Monthly Archives: February 2020

national news

Schiff delivers sensational closing argument

1 Comment

I know I am about to engage in a bit of wishful thinking, but humor me for just a moment.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the lead House manager in the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, delivered one of the more stirring political speeches I’ve heard since, oh, I can’t remember.

He made the case — to my admittedly biased ears — for the conviction and removal of the current president of the United States, whom the House impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Those two allegations are enough to kick the president out of office. Furthermore, he said that Trump cannot be trusted to do the right thing, that he has no moral compass that guides him toward the light. He’ll never change, Schiff said.

I couldn’t help but think what some of the senators who listened to him might be thinking, particularly those who are known to be ready to acquit Trump of the charges leveled against him.

I had to wonder: Are any of them moved to at least reconsider their decision?

Here is Schiff’s closing argument. He speaks with absolute clarity.

I know that he was preaching to the proverbial choir when he spoke to me. I just want to share this historic example of statesmanship.

national news

Sen. Ernst says Dems have ‘lowered impeachment bar’?

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst is an Iowa Republican who on Wednesday will vote to acquit Donald John Trump of the crimes for which the House of Representatives impeached him.

Her statements, though, about whether a President Biden would be impeached requires a rebuttal.

She said that House Democrats have “lowered the (impeachment) bar so far” that it would be too easy for future presidents to be impeached by future members of Congress.

I cannot believe she said that. On second thought, yes I can believe it, as she is a member of the GOP cabal that is putting political party over the Constitution.

The House did not lower the impeachment bar. House members impeached Trump because he solicited a foreign government for a political favor; he also threatened to withhold military aid that had been sent to that government which is in the middle of a civil war with rebels backed by Russia. Abuse of power … anyone?

The House also impeached Trump for conducting an unprecedented obstruction of Congress by refusing to turn over any documents to congressional investigators and by barring any White House aides from answering subpoenas to tell Congress what they know about transpired. I believe that is a clear-cut case of obstruction of Congress.

To my way of thinking, that ain’t setting the bar low. The House acted just as it should have acted.

The current president of the United States has gotten a pass from his political allies in the Senate — such as Sen. Ernst — who have refused to act on what they should know to be a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

national news

Would rather see a direct vote than these goofy caucuses

As the nation watches with varying degrees of interest/anticipation/anxiety over the Iowa Democratic Party primary caucus, I want to express a view that dismisses the whole process.

I believe a better, more equitable way to choose a political party presidential nominee is to just let citizens vote for them in the privacy of a voting booth.

The media are trying to cover this Iowa caucus, just as they have so many times before, while tripping over their tongues trying to explain how the process works. To be candid, I still don’t quite get it … and I studied this stuff in college and covered caucuses when I first arrived in Texas in 1984.

I remain an old-fashioned good government progressive, someone who just prefers to cast my vote in private.

Texas used to have a caucus system to select party nominees. I covered a caucus while working for the Beaumont Enterprise in 1984. I attended a caucus in Beaumont and watched as the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s supporters helped him carry the day in Jefferson County.

The state has since then joined the vast bulk of states rely on secret-ballot voting in primary elections.

I suppose the Iowa caucus produces good political theater. It also lends an air of confusion to the rest of us interested in how this drama plays out.

media news

Time to put politics aside to wish this man well

I have stated my share — maybe more than my share — of disagreements with Rush Limbaugh over the years.

I won’t go there today.

Limbaugh is arguably the most well-known radio political talk show host in the United States. He announced today he has “advanced lung cancer.” He is taking some time off the air but vows to return soon to continue his ultra right-wing commentary on the issues of the day.

It would be my hope that all of us, even those of us who do not listen to Limbaugh, could set aside our political differences. I want to wish this fellow well as he fights this hideous disease.

Many of speak of a return to political civility. Limbaugh isn’t one of them. He rants, rails, vents and bloviates at everything and everyone with whom he disagrees. Were he to read my blogs, he would level his invective at me as well.

This isn’t the time to rant. It is a time to understand that the United States of America is a beacon for those who seek to speak their mind. They are unafraid of those who oppose them, just as they welcome those who favor them.

I want to salute Rush Limbaugh for his fearlessness. It’s an American tradition.

I wish Rush well. I want him back in the game. I want him to continue offering his world view just so I can continue to disagree with him … respectfully, of course.

Sports news

Oops, the Chiefs play in, um, Missouri

To borrow a word … oops!

Someone forgot to tell the current president of the United States that the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs play their football in Missouri, which is across the Missouri River from the city in Kansas that shares the same name.

I am not going to beat up in Donald John Trump too badly over this gaffe, although I likely should.

Hey, the president has told us more often than many of us can count how smart, erudite, worldly he is. He calls himself a “very stable genius.”

It’s just that someone as smart as the president claims to be should know where the professional football champions do their blocking and tackling.

 

Sports news

Look for big Texas connection to Chiefs’ big win

I am going out just a bit on a limb here, but I am betting that the Texas media are going to find every possible connection between this state and the Kansas City Chiefs’ victory in Super Bowl LIV.

The Chiefs beat the San Francisco 49ers in a thriller. The score was 31-20, but the game was a barn burner.

The Texas connection? Well, let’s see.

  • Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes was born in Tyler, Texas, in the eastern part of the state. He attended Texas Tech University in the western part of Texas. It’s been noted that football-mad Texas now can claim that a pure Texas product has won the biggest pro football game of the year.
  •  The Chiefs were born as the Dallas Texans. A Dallas businessman, Lamar Hunt, created the Texans and joined them with the American Football League. They moved to KC in 1963, changed their name to the Chiefs and won the 1970 Super Bowl against the Minnesota Vikings.
  •  Clark Hunt, son of the late Chiefs founder, is the current owner of the team. Clark Hunt was 4 years old when the Chiefs won their first Super Bowl. He still lives in Dallas.

Do you get where I’m going with this?

Sure, the team plays its home games in far-off Kansas City, Mo. A lot of football fans here in Texas, though, won’t let the Chiefs and their fans know about this team’s roots.

national news

Not sure POTUS has learned anything from this impeachment

Do you think Donald John Trump has learned how to handle international affairs in the wake of the impeachment trial that is about to conclude later this week?

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who is likely to vote to acquit the current president, thinks Trump has learned his lesson. He won’t seek foreign government interference in future elections, Ernst said.

Really, senator? Hmm. Well, call me a skeptic, but I have this nagging feeling that Trump won’t take a single lesson away from this impeachment saga.

He sought a political favor from the president of Ukraine in exchange for military aid. I cannot say this with any more clarity: Trump abused the power of his office.

The House of Representatives impeached him for it, and for obstructing Congress. Trump is going to be saved by Republican senators who will stand behind the president rather than defending our national security.

Trump’s expected acquittal will embolden him. Trump well might believe he is empowered further to do whatever he wants. I mean, he has said as much, declaring that Article II of the Constitution grants him unlimited power. It does nothing of the sort.

Will this president ever heed the advice of others who seek to counsel him, to guide him toward a more restrained view of his power? I want to be proven wrong. I just have my doubts that Donald Trump will be able to control his more bizarre impulses.

national news

Baffled by Bernie’s big bounce

I don’t know a lot of things, so perhaps this isn’t a serious flash.

What in the world is fueling this reported “surge” by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is campaigning for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination?

Sanders reportedly is leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and is getting competitive in South Carolina.

His fans love him. They say he can beat Donald John Trump, the nation’s current president if he gets the chance to run against him head to head this fall.

Oh, he also wants to give universal health care for every American, he wants to provide free college education for every college student in the country, he wants to redistribute the nation’s wealth.

How is he going to do all that with a budget that’s running a trillion bucks in the red this year alone!

