The Genius of America
The View from the Middle
Let me take this opportunity to encourage my readers, and especially young people, to read some history. We should all know and understand the underpinnings of our own country, but we should also read the facts about other systems of government and the people who launched them. We should read about Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. We should all know about Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro and even Adolf Hitler. I believe that if we read history, we will come to appreciate the genius of our Founding Fathers.
Our Founders understood the depravity of man (and woman) and designed governmental and economic systems that took power away from the government, controlled by a small group of men, and invested in the individual. Why would they do that? For two reasons. First, they had just left a monarchy where they believed that too much power rested in the hands of very few people. They understood the old adage that states, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They also recognized the tendency of men to be greedy and selfish. As the Bible says in Jeremiah, “The heart (of man) is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure.” They never wanted our government, which will always be run by human beings, to wield the kind of monstrous power that they experienced in England.
They created a government that was intentionally small, running on revenues that represented two, three or four percent of the country’s GDP from 1790 all the way through the 1920’s. Of course, there were bursts of spending for the Civil War and for WWI, but outside of those existential threats, the government remained tiny for almost 140 years. They also added “The Bill of Rights” to our Constitution specifically to protect the rights of the individual from the cold, blunt, uncaring power of a central government. Today government spending equals 23% of our GDP and intrudes into almost every aspect of our lives. The Founders would be both disappointed and terrified.
They also decided to let the country’s economy be run by capitalistic principles of supply and demand and free markets. This took the government out of the job of picking winners and losers, which would have created an environment rife with corruption, and put it into the hands of individual Americans. This freedom empowered millions of hardworking, creative, risk-taking American citizens to prosper individually and to collectively create the richest and most powerful country the world has ever known. This democratic, capitalistic system has also lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in world history.
But there are those now who would throw out this most successful system in the world and replace it with what our Founders feared most, a gargantuan, bloated, corrupt and inept central government. That, of course, is what socialism is. They focus on promises that socialism and politicians can never deliver. Politicians, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, promise to solve all of your problems. Want your student loan debt forgiven? Want free healthcare? Want free college? Want guaranteed income? If you think government is too big now, wait until these socialists get control. Government will be twice as big and expensive and repressive as it is today.
This would produce a very small group of people in Washington with immense, dare I say “absolute”, power over all of us. They want the power to tell us what kind of house we can live in, what kind of car we can drive and what kind of business you can start. And remember this small group is going to be comprised of flawed, imperfect, greedy and selfish people. To quote the world famous, Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman when he was talking about Socialism, “where are you going to find these “angels” who are going to organize society for us?” This was his way of reminding us that all of these people who want to run your life are flawed, greedy and selfish people who will take care of themselves first and at your expense.
Our Founders would be rolling over in their graves. They created a governmental and economic system that insulated Americans from the cold, impersonal power of a massive, corrupt central government and unleashed the awesome potential of the collective individualism of this country. As for me, I stand with our Founding Fathers and the power of freedom, liberty and the American people. Do I hear an “Amen”?
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Hillary's Delusional Dilemma
Hillary’s Delusional Dilemma
The View from the Middle
It’s not difficult to imagine Bill and Hillary Clinton’s aspirations as a young couple at Yale and then in Northwest Arkansas. They were both very smart and driven young people. I’m not sure if the Presidency for both was a goal when they first met, but I can easily imagine that they started thinking in those terms after Bill became Arkansas’ youngest Governor at age 33.
It was clear that Bill was a natural politician. I’ve heard testimony from people on both sides of the political aisle about Bill’s power to charm. He could enter a room of people divided on an issue and somehow leave with both sides believing he supported their positions. Many argue that this was a skill Bill picked up as he grew up in Arkansas. No matter where and how he developed this skill, many would argue that Bill (Slick Willie) was a natural born persuader and maybe even a master manipulator. Hillary, while intelligent and ambitious did not acquire those same skills.
The plan, I’m sure, was to ride Bill’s extraordinary talent to the Whitehouse and then, given a respectable mourning period, Hillary would ride Bill’s popularity to the highest office in the land also. She was smart, capable and even dynamic. Certainly, this plan couldn’t fail. But there was a flaw in the plan that Hillary could not grasp back then and still cannot accept even today. Hillary is just not likeable.
In 2008, the grieving period had expired, the economy was in a freefall and everyone knew that whoever won the Democratic nomination was going to win the Presidency. The plan was coming to fruition. It was Hillary’s turn to run the country and go down as the first female President and to cement the Clinton legacy into the very foundation of the Democrat Party. But then came the young, charming Barack Obama to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the Clinton machine.
Hillary had two choices. She could accept this set back as a learning experience and take notes from both Bill and Barack, or she could become angry and bitter. It is my opinion that this is where she took that dark turn and diminished her likeability to a new low level. If this defeat by Barack Obama wasn’t enough, can you imagine what her loss in 2016 did to her psyche.
This move to the dark side showed up big time in 2016. Hillary should have recognized that as much as many people disliked Trump, her approval ratings were equally low. In fact, the three most often used descriptors of Hillary Clinton were, “liar, dishonest and untrustworthy”. Instead of putting on the “charm offensive” as Bill would have surely done, she decided to insult those people who dared question her integrity and put them in her “basket of deplorables”. She called them homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes, misogynists, bigots and racists. Not exactly a tactic from Dale Carnegie’s book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.
Despite all of these tactical blunders, everyone, including Trump, believed that Hillary was going to win the 2016 Presidential general election. Every poll gave her huge leads and there was a 90%+ agreement that she would win, but she didn’t. She didn’t listen to her most astute political partner and husband and failed to shore up her “rust belt” wall to victory. Trump didn’t outspend Hillary, he simply out hustled her and she made huge tactical and even strategic mistakes, and this defeat seems to have pushed Hillary into a whole new state of delusion.
