Tag Archives: Barack Obama

national news, political news

House GOP 'survey' loaded with baloney

Nice try, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

You sought to ask me my views on how you and National Republican Congressional Committee are seeking to save the country from those reckless and feckless liberals in the White House. I ain’t taking the bait, Mr. Speaker.

You’ll get your State of the Nation Survey back in the mail. I even signed my name to it to validate its findings.

You see, sir, I don’t share your view that President Obama has wrecked the country. Almost every question you pose in your survey presumes that you and your party are right and the president and his party are wrong … across the board.

To be fair, I do agree with a few of the questions you pose. I believe, as you do, that the feds should work “closely with state and local officials to stop border violence and enforce federal immigration laws.” I also believe in the Second Amendment’s guarantee that we have a right “to keep and bear arms.” I agree with you that our legal system should “better protect victims and consumers while also giving manufacturers and small businesses confidence to keep jobs in America.” I even believe in “Republicans’ landmark ban on all earmarks” attached to federal legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, your survey isn’t a total loser with me.

However, I do not subscribe to your notion that liberal/progressive policies are inherently bad for the country. I happen to be a good-government liberal who thinks the Obama administration has done well to revive the economy and keep us safe from terrorists. I also believe, contrary to your view, that our standing in the world hasn’t been diminished. Furthermore, I believe that the Affordable Care Act, which likely needs more fine-tuning, should remain on the books, as it is providing millions of Americans with health insurance they didn’t have before it was enacted.

Those are my views, Mr. Speaker, and I’m sticking with them.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent.

God bless the United States of America.

 

military news, national news, Uncategorized

Finally! A clarification of 'natural-born citizen'

Where were these fellows, say, in 2007, 2008 and for most of Barack Obama’s first term a president of the United States?

Two former solicitors general of the United States have settled — in my mind, at least — the issue that polluted the political atmosphere until the time Obama was re-elected in November 2012. They’ve defined the term “natural born citizen” as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, writing for the Harvard Law Review, say with virtually zero reservation that “natural  born citizen” applies to anyone who becomes an American immediately upon  birth, irrespective of where that birth occurred. At issue is whether that circumstances affects the qualifications of anyone seeking to run for president. Is that constitutionally qualified yes? Katyal and Clement say “yes.”

The issue has been discussed at times. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory. George Romney was born in Mexico. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Three of those men already have run for president; Cruz is expected to run for the 2016 Republican nomination.

All four men were U.S. citizens upon birth. Goldwater’s parents were citizens, as were McCain’s and Romney’s. Cruz’s mother is an American. Therefore, that qualifies them to hold the highest office in the land.

Oh, and what about Barack Obama?

Remember all that baloney about whether he was constitutionally qualified, that he was born in Kenya and that, according to the yahoos who sought to make a big deal out of his birthplace? Katyal and Clement say none of that mattered one little bit.

Obama’s mother was an American, which meant he was bestowed full U.S. citizenship the moment he was born to her and his Kenyan father — in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state to join the Union.

A cousin of mine sent me the attached link to let me know that Ted Cruz also is qualified to run for president. My cousin is likely to support Cruz’s president.

But in truth, I’ve long believed that Cruz was qualified under Article II of the Constitution to hold the office, just as I was certain that Goldwater, McCain Romney and Obama could serve in that office.

I just wish the Harvard Law Review article could have settled this issue long before now.

Better late than never, right?

national news, political news

No charges against Gang of 47

An interesting petition is being circulated by those who think, as I do, that the 47 Senate Republicans who sent The Letter to the Iranian mullahs asking them to reject a nuclear deal worked out by the president of the United States.

The petition calls for charges to be filed against the senators.

I don’t sign petitions. I didn’t sign this one. Indeed, even if I did sign petitions, I wouldn’t sign this one. Why? The Gang of 47 needs only to suffer political embarrassment for stepping into territory where it didn’t belong. The gang doesn’t need to be brought up on charges.

Here’s how former Labor Secretary Robert Reich discusses it in his Facebook post: “A petition calling for charges to be filed against 47 U.S. Senators who sent an open letter to the leaders of Iran, in alleged violation of the Logan Act (a law that forbids unauthorized citizens to negotiate with foreign governments) has already collected over 165,000 signatures. I can’t imagine the Justice Department actually going after the 47, or the constitutional and political crisis that would ensue if it did. Yet I think it important that our voices be heard on this matter. Allowing a political party to conduct its own foreign policy undermines the authority of the President and poses a threat to the peace and security of all Americans. I urge you to add your name, and send a clear signal that this behavior is unacceptable.”

Reich is correct to assert that it’s important for Americans’ voices to be heard on this matter.

The Gang of 47 has committed a serious political miscalculation. Let them stew in the embarrassment they’ve brought onto themselves.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Lynch nomination a cliffhanger? Why?

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake. I get that. I concede it’s a weakness.

But for the life of me, I do not understand why Loretta Lynch’s nomination to become the next U.S. attorney general is hanging by a thread. Someone will have to explain this one to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/loretta-lynch-nomination-close-116032.html?hp=t2_r

Lynch is supposed to replace Eric Holder as AG. She was thought to be set for a relatively easy confirmation. Then the man who appointed her, President Obama, decided to issue an executive order that delayed deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants; the order allows them to seek work permits while they stay in the United States.

The order enraged Senate Republicans. So what did they do? They began questioning Lynch about whether she supported the president’s executive decision.

What on God’s Earth did they expect her to say?

“Well, senator, since you asked, I think that’s the dumbest damn idea I’ve ever heard. It’s illegal. It violates the Constitution. The president has rocks in his head and he should be impeached just for being stupid enough to issue the order.”

Is that what they want her to say? I’m beginning to think that’s the case.

Instead, she has declared her support of the president’s decision. As if that’s some big surprise to the senators, some of whom said they’d support her initially, but then changed their mind because — gasp! — she’s endorsing a key policy of the man who wants her to become the next attorney general.

Who’da thunk such a thing?

Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to assume this important post. Republicans have made no secret of their intense dislike of Holder, who said he’d stay on the job until the next AG is confirmed.

I believe Holder has done just fine as attorney general, but he wants to move on, spend time with his family, pursue other interests … all those clichés. So, let him do it.

First, though, confirm Loretta Lynch.

International news

End of bipartisan foreign policy?

Leslie Gelb never has struck me as a crazed, left-wing ideologue.

He still doesn’t, but he’s written a piece for the Daily Beast that paints an extremely grim picture of one of the consequences of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to the Iranian mullahs.

He said The Letter well might destroy bipartisan foreign policy, the kind envisioned by politicians of both parties until, well, just the other day.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/10/open-letter-to-iran-shows-gop-senators-hate-obama-more-than-they-love-america.html

The headline over Gelb’s essay says that Republicans “hate Obama more than nuclear Iran.”

“Hate” is one of those words our parents have told us we shouldn’t use. Yes, I’ve referred on my blog to “Obama haters,” and I regret the use of that term. I’ll only refer to prior use of it here.

Gelb, though, wonders whether The Letter signals the end of bipartisan foreign policy, the kind that compels politicians to rally around the president as he tries to negotiate deals with foreign leaders, prosecute conflicts, wage campaigns against terrorists, stared down our nation’s enemies.

The Gang of 47 sees it differently. They were led by a wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who drafted The Letter that advised Iran that it should consider rejecting a nuclear prohibition treaty because it could be overturned when President Obama leaves office in January 2017.

The blowback against the senators has been ferocious. Even some Republicans are trying to back away from it.

Gelb writes: “What the 47 did was not a trivial matter or ‘a tempest in a teapot,’ as Senator John McCain has described it. It could well affect possible Iranian concessions in the end game. The ayatollahs could well conclude from that letter that concessions they might have made just aren’t worth it politically, as the agreement would go nowhere anyway. They’d be taking political risks for nothing.”

This interference in a president’s negotiation with a hostile foreign government is unconscionable. Teapot tempest? Hardly.

I hope Gelb is wrong about the future of bipartisan foreign policy. I fear, though, that he’s right.

 

International news, national news, political news

GOP's letter to Iran? It's Obama's fault

You knew it would come to this, didn’t you?

Republican U.S. senators, trying to put some distance between themselves and what’s looking like a monumental cluster-bleep regarding The Letter that was sent to Iran regarding the nuclear negotiations, have done the impossible.

They’ve gone from irresponsible to ridiculous. They’re blaming President Obama for their decision to fire off that message to the Iranian mullahs, encouraging them to oppose any nuclear treaty that gets hammered out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/gop-obama-cotton-letter_n_6843204.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Blame Obama! That’s the ticket!

Here’s how the Huffington Post, which I concede isn’t a friend of the GOP, reported it: “Those who support the letter — even some who didn’t add their names — deflected the blame. If it weren’t for Obama’s failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn’t have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.

“’I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,’ Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.

“’No, no, no,’ Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.”

There’s more on the link attached to this post, but you get the idea.

The Gang of 47 sent The Letter because President Obama didn’t consult with Republican lawmakers about the negotiations, the GOP line of defense goes.

I applaud Sen. Corker for remaining part of a dwindling Reasonable Republican Senate Caucus; he was one of seven GOP senators who didn’t sign The Letter.

However, his assertion — along with those who did sign the document — that this is Barack Obama’s fault is about as “funny” as the statement by GOP congressional aides reported in The Daily Beast that the senators were being “cheeky,” that they meant The Letter to be something of a joke.

I’m trying real hard right now to pick up the sound of laughter. I don’t hear anything.

