Tag Archives: Barack Obama

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.

 

national news, political news

You go, old friend

My former colleague and still-friend Jon Talton has issued a blistering rebuke of the rebuke.

That is he’s taken to task the Republicans who have opposed Barack Obama since Day One of his presidency for the trashing they orchestrated in winning a Senate majority and strengthening their majority in the House of Representatives.

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2014/11/democrats-are-stupid.html

I cannot really add to his excellent analysis of the current political climate and the context in which it continues to exist — strange as it seems, according to Talton.

I’ll note just a couple of points.

First is that presidents never deserve all the credit they seek nor the blame they receive. We have this element in our government called “balance of power.” We split the power among the three branches — executive, legislative and judicial. Take the federal courts out of this argument and we still have two branches of government with co-equal power.

Last time I checked, governing remains a team sport. So, to whatever extent the president deserves the blame for when things go south, then he should take it. But the Congress is supposed to be a player in this game as well.

Second is that Barack Obama is not radical leftist. As Talton noted: “Obama is … a Jerry Ford. With the ‘center’ pushed so far to the right, he accepted the radical fiscal ‘austerity’ that is such a drag on recovery and average Americans. (Reagan kept spending, and not merely on the military).”

The “new center” now seems to exist somewhere to the right of where traditional conservatives used to navigate. We can thank the tea party caucus for that. What’s more, they’ve done a great job of demonizing the president, ascribing all kinds of evil intent at so many levels I cannot even begin to keep track.

I’ll stop now and refer you to Jon’s essay attached to this blog post.

It’s a good read and worth your time.

 

national news, political news

Slow down just a bit on immigration

Immigration policy needs to be reformed.

Democrats favor reform, as do reasonable Republicans. The outliers appear to be the tea party wing of the GOP, which appears to be calling the shots within the Republican caucus.

The question now is whether President Obama will take executive action to institute reforms during the lame-duck session of Congress. As much as the tea party — aka nut case — wing of the GOP angers me, I think the president should wait just a while longer before taking unilateral action.

Obama ‘nearing a final decision’ on immigration

Fox News reports Obama might take action next week.

It is sure to enrage Republicans, who already are loaded for bear in the wake of their stunning election victories on Nov. 4.

Obama is said to be considering a 10-point plan that includes deferment of deportation for 4.5 million illegal immigrants; it also includes a pay increase for Immigration and Naturalization Service employees.

Here’s a thought: Wait for the new Congress to take office; enlist some congressional allies to put forward your legislative proposals; debate it with Congress; let the Republicans have their say along with Democrats.

Then, if nothing gets done, drop the executive action hammer.

This is a fight worth waging … but when the time is right.

 

International news

No, Mr. President, we aren't safer

I’d like to take issue with former President George W. Bush about whether we’re safer because we invaded Iraq in 2003.

He says we are. I contend we are not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/george-bush-saddam-hussein-iraq-war_n_6146280.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

The ex-president told National Public Radio that the world might have had a nuclear Iraq had Saddam Hussein been allowed to stay in power. Is that to be believed in its entirety? It stands as the Mother of All Hypotheticals.

One of the pretexts for going to war was that Saddam was building a nuclear arsenal. When we arrived, we found zero evidence of it, just as we found none of the weapons of mass destruction that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted were there.

We weren’t greeted as “liberators,” as Cheney had predicted. The nation erupted into violence — against Americans and against the government we helped install.

More than a decade later, and after nearly 5,000 Americans died in battle, the nation is now falling apart because of the sectarian violence that never really was extinguished.

And the former president now blames his successor, Barack Obama, for the rise of the Islamic State because we didn’t leave enough troops in the field to tamp down the terrorist threat.

I contend once again that the world isn’t safer because we invaded a sovereign country, overthrew a sovereign leader — yes, he was a very bad man — and built a nation essentially from scratch.

U.S. policy instead created a breeding ground for the kind of violence we’re now seeing because we believed a society with no history of democratic rule was able to understand fully the immensely difficult task of creating and maintaining freedom.

Are we safer because of this monumental blunder? Hardly.

 

 

environmental news, International news, political news

Shocking! GOP opposes U.S.-China climate deal

Does it surprise anyone at all that congressional Republicans would be highly critical of a deal struck this week between the United States and China to cut carbon gases over the next couple of decades?

I didn’t think so.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wasted little time in calling the pact a “non-binding charade.”

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/223823-inhofe-us-china-climate-pact-a-non-binding-charade

And the deal is … ?

President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed the nations should cut carbon emissions by as much as 30 percent by 2030. Inhofe — one of the Senate’s premier climate change deniers — said China will continue to build coal-fired power plants and has “no known reserves” of natural gas on which to rely.

He calls the deal a fraud.

Inhofe also says the results of the mid-term elections repudiated the president’s policy agenda on such issues as climate change and that, by golly, he’s going to roll those policies back once he becomes chairman of the Senate environment panel.

I’ll add as an aside that there’s a certain irony in handing over the chairmanship of a key congressional environmental committee to someone who keeps dismissing the notion that Earth’s climate is changing and that there just might be a human cause to much of the warming that’s occurring — the current bitter cold snap that’s gripped much of the nation notwithstanding.

Obama said this in announcing the agreement in Beijing: “As the world’s two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change.”

And we have this, then, from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy: “The president appears to be undeterred by the American people’s clear repudiation of his policies of more regulations and higher energy costs.”

Higher energy costs? McCarthy needs to ponder the ongoing trend in fossil fuel prices. They’ve gone down, Mr. Majority Leader.

I get that China doesn’t engender a lot of trust among many Americans. Count me as one who is skeptical of Beijing’s commitment to do what it promises to do.

At least we’ve got them on the record to cut carbon gases. Let’s hold them to that pledge.

 

legal news, national news, political news

AG should knife the boss in the back?

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are making an impossible demand of the woman selected by President Obama to become the nation’s next attorney general.

They want Loretta Lynch to state up front whether a presidential executive order regarding U.S. immigration policy is constitutional and legal. More to the point, they are demanding that she declare such an action unconstitutional and illegal.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

What they’re demanding is that the woman who wants to be attorney general stick a dagger in the back of the individual who has nominated her to that high office.

Cruz and Lee do not appear interested in simply hearing her out. Both men already have declared that they believe such a move — which the president has all but telegraphed will occur — doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

They are among congressional Republicans who already are angry over Obama’s use of executive authority to tweak and tinker with the Affordable Care Act. These men both are dead set against reforming immigration policy at least during the current congressional session.

So now they’re threatening to hold the attorney general nomination hostage to their own agenda.

What’s more, they’re asking the AG-designate to betray the president who’s nominated her.

Good luck with that, senators.