The woman who suggested that Trump would not accept the results of the election, has clearly not been able to accept them herself. Her book, What Happened, seemed to blame everyone (the Russians, James Comey, Wikileaks) but herself, but recently her delusion seems to have become even deeper. In an interview with PBS Hillary actually said that, “she could beat him (Trump) again” if she were the nominee in 2020. “Beat him again”? Really? That is the absolute definition of “delusional”.
And now she is attacking Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic candidate for President from Hawaii, saying that she is a Russian asset with zero evidence. This is a smear job that has no place in American politics. While I disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on many ideological positions, she did serve in our military in a combat zone in Iraq and was also deployed to Kuwait in 2008 and 2009. I thank her for her service, and so should Hillary.
It is time for Hillary to retire from politics. Her pipedream of becoming the Democrat Party’s nominee for President in 2020 is just that. It is a fantasy. It is a delusion, and the longer she stays in the political public eye, the more she hurts the Democrat Party, the American people and the Clinton legacy. Hillary, you don’t have to go home and bake cookies, although that might not be a bad idea right now, but you should embrace a cause, like the wellbeing of the children of the United States, and leave the political scene altogether.
The View from the Middle
It’s not difficult to imagine Bill and Hillary Clinton’s aspirations as a young couple at Yale and then in Northwest Arkansas. They were both very smart and driven young people. I’m not sure if the Presidency for both was a goal when they first met, but I can easily imagine that they started thinking in those terms after Bill became Arkansas’ youngest Governor at age 33.
It was clear that Bill was a natural politician. I’ve heard testimony from people on both sides of the political aisle about Bill’s power to charm. He could enter a room of people divided on an issue and somehow leave with both sides believing he supported their positions. Many argue that this was a skill Bill picked up as he grew up in Arkansas. No matter where and how he developed this skill, many would argue that Bill (Slick Willie) was a natural born persuader and maybe even a master manipulator. Hillary, while intelligent and ambitious did not acquire those same skills.
The plan, I’m sure, was to ride Bill’s extraordinary talent to the Whitehouse and then, given a respectable mourning period, Hillary would ride Bill’s popularity to the highest office in the land also. She was smart, capable and even dynamic. Certainly, this plan couldn’t fail. But there was a flaw in the plan that Hillary could not grasp back then and still cannot accept even today. Hillary is just not likeable.
In 2008, the grieving period had expired, the economy was in a freefall and everyone knew that whoever won the Democratic nomination was going to win the Presidency. The plan was coming to fruition. It was Hillary’s turn to run the country and go down as the first female President and to cement the Clinton legacy into the very foundation of the Democrat Party. But then came the young, charming Barack Obama to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the Clinton machine.
Hillary had two choices. She could accept this set back as a learning experience and take notes from both Bill and Barack, or she could become angry and bitter. It is my opinion that this is where she took that dark turn and diminished her likeability to a new low level. If this defeat by Barack Obama wasn’t enough, can you imagine what her loss in 2016 did to her psyche.
This move to the dark side showed up big time in 2016. Hillary should have recognized that as much as many people disliked Trump, her approval ratings were equally low. In fact, the three most often used descriptors of Hillary Clinton were, “liar, dishonest and untrustworthy”. Instead of putting on the “charm offensive” as Bill would have surely done, she decided to insult those people who dared question her integrity and put them in her “basket of deplorables”. She called them homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes, misogynists, bigots and racists. Not exactly a tactic from Dale Carnegie’s book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.
Despite all of these tactical blunders, everyone, including Trump, believed that Hillary was going to win the 2016 Presidential general election. Every poll gave her huge leads and there was a 90%+ agreement that she would win, but she didn’t. She didn’t listen to her most astute political partner and husband and failed to shore up her “rust belt” wall to victory. Trump didn’t outspend Hillary, he simply out hustled her and she made huge tactical and even strategic mistakes, and this defeat seems to have pushed Hillary into a whole new state of delusion.
The woman who suggested that Trump would not accept the results of the election, has clearly not been able to accept them herself. Her book, What Happened, seemed to blame everyone (the Russians, James Comey, Wikileaks) but herself, but recently her delusion seems to have become even deeper. In an interview with PBS Hillary actually said that, “she could beat him (Trump) again” if she were the nominee in 2020. “Beat him again”? Really? That is the absolute definition of “delusional”.
And now she is attacking Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic candidate for President from Hawaii, saying that she is a Russian asset with zero evidence. This is a smear job that has no place in American politics. While I disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on many ideological positions, she did serve in our military in a combat zone in Iraq and was also deployed to Kuwait in 2008 and 2009. I thank her for her service, and so should Hillary.
It is time for Hillary to retire from politics. Her pipedream of becoming the Democrat Party’s nominee for President in 2020 is just that. It is a fantasy. It is a delusion, and the longer she stays in the political public eye, the more she hurts the Democrat Party, the American people and the Clinton legacy. Hillary, you don’t have to go home and bake cookies, although that might not be a bad idea right now, but you should embrace a cause, like the wellbeing of the children of the United States, and leave the political scene altogether.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
Dear NBA, Welcome to the Real China
NBA and America, Welcome to the Real China!
The View from the Middle
There are many Americans who may not really understand the threat that China poses to America and the world. We live in a world today that is still dominated by the USA, which still proposes to believe in free people and free markets, fair trade and the fundamental principles of capitalism. These principles, which also enable freedom of speech and freedom of religion, are good for all peoples around the world, but we must understand that China does not embrace this philosophy. The NBA, and by extension all of America, got a reminder of what the world would look like with China as THE world power, which is their plan.
