous.
There are also some bad people who are crossing our southern border. Some are trafficking in drugs and some are human traffickers and some are just violent gang members like MS-13. While the United States is a very generous and welcoming country, we do not have an unlimited capacity to accommodate all the refugees and immigrants that would like to come here. Every new person puts pressure on our healthcare, academic and legal systems, so we need to do a better job of identifying any criminal element trying to enter.
Finally, our legal immigration system seems to be, at best, complicated and, at worst, broken. While we allow about a million immigrants a year into our country through our legal system, our natural population growth, or lack thereof, would suggest that we will need even more immigrants in the future to sustain our economic growth. Wait times will need to be shortened and the federal government will have to manage the number and type of immigrants allowed in more efficiently.
Solutions:
1. Secure the border:
a. Install additional walls/fencing consistent with the request of the experts (the border guards) in strategic locations. Our understanding is that should result in an additional 200-300 miles of barriers which will bring the total walls/fencing on the border to just under 1,000 miles.
b. The experts have also suggested more boots on the ground, or border agents to patrol the border. It is difficult to find data on what kind of increase the experts are suggesting, but we would recommend an increase in personnel consistent with their recommendations.
c. Virtually everyone is recommending an increase in technology to patrol the border. Cameras, sensors and drones can be very effective at identifying breaches and directing border patrol agents to areas where support is needed.
2. Once the border is secure, we can look to resolve the issue of the people who are already here illegally. That total number is comprised of two smaller groups:
a. There are about two million people in America who came with their parents when they were just minors. We know them as DACA kids now. Most of these “kids” know no other country than the US and are the most assimilated to the American culture. We recommend a path to citizenship for these individuals.
b. For the 11 to 29 million immigrants who came here as adults and knowingly broke our laws to do so, we recommend a path to legalization for two reasons. First, most of these people are law abiding, hard-working people who came here for a better life. Second, it would be logistically impractical if not impossible to return them to their countries of origin. Legalization would include every aspect of citizenship except for the right to vote. We might recommend a small fine for that privilege, but no attempt to collect back taxes as this would be difficult if not impossible to attain. The violent felons of this group should be returned to their countries of origin.
c. For both of these groups there should be a grace period for them to register and apply for these privileges. A year might be appropriate. After that grace period, anyone who has not registered for these programs would be eligible for deportation.
3. We would recommend the end of the “catch and release” policy. This would probably take legislation to accomplish, but the end of catch and release is highly popular amongst the American people.
4. We recommend a limitation to chain migration to members of the nuclear family only.
5. We recommend a strengthening of the E-Verify system to discourage employers from harboring cheap labor in violation of ours laws.
6. We would also recommend a streamlining of our legal immigration system so that citizenship could be achieved for qualified candidates within a year.
Benefits from these recommendations:
1. The improved border security would minimize illegal entries and increase the country’s ability to accommodate a higher number of legal immigrants and refugees.
2. The path to citizenship and legalization for our existing undocumented aliens would allow these new citizens and legal residents to participate fully in American life, including the privilege of paying taxes.
3. Bringing all of these people out of the shadows would improve the likelihood of assimilation into the American culture, values and system of governance.
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Bob Mueller - Just James Comey All Over Again
Bob Mueller – James Comey All Over Again
The View from the Middle
Does anyone remember what an absolute disaster the Comey press conference was back in July of 2016. Let me remind you. This was the press conference where James Comey spent about 15 minutes on national TV publicly flogging and then, for all intents and purposes, indicting Hillary Clinton before suggesting that no reasonable prosecutor would every actually indict her. Afterwards he was soundly criticized by both sides of the political spectrum, and for good reason.
First, Comey demonstrated that he had no idea what his job was. His job was to investigate (he was the head of the FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation) and then pass his findings to the Justice Department, who would then decide whether to indict Ms. Clinton or not. He was so out of line with his press conference that the Inspector General found him guilty of insubordination. Certainly, that is grounds for termination.
But what is worse is that Comey showed a complete ignorance of the law. He suggested that since Hillary Clinton didn’t “intend” to break the law then she could not be indicted. There are at least two problems with this line of thinking. First, Hillary had smashed her communications devices with sledge hammers and then destroyed, using BleachBit, over 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Now, if that doesn’t prove an intent to conceal and or destroy evidence, I don’t know what does.
The second problem with his “intent” argument is that “intent” is not even a requirement of the statute that Hillary was accused of violating. Comey just made it up. So, what we found as a result of Comey’s now famous press conference is that James Comey didn’t understand the requirements and limitations of his own job AND he either didn’t understand the law or intentionally ignored it. No wonder everyone wanted him fired. And then along comes Robert Mueller.
It quickly becomes apparent that Comey and Mueller went to the same law school, probably an on-line degree from the University of Somalia, because neither seems to have a grasp of the law or their jobs. Yesterday, Mueller bumbled and stumbled through about an eight-minute prepared speech that made him look like he was guilty of something. In his press conference, he suggested that a memorandum written in 1973 stated that a sitting President “cannot be indicted”. That is NOT what the memorandum stated. It, in effect, suggested that a sitting President SHOULD NOT be indicted as it would interfere with the execution of his or her responsibilities. Also, this is not a law, but a legal opinion, which could be challenged.
