Category Archives: political news

Will these justices stay away from SOTU?

Supreme_Court_US_2010

Do you ever hear something from someone and think, “Damn! I wish I’d have thought of that”?

That happened to me today.

One of my Facebook pals wondered out loud if the only mystery surrounding President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union speech would be whether the three most conservative members of the Supreme Court would stay away, as they have done in recent years.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia all have been absent during Obama’s recent speeches before a joint session of Congress.

I’ve long wondered — as have others –whether it is because they detest the president’s politics so much that they’d rather do something else than sit in front of him while he makes policy statement with which they disagree?

Look, gentlemen, this is the last one of these speeches Barack Obama will give as president of the United States. Surely you can find the time — not to mention the courtesy — to attend this speech along with the rest of your colleagues. Chief Justice John Roberts usually attends, and he’s in the conservative camp right along with the three no-show justices.

It might have been a single event that ticked them off. That would be the time that Obama scolded the court for its Citizens United ruling that took the limits off of corporations and enabled them to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. Justice Alito was seen mouthing the words “not true” when the president made his critical comments.

That was then. If the scolding is the reason, well, get over it, will you?

The president is entering his final full year in office. The Joint Chiefs of Staff will be there. Most of the Cabinet will be there; custom calls for one of them to stay away in case something catastrophic happens at the nation’s Capitol Building.

I hope all nine justices see fit to make an appearance. They don’t have to applaud. Just be there.

 

One more, and final time, for State of Union speech

obamaSOTU2015

Barack H. Obama is going to get one more chance as president of the United States to lay out his vision of the state of our Union.

On Jan. 12, he’ll take the podium in front of a joint session of Congress and tell us how he thinks we’re doing, where we’ve been, where we’re headed and likely will propose a laundry list of legislative solutions to the nagging problems that never seem to get cured.

This is it, Mr. President. My advice to you, though, is this: Don’t expect to change any minds or sway anyone’s view of the job you’ve done.

Republicans will continue to say the president has all but destroyed American greatness — single-handedly. Democrats will hail the achievements and the rescuing of the nation from a financial collapse.

I happen to belong to the latter category of Americans. Yeah, it’s a shock, I know.

This final State of the Union speech by President Obama will produce the usual applause dominated by the Democrats in the chamber. Republicans will sit on their hands … for the most part while their Democratic “friends” cheer and holler.

While there’s no denying that the world is in difficult straits right now in this fight against international terrorism, there also can be no denying that the American ship of state has corrected its course in the seven years since Barack Obama took the presidential oath of office.

The economy is in far better shape than before. Our annual budget deficit has shrunk by two-thirds. Energy production is up; energy imports are down. Housing has rebounded. Banks are lending money. More people are working today than they were in 2009. Millions of Americans have health insurance now who didn’t have it before.

And oh yes, we’ve been kept safe from terrorists. There’s that, too.

That’s not the view of those who oppose the president.

But what the heck? It goes with the territory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan was correct in his letter inviting the president to speak. They have a duty to find solutions together, he said. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you do.

It’s time to get busy.

Meanwhile, the president will get one more shot at telling the country he leads what many of us out here already know.

The state of our Union truly is strong. We’ve got work to do, but our footing is a lot firmer than it was when the president took office.

 

Nuclear power … time for a return

nuclear%20plant_1

Many Americans long have feared nuclear energy.

To be honest, I was one of them. I no longer fear it.

An essay in the New York Times makes a compelling argument that the time to bring nuclear energy back into the discussion of clean alternatives to coal has arrived. Why not now, while 150 or so world leaders are meeting in Paris to talk about climate change?

Technological improvements have greatly improved nuclear power’s safety record. Peter Thiel’s essay in the New York Times makes a most interesting point.

Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011? Thousands of people died in the earthquake and tsunami that ravaged Japan and destroyed the Fukushima nuclear plant, Thiel writes. Not one person died of radiation poisoning, he adds.

Time for a “new atomic age.”

Yes, there have been disasters, notably the Chernobyl event in Russia in 1986; Three Mile Island before that.

But in the intervening years, nuclear power has become many times safer.

I’m all in on efforts to harvest the wind — which is being done in places like the Texas Panhandle, where my wife, one of our sons and I live. I want there to be more exploration of natural gas, which also is in abundance throughout West Texas. With the abundant sunshine we have in this part of the world, it’s high time we invested far than we do in solar energy.

These all are viable alternative energy sources that must become part of the nation’s wide-ranging effort to wean ourselves of fossil fuel and coal.

We’re neglecting any serious discussion, though, of nuclear energy.

It’s interesting that a climate change conference is being held in a country, France, that relies heavily on nuclear power to keep the lights on.

Roughly 75 percent of France’s energy needs are met by nuclear power plants. It’s ironic, to my way of thinking, that nuclear energy isn’t being discussed as openly as it should, given the location of this climate change conference.

President Obama can seize the moment as he enters the final year of his presidency, according to Thiel.

As Thiel writes: “Both the right’s fear of government and the left’s fear of technology have jointly stunted our nuclear energy policy, but on this issue liberals hold the balance of power. Speaking about climate change in 2013, President Obama said that our grandchildren will ask whether we did ‘all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem.’

“So far, the answer would have to be no — unless he seizes this moment. Supporting nuclear power with more than words is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. Like Nixon’s going to China, this is something only Mr. Obama can do. If this president clears the path for a new atomic age, American scientists are ready to build it.”

 

Cuba opens door to business for Texans

cuba-us-corporation-revolution_si

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott could have responded differently to President Obama’s decision to restore normal relations with Cuba.

The governor could have dug in his heels and condemned the move — as many of his fellow Republicans have done — as a sop to a repressive dictatorship that has a horrible human rights record.

Instead, he chose the more pragmatic approach. He sees the move as a potentially huge boon to Texas business and industry, which is why he’s leading a large trade delegation today to the island nation.

Abbott is no dummy. He believes that Cuba presents Texas with a growing market for state-produced goods and commodities, which is why he has decided to hang his partisan hat on the rack.

A Texas A&M University study says that increased trade between Texas and Cuba could produce as much as a $43 billion total impact on the Texas economy and more than 250 permanent jobs.

The long history of frostiness between the United States and Cuba is well known. The communist government has been deemed an “enemy” of the United States. There once was a missile crisis on the island that brought the world close to a world war.

The Soviet Union has disintegrated. Cuba remains one of the few Marxist nations on Earth.

However, Cuba no longer presents a direct threat to the United States.

Instead, it presents opportunities for the U.S. government and private businesses — not to mention individual state governments and businesses — to exploit.

Go for it, Gov. Abbott.

 

Politics getting even more fickle

TT-mugs_leadart_jpg_800x1000_q100

The Texas Tribune has published an interesting analysis of three Texas politicians who’ve gotten themselves into a bit of a legal jam.

They face different political fates.

Former Republican Gov. Rick Perry was indicted in Travis County on charges of abuse of power and coercion of a public official. He says it damaged his second presidential campaign, according to the Tribune’s Ross Ramsey.

Now we come to Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom a Collin County grand jury — his home county, by the way — indicted on charges of securities fraud. Paxton is fighting those charges. Indeed, Texas voters elected him to the AG’s post after Paxton actually acknowledged he had done what the grand jury accused him of doing. Wow …

Then we have the case of Democratic state Rep. Ron Reynolds, who has been convicted of misdemeanor barratry — aka ambulance chasing — and faces a jail term of as long as a year.

What’s weird, according to Ramsey, is that Reynolds is facing less political flak than the other two. Good grief! He’s been convicted of a misdemeanor, but might still be able to serve if he avoids any jail time.

This isn’t his first brush with ethical lapses, according to Ramsey, who writes: “His voters have been through this before. Last year, he was convicted on similar charges related to the same set of circumstances. Reynolds and seven other lawyers were accused of paying Robert Valdez Sr. for client referrals, and since he was finding them clients by scrounging through fresh accident reports, prosecutors said the lawyers were in effect illegally soliciting business.”

Furthermore, Reynolds likely will seek re-election next year.

Ugh!

I think there ought to be a campaign mounted in the Missouri City area that Reynolds represents to find a credible challenger. They can start by looking for someone who doesn’t possess a criminal record.

Check out Ramsey’s story here:

I hope you find it as interesting as I did.

 

 

Moratorium is proving to be a severe test

imagesizer

I feel compelled to make an admission.

The self-imposed moratorium I have placed on High Plains Blogger is providing a stern test of internal fortitude.

I have vowed to steer away from presidential politics commentary at least through Christmas. So far I’ve been quite faithful, although I’ve strayed dangerously close to the line; some might accuse me of crossing it prematurely.

With all the chatter going on out there about, oh, Donald Trump’s assertion about cheering on 9/11, Chris Christie’s endorsement by the New Hampshire Union-Leader, Ted Cruz’s rise in public opinion polling, Ben Carson’s visit to the refugee camps in Jordan … why, I am having trouble keeping my fingers from typing something to say about any and all of it.

I’ll keep plugging away, though, at other topics. The world, I’m learning, is full of interesting developments that are occurring every hour of every day.

Yes, I might sway and swerve close to that line as we go plow ahead toward Christmas. But my intent is to retain High Plains Blogger’s status — with apologies to Bill O’Reilly — as a no-politics zone.

Wish me luck. Some good karma also would be appreciated.

 

He’s a poster boy for various causes

suspect

Robert Lewis Dear’s picture has been plastered all over the media of late with good reason.