A person, just one person in America, who happens to be the General Manager of the NBA’s Houston Rockets, had the audacity to tweet his support for the protesters in Hong Kong. How dare he!! As a result, the CBA (Chinese Basketball Association) has suspended their cooperation with the Houston Rockets and Chinese State TV (CCTV) has announced that it will not be televising the preseason games that are being played in Shanghai and Shenzhen between the LA Lakers and the Brooklyn Nets. THIS is how China responds to one man’s exercise of free speech. The country attacks him and threatens to deny the NBA’s access to their market. This is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito, but that is what China does, and has been doing.
If you have been wondering why President Trump has been fighting a trade war with China, it’s because China has been doing the same thing to American businesses for the last 40 years or so. They do not play fair. They do not have open and free markets. They lie, cheat and steal with impunity using access to their market of 1.4 billion Chinese people as their bludgeoning club.
Let’s get specific. Here are four ways that China practices unfair trade in their quest to become THE world power by 2025. First, they create barriers to foreign companies to even compete in the Chinese market. Then, even if a company is awarded the right to compete, they are forced to do it with a Chinese partner who must hold a majority interest in that venture. This is the major mechanism they use to steal that company’s intellectual capital. This, of course, is not a requirement in the United States or any other developed country in the world that I am aware of.
Second, China has used unbalanced tariffs to both increase their country’s revenues and to make products imported into China uncompetitive versus Chinese goods. In fact, a major plank in China’s planned world dominance is to unfairly advantage goods produced in China. They do this through subsidization and manipulation of their currency.
Subsidization is the easiest to understand. China takes the money they charge other countries in tariffs and then subsidizes entire industries, if they like, and then export those products to other countries at prices that can even be below the cost to produce them. That, if effect, exports their unemployment to those other countries. They also manipulate their currency to constantly give their products a competitive advantage in other countries and increase the costs of products being imported into China.
And that’s how they have rolled, so to speak, for years, and countries have turned a blind eye to their lying and cheating and stealing in order to get access to their market. Now, America is calling their bluff by demanding free and fair markets or we will tax (tariff) the heck out of their products entering our market. This is not a pain-free strategy, but I believe that we must do this for the long-term good of our country and for the world.
Now the NBA is getting a taste of the real China that will bludgeon it into submission if it doesn’t acquiesce to their authoritarian, subjugating government. They need to tread lightly here. Are they willing to give up all of their rights and principles in order to acquire the almighty dollar, or yuan (the Chinese currency)? Is our country and the NBA willing to sell their souls to China? More importantly, are the athletes willing to sell their souls to a racist, authoritarian government? For anyone who is willing to do so, know that the price is high and will eventually come due!
The View from the Middle
There are many Americans who may not really understand the threat that China poses to America and the world. We live in a world today that is still dominated by the USA, which still proposes to believe in free people and free markets, fair trade and the fundamental principles of capitalism. These principles, which also enable freedom of speech and freedom of religion, are good for all peoples around the world, but we must understand that China does not embrace this philosophy. The NBA, and by extension all of America, got a reminder of what the world would look like with China as THE world power, which is their plan.
A person, just one person in America, who happens to be the General Manager of the NBA’s Houston Rockets, had the audacity to tweet his support for the protesters in Hong Kong. How dare he!! As a result, the CBA (Chinese Basketball Association) has suspended their cooperation with the Houston Rockets and Chinese State TV (CCTV) has announced that it will not be televising the preseason games that are being played in Shanghai and Shenzhen between the LA Lakers and the Brooklyn Nets. THIS is how China responds to one man’s exercise of free speech. The country attacks him and threatens to deny the NBA’s access to their market. This is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito, but that is what China does, and has been doing.
If you have been wondering why President Trump has been fighting a trade war with China, it’s because China has been doing the same thing to American businesses for the last 40 years or so. They do not play fair. They do not have open and free markets. They lie, cheat and steal with impunity using access to their market of 1.4 billion Chinese people as their bludgeoning club.
Let’s get specific. Here are four ways that China practices unfair trade in their quest to become THE world power by 2025. First, they create barriers to foreign companies to even compete in the Chinese market. Then, even if a company is awarded the right to compete, they are forced to do it with a Chinese partner who must hold a majority interest in that venture. This is the major mechanism they use to steal that company’s intellectual capital. This, of course, is not a requirement in the United States or any other developed country in the world that I am aware of.
Second, China has used unbalanced tariffs to both increase their country’s revenues and to make products imported into China uncompetitive versus Chinese goods. In fact, a major plank in China’s planned world dominance is to unfairly advantage goods produced in China. They do this through subsidization and manipulation of their currency.
Subsidization is the easiest to understand. China takes the money they charge other countries in tariffs and then subsidizes entire industries, if they like, and then export those products to other countries at prices that can even be below the cost to produce them. That, if effect, exports their unemployment to those other countries. They also manipulate their currency to constantly give their products a competitive advantage in other countries and increase the costs of products being imported into China.
And that’s how they have rolled, so to speak, for years, and countries have turned a blind eye to their lying and cheating and stealing in order to get access to their market. Now, America is calling their bluff by demanding free and fair markets or we will tax (tariff) the heck out of their products entering our market. This is not a pain-free strategy, but I believe that we must do this for the long-term good of our country and for the world.
Now the NBA is getting a taste of the real China that will bludgeon it into submission if it doesn’t acquiesce to their authoritarian, subjugating government. They need to tread lightly here. Are they willing to give up all of their rights and principles in order to acquire the almighty dollar, or yuan (the Chinese currency)? Is our country and the NBA willing to sell their souls to China? More importantly, are the athletes willing to sell their souls to a racist, authoritarian government? For anyone who is willing to do so, know that the price is high and will eventually come due!
Thursday, October 3, 2019
An Inconvenient Transcript
An Inconvenient Transcript
The View from the Middle
A week is a lifetime in politics, especially in today’s frenzied news cycle. When I left for Indiana last week, the mainstream media was absolutely hysterical about a whistleblower report concerning a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky. They were claiming that President Trump made a clear threat to withhold funding from Ukraine in order to force Zelensky to do his bidding. The media was delirious as they demanded that President Trump release the transcript of that call, which they were absolutely sure he would not do. Then, when Trump refused to release the transcript, they could also accuse him of stonewalling or maybe even obstruction of justice. They were giddy that they had put Trump into a “no-win” situation. Then, the inconceivable occurred. Trump released the transcript. And the Dems and the media collectively said, “crap!”
Don’t take anyone’s word for what’s in the transcript (especially Adam “full of” Schiff). It’s only four pages long and I’ll put a link to the transcript at the end of this post that you can copy and paste into your browser. Read it for yourself.
After the transcript of the call was released, the media and the Dems began to scramble. The transcript revealed that what they had said about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky was not even close to accurate. The Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication, published seven take-aways from the transcript, and #1 was that, “It mentions no explicit quid pro quo”. Wow, that should have been a bombshell story in and of itself. Why would they have made that claim without even seeing the transcript of the call? Oh yah! They never expected President Trump to be so transparent as to release the transcript.
After trying to redefine “quid pro quo” to mean “ask for a favor” they had to actually make up things that weren’t in the transcript. This is where Adam “full of” Schiff made a mockery of himself and of the House of Representatives. He actually read into the Congressional record his personal interpretation of the call without even referencing those pesky facts that are actually in the transcript. For example, this is what “full of” Schiff suggests Trump was telling Zelensky, “I’m only going to tell you seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.” “Full of” Schiff then suggests that the President ended the call by telling Zelensky, “by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.”
“Full of” Schiff’s only problem is…none of that was in the transcript at all. Maybe he was hearing voices or maybe he confused the transcript with a Tom Clancy novel he was reading, but this is not even close to what President Trump said. Even CNN said, “Here’s where Schiff veered quite a distance from what the transcript says.” When CNN says he “veered quite a distance” that means that Adam “full of” Schiff was just lying and counting on his allies in the media to only report his delusional ramblings and not the actual content of the transcript. He truly is a disgrace.
And while all of this exaggeration and complete fabrication was going on, some actual journalists were releasing a video of Joe Biden bragging about doing exactly what the Dems and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) were accusing President Trump of doing. In January of 2018, Joe boasted that he extorted the then President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, back in 2016 by threatening to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine. His exact words were, “We’re not going to give you the billion dollars…I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Now that is a quid pro quo (which in Latin means “this for that”) if I’ve ever heard one. But Joe couldn’t just leave it there, he had to make sure that everyone knew that his extortion threat paid off. Finally, he added, “Well, son of a bitch. He (the prosecutor) got fired.”
At this point, Joe should have added that the prosecutor that he was so determined to get fired was investigating a company named Burisma Holdings where his son, Hunter, served on the Board of Directors. An interesting factoid to leave out, don’t you think?
I have told you many times that this is a tactic that the Dems use very often, and that is to accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing. It’s a version of the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels’ “big lie”. Their behavior is so outrageously hypocritical, they are hoping that no one could believe they would dare try it. Here’s the link to the transcript. Don’t trust the lamestream media to give you an accurate portrayal of what is in it. Read it for yourself.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764052120/read-transcript-of-president-trumps-call-with-ukraine-s-leader
The View from the Middle
A week is a lifetime in politics, especially in today’s frenzied news cycle. When I left for Indiana last week, the mainstream media was absolutely hysterical about a whistleblower report concerning a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky. They were claiming that President Trump made a clear threat to withhold funding from Ukraine in order to force Zelensky to do his bidding. The media was delirious as they demanded that President Trump release the transcript of that call, which they were absolutely sure he would not do. Then, when Trump refused to release the transcript, they could also accuse him of stonewalling or maybe even obstruction of justice. They were giddy that they had put Trump into a “no-win” situation. Then, the inconceivable occurred. Trump released the transcript. And the Dems and the media collectively said, “crap!”
Don’t take anyone’s word for what’s in the transcript (especially Adam “full of” Schiff). It’s only four pages long and I’ll put a link to the transcript at the end of this post that you can copy and paste into your browser. Read it for yourself.
After the transcript of the call was released, the media and the Dems began to scramble. The transcript revealed that what they had said about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky was not even close to accurate. The Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication, published seven take-aways from the transcript, and #1 was that, “It mentions no explicit quid pro quo”. Wow, that should have been a bombshell story in and of itself. Why would they have made that claim without even seeing the transcript of the call? Oh yah! They never expected President Trump to be so transparent as to release the transcript.
After trying to redefine “quid pro quo” to mean “ask for a favor” they had to actually make up things that weren’t in the transcript. This is where Adam “full of” Schiff made a mockery of himself and of the House of Representatives. He actually read into the Congressional record his personal interpretation of the call without even referencing those pesky facts that are actually in the transcript. For example, this is what “full of” Schiff suggests Trump was telling Zelensky, “I’m only going to tell you seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.” “Full of” Schiff then suggests that the President ended the call by telling Zelensky, “by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.”
“Full of” Schiff’s only problem is…none of that was in the transcript at all. Maybe he was hearing voices or maybe he confused the transcript with a Tom Clancy novel he was reading, but this is not even close to what President Trump said. Even CNN said, “Here’s where Schiff veered quite a distance from what the transcript says.” When CNN says he “veered quite a distance” that means that Adam “full of” Schiff was just lying and counting on his allies in the media to only report his delusional ramblings and not the actual content of the transcript. He truly is a disgrace.
And while all of this exaggeration and complete fabrication was going on, some actual journalists were releasing a video of Joe Biden bragging about doing exactly what the Dems and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) were accusing President Trump of doing. In January of 2018, Joe boasted that he extorted the then President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, back in 2016 by threatening to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine. His exact words were, “We’re not going to give you the billion dollars…I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Now that is a quid pro quo (which in Latin means “this for that”) if I’ve ever heard one. But Joe couldn’t just leave it there, he had to make sure that everyone knew that his extortion threat paid off. Finally, he added, “Well, son of a bitch. He (the prosecutor) got fired.”
