Tag Archives: Obama administration

medical news, national news, political news

Will the VP stay with the fight once he leaves office?

Vice President Joe Biden points at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

President Obama made a stirring choice Tuesday night.

He turned to Vice President Joe Biden and declared that he would be “in charge of mission control” while leading a concerted effort to rid the world of cancer. The vice president will be the point man to find a cure for the dreaded disease.

It was a poignant moment for one major reason: Joe Biden’s son, Beau, died this past year of brain cancer; the younger Biden’s death resonated around the world as we watched the vice president and his family grieve openly — but with dignity and grace.

So it makes sense for the president to put him in charge of such a noble effort.

However …

Barack Obama’s got just about one year left as president; Biden’s time as vice president expires at the same time.

Will this team of researchers find a cure between now and then? Probably not.

So, will the vice president remain as head of the team once the Obama administration leaves office? My hope is that whoever becomes the next president — Democrat or Republican — will ask Biden to remain on the job for as long as he is able.

Joe Biden can become a serious force of nature in the effort to raise money to conduct the research needed to find this cure. Granted, it’s not as if health institutions, think tanks, research hospitals and universities haven’t done a lot already to find a cure.

Having the vice president of the United States take the point on that effort shouldn’t end once he hands his office keys to whoever succeeds him.

International news, media news

Too early to judge Iran nuke deal

Listen to the mainstream media on both ends — conservative and liberal — and the Iran nuclear deal is either the precursor to World War III or the agreement that will bring a comprehensive peace to a region that’s never known it.

Fox News this morning was having its usual fun blasting the “liberal mainstream media” for gushing all over the deal that seeks to block Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. The caption on the screen as the “Fox and Friends” talking heads were blathering on noted “liberal bias” in the media’s coverage of the agreement. That stuff just slays me, given that Fox never recognizes its own conservative bias.

Whatever.

I’m not going to draw any firm conclusions about the deal just yet.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-team-split-over-next-steps-with-iran-120130.html?hp=lc1_4

I remain cautiously hopeful that the deal will produce the desired result. One of the Obama administration talking points is that it “blocks all pathways” for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Israeli officials — led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — say it’s dangerous in the extreme, as it doesn’t prevent Iran from making mischief in the Middle East.

The economic sanctions? They’ll be lifted over time, giving Iran needed money to rebuild its shattered economy — which was made that way by the sanctions.

What if Iran cheats? What if the Iranians don’t do what they say? The sanctions return.

Is the deal perfect? No. Is it the disaster that congressional Republicans predict it will become? No.

The mainstream media — all of it all along the political spectrum — need to take a breath and listen intently to the debate that’s about to unfold.

Assuming, of course, that the debate isn’t overtaken by hysterical politicians.

 

political news, religious news, State news

Cruz to county clerks: Sure, go ahead, break the law

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is running hard for president of the United States and he’s now taking every opportunity to have his voice heard.

Let’s take the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.

What’s the junior Republican Texas senator’s take on it: It ought to be OK for county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if it violates their religious beliefs.

Let’s hold on here, young man.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/27/cruz-clerks-should-be-able-opt-out-gay-marriage-li/

County clerks in Texas take an oath to uphold the law. It doesn’t offer any qualifiers, that they can opt out of fulfilling that oath if their religious faith stands in the way.

Texas county clerks do have an option if they simply cannot authorize a marriage license to a gay couple. They can resign their public office. Indeed, when New Mexico legalized gay marriage this past year, the Roosevelt County clerk did exactly that; she quit rather than do something with which her religious faith did not believe.

“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz said in an interview with The Texas Tribune, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Without government getting in the way? My goodness, senator. We all are able to do all those things. We can go to church, to synagogue, to the mosque — anywhere we wish — and pray to whichever deity in which we believe. The Supreme Court decision handed down this week say not a single word about any of that.

It merely affirms that the 14th Amendment guarantees all U.S. citizens the right to “equal protection” under the law. Thus, they are entitled to marry whomever they wish.

I have no clue what the state’s county clerks are going to do, which of them will adhere to the law and which of them will declare that they just cannot in good conscience issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Those who refuse will be breaking the law they took an oath to uphold.

It’s interesting to me that Sen. Cruz keeps tossing the word “lawless” around to describe the Supreme Court, the Obama administration — and virtually anyone who disagrees with his world view.

Yet, he’s seeking a way for county clerks to evade the law. That’s my definition of “lawlessness.”

 

national news, political news

Welcome to politics, Dr. Carson

Ben Carson is a famed neurosurgeon.

He gave up that profession and now he’s taking on another one: politician.

He’s going to learn that politicians have to be as careful with their words as surgeons have to be with their scalpels. You say the wrong thing, you’re potentially finished as a candidate.

Carson is running for the Republican presidential nomination. This morning he showed up on “Fox News Sunday” and got grilled by host Chris Wallace for some things he said about the Obama administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/chris-wallace-ben-carson-fox-news-sunday_n_7252994.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

When a GOP candidate gets hammered by a Fox News host, well, the planet might be on the verge of spinning off its axis.

Wallace challenged Dr. Carson’s comparison of the Obama administration with the Nazi Third Reich.

Does he really mean that? Wallace asked.

Carson said during Adolf Hitler’s reign of terror, people didn’t challenge him. Wallace asserted immediately that people are challenging President Obama all the time.

How about ending any Hitler references? It is ridiculous and insulting in the extreme to equate modern political activity with anything that was done during the Third Reich’s dozen years of existence.

I happen to admire Dr. Carson’s work and the brilliance he exudes when talking about medical procedures and his hopes for cures to deadly brain diseases and disorders. That work is a long, long way from the political rough-and-tumble he’s entering.

Careless and overblown statements do have a way of lingering and biting the speaker of those words where he doesn’t want to be bitten.

International news, national news

That's the ticket: Find jobs for ISIL terrorists

What in the world is the State Department thinking?

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told Chris Matthews on MSBNC’s “Hardball” talk show that the United States cannot win the war against the Islamic State by killing them, that we need to help them find jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis/

Holy crap!

Here’s how FoxNews.com reported it: “‘We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. … But we cannot win this war by killing them,’ department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether –‘

“At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, ‘There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims.'”

I’m not going to buy the notion that some critics of the Obama administration say about the president going soft on terrorists.

However …

This idea that we need to focus on job creation while waging war against these monsters is nuts in the extreme.

Harf did add that there’s “no easy solution.” She said American military operations would continue to kill ISIL leaders. But she said, “If we can help countries work at the root causes of this — what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?”

How about, Ms. Harf, we soft-pedal the job creation and push the pedal to the metal on our efforts at killing the bad guys?

War is a supremely unpleasant endeavor, but we’d better continue fighting it as if we intend to win it.

 

entertainment news, military news, national news

Mrs. Obama defends 'Sniper'

Michelle Obama has taken a stand in support of a controversial film about a heart-wrenching subject.

Good for her.

She came to the defense this week of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Navy SEAL sharpshooter Chris Kyle, saying the film deals squarely with the emotional heartache felt by combat veterans and their families.

First lady defends ‘American Sniper’

Mrs. Obama didn’t go after some of the critics of the film directly, although she well could have done so; perhaps she should have done so. But whatever her intention, she made a salient point about the film’s theme and the emotions it has brought to those who have seen it.

She said: “I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.”

Indeed, she and Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, have made the care of veterans and their families a hallmark of their tenure during the Obama administration and both of these women deserve to be applauded for the attention they have given to this important matter.

As for the criticism of the film — notably by filmmaker Michael Moore — much of it has bordered on the ridiculous. Moore, of course, referred to snipers as “cowards.” He knows nothing of which he spoke on this matter, but his comments got considerable play anyway — I suppose because of his celebrity status and his previous tangles with political conservatives over an array of other issues.

I believe the first lady has put the film in its proper perspective and that should stand as a more credible assessment of a gripping story of triumph, struggle and immense emotional heartache.

 

business news, national news, political news

Jobs report due; get ready for unfounded griping

The Labor Department reported today that claims for unemployment benefits fell to a 14-year low.

This comes on the eve of its monthly jobs report, due out Friday.

So, what will happen? Usually, when the jobless claims dip as they did this week, it means a glowing jobs report is sure to follow.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-jobless-claims-fall-to-14-year-low/ar-BBdiTRM

I’m not going to predict any numbers here, because I have no clue what they’ll be. I’m thinking, though, the job growth in the private sector will match the recent trend, which has been very good.

So, how will the Obama administration’s critics react to this latest bit of sparkling economic news?

They’ll say, “Oh well, the Christmas buying season is almost here and retailers are hiring temporary help to assist with the boost in business.” They’ll pooh-pooh the numbers as a seasonal aberration. Big deal. Where’s the beef? The economy is still in dire straits. Didn’t the mid-term elections just prove that Americans are uneasy about the economy and the direction the country is heading?

This goes to show what politics does to reality.

