Category Archives: political news

International news, military news, national news, political news

Trump implies media covering up for terrorists

Now he’s done it.

Donald “Smart Person” Trump has suggested that the media are covering up terrorist attacks that have occurred against innocent victims. The president went to Central Command headquarters today ostensibly to express his support for our fighting men and women.

So … what does this guy do? He tosses yet another lie onto the firestorm he is trying to stoke.

What’s more, he has actually impugned the patriotism and loyalty of the people who report the news to the public.

Isn’t that just grand?

Trump — as is his modus operandi — cited not a shred of evidence to back up his allegation. He just said it. Boom! That’s it.

According to CBS News: “The president began talking about how ‘radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland’ as they did on 9/11, in the Boston bombings and in San Bernardino. He said it’s also happening ‘all over Europe’ like in Paris and Nice.

“’It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that,’ Mr. Trump said.”

It’s not even being reported?

Their reasons? I’m all ears, Mr. President. I am waiting with bated breath to know what those reasons might be.

Is it because the media are actually terrorist sympathizers? Do they want the bad guys to succeed? Do they actually favor the death and misery being inflicted on innocent victims?

What in the name of all that is holy is this clown suggesting?

legal news, national news, political news

Trump draws bead on another federal judge

Let me see a show of hands: Has anyone out there ever seen or heard a president of the United States attack individual members of the federal judiciary?

I didn’t think so. Me neither.

Donald “Smart Person” Trump is setting a new — lower — standard for behavior.

A judge in western Washington state, James Robart, has stopped the president’s ban on refugees from certain countries. The Department of Justice is seeking an injunction against Robart’s ruling. That’s all normal reaction.

What is quite abnormal has been the president’s Twitter tantrum, calling Robart a “so-called judge” and saying if “anything happens” because a criminal sneaked into the country, we should blame the judiciary for it.

You’ll recall how as a candidate for president, Trump took on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel because of his Mexican heritage. Curiel is presiding over a case involving Trump University. Trump said the judge couldn’t adjudicate the matter fairly because “he’s a Mexican, OK?” Actually, the Indiana-born jurist is as American as Trump.

Trump needs lesson on presidential behavior.

Trump as a candidate behaved disgracefully. Now that he’s president, he is expected to conduct himself with dignity and decorum. He isn’t. Trump continues to launch into these Twitter-borne tirades against a duly appointed federal judge.

Indeed, it is reasonable to question whether the president is trying to coerce another member of a co-equal branch of government into doing his bidding.

I believe such activity — if it’s ever alleged — would be illegal. As in against the very laws the president took a solemn oath to defend and protect.

national news, political news

No, Kellyanne, critics aren’t ‘haters’

My dear mother taught me a few life lessons: Don’t wish your life away; keep an open mind; don’t “hate” anyone.

The last one stands out at this moment as I ponder the comments from Donald Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, who calls critics of a recent gaffe “haters.”

No, ma’am. We aren’t haters. Actually, I haven’t yet weighed in on the gaffe, in which you mistakenly referred to a “massacre” at Bowling Green, Ky., that never occurred.

Conway did own up to her mistake quickly after the stuff hit the fan. She said she “misspoke” when she made the reference in an MSNBC interview. Do the critics “hate” her for saying such a thing? I would hope not.

I only can speak for myself on this one, but I don’t hate Kellyanne Conway. What I do hate, though, are the untrue statements that pour out of the mouths of the president himself and so many of his closest advisers. Maybe they believe what they say. Perhaps they know they are telling untruths … or lying.

I am amused — in a perverse sort of way — with so many of things Conway has said. She referred to “alternative facts” the other day in another TV interview. “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd told her that “alternative facts are falsehoods.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/04/i-misspoke-one-word-kellyanne-conway-calls-her-critics-haters-after-bowling-green-fiasco/?postshare=1501486251399743&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.7e6601dfc4fc

I get that Conway is feeling chastened by critics. As a senior adviser to the president of the United States, it’s not too much to ask her to tell the truth — the whole truth — at all times.

Honest to goodness, though, I don’t hate her when she falls short. I just hate the words that come out of her mouth.

national news, political news

POTUS sets dubious polling record

Donald “Smart Person” Trump has set a record.

He won’t boast about it, though.

According to a new CNN/ORC public opinion poll, the president’s disapproval rating — at 53 percent — is an all-time record for someone so new in the job.

I mention this only because Trump has made such a big, noisy and overly inflated point about his poll numbers while he campaigned for the Republican Party nomination and then for election to the presidency.

He made the polls an issue. He bragged about ’em. He ridiculed his foes for their dismal poll numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/index.html

But wouldn’t you know it? Just when the polls sag and public opinion turns against him, he is quite likely to say something about them being “rigged” or questioning the integrity of the polling organization that compiled the results.