At this point, Joe should have added that the prosecutor that he was so determined to get fired was investigating a company named Burisma Holdings where his son, Hunter, served on the Board of Directors. An interesting factoid to leave out, don’t you think?
I have told you many times that this is a tactic that the Dems use very often, and that is to accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing. It’s a version of the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels’ “big lie”. Their behavior is so outrageously hypocritical, they are hoping that no one could believe they would dare try it. Here’s the link to the transcript. Don’t trust the lamestream media to give you an accurate portrayal of what is in it. Read it for yourself.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764052120/read-transcript-of-president-trumps-call-with-ukraine-s-leader
Friday, September 13, 2019
Hell No! Beto
Hell No, Beto
The View from the Middle
As you would expect, in last night’s Democrat debate the line of the night came from one of the candidates who is bouncing off the bottom of the primary barrel who was just trying to stay relevant and trying to just get some attention. When asked, “Are you proposing taking away their (Americans) guns”, Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47.” I think it is fair to assume that by “we” Mr. O’Rourke meant our federal government.
It is easy, however, to understand why Beto made this ludicrous statement. First, HE…IS…LYING. He has no intention of actually fulfilling this promise, even if all the other Democrat candidates and President Trump died and he was literally the last man standing. And that’s about what it would take for this “1% support” candidate to win. So, we have that going for us, which is nice!!
Second, this kind of confiscation of arms is against our constitution and appears in our 2nd amendment of its Bill of Rights. The second amendment clearly states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The fact that this appears in the 2nd amendment should give us a feel for how important our founders thought this fundamental right is. The first amendment protects our freedom of speech and religion, and the next most important freedom our forefathers thought to protect was the right to bear arms.
So, why would our founders put this particular protection so high up on their list of freedoms to safeguard? The short answer is that they did not trust any large, central government. They were, in fact, separating from England because that national government had seized their property, imprisoned them without just cause and taxed them without representation. They feared the repressive, absolute and selfish power of a central government whom they believed could take away rights that they believed every person on earth was granted by their Creator. They weren’t trying to protect the new American citizens right to hunt. They were trying to protect themselves and even us today from the monster that a dictatorial, authoritarian government can become. And I hope that, given the duplicity and dysfunction we see in Washington today, we can understand the “Orwellian” threat that a too powerful government can be to all of us.
Finally, Beto knows he can’t possibly pull this off, even in the absolutely unlikely event that our government passed such legislation. Think about who he would be trying to take these guns away from! As passionate as he pretends to be on this gun confiscation issue, there are millions of Americans who are just as passionate about protecting their right to “keep and bear arms.” Can you imagine our government sending our law enforcement officers or military door-to-door brandishing their guns to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?
In its own way, this crazy thought is just like the Green New Deal from Bernie and AOC. They can make all of the crazy, insane, inane suggestions, promises or statements they want. They know they won’t pass any of them. That’s why the AOC New Green Deal did not get a single vote in the Senate. If this sort of “We’re going to take your guns” legislation would ever be proposed, I’m confident it would receive even similar support. So, Beto, your 15 minutes of fame is over. Go back to Texas and just try to take their guns way! Good luck with that!
The View from the Middle
As you would expect, in last night’s Democrat debate the line of the night came from one of the candidates who is bouncing off the bottom of the primary barrel who was just trying to stay relevant and trying to just get some attention. When asked, “Are you proposing taking away their (Americans) guns”, Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47.” I think it is fair to assume that by “we” Mr. O’Rourke meant our federal government.
It is easy, however, to understand why Beto made this ludicrous statement. First, HE…IS…LYING. He has no intention of actually fulfilling this promise, even if all the other Democrat candidates and President Trump died and he was literally the last man standing. And that’s about what it would take for this “1% support” candidate to win. So, we have that going for us, which is nice!!
Second, this kind of confiscation of arms is against our constitution and appears in our 2nd amendment of its Bill of Rights. The second amendment clearly states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The fact that this appears in the 2nd amendment should give us a feel for how important our founders thought this fundamental right is. The first amendment protects our freedom of speech and religion, and the next most important freedom our forefathers thought to protect was the right to bear arms.
So, why would our founders put this particular protection so high up on their list of freedoms to safeguard? The short answer is that they did not trust any large, central government. They were, in fact, separating from England because that national government had seized their property, imprisoned them without just cause and taxed them without representation. They feared the repressive, absolute and selfish power of a central government whom they believed could take away rights that they believed every person on earth was granted by their Creator. They weren’t trying to protect the new American citizens right to hunt. They were trying to protect themselves and even us today from the monster that a dictatorial, authoritarian government can become. And I hope that, given the duplicity and dysfunction we see in Washington today, we can understand the “Orwellian” threat that a too powerful government can be to all of us.
Finally, Beto knows he can’t possibly pull this off, even in the absolutely unlikely event that our government passed such legislation. Think about who he would be trying to take these guns away from! As passionate as he pretends to be on this gun confiscation issue, there are millions of Americans who are just as passionate about protecting their right to “keep and bear arms.” Can you imagine our government sending our law enforcement officers or military door-to-door brandishing their guns to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?
In its own way, this crazy thought is just like the Green New Deal from Bernie and AOC. They can make all of the crazy, insane, inane suggestions, promises or statements they want. They know they won’t pass any of them. That’s why the AOC New Green Deal did not get a single vote in the Senate. If this sort of “We’re going to take your guns” legislation would ever be proposed, I’m confident it would receive even similar support. So, Beto, your 15 minutes of fame is over. Go back to Texas and just try to take their guns way! Good luck with that!
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Global Warming - Who's in Control?
Global Warming – Who’s in Control?
The View from the Middle
Mankind’s hubris never ceases to amaze me. Politicians are trying to convince us that we have a little steering wheel, gas pedal and brake somewhere along the equator, I suppose, and we are actually driving the earth around the sun. Some would suggest we also have a little thermostat somewhere that we can turn up or down at will. They want you to believe that they are, or could be, in control and would turn down the temperature and push the “no hurricanes” button on their control panel if we only gave them the power. All we have to do is give them all our money and all our freedoms and they will be our global Uber driver and deliver a smooth ride, no warming (unless you want it, of course), no natural disasters and no wars.
The reality is that the world is a huge place with a mind of its own. We are, in fact, a flea on a dog that is suggesting that it controls the dog. Let me give you an idea of just how insignificant we are. The earth has over 500 million square kilometers of surface area and we could fit the entire population of the planet, all 7.7 billion people, within the city limits of Anchorage, Alaska, with room to spare. We truly are just a flea on the back of this planet. We are a passenger on God’s creation and are just along for the ride. Our only hope is to adapt to this ever changing world and be good stewards of the planet God gave us dominion over.
The fact that we (the flea) have noticed that the world is warming is quite the accomplishment, but to suggest that we can control that temperature is just a lie. And to suggest the dog will die and kill all the fleas is just fearmongering. In 1989, the New York Director of the UN Environment Program said that we had 10 years to solve the CO2 problem or the oceans would rise by three feet (36 inches), the polar ice caps would be gone and New York would be under water. Of course, none of that happened, but does any of that sound familiar?
Most scientists believe that the earth has been around for billions of years, and has sustained life on it for over a billion years. During that time temperatures have risen and fallen with no help from mankind. About 56 million years ago average global temperatures were about 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, and man was not around to cause it. There have also been at least five ice ages according to Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann. They also identified a period about 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, when CO2 content in the atmosphere was over 10 times higher than today’s levels while temperatures were the same as our current temps.
And many scientists will admit that they aren’t even sure if CO2 is a cause of warming or a result of it. Even if it is a “cause” it is just one, and a relatively small one, when you compare it to the sun, volcanic activity and El Nino events. If the sun decides to have storms or flares or hot periods there is nothing we can do about it. If the earth’s volcanoes decides to erupt on land or below our oceans, we will just be spectators. If we experience a strong El Nino (warming of the ocean’s waters) there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Our politicians know they can’t convince thinking people that they can control any of these things, so they will try to persuade us that they can tinker with CO2 levels and regulate the world’s temperature level as easily as they control their thermostats.
And even if CO2 contributes to global warming, remember two things. First, if all of the commitments of the Paris Accord are recognized, scientists “hope” to prevent a two degree centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature over the next 100 years. Given the temperature changes the earth has experienced over the last three or four thousand years, it is ludicrous to make that projection with any amount of certainty. Second, I will guarantee that the earth will still be here in 11 years, despite the threats made by that brilliant climatologist and bar tender Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC). I will also guarantee that in 11 years some politician will suggest, once again, that unless we dramatically change our ways by 2040 or 2050, we will be doomed. And on it will go until we figure out that they are Lucy with the football, and we are Charlie Brown.
Finally, we must remember that we are talking about “global” warming, and the world’s worst offender in terms of CO2 emissions is China! In fact, China releases twice the absolute amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as the United States despite having a much smaller economy. Why should the Paris Accord allow China, the worst emitter of CO2 in the world by far, to continue increasing their emissions until 2030? Isn’t that past “the point of no return” according to AOC and Bernie Sanders? And after 2030 do you really believe China will keep their promises? They’ve done so well in the “promise keeping” area for the last 50 years, haven’t they?
While the rest of the world has increased their emissions by over 60% since 1990, The United States has maintained its emissions at 1990 levels. But Bernie, AOC and the rest of the Democrat party want us to destroy our economy and give up virtually all of our freedoms to get to net zero carbon emissions. This would take us back to the stone ages while China blows past us economically and replaces us as the only Superpower left on the planet. Do we really want to doom our children and grandchildren to a world where China is calling the shots.
Should we be good stewards of our world? Of course we should. Should we encourage other countries to do the same? Of course we should. Should we finance every other country’s efforts and commit economic Hara-kiri in the process? Of course not. But it is amazing what some politicians will promise to get elected today, even if it guarantees national servitude in the future, as long as that future is far enough away for them to be long gone. How many of us will be around in 2100 to measure the actual results vs. the draconian projections?
The View from the Middle
Mankind’s hubris never ceases to amaze me. Politicians are trying to convince us that we have a little steering wheel, gas pedal and brake somewhere along the equator, I suppose, and we are actually driving the earth around the sun. Some would suggest we also have a little thermostat somewhere that we can turn up or down at will. They want you to believe that they are, or could be, in control and would turn down the temperature and push the “no hurricanes” button on their control panel if we only gave them the power. All we have to do is give them all our money and all our freedoms and they will be our global Uber driver and deliver a smooth ride, no warming (unless you want it, of course), no natural disasters and no wars.
The reality is that the world is a huge place with a mind of its own. We are, in fact, a flea on a dog that is suggesting that it controls the dog. Let me give you an idea of just how insignificant we are. The earth has over 500 million square kilometers of surface area and we could fit the entire population of the planet, all 7.7 billion people, within the city limits of Anchorage, Alaska, with room to spare. We truly are just a flea on the back of this planet. We are a passenger on God’s creation and are just along for the ride. Our only hope is to adapt to this ever changing world and be good stewards of the planet God gave us dominion over.
