States’ rights … or not?

While he was running for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump said that states should be left to determine the legality of smoking pot.

Now that he is the president of the United States, Trump seems to be saying something else. Or, at least he’s allowing the attorney general to say it for him. AG Jeff Sessions has repealed relaxation of federal prosecution of marijuana laws. He has sicced federal prosecutors loose on those who are accused of smoking pot illegally.

Now comes a question: Which is it, do states’ right prevail on this matter or is this a matter where federal policy overrides them?

California has just legalized the sale of “recreational marijuana,” joining several other states and the District of Columbia in this initiative.

The AG is having none of it.

But to whom does the attorney general answer? Let’s see. It’s the president. And this president is on record saying that states should be left to set marijuana-use rules and laws.

Didn’t he say that? Didn’t he mean it? Wasn’t he speaking from his gut, or his heart, or did he make it up as a throwaway line?

The order Sessions rescinded, of course, came from President Barack H. Obama’s Department of Justice. DOJ said in 2013 it wouldn’t concern itself with marijuana court fights in states where its use is legal. Sessions is taking another attitude altogether.

However, is he speaking for the department he runs or for the president of the United States — or both! If so, has the president changed his mind?

‘Fire and Fury’ heading for the nightstand book pile

Donald Trump has become Michael Woolff’s greatest promoter.

Trump, the president of the United States, calls a book by Woolff “fake” and “trash,” and he sought to block its publication.

The result? Sales of Woolff’s “Fire and Fury” account of the Trump campaign and presidency are exploding. They’re flying through the roof.

I plan this weekend to join the crowd I’m sure has lined up at Barnes & Noble right here in little ol’ Amarillo, Texas. I also hope they bought plenty of copies of the book.

I’m not not usually motivated to buy books on the basis of hysterical publicity. This publication has prompted me to respond instantly.

“Fire and Fury” was published four days earlier than planned. Why? The president’s furious response to remarks attributed to his former chief political strategist, Stephen Bannon, pushed the book to the shelves earlier than anticipated.

What is hilarious are the denials coming from Trump and his White House team. Think about this for a moment. The folks who are trashing this book are the same folks who, according to longtime GOP political operative Steve Schmidt:

  • Have questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States.
  • Said “millions of illegal immigrants” voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
  • Said that Trump’s voice on the “Access Hollywood” tape wasn’t really Trump’s voice.
  • Argued that Trump’s inaugural crowd was larger than Obama’s.

Trump now says Woolff didn’t have access to White House staff. Woolff says he did. I believe Woolff. Why? Well, Trump has proven himself to be a pathological liar.

The president also says Bannon was a nobody in the White House, that he was a bit player, that he didn’t play a significant role in crafting Trump’s remarkable campaign victory in 2016. Hmm. What about all those pictures of Trump and Bannon huddled around the Oval Office desk, or of Trump placing his hands on Bannon’s shoulders? Were they Photo Shopped?

Naw. They’re real. Again, I think Trump is, um, lying yet again.

I hope I can find a copy of “Fire and Fury.”

Trump declares ‘war’ on California? Hmmm …

California Democrats believe Donald John Trump has declared war on the nation’s most populous state.

They cite the president’s recent actions regarding (a) recreational marijuana use, (b) offshore oil drilling and (c) increased enforcement of immigration laws.

Let’s ponder that for a moment.

I cannot define any president’s motives. People who are  “done wrong” by presidents often accuse them of political retribution.

It was said during the late 1960s that Democratic President Lyndon Johnson hated the Texas Panhandle so much because several counties voted for Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election that he took it out on the region by closing the Amarillo Air Force Base. Many longtime Panhandle residents still hold a grudge against LBJ for that decision.

Now we have the current president — a Republican — imposing policies deemed detrimental to the nation’s most staunchly Democratic state. Democrats say they are certain that Trump is angry enough to punish the state for purely partisan reasons.

I, um, don’t know about that.

Trump vs. California?

The president’s offshore drilling proposals also involve the Gulf Coast, which comprises states that all voted for Trump in 2016. Immigration enforcement? Texas, too, is affected by whatever stricter policies come from the Trump administration.

