Non-endorsements pile up for Trump

Here’s what Mac Thornberry, a dedicated “establishment Republican” member of Congress said about whether he plans to “endorse” GOP nominee-to-be Donald J. Trump.

“If you endorse somebody, it’s like a stamp of approval and embracing them,” Thornberry said earlier this month, according to the (Wichita Falls) Times-Record News. “I’m not comfortable doing that with him based on a number of reasons.” A spokesman clarified to the Tribune that Thornberry would not vote for Clinton but has not committed to voting for Trump.

There you have it.

The Republican congressman whose 13th Congressional District stretches from Dalhart in the farthest northwest corner of Texas all the way to the northern Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, isn’t (yet) going to endorse his party’s presidential nominee.

As the Texas Tribune has reported, the GOP delegation from Texas is far less united in its view of Trump than the Democratic delegation is about their party’s presumed presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/15/texas-congressional-delegation-endorsements/

I am struck by Thornberry’s non-endorsement. It speaks oh, so very loudly to me.

He’s my congressman. I’ve voted for him a few times over the years, depending on the quality of his primary or general election opponents.

He’s generally quite careful and circumspect about political matters when he’s asked to comment publicly.

“Based on a number of reasons,” Thornberry said he is uncomfortable endorsing his party’s presidential nominee. What would they be? Trade policy? Statements that a woman should be punished for getting an abortion? The lengthy string of tasteless insults? His accusing President Bush of deliberate deception in taking us to war in Iraq? Might it be that Trump has no record at all of public service or any commitment to public service through his many business ventures?

You know, it looks for all the world to me as though Mac Thornberry is going to have a hard time even voting for his party’s presidential nominee, let alone endorsing him.

That’s just me talking, of course. Whatever the congressman decides, he’ll act on it in private.

I’ll just add one more point. If Mac Thornberry — who is as loyal a Republican as you’ll find — cannot endorse Trump, then the GOP’s top candidate for 2016 is facing serious trouble down the road.

Nix the talk about bringing back Baylor coach

Dear Baylor University Board of Regents:

I’ll get right to the point.

Do not even think for a moment about returning disgraced former head football coach Art Briles to the university that’s been scarred by his negligence.

There. I feel better already.

How quickly you seem to have forgotten about that nine-month investigation that concluded that under his watch, the Baylor football program “posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University.”

The probe was damning on its face about the conduct of your athletic department in the face of the sexual assault convictions against two Baylor football players. Athletic officials covered it up … to their everlasting shame.

You did the right thing when you demoted university president Ken Starr; athletic director Ian McCaw’s resignation was correct, too.

Briles’ termination also was the right thing to do.

And yet …

We keep hearing about a high-dollar booster who wants to bring Briles back to the sidelines. Why? Probably because he produced a winning football program at the expense of the university’s stellar reputation.

You took no vote on Briles’ status. Fine.

Now take the next step and issue a formal statement declaring that there ain’t no way in the world the man’s coming back as head coach.

I’ll be waiting for your response.

 

Rewrite the 2nd Amendment? Just try it

The Orlando, Fla., massacre has ignited yet again — for the zillionth time — the debate over whether to enact tighter controls on the purchase of guns such as the weapon used by the monster who mowed down those innocent victims.

I don’t intend to enter that debate here. I do, though, want to introduce you to an idea that’s being kicked around: rewriting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I’ve long believed that of all the first 10 amendments, those that guarantee our civil liberties, the Second is the most horribly written of them.

It seems to contain two distinct references that appear to be at odds with each other.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are clear on that? Now? Forever?

Hardly.

Gun-control advocates glom onto the first part, the reference to the well-regulated militia; gun-owner advocates cling to the second part that refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The founders inserted a couple of commas in the middle of the text that seem — to my eyes, at least — to add to the confusion.

Mac McCann, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, has posited the notion that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized. Will it happen? Sure, it’ll happen about the time both sides of the gun violence divide come together, lock arms and sing in perfect harmony.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/maybe-the-only-solution-is-to-rewrite-the-second-amendment.html/

McCann writes: “I hold the Constitution in the highest regard, and I’m naturally skeptical of government power. But I’m moved by Obama’s words: ‘to actively do nothing is a decision, as well’ — and clearly not a good decision.

“We need a text that reflects the will of the American people in today’s world — which, of course, is far different from the world the Constitution was written in.”

Of course, any effort to amend an amendment is going to be interpreted as repealing the original text. We’ve had discussion in the past about amending the First Amendment, too. Free-speech/freedom-of-religion/free-press purists such as myself, quite naturally, have opposed such a thing on its face. That puts us in a bind when discussions come up regarding the Second Amendment, which is held in equally high regard by purists interested in gun-related issues.

This notion of modernizing the Second Amendment, though, is a discussion worth having.

If only we can have it intelligently and without the demonization that is guaranteed to erupt.

Your thoughts? Talk to me.

 

Trump shows another example of ‘unfitness’

Hillary Rodham Clinton has coined a new mantra to describe her opponent in this autumn’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

She says Donald J. Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to become president. My sense is that she’s going to hammer relentlessly on that point.

The Democrats’ presumed nominee has been handed yet another example.

Trump has revoked the credentials of The Washington Post, banning the newspaper from covering his events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

Trump is unhappy with the coverage the Post is providing for his campaign. He called the paper “phony” and “dishonest.” Sound familiar? He’s said the same thing about, oh, the New York Times, Fox News and CNN.

He gets his dander up when media outlets report things about his campaign that do not cast him in the most positive light imaginable.

It’s the modus operandi of the presumed GOP nominee.

As the paper reported: “In a statement, Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said: ‘Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished.

“‘The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically and unflinchingly,’ Baron continued. ‘We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.”’

Does he not get that intense media coverage is part of the deal to which he agreed when he decided to seek the Republican presidential nomination?

What am I thinking? Of course he doesn’t get it.

He doesn’t get anything.

Thus, we see yet another example of his temperamental unfitness for the presidency.

Mauro: Texas is ‘no battleground’

Garry Mauro knows Texas perhaps as well as any politician who calls Texas “home.”

So, when the former state land commissioner says that Texas isn’t a “battleground state” in the upcoming presidential election, it’s time to throw in the towel and ceded the state to Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Or is it?

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Clinton-campaign-rep-Texas-not-a-8131516.php?t=c8877145b14b6b00f7&cmpid=twitter-premium

Mauro has signed on to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency. He’s as loyal a Democrat as you’ll find.

I used to know Mauro pretty well. He’d call on us at the Beaumont Enterprise back when he served as land commissioner. He had placed coastal erosion and protection as a top priority of his office, an initiative we appreciated way down yonder on the Gulf Coast.

The last time I saw him was in 1998 as he ran for Texas governor against incumbent George W. Bush. Mauro lost big.

Then he left elected public service.

Even though Mauro believes Texas is still a red state, he is offering a glimmer of hope for Democrats in the form of the man who’s going to lead the GOP ticket this fall.

As he told the San Antonio Express-News: “The prospect of a Clinton race against billionaire Donald Trump — who has offended a variety of groups including Latinos and women with his intemperate comments — will make it easier to get out the Democratic vote, Mauro agreed.

“’With Donald Trump on the ticket, we now have a way to get our voters out,’ he said.”

Therein lies the chance upon which Clinton will depend if she hopes to turn Texas from Republican red to possibly Democratic blue.

The key might lie in the Latino vote. Let’s face it, Trump has managed to deliberately offend that demographic group. He’s called illegal immigrants criminals; he’s declared that an American judge cannot adjudicate a Trump University lawsuit solely because of his Mexican heritage. Trump is going to “build a wall” along our southern border.

Will that bloc of voters turn out? Mauro hopes so, as does Clinton … obviously.

The flicker of cynicism in me makes me wonder if Mauro isn’t low-balling expectations with the hope of pulling a major surprise on Nov. 8.

Hey, he’s a politician, right?

Texas finds way to target parental scofflaws

child support

This is a capital idea.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office has found an interesting — and hopefully fruitful — way to pressure non-custodial parents to remain current on their child-support payments.

The idea? Withhold automobile registration from those who are delinquent in those payments.

Excellent!

I’ve watched state attorneys general from both parties say essentially the same thing: I’m going to get tough on those parents who don’t make their child support payments in a timely fashion.

Dating back to the days of Democrats Jim Mattox and Dan Morales, then moving into the Republican era of attorneys general John Cornyn, Greg Abbott and now Ken Paxton, they’ve all said the same thing.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/14/child-support-evaders-vehicle-registration-renewal/

According to the Texas Tribune, the Texas AG’s Office has led the nation in child support payment collection. Paxton’s office said it has collected nearly $3.9 billion in the past fiscal year.

I can hear the complaints now. If the state disallows people from registering their vehicles because they are late in their child support payments, how are those delinquent parents going to get to work to make the money they then can send to help support their children?

“We’re going to use every tool that we can to collect support that is due to children and families, and that’s why this initiative is being pursued,” said Janece Rolfe, a spokeswoman for the Child Support Division, in an interview with the Texas Tribune.

She added: “The goal, obviously, is not to keep people from working or getting to work, but it is to gain compliance with court orders and to get support and money to children.”

This is an outstanding initiative. It puts immense pressure on parents to account for one consequence of bringing children into this world.

If they cannot remain married to the person with whom they produce a child, then they should be obligated to pay whatever the court decrees is necessary to assist the custodial parent in caring for that child.

 

Crisis averted at Amarillo supermarket

Imagine this conversation at the home of an Amarillo police officer.

“How did your day go?”

“Oh, we got a call this morning. We scrambled some units to a Walmart. We found a guy inside with a hostage. So we shot him. He’s dead.”

Sure, the questioner probably didn’t need to ask. But the event that occurred this morning at the Canyon Expressway and Georgia Street illustrates the tenuous nature of police work.

It ended with the death of a disgruntled Walmart employee who apparently had a beef with a store manager.

Police have identified the hostage-taker as Mohammed Moghaddam, a Somali immigrant. They secured the area immediately after the incident concluded. Traffic returned quickly to normal around the area.

What happened, though, is extraordinary in this important respect: It came only two days after the nation was stunned to hear about the massacre at the Orlando, Fla., nightclub where 49 people were gunned down before police killed the shooter.

Americans from coast to coast were put on edge as the news out of central Florida began to sink in and as we all begin to process what happened.

There’s some relief — if that’s the correct word — in the knowledge that what happened at the Walmart was the result of a readily identifiable motive. It doesn’t lessen the anxiety that the police suffered as they sought to end this crisis. Nor does it make light of the grief being felt by the family of the man who was shot to death.

I do, though, rest more easily this afternoon in the knowledge that our community has averted something far more terrible.

I thank the professionalism shown by our law enforcement agencies responding to an imminently dangerous event.

Terrorism begets frayed nerves

terrorism-580x375

Tragedies such as what occurred in Orlando, Fla., over the weekend have a sobering impact on all of us.

We’re all on edge. The nation has been shaken.

Then something happens closer to home — a lot closer to home, in fact — and your hair stands straight up in a manner it otherwise might not had the earlier tragedy not occurred.

This morning I was driving home from an assignment in Pampa, Texas. My phone rang; I answered it using the Bluetooth device in my truck. It’s my wife.

“Where are you?” she asked. I tell her I’m on Amarillo Boulevard about to turn south onto Loop 335.

“Don’t go near Interstate 27 and Georgia Street,” she instructed me. “The police have it blocked off. There’s a shooter.”

Holy s***!

It turns out that someone was holding someone else hostage inside the Walmart store at that intersection. Police had cordoned off the area. They were negotiating with the gunman.

I got home and watched the news. Not much time after returning home came word that law enforcement officers had shot the gunman to death. The hostage is OK.

The crisis is over. Now comes the investigation into what happened and why.

Then it occurred to me. This is what acts of terror do to people. The gunman in Orlando might have committed that horrific act for any number of reasons.

The bottom line is this: He terrorized that community and in the process put the rest of this very large and powerful nation on edge.

Suffering the symptoms of fear as a result of a terrorist act is no fun at all.

Quite obviously, I’m glad the crisis is over and that the Amarillo Police Department, the Randall County Sheriff’s Office and the Texas Department of Public Safety, which I know to be run by dedicated professionals, did their jobs.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for keeping us safe.

We all can breathe again.

 

Flag takes on more significance

flag

This flag is flying in front of our home this morning.

We fly it for all the “patriotic holidays.” An Amarillo Boy Scout troop puts the flag up for us and we display it until the Scouts — and/or their parents — remove it at the end of the day.

Given that today is Flag Day, we’re displaying Old Glory in all its splendor.

This year, in light of recent tragic events half a continent away, it seems more appropriate and fitting than ever to salute the flag and what it means.

I refer, of course, to the massacre in Orlando, where 49 people were gunned down by a monstrous murderer, who then was killed by police. (As an aside, I’m going to follow the lead of several media outlets and from now on decline to mention the gunman’s name — out of respect for his victims.)

The flag stands for many principles. One of them is especially poignant today. It’s diversity.

The nation came into existence because people risked all they had — including their very lives — to escape repression. They came to our shores and established a New World dedicated to the notion that they could be whatever they chose to be without interference from a higher government authority.

They celebrated their true independence by creating a nation dedicated to that, and other, founding principles.

We are still looking for answers as to why the gunman did that terrible act in Florida. Did he hate his victims because they were gay, given that they were dancing in a gay nightclub? Did he act out of some allegiance to a perversion of a great religion?

I don’t know.

I do know — as we all do — that our country has been stained once again by senseless bloodshed.

With that all said, today we fly our flag in honor of the principles that created our great nation. Our spirit has been bloodied, but we must always remain strong and resolute against hate … no matter its form.

 

Abbott makes simple statement of solidarity

gov mansion

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott flew the flag at the Governor’s Mansion.

It was the Florida state flag, which he unfurled to honor the victims of the Orlando nightclub massacre, the worst such event in U.S. history.

He offered a statement calling on Texans to pray for the victims of the shooting. I applaud the governor’s simple statement of support for those who were killed and injured and for the loved ones who are grieving or praying for the victims’ complete recovery.

Then he lost me … almost.

Abbott used the occasion to make a statement that we need to do more to stamp out radical Islamic terrorism.

The gunman, an American, swore fealty to the Islamic State before opening fire at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, which caters to the city’s gay community. FBI director James Comey, though, has suggested that his agency cannot find any indication that the shooter was acting as part of an ISIS master plot; he was a lone wolf, a guy acting on his own.

My question tonight is this: How does the federal government stop a lone madman?

It’s a no-brainer to suggest that the government needs to do more to combat terrorism. Any act taken committed against us — whether it’s on a 9/11-type scale or anything less audacious — always means we need to “do more.”

Before we get too worked up about this latest attack, let’s remember what every expert the media could corral after 9/11 told us: There should be no doubt that we’ll get hit again by terrorists.

As for the latest incident, the best law enforcement minds on Earth are trying to ascertain whether the shooter was acting out of hatred for gay people or whether he was acting as a radical Islamic terrorist.

I’m glad the governor flew the Florida flag at Governor’s Mansion. The politicization? It seems a bit premature.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience