Ready, set, bombs away!

Back and forth we go.

Congressional Republicans are so angry at President Obama that they want to sue him for taking on too much executive authority to get things done. Now comes a report that the White House is considering air strikes against targets in Syria.

The response from Congress, from Democrats and Republicans? Ask us for authorization, Mr. President, before you unleash our air power.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215962-corker-congress-must-authorize-airstrikes-in-syria

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., says the president should seek congressional approval. So has Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. Others on both sides of the aisle say the same thing.

They’re likely correct to request congressional approval. Recall that Obama earlier decided to seek congressional authorization after he threatened to hit the Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons on its people. Then the Russians intervened and brokered a deal to get the Syrians to surrender the WMD; they did and the weapons have been destroyed.

Congressional approval is likely the prudent course, given that the president has so few allies on Capitol Hill upon whom he can depend.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether senators like Corker and Kaine are going to stand with the commander in chief when the vote comes. If they’re going to demand congressional approval, then I hope they don’t double-cross Barack Obama with a “no” vote.

Obama reportedly wants to hit ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. He’s already authorized the use of surveillance aircraft to look for targets. I continue to hold out concern about where all this might lead.

I’ll say this next part slowly: I do not want my country to go to war … again. I’ve had enough. I do not want ground troops sent back to Iraq, where we’ve bled too heavily already.

But if we can lend our considerable and deadly air power to the struggle to rid the world of ISIS, then let’s get the job done.

 

Yes, reel in payday lenders

Well, what do you know about that? Amarillo City Council is considering an ordinance that regulates payday lenders.

The council had a public hearing today and another is set for next week.

I do hope the council agrees to watch these lenders closely.

Some of the provisions include limiting loans to no more than 20 percent of the borrower’s monthly income; auto title loans would be for no more than 3 percent of the borrower’s gross annual income or 70 percent of the vehicle’s value.

It’s about time the city took up this issue.

I’ve long considered payday lenders to be only a cut — maybe two — above loan sharks. They prey on those looking for quick cash, those who’ve gotten themselves turned upside down financially. They charge significantly greater interest rates than, say, more established lending institutions — you know, banks and credit unions.

What’s equally interesting is that the Amarillo governing council is actually considering a government-mandated regulation. Our city long has employed a hands-off attitude on these matters. Keep government out of legal private businesses’ affairs, the mantra had been.

An ordinance mandating a ban on indoor smoking? Forget about it. Businesses will do it themselves. Put the issue for a vote, the city decided — twice. Voters rejected the ordinance narrowly both times.

Well, a payday lending regulation would help protect those who can become victims of those with cash to throw around while charging the borrowers a huge interest rate in return.

I consider the City Council’s consideration of this ordinance to be a step forward for the cause of consumer protection.

Enact the ordinance.

 

U.S.-born ISIS fighter is dead

All the hand-wringing over the use of drones to target terrorists who might be American citizens makes me angry.

U.S. airpower struck at a U.S. citizen who had been working with al-Qaeda in Yemen. Our ordnance killed him and civil libertarians and others lamented the lack of “due process” given to the young man before the missile blew him away.

Too bad for that.

Now comes word that another young American, someone named Douglas McCain, was killed in a battle among terror groups in Syria. McCain had been recruited by ISIS, which is fighting governments in Syria and Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Will there more hand-wringing over this one? Probably not, given that he died at the hands of another extremist group. Suppose, though, he’d been killed by U.S. forces. Suppose further that those forces knew that an American was shooting back at him and that he intended to kill whoever he could hit.

Would we have legal and moral standing to kill someone who had renounced his country and taken up arms with the enemy?

Absolutely.

I’m as progressive as anyone on many issues. When it comes, however, to “protecting the rights” of Americans who turn on their country, all bets are off.

My curiosity goes only so far as to wonder what drives Americans to join forces with enemy combatants.

I don’t know the first thing about Douglas McCain and what lured him into the embrace of a hideous terrorist organization. To be honest, I don’t particularly care to know.

What’s left to ponder only is that someone who had declared himself to be an enemy of the country of his birth is now dead.

Whether he died at the hands of other bad guys or at the hands of our soldiers wouldn’t matter to me one little bit.

 

Cease-fire? Is peace treaty next?

At the risk of jinxing the whole deal, I feel compelled to say something positive about the open-ended cease-fire that’s been declared in the weeks-long battle between Israel and the Hamas terrorists who run the Gaza Strip.

The cease-fire is in place. Someone got tired of the killing. Maybe both sides grew weary of it.

Whatever the case may be, the end of the shelling, the bombing, the rocket fire, the death and mayhem is a positive sign.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-destroys-2-gaza-high-rises-escalation-052338846.html

What happens next? As I understand it, the two sides will begin talks. Israel has agreed to allow some imports into Gaza. The Palestinians will be allowed to fish offshore.

Now comes the hard part. Negotiations will start in Egypt in a few weeks that will tackle the tougher issues … such as Israel’s demand that Hamas disarm itself.

I’m not yet holding my breath for that to happen. It’s a start, though.

Hamas started this misery by lobbing rockets into Israel. The Israelis responded the only way they should have done, to defend themselves against the attacks. The resulting bloodshed killed more than 2,000 people, the vast majority of whom are Palestinian.

No one should cheer that outcome.

However, now that the shooting has stopped — except for some celebratory gunfire in Gaza — maybe, just maybe, we can start finding a way toward the most elusive goal on the planet: peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

Good bye and good riddance to old eatery

There’s a certain symbolic value in watching what’s taking place at the site of a restaurant that used to do business on the north side of Interstate 40 just east of Western Street in Amarillo.

The building is being torn down. As of this morning it was sitting in a pile of rubble. I reckon the heap will be hauled off soon.

It used to be home to a place called Sava. It was an Italian joint. I never ate there. The owner closed the place this past year.

His closing of it, though, drew a lot of attention.

You see, he posted this snarky-in-the-extreme note on the door. I cannot recall the details of the note, but I do recall that he denigrated Amarillo’s eating habits while saying good bye to the community. He made some smart-alecky comments about how the folks in Lubbock likely know better about the fine cuisine that had been served at the place.

Then he threw in a crude sexual quip that, for the life of me, I couldn’t recall why he even said such a thing — other than to get his jollies off with what he thought was a clever joke.

Well, it wasn’t.

Sava is history. A chain restaurant is going to be built there. McAlester’s is a barbecue joint. Imagine that: BBQ in Amarillo, Texas. Whatever, the company has an eatery already in Amarillo, so this will be its second restaurant here.

I normally wouldn’t even bother to comment on the demolition of the old site, except that the owner of the former eatery had the terribly bad taste to say good bye to Amarillo in such a crude manner.

See you in the next life, Sava owner — whoever you are.

 

Flash to POTUS: Show us your interest

First, I need to stipulate that I do not believe President Barack Obama is disengaged or disinterested in the issues of his time.

With that, it is fascinating to hear the White House rush to his defense … as if one would expect anything else from the staff that reports to the president.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/215937-white-house-checked-out-obama-is-a-media-myth

I do believe, however, that Barack Obama needs to be a bit more dialed in to the value of photo ops, which he says he dislikes.

I get that, too.

A word to the president is in order: Mr. President, they matter — a lot — in a world that relies heavily on visual images.

Obama has returned from his vacation and is back at his post in the White House. He didn’t exactly disappear while he was “away” at Martha’s Vineyard. A lot of things were happening while he was relaxing with his family and friends at the posh resort.

The golf outings didn’t bother me. The juxtaposition of one particular outing, right after he delivered some moving remarks about the beheading of an American journalist in Syria, was bothersome only because of the events’ proximity to each other.

This is the kind of event the president needs to be careful to avoid. It doesn’t prove he’s disinterested, it only leaves odd feelings in people’s hearts and minds about the commander in chief, the head of state and government. It leaves them with the perception of disinterest — and isn’t perception real in the minds of those who perceive such things?

 

 

Strange bedfellows, indeed

What may be about to happen in Syria just might re-define the term “strange bedfellows.”

This one utterly blows my ever-loving mind. The United States apparently is about to start launching surveillance flights over Syria to help pinpoint the whereabouts of ISIS fighters battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, the guy we threatened once to hit with airstrikes after he crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons on his own people.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215935-report-us-to-conduct-surveillance-flights-over-syria

ISIS is running rampant in Syria and Iraq. The terrorist organization has beheaded an American journalists, threatened to bring its mayhem to American shores, pledged all-out war against Israel and promised to overthrow the Iraqi government we helped install.

The group personifies evil.

It’s also fighting Assad’s wicked regime in Syria. Assad is another enemy of the United States. President Obama has called on him to step down. He has pledged support to insurgents fighting against Syrian government troops. One of those so-called “allies” appears to be ISIS, if that’s what we’re led to believe.

How can that possibly be happening?

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Remember that cliché?

You want more? Syria now has offered to help the United States by providing intelligence data on the movements of ISIS within that country’s border. No word yet on whether we’ve accepted the offer of assistance.

My head is about to explode as I ponder this amazing tangle of relationships.

Someone help me out. Please.

 

'One plane ticket away'

U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers made what he presumed to be a profound point about the threat posed by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS is “one plane ticket away” from striking the United States of America, Rogers said on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

I heard him say that and wondered: That’s news … now?

