‘Huck’ tries to out-Trump The Donald

Donald Trump makes light of John McCain’s heroism during the Vietnam War and refuses to apologize for it.

His payoff? A surge in the Republican Party presidential primary polls.

Now comes Mike Huckabee to say the Iran nuclear deal brokered by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and five other world powers will lead “Israel to the door of the oven.”

It’s an obvious and hideous reference to the Holocaust and has enraged some Jewish leaders for its insensitivity to the suffering that families of Holocaust victims feel to this very day.

Is Huck backing off? Oh, no. He’s keeping up the fiery rhetoric.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jewish-groups-react-mike-huckabees-oven-remarks?cid=sm_fb_lastword

This, I fear, is what Donald Trump has introduced into the GOP primary contest. He has set a new standard for the level of commentary that voters will accept.

Huckabee has seized upon it and has now added a new twist: invoking the ghastly memory of Adolf Hitler and Neville “Peace in Our Time” Chamberlain to criticize the deal that seeks to end Iran’s nuclear program. You know about Hitler. Chamberlain was the British prime minister who met with Hitler in 1938 as the Nazi tyrant was about to launch World War II and said he was confident that the world could achieve “peace in our time” in Europe. Well, it didn’t work out that way.

Huckabee’s reference is as the National Jewish Democratic Council described it: The council called the remark “not only disgustingly offensive to the President and the White House, but shows utter, callous disregard for the millions of lives lost in the Shoah and to the pain still felt by their descendants today.”

But what the heck. A candidate’s got to do what he’s got to do to get on that debate stage with those who are atop the polls.

As Trump has shown, outrageousness sells these days.

Jihad John on the run … where does this man hide?

Jihadi John

Mohammad Emwazi — aka Jihadi John — is on the run.

But this guy is no ordinary fugitive. He’s the individual believed to be responsible for the beheadings of Islamic State captives. He reportedly has fallen out of favor with the monstrous terrorist organization.

Oh, my. Where does this individual go now?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/jihadi-john-on-the-run-from-isis/ar-AAdvEy0?ocid=ansibt11

Emwazi has become arguably the world’s most hated man. He reportedly beheaded aid workers and journalists captured by ISIL. He’s a United Kingdom resident who was born in Kuwait but educated at the University of Westminster.

He’s now at the top of the list of the men being hunted by U.S. and other intelligence agencies for his dastardly deeds.

A former friend said this about Emwazi: “The jihadist had not been ‘a good Muslim’ and never wore the Islamic dress he has been seen wearing in the beheading videos. ‘He smoked drugs, drank and was violent towards other boys,’ said the friend, who was not named in the report. ‘The fact he portrays himself as a strict Muslim is laughable and shameful.’”

Actually, Emwazi and his former ISIL colleagues aren’t “strict Muslims.” They are Muslim perverts.

Whatever. Some analysts now believe Emwazi has become a target of ISIL and well could end up meeting the same kind of fate he delivered to so many of his victims.

Well, as the saying goes: Karma can be a bitch.

Are we going to be timid about city’s future?

Leaps of faith require a certain degree of risk.

We take them at various stages of our life. When we change careers; when we move from one part of the country to another; there’s even a leap of faith that occurs when you commit yourself to someone for the rest of your life.

The great thing about faith, though, is that if it’s strong enough, it can carry you through. You rely totally on it.

So it might be with Amarillo City Hall’s grand new plan for its downtown district. It might well require us to take a leap of faith that a new direction for the city is worth the effort.

I’m still dumbstruck by the timidity I keep hearing from those who for whatever reason — real or imagined — feel somewhat intimidated by what’s being proposed for the downtown district’s future.

Planners want to build an athletic/entertainment venue. They want to construct a downtown convention hotel. They are planning to build a parking structure. Three building are going to be built downtown. The aim is as plain as it gets: They want to reshape downtown. They want it to become something of an entertainment attraction.

What is it now? Well, it’s really more or less … how do I say it nicely, nothing to brag about. At least not yet.

