Category Archives: political news

Same-sex marriage tide has turned

The currents have turned in favor of same-sex marriage.

Who knows? It well might be accepted as part of the “new normal” in this country, if the courts continue to have their way.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/texas/article/State-by-state-look-at-gay-marriage-bans-5804228.php

One by one, state bans on same-sex marriage are falling victim to that little ol’ provision in the U.S. Constitution that protects people’s “equal protection of the laws.”

It’s in the 14th Amendment. It’s one small clause in one small sentence. It resonates loudly in appellate courtrooms all across the country.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court — that bastion of “strict construction” arguments of the U.S. Constitution — has ruled that the federal government must recognized state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. Texas has joined the parade of states that are awaiting final disposition of this argument.

I remain on the fence on this issue. The term “marriage,” to me at least, carries a traditional connotation in that it involves the union of a man and a woman.

Having noted that, I am not going to condemn anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex. It’s not my call to determine who people should love. I’ll let the government sort it out. I’ll continue to live my traditional life in marriage to a woman I married 43 years ago. And I will let others live as they choose.

Furthermore, none of these court rulings puts my marriage in any danger. It will survive quite nicely and I am sure it will continue to grow and flourish without any threat from whatever the courts continue to rule.

Tradition and belief systems aside, though, the Constitution does appear to stand in favor of all Americans regardless of their orientation. If it says that all Americans must not be deprived “equal protection” under the law, that it means all Americans. There’s not a word in that clause that mentions their sexual orientation.

“All” means all, yes?

Obama is 'deporter in chief'?

Well, what do you know about this?

The Obama administration has broken its own record for the number of illegal immigrants deported in a single year. To think that critics believe President Obama is “soft” on illegal immigration.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/state-news/2014/10/03/obama-administration-breaks-own-deportation-record/

Soft squishiness has produced angry protests from the Latino community who want the president to act on immigration reform.

I happen to agree that there should be some action — executive action, if necessary — to further the case for reforming national immigration policy. However, to suggest that the administration has looked the other way while people flood across our “porous” southern border is to resort to demagoguery.

In 2013, the Immigration and Naturalization Service deported 438,421 illegal — or undocumented — immigrants. That beats the former record set the previous year. What’s more, the deportations include 198,400 immigrants with criminal records. How is it, then, that critics keep harping on the feds’ inattention to the crime wave that’s sweeping into the country from Mexico and points south? I guess it’s because they’ve gotten quite good at distorting these issues for their own gain.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The statistics are not likely to draw praise from Republican lawmakers. Despite the administration’s record-breaking deportations over the past several years, conservative lawmakers have criticized the president for what they consider his lax enforcement policies, which they say lure illegal crossers.”

Whatever. I’ll consider the deportation push to be a poke in the eye of those very critics.

I’ll also consider it time for the president to act where he can legally to start fixing the immigration problem. If Congress won’t act, then it falls on the president to, as the Tribune reported, “to expand relief to more of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.”

Affleck vs. Maher on Islam

Almost never do I take anything that Bill Maher says seriously.

He’s a comedian who, for my taste, isn’t all that funny. He’s morphing into some sort of political commentator of late. Now he’s taking on Islam, calling it a “Mafia-like” organization.

OK. So we’ve heard from him on that.

Enter another entertainer. Ben Affleck, an actor of some acclaim, has challenged Maher’s assertion that Islam is what he says it is. I don’t usually listen to actors’ views on politics and religion, either.

However …

In this case, Affleck makes the more salient point.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/10/04/3576082/batman-stands-up-for-muslims/

Affleck took part in a testy exchange on “Real Time” in which he tried to take down Maher’s assertion about Islam. Affleck criticized Maher’s “gross” and “racist” portrayal of Islam. He said Islam should not be judged based on the conduct of sociopathic murderers, such as the Islamic State — which has hijacked the Islamic name, for crying out loud, while committing utterly unspeakable acts of barbarism. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof sided with Affleck, contending that Maher’s description of Islam and Muslims is “incomplete.”

Maher used terms like “vast numbers of Muslims” wanting non-believers of their religion to die. Vast numbers? How many is that? And what percentage do those numbers comprise among the 1.5 billion or so practicing Muslims around the world?

I simply am not going to condemn a religion on the basis of what crazed fanatics do in that religion’s name.

Nor should a second-rate comedian such as Bill Maher.

Foes team up for security reform

It turns out that two leading members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee aren’t enemies for life after all.

