Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

Rubio makes sense on immigration

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Maryland March 14, 2013. Two senators seen as possible candidates for the 2016 presidential election will address a conservative conference where Republicans will try to regroup on Thursday after their bruising election loss last year. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR3EZQO

Lo and behold . . . I heard Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio make sense on one element of immigration policy.

When the young U.S. senator was serving in the Florida legislature, he backed a provision that would allow the children of illegal immigrants to be granted in-state tuition privileges.

Rubio today reaffirmed that view in an interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos.

You go, Marco!

He was careful — naturally, given the nature of the GOP voter base — to say he doesn’t favor “amnesty” for those who are here illegally. He did say, though, that children who were brought here when they were young, say 5 years of age, and who grew up speaking English and whose only outward loyalty is to the United States of America deserve to be pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

Does that sound familiar? It should. Two former Texas governors — Republicans George W. Bush and Rick Perry — stoodĀ tall onĀ the same principle. Perry, though, was pilloried during the 2012 GOP primary campaign for standing on that notion; the TEA Party wing of the Republican Party would have none of it.

I’m no fan of young Marco. However, I was heartened this morning to hear him speak with a sense of humanity and compassion that has been lacking among many in the still-large field of GOP presidential candidates.

Donald J. Trump gets high-fives and hosannas from the base over his plan to round up allĀ 11 millionĀ illegal immigrants and toss ’em out of the country.

Meanwhile, at least one of his Republican presidential candidate colleagues demonstrates that the Grand Old Party isn’t speaking with one voice on a critical national issue.

 

International news, national news, political news

Trump gives ‘credit’ where it isn’t due

donald

World leaders of all stripes have said essentially the same thing about North Korean dictator/madman/goofball Kim Jong Un.

He’s nuts, unpredictable, dangerous.

Now comes Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president of the United States, to give Kim “credit” for the ruthless manner in which he disposes of his political enemies.

Does the GOP White House hopeful include the way Kim had his uncle executed? There were reports that he fed his uncle to starving dogs, which then, well . . .Ā  you know.

I’ll repeat once again: Being the leader of the world’s greatest nation requires a certain understanding of diplomatic nuance. Trump keeps revealing that he has no concept — none, zero — of that notion.

He wants to “make America great again”? How is he going to do that? ByĀ offering ill-timedĀ words of encouragement to dangerous despots like Kim Jong Un?

 

national news, political news, religious news

Not just ‘un-Republican,’ but un-American

5 Comments

hamid

A woman stood up to protest some comments from Donald J. Trump during a campaign rally for the Republican presidential candidate.

She was booed. Why? Was she being hateful? Did she try to shout down the candidate? Did she present a threat to anyone?

No. She was booed because was wearing a hijab, the traditional scarf that Muslim women wear to shield their hair in accordance with Islamic tenets.

The woman was escorted out of the rally. Kicked out. She left the venue to a chorus of catcalls.

It was a disgraceful display of intolerance.

What did the candidate do to tamp it down? Nothing.

Fellow GOP presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich of Ohio called the event “un-Republican.” Yes. It’s also un-Democratic and, I shall add, un-American.

Rose Hamid is a flight attendant who came to the rally to hear for herself some of the things she’d read about Trump, who launched into a tirade about Syrian refugees being terrorists.

Hamid said later that the characterization was improper and demonstrated the kind of intolerance and hatred we’ve been hearing toward people who practice the Islamic faith. It’s aimed at actual Muslims, not the perverted cultists who have twisted the religion into something unrecognizable to practicing Muslims . . . such as Rose Hamid.

Yet they are the individuals — the terrorists masquerading as Muslims — who draw the fire from political candidates, who use such rhetoric to inflame their supporters against others whose only transgression is to express their faith and to wear garments that give their religious identity away.

Kasich is right to condemnĀ Trump, not just for allowing the ejection of the protestor, but for failing to calm down the haters scattered in his crowd of supporters.

 

International news, national news, political news, State news

Irony abounds in Cruz citizenship debate

1 Comment

ted-cruz-sexy-eyes

There’s no denying the irony in this growing discussion over whether U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is constitutionally qualified to run for president of the United States.

To my mind — and to many others who know a whole lot more about constitutional law than I do — there should be no question about the Republican presidential candidate’s eligibility.

He is eligible to run. Period. End of discussion. The Constitution spells it out. He is a “natural-born citizen” whose mother is an American; thus, he is granted U.S. citizenship by birthright, even though he was born in Canada.

The irony?

Well, this issue came up regarding Barack Obama, except that some individuals didn’t believe what Obama had said, which is that he was born in Hawaii. They kept harping on his alleged birth in Kenya. So, what’s the big deal? The president’s mother also was an American citizen; his father was Kenyan.

If either Obama or Cruz — or both of them, for that matter — had been born on Mars, their citizenship shouldn’t be an issue.

The other irony is that Cruz is relying on the opinion of courts comprising unelected federal judges. He calls this matter a case of “settled law.” Strange, actually, that he would say such a thing, given the disdain he expressed for the federal judiciary after the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that gay marriage is now legal throughout the country, that the Constitution’s equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment applied to gay citizens seeking to marry people of the same gender.

I happen to believeĀ that Cruz is right about the citizenship issue.

It won’t go away as long as Donald J. Trump continues to raise it along the GOP presidential campaign trail. Other Republicans now are beginning to echo Trump’s questioning of Cruz’s eligibility — although this concern seems born more out of Cruz’s rising poll numbers than of actual doubt over whether he’s a qualified U.S. citizen seeking the highest office in the land.

The volume is risingĀ among those who are seeking to stall the Texas Republican’s campaign momentum.

It’s entertaining, to be sure, to watch the irony build on itself as this (non)-issue continues to fester.

I’m wondering: How does President Obama feel about it?

national news, political news, State news

Conservatism takes new activist turn

1 Comment

Gov. Greg Abbott calls for a convention of states to amend the Constitution during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin, Texas, Friday, Jan. 8, 2016. Abbott called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls himself a conservative.

Well, my understanding of conservatism traditionally has meant minimalist government; keep government quiet; don’t upset the status quo; let it ride, man.

Not these days.

Abbott has issued a seriously proactive call to remake the U.S. Constitution. He has called for a constitutional convention to craft some serious amendments to the nation’s governing document.Ā  They include:

  • Disallowing federal law fromĀ regulating activities wholly within a single state.
  • Requiring a balanced federal budget.
  • Providing a way to override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
All told, Abbott has offered nine proposals.
My favorite one involves the highest court in the land.
Abbott thinks two-thirds of the states should be empowered to overturn decisions by the Supreme Court. Interesting, yes?
I believe conservatives also believe in what’s called “strict construction” of the Constitution. They want to adhere to what the Founders wrote when they created the federal government.
One of the provisions they allowed was a totally independent federal judiciary. What Gov. Abbott is proposing — in my humble view — removes that a large portion of the independence envisioned by the founders. It puts ultimate authority in court decisions in the hands of state legislatures.
I am hard-pressed to find a more remarkable reversal of the traditional definition of “conservative government.”
What’s being proposed and discussed these days is a reform movement that puts “liberal activism” to shame.
national news, political news

Heading for ‘home stretch’ . . . already?

Horserace

The nation’s political media are misleading the public about the nature of the 2016 presidential campaign.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard it said on broadcast and cable TV news shows that “we’re heading toward the home stretch” of the campaign.

What’s at the end? The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

Is it me or are the media getting way, way ahead of themselves in declaring that the major-party contests for president of the United States are about to conclude?

I’m scratching my head — even as I write the words contained in this blog post.

The Republican Party primary still has about a dozen candidates running for the presidency. I agree with most “experts,” though, in limiting the front runners to four, maybe five of the GOP candidates. Who are they? Donald Trump, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz . . . and perhaps even Jeb Bush.

The Democratic Party primary has become a two-candidate match race: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

So, do the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary signal the end of the race? Hardly. They symbolize the beginning of it.

I am continually amazed at the shallowness of the media coverage of both parties’ campaigns. The media gripe about the “horse race” aspect of this coverage, yet they continue to focus on it at the expense of serious examination of the candidates’ issues statements.

Oh, sure, the media have had plenty to say about Trump’s immigration plan, his ban-Muslims idea and a tax plan that doesn’t add up. But they couch it in terms of what these things do to his poll standing.

The media keep focusing on whether Clinton or Sanders are leading in either Iowa or New Hampshire.

The Iowa caucus doesn’t represent the end of the campaign. It’s just the beginning. We’ve got a long way to go before the conventions get underway.

What’s more, if none of the Republican candidates can sew up enough delegates to be guaranteed the nomination before the GOP convention begins, well . . . we’re going to have a serious donnybrook on our hands in Cleveland.

The end of the race is at hand? Nope.

 

national news, political news

Obama vetoes ACA repeal bill; what now?

obamacare-1

Who didn’t see this one coming?

Nobody. That’s who.

President Barack Obama today vetoed a bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and cut federal funds from Planned Parenthood.

This was the mother of political statements.Ā And I’m not talking necessarily about the president’s veto.

I’m referring to Congress’s insistence that the ACA — also known as Obamacare — isn’t working, that it’s an albatross, that it represents a government overreach.

It’s also the president’s signature domestic policy achievement. He said all along — going back to other efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal the law — that he’d veto any such bill if it got to his desk. It did . . . and he did.

I believe Congress needs at this time to cut its losses. It doesn’t have the votes to override the president’s veto, even with its GOP majority in both legislative chambers. Republicans need a two-thirds majority to override; they don’t have it in the Senate.

We’ve got an election coming up. We’ll have a new president a year from now. Depending on who the parties nominate, Congress might have a dramatically different look than it does today — particularly if the Republican presidential nominee happens to have the name Donald J. Trump.

The current Congress still must work with a Democratic president who — on this issue — has drawn a line deep into the dirt between the White House and Capitol Hill.

The Affordable Care Act is going to stay; moreover, the government will continue to provide public money to Planned Parenthood. Don’t mess with either of them.

Let’s get on to the many other complex issues facing the nation.

national news, political news

NRA was MIA at Obama town hall

2 Comments

gun-control

Barack Obama had a “town hall” forum tonight.

He fielded questions from an audience about his strategy to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

I was heartened to hear questions from some folks who doubt the president’s message. The forum wasn’t an amen chorus of folks who agree with the president, which of course would have ruined the notion of it being an actual town hall forum.

But the audience was missing a key component: the National Rifle Association.

The president said he had invited the NRA to attend the meeting. The nation’s leading gun-owner-rights organization was missing.

It should have been there to challenge the president, to joust with him publicly — on national television.

It’s not that I endorse the NRAĀ position on gun control. It is that when given a chance to air its views on the same stage as the president of the United States, I believe the NRA should have taken advantage of the opportunity to do so.

Will the NRA decline future opportunities? It’s my hope that we can have a sensible, intelligent discussion from individuals and organizations on all sides of this most polarizing debate.

legal news, national news, political news

‘Five unelected lawyers’ have lots of power

Supreme_Court_US_2010

I saw a news clip last night that, frankly, stunned me.

I’d seen it before, but had forgotten how ill-informed the person featured in it seemed to be when he made a particular statement.

Sen. Ted Cruz is a smart guy. Harvard Law grad. Former law clerk to the current Supreme Court chief justice. Solicitor general for Texas.

He’s running for the Republican nomination of president of the United States.

But when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 this past year to legalize gay marriage throughout the country, Cruz said it was wrong for “five unelected lawyers” make such profound decisions. He sought to make the case, it appears to me, that the federal judicial system — as established by the founders of this country — was fatally flawed.

See Cruz’s statement.

I do not intend to lecture this bright young lawyer about the Constitution, but I do want to make this point.

The nation’s government framework gives the Supreme Court enormous power. That’s why making appointments to that court is arguably the most important decision a president ever makes during his time in office. Cruz knows that . . . I’m sure.

When the court rules on the constitutionality of issues, its word is final. That’s how the framers set it up. They entrusted the highest court in the land to make these decisions without qualification. Yes, some of these decisions have been reversed over time. By and large they’ve been overturned with good reason.

However, one shouldn’t trivialize these court rulings as being the mere opinions of “five unelected lawyers.” They’ve been given a huge responsibility by the very government for which Sen. Cruz, himself, works as a legislator.

The court has made decisions over the years with which I disagree. However, I honor and accept those decisions as part of the constitutional process.

At least, though, the nation’s Supreme Court comprises nine lawyers, individuals who’ve studied the law and know it pretty well. The founders didn’t require justices on that court to be lawyers in the first place.

I trust Sen. Cruz knows that to be the case as well.

 

medical news, national news, political news

House OKs another waste-of-time measure

obamacare-1

Here we go again.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a measure to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The House vote comes after the Senate approved the measure earlier.

Speaker Paul Ryan blustered that the measure is going to President Obama’s desk — where it faces a certain veto.

The president’s signature effortĀ is in no danger of being overturned.

Which begs the question: Why is Congress continuing to waste the public’s time and money on these efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Oh, I think I know.

Republicans who control both congressional chambers want to make political hay. They want to keep hammering at a law they detest because, they say, it expands the federal government.

Well, the ACA also does something else. It provides health insurance to roughly 17 million Americans who beforehand didn’t have it. They couldn’t afford it. They were denied medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay for it. The ACA now provides insurance.

Repeal the law? Sure. And replace it with . . . what, exactly?

House members and senators will get the veto that the president promises. They’ll be unable overturn the veto because Republicans lack the two-thirds majority in both houses to do it.

So, the dance continues.

Will someone tell the band to stop playing? Please?