Tag Archives: Barack Obama

legal news, national news

Let's try to define AG's 'independence'

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley wants the next attorney general to show some “independent” thought if she’s confirmed to run the Justice Department.

So far, Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch isn’t demonstrating the requisite independence to suit Chairman Grassley’s taste.

GOP cools on Loretta Lynch

The committee, which has to sign off on her nomination before the full Senate votes on her confirmation, delayed the vote for a couple of weeks. The reason? Lynch hasn’t put sufficient distance between herself and President Obama on the issue of immigration and the president’s executive actions that delays deportation of some 5 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

I’ll admit to being a bit slow on the uptake at times, so I don’t quite understand this “independence” concern being expressed.

The president nominates Cabinet officers because he wants them to be on the same page as the person who nominates them. How can a member of a president’s Cabinet exhibit sufficient independence without undermining the overall goals that the administration seeks to achieve?

As The Hill reported: “I think [Attorney General Eric] Holder is running the Justice Department like a wing of the White House,” (Grassley) added. “That’s not right, and I want her to show us that she can be independent.”

So, is the chairman asking Lynch to buck the president on an issue he deems critical enough to take executive action?

How does, say, a defense secretary demonstrate independence when he or she assumes command of the Pentagon, which falls under the ultimate purview of the commander in chief? How does a treasury secretary oversee fiscal policy independent of the president who might have a clear set of economic principles he wants the country to follow?

Maybe there’s some kind of middle ground that Grassley and other Senate Republicans are seeking from the next attorney general.

I stand by my belief that the president’s prerogative should carry greater weight if he nominates someone who’s qualified to do a job.

Accordingly, Loretta Lynch is supremely qualified to be the next attorney general — even if she happens to support the policies of the president who appoints her.

 

national news, political news

GOP plays with fire over DHS funding

3 Comments

Congressional Republicans — and Democrats, for that matter — keep insisting that national security should be above partisan politics.

What, then, is going on with GOP threats to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because its congressional caucus is so upset with President Obama’s executive order on immigration?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/15/us-usa-congress-homeland-idUSKBN0LJ0P520150215

Good bleeping grief, people! The Homeland Security department, as its very name says, is charged with protecting the United States against internal and external threats. The 9/11 terrorist onslaught produced the agency, correct?

Now, though, it’s becoming a political football, being kicked around Capitol Hill by congressional Republicans who just cannot get over the notion that the president acted within his constitutional authority to delay the deportation of several million undocumented immigrants.

They are threatening to sue Obama over his action. They want to repeal it. They are insisting that he acted unlawfully. Yet no one has produced a shred of evidence to suggest that the president acted outside of the authority granted him by federal statute and the Constitution of the United States of America.

DHS money is going to run out on Feb. 27 unless Congress approves money to pay for it.

The House of Representatives has approved money for DHS, but have added some amendments stripping the president’s executive action of its authorization. Senate Democrats object to the GOP amendments and have held up the appropriation, drawing criticism — quite naturally — from House Republicans. Speaker John Boehner said the GOP has done its job; now it’s up to Senate Democrats.

That’s all fine, except Senate Democrats object to GOP complaints about the executive actions on immigration, which were legal and constitutional.

Thus, the gamesmanship.

What in the world has happened to good government?

 

International news

House speaker mounts lame defense

John Boehner must be fantasizing about being president of the United States.

Why else would the speaker of the House of Representatives take it upon himself to buck long-standing diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government to speak to Congress without consulting first with the White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-boehner-defends-netanyahu-invitation-115212.html?hp=c2_3

The speaker has defended his invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, saying he didn’t tell the White House because he didn’t want any interference from President Obama, who he thinks might seek to derail the invitation.

Such so-called “logic” simply dodges the real issue, which is whether it is appropriate for a legislative leader to go behind the back of the nation’s head of state — the president — in inviting a foreign dignitary to make a public speech before a joint congressional session.

To my way of thinking — and others as well — the speaker broke a long-held rule of diplomatic decorum.

And why? Because of some so-called tension between the president and the prime minister.

“There’s so secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” the Ohio Republican said. “I, frankly, didn’t want that getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.”

The “real opportunity,” according to Boehner, would be for Netanyahu to argue for stronger sanctions against Iran while the Islamic Republic is in the middle of nuclear disarmament negotiations with the State Department and other foreign governments. Barack Obama doesn’t want to impose any new sanctions while the negotiations are under way.

I agree totally with Boehner that Netanyahu is the “perfect person” to talk about radical Islamic terrorism and about the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That’s as far as Netanyahu should go, however, when he stands before a joint congressional session.

To lobby publicly for the increased sanctions now undercuts the president — which is another breach of decorum that Boehner has committed.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve got just one president at a time.

