Tag Archives: Greg Abbott

Gov. Abbott sheds the dogma … and heads to Cuba

cuba

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is using his office the right way while steering away from some of the dogma we’ve been hearing from those in his party about a particular issue.

Abbott is going to Cuba next week on a mission to promote Texas-Cuba trade.

Abbott is a proud Republican. But unlike some of his GOP brethren, he is putting common sense and what I call “enlightened self-interest” ahead of posturing.

Some prominent Republican politicians — namely Texan Ted Cruz and Floridian Marco Rubio, who are running for president — have called the re-establishment of relations with Cuba virtually a pact with Satan himself. These two Cuban-Americans still seem to fear the island nation that is governed by dedicated communists.

Why, how can President Obama grant those commies any favors while they still have one of the world’s worst human-rights records? That’s part of the mantra we’ve heard from some on the far right about this sensible diplomatic initiative.

Gov. Abbott often has joined some on the far right on a whole host of topics with which to criticize the president.

Not this time. Good for him. Better still, good for the state he governs.

The Texas Tribune’s Aman Batheja reports: “Texas was once a leading exporter to Cuba in a quiet partnership that helped produce hundreds of jobs and millions in revenue for the Lone Star State. Even following the implementation of the U.S. trade embargo more than 50 years ago, the relationship continued to thrive for decades.”

That stopped in the early 1960s when the United States ended all relations with Cuba in the wake of Fidel Castro’s takeover of the island nation’s government. The deep freeze in U.S.-Cuba relations lasted through eight American presidencies; meanwhile, Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, have remained in power.

President Obama made the right call to restore relations. The Cold War is over. Cuba presents no threat to the United States. It’s still dirt poor. Yes, it’s still run by communists, but Cuba is far less of a threat to U.S. interests than, say, the People’s Republic of China, a nation with which we’ve had relations since 1978.

Texas has a lot of goods and commodities it can sell to Cuban interests. Let me think … what can we sell them from, oh, this part of the state? Oh, how about some beef, or maybe cotton for starters?

Travel safely, governor.

 

Refugee fight pits states vs. the feds

A young man carries a child as refugees and migrants arrive on a boat on the Greek island of Lesbos, November 7, 2015. REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis

Just about any day now I expect some governor to declare that his or her state has the right to protect residents against foreigners, that the governor is preserving the “state’s right” to self-protection.

This might become the leading back story coming out of governors’ refusal to let Syrian refugees into their states.

But according to a University of Michigan law professor — not to mention constitutional scholars all over the place — the governors don’t have the authority to supersede federal law.

The bottom line, according to Richard Primus is this: “They can’t do it. The decision to admit a person to the United States belongs to the federal government exclusively. Once a person is legally admitted to the United States, she can live wherever she chooses. States don’t issue visas any more than they declare war. Indeed, putting foreign affairs under the firm control of one central government was one of the primary motivations of the Founders in creating the Constitution in the first place.”

Primus argues, though, that governors resisting the feds — such as what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has done fairly routinely — makes good politics, even though it runs directly counter to what the law allows.

Primus writes that the states do have some say in refugee resettlement: “That’s not to say governors are totally powerless to shape the flow of refugees. There are things states can do to make themselves less attractive destinations. Most refugees need help getting their lives restarted—housing, language education, employment leads, and other social services. A fair amount of that resettlement work is run through state social-service agencies with the support of federal dollars. The states are the one with the boots on the ground in education, housing, and so forth—and they could simply decide not to take the federal money and not to provide resettlement services. Several governors have actually taken this line, saying that they’ll cease providing resettlement assistance.”

But to declare categorically that Syrians — or any other foreigner — cannot come to this country? That’s the federal government’s call.

 

 

Is the Islamic State ‘terrorizing’ us successfully?

  Syrian children march in the refugee camp in Jordan.  The number of Children in this camp exceeds 60% of the total number of refugees hence the name "Children's camp". Some of them lost their relatives, but others lost their parents.

Most of the United States’ governors have vowed to ban Syrian refugees from entering their states.

No surprise that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is one of them.

But I’m wondering: Is the Islamic State winning the propaganda war by compelling the governors to act as they have acted?

The refugee bans are being sought in the wake of the Paris attacks this past week. ISIL is claiming responsibility for the murderous attacks. It’s been reported that Syrian refugees were among the attackers; then again, it’s also been reported that the men who did the deed were European nationals.

I’m confused.

But … back to the point.

I remember when the 9/11 attacks occurred more than 14 years ago. President Bush told us then that we should go about living our lives as we’ve always done. To change our way of life, he said, would give the terrorists what they want.

Are we doing now what the president cautioned against?

I’ve heard the arguments for and against the refugee ban.

Those who support the ban say: We don’t know how to screen all the bad guys who might disguise themselves as “refugees.” We must put security first and foremost.

Those who oppose the ban counter: This restriction goes against the very principles upon which this nation was created. We cannot turn away “widows and orphans.” We’ve already allowed more than 1 million refugees from the Middle East and we’ve had zero terrorist attacks perpetrated by anyone who has come here from that part of the world.

Oh, boy. Where do we draw the line?

And are we now giving the Islamic State another propaganda tool to recruit new members simply by denying Muslims entry because we fear what might occur if we allow them to come here? And do we feed that propaganda machine by allowing only Christians into this country, but not Muslims?

I’ve heard Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush say we aren’t waging a war against Islam. Well, did both men misspeak?

I’m just askin’.

 

Gov. Abbott slams door on Syrian refugees

  Syrian children march in the refugee camp in Jordan.  The number of Children in this camp exceeds 60% of the total number of refugees hence the name "Children's camp". Some of them lost their relatives, but others lost their parents.

Honestly, I have a measure of sympathy for what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has declared with regard to refugees from Syria.

He has informed President Obama that Texas won’t accept any refugees from the nation they are fleeing. Why? One individual who entered France as a “refugee” reportedly was part of the attack force that terrorized Paris this past week, killing 129 people and injuring hundreds more.

Abbott doesn’t want to take any chances by allowing Syrians into this state. He joins the governors of Alabama and Michigan in banning Syrian refugees.

On the other hand, I believe it is fair to ask: Is this what the United States of America stands for?

An Austin immigration lawyer told the Texas Tribune that Abbott’s order is legal, but questions whether it is right.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas,” Abbott wrote to President Obama.

I get that. But aren’t there intense security measures a state such as Texas can take screen all applicants coming here from Syria to ensure that they do not have any ties to the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah … or any sinister terrorist organization?

Here’s more from the Tribune: “House Speaker Joe Straus on Monday took a more nuanced position, saying he agreed with Abbott’s ‘concern’ and that refugees needed “thorough background reviews” in order to be placed in Texas. ‘I share Gov. Abbott’s concern that relocating refugees to Texas without thorough background reviews compromises our security,’ Straus said in an emailed statement. ‘Our highest priority as a state has been and should continue to be the safety of all Texans.’”

Virtually all the refugees coming here are fleeing terror, murder, warfare, mayhem, bloodshed. You name it, they’re seeking to escape that misery. What is to become of them? Do we send them to other states? Do we — as Donald Trump suggests — send them back to the chaos they are fleeing?

We proclaim ourselves to live in the Land of Opportunity. We profess our nation to be a bastion for the dispossessed.

Of course no one wants to create a safe haven for terrorist monsters. What, though, does the world do with those who deserve protection from those who would kill them?

 

Cruz and Patrick: clash of egos

cruz

Texas Monthly blogger Erica Grieder calls the political alliance between Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz a union of “strange bedfellows.”

Boy, howdy!

Two of Texas’s largest egos have linked up. And when I refer to them in that fashion, that’s really saying something, given that the state is brimming with monumentally huge political egos.

Grieder notes that Patrick and Cruz have had a “frosty relationship” for some time. Cruz is running for president and Patrick is backing him. Cruz also is huge pals with Gov. Greg Abbott, while Grieder and some other political observers think Patrick might have his eye on Abbott’s office when the 2018 election rolls around.

Patrick said he has no plans to run for governor next time. I’m always intrigued by politicians who make that assertion. “I have no plans” to run for another office, they say. You know what that tells me? It tells me they “have no plans at this moment.”

There’s no telling what the next moment will bring.

So, as Grieder notes in her blog, Patrick’s current alliance with the state’s junior U.S. senator puts Cruz in a potential bind if Patrick changes his tune, say, in the fall of 2017 and ramps up a campaign against Gov. Abbott.

I think I’ll stay tuned to this one.

 

Jade Helm has ended … we’re still free!

jade helm

They’ve sounded the all clear in central Texas.

Jade Helm has ended. President Obama’s allegedly threatened takeover of Texas didn’t materialize.

We can sleep better tonight.

If there ever was a moment in which the governor of our great state couldn’t embarrass himself more, it was when Gov. Greg Abbott responded to that idiotic Internet gossip that Jade Helm — a long-planned military exercise — was some kind of harbinger of a federal takeover of Texas.

What did the governor do? He ordered the Texas National Guard to “monitor” the activities of the Army, Marine Corps and Navy special forces that were conducting exercises in Texas.

Jade Helm concludes

It’s what they do. They practice military maneuvers to prepare them for actual combat.

But some right-wing freaks decided to launch a conspiracy in cyberspace that contended that it was all part of some plot to declare martial law or some such nonsense.

Can you say “black helicopters”?

Well, the exercise has ended. The Texas National Guard can go home. The governor can concern himself with actual threats to the state, such as, oh, illegal immigrants or red tide on the Gulf Coast.

 

How about securing your border, sir?

