Category Archives: national news

national news, political news

Hillary vs. Mitt in 2016 … seriously?

This just in: A new Iowa poll says Mitt Romney is miles ahead in a poll of 2016 Republican caucus participants.

Run, Mitt, run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitt-romney-2016-election-iowa-poll-110392.html?hp=r2

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee has dropped a hint or two that might be thinking about a third run for the presidency in 2016. He lost the GOP nomination to John McCain in 2008, then got thumped — surprisingly, in the eyes of many — two years ago when President Obama thumped with a decisive Electoral College victory.

“Circumstances could change,” Mitt said recently when asked about a possible run once again for the White House.

What might those circumstances be? Only he and, I presume, his wife Ann, know the answer. OK, throw in his five sons; they’ll know when something is up.

Frankly, I’d like to see Mitt go again. I am curious to see if the Olympic organizer/business mogul/former Massachusetts governor has learned from the mistakes that might have cost him the White House in 2012. Will he steer clear of “47 percent” comments? Will he refrain from saying that “corporations are people, too, my friend”? Will he forgo making $10,000 wager offers on a debate stage with other Republican rivals?

He might also be a bit more specific than he’s been about how he’d handle these international crises differently than the man who beat him in 2012.

For my money, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the candidate to beat in 2016, even though she’s looking less inevitable than she was looking about six months ago.

Mitt, though, could give her a tussle.

You go, Mitt.

International news, national news, political news

An emphatic 'no!' on paying ransom

Why in the world are we even debating this issue of paying ransom for hostages held by terror groups?

Yet we are at some level.

http://video.kacvtv.org/video/2365314751/

The policy long has been that the U.S. government doesn’t pay ransom. It instead by seeking to egotiate with the terrorists to persuade them it is in their best interest to let their captives go. If that tactic fails, then the government responds with military force or it seeks to rescue the captives.

The issue has come to light with the tragic murder by ISIS terrorists of journalist James Foley and the release by another terror group of Peter Theo Curtis. We learned shortly after Foley’s gruesome death that U.S. forces failed in a rescue attempt.

I don’t have a particular problem with allowing the families and friends of these captives seeking to pony up money to secure their release, even though such action usually does interfere with official negotiations under way to accomplish the same thing.

The very idea, though, of the government paying ransom is repugnant on its face. It sets a monetary value on someone’s life that in effect cheapens it.

Terror organizations must not be legitimized by, in effect, rewarding them for the terrible acts they commit. They need to be hunted down and arrested — or killed.

 

national news, political news

Yes, guns do kill people

3 Comments

A 9-year-old Arizona girl has become the poster child for gun-safety reform.

This isn’t a pretty story and it speaks to adult stupidity and carelessness as much as it does to anything else.

The girl was firing an Uzi automatic assault rifle on a firing range when it the instructor told her to pull the trigger  to fire a several-round burst. The recoil of the Uzi pulled the weapon upward and the instructor was shot in the head. He later died.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/opinion/robbins-why-was-child-firing-uzi/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And so here we are debating whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is so damn sacred that it prevents government from enacting laws that keep these weapons out of the hands of little children.

What on God’s planet Earth have we come to?

The debate is going rage on. Should we make such laws? Absolutely, we should.

Mel Robbins, a firearms expert, writes for CNN.com about the tragedy. She notes that the incident isn’t really the little girl’s fault. The instructor was standing in the wrong place. What’s more, the instructor told the girl to put the weapon in fully automatic mode.

What happened to the man is tragic beyond measure.

But what in the world are we doing allowing little children to handle these kinds of deadly weapons in the first place, even in what’s supposed to be a “controlled environment”?

As Robbins notes in her CNN.com essay: “Kids can’t drive until they’re 16, vote, chew tobacco or smoke until they’re 18, or drink until they’re 21. No child should have access to firing a fully automatic weapon until the age of 18. And gun ranges should know better than to hand one to a novice shooter passing through on vacation, let alone one as young as 9.”

The National Rifle Association so far has been quiet on this incident. Don’t expect the nation’s premier gun-owner rights group to remain silent. The NRA brass can be expected to come up with some kind of rationale for preventing the enactment of laws that keep guns out of little children’s hands.

In the process, the NRA very well could demonstrate — yet again — how out of touch with American public opinion it has become.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

Ready, set, bombs away!

Back and forth we go.

Congressional Republicans are so angry at President Obama that they want to sue him for taking on too much executive authority to get things done. Now comes a report that the White House is considering air strikes against targets in Syria.

The response from Congress, from Democrats and Republicans? Ask us for authorization, Mr. President, before you unleash our air power.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215962-corker-congress-must-authorize-airstrikes-in-syria

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., says the president should seek congressional approval. So has Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. Others on both sides of the aisle say the same thing.

They’re likely correct to request congressional approval. Recall that Obama earlier decided to seek congressional authorization after he threatened to hit the Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons on its people. Then the Russians intervened and brokered a deal to get the Syrians to surrender the WMD; they did and the weapons have been destroyed.

Congressional approval is likely the prudent course, given that the president has so few allies on Capitol Hill upon whom he can depend.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether senators like Corker and Kaine are going to stand with the commander in chief when the vote comes. If they’re going to demand congressional approval, then I hope they don’t double-cross Barack Obama with a “no” vote.

Obama reportedly wants to hit ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. He’s already authorized the use of surveillance aircraft to look for targets. I continue to hold out concern about where all this might lead.

I’ll say this next part slowly: I do not want my country to go to war … again. I’ve had enough. I do not want ground troops sent back to Iraq, where we’ve bled too heavily already.

But if we can lend our considerable and deadly air power to the struggle to rid the world of ISIS, then let’s get the job done.

 

International news, national news

U.S.-born ISIS fighter is dead

All the hand-wringing over the use of drones to target terrorists who might be American citizens makes me angry.

U.S. airpower struck at a U.S. citizen who had been working with al-Qaeda in Yemen. Our ordnance killed him and civil libertarians and others lamented the lack of “due process” given to the young man before the missile blew him away.

Too bad for that.

Now comes word that another young American, someone named Douglas McCain, was killed in a battle among terror groups in Syria. McCain had been recruited by ISIS, which is fighting governments in Syria and Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Will there more hand-wringing over this one? Probably not, given that he died at the hands of another extremist group. Suppose, though, he’d been killed by U.S. forces. Suppose further that those forces knew that an American was shooting back at him and that he intended to kill whoever he could hit.

Would we have legal and moral standing to kill someone who had renounced his country and taken up arms with the enemy?

Absolutely.

I’m as progressive as anyone on many issues. When it comes, however, to “protecting the rights” of Americans who turn on their country, all bets are off.

My curiosity goes only so far as to wonder what drives Americans to join forces with enemy combatants.

I don’t know the first thing about Douglas McCain and what lured him into the embrace of a hideous terrorist organization. To be honest, I don’t particularly care to know.

What’s left to ponder only is that someone who had declared himself to be an enemy of the country of his birth is now dead.

Whether he died at the hands of other bad guys or at the hands of our soldiers wouldn’t matter to me one little bit.

 

International news, national news, political news

Flash to POTUS: Show us your interest

First, I need to stipulate that I do not believe President Barack Obama is disengaged or disinterested in the issues of his time.

With that, it is fascinating to hear the White House rush to his defense … as if one would expect anything else from the staff that reports to the president.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/215937-white-house-checked-out-obama-is-a-media-myth

I do believe, however, that Barack Obama needs to be a bit more dialed in to the value of photo ops, which he says he dislikes.

I get that, too.

A word to the president is in order: Mr. President, they matter — a lot — in a world that relies heavily on visual images.

Obama has returned from his vacation and is back at his post in the White House. He didn’t exactly disappear while he was “away” at Martha’s Vineyard. A lot of things were happening while he was relaxing with his family and friends at the posh resort.

The golf outings didn’t bother me. The juxtaposition of one particular outing, right after he delivered some moving remarks about the beheading of an American journalist in Syria, was bothersome only because of the events’ proximity to each other.

This is the kind of event the president needs to be careful to avoid. It doesn’t prove he’s disinterested, it only leaves odd feelings in people’s hearts and minds about the commander in chief, the head of state and government. It leaves them with the perception of disinterest — and isn’t perception real in the minds of those who perceive such things?

 

 

national news, political news

Strongest 'non-incumbent in history'? I don't think so

Question for David Plouffe, the former campaign guru for President Obama: What in the world did they teach you in political science classes at the University of Delaware?

Plouffe was a panelist this past Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” news-talk show.

He declared that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s is virtually assured to be the next president of the United States.

Plouffe said Clinton is the “strongest non-incumbent candidate in U.S. political history.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/25/plouffe_hillary_the_strongest_non-incumbent_candidate_in_history_of_american_politics.html

When I heard him say it, two words came immediately to mind: Dwight Eisenhower.

Let’s flash back to 1952.

