Nazi references beyond the pale

JayJoch2-flickr

“I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest.”

So said former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. What drew that hideous description? Donald J. Trump’s proposal to round up 11 million illegal immigrants and deport them to their country of origin.

Weld, though, just isn’t any former politician. He is about to become a vice-presidential candidate seeking election on a Libertarian Party ticket led by former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

Weld’s reference is to Adolf Hitler’s persecution of Jews in Europe.

I’ve already lamented the careless references to Hitler and to the atrocities he committed prior to and during World War II.

This is another such reference.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280836-libertarian-vp-candidate-again-compares-trump-to-nazi

I’ve already noted in this blog that I am giving the first hint of consideration to a third-party ticket when I get ready to vote for president this fall.

What’s more, I happen to think highly of Gov. Weld, the former Republican governor of the Bay State — and of Gov. Johnson, another Republican.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/third-party-looking-more-like-an-option-really/

I do not wish to hear more of these Hitler references, though, when discussing Trump’s moronic idea of rounding up every illegal immigrant and booting them out of the country.

It’s unrealistic, cruel, and un-American.

The idiocy of this idea can produce plenty of arguments against without referencing Hitler.

 

 

Here comes the gun-rights demagoguery

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

The National Rifle Association, to no one’s surprise, gave its blessing to the presidential candidacy of presumed Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

And also, again to no one’s surprise, Trump stood at the podium at the NRA meeting to condemn likely Democratic Party opponent Hillary Clinton’s view on gun violence.

He did so with his customary panache, meaning his customary hyperbole and outright lies.

Trump said Clinton wants to rescind the Second Amendment. He said she wants to “disarm American women.” He said he intends to rescind “gun-free zones” at local schools.

Trump’s answer to gun violence? Put more guns out there.

I’ve been going through the public record of Clinton’s statements on gun violence and, for the life of me, I cannot find a single statement that could be interpreted remotely as an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. It’s not there.

She’s talked about regulating the purchase of firearms. She joins other Americans in condemning the hideous increase in gun violence across the nation.

Does she intend to propose a rescinding of the Second Amendment? Does she really intend to disarm Americans?

Hell no!

That won’t deter Trump and continuing his demagogic tirades.

Let’s all get ready for more of the same.

 

Another terrorist leader reduced to powder

drone

Well, here we go again.

Another terrorist leader has been turned into dust. A U.S. drone strike hit Mullah Mohammad Akhtar Mansour just inside the Pakistan border with Afghanistan.

Boom! He’s gone.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/afghan-leaders-see-taliban-leaders-death-as-hopeful-sign/ar-BBtk1Or?ocid=spartandhp

Intelligence and military leaders in the Pentagon and at CIA call Mansour’s death the most important since the SEALs took out Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

What does it mean in the grand scheme?

It means the Taliban — the cabal that the White House continues to say is not a terrorist organization — needs to find a new leader.

Mansour had been called one of the major obstacles to trying to persuade the Taliban to join in negotiations to achieve something akin to peace in Afghanistan.

“Peace is what we want. Mansour was a threat to that effort,” Secretary of State John Kerry said. “He also was directly opposed to peace negotiations and to the reconciliation process. It is time for Afghans to stop fighting and to start building a real future together.”

The strike illustrates once again that intelligence-gathering remains critical to the hunting down of these terrorist monsters.

Now … let’s go after the rest of them.

 

Ex-felons have rights, too

felon-voting-bars-button

Some of the talk along the presidential campaign trail has turned to felons.

Do those who have been convicted of felonies deserve the right to vote? Sure they do … under certain conditions.

It’s becoming a bit of a sore point among many who think that felons must not have their rights of citizenship restored. If they’ve done something egregiously wrong, why, let them pay for the rest of their lives. That’s the mantra.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently granted ex-felons the right to vote in that state, much to the consternation of conservatives who argue that, by golly, McAuliffe is a friend and political ally of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, naturally he’d want to grant ex-felons the right to vote.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas actually said that those who commit crimes are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Let’s not paint with too broad a brush, Sen. Cruz.

Texas — of all places! — allows former felons to vote.

Check this out from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/effects.shtml

If a felon completes all the terms of his or her release from prison — and that includes fulfilling all the parole requirements — then he or she is eligible to register to vote. The restoration of these rights do not extend to those wanting to run for political office.

Honestly, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

A left-leaning website chides the National Rifle Association for opposing the rights of ex-felons to vote while at the same time pushing for the rights of ex-felons to own firearms.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/22/3780685/nra-wants-ex-felons-guns-not-voting-rights/

I won’t wade into that snake pit here. Maybe later.

However, the idea behind incarcerating people convicted of committing serious crimes is to force them to “repay their debt to society.” Once they complete a prison sentence and once they complete the terms of their parole — if they’re let out of The Joint early — then they have paid their debt in full. That’s how the judicial system sees it.

This clearly is a state-by-state issue. It need not enter the federal realm.

I’ve been critical in the past of many Texas laws and those who make them here. On this one, though, the Lone Star State got it right.

 

Unqualified … and unfit to become POTUS

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

I am so very reluctant to put words in other people’s mouths, but I cannot resist the urge here.