It’s come some distance from where it was, say, 20 years ago. The Santa Fe Building is bustling with Potter County government activity; Polk Street is slowly coming back to life; that big ol’ Chase Tower is full — for the time being — but it will lose a lot of tenants when Xcel Energy and West Texas A&M University vacate the tower for new digs elsewhere.

Xcel’s and WT’s departure from the Chase Tower, therefore, isn’t a net loss for the downtown district. It’s a net plus.

There’s movement, finally, on the Barfield Building at the corner of Sixth and Polk.

The leap of faith will occur when the multipurpose event venue is built and the city starts to promote it for a wide range of activity. It will rely on hotel-motel tax revenue to keep it going. The convention hotel is tied directly to the MPEV. It, too, will require some serious marketing and promotion.

It’s time to keep the faith, man.

I am acutely aware of the need to improve the Civic Center. That, too, will come eventually, at least that’s my hope. And what about the old Herring Hotel building on the northern edge of the downtown district? Believe it or not, downtown leaders tell me they believe there is a place for the Herring, that it can be renovated and turned into something not yet envisioned or imagined. It, too, requires a leap of faith.

I am willing to take that leap. My faith in the potential for success makes it possible.

More questions regarding the Bland case

bland

It’s highly likely that Sandra Bland took her own life in the Waller County jail cell.

The young woman had been arrested and tossed into the cell after being pulled over for the heinous crime of failing to signal before making a turn in her motor vehicle.

She got agitated with the Texas Department of Public Safety trooper, Brian Enciana, who violated just about every rule prescribed for calming a tense situation. He is supposedly trained to use restraint whenever possible. Did he do that? No. He did precisely the opposite.

The dashboard camera aboard his police cruiser tells a grim story of a police officer going too far.

Bland never should have been put in that jail cell. Yes, she behaved badly when the trooper stopped her. Yes, she should have reacted more calmly than she did.

Did she strike the trooper, as he contended in his arrest report? The camera doesn’t reveal that. If she struck at the trooper, she did it outside of the range of the camera. That, right there, gives a lot of folks pause to accept the officer’s word that she attacked him. She’s no longer able to refute the allegations, correct?

DPS officials need to take a long and careful look at what happened before Bland ended up in that jail cell.

It appears highly likely now that the young woman didn’t die at the hands of those who were detaining her.

However, she never should have been put in that jail cell in the first place.

Networks create GOP debate monster

Barack Obama is touring East Africa at the moment, seeking to build some common ground and alliances in the war against terrorism.

Meanwhile, back home, the thundering herd of Republicans are trying to outshout each other while seeking one of 10 spot on a debate stage in Cleveland, Ohio.

The president calls the GOP’s “ad hominem attacks” on U.S. foreign policy “ridiculous” and “sad.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-chides-2016-candidates-ridiculous-sad-remarks-115421880–election.html#

I believe, Mr. President, what we’re seeing here is the result of a Fox- and CNN-inspired creation: The candidates are trying to one-up each other, seeking to boost their poll numbers among GOP primary voters so they can be seen and heard among the “top tier” candidates participating in the first two Republican primary debates.

Mike Huckabee said the president’s deal that seeks an end to Iran’s nuclear program will walk “Israelis to the oven,” an obvious reference to the Holocaust. Do you think the former Arkansas governor is trying to make some noise here, trying to become eligible to take part in the Fox-sponsored debate that will take place in a few days?

All the GOP contenders, of course, are trying to derail the current frontrunner — Donald Trump — who’s said so many outrageous things in so many equally outrageous contexts.

Fox said the top 10 candidates’ poll numbers will determine who stands on the debate stage. CNN, which hosts the second debate, is following more or less than same script.

The networks are going to determine who gets heard on national TV.

To get there, the networks are laying the groundwork for candidates to make outrageous statements designed to boost poll ratings, appealing to “the base” of their party.

The GOP campaign has devolved into name-calling, again in the interest of boosting poll numbers.

Oh, my. It’s just the beginning.

 

Council members: Vote up or down on MPEV

Amarillo MPEV

A dear friend and former colleague of mine once told me, “There are about as many original ideas as there are original sins.”

With that predicate laid out there, I offer this notion that I’ve appropriated from another good friend.

The three men who comprise the newly elected majority on the Amarillo City Council have a choice to make. Do they want to institute fundamental “change” in city government or do they want to do what previous governing bodies have done, which is punt a controversial issue to the voters — to let the voters make the decision?

Councilmen Elisha Demerson, Randy Burkett and Mark Nair have indicated, implied and inferred that they are skeptical of plans to build a multipurpose event venue just south of City Hall.

Here’s the idea: Gentlemen, take this matter up yourselves and decide whether to proceed with the project.

One alternative being kicked around is to conduct a citywide referendum. Let the voters have their say. It’s the democratic process in action, it’s been said. And, by golly, the voters have been kept in the dark for too long, or so the line goes.

It’s pure manure. You are free to choose its source, but it still stinks.

If the gentlemen elected this year to the City Council want change, then they should stand foursquare for it and make the command decision they contend the voters elected them to make. Vote up or down on whether you want the MPEV to move forward.

A referendum would be non-binding, although it would constitute political suicide if the council decided to buck the wishes of the people and reject whatever decision they would make. If voters reject the MPEV idea, then the deal dies. If voters say “yes” to the MPEV, it moves ahead.

What’s more, a referendum is going to cost a significant amount of money.

Look at it this way: The men whom voters elected to the City Council all talked out loud — and often — about the need for greater transparency and accountability in city government. Fine. Voters heard them and sent them to City Hall to be, well, transparent and accountable.

So, why not persuade Mayor Paul Harpole — the council’s presiding officer — to call a series of public hearings to debate this matter among themselves? Have it out in the open, in full public view. Argue among yourselves. State your case. Is the MPEV a good or bad thing for the city?

Once you’ve exhausted yourselves, then deliberate like the gentlemen you are and take a vote.

Up or down. Then live with whatever political consequence that will result.

I believe that’s what we call “leadership.”

 

Whether to vote on MPEV

It’s now been established that the new majority on the Amarillo City Council believes it brought “change” to the way things are to get done at City Hall.

I guess they believe, therefore, that the city residents need to vote on whether to proceed with the multipurpose event venue planned for a site just south of the City Hall building.

My strong sense is that they also believe voters would reject the MPEV. The reasons why aren’t precise. One thing I keep hearing — based on what I read through all the media outlets available — is that residents weren’t kept sufficiently informed about the project. Well, that reason makes zero sense. The public has been involved from the get-go. There have been public hearings, and question-answer sessions with City Council members and senior city administrators.

Others want the Civic Center improved, expanded and dolled up before proceeding with an MPEV. What’s missing in this argument, though, is the cost of renovating the Civic Center and, more importantly, how much of a burden the public would carry to finance an improvement though a bond issue election. I’ve heard varying cost estimates for expanding the Civic Center, but they all seem to hover around the $130 million mark. That’s a lot of dough and it will cost more than the three-pronged project — MPEV, downtown hotel and parking garage — being proposed for downtown Amarillo.

Oh, and there’s this: The proposal on the table now calls for private money to build it, with hotel-motel tax revenue being used to maintain it.

And who contributes the hotel-motel tax revenue? Those who visit Amarillo.

I want to reiterate once again that the concept being considered is a sound one for the city … in my oh-so-humble view. A move to put this matter to a vote is intended to scuttle the MPEV. If it’s defeated, the hotel and the parking garage don’t get built.

Then we’ve just wasted a lot of time, emotional capital, sweat equity and, oh yes, money.

 

Cornyn is correct; Cruz is, um, incorrect

John Cornyn knows how the U.S. Senate functions.

He’s been serving there for some time now as a Republican from Texas.

His whipper-snapper colleague, fellow Republican Ted Cruz, doesn’t know how it works quite so well.

Accordingly, Cornyn took Cruz to task for the attack he leveled at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Cruz did so in a speech on the Senate floor in which he called McConnell a liar.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/26/cruz-and-cornyn-engage-senate-floor/

McConnell had allowed a vote on the Export-Import Bank, which Cruz and some other Senate conservatives want to eliminate. McConnell, R-Ky., allegedly had promised that a vote wouldn’t occur. Cruz took him to task for it and then decided to say out loud what he could have said in private, which is that McConnell can’t be trusted to keep his word.

Enter the senior senator from Texas, Cornyn.

“I have listened to the comments of my colleague, the junior senator from Texas, both last week and this week, and I would have to say that he is mistaken,” Cornyn said, adding that McConnell did not deceive any senator with his fancy procedural footwork. According to the Texas Tribune: “If the majority leader had somehow misrepresented to 54 senators what the facts are with regards to the Ex-Im Bank, I would suspect that you would find other voices joining that of the junior senator, but I hear no one else making such a similar accusation.”

“There was no misrepresentation made by the majority leader on the Ex-Im Bank,” Cornyn added.

I continue to believe that Cruz — who’s also running for president — hit the floor of the Senate when he took office aiming to make a name for himself. He’s done so quite nicely and along the way incurred the wrath of his GOP colleagues, not to mention the Democrats with whom he must work.

Remember, during former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing, when Cruz questioned out loud whether Hagel — a former Republican senator from Nebraska and a decorated Vietnam War combatant — was taking money under the table from North Korea? That line of attack drew a sharp rebuke from another noted Vietnam War combatant, Republican Sen. John McCain, who scolded the freshman for impugning Hagel’s patriotism and integrity.

Now the senator who wants to be president has been lectured by his fellow Texan about the rules of the Senate.

You just don’t call another senator — let alone the majority leader — a liar.

Senate fails — one more time — to repeal Obamacare

When, oh when, are congressional Republicans going to wake up to the fact that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay?

The U.S. Senate tried once again — and failed once again — to repeal the ACA by seeking to tie it to a transportation funding bill. The vote split on party lines, with eight senators not voting.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obamacare-repeal-vote-fails-in-senate-120638.html?hp=l2_4

Will this failed effort mean the end of future efforts? I am not holding my breath.

As Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., noted, the Senate now has voted 55 times to end the ACA. Fifty-five votes have failed. Meanwhile, she said, 20 million Americans have health insurance who didn’t have it before.

The U.S. Supreme Court — comprising a Republican-appointed conservative majority — has upheld the ACA in two rulings, the second of which brought a suggestion from GOP senators that we ought to make court justices stand for retention, which of course would require a fundamental change in the way the founding fathers established out system of government.

So much for “strict constructionist” views of the judiciary.

No one on either side of the political aisle believes the ACA is perfect. Yes, it has some flaws. Repeal of the law, though, isn’t the answer, particularly when those who want to repeal it keep failing to produce anything approaching a suitable alternative.

So, senators, let’s end the charade. Understand and accept — finally — that the Affordable Care Act is the law. Make it better if you wish. Failing that, then live with it.

How did this guy purchase a gun … legally?

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

John Houser was known to behave erratically. He had a rap sheet as long as his arm, maybe both arms.

And yet he was able to purchase a handgun — legally, it turns out — in Alabama.

He then took the gun into a movie theater in Lafayette, La., cases the crowd watching the film and then opens fire.

Houser killed two people and injured several more — before killing himself with the gun he used to commit the horrible crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/us/louisiana-theater-shooter/

How in the name of all that is holy did this guy purchase a gun legally?

We hear, of course, that existing gun laws are sufficient. Obviously, and quite tragically, John Houser has demonstrated that they are woefully insufficient.

Let me think: A background check might have determined this guy was unfit to own a handgun. A three- to five-day delay in the purchase to give local authorities time to check him out might have worked. He could have been denied permission to buy the gun.

Would that have prevented him from obtaining a firearm illegally, from stealing it from someone? Probably not.

But he bought the thing legally.

I’m ready for the explanation — and the justification — for why this is OK?