Uncategorized

'Benghazi' a fundraising tool? Shocking!

Stop the presses!

Congressional Republicans have been raising the issue of the impending Benghazi hearings to raise money for their political campaigns. What a revoltin’ development! Who knew?

And yet the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives just keeps insisting that the probe isn’t about politics. It’s about the truth, they tell us. They want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Let’s back up a moment.

House Speaker John Boehner announced the creation of a House select committee to be chaired by Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to examine the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. What did the State Department know and when did it know it? Did State know it was a premeditated terror attack or did it assume wrongly it was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video? Did the U.S. do enough to protect the four Americans who died, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/07/gowdy_gop_should_not_fundraise_off_the_backs_of_four_murdered_americans.html

To his credit, Chairman Gowdy has said Republicans shouldn’t raise money “on the backs of four murdered Americans.” Good going, Mr. Chairman.

This investigation can be wrapped up in fairly short order, just as the congressional probe of the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was able to do. You’ll recall that attack killed 241 Marines, but other attacks followed and many questioned whether the Reagan administration was doing enough to protect our interests, and our people, against terrorists. The Democratic-led Congress concluded its probe, made constructive recommendations and finished the job with a bipartisan report.

Can this investigation proceed like that one? Let’s hope so.

It needs to start down that path, however, by ensuring that Republican lawmakers stop using the upcoming probe to raise political campaign money.

Uncategorized

Patrick, Dewhurst get personal

Well … there goes civility.

State Sen. Dan Patrick and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst engaged in a televised debate this past week in their runoff campaign for Texas lieutenant governor.

It got ugly right off the top and it stayed that way throughout much of the 45-minute joint appearance.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/07/video-lieutenant-governor-runoff-debate/

The Republicans are seeking their party’s nomination for lieutenant governor. The runoff occurs on May 27. The winner will face Democratic nominee state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte this November. The winner of that race will preside over the 2015 Texas Senate and will help shape legislation important to Texans.

I guess Dewhurst’s biggest mistake might have been trying to out-shout a long-time talk radio host. My experience with those individuals is that they don’t get out-shouted by anyone.

Patrick is glib, quick-tongued, articulate and is quite ferocious in his zeal to defeat Dewhurst. For his part, the lieutenant governor is trying to remake himself into someone he hasn’t been for the 15 or so years he’s been in state government, first as land commissioner and now as lieutenant governor. He’s trying to get mean and dirty with his opponent.

The debate this past Friday was supposed to shed more light on the two men’s approaches to state government. Instead, we got more heat that revealed a serious mutual dislike.

Uncategorized

Durant exhibits true class

Basketball experts — real and/or imagined — are debating today whether Kevin Durant or LeBron James should be the National Basketball Association’s Most Valuable Player for the 2013-14 season.

I’m not one of them. I’ll just go with Durant, who has been named MVP for the season that has yet to be completed.

The former University of Texas star who’s been lighting it up for the Oklahoma City Thunder has demonstrated a quality not always visible among today’s professional athletes.

He is truly humble and grateful for those who helped him along the way.

Take a look at the video of Durant accepting the MVP award. He thanked his family, his boyhood friends. But he saved his greatest accolade for his mother, who watched her celebrated son with tears streaming down her face.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/07/nba_mvp_kevin_durant_my_mom_is_the_real_mvp.html

Kevin Durant won the scoring title this year for the NBA. He’s led his team into the playoffs once again. He’s become the star every expert said he’d become.

He also has shown that celebrity status and adulation need not diminish one’s strength of character.

Well done, Kevin Durant. You’ve made your mom proud. That’s the most important achievement of all.

Uncategorized

City needs careful animal monitoring

Human beings are suckers when it comes to certain forms four-legged creatures.

I’m talking about domestic cats and dogs. Many of them end up at the city-run and publicly financed animal shelter where, sadly, they are euthanized. They need to leave this world as painlessly as possible. When they suffer needlessly, humans get their dander up.

Two key administrators have been put on leave because of allegations of mistreatment of animals at the city’s animal shelter. The Randall County Criminal District Attorney’s Office is deciding whether to recommend indicting them for breaking the law. Meanwhile, the city has taken steps to end what it acknowledges has been shabby — and potentially cruel — treatment of animals.

