Category Archives: national news

Christian, Muslim, Jew … so what?

paladino-1-e1467138490245-300x198

Carl Paladino is a partisan hack who runs Republican nominee Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in New York state.

He’s alsoĀ spouting idiocy about the religious affiliation of the president of the United States, who he has labeled this week as a Muslim.

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he is a devout Christian. I believe the president. I do not believe the idiotic rant of Paladino.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-advisor-carl-paladino-theres-no-doubt-that-obama-is-a-muslim/

OK, then. Now, let’s look at something in the U.S. Constitution.

If you’re a real, true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool conservative, you believe in what’s called a “strict constructionist”Ā view of the Constitution. You choose to interpret as little as possible in the document, much like one might do with, say, the Holy Bible.

So, let’s open our copy of the Constitution and turn to Article VI. It covers several areas of government, such as debt, laws and treaties, the oath officeholders take to support the Constitution.

And, oh yes, it has a clause at the end of it pertaining to “no religious test.”

It states: ” … but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Do you know what I take away from that passage in Article VI? It means to me that an officeholder or a candidate for public office can worship any religion he or she chooses. It doesn’t matter what faith they worship.

Article VI lays it out there with crystal clarity.

That’s in a perfect world. I realize we don’t live in a world of perfection. It is soiled a good bit by those who choose to ignore constitutional tenets that fail to meet their world view.

Carl Paladino chooses, therefore, to declare in public that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, as if that’s supposed to label him as someone evil, sinister … anti-American.

I’ll make an admission: I am not as faithful to my own interpretation of the Constitution. Some constitutional tenets I take literally; I choose to interpret other tenets a bit more broadly. If you’re honest with yourself, you might be wiling to admit to doing the same thing yourself.

The “no religious test” clause of Article VI is one that — in my view — should be understood clearly and without equivocation. The framers knew exactly what they were doing when they expressly prohibited a “religious test.” They wanted to create a secular government run without specific religious influences.

My optimism runs eternal. Therefore, I’ll keep hoping for as long as I’m walking on this good Earth that one day we can apply that constitutional principle cleanly and without fear and suspicion.

How do you ‘rig’ a U.S. presidential election?

shutterstock_331242347.jpg-voting

I’m going to crawl way out on a limb.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to win several states this fall that normally vote Republican in presidential elections.

I won’t suggest that Texas will be one of them. There are some others, though, that appear vulnerable to an electoral flip: Arizona comes to mind; Missouri, too; maybe North Carolina; and, yes, even Utah. Let me throw in Montana and the Dakotas just for giggles and grins.

Which brings to mind the weird prediction that Republican nominee Donald J. Trump has leveled at the electoral process. He says the election will be “rigged.”

My question centers on how you “rig” a national presidential election in which each state awards its Electoral College votes in a system run by state politicians.

The state’s I’ve mentioned have substantial Republican majorities in their legislatures. Missouri is governed by a Democrat, but it has gone Republican for several election cycles.

Trump, though, suggests that Clinton is going to manage to “rig” the election.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-obama-says-donald-trump%e2%80%99s-claim-that-election-will-be-rigged-is-%e2%80%98ridiculous%e2%80%99/ar-BBvgPV9?li=BBnbcA1

Trump provoked a strong response from President Obama, who today called the “rigging” accusation “ridiculous.”

The president mentioned that it’s impossible for him to understand how a candidate can suggest something like that would happen before the results are in. If the GOP nominee were leading by 15 points on Election Day and still lost, the president said, then he might have reason to question the results.

My point here, though, is that presidential elections aren’t really managed at a single location. They are managed in 50 state capitals, with its hefty share of Republican-controlled legislative chambers and governor’s offices.

Trump’s weird prediction, therefore, sounds like the whining of someone who knows he’s going to lose badly in about 96 days.

Nuclear knowledge becomes an issue

by Snoron.com

Seventy-one years ago the United States of America set a terrible — but necessary in my view — precedent in the conduct of warfare.

A B-29 bomber crew on Aug. 6, 1945 dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. The device killed tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in instant. Another crew took off three days later and did even greater damage to the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

World War II would come to an end just a few days later.

I raise the issue today because of some remarkable things that the Republican Party nominee for president — Donald J. Trump — has said about the use of nuclear weapons.

Trump has said several astonishing things along the way to his nomination.

* He said Japan and South Korea should be allowed to develop nuclear arsenals to defend themselves against North Korea.

* Trump has said he wouldn’t object if other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, developed nukes.

*Ā He was unable to answer a question about the so-called “nuclear triad.”

*Ā Trump told a TV interviewer that he wouldn’t take the use of nukes “off the table” in the Middle East or even in Europe.

The United States built its nuclear arsenal during the 1950s and 1960s to deter the other great nuclear power — the Soviet Union — from using the weapons against us or our allies. We didn’t build the weapons to use for offensive purposes. We built them to scare the daylights out of the Soviets.

Donald Trump is campaigning for the presidency with no apparent knowledge of our nuclear weapon policy or even any knowledge of why we have the weapons in the first place.

I’m old enough to remember the famous “Daisy” ad that President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign ran a single time on TV in 1964 against Barry Goldwater. It was meant to send the message that Sen. Goldwater could not be trusted with the nation’s vast nuclear arsenal.

I don’t expect another such ad to appear this time around.

However, Trump’s astonishing lack of understanding of nuclear weapons policy should give every American serious pause as they ponder who should become the next commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military machine.

Allow this dissent on ‘most qualified’ candidate for POTUS

HOUSTON, TX - DECEMBER 01: President George H.W. Bush waits on the field prior to the start of the game between the New England Patriots and the Houston Texans at Reliant Stadium on December 1, 2013 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Scott Halleran/Getty Images)

“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

So said the current president, Barack H. Obama, this past week at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Clinton to run for the presidency.

I am going to quibble with the president on this one.

Hillary Clinton probably is more “qualified” on paper than either Obama or her husband to become president. Obama served in the Illinois Senate and then briefly in the U.S. Senate before being elected president in 2008. Bill Clinton served as Arkansas attorney general and as governor of his home state before being elected president in 1992.

Clinton’s wife served in the U.S. Senate and as secretary of state after serving as first lady — while taking an active role in policy decisions made during her husband’s administration.

But isĀ Hillary ClintonĀ the most qualified person ever to seek the office?

For my money, the honor of most qualified candidate — in my lifetime,Ā at least —Ā goes to a Republican.

I give you George Herbert Walker Bush.

You are welcome to argue the point with me if you wish.

But G.H.W. Bush’s pre-presidency credentials are damn impressive.

He flew combat missions in World War II as the Navy’s youngest fighter pilot. Bush then came home, moved to Texas and started an oil company. Then he served in Congress, where he represented the Houston areaĀ for a couple of terms before losing a Senate bid to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen.

That wasn’t nearly the end of his public service.

He would later be appointed to serve as head of the CIA, as special envoy to the People’s Republic of China, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, as ambassador to the United Nations — and then he served as two vice president for two terms during Ronald Reagan’s administration.

I get that President Obama wants to cast his party’s nominee in the best possible light. Given that she’s running against someone — Donald J. Trump — who is likely the least qualified candidate for president in U.S. history, the president perhaps can be excused for a bit of embellishment.

But a great man is still with us.

Sure, President Bush lost his bid for re-election to Bill Clinton. That, though, must not diminish the myriad contributions he made in service toĀ our belovedĀ country.

Another actual Republican bolts from Trump

vin

The last time I thought about this guy, I understood that he was a seriously conservative Republican.

Vin Weber served a dozen years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He worked closely with Speaker Newt Gingrich. He’s the real GOP deal.

His view of his party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump?

Weber says his party has made a mistake of “historic proportions” by nominating Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/vin-weber-trump-mistake-226630

In the past, whenever I raise issue of former officeholders who have been critical of Trump, I get the “has been” rejoinder from my conservative friends. Who cares what Vin Weber thinks? some of them likely are going to say, just as they’ve said it about other Republicans.

Weber is a serious thinker. He is among the latest of several key Republicans who’ve bolted from Trump. According to Politico: “Weber joins a growing list of notable Republicans who have recently said they will not support Trump’s candidacy, including HP CEO Meg Whitman, Sally Bradshaw, a longtime aide to Jeb Bush, and Maria Comella, a former top aide to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.”

Despite all this, Trump keeps saying his campaign is in great shape.

Sigh …

We’ll see about that.

Does this officer deserve the Medal of Honor?

Humayun-Khan

This isn’t an original thought. Others have said this on social media, but I’m going to chime inĀ briefly.

The late U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan has been in the news lately. He was killed in Iraq in 2004 when an enemy explosive device detonated. Capt. Khan was trying to save his men when he was killed.

His parents, Kzhir and Ghazala Khan, stood before the Democratic National Convention this past week and Mr. Khan delivered a soliloquy that opposed the candidacy of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

The firestorm that erupted from Trump’s crass response to the Khans’ support of Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn’t yet abated. Trump said the Khans, who are Muslim, had “no right” to criticize him. Actually, of course, they had every right as proud American citizens.

The thought I’m putting forward here?

Humayun Khan, from what I’ve heard acted with extreme heroism on the battlefield in Iraq. As one of my social media friends noted today, Khan’s action was tantamount to throwing his body on a hand grenade, which is the kind of action that has produced Medal of Honor recipients.

Therefore, it seems fair and reasonable to wonder whether Humayun Khan deserves consideration for the Medal of Honor.

Well … ?

Trump learning that, yes, news can be ‘bad’

donald-trump

Donald J. Trump’s first-ever political campaign has turned into a train wreck.

And yet, the Republican presidential nominee, keeps operating on the notion that there’s no such thing as “negative publicity.”

Actually, of course, there is such a thing. Trump has begun bleeding profusely. He’s exsanguinated so badly that in the past 24 hours or so there is actual talk among Republicans about how they might be able to take their presidential campaign forward without Trump as the party’s nominee.

Count me as one American who doesn’t think Trump will quit, although it’s an interesting notion to consider.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/08/try-this-conspiracy-theory-on-for-size/

Several news organizations are reporting that GOP leaders are trying to (a) get Trump to reset his campaign, (b) persuade him to start acting like a serious presidential candidate and (c) figure out how to persuade Trump to drop and then find a way to nominate someone else.

Trump’s campaign performance has been disgraceful, comical, ridiculous and nonsensical.

Were he to quit the race, though, would be to hand Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton the keys to the White House. Moreover, it would be the perfect prescription for a 50-state sweep by Clinton, which would flip the Senate and theĀ House of Representatives from GOP to Democratic control.

The Republican brass might need to rethink the seriousness of any effort to get Trump to quit the campaign.

They would have to cope with the outrage of the Trumpkins who voted for Trump during the GOP primary. He collected a lot of them — which he has been more than eager to remind us all along the way. Are they going to vote blindly for the replacement nominee, whoever he is? You may stop laughing now.

But for now, the Trump campaign is bleeding. His foes smell it.

Actor criticized for attending DNC … why?

american_sniper

Bradley Cooper is a fabulous artist.

His most memorable portrayal arguably is of the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle in the film “American Sniper.” I saw the film and was riveted by it.

Lately, though, Cooper has been taking some flak from Republicans who criticized him for attending the Democratic National Convention in his hometown of Philadelphia. He wanted to hear President Obama’s speech at the convention in which he extolled the virtues of Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Cooper said as well that Obama is a great public speaker. He took his mother to the convention so she could hear the president’s remarks.

So, why the criticism? I can only surmise that it’s because anti-Obama activists and other observers thought that the actor who portrayed the iconic Chris Kyle was somehow disloyal to the late SEAL’s values … and that he since he assumed Kyle’s identity in the film that he also embraced the brave special forces warrior’s politics.

Hmmm.

If that’s the case, I only have one response.

That’s why they call it “acting.”

