Tag Archives: Congress

military news, State news

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.

 

local news

Happy birthday, Mr. President

On the occasion of former President George H.W. Bush’s 91st birthday, I feel moved to tell you my George Bush Story.

It’s not all that grand, but it kind of speaks to the issue of: What does one say to someone who’s done so much in his life?

The former president came to Amarillo in 2007 to speak at a symposium about leadership. The event occurred at the Globe-News Center for the Performing Arts. As editor of the editorial page for the Amarillo Globe-News, I received an invitation to “have lunch with President Bush.” Yes, I know that sounds high-falutin’. I use that phrase to make a little fun of myself, as I was one of about 200 or so “special guests” who broke bread with the 41st president.

He said a few words, thanked all the right people and we all concluded our lunch.

Then came another special moment. I was among some in the lunch crowd who got invited to a picture-taking session with president.

So, the president left the room to prepare for what’s known in the newspaper business as the classic “grip-and-grin” session. We followed him out of the room and then stood in line.

Here’s where a bit of trauma set in: trying to decide what to say to someone who’s done what this man has done over the course of lengthy and incredibly varied public service career.

Think about it. He was a naval aviator during World War II, and was shot down on a combat mission in the Pacific; he served in Congress for two terms, representing the Houston area; he served as chairman of the Republican National Committee; U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; head of the CIA; special envoy to China; vice president of the United States; then was elected president of the United States.

Not a bad dossier, correct. Indeed, I’ve said for years that George H.W. Bush arguably was the most qualified man ever to serve as president and commander in chief.

So, what does one way when you shake this man’s hand?

I settled on nothing at all original, witty or memorable.

I merely said, “Mr. President, thank you so much for the service you gave to this country.”

The more interesting element of that 45-second encounter, though, was his response. He bowed his head as he thanked me for the expression of gratitude. He asked me for my name and what I did for a living.

I truly hope he understood I was sincere in saying what I said.

Then it was over. I received a framed picture of “George Bush and me” a couple of weeks later. It’s on my bedroom dresser. I’m proud of it.

Happy birthday, Mr. President.

 

legal news, medical news, national news, political news

POTUS vs. SCOTUS over ACA

President Barack Obama has chided the Supreme Court over its decision to hear a case involving the Affordable Care Act.

Some critics, of course, suggest the criticism is out of bounds, that the president is trying to “bully” the nine justices who could strike down a key provision in the ACA. Bully those men and women? I don’t think so.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-fix-health-law-court-rules-against-071508891–politics.html#

Obama says the court was wrong to take up a case in the first place. The case, to be ruled on perhaps in just a matter of days, involves the legality of the federal subsidies used to help pay for Americans’ health care. An estimated 6.4 million Americans’ health insurance policies are at risk if the court strikes down the subsidy.

Now the president has declared the ACA to be a “reality,” it is law and it is part of the American fabric of providing health insurance to those who need it.

Is he right to challenge the court? Of course he is.

Just as critics chide the president for ignoring the separation of powers contained in the Constitution, they ignore the obvious notion that the separation argument goes the other direction. By that I mean that the judiciary, as a co-equal branch of government, isn’t immune from criticism from another branch of government. Indeed, the legislative branch — Congress — hardly is shy about criticizing the executive and the judiciary when either of those branches of government steer in what lawmakers suggest is the “wrong direction.”

Where the president misfired, in my view, in his criticism of the Supreme Court was when he did so during his 2010 State of the Union speech. With several court members sitting in front of him, surrounded by other administration and military officials, not to mention a packed chamber full of lawmakers, the president said the court was wrong in its Citizens United ruling that took the shackles off of campaign contributors. Whatever criticism the court deserved, that was neither the time or the place to deliver it.

So, the fight goes on between Barack Obama the nine men and women who hold the fate of his signature domestic policy achievement in their hands.

 

national news, political news

Sex and money aplenty in Hastert drama

Dennis Hastert was a high school teacher and coach. Then he went into politics.

After that he rose to become speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, earning a couple hundred grand a year while serving as Man of the House.

Now it comes out that he’s been indicted on various charges alleging illegal payments of money to keep someone known as Individual A quiet.

The money totaled, according to the indictment, about $3.5 million.

Here’s my question: How does a former teacher/coach-turned politician come up with that kind of alleged hush money?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/questions-mount-in-hastert-case/ar-BBkK5ft

Oh, and there’s this issue of sexual abuse of at least one young man.

The man’s sister has come forward to allege that Hastert abused her older brother when the boy was in high school. The boy grew up, but then died of AIDS complications a few years ago. He’s not around to corroborate any of the allegations, but sis is making plenty of noise about it now.

Hastert has been hiding since news of the indictment broke. He’ll supposedly come out of hiding on Tuesday when he’s arraigned on the charges brought. The indictment doesn’t accuse the former speaker of sexual abuse; it centers only on the money part.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a seriously weird case that could turn into one of the bizarre scandals of modern times.

 

political news

Be careful with war references, politicians

Listen up, politicians.

Whether you’re running for president of the United States, any seat in Congress, the statehouse or a seat at City Hall, take care when referencing any military experience.

There will be folks out here who are listening to your every word.

Roy McDowell is running for mayor of Amarillo. He’d been referring in public statements to his military service “in Vietnam.” Turns out McDowell didn’t serve in-country, but served during the Vietnam War era.

Why bring this up? Because some of us who actually did serve in Vietnam are keenly aware of these things and want to be sure that all vets — whose service is honorable — portray their service honestly.

Is this a deal-breaker? Probably not, but McDowell and other politicians need to be acutely aware that the world is watching and listening.

He’s not the first politician to fudge a little. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., did a doozy of a job mischaracterizing his own military service before being elected to the Senate. He, too, said he’d served in Vietnam when he hadn’t. Bad call, senator.

This also reminds me of a young man whose acquaintance I made some years ago. He told my wife and me he “flew helicopters” in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid-1990s. When he said he “flew,” I assumed immediately he piloted them. We would talk about his experience “flying” Apache choppers for the Army. I assumed, of course, that he either was a warrant officer or was commissioned. He well might have flown aboard the choppers, but perhaps as a crew member.

Why make that leap? Well, years later, I happened to be browsing through his office and discovered his discharge certificate on a wall. It listed his rank as private, E-1. What? How could he have “flown” helicopters if he’s a mere enlisted man — and a buck private to boot?

Take great care, politicians. If you fudge on your service record, you can be caught.

 

business news, International news, political news

Iran nuke deal makes economic sense

Oil prices could drop by as much as $15 per barrel of crude if the Iran nuclear agreement becomes final.

Who knew this agreement could be beneficial to our pocketbooks?

This bit of news comes from the Energy Information Administration and it portends even greater savings for American motorists — such as yours truly — who are continually looking for more disposable income.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/iran-nuclear-deal-seen-cutting-oil-prices-by-dollar15-a-barrel/ar-AAayCbt

“If a comprehensive agreement that results in the lifting of Iranian oil-related sanctions is reached, then this could significantly change the … forecast for oil supply, demand, and prices,” the EIA said in a report. “However, the timing and order that sanctions could be suspended is uncertain.”

The key, of course, is the sanctions issue. Iran has a good bit of oil. The sanctions imposed by much of the world have prevented Iran from pumping and selling oil around the world. Suppose the sanctions are lifted and Iran returns to the energy-producing community of nations, thus putting more oil on the market.

Whether the sanctions get lifted in a timely manner could have an impact on the price of crude oil worldwide. The lifting of those sanctions, of course, depend entirely on Iran’s ability to comply with the agreement announced April 2 by the United States and its negotiating partners.

The framework agreement reduces Iran’s nuclear production capability significantly, with the intent of prevent the rogue nation from producing a nuclear bomb — which it has all but threatened to use against Israel. The Israelis, naturally, take those threats quite seriously — and those threats have contributed to Israel’s outright opposition to any deal with Iran.

Let us not forget that delays could come from the U.S. Congress, which comprises members who act as though they’d rather bomb Iran than talk to it.

The deal needs a chance to work. If it does, then one leading energy agency thinks oil consumers all around the world are going to reap some benefit.

International news

Iran nuke deal worth the gamble

The more I read about the Iran nuclear deal framework, the more inclined I am to give it a chance to work.

It’s not going to gather much support among Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. They’re going to oppose it no matter what, given that it was hammered out by a negotiating team sent to the bargaining table by President Barack Obama.

The Los Angeles Times has editorialized correctly that the framework requires some patience, but that it does hold the promise of making the Middle East safer.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iran-nuclear-framework-20150403-story.html

The critical point, according to the Times, lies in the verification process.

Nuclear agency officials will have ample opportunity to ensure that Iran complies with its pledge to reduce its centrifuges. Iran also has agreed to limits on its enrichment of uranium. The economic sanctions? They’ll remain until Iran complies. If it doesn’t, the sanctions remain.

That won’t stop congressional Republicans from a knee-jerk opposition to the agreement. They are dead set against this deal. Their reasons baffle me. They use fiery demagoguery language by referring to the U.S.-led negotiating team to the “appeasers” who gave Europe away to Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.

How about settling down?

This framework could fall apart. There remain a lot of details to work out. Absent a binding agreement, Iran will be free to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon as it sees fit. What then? Do we bomb them? Do we start a war in the Middle East? Do we really want to let the bombs fly, putting the entire region at risk?

The agreement needs a chance to work.

 

International news

Waiting for some language in Iran deal

The Iran nuclear deal is going to require some major salesmanship in the United States.

The “sales team” must be headed by President Obama, who now needs to persuade Americans — notably Republicans in both houses of Congress — that the deal brokered with Iran will prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-nuclear-pact-stirs-hope-%e2%80%94-and-fear-%e2%80%94-of-new-political-order-in-mideast/ar-AAapd0E

But some of us — me included — are waiting for some language to appear in the framework agreement hammered out by U.S. and other nations’ negotiators.

The language should include something like this: “Iran agrees that it will not ‘weaponize’ uranium at any time, ever.”

I haven’t seen such language in all the discussion since the announcement of the framework.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will abide by the terms of the deal if the other side — meaning much of the rest of the world — lifts the economic sanctions against Iran. He says his leadership isn’t “two-faced” and does not lie.

That’s good enough for me — not!

My understanding of the agreement is that there will be careful monitoring of Iranian intentions as it moves ahead with what’s left of its nuclear program. Iran has said all along it intends to develop nuclear power for domestic energy consumption only.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemns the agreement, saying it “legitimizes” Iran’s nuclear program and poses a grave threat to Middle East and world peace. Netanyahu’s concern is legitimate, given Iran’s stated objective of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

However, as long as the powers can keep all eyes on Iran to ensure that it complies with the nuts and bolts of the deal — which still have to be worked out — then Netanyahu will have far less to worry about in the future.

Still, I am waiting for some written commitment from Iran that it won’t build a nuclear bomb.

Just, you know, for the record.

 

national news, political news

No term limits, please

Harry Reid’s announcement that he’s retiring from the U.S. Senate is going to prompt the predictable calls for term limits for members of Congress.

I’ve heard some yammering from my network of social media friends.

Many of them favor term limits, thinking apparently that voters of various states and congressional districts aren’t smart enough to determine whether their elected representatives are doing a good job for them.

One of my pals — who I am certain echoes the views of others on the right — thinks Sen. John McCain, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and probably dozens of other congresspeople need to hit the road right along with Reid.

My friend is mistaken.

Republican bomb-thrower Newt Gingrich led the revolutionary Contract With America insurgency in 1994. Republicans took control of both congressional chambers, Gingrich became speaker of the House and Congress sought to limit the terms of its members. It has failed every time.

The one aspect of term limits that I favor has been enacted by the GOP House caucus, which limits the number of terms that House members can serve as committee chairs; Democrats ought to follow suit, but that’s a congressional rules decision.

Voters back home — including those in Nevada who’ve kept sending the Democrat Reid back to the Senate — have the right to decide who they want representing their interests in Washington.

Harry Reid did that for Nevadans. He’s now calling it a career. Good for him.

Term limits? We have them already. They’re called “elections.”

 

national news, political news

GOP dreams come true: Reid to retire

Republicans across the land are awakening this morning to what they are certain is good news: Harry Reid, the man they love to loathe, is retiring from the U.S. Senate at the end of 2016.

Me? I’m not one of the GOP faithful, but I am more or less glad the Senate minority leader is calling it a career.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/reid-retiring-116445.html?hp=t1_r

It’s not because of anything he’s done that’s offended me. It’s that the man is 75 years of age; he’s been in Washington a very long time; he’s enjoyed countless political victories and suffered countless defeats … and he’s recovering from a brutal eye and facial injury he suffered in a fall from exercise equipment.

Reid has gotten stale. It’s likely time for some new representation in his home state of Nevada and I venture to guess that Democrats as well as Republicans are of like minds in calling for that need.

Politico describes Reid style this way: “As leader, Reid developed a no-nonsense, hard-ball style that came to define his stewardship. He muscled through Senate passage of the Affordable Care Act on Christmas Eve in 2009 on a straight party-line vote, when his party controlled 60 seats, enough to overcome a GOP filibuster. In 2013, Reid took the unprecedented step of invoking the so-called ‘nuclear option,’ a move that gutted filibuster rules for presidential nominations that critics said altered the deliberative nature of the body.”

I’m as certain as I am about anything that it doesn’t matter who the Senate Democrats choose as their next leader. He or she will develop sufficient enmity among Republicans to ensure that the upper legislative chamber will continue its level of dysfunction.

Harry Reid will become yesterday’s news in due course.