The probable Democratic Party presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said the other day that presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is “unqualified” to become president of the United States.

I beg to differ. He’s not only unqualified. He is unfit for the job.

Technically, Trump is qualified. He is a U.S. citizen; he’s well past the minimum age. He doesn’t have a felony conviction (I am presuming).

It’s the fitness that matters more to me.

The dictionary provides an inadequate definition of the term “unfit.” Its primary definition is “inappropriate.” Yeah, do you think?

A man with no public service record who refuses to release his tax returns wants to trust us to do the right thing. A reality TV celebrity who once operated beauty pageants wants to become the head of state of the world’s greatest nation. Someone who has lied repeatedly ever since becoming a candidate for the Republican Party nomination wants to become the moral leader of this nation.

Trump has no philosophical grounding. His world view depends on the last person to whom he has spoken. He changes his views at every opportunity.

Someone with zero grasp of governing wants to become the chief executive of the United States of America. He wants to “build a wall” to keep illegal immigrants out. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Trump wants to take the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to kill family members of terrorists. He says it’s OK if Japan and South Korea develop nuclear arsenals. He wants to talk directly to North Korean dictator/nutcase Kim Jong Un.

Trump has mocked an individual with a serious physical handicap. He has said amazingly crass things to — and about — women. He says the Mexican government is deliberately sending “rapists, drug dealers and murderers” into the United States.

No, the issue here isn’t his qualifications. It’s his fitness for the job.

Donald Trump fails the fitness test at every level imaginable.

 

Third party looking more like an option … really

ORLANDO, FL - SEPTEMBER 22:  Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson speaks in the Fox News/Google GOP Debate at the Orange County Convention Center on September 22, 2011 in Orlando, Florida. The debate featured the nine Republican candidates two days before the Florida straw poll. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

I am a dedicated two-party presidential election traditionalist.

My tendency is to dismiss third-party candidacies. My thought always has been that they have no chance of winning, therefore I won’t waste my vote, which I value greatly.

I am now about to announce that I am considering following the lead of one of my sons, who declared just the other day that he’s likely to vote for someone other than Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.

There, I’ve announced it.

Two former moderate Republican governors have teamed up as Libertarians seeking to run for president and vice president.

New Mexico’s Gary Johnson is running for president; he’s tapped Massachusetts’ William Weld as his running mate.

The Libertarian Party must nominate them. My strong hunch is that they will.

This won’t be Gov. Johnson’s first rodeo. He ran four years ago and collected about a million votes. I’ll bet you some serious money he and Gov. Weld will do a lot better than that this year.

The last major alternative to the two parties came in 1992 when Henry Ross Perot challenged President George H.W. Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. He won 19 million votes, but not a single Electoral College vote.

And, no … he didn’t cost President Bush his bid for re-election. I’ve seen ample polling data that suggest that even without Perot on the ballot that Clinton would have won by roughly the same margin he rolled up in 1992.

Why am I thinking about a third party? I’m not entirely thrilled with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Trump never — in a zillion years — would get my vote.

Don’t misinterpret me here. I haven’t yet committed to a third party candidate. I’m merely thinking about it, which by itself represents a major shift from my normal political thought process.

Johnson’s major claim to political fame was his call for legalization of marijuana. I was working for a newspaper — the Amarillo Globe-News — at the time he issued that call and the paper’s corporate ownership never would support legalization of marijuana; therefore, I wrote editorials criticizing Gov. Johnson’s “wacky” notion. I’m now writing my own blog, under my own name, and my view on that issue is, well, evolving.

Weld is another moderate former GOP governor. No single stands out, but I’ve long perceived him to be far from what’s becoming the Republican “mainstream” that wants to round up illegal immigrants, wants to criminalize abortion and wants to send American troops into battle at the slightest sound of gunfire.

Yes, this is just another example of how wacky this election campaign has become.

 

Was it a terror attack … or something else?

egypt air

I’m puzzled.

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump bellowed that he is absolutely certain it was a terrorist attack.

Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton said in more restrained tones that it appears to be an act of terror.

Greek aviation officials said mechanical failure likely wasn’t the cause.

FBI director James Comey has dispatched the finest investigators in the world to the scene of the tragedy.

Everyone seems to think the downing of EgyptAir 804 was the act of the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or some other nefarious, evil group.

Where, though, are the claims of responsibility?

History tells us that ISIS is quick to take “credit” for these evil acts. Al-Qaeda is a little slower to do so, but not this slow.

Indeed, terrorist groups want the world to know they have succeeded in committing these terrible deeds. In the case of this tragedy, 66 people have died. The jetliner was en route from Paris to Cairo when it veered 90 degrees and then spun in a circle before apparently plummeting into the Mediterranean Sea near the Greek island of Karpathos.

So, the question must be asked: Was it an act of terror?

The latest news is that sensors reportedly detected smoke inside the plane moments before it plunged into the sea.

Was it mechanical or electrical failure after all?

Let’s turn for just a moment to the politics of it all.

Perhaps you heard Trump say immediately that terrorists did this, that anything less than an all-out retaliatory strike against ISIS would be a sign of weakness.

Clinton didn’t want to be left on the sidelines, as she, too, sought to lay blame, although not with the bellicosity that Trump exhibited.

There remains a good chance that search teams will find the flight data recorders on the sea bottom. Absent any declaration of responsibility from terrorists, it would be wise in the extreme to see what’s contained in those recorders.

 

 

Has conflict frayed Trump’s fundraising efforts?

Oklahoma State alum T. Boone Pickens, Jr. fires up the Cowboy fan base during a tailgate party on the East Plaza of AT&T Stadium before the Cotton Bowl game against Missouri, Friday, January 3, 2014 in Arlington, Texas. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News) 01042014xSPORTS

T. Boone Pickens says he’s committed to electing Donald J. Trump as the next president of the United States.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is far friendlier to the oil and natural gas industry than his likely Democratic foe this fall, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Pickens — a former Amarillo resident — made his immense fortune in oil and natural gas.

It follows, then, that Pickens would be in Trump’s camp.

But there’s been a hiccup. Maybe. Perhaps.

Pickens was going to play host to a meeting at his sprawling Mesa Vista Ranch north of Pampa on June 11-3. The meeting was for a super-PAC supporting Trump. It’s been called off.

Why? Pickens’ spokesman blamed it on “scheduling conflicts,” which often becomes kind of a throwaway excuse for anything that gets postponed, or canceled.

There have been reports, though, of strife and turmoil among the Trump campaign and its fundraising machine, according to the Dallas Morning News.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/05/t-boone-pickens-postponing-major-fundraising-event-for-donald-trump.html/

Which is it? Scheduling and logistics? Or is there trouble in Trump World?

I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing Pickens three times — the most recent time just two weeks ago. I don’t know him well.  I know a lot more of him, though, having studied him from some distance over nearly 30 years.

A part of me just doesn’t believe he would have announced a big event at his ranch without having nailed down all the particulars he needed to make it a reality.

And that kind of makes me wonder if the issue doesn’t lie within the Trump apparatus.

Pickens’ team says the event will occur later this summer, after the Republican convention.

We’ll just have to wait and see … yes?

 

Pay attention, Gov. Abbott

abbott

There’s little I can add to this blog post by Brian Sweany of Texas Monthly.

Except, perhaps, this: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has a sharp legal mind and he ought to know more than he’s acknowledging regarding the conduct of the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton.

Here’s Sweany’s blog post:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/abbotts-feigned-ignorance/

Sweany asks a pertinent question: Why doesn’t the governor know more than he knew more than a year ago about Paxton’s conduct?

The AG has been indicted by a Collin County grand jury on felony accusations of securities fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a complaint as well. Paxton is accused of failure to disclose properly income he earned while giving investment advice.

As for Abbott’s “feigned ignorance,” as Sweany calls it, I’ll just add this.

Abbott was a trial judge in Houston before being elected to the Texas Supreme Court. He then was elected as the state’s attorney general, a post he held until January 2015 when he became the state’s governor.

Paxton succeeded Abbott at the AG’s office.

It would seem implausible that the governor knows nothing more now than he did a year ago. I don’t want Abbott to convict his Republican colleague, either, through statements to the media.

Still, to borrow a phrase: Gov. Abbott, what did you know and when did you know it?

 

Yes, it’s a cutthroat business

21tampapaper2-master675

Media companies operate in a highly competitive and often ruthless environment.

A take-no-prisoners approach to wheeling and dealing is commonplace. Consider the recent acquisition by the Tampa Bay Times of the Tampa Tribune. The Times bought the Tribune and then shut the paper down after a 123-year run on the other side of the Florida bay.

According to the New York Times article attached here, former Tribune employees felt betrayed by the takeover. They didn’t see it coming.

Well, let me be among the many individuals who’ve worked in print journalism to offer this bit of solace, not that it will soothe the pain: It could’ve been worse.

I worked for nearly 11 years for the Hearst Corporation, which has exhibited its own heavy hand in acquiring competing newspapers. Although I wasn’t affected directly by Hearst’s takeover strategy, I know many former colleagues who were.

In the late 1980s, Hearst was operating the San Antonio Light, which was in the midst of a nasty newspaper “war” with the San Antonio Express-News, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch’s company. Hearst decided to take the offensive, so the company moved the publisher of the Beaumont Enterprise, where I worked at the time, to San Antonio to take over as head man at the Light; I believe it was in 1988.

The new Light publisher — George B. Irish — was given the task of preparing for a serious corporate takeover.

Hearst decided to purchase Express-News — and then it promptly shut down the Light. Yes, the company “rewarded” its loyal employees, who had fought the good fight against the E-N, by giving almost all of them their pink slips.

A handful of Light hands were kept on. Most were let go. If memory serves, they were given severance packages. Still, the pain was palpable.

In 1995, Hearst went after the Houston Post. It purchased that paper, closed it down and left the state’s largest city with just one paper, the Chronicle, which Hearst already owned.

It’s a tough world, man.

I feel for my former colleagues in Tampa. Please know this: You are not alone.