I don’t know where this case will end up, but the city has been caught in another large dose of bad publicity over the way it handles the public’s business.

What gives at City Hall?

The City Council has approved measures designed to euthanize unclaimed animals humanely. The city had been doing the deed without weighing the animals to determine the right dosage of drugs to put animals down. The result reportedly has been some animals have died in agonizing fashion. A veterinarian will be present during all euthanasia procedures.

What will happen to Animal Control Director Mike McGee and his chief assistant, Shannon Barlow, who’ve been placed on administrative leave? Well, if it were up to me, I don’t believe they should return to their jobs. The Animal Control Shelter has been exposed for incompetence under their watch and it would appear that it’s time for the city to clean out the top of the shelter’s chain of command.

The city has been the subject of some snickering in recent times. It went through that silly logo kerfuffle in which the city adopted a logo that was a virtual copy of a logo in use by another entity; it had hired a traffic engineer, only to learn he had been in trouble at a previous post.

Now comes news of difficulty at the Animal Control Shelter. Amarillo Humane Society acting president Carry Baker expressed “outrage” at the treatment of the animals and said the organization might seek an injunction to prevent euthanizing animals. Tom Riney, a lawyer representing the local Humane Society, called for top-level management changes to ensure the cruelty ends at the shelter.

This mess needs cleaning up in a major hurry.

I’m beginning to sense a major public-relations campaign aimed at educating Amarillo’s human population on how to care for its pets is in order.

Uncategorized

Condi Rice is Tech's gain

Rutgers University faculty and student body have made a mockery of academic tolerance and inclusiveness.

How? They shunned former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a commencement speaker. Not to worry, though. Texas Tech University has just asked her to deliver such a speech to its student body. There might be some grumbling, but Tech won’t be dissuaded from persuading Rice to accept.

Good for Tech. Bad for Rutgers.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/05/condoleeza-rice-rutgers-free-speech-editorials-and-debates/8721095/

Rutgers protesters have done their school a serious disservice. Rice had accepted the invitation, but then backed out in the face of the protests. She must have figured there was little to be gained by igniting a potential disturbance at the New Jersey school.

What in the world ever happened to the notion that universities are magnets for wide-ranging views, ideologies and philosophies? Don’t they imbue such things any longer in our institutions of higher education?

One can hope that Texas Tech — which sits in the middle of strongly conservative West Texas — would welcome speakers from, say, the far left. The reason in that instance would be for precisely the same reason Rutgers should have welcomed Rice, to expose students to a full spectrum of ideas and world views.

You’ll recall that West Texas A&M University faced a similar protest some years ago when it invited former Bush administration political adviser Karl Rove to speak prior to WT’s commencement. The school held firm. Rove spoke and the students got an interesting take on the state of politics in America.

Condi Rice is a brilliant academician. She served her country as national security adviser and as secretary of state. Her background is stellar and she is full of important perspectives.

Let’s hope she accepts Texas Tech’s invitation, and let’s hope Rutgers thinks deeply about the opportunity it has lost by shooing Rice away.

Uncategorized

Happy V-E Day, America

This day cannot pass without some comment.

It is V-E Day, the day the Nazis surrendered to the good guys who were closing in on them to end World War II. Victory in Europe Day marks one of the great military victories of all time.

Of course, the term “good guys” carries a bit of a mixed message in today’s context. The Soviet Union’s Red Army got to Berlin ahead of the American- and British-led Allies who were advancing from the west. The Soviet Union is now gone and Russia has re-emerged as a thorn in the U.S. side. But that’s another story for another day.

The aim today is to salute the brave warriors who advanced on Berlin and ended the Third Reich’s reign of terror. The Reich was supposed to last 1,000 years — or longer. It fell far short, only existing for a dozen years.

V-E Day was celebrated in cities around the world. The Greatest Generation saw to it that tyranny wouldn’t be allowed to stand in Europe.

The Nazis had marched across most of Europe, starting in 1938 when they seized control of the Sudetenland and then Czechoslovakia. Then all hell broke loose on Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland; Britain and France declared war on Adolf Hitler’s regime.

