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 — stood tall on 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 all 11 million 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.

 

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 . . .  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? By offering ill-timed words of encouragement to dangerous despots like Kim Jong Un?

 

El Chapo saga takes strange turn

CCkRgg

I’m trying to figure this one out and, so help me, this item has me puzzled to the max.

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman escaped six months ago from a maximum-security prison in Mexico. He is one of the world’s most notorious drug lords, responsible for dealing in death while peddling meth, heroin and assorted other killer drugs.

So, as one who practiced journalism for more than 36 years, I find myself asking tonight: If given a chance to interview this notorious criminal, would I accept the chance to do so or would I blow the whistle on his whereabouts to the authorities who are looking for him?

The actor Sean Penn took the former course. He interviewed El Chapo for a Rolling Stone interview several months ago.

I don’t think I would have done that.

Then again, Penn is an actor.

I’m also wondering tonight whether Penn has the same sense of outrage that El Chapo was on the lam that many others — such as yours truly — have had as he avoided capture by the authorities.

The Mexican police caught up with him and Guzman is now facing extradition to the United States.

I believe it’s fair to ask: What was Sean Penn thinking?

According to the New York Times: “Mr. Penn and Mr. Guzmán spoke for seven hours, the story reports, at a compound amid dense jungle. The topics of conversation turned in unexpected directions. At one stage, Mr. Penn brought up Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate; there were some reports that Mr. Guzmán had put a $100 million bounty on Mr. Trump after he made comments offensive to Mexicans. ‘Ah! Mi amigo!’ Mr. Guzmán responded.”

Perhaps there’s something about this story that goes over my head. I’ll admit that I’ve never been given a chance to interview one of the world’s most wanted fugitives . . . so I have no direct knowledge of how I’d respond to such an opportunity.

Still, I find it strange in the extreme that a celebrity of Penn’s stature — someone with no apparent experience as a journalist — would seemingly turn a blind eye toward the circumstances that led to an interview subject’s arrest and conviction while he is seeking to avoid being thrown back into the slammer.

Is it fair to question Penn’s loyalty?

Hmmm. I think I just did.

 

 

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

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

 

Irony abounds in Cruz citizenship debate

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 believe 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 rising 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?

Quitting while still ahead . . .

Lotto

I have a long and well-covered loathing for games of chance.

Such as the lottery . . .

While working as an opinion page editor for the Beaumont Enterprise, way down yonder in the Golden Triangle of Texas, I argued vehemently against the introduction of the Texas Lottery. I wrote personal columns against it; our newspaper editorialized against it.

The voters of our part of the state — not to mention the rest of Texas — didn’t heed our advice. Texans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Texas constitutional amendment that allowed for the creation of the lottery in the early 1990s.

Well . . . I awoke this morning and decided to forgo purchasing a ticket for the $800 million Powerball jackpot that’s looming out there, tempting many of my fellow Texans way past their strength.

I’ll let other suckers lay down their money and hope they win the Big One.

But for the record, I need to make a full disclosure.

Despite my hatred of these games, I’ve played the Texas Lottery exactly twice.

Both times occurred early in the lottery’s existence in Texas.

I went to a convenience store in Beaumont, not far from where we lived. I purchased a ticket. I scratched it off. I won something! It was a paltry $3 payoff.

Cool! I was two bucks ahead of the game.

The next week, I bought another ticket. I scratched it off. Nothing.

Still cool. I was a dollar ahead.

I haven’t played since. I quit while I was in the black.

Good luck today . . . suckers!

 

Powerball jackpot hits $800 million!

635877522067343002-lotteryAP-Powerball-Jackpot

I’m going to bed tonight pondering whether I should buy a Powerball ticket sometime tomorrow.

The jackpot has hit $800 million. The one-time payout totals something more than $450 million, which ain’t exactly walking-around money.

I doubt that I’ll play tomorrow. But my staunch refusal to gamble in this manner has been shaken a bit by a story I heard about two weeks ago.

The story goes like this:

A good friend of mine told me of a young man — a mutual friend of ours — who decided one day to purchase a Texas Lottery ticket. I’m told he doesn’t play often. But he drove up to a West Texas convenience store the other day, got out of his car, walked into the store and bought a lottery ticket. He just had a wild hair, I guess, so he plunked down some cash.

He won a nice prize.

It totaled $1 million. My friend ended up walking away with nearly 700 grand.

Sure, the federal government got a nice chunk of change from my friend’s winnings. Big deal. He still pocketed a lot of dough. I’d settle for a tenth of that amount.

Am I going to lay down some cash tomorrow for a chance at the Powerball jackpot? Not likely . . . but I haven’t yet slammed the door shut.

Conservatism takes new activist turn

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.  They include:

  • Disallowing federal law from 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.

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.

 

El Chapo back in the slammer

Bloomberg's Best Photos 2014: Drug trafficker Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman is escorted to a helicopter by Mexican security forces at Mexico's International Airport in Mexico city, Mexico, on Saturday, Feb. 22, 2014. Mexico's apprehension of the world's most-wanted drug boss struck a blow to a cartel that local and U.S. authorities say swelled into a multinational empire, fueling killings around the world. Photographer: Susana Gonzalez/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the notorious Mexican drug dealer, has been re-arrested.

Mexican authorities managed to corral the infamous drug cartel lord after only six months on the lam; he’d escaped from a “maximum-security” prison.

I don’t know how they define “maximum security” in Mexico, but my hunch is that they’d better redefine it . . . or toughen security measures in their hard-time lockups to ensure that they can keep the bad guys behind bars.

My hope for El Chapo is that this monster gets buried deep inside the stoutest walls and behind countless rows of razor wire to make sure he remains locked up for as long he continues to draw breath.

Read the story here.