Has the GOP nominee-to-be finally gone too far?

trump

This might be considered something of a rhetorical question with no answer at least readily available, but I’ll pose it anyway.

Has Donald J. Trump finally issued the nonsensical statement that delivers the message many of us have known all along — that he is temperamentally unfit for the office of president of the United States?

The presumptive Republican nominee is getting shelled not just by Democrats, but by his new “best friend,” House Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, over comments he made about a federal judge.

Trump referred to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel as “a Mexican” while declaring that the judge is guilty of a conflict of interest in the case he is hearing regarding the defunct Trump University.

Some former students have filed suit against Trump and the “university” he founded, claiming they were bilked out of money they shelled out to attend this online educational program.

Curiel isn’t Mexican. He’s an American. He was born in Indiana. His parents are immigrants from Mexico. He went to California after completing law school and became a hard-charging prosecutor who put many drug lords behind bars.

Now he’s hearing this Trump U case, but Trump says he’s got a conflict because the presidential candidate wants to “build a wall” along our border with Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out. Therefore, according to Trump, Curiel cannot judge this case fairly because of his heritage.

The blowback on this comment has been intense and sustained.

Ryan, who just 24 hours before Trump made the “Mexican” comment had endorsed Trump’s candidacy, criticized the candidate’s “left-field” assertion.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-attacks-223898

And, of course, the comment has drawn relentless fire from Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who said: “If our president doesn’t believe in the rule of law, doesn’t believe in our constitution with a separation of power with an independent judiciary, that is one of the most dangerous signals that we are dealing with somebody who is a demagogue.”

She added, “If we start disqualifying people because of who their parents and grandparents might be and where they came from,” Clinton continued. “That would be running counter to everything we believe in.”

I am leery of predicting that Trump has finally uttered the politically fatal campaign gaffe. He’s had so many such moments along the way that — in a normal election season –Trump’s candidacy would have been tossed aside long ago.

I am an optimist by nature. My optimism has been dealt a boost once again by the Republican candidate’s loud and uncontrollable mouth.

 

As for Ali’s anti-war protest …

muhammad-ali-refuses-army-induction

So much has been written and spoken for nearly 50 years about the time Muhammad Ali refused induction into the armed forces, I hesitate to mention anything about it here.

Awww, but I will anyway.

The Champ’s death Friday saddens me beyond measure. I’ll be grieving for a long time.

I do want to set the record straight, though, on what I believe has been a mischaracterization of Ali’s refusal to be drafted.

It’s been reported that he did so in 1967 out of conscience. He had converted just three years earlier to Islam. He told the Houston draft board he couldn’t serve in the armed forces because of religious conviction, that he couldn’t carry out orders to kill other human beings.

I get that.

What has not been discussed in all the commentary about Ali’s death, though, is that he could have filed as a conscientious objector and still served in the armed forces — in a non-combat role.

No Pentagon bureaucrat in his or her right mind ever would send the reigning heavyweight boxing champion of the world — especially someone such as Muhammad Ali, for crying out loud! — to any training center to be schooled in the combat arms: infantry, armor or artillery.

I served in a basic training company in Fort Lewis, Wash., with a young man who was a conscientious objector. When we completed our boot camp training in October 1968, he got orders for artillery school in Fort Sill, Okla. He hit the ceiling. The last time I saw him before I departed for aircraft maintenance school in Fort Eustis, Va., he was marching into the orderly room to file a protest over the orders he received. I hope he got them changed.

Muhammad Ali would have been given a special assignment, much as Joe Louis received when that former heavyweight champion saw duty during World War II. The Army was full of clerical jobs or other rear-echelon assignments that would have kept Ali far from harm’s way.

Now, having said that, I do not know what was in Muhammad Ali’s heart when he said “no” to being inducted. It well might have been a broader statement against the Vietnam War, that under no circumstances could he don a military uniform while the nation was engaged in all-out war in Southeast Asia.

If that were the case, well, I respect that, too.

Ali’s era: simple and complex all at once

Mohammed Ali

As I’ve spent the day pondering last night’s sad news about Muhammad Ali’s death, I was struck by a realization of the era in which he was such a dominant force.

It was that he flourished in a simpler and more complex time.

Ali died of Parkinson’s disease at the age of 74. He apparently had become quite frail in the final months of his life. But what a departure from the picture of strength he exhibited back in the day.

The simplicity of his era is marked by this fact: As the heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Muhammad Ali was the baddest man on the planet.

The night he stopped Sonny Liston after the sixth round to win the title the first of three times, he yelled, “I shook up the world! I’m a ba-a-a-a-d man!” Yes he was.

In those days, without the multitude of boxing commissions and sanctioning bodies we have today, you had an undisputed champ. Ali was that man.

Today, well, it’s far different. You’ve got at least three heavyweight champions of the world. There are times when you have something called “interim champion”; I don’t even know what the hell that means.

All these “world champs” are recognized only by certain governing bodies. If you’ve got the patience, you can slog through all of them.

I quit following the sport — certainly the heavyweight division of it — about the time Larry Holmes walked away from the championship.

The complexity of Ali’s prime time is reflected in the political climate of the era.

Ali got his draft notice from the Selective Service Administration. He had converted to Islam. He vowed never to take up arms against people. Ali refused to be inducted into the armed forces to protest the Vietnam War.

And by 1967, the political mood of the nation had turned against the war. We weren’t winning it the way to which we had grown accustomed. Ali’s refusal to serve rubbed many millions of Americans raw. How dare this brash, young fighter refuse to serve his country, many people said. Why, he had amassed tremendous wealth because of all that the country had offered him.

That didn’t matter to Ali. He stood on principle.

The boxing authorities — the few of them that existed at the time — stripped him of his title. They denied him permits to fight. He was denied an opportunity to do the one thing he did better than anyone on Earth: beat people up.

The Vietnam War raged on while Ali was denied permission to fight.

The champ did not recede quietly into the shadows. He spoke out against the war. He spoke against what he perceived to be the systemic racism that was denying him his right of free expression.

Muhammad Ali became “the most recognizable person on Earth.”

Who today can make that claim?

The U.S. Supreme Court finally would undo the injustice brought to Ali. It voted unanimously to throw out Ali’s conviction for draft evasion. He returned to the ring.

The rest became history … and what a story Muhammad Ali was able to tell.

Long live The Champ!

BBtPNxv

It well might be said in the next few days and weeks that Muhammad Ali was denied the greatest years of his boxing career because of his refusal in 1967 to be inducted into the U.S. Army.

There will be those who will bemoan the loss of those years because Ali had been stripped of his heavyweight boxing title because he chose to exercise his constitutional right to protest a government policy with which he disagreed.

My take on it, though, is that Ali’s refusal on religious grounds to take up arms against “them Viet Congs” and the punishment he endured by losing three-plus prime years of his boxing career only enhanced the legend that grew out of it all.

He would go on to become the “most recognized person in the world,” according to many surveys.

Muhammad Ali would stand for something far greater than just his blazing speed and power as, arguably, the greatest heavyweight boxer in history.

The Champ died Friday at age 74. Parkinson’s disease took him, finally. We knew this day would come, but oh man, this still hurts.

He was one of those sportsmen with whom I became enchanted as a youngster, dating back to the time before he won the heavyweight title — for the first of three times — in 1964. He boasted and bragged. He predicted the rounds his fights would end; the young man then known as Cassius Clay often would make good on his predictions.

Hey, the boxing world had never seen anything like him!

He beat the Big Old Bear, Sonny Liston. He then found Islam, changed his name eventually to Muhammad Ali. He kept fighting and winning.

Then came the day he was to be drafted into the Army. He couldn’t accept the order to report. It was a matter of religious belief. He made that statement that he didn’t “have anything against them Viet Congs.”

He was stripped of his title. Denied the right to make a living.

Ali didn’t go quietly. He became an iconic figure on college campuses, speaking out against the Vietnam War and against the racism that denied him his heavyweight title.

The U.S. Supreme Court would rule eventually in his favor, tossing out his banishment. Ali would return to the ring. He’d win some more. He lost The Fight of the Century to Joe Frazier, who then lost to George Foreman.

Then Ali showed the world how a “washed-up” fighter could regain the title. He knocked out Foreman in eight rounds a decade after winning the title the first time.

There would be more victories. Ali would lose his title once more, and then would regain it a third time.

Ali retired for good from boxing after getting thrashed by then-champ Larry Holmes and losing his final fight in 1981 to journeyman Trevor Berbick.

Then came the Parkinson’s diagnosis. Muhammad Ali would become a champion for another cause, becoming a spokesman for Parkinson’s awareness.

He kept fighting.

And who in this entire world could forget that electrifying moment at the 1996 Summer Olympics when The Champ stepped out of the shadows to light the torch in Atlanta? His hand was quivering, but he got the job done as the stadium crowd roared mightily. The swimmer, Janet Evans, who handed the torch to Ali said it was like “an earthquake.”

I will choose to remember Muhammad Ali as the vibrant young man who fought like hell with his fists, then fought even harder with his huge heart.

He wasn’t a perfect man. Ali merely was The Greatest.

Rest in peace, Champ. You earned it.

Fiery rhetoric producing violent reaction

protest

I believe it was Tonto who once provided a bit of sidekick wisdom to the Lone Ranger when he said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

We’re seeing violence erupting at Donald J. Trump’s political rallies. It seemed to come to a full boil today in San Jose, Calif., when protestors attacked Trump supporters at the Republican presidential nominee-to-be’s rally.

It is utterly disgraceful for those who disagree with a political candidate to attack the candidate’s supporters, which is what happened in San Jose.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-campaign-violence-223893

That was the second wrong. The first one has been the candidate’s fiery rhetoric all along the campaign trail that has been inciting the violence.

Look, the violence we’re seeing at these rallies is absolutely uncalled-for. It’s un-American to deny people the right to exercise their right of political expression.

Oh sure, we’re hearing from those who say the protesters/hooligans are exercising their First Amendment rights of political expression. How? By chasing down Trump supporters and attacking them with fists and feet?

Have these demonstrators ever heard of “peaceful assembly”? Are they unaware of that provision?

Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is partly to blame for what has been transpiring at his rallies. The bulk of the blame, though, belongs to those who act on that rhetoric with violence.

It is long past time for the candidate, Trump, to condemn this violence and to tamp down his own incendiary comments.

Moreover, it also is long past time for those who feel the need to protest at these rallies to realize that there is a right way to do so and a wrong way.

What happened today in San Jose was wrong … in the extreme.

What does former GOP chief really think … of Trump?

Fort Worth, Texas USA Feb. 26, 2016: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gets the endorsement of former candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie during a rally at the Fort Worth Convention Center. Texas is the big prize in the upcoming Super Tuesday primary on March 2. (Bob Daemmrich/Polaris)

I don’t get to talk much these days with my old pal, former Texas Republican Party Chairman Tom Pauken.

He lives in Dallas; I’m way up yonder in Amarillo. Pauken has had business dealings in Amarillo, but I sense he’s backing away from them, as he would call whenever he came to town.

Here’s what I know about him.

He is a true-blue conservative. He’s the real thing. He doesn’t think much of the “neo-cons” who advised President George W. Bush; he also doesn’t think much of the former president, for that matter.

Pauken served as an Army intelligence officer in Vietnam and he believes the Iraq War was a mistake. He believes in low taxes, less government spending and he is fervently pro-life on abortion.

He’s also penned an essay in which he declares his belief that the Texas Republican National Convention delegation will line up to support the party’s eventual nominee Donald J. Trump, even though most voters endorsed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the Texas GOP primary this past March.

https://www.tribtalk.org/2016/06/03/trumps-in-charge-but-he-shouldnt-take-it-for-granted/

What I didn’t read in Pauken’s essay is a personal endorsement from him for the man who’s about to become the GOP’s presidential nominee. I attached the link to this blog, so you can see for yourself. Pauken seems strangely detached from Trump — which has become sort of the norm for many of the party’s elder statesmen and women.

What goes around ...

Trump is getting a lot of endorsements, to be sure. U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan announced his intention to back him, but one could not escape the feeling that the speaker was swallowing real hard before he uttered his words of endorsement.

My trick knee is acting up again. It’s telling me that former Texas GOP chairman Pauken is getting a lump in his own throat as he ponders his party ‘s nomination of someone such as Donald Trump.

 

Those signs are up for a reason

BBtPTUl

Yellowstone National Park officials are unambiguous about how people should interact with the wildlife that roam the park.

Do not do it. Period.

That didn’t deter a Canadian visitor and his son from interfering with Mother Nature when they grabbed a newborn bison and put it into their SUV, thinking they were saving its life.

Well, they didn’t.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/canadian-men-defend-loading-yellowstone-bison-calf-into-vehicle/ar-BBtPHPl?li=BBnb7Kz

Shamash Kassam and his son, Shakeel, would learn in quick order just why the park insists that human beings keep their hands off these beasts.

The park took the critter and then tried to re-integrate it with its herd. The mama bison rejected her baby, which then sought to approach other human beings, putting itself into imminent danger.

It was then that park rangers had to euthanize the little critter.

My hope is that rangers gave Papa and Son Kassam a serious tongue-lashing for interfering with Mother Nature’s way.

Shamash Kassam said he and his son thought the animal was shivering. They didn’t want it exposed to the elements.

How can the National Park Service make it any clearer?

Human beings should not ever interact with wildlife, which are called “wildlife” for a reason.

Judge Curiel: hard-charging American lawyer

trump

Gonzalo Curiel was born in Indiana to parents who came to this country from Mexico.

He graduated from high school, went off to college, got his law degree and became an aggressive prosecutor.

He’s now a federal district judge. He’s an all-American guy, from what I know of him.

That, however, hasn’t stopped the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee, one Donald J. Trump, from launching a scurrilous attack on Judge Curiel. The reason for his attack? Trump called Curiel “a Mexican.” He called him a “disgrace,” and said other judges need to examine Judge Curiel.

Curiel, of course, is not “a Mexican.” He’s as American as Trump, whose own mother also was an immigrant.

That didn’t stop Trump from shouting from a campaign podium that Curiel needs to recuse himself from a case he is hearing involving the now-defunct Trump University. It seems that Curiel’s ethnicity disqualifies him from hearing the case because, according to Trump, he “hates” the nominee-to-be because of Trump’s inflammatory statements about Mexican immigrants.

Y’all, this is the latest in an interminable line of insults and provocation that have poured out of Trump’s pie hole ever since he announced his intention to seek the GOP presidential nomination.

Judge Curiel’s standing as a federal judge hearing this case is as solid as it gets. Trump’s suggestion that he cannot judge this case fairly is yet another attempt to denigrate someone solely on the basis of his ethnicity.

Trump’s accusations against Curiel are going to remain unchallenged by the target, the judge himself. As the Atlantic magazine noted: “Corrosive personal attacks aren’t new behavior for the presumptive Republican nominee. But unlike other targets of Trump’s ire, Curiel cannot defend himself in any forum. He acknowledged in an order last Friday that Trump had ‘placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue,’ but will almost certainly go no further than that observation. Curiel is bound by the judicial code of ethics, which says that federal judges ‘should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court,’ including their own. The code also says judges ‘should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.’”

Here’s the rest of the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel/485636/

If only another disgraceful exhibition of intemperance would gain traction among those who keep standing behind this guy. Who’s to say what effect, if any, these latest remarks are going to have?

From my perch in the middle of what’s going to be called Trump Country, it’s just one more example of a presumptive presidential nominee’s unfitness for the job he is seeking.

 

‘Sic federal regulators on his critics’

trust-1

A single line jumped out at me as I looked at the New York Times article on Donald J. Trump’s view of the U.S. Constitution.

Adam Liptak’s story goes through a litany of concerns that constitutional scholars — across the political spectrum — have expressed about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s views.

Then he writes of Trump: “He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics.”

That sentence stopped me cold. I froze.

Do you remember what happened to the last president who decided to “sic federal regulators on his critics”?

If you don’t, I’ll remind you.

President Richard Nixon did that very thing, we learned during the congressional investigation of the Watergate constitutional crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

That revelation — along with many others — led the House Judiciary Committee to approve articles of impeachment against the president, who then resigned his office on Aug. 9, 1974, thus ending, in the words of his successor, President Gerald Ford, “our long national nightmare.”

Trump wants to make it easier to sue the media for libel; he wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States; he attacked a federal judge solely on the basis of his ethnicity, calling the American-born jurist “a Mexican” who, according to Trump, “hates me.”

Any one of those occurrences would be a recipe for a top-of-the-line constitutional crisis. I’m trying to imagine what could happen if more than one of those things ever were to occur if a President Trump were to settle in behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

Here’s a comment from a conservative thinker, taken from Liptak’s article: “David Post, a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

“’This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,’ Mr. Post said. ‘You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.’”

I believe this is a major part of what Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday when she described Trump as being “temperamentally unfit” to become president of the United States.

AG’s case takes interesting turn

051216KenPaxtonInCourt2_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s journey through the state’s judicial system has taken another interesting turn.

The 5th Court of Appeals, based in Dallas, has rejected Paxton’s request that the securities fraud case against him be tossed out. According to the appellate court, the case should go to trial and Paxton should have to make the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke securities law by failing to properly report income he received while providing financial advice to clients.

Paxton has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought by — get this — a Collin County grand jury, which happens to be in Paxton’s home county.

This case ought to be settled by a trial court.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/01/appeals-court-upholds-fraud-charges-against-paxton/

What’s next? Paxton’s legal team is considering whether to take it to the state’s highest criminal appellate court, the Court of Criminal Appeals. The special prosecutor’s office assigned to this case said it is confident the CCA will uphold the lower court ruling against the AG.

I understand fully that Paxton is “innocent until proven guilty.” He has tried all along the way to get the case thrown out. The courts have ruled repeatedly against him, saying the charges against him have merit.

Will the Republican AG prevail if he takes it to the all-GOP Court of Criminal Appeals? That might be his best shot at getting it thrown out.

The Texas Tribune reported: “During a hearing before the court last month, Paxton’s lawyers most prominently argued that the grand jury that indicted him was improperly selected. The court rejected that argument in its ruling Wednesday.

“‘After reviewing the record and, in particular, the process used by the district judge, we conclude the complained-of method of selecting the grand jury is not a complaint that would render the grand jury illegally formed,’ Chief Justice Carolyn Wright wrote.”

The way I look at it, if he’s innocent of the charges brought against him by the grand jury — and by the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission — then he ought to make the case in court.

Make the state prove its case and let a jury of his peers decide.