Europe would go up in flames.

In June 1941, Hitler decided to turn on the Soviet Union, with which he had signed a “non-aggression pact.” Germany and the Soviets had split control of Poland, but then Hitler decided he wanted the USSR, too.

He advanced far into Russia, only to be stopped by a combination of ferocious winter weather and a determined Soviet military machine.

The world emerged a different place after V-E Day. The United States was the greatest power on Earth. It led the effort to rebuild a continent destroyed by war. The Greatest Generation, which has been heralded ever since that great conflict, built a nation — America — into the world’s pre-eminent industrial power.

That generation is now receding into history. Of the 16 million or so Americans who answered the call during World War II, only about 2 million are left. They’re old and largely feeble now. We occasionally forget they were young, strong and brave.

We owe them everything.

Uncategorized

Talking past each other on religion

1 Comment

One of the frustrations I encounter occasionally when I debate the issue of our country’s founding is that my friends and I talk past each other when we disagree on this particular matter.

The recent Supreme Court ruling that sanctions sectarian prayer at public meetings provided that example.

I agree with the court’s ruling on constitutional grounds. I would prefer, though, that public meetings would begin with ecumenical prayers — and not prayers lifted directly to those of specific faith, notably Christian.

I make that point as a practicing Christian, OK?

Recently, I took note of the founders’ desire to create what I’ve called a “secular nation.” My point is that the Constitution contains an amendment that prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but also ensures that Americans shall be free to worship as they please.

Several of my friends out there in Blogger Land took issue with that view. They contend that the founders were men of faith and that they intended the nation to be based on “Judeo-Christian principles.”

Well, I don’t disbelieve any of that. It’s debatable, of course, that some of the key founders were devout Christians. Many historians have debated whether, say, Thomas Jefferson was a “deist,” or someone who believed in a more universal God. It’s been speculated that he believed in a holy deity, but did not necessarily believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to win our forgiveness for our sins.

I only can rely on what I know to be contained within the Constitution.

It does not contain the words “Christian,” or “Christianity,” or “Jesus.” The founders wrote the First Amendment and contained the religious freedom clause in its very first provision. Did they debate whether to establish a state religion? Surely they did. They settled, though, on a government framework that is decidedly non-religious.

What’s more, the founders also wrote in one of its constitutional articles that there should be no religious test for those seeking any public office. What does that mean? It means that you cannot require candidates to be of any particular faith, nor can you even demand candidates to believe in any faith at all.

Thus, by my definition of the term, the United States is a secular nation. We are governed by laws written my mortal, fallible and flawed human beings.

Despite their flaws, the founders created a nation that — absent any requirement to worship a particular faith — has emerged as among the most religious of any nation on Planet Earth.

It is because we are granted us the freedom to worship as we please, or not worship at all.

May I have an “amen”?

Uncategorized

Democratic U.S. Senate runoff on tap

David Alameel is running against Keesha Rogers in the May 27 primary runoff for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

I’ll admit that this one has gotten past me.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/05/democrats-rally-around-alameel-sideline-obama-crit/

It appears Democrats actually could nominate a wacky pretender to run this fall against Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

The wack job happens to be Rogers, who finished with 22 percent of the primary vote in March, enough to deny Alameel the outright majority needed to be nominated to run against Cornyn.

“There must be people who don’t know what she stands for,” Alameel told the Texas Tribune.

And she stands for? Well, she wants President Obama to be impeached. That’s right, a Democrat is calling for the impeachment of a fellow Democrat, the guy in the White House, the 44th president of the United States.

Rogers reportedly makes the point about impeachment at the rare public appearances she makes as she, um, campaigns for the Senate.

Alameel was supposed to win the Democratic primary outright. He has the backing of the party apparatus. He has been endorsed by the Democratic nominee for governor, Wendy Davis. He is independently wealthy and is ready to spend a lot of his own money to get elected.

First, though, he has to fight off a goofball candidate for his party’s nomination.

Rogers suggested recently that the president is a closet Republican. That’s right. He’s one of them.