Republican Chairman Darrell Issa and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings are on the same page regarding the Secret Service. They want a broad investigation that examines the culture that seems to pervade the agency charged with protecting the president of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/secret-service-probe-darrell-issa-elijah-cummings-111587.html?hp=l5

Their concern is legit. The Secret Service has been pounded in the media and on Capitol Hill for the horrendous security lapses that have placed the president in potential peril. The agency’s director, Julia Pierson, has resigned. Issa and Cummings have sent Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson a letter asking to examine a full range of issues that have resulted in what they call “embarrassing security mistakes.”

We’ve had the fence-jumper who ran through the front door of the White House. That incident came after an armed convicted felon got into an elevator with President Obama in Atlanta, standing only a few feet from the head of state.

The Secret Service is in trouble. It needs fixing. Congress has been justifiably outraged over these embarrassing matters.

Issa and Cummings have had their differences over their committee’s handling of the IRS matter and the Benghazi controversy.

On this one, they’ve locked arms and are demanding answers.

Political animosity appears to come and go, according to the issue of the moment.

I’m OK with that.

Who's going to jump in '16?

It’s getting fun watching the prospective candidates for president in 2016 start hedging whether they’re actually going to make the plunge.

The latest apparently is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who might run for the Republican nomination in two years.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219692-rubio-decision-to-run-in-2016-wont-depend-on-bush

Rubio says his decision won’t depend on whether former Florida Gov.Jeb Bush decides to run. Rubio says he hasn’t talked to the former governor, but the fact that he’s talking about it at all suggests — to me, at least — that he’s got Jeb on his radar.

So, let’s ponder these other possibilities:

* U.S. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says he likely won’t run if his 2012 Republican presidential nominee running mate Mitt Romney jumps in. No word from Romney what he plans to do if Ryan goes ahead with a run.

* Vice President Joe Biden likely will consider backing out of the Democratic contest if former senator, former secretary of state and former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to go for it.

* Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas wants to seek the GOP nomination, but will he go if another talkative Texan, lame-duck Gov. Rick Perry jumps into the race?

* And is Perry going to make the leap if Cruz decides it’s his time to run?

Of all the fascinating what-ifs to ponder, I’m interested mostly in the Texas two-step that might play out between Perry and Cruz.

Perry’s been to the well once already. He flamed out badly before the first primary took place in New Hampshire. He’s trying to re-craft his brand. Cruz is the still-quite-new junior senator from Texas who entered the upper congressional chamber in January 2013 with his mouth blazing away. He hasn’t shut his trap since.

Both of these guys have never seen a TV camera they didn’t like. Cruz is especially enamored of the sound of his voice and the appearance of his face on TV.

It’s going to be tough for both of them to run for president, each trying to outflank the other on the right wing of their already-extreme right-wing party.

Who will jump in first? And will the other one back away?

And what about Ryan and Romney, Biden and Clinton, and Rubio and Bush?

This is going to get tense.

'Originalist' view is mistaken

Count me as among those who acknowledge that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is brilliant.

The man knows the law. Does he know the U.S. Constitution? Well, sure he does. He was selected by President Reagan in 1986 to interpret the nation’s founding document and he’s still on the job.

OK, I’ve acknowledged the obvious.

Now I wish to take issue with his view that the document isn’t a living one that should adapt to change in society.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/antonin-scalia-says-constitution-permits-court-to-favor-religion-over-non-religion/ar-BB75vV4

Scalia said recently that it’s OK for the courts to favor religion over non-religion. He said the founders were religious men who meant for God to play a role in government. He said the Constitution guarantees “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

We’re fine, so far.

Then he said he prefers to look at the Constitution in its original form, as the drafters of it intended — in the 18th century.

He doesn’t like the “living Constitution” view, saying that only “idiots” believe such a thing.

Well.

Can’t the Constitution be adapted to the present day while preserving the principles laid out by the nation’s founders? Sure it can. The Second Amendment, the awkwardly written passage that guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms,” is an example.

Could the framers have envisioned the type of weaponry that has been developed since the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified? Could they have foreseen assault weapons that can kill, oh, 10 or so individuals in a matter of a few seconds? I’m betting they didn’t sit around and wonder: “All right, gentlemen, before we finalize this amendment, should we set aside a provision for the time when gang members will outgun the police on city streets teeming with drugs?” No, they couldn’t predict the future.

But the future has arrived and the “next future” is right around the corner. It’s left, then, for those who live in the here and now to wonder if the Constitution — as written — still is relevant to today’s circumstance.

It isn’t in some instances.

I still honor and respect Justice Scalia’s intellect and knowledge. I just dispute his interpretation of what he knows so well.

Silence on job growth is quite telling

That silence you hear from the Republican side of the political divide is quite instructive as the nation digests the latest job-growth numbers.

The Labor Department today reported that 248,000 jobs were added in September and that the jobless rate fell to less than 6 percent for the first time since 2008.

No cheers. No backslapping. No “congrats, you guys” are coming from the GOP gang.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/september-2014-unemployment-numbers-111583.html?hp=l1

Indeed, this morning — just before the jobs figures came out — Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary during the George W. Bush administration, disputed President Obama’s claim the other day that we’re better off now than when he took office in January 2009. Fleischer told Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” that Obama inherited a “100-foot hole” but still has a “95-foot hole” from which the country must emerge.

What utter bunk!

The economy is growing. Every independent analyst I’ve read suggests the nation has turned the corner from where we were six years ago.

Of course, the task now is to keep marching forward and to keep the momentum going.

Today’s job numbers suggest we’re continuing to make progress.

I get that politics requires muzzles when the “other side” has good news to report. That’s the way the game is played. Democrats do it, too, when the news involved a Republican administration.

Rest assured that if the next job report isn’t as glowing as this one, the loyal opposition will awaken quickly from its silent slumber.

A new Holocaust … in Texas?

West Texas’s newest state senator might be forgiven for being quite excited about his new elected office.

Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, however, did put a disgraceful twist on what he called the spiritual struggle he says is occurring today in these United States.

He sought to compare it to — get ready for it — the Holocaust.

http://www.texasobserver.org/new-senator-charles-perry-living-holocaust-ii/

Yeah, that Holocaust. The one that killed 6 million Jews in Europe. The on-going event that destroyed families and was perpetrated by the 20th century’s most monstrous tyrant in an effort to exterminate an entire religious community.

I’m not at all sure what the new senator is trying to suggest, but drawing any comparison to what’s happening today to what occurred during Europe’s darkest time in the previous century is, shall we say, more than a stretch.

Perry won a special election after Bob Duncan left the Senate to become chancellor of the Texas Tech University System. Duncan, also a Republican, routinely was rated by observers as being among the Legislature’s most effective members. Texas Monthly routinely honored Duncan by placing him on its “Best Legislators” list.

Something tells me that Perry isn’t likely to join that list any time soon, if at all.

Here’s a taste of what he said after taking his oath:

“There were 10,000 people that were paraded into a medical office under the guise of a physical. As they stood with their back against the wall, they were executed with a bullet through the throat. Before they left, 10,000 people met their fate that way.”

Here’s more:

“Is it not the same than when our government continues to perpetuate laws that lead citizens away from God? The only difference is that the fraud of the Germans was more immediate and whereas the fraud of today’s government will not be exposed until the final days and will have eternal-lasting effects.”

This is like the Holocaust? Nope.

Even worse than White House fence-jumper

Good grief! The more I hear about this one, the worse it gets for the Secret Service.

And this case is far worse than some guy jumping the White House fence and bursting into the president’s residence.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/politics/obama-cdc-security-breach/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It turns out that a convicted felon, carrying a firearm, rode an elevator with President Obama while the president as in Atlanta to speak to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

How on God’s Earth does someone with a criminal record, packing heat, walk aboard an elevator with the Leader of the Free World without the Secret Service knowing it?

What’s more, the Secret Service didn’t even tell the president about it until several days later.

I’m more glad than ever that Julia Pierson quit today as head of the security agency.

More heads ought to roll before this matter shakes out.

It's still the People's House

Julia Pierson is gone from her job as head of the Secret Service.

She’d come in to change the culture of an agency beset by scandals involving agents consorting with hookers. Now, though, she’s resigned, the person responsible for a new scandal involving the protection of the White House, where the president and his family live.

A man jumped the fence and got into the mansion, running past and/or through several perimeters. What’s more, now we have learned that an armed man masquerading as a security guard at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rode an elevator with President Obama.

OK, so now we’re searching for a new permanent director of the agency charged with protecting the president.

What’s next for security at the White House?

Here’s my suggestion for what should not happen at the People’s House: Do not lock the place down and make it next to impossible for tourists to walk through it and enjoy the majesty of the place.

The knee-jerk reaction is predictable. Some might want to essentially shut down the White House to the public. They’ll suggest searching tourists as they enter the place. One thing that can be done easily is to boost the height of the fences surrounding the White House. That’ll get done; no problem there.

Let us remember, as Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson noted this afternoon, the White House is a symbol of First Amendment guarantees, where people can assemble and perhaps ask questions of their head of state — the president — on questions that concern them.

Shutting the White House off from the people to whom the house belongs would be the wrong course as this necessary review of security takes hold.