Category Archives: national news

national news, political news

Obama lays out his vision; GOP won't like it

2 Comments

 

This will surprise no one, I’m sure. I liked President Obama’s State of the Union speech.

The only problem with the speech, though, is that while he spoke of working with Republicans who control Congress and while he expressed a desire to find common ground, he staked out one key position that is sure to rankle the loyal opposition.

The president wants tax breaks for the middle class and wants to tax the wealthy more to pay for them.

Given that I am not rich and that ours is a middle-class household, how in the world can I not like what the president said tonight?

I won’t critique Obama’s speech point by point, but I’ll note that he threw down the gauntlet to Republicans. He’s feeling heady these days. His poll numbers are up. The economy is gaining enormous strength. He spoke on behalf of middle-class Americans and forced the Republicans to sit on their hands on national TV while their Democratic “friends” stood and cheered.

It’s the optics, man. They look good for one side of the aisle — and it’s not the Republican side.

It is difficult to imagine how Republicans are going handle their differences with the president. They don’t want to tax the wealthy any more. However, where else can Congress find the money to pay for those middle-class tax breaks?

Free community college for those who qualify? The response to that idea also split the chamber and likely split the parties.

The president’s tone was conciliatory — at times. The underlying theme throughout, though, suggests that talk of bipartisanship won’t bring the other side along.

I’d be standing and cheering if I had been in the room tonight. I’ll presume you knew that already.

Since I wasn’t in the room and since I’m just one American living out here in Flyover Country, I’ll just applaud from my home and hope — although I suspect it’ll be futile — that Democrats and Republicans can come together to help the vast middle class that deserves some reward for all the hard work it has done to bring the country back from the brink.

 

national news, political news

Now it's Santorum, again, thinking about '16

Good grief. Now we have a former senator from Pennsylvania climbing aboard the GOP Presidential Bandwagon.

Rick Santorum is considering another run for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

That’s right. Rick Santorum!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rick-santorum-criticizes-mitt-romney-114374.html?hp=r3_3

This is a big deal. The senator ran for the White House in 2012 and declared war against those who use contraception to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Santorum, a devout Catholic, doesn’t believe in contraception — in accordance with church doctrine. Contraception became his signature issue, to the dismay of Republicans who actually employ contraceptive measures to prevent pregnancy.

Santorum washed out of the 2012 GOP primary season, but he might be coming back for more.

I believe Republican primary voters need to ask one critical question: If the voters of his own state refuse to re-elect him to the U.S. Senate in 2006, why should he ask all Americans to cast their presidential vote for him in 2016?

Santorum lost his re-election bid to Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat.

When the ballots were counted, Casey had 59 percent of the vote; Santorum had 41 percent.

Where I come from, that’s what I call a landslide loss.

 

 

national news

Snipers are not 'cowards'

Michael Moore’s assertion that snipers are cowards comes apparently from his father’s experience during World War II.

Therefore, the filmmaker asserts that snipers are cowardly because they don’t fight “fair.”

http://www.people.com/article/michael-moore-explains-snipers-tweets-american-sniper

His comments came as a critique of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Chris Kyle, whose exploits as a Navy SEAL sniper in Iraq have become the stuff of military legend.

I’ll just add that snipers are as brave as frontline grunts — infantrymen who walk the point and expose themselves to enemy fire. They are heroes because they, too, expose themselves to the enemy the moment the muzzle flashes or the sound of the weapon echoes.

Moore sought to walk some of his comments back by praising the Oscar-nominated performance by Bradley Cooper as Kyle. But then he took off after director/producer Clint Eastwood, who — according to Moore — conflates Iraq with Vietnam. He mentions the use of the word “savages” to describe the Iraqis.

Well, that’s the kind of language warriors use to refer to the enemy, Michael.

I, too, saw the film over the weekend and for the life of me, I do not see any confusion between those two wars. Eastwood told a compelling story in riveting fashion.

As for Michael Moore, I believe I’ve heard enough from him on this topic.

 

national news

What if MLK Jr. had lived?

Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, has written a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. in which he declares that the message of peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience is as relevant today as it was when he preached it way back then.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/mlk-s-words-just-as-relevant-today

On this day when we mark what would have been Dr. King’s 86th birthday, I cannot help but get past this historical tidbit that few — if any — historians ever seem to examine.

How in the name of all that is holy did Martin Luther King Jr. summon the poise to stand before the world as he did at such a young age?

MLK was 39 years of age when James Earl Ray gunned him down in Memphis on April 4, 1968.

Thirty-nine! That’s all.

Yet, it seemed at the time as if he’d been on the national stage forever. At least that’s my memory.

He was 34 when he stood before those hundreds of thousands of spectators on the Washington Mall to deliver the famed “I Have a Dream” speech that energized a generation of young black and white Americans. He would be 36 when he led the march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge at Selma, Ala.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ZgSK9yIbk

How was this young man able to stand often in church pulpits, make appearances on national TV news-talk shows, speak to mass gatherings of supporters, accepted a Nobel Peace Prize and became one of the leading voices of protests against the Vietnam War — all before he turned 40. Where did he acquire that wisdom? Or was he born with it?