And, sir, it isn’t you.

 

political news

Obama 'selfie' reveals great divide

2 Comments

There can be no doubt — none, zero — that President Obama can do nothing without attracting the ire of his political foes.

His recent rash of “selfies,” distributed on BuzzFeed, has become the latest object of right-wing scorn.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/13/cue-conservative-media-outrage-over-obamas-self/202531

So help me, I don’t understand why the critics are so up in arms over these videos.

They show the president of the United States acting, well, like many of the rest of us. He’s borderline goofy, self-effacing, rather silly and, oh, maybe a little snarky.

Isn’t he acting like Mr. or Ms. Average Joe or Jane? Don’t others do much the same thing as what we’ve seen the president do?

The righties dislike the timing of one of his selfies, coming on the day that it was revealed Kayla Mueller died while in the hands of Islamic State terrorists. But wait! Didn’t Obama express heartfelt sympathy to Mueller’s family? Didn’t he assure them and the world that the terrorists would be brought to justice? Sure he did.

So, he takes a few minutes to promote Healthcare.gov through the recording of the selfie. What is the problem here?

It’s “beneath the dignity of the office,” we keep hearing.

I’ll just add that presidents of both political parties have acted like human beings while they’re in office. None of this is unique to the 44th president.

Let’s all just give the guy a break.

legal news, national news, political news

AG pick Lynch forced to wait … and wait

The game-playing is continuing on Capitol Hill regarding one key appointment to President Obama’s Cabinet.

It involves Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch, who’ll now have to wait until Feb. 26 for the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on her nomination to run the Justice Department.

What foolishness. What’s up with the newly empowered Republican Senate majority?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-delay-loretta-lynch-confirmation-115149.html?hp=c3_3

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Lynch wasn’t very responsive in answering the 200 or so written questions submitted by the panel. So he’s going to hold up the vote, even though virtually all the committee members’ minds are made up.

Lynch likely has the votes on the committee to be confirmed. She surely has the votes of the full Senate.

Meanwhile, the man GOP senators have come to loathe — Attorney General Eric Holder — remains on the job while Lynch is left twisting in the wind while the new Senate majority gets around to scheduling a vote to confirm her.

Lynch, the current U.S. attorney for New York’s Eastern District, is highly qualified to become the next attorney general. Several key Republican senators already have declared their endorsement of the Democratic president’s nominee.

Chairman Grassley, though, wants to drag it out some more — for reasons only he seems to get.

Some GOP senators object to Lynch’s support of the president’s executive action on immigration — as if they’d expect her to oppose the decision made by the man who has selected her to become attorney general.

Do they actually expect her to oppose the president? Do they really and truly believe she should undercut the nation’s chief executive?

Let’s take this vote, send it to the full Senate, then let all 100 senators vote on Loretta Lynch’s nomination.

Shall we?

 

International news

No ransom — ever — for terrorist hostages

President Obama is right to insist that the United States will not pay ransom for hostages held by terrorist organizations.

And yet, the death the other day of a young Arizona woman, Kayla Jean Mueller, at the hands of her Islamic State captors has shaken the nation at many levels.

Mueller died, possibly as a result of a Jordanian air strike against ISIL targets. The president confirmed this week that he dispatched a mission to obtain Mueller’s rescue, but it didn’t succeed.

Still, he said telling family members — begging for their loved ones’ safe return — of U.S. no-ransom policy is among the most difficult things he must do as president and commander in chief.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232374-obama-confirms-the-us-tried-to-rescue-kayla-Mueller

But he must hold that line.

“The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms with an organization like ISIL. And the reason is once we start doing that, not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but we’re actually making Americans even greater targets for future kidnappings,” Obama said.

This fight will go on, perhaps in perpetuity. No one knows how it will end or how the United States ever will be able to declare victory.

If we’re going to fight a ruthless enemy, we need to ensure they understand that there can be no monetary price to be paid for someone’s priceless life.

 

International news

Now it's Congress's turn to step up in fight

1 Comment

My fellow Americans, let us now declare that a moment of truth has just landed on Capitol Hill’s doorstep.

Do members of Congress, most of whom belong to the Republican Party, stand ready to authorize the commander in chief’s use of military force against the Islamic State? Are they now going to sign on in this fight, rather than carp at the president’s strategy, or criticize him for allegedly not having a clear cut mission in this ongoing battle?

Barack Obama today sent a request to Congress for a three-year authorization to keep taking the fight to ISIL. It contains language that prohibits the long term use of U.S. ground forces — except for special operations forces that could be used to conduct specific, surgical strikes against the enemy.

The plan isn’t perfect, but the president says he has heard the calls for congressional approval of however the commander in chief chooses to fight this battle.

So, will Congress step up and sign on? I surely hope so.

