Tag Archives: EU

national news, political news

GOP comes down with ‘buyer’s remorse’

donald

Buyer’s remorse must be spreading.

British voters agree to pull Great Britain out of the European Union and now might be regretting that decision.

Now we hear that most Republicans in this country want someone other than Donald J. Trump to be their party’s presidential nominee.

In both cases, I fear that voters will have to live with the consequences of their decision.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-republicans-polls-224853

A poll published by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal say that 45 percent of Republicans want Trump to be their nominee. They want someone else to carry the banner into the fight this fall against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats.

Sorry, folks. Here’s the thing: Trump has won more primary contests by far than anyone else. He’s collected enough convention delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. He’s going to be the GOP nominee this summer when delegates gather in Cleveland.

We have a saying in Texas that goes something like this:

“You dance with them that brung ya.”

Sure, Trump has a seemingly endless list of failings as a national political leader. No need to detail them here. You know what they are.

But he’s won a fair-and-square primary fight against a large field of opponents, most of whom were much more qualified than he is to become commander in chief.

He’s your guy, GOP.

Good luck at the dance.

International news, State news

Texas cannot secede a second time

103109_txsecession001_jv_png_800x1000_q100

It’s coming again.

Fruitcakes are talking about looking for ways to allow Texas to secede from the United States of America.

The Texas Tribune has provided a fascinating primer on what’s allowed and what is not.

Secession is not allowed. Period.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

What fascinates me more than anything are the phony parallels the Texas secessionists — which admittedly comprise a tiny fraction of the state’s population — are drawing with the British vote to exit the European Union.

There are no parallels.

Why? Well, for starters, Texas is not a sovereign nation. It belongs to a larger nation, with a federal government and a Constitution to which elected officials in all 50 states take an oath to “protect and defend.”

The EU is a loose conglomeration of sovereign nations that have within their own governing structures mechanisms to initiate a withdrawal from that group. That’s what the British voters did.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The legality of seceding is problematic,” said Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues.”

The issue won’t die a quick and painless death, though.

The state has a history of once being an independent republic, from 1836 until 1845, when it became one of the United States. Texas did secede as the Civil War was breaking out.

According to the Tribune, none other than the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it all in its proper perspective.

“The answer is clear,” Scalia wrote. “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”

Are we clear now?

business news, International news

No mulligans should be allowed on ‘Brexit’ vote

Brexit

Those silly British citizens just plain surprised the world with that vote to remove the United Kingdom from the European Union.

Now, it appears at least 1.5 million of them want a do-over. They want another chance to reverse what a majority of Brits said they wanted. They’ve reportedly signed their names to petitions being circulated throughout Britain.

A part of me wishes a do-over election was feasible and reasonable. I dislike the idea of Britain exiting the EU. I fear for the future of this stellar alliance of nations and what its potential disintegration might mean to us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

But in reality, the decision ought to stand and the British government should play the hand its been dealt.

Were it possible to grant electoral mulligans, Americans might have sought such a thing after the 2000 presidential election when Al Gore collected more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the Electoral College by a single vote when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the hand-counting of ballots in Florida; Bush had 537 more votes in Florida than Gore when the counting stopped, so he won the electoral vote by one more that he needed to be elected.

Our constitutional system worked.

The British referendum delivered a clear message, meaning that the British electoral system worked, too.

My hope — which is not exactly my expectation — is that the world financial markets will settle down eventually. Maybe it will settle down sooner than we think at the moment. That’s the one element of this tumult that upsets me … as a semi-retired American citizen.

A do-over on this referendum — which, incidentally, was a non-binding vote? It won’t happen. Nor should it.

The British government now must deal wit the harsh reality of re-creating an old relationship with the rest of Europe.

business news, International news, political news

Narcissism dictates Trump’s response to ‘Brexit’ vote

image

I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen a more narcissistic candidate for public office than Donald J. Trump.

And to think that the very first elected office this guy wants to occupy is the presidency of the United States of America.

Go figure, man.

I was among those who were utterly stunned as I watched Trump’s behavior on the day that Great Britain decided to bolt from the European Union. Financial markets around the world reacted badly; trillions of dollars in people’s personal wealth disappeared; the EU will lose its second-largest economic power.

But there was Trump — in Scotland, of all places — bragging about his golf course resort at Turnberry.

The presumptive Republican nominee strode to the microphone wearing his trademark “Make America Great Again” ballcap. All he could talk about was how plush the new digs are at Turnberry and how successful the resort is going to become.

Oh, and then someone asked him about the “Brexit” vote. Trump’s response? If the pound continues to collapse, that’ll be good for him because more tourists will come to Turnberry.

Huh?

What the … ?

He then said he supported Britain’s exit from the EU all along. Never mind he chaos it has brought to millions of Americans. He was there to talk about his resort and then he spoke to all the dough he’s going to make when Brits show up to play golf.

Compassion? Concern? Leadership?

They’ve all gone missing from this candidate’s presidential portfolio.

 

International news

Reaction to ‘Brexit’ vote is most revealing

trump-scotland

What am I missing here?

President Barack Obama is dismayed at the results of the British referendum that means that the United Kingdom is going to leave the European Union.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is saddened, too, by the outcome.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who staked his reputation on keeping his country in the EU, announced his resignation.

Meanwhile, Russia has applauded the result.

So has the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here’s the best one yet: Donald J. Trump has joined Russia and Iran in cheering the referendum result.

Yes, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is now in league with Russia and Iran.

Aren’t these countries two of our more fearsome adversaries?

Oh, I almost forgot. Trump says Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is a “strong leader.” He’s also endorsed the ham-fisted tactics of other totalitarian regimes, such as Iran, for their firmness.

business news, International news, national news, political news

Brits please conservatives on this side of The Pond

Brexit

Great Britain has voted to leave the European Union.

The reaction in the former British colony — now known as the United States of America — has been sharply divided.

Conservatives are hailing the decision; progressives are bemoaning it. Donald J. Trump, the upcoming Republican nominee for president, said he’s glad the Brits have voted to end their EU membership; his foe this fall, Hillary Clinton, is decidedly not glad.

Me? Well, I align more with the progressives. I don’t have a particular feeling about the Brits’ decision to bail out of the EU. I’m more concerned with the money I lost today from my retirement account. It’s that “enlightened self-interest” thing that drives me these days.

However, I am alarmed at the tone of the cheers I’m hearing from this side of the Atlantic. There’s an element of fear in it.

They’re hailing the Brits’ escape from the EU because of what they say are concerns about who’s coming into Europe from, say, the Middle East. You might have heard Trump say that the fear of many in this country mirrors the sentiment that was expressed by the “Brexit” vote in Britain.

Therein lies where Trump might seek to gain some political advantage over Clinton.

Fear and loathing.

The economic implications of the British exit from the EU are yet to be determined. Some economists believe this vote might trigger more national movements in other EU countries, that the Brits are the first of many EU members to bolt.

More economic mayhem is sure to follow if that’s the case.

Someone will have to explain to me: Why is that a good thing?

business news, International news, national news, political news

Brits to leave EU … and it will hit us hard

brexit

I might remember this day for a while.

I woke up, turned on my computer to catch up with the overnight news and learned that Great Britain voted to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to resign, Wall Street took a dive … and a leading American politician who advocated all this mayhem might benefit politically in the United States.

Holy retirement fund, Batman!

The Brits decided they’d had enough of their economic marriage with the rest of Europe. So they bailed. Cameron staked his political reputation on the vote; it went badly for him and so he’s moving out of 10 Downing Street.

My retirement account is going to shed a lot of value today and perhaps for the next good while. Sheesh!

But here’s the element of this story that might underscore perfectly the weirdness of the American presidential election season.

Republican candidate Donald J. Trump — who at this very moment is touring a golf course resort he owns in Scotland — said he wanted the Brits to leave the EU. His Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton — along with President Obama — pitched for the Brits to stay in. Trump argued for nationalism in Britain; Clinton and Obama argued for economic stability.

Who might gain from this chaos? Trump.

“They’re angry over borders. They’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over, and nobody even knows who they are,” Trump told reporters after his helicopter landed in Turnberry, Scotland. “They’re angry about many, many things.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755#ixzz4CVe9JjLF

Why does that matter here? It matters, according to Trump, because he says he’s angry about the same things. How he connects the EU situation with U.S. domestic policy, though, remains a mystery to me.

He also said that Clinton “misread” the mood of the British, which I guess in Trump’s view is another strike against the Democratic nominee-to-be.

It’s going to take some time for all this sink in. The markets will go wild and retirement accounts — just like those my wife and I are hoping to live on while we enjoy our “Golden Years” — will bleed heavily as investors push every panic button they can find.

Then we’ll get to listen to a major-party presidential candidate take “credit” for being on the winning side of a losing argument.

Crazy, man. Simply crazy.

International news

Meanwhile, Boko Haram still terrorizes women

boko-haram

The world is reeling from yet another terror attack in a major European city.

