Motor City Madman doesn’t belong in ‘our house’

Donald J. Trump’s recent guests at the White House have drawn some chatter around the country.

Sarah Palin, Kid Rock and Ted Nugent came calling on the president.

I won’t discuss the former half-term Alaska governor (and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee) or Kid Rock in this post. Nugent’s presence in the White House, though, is worthy of a brief — and unkind — comment from yours truly.

The Motor City Madman disgusts me at many levels. The idea that he would darken the White House door — the house that belongs to you and me — is revolting.

Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, noted this on a social media post:

“Nugent once referred to former President Barack Obama as a ‘mongrel.’ He has said he wanted to shoot former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and called for Obama and Hillary Clinton to be assassinated. In 2012, after making a threatening remark about Obama, Nugent was the subject of a Secret Service investigation.

“As Trump’s dinner guest, Nugent was asked if he regretted his comments about Obama and Clinton. He responded, ‘No! I will never apologize for calling out evil people.’”

It’s not Nugent’s politics that should disqualify him from entering the White House. I get that he’s a political conservative; he’s an avid Second Amendment activist. That’s all fine as far as it goes. We’re all entitled to our points of view and political opinion.

However, this washed-up rock guitarist has a lengthy record of uttering profoundly hideous diatribes against people with whom he disagrees. The “mongrel” comment about the former president is just one of them.

The notion that the current president of the United States would welcome someone who has spoken so disgracefully about a former president demonstrates why so many millions of Americans believe he is unfit for the office he occupies.

Let us cherish the only Earth we have

Is it me or is Planet Earth going to get some major disrespect from the current president of the United States?

I ask because Earth Day is upon us. We commemorate our home planet with marches, speeches and occasionally fiery rhetoric from activists who proclaim the need to take care of our home.

Many of us take these exhortations seriously. Many others don’t.

I fear that one of those who don’t now resides in the White House. The 45th president of the United States, Donald John Trump, has said some pretty hideous things about some of the environmental crises facing this planet of ours.

The worst of those things has been to declare climate change to be  “hoax” promoted by our trading foes in the People’s Republic of China.

I have written about Earth Day previously in this blog. Here is this past year’s entry:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/04/happy-earth-day/

Trump has assembled a Cabinet that includes an Environmental Protection Agency director, Scott Pruitt, who shares the president’s denial of climate change. Pruitt has sued the federal government multiple times dating back to when he served as Oklahoma attorney general.

Indeed, the EPA’s very mission is spelled out explicitly in its title: to “protect” the environment.

What did the president do shortly after taking office? He signed an executive order that rolls back regulations that sought to clean the air. Trump contends that the rules and regulations are “job killers” and he vows to do all he can to restore jobs for heavy industry.

At what cost? To pour pollutants into the air, which well could create hazardous living conditions for millions of Americans?

I remain committed to the idea that climate change is real and that human beings are playing a major role in creating the havoc that’s occurring around the world.

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. This is the only Earth we have. We must cherish it. Protect it. Love it.

This terrestrial affection must exist far beyond a single day.

Trump’s big mouth threatens to swallow him

That dreaded 100-day “deadline” looms for Donald John Trump. We’re about one week away from it.

Will it produce a winning report card for the president? Will those of us in the peanut gallery be able to call the new president’s start a rousing success, which Trump himself has done already?

I do not believe so.

Does the 100-day mark matter? Perhaps it shouldn’t count as much as it does. President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up this artificial barrier when he took office in 1933 and it’s been held as sort of the benchmark for early presidential success ever since.

But it’s early in any new president’s term. Donald Trump is no different.

Except for one little thing.

All along the way en route to his winning the election, the Republican candidate for president kept telling us about all the things he would accomplish in those first 100 days.

* Affordable Care Act? Repealed and replaced.

* Tax reform? Enacted.

* Draining the swamp of corruption? He’d institute a new government ethic.

What’s happened? The ACA remains. Tax reform hasn’t even been introduced. The swamp is still full.

The president can count precious few legislative triumphs. In fact, I can’t think of any. Can you? He’s signed a lot of executive orders. I particularly like the one that banned government officials from becoming lobbyists immediately after leaving public service.

