Category Archives: national news

local news, national news, political news

Turn the former president loose

Close view of a collection of VOTE badges. 3D render with HDRI lighting and raytraced textures.

Bill Clinton has made his 2016 campaign debut on behalf of his wife.

The reports are that Donald Trump is casting a large shadow over the former president’s initial appearance. Never mind. It will not diminish President Clinton’s drawing power.

The ex-Democratic president is going to start stumping for his wife, the presumptive Democratic frontrunner. Take this to the bank: He’s going to be — to borrow a term from Trump — a “huuuuuge” asset.

How do I know this?

Well, let’s flash back to 2008. Hillary Clinton was in the midst of a heated primary campaign against a fellow U.S. senator, Barack H. Obama. The Texas primary was coming up and the race wasn’t yet decided.

Hillary decided to call on Bill to make a campaign appearance for her, of all places, in Amarillo.

The former president’s advance team did its usual stellar job of preparing for the event. Bill Clinton would speak at the Amarillo Civic Center.

He came here — into the belly of the proverbial beast. This is blood-red Republican territory. We are the reddest part of the reddest state in the country. Look far and wide and you’ll find hardly Democrats holding elective office in any of the 26 counties that comprise the Texas Panhandle.

Bill Clinton came to the Panhandle in the midst of the 2008 campaign and he was met by a standing-room-only crowd. The crowd packed the Civic Center Grand Plaza; it spilled out into the hallway.

People came from all over the region to hear the former president. I have knowledge of a good number of dedicated Republicans who attended the event because they wanted to hear what the former Democratic Leader of the Free World had to say on behalf of his wife.

Will he replicate his astonishing drawing power in the 2016 campaign?

Here’s a word to the wise: Do not bet against him.

 

 

national news, political news

Executive action on guns draws expected fire

1 Comment

gun over american flag

President Obama is considering some executive action he hopes will require gun dealers to go through increased background checks.

Does it mean that “law-abiding Americans” will be denied their right to “keep and bear arms” as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Obama says “no.” Republican presidential candidates say “yes.”

Who do you believe? I guess that depends on your political party, your philosophical persuasion, your own bias.

Me? I’m willing to let the president give it a try.

I am going to take the usual — and expected — criticism from readers of this blog who believe as GOP contender Chris Christie said that Obama is acting like a “dictator.”

I disagree with that characterization. The president has a team of constitutional lawyers surrounding him who’ll likely advise him that he’s acting totally within the law in issuing the orders to require the checks.

Congress won’t do it. Heck, Congress wouldn’t even approve legislation that would have restricted people placed on no-fly lists from owning firearms. Does the president expect Congress to follow his lead on his effort to curb gun violence? Not a chance.

So he’ll do what he needs to do on his own.

Do I feel threatened? Are the feds going to knock on my door and take my guns away from me? No and no.

However, the president’s apparent move toward executive action has prompted the apoplectic response from the GOP presidential field.

But what the heck. That’s politics.

 

national news, political news

Where is the outrage?

landscape-1451841523-oregon-standoff

The media have been reporting the arrest of Bill Cosby.

They’ve been talking about the horse race among the Republicans running for president.

They have been yammering about this and that.

Meanwhile, way out yonder in a place where few people live — or even have seen — a group of wacky “militiamen” have taken over a federal facility.

Is that an act of sedition?

Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon, is among the protestors who’ve taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters office in Burns, Ore. You remember Cliven Bundy, right? He’s the Nevada rancher who mounted a revolt of his own over federal land ownership issues and became something of a hero to the TEA Party wing of the Republican Party.

Well, now his kid has left his own footprint on the crazy movement.

Why aren’t the media taking note of this craziness?

If it were occurring in a major metro area, with, say, college students taking over a university, you’d think the world was about to come to an end. What might the media do if African-Americans commandeered a federal facility? Would that constitute an act of “domestic terrorism”?

The protestors took over the wildlife refuge headquarters to protest the arrest of two Harney County ranchers. They’re set to serve prison terms. I guess those who protested in Burns don’t think they deserve to go to federal prison. Their reaction? Take command of a government building.

This is a dangerous act that needs a lot of attention and it needs to be stopped immediately.

Meanwhile, I am awaiting the expressions of outrage.

 

 

national news, political news

Is a spouse’s conduct really fair game?

clinton

Maybe I’m a bit slow on the uptake, which wouldn’t be much of a shock, truth be told.

I’m having trouble connecting a few dots, though, between the behavior of a former president of the United States to the current campaign for the White House featuring the former president’s wife.

Bill Clinton messed around with a White House intern in the late 1990s and got impeached because of it. His wife, Hillary Clinton, wants the job Bill used to have.

So, what does she do? She challenges a potential Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, for his attitudes toward women. She calls him a sexist.

Trump’s response? He said Clinton’s husband is among the most sexist men in recent history . . . because of his alleged extramarital affairs and, of course, the dalliance with the intern.