Get used to it, Mr. President. This, too, is part of your new job.

business news, national news, political news

Army secretary pulls out; business interests get in the way

Vincent Viola is worth about $1.8 billion.

He was tapped by Donald Trump to be the next secretary of the Army. Oops! He dropped out today, citing the difficulty of severing his business ties from his upcoming public service.

Hmm. That sounds a bit familiar, yes?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317893-trumps-army-secretary-nominee-withdrawing-report

The president himself is reportedly worth a lot more than Viola. He, too, has myriad business interests. Some folks believe he might be violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against presidents taking money from foreign governments; it’s that “emoluments clause.”

If Viola couldn’t break his business interests loose in order to serve as Army secretary, how does the president of the United States make good on that requirement?

Just wondering … you know?

local news, national news, political news

Donald Trump is no Gipper

Two weeks into the presidency of Donald “Smart Person” Trump and I’m still trying to digest what it all means and where this will lead the nation he was elected to lead.

An interesting comparison came my way today at lunch. I was meeting with a gentleman I have known in Amarillo for more than a decade. He’s an accomplished member of the Texas legal community and I respect him greatly.

He asked me for my thoughts on Trump’s first few days. I offered him a tepid “Well … I just don’t know” kind of response. My friend harkened back to when Ronald Reagan was elected president and how the president would say the most “unbelievable things.” The Gipper, my friend added, would go on to become “the greatest president in my lifetime.”

He believes we need to give Trump the same measure of patience that the nation granted Reagan.

I’m not sure the comparison is valid. As much as I respect my friend’s knowledge and his perspective, my biggest objection to the comparison lies in this indisputable piece of history: Ronald Reagan at least had experience in government when he became president in 1981. He had served two terms as California governor and by many people’s accounts, they were successful terms at that.

Sure, he entered the White House with a reputation as a “cowboy,” a B-movie actor and someone without a lot of interest in the nuts and bolts of government. President Reagan dealt looked only at the “big picture,” my friend said. I get that.

Reagan, though, at least had been exposed to the complexities of governing.

Trump’s entire life — every single aspect of it — has been geared toward personal enrichment. He has focused his entire professional career on making money for himself and his family. He had zero public service experience, none, when he took the oath of office as president of the United States just two weeks ago.

Thus, as steep as Ronald Reagan’s learning curve was when he became president 36 years ago, Donald Trump has embarked on a 90-degree vertical climb.

Even a “smart person,” as Trump has called himself, must find such a thing to be daunting in the extreme.

Will he succeed? For the sake of the nation he now leads, I certainly hope so. Do I expect that to happen? The first two weeks do not fill me with encouragement that he has learned a thing about how to govern. His “ready, fire and aim” approach to dealing with our allies abroad gives me serious concern.

It’s totally fair and reasonable to wonder: What in the world would The Gipper think of this guy who now sits in the Oval Office?

As my friend said today of the president’s tumultuous start, “It’s OK to shake things up.” Sure it is … if you have a clue as to what you are seeking to accomplish.

local news, political news

Councilman thrusts himself into spotlight yet again

Amarillo has a City Council member who appears to enjoy thrusting himself into the spotlight.

Randy Burkett, though, finds curious methods of doing so. He uses social media to sound off on this or that issue. Then, when he takes some heat from residents and even from local media, he tends to lash back at the critics.

I’ll stipulate that I do not know Burkett personally. I have ready plenty about him since he ran for the City Council in 2015 and have been following him at times during his occasionally tumultuous tenure on the council.

He has battled with other council members, namely Mayor Paul Harpole. He has been accused of leaking confidential information from executive council sessions. He has popped off in public.

This latest social media incident, though, seems a bit different. He got into a public fight on Facebook by criticizing a Muslim woman who was wearing a red-white-and-blue head band. Now he’s gone quiet and isn’t speaking to the media.

A silly aspect of this latest dust-up is the criticism leveled at Burkett by the Amarillo Globe-News, which endorsed him for election to the council in 2015. I am beginning to think the G-N might regret its decision to back the councilman’s candidacy.

The Globe-News editorialized today about Burkett’s latest social media tempest. It has scolded him for failing to provide proof that “‘law enforcement authorities’ are investigating threats related to the aforementioned social media exchange.”

I just want to offer this admonishment to Councilman Burkett.

Don’t use social media to spout off in this manner. It is unbecoming of an elected municipal official, someone who represents an entire city of nearly 200,000 residents. All five of these council members serve as de facto ambassadors for the city. Thus, the things they post on social media outlets carries a certain imprimatur that other folks — like, say, yours truly — don’t have.

I realize in this peculiar political climate — exemplified by the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States — has emboldened politicians at all levels to “tell it like it is” using social media. The president himself has used Twitter with devastating — and sometimes embarrassing — effect.

