legal news, national news

Sexual Assailant in Chief weighs in on O’Reilly

Donald Trump has declared to the world that Bill O’Reilly is a “good person.”

O’Reilly and Fox News Channel are fighting off allegations that the media star and his employer have engaged in sexual harassment against several women who have filed complaints.

So, what does the president of the United States think? He says O’Reilly is getting a bum rap, that he shouldn’t have settled those complaints for millions of bucks, that he should have taken the accusers to court to make them prove what they have alleged.

All this comes from someone who in 2005 was heard to say how he groped women, how he grabbed them by their private parts, how his star status enabled him to start kissing women.

To be fair, O’Reilly’s settlements with the women, along with what Fox News has shelled out, does suggest there’s fire under all this smoke.

The president of the United States, though, has a lot more important matters to ponder than whether his buddy O’Reilly is guilty of doing things to which Donald Trump has already admitted doing himself.

Stick to matters of state, Mr. Sexual Assailant in Chief.

media news

Why is it only you, Mr. O’Reilly?

I keep circling back to a single question as I ponder the growing controversy surrounding Fox News talking head Bill O’Reilly.

The commentator has been accused of sexual harassment by a number of women. O’Reilly has settled many of the complaints, shelling out several million dollars; Fox News Channel has kicked in several more millions to these women.

O’Reilly says he is a target because he is rich, famous and controversial.

Really? Why, then, haven’t other rich, famous and controversial news commentators been hit with the kinds of allegations have been leveled against O’Reilly?

O’Reilly says the women are looking for money. I heard at least one of them say this week she doesn’t want a dime; she wants to hold O’Reilly accountable for the harassment he has leveled at her.

If he’s a target, then why haven’t scores of women targeted other men who also occupy high-profile public figure jobs in the national media?

From my vantage point, the only thing these complaints have in common is one man: Bill O’Reilly.

International news

UN envoy says what Trump should say … about Russia

Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad gassed citizens, killing dozens of them.

The president of the United States condemns Assad, as he should do; then he lays the blame for the attack on the inaction of former President Barack Obama.

Then in wades the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, to say what should be said: Russia is complicit in this heinous action and must be punished.

My question: Why, oh why, cannot Donald John Trump muster the guts to speak ill of Russia in this regard?

The president continues to remain mum on Russian misbehavior. He cannot admit in public that the Russians hacked into our election system; he cannot agree that Vladimir Putin is a “killer”; he keeps wishing for a more cooperative relationship with Russia.

But, wait, Mr. President. The Russian are bankrolling Assad’s murderous regime in Syria. They are funding the dictator’s ability to obtain the murderous weapons he uses on his citizens.

Ambassador Haley speaks out

The U.N. Security Council is considering a resolution to condemn the Russians over this attack. Russia is one of the five permanent council members and has the authority to veto any such resolution. Where is the president on this one? Will he condemn the Russians if they veto a resolution that seeks to slap additional sanctions on them?

Ambassador Haley said this, according to The Hill: “Russia has shielded Assad from U.N. sanctions. If Russia has the influence in Syria that it claims it has, we need to see them use it,” Haley said at an emergency meeting of the council. “We need to see them put an end to these horrific acts. How many more children have to die before Russia cares.”

Mr. President, it’s your turn now. It’s time for you to “tell it like it is” concerning Russia.

national news, political news

Mr. Innuendo is at it again

Donald Trump, who is unafraid to toss out any innuendo imaginable, is at it again.

This time, the president says former national security adviser Susan Rice “may have” committed a crime.

His evidence? His substantiation? Oh, what the hell. He doesn’t have anything to offer. He just said it.

Rice’s so-called “crime” apparently occurred when he allegedly sought the identities of Trump campaign officials who were mentioned as possible targets of U.S. surveillance.

She served as national security adviser for President Obama. Rice has denied any involvement in this matter and has said she did not break any law.