His job was to find out if a crime had been committed, and he didn’t find one. Even if you apply the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, that would not prohibit Mueller from finding Trump guilty of conspiracy or of obstruction of justice. Ken Starr used the word “guilty” eleven times in his report on Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton eventually pleaded guilty to misleading testimony and had his license to practice law in Arkansas suspended for five years. He also paid a $25,000 fine. Mueller could have done the same thing to Donald Trump, but he didn’t. Not because he was confined by the OLC policy, but because he couldn’t make the claim.
Mueller has another problem with his assertion that the OLC rule prevented him from indicting Trump. He denied that was the cause for his decision in front of at least two people, Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, hardly a Trump fan. If he would make the same statement in front of Congress that he made today, he could very well be facing perjury charges of his own. How poetic would that be?
Finally, Bob Mueller doesn’t seem to understand the basic principle on which our entire judicial system is based. In the US, our citizens are assumed innocent until they are proven guilty of something. It’s called “the presumption of innocence”. Mueller said that he couldn’t prove that Trump was innocent. Bob, you don’t have to do that. That was not your job. While Trump is not above the law, he is not below it either. He is presumed innocent. Mueller didn‘t have to prove it.
The country is tired of the investigative rut the Democrats are stuck in. In the latest Quinnipiac poll 66% of Americans do not favor impeaching Trump, while only 29% do, and that 29% is heavily skewed towards Democrats. Interestingly, however, in a recent CNN poll almost 70% of Americans want to investigate the origins of the Russia probe. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I predict that when Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General, is done with the likes of Comey, Brennan and Clapper, the Democrats will be focusing on damage control instead of investigations.
The View from the Middle
Does anyone remember what an absolute disaster the Comey press conference was back in July of 2016. Let me remind you. This was the press conference where James Comey spent about 15 minutes on national TV publicly flogging and then, for all intents and purposes, indicting Hillary Clinton before suggesting that no reasonable prosecutor would every actually indict her. Afterwards he was soundly criticized by both sides of the political spectrum, and for good reason.
First, Comey demonstrated that he had no idea what his job was. His job was to investigate (he was the head of the FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation) and then pass his findings to the Justice Department, who would then decide whether to indict Ms. Clinton or not. He was so out of line with his press conference that the Inspector General found him guilty of insubordination. Certainly, that is grounds for termination.
But what is worse is that Comey showed a complete ignorance of the law. He suggested that since Hillary Clinton didn’t “intend” to break the law then she could not be indicted. There are at least two problems with this line of thinking. First, Hillary had smashed her communications devices with sledge hammers and then destroyed, using BleachBit, over 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Now, if that doesn’t prove an intent to conceal and or destroy evidence, I don’t know what does.
The second problem with his “intent” argument is that “intent” is not even a requirement of the statute that Hillary was accused of violating. Comey just made it up. So, what we found as a result of Comey’s now famous press conference is that James Comey didn’t understand the requirements and limitations of his own job AND he either didn’t understand the law or intentionally ignored it. No wonder everyone wanted him fired. And then along comes Robert Mueller.
It quickly becomes apparent that Comey and Mueller went to the same law school, probably an on-line degree from the University of Somalia, because neither seems to have a grasp of the law or their jobs. Yesterday, Mueller bumbled and stumbled through about an eight-minute prepared speech that made him look like he was guilty of something. In his press conference, he suggested that a memorandum written in 1973 stated that a sitting President “cannot be indicted”. That is NOT what the memorandum stated. It, in effect, suggested that a sitting President SHOULD NOT be indicted as it would interfere with the execution of his or her responsibilities. Also, this is not a law, but a legal opinion, which could be challenged.
His job was to find out if a crime had been committed, and he didn’t find one. Even if you apply the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, that would not prohibit Mueller from finding Trump guilty of conspiracy or of obstruction of justice. Ken Starr used the word “guilty” eleven times in his report on Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton eventually pleaded guilty to misleading testimony and had his license to practice law in Arkansas suspended for five years. He also paid a $25,000 fine. Mueller could have done the same thing to Donald Trump, but he didn’t. Not because he was confined by the OLC policy, but because he couldn’t make the claim.
Mueller has another problem with his assertion that the OLC rule prevented him from indicting Trump. He denied that was the cause for his decision in front of at least two people, Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, hardly a Trump fan. If he would make the same statement in front of Congress that he made today, he could very well be facing perjury charges of his own. How poetic would that be?
Finally, Bob Mueller doesn’t seem to understand the basic principle on which our entire judicial system is based. In the US, our citizens are assumed innocent until they are proven guilty of something. It’s called “the presumption of innocence”. Mueller said that he couldn’t prove that Trump was innocent. Bob, you don’t have to do that. That was not your job. While Trump is not above the law, he is not below it either. He is presumed innocent. Mueller didn‘t have to prove it.
The country is tired of the investigative rut the Democrats are stuck in. In the latest Quinnipiac poll 66% of Americans do not favor impeaching Trump, while only 29% do, and that 29% is heavily skewed towards Democrats. Interestingly, however, in a recent CNN poll almost 70% of Americans want to investigate the origins of the Russia probe. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I predict that when Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General, is done with the likes of Comey, Brennan and Clapper, the Democrats will be focusing on damage control instead of investigations.
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Trump's Terrible Tax Returns
Trump’s Terrible Tax Returns
The View from the Middle
Dear reader, brace yourself because I am going to blow the lid off of the Trump tax return debate. I know who has Trump’s tax returns, all of them, and I’m going to tell you who that is. While my revelation may shock members of Congress, I don’t think it will surprise any of you. After a quick “duh” moment you will realize the folly and duplicitous nature of this whole non-issue. OK, are you ready? Here is who has all of Donald Trump’s tax returns – The IRS.
I’m sure the IRS has a team devoted to combing through Donald Trump’s tax returns to make sure he has followed the law and not done anything illegal in his business practices or in his filings. This is their job and they do not have a reputation for being lax in their duties. They are insuring that everything that Donald Trump does is within the law. And they do the same thing for all of us. If you asked me who I think would do a better job of evaluating Donald Trump’s tax returns, The IRS or Maxine Waters, I am going to say with absolute confidence that the IRS would is better equipped for that job. If Congress doesn’t like some of the deductions that Trump is taking advantage of, just change the law. They are the ones who created these loopholes in the first place.
So, if the IRS is going to determine if Trump did anything illegal, and if they will be able to do that much better than Congress, why does Congress want him to release his returns publicly? It’s simple. They want to root around through his complicated and, I’m sure, lengthy tax returns to find anything that might be embarrassing to him.
Now, for perspective, even my tax returns can be 40 or 50 pages long, depending on the year. You can imagine how long Donald Trump’s returns are. When the press and the anti-Trump coalition get the opportunity to rummage around through his tax returns, I’m sure they will be able to find something that they can twist into an embarrassment. They will not, however, find anything illegal. That is the job of the IRS. Congress and the press just want a free fishing expedition through Trump’s returns, and we all, down deep, know that is the case.
Some people will suggest that Trump is not above the law, and they would be correct. But, I’m certain that the majority of Americans will also agree that Trump is not BELOW the law. Anyone who runs for President is required to submit a financial disclosure to ascertain if he or she has any conflicts of interest. Donald Trump has done that. There is no law that requires a presidential candidate to release his or her tax returns. That is just a fact.
Now, there may be political ramifications for NOT releasing his tax returns, but this already played out in the 2016 election. Obviously, many people cared more about Trump’s potential policies than the fact that he didn’t release his taxes. That political equation could change for 2020, but I’m guessing it won’t. I’m also guessing the Trump will not, EVER, release his returns publicly. That is his prerogative. He is still a citizen of the United States with rights to privacy that we ALL have. If he can be forced to release his taxes, then any of us can be forced to do the same. Remember, any right you want to take away from Trump you must be willing to give up yourself.
The View from the Middle
Dear reader, brace yourself because I am going to blow the lid off of the Trump tax return debate. I know who has Trump’s tax returns, all of them, and I’m going to tell you who that is. While my revelation may shock members of Congress, I don’t think it will surprise any of you. After a quick “duh” moment you will realize the folly and duplicitous nature of this whole non-issue. OK, are you ready? Here is who has all of Donald Trump’s tax returns – The IRS.
I’m sure the IRS has a team devoted to combing through Donald Trump’s tax returns to make sure he has followed the law and not done anything illegal in his business practices or in his filings. This is their job and they do not have a reputation for being lax in their duties. They are insuring that everything that Donald Trump does is within the law. And they do the same thing for all of us. If you asked me who I think would do a better job of evaluating Donald Trump’s tax returns, The IRS or Maxine Waters, I am going to say with absolute confidence that the IRS would is better equipped for that job. If Congress doesn’t like some of the deductions that Trump is taking advantage of, just change the law. They are the ones who created these loopholes in the first place.
So, if the IRS is going to determine if Trump did anything illegal, and if they will be able to do that much better than Congress, why does Congress want him to release his returns publicly? It’s simple. They want to root around through his complicated and, I’m sure, lengthy tax returns to find anything that might be embarrassing to him.
Now, for perspective, even my tax returns can be 40 or 50 pages long, depending on the year. You can imagine how long Donald Trump’s returns are. When the press and the anti-Trump coalition get the opportunity to rummage around through his tax returns, I’m sure they will be able to find something that they can twist into an embarrassment. They will not, however, find anything illegal. That is the job of the IRS. Congress and the press just want a free fishing expedition through Trump’s returns, and we all, down deep, know that is the case.
Some people will suggest that Trump is not above the law, and they would be correct. But, I’m certain that the majority of Americans will also agree that Trump is not BELOW the law. Anyone who runs for President is required to submit a financial disclosure to ascertain if he or she has any conflicts of interest. Donald Trump has done that. There is no law that requires a presidential candidate to release his or her tax returns. That is just a fact.
Now, there may be political ramifications for NOT releasing his tax returns, but this already played out in the 2016 election. Obviously, many people cared more about Trump’s potential policies than the fact that he didn’t release his taxes. That political equation could change for 2020, but I’m guessing it won’t. I’m also guessing the Trump will not, EVER, release his returns publicly. That is his prerogative. He is still a citizen of the United States with rights to privacy that we ALL have. If he can be forced to release his taxes, then any of us can be forced to do the same. Remember, any right you want to take away from Trump you must be willing to give up yourself.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Double Vision on Racism
Double Vision on Racism – It’s What We Need!
The View from the Middle
Edmund Burke, British philosopher and politician, was the first person to suggest that, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” The wisdom in this quote rings so true that it may be the most repeated axioms of all time used by Winston Churchill and probably every President from Washington to Obama. OK, Trump has probably also used it at some point in his 72 years on earth.
I am also a huge believer in the idea expressed in that quote. It is important for all of us to not only know but to understand the ramifications of what many people consider America’s original sin, slavery. I believe that this is the greatest country in the world with the brightest future, but we must have a double vision on race if we are going to move forward together. The first part of that double vision is understanding the past.
You could argue that slavery began in the United States, before it actually was The United States, in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. In the first 100 years, however, it was not a massive practice. It wasn’t until 1726 that the floodgates began to burst open. In the next 100 years, from 1726 through 1825, almost 300 thousand slaves were brought here from Africa or about 97% of all the trafficking done in the history of this country. Of course, the people who were brought here had children, and by 1860 there were almost four million people living in slavery in the United States.
Abraham Lincoln officially ended slavery in America in 1863, over 150 years ago. That means that millions of African American families experienced brutal treatment for almost that same length of time. From 1726 to 1863 many slave owners did two things that would impact these people for years to come. They systematically and intentionally broke up families, selling husbands away from wives and children away from their parents. They also, for the most part, denied them an education. The purpose of this two-fold strategy was to make them more dependent on their owners and thus less likely to seek freedom and independence.
And while the next 100 years (1863 to 1964 and the civil rights act) were better, and continually improved, they were plagued by prejudice, violence and Jim Crow. All of us must not only educate ourselves on this history, but we must understand the impact that it had on many of our African American citizens even today. The destruction of the family and denial of education have been huge obstacles for these families to overcome even today, but much progress has been made.
In 1870 we finally elected the first two African American members of Congress in Senator Hiram Revels and Representative Joseph Rainey. Today we have 55 Black Senators and Representatives (over 10% of the total of 535) and we have finally experienced our first two African American Attorneys General in Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. Under George W. Bush we had our first two Black Secretaries of State appointed in Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and, of course, in 2008 we elected our first Black President, Barack Obama. I actually lived through the 1950’s and 60’s and can personally testify that, while things aren’t perfect, relations are better today and are improving.
This is where the “double vision” comes in. While we need to know and understand our history, we need to focus on the future. What needs to happen for our progress to continue? Nature will have a huge influence. As Oprah Winfrey suggested back in 2013, there are people who were born into and marinated in racism, “and they just need to die”. Now, while that was inartfully expressed, she is right. It’s not that they “have” to die, like we need to go out and kill certain people, they just “will” die. This is true for offenders AND for the victims. Each new generation will be less affected by the history of racism. Just watch our young children, let’s say under 10 years old, interact with each other. There is almost a total ignorance of race, and that’s a good thing.
And while nature will provide a corrective influence, we shouldn’t stop there. We, as a society should address the two most important elements that can truly help level the playing field for the Black community, and that is “family” and “education”. According to the most recently available census data, 62% of Black families are led by a single parent, while that is true for only 26% of white families. Certainly, our government should incent families to stay together with every program they put in place. Currently our welfare and criminal justice systems do the opposite, and we need to change them.
Next, Black leaders need to send the message to young Black men and women that family stability is a key to success in this or any country. While I’m not a big fan of Louis Farrakhan, he has one good message that he continues to send to his followers – fathers, stay with your wives and children. We need more legitimate Black leaders to echo that message to their youth. Actually, this is a good message for young people of every race.
Finally, I believe that education is the great equalizer in our country today, and we need to do more than just tell our young people how important it is. We need to enable parents and students to get the best education they can. I was lucky enough to be able to send my children to private schools from grade school on, and our members of Congress are over four times more likely to send their children to private schools than the general public. I would like every family to have the same choices I had and that our politicians have.
Our government spends about $12,000 per student per year for their public school educations. Right now, that money goes, in effect, to buildings. I would suggest that we give that money to parents and allow them to spend it as they wish to send their children to whatever school they choose. They could pick whatever public school they want which would make those school compete for their students instead of the geographic guarantee they have now. Or, parents could choose a private school, and $12,000 might get these students into many private schools today. With a little assistance it could get them into virtually all of them. This is not the complete answer for every family, but it would liberate many from the failing, monopolistic system they are forced into today.
My point is, while we need to understand our history, progress can only be made in a future that we approach with purpose and collaboration. But no one gets a free ticket to this future. There are responsibilities on both sides of the fence. We need action, not rhetoric. We need cooperation, not finger pointing, and we need the hearts of our founders and not the soulless character of our current political environment. But if we can deliver the work and the cooperation and the heart, oh what a great country our children will inherit.
The View from the Middle
Edmund Burke, British philosopher and politician, was the first person to suggest that, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” The wisdom in this quote rings so true that it may be the most repeated axioms of all time used by Winston Churchill and probably every President from Washington to Obama. OK, Trump has probably also used it at some point in his 72 years on earth.
I am also a huge believer in the idea expressed in that quote. It is important for all of us to not only know but to understand the ramifications of what many people consider America’s original sin, slavery. I believe that this is the greatest country in the world with the brightest future, but we must have a double vision on race if we are going to move forward together. The first part of that double vision is understanding the past.
You could argue that slavery began in the United States, before it actually was The United States, in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. In the first 100 years, however, it was not a massive practice. It wasn’t until 1726 that the floodgates began to burst open. In the next 100 years, from 1726 through 1825, almost 300 thousand slaves were brought here from Africa or about 97% of all the trafficking done in the history of this country. Of course, the people who were brought here had children, and by 1860 there were almost four million people living in slavery in the United States.
Abraham Lincoln officially ended slavery in America in 1863, over 150 years ago. That means that millions of African American families experienced brutal treatment for almost that same length of time. From 1726 to 1863 many slave owners did two things that would impact these people for years to come. They systematically and intentionally broke up families, selling husbands away from wives and children away from their parents. They also, for the most part, denied them an education. The purpose of this two-fold strategy was to make them more dependent on their owners and thus less likely to seek freedom and independence.
And while the next 100 years (1863 to 1964 and the civil rights act) were better, and continually improved, they were plagued by prejudice, violence and Jim Crow. All of us must not only educate ourselves on this history, but we must understand the impact that it had on many of our African American citizens even today. The destruction of the family and denial of education have been huge obstacles for these families to overcome even today, but much progress has been made.
In 1870 we finally elected the first two African American members of Congress in Senator Hiram Revels and Representative Joseph Rainey. Today we have 55 Black Senators and Representatives (over 10% of the total of 535) and we have finally experienced our first two African American Attorneys General in Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. Under George W. Bush we had our first two Black Secretaries of State appointed in Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and, of course, in 2008 we elected our first Black President, Barack Obama. I actually lived through the 1950’s and 60’s and can personally testify that, while things aren’t perfect, relations are better today and are improving.
This is where the “double vision” comes in. While we need to know and understand our history, we need to focus on the future. What needs to happen for our progress to continue? Nature will have a huge influence. As Oprah Winfrey suggested back in 2013, there are people who were born into and marinated in racism, “and they just need to die”. Now, while that was inartfully expressed, she is right. It’s not that they “have” to die, like we need to go out and kill certain people, they just “will” die. This is true for offenders AND for the victims. Each new generation will be less affected by the history of racism. Just watch our young children, let’s say under 10 years old, interact with each other. There is almost a total ignorance of race, and that’s a good thing.
And while nature will provide a corrective influence, we shouldn’t stop there. We, as a society should address the two most important elements that can truly help level the playing field for the Black community, and that is “family” and “education”. According to the most recently available census data, 62% of Black families are led by a single parent, while that is true for only 26% of white families. Certainly, our government should incent families to stay together with every program they put in place. Currently our welfare and criminal justice systems do the opposite, and we need to change them.
Next, Black leaders need to send the message to young Black men and women that family stability is a key to success in this or any country. While I’m not a big fan of Louis Farrakhan, he has one good message that he continues to send to his followers – fathers, stay with your wives and children. We need more legitimate Black leaders to echo that message to their youth. Actually, this is a good message for young people of every race.
Finally, I believe that education is the great equalizer in our country today, and we need to do more than just tell our young people how important it is. We need to enable parents and students to get the best education they can. I was lucky enough to be able to send my children to private schools from grade school on, and our members of Congress are over four times more likely to send their children to private schools than the general public. I would like every family to have the same choices I had and that our politicians have.
Our government spends about $12,000 per student per year for their public school educations. Right now, that money goes, in effect, to buildings. I would suggest that we give that money to parents and allow them to spend it as they wish to send their children to whatever school they choose. They could pick whatever public school they want which would make those school compete for their students instead of the geographic guarantee they have now. Or, parents could choose a private school, and $12,000 might get these students into many private schools today. With a little assistance it could get them into virtually all of them. This is not the complete answer for every family, but it would liberate many from the failing, monopolistic system they are forced into today.
My point is, while we need to understand our history, progress can only be made in a future that we approach with purpose and collaboration. But no one gets a free ticket to this future. There are responsibilities on both sides of the fence. We need action, not rhetoric. We need cooperation, not finger pointing, and we need the hearts of our founders and not the soulless character of our current political environment. But if we can deliver the work and the cooperation and the heart, oh what a great country our children will inherit.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Creation
Creation
The View from the Middle
To my faithful readers, I have been in Hawaii for the last eight days and have thus been negligent in my writing. I will be home soon and back to the political grind, but as I sit here on our balcony and enjoy the view of the mountains on Maui and the ocean surrounding us and the birds and the beautiful vegetation, it reminded me of a theme that is made clear throughout the bible. It is impossible to view creation and not recognize the Creator.
Psalms 19:1
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
God bless you all. Enjoy his creation. Read His word.
Kevin C
The View from the Middle
To my faithful readers, I have been in Hawaii for the last eight days and have thus been negligent in my writing. I will be home soon and back to the political grind, but as I sit here on our balcony and enjoy the view of the mountains on Maui and the ocean surrounding us and the birds and the beautiful vegetation, it reminded me of a theme that is made clear throughout the bible. It is impossible to view creation and not recognize the Creator.
Psalms 19:1
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
God bless you all. Enjoy his creation. Read His word.
Kevin C
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Candace Owens, Nazi Sympathizer?
Is Candace Owens Really a Nazi Sympathizer?
The View from the Middle
Is there any possibility for compromise in our government today? Are our elected officials in Washington even capable of coming up with solutions to the many problems facing our country? If you are skeptical about our politicians' ability to come together, you’re not alone. According to KRC Research, 70% of Americans believe that our representatives in government lack the basic civility to collaborate on just about anything. And it’s not just the differences in policies or direction that keep us apart, it’s the fact that we have begun to impugn the motives of everyone who disagrees with us i.e. – “if you disagree with me on the abortion issue, you must hate women”. If you disagree with me on the balance between private/public education, you must hate children.” Where did all this malicious, disparaging vitriol come from? I believe it started with a reprobate named Saul Alinsky, who wrote a book called Rules for Radicals, and dedicated it to Satan, yes Lucifer, Beelzebub.
Saul’s fourth rule for radicals is, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” He continued, “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” He doesn’t, even for a minute, suggest that this is good for the country or that it will unite us toward achieving some higher, common purpose. In fact, he implies that it will do just the opposite. But, of course, unity was never his goal. He was a “win at all costs” guy, and could have cared less if the country thrived or not, as long as his side was in power. He even admitted in his book that he had no idea how to run things, he only professed to know how to acquire power.
According to Ellis Washington, Constitutional professor and author, “truth was not only relative (to Saul Alinsky), it was irrelevant” Saul admitted in his book that, “an organizer does not have a fixed truth…truth to him is relative and changing.” It is his dedication to disparagement (ridicule) and his tepid relationship with the truth that makes Saul Alinsky such a dangerous and even destructive influence on anything he touched. Unfortunately, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were protégés of Alinsky, and it appears that many in the Democrat party and the mainstream media are disciples.
Again, it is this willingness to ignore the truth and the overwhelming desire to demean opponents that led to the absolutely absurd suggestion by Democratic Representative from California, Ted Lieu, that Candace Owens, a brilliant, young, black woman and political activist, was a Nazi sympathizer. He did this in a House Judiciary hearing on online hate speech. What’s even worse is that, after playing a tape of Ms. Owens out of context, he didn’t even have the decency to ask her a question or allow her to respond. He was actually using hate speech in a hearing to contain hate speech. If you ask me, that was devious, disgusting, cowardly and hateful.
We, as Americans, must demand more and better from our politicians and the media. Whether it is calling tens of millions of Americans racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic or the constant comparison of Donald Trump to Hitler, they have become totally irresponsible. The word “hyperbole” is inadequate to describe the duplicity of these accusations. Do they even know who Adolf Hitler was? Read a book for goodness sakes.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.” The opposite is also true. We’ll never come together as a people and resolve our critical common problems until we start looking for the good in each other, expecting to find it. Reject the hyperbolic accusations and name-calling and demand cooperation, consensus and progress. That will insure our country’s position as the greatest country in the world for all of us and for our children’s children!!
The View from the Middle
Is there any possibility for compromise in our government today? Are our elected officials in Washington even capable of coming up with solutions to the many problems facing our country? If you are skeptical about our politicians' ability to come together, you’re not alone. According to KRC Research, 70% of Americans believe that our representatives in government lack the basic civility to collaborate on just about anything. And it’s not just the differences in policies or direction that keep us apart, it’s the fact that we have begun to impugn the motives of everyone who disagrees with us i.e. – “if you disagree with me on the abortion issue, you must hate women”. If you disagree with me on the balance between private/public education, you must hate children.” Where did all this malicious, disparaging vitriol come from? I believe it started with a reprobate named Saul Alinsky, who wrote a book called Rules for Radicals, and dedicated it to Satan, yes Lucifer, Beelzebub.