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/03/bradley-cooper-outrage-dnc-corden

Try this conspiracy theory on for size

donald-trump-s-presidential-campaign-manager-arrested-1459339462-4920.jpg

Those who believe conspiracies exist behind every decision or public policy action might be inclined at this moment to believe the following …

That the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, really doesn’t want the job for which he has been campaigning and is throwing the election on purpose.

Do not count me as a conspiracy theorist. I believe men have walked on the moon, that the 9/11 attacks were a surprise and that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed President Kennedy.

The Trump phenomenon, however, has me thinking — yet again — about whether the guy really wants to become president of the United States.

He gets his party’s nomination, then sits through four days of watching the Democrats nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton the next week.

Then, right out of the chute after Clinton secures the nomination, Trump goes after the parents of a fallen U.S. Army soldier who happened to be Muslim, and then insists that a crying baby be removed from a rally at which he was speaking. Then he said he wished he could have earned a Purple Heart in combat.

What in the name of the Theater of the Absurd is going on here?

Time and time and time again, Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of anything regarding governance. He reportedly quizzed a senior campaign staffer about why the United States was prohibited from using nuclear weapons; Trump’s campaign has denied that he asked the question. OK, Don … whatever you say.

The Republican Party brass can’t stand him. His campaign appears to be disintegrating before our eyes.

Is it on purpose? Is the GOP nominee deliberately sabotaging his campaign so he can stick it in the collective eyes and/or ears of those who fear for their party’s viability as a legitimate political instrument?

Look, I don’t know if any of this is true. It’s just that the unpredictability factor of this campaign makes it impossible to dismiss what — in normal times — would seem to be preposterous in the extreme.

Nothing at all would surprise at this point.

After all, the Republican Party nominated this guy to run for president of the United States of America. Is there anything more preposterous than that?

Journalists actually surrender some civil liberties

freedom-of-speech-2cd4b4

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution

Here’s something you might not ever have considered when you think of journalists.

There are times when journalists at leastĀ one of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It’s in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the clause contained in that amendment to which I refer speaks to the right to express your political views publicly.

I’ve known journalists over the years who’ve said they never vote because they feel this need to remain “neutral” as it regards political campaigns. Voting, they say, removes the veneer of neutrality and impartiality. I’ve heard of many prominent journalists who’ve said the same thing.

I didn’t adhere to that strange doctrine during the nearly 37 years I was a practicing full-time journalist. I always have voted, understandingĀ that my vote is my business and that since it’s done in secret I was never obligated to reveal who received my ballot-box endorsement.

Lawn signs are another matter. The last sign I ever planted in my yard was in 1976, before I was finished with college and before I became a full-time journalist. It was during the Oregon primary that year and I displayed a sign supporting the late U.S. Sen. Frank Church of Idaho in that year’s Democratic presidential primary.

Bumper stickers, too, are forbidden — in my view — for those of us who have toiled in the media.

The last paper where I worked, the Amarillo Globe-News, did not have a policy banning bumper stickers on employees’ motor vehicles. I saw the occasional vehicle in the company parking lot with a sticker on a rear bumper.

On one occasion, I asked the owner of the vehicle about it and asked him if he thought it was appropriate for him to display that political preference while working for an organization that is supposed to present the news fairly and without bias. This individual sold advertisements for the paper and, thus, he didn’t feel compelled to remove the sticker from his vehicle. We agreed to disagree on that and we remain friends to this day.

Why mention this?

The media get hammered pretty hard by those who think reporters and editors are somehow privileged to say what they want without being held accountable. Actually, they are held accountable by their employers and, yes, by the public they seek to serve.

Their craft, though, occasionally prevents those in the media from responding as freely and forcefully as they wish.

Some media employers demand that their representatives keep their bias hidden; they prohibit bumper stickers on vehicles and signs in employees’ yards. Others don’t, preferring to leave it to the employees’ own good judgment to do the right thing.

On occasion, though, doing the right thing requires those in the media to surrender certain rights of citizenship — even as they advocate for the rights of others to never be “abridged.”

Ironic, yes?