national news, political news

Impeachment for show only?

A thought occurs to me now that impeachment of the president has returned to the arena.

Just suppose the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is actually is so blindly stupid that it actually impeaches President Obama for exercising his constitutional right of executive authority and tinkers with immigration reform.

Now, let us now suppose that the Republican-run U.S. Senate gets articles of impeachment and puts the president on bleeping trial for it.

The next Senate is going to have a maximum of 54 GOP members, depending on the outcome of the runoff race in Louisiana set for December. It takes 67 votes to convict a president of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove him from office.

Does anyone in their right mind think Republicans are going to persuade 13 Democratic senators to engage in this ridiculous charade?

The thought then boils down to this: The impeachment talk, should it ever come to pass, is meant to put an asterisk next to Barack Obama’s name. The members of Congress who detest him and the policies that got him elected twice to the presidency simply want the word “impeached” next to his name. They want his obituary, when it is finally written, to contain the “I-word.” They want his presidency scarred for life with the notion that the House of Representatives trumped up a phony “crime” upon which to impeach the 44th president of the United States.

Well, the last time the GOP tried that — in 1998 against Bill Clinton — it fell flat on its face. President Clinton walked out of the White House in January 2001 with his standing intact and he has emerged as arguably the nation’s premier political leader.

That won’t matter to the current crop of congressional “leaders” who are insisting that Barack Obama keep his mitts off any executive orders regarding immigration.

House Speaker John Boehner declared not long ago that impeachment won’t happen while he’s the Man of the House. Yet his GOP caucus has been strengthened and made even more strident in the wake of the 2014 mid-term election.

We’ll get to see how much clout he can wield if the nimrod wing of his party starts getting a bit too feisty.

 

 

International news, national news

Keystone Pipeline causes heartburn

The pipeline that most members of Congress seem to support is causing me some grief.

It’s the Keystone project. It will carry petroleum from Alberta, through the middle of the United States, to Texas Gulf Coast ports. Then it will be shipped abroad, where refineries will process it into all sorts of products.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/house-passes-keystone-xl-bill-112903.html?hp=b1_c3

The House of Representatives has approved legislation supporting it. The Senate is going to vote next week.

Should they agree with their House colleagues?

Sure. Why not?

President Obama isn’t sold on the project. He’s signaling he might veto the Keystone Pipeline bill if and when it lands on his desk. How come? Well, he doubts it will be a big job producer and notes that Canada is going to export the oil “everywhere else.” Thus, he believes it won’t have an impact on gasoline prices.

I’ll disagree with that last statement.

The fuel is going to pour into the worldwide supply that continues to outstrip worldwide demand. Therefore, the price of oil — and gasoline — continues to decline.

The federal government already has issued reports that suggest the pipeline would have minimal environmental impact.

I guess I just can’t get too worked up over this project one way or the other.

However, if I had a vote on it, I’d probably vote to build it, help our northern friends, pump more oil into the world market and hope it continues to keep downward pressure on the price of gasoline at the pump.

 

national news, political news

'W' stays on the post-presidency high road

It well might have just tortured Fox News blowhard Sean Hannity to hear his talk-show guest refuse to criticize President Obama.

Then again, perhaps Hannity knew the response he would get from former President George W. Bush.

Whatever the case, President Bush has chosen to remain on the high road nearly six years after leaving the White House.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-w-bush-why-refuse-135613369.html

Bush said he doesn’t “think it’s good for the country to have a former president undermine a current president; I think it’s bad for the presidency for that matter.”

Then he added: “Secondly, I really have had all the fame I want. I really don’t long for publicity. And the truth the matter is in order for me to generate publicity … I’d have to either attack the Republican Party, which I don’t want to do, or attack the president, which I don’t want to do. And so I’m perfectly content to be out of the limelight.”

What a concept. A former president following the lead set by his father, another former leader of the Free World, in refusing to mix it up with those who come along after them.

Take heed, former Vice President Cheney. He’s been popping off repeatedly ever since he moved out of the VP’s mansion.

Indeed, this unofficial vow of silence that former presidents take has more or less been followed since the founding of the Republic. I say “more or less,” because President Bush’s immediate predecessor, President Clinton, has been pretty vocal in criticizing Republican critics of Barack Obama, although I cannot recall Clinton torpedoing George W. Bush’s foreign-policy decisions during W’s presidency.

Let’s not ignore President Carter, who on occasion has shot darts at all the men who assumed office after he left the White House in 1981. He does pick his shots, though.

But in my memory of former presidents, which dates back to Dwight Eisenhower, it’s been the custom for former presidents — and vice presidents, for that matter — to stay quiet and let their successors suffer the barbs that others toss at them.

It’s an appropriate thing for these former leaders to do. They belong to an exclusive club. Only they know all the ins and outs of the world’s toughest job.

As we all understand, we can have only one president at a time. For a former president to take a seat in the peanut gallery and “undermine a current president” is very bad form, indeed.

Well said, President Bush.

 

legal news, national news

$1 billion settlement just isn't fair

1 Comment

There’s just no pleasing some people, I reckon.

Consider the case of Sue Ann Hamm, former wife of Harold Hamm.

Ms. Hamm got a billion-dollar settlement from an Oklahoma court in her divorce action against her ex-husband. A billion bucks!

Was it enough? Nope. She’s going to appeal the settlement.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/14/luxury/harold-hamm-divorce/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

“Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case,” said her lawyer Ron Barber. “She dedicated 25 years as Harold’s faithful partner in family and business.”

Harold Hamm reportedly is worth around 20 bil, so I reckon his ex-wife wants a bigger piece of that action.

OK, I’m not a party to this divorce action. I’m just sitting out here in the peanut gallery, albeit not too terribly far from the Oklahoma state line. Still, I get that there’s a lot I don’t understand about this case.

I’ll acknowledge one thing that escapes my understanding: Why isn’t $1 billion enough?

Sue Ann can take the dough, stash some of it away for the kids, invest most of it in some secure stocks and other things, keep a healthy sum of it — say, $50 million or so — for herself and still live very nicely.

According to CNN.com, Harold Hamm is a big hitter: “Harold Hamm is somewhat of a legend in the oil businesses. He built the company from the ground up, pioneered the use of fracking and led the development of North Dakota’s Bakken oil field.”

Well, absent a pre-nuptial agreement, the former couple is left to settle this matter as amicably as they can.

From my perch far, far away, a billion dollars looks pretty darn amicable.

 

local news, State news

Rein in university regents

Texas Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, is a persistent lawmaker.

What got vetoed in 2013 is coming back in 2015 and Seliger’s hope is that a new governor will see fit to sign it into law, rather than veto it, which his predecessor did.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/12/bill-restricting-regents-authority-re-emerges/

Senate Bill 177 would limit the power of university regents, seeking to keep their noses out of university administrative affairs. It’s the kind of thing that has erupted within the University of Texas System and regents’ ongoing dispute with UT-Austin President Bill Powers.

One of the bill’s provisions is that regents cannot fire a campus president without a recommendation from the system chancellor.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the 2013 bill, saying it went in the “wrong direction.” Seliger is optimistic that the new governor, Greg Abbott, will have a different view.

“I can’t answer for Gov. Abbott, but I think his view of legislation is going to be entirely different,” Seliger said. “I think it’s a good piece of legislation based upon the fact that it passed and had a lot of support last time — I’m very optimistic.”

Regents should be left to set policy and allow campus presidents to administer those policies. The campus presidents are the people with eyes and ears inside their institutions, so give them some room to maneuver. That hasn’t been the case at the UT System, as regents have been squabbling among themselves with President Powers over the way he runs the flagship campus at the massive university system.

It’s been a mess. Senate Bill 177 seeks to prevent future higher education messes.

 

 

national news

No regrets over Obama votes

The question came to me from a social media acquaintance.

He asked: “… just for the record are you sorry you voted for this incompetent community organizer?”

My answer to him: No.

I now shall elaborate.

The “incompetent community organizer,” of course, is Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, who’s finding himself engaged in yet another struggle of wills with the folks in Congress who would oppose virtually anything he proposed at any level.

I’ve voted in every presidential election since 1972 and have never regretted a single vote I’ve cast for the candidate of my choice — win or lose.

Why should I regret my votes for Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012?

For starters, the 2008 campaign amid the worst economic crisis to hit the United States since the Great Depression. It occurred on George W. Bush’s watch and Sen. Obama pledged to take swift action to stop the free fall in our job rolls, our retirement account, the stock market, the housing market, the banking industry and the automobile industry. I trusted him then to do all of the above.

You know what? He delivered. The economic stimulus package, which the GOP opposed, contributed to improving the economic condition at many levels.

I did not hear Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, offer a solid solution to what was ailing our economy. And when he stopped campaigning to return to Washington when the stock market all but imploded, well, that told me — and apparently millions of other Americans — that Sen. McCain didn’t have a clue what to do.

Four years later, the economy had improved significantly, but Republicans kept insisting it was in the tank. The numbers told a different story.

Let’s not forget: Millions of Americans now have health insurance who didn’t have it before.

Yes, the country faced foreign policy crises on Obama’s watch. But as the 2012 campaign developed and the GOP nominated Mitt Romney to run against the president, it became clear — at least to me — that the Republicans didn’t have any clear answers on how to deal with those crises short of going back to war.

I had grown tired of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Iraq War is over. The Afghanistan War is about to end. Yes, the Islamic State has risen in Iraq and Syria. However, is it the president’s fault entirely that we’re fighting another bloodthirsty terrorist organization? Hardly. We all knew the “Global War on Terror” well could be a war without end.

So, I voted once again for Barack Obama.

He’s now facing yet another challenge from the “loyal opposition,” which frankly doesn’t appear to be all that loyal.

History is going to judge the community organizer a lot more kindly than his critics are doing so today.

Therefore, I stand by my support of Barack Obama.

 

national news, political news

'I' word returns to Capitol Hill

So many pejorative terms to lay on this, so little time or space to count them all.

Let’s start with disgusting, revolting, sickening, reprehensible and colossally stupid.

