Monthly Archives: January 2018

political news

Birtherism: It’s back!

Political nut jobs have this annoying way of getting attention they don’t deserve.

The newest Exhibit A of this phenomenon happens to be the new Republican candidate for the U.S. senator from Arizona, the former Maricopa County sheriff and convicted (and later pardoned) felon Joe Arpaio.

The ex-sheriff says former President Obama’s birth certificate is a phony document. He doesn’t believe the 44th president was born in Hawaii. He said he has “evidence” that the president served two terms illegally. Will he produce the “evidence”? No, he said on CNN last night.

He had this exchange with Chris Cuomo:

“We have the evidence, nobody will talk about it, nobody will look at it, and anytime you want to come down or anybody we’ll be glad to show you the evidence,” Arpaio said.
Cuomo pressed Arpaio again on the topic: “So you believe that President Obama’s birth certificate is a phony?”
“No doubt about it,” Arpaio said.
Ugghh! No, double, maybe triple ugghh!
This is the guy, lest we forget, who was convicted of disobeying a federal court order that mandated he stop profiling Hispanics in his quest to find illegal immigrants. He then was pardoned by the president of the United States, the nation’s “birther in chief,” Donald John Trump Sr.
Now he wants to serve in the U.S. Senate?
Please. No!

 

legal news, national news

Here’s yet another flip-flop from POTUS

Donald J. Trump Sr. is the king of flip-flops.

He once supported Hillary Clinton; now he’s her arch-enemy. He once said states should determine pot use legality; now he’s all for the feds’ ruling the matter. Trump once said he’d cooperate “100 percent” with special counsel Robert Mueller …

Now he’s saying some quite different.

The president who in June 2017 said he would submit to interviews over the “Russia thing” now believes there’s no need for such an interview and implies he won’t agree to a request from Mueller for a sit-down visit.

Mueller, though, does have subpoena power. He can order the president to talk to him. The president then can determine whether he wants to disobey a lawful order. If he does, then he becomes a lawbreaker — kind of like the time President Clinton lied to a federal grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky; that lie handed congressional Republicans the pretext they were looking for, so they impeached the president.

Trump kept repeating himself this week about there being “no collusion” with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome. He said it’s been “proven” there’s no collusion.

Actually, Mr. President, nothing has been proven. There’s no proof that the Trump campaign did work in cahoots with the Russians, or it didn’t. That is what Mueller and his legal team are trying to ascertain.

So … talk to the special counsel, Mr. President. You’ve got nothing to hide? Say it directly to Robert Mueller.

national news

Rethinking the politics of oil drilling

I wasn’t all that keen on California Democrats’ assertion that Donald J. Trump was punishing their state because its residents voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Then came this bizarre decision by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

The secretary decided that the waters off the Florida coast wouldn’t be exposed to offshore drilling for oil. Zinke cited the vast impact on tourism to the state.

Now, I’ll stipulate that Florida voted for Donald Trump in 2016.

The decision has drawn bipartisan scorn along all the nation’s coasts.

Zinke’s decision has governors in other coastal states scratching their heads. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, is one of them. Oh, but wait! Oregon voted for Hillary in 2016! The Interior Department has not removed Oregon from the offshore drilling list of states.

Nor has it done so with Washington or California, two other pro-Hillary states along the Pacific Coast.

Gov. Brown said tonight that Oregon’s coast also brings billions of dollars into the state treasury annually from tourism and related activities. Brown noted that Oregon boasts 360 miles of gorgeous coastline. I can vouch for the beauty of the Oregon coast; I grew up in Oregon and spent many days and nights looking at the Pacific Ocean.

She cannot understand why the Trump administration has singled out Florida, removing that state from the roster of coastal states where offshore oil exploration will take place.

Actually, she can understand. Brown and other critics are winking and nodding at the notion that Mar-a-Lago — the president’s posh coastal resort — might be affected by offshore drilling activity.

Hmm. Politics, anyone?

Fairness compels me to mention that there are a number of other pro-Trump coastal states that are facing offshore drilling pressure. Texas is one of them. Same for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas. Let’s not forget Alaska.

You travel north from North Carolina and you’ll find all the Atlantic Coast states voted for Hillary. They won’t get any break, either.

Yes, it is fair to ask: Why exempt just Florida?

I’m scratching my head, too.

legal news

Look inward, Mr. President, when talking about libel

Donald John “Stable Genius” Trump Sr. wants to change libel laws.

This president is angry about a book that paints his administration in a negative light. He calls libel laws a “sham” and a “disgrace.”

OK. How does one put this presidential nonsense into some perspective? I’ll try.