“Obama is right in line with the Republicans as he’s supporting Wall Street financial interests, as he’s supporting this drive toward thermonuclear war, and as he’s destroying the physical economy of this nation,” Rogers said in a Houston speech, according to the Tribune.

Earth to Rogers: The economy is improving; and thermonuclear war isn’t on anyone’s horizon except your own.

Rogers’s surprising success just might say something about the still-dismal state of the Texas Democratic Party. Yes, Democrats are nominally hopeful that Davis might be able to upset Republican nominee Greg Abbott in the governor’s race; they also have hopes for Leticia Van de Putte’s chances in the race for lieutenant governor.

But boy, howdy. If they nominate someone like Keesha Rogers to run against John Cornyn, well, the party’s in more trouble than many of us ever imagined.

Uncategorized

More on prayer decision …

Accuse me if you will of suffering from some form of ideological schizophrenia, but I want to make one more comment on this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on public prayer.

I don’t object to the ruling on constitutional grounds. The court ruled 5-4 that sectarian prayers that open government meetings are allowed under the Constitution, in that they don’t force people to adhere to certain religious tenets. I’m fine with that.

What is objectionable, though, are government bodies’ insistence on reciting Christian prayers in front of citizens who might not worship Jesus Christ. What is so wrong with making the prayers more ecumenical?

A Christian pastor friend of mine recently opened a service club meeting I attended with a prayer. He didn’t end it with the usual “in Christ’s name.” He offered the prayer in “God’s name.” I told him later how much I enjoyed the message of his invocation, but he took it to mean I appreciated the ecumenical nature of the blessing. “I realize that not everyone here believes in Jesus,” he said. I nodded in agreement, although that wasn’t the intent of my compliment.

This ruling also reminds me a bit of what is billed in Amarillo as a “Community Prayer Breakfast,” which takes place every November around the time of Thanksgiving. If the city, which sponsors this event, is going to call it a “community” gathering, then it needs to be far more inclusive in its message of fellowship.

I’ve attended my share of these prayer breakfasts, which take place in the Civic Center. They resemble Christian tent revival meetings in their zeal to proclaim people’s faith in Jesus Christ. If you’re Jewish or — heaven forbid — Muslim and you’re passing through Amarillo and want to attend the Community Prayer Breakfast, which often is advertised on billboards along Interstate 40, you’ll learn right away that the event isn’t precisely what you think it is.

The Supreme Court decided correctly on constitutional grounds on the case it heard. However, the lesson likely won’t stick in the minds of government officials who keep insisting on opening their meetings with prayers that extol a certain religious faith at the exclusion of others.

By all means, let’s pray at these public meetings — but let’s try to include everyone who gather to seek God’s blessings.

Uncategorized

Amen to High Court ruling

2 Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it’s all right for governing bodies to begin their meetings with a prayer.

Good. I’m glad the court honored the First Amendment’s provision that disallows laws that establish a state religion but also prohibits any restriction on religion.

What’s a bit troubling, though, is that the court was so split on this one. It voted 5-4 — conservatives on the majority side and liberals on the other side — to allow “sectarian” prayer at town council, school board and county commissioners meetings.

I’ve never quite understood the strenuous objection to these prayers. They are, as Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in his majority opinion, meant to call attention to the solemn nature of an event, not to indoctrinate anyone.

The court heard a case out of Greece, N.Y., where a Jewish resident had complained that the city’s governing council opened its meetings with Christian prayers. He felt excluded from the blessings sought at the beginning of the meeting. So he took it to court and it ended up in front of the highest court in the land.

This would seem like a no-brainer decision.

Congress starts its sessions with daily prayers. They aren’t Christian prayers, or non-Christian prayers. They are all-encompassing. Indeed, Congress has members of many faiths, Christian and non-Christian alike. It even has non-believers in its ranks. Are the non-believing members of Congress going to protest? Surely they know better, given the constituencies they represent.

The court ruling doesn’t place any restriction what’s long been a tradition in many communities across the land. Amarillo’s City Council meetings begin with prayers. They’re usually given by Christian clerics and they often invoke Jesus’s name.

Still, no one should feel threatened by prayer. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable. Legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate.”

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience