Contact Us e-Edition Crossroads Magazine
Selmer hit hard by flooding, wind
by Zack Steen
May 01, 2016 | 869 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
SELMER, Tenn. -- Parts of McNairy County was hit hard Sunday afternoon after a line of strong thunderstorms passed. Flooding was reported throughout the county and several people had to be recused from their vehicles that had been washed off Highway 64 in Selmer. Heavy hail was also reported and strong winds knocked down power lines. Check back Monday for additional information.
Effort encourages train safety
by Zack Steen
May 01, 2016 | 237 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print

See tracks? Think train.

Norfolk Southern employees were present at two downtown Corinth railroad crossings last week asking the public to watch out for oncoming trains.

As part of a new Operation Lifesaver campaign for rail public safety, employees handed out key chains and brochures during the safety blitz.

“Whenever people see railroad tracks, we want them to use caution and expect a train,” said Supervisor Special Agent Bill Allsopp with Norfolk Southern’s police department. “We were reminding and urging drivers to use caution before and as they are crossing railroad tracks, not only in downtown Corinth, but everywhere.”

Allsopp and about 20 other members of Norfolk Southern’s Alabama Division of Safety and Service Committee participated in the safety blitz at the Franklin Street and Fillmore Street railroad crossings.

Allsopp said a person or vehicle is struck by a train roughly once every three hours.

“From those trespassing on railroad tracks for a shortcut or recreation, to drivers trying to beat the train at a grade crossing, people don’t realize how important it is to remain safe around railroad tracks,” he said.

A typical freight train can take more than a mile to stop, even when emergency brakes are applied, according to the special agent.

“That’s the distance of 18 football fields,” he added.

Railroad safety is extremely important in downtown Corinth, as train speeds were increased last year from 25 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h.

An average of 31 trains pass through Corinth on the busy east-west line each day.

(For more information, visit

At last, America is first
by Pat Buchanan
May 01, 2016 | 231 views | 0 0 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign policy address of Wednesday. Two minutes into his speech before the Center for the National Interest, Trump declared that the "major and overriding theme" of his administration will be – "America first." Right down the smokestack! Gutsy and brazen it was to use that phrase, considering the demonization of the great anti-war movement of 1940-41, which was backed by the young patriots John F. Kennedy and his brother Joe, Gerald Ford and Sargent Shriver, and President Hoover and Alice Roosevelt. Whether the issue is trade, immigration or foreign policy, says Trump, "we are putting the American people first again." U.S. policy will be dictated by U.S. national interests. By what he castigated, and what he promised, Trump is repudiating both the fruits of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy, and the legacy of Bush Republicanism and neoconservatism. When Ronald Reagan went home, says Trump, "our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which ended in one foreign policy disaster after another." He lists the results of 15 years of Bush-Obama wars in the Middle East: civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans killed, trillions of dollars lost, a vacuum created that ISIS has filled. Is he wrong here? How have all of these wars availed us? Where is the "New World Order" of which Bush I rhapsodized at the U.N.? Can anyone argue that our interventions to overthrow regimes and erect democratic states in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen have succeeded and been worth the price we have paid in blood and treasure, and the devastation we have left in our wake? George W. Bush declared that America's goal would become "to end tyranny in our world." An utterly utopian delusion, to which Trump retorts by recalling John Quincy Adams' views on America: "She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." To the neocons' worldwide crusade for democracy, Trump's retort is that it was always a "dangerous idea" to think "we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming Western democracies." We are "overextended," he declared, "We must rebuild our military." Our NATO allies have been freeloading for half a century. NAFTA was a lousy deal. In running up $4 trillion in trade surpluses since Bush I, the Chinese have been eating our lunch. This may be rankest heresy to America's elites, but Trump outlines a foreign policy past generations would have recognized as common sense: Look out for your own country and your own people first. Instead of calling President Putin names, Trump says he would talk to the Russians to "end the cycle of hostility," if he can. "Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave," sputtered Sen. Lindsey Graham, who quit the race to avoid a thrashing by the Donald in his home state of South Carolina. But this writer served in Reagan's White House, and the Gipper was always seeking a way to get the Russians to negotiate. He leapt at the chance for a summit with Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva and Reykjavik. "Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war," says Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct." Is that not an old and good Republican tradition? Dwight Eisenhower ended the war in Korea and kept us out of any other. Richard Nixon ended the war in Vietnam, negotiated arms agreements with Moscow, and made an historic journey to open up Mao's China. Reagan used force three times in eight years. He put Marines in Lebanon, liberated Grenada and sent FB-111s over Tripoli to pay Col. Gadhafi back for bombing a Berlin discotheque full of U.S. troops. Reagan later believed putting those Marines in Lebanon, where 241 were massacred, to be the worst mistake of his presidency. Military intervention for reasons of ideology or nation building is not an Eisenhower or Nixon or Reagan tradition. It is not a Republican tradition. It is a Bush II-neocon deformity, an aberration that proved disastrous for the United States and the Middle East. The New York Times headline declared that Trump's speech was full of "Paradoxes," adding, "Calls to Fortify Military and to Use It Less." But isn't that what Reagan did? Conduct the greatest military buildup since Ike, then, from a position of strength, negotiate with Moscow a radical reduction in nuclear arms? "We're getting out of the nation-building business," says Trump. "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony." No more surrenders of sovereignty on the altars of "globalism." Is that not a definition of a patriotism that too many among our arrogant elites believe belongs to yesterday? (Daily Corinthian columnist Pat Buchanan is an American conservative political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, politician and broadcaster.)
Donald Trump isn't the ‘presumptive nominee'
by Michael Barone
May 01, 2016 | 135 views | 0 0 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Donald Trump has declared himself, after following up his New York win April 19 with victories in five other Northeastern states Tuesday, the "presumptive nominee" of the Republican Party. Is it a done deal? Not quite. Trump's 40 percent of total primary votes so far have yielded him 48 percent of pledged delegates – not exactly the unfair system he's been decrying. He must win about 56 percent of those yet to be chosen to get to the 1,237 majority necessary for the nomination. There are signs in the Northeastern primary results that he may get there. For the first time, he significantly outperformed his poll showings. For the first time, he got more than 50 percent of the vote (he came closest earlier in Massachusetts, with 49 percent). But turnout in these primaries hovered around just 10 percent of eligible voters, lower than in any other state but Louisiana. That's partly because registered Republicans are scarce on the ground in the Northeast: 37 percent of registered voters in Pennsylvania, between 21 and 29 percent in the other closed primary states. Not coincidentally, none except Pennsylvania has come close to voting for a Republican presidential nominee in recent years. The Northeastern results are the latest example of a phenomenon seen throughout this Republican race: Voters in one state are not much moved by the choices of voters in an earlier contest. Donald Trump won in New Hampshire after losing in Iowa. Marco Rubio came in second in South Carolina after stumbling to fifth in New Hampshire. Trump won four of five big states on March 15 but got beat by Ted Cruz in Wisconsin April 5 -- after which, Cruz finished third in five of six states in the Northeast. This reminds me of the 1980 Democratic race between Edward Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Just when Carter seemed to have things wrapped up, Kennedy would get a big win. Then Carter would come back. It was as if many Democratic voters wanted neither one to clinch the nomination. Perhaps this year many Republican voters don't relish a Trump victory or a contested convention where Cruz or someone else could win. The next test comes in Indiana. Polling is sparse there because of a state anti-telemarketing law, with the three April polls showing Trump leading Cruz by 39 to 33 percent, with 19 percent for John Kasich. That's not quite as unfavorable for Trump as polling immediately before Wisconsin, but it leaves Cruz within striking distance, especially if, as in Wisconsin, Kasich underperforms his poll numbers. There's a good chance that happens, given the apparent deal by which Kasich would defer to Cruz in Indiana in return for Cruz doing so in Oregon in May and New Mexico in June. Polls suggest that Kasich's strength in Indiana, as elsewhere, is in affluent suburbs. Cruz could pull ahead if anti-Trump voters switch to him in the suburban counties around Indianapolis, which cast one-fifth of Republican primary votes. Kasich's weak showing in the Northeast may accelerate that trend. He was supposed to be strong in affluent suburbs there, but he carried just one county, Manhattan, in those six states. Indeed, outside Manhattan and his home state of Ohio he has carried just six counties, four in Vermont and two in Michigan. Cruz has carried, by my count, 759. Whoever carries Indiana will win the bulk of its 57 delegates, enough to counterbalance Trump's expected winner-take-all 51 in New Jersey. The yet-to-vote smaller states (except West Virginia) look like tough territory for Trump, but no one is sure how California's vote will shake out. There 159 of 172 delegates are chosen winner-take-all by congressional district, and 24 of those 53 districts voted 65 percent or more for Barack Obama in 2012. So a lot depends on the votes of the relatively few registered Republicans in such districts, a matter on which there is no polling evidence or applicable precedent and on which smart analysts refuse to hazard a guess. Members of the "Never Trump" group may imagine a candidate who combines Cruz's appeal to hard shell conservatives and Kasich's to upscale suburbanites: Call him Marco Rubio. But Rubio couldn't carry his home state of Florida, so Republicans are stuck with candidates who carried and embody the images of their home states, which are New York and Texas – images repellent to many other voters. Democrats have already settled for a presumptive nominee who is universally known with high negatives. Do Republicans – especially in Indiana and California – want to do that, too? (Daily Corinthian columnist Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.)
Fiorina: An authentic feminism
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
May 01, 2016 | 112 views | 0 0 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The difference between Carly Fiorina's and Hillary Clinton's assents to prominence is a lesson that compares that authentic and inauthentic models of feminism. Fiorina earned everything she has gotten. She started as a secretary and worked her way up the corporate ladder – through twists and diversions – until she came out on top as the CEO of a Fortune 20 company, the largest tech company in the world. Clinton advanced only in the wake left by her husband. Bill Clinton blazed the trail. She followed in his footsteps. Hillary Clinton left law school with high hopes. Hired by the House Judiciary Committee to pursue the Watergate investigation and President Nixon's impeachment. But her misconduct – purloining documents the Committee needed – allegedly led to her dismissal. After she failed the D.C. bar, top legal jobs were barred to her in Washington. Lacking other options, she followed Bill Clinton to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and began a lifetime of following the furrows her husband plowed. Bill was teaching at the University of Arkansas Law School and he got his wife a job there. After Bill lost his 1974 race for Congress, he migrated to Little Rock to run for attorney general in 1976. Hillary followed him. She searched for a job but only landed one at the Rose Law Firm – Arkansas' most prestigious – after Bill was elected the top legal official in the state. She labored as an associate until Bill became governor and, presto, she made partner. Would Hillary have been chosen to lead the health care reform effort in 1993 if Bill were not president? Would her path to the New York Senate seat have been smoothed – with no primary in this totally blue state in which she had never lived – if Bill was not pulling the strings in the White House? And, after Hillary lost her presidential race in 2008, would President Obama have appointed her as Secretary of State? Or was his decision influenced by his need to keep Bill and Hillary Clinton on the reservation. Leaving them outside the administration would have subjected him to eight years of second-guessing and fire from within his party. As LBJ said, it's probably better to have someone inside the tent pissing out than someone outside pissing in. The self-evident answer to all these questions is obvious: Hillary only moved up because Bill led the way. Fiorina, like most American women, had no such luck. Nor did she make her name in the field of politics, where advancement rarely comes from objective performance assessments. Rather, she made it in the corporate world, historically the last to accord women their due. At this writing, we do not know if Ted Cruz will be sufficiently successful in his pursuit of the nomination to bring Fiorina in with him. But it is obvious that Carly Fiorina would make a great vice president. On her own. Like she's always done. (Dick Morris, former advisor to the Clinton administration, is a commentator and writer. He is also a columnist for the New York Post and The Hill. His wife, Eileen McGann is an attorney and consultant.)
Featured Businesses >>