I’m finding myself asking: Why is that relevant to the job that Hillary Clinton might do as president? Why does it matter what Bill Clinton was alleged to have done? I used the term “alleged” relating to the previous accusations because I do not believe any of them has ever been proved.

Hillary Clinton’s assertions about Trump relate to the here and now. They speak to Trump’s statements — which are on the record — about women; they speak to the very issues that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly brought up during that first Republican presidential debate and which garnered Trump all that notoriety.

Trump’s retort is to dredge up a relationship that resulted in a presidential impeachment that occurred more than 17 years ago; let us remember, too, that the U.S. Senate acquitted President Clinton of the charges brought by the House of Representatives.

Oh, my. This is going to be some kind of presidential campaign year.

Here we are on the third day of 2016 and I’m already wishing this year would be over.

 

legal news, national news, religious news, Uncategorized

Yes, Mr. Justice, ‘religious neutrality’ is in the Constitution

1 Comment

No-religious-test-of-office-320x1241

I am about to do something that gives me the heebie-jeebies. I am going to challenge a premise by one of the nine people who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of high school students this weekend in New Orleans that the U.S. Constitution does not compel “religious neutrality.”

Well, Mr. Justice, I believe it does.

Scalia, a deeply religious Roman Catholic, told the students that the Constitution prohibits government from adhering to a specific religion, but it does not compel government to ban references to religion in general.

He said it’s all right for government officials to invoke God in public.

Sure it is. Presidents of both parties have been ending public speeches for as long as I can remember — and that goes back a ways — with the words ” . . .  and may God bless the United States of America.”

But I have been reading the Constitution since I was old enough to read anything and I can find precisely two uses of the word “religion” or “religious” in that document. It’s in Article VI, where it says there shall be “no religious test” required of any individual seeking any public office at any level in the United States of America; and it’s also in the very First Amendment, where it says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

The rest of it is secular by design.

I agree with Justice Scalia that “God has been good to us” as a nation. But he seems to be getting a bit ahead of himself when he implies that “religious neutrality” seems intended to deprive Americans the right — or the desire — to worship as they see fit.

The individuals who founded this nation knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Constitution. They meant for it to be free of religious dogma. Yes, some have taken that intent too far by suggesting that we should remove “In God We Trust” from courtroom walls or from our currency.

However, I happen to quite comfortable with “religious neutrality” as it relates to our government.

I’m still free to go to church and pray to God. I will do so again today.

 

International news, national news, political news

Trump shows up on terror video . . . who knew?

terrorism1

Here we go. Donald Trump has shown up on a terrorist recruitment video produced by Al-Shabaab.

Remember when Hillary Rodham Clinton lambasted Trump’s anti-Muslim rants as providing fodder for terrorist groups? Trump called her a liar. So did his supporters.

To be clear, Clinton’s contention did not include visual evidence of such a video at the time she made it during the latest Democratic presidential candidate debate.

But now there appears to be actual video out there purporting to show clips of Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric.

It makes me wonder, though: Did the publicity surrounding Clinton’s accusation give the terrorists the idea to include Trump in the recruitment video? Or was the video in production all along?

It’ll be tough to pin down cause-and-effect here. Suffice to say, though, that Trump’s fiery rhetoric — the words that spit in the face of what the Republican presidential frontrunner calls “political correctness” — may have produced a consequence we all are likely to regret.

 

national news, political news, Uncategorized

Taking aim at … political correctness

Pc

Political correctness has become Public Enemy No. 1 . . . if you’re a Republican Party presidential candidate.

Those GOP debates have featured full frontal attacks from the candidates on that nefarious character called political correctness.

It gives them license, I suppose, to say whatever they want regardless of its offensiveness, ignorance or stupidity.

I want to take up for political correctness as it’s been defined by those who blame it for every national ailment under the sun.

I know. You’re surprised beyond belief.

Political correctness is not the bogeyman that candidates have identified as the enemy. Yes, there are times when PC language can go too far, when people who use it do so because they are afraid of committing the slightest offense.

But the anti-PC rhetoric we’re hearing on the campaign trail is aimed at candidates who insist that there should be nuance when talking about international diplomacy. They level their verbal fire at candidates — and current officeholders — who decline to use certain language to describe the enemies with whom we are at war. They seek to attach the PC label simply to those who choose to disagree with them, with their gratuitously harsh language.

So, the enemy now becomes political correctness.

The audiences who hear the candidates lambaste those who prefer to speak more precisely cheer them on. They like what they consider to be “bold” rhetoric; others of us watching and listening from the political peanut gallery would describe it more as “reckless.”

From where I sit, reckless rhetoric can — and quite often does — lead to consequences that produce lots of collateral damage in places where it’s hard to repair.

So, when I hear presidential candidates lampoon political correctness from their opponents, I am going to presume for the rest of this election cycle that those who support them accept the bluster that pours out of the candidates’ mouths.

However, will they accept the potential consequences that it produces?

 

local news, national news, political news, State news

Tornadoes need federal, political attention

dallas-tornado-from-airport

My wife and I laughed — nervously, I’ll admit — earlier today at our good fortune as we prepare to haul our fifth wheel back home.

We left the Texas Panhandle just ahead of a severe winter storm that blew in from the northwest. We headed for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to spend Christmas day with our son, daughter-in-law and our three grandkids — only to watch while tornadoes ripped through the region the afternoon and evening after Christmas.

The tornadoes resulted in several deaths and untold destruction of property all around our kids’ home in Allen.

I’m not well-versed in what happens next, but the destruction would seem to require some federal help. I am aware that state governors have to ask for it but as I write this brief blog post, I am unclear about whether Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is going to seek federal help to clean up the mess that the tornadoes left behind.

President Obama is due to return to Washington in the next day or so. I want to extend an invitation for him to land Air Force One at D/FW airport and take a look at what happened out there.

And the other candidates for president? I’m aware that Republican contender Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, already has taken a gander at what occurred in his home state.

We’ve still got a bunch of presidential candidates seeking the office. Yes, they can come, too.

Will anything get done? Will there be relief to be delivered to the state? Can it be delivered without attaching strings, such as what occurred when Joplin, Mo., was devastated by tornadoes in 2011 and then-U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor demanded that Congress cut spending elsewhere to “pay” for the relief?

We’ve got a lot of presidential contenders out there on the campaign trail. We’ve also got a president who’ll be flying directly at Texas on his way back to the White House. Texas is a big and important state.

And we’ve got a lot of residents who at this moment likely would appreciate some comfort from words of encouragement and support.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

Benghazi boss reveals his political preference

Trey_Gowdy-1

Trey Gowdy has endorsed Marco Rubio for president of the United States.

Not a big deal, you say?

It might be. Here’s why …

Gowdy is chairman of the House Select Benghazi Committee. He keeps saying he isn’t driven by political motives, seeking to harm former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the next president. Clinton, of course, ran the State Department when the terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.

But wait. Rubio is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. Gowdy’s also a Republican. Clinton is a Democrat.

Is Gowdy motivated by politics? Democrats are asking that question in the wake of Gowdy’s endorsement of his buddy Rubio.

I think it’s fair to ask why Gowdy chose to endorse a Republican candidate so early in the nominating process.

It’s also fair to wonder whether the chairman has developed a political tin ear to how this kind of endorsement might look to those who have been wondering all along whether the Benghazi hearings were tainted by more than just a touch with politics.

All those congressional hearings and the many hours of testimony have failed to prove a coverup by Clinton, as has been alleged by Republicans … including, by the way, Sen. Marco Rubio, Chairman Gowdy’s preferred choice for president of the United States.

Politics? Nahhh …

 

national news, political news

Trump channels late Texas congressman … more or less

1 Comment

Donald_Trump_hair

Donald Trump said recently that he intends to respond to negative attacks and added — somewhat incredulously, in my view — that he’s not one to initiate a negative campaign.

Interesting, yes? Well, I think so.

He’s been pretty darn negative ever since he announced his Republican presidential candidacy.

He took it to a new level when he said that likely Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, has demonstrated a worse record regarding women that Trump has.

Hillary Clinton had accused Trump of being hyper-sexist in his outlook toward women. So, Trump decided to bring up President Clinton’s relationship with a young White House intern.  He vows to make an example of the former president.

Well, my thoughts turned to a former Texas congressman I used to know quite well. The late Democratic U.S. Rep. Charles Wilson used to say much the same thing about negative campaigning. He once told me he’d never start a negative campaign, but would be always be prepared to respond if an opponent decided to get nasty.

A candidate once did get quite nasty during the 1992 campaign, criticizing Wilson’s lifestyle — including his self-acknowledged affection for attractive women. She aired TV ads while running against Wilson for the East Texas congressional district he’d represented since 1973. The ads were highly critical of Wilson’s “Good Time Charlie” reputation.

What happened next remains a bit of a mystery. An audiotape showed up at the newspaper where I worked at the time; it contained a heated — and profanity-laced — conversation between the Republican challenger and her married campaign treasurer. The two of them discussed their own extramarital affair, with the candidate demanding that her lover leave his wife for her.

I suppose I should mention that Wilson’s opponent had portrayed herself as a deeply religious candidate who ran on what used to be called “family values.”

Wilson, who at the time served on the House Select Intelligence Committee, denied having anything to do with the tape. I couldn’t prove otherwise.

The difference between that example and the one that Trump is threatening to use is that the candidate who challenged Wilson was an active politician, while the former president that Trump threatens to drag into the campaign hasn’t been a full-time politician since his presidency ended in January 2001.

Somehow, I believe Charlie Wilson would laugh at what Trump is pledging to do to a potential political rival.