I suppose one might make a case that California’s recent legalizing of recreational pot use might be construed as some sort of payback. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the federal government is rescinding Obama administration rules softening punishment for those caught using marijuana, which the feds still consider a “controlled substance.”

And while we are talking about President Obama, I will mention that Barack Obama could have ordered one of the decommissioned space shuttles to be displayed in a museum in Texas. Hey, the state is home to the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Neil Armstrong’s first words in July 1969 from the moon’s surface were, “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

Texas was shunned. Why? Well, some have said President Obama had no love for Texas, given that the state voted twice for his Republican opponents.

I am not a big fan of this kind of political conspiracy theory.

Still, California Democrats do make a fascinating point. They say Donald Trump is the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to fail to visit California during the first year of his presidency.

Hey, the state qualifies as the world’s fifth-largest economy.

What gives, Mr. President?

Hey, the drought has returned!

Eighty-three days and counting …

It’s been that long since Amarillo has experienced any measurable precipitation. You and I know what that means. The drought has returned to the Texas Panhandle.

Weather forecasters are spending a good bit of time talking about the threat of wildfire. They are right, of course. The grass is plentiful from rain that fell through much of the summer of 2017. It’s now bond dry. It has become prime fuel to ignite killer fires.

It goes without saying: Take great care to avoid torching the land; don’t toss cigarette butts out of your car; avoid dragging metal chains under your vehicle; no outdoor grilling, particularly in the ever-present Panhandle wind.

There’s another concern that troubles yours truly: water waste.

Do not waste water. We have no need to wash our motor vehicles. Check for leaky faucets and sprinkler heads. Indeed, reduce lawn-watering during the winter months when local grass goes dormant.

I remember when we were cheering the rainfall in 2017, which finished with a rain-average surplus over normal. But we’ve gone nearly three months now without any measurable rain or snowfall.

It’s a potentially dangerous period out there. Let’s be so very careful. Shall we?

Texas coast remains in dire peril

I want to give a shout out to my former neighbors along the Texas Gulf Coast.

They are working diligently to preserve one of the state’s most underappreciated resources: its beaches.

The Texas coast is in peril. It is disappearing before our eyes. It has been disappearing for, oh, many decades. I took an interest in the coast when I moved there in 1984 to take up my post writing editorials for the Beaumont Enterprise.

The Texas Tribune reports that Jefferson County officials are working with a consortium of industry officials, environmental activists, outdoorsmen and women and others to protect the coastal wetlands from drastic erosion.

According to the Tribune: Subsidence, sea level rise and storm surges have all contributed to significant land loss, averaging 4 feet per year along the state’s coastline, according to the Texas General Land Office. In some places, more than 30 feet of shoreline disappears underwater annually.

Todd Merendino, a manager at the conservation-focused group Ducks Unlimited, said sand dunes used to line the shore near the Salt Bayou marsh, forming a crucial buffer between the Gulf of Mexico and the millions of dollars’ worth of industrial infrastructure that lie inland. The dunes are “all gone now,” he said.

“One day, you wake up and you go, ‘Wow, we got a problem,'” Merendino said. “And it’s not just an isolated problem where one swing of the hammer is going to fix it.”

The problem has inspired a coalition of strange bedfellows in Jefferson County. Local leaders, environmental activists and industry representatives are working together to execute a variety of projects — some bankrolled by BP oil spill settlement funds — to rehabilitate the marsh and protect the area’s industrial complex.

The massive deep freeze that is paralyzing the Deep South and the Atlantic Seaboard notwithstanding, the worldwide climate change that produces rising sea levels is a major culprit.

Gulf Coast officials are seeking to build a berm along the coast at the McFaddin Wildlife Refuge. I’ve been there. It’s a jewel along the coast. It’s a haven for all manner of waterfowl. It is a gorgeous part of the coastal region.

It’s also vanishing.

Here is the Tribune story

The Texas General Land Office once placed coastal preservation near the top of its public policy agenda. I am unaware of where that issue stands today. The GLO has welcomed the likes of David Dewhurst, Jerry Patterson and now George P. Bush as land commissioner since Mauro left the office in the late 1990s. I trust they, too, are committed to saving the coastline for future generations of Texans to enjoy.