The hits just keep coming

That won’t stop Trump, who continues to exhibit recklessness as it regards others’ reputation. All he had to say when the subject came up would have been, “I won’t comment any further on that matter until we get to the bottom of what happened. But, no-o-o-o. He had to pop off yet again.

However, he did say: “I think it’s going to be the biggest story.  It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”

Kind of like the wiretapping ordered by Barack Obama, yes?

military news, national news

Trump makes sound national security move … finally!

I have been highly critical of Donald J. Trump’s assembling of his national security team.

But then — what do you know? — the president does something that makes eminent sense. He has removed his political hack/senior adviser Steve Bannon from the National Security Council and has elevated two men who should have been seated on the NSC’s principals committee in the first place.

Good call, Mr. President. May it be the first of many.

Bannon had no business serving on the principals committee. He is the former Breitbart News editor. He has the president’s ear on all matters political. His national security experience is next to zero.

Trump also demoted his homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, and elevated Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. They now will be regular attendees of the principal committee.

Oh, there’s more. National security adviser H.R. McMaster has received full authority to set the agendas for meetings of the principals committee.

Someone got hold of the president’s ear and advised him in the strongest language possible of the folly of seeming to politicize the NSC’s principals committee — which is what Bannon’s presence on the committee did.

If there’s any aspect of a president’s duties that demands non-political consideration, it must be matters dealing with national security.

Donald Trump is entitled to have a top-drawer political hand giving him political advice. That adviser doesn’t need to be anywhere near where national security concerns are discussed.

national news, political news

Polls shouldn’t matter, but they do to Trump

Public opinion polls shouldn’t really be on the top of politicians’ minds. Unless you’re the president of the United States.

Donald J. Trump told us incessantly during his 2016 presidential campaign how the polls had him up against his Republican primary foes, then against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The man who would become president made polls important.

Now we have this: The RealClearPolitics  poll of polls — the one that averages all the major polling outfits — shows the president’s standing among Americans is plummeting.

The RCP poll has gone below 40 percent approval among Americans of the job the president is doing.

Ouch, man!

The latest Quinnipiac poll puts Trump’s approval rating at 35 percent. Reuters/Ipsos has Trump at 44 percent. You get the idea. His numbers are all over the place, but all of them combined and averaged out put him at 39.8 percent.

Trump isn’t saying much about the polls these days. Imagine my surprise … not!

Were it not for the candidate himself making such an issue of polls when they were casting him in a positive light, I likely wouldn’t bother with this latest bit of bad poll news.

It’s all your fault, Mr. President.

local news

Xeriscaping … that’s the answer

EL PASO, Texas — I am in the mood to follow up on an earlier blog post relating to the terrible appearance of Amarillo’s freeway interchange.

I have a one-word potential solution: xeriscaping.

My wife and I have seen it in this city, where water is even rarer than it is in the Texas Panhandle. Interstate 10 and U.S. 54 come together in the middle of the city. We proceeded north on U.S. 54 and noticed that the xeriscape technique used to beautify the highway continued to the edge of the city.

Amarillo mayoral candidate Ginger Nelson has declared highway right-of-way appearance to be among her signature issues. She said she plans to “develop a plan for annual and long-term repairs and maintenance of streets, as well as the construction of new streets as the city grows.”

This isn’t rocket science. We ain’t reinventing the wheel. There’s not much genius required to provide Amarillo a better appearance to passersby who motor through the city en route to points hither and yon.

My wife were two of those passengers who blew through El Paso. We noticed right away the attractiveness of the right-of-way. We took that first impression with us, and we plan to remember it every single time we drive through Amarillo’s Interstate 40/27 interchange, which contains festering weeds and little else.

Xeriscaping can be done with virtually zero water use.

We live in a semi-arid climate, yes? If it’s too costly to maintain a right-of-way with greenery, then use tons of gravel and some sparse vegetation to dress it up.

It works in El Paso. It can work in Amarillo.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2017/03/fix-the-interstate-curb-appeal-please/

 

International news, national news

No, ISIS … POTUS is no ‘idiot’

It’s one thing for Americans to disparage their own president, even to call him unflattering names.

When a foreign power does it — let alone a mortal enemy of the United States and the rest of the civilized world — well, that’s quite another matter.

The Islamic State has issued some kind of scathing statement in which it refers to Donald John Trump as an “idiot.” The ISIS statement says, in part: “… There is no more evidence than the fact that you are being run by an idiot who does not know what Syria or Iraq or Islam is,”

ISIS has it wrong

An “idiot” does not parlay a stake in a business handed down to him by his father into a multibillion-dollar real estate enterprise. An “idiot” doesn’t produce a successful reality TV show, nor does an “idiot” run a successful beauty pageant.

There. That’s about as close as I’m going to come to saying something positive about the current president of the United States.

He is naïve, ignorant about the complexities of the government he runs; he is morally unfit to hold the office he occupies; he speaks clumsily; he bereft of core governing principles.

An idiot?

No. Far from it.

What is troubling to this American is to hear such a description coming from a terrorist organization that beheads prisoners, kills innocent victims, hides behind children, sends suicide bombers to terrorize others — all in the name of Islam. These are religious perverts who have no right to speak for true-blue adherents to a great religion.

Perverting that religion sounds, if you’ll pardon the use of the term, like the action of a group of idiots.

Put another way, Trump well might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.

International news

Stop the blame game, Mr. POTUS

Leadership doesn’t involve blaming someone else for problems one inherits.

So, what does Donald John Trump do? He lays the blame for the Syrian gas attack on civilians on the inaction of his predecessor, Barack Obama. The president calls Obama’s “weakness” in dealing with Syria for the heinous act that occurred at the hand of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad.

What about the here and now?

The president rightly calls the action reprehensible. But what is the current occupant of the White House going to do about it?

I must stipulate that I am acutely aware of the many times President Obama laid blame on his predecessor for the financial collapse he inherited when he took office in January 2009. The new president, though, then got to work and sought to stimulate the economy to prevent a total collapse of its underpinnings.

I am waiting for the current president to assert his own world view  and to deal forthrightly with the Middle East crises that he inherited from Obama — and the many men who preceded both of them as president.

Trump’s assigning of blame dates back to President Obama’s failure to act on Syria’s crossing the “red line” when it used chemical weapons in a previous action. OK, I get that.

The here and now, though, requires leadership that looks forward and ceases blaming others.

media news

O’Reilly costs his employers a lot of dough

Hmmm. Let’s see how this goes.

Bill O’Reilly, the controversial and garrulous Fox News Channel talk show host, has been accused by several women of sexual harassment. None of the cases has gone to court; no one has proven anything against Bill O.

But he has settled many of the cases for a total estimated at $13 million. Some of those millions have been paid by the network where he has worked for the past two decades.

These types of “settlements” always trouble me where they regard the person against whom complaints are made.

If he’s truly innocent of sexual harassment, why doesn’t take the accusers to court and force them to prove what they have alleged? O’Reilly isn’t doing that. He and his bosses at Fox are shelling out a sizable chunk of cash to bring these episodes to an end.

How come?

I get that O’Reilly is employed by a private, for-profit news organization. Thus, he’s not a public official. He is, however, a public figure, given his status as a cable TV news star — someone who, I should add, is unafraid to remind us of his exalted status.

I guess that’s what makes these sexual harassment matters the public’s business in the first place. Indeed, O’Reilly contends he’s being targeted because he is rich and famous. Really? So are, say, George Stephanopoulos, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Jake Tapper, Chris Wallace, Wolf Blitzer … and any number of other high-profile broadcast journalists. Have any of them faced this kind of accusation?

I just am left to wonder about two related matters: Why settle these cases when you’re innocent of any wrongdoing? And why is Fox still keeping this guy on its payroll?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience