Tag Archives: Barack Obama

legal news, national news

'Bama gay marriage ban struck down

An interesting back story may be developing with the latest federal judicial order striking down same-sex marriage in yet another of our 50 states.

Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, who ruled in favor of a lesbian couple that had married in California, moved to Alabama and sought to have the state recognize the adoption of their son.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/27927923/federal-judge-rules-alabama-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

Where’s the back story?

Judge Granade was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush, a noted opponent of same-sex marriage.

Here lies the beauty, in my view, of the federal judicial system. Judges get lifetime appointments and that frees many of them from the raw political pressure that often mounts against, say, judges who are elected on partisan ballots.

The federal judge who ruled the Texas same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional is a Barack Obama appointee and some on the right have dismissed her ruling as the work of a partisan hack.

What about Judge Granade’s ruling, which like the rest of the state laws that have been struck down, was based on the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment provision that guarantees “equal protection” under the law for all U.S. citizens? The couple in question here, Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand, fit the bill as true-blue, red-blooded American citizens.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, also a Republican, is going to determine whether to appeal the ruling.

Well, he ought to wait on another court — the U.S. Supreme Court — which will hear arguments in a few weeks on another case involving this issue. It will determine before the term ends this summer on whether state bans violate that pesky 14th Amendment.

Let’s not bemoan, meanwhile, these rulings by “unelected judges.” They’re unelected for a good reason.

 

International news, military news

ISIS or Yemen? U.S. effort is getting stretched

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry says the United States is stretched too thin in its war against terrorists.

The Clarendon Republican says U.S. efforts have turned away from Yemen while fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

What to do?

Thornberry: ISIS war leaves fewer resources for Yemen

If I read my congressman’s thoughts correctly, I believe he’s saying we need to spend more money on defense needs. He’s saying it without really, um, saying it.

This conundrum defines pretty clearly to me why this war on terror may never end. You turn away from enemy and another surfaces in another region of the world — not that we’ve really turned away from any of our enemies. Near as I can tell, our forces still are conducting robust strikes and raids on suspected terror targets.

“We don’t have the (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) ISR that we used to have, so when you got to move it to Iraq and Syria, you leave Yemen less covered than it used to be because you have to make choices, and it increases the danger to the country,” he said.

I got that part, Mr. Chairman. So what happens if and when we concentrate on Yemen — a known terrorist breeding ground — and the Islamic State takes further advantage as we look the other way in fighting this on-going anti-terror war?

Do you get where Thornberry is talking about spending more money on defense matters to wage a multi-front war on international terror?

I doubt we can afford it.

According to The Hill: “The administration has implemented a ‘light footprint’ counterterrorism approach in Yemen that relies heavily on drones for surveillance of terrorist threats and for striking targets in the country.”

Here is where the drones can do the same kind of work as manned aircraft. Turn them loose on those suspected targets and deliver enough firepower to send those we don’t kill scurrying for cover.

Therein, though, lies the difficulty in continuing to wage this global anti-terror war. It’s a war like we’ve never fought. President Bush all but declared war on the terrorists after 9/11. It was the right call for the time. President Obama has continued to pursue that war at virtually the same pace as his immediate predecessor.

There are those, though, who insist the Pentagon is being whittled down to dangerous levels. I don’t buy it. We’re still spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new weapons and we’re deploying them throughout these terror hot spots.

I will argue that we still have plenty of assets to deploy against these forces of evil. We just need to fine-tune how we deploy them — and have them deliver maximum punishment.

medical news

Abortion bill: a non-starter

1 Comment

Let’s just put this one on ice: Abortion is not going to be one of those issues where the White House and Congress are going to compromise.

President Obama will veto House Resolution 36 if it ever gets to his desk.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get there.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-threatens-to-veto-new-gop-abortion-bill-20150120

The bill, cobbled together by Republicans who themselves are split on this issue, would prohibit abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

Yep. That’s it.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to end a pregnancy. Or that most Americans favor granting women the opportunity to decide such matters. Thus, abortion remains legal. The rate of abortion also happens to be declining.

None of that matters. Republicans who control Congress say two things: They oppose government “interference” but they demand that government interfere in this most personal and intensely emotional decision possible.

The National Journal reports: “Republicans themselves are divided on the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. At last week’s GOP retreat, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., called on House leadership not to bring up the bill this week, saying that the caucus needs ‘to be smart about how we’re moving forward.'”

It’s not smart to approve a bill they know will get a veto and which will not be overridden. It’s also not smart to tell a woman that she must take a pregnancy to full term. That is her call to make — exclusively.

 

 

 

International news

Iran returns to center stage

Iran never recedes too far away from Americans’ awareness.

It returned once again this week during President Obama’s State of the Union speech and the next day when House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress in February.