I am heartened to hear about the hard work being done along the coast. It’s good, though, to bear in mind that Mother Nature can take whatever she wants, whenever she wants.

At least the state is not going to give it away without a fight.

Muddy probe may be getting a lot muddier

Robert Mueller is up to his armpits in issues to peel away as he seeks to learn the truth about allegations that the Donald Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 election.

Now comes a book, “Fire and Fury,” by journalist Michael Wolff, in which a former key Trump aide — Stephen Bannon — has tossed out words like “unpatriotic” and “treasonous” to describe a meeting between Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.

And, oh yes, it’s getting a lot muddier than it already has gotten.

Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, is now getting an even fuller plate. He might be buried up to his eyebrows in these issues relating to the allegations of collusion.

The president has issued a “cease and desist” order to Bannon; no more talking about the book, he has ordered. He’s also trying — in a stunning example of prior restraint — to keep “Fire and Fury” from being published.

And the media are continuing to report even more astonishing developments. Such as White House counsel Don McGahn being ordered to talk Attorney General Jeff Sessions out of recusing himself from looking into the Russia meddling matter. Um, who issued the order? Might it have been, ohhh, the president himself?

Trump has torched Bannon for speaking to Wolff. That, too, is fascinating in the extreme, considering that Wolff had been given astonishing access to White House sources.

Bannon’s view of the president? He continues to “support” Trump’s agenda and says there’s no daylight between them on the key issues of the day.

My head is spinning like Linda Blair’s noggin in “The Exorcist.”

I am believing that someone has poured sand into the president’s “fine-tuned machine.”

Moreover, the special counsel’s investigation well might have been given more fuel.

I cannot keep up with it. I need a good night’s sleep.

Hillary again? Absolutely!

Donald Trump cannot resist the temptation to re-litigate the 2016 election.

Neither can some of the rest of us who didn’t support the president in his winning bid for the White House.

That all said, I want to state something that won’t surprise regular readers of this blog: If I could re-cast my most recent vote for president a second time, I would cast it in a New York minute for the candidate I supported in 2016; that would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We’re coming up on the first year since Trump took the oath of office. It’s been the longest year of many of our lives. Each day, let alone each week and month, has brought crisis upon crisis. Headaches caused by chaos and confusion abound in the White House. The president cannot get his feet under him.

It’s fair to wonder: Would a President Hillary Clinton have taken office amid such stumbling and bumbling? No. The transition would have been seamless.

It also is fair to ponder whether Hillary Clinton was the perfect candidate for president. Of course she wasn’t. She had her flaws. Clinton didn’t seem genuine. At times she sounded and actually looked inauthentic. But I didn’t — and still don’t — buy the notion about her being “crooked.” Her flaws as a candidate in my view do not include criminality.

My continued support for Hillary Clinton, I must add, presumes she would run against Donald Trump. To be totally candid, there were other Republicans I found much more attractive than the guy who won the GOP nomination. Had the nominee been, say, Ohio John Kasich or perhaps even U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida I might be persuaded to vote Republican for the first time in my voting life. I particularly like Gov. Kasich — and I actually would like to see him challenge the president in 2020.

However, if I had the chance to vote all over again between Trump and Hillary Clinton, I wouldn’t regret for a minute supporting Clinton.

Her competence and her understanding of government cannot be questioned. Neither can we question her decorum or her dignity.

I grew tired very early in the Trump administration of shuddering at the president’s rhetoric. I have zero doubt that Hillary Clinton would know how to act presidential.

Is a vet school coming to the Panhandle?

Texas Tech University officials want to put a school of veterinary medicine in Amarillo. That’s the word from the chancellor’s office and from others within the sprawling university system.

The notion has a couple of big obstacles. One of them involves money; the other involves politics.

First, the money obstacle.

The Texas Legislature has appropriated about $4 million to Texas Tech to start researching how it can install a large-animal veterinary school that would serve the Texas Panhandle and, indeed, the rest of the state and perhaps the tri-state region.

The hope would be for Panhandle residents to get their DVM degrees and then stay home to serve the community.

