Tag Archives: Barack Obama

International news

Where were POTUS and VPOTUS?

The right-wing media are going to have a serious field day with this potential error of omission.

Still, the question persists: Why weren’t the president and/or vice president of the United States among those attending the “unity rally” in Paris today?

The rally held in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was meant to demonstrate western resolve in the fight against terrorist madness. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was there, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu … among many others who joined the throng of hundreds of thousands of French citizens.

The U.S. ambassador to France was there. OK. That’s good, too.

It might be that critics will have a point that if a rally was important to draw heads of state and government from around the world, it would have added amazingly poignant symbolism to have the leaders of the Free World at the front of the pack of dignitaries.

Secretary of State John Kerry happened to be in India attending an important meeting there with our Indian allies. I’ll give him a pass.

President Obama and Vice President Biden? They well might have been able to adjust their schedules to attend this rally to demonstrate against a murderous rampage that has shaken the world.

 

International news

War on terror is not 'over'

1 Comment

Politicians hate taking back things they say. They aren’t disposed — given the nature of the work they do — to admit when they’re wrong, at least not openly.

President Obama has declared in recent years that “The war on terror is over.”

I cannot read his mind, but my throbbing bunion and my trick knee are telling me the same thing: He well might wish he could take it back.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/09/Krauthammer/

He pronounced the end of the war on terror as the United States was pulling its troops out of Iraq. Our ground war there had concluded. All that was left was to fight the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other splinter terror groups in Afghanistan.

The terrorists have taken a terrible beating at the hands of the greatest military apparatus in world history. They keep coming back. Their resilience is astonishing.

Al-Qaeda is now taking credit for the Paris shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. France is on high alert. French intelligence operatives are looking for a fourth terrorist who reportedly might have fled to Syria; three other terrorists were killed.

The columnist Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training who isn’t known as a counterterrorism “expert,” says we’re entering the “third stage of the jihad.” His link is attached to this blog post. I don’t quite understand how he knows what stage this we’re, or how the terrorists measure these things. He’s a smart fellow, though, so perhaps he knows something many of the rest of us don’t know.

I do know, this, though: The president spoke far too prematurely in declaring the “war on terror is over.”

Indeed, some of us have noted since the dark days immediately after 9/11 that the war against international terror may never end. I questioned at the time of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan how we could declare victory, other than by simply declaring it and going home. The late U.S. Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., once proposed such a thing — only partly in jest — when he suggested we declare victory in Vietnam and then just leave.

That well might be what President Obama has done. He declared a victory that he couldn’t define.

The Paris attack and all the attacks that have come in the years since 9/11 persuade me, at least, that the war on terror will be ongoing well past the foreseeable future.

I am not expecting an admission of error from the president of the United States. I believe, though, that we ought to stop talking like victors while continuing to act like combatants.

This war isn’t over.

 

International news

'This is not a war against Islam'

George W. Bush said it with crystal clarity.

Barack Obama has repeated it with equal amounts of force and conviction.

The United States of America, both presidents have stated, is not waging a war against Islam. The enemy, they have proclaimed repeatedly, is the radical fringe of a great religion that has perverted its holy word and misinterpreted it for its own evil intentions.

Sadly and tragically, the other side — the enemy — doesn’t see it that way. The enemy has declared a religious war against the West. Should our side follow that lead? Absolutely, categorically not.

The attack in Paris has produced some chilling aftershocks. The massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices — where gunmen attacked staffers at the satirical magazine for publishing unflattering images of Mohammed — has led to real fear that more terror cells have been activated in Europe.

More mayhem is on its way.

But the United States and our allies must stand firm in the belief that their war isn’t against Islam.

The 9/11 attacks against the United States were not carried out by mainstream Muslims. They occurred because a monstrous terror cell decided to kill innocent victims, which is prohibited explicitly in the Quran. The leader of that cell, Osama bin Laden, had done this deed before. U.S. and allied intelligence officials knew of this individual’s evil ways, sought to kill him before 9/11, failed, leaving those victims vulnerable to paying a terrible price on that bright morning more than 13 years ago.