Trump will hang the “socialist” tag on him, which Sanders won’t deny, given that he calls himself a “democratic socialist.”

My major interest in this upcoming election is to defeat Donald Trump. I do not want him re-elected to a second term. Sanders might be able to gin up crowd fervor at his rallies; but then again, so does Trump.

I do not believe the Democrats’ path to victory against Trump should take them down the far-left lane. I continue to favor a more centrist approach to governance. I want the next president to be able to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans. Does anyone really believe deep in their heart of hearts that Bernie Sanders is the guy who can do that?

Yet the democratic socialist continues to “surge”? Go figure.

national news

Having an O.J. moment

This might sound weird in the extreme, but I am beginning to have an O.J. moment while awaiting the virtually assured verdict of the 100 U.S. senators who have conducted what is supposed to pass as a trial regarding Donald John Trump.

Senators heard what I believe is convincing evidence that Trump abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress; both offenses have earned him an early exit from the presidency.

Flash back to 1995. A Los Angeles Superior Court jury sat in judgment in an interminable trial involving Orenthal James Simpson, the former pro football great who was accused of killing his former wife and her friend.

From my faraway perch I knew Simpson was guilty. I believed the mountain of evidence the cops had compiled. The trial went on for months. The jury had been sequestered. Twelve citizens sat there and heard every word, watched every demonstration by lawyers on both sides. They endured a miserable experience.

Jurors deliberated for about four hours and then acquitted Simpson of the crime. Was I shocked? Yes. However, I do not question the validity of what the jurors decided. They had been filled with enough “reasonable doubt” to set Simpson free.

It is with that same sense of anticipation that I am awaiting what we all know what the Senate will decide. The number of senators who will vote to convict Trump will fall far short of the two-thirds majority prescribed by the Constitution.

I believe what the House managers presented. However, I am not facing re-election from constituents. Senators are enduring enormous political pressure. What do they do? What should they decide?

It’s easy for little ol’ me sitting out here in the heart of Trump Country to make judgments about what I believe the president did. I am not in any of the hot seats occupied by the 100 men and women sitting in the U.S. Senate.

They will make their decision. I won’t like it any more than I liked he verdict that the O.J. jury delivered in 1995. However, I will not challenge its validity. Why? Because I am too far from the pressure being applied on those who must make the call.

And yes, by all means, the U.S. Constitution will have worked. It didn’t produce the result I desired. I will continue to honor the sometimes-rickety system of government that our brilliant founders crafted for us.

Uncategorized

Do your job, Mr. Texas AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sworn an oath to defend, among other things, the U.S. Constitution, which Texans still must obey under the law.

The Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, has an equal-protection clause that says all Americans are entitled to be treated equally. That means gay couples, men and women, who choose to marry some of the same gender.

So, when a justice of the peace refuses to follow the law, gets sanctioned by the Texas Commission on Judicial  Conduct, and then gets sued by the JP for allegedly violating her religious liberty, then the AG is bound by law to defend the TCJC. That’s how I read it.

Paxton ain’t doing it.

Oh, no. He is siding with the justice of the peace, Dianne Hensley, for refusing to preside over same-sex marriages, citing her religious convictions, which endorse only marriages between one man and one woman.

But wait! The SCOTUS has determined that gay marriage is legal in this country. That includes Texas, doesn’t it? Aren’t we part of the United States of America, the nation governed by a secular Constitution?

I am all in favor of religious liberty. This is just my interpretation, though, but I always have considered religious liberty to have boundaries. People are free to worship as they please, or not worship a deity. Religious liberty grants them that right. However, public officials who take an oath to follow the laws of the land have responsibilities to adhere strictly to that oath.

The JP is wrong to deny marrying individuals on the basis of their gender. The AG is wrong to refuse a legally constituted state agency that has ruled appropriately against the JP.

Just do your job, Mr. Attorney General.