That’s where I come down on this notion of impeaching President Obama for exercising his constitutional executive authority.

http://news.yahoo.com/could-obama-impeached-over-immigration-order-173840884.html

The impeachment babble has begun boiling again on Capitol Hill. Some Democratic lawmakers say it’s possible, which is no surprise. What is a surprise is that now a Republican or three is talking openly about impeaching the president if he goes ahead with plans to issue an executive order that delays deportation of some 5 million undocumented immigrants.

On what basis would they impeach Barack Obama? They think he’s overreaching.

I’ve looked up the impeachment provision in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 4 says the president or vice president can be removed from office if they are convicted of “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

I’ve yet to know what “high crime or misdemeanor” the president would commit if he is acting in accordance with his legal and constitutional authority.

And, gosh, do you think the president’s legal team is going to turn him loose without first understanding what he can or cannot do? I doubt it.

Yet the “I” word has returned to the debate if the president acts.

For the record, I hope he doesn’t execute those orders during the duck session of Congress. I want him to wait for the new Congress to take its seat. I want him to push forward the legislation he favors, demand quick action on it after thorough debate and then let Congress vote it up or down.

If it goes down, or if he gets a bill he cannot sign, then the president can take the action he deems necessary.

This impeachment talk — in the simplest term possible — is pure crap.

 

local news, State news

Texting ban needs to occur

So, I ran into state Rep. Four Price’s mother-in-law this week.

She told me Price, R-Amarillo, is in Austin “prefiling legislation” in advance of the next Texas Legislature, which convenes in January.

“I hope he files that ban on texting while driving,” I said, adding that the state needs to get tough with those who put others in danger on our public roadways. “I agree,” she said, chiming in with a comment supporting laws that ban smoking indoors.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/EDITORIAL-Texas-needs-ban-on-texting-while-5889014.php

My hunch is that we’re going to find out — quickly, I hope — what kind of governor Greg Abbott is going to be if he gets a texting ban bill on his desk.

He should sign the bill the moment it plops on his desk.

As my former newspaper, the Beaumont Enterprise, noted in an editorial, Texas wouldn’t be the first to ban texting while driving. Indeed, it would be one of the last states to do what it should have done already.  Forty-five states have such laws on the books.

Texas could have joined them, but Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a law in 2011, declaring that it “micromanaged” people’s lives.

Nuts!

The 2013 Legislature didn’t even pass a bill, knowing Perry would veto it again.

Now we get a new governor. It is my fervent hope he resists the pressure from the right wing of his Republican Party — which well could be led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — and approves a bill that Rep. Price and others throughout the Legislature say they support.

Do the right thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Texas Legislature.

 

 

local news, political news

Don't pick a place-setter, Mr. Mayor

Amarillo’s mayor has been given an actual task to perform with the death of City Councilman Jim Simms.

Paul Harpole will go through his grief over the loss of Simms, who cast a far larger shadow over this city than his short physical stature would suggest.

Then he’ll get to select the next councilman to sit at Place 4.

Here’s some advice, Mr. Mayor, from one of your constituents — me: Don’t pick a place-setter, someone who’ll just serve the remainder of Simms’s term and then walk away. Find someone who’ll run for election next year when the entire council faces voters.

The city has some key decisions coming up regarding downtown revitalization. There will be, for example, a proposal for an extreme makeover of the Civic Center, which likely will require a citywide vote. The city needs five council members with a serious commitment to standing behind whatever vote they cast on that notion.

The city charter doesn’t give the mayor a lot of actual power, given that he or she is just one of five council members representing the same citywide constituency as the rest of the council. All of them select the city manager, who does virtually all the heavy lifting at City Hall.

This time the mayor gets to make the call all by himself — I presume after consulting with constituent groups, his colleagues on the council and with potential candidates for the post.

One more thing, Mr. Mayor: You might think about concentrating your search in the areas of the city where residents have complained about “underrepresentation” on the City Council. The North Heights comes to mind.

Good luck, Mr. Mayor. You’ve got a big job ahead.

 

medical news, national news, political news

Affordable Care Act sabatoged from within

Who is this clown Jonathan Gruber?

We know he’s got a big mouth and that he’s careless beyond belief about what he says to whom.

Gruber’s name has surfaced front and center over remarks he made regarding the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/224072-gruber-in-fourth-video-says-public-doesnt-actually-care-about-uninsured

He was recorded saying in 2013 that he considered Americans too stupid to understand the complexities of the landmark health care legislation pushed forward by President Obama. Now we hear him saying in 2010 that Americans “don’t actually care that much about the uninsured.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi supposedly said she didn’t know about Gruber until this firestorm erupted. Then we hear from other sources that she isn’t being truthful about who she knew and when she knew him.

Good grief!

Republicans naturally are up in arms over these revelations about a former White House insider popping off as he has done. Some critics say Gruber’s big mouth gives them ammunition to finally — finally! — muster up the votes to dismantle the president’s signature legislative accomplishment.

Let’s hold on.

The ACA is working. Americans who didn’t have insurance have it now. The law has been upheld by the highest court in America. Key Republicans have joined Democrats in declaring that the ACA is going to stay on the books.

So now some clown shoots off his mouth and that turns a law that’s working into one that’s not?

I think not.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience