Russia still poses existential threat

Even though Donald Trump and his grifter son-in-law, Jared Kushner, continue to downplay the threat Russia poses to our electoral system, FBI director Christopher Wray is telling us something profoundly different.

I choose to heed the words of Christopher Wray.

Wray calls the Russian threat a “365-days-a-year threat. And that has absolutely continued.”

Yes, the Russians hacked into our electoral system in 2016. They sowed discord among American voters. They spread “opposition research” material designed to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

The Russians are the baddest of a whole cast of bad actors.

Donald Trump just can’t bring himself to say it out loud. Neither can Kushner, who recently said that Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged “collusion” posed a greater threat to our democratic system than “a couple of Facebook ads.”

Memo to Kushner: Shut your mouth. And to Trump? Start defending our Constitution, which you pledged to do when you took the presidential oath.

The FBI director is among the cadre of national intelligence and counterterrorism experts who have confirmed what all of us know: The Russians are chiefly responsible for the cyber attack on our system. Mueller said so, too, in his voluminous report on collusion and obstruction of justice.

It simply amazes me that Donald Trump could appoint such a serious grownup to be FBI boss after firing another adult, James Comey. I’m glad he did give Christopher Wray this platform. What’s more, I am delighted to hear the FBI boss use that platform to speak the truth about what he believes happened in the 2016 presidential election, the 2018 midterm election and what likely will occur when we go to the polls again in 2020.

If only the commander in chief would pay attention.

What about this young man, Mr. POTUS?

Donald J. “Football Cheerleader in Chief” Trump tweeted out his congratulations to a young man from Ohio State University, defensive lineman Nick Bosa, for being the No. 2 overall pick in the National Football League college draft.

Hey, it’s a big deal, right? Sure it is!

Then there’s this item that has gotten a lot of attention on social media: Bosa is a known supporter of the president and he reportedly has “liked” posts from white nationalist groups on Facebook. Hey, that plays right into Trump’s wheelhouse, not to mention that Bosa has been critical of Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback who instigated the “take a knee” movement to protest police treatment of black citizens.

Oh, and what about the young man who was drafted ahead of Bosa? That would be Heisman Trophy winner Kyler Murray of the University of Oklahoma. The president hasn’t offered Murray any congratulations. Nothin’, man!

D’oh, I almost forgot: Murray, who hails from just down the road in Allen, Texas, is African-American. Did I mention that Bosa is white? Well, I just did.

I just have to wonder, coincidence . . . or is there something else at play here? I know what I believe. I’ll leave it for others to draw their own conclusions.

Trump tosses ‘coup’ around too loosely

Donald Trump stood before the National Rifle Association and declared that Robert Mueller was part of a so-called “coup” attempt to overthrow the president.

Hmm. Interesting. This is the same guy, Trump, who also complimented Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee as a “great general.”

Hold on a second.

Mueller was conducting a legitimate investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016. There was no “coup” being led by the former FBI director and the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him to be special counsel.

As for Robert E. Lee, he led an army of men who actually sought to overthrow the government of the United States of America. His armed forces killed hundreds of thousands of men in pursuit of that traitorous act, which he committed in order to allow states to keep human beings in bondage as slaves.

Isn’t that an act of treason? I guess Trump doesn’t see it that way.

Yet he considers Robert Mueller’s investigation into a legitimate attack on our system of government to be an attempted “coup”?

I’ll say it again and I’ll keep saying it until this man walks out of the Oval Office for the final time: Donald Trump is a disgrace to the office he is utterly unfit at any level you can imagine to occupy.

What Bible is Franklin Graham reading?

The Rev. Franklin Graham inherited the mantle of his late, great father, the Rev. Billy Graham, in preaching biblical doctrine as pitched initially by Jesus Christ.

I do not deny Franklin Graham’s influence on the nation’s evangelical movement. However, I have to wonder which version of the Holy Bible empowers him to say:

That a Democratic candidate for president, Pete Buttigieg, should “repent” for his “sin” of being gay, and that it’s OK to throw his support behind Donald Trump, who has cheated on all three of his wives and who has acknowledged that his celebrity status enables him to grab women by their pu***.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Franklin Graham in 2000 when he came to Amarillo for a series of “crusades” at Dick Bivins Stadium. He came across as a pleasant man and we had a cordial visit. I recall asking him about his political activism and he spoke forthrightly about his support for politicians who espouse their Christian faith.

However, the man’s support of Donald Trump continues to perplex me. He looks past this president’s lengthy life prior to becoming a politician, a life that has included an endless array of behavior, conduct and lifestyle that spits in the face of the holy figure he purports to worship.

Juxtaposed with that we hear Rev. Graham suggest that “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg must repent because he is an openly gay man who also happens to be faithful to his husband. Graham recently cited the Old Testament passage that calls for gays to be put to death, for crying out loud. He also did not mention that Jesus called on us to love everyone unconditionally.

Buttigieg’s presidential campaign has caught fire in recent weeks. He has emerged from a no-name, unknown Midwest mayor to become a legitimate contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Many conservatives, though, are focusing on his sexual orientation.

Franklin Graham is one of them.

Perhaps this matter illustrates one of the beauties — or curses, if you choose to call it that — of the Bible. We are free to interpret it any way we wish. We can take certain passages and mold them to suit our own bias.

I choose to draw a different interpretation from the Bible that Franklin Graham and I both read.

As for his support of the serial liar, philanderer, pu*** grabber Donald Trump . . . well, that’s his call. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Trump vs. Biden: Battle of ‘Both Sides’

Joe Biden has fired a salvo at Donald Trump and Trump has responded by doubling down on arguably his most disgraceful moment as president of the United States.

The former vice president entered the 2020 presidential contest Thursday with a video in which he says the president’s comment on the Charlottesville, Va., riot demonstrates the depths he has taken the country. Trump said in 2017 that there were “fine people on both sides” of the riot; one of those “sides” featured KKK members and Nazis. Biden said the president attached “moral equivalence” between those who spread hate and those who fight them.

Well, Trump responded today by taking Biden’s bait. He said his “both sides” comment was the “perfect response.” Trump said he was referring to those who were protesting the takedown of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, who he described as a “great general.”

I’m trying to recall any mention of Gen. Lee in the moment when Trump made that “both sides” remark. I can’t discern any of it. He might have intended to make that reference — except that he didn’t.

Instead, he spoke about the alleged violent intent of those who counter-protested the hate groups’ march against the statue removal.

I believe VP Biden has punched Trump squarely in the biggest hot button he could find.

How do I know that? I don’t, exactly. However, the president’s response to the Charlottesville criticism illustrates how easily he can be rattled into making patently ridiculous assertions.

I must wonder: Will it matter that Donald Trump is a blundering buffoon who cannot be trusted to tell us the truth?

AOC joins Bernie in pitching a nutty notion

This comment is for you, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

You, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, have rocks in your noggin. You need your head examined. This notion you’ve backed to give felons voting rights while they are locked up behind bars is a nutty notion that needs to find its way to the trash heap.

I hope you don’t mind if I call you “AOC.” It’s the new term being assigned to you despite your lack of any meaningful experience on the national stage. Maybe you’ll earn some standing once you get past your rookie term in Congress, but for now you don’t deserve it.

Still, since the media are infatuated with you and Republicans have deemed you some sort of existential threat, I guess your endorsement of Bernie’s nutty idea deserves a brief rebuke here.

You say the prison system is out of whack. Maybe it is. You don’t fix what ails the federal penal system by granting voting rights to incarcerated felons. Let them finish their prison terms and then grant them the right to vote once they have paid their debt to our society.

You see, where I come from, AOC, when you commit a felony you lose some rights of citizenship. Voting is one of them. It ought to stay that way, in my humble view.

A couple of Democratic presidential candidates — Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro, both of Texas — want to give those votes only to non-violent felons. I’m not keen on that idea, either, but at least it’s a little less wacky than what you and Bernie are pitching.

Prison reform? Sure thing. Felon voting rights? No way, young lady.

Biden takes fight straight to Trump

Joe Biden has a huge hurdle to clear if he intends to take up residence in the White House in January 2021.

The former vice president must defeat an enormous field of Democratic opponents vying for their party’s nomination; then if he succeeds at that he will have to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.

The ex-VP’s opening gambit, released this morning via video, goes straight after Trump. I have to hand it to Biden. He is acting like the Democratic front runner.

Biden’s video takes dead aim at the president’s hideous comment about “fine people . . . on both sides” of the Charlottesville, Va., riot that erupted in 2017. One of those “sides,” let us recall, comprised neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Ku Klux Klansmen. Biden noted in his campaign video that Trump sought to attach “moral equivalence” between haters and those who protested against them.

That was the moment, Biden said, that he realized the nation was facing the worst threat he has seen “in my lifetime.”

Biden’s front-running status is likely to diminish as his fellow Democrats start picking away at his huge public service record. It contains more than a few missteps, mistakes, misstatements and assorted gaffes along the way.

For now, though, the former vice president has decided that his No. 1 happens to be the current president of the United States.

To which I say: Give him hell, Joe!

Daylight saving or standard time? Let’s decide

Texas lawmakers appear to be on the verge of giving Texans a fascinating election choice later this year.

It will be whether to scrap the twice-a-year switch between standard time and daylight saving time and keep our clocks fixed on the same time all year long.

I like the idea of giving us a chance to vote on this matter, even though I tend to think we vote on too many issues already in Texas.

For the record, I’ll state once again that switching back and forth is no big deal to me. I don’t mind the time change, even in the spring when we supposedly “lose” an hour of sleep because we push our clocks ahead an hour at the start of daylight saving time.

But since the Legislature is going to ask us to state a preference, I guess I should weigh in.

I would like to see us stay on daylight saving time. I prefer the extra hour at the end of the day, which is what a year-long daylight saving time setting would bring us.

But . . . that’s just me.

The Texas Tribune reports that the Legislature is preparing a two-part referendum. The first part asks whether a referendum on daylight saving time can occur; the Texas Constitution doesn’t allow for it now, so approving the first part of the ballot measure would legitimize the second part. That would be whether to follow a standard time or daylight saving time all year long.

I suppose you could presume that rejecting the first part of the ballot measure would be to reject the idea of tossing out the back/forth time change. State Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, my former state legislator, sought to add a third element to the measure — keeping the time-change switch — but the amendment lost on a narrow 72-70 vote.

I do endorse the notion of putting this idea to a vote.

So, let’s settle it once and for all.

Then we cease the bitching about springing forward and falling back twice each year.

Red light cameras’ life is flickering away

Note: I submitted this brief essay for publication on KETR-FM’s website. I also want to share it here with readers of this blog. Be sure to check out https://www.ketr.org/ for more news and other good stuff from the public radio station affiliated with Texas A&M-Commerce.

***

The Texas Legislature is inching toward undoing what I consider to be one of the more worthwhile decisions it made in recent years.

The House Transportation Committee has cleared House Bill 1631, which would ban cities from deploying electronic devices to catch lawbreakers who ignore traffic signals and run through red lights.

This is a big mistake, man!

I have been a big supporter of these devices since the Legislature empowered cities to use them to assist police officers in enforcing traffic laws. Yes, they have endured some controversy. Some cities – such as Lubbock – took the devices down when their governing councils faced criticism from constituents.

I’ll be candid: I consider such cowering an act of cowardice. Other cities, such as Amarillo, not only have stayed the course, but have increased the number of devices they deploy around their communities.

The Legislature appears headed toward the former course. Legislators are hearing too many gripes about the devices. To which I say . . . fiddlesticks!

Police cannot be everywhere at once. Cities that use these devices seek to curb instances of red-light running, a potentially hazardous act by those who defy a signal’s instruction to stop when the light turns red. Many of these lawbreakers too often just decide to peel out from a dead stop when the light is still red.

I was living in Amarillo when that city deployed the first set of red-light cameras. The traffic department identified about a half-dozen dangerous intersections. The result was that incidents of motorist misbehavior declined at those locations.

An earlier Legislature placed strict rules on how cities could spend the revenue they collect from violators. They had to use the money strictly for traffic improvements. Cities all across Texas have used those funds to upgrade signalization and shoring up lighting along dangerous streets and roads.

The gripes are worn out, tired and hackneyed. Motorists contend that the cameras deny them the right to “face their accuser.” Wrong! Cities allow motorists the opportunity to protest the fines levied when they break the law; if motorists can make the case that they were ticketed in error, the municipal judge can rescind the fine. What’s wrong with that process?

My all-time favorite complaint is that the devices are an “invasion of privacy.” Yes, some folks believe the cameras invade the “privacy” of individuals driving on public streets and putting others in potential danger when they ignore traffic signals’ order to stop – and to stay stopped until the lights turn green!

State Rep. Jonathan Strickland, a Bedford Republican, authored HB 1631, believing I guess that cities don’t deserve the right to take these specific measures designed to protect their residents. Of course, he would deny such a thing. That’s fine. It’s just that the Legislature is controlled by a Republican Party that used to believe in “local control” over issues affecting individual communities. I am left to wonder: What in the world happened to that worthwhile philosophy?

I wish there was a way to stop this effort. It appears lost to those of us who support this technology. Gov. Greg Abbott already is on board with HB 1631.

That is a damn shame . . . if you were to ask me.

Will there be an endorsement from BHO? Don’t hold your breath

The chatter has begun already: Is there an endorsement in the works from President Obama to his “brother,” the former vice president, Joe Biden?

Do not bet a single nickel of your lottery winnings on it.

Joe Biden announced his presidential candidacy this morning. He is the immediate front runner for the Democratic nomination. He took dead aim at Donald Trump’s relentless campaign of division, fear and loathing.

I’ll have more on all of that later.

But the question now centers on what Barack Obama will do.

He should not make an endorsement with 20 men and women vying for his party’s presidential nomination. It’s not customary for prominent politicians to take sides so early in a still-developing race for public office.

President Reagan once created an “11th Commandment” that urged Republicans to avoid speaking ill of other Republicans. The same can be said of Democrats, particularly when it involves a politician sitting on the sideline.

Yes, the former president and former VP grew close during their eight years in power. President Obama has referred to Vice President Biden as the brother he never had. Their wives worked closely together to forge support for veterans and their families. Obama has talked about how his daughters and Biden’s granddaughters became “best friends.”

The ex-POTUS might offer the former VP some back-door advice. Nothing public will be heard.

So, let’s stop with the chatter about whether Barack Obama will endorse formally his good friend, Joe Biden. That will come in due course.

First things first. Joe Biden first has to get nominated. That will be a long and arduous slog up a steep and possibly slippery slope.