Netanyahu will talk about Iran.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-netanyahu-no-meeting-dc-visit-114494.html?hp=r1_4

Obama doesn’t want to impose new sanctions on Iran while negotiations are ongoing to rid the nation of its nuclear program. Congressional Republicans, along with Netanyahu, want to impose sanctions.

What does all this have to do with anything?

Israel has declared that it is keeping open the option of a military strike against Iran if the Iranians proceed with nuclear development and — it is believed by almost everyone on the planet — creation of a nuclear weapon.

Israel has a right to defend itself, given that Iran has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the map. If you’re Netanyahu, you keep the military option open, as you must.

I am just hoping that Netanyahu picks his words carefully when he speaks to members of Congress. Granted, he doesn’t think much of the effort to negotiate a settlement that removes Iran’s nuclear program. I’m not sure I’d think much of it either if I lived in a country that faces the constant threat of all-out war from a despotic regime.

But the picture is even more complicated, given these negotiations and the possibility that they well might produce a non-nuclear Iran.

This is a treacherous gambit that Speaker Boehner is playing by inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to make an important speech to Congress. Be very careful, Mr. Speaker. And you, too, Mr. Prime Minister.

 

entertainment news, national news, political news

GOP offers a flood of SOTU responses

Jon Stewart is a comedian, an entertainer, a satirist of sorts.

He also has a way of bringing some harsh truths to light, such as when he poked fun at the multiple Republican Party responses to President Obama’s State of the Union speech.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/jon-stewart-destroys-gops-dueling-sotu-responses-how-many-fcking-people-are-at-this-tea-party/

The “official” response came from freshman U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa. That’s fine. Ernst is a rising Republican star, having taken over a seat held by longtime Democratic liberal Tom Harken, who retired from public life in 2014.

Then came — count ’em — three TEA party responses.

Rep. Curt Clawson of Florida weighed in for the TEA party wing of the GOP. But wait. There were more.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky had his version of the TEA party response. I guess Sen. Paul represented the isolationist/dove wing of the TEA party.

And then, of course, we had Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas with his TEA party response. Cruz represents, I reckon, the loudmouth wing of the TEA party. The young man hasn’t shut his mouth a single time since taking office in January 2013. He’s become the Republican version of, say, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Stewart asked a foul-mouthed question about “how many TEA party members are out there?”

The query speaks to a potential problem facing Republicans as they prepare for the 2016 campaign for the White House. Cruz and Paul and potential presidential candidates, along with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (man, I love writing the word “former” in front of Perry’s title), Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and maybe a dozen more individuals I can’t think of at the moment.

They all represent varying wings of the GOP. They all are going sling barbs and arrows at each other. They’re going to bloody each other up, seeking to court the “base” of the party — whatever it has become.

The multiple TEA party responses illustrates what’s both right and wrong about Republicans at the moment.

They’re right to welcome a lot of voices; diversity is a good thing. They’re wrong in trying to outshout each other.

 

International news

New sanctions against Iran? Now?

I make no apologies about my unwavering support for Israel in its struggle against the forces committed to its destruction.

Having visited the country and seen it up close over an extended period of time, I get that Israel must be on constant alert against its enemies.

However, it seems to me the speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint congressional session on Feb. 11 to make the case that the United States should impose additional sanctions against Iran while it is in the middle of negotiations that seek to rid Iran of its ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/22/boehner_defies_obama_on_iran_sanctions_invites_netanyahu_125347.html

Isn’t it true that we have just one president of the United States?

Well, Barack Obama wants to complete the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He said he would veto any bill that piles on more sanctions against Iran — at this critical moment.

This is a difficult and dangerous gambit that Congress is playing.

Congressional leaders believe they’ve been left out of the negotiation process. So they’re going to interject themselves into this tumult by adding more sanctions against Iran.

Why now? Why not let diplomacy — which brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place — complete its task? If the negotiations fail, if Iran decides to proceed with its nuclear program — and threaten yet again to blow Israel to pieces — then all bets should be off.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday quoted an unidentified Israeli intelligence official as saying that adding sanctions “would be like throwing a grenade into the process.”

Speaker Boehner is having none of it. He wants to circumvent the White House by inviting Netanyahu — who’s got his own political troubles at home — to make his pitch for additional sanctions.

I totally understand Netanyahu’s perspective. His country has gone to war several times in the 67 years of its existence against nations that have vowed — and actually sought — to destroy Israel. Iran has threatened Israel directly many times since the Islamic Revolution overthrew the shah in 1979. The Israelis likely have plans drawn up already in case the need arises to launch a pre-emptive air strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

But we’re in the midst of a delegate negotiation that shouldn’t be rattled by additional sanctions that well could end these talks — and destroy any prospects for a potential binding settlement.

 

local news, national news, political news

Obama goes 'Red' to tell his story

2 Comments

Hand it to President Obama. He delivered a State of the Union speech to a Congress now in full control of the opposing party and then he heads right into the center of the Red State base of the Republican Party.

He took his sales campaign today to Idaho. He is heading to Kansas on Thursday.

Idaho gave 64 percent of its vote in 2012 to GOP nominee Mitt Romney, while Kansas was casting nearly 60 percent of its vote for Mitt.

That doesn’t deter a lame-duck president who isn’t likely to call himself such as he pitches his middle-class tax cut to residents in states where he’s held in relatively low esteem.

“I still believe what I said back then,” Mr. Obama told a crowd at Boise State University. “I still believe that as Americans we have more in common than not.”

He’s surely entitled to believe that. Some of us out here in the Heartland aren’t so sure about the commonality. Still, I give the president props for taking the campaign into the heart of the loyal opposition’s territory.

Here’s a thought. How about coming here, Mr. President?

Texas isn’t friendly to you, either. But you did do nominally better in the Lone Star State than you did in Kansas, winning 42 percent of the 2012 vote against Mitt.

I even can make a pitch for Barack Obama to come to the Panhandle, where the 26 counties of this region only gave him 20 percent of the vote in 2012. But hey, he says we’re “not a Blue America or a Red America. We’re the United States of America.” He repeated that mantra Tuesday night at his State of the Union speech, recalling how he introduced it to the nation during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Look at it this way: If Bill Clinton can come here in 2008 and campaign on behalf of his wife, Hillary, and pack the Civic Center Grand Plaza Ballroom to overflowing, surely the Leader of the Free World can command a big audience to sell his vision for the country.

I know more than a few Republicans who’d attend.

 

business news, national news, political news

'Transfer of wealth' talk likely to surface

Can we now discuss one of President Obama’s key points in his State of the Union speech?

It’s about that tax cut for the middle class.

He took considerable pain Tuesday night to extol the virtues of middle-class Americans and the work they do to make our country strong economically. He wants to give middle classers — folks like my wife and me — a break on their taxes. To pay for it he wants to ask more of wealthy Americans. They need to pay more in taxes to finance the tax relief he’s planning for the rest of us.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-have-one-word-for-president%e2%80%99s-proposals-and-veto-threats-%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99/ar-AA8pnAq

Those on the right and far right have a term for it. We’ll hear it. It’s called “transfer of wealth.”

Let’s try to set the record straight.

As I understand the meaning of the term “transfer of wealth,” what would have to occur is that the federal government would have to actually take money earned by rich folks and give it to not-so-rich folks. Legend has it that Robin Hood did that in medieval England when he “took from the rich and gave to the poor.”

That’s wealth transfer.

What I heard the president propose Tuesday night was nothing of the kind.

A tax cut for the middle class wouldn’t deprive rich Americans of their wealth. They’d still be rich. They’ll get to keep their yachts, fancy cars, summer/winter homes and all their bling.

The middle class would get to pocket a little more disposable income to spend on things they want or need.

All this being said, I do understand GOP criticism of the president for proposing something he knows won’t ever be enacted into legislation he can sign into law. On that score, Barack Obama has proved his political deftness, as his proposal was met in the congressional chamber with applause from Democrats and silence from Republicans. How do you suppose that looks to millions of middle-class Americans watching who actually favor a tax break?

I don’t intend to tolerate any demagoguery about wealth transfer in describing what the president has pitched.

How about debating the proposal on its merits: Do the folks who control Congress favor a tax break for middle-class Americans or not?

 

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.

 

political news

Mitt Romney: champion for the poor

Mitt Romney’s reinvention of himself has some progressives laughing out loud.

Indeed, this is the kind of thing I’d hoped Mitt would avoid if and when he decided to run again for the presidency in 2016. He’s not authentic. He’s coming off as a phony.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-poverty-san-diego-114359.html?hp=t1_r

According to Politico: “Romney’s problem has always been really about believability and connection with the challenges of average Americans,” said Jim Messina, (President Barack) Obama’s 2012 campaign manager. “It’s simply never going to be believable to go from car elevators, off-shore accounts and his famous 47 percent comment to the populist income equality warrior.”

Indeed, someone who never has been shy about describing the success he’s enjoyed in business is going to have a difficult time persuading the “47 percent” of Americans that he’s on their side, that he wants them to achieve the kind of success he’s achieved.

Mitt’s budding comeback is drawing a lot of criticism from the right wing of the Republican Party. They’re calling him old news. Why, even former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — the party’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee — is calling on the GOP to look for fresh faces, ideas and outlooks in a presidential nominee. Good thing she’s insisting on it, as she’s ruling herself out, as well for a White House bid.

There were so many gaffes:

* He said the $300,000 he earned one year in speaking fees wasn’t very much money.

* He tried to stake Texas Gov. Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet.

* Mitt told someone at the Iowa State Fair that “corporations are people, too.”

* He said he “liked to fire people.”

He’s got to shake all that off. How he does that, in this age where the spoken record becomes virtually indelible, is Mitt’s big challenge.