Tag Archives: Barack Obama

As for impeachment …

Now that so many pundits and politicians are talking about impeachment these days in Washington, D.C., I believe I’ll share an important date that’s about to pass.

On Aug. 9, many Americans will commemorate — some will cheer it, others will mourn it — the resignation of the 37th president of the United States, Richard M. Nixon.

You see, Nixon resigned because he was certain to be impeached for some serious “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment; the full House was certain to ratify them; the Senate then seemed certain to convict the president.

It then fell to at least one key friend of the president, Sen. Barry Goldwater, to give him the straight scoop: You don’t have enough support in the Senate to save you from conviction, Mr. President.

He quit on Aug. 9, 1974 and saved the nation the trauma of a certain conviction.

What did he do — allegedly? Well, he ordered the FBI to stonewall efforts to find the truth about who was responsible for the burglary of the Democratic National HQ office at the Watergate office complex.

That’s the real deal, folks. That’s the kind of behavior that gets presidents impeached.

The talk today? Well, it’s not even clear what in the world critics of the 44th president, Barack Obama, have in mind. They keep yammering about overuse of executive authority, even though this president has used it far less than his predecessors over the past century.

If this ridiculous discussion continues in the months to come, let’s keep in mind what happened four decades ago. A president abused his power in a serious way and had the good sense to quit his office before the U.S. Senate ran him out of town.

Is Obama wrong about Congress's incompetence?

President Obama’s critics hammer him constantly because of his expressed frustration over the do-nothing Congress.

Is he wrong about his “friends” on Capitol Hill? Far from it. Consider this week’s follies.

* The House of Representatives shelved plans to vote on a $659 million bill that would address the border crisis involving all those young refugees fleeing into the United States illegally.

* Then the Senate failed to muster enough votes on a larger, $2.7 billion, package to tackle those very problems.

* Then the House leadership postponed that body’s five-week summer recess, citing the logjam over this refugee issue.

All of this seems to be forcing the president to take, um, executive action to get something done about a problem that supposedly has risen to the level of “national emergency.”

Except he can’t do that, because the Republican-controlled House has just voted on party lines to sue the president over his alleged overuse of executive authority.

Obama has been poking fun at Congress because it cannot work with the White House, among its own members, with members of the other party, or get anything done on behalf of the people who sent them there.

And they’re just itching to get out of town for the rest of the summer.

Ridiculous.

Dysfunction reigns in U.S. House

How much more chaotic can it get in the People’s House?

Probably a lot more than what we’re witnessing, but we we’re getting now is a sideshow worthy of a circus barker.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/politics/congress-immigration/index.html

The House of Representatives canceled a planned vote on a border security/immigration bill after leaders failed to get enough support among rank-and-file members to support it. It would cost about $659 million, far less than the $3.7 billion President Obama requested when the child refugee crisis erupted on the nation’s southern border.

Meanwhile, the Senate is wondering what to do with a larger bill.

What happens now? Well, Congress is about to take a five-week summer recess, which means that, all of a sudden, the border crisis isn’t quite as “urgent” as House leadership proclaimed it to be.

As I recall, they were yammering at the White House to do something about it. The president responded with his emergency spending request, but the persistent critics said, “Not so fast, Mr. President. We aren’t going to write a blank check here.”

Now the House has come apart at the seams yet again over a possible solution proposed by that guy who lives down the street in the White House.

This is effective governance? I think not.

Surprise! House votes to sue Obama

Well, that vote took not a single political observer by surprise.

The U.S. House of Representatives, in a party-line vote, has decided to sue President Obama because he has assumed too much executive authority to suit their tastes.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/213859-house-votes-to-sue-obama

Who knew?

The vote was 225-201. Five Republican House members voted against the lawsuit idea; zero Democrats voted for it.

Now what?

Well, the House is going to file a lawsuit on the grounds that the president abused his executive authority by postponing the employer mandate requirement in the Affordable Care Act. House Speaker John Boehner says Obama “changed the law” when he did that, and that he overstepped his authority in going over Congress’s head.

This might be the most bizarre political stunt since independent counsel Ken Starr uncovered Bill Clinton’s foolishness with the White House intern — giving Republicans enough ammo to impeach the 42nd president of the United States.

Boehner hopes to prove that Congress has standing to sue the president. He’ll probably get it. Then he’ll have to prove that Obama somehow broke the law in exerting his authority as president, or that he’s liable for damages created by his action — which, incidentally, is what Republicans who hate the ACA actually favor.

This is goofy beyond belief.

Interestingly, the five GOP “no” votes came mostly from the nut-case wing of the Republican House caucus. These are the folks who would rather impeach the president rather than merely sue him.