He’s about to become a poster boy for a number of key debate points in our modern political environment.

Dear is accused of killing three people and injuring several others in that Friday shooting rampage at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo. He’s going to court Monday to be arraigned.

Usually, someone accused of a high-profile crime gets to see his face related to one, maybe two, issues at once. Not so with this guy, Dear.

For instance.

  • He’s being discussed in the context of Planned Parenthood and women’s abortion rights. He told the cops “no more baby parts,” leaving authorities and the media to speculate that the shooting rampage was politically motivated. Is he a longtime anti-abortion activist?
  • Dear has been called a “domestic terrorist” who could become the face of non-Muslim, Anglo Americans who are just as prone to commit acts of terror as those evil foreigners seeking to sneak into the United States.
  • He carried a rifle into the Planned Parenthood building, which brings to mind the issue of gun control. Some will ask, “How did this guy obtain a gun so easily?” Ah, yes, the gun control debate will flare up once again.
  • And, finally, he might become the face of mental health treatment and the need to be on the lookout for those who are capable of committing such horrible crimes?

Wow! That’s four of them — four issues that, taken separately, all provide enough grist for friends to become foes in a heartbeat.

And to think that one man could be at the center of it all.

 

Parker: How do you fight crazy?

k parker

I want to shake Kathleen Parker’s hand and tell her in person that I believe she is one of the country’s most thoughtful political commentators.

She writes for the Washington Post and she calls herself a conservative, although I have doubts that today’s modern conservatives — if you want to call ’em that — would welcome her into their fold.

She has written another brilliant essay, this time about the war against the Islamic State.

How do you fight crazy? she asks.

The path to defeating the Islamic State will take far more than “boots and bombs,” she says. It will require genius.

By that she means it will take a comprehensive combination of diplomacy, economic pressure and, yes, an application of military muscle.

It’s her belief, though, that bombs alone won’t do the job.

She writes: “What leverage does an army have against an enemy that welcomes death? We say: If you don’t stop murdering innocent people, we’re going to bomb you into oblivion. They say: Bring it on. No, wait, we’ll do it ourselves. Boom.”

That is the nature of the enemy with whom we are at war and Parker is right to assert that our strategy cannot exclude other avenues.

Parker writes: “This is a call not to look away but to be solemnly cautious, thoughtful and creative. Is the Islamic State’s mission to establish a caliphate, thus to hasten the End Times, a mental disorder? Is it treatable? Is their tactical savagery pathological? Is there a doctor in the White House?”

Any ideas out there?

 

‘Boots on the ground,’ means human beings

Hundreds of coalition forces servicemen and women met aboard Camp Leatherneck, Helmand province, for a September 11 memorial service. During the service, Maj. Gen. John A. Toolan, commanding general of Regional Command Southwest and II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) gave a speech reflecting on not only the lives lost 10-years before, but also on the heroes who have fought for the freedoms America stands for.

Is it me or is anyone else out there growing increasingly annoyed at a euphemism that’s getting a lot of use these days by the political class?

I refer to the term “boots on the ground.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich this morning used the term repeatedly in discussing the crisis in Syria and whether the United States should send troops into the fight.

Let’s put “boots on the ground,” said the GOP presidential candidate.

Boots on the ground!

I happen to like Gov. Kasich, but for crying out loud, we aren’t talking about footwear. We’re talking about the individuals whose feet slip into that gear and who would be put in harm’s way were we to order them into battle.

And yet politicians on both sides of the divide seemingly find it easier to talk about “boots on the ground” rather than what those boots symbolize. They symbolize young men and women with families, with real-world stories, with dreams and aspirations.

I am just weary of this game of verbal dodge ball that politicians keep playing.

If you’re going to support sending young Americans into battle, then call it what it is — and do not disguise it with rhetorical nonsense.

 

Sen. Cruz is eligible, period, Rep. Grayson

cruz

Alan Grayson is a Florida Democratic U.S. representative who repeatedly exhibits his ability to be the loudest blowhard on the block.

Grayson vows to file a lawsuit if the Republican Party selects Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as its presidential nominee next summer. Why? Well, Grayson said Cruz isn’t constitutionally qualified to serve as president. Grayson, thus, has become the de facto head of a new  presidential birther movement.

News flash, Alan: Yes … he … is!

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and, here it is, an American mother. That, right there, made young Teddy a U.S. citizen from the very moment he came into this world. He is qualified to run for president. He would be qualified to serve as president.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that “no person except a natural born Citizen” is qualified to serve as president. Mrs. Cruz gave birth to her baby Teddy and that is all the qualification he needs to run for the presidency.

Meanwhile, Rep. Grayson needs to devote a lot more of his attention to the affairs of his Florida congressional district and stop looking for ways to garner cheap publicity.