I get that Rogers is seeking to underscore the threat that ISIS poses. These are truly evil men who, it’s been said by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, have an “apocalyptic, end-of-the-world” view.

The hard truth, though, is that all terror groups are “one plane ticket away” from entering the United States and doing terrible harm against Americans.

They were one ticket away on Sept. 11, 2001, yes? Nineteen terrorists boarded three commercial aircraft that day in the eastern United States, hijacked them and flew two of them into buildings in New York and Washington, D.C.; the third jet crashed into that Pennsylvania field after passengers fought heroically with the hijackers to keep them from crashing it into another target. 

I also believe we’ve done better at protecting the United States since that horrific day. The measures imposed during the Bush administration have made commercial air travel less fun for passengers around the world, but it has made it demonstrably safer.

The same can be said now, despite the critics’ claim that the Obama administration is doing too little to protect U.S. citizens against terrorist threat. To that I ask: We’ve had how many attacks on our shores since 9/11?

Yes, ISIS and other despicable terrorists are “one plane ticket away” from committing mayhem here. That’s as it’s always been and likely always will be.

The question remains: Are we going to remain vigilant and alert?

 

Strongest 'non-incumbent in history'? I don't think so

Question for David Plouffe, the former campaign guru for President Obama: What in the world did they teach you in political science classes at the University of Delaware?

Plouffe was a panelist this past Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” news-talk show.

He declared that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s is virtually assured to be the next president of the United States.

Plouffe said Clinton is the “strongest non-incumbent candidate in U.S. political history.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/25/plouffe_hillary_the_strongest_non-incumbent_candidate_in_history_of_american_politics.html

When I heard him say it, two words came immediately to mind: Dwight Eisenhower.

Let’s flash back to 1952.

General of the Army Eisenhower was just seven years removed from his key role in defeating Nazi Germany and bringing an end to World War II’s fighting in Europe. He came home to huge parades.

Ike then went on to become president of Columbia University and later took over as supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe.

President Truman did not run for re-election in 1952, leaving the field wide open.

Gen. Eisenhower stepped up.

The Republican from Denison, Texas was virtually pre-ordained to become president that year. He defeated Adlai Stevenson in a massive Electoral College landslide, winning 442 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 89. Ike would repeat the drubbing four years later when he ran for re-election.

It’s fair to ask whether Plouffe is fully aware of Dwight Eisenhower’s standing among Americans those 62 years ago.

Hillary Clinton figures to be a strong candidate for president if she decides to run.

Is she the strongest non-incumbent in American political history?

I do not believe that’s the case.

 

Governor had no business demanding resignation

Dave Kemp is a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer who works in the public sector.

He knows Texas law better than most folks, including me. He put something on Facebook today about Gov. Rick Perry’s indictment that is worth sharing here.

Kemp writes: “There is a lot of spin going on involving the Governor’s felony indictments. Here are my observations: 1. Whether or not the Travis County DA should have resigned is not the question. The question is did the governor violate the Texas Penal Code by trying to force her to resign. Therefore, Perry should stop trashing Ms. Lehmberg, who has paid the price for her own criminal conduct – she pled guilty and served jail time. And a removal suit against her was unsuccessful. So focus on your own conduct, Governor. 2. What business it is of the governor if the DA doesn’t resign? That’s what elections and removal suits are for. The governor had no responsibility for the DA’s conduct. We must conclude that at best he was using bullying tactics that he would condemn if a Washington politician tried using. 3. What collateral damage did the governor do by cutting the funding for the Public Integrity Unit? It certainly didn’t harm the DA. But it could have harmed other criminal investigations. The veto was an irresponsible act.”

The most interesting element in this post is contained smack in the middle of it.

“What business is it of the governor if the DA doesn’t resign? That’s what elections and removal suits are for.”

A grand jury indicted Perry on two felony counts of abuse of power and coercion. He demanded that Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg resign after her drunk-driving conviction. If she didn’t do as he demanded, he then threatened to veto money for the public integrity unit her office operates. She didn’t quit; he vetoed the money.

Kemp’s point is a valid one.

Gov. Perry became entangled in what essentially is a local political matter. I agree that Lehmberg behaved badly; she broke the law and should have resigned. I said so, too, at the time. She didn’t listen to me, either.

However, for the governor to then carry this fight further speaks to political bullying.

It’s been reported that other DAs have been accused of drunk driving, but we heard nary a peep out of the governor’s office. This one is different. Lehmberg is a Democrat, Perry is a Republican, and Lehmberg’s office was looking into some allegations against key GOP allies of the governor.

It’s been speculated that Perry’s interest in Lehmberg’s drunk-driving case had everything to do with how he could remove a partisan nemesis.

Yes, politics can be a nasty affair. I’m betting Gov. Perry is going to learn that lesson the hard way.