The reality is that the economy has come back. It’s getting even stronger.

I heard an oil-and-gas analyst today suggest that lower fuel prices are going to give consumers more disposable income to spend at shopping malls across the country, suggesting a booming holiday shopping season that commences with Black Friday the day after Thanksgiving.

Oh, but that’s all smoke and mirrors, the critics will say.

Fiddlesticks.

 

 

International news, political news

Fox turns to 'expert' on Middle East policy

4 Comments

Phil Robertson is a lot of things.

He’s the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family of hunters, fishermen and reality TV.

He also now is a foreign policy expert. Fox News Channel had ol’ Phil on one of its talk shows and asked him how he thinks the United States should deal with the ISIL terrorists.

“We should convert or kill them,” Robertson said … in part.

There you go. Convert the Islamic extremist terrorists to Christianity or kill them dead, according to the Robertson Doctrine.

Well, what’s interesting is that the Obama administration is sort of following that doctrine, only without the conversion part. The Pentagon has unleashed our nation’s air power against ISIL killers in Iraq and it may start similar missions in Syria, where ISIL has beheaded two American journalists in a horrific display of human indecency.

It’s worth asking, though: Is this what the media have come to, asking reality TV characters for their view on international crises that are killing innocent Americans?

OK, I know. I’ve been bloviating in this space about ISIL as well. I’m not an “expert” either on how to resolve this crisis. I’m just a guy with some opinions on the matter. Am I qualified to offer my views on issues of the world? Technically, no. My platform, though, isn’t as far-reaching as the Fox News Channel.

My preference, though, is for the TV talkers to rely on actual experts to comment on these life-and-death matters. It might be the foreign policy experts would echo the Robertson Doctrine. Let them do so. As for ol’ Phil, let him talk about matters that he knows — like hunting and fishing.

 

Uncategorized

Questions arise about Bergdahl's release

Questions and concerns have surfaced about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from his Taliban captors.

They are legitimate and serious questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-discusses-details-of-us-operation-to-exchange-taliban-detainees-for-captive-soldier/2014/06/01/551c21f8-e95f-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

My most pressing concern is this: How is the United States going to ensure that the five high-ranking Taliban officials released from Guantanamo Bay prison do not re-enter the fight against this country?

We gave up these individuals in exchange for Bergdahl’s release after five years in captivity. He reportedly was in failing health and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said his release was expedited to “save his life.”

The Taliban terrorists were turned over to Qatar officials and have been placed on a one-year “travel restriction.” How does that work? U.S. officials reportedly worked out a deal to have Qatari officials sit on these guys for a year. After that? Who knows?

Here is where I hope the CIA and every other U.S. intelligence agency capable of taking part is doing their job. By that I have to hope that we’re keeping eyes on these monsters 24/7, watching every move they make. Do we need to know the particulars? I have no need to acquire such highly classified information, but I do hope our intelligence professionals are up to the task of keeping these guys in their sights at all times.

As to the questions about whether the Obama administration broke the law by negotiating with terrorists and doing it in secret, we have to accept that sometimes we have to do unseemly-looking deeds to accomplish a worthy goal. The administration says it did keep congressional sources informed of what was going on.

As long as we can keep the released Taliban officials on a very short leash and prevent them from turning against our forces, then I’m willing to accept the strategy employed to have one of our own men released from captivity.

Our spooks, however, had better not mess this up.

Uncategorized

Health care law faces huge day

There are big days … and then there are those days on which everything seems to ride.

The Obama administration is facing one of those “everything” days.

It’s supposed to get the healthcare.gov website fixed by the end of the day. This is the site that all but crashed in early October when millions of Americans tried to sign on to the federal exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthcaregov-tech-team-scrambling-to-create-workaround-for-site-before-deadline/2013/11/27/f5affc7c-577c-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

Turns out the website wasn’t ready for prime time. Then came the cancellation notices that President Obama said wouldn’t come. He’d promised that we could keep our insurance plans if we were happy with them. That, too, turned out to be incorrect. Did the president actually “lie,” meaning did he make that promise knowing he couldn’t keep it?

I’m not proficient enough of a mind-reader to know that, unlike the president’s critics who’ve called him everything but the Son of Satan. Oh, wait a minute, come to think of it, I’m pretty sure he’s actually been called that too.

We’ll get to see now if (a) the administration’s computer geeks can deliver the goods on the website and (b) whether the critics will keep their mouths shut if the geeks actually make good on their promise to make the website user-friendly.

I’m cautiously optimistic on the first part; not so on the second.