The fact that we (the flea) have noticed that the world is warming is quite the accomplishment, but to suggest that we can control that temperature is just a lie. And to suggest the dog will die and kill all the fleas is just fearmongering. In 1989, the New York Director of the UN Environment Program said that we had 10 years to solve the CO2 problem or the oceans would rise by three feet (36 inches), the polar ice caps would be gone and New York would be under water. Of course, none of that happened, but does any of that sound familiar?
Most scientists believe that the earth has been around for billions of years, and has sustained life on it for over a billion years. During that time temperatures have risen and fallen with no help from mankind. About 56 million years ago average global temperatures were about 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, and man was not around to cause it. There have also been at least five ice ages according to Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann. They also identified a period about 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, when CO2 content in the atmosphere was over 10 times higher than today’s levels while temperatures were the same as our current temps.
And many scientists will admit that they aren’t even sure if CO2 is a cause of warming or a result of it. Even if it is a “cause” it is just one, and a relatively small one, when you compare it to the sun, volcanic activity and El Nino events. If the sun decides to have storms or flares or hot periods there is nothing we can do about it. If the earth’s volcanoes decides to erupt on land or below our oceans, we will just be spectators. If we experience a strong El Nino (warming of the ocean’s waters) there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Our politicians know they can’t convince thinking people that they can control any of these things, so they will try to persuade us that they can tinker with CO2 levels and regulate the world’s temperature level as easily as they control their thermostats.
And even if CO2 contributes to global warming, remember two things. First, if all of the commitments of the Paris Accord are recognized, scientists “hope” to prevent a two degree centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature over the next 100 years. Given the temperature changes the earth has experienced over the last three or four thousand years, it is ludicrous to make that projection with any amount of certainty. Second, I will guarantee that the earth will still be here in 11 years, despite the threats made by that brilliant climatologist and bar tender Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC). I will also guarantee that in 11 years some politician will suggest, once again, that unless we dramatically change our ways by 2040 or 2050, we will be doomed. And on it will go until we figure out that they are Lucy with the football, and we are Charlie Brown.
Finally, we must remember that we are talking about “global” warming, and the world’s worst offender in terms of CO2 emissions is China! In fact, China releases twice the absolute amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as the United States despite having a much smaller economy. Why should the Paris Accord allow China, the worst emitter of CO2 in the world by far, to continue increasing their emissions until 2030? Isn’t that past “the point of no return” according to AOC and Bernie Sanders? And after 2030 do you really believe China will keep their promises? They’ve done so well in the “promise keeping” area for the last 50 years, haven’t they?
While the rest of the world has increased their emissions by over 60% since 1990, The United States has maintained its emissions at 1990 levels. But Bernie, AOC and the rest of the Democrat party want us to destroy our economy and give up virtually all of our freedoms to get to net zero carbon emissions. This would take us back to the stone ages while China blows past us economically and replaces us as the only Superpower left on the planet. Do we really want to doom our children and grandchildren to a world where China is calling the shots.
Should we be good stewards of our world? Of course we should. Should we encourage other countries to do the same? Of course we should. Should we finance every other country’s efforts and commit economic Hara-kiri in the process? Of course not. But it is amazing what some politicians will promise to get elected today, even if it guarantees national servitude in the future, as long as that future is far enough away for them to be long gone. How many of us will be around in 2100 to measure the actual results vs. the draconian projections?
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
"Celebration"
Celebrate Good Times, Come On!!
“Celebration” - Kool & The Gang - 1979
The View from the Middle
This last Saturday night I was watching the Auburn Tigers play the Oregon Ducks in the most important college football game of the day. Oregon was ranked #11 in the country and Auburn was ranked #16. It was a big enough game to be played at a neutral site, Cowboys Stadium in Texas, and at prime time Saturday night. I was expecting a good game and hoping for an Auburn win, and in the end I wasn’t disappointed.
Auburn was starting a true Freshman quarterback and got behind quickly. Oregon was leading at halftime 14-3, and things were looking even worse early in the third quarter when Oregon went up 21-6. But I’ve known Auburn head coach, Gus Malzahn, since 1996 when he was hired as head coach at Shiloh High School here in Arkansas, and I’ve learned to never give up on Gus. He has figured out how to win at every level and under some unbelievable circumstances. He won two state championships with Shiloh and one at Springdale High School in 2005 when many argued that the Bulldogs were the best high school team in the country. Since going to Auburn, Gus is 63-30 in the brutal Western Division of the SEC which includes Alabama, LSU and Texas A&M. I firmly believe that Malzahn will win a national championship at Auburn someday.
And Gus and the Tigers did not disappoint Saturday night. Auburn clawed their way back and shut out the Ducks for the last 24 minutes of the game. And while the defense was blanking the Ducks, the offense was scoring the last 21 consecutive points to put the Tigers up 27 to 21. This is where the problem actually started for me.
The final play of the game for Auburn was a 26 yard touchdown pass from Freshman QB, Bo Nix, to Sophomore wide receiver Seth Williams with just nine seconds to play. This was probably the biggest play in Seth’s young life and as you might imagine, he was excited and he threw the ball down in celebration. Not a windmill spike where the ball bounced twenty feet in the air or even an taunting ball spin followed by Michael Jackson like dance moves. Just a simple toss of the ball down to the ground, for which he and the Tigers were accessed a 15 yard penalty. Really? 15 yards for that?
Let me explain the implications and make some comparisons. First, this meant that Auburn would have to kick off from their own 20 yard line instead of the 35 which is normal. This makes a kickoff for a touchback an impossibility and almost guarantees good field position for the team returning that kickoff. Even an average kickoff return would have given Oregon at least one good shot at the end zone. In this case, Oregon returned the kickoff all the way to the Auburn 35 which gave them a pretty reasonable shot at a last second touchdown. That’s 40 yards closer than a touchback which would have placed the ball on Oregon’s 25.