Brussels is the latest city to be victimized by the Islamic State. Our hearts break for the loved ones of the 31 people killed in the blasts at the city’s airport and in a metro rail station.

However, I cannot help but think of another terror crisis that at one time also captured the world’s attention.

Remember the group called Boko Haram? It operates in Africa. It is a Nigeria-based cabal of radical Islamic terrorists.

It kidnapped an estimated 200 women, holding them captive in some unknown location.

Didn’t the world coalesce around the plight of those women? Weren’t there concerted efforts launched by African nations, the United States, European Union nations and others to find the kidnapers and bring them to justice?

I believe the women and girls are still being held by these terrorist monsters. I believe Boko Haram is still as despicable as it’s always been.

The outcry? It’s been muted … inexplicably.

Perhaps our global attention span needs to be expanded and enhanced to enable it to focus on more than one crisis at a time.

The Brussels attacks have captured the world’s attention, just as the Paris attacks had done just a few months earlier.

While the world focuses on those two events, a hideous terrorist group continues to bring havoc to women in Africa.

It, too, needs to be destroyed.

 

Uncategorized

Muslims are killing Muslims in Middle East

untitled

The U.S. presidential campaigners keep bringing up the threat that Islamic terrorists pose to Americans, mainly Christians and Jews.

What none of them seems able or willing to acknowledge publicly — very much — is what those terrorists are doing to fellow Muslims.

Did you see the story the other day about the mosque in Damascus, Syria, that was attacked by Islamic State ghouls? Dozens of Muslims, mainly Shiites, were killed in the attack.

It was only the latest in a long and miserable string of such attacks that have been occurring throughout the Middle East — and in other primarily Muslim countries — since, oh, forever.

The Islamic State’s campaign against anyone who disagrees with their perverted philosophy has been aimed primarily against those within the Islamic faith. How many Muslims do you suppose have died at the hands of the ISIL monsters? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

And that brings me to my point.

The world war against ISIL must include a broad range of military action launched and coordinated by the people who (a) face the most direct threat from these terrorists and (b) have been the terrorists’ most frequent victims.

I saw the other day that Saudi Arabia is inching toward committing ground troops to the fight against ISIL in Syria. Do you know what’s so fascinating about that development, were it to come to fruition?

Saudi Arabia is a mainly Sunni Muslim nation, made up of people ISIL claims to represent.

I do not have the answer for how any world leader — whether it’s the president of the United States, the head of the European Union or a potentate in some tiny sheikdom — can muster the forces needed to fight these hideous religious perverts.

The Damascus mosque attack, though, does drive home the point that some U.S. politicians have recognized already.

It is that this country has shed enough blood already. Yes, we should continue our air campaign along with our allies who’ve also been wounded by terrorist attacks — and we should prosecute that campaign with all the vigor possible. The real fight on the ground must include those who are closest to the enemy and who stand most directly in harm’s way.

There can be no doubt ISIL has designs on spreading its terror far beyond the Middle East. That is why the countries in the region need to step up even more aggressively to take on the terrorists.

It is their fight to win.

 

International news

Allies tighten ties against Islamic State

air-strike

France and Russia are allies with a common enemy.

It’s the Islamic State.

The two nations’ presidents — Francois Hollande and Vladimir Putin — have agreed to tighten their alliance in the shared fight against the monstrous terrorist cabal.

Wait, though, for critics of President Obama to weigh in. They’ll wonder aloud: Why isn’t Barack Obama in the lead?

What difference does it really make?

France and Russia have skin in this game. The Russians lost more than 200 of their citizens when a bomb exploded on a jetliner; ISIS took responsibility for the deed. Then came the Paris attacks that killed 130 victims; ISIS took responsibility for that deed, too.

Hollande and Putin agreed to share intelligence and to intensify their air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria. As the Associated Press reports: “We agreed on a very important issue: To strike the terrorists only, Daesh and the jihadi groups only, and not to strike the forces and the groups that are fighting against the terrorists,” Hollande said after the meeting, referring to IS by its Arabic acronym. “And we are going to exchange some information about that: what can be struck, and what must not be struck.”

Both countries employ significant military assets. Let us welcome them more fully into this fight.

As for the United States, there’s plenty of pressure being applied for our president to kick our own immense military establishment into an even more active role in the war against ISIS.

My bigger hope, though, is that President Obama is continuing to seek out more allied help — from the rest of the European Union and friendly Middle East countries that more than any other ought to want to destroy ISIS.

For now, I see nothing at all wrong with France and Russia locking arms in this mortal combat.