You know, I’m kind of glad Congress is getting the hell out of Washington for the next five weeks. It’s obvious the gasbags who run the House of Reps aren’t interested in actual governing.

Go home, y’all.

More sanctions, pain for Russia

President Obama is tightening the economic vise around Russia, along with Europe.

It’s time. Perhaps it’s past time. Whatever the case, the Russians need to be punished for their adventurism in the affairs of a sovereign and supposedly independent nation.

We’re talking about Ukraine.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-sanctions-russia-ukraine-109510.html?hp=f1

The president’s announcement comes in conjunction with the European Union’s declaration of even tighter and tougher measures taken against Russia, which has been interfering militarily in Ukraine’s internal political struggle.

As Politico reported: “Stepping up the West’s showdown with Russia , European leaders Tuesday declared plans to impose sanctions against state-owned Russian banks, as well as certain types of oil-industry equipment and so-called dual-use technology capable of use by the military. The U.S. added three banks to its sanctions list, resulting in five of Russia’s six top banks subject to sharp limits on refinancing of debt.”

The Russians have been implicated in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing nearly 300 innocent civilians flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. The flight had the tragic misfortune of flying over Ukrainian airspace, where it was shot down by Ukrainian separatists aligned with Russia — which reportedly provided the weaponry to shoot down MH 17.

Russia is engaging in a disgraceful interference that cannot be allowed to stand.

No one should be foolish enough to want to launch a ground war against the Russian military. The economic sanctions, though, should be made to stick and should be applied with maximum pressure to cause equally maximum pain on an economy that’s already suffering.

Obama is right to dismiss contentions that the United States and Russia have entered a “new cold war.” The war we’re talking about is burning quite hot. Russia needs to stand down and let the Ukrainians decide their own fate.

Impeachment tops Democrats' agenda

Politics has this curious way of creating story lines one wouldn’t normally expect.

It now appears that Democrats, not Republicans, want to discuss openly this notion of impeaching President Barack Obama, according to The Hill newspaper.

Dems can’t stop talking about impeaching President Obama

Why is that? Because Democrats are hoping to gin up interest among their base of supporters prior to the 2014 mid-term elections for Congress. Democrats want to retain control of the U.S. Senate and want to prevent further tightening of Republican control of the House.

They figure that by talking about the lunacy of impeaching the president that Republicans will be seen as the party more intent on destroying a presidency than in actual governing.

Good luck with that, Democrats.

Serious Republicans know the country has no appetite for an impeachment. They also know they have no actual grounds to do any such thing. Yes, we hear from nut cases within the Republican Party — with former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin leading the chorus — who want to impeach the president. Speaker John Boehner says it won’t happen; I’ll stick with the speaker of the House on that one.

Will this impeachment talk stir the Democratic voter masses enough to stem the GOP tide this November? Time will tell. If it doesn’t and the GOP captures control of the Senate, well, then we’ll see if Republicans actually can govern.

Terrorists must be destroyed

I shall now repeat this slowly.

Hamas … is … a … terrorist … cabal … bent … on … Israel’s … destruction.

There. Are we clear now?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/mike-rogers-obama-benjamin-netanyahu-friction-109433.html?hp=l5

Accordingly, should Israel seek to negotiate with this organization as long as it remains dedicated to the eradication of the only democratic state in the Middle East?

Absolutely not.

Now, will someone please advise the president of the United States that Hamas has no place at any bargaining table until it lays down its arms and renounces its evil intention regarding Israel.

The fight goes on. President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appear to be at odds over how to handle Hamas. The president wants Israel to extend its cease-fire; the prime minister won’t do anything until Hamas stands down.

I’m with the Israelis on this one.

I do not doubt for a second that the United States remains committed to supporting Israel’s security and to maintaining our ironclad alliance with that nation. The president has declared as much repeatedly since taking office nearly six years ago, just as all of his predecessors in the Oval Office have done.

However, he needs to demonstrate some appreciation of the heinousness of this group’s agenda. It is attacking civilians with missile attacks. Israel has as much right to defend itself as any country on Earth, which is precisely what it is doing. The only reason Israel hasn’t suffered more civilian casualties is because its sophisticated “Iron Dome” missile defense system works well in protecting the nation against hostile acts.

So let’s stop attaching some kind of moral equivalence to what’s happening in Gaza.

Hamas picked this fight. Israel is intent on finishing it.

Impeachment talk is driving me insane

For the ever-loving life of me I cannot fathom how on God’s Earth Republicans around the country think Congress should impeach the president of the United States.