But Tech needs about $90 million more, according to Amarillo Matters, a political action group formed to speak on behalf of issues and officials who want to improve Amarillo and the surrounding region. Time isn’t on the side of Texas Tech. They don’t have much time to raise the money and they’re searching for the deepest pockets possible to help finance construction and development of the school.

I happen to believe a veterinary medical school makes perfect sense for Amarillo and the surrounding region. Texas Tech, based in Lubbock, is the ideal school to establish it, given that it already has medical school and pharmacy school campuses in the city. Indeed, the Tech School of Pharmacy came to being after the community ponied up a lot of money to show Tech that it had sufficient interest in the project. It has been a successful venture.

Now for the politics of it.

Texas A&M University doesn’t want Tech to proceed with a veterinary medicine school. Aggieland is totally opposed to Tech impinging on the monopoly that A&M has on veterinary education in Texas.

This interference doesn’t make sense.

There surely must be ample opportunity for a second top-tier university system to develop a veterinary medical school. Last time I looked, I noticed that Texas is a mighty big state, comprising more than 250,000 square miles and stretching more than 800 miles east-west and north-south.

Tech and A&M apparently haven’t yet worked out their differences. My hope is that Texas Tech wins out in this battle of university system wills.

Then the Tech System needs to find the rest of the money.

‘This is not a game’

Donald John Trump keeps demonstrating something what many of his fellow Americans have believed since the moment he declared his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.

He doesn’t know — or chooses willfully to ignore — what it means to be leader of the world’s most powerful nation.

He now is taunting the leader of another nuclear-armed nation, telling North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un that the United States has a bigger nuclear button than the North Koreans have. “My button works,” Trump said in a tweet.

Good, ever-lovin’ grief, dude!

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who knows a thing or two about power and its consequences, said “This is not a game … This is not about, ‘Can I puff my chest out bigger than yours.’ It’s just not presidential.”

Trump has drawn intense criticism not just from Democrats, such as Vice President Biden, but from foreign-policy experts. They say Trump’s public boasting about the American nuclear arsenal dismisses decades of presidential protocol.

As Politico reports: “You don’t brandish these weapons. You allude to them, obliquely,” said Joe Cirincione, a former congressional aide and president of the pro-disarmament Ploughshares Fund.

Trump doesn’t have an “oblique” bone in his body. He doesn’t grasp the nature of nuance. He doesn’t understand the consequences of the rhetoric that flies out of his mouth.

He taunts Kim Jong Un as “little Rocket Man” and now declares what the entire world knows already, that the United States can obliterate the entire planet if it so chooses.

This is a dangerous game the president is playing. His itchy Twitter fingers along with his big and boastful pie hole are potentially placing all of his fellow Americans in grave peril.

But … his base keeps insisting: He’s just “telling it like it is.”

Frightening.

Imagine top aides for Obama, ‘W’ turning on the boss

Stephen Bannon’s assertion in a new book that Donald Trump Jr. might have committed an act of “treason” by meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 brings to mind a fascinating observation.

It didn’t come from me originally. I heard it from Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN. Toobin said it would be unconscionable for David Axelrod to turn on Barack Obama or Karl Rove to do the same thing to George W. Bush.

Those two former White House strategists and key political aides were loyal to the boss and remain so to this day. Bannon presents another situation altogether.

He has said that Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian legal eagle constituted potentially “unpatriotic” and “treasonous” activity. They met, according to a book, “Fire and Fury,” written by David Wolff, to discuss dirt on Hillary Rodham Clinton. The inference is that Don Jr. might have colluded with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome.

The revelation made public has enraged the president. He says Bannon “lost his mind” when he was fired from his job as chief strategist for Donald Trump. He argues that Bannon had little influence or impact on the White House.

We might be witnessing an unprecedented unraveling of a presidential administration. It does appear to be unusual in the extreme that someone who once had the president’s ear to turn on him in the manner that has occurred.

What’s more, the reaction from the president does have the appearance of near-panic within the White House.

Toobin does pose a fascinating query. Can you imagine Presidents Obama and Bush being torpedoed in this fashion?

I cannot.