Texas is not alone in its secessionist fervor

secession

Texas is far from the only state where nut jobs think it’s OK for their state to secede from the United States of America.

Others from Vermont to Hawaii think that since Great Britain has voted to withdraw from the European Union that Americans think they have license to do the same thing with Washington, D.C.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/5-us-independence-movements-inspired-by-brexit-214010

Am I missing something here?

The Brits remain part of a sovereign nation. The EU is a confederation of other sovereign European nations that sets certain rules for those nations to follow. They involve trade, currency and travel.

Every nation within the EU is free to self-govern according to their political framework.

Now we hear this goofy trans-Atlantic talk about states pulling out of the United States. Secessionists are tired of what they say is a government that’s too big, too intrusive and too out of touch.

Huh? What?

The federal government is responsible for the protection and well-being of 320-plus million Americans, all of whom live in states that are governed by that document called the U.S. Constitution. You remember it, yes? It grants us all rights and liberties. It sets forth the governing framework.

Oh, and then we have Congress, which appropriates money to pay for things like national defense, highways, Social Security and Medicare … and quite a number of other things we’ve come to cherish as American citizens.

This secession talk is crazy in the extreme. I need not remind everyone that some states tried that once. We went to war and the battles that ensued killed about 600,000 Americans.

Britain’s exit from the EU should be settled over there.

Such nuttiness needs to stay on that side of the ocean.

Love that patriotic pageantry!

independence-day-sharon-mick

I am a serious sucker for pageantry.

I love the sound of bagpipes in a parade; the sound of “Ruffles and Flourishes” when the president enters a room; I love the red, white and blue.

We’re flying our flag again today. We join millions of other Americans in displaying the colors as the nation celebrates its 240th birthday.

Think of it: It’s been 40 years since the Bicentennial! Holy cow!

I’ll admit I usually stay close to home during the Fourth of July holiday. We don’t usually travel much. Whether it’s back in our hometown of Portland, Ore., or in Beaumont, Texas — where we lived for nearly 11 years before moving to the Texas Panhandle — or here in Amarillo, we enjoy seeing the colors waving.

Once when we were first married, though, we did travel from the West Coast to the Great Lakes region to visit some members of my wife’s family.

Her Aunt Margaret and Uncle Joe lived in Kenosha, Wis., which sits on the western shore of Lake Michigan, just a bit north of Chicago.

We were there on the Fourth of July, 1973. It was hot and humid as the dickens.

But my memory of that community is stark, vivid — and indelible.

If you walked though neighborhoods, you saw row upon row of homes decked out in Fourth of July finery. Banners hung from front porches. Flags flew in what little breeze there was from windows. Streamers hung from trees. “Happy Birthday, USA” signs could be seen everywhere.

Man, oh man. I couldn’t get enough of it. I loved seeing these displays.

Sure, I get that we should always demonstrate our love of country in this manner. Maybe we should at our home, too … although we do display a red-white-blue banner in our dining room window from Memorial Day through Sept. 11 each year.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not a love-it-or-leave-it kind of guy. I acknowledge the many problems our nation has brought on itself. I will complain about them from time to time. It’s our right as citizens to do so.

We all should recognize, thought, that there’s much more good about America than that which is not so good.

It’s the good we celebrate today.

Bring on the pageantry!

‘Cheering’ abortion? Please

Abortion law

The reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down a Texas law regarding abortion has been, shall we say, divided quite sharply.

The court ruled 5 to 3 to overturn a law that justices said gets in the way of a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. It set strict rules for physicians requiring admitting privileges to hospitals and required women to travel great distances to obtain an abortion.

Who, though, is “cheering” the idea of women being able to obtain this procedure? Were the folks “cheering” outside the Supreme Court building exulting in the prospect of abortions becoming easier? Were they cheering the deaths of the unborn? No.

I believe they were “cheering” the notion that a majority of justices understand that the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that made abortion legal was made under the “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Some in the media, though, see it differently.

Take the editorial that appeared today in my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News.

The newspaper opined:

“People were celebrating the ruling. People were celebrating abortion — which no matter what form of nonsensical political correctness you apply — is the killing of unborn children.

“Odd. And disturbing.”

Celebrating abortion? That draws an unfair caricature of those who believe a woman’s right to make these critical decisions supersedes legislation that prevents her from doing so.

I understand fully the huge divide that separates Americans of good will on both sides of this debate.

To suggest — as many who oppose the court’s ruling have done — that Americans are celebrating the act of abortion only deepens that divide.

We all understand the intense anguish that accompanies a woman’s decision on this matter. The court simply has reinforced the woman’s right to make that call.

Sen. Cotton clams up on Trump

Tom-Cotton

Tom Cotton is a combative freshman Republican U.S. senator from Arkansas who’s proven to be unafraid to speak his mind on just about anything … or anyone.

But when he was asked to make the case for Donald Trump’s election as the next president of the United States, Sen. Cotton turned strangely quiet.

It’s up to Trump, he said, to make his own case.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tom-cotton-donald-trump-225071

What gives? This is the young man — an Iraq War veteran — who recently called Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid all kinds of names while condemning his leadership in the upper legislative chamber.

This looks to me like another case of Republican officials finding it hard to articulate why they support the presumptive presidential nominee of their own party.

Cotton’s  demurring on that today exemplifies the concern that Trump should be feeling as his nomination draws near.

The way I see it, candidates need vocal and articulate surrogates to speak for them. Whether they’re running for president or county commissioner, candidates depend on the good will of others to push them forward.

Trump keeps trashing not only the Democrats who, naturally, are going oppose him but also Republicans who are reluctant to chime in with words of encouragement.

What did Trump say recently? Line up behind me or just “be quiet.”

Cotton has endorsed Trump. He’s being “quiet,” though, on explaining his reasons for the endorsement.

Trump and Perot? No comparison

Electronic Data Systems, Perot Systems PER "There will be a giant sucking sound going south." ÑPerot on the North American Free Trade Agreement during a 1992 Presidential debate Perot made billions as a businessman, founded Electronic Data Systems EDS and Perot Systems, and took 19% of the popular vote as a Presidential candidate in 1992. But, much as he chose Patsy Cline's "Crazy" as the theme song them for his White House bid, Perot may be best remembered for his colorful behavior. ¥ When two EDS employees were imprisoned in Iran in 1979 by the Shah of Iran prior to the Revolution, Perot funded and organized a successful rescue effort with all the trappings of a spy novel. ¥ In 1969, Perot tried unsuccessfully to deliver 75 tons of food and gifts to American prisoners of war being held in North Vietnam. ¥ When valued employees left his company, Perot would erase their names from any awards or plaques hanging in headquarters.
.

Have I been asleep at the wheel or has the political punditry class been quiet about comparing this election’s billionaire businessman/candidate with the previous guy who fit that description?

Donald J. Trump is about to become — more than likely — the next Republican nominee for president. He will face a candidate named Clinton, as in Hillary.

Twenty-four years ago another billionaire businessman ran for president against the first Clinton, the one named Bill — and against the Republican president, George H.W. Bush.

Yeah, the 1992 campaign had its quirks, such as when Perot quit the race only to re-enter it later. But it wasn’t nearly as, um, quirky as this one has been so far.

H. Ross Perot ended up winning 19 percent of the popular vote as an independent candidate. Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43 percent of the total, compared to President Bush’s 38 percent. Clinton, though, won the Electoral College vote in a landslide.

I’d like to be one of the few today to say that Perot did not cost Bush the election. Bill Clinton would have won the 1992 race with or without Perot in the mix.

Are there more comparisons to make between Perot and Trump?

Sure. Both men have huge egos. Perot, though, has been married to the same woman for a very long time; Trump is married to Wife No. 3. Perot’s wealth is of the self-made variety; Trump got a y-u-u-u-g-e head start from his dad’s estate.

Here’s another point to make, one that I’d like to concentrate on for just a moment. Trump has zero public service experience; Perot has one significant public service chapter in his lengthy life saga.

In 1983, then-Texas Gov. Mark White appointed Perot to lead a blue-ribbon commission to reform the state’s public education system. Gov. White tapped Perot after the Dallas technology tycoon popped off about how Texas was more interested in producing blue-chip athletes than it was in producing blue-chip scholars.

Perot set about the task of leading the panel to produce some recommendations he hoped would improve student academic performance.

I arrived in Texas in 1984 and as luck would have it, Perot unveiled his commission’s plan for education reform about that time. He then went on a statewide barnstorming tour to pitch his idea to Texans.

He came to Beaumont and that’s where I laid eyes on him for the first time. Perot stood at the podium in a roomful of business executives and sold his formula for academic success. Take it from me, the diminutive dynamo could command a room.

Several of us in the media met later that day with Perot for a question-and-answer session at Lamar University. Believe this, too: The man was in complete command of his facts, details and the process that awaited him.

The Texas Legislature convened a special session later that year and produced House Bill 72. Its record has been mixed. HB 72 mandated standardized testing for students and other reforms.

The point here is that Perot at least delivered the goods while being challenged by the state’s top elected official.

Trump’s public record? It involves a reality TV show, lots of buildings with his name on them, beauty pageants and assorted failed business ventures.

His public service record to date has brought us a string of insults, innuendo and invective.

The similarities? They’re both rich and full of themselves.

Hillary to Bill: Thanks for nothing … honey!

Former US President Bill Clinton speaks during the 2011 Fiscal Summit by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, DC, May 25, 2011. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

CNN is reporting that Hillary Rodham Clinton likely won’t be indicted for any criminal activity relating to the use of her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

That is the good news — more or less — for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The bad news? The story won’t go away. It might never go away for as long as she’s president, presuming she wins the election this fall.

Why is that? She can thank her chummy husband, the 42nd president of the United States, for that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/03/cnn_report_hillary_clinton_will_not_be_indicted_inside_politics_panel_discusses.html

Bill Clinton had the very bad form to trot aboard Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s airplane in Phoenix the other day. They talked about small stuff. No mention of the e-mail probe being conducted by the FBI, the agency that Lynch oversees as AG.

Lynch and the ex-president both have expressed “regret” over the chance meeting. It looks to critics as though Bill Clinton sought privately to pressure Lynch to back off in the FBI probe of his wife.

Suppose the reports are correct, that the FBI will find nothing criminal on which to hang an indictment. I can hear the conspiracy theorists now — led by Republican candidate Donald J. Trump — saying the fix is in.

No, the story won’t die if the FBI decides to close the books on the e-mail controversy without an indictment.

It will drag on and on and on.

Kind of like the way Benghazi has gone.

And Whitewater … and Lewinsky … and whatever else Hillary and Bill Clinton have done that they might now regret.

Here’s a fantasy for the political ages

donald-trump

Someone once told me that if you reveal your dreams they won’t come true.

I don’t really and truly believe that, but it sounds logical. I wonder, though, if the same thing applies to fantasies that race through one’s mind.

Well, in this political season — and given that I’m something of a political junkie — I’ve been having this recurring fantasy about Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Will it come true if I disclose it here? Aww, what the hey. I’ll do it anyway and hope for the best, whatever that turns out to be.

The fantasy goes something like this:

Trump is going to limp into the GOP convention in a couple of weeks. He’ll have named his vice-presidential running mate. They will have made a few campaign stops together, hoisting each other’s arms in the air and proclaiming their desire to beat the daylights out of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Then it dawns on Trump: His poll numbers stink. He can’t keep any senior campaign staffers. No one with any standing wants to speak at his convention. Many of the party luminaries are staying away. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cannot stand him. Neither can House Speaker Paul Ryan. Or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

He’s out of money. The big donors are keeping their hands on their wallets. Hillary Clinton has tons of cash in the bank and she’s savaging this guy like he’s never been savaged in his life.

Trump is facing the prospect of losing big this fall.

Then he decides, why do I want to plunder what’s left of my reputation?

He bails out. He quits.

He says, “I’ve had enough of this betrayal. I’ve tried to take the Republican Party into a new direction, but the ‘special interests’ are having none of it. And I get it: They run the show.”

Once you stop laughing at this scenario, I shall remind you that this campaign — particularly on the Republican side — has defied every logical theory imaginable. Trump never should have been a serious candidate, let alone the frontrunner and now presumptive nominee. But here he is — on the cusp of a major-party presidential nomination.

He brings not a scintilla of public service experience to this campaign.

What’s more, Trump is about to get trounced by a woman, of all people, in the race for the presidency. We know pretty well — yes? — what he thinks of women.

Will any of this happen? Oh, probably not.

Then again …

Keeping the faith on the Olympics

It’s becoming almost normal, it seems, for international sports authorities to worry about the Summer Olympics preparation.

Will the hosts be ready? Will the country survive the onslaught of tourists and athletes? Will its venues be complete? Oh, and what about the terror threat?

Rio de Janeiro is going through all of that — and more — as it prepares for the 2016 Olympics.

Pardon me if I sound a bit skeptical, but I believe we’ve been through a good bit of this before — only to have our worries shown to be overplayed and overblown.

I get the concern worry about the Zika virus; no one wants to get bit and then have something terrible happen to their offspring. The Brazilian economy appears to be tanking. The country’s political leadership is in turmoil. The cops keep finding corpses near the sporting venues, which quite naturally is unsettling in the extreme.

What has happened, though, in previous run-up periods in recent Olympics, though, is that the planners find a way to pull it together.

Let me give you three examples:

Atlanta, 1996: Atlanta had traffic woes. There was deep concern over whether the city would be able to accommodate the huge crush of visitors. And after the Barcelona Games four years earlier, there were stated concerns about whether the Atlanta organizers could come up with an opening ceremony worthy of the Olympics; the world had been abuzz over that Spanish archer firing the flaming arrow over the Olympic cauldron.

Well, the traffic was a bit of a problem, but they managed.

As for the opening ceremony … well, they kept the identity of the athlete who would light the torch a surprise. Then out stepped the late Muhammad Ali to electrify the world. There wasn’t a dry eye in the stadium that night — or anywhere else.

Athens, 2004: The Greeks managed to pull off one of the more elegant and — to me, at least — meaningful Olympics in recent memory. They had their difficulty. There was actual worry about whether they would have the venues completed. The Greek organizing committee members were stabbing each other in the back with their bickering and quarreling.

In stepped Gianna Angelopoulos-Daskalaki, who managed the Greeks’ winning bid to get the Games. She pushed the men aside and got the job done.

Security threat? Forget about it. The Greeks deployed virtually their entire military to assist with the police and international intelligence agencies in ensuring nothing would happen.

The Games were magnificent.

Beijing, 2008: The People’s Republic of China had a unique concern. Pollution chokes the air in China’s capital city. The athletes feared they couldn’t compete in an atmosphere where they would be choking on motor vehicle and factory fumes.

Venue preparation was not a concern for the communists. They know how to get things done and, of course, they don’t tolerate dissent in any form.

How did they clean up the air? They imposed a sort of motor vehicle martial law. They banned driving during several hours of the day. They also strongly encouraged citizens to use available mass transit whenever possible.

The result? Problem solved. The air wasn’t perfect, but the athletes were able to compete in show-stopping fashion during the Beijing Olympics.

London had its share of woes as it got ready for the 2012 Summer Games, although they seem a bit muted now four years since.

I know that many top athletes are opting out of the Rio games over Zika fears. That’s their call and I won’t second-guess them.

But this talk about moving the Olympics out of Rio never had legs.

I am the eternal optimist about the Brazilians’ ability to take the stage and do what they must to ensure a safe and joyous Olympic event.

The world will be watching.

So much for principle, yes, Mr. Speaker?

trade

I guess you could have predicted this switcheroo.

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich has performed a 180-degree flip on free trade. He now agrees with the Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Free trade is a bad thing, Trump says. It steals jobs from American workers and ships them out to places like China and Mexico, he says.

Gingrich, though, was one of the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which opened the door wide to free trade among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Then the party’s presumed nominee came calling with a possible vice-presidential selection in mind.

Now it’s the former speaker who says he agrees with Trump on trade.

This kind of switch isn’t new, of course. Politicians do it all the time.

My favorite switch involved one of my favorite Republicans, a man I admire very much. George H.W. Bush once was considered a tried-and-true pro-choice Republican on abortion. Then the party’s nominee tapped him on the shoulder in 1980 and said, in effect, “If you want to run on our ticket, you have to become a pro-life guy on abortion.”

Bush did and he joined Ronald Reagan on the GOP’s winning 1980 ticket.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/newt-gingrich-trump-trade-vice-president-225035

Trump has accused U.S. political and business leaders of “stupidity” in allowing free trade to pilfer U.S. jobs. Does that include Gingrich?

I guess not.

It’s interesting nevertheless because Gingrich always has struck me as a politician dedicated to core principles and to partisan orthodoxy. Free trade is part of the Republican mantra, while Trump’s view of GOP trade policy has angered many within the party’s establishment mainstream.

Go figure.

Let’s be sure to check in with Gingrich if Trump picks someone else to run with him.

Elie Wiesel: ‘Messenger to mankind’

wiesel

The Nobel Peace Prize citation said it with simple eloquence.

Elie Wiesel, the document stated, had been the “messenger to mankind.”

His message was to alert the world of the horror that occurred in Europe prior to and during World War II. The Holocaust became thrust onto the world’s conscience thanks to the Wiesel, who died today at the age of 87.

He was born in what is now Romania and became a captive of the Nazi tyrants who rounded him up and kept him captive in one of the death camps scattered throughout Europe.

That he survived Auschwitz in itself is a miracle. That he found his voice later to bring to light the horror that occurred throughout Europe is his lasting contribution to humankind.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/elie-wiesel-auschwitz-survivor-and-nobel-peace-prize-winner-dies-at-87/ar-AAhVt8M?li=BBnb7Kz

It would be Wiesel who would remind the world of a once-little-known truth. It was that the opposite of “hate” wasn’t “love,” he said. The opposite was “indifference.” Indeed, Wiesel reminded us that “indifference” was the antithesis of many human emotions, such as love and compassion.

He was courageous, scolding President Reagan for touring a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where many SS officers are buried. The president should be with the “victims of the SS,” Wiesel said.

President Obama paid tribute today to Wiesel: “He raised his voice, not just against anti-Semitism, but against hatred, bigotry and intolerance in all its forms,” the president said Saturday in a statement. “He implored each of us, as nations and as human beings, to do the same, to see ourselves in each other and to make real that pledge of ‘never again.’”

The world has lost a powerful and eloquence voice against evil.

May this courageous and good man rest in the eternal peace he deserves so richly.