Sure, he launched that missile strike against Syria after that horrendous chemical weapons attack. I give the president kudos for that action. But he’s got North Korea sounding more threatening than ever; Trump said he dispatched the “great armada” led by the USS Carl Vinson, but the carrier-led strike group to date is nowhere near the Korean Peninsula.

Donald Trump’s very own big mouth has victimized him.

Just maybe once the president gets past this 100-day hurdle, he will decide to tone down his constant boastfulness and learn finally — finally! — that governance requires much more than shooting off one’s big mouth.

Hoping downtown momentum keeps moving forward

If I have one long-term hope for the outcome of next month’s Amarillo municipal election, it rests within the downtown business and entertainment district.

The city is going to welcome a new majority to its City Council. Three incumbents aren’t seeking new terms; two incumbents are running for re-election. Indeed, there well might be an entirely new council seated when all the ballots are counted.

Juxtaposed to this is the momentum that continues to build with downtown’s major makeover. Many projects already are underway. Abandoned storefronts have been fenced off with construction crews now working to rehab them into new entities.

That five-star hotel is nearing completion across the street from the Civic Center, next to the parking garage that’s also under construction. There have been hiccups along the way, but the progress is unmistakable.

And, oh yes! We have that multipurpose event venue that still must be built. The MPEV doesn’t yet have a major tenant, such as a minor-league baseball franchise. The Local Government Corporation is negotiating that deal and my sincere hope is that the LGC brings a franchise transfer to fruition, gets the required signatures and then approves plans for a new ballpark.

This is where the new City Council comes in.

A new majority cannot be allowed to muck up the progress that’s already underway.

I remain highly encouraged at some of the rhetoric I’m hearing from many of the contenders. They seem to understand that with all the work that’s been done already that there realistically can be no turning back.

The current council did well in hiring a city manager to take control of the administrative reins at City Hall. Jared Miller’s major selling point seems to have been his emphasis on economic development while serving as San Marcos city manager. He must bring that desire and stated expertise to bear as he leaves his imprint on Amarillo.

The city manager, though, has five bosses with direct supervisory authority. They sit on the City Council. My hope is that the new council will deliver the chief administrator a vote of confidence and then let him do his job.

I long have believed that a vibrant downtown in any city can reverberate far beyond the central district’s borders. I sense such a citywide revival can occur in Amarillo.

Let’s hold out hope that a new City Council majority gets it.

Mr. AG, Hawaii isn’t just an ‘island in the Pacific’

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said this on a radio talk show: “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.”

Hmm. An island in the Pacific? Was it, oh, Fiji? Palau? Tahiti?

Oh, no. The “island in the Pacific” is Hawaii, one of the 50 United States of America. Hawaii is governed by the very same federal government as all the rest of the states.

The object of the attorney general’s criticism, though, is a federal judge — a Hawaii native — who ruled against Donald J. Trump’s second travel ban that bars Muslims from several countries from entering the United States. The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, who happens to live in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.

Sessions blows that dog whistle

Hawaii’s two U.S. senators have reacted strongly to Sessions’ statement, made on talk show host Mark Levin’s program. The Huffington Post reported: “Sen. Mazie Hirono likened his remarks about Watson to ‘dog whistle politics.’” That identifies the kind of coded remarks meant to appeal mainly to certain segments of the population. Republicans and Democrats both have their “bases” that respond instinctively to certain political “dog whistles.”

The Huffington Post also reported: “In a statement later Thursday, Hirono, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee that vets and confirms federal judges, called Sessions’ suggestion that Watson is somehow unable to carry out his duties impartially ‘dangerous, ignorant, and prejudiced.’

“’I am frankly dumbfounded that our nation’s top lawyer would attack our independent judiciary,’ she said. ‘But we shouldn’t be surprised. This is just the latest in the Trump Administration’s attacks against the very tenets of our Constitution and democracy.’”

I feel the need to stipulate once again: Hawaii isn’t some remote outpost. Judge Watson adheres to the same oath that the attorney general himself took when he joined the Justice Department.

These attacks on the “independent judiciary” have to stop.

Immediately!

Karma might have struck once again

Oh, the irony is too rich to ignore.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is going to hear a case involving a young man who says he is being deported illegally by the federal government.

Judge Curiel isn’t just any ol’ federal jurist. He happens to someone whom presidential candidate Donald John Trump slammed for being of “Mexican heritage” while he was hearing a case involving the defunct Trump University.

Curiel now gets to hear a case regarding the deportation of Juan Manuel Montes. He got the assignment by luck of the draw, it turns out. Montes, who’s now 23, is one of those “Dreamers” who came here when he was 9 years of age and had obtained DACA status.

Why is this case so tantalizing? It’s because Curiel is an American; born in Indiana and educated in the United States. He is a fine jurist. He’ll now get to hear a case brought by a young man who contends that the federal government didn’t provide sufficient documentation requiring him to be sent back to Mexico.

Judge Curiel’s citizenship didn’t stop Trump from defaming him during the 2016 presidential campaign by alleging that his Mexican heritage disqualified him from judging the Trump U case fairly. Trump, you’ll recall, opened his presidential campaign by declaring his intention to build a wall across our southern border to keep all those immigrants who were coming here to commit heinous crimes.

Stand tall, Judge Curiel

The wall? Blocking immigrants from Mexico? The judge’s parents are of Mexican descent? Why, of course he cannot judge the Trump U case fairly and without bias, according to Donald Trump.

As it turned out, Trump settled that matter with a $25 million payout to those who complained about the “education” they received. The president didn’t admit to any wrongdoing … quite naturally.

How will Judge Curiel do with the Montes deportation case? I am confident he’ll judge the case the way judges are supposed to judge such matters.

If the case goes against the federal government, though, expect the president to launch yet another tweet tirade.

Don’t you just love it when karma bites back?

O’Reilly gets the boot … then he gets a lot of dough!

I am not too proud to admit that I do not know about a lot of things.

The Bill O’Reilly story has me confused. I’m baffled, befuddled and bedeviled.

Some women accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment. He paid some of them with millions of dollars in settlements. Fox News Channel, where O’Reilly worked until just the other day, shelled out big money, too, to the women.

Advertisers bailed from O’Reilly’s show, costing the network millions of dollars in revenue. O’Reilly then goes on “vacation.” Fox decided this week to cut O’Reilly loose. O’Reilly has denied the accusations of harassment.

Fox felt the pinch from the revenue loss.

But then the network has decided to pay its former talk-show colossus the equivalent of a full year’s salary.

How much is that? It’s being reported to be in the neighborhood of $25 million.

If someone is let go for cause — which is how I am interpreting Fox’s decision to part company with O’Reilly — how does a former employer justify paying out that kind of cash?

What in the name of TV ratings am I missing?

Amarillo Matters shucks the gloves

Amarillo Matters came into being as a pro-business political action committee with the aim of developing a “vision for a strong Amarillo built upon the first principles of free enterprise, economic growth, fiscal responsibility and traditional family values.”

I support Amarillo Matters’ overall agenda. I like and respect many of the men and women who are active in the organization.

Then something arrived in the mail today that gives me some concern. It’s not enough to turn me against Amarillo Matters, but it does make me wonder whether this outfit is as high-minded as its campaign rhetoric would suggest. It has driven its campaign buggy onto the low road.

It has endorsed a wholly new slate for Amarillo City Council. I strongly support some of the candidates Amarillo Matters is backing: Ginger Nelson for mayor; Freda Powell for Place 2 and Eddy Sauer for Place 3 all deserve to be elected. I also have lined up behind Elaine Hayes for Place 1 and Howard Smith for Place 4, both of whom are running against incumbents who are seeking re-election.

Here is where my concern rests with the Amarillo Matters flier the postal carrier dropped into my mail box today. It uses some curious language to describe Elisha Demerson, the Place 1 incumbent councilman. It calls him a “long-time Democrat officeholder and politician.”

For starters, I seriously dislike the term “Democrat” when used as an adjective. It’s the kind of language adopted two decades ago by far-right Republicans who sought to demonize in a subtle fashion their Democratic opponents. Demerson wasn’t a “Democrat politician”; he was a pol who belonged to the Democratic Party. Do you get it?

Second of all, Demerson has been out of elected partisan politics for two-plus decades. The last political post he held before being elected two years ago to the City Council was as Potter County judge, a countywide elected office.

Therefore, I challenge the assertion that Demerson is a “long-time” pol. Good grief! He had been sitting on the sidelines since leaving his county office.

Thirdly, the City Council is a non-partisan governing body. Its members do not run as Democrats or Republicans. Partisan affiliation should not inform council members as they deliberate municipal policy.

I recall in the 1990s when a mayoral candidate, Mary Alice Brittain, sought to rally all the city’s “good Republicans” to vote for her over incumbent Kel Seliger. I called her down then, citing the non-partisan nature of the city ballot. She lost badly to Seliger — and hasn’t been seen or heard from since.

I don’t mind that Amarillo Matters has weighed in on this campaign. It’s the prerogative of every individual — and, yes, any PAC — to make their voices heard.

Amarillo Matters does bring a valuable perspective to this campaign. I welcome it and I support generally the ideas it seeks to promote.

But not at any cost.

What about our allies, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has put Iran “on notice” yet again.

He also put several of our nation’s key allies on notice, too, by suggesting that the United States’ commitment to negotiated agreements isn’t as rock-solid as it must be.

Tillerson put the world on notice this week that the United States no longer thinks much of a deal meant to deny Iran the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. It’s part of Donald John Trump’s vow to renegotiate agreements that he says are worst in the history of humankind.

The Iran nuke deal falls into that category, according to the president.

The deal was brokered by former Secretary of State John Kerry in conjunction with foreign ministers from Great Britain, China, France, Germany and, oh yes, Russia. What would a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement mean to our partners?

This is just me, but perhaps it would mean that the United States isn’t a trustworthy partner. It well could fracture our international alliances, particularly as it regards the Brits, French and the Germans, who are critical players in our nation’s ongoing geopolitical struggle with forces that seek to undermine us at every turn.

I’m not going to assert that the Iran nuke deal is perfect in every single way. But it does allow for careful monitoring of the Islamic Republic’s intentions and it gives the United States plenty of room to re-impose economic sanctions if it’s determined that Iran isn’t complying with the terms of the agreement.

Tillerson’s comments centered on Iran’s continued support of international terrorism. OK, then. Deal with that separately, Mr. Secretary.

Although the secretary didn’t say directly that the Trump administration would back out of the nuke deal, he did sound a dire warning. According to Politico: “Apparently referencing a failed 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea, which now has nuclear weapons, Tillerson said Wednesday that the Iran agreement is ‘another example of buying off a power who has nuclear ambitions. We just don’t see that that’s a prudent way to be dealing with Iran.’”

Our partners are watching with great interest. I believe it would foolish to renege on a deal that took a long time to craft. After all, the United States isn’t the only actor in this drama.

So long, Chairman Chaffetz

Jason Chaffetz stunned his U.S. House of Representatives colleagues today by announcing his intention to step away from Congress next year.

The Utah Republican won’t seek re-election.

Scuttlebutt is going in a couple of directions: Chaffetz might run for Utah governor in 2020 or he might seek a U.S. Senate seat after that.

The young lawmaker has made a bit of name for himself during his time in Congress. He chairs the House Oversight Committee and spent a lot of time — and taxpayer money — looking for dirt to throw onto Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was running for president this past year. He came up empty, as did his predecessor as chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

My own thoughts of Chairman Chaffetz, though, go back to when he was first elected to Congress. He became one of those grandstanders who slept each night on a couch in his office. He didn’t bother with renting an apartment, or buying a home in Washington, D.C.

I recall him making some noise about wanting to connect with his constituents back home. He flew home regularly to be with his wife and children. I admire his dedication to his family.

However, I always have wondered about politicians who call attention to themselves ostensibly to make some sort of statement about staying in touch with the home folks. I am left to ask: How many folks back home sleep on office furniture?