President Obama has declared that ISIL is on the defensive. He also said the fight will be difficult, but that the coalition of 60 or so nations — several of which are in the Middle East — are winning the fight. ISIL has been degraded, Obama said, and the coalition of nations is continuing to pound ISIL targets in a relentless air power campaign. Fighters have been killed, as have their commanders. Command and control centers have been disrupted. Morale among ISIL fighters reportedly has deteriorated.

I happen to endorse the president’s reluctance to put U.S. ground troops into yet another Middle East war. The air campaign has been savage and it well could be enough to break up the ISIL fighting force that has created so much havoc, heartache and hysteria in the region it has terrorized.

So, is Congress now going to give the commander in chief the authority he is requesting? Will the legislative branch join this fight?

If the answer is yes, then it must stand with the head of state as he seeks to destroy this dastardly enemy.

 

national news, Uncategorized

'Quack like a duck'?

Megyn Kelly was right to be aghast at what Melissa Harris-Perry asked of the outgoing U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.

The Fox News host was astonished — as she should have been — that Perry would ask the AG to “quack like a duck” on her nationally televised talk show the other day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/megyn-kelly-melissa-perry-duck-eric-holder-interview_n_6652134.html

I didn’t see the interview live. I’ve watched a recording of it. I’m wondering as well: What on God’s green Earth is Perry thinking?

Holder has served as the nation’s top law enforcement official since Barack Obama became president in 2009. Yes, he’s made some mistakes along the way and he’s incurred the wrath of many Americans — notably congressional Republicans — over the way he’s run his office.

But I do believe he deserves a lot more respect than what he seemed to be getting from Perry, who is as friendly to the attorney general as any of the talking heads working on cable news networks.

Kelly couldn’t stand the sight and sound of Perry’s bizarre question exchange with Holder.

Neither can I, truth be told.

 

International news

Kayla Mueller: another ISIL victim

It now appears that Kayla Jean Mueller has died as a result of an air strike by Jordan air force fighter jets.

The Prescott, Ariz., aid worker died while being held captive by Islamic State terrorists, which in my mind makes her a victim of the monsters who kept her in bondage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayla-jean-mueller-american-isis-hostage-is-dead-family-confirms/

Mueller’s family confirmed the young woman’s death in a statement released today.

The fight must go on.

Mueller’s death now becomes another rallying cry for the good guys seeking to destroy ISIL and end its campaign of brutality against the world.

She was doing good work, trying to lend aid and comfort to those who were suffering in Syria. ISIL captured her and no doubt subjected her to unspeakable horror.

The Jordanians — enraged at the ghastly immolation death of that young fighter pilot — have stepped up their air strikes against ISIL targets, becoming more fully involved in the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. We should welcome Jordan’s participation in this effort.

Yes, it comes at a terrible cost. The fight must continue. “No matter how long it takes,” President Obama said, “the United States will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for Kayla’s captivity and death.”

Kayla Mueller’s tragic end is on the hands of the terrorists.

 

International news

'Every believing Christian' offended? I think not

2 Comments

Jim Gilmore, a former Virginia governor, and a possible Republican presidential candidate next year, is trying to put words into my mouth.

Of the remarks made this week by President Obama about the Crusades and how Christianity has produced acts of violence in the name of its religion, Gilmore said that Obama has “offended every believing Christian” with his statement.

Um, governor? As a “believing Christian,” sir, I am categorically not offended by those remarks.

So, there.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232027-white-house-defends-prayer-breakfast-remarks

If you listen to the president’s remarks in their totality, he said at the prayer breakfast that Islam isn’t the only religion that’s been perverted by cultists who are performing terrible deeds in the name of their religion. Christians launched the Crusades a millennium ago and, yes, did some terrible things to non-believers who stood in their path as they marched through the Middle East.

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

The president is holding the United States up to a higher standard than all that he cited.

Deputy White House press aide Eric Schultz said: “The president believes that America is the greatest country on earth, not only because of our military or economic prowess or because we serve in a unique leadership role amongst the international community.”

That hasn’t stopped right-wing critics from slamming the president. Erick Erickson, author of RedState.com, said Obama isn’t even a “meaningful” Christian, whatever in the world that means. Good grief, young man. The president has proclaimed his faith repeatedly whenever he’s given the chance.

But I digress …

Barack Obama understands history as well as any American, and as well as any practicing Christian. He knows Christians have committed barbaric acts. He merely was seeking to put this whole discussion of present-day terrorism being carried out by Islamic radicals in some historical context.

And I’m fully confident the remains fully dedicated to fighting those radical Islamists to the death.

So, let’s chill out here. I’m not offended by what the president said. I am more interested in ensuring that we continue to fight the war against international terrorism.