Did Seth Williams or Auburn really deserve that kind of penalty for a simple celebration like this? Does the punishment fit the crime? Most other 15 yard penalties like spearing, targeting, roughing the passer or throwing a chop block are intended to protect players from serious injury. Does tossing the ball to the ground after an amazing touchdown really belong in the same category as these fouls. Does it even deserve to be penalized at all.
These days it seems like every sack of the quarterback results in a strutting, chest pounding exhibition by the defensive player. In fact, it seems like there isn’t a tackle anywhere on the field that can’t result in a floor show worthy of Vegas. And none of these self-adulating demonstrations calls for a penalty of any kind.
And when do the celebratory violations, like Seth’s, occur? Often they are at the end of very close games after long, and I might add, amazing touchdowns. The Hippocratic oath of officiating is that the referees, “should not determine the outcome of a game.” It should be the athletes on the field that make that determination, and happily in this case the end result was not affected.
But one of these days an excited young ballplayer is going to instinctively throw the ball to the ground or, heaven forbid, into the stands and a 15 yard penalty is going to be accessed. Let’s say that team has only a one or two point lead and the improved field position allows the other team to kick a field goal on the last play of the game to steal a victory from a team that really deserved to win. In a case like that, the referees would have violated their “prime directive”.
Do we have to wait until this shameful circumstance actually occurs, or should the NCAA change this ridiculous rule right now. I say either eliminate the rule altogether right now, or at least change it to a “delay of game” (5 yard) penalty. If you want to discourage the outlandish spectacles of “team bowling pins” or staged “photo shoots”, give referees the flexibility to penalize teams for “excessive” celebration. This would be a judgement call. I’m not sure we can define every possibility, but it’s like pornography, we’ll know it when we see it.
“Celebration” - Kool & The Gang - 1979
The View from the Middle
This last Saturday night I was watching the Auburn Tigers play the Oregon Ducks in the most important college football game of the day. Oregon was ranked #11 in the country and Auburn was ranked #16. It was a big enough game to be played at a neutral site, Cowboys Stadium in Texas, and at prime time Saturday night. I was expecting a good game and hoping for an Auburn win, and in the end I wasn’t disappointed.
Auburn was starting a true Freshman quarterback and got behind quickly. Oregon was leading at halftime 14-3, and things were looking even worse early in the third quarter when Oregon went up 21-6. But I’ve known Auburn head coach, Gus Malzahn, since 1996 when he was hired as head coach at Shiloh High School here in Arkansas, and I’ve learned to never give up on Gus. He has figured out how to win at every level and under some unbelievable circumstances. He won two state championships with Shiloh and one at Springdale High School in 2005 when many argued that the Bulldogs were the best high school team in the country. Since going to Auburn, Gus is 63-30 in the brutal Western Division of the SEC which includes Alabama, LSU and Texas A&M. I firmly believe that Malzahn will win a national championship at Auburn someday.
And Gus and the Tigers did not disappoint Saturday night. Auburn clawed their way back and shut out the Ducks for the last 24 minutes of the game. And while the defense was blanking the Ducks, the offense was scoring the last 21 consecutive points to put the Tigers up 27 to 21. This is where the problem actually started for me.
The final play of the game for Auburn was a 26 yard touchdown pass from Freshman QB, Bo Nix, to Sophomore wide receiver Seth Williams with just nine seconds to play. This was probably the biggest play in Seth’s young life and as you might imagine, he was excited and he threw the ball down in celebration. Not a windmill spike where the ball bounced twenty feet in the air or even an taunting ball spin followed by Michael Jackson like dance moves. Just a simple toss of the ball down to the ground, for which he and the Tigers were accessed a 15 yard penalty. Really? 15 yards for that?
Let me explain the implications and make some comparisons. First, this meant that Auburn would have to kick off from their own 20 yard line instead of the 35 which is normal. This makes a kickoff for a touchback an impossibility and almost guarantees good field position for the team returning that kickoff. Even an average kickoff return would have given Oregon at least one good shot at the end zone. In this case, Oregon returned the kickoff all the way to the Auburn 35 which gave them a pretty reasonable shot at a last second touchdown. That’s 40 yards closer than a touchback which would have placed the ball on Oregon’s 25.
Did Seth Williams or Auburn really deserve that kind of penalty for a simple celebration like this? Does the punishment fit the crime? Most other 15 yard penalties like spearing, targeting, roughing the passer or throwing a chop block are intended to protect players from serious injury. Does tossing the ball to the ground after an amazing touchdown really belong in the same category as these fouls. Does it even deserve to be penalized at all.
These days it seems like every sack of the quarterback results in a strutting, chest pounding exhibition by the defensive player. In fact, it seems like there isn’t a tackle anywhere on the field that can’t result in a floor show worthy of Vegas. And none of these self-adulating demonstrations calls for a penalty of any kind.
And when do the celebratory violations, like Seth’s, occur? Often they are at the end of very close games after long, and I might add, amazing touchdowns. The Hippocratic oath of officiating is that the referees, “should not determine the outcome of a game.” It should be the athletes on the field that make that determination, and happily in this case the end result was not affected.
But one of these days an excited young ballplayer is going to instinctively throw the ball to the ground or, heaven forbid, into the stands and a 15 yard penalty is going to be accessed. Let’s say that team has only a one or two point lead and the improved field position allows the other team to kick a field goal on the last play of the game to steal a victory from a team that really deserved to win. In a case like that, the referees would have violated their “prime directive”.
Do we have to wait until this shameful circumstance actually occurs, or should the NCAA change this ridiculous rule right now. I say either eliminate the rule altogether right now, or at least change it to a “delay of game” (5 yard) penalty. If you want to discourage the outlandish spectacles of “team bowling pins” or staged “photo shoots”, give referees the flexibility to penalize teams for “excessive” celebration. This would be a judgement call. I’m not sure we can define every possibility, but it’s like pornography, we’ll know it when we see it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)