Did the president at the time declare all Muslims to be evil? No. President Bush laid down the marker clearly and succinctly: We are going to take the fight to the evil elements that brought to us.

The president left office in January 2009, handing the war plans over to a new commander in chief, Barack Obama. President Obama has said it time and again: This war must be fought against vicious rogue elements.

U.S. commandos finally brought justice to bin Laden in the middle of a moonless night in May 2011, killing him on sight and then burying him at sea.

Did we kill an Islamic cleric? Did this man command a religious following? He was a monster.

And other monsters must remain in our sights as we pursue this global war on terror.

The Paris attack will prompt more violence from more monsters. Yes, they belong ostensibly to the religion of Islam and they technically are “Muslim terrorists.” But the war we fight is not against the peaceful mainstream.

As for the enemy, let the other side declare a religious war. We must remain focused on the real enemy.

The terrorists.

 

 

local news, national news, Uncategorized

Free college for anyone who wants it?

Is it me or is President Obama in a fight-picking mood these days?

Now it’s free community college for any high school graduate who carries a 2.5 grade point average or better. The president this week proposed a new plan to enroll more students in community college. He made the pitch in Tennessee, which has a statewide program after which the president modeled the federal idea.

What’s more, he made his pitch in the presence of Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who once served as education secretary during the George H.W. Bush administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-free-community-college-114094.html?hp=rc3_4

Will this plan fly in Congress? Well, it’s worth a serious look. But I am dubious about Republicans’ ability or willingness to make an “investment” in public education while it has its dander up at the president over immigration policy, health care and, oh, just about anything.

Amarillo College President Russell Lowery-Hart seems willing to give it a look, if not yet ready to give it a try. He told NewsChannel 10: “I think it’s something our community needs. When you look at last year, for every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Amarillo College, there was a $3.50 return on investment. I think the proposal today acknowledges the economic impact community colleges have on communities and we would certainly want to be a part of that conversation.”

The sticking point is going to be its cost and where the federal government will get the money.

Republicans aren’t in an investing mood these days. Job-training bills have gone nowhere. Infrastructure restoration? Forget about it.

Free college for millions of high school graduates? Well, the president of Amarillo College — which sits in the heart of Anti-Obama Territory — seems willing at least to discuss the notion.

So, let’s start talking.

 

political news

Mitt wants to be president

Oh, man, I am happy to hear the news that Mitt Romney wants to be president of the United States.

Please, though, do not misunderstand. It’s not necessarily that I want him to be president. It’s that he wants it bad enough to consider running for the office for the third time in four election cycles.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mitt-romney-considering-another-presidential-run-2016

Mitt told some donors at a private meeting of his desire to live in the White House. “People ask if I really want to be president,” Romney said, according to a source. “Yeah, I want to be president.”

So what if he says he’s just considering a third run for the White House. He hasn’t decided whether to seek the 2016 Republican nomination. He hasn’t launched an exploratory committee or anything of the sort.

At least not yet.

I thought his 2012 campaign was a hoot to watch. He made so many mistakes along the way. It turned out that on election night, when he conceded to President Obama, that I began to feel some sympathy for him.

It’s not that he’s going to go hungry. Lord knows he’s got enough money.

Mitt, though, just needs to make one more run for it. He needs to redeem himself and run the kind of campaign that is relatively free of the goofs and gaffes that forced some stumbles two years ago.

Remember the 10 grand bet he offered for Texas Gov. Rick Perry at one of those umpteen GOP debates? Good grief! Who’s got that kind of money to throw around?

How about the time he told that heckler in Iowa that “corporations are people, too, my friend”?

And who can forget the infamous “47 percent” comment to big donors that someone recorded?

Mitt’s got to get back in the game.

 

business news, national news, political news

Recovery bigger than presidency or Congress

1 Comment

Barack Obama gets a lot of blame and takes a lot of credit.

The president deserves some of the blame and much of the credit.

He doesn’t deserve all of what he gets or what he takes.

Politico has published a fascinating analysis of the economic recovery that is under way and wonders whether the president is taking too much credit for it. Its answer is “yes.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/does-obama-deserve-credit-for-economy-114107.html?hp=t1_r

I’ve been generous in my praise of Barack Obama’s handling of the financial meltdown that was occurring when he took office. He was bold and brash when he launched efforts to stimulate the economy with cash and when he persuaded Congress to enact bailout legislation that helped the automobile and banking industries.

Those efforts have paid off. Indeed, the auto industry has paid back the money it got and the Treasury is fatter because of it.

The latest job-creation numbers continue to show improvement in the economy, but as Politico points out, an $18 trillion economic machine — which is what the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is — is too big for a mere president or Congress to control.

As Politico reports: “Republicans say the economy is finally – and only partially – shaking off the impact of Obama policies like the Affordable Care Act, tax hikes and financial reform, all of which they contend slowed down growth. And they point to paltry wage gains once again evident in the December jobs report. Democrats say that’s sour grapes from partisans whose warnings of a disastrous ‘Obama economy’ look increasingly ridiculous.”

Furthermore, writes Politico: “Economists – on the left and right and in the middle – say the facts suggest a vastly more complex middle ground. Obama deserves significant credit for some shrewd and politically difficult moves early on his presidency, economists say, including the stimulus and the automobile and Wall Street bailouts.”

Congressional Republicans are now trying wrestle some of the economic recovery credit away from the president. Some have joked that the GOP has taken control of the full Congress only since Monday, noting that Democrats have run the Senate while the House has been in GOP hands only since 2011.

I’ve also noted that credit for the recovery can be shared, just as blame can be found on both sides for the collapse that occurred in the final years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/01/01/how-about-sharing-the-credit/

The bottom line is that the economy is too huge, too complicated and contains too many traps for a single set of policies to manipulate.

 

business news, International news, national news, political news

Economy now off the table for 2016 campaign?

Let’s allow this declaration: Barring an unexpected collapse that could occur at any moment, the state of the nation’s economy will not be an issue in the 2016 campaign for president of the United States.

The Labor Department released more job numbers today. They’re good.

The economy added 252,000 jobs in December; unemployment fell from 5.8 percent to 5.6 percent.

Is it a perfect score? No. Wages took a slight dip in December, compared to the substantial growth they showed the previous month.

Republican contenders for the White House, though, are going to have to look beyond our borders for issues to toss against Democrats — namely against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those opportunities aren’t going to be that easy to exploit against the former secretary of state, former U.S. senator, former first lady and prohibitive frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The economy? Well, I’ve noted before how the Obama administration took bold steps early on to stop the free fall it inherited when Barack Obama took the presidential oath on Jan. 20, 2009.

The economy is picking up considerable steam now.

The war on terror? It’s still going on. Yes, the president said the “war on terror is over.” He misspoke. The nation continues to hunt down killers, who continue to strike at innocent victims, such as those most recently in Paris.

Let’s face this cold, harsh fact: The war on terror is unlike any war we’ve ever fought. There will be no way to declare victory. The 9/11 attacks brought forward what intelligence analysts and deep-cover agents have known all along, that terrorists are out there plotting against us.

That fight will go on, and on, and on.

At home, though, the economy has recovered.

International news

Terrorists strike yet again

Terrorists opened fire in Paris today. Twelve people are dead. Two gunmen are on the loose. And French authorities have begun an exhaustive search to find the killers.

Meanwhile, we’re hearing from those in this country who blame the attack on Islam. The gunmen were Muslims, they contend. Therefore, it is their religion that has taught them to be killers.

I refuse to believe that.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/europe/france-satire-magazine-gunfire/index.html

The tragedy came today at a satirical publication, Charlie Hebdo, which had poked fun at Mohammed, the Muslim prophet. Yes, they shouted “God is great” in Arabic and they proclaimed some fealty to Islam.

But these monsters are terrorists who, just like other Islamist fanatics, have perverted their religion to make a terrible political point.

According to CNN.com, the men apparently speak French fluently with no accent. They opened fire at the magazine’s office reportedly to avenge the satirical depiction of Mohammed.

The usual critics in right-wing media here are declaring that this validates the “holy war” aspect of the conflict against international terror. In my view, it doesn’t. It does remind us that the war on terror is being waged against an enemy that will use any pretext possible to “justify” its attacks on innocent victims.

President Obama today expressed appropriate outrage over the attack in France, which he described as the United States’s “oldest ally,” dating back to the days of the American Revolution.

We are dealing with perverted monsters. Pure and simple.

 

national news

Keystone Pipeline to get a veto

2 Comments

President Obama’s press spokesman said today the president is set to veto a bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast.

I’ve waffled and wavered a bit on this, but I remain (more or less) convinced that the pipeline is a positive thing to do.

Thus, the president’s veto pen should go back into the drawer. But it won’t.

It’s going to mark the first big confrontation between the Democratic president and the Republican-led Congress that just took its seat on Capitol Hill. Republicans control both legislative houses, but they don’t have enough votes to override and Obama veto.

So, what’s the problem with the pipeline?

Foes say it’s environmentally hazardous; they say the oil won’t benefit North American consumers; they’re dubious about the number of jobs it will produce.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president doesn’t want Congress to “circumvent” the studies that’s ongoing regarding the pipeline. That’s one reason for the veto.

I recall hearing from the State Department that the environmental impact of the pipeline would be minimal. Is that an invalid assessment?

As for the impact of the oil on prices that are still in free fall, I happen to believe that any production of oil that continues to flood the market and enables worldwide supply to outpace demand is ultimately good for consumers — such as me and you.

So what if it won’t end up in North American gasoline tanks? It’s going to add billions of gallons of fuel to the world market. Is that not a net plus for consumers?

Let’s watch this confrontation unfold. It’s going to be the first of many nasty fights set to ensue between the White House and the 114th Congress.

 

national news, political news

Boehner will keep speaker's gavel, however …

John Boehner is going to be re-elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Ohio Republican, though, is going to pay a price. Or, more to the point, rank-and-file Americans are going to pay the price.

It will be because the challenge to Boehner’s speakership is coming from the far right wing of the speaker’s Republican Party caucus in the House. And those clowns are going to pressure Boehner to keep tacking to the rightist fringe of the GOP.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/john-boehner-speaker-vote-2015-113984.html?hp=l2_3

Bank on it.

The question for some of us — including me — is whether Boehner will rediscover the backbone he has shown in resisting TEA party pressure to do foolish and destructive things, such as shut down the government over disputes with President Obama.

Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Ted Yoho of Florida have decided to run for speaker. The vote will occur Tuesday. Gohmert is a goofball. I can’t speak to Yoho, other than I know he’s a TEA party guy, just like Gohmert.

Boehner has said categorically that impeachment of the president is off the table as long as he’s speaker. Gohmert says quite the opposite. Is Yoho on board with the Gohmert view? Yeah, probably.

This dynamic reminds me of what might happen here in Texas, with a new governor about to take office. He’ll have a lieutenant governor who’ll push him to the right with the threat of a challenge from within the GOP when the governor’s office is up for election in 2018. I hope Gov. Greg Abbott can fend off the pressure that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is going to apply.

I wish the same for Boehner once he is re-elected speaker in a House that will be even more Republican than the previous one.

And as the GOP takes command of the Senate, we’ll all get to see if the new brand of Republican lawmakers can actually govern, as in can they present legislation to the president that he actually can sign into law.

I am not feeling good about the prospects.