 

national news, political news

Come clean, Mme. Secretary

Hillary Rodham Clinton can put the email controversy to bed today. It might be finished. Then again, her foes well might decide to keep the flames going.

The former secretary of state will conduct a press conference in New York. She’ll take questions about the email tempest — the one involving her use of a private account while she ran the State Department.

I refuse to call this a “scandal” because it doesn’t rise that level. It is a problem, though, for the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-address-email-controversy-115903.html?hp=t1_r

Congressional investigators are trying to link some missing emails to the Benghazi matter involving the deaths of four Americans in September 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Libya. That’s the politics of it: Republicans keep smelling blood and keep looking to inflict a mortal wound to Clinton’s budding presidential candidacy.

In a strange way, I see this controversy developing the way the Barack Obama “birther” controversy was kept alive before withering away.

Those on the far right kept insisting that Obama wasn’t constitutionally qualified to serve as president because, they said, he was born in Africa. He wasn’t. The president said he was born in Hawaii. The controversy persisted until the night of Obama’s re-election in November 2012.

I have a strong suspicion that the email matter will keep boiling throughout this year and most of next — until when or if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States.

Still, it’s good that she’ll seek to quiet the storm today.

We’re all ears, Mme. Secretary.

 

International news, national news, political news

Logan Act may have been violated

2 Comments

The Logan Act was enacted in 1799, during the John Adams administration.

Its provisions are clear: No citizen shall — other than the president of the United States — shall negotiate with another government or presume to speak for the U.S. government.

Here is what it says:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

So, here’s the question: Did the 47 Republican U.S. senators who signed the letter to Iranian government officials seeking to discourage Iran from approving a nuclear disarmament treaty with the United States violate the Logan Act?

Some folks are beginning to suggest that the letter’s intent is so egregious that the senators might have committed a near-treasonous act.

President Obama is seeking to negotiate a deal that ends Iran’s nuclear program. The senators are telling Iran that whatever treaty approved might become invalid once the president leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. The GOP lawmakers are encouraging the Iranians to oppose the treaty.

There appears to be some serious undermining of the president’s authority to negotiate a treaty. Yes, the Senate has the right to disapprove of the treaty once it’s finalized. However, to interfere in the midst of negotiations? That job belongs to the president of the United States — and no one else.

Message to the Senate Republicans: Butt the hell out!

International news

White House angry over GOP letter to Iranians

Does it surprise anyone that the White House would be steamed over a group of Republican senators seeking to undercut the president’s authority to negotiate a sensitive nuclear disarmament treaty?

If it does, then you need to get out more.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/235067-durbin-rips-gops-letter-on-iran-as-a-political-stunt

White House press flack Josh Earnest was unusually blunt today in responding to the letter signed by 47 GOP senators telling Iran that any treaty it agrees to with President Obama could be voided once the president leaves office in less than two years.

The Obama administration is seeking an agreement that stops the Iranian nuclear development efforts many believe is designed to produce a nuclear weapon for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The president doesn’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and has said so — repeatedly. Republicans don’t want the Iranians to join the “nuclear club,” and they’ve said so as well.

But which of them — the president or the Senate — has the authority to negotiate a deal. That’s right: the president of the United States.

So, why is the Senate GOP meddling in a duty charged to the executive branch of government?

Might it be Senate Republicans want the negotiations to fail so that they push even harder for the military option?

As The Hill reports: Earnest said Republicans have a “long and rather sordid history” of putting military options ahead of diplomatic ones, and called the letter, signed by 47 GOP lawmakers, “the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s authority.”

Once more, with feeling: We have one president at a time.

national news, political news

Sen. Graham: No emails from me

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is appealing to the technologically challenged.

The South Carolina Republican says he’s never sent an email and prefers to talk face to face with his South Carolina constituents. Well, good for him.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235040-graham-president-must-be-good-with-people-not-just-technology

Graham said on “Meet the Press” that the next president of the United States — which might be him, although that seems to be among the longest of long shots — should be good with people, not technology.

That’s quaint talk, senator. It’s also meaningless.

The subject came up in a discussion of the email flap that keeps hounding Hillary Rodham Clinton and her use of a private email account while she served as secretary of state. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Darrell Issa of California, suggest Clinton might face “criminal charges.” Oh, brother.

Graham said Sunday: “The way I communicate is that I talk to people face to face, I’ll pick up the phone. I think the best thing is … to go to the Mideast, not email about the Mideast, not be told about the Mideast, but get on the ground.”

Maybe it’s just me, but my strong hunch is that in the remote chance Graham gets elected president next year that he’ll have plenty of staff sitting around waiting to communicate via email with a pertinent foreign leader. Were he climb aboard Air Force One just to talk to someone, say, in the Middle East, well … that could get a little expensive.

And haven’t Republicans been casting stones at the current president, Barack Obama, and his family over their alleged overuse of that big jumbo jet?