Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

O'Reilly sees the light on name-calling?

Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly had an eye-opening commentary Wednesday night in which he said Republicans should avoid name-calling and “smearing” of Democrats, namely President Obama and the woman who wants to succeed him, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bill-oreilly-obama-insults-2016-elections-115526.html?hp=l3_4

I don’t know what to make of this.

O’Reilly said this, according to Politico: “But any Republican candidate who says personal things about either the president or Mrs. Clinton will be making a tremendous mistake,” he added. Most Americans don’t like that line of attack, he said. “Once in a while, a takedown is necessary, but to make a living out of guttersniping” would be a “ticket to defeat,” he commented. “Smearing anyone should be unacceptable.”

So, let’s backtrack a few days. Mother Jones published a scathing report questioning O’Reilly’s coverage of the Falklands War in 1982. O’Reilly went immediately on the attack. What did he call David Corn, a co-writer of the lengthy essay? Why, an “irresponsible guttersnipe,” of course.

O’Reilly is correct to caution Republicans about the personal attacks. The Politico link attached to this post details some of the points he made on his “O’Reilly Factor” talk show.

However, whenever anyone gets under his skin and riles the fellow, O’Reilly is pretty quick to pull the hair-trigger on those who disagree with him.

Still, let’s hope he follows his own advice. Then again, his visible and vocal righteous anger is a big part of what draws his audience to his show.

International news

U.S.-Israel spat getting more serious

The quarreling between the United States and Israel has me conflicted on a couple of levels … maybe even more of them.

First, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled speech next week before a joint congressional session should not occur. He accepted an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner that was a serious breach of longstanding diplomatic protocol; Boehner extended the invitation without consulting with the president and the White House. President Obama is rightfully ticked off at the speaker for extending the invitation and is angry at the prime minister for accepting it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-israel-quarrel-intensifies-over-netanyahu-speech/ar-BBhXjA2

Second, Netanyahu plans to lobby Congress to impose more sanctions on Iran while that country is negotiating a potential end to its nuclear program development. Obama has said repeatedly that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons and has vowed to keep Iran from obtaining them. He’s seeking a negotiated settlement to that end. Netanyahu and Boehner are trying to undermine that effort. Bad call, Bibi and Mr. Speaker.

Third, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are planning to boycott the speech next week. That, too, is a bad call. As much as I oppose the invitation and the proposed contend of the prime minister’s speech, I think it’s bad form for U.S lawmakers to stay away. Hear the prime minister out, extend your hand, give him the respect that a visiting head of government deserves.

I understand Netanyahu’s angst regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Islamic Republic of Iran has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the map. The Israelis, of course, don’t want that to occur. Israel’s standing as the chief U.S. ally in the Middle East gives the Israelis a unique place.

However, Netanyahu and Boehner broke with diplomatic decorum — and don’t for an instant underestimate its importance — with this invitation and the manner in which it was offered.

The worst aspect of it is the effect it might have on sensitive negotiations that well could produce a safer Middle East.

There’s some word of a possible deal in the works that would put the clamps on nuclear development for at least 10 years; then there could be a gradual easing of restrictions. The “easing” part is troublesome, but the international community can remain on high alert in the years ahead to any notion that Iran might be kick-starting its ambition to develop nuclear weapons.

My hope is that the fiery rhetoric coming out of Washington and Jerusalem can be tempered. The two nations remain bound together by many more common interests than differences. Obama and Netanyahu have affirmed as much many times during their sometimes-testy relationship.

Who knows? Maybe Netanyahu’s speech before Congress next week can be reworked and dialed back to recognize the importance of the negotiations that seek to end Iran’s nuclear program.

Shall we hope for the best?

environmental news, International news, national news

Keystone veto will stick, for now

President Obama has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, his reason seems a bit nit-picky.

The White House said Obama doesn’t necessarily oppose the pipeline, but he opposes the process that delivered the bill to his desk.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/obama-vetoes-republican-attempt-to-force-keystone-approval/ar-BBhVCrd

The pipeline is supposed to ship oil produced from Canadian tar sands through the middle of the United States, ending up in ports along the Texas Gulf Coast. It then will be shipped overseas. Proponents of the bill say it will create jobs and will help ensure that the world’s supply of oil remains high, thus helping ensue cheaper prices for the oil around the world.

Although I do support the pipeline, the president’s veto makes a modicum of sense.

He thinks an environmental study process should have been allowed to run its course. Congress short-circuited that process — which includes a complete review by the State Department.

“Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest,” the veto message said.

As Bloomberg News reported: “White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama’s rejection was strictly about the legislation and not the project. It’s ‘certainly possible’ that Obama would eventually approve the pipeline once a State Department review is completed, he said, without giving a timetable.

“’The president will keep an open mind,’ Earnest said, repeating past administration language.”

The White House said the review is part of an intricate longstanding process that’s been honored over many years. Congress’s decision to fast-track the pipeline didn’t allow a thorough review of the total impact of the project.

Perhaps the State Department can complete its review in relatively short order, deliver its findings to Capitol Hill and the White House — and then we can go through this legislative process all over again.

Let’s do it the right way.

national news

McConnell acts like a grownup on DHS bill

Well, glory be.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell actually is capable of acting like a governing grownup. Good for him.

He wants the Senate to pass a “clean” Department of Homeland Security funding measure, without trying to undo President Obama’s executive action on immigration. He’s now putting the screws on the House of Representatives, which might resist the Senate boss’s efforts to keep DHS functioning after Friday.

McConnell puts squeeze on House

Without the funding bill, DHS will furlough 30,000 federal employees and will effectively shut down, putting the nation’s borders at risk of infiltration by undesirables — you know, drug smugglers and terrorists.

It’s not that McConnell wants to give Obama a pass on the immigration action. He said he’s willing to vote on defunding the executive action after voting on the DHS bill. Whatever.

The big story is that McConnell is willing to avoid shutting down a key national security agency over a partisan political fight.

National security — protecting the homeland, for instance — ought to be above partisanship. In this day and time, though, everything becomes a partisan battle. Everything!

Congress has shown a propensity for pulling rabbits out of its hat. The DHS funding issue has a lot of Americans — including me — worried about the level of gamesmanship both sides are willing to play, even if it involves protecting the nation.

Lawmakers have three whole days to get this thing done.

Do it, ladies and gentlemen.

national news, political news

Actually, Mr. Mayor, I heard you clearly

Rudy Guiliani has tried to explain his harsh criticism of Barack Obama by saying that his bluntness got in the way of his message.

He writes in the Wall Street Journal: “My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn’t love America notwithstanding, I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart.”

Well, OK. I heard his remarks. I’ve read them carefully. I think I understand exactly what he said and the message he intended to convey.

For the record, the former New York mayor was speaking at an event honoring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who’s considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination next year. Guiliani decided to say that the president “doesn’t love America.” Then he went on to say he didn’t question the president’s patriotism.

Those statements seem to be mutually exclusive. A patriot, by definition, loves his country. Am I missing something? I don’t think so.

The former mayor — a one-time candidate for the GOP presidential nomination — went on at some length to tell his audience that the president has a “different” view of the nation from, well, others.

A day or two later, Guiliani tried to counter criticism from some that his attacks were racially motivated, saying that the president was raised by a “white mother.” Someone will have to explain that one to me.

Then he mentioned that young Barack was brought up with “communist influences.” Huh?

I heard the former mayor clearly. I think I know what he intended to say. He’s a well-educated, usually well-spoken man who’s used to the limelight. He undoubtedly wasn’t suffering from stage fright at that dinner the other evening.

He simply was mistaken to the max in his assessment of the president’s love of country.

 

national news

Father's grief brings criticism of hostage policy

Carl Mueller’s grief is beyond most people’s comprehension.

His daughter, Kayla Jean, was killed in an air strike against her Islamic State captors. Parents aren’t supposed to mourn the loss of their children. Parents throughout the world understand the natural order, and what Carl and Marsha Mueller are experiencing upsets that order.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/slain-us-hostages-dad-slams-us-ransom-policy/ar-BBhR85n

Having laid down that predicate — and stating my own sorrow over Kayla Jean’s death — it is important to put his criticism of longstanding U.S. policy regarding ransom for hostages in some perspective.

Carl Mueller said the U.S. government put policy ahead of his daughter’s safe return.

He believes the government should have paid ransom for her daughter’s release.

“We understand the policy about not paying ransom,” Carl Mueller told “Meet the Press.”

“But on the other hand, any parents out there would understand that you would want anything and everything done to bring your child home. And we tried. And we asked. But they put policy in front of American citizens’ lives.”

Paying ransom every time someone is captured by an enemy, though, puts other Americans at even greater risk. If an enemy knows it can get paid large sums of money whenever it grabs an innocent victim, there can be no limit to the demands the enemy can make.

The U.S. policy that prohibits paying ransom does not make it any easier for those who lose loved ones at the hands of ruthless killers. Carl and Marsha Mueller’s grief is unfathomable.

U.S. no-ransom policy doesn’t diminish the grief we all feel for their horrific loss. The policy, though, is the correct one. Those who commit evil deeds need no additional incentive to exact their terrible vengeance.

 

national news

Does the president love this country? Yes!

The White House has its collective dander up over those goofy remarks by Rudy Guiliani, who this past week said President Obama doesn’t love America.

I’ve commented on this. I won’t take up too much of your time with yet another commentary.

I’ll leave the response to White House press flack Josh Earnest.

“The most high-profile example that I can think of was actually the last line of this year’s State of the Union in which the president said, ‘God bless this country we love,'” Earnest said Friday.

There have been countless other declarations of love of country.

Isn’t Guiliani paying attention?

Oh, I almost forgot. An election year is coming up and he’s got to find something — anything — with which to demonize the president.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/axelrod-i-dont-know-why-there-is-confusion-on-obamas-beliefs/ar-BBhQRSp

national news, political news, religious news

'No religious test' ends this discussion

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

— Article VI, Paragraph 3, U.S. Constitution

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has had a tough time of it in recent days.

He sat in the room when former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani questioned whether President Obama loved America. Walker didn’t refute the ex-mayor’s nonsense.

Then came a question about whether President Obama is a Christian — as if that even is relevant to any discussion about anyone on Earth, let alone the president of the United States. Walker said he didn’t know, offering some lame notion that he’s never discussed Obama’s faith with him.

I hereby refer to the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI. See the above text.

Right there is all the evidence I need that this discussion has no place in today’s political discourse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/21/scott-walker-s-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-answer.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

But yet it keeps coming back, particularly as we reference the current president. Why is that?

Has anyone ever wondered aloud whether any of the men who preceded Obama were Christian? Why didn’t Walker swat that idiotic question aside by saying something like:

“That question is irrelevant. You’ve never asked such a thing of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy … none of them. Barack Obama’s faith is his personal business and the fact that he’s had to speak about it all — and he’s declared his belief in Jesus Christ as his Savior — is because the media and the president’s foes keep bringing it up.

“Next question.”

A president’s faith — or the faith of anyone seeking public office — according to the nation’s founders, is of zero consequence. Does that mean a candidate should necessarily hide his faith from public view? Of course not. Candidates are free to proclaim whatever they wish to proclaim and if their religious faith informs how they set public policy, that should be a factor that voters should consider.

However, the Constitution expressly declares that there should be “no religious test” that candidates for public office must pass.

Let’s focus fully instead on policies that affect people’s lives.

national news

Listen to Texas lawmakers on DHS funding

Dear Members of Congress:

Your Texas colleagues are speaking wisdom that you need to hear.

Do not play politics with funding the Department of Homeland Security. Doing so, according to Rep. Michael McCaul, puts the nation at a serious national security risk.

Do you understand that? Do you understand what it means to use DHS funding as a political football?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/20/lawmakers-toying-dhs-funding-dangerous-game/

Let’s all understand something. Some of you are angry with President Obama’s decision to grant temporary amnesty for several million illegal immigrants. Others of you support the president’s decision.

Those of you who oppose Obama’s executive action, however, are signaling a serious breach in our national security network if you cut money out of DHS just because you’re mad at the president.

McCaul, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee in the House, said it well: “The terrorists are watching and the drug cartels are watching, and anytime we play politics with funding a national security agency, it’s a dangerous game to play,” McCaul told the Texas Tribune. “It’s a sign of weakness in our government.”

I get that McCaul, a Republican, is fingering Senate Democrats for this standoff. Both sides are to blame here.

Republicans have added amendments to the DHS funding bill that takes aim at Obama’s executive order. Democrats oppose it and the Senate has held up the funding because of that opposition.

So, who’s playing politics with our national security? I’m casting a plague on both political parties.

A lot of border-state lawmakers are concerned enough to send up warning signals.

Congress must not defund a national security agency because of petulance over a presidential order.

Don’t endanger the nation by cutting off money for the agency whose mission is to protect “the homeland.”

 

national news, political news

Rudy talks himself out of relevance

Two of the smarter pundits — one a liberal, the other a conservative — have found common ground on the remarks delivered recently by former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani.

Mark Shields and David Brooks agree that Guiliani’s assertion that President Obama doesn’t “love America” are unacceptable and the Republican Party to which Guiliani belongs needs to call him out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/21/david_brooks_giulianis_comments_unacceptable_incumbent_upon_republicans_to_police_the_party.html

What “America’s Mayor” seems to be doing — if the GOP follows through on the advice — is talking himself out of becoming a relevant voice in the nation’s political discourse.

Brooks, who writes a right-leaning column for the New York Times, told the PBS NewsHour that Guiliani’s remarks are “self-destructive” and are just plain wrong.

Guiliani spouted off during a political event honoring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. It took place in New York City. He prefaced his remarks by acknowledging it was difficult to say, but then he said the president doesn’t love the country he governs.

This is a shameful act of demagoguery.

Shields, whose column tilts to the left, brought up a fascinating element to Guiliani’s doubts about Obama’s patriotism. It was that Guiliani received six draft deferments to get out of serving in the Vietnam War and persuaded a judge to get him reclassified to 2A specifically to keep him from going to war. Are those the actions of a patriot? Shields asked.

Shields also noted: “I go back to John McCain, who in 2008, when this was a hot issue, had the courage to confront a Republican audience in Lakeville, Minnesota, when they made this charge and said, no, that is untrue. President Obama is an American. He cares about this country. He loves this family, and I like him, but I disagree with him on the issues.”

If the mayor is setting the tone for the upcoming GOP presidential primary campaign, then the developing field of candidates talking about entering the race need to switch to a new song sheet.

NewsHour moderator Judy Woodruff did note that several Republican officials denounced Guiliani’s remarks. They were correct to do so.

Brooks responded: “It’s incumbent on Republicans to do that, just to police the party.”