Monthly Archives: November 2014

national news, Sports news, State news

Peterson earns stiff suspension

The Adrian Peterson case continues to baffle me and it continues to play havoc with how I really feel about what he allegedly did to his toddler son.

But the suspension handed down by the National Football League against the star Minnesota Vikings running back seems like the appropriate punishment.

A grand jury in Texas indicted Peterson on a felony count of child abuse after he smacked his son with a switch, which left several marks on the youngster’s limbs and torso.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-suspends-adrian-peterson-without-pay-for-at-least-rest-of-regular-season/ar-BBesDKR

The incident occurred just as the NFL was reeling from domestic violence cases, not most notable one involved former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice and the infamous incident in which he cold-cocked his fiancée in a New Jersey casino elevator.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Peterson failed to show proper remorse and has not taken part in hearings. Therefore, he will sit out the rest of the season — without pay.

Peterson has said the punishment he meted out to his little boy was no different than what he received growing up in East Texas. Really?

Well, that was then. This is now. Times change. So do societal attitudes about such things — although Peterson is a young man and it wasn’t all that long ago when he was his son’s age.

Meanwhile, the NFL is trying to rehabilitate its own image by cracking down on players’ personal conduct, trying to protect people associated with these athletes from further potential abuse.

It well might be in Peterson’s best interest to swallow the medicine the NFL has forced on him. Then he can try to come back and resurrect his career.

International news

No ransom — ever! — for ISIL captives

Are you kidding me? Some folks still want the United States of America to pay ransom for hostages being held by Islamic State terrorists. Am I reading that correctly?

Not just no, but hell no! I’d use a stronger profanity than that, but you get the point.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/john-kerry-us-ransom-policy-112976.html?hp=b1_r2

Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated President Obama’s view that the United States shouldn’t put a price tag on those being held captive.

“The president continues to believe, as previous presidents have concluded, that it’s not in the best interest of American citizens to pay ransoms to any organization, let alone a terrorist organization,” press secretary Josh Earnest said at a White House media briefing. “And the reason for that is simple — we don’t want to put other American citizens at even greater risk when they’re around the world.”

Indeed, innocent Americans have died in gruesome fashion at the hands of these monsters. We learned after journalist James Foley was killed that his family had sought to negotiated a deal privately with the terror organization, but the effort fell short. It reportedly was stymied by government officials who didn’t want to enrich ISIL by giving them money — with no guarantee that Foley’s life would be spared.

The U.S. government cannot — it must not ever — negotiate with the Islamic State. It must hunt them down, bomb them to bits, do whatever it takes to kill every one of its leaders and as many of its murderous minions as it can find.

Pay them ransom? Never!

 

 

 

political news, State news

Gov. Perry loses key dismissal fight

A state district judge has ruled that Texas Gov. Rick Perry should stand trial for felony charges related to his alleged abuse of power.

Good. Now let’s get the trial started and then concluded, OK?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/rick-perry-case-texas/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Perry legal team sought a dismissal on the grounds that special prosecutor Michael McCrum wasn’t sworn in properly, rendering all his actions taken during the time he has investigated Perry to be invalid.

Today, Judge Bert Richardson said in Austin that McCrum’s swearing in was sufficient and that he has standing to prosecute the governor on two felony counts. “This court concludes that Mr. McCrum’s authority was not voided by the procedural irregularities in how and when the oath of office and statement of officer were administered and filed,” Richardson said in his ruling.

A grand jury indicted Perry on abuse of power and coercion of a public official in connection with his veto of money appropriated for the Public Integrity Unit run out of the Travis County district attorney’s office. He threatened to yank the money after DA Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunken driving. She pleaded guilty to the crime and served jail time. Perry demanded she quit. She didn’t. So, Perry vetoed the money appropriated by the Legislature for the integrity unit she runs.

This case is riddled with political overtones and consequences.

Perry is pondering a run for the presidency in 2016. He doesn’t want this case hanging over his head. Frankly, I happen to agree with him. Let’s get this thing settled.

As for Lehmberg, she’s going to bow out when her term expires. She should have quit when she got popped for the DUI. Had she done so, Perry could have appointed a Republican DA to replace the outgoing Democrat.

Do you see how this is so, so political?

Perry calls the indictment a serious overreach. He has received a lot of legal support — from Democrats as well as Republicans.

So, let’s get this case settled. If he’s acquitted of both charges, he can crow all he wants about his huge victory in court.

But if he’s convicted of just one of them — and I still think the coercion charge is the stronger of the two counts — well, the governor can kiss the White House good bye.

I’m ready to have this case decided.

 

International news

Israel feels terrorists' wrath yet again

Someone needs to explain to me in elementary terms why terrorists deserve any semblance of civil treatment.

Four worshipers at a Jerusalem synagogue were murdered early today by a couple of terrorists. Israeli police shot them to death at the scene of the carnage they left behind.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/meast/jerusalem-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Three of the victims were American-Israelis, one was a British-Israeli. They were worshiping in peace when two Palestinian cousins wielding axes and knives began slashing them to death.

And who do you suppose has endorsed this vicious act?

Among others was Hamas, the terrorists who run the so-called government in Gaza, the place that keeps originating attacks on Israelis civilians.

Does this make any sense to anyone?

The terrorists complain about Israeli settlements in territory captured by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967. So rather than talk to the Israeli government, they choose to bomb innocent victims, shoot them dead in the street or, in the case of the attack today in Jerusalem, slash them to death in a horrific attack.

Israeli officials vow to respond with all necessary force to put down this latest round of violence.

How in the world can one justify this? How in the same world can one criticize a nation for trying to protect its citizens from this kind of barbarism?

 

International news

ISIL defines itself

The Islamic State may have defined itself much more sharply with its dastardly execution of an American aid worker in Syria.

ISIL isn’t fighting a war against Christians. It is fighting a war against westerners, namely Americans.

So, for this murderous cult to call itself an “Islamic” anything is to commit serious heresy.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mystery-abdul-rahman-peter-kassig

Peter Kassig once served as a U.S. Army Ranger, doing his duty as a soldier and a loyal American. Then he left the Army and became an aid worker dedicated to helping civilians caught in the middle of a bloody civil war in Syria.

Along the way, he converted to Islam. He changed his name to Abdul-Rahman Kassig. ISIL captured him, held him captive and then beheaded him in the same brutal fashion it executed two other Americans.

A dear friend of mine, an educated and well-traveled man, noted on social media the other day that ISIL is anything but a religion-based organization. “The leaders of radical Islam are simply a collection of pychopaths, sociopaths, and murderous thugs who probably get aroused by watching be-headings, rapes, and other disgusting acts,” my dear pal noted.

You know, I accept that description — perhaps except for the arousal part.

Still, we are engaging in a fight with an enemy that simply knows no boundaries of decency at any level.

Kassig was seeking to do some good against the forces of evil. He was giving aid and comfort to fellow Muslims. This is the kind of act that requires a summary execution by monstrous killers proclaiming to be carrying out Allah’s holy command?

The Islamic State has just provided a stark reminder — as if the world needed one — of the nature of this beastly cult.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

'Immigrant' gets clarification

The term “immigrant” became the subject of a brief tempest after I posted a blog entry that mentioned U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

I mentioned that Cruz opposes immigration reform and suggested there was a certain irony in his opposition, given that he immigrated to this country from Canada.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/11/17/take-heed-mr-majority-leader/

A friend of mine disagreed with that assertion. He said that Cruz was a U.S. citizen upon birth because his mother is an American. Federal law grants children of U.S. citizens automatic citizenship, so that meant little Teddy was an American the moment he entered this world. That instant citizenship means Cruz isn’t an immigrant, my friend said.

I disagree with my friend.

Thus, I looked up the word “immigrant” in my American Heritage Dictionary.

“Immigrant” is defined simply as “one who immigrates.”

Aha! So, I looked up “immigrate,” which the dictionary defines this way: “To enter and settle in a foreign country.”

Cruz was born in Canada. He and his family subsequently relocated to this country. Teddy grew up to be a smart fellow, went to law school, became a lawyer and now he’s a U.S. senator.

By my reading of the dictionary, that makes Ted Cruz an immigrant.

Why mention this at all? Well, immigration has returned to the front burner of the national discussion. President Obama is likely to issue an executive order that’s going to upset a lot of Republicans, including tea party members of Congress, such as the former immigrant Sen. Cruz. They’ll go apoplectic.

Yes, immigrants such as Cruz entered the country legally. The issue here is how to handle the illegal immigrants who’ve come here. Many in Congress want them deported. The president and his allies in Congress want to give them a chance to achieve legal status and eventually become U.S. citizens.

He’s already deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history. An executive order delaying deportations of about 5 million undocumented residents will constitute a change in policy at the White House.

I just find it curious that a one-time immigrant would feel so strongly that others seeking a better life in this country shouldn’t have a chance to make their dreams come true.

 

 

 

national news, political news

Yes, Mme. Leader, it was a 'wave'

Nancy Pelosi needs a reality check.

The House of Representatives Democratic leader says the Republican sweep in the midterm election didn’t constitute a “wave.” She said voters weren’t endorsing GOP policies and its agenda.

“There was no wave of approval for the Republicans. I wish them congratulations, they won the election, but there was no wave of approval for anybody. There was an ebbing, an ebb tide, for us,” she said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/nancy-pelosi-112799.html?hp=b3_r2

As much as I hate to disagree with the minority leader, she’s wrong, mistaken, misguided, or just plain ignorant. OK, I doubt the “ignorant” part.

What happened Nov. 4 was a wave.

The GOP needed to flip six seats to gain control of the Senate; it got eight and is poised to win a ninth seat if the Louisiana runoff in December ends up in Republicans’ favor. Republicans also won 12 additional House seats, cementing their control of the lower chamber. The GOP also gained governorships across the nation.

That’s a wave, Mme. Leader.

All is not lost for Democrats. They have a decent chance in 2016 of getting the Senate back — but only if a couple of things happen.

First, the turnout has to improve dramatically from the dismal midterm turnout, which figured to work in Republicans’ favor. We’ll be electing a new president in two years and the turnout for these elections always dwarfs the previous election. That means more of the Democratic base — namely minorities and lower-income Americans — will be motivated to vote.

What’s more, a large number of Republican Senate seats will be on the line, giving Democrats a legitimate chance of picking off a few incumbents, or capturing seats that Republican incumbents will surrender through retirement.

Second, the Republican majority in both congressional chambers stands a fair chance of bungling this opportunity to actually govern. If they shut down the government later this month, or if they actually launch impeachment proceedings against the president over his use of executive authority, well, the blowback could be fearsome.

However, that does not diminish the importance of what happened just a few days ago.

Democrats got swept out of power in a political wave.

 

national news

Keep 'em out in the open

Larry Pratt runs an organization called Gun Owners of America.

His policy on guns makes the National Rifle Association seem almost mainstream and reasonable.

Media Matters, a left-wing media watchdog organization, now wonders why the media keep giving this guy air time and space in mainstream newspapers to spew what it calls “extremist views.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/14/heres-how-gun-extremist-larry-pratt-gets-on-tv/201556

I think I can answer that one. It’s called freedom of speech.

Let me stipulate that I oppose Pratt’s views with every fiber of my being. Media Matters takes its opposition a step further, accusing him of making anti-Semitic statements and espousing “insurrection” against the government.

Well, we have laws against “insurrection” talk. They call such rhetoric “sedition,” and it’s dangerous, indeed, to hear such language coming from supposedly responsible American citizens.

I generally tune this guy out. He’s one of those Second Amendment purists who believes any effort to regulate firearms is tantamount to tearing up the U.S. Constitution and throwing it in the trash. It is utter hogwash to believe such a thing.

I met Pratt once, in Beaumont, where he came to talk to my editor and me about gun-owner rights. My editor, who’s since retired, happens to be a gun enthusiast himself and is — or at least was — an NRA member. We differed from time to time on gun policy issues, but since I worked for him, I relented in my view about these matters.

My strong belief in freedom of speech in the First Amendment, though, requires that we give this individual the opportunity to speak his mind.

Besides, a friend once offered this piece of wisdom regarding those with ideas that some may consider to be those of crackpots: It’s better to keep them out in the open — in plain sight — than to let them scurry around in the darkness.

Let the bozos speak.

 

International news, national news, political news

Columnist gets it right on immigration battle

Ruben Navarrette is far from being a flaming leftist Barack Obama sympathizer.

He’s a mainstream conservative journalist and commentator who in an essay posted on CNN.com has posited the notion that any talk of impeaching the president over an expected executive order would be a foolish overreach.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/16/opinion/navarrette-immigration-not-impeachable-offense/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

He is so correct. I wish I could shake his hand right now.

At issue is an expected order the president will issue that could do a number of things to improve the immigration system. He’s sought to do it legislatively, but his congressional foes won’t let it happen. They’ve bottled immigration reform up. Obama has warned them repeatedly that he’d take action and now he appears ready to do it.

I’ve noted already that I don’t want him to act just yet.

When he does, though, it’s likely to ignite a fiery response from the tea party wing of the Republicans who control the House and are about to take control in January of the Senate.

An executive order reportedly is going to do a number of things. It would boost border security. It would delay deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. It’s the deportation delay that has Republicans’ underwear all knotted up.

Navarrette’s main point is that none of this constitutes an “impeachable offense.”

The president would be acting solely within his authority granted by the U.S. Constitution, according to Navarrette.

The essayist notes: “Republicans have no trouble deflecting criticism by reminding Latino voters that Obama is in charge of deportations. So, instead of threatening the suicidal tantrums of a government shutdown or impeachment, conservatives should pipe down and let him be in charge of deportations. That doesn’t just mean deciding who goes but also who stays.”

Let’s can the impeachment rhetoric and get down to the business of governing, shall we?

 

national news, political news

Don't shut down the government

Mitt Romney is quite capable of making sense.

Take his view on a threat to shut down the federal government to get back at President Obama for enacting an executive order to help fix a broken U.S. immigration system.

The crux of Romney’s view on that idea? Don’t do it, Republicans.

Will someone on Capitol Hill listen to the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/224320-romney-more-productive-ways-to-fight-obama-than-shutdown

The tea party crackpots are threatening to shut ‘er down by withholding money to fund the government past its Dec. 11 deadline. They’re going to get angry if — and likely when — the president signs an executive order that delays deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants.

I agree with them that the president need not pick this fight. But he’s likely to do it.

The Republicans’ response really shouldn’t include shutting down the government. In case they have forgotten, a lot of Americans rely on the federal government. Many thousands of them draw their paychecks from the government, for example.

Romney was asked on “Face the Nation” this morning about a possible shutdown. “Well, I think there’s got to be more productive ways for us to be able to impress on the president the need to work for a permanent solution, as opposed to a temporary stop-gap solution,” Romney replied.

Shutting down the government punishes people who have been turned into political pawns.

Is that what Republicans really and truly want to do?

Listen to Mitt, OK?