Monthly Archives: June 2019

national news

GOP has gone mad in the state of my birth

Oregon Republicans used to comprise a sane lot of politicians, folks who actually knew how to govern and they did it well.

The late Gov. Tom McCall, a Republican, is a legendary figure in Oregon. So is the late Sen. Mark Hatfield, another GOP stalwart. Oregon had a Republican secretary of state, Clay Myers, who was known to work well with Democrats.

These days the Republican Party in Oregon — the state where I was born and spent the first 34 years of my life — has gone bonkers.

They comprise 12 members of the Oregon Senate. The rest of the 30-member body comprises Democrats. The Oregon Senate needs 20 members present, a quorum, to do business.

The state’s Republican Senate caucus dislikes a cap-and-trade bill — an environmentally friendly bill that aims to cut carbon emissions — that they all have disappeared. They aren’t reporting for work. The Senate can’t do any business.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, has dispatched the state police to look for the missing senators. She wants to round up enough of them to force the Senate to vote on the emissions bill.

Here is where it gets really weird, man. At least one GOP senator, Brian Boquist, is threatening to kill any trooper who seeks to take him into custody to bring him back to work.

As CNN reported on what Boquist told a Portland TV station: “Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple.” Yep. There’s an implied threat of violence there, right? Of course there is!

I began my journalism career in Oregon in 1976. I didn’t get to cover the Legislature in those days, although I certainly reported on the impact of legislation on the community I served as a reporter and later an editor. Nothing like this ever occurred.

Then again, that was a time when Republicans and Democrats actually worked together in state government and actually got things done for the benefit of those of us they served.

International news, military news

Here come the questions about the canceled strike

The questions have started coming forth about Donald Trump’s statement that he called off a planned strike against Iran after hearing about the potential for civilian casualties.

Hmm. Let me see how this played out.

The president assigned the Pentagon to draft a strike plan against the Iranians after the Iranians shot down an unarmed drone over international waters.

The brass followed the orders and then got the planes, ships and personnel ready to launch the strike.

Then the president decided to inquire about potential loss of life just as the planes were about to take flight? Is that right?

What kind of military planning didn’t divulge that information from the very beginning? Thus, we now have suspicion over what the president told NBC News’s Chuck Todd, that he was “cocked and loaded” to deliver punishment to Iran, but only found out at the last minute to cancel the strike because it would have been a “disproportionate” response?

This is the kind of suspicion that haunts Donald Trump. He seems unable or unwilling to execute a plan the way it should be done. He wants us to believe that the Pentagon’s military planners didn’t tell him from the outset about the casualties that would be inflicted by such a strike?

Please.

military news

Wanting to believe POTUS on canceled strike, but then …

I truly want to believe Donald Trump’s statement that he called off a strike against Iran because it wasn’t “proportionate.”

I want to believe that he asked about the potential for civilian casualties and then decided the strike was too heavy a punishment against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran had shot down a drone aircraft over international waters. The Iranians allege the craft, which was unarmed, was flying in its territorial air space.

Trump then sought to retaliate for the shooting down of a U.S. military asset. He said our forces were “cocked and loaded.” He said he was set to send the craft against the Iranian targets, but then he thought differently about it.

The brass told him there would be civilian casualties, possibly 150 people, Trump said.

So he backed off.

Do I believe him? Do I take him at his word, that he’s telling us the truth? Hah! How is that even possible, given this individual’s penchant for prevarication?

I am left to presume the president is giving it to us straight, absent any public rebuke from the military brass that took part in developing the response.

I stand at the moment highly relieved that the president didn’t heed the advice from the uber-hawks among his national security team who argued for a military strike that might have produced a seriously dangerous response from a seriously rogue nation.

local news

Texas AG waits and waits and waits … to stand trial

This just isn’t normal.

The state’s top law enforcement official continues to function with a dark cloud hanging directly over him, but there’s no apparent resolution in sight on how that cloud will disappear.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been indicted for securities fraud. He was elected in 2014 with that indictment hanging over him. Then he won re-election — albeit narrowly — in 2018 with the same cloud.

There have been venue change rulings and then delay upon delay.

Paxton got indicted by a grand jury in Collin County — which Paxton used to represent in the Texas Legislature — on felony counts of security fraud. Grand jurors accused him of failing to register with the state while receiving payments in return for soliciting clients for a North Texas investment firm.

Paxton also has received complaints from the Texas Securities Board, which reprimanded him for soliciting clients without being properly registered.

This is ridiculous.

The Texas Tribune has published a fascinating timeline of Paxton’s legal difficulties. Read it here.

I am left to doubt damn near everything that this guy says in his capacity as Texas AG. Sure, he’s entitled to an innocence presumption. However, a grand jury indictment doesn’t just happen because grand jurors are intent, to borrow a phrase, on “indicting a ham sandwich.”

