Category Archives: political news

Here comes the gun-rights demagoguery

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

The National Rifle Association, to no one’s surprise, gave its blessing to the presidential candidacy of presumed Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

And also, again to no one’s surprise, Trump stood at the podium at the NRA meeting to condemn likely Democratic Party opponent Hillary Clinton’s view on gun violence.

He did so with his customary panache, meaning his customary hyperbole and outright lies.

Trump said Clinton wants to rescind the Second Amendment. He said she wants to “disarm American women.” He said he intends to rescind “gun-free zones” at local schools.

Trump’s answer to gun violence? Put more guns out there.

I’ve been going through the public record of Clinton’s statements on gun violence and, for the life of me, I cannot find a single statement that could be interpreted remotely as an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. It’s not there.

She’s talked about regulating the purchase of firearms. She joins other Americans in condemning the hideous increase in gun violence across the nation.

Does she intend to propose a rescinding of the Second Amendment? Does she really intend to disarm Americans?

Hell no!

That won’t deter Trump and continuing his demagogic tirades.

Let’s all get ready for more of the same.

 

Ex-felons have rights, too

felon-voting-bars-button

Some of the talk along the presidential campaign trail has turned to felons.

Do those who have been convicted of felonies deserve the right to vote? Sure they do … under certain conditions.

It’s becoming a bit of a sore point among many who think that felons must not have their rights of citizenship restored. If they’ve done something egregiously wrong, why, let them pay for the rest of their lives. That’s the mantra.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently granted ex-felons the right to vote in that state, much to the consternation of conservatives who argue that, by golly, McAuliffe is a friend and political ally of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, naturally he’d want to grant ex-felons the right to vote.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas actually said that those who commit crimes are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Let’s not paint with too broad a brush, Sen. Cruz.

Texas — of all places! — allows former felons to vote.

Check this out from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/effects.shtml

If a felon completes all the terms of his or her release from prison — and that includes fulfilling all the parole requirements — then he or she is eligible to register to vote. The restoration of these rights do not extend to those wanting to run for political office.

Honestly, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

A left-leaning website chides the National Rifle Association for opposing the rights of ex-felons to vote while at the same time pushing for the rights of ex-felons to own firearms.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/22/3780685/nra-wants-ex-felons-guns-not-voting-rights/

I won’t wade into that snake pit here. Maybe later.

However, the idea behind incarcerating people convicted of committing serious crimes is to force them to “repay their debt to society.” Once they complete a prison sentence and once they complete the terms of their parole — if they’re let out of The Joint early — then they have paid their debt in full. That’s how the judicial system sees it.

This clearly is a state-by-state issue. It need not enter the federal realm.

I’ve been critical in the past of many Texas laws and those who make them here. On this one, though, the Lone Star State got it right.

 

Unqualified … and unfit to become POTUS

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

I am so very reluctant to put words in other people’s mouths, but I cannot resist the urge here.

The probable Democratic Party presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said the other day that presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is “unqualified” to become president of the United States.

I beg to differ. He’s not only unqualified. He is unfit for the job.

Technically, Trump is qualified. He is a U.S. citizen; he’s well past the minimum age. He doesn’t have a felony conviction (I am presuming).

It’s the fitness that matters more to me.

The dictionary provides an inadequate definition of the term “unfit.” Its primary definition is “inappropriate.” Yeah, do you think?

A man with no public service record who refuses to release his tax returns wants to trust us to do the right thing. A reality TV celebrity who once operated beauty pageants wants to become the head of state of the world’s greatest nation. Someone who has lied repeatedly ever since becoming a candidate for the Republican Party nomination wants to become the moral leader of this nation.

Trump has no philosophical grounding. His world view depends on the last person to whom he has spoken. He changes his views at every opportunity.

Someone with zero grasp of governing wants to become the chief executive of the United States of America. He wants to “build a wall” to keep illegal immigrants out. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Trump wants to take the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to kill family members of terrorists. He says it’s OK if Japan and South Korea develop nuclear arsenals. He wants to talk directly to North Korean dictator/nutcase Kim Jong Un.

Trump has mocked an individual with a serious physical handicap. He has said amazingly crass things to — and about — women. He says the Mexican government is deliberately sending “rapists, drug dealers and murderers” into the United States.

No, the issue here isn’t his qualifications. It’s his fitness for the job.

Donald Trump fails the fitness test at every level imaginable.

 

Third party looking more like an option … really

ORLANDO, FL - SEPTEMBER 22:  Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson speaks in the Fox News/Google GOP Debate at the Orange County Convention Center on September 22, 2011 in Orlando, Florida. The debate featured the nine Republican candidates two days before the Florida straw poll. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

I am a dedicated two-party presidential election traditionalist.

My tendency is to dismiss third-party candidacies. My thought always has been that they have no chance of winning, therefore I won’t waste my vote, which I value greatly.

I am now about to announce that I am considering following the lead of one of my sons, who declared just the other day that he’s likely to vote for someone other than Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.

There, I’ve announced it.

Two former moderate Republican governors have teamed up as Libertarians seeking to run for president and vice president.

New Mexico’s Gary Johnson is running for president; he’s tapped Massachusetts’ William Weld as his running mate.

The Libertarian Party must nominate them. My strong hunch is that they will.

This won’t be Gov. Johnson’s first rodeo. He ran four years ago and collected about a million votes. I’ll bet you some serious money he and Gov. Weld will do a lot better than that this year.

The last major alternative to the two parties came in 1992 when Henry Ross Perot challenged President George H.W. Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. He won 19 million votes, but not a single Electoral College vote.

And, no … he didn’t cost President Bush his bid for re-election. I’ve seen ample polling data that suggest that even without Perot on the ballot that Clinton would have won by roughly the same margin he rolled up in 1992.

Why am I thinking about a third party? I’m not entirely thrilled with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Trump never — in a zillion years — would get my vote.

Don’t misinterpret me here. I haven’t yet committed to a third party candidate. I’m merely thinking about it, which by itself represents a major shift from my normal political thought process.

Johnson’s major claim to political fame was his call for legalization of marijuana. I was working for a newspaper — the Amarillo Globe-News — at the time he issued that call and the paper’s corporate ownership never would support legalization of marijuana; therefore, I wrote editorials criticizing Gov. Johnson’s “wacky” notion. I’m now writing my own blog, under my own name, and my view on that issue is, well, evolving.

Weld is another moderate former GOP governor. No single stands out, but I’ve long perceived him to be far from what’s becoming the Republican “mainstream” that wants to round up illegal immigrants, wants to criminalize abortion and wants to send American troops into battle at the slightest sound of gunfire.

Yes, this is just another example of how wacky this election campaign has become.

 

Has conflict frayed Trump’s fundraising efforts?

Oklahoma State alum T. Boone Pickens, Jr. fires up the Cowboy fan base during a tailgate party on the East Plaza of AT&T Stadium before the Cotton Bowl game against Missouri, Friday, January 3, 2014 in Arlington, Texas. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News) 01042014xSPORTS

T. Boone Pickens says he’s committed to electing Donald J. Trump as the next president of the United States.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is far friendlier to the oil and natural gas industry than his likely Democratic foe this fall, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Pickens — a former Amarillo resident — made his immense fortune in oil and natural gas.

It follows, then, that Pickens would be in Trump’s camp.

But there’s been a hiccup. Maybe. Perhaps.

Pickens was going to play host to a meeting at his sprawling Mesa Vista Ranch north of Pampa on June 11-3. The meeting was for a super-PAC supporting Trump. It’s been called off.

Why? Pickens’ spokesman blamed it on “scheduling conflicts,” which often becomes kind of a throwaway excuse for anything that gets postponed, or canceled.

There have been reports, though, of strife and turmoil among the Trump campaign and its fundraising machine, according to the Dallas Morning News.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/05/t-boone-pickens-postponing-major-fundraising-event-for-donald-trump.html/

Which is it? Scheduling and logistics? Or is there trouble in Trump World?

I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing Pickens three times — the most recent time just two weeks ago. I don’t know him well.  I know a lot more of him, though, having studied him from some distance over nearly 30 years.

A part of me just doesn’t believe he would have announced a big event at his ranch without having nailed down all the particulars he needed to make it a reality.

And that kind of makes me wonder if the issue doesn’t lie within the Trump apparatus.

Pickens’ team says the event will occur later this summer, after the Republican convention.

We’ll just have to wait and see … yes?

 

Pay attention, Gov. Abbott

abbott

There’s little I can add to this blog post by Brian Sweany of Texas Monthly.

Except, perhaps, this: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has a sharp legal mind and he ought to know more than he’s acknowledging regarding the conduct of the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton.

Here’s Sweany’s blog post:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/abbotts-feigned-ignorance/

Sweany asks a pertinent question: Why doesn’t the governor know more than he knew more than a year ago about Paxton’s conduct?

The AG has been indicted by a Collin County grand jury on felony accusations of securities fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a complaint as well. Paxton is accused of failure to disclose properly income he earned while giving investment advice.

As for Abbott’s “feigned ignorance,” as Sweany calls it, I’ll just add this.

Abbott was a trial judge in Houston before being elected to the Texas Supreme Court. He then was elected as the state’s attorney general, a post he held until January 2015 when he became the state’s governor.

Paxton succeeded Abbott at the AG’s office.

It would seem implausible that the governor knows nothing more now than he did a year ago. I don’t want Abbott to convict his Republican colleague, either, through statements to the media.

Still, to borrow a phrase: Gov. Abbott, what did you know and when did you know it?

 

Thanks for listening, Gov. Fallin

Oklahoma-Governor-Mary-Fallin-Vetoes-Abortion-Bill-650x488

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin likely didn’t read my earlier blog post about a bill that landed on her desk that would have made abortion illegal in her state.

Then again …

OK, I’ll take all the credit I deserve. How’s that?

Fallin vetoed Senate Bill 1552 this afternoon, calling it too ambiguous. The Republican governor remains fervently pro-life, but she’s also a realist. She knows that SB 1552 likely wouldn’t withstand a constitutional challenge.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okla-governor-vetoes-sweeping-abortion-ban-bill/ar-BBti0bA?li=BBnb7Kz

Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in most cases, remains the law of the land. That’s the entire land, which includes Oklahoma.

There actually was a voice of reason among the Oklahoma legislators who sent SB 1552 to Fallin’s desk. It came from a Republican senator, who also happens to be a physician.

Dr. Ervin Yen was the lone GOP senator to vote against the legislation. He described it as “insane.”

I’d bet real American money that Gov. Fallin likely disagrees with the insane description. Still, she did the right thing by vetoing a bill that clearly violated established federal law.

Get ready for big abortion fight

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin speaks during a news conference in Oklahoma City, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2015. Fallin said “it became apparent” during discussions with prison officials last week that the Department of Corrections used potassium acetate, not potassium chloride, as required under the state’s protocol, to execute Charles Frederick Warner in January. "Until we have complete confidence in the system, we will delay any further executions," Fallin said. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th of 50 states to join the United States of America, an event that subjected the residents of that state to all the “laws of the land.”

That means Oklahomans are bound to adhere to mandates handed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which interprets the constitutionality of the law.

Get set, then, for a big fight as Oklahoma tries to defend itself against challenges to a bill that makes abortion illegal in the state.

Why the fight? Because the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the practice of terminating a pregnancy is legal in all 50 states and that women could make that decision until the time that the unborn child is determined to be “viable.”

The Oklahoma Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Mary Fallin’s desk that makes performing an abortion a felony, except in the case of rape or incest or if carrying the pregnancy to full term endangers the mother’s life.

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973 didn’t spell out any exceptions. It said that women who choose to end a pregnancy have that right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the practice was declared legal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-abortion_us_573df1b9e4b0aee7b8e94b41

The Oklahoma law is seen as being a mostly symbolic gesture, even if Fallin signs it. She has until Wednesday. Gov. Fallin, a pro-life politician, hasn’t yet said whether she’ll sign it.

The cost to state taxpayers, though, could be substantial if abortion-rights groups challenge the law and subject the state to expensive legal proceedings.

Oklahoma lawmakers have made a profound political statement. They have thumbed their noses at the highest court in America and have determined independently that they are able to flout federal law that the judicial system has reaffirmed.

Gov. Fallin should veto the bill. If she wants to make abortion illegal, she should have to wait — and hope — for the chance to change the philosophical composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Look for a load of unflattering photos

Donald-Trump-Bad-Hair-Photo-1

Political campaigns of all stripes employ a universal tactic when seeking to put the opposition in a negative frame of reference.

They find the most unflattering pictures of the “other guy” and plaster them on TV ads or billboards. You know what I’m talking about.

I get the feeling the presidential campaign of 2016 is going to feature a trove of negative images.

I’ll now get to the point: Donald J. Trump has taken us to a new level of disgusting references to people’s physical appearance.

He’s referred to women as “fat pigs.” He once chided former fellow Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina by asking, “Would anyone vote for that face?” Oh, and then he stood on a campaign podium and mocked a reporter who has a severe physical disability.

The Trump campaign already is looking for pictures of Hillary Rodham Clinton that it will plaster on campaign literature and/or TV ads. Rest assured, too, that the Clinton team is doing precisely the same thing as it prepares its onslaught against Trump.

I generally dislike referencing public figures’ physical appearance, but since Trump already has opened that door …

It seems quite certain to me that this individual’s rather, um, expressive face is going to provide his political foes with plenty of grist to use as they campaign against him.

donald-trump-gag-big

The world is full of such pictures of every politician who’s ever entered the public arena.

However, hold on this year for a seriously rough ride through what figures to be the meanest campaign in anyone’s memory.

The pictures are going to tell a major part of the story.

 

Senator wanted simply to say he is sorry

bobbennett_606af7bda32915fc21b748ce42baedc2.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

The media today are reporting an extraordinary event involving a dying former U.S. senator.

Robert Bennett was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. As he lay in his hospital bed, knowing he was going to die, the former Utah Republican senator wanted to issue an apology.

To whom did he want to apologize?

He wanted to say how sorry was to any Muslim hospital staffer who was working in the facility where he was a patient. Bennett’s son, Jim, has talked today on MSNBC about how his father had asked him if there were any Muslims employed there.

Sen. Bennett — who died on May 4 — said he wanted to apologize on behalf of the Republican Party because of the hateful anti-Muslim views expressed by presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Bennett was among the first senators targeted by the TEA Party wing of the GOP. He was defeated in the 2010 Utah Republican Party primary by Mike Lee, who would go on to win election to the U.S. Senate.

It’s not that Sen. Bennett wasn’t a conservative politician. His record as a senator from one of the most conservative states in the nation is certifiably conservative. According to TEA Party activists, though, he wasn’t conservative enough.

So now the media are reporting that Bennett felt compelled to apologize to a group of fellow Americans who happen to worship as devoted Muslims.

It was an amazing deathbed gesture in response to an equally amazing — and disgraceful — public posture against people of a certain religious faith.