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott speaks during the Texas State Rifle Association convention on Saturday, February 23, 2013 in Mesquite, Texas. (Cooper Neill/The Dallas Morning News) / mug - mugshot - headshot - portrait / 05012013xALDIA

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is visiting with Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto to talk about a whole range of bilateral issues.

I’ve got a topic for them to talk about.

Border security on the Mexican side comes to mind.

I’m glad Gov. Abbott is venturing to Mexico City to talk about international relations with our neighbors. But you know, with all this talk about immigration and the “flood” of undocumented immigrants pouring into the country, I think Abbott ought to take this opportunity to ask his friends in Mexico what they’re doing to prevent the immigration situation from getting even worse.

Do you remember all those children who were coming to Texas and other border states from Central America? They were traveling through Mexico to get to the United States.

I don’t recall hearing a credible explanation from Mexico as to how and why those children were being allowed to travel all the way through that country into ours.

Perhaps the governor can ask President Nieto about that? Hey, dignitaries often have “frank” discussions when leaders meet. OK, Abbott isn’t a head of a nation-state, but he is the head of a leading U.S. state that borders Mexico.

He ought to quiz his pal in Mexico City about the bilateral responsibility that’s involved with securing our shared border. President Obama gets pounded by his critics for failing to secure our side of the border.

Perhaps, though, it would be good to ask the Mexican president what he’s doing to secure his country’s side of the border.

 

By all means, let soldiers carry their firearms

Gov. Greg Abbott has issued exactly the right order to allow Texas National Guard personnel to carry firearms while they are on their various military installations.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/18/gov-greg-abbott-calls-national-guard-be-armed/

The order comes in the wake of the shooting deaths of four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga, Tenn., by a young man.

Abbott said: “Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”

Indeed, military personnel are trained in the use of firearms and they absolutely should have standing orders to carry them when the needs arise.

If the governor sees the potential for violence — and the tragedy in Chattanooga suggests such potential exists anywhere — then it’s right for him to arm the men and women who are serving the state.

My hope is that every governor in every state issues the same orders to the men and women in uniform under their respective commands.

No takeover is imminent

Jade Helm 15 is about to commence in Texas.

Despite what some nut jobs have put out there, the U.S. military is not about to take over the state and hand it over to international spies.

Do not listen to the goofballs who actually persuaded Gov. Greg Abbott to order the Texas State Guard to “monitor” the activities of the Army, Navy and Air Force special forces who’ll be conducting the exercises.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/jade-helm-15-no-that-helicopter-is-not-coming-for-you.html/

It’s going to be all right.

The exercise was announced some months back and the Internet then jumped to life with conspiracy theories about what it all meant to some individuals and groups. As the Dallas Morning News blogger Jim Mitchell notes, one of the nuttier notions involves the Alamo: the United Nations declared the old mission a Unesco World Heritage Site, which apparently sealed it for some. Anything that involves the U.N. has got to be bad news for Texas, they feared.

The founding fathers didn’t get it perfect when they drafted and then ratified the U.S. Constitution. One thing they got right, though, was to build in a checks-and-balances system that’s designed to prevent one branch of government from getting too powerful.

President Obama knows all of this. So does the Pentagon brass. Even the federal judiciary, which has come under fire lately because of some controversial Supreme Court rulings, understands it. Congress knows its place, too.

Let the troops come to Texas to conduct their exercises.

It’s going to be OK. Honest.

 

Burger chain takes a stand against open carry

open carry

You’re hungry. You decide you want a burger smothered in some sort of gooey sauce.

Then you decide you want to go to Whataburger, a well-known Texas-based chain of burger joints. We’ve got ’em here in Amarillo.

But you’re carrying a pistol on your hip. Then you know that Whataburger has decided it won’t serve customers carrying their weapons openly. What do you do? You love those burgers. Hey, it’s simple. You take your gun out of your holster, store it in your car, go in and get your goopy burger.

Will that be the end of it? Hardly.

Any discussion at all involving guns is bound to get goofy.

Frankly, I’m all in favor of what Whataburger has decided to do.

No shirt? No shoes? Packing heat in the open? No service, man.

It’s a fascinating development in the open-carry era in Texas, which begins in January when the law takes effect.

The Texas Legislature approved the bill; Gov. Greg Abbott signed it immediately into law. The National Rifle Association and other gun-owner rights groups applauded lawmakers and the governor.

Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham called Whataburger’s decision “premature and irresponsible.” He said the restaurant chain is pandering to fear.

Give me a break. This shouldn’t be a problem at all for those who are licensed to carry their guns in the open. If they want to do business with someone that doesn’t allow guns in their establishment, don’t carry the gun into the place.

While the nation has been arguing about the merits of flying the rebel flag, we need to understand that privately owned businesses are able to set certain rules for those seeking to enter their establishment. They must not refuse service to people because of their skin color or their religion.

Prohibiting the open carry of loaded weapons onto their property? That’s a reasonable restriction.