He wouldn’t reach that milestone age. There would be no black balloons, gag gifts for his becoming an “old man,” or silly jokes and pranks from his friends and family members.

It’s been said of President Kennedy that his life was one of untapped potential, given that he, too, died at a young age.

I cannot stop thinking on this day what impact Martin Luther King Jr. might have had on his beloved nation had he been given the chance to reach middle age, let alone grow old.

As Dees points out: “In his speech of March 25, 1965, King spoke of the nation we could become – a ‘society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the dignity and worth of human personality.’”

He was just 36 years of age.

 

military news, national news, political news

Fonda feels the heat once again

Jane Fonda is likely going to take the burden of a “huge mistake” with her to the grave.

She’s now 77 years of age, an acclaimed actress, a one-time fitness guru and she remains more or less active in certain political causes, although age and life experience seem to have taught her to pick her battles carefully.

She showed up recently in Frederick, Md., for a speaking engagement and — guess what — she drew protestors who are still angry over a single act she committed back in 1972.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jane-Fonda-Draws-Protesters-in-Maryland-288958811.html

The Vietnam War was still raging and Fonda decided to show some sort of solidarity with the North Vietnamese government. How did she demonstrate that loyalty? By posing in an anti-aircraft battery, where she was photographed smiling and laughing with enemy soldiers who either had fired their weapon at U.S. aircraft or were to do so later, putting U.S. aviators in mortal danger.

The protest in Frederick involved a number of Vietnam veterans. Some of whom were carrying signs that read, “Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never.”

Fonda said the other day her posing with that piece of enemy artillery — and acting as if she didn’t have a care in the world — was a “huge mistake.”

I agree with the language of the forgive-but-not-forget signage. I’ve forgiven Fonda for that terrible demonstration, but I cannot forget it. I played a tiny part in that war three years before Fonda’s infamous photo op. Indeed, I formed my own anti-war feelings based partly on what I drew from my brief exposure to what was happening there.

She told the audience in Frederick that the episode left many with the impression she was against U.S. service personnel participating in that war. Fonda contends she supported them. Well, you could have fooled a lot of us, which she managed to do.

I’ve never bought into the Hanoi Jane description that others have hung on her. But oh, man, it’s tough to forget the insult she laid on those who merely were doing their duty.

 

national news, political news

President has chance to 'pivot,' says GOP

The next-to-last State of the Union speech by Barack Obama is coming up.

It’s important. Heck, they’re all important. But this one seems more important than most. Why? For the first time in his presidency, Obama is going to make his speech before a joint congressional session controlled completely by politicians of the other party.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/17/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made an interesting observation: “Tuesday can be a new day,” McConnell said. “This can be the moment the president pivots to a positive posture, this can be a day when he promotes serious realistic reforms that focus on economic growth and don’t just spend more money we don’t have. We’re eager for him to do so.”

“Pivots to a positive posture,” he said. Positive posture? I think that means he wants the president to turn sharply rightward in his policy, heading right into the teeth of Republican orthodoxy.

Well, do not hold your breath, Mr. Majority Leader.

However, look for the president to “focus on economic growth.” We’ve seen plenty of it during the past five years or so.

The president has sought to scarf up the bulk of the credit for it. Republicans are fighting back, saying, “Hey, we deserve the credit.”

I don’t expect Barack Obama is going to cede much, if any, ground to Republicans on the state of the economy.

He’ll declare, though, that the state of our union is in good shape. Will he say “strong,” or “sound” or “resilient”? All of those descriptions?

Allow me this final observation. Barack Obama’s speech is going to give Republicans plenty of fodder with which to argue with him and his team.

The 44th president is heading toward a rocky and raucous home stretch. On Tuesday night, standing before a Congress controlled by Republicans, he’s going to make the turn.

 

national news, political news

GOP plans fewer debates in 2016

3 Comments

Even though I generally like to see candidates for high office mix it up in public, I have to applaud the Republican National Committee’s decision to scale back the number of debates its presidential candidates will wage in 2016.

It’s down to just nine of them, about half the number of debates that took place prior to the 2012 GOP convention.

The 2012 GOP primary campaign was an exercise in ridiculousness as the field kept showing up weekly prior to elections in states. The field was winnowed down as candidates dropped out from the previous primary voting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/16/rnc_announces_nine_presidential_debates_125285.html

Even stranger was the stagecraft associated with many of these joint appearances. The candidates would stride onto the stage to applause from the audience, and to shrieks and shouts from their particular fans in the crowd.

They’d wave and point to people they recognize — which always is an odd sort of gesture that politicians do to “connect” with voters.

The GOP is expecting a large field of candidates. RealClearPolitics indicates as many as two dozen Republicans currently are considering a run for the White House. Holy cow! What if all of them declare their candidacies?

The field will narrow quickly, although I’m quite certain it’s going to be a stronger field of contenders than the gaggle of goofballs that ran for the presidency in 2012. Yes, there were serious candidates among the field, but Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann? C’mon.

I’m happy to see the RNC coming to its senses on the number of debates. Now it has to figure out how to lend seriousness and decorum to each of them.

Let’s start by eliminating the show-biz entrance.

legal news, national news, political news

10th vs. 14th amendments in gay marriage hearing

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Good luck, justices.

At issue are two questions: Whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages that take place out-of-state. The case will decide the fates of same-sex marriage bans in Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/supreme-court-to-decide-if-states-can-ban-gay-marriage/ar-AA8gjVE

Here is where I believe the case should turn: Which amendment to the U.S. Constitution has more sway in deciding this matter, the 10th or the 14th?

The 10th is the final amendment outlining the Bill of Rights. It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the states respectively, or to the people.”

That’s pretty clear, yes? It means the states have power not reserved by the Constitution for the federal government.

OK, then came the 14th Amendment, ratified not long after the Civil War. It’s much lengthier and covers a lot of issues relating to rights of citizenship. But at the end of Section 1, it states that no state “shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Granted, the nine men and women of the nation’s highest court know a lot more about the law and the Constitution than I do, but my reading of the issue at hand is pretty clear. I believe the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th.

The issue as I see it is whether gay couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. The Constitution, as federal judges have been ruling already, says they do. The Constitution lays out clearly that citizens shall not be deprived of “equal protection.” If that language in the 14th Amendment didn’t exist, I suppose you could argue that states — such as Texas — have the legal standing to ban same-sex marriage.

I do believe, though, that the language contained within the 14th Amendment makes it impossible for states to enact laws that override the Constitution.

There well may be some nuance that I’m missing. If it’s buried deep inside the language of the nation’s founding document, I’m sure the justices will find it.

I just don’t see how they can look past the clear and explicit language contained in the equal protection clause.

 

national news, political news

Run, Mitt, run!

Peggy Noonan is a brilliant writer and solid conservative thinker.

However, she’s misinformed if she can predict that Mitt Romney would repeat the mistakes that doomed his 2012 presidential campaign in the event he chooses to run for president once again in 2016.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-do-it-mr-romney-1421367202

She implores Mitt not to run for the White House next year.

C’mon, Ms. Noonan. Give the guy a shot. Let’s see if he can correct those mistakes.

She writes in the Wall Street Journal: “He is yesterday, we need tomorrow. He is an example of what didn’t work, we have to turn the page. He is and always has been philosophically murky—it’s almost part of his charm—but it’s not what’s needed now. He ran a poor campaign in 2012 and will run a poor one in 2016. He was a gaffe machine — ‘47%’; “I have some great friends that are Nascar team owners” — and those gaffes played into the party’s brand problems.”

I’ve been saying for a few weeks now that Mitt needs to seek to redeem himself. Yes, he ran a shoddy campaign. He could have avoided those missteps and perhaps made a serious horse race of it against President Obama. It was reasonably close in the popular vote, but the president’s Electoral College win was quite decisive.

I’m not planning to vote for Mitt if he chooses to run again.

I’m simply rooting for his redemption. He’s smarter than he demonstrated on the 2012 campaign trail. I mean, he did rescue a floundering Olympic bid in Salt Lake City. And, oh yes, he authored a health care reform bill in Massachusetts that became a model for the federal program pushed through Congress by the man he sought to defeat; it’s just too bad he all but disavowed the Massachusetts plan as he sought to condemn the Affordable Care Act.

I know Mitt will be a long shot, what with the TEA party wing of the GOP grooming candidates to make their pitch.

Go for it, Mitt. Don’t listen to Peggy Noonan.

 

national news, political news

Terrorists compared to American patriots

You shouldn’t have gone there, Dr. Ben Carson.

No sir. You should not have compared the Islamic State terrorists — the monstrous demons who behead people in public — to the brave warriors who fought against British tyranny to create the United States of America.

That’s what you did, Doc, when you said: “They got the wrong philosophy, but they’re willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ben-carson-likens-islamic-state-to-american-patriots/ar-AA8dMf7

That statement might have stood on its own, Dr. Carson, but you had prefaced it by saying American revolutionary patriots also were willing to die for their cause.

Perhaps a better comparison, Doc, would have been that kamikaze pilots flying for the Japanese Empire were willing to “die for their beliefs” as they flew their aircraft into American warships during World War II.

What you’ve done, sir, is juxtapose a cherished American ideal — the fight for liberty, freedom and individual dignity — with monstrous acts, crimes against humanity.

I understand, Dr.Carson, that you are pondering a run for the presidency in 2016. Conservatives adore your ideology and they hang on your words. I appreciate as well your intelligence and obvious brilliance as a leading neurosurgeon and medical scholar.

But just as that goofy Texas congressman, Randy Weber, erred in comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler in a tweet — for which he later sort of apologized — you have mixed two radically different examples of why people lay down their lives for causes in which they believe.