Civility isn’t dead after all!

For the past few years I have been presuming that collegiality and civility have died a slow, painful death, that they have been replaced by rancor and hatred for those with opposing points of view.

Then I read an editorial in the Dallas Morning News that told me to hold on, that it ain’t so.

The editorial talks about two justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor, who spoke to the National Governors Association. They talked about how the justices can differ, but they do not see each other as enemies.

The editorial states, in part: Civility and compromise are values in our democracy that, as of late, are buried in bitter arguments or smothered in misinformation.

Barrett is a deeply conservative member of the high court; Sotomayor is an equally fervent progressive jurist. The editorial notes: “When we disagree, our pens are sharp. But on a personal level, we never translate that into our relationships with one another,” Sotomayor told the crowd at one event.

The DMN editorial takes particular note of the extraordinary friendship forged long ago by two justices, the late Antonin Scalia and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their friendship became a talking point around the country as to how people with widely divergent points of view can retain personal affection.

The editorial is posted here: Two Supreme Court justices are reminding us how to act like adults (dallasnews.com)

Barrett said: “We don’t speak in a hot way at our conferences,” Barrett said. “We don’t raise our voices no matter how hot-button the case is.”

I am heartened to hear the words of two jurists who have told the world what goes on behind closed doors at the nation’s highest court. May their secret be repeated in other governmental chambers — such as the Congress — where the principals do raise their voices and speak ill of each other.

Disgust is sinking in

There can be no way to describe adequately what I am feeling now about the progress of the criminal proceedings against the 45th president of the United States.

Dude somehow is managing to run out the clock on several fronts. What’s even more disgusting is that he might be getting help from a supposedly “impartial” jurist who might be setting the table for an instructed verdict of acquittal in the federal case involving the ex-POTUS’s pilfering of classified documents.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whom the former Moron in Chief appointed to the federal bench, keeps issuing goofball rulings that benefit her fella … the aforementioned ex-POTUS.

The latest one has been vilified by legal scholars from stem to stern on its weirdness. Cannon has instructed prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith and the criminal defendant’s counsel to provide reams of “discovery” evidence on the eve of when the trial is supposed to start.

The complexity of the ruling reportedly suggests that the judge might be able to issue a bench ruling calling for an acquittal. If it holds up! That’s not a sure thing, or so I am led to believe.

The ex-POTUS also is stalling in the case involving the New York state trial on the hush money he paid to the porn actress to keep her quiet about a one-night stand the two of them had in 2006. The former Idiot in Chief denies ever engaging in sex with Stormy Daniels but cut her a $130,000 check to keep quiet about it. Go … figure!

The trial on the 1/6 assault on our government — the one the ex-POTUS provoked on the Ellipse — has been delayed.

Oh, and the Georgia case? Who knows what’ll happen there. A judge says the DA can stay on the job, but the fellow with whom she had a relationship has resigned as lead prosecutor.

All of this points to the chaos created by the former guy’s stalling tactics.

Let us not forget that he has said all along he is innocent of anything being accused. Despite that, he acts very much like someone with something serious to hide. The stalling and the proclamations of innocence just do not add up.

Schumer out of bounds on Israel’s politics

Charles Schumer should tend to the affairs of New York and the U.S. Senate … and keep his nose out of Israeli politics.

Schumer recently called for the ouster of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The New York Democrat and Senate majority leader also said Israel needs to conduct a special election to find a prime minister who, I will presume, is more to Schumer’s liking.

I am not going to endorse Netanyahu’s stance on the way he and the Israeli Defense Forces are prosecuting the war in Gaza against the terrorist group Hamas. He does need to pull back and stop the insane attacks on civilians in Gaza and must be more proactive in fighting the growing starvation that is killing helpless civilians.

However, for a sitting US senator — this nation’s highest-ranking official who happens to be Jewish — to call for a change of government in America’s strongest ally in the Middle East goes way beyond what is right and proper.

I strongly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists. Hamas is a ruthless, brutal organization that started this war with its horrific rocket attack on Oct. 7, 2023. It aimed its ordnance at civilians and is now paying the price.

But, so too, are civilians caught in the carnage. Israel vows to destroy Hamas and I find it impossible to disagree with Bibi Netanyahu’s stated aim in that regard.

As for the chutzpah that Sen. Schumer is exhibiting, he needs to stand down and butt the hell out of Israeli domestic politics.

The moment still sickens me

Time for an admission, which is that every reference to the 2016 presidential election outcome fills me with the same level of revulsion I felt when the TV networks called it for the former Moron in Chief.

Case in point: I just finished watching a nine-part Netflix documentary series on the cold war, titled, “Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War.” It is well-done, thorough and it walks us through the period from World War II to the present day. The images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are heart-breaking and stark, to be sure.

Then it walks us to the here and now. The Soviet Union has imploded and the new president, Vladimir Putin, is filled with delusions of grandeur and longs for a return to the Stalinesque era of repression.

He invades Ukraine in February 2022 and there he is, plastered on the TV screen, along with the 45th POTUS and his buddy-buddy relationship with Putin.

Netflix felt obliged to show the candidate-to-be riding down the escalator in the office tower that bears is name with his wife to announce his run for the presidency. It also replayed the moment when the GOP nominee was declared the winner of the 2016 contest.

So help me, I cannot help but feel sickened beyond measure at the idea of replaying that scenario this coming November.

The documentary made no editorial comment on what occurred in 2016. The producers delivered it straight and for that I applaud them.

Critics of this blog accuse me of suffering from the “Derangement Syndrome” associated with the once and likely future GOP presidential nominee. I plead guilty! Yes, I suffer from it.

But … so should all Americans who give a damn about preserving democracy and scorning the dictatorial impuses of the moron who aspires to re-take control of our nuclear arsenal.

Stand down, Kari Lake

Kari Lake should have her noggin examined for signs of any life other than that which foments the idiocy that flies out of her mouth.

Lake is the Arizona Republican who is running for the U.S. Senate. She is an avid 2020 election denier and someone who has refused to concede she lost the Arizona governor’s race in 2022.

She wants the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that electronic voting is — get ready for it — unconstitutional!

According to MSN.com: The petition to the court alleges new evidence showing false statements made by defendants regarding the safeguards ensuring vote accuracy. Lake and Finchem’s lawyers argue for an amendment to their allegations on standing, aiming to demonstrate a likelihood of recurring harms in future elections similar to those alleged in the 2022 election.

Hang on a moment. The guy hired by the 45th POTUS to monitor the 2020 election declared it to be “the most secure election in U.S. history.” The former POTUS then fired him because he didn’t get the finding he desired.

Kari Lake Petitions US Supreme Court to Declare Electronic Voting Unconstitutional (msn.com)

What the hell is Lake trying to do? It is baffling in the extreme to believe this is a serious person who well could be elected to the Senate and, thus, be empowered to enact legislation that affects all of us.

That’s you and me, man.

Kari Lake is nuttier than a Snickers bar.

Non-GOP observers feeling the pain

The fight that is developing in Texas between non-believers of certain politicians and those who adhere to their every proclamation gives us non-Republicans considerable angst.

How come? Because I, as one of them, find myself rooting for the non-believers in their scrap with those who follow the will of the crooks who happen to hold high public office.

I want to point directly to the troubles that continue to dog Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The AG has taken dead aim at several pols who had the temerity to favor his impeachment in the House. His slate of candidates in this month’s Republican Party primary did pretty well.

One of Paxton’s “enemies” hails from a city I once called home. He is House Speaker Dade Phelan of Beaumont. Phelan faces a runoff against some political newbie, a guy named David Covey. Paxton recruited Covey to run against Phelan. He finished first in the GOP primary, but the two of them are headed for a runoff to see who gets the nomination. Covey finished first and Phelan finished second, but Covey didn’t get the 50% margin he needed to win outright.

I am rooting for Phelan to win the runoff. Not that I care about his politics, per se. I just favor the stance he took in voting to impeach the crooked AG and the manner in which he conducted the House proceedings that led to Paxton’s impeachment. Phelan is a conservative and, frankly, not my ideal politician. Yet the AG refers to him as the “liberal speaker.” What a fu**ing crock!

This intraparty squabbling is playing out in states across the country. I drive through Collin County, where I live, and I see signs for politicians proclaiming themselves to be a “conservative Republican” running for office. How do they define “conservative”? Everyone’s a conservative Republican, yes? You have one conservative Republican running against another of the same ilk. How does a GOP voter choose?

The election season is playing itself out a little at a time. Those of us who sit on the sidelines watching this GOP internecine battle being fought are left to cheer silently for those who respect the system and who put the law above party loyalty.

Accusations aren’t ‘false’

A critic of High Plains Blogger has accused me of saying things about the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee that are false.

Well, I am going to challenge that allegation with this brief post.

He writes: You bash Trump with false accusations and give credit to Biden where’s there’s very little credit to be given.

Nothing I have said about the presumptive GOP nominee is “false.” As for “credit” being given to President Biden, I’ll save that comment for another post.

I have said for as long as I have been writing this blog — and it’s been many years — that I do not mind criticism of its content; just don’t ascribe impure motives to me for expressing these views. They are mine alone and I take responsibility for them. As for my motivation, some folks over the years have questioned my faith, and my patriotism. I take a back seat to no one on either matter.

My accusations against the 45th POTUS are based on what juries have determined, what legally constituted prosecutors have said in criminal indictments and even on the visual record of video and audio recordings the world has seen and heard with its own eyes and ears.

The falsehood or the truth about any of it has yet to be determined in courts of law. My sincere and fervent hope is that we get to those determinations sooner rather than later.

I am just going to make this point one more time — and it likely won’t be the final time: The idiot whom Republicans will nominate for POTUS is unfit for any public office in the land.

Democrats seek ‘all-blue vote’

National Democratic Party officials are asking those of us who fear the possibility of a Republican return to power in the White House to do something I find objectionable.

They want us to “vote all blue” throughout the ballots we are going to get on Nov. 5.

I am afraid I cannot do that. Voting straight-Democratic Party line at election time runs counter to my firmly held belief that voters need to examine every race individually and determine who is the better candidate for every position being contested.

I am planning to endorse the Democratic nominees for POTUS and for U.S. Senate in Texas. That’s no surprise to those who read this blog. What might surprise some of you is that I likely will cast my vote for Republican candidates farther down the ballot. Moreover, I am keeping an open mind on the race for the 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House.

I happen to be acquainted with several candidates running for public office in Collin County, where I reside. They belong to both major parties. Am I going to punch the straight-party spot on the ballot without even considering the candidates who represent the other party? I cannot do that in good conscience.

Good government requires voters to exercise their due diligence. I consider myself to be a good-government progressive, which requires me — according to my own definition — to ensure I know the candidates’ stands on issues pertinent to the office they seek.

We have many good men and women running for public office in this county; many of them happen to be Republicans.

Do I want the Democrats to retain the White House? Yes! Do I want the Dems to strengthen their grip on the U.S. Senate? Again, yes. Do I want them to take control of the U.S. House? Ditto on that, too.

There are compelling issues at stake at the presidential and congressional levels. That is as far as it goes. Voting “all blue” means casting aside worthy candidates for the Texas Legislature and for countywide offices that in reality shouldn’t even be considered on partisan ballots.

I’m in on the “all blue” initiative … to a point.

Head-spinning begins

My 74-year-old noggin is spinning like Linda Blair’s in the “The Exorcist.” At times it feels as if it’s going 360 degrees.

That is what this presidential election season is doing to me.

Republicans are set to nominate an individual they have selected twice already to run for president. He won the first time in one of the most bizarre flukes in American political history, capturing the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by 3 million ballots. He lost the second time fair and square, only to declare the election was rigged and was stolen from him.

Now the GOP is going to nominate him one more time? His platform sounds like the 2020 theme, which is that it is short on ideas for the future and long on made-up grievances.

Except that he has persuaded enough Americans that his dubious gripes are real enough for them to climb aboard his clown car.

Democrats have a successful incumbent running as an underdog, for God’s sake! President Biden’s term so far has produced far more successes than failures, and yet the MAGA minions seek to persuade us that the Joe Biden presidency has been an abject failure.

What the hell … ?

Republicans are hell bent on suppressing voter turnout. Democrats want the turnout to break the records set in 2020. By my own barometer, I long have believed that democracy works best when more — rather than fewer — voters take part.

I won’t even get into the felony trials involving the GOP nominee’s criminal allegations. He is wanting to delay them past the election and then is hoping for all he can to be elected so he can just crumple them up and toss ’em into the crapper.

I do not intend to allow that to happen, if this blog has any pull at all.

First things first, though. I have to get my head to stop spinning.

Pence ignores the obvious

Mike Pence says he won’t endorse the man in whose administration he served as vice president.

Oh, and why is that? Well, the former VP says he and the ex-POTUS have fundamental policy differences. Therefore, he won’t endorse the guy who also incited a mob to seek out the VP while carrying signs that said “Hang Mike Pence!”

Or that he said Pence was a coward for refusing to discount votes that elected Joe Biden president of the U.S. in 2020.

Or that he did nothing to call off the traitors who stormed the Capitol on the Sixth of January.

No, Pence said he cannot endorse the former Moron in Chief because of “policy differences.”

What … a … coward!

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience