Tag Archives: Barack Obama

national news, political news

Don't shut down the government

Mitt Romney is quite capable of making sense.

Take his view on a threat to shut down the federal government to get back at President Obama for enacting an executive order to help fix a broken U.S. immigration system.

The crux of Romney’s view on that idea? Don’t do it, Republicans.

Will someone on Capitol Hill listen to the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/224320-romney-more-productive-ways-to-fight-obama-than-shutdown

The tea party crackpots are threatening to shut ‘er down by withholding money to fund the government past its Dec. 11 deadline. They’re going to get angry if — and likely when — the president signs an executive order that delays deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants.

I agree with them that the president need not pick this fight. But he’s likely to do it.

The Republicans’ response really shouldn’t include shutting down the government. In case they have forgotten, a lot of Americans rely on the federal government. Many thousands of them draw their paychecks from the government, for example.

Romney was asked on “Face the Nation” this morning about a possible shutdown. “Well, I think there’s got to be more productive ways for us to be able to impress on the president the need to work for a permanent solution, as opposed to a temporary stop-gap solution,” Romney replied.

Shutting down the government punishes people who have been turned into political pawns.

Is that what Republicans really and truly want to do?

Listen to Mitt, OK?

national news, political news

Take heed, Mr. Majority Leader

1 Comment

Mitch McConnell has wanted to become majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

I feel the need to remind the Kentucky Republican to be “careful what you wish for.”

He’s about to have his hands full. Not so much from Democrats, who are licking their wounds and trying to regroup from the pounding they took at the polls Nov. 4. No, McConnell’s worries well might come from within his own Republican caucus.

I’ll sum it up in two words: Ted Cruz.

Cruz is the freshman Republican from Texas who has delusions of grandeur, specifically the White House. He wants to be president someday. Maybe he’ll make a run for it in 2016. He might wait until 2020 and then go full force if a Democrat wins the ’16 contest.

But here’s ol’ Mitch, vowing to take President Obama up on a request to sip some Kentucky bourbon with the new majority leader. I believe deep down that McConnell really wants to “work with” the president. But he’s got that goofy caucus within his GOP caucus that won’t hear of it.

This is the tea party wing, led by Cruz.

It still amazes me that this freshman loudmouth has gotten so much attention in so little time.

Cruz wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with … um, well we don’t know. He said something the other day about “net neutrality” is like “Obamacare for the Internet,” whatever the bleep that means. He seems to oppose immigration reform, which is odd given that he’s an immigrant from Canada.

Here’s the thing with Cruz. He isn’t alone in thinking this way. He’s just managed to become the mouthpiece for many of the hard-righties within the Senate who think as he does.

McConnell is more of an “establishment” guy. He’s actually got friends within the Obama administration, one of them being, for example, Vice President Biden, with whom he served in the Senate until Biden was elected VP in 2008.

So, the question can be asked of Majority Leader-to-be McConnell: Is the job you coveted really worth having if you’re going to have to fend off the challenges from your own extremist wing?

Good luck, Mr. Majority Leader.

 

 

 

International news, military news

'An act of pure evil'

Islamic State terrorists have beheaded another American. The victim this time is an aid worker, Peter Kessig.

President Obama’s response? He called it an “act of pure evil.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/obama-beheading-was-act-of-pure-evil/vi-BBe9xJq

What now?

Let’s wait for the critics of the U.S.-led aerial bombardment campaign to demand “troops on the ground” to fight ISIL face to face, hand to hand.

My own take is that the air strikes need to continue — only with more ferocity.

The president issued the correct statement aboard Air Force One en route from the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. ISIL must be destroyed. It must be bombed into oblivion.

The ironic aspect of this murder is that Kessig had converted to Islam after leaving the Army, where he served as a Ranger. Therefore, ISIL killed one of its own. How does one make sense of any of this, at any level?

Although I do not want to return to the battlefield in Iraq or join the fight — on the ground — in Syria, I clearly understand the odds against an all-airborne campaign accomplishing the mission of destroying a sophisticated, well-funded and well-armed terrorist organization.

I also know that the United States and our allies have immense firepower available to them.

They should use it … with extreme prejudice.

 

International news, legal news, national news, political news

Reagan and Bush did it; why not Obama?

Republicans in Congress are getting loaded for bear if that Democratic rascal in the White House follows through with a threat to execute an order that delays deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants.

What they’ll do precisely in response to a now-expected executive order remains unclear.

Maybe they should follow the congressional led set when two earlier presidents did precisely the same thing, using exactly the same constitutional device.

That would be: nothing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/15/reagan-bush-immigration-deportation_n_6164068.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

At issue is whether President Obama will use his executive authority to delay those deportations and, by the way, strengthen security along our southern border. Congress wants him to wait. So do I, for that matter. Congressional Republicans are threatening to hamstring confirmation hearings on the president’s pick to be attorney general, Loretta Lynch. Heck, they might even sue the president.

The most troublesome — and ridiculous — notion being field tested in the court of public opinion is impeachment.

Let’s look briefly at history.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did the same thing. One heard nary a peep out of Congress, let alone the Democrats who controlled the place at the time.

Congress enacted an immigration law in 1986, but in the following year, President Reagan gave immigration officials the power to cover the children of illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty under the law. As the Huffington Post reported: “Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.”

Along came President Bush in 1989. The Huffington Post reports: “In a parallel to today, the Senate acted in 1989 to broaden legal status to families but the House never took up the bill. Through the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), Bush advanced a new ‘family fairness’ policy that put in place the Senate measure. Congress passed the policy into law by the end of the year as part of broader immigration legislation. ‘It’s a striking parallel,’ said Mark Noferi of the pro-immigration American Immigration Council. ‘Bush Sr. went big at the time. He protected about 40 percent of the unauthorized population. Back then that was up to 1.5 million. Today that would be about 5 million.'”

What gives with the current crop of yahoos calling the shots on Capitol Hill?

Oh, I forgot. The tea party/nimrod wing of the GOP vows to shake things up and no longer do things the way they’ve been done in the past.

That must include allowing the president of the United States to actually lead.

 

national news, political news

Impeachment for show only?

A thought occurs to me now that impeachment of the president has returned to the arena.

Just suppose the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is actually is so blindly stupid that it actually impeaches President Obama for exercising his constitutional right of executive authority and tinkers with immigration reform.

Now, let us now suppose that the Republican-run U.S. Senate gets articles of impeachment and puts the president on bleeping trial for it.

The next Senate is going to have a maximum of 54 GOP members, depending on the outcome of the runoff race in Louisiana set for December. It takes 67 votes to convict a president of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove him from office.

Does anyone in their right mind think Republicans are going to persuade 13 Democratic senators to engage in this ridiculous charade?

The thought then boils down to this: The impeachment talk, should it ever come to pass, is meant to put an asterisk next to Barack Obama’s name. The members of Congress who detest him and the policies that got him elected twice to the presidency simply want the word “impeached” next to his name. They want his obituary, when it is finally written, to contain the “I-word.” They want his presidency scarred for life with the notion that the House of Representatives trumped up a phony “crime” upon which to impeach the 44th president of the United States.

Well, the last time the GOP tried that — in 1998 against Bill Clinton — it fell flat on its face. President Clinton walked out of the White House in January 2001 with his standing intact and he has emerged as arguably the nation’s premier political leader.

That won’t matter to the current crop of congressional “leaders” who are insisting that Barack Obama keep his mitts off any executive orders regarding immigration.

House Speaker John Boehner declared not long ago that impeachment won’t happen while he’s the Man of the House. Yet his GOP caucus has been strengthened and made even more strident in the wake of the 2014 mid-term election.

We’ll get to see how much clout he can wield if the nimrod wing of his party starts getting a bit too feisty.

 

 

International news, national news

Keystone Pipeline causes heartburn

The pipeline that most members of Congress seem to support is causing me some grief.

It’s the Keystone project. It will carry petroleum from Alberta, through the middle of the United States, to Texas Gulf Coast ports. Then it will be shipped abroad, where refineries will process it into all sorts of products.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/house-passes-keystone-xl-bill-112903.html?hp=b1_c3

The House of Representatives has approved legislation supporting it. The Senate is going to vote next week.

Should they agree with their House colleagues?

Sure. Why not?

President Obama isn’t sold on the project. He’s signaling he might veto the Keystone Pipeline bill if and when it lands on his desk. How come? Well, he doubts it will be a big job producer and notes that Canada is going to export the oil “everywhere else.” Thus, he believes it won’t have an impact on gasoline prices.

I’ll disagree with that last statement.

The fuel is going to pour into the worldwide supply that continues to outstrip worldwide demand. Therefore, the price of oil — and gasoline — continues to decline.

The federal government already has issued reports that suggest the pipeline would have minimal environmental impact.

I guess I just can’t get too worked up over this project one way or the other.

However, if I had a vote on it, I’d probably vote to build it, help our northern friends, pump more oil into the world market and hope it continues to keep downward pressure on the price of gasoline at the pump.

 

national news, political news

'W' stays on the post-presidency high road

It well might have just tortured Fox News blowhard Sean Hannity to hear his talk-show guest refuse to criticize President Obama.

Then again, perhaps Hannity knew the response he would get from former President George W. Bush.

Whatever the case, President Bush has chosen to remain on the high road nearly six years after leaving the White House.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-w-bush-why-refuse-135613369.html

Bush said he doesn’t “think it’s good for the country to have a former president undermine a current president; I think it’s bad for the presidency for that matter.”

Then he added: “Secondly, I really have had all the fame I want. I really don’t long for publicity. And the truth the matter is in order for me to generate publicity … I’d have to either attack the Republican Party, which I don’t want to do, or attack the president, which I don’t want to do. And so I’m perfectly content to be out of the limelight.”

What a concept. A former president following the lead set by his father, another former leader of the Free World, in refusing to mix it up with those who come along after them.

Take heed, former Vice President Cheney. He’s been popping off repeatedly ever since he moved out of the VP’s mansion.

Indeed, this unofficial vow of silence that former presidents take has more or less been followed since the founding of the Republic. I say “more or less,” because President Bush’s immediate predecessor, President Clinton, has been pretty vocal in criticizing Republican critics of Barack Obama, although I cannot recall Clinton torpedoing George W. Bush’s foreign-policy decisions during W’s presidency.

Let’s not ignore President Carter, who on occasion has shot darts at all the men who assumed office after he left the White House in 1981. He does pick his shots, though.

But in my memory of former presidents, which dates back to Dwight Eisenhower, it’s been the custom for former presidents — and vice presidents, for that matter — to stay quiet and let their successors suffer the barbs that others toss at them.

It’s an appropriate thing for these former leaders to do. They belong to an exclusive club. Only they know all the ins and outs of the world’s toughest job.

As we all understand, we can have only one president at a time. For a former president to take a seat in the peanut gallery and “undermine a current president” is very bad form, indeed.

Well said, President Bush.

 

national news

No regrets over Obama votes

The question came to me from a social media acquaintance.

He asked: “… just for the record are you sorry you voted for this incompetent community organizer?”

My answer to him: No.

I now shall elaborate.

The “incompetent community organizer,” of course, is Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, who’s finding himself engaged in yet another struggle of wills with the folks in Congress who would oppose virtually anything he proposed at any level.

I’ve voted in every presidential election since 1972 and have never regretted a single vote I’ve cast for the candidate of my choice — win or lose.

Why should I regret my votes for Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012?

For starters, the 2008 campaign amid the worst economic crisis to hit the United States since the Great Depression. It occurred on George W. Bush’s watch and Sen. Obama pledged to take swift action to stop the free fall in our job rolls, our retirement account, the stock market, the housing market, the banking industry and the automobile industry. I trusted him then to do all of the above.

You know what? He delivered. The economic stimulus package, which the GOP opposed, contributed to improving the economic condition at many levels.

I did not hear Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, offer a solid solution to what was ailing our economy. And when he stopped campaigning to return to Washington when the stock market all but imploded, well, that told me — and apparently millions of other Americans — that Sen. McCain didn’t have a clue what to do.

Four years later, the economy had improved significantly, but Republicans kept insisting it was in the tank. The numbers told a different story.

Let’s not forget: Millions of Americans now have health insurance who didn’t have it before.

Yes, the country faced foreign policy crises on Obama’s watch. But as the 2012 campaign developed and the GOP nominated Mitt Romney to run against the president, it became clear — at least to me — that the Republicans didn’t have any clear answers on how to deal with those crises short of going back to war.

I had grown tired of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Iraq War is over. The Afghanistan War is about to end. Yes, the Islamic State has risen in Iraq and Syria. However, is it the president’s fault entirely that we’re fighting another bloodthirsty terrorist organization? Hardly. We all knew the “Global War on Terror” well could be a war without end.

So, I voted once again for Barack Obama.

He’s now facing yet another challenge from the “loyal opposition,” which frankly doesn’t appear to be all that loyal.

History is going to judge the community organizer a lot more kindly than his critics are doing so today.

Therefore, I stand by my support of Barack Obama.

 

national news, political news

'I' word returns to Capitol Hill

So many pejorative terms to lay on this, so little time or space to count them all.

Let’s start with disgusting, revolting, sickening, reprehensible and colossally stupid.

That’s where I come down on this notion of impeaching President Obama for exercising his constitutional executive authority.

http://news.yahoo.com/could-obama-impeached-over-immigration-order-173840884.html

The impeachment babble has begun boiling again on Capitol Hill. Some Democratic lawmakers say it’s possible, which is no surprise. What is a surprise is that now a Republican or three is talking openly about impeaching the president if he goes ahead with plans to issue an executive order that delays deportation of some 5 million undocumented immigrants.

On what basis would they impeach Barack Obama? They think he’s overreaching.

I’ve looked up the impeachment provision in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 4 says the president or vice president can be removed from office if they are convicted of “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

I’ve yet to know what “high crime or misdemeanor” the president would commit if he is acting in accordance with his legal and constitutional authority.

And, gosh, do you think the president’s legal team is going to turn him loose without first understanding what he can or cannot do? I doubt it.

Yet the “I” word has returned to the debate if the president acts.

For the record, I hope he doesn’t execute those orders during the duck session of Congress. I want him to wait for the new Congress to take its seat. I want him to push forward the legislation he favors, demand quick action on it after thorough debate and then let Congress vote it up or down.

If it goes down, or if he gets a bill he cannot sign, then the president can take the action he deems necessary.

This impeachment talk — in the simplest term possible — is pure crap.

 

medical news, national news, political news

Affordable Care Act sabatoged from within

Who is this clown Jonathan Gruber?

We know he’s got a big mouth and that he’s careless beyond belief about what he says to whom.

Gruber’s name has surfaced front and center over remarks he made regarding the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/224072-gruber-in-fourth-video-says-public-doesnt-actually-care-about-uninsured

He was recorded saying in 2013 that he considered Americans too stupid to understand the complexities of the landmark health care legislation pushed forward by President Obama. Now we hear him saying in 2010 that Americans “don’t actually care that much about the uninsured.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi supposedly said she didn’t know about Gruber until this firestorm erupted. Then we hear from other sources that she isn’t being truthful about who she knew and when she knew him.

Good grief!

Republicans naturally are up in arms over these revelations about a former White House insider popping off as he has done. Some critics say Gruber’s big mouth gives them ammunition to finally — finally! — muster up the votes to dismantle the president’s signature legislative accomplishment.

Let’s hold on.

The ACA is working. Americans who didn’t have insurance have it now. The law has been upheld by the highest court in America. Key Republicans have joined Democrats in declaring that the ACA is going to stay on the books.

So now some clown shoots off his mouth and that turns a law that’s working into one that’s not?

I think not.