A new poll from CNN-ORC says two-thirds of Americans oppose the notion of impeaching President Obama. Yet the nutcases on the far right keep fueling this idiocy by suggesting the president has committed some specified impeachable offense.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213323-majority-opposes-impeachment-calls-and-lawsuit-poll-finds

House Speaker John Boehner says impeachment is a non-starter. Other key Republicans say they oppose it, too. One of them, most interestingly, is former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who got himself entangled in an earlier impeachment effort against President Clinton. It didn’t work out too well for Gingrich and his House GOP brethren. The House impeached the president, but the Senate acquitted him on all the charges. Gingrich, meanwhile, resigned hi speakership and then left the House because of his own shabby personal behavior and because he lost the confidence of his House colleagues.

The pro-impeachment cabal has even less on Obama than the goons on the right had on Clinton. With Clinton, at least they could say the president lied under oath to a federal grand jury about his fling with that young woman who worked in the White House. Perjury is a felony.

President Obama’s alleged misdeed? He’s using the power granted him by the Constitution to invoke executive authority? What else is there?

Republicans are playing with some serious fire if they keep up this nonsense.

Can’t we get back to the business of governing, for crying out loud?

The mid-term elections might give Republicans control of the Senate — but it’s not nearly a sure thing. They’ll likely retain control of the House. If Capitol Hill goes fully Republican, then the GOP will have to settle into the role of co-equal partners in the process of running the richest, most powerful country on Earth.

Impeachment rhetoric from the GOP peanut gallery is an utterly ridiculous exercise.

It is irresponsible and reprehensible in the extreme.

***

Gosh, I now am asking my own congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry: What say you, Mac, about this idea of impeaching the president? Please tell me you haven’t swilled the GOP goofball Kool-Aid.

POTUS never off the clock

Wait for it. The critics are sure to climb all over this one: President Obama is going to raise money for Democratic Senate candidate while he’s vacationing with his family at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

They’ll raise a serious ruckus about (a) the president taking a vacation at all and (b) taking part in political fundraisers while the world is exploding all around us.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-fundraiser-marthas-vineyard-109346.html?hp=r14

I’ll make this point until I run out of proverbial breath: Presidents of the United States are never — ever — off the clock. They are entitled some time away from the Oval Office with their family.

Does that mean they’re shutting themselves off from the world? Hardly. They get national security briefings daily. They are told immediately when crises erupt. They are able to talk immediately to any world leader of American politician as events warrant. They aren’t sealed away in a vacuum chamber.

As for the fundraising part, well, I need to remind y’all that Republican politicians will take part in these kinds of activities as well when they take their summer break. Presidents and lawmakers do share a common theme: They’re all politicians, which by definition compels them to raise money for other politicians. It goes with the territory.

And just so we’re clear, I’m not sticking up for this president because I happen to agree with most of his policies. I’ve said many times over many years about many presidents of both political parties that they deserve time away.

And so damn what if they raise money? That’s part of the job as well.

Flight ban was no embargo

The Federal Aviation Administration has lifted its brief ban on commercial U.S. jet service to David Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Did the FAA knuckle under to some ridiculous political criticism? I hope not.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/faa-lifts-flight-ban-to-tel-aviv-109319.html?hp=r5

The FAA had banned the flights into Tel Aviv’s air terminal, citing security concerns created by Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. One rocket landed about a mile from Ben-Gurion, causing the FAA to suspend U.S. air carrier service to the massive airport.

Then came the ridiculousness from the likes of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Their complaint? They called the flight-service suspension an “economic embargo on Israel” that punished the Israelis unfairly.

Bloomberg even went so far as to board an Israeli El Al Airlines jet from New York to Tel Aviv, and fly to Israel to make some kind of bombastic statement criticizing the suspension.

Cruz, of course, wasted no time plastering this decision — which was made independently by the FAA — on President Obama. This has become a common theme from Cruz and other loudmouthed Republican lawmakers: Let’s be sure to politicize this any way we can and, oh yes, be sure to put the blame squarely on the president; and in this case, let’s be sure to imply that he is following some kind of “anti-Israel” policy, which of course is standard for someone with “pro-Muslim” leanings.

Their stupidity is mind-boggling.

And to think Republicans still rail at those who — they contend — still want to blame George W. Bush for the nation’s economic mess and all these foreign-policy crises.

Well, the ban on U.S. carriers’ flights to David Ben-Gurion has lifted. That’s a good thing. The FAA assessed the security risk and determined that it’s OK to fly there.

Take it from me, as one who’s flown in and out of that terminal: You haven’t lived until you’ve been interrogated by an Israeli airport security official prior to boarding an outbound flight from David Ben-Gurion International Airport.

They know how to protect themselves against terrorist attacks.

As for the FAA, they were being extra cautious. Given the stakes involved, I’m glad they locked down those flights.