Now the principals are caught up in a side issue involving prosecutors’ pay. More delays, foot-dragging and whatever.

Justice isn’t being delivered on this matter. The state’s attorney general needs to stand trial and there needs to be a resolution of the serious charges that have been brought against him.

national news

Founders didn’t get it perfectly right … but they came close

I feel this need to come to the defense of our Founding Fathers over the work they did to create a “more perfect Union.”

The very words of the document they crafted to form the framework of our government — “more perfect Union” — recognize that the founders knew they hadn’t reached perfection.

I’ll tell you this: They came pretty close to it.

Accordingly, I also believe the founders would be horrified at how the political winds are blowing these days and, for that matter, have blown for some time. They would disapprove mightily of a president who seeks to usurp legislative authority by blocking Congress’s oversight responsibilities. They would bristle at the influence being exerted on our national election by foreign powers and the president’s seeming acceptance of it.

The founders would not like one bit the introduction of religion into our political debate, the notion being argued by many that this is a “Christian nation,” and who are horrified at officeholders who swear an oath to defend the Constitution by placing their hand on a holy book other than the Bible.

Our founders knew of the circumstances that brought their ancestors to this land in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were fleeing religious persecution. They did not want their government telling them how to worship. So, the founders ensured that the Constitution they would write would state specifically that Congress shall make no law that establishes a state religion and that citizens were free to worship — or not worship — as they saw fit.

They wrote language into one of the articles that declared no office seeker should be held to a “religious test.”

Yes, the founders argued mightily as they crafted the Constitution over whether it should contain any reference to religion. The document refers to the “Creator” and officeholders swear to “God” to defend and protect the Constitution.

It is the secular nature of the Constitution, though, that protects us against the imposition of radical religious doctrine in our government — be it radical Christian, radical Muslim or radical anything.

The Constitution as it was ratified initially did have some serious flaws. It didn’t allow women to vote. It failed to outlaw the enslavement of human beings. It didn’t allow for the direct election of senators by citizens.

In the years since then, though, the descendants of those great men saw fit to improve the Constitution by fixing those egregious errors.

But the Constitution has held up over the course of 230 years. The separation of powers lined out in the document have kept the president in check. The Constitution has enabled Congress to rise up against abuses of power by the executive branch through impeachment. Indeed, we just might be on the verge of seeing yet another congressional uprising.

We have survived constitutional crises. We have done so because, as Gerald Rudolph Ford said upon ascending to the presidency in a time of monumental crisis that forced the resignation of his immediate predecessor, “Our Constitution works.”

International news

On the brink of conflict with Iran … or what?

Donald Trump is giving me the heebie-jeebies.

The president of the United States ordered a military strike against Iran because the Iranians shot down an unarmed drone apparently over international waters. The Iranians contend the surveillance craft had flown into their air space, which is why they knocked it out of the sky.

But then the president changed his mind and called off the strike against Iran.

I’m wondering today: Why did the president change his mind? What prompted him to order the aircraft back to their bases? Did he get a call from the mullahs? Did they admit to making the “mistake” to which he alluded earlier in the day?

Well, at this moment — but that could change in the next moment — I am glad he called off the hit against military targets in Iran. I heard something this morning about the reported threat to civilians had the strike been allowed to continue.

Let’s not be coy. Iran presents a serious threat to the entire region if we hit them hard. They hate the Saudis, and the Iranians damn sure hate Israel. The mullahs are in control of a terrorist state, which suggests to me that they can seek their vengeance against targets all around the world.

Please keep that in mind, Mr. President, as you ponder the best way to respond to the shootdown of an unmanned military asset.

legal news

POTUS fills judicial post with an inferior choice

Mary Lou Robinson once was hailed as the role model for judicial excellence during her time as the presiding judge of the Northern District of Texas.

Judge Robinson — who was appointed to the newly created judgeship in 1980 by President Carter — died earlier this year, giving Donald Trump a chance to fill her spot on the federal bench with his own pick. Who does he choose? A fellow named Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has elicited alarm among LGBT activists and other civil libertarians because of his decidedly anti-gay track record while working for right-wing think tanks and assorted political organizations.

The U.S. Senate has confirmed Kacsmaryk to the post in a virtually partisan vote; one Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine, broke party ranks to join Senate Democrats in opposing Kacsmaryk.

Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the lowering of judicial standards in one of our nation’s courts.

Kacsmaryk’s writings and advocacy against gay rights and his comments about transgender children are cause for alarm. Indeed, one did not hear a hint of that kind of judicial philosophy about the woman he is succeeding in that court.

According to NBC News: Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, slammed the appointment.

“Transgender youth and their families are facing a crisis in this country, and they cannot afford an unqualified and clearly biased nominee like Matthew Kacsmaryk,” Keisling said in a statement shared with NBC News. “Our country needs fair-minded judges free of irrational prejudices against marginalized people.”

I interviewed many state and county judicial candidates during my years in the Texas Panhandle and almost all of them would cite the late Judge Robinson as their role model for judicial temperament, knowledge of the law and fairness from the bench.

Will the new judge elicit that kind of praise? Hah!

national news

Here comes the judge one more time … ugh!

Roy Moore isn’t your run-of-the-mill goofy politician.

He once served on the Alabama Supreme Court. The state judicial ethics commission removed from his chief justice chair because he violated the constitutional prohibition against promoting religion.

Then he got caught up in a series of accusations by women who alleged that he had sex with them when they were, um, underage girls. 

After being kicked off the bench, Moore sought a seat in the U.S. Senate. Donald Trump endorsed Moore’s GOP primary foe, the incumbent senator who had been appointed to the seat vacated when Jeff Sessions was named attorney general, but Moore won anyway. Trump then decided to back Moore, who then lost to Democratic U.S. Sen. Doug Jones.

Now the former judge is back in the hunt for the seat he lost. Here’s the rub: National Republicans want no part of Roy Moore. They are going to work overtime to defeat him in next year’s Alabama Republican primary.

My favorite comment on Moore’s candidacy, which he announced today, comes from GOP Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona, who said: “Give me a break. This place has enough creepy old men.”

Bingo, Sen. McSally.

Republicans reportedly after actively lobbying Sessions — whose seat Moore sought and then lost to Sen. Jones — to run again.

And that brings up a whole other bit of political comic relief. Donald Trump hired Sessions to be attorney general, then became enraged at the AG when he recused himself from investigating the “Russia thing” because of Sessions’ role in the 2016 presidential campaign and the transition after Trump got elected.

Who, then, does the president endorse if the GOP primary becomes a contest between a disgraced former judge and an accused sexual predator and the former senator who then got fired as AG by the very same president of the United States?

This ought to be fun to watch.

national news, religious news

Sharia law? It is not possible in the U.S. of A.

This meme showed up on my Facebook timeline today and it compels me to write a brief rejoinder to what I consider to be the mother of red herrings.

Many Americans — too many of them, actually — seem to have this unnecessary fear of Sharia law. The picture attached to this blog post shows Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota taking her oath of office with a hand on the Quran, the Muslim holy book. The meme accuses Omar of committing an act of “treason” because the Quran recognizes “Sharia law.”

Let me be crystal clear: The U.S. Constitution is a secular document that prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that have their basis on religious faith. The Constitution doesn’t mention Christianity by name; it makes no mention of Jesus Christ; it doesn’t mention Islam; nor does it invoke the name of Mohammad.

It is a secular document!

Therefore, any attempt to invoke Sharia law — the ultraconservative doctrine to which a segment of Muslims adhere — is laughable on its face. Sharia law cannot possibly become part of any federal law enacted by Congress.

Furthermore, let’s get real on this point: Does anyone believe the current U.S. Supreme Court, with its current conservative majority, is going to reject any Sharia law-based complaint that finds its way to the highest court in the land?

The hatred of Muslims and of officeholders who adhere to Islam is far more troubling to me than any unfounded fear of Sharia law.

I also need to point out that Article VI in the Constitution states categorically that there shall be “no religious test” applied to anyone who seeks public office in the United States of America.

I know this post won’t stem the tide of mistrust and outright hatred of Muslims. I just needed to get off my chest this goofy notion that we need to cower in fear of the imposition of Sharia law into the lives of Americans.

The U.S. Constitution itself serves as an impenetrable shield against any such intrusion into the way this country governs itself.

national news

Biden gets beaten up for … knowing how to legislate?

1 Comment

I am trying to come to grips with what Joe Biden said and how his comments are being received by some elements within the Democratic Party.

Let’s see … the former vice president said he was able during his Senate days and during his time as VP to work in a “civil” manner with people with whom he disagreed. He said that included segregationists within the Senate ranks, including Democrats such as James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia and Republican Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.

Why, that is just terrible, according to some progressives. They cannot understand how Biden — one of the huge number of Democrats running for president — can work with anyone who holds such despicable views.

They are demanding an apology from the former VP. Biden is having none of it. Nor should he.

The former vice president spent 30-plus years in the Senate. He learned the ropes of the body. He learned how to legislate, which required him — if he was to be an effective legislator — to work with all elements within the Senate. That included individuals who hold some nasty views.

As for whether it reveals a side of Biden that disqualifies him to be president, that he is a closet racist — which some of the critics have implied — I guess I feel the need to provide a two-word rejoinder.

Barack Obama.

Biden served as vice president for two terms alongside the nation’s first African-American president. It has been reported that the two men formed a friendship that is so tight and firm that the former president has referred to himself and his family as becoming “honorary Bidens.”

So, let’s stop with the nonsensical criticism of a career politician who merely was making a point about the need to work with all politicians of all factions — even those with despicable views.

It’s called legislating.