General of the Army Eisenhower was just seven years removed from his key role in defeating Nazi Germany and bringing an end to World War II’s fighting in Europe. He came home to huge parades.

Ike then went on to become president of Columbia University and later took over as supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe.

President Truman did not run for re-election in 1952, leaving the field wide open.

Gen. Eisenhower stepped up.

The Republican from Denison, Texas was virtually pre-ordained to become president that year. He defeated Adlai Stevenson in a massive Electoral College landslide, winning 442 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 89. Ike would repeat the drubbing four years later when he ran for re-election.

It’s fair to ask whether Plouffe is fully aware of Dwight Eisenhower’s standing among Americans those 62 years ago.

Hillary Clinton figures to be a strong candidate for president if she decides to run.

Is she the strongest non-incumbent in American political history?

I do not believe that’s the case.

 

International news, national news, political news

Rand Paul has become a peacenik

Wow! What in the world has Sen. Rand Paul been putting in his Wheaties?

The Kentucky Republican is now accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of being a “war hawk” and is staking out some interesting turf as he prepares to launch a possible 2016 presidential campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-calls-hillary-clinton-war-hawk?cid=sm_m_main_1_20140825_30412376

The young man is sounding downright dovish in his approach to foreign policy.

Go figure.

Paul long has been considered a darling of the tea party movement within the Republican Party. As I have watched the tea party wing of the GOP, I’ve been struck by how hawkish many of its members have sounded regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. What’s more, the tea party folks have pulled many of the so-called “establishment wing” GOP members over to their side.

Have you heard the griping from veteran U.S. Senate and House Republicans calling for more “robust” responses in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan to the terrorists who are creating so much havoc?

Meanwhile, Rand Paul is saying quite the opposite, He said on Meet the Press this past weekend: “Were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents, and even some Democrats, who say you know what? We are tired of war. We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho.”

Yes, then-Sen. Clinton voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq ordered by President Bush. She’s since walked back from that vote, declaring she believes now that was a mistake.

Is she “gung-ho” these days? I don’t sense what Sen. Paul is sensing in a possible — if not probable — Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised. Paul, after all, did declare his desire to see “all aid” to Israel suspended. He’s tried to take that statement back. However, as my late friend and colleague Claude Duncan once told me about politicians who try to retract regrettable statements: You can’t unhonk the horn.

 

Intgernational news, national news

Let's hear plan? No, wait … that'll tip off the bad guys

These guys are killin’ me.

Critics of the president of the United States now say they want to hear his plans, in detail, on how he intends to “finish off” ISIS, the terror group running rampant in Syria and Iraq.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215847-ryan-wants-to-hear-obamas-plan-to-finish-off-isis-militants

Do you get it? They want Barack Obama to reveal to congressional Republicans the precise manner in which he intends to battle the hideous terror organization. Then what? Will they blab to the world whether the president is on the right track or wrong track? Will they reveal to the ISIS commanders what they’ve learned? Will they tip our hand, giving the bad guys a heads up on where we’ll attack and how much force we’ll use?

I get that the critics want to be kept in the loop. I also get that they need to some things about how an international crisis is evolving.

There seems to be a limit, though, on how much a commander in chief should disclose to his political adversaries — let alone his allies — on how he is deploying military and intelligence assets to do battle with a sworn enemy. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., noted that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are speaking out, but he wants to hear directly from the president.

Mr. Chairman, the defense boss and the Joint Chiefs chairman are speaking on behalf of the president. I’m betting they’re saying what he wants them to say.

 

 

national news, Uncategorized

'Mork' shows us how to honor America

https://www.facebook.com/john.kanelis/posts/819649338085680?notif_t=like

Robins Williams’s death has taken a splendid talent from those of us who laughed at his comic genius.

This item showed up on my Facebook news feed the other day. I’ve shared it once already, but I’m doing so again right here, with just a few words about what it means to me.

Williams’s salute to the United States in this short video shows how one can be patriotic and irreverent at the same time. It’s becoming a bit of a lost art these days.

The political debate has gotten so sour that it seems that any kind of fun-poking is seen as some sort of statement against the things for which the nation stands. I wish that weren’t so.

There’s a segment in this video that suggests it was made in the early 1980s, about the time Williams was portraying the space alien “Mork” on the TV series “Mork and Mindy.” Thus, the symbolism of an actor who portrays an extraterrestrial is so meaningful to me in this video.

Robin Williams gets what it means to love this country. We need more of this kind of loving irreverence in the halls of power.