This president spent years defaming Barack H. Obama by insisting that the former president wasn’t constitutionally qualified to serve in the office to which he was elected twice. Did the former president sue him? No, although he had grounds.

Then, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Republican candidate defamed Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s father by implying that he might have had a hand in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Trump said Rafael Cruz had met with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination, suggesting some — dare I say it? — “collusion” between the elder Cruz and the man who actually killed the president. I believe there might be grounds for a lawsuit there, too.

For this president now to get his skivvies in a knot over some negative coverage — and to insist on changes in libel law — is on its face laughable.

It’s also disgusting and disgraceful.

Look inward, Mr. President … if you dare.

International news

DACA outcome remains worrisome

Donald John Trump spoke sympathetically about the need to craft a bill of “love” as it regards immigration reform.

The president used that language that some of us thought was a signal that he might bend a bit on his insistence that we kick every single illegal immigrant out of the United States of America.

I remain worried bigly about the fate of those illegal immigrants who came here not of their own volition, but because they were brought here when they were children by their parents.

They are the so-called Dreamers. They are recipients of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals policy enacted by President Barack H. Obama. The president granted these residents temporary reprieve from deportation while they sought a pathway to permanent legal status or perhaps citizenship.

It’s a humane policy. It allows these individuals to continue living as Americans in the only country they’ve ever known. There have been many success stories involving DACA residents: they have achieved academic excellence; they have enrolled in college; they have founded successful businesses.

Trump, though, eliminated the DACA rule. He said Congress had until March to find a legislative solution.

And then a federal judge in California weighed in with an injunction that orders the president to delay the elimination of DACA . The White House calls the judge’s decision “outrageous.”

What I consider outrageous would be to round up these Dreamers and send them to back to their country of origin — which are, pardon the intended pun, foreign to them.

I want to implore Congress and the president to think about the “love” they say they want to enact. An immigration package ought to include some form of DACA that allows these individuals to stay here, to continue to contribute to our national fabric.

These residents need not be banished to a country they do not know.

If the president is going to insist on a bill of “love,” here is his opportunity to deliver on it.

environmental news

Fire, then water — and mud — bring devastation

I am beginning to believe that southern California is the most dangerous place in the world to live.

Fire destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of property, including homes and businesses. People fought valiantly alongside first responders to save their belongings and those of their neighbors. Their heroism has become the stuff of legend.

The infamous Santa Ana wind died down eventually, giving firefighters a chance to extinguish the flames.

Now we have this: torrential rain and mudslides that have torn through Santa Barbara County.

It poured off of mountainsides into neighborhoods. It ripped homes off their foundation. It buried homes, motor vehicles and, tragically, people.

How do the rest of react to these tales of despair and misery?

It breaks our hearts. I am trying only to imagine how one copes with the threat of such devastation, let alone how they deal with its actual consequence.

We are going to hear about more heroism in the days to come as we watch this region seek to fight against these irresistible forces. It won’t make me feel any better about the misery that has overwhelmed our fellow Americans.

I am left only to pray for those who are coping with the tragedy that has swept over them.

media news

Weaken libel laws? No can do, Mr. President

Donald John Trump wants to make it easier to sue publications for libel. The president vowed to change laws he called a “sham” and a “disgrace.”

Really, Mr. President?

He made the vow at the start of a Cabinet meeting in the White House.

Where can I start? I’ll give it a shot.

Trump said journalists cannot write stories that are knowingly false and then smile while they count their money as it pours into their bank account.

True enough, Mr. President. Except that current libel laws ensure that those who publish “knowingly false” stories are punished.

As for whether the federal government can rewrite the law, I need to remind Donald Trump that the U.S. Constitution declares in the First Amendment that there should be a “free press” that is allowed to do its job without government interference.

The founders wanted to ensure that a free press could function without fear of intimidation and, thus, established a high bar for public officials to clear if they decide to sue for libel.

The object of Trump’s tirade clearly is the publication of “Fire and Fury,” the highly controversial book written by journalist Michael Wolff, who reports some mighty scathing remarks from former and current White House staffers who had some disparaging things to say about Donald Trump. The president calls it all fiction; Wolff, of course, stands by his reporting in the book.

National Public Radio reports: And this is hardly the first time Trump has railed against libel laws, which as a matter of practice are made by the states and backed by a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that sets a high bar for public figures wanting to prove libel.

So, what is left for Trump to do? He can nominate Supreme Court justices who are willing to water down the First Amendment. However, he then sets up a proverbial “litmus test” for potential appointees.

Would he dare ask them prior to selecting them whether they would pledge a sort of loyalty to the president by agreeing beforehand to rule favorably on a libel case that comes before the nation’s highest court?

Now that I think about it, I believe he would … to his shame!

Trump’s war on the media keeps getting hotter.

Frightening … and dangerous.

entertainment news

It was 20 years ago … Oprah won a big victory

Now that we’re all agog over Oprah Winfrey and whether she’ll run for president of the United States — which I hope doesn’t happen — let’s flash back for a moment when the media mogul came to the Texas Panhandle for an extended stay.

Oprah had gotten herself sued by Texas cattlemen over remarks she and others made on her TV talk show. She had an animal rights activist on her show in the spring of 1996 talking about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, aka Mad Cow Disease, suggesting that improperly cooked beef could lead to the potentially fatal disease.

That’s it, Oprah blurted. She said the discussion “has just stopped me cold from eating another burger. I’m stopped.”

The cattlemen, led by legendary Panhandle cattle baron Paul Engler, were furious. So was then-Texas Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry. Engler ended up suing Winfrey. He took her to federal court right here in Amarillo, Texas.

Oprah decided to move her TV show here, too. She rented the Amarillo Little Theater, had it redone to suit her show’s format. She played to packed houses every night after sitting in a courtroom all day — for weeks on end!

The Texas Tribune reports that the community was “split” about the trial and the reason for the lawsuit. Some folks thought the remarks on TV were out of line, according to the Tribune. Others applauded Oprah, given her high public standing in the community at large.

My recollection at the time was that Amarillo opened its arms to Winfrey and her staff. Her show was immensely popular among those who wanted to see it in person at the ALT. I heard stories about how phone lines choked up and damn near croaked with heavy call loads from people looking for tickets. I heard one anecdotal story about how someone called his or her family in the Dakotas, who then called the ALT for ticket information — because the the local caller couldn’t get a call through to the theater office.

Well, Oprah won a victory. The federal court jury dismissed the lawsuit. She stood in front of the courthouse in early 1998  in downtown Amarillo and cheered her hard-won — and deserved — courthouse victory.

Oprah Winfrey likely would have rather spent her time elsewhere than in Amarillo two decades ago defending herself in a lawsuit brought by some cranky cattlemen. My recollection, though, is that she was treated like the TV royalty she was at the time.

She won many more friends than foes here. Those were the days …

national news

This just in: Oprah won’t run in 2020

This “scoop” comes from a member of my family: “You don’t need to worry about Oprah running for president; she isn’t going to do it.”

There you have it. Why? Because Oprah Winfrey isn’t going to give up being the world’s most powerful and revered woman. She isn’t going to expose herself to the denigration that would await her if she were to run against Donald John “Stable Genius” Trump Sr.

She won’t “lower herself” to Trump’s level, my family member said.

So, is that what will happen? I’m inclined to believe the assessment I have received.

I am no expert. I am no soothsayer. I cannot predict what celebrities will do. I once said publicly that former first lady Hillary Clinton wouldn’t run for the U.S. Senate in 2000. Wrong!

Winfrey brought ’em to their feet at the Golden Globes show this past weekend. She roared that “a new day is on the horizon!” Women no longer will be intimidated, shamed, abused, assaulted by men, she said. Hmm. Did she have anyone in mind? Oh, wait! Maybe it’s the president of the United States!

But … my family member believes Oprah won’t enter the 2020 presidential contest.

“She’ll go to her grave with her incredible wealth and reputation intact,” she said.

I’m good with that.

national news

Get a clue, Ivanka

First, I will stipulate that I do not subscribe to the statement attributed to former White House strategist Stephen Bannon in the “Fire and Fury” book that Ivanka Trump is “dumb as a brick.”

The first daughter, though, seems to be tone deaf. Politically, that is.

Oprah Winfrey got the Golden Globes crowd all worked up Sunday night with that speech in which she declared to women around the nation that a “new day is on the horizon!”

Ivanka then weighed in with a tweet that endorsed Winfrey’s “empowering and inspiring” speech.

Uhh, oops!

The speech was seen by many as a first shot in the 2020 presidential campaign. Oprah might be considering a run for president against, um, Ivanka’s father, Donald Trump Sr., the president of the United States.

Here is where I’ll note that Ivanka stood by Dad when those women came forward to accuse him of sexual abuse, assault, harassment. She has said in public that the president is women’s most powerful ally; Ivanka has drawn scorn for saying that, too.

Now she endorses Oprah’s speech and the “Me Too” movement, while standing by her father?

Ivanka isn’t “dumb as a brick.” She does need re-calibrate her political antennae.