Just because POTUS can act like a buffoon at times on social media doesn’t give other politicians license to do the same thing.

legal news, national news, political news

Catfight over Gorsuch? Wait until the next justice leaves the court

“So, are you ready for the catfight that’s going to erupt over this guy Trump has picked for the Supreme Court?”

That was the question posed to me today by a colleague of mine.

The reference, of course, was to Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the highest court in the land.

“Catfight? Over this? Naw. The earth is going to open up and quake when the next justice leaves the court,” I said, referring to the possibility that either Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy might leave the court.

That, I said, will produce the “mother of all catfights.”

Gorsuch’s nomination doesn’t change a thing on the court. The president is seeking to place a judicial conservative on the court to replace another conservative’s seat, that of the late Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

Yes, Senate Democrats are enraged. Not at the selection of Gorsuch, necessarily, but over the treatment that President Obama got when he nominated Merrick Garland this past year to succeed Scalia.

My own thought is that Gorsuch is likely to be as good a choice as Democrats are going to get, given Trump’s insistence on picking a conservative judge.

No, the real donnybrook will occur when one of the liberals or swing justices decides to leave … or is unable to serve.

My own advice to Democrats would be to pick their fights carefully. Sure, they battle Gorsuch’s nomination. They’ll insist on keeping the 60-vote majority required to approve a Supreme Court nomination. Republicans might decide to invoke the “nuclear option” and allow a 51-vote majority.

I have no real clue as to which way this fight will go.

It might serve Democrats better to hold their fire for the next vacancy when — or if — it occurs during Trump’s time in office.

Given the tenuous ideological balance of the court, with its slim conservative majority, I sincerely doubt that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer — both picked by President Clinton in the 1990s — are going to resign amid the political climate that has fallen over Washington.

As for Justice Kennedy, one of President Reagan’s picks, well, that might be another matter.

Whatever happens, the serious political bloodletting is yet to occur.

entertainment news, national news, political news

If only Arnold could switch with Trump …

I do not favor amending the U.S. Constitution to allow naturalized U.S. citizens to run for president of the United States.

But a brief retort from a noted former politician/superstar actor/turned reality TV host has me pondering. What if … ?

Donald J. Trump tossed a dig at Arnold Schwarzenegger over his ratings as the new host of “Celebrity Apprentice.” He made the remark at the National Prayer Breakfast — of all places — this morning. “Pray for Arnold,” the president said.

Sheesh!

Well, Arnold — a former California governor — responded to Trump. It’s in the link below.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/schwarzenegger-responds-to-trump-why-dont-we-switch-jobs/ar-AAmyfsb?li=BBnb7Kz

Arnold said that since Trump is an “expert” at ratings, let’s switch jobs.

It has me thinking. You know I think I actually would vote for Arnold for president were he eligible to run for the office. Too bad the Austria-born muscleman can’t.

legal news, national news, political news

Principle pushes against politics

I just hate it when principle runs smack head-on into real-time politics.

The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court has created just such a conundrum — at least for me.

The principle involves whether to fill the ninth seat on the nation’s highest court, an argument I made when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

It wasn’t to be for the Garland and the president; Senate Republicans threw up their roadblock and obstructed the nomination by refusing even to consider it.

They were wrong!

Now a new president has nominated Gorsuch to Scalia’s vacant seat. Senate Democrats are threatening to do all they can to obstruct it, to block Donald Trump’s nominee from taking his seat on the bench.

I’m swallowing real hard as I write this, but it is just as wrong for Democrats to obstruct this nominee as it was for Republicans to obstruct Merrick Garland.

The principle of presidential prerogative stands firm in my view.

So does the need for the Supreme Court to be whole. It needs nine seats occupied to avoid tie votes that in effect send important cases back to lower-court rulings.

At one level, I sympathize with Democrats’ rage at the way their GOP “friends” played raw politics with Garland’s nomination. The GOP leadership took a huge gamble on the hope that a Republican would be elected president. The odds of that gamble paying off seemed to lengthen considerably when Donald Trump won the GOP presidential nomination this past summer.

Trump fooled a lot of us by defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now it’s Donald Trump’s turn to nominate people to become justices on the highest court in America.

By all accounts, Gorsuch is qualified. He’s not my ideal justice candidate. To be candid, given Trump’s seeming lack of ideological conviction, I’m not at all certain he even fits whatever core values inform the president’s thinking.

The fundamental point, though, is whether it is right for Democrats to threaten to keep the seat vacant for another year — or perhaps for the entire length of time a Republican president is recommending potential justices.

It is not right!

Judge Gorsuch deserves a Senate committee hearing and a full vote in the Senate — just as Judge Garland did.

Principle ought to matter more than politics — even when one’s political sensibilities are being trampled.