Saul’s fourth rule for radicals is, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” He continued, “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” He doesn’t, even for a minute, suggest that this is good for the country or that it will unite us toward achieving some higher, common purpose. In fact, he implies that it will do just the opposite. But, of course, unity was never his goal. He was a “win at all costs” guy, and could have cared less if the country thrived or not, as long as his side was in power. He even admitted in his book that he had no idea how to run things, he only professed to know how to acquire power.
According to Ellis Washington, Constitutional professor and author, “truth was not only relative (to Saul Alinsky), it was irrelevant” Saul admitted in his book that, “an organizer does not have a fixed truth…truth to him is relative and changing.” It is his dedication to disparagement (ridicule) and his tepid relationship with the truth that makes Saul Alinsky such a dangerous and even destructive influence on anything he touched. Unfortunately, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were protégés of Alinsky, and it appears that many in the Democrat party and the mainstream media are disciples.
Again, it is this willingness to ignore the truth and the overwhelming desire to demean opponents that led to the absolutely absurd suggestion by Democratic Representative from California, Ted Lieu, that Candace Owens, a brilliant, young, black woman and political activist, was a Nazi sympathizer. He did this in a House Judiciary hearing on online hate speech. What’s even worse is that, after playing a tape of Ms. Owens out of context, he didn’t even have the decency to ask her a question or allow her to respond. He was actually using hate speech in a hearing to contain hate speech. If you ask me, that was devious, disgusting, cowardly and hateful.
We, as Americans, must demand more and better from our politicians and the media. Whether it is calling tens of millions of Americans racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic or the constant comparison of Donald Trump to Hitler, they have become totally irresponsible. The word “hyperbole” is inadequate to describe the duplicity of these accusations. Do they even know who Adolf Hitler was? Read a book for goodness sakes.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.” The opposite is also true. We’ll never come together as a people and resolve our critical common problems until we start looking for the good in each other, expecting to find it. Reject the hyperbolic accusations and name-calling and demand cooperation, consensus and progress. That will insure our country’s position as the greatest country in the world for all of us and for our children’s children!!
Thursday, March 21, 2019
The Old Bait and Switch
The Old Bait and Switch
The View from the Middle
During the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats focused primarily on two issues – Health Care and Immigration. While I don’t support Medicare for all (it would actually be more like Medicaid for all), I was looking forward to a debate that might actually address the issues of access and spiral costs within our current Health Care system. When it came to immigration, I actually had hope that we might be able to work together to fix an issue that we have allowed to fester for over 30 years now. But now that the Democrats have taken over the House of representatives and Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker, what have they been focused on? Investigations, eliminating the Electoral College, dramatically changing the Supreme Court and changing the voting age to 16. Where did all this come from? Was this their true agenda? Let’s take a look at all of these topics to see if this is a worthwhile agenda.
As far as the investigations are concerned, I thought the Mueller Special Counsel report was going to shine the brightest of lights on the Trump administration’s sins before and after the election. Now that it appears that Mueller will not indict the President for collusion (which isn’t even a crime anyway) or obstruction of justice, Democrats promise a two year long political, economic and moral colonoscopy on the President to ensure that he is as distracted as possible and gets nothing accomplished for the American people. This may be a good strategy for the 2020 elections (or maybe not) but it certainly in not in the best interest of the country and hardly a campaign promise.
Isn’t it just a little ironic, also, that the party that was concerned that Trump might not accept the results of the 2016 elections now wants to change the rules of the game to gain an advantage by eliminating the Electoral College, even if it violates the very principles of fairness built into the Constitution. The framers feared “the tyranny of the majority” and thus created a bicameral legislature and the Electoral College to give power to all states, not just the behemoth population centers.
Alexander Hamilton may have expressed it best in his Federalist paper #68. Hamilton suggested that each state offered value to the union beyond just the bodies within their borders. Farming states like Indiana and Iowa have different issues and maybe even different values than populace states like New York and California. Mining states like West Virginia and Colorado face different challenges than the heavily populated states. The Senate and the Electoral College were designed to give all of the original 13 states a voice so that states like Georgia, Delaware and Rhode Island wouldn’t be absolutely dominated by states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Today, we don’t want New York and California to control the 47 states in between them (and Alaska too, of course). We don’t want the city slickers in New York and Los Angeles to be controlling the lives of the farmers and minors in fly-over country. Our President must govern all the people and all the states and the Electoral College insures that he or she must understand and address all of their concerns.
Donald Trump has already named two justices to The Supreme Court that will probably influence the court for 30 or 40 years and Democrats pray nightly for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health. They are also still smarting from the Republican’s rejection of Merrick Garland (and I can understand their frustration there). But their answer to their fear and anguish is to change the rules of the game and completely overhaul a process that has been in place for 150 years. I’m willing to have this discussion, but this not a plank in their platform in 2016 or in 2018. This whole debate is a distraction at best. Get back to the things you focused on during the election.
Finally, the Democrats are pressing to move the voting age down to 16. In my opinion this is a blatant and self-serving attempt to include a group of people who they think will support their emotionally driven platform. Winston Churchill famously said, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart, (but) if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.” When we are young, before we have had to wrestle with the corruption, ineptitude and complexity of government, our vote is dominated by emotion. We can be lured in by images of a utopian world, which will never exist, and by promises that will never be fulfilled. Later in life our positions are tempered by real world experience.
I could just as easily make the case that our military and law-enforcement men and women should get two votes each election. After all, they put their lives on the line every day and deserve a bit more say on how our country is governed. You would tell me that this would be a self-serving idea from conservatives, and you would be right. Hopefully we can all see the same motivation behind the move to a 16-year-old voter.
The bad news in all of this for the American people is that the Democrat Party is not addressing the real needs of the country (healthcare, immigration, the economy), and I really hope they change direction. The good news is that all of these ideas (other than the investigations) will take amendments to the constitution which as arduous process that requires two thirds (67%) vote in both houses of Congress and three fourths (75%) of the state legislatures. Since all of this is so unlikely, why not focus on the things that actually can actually happen and move the country ahead? Anyone?
The View from the Middle
During the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats focused primarily on two issues – Health Care and Immigration. While I don’t support Medicare for all (it would actually be more like Medicaid for all), I was looking forward to a debate that might actually address the issues of access and spiral costs within our current Health Care system. When it came to immigration, I actually had hope that we might be able to work together to fix an issue that we have allowed to fester for over 30 years now. But now that the Democrats have taken over the House of representatives and Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker, what have they been focused on? Investigations, eliminating the Electoral College, dramatically changing the Supreme Court and changing the voting age to 16. Where did all this come from? Was this their true agenda? Let’s take a look at all of these topics to see if this is a worthwhile agenda.
As far as the investigations are concerned, I thought the Mueller Special Counsel report was going to shine the brightest of lights on the Trump administration’s sins before and after the election. Now that it appears that Mueller will not indict the President for collusion (which isn’t even a crime anyway) or obstruction of justice, Democrats promise a two year long political, economic and moral colonoscopy on the President to ensure that he is as distracted as possible and gets nothing accomplished for the American people. This may be a good strategy for the 2020 elections (or maybe not) but it certainly in not in the best interest of the country and hardly a campaign promise.
Isn’t it just a little ironic, also, that the party that was concerned that Trump might not accept the results of the 2016 elections now wants to change the rules of the game to gain an advantage by eliminating the Electoral College, even if it violates the very principles of fairness built into the Constitution. The framers feared “the tyranny of the majority” and thus created a bicameral legislature and the Electoral College to give power to all states, not just the behemoth population centers.
Alexander Hamilton may have expressed it best in his Federalist paper #68. Hamilton suggested that each state offered value to the union beyond just the bodies within their borders. Farming states like Indiana and Iowa have different issues and maybe even different values than populace states like New York and California. Mining states like West Virginia and Colorado face different challenges than the heavily populated states. The Senate and the Electoral College were designed to give all of the original 13 states a voice so that states like Georgia, Delaware and Rhode Island wouldn’t be absolutely dominated by states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Today, we don’t want New York and California to control the 47 states in between them (and Alaska too, of course). We don’t want the city slickers in New York and Los Angeles to be controlling the lives of the farmers and minors in fly-over country. Our President must govern all the people and all the states and the Electoral College insures that he or she must understand and address all of their concerns.
Donald Trump has already named two justices to The Supreme Court that will probably influence the court for 30 or 40 years and Democrats pray nightly for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health. They are also still smarting from the Republican’s rejection of Merrick Garland (and I can understand their frustration there). But their answer to their fear and anguish is to change the rules of the game and completely overhaul a process that has been in place for 150 years. I’m willing to have this discussion, but this not a plank in their platform in 2016 or in 2018. This whole debate is a distraction at best. Get back to the things you focused on during the election.
Finally, the Democrats are pressing to move the voting age down to 16. In my opinion this is a blatant and self-serving attempt to include a group of people who they think will support their emotionally driven platform. Winston Churchill famously said, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart, (but) if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.” When we are young, before we have had to wrestle with the corruption, ineptitude and complexity of government, our vote is dominated by emotion. We can be lured in by images of a utopian world, which will never exist, and by promises that will never be fulfilled. Later in life our positions are tempered by real world experience.
I could just as easily make the case that our military and law-enforcement men and women should get two votes each election. After all, they put their lives on the line every day and deserve a bit more say on how our country is governed. You would tell me that this would be a self-serving idea from conservatives, and you would be right. Hopefully we can all see the same motivation behind the move to a 16-year-old voter.
The bad news in all of this for the American people is that the Democrat Party is not addressing the real needs of the country (healthcare, immigration, the economy), and I really hope they change direction. The good news is that all of these ideas (other than the investigations) will take amendments to the constitution which as arduous process that requires two thirds (67%) vote in both houses of Congress and three fourths (75%) of the state legislatures. Since all of this is so unlikely, why not focus on the things that actually can actually happen and move the country ahead? Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)