Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Elie Wiesel: ‘Messenger to mankind’

wiesel

The Nobel Peace Prize citation said it with simple eloquence.

Elie Wiesel, the document stated, had been the “messenger to mankind.”

His message was to alert the world of the horror that occurred in Europe prior to and during World War II. The Holocaust became thrust onto the world’s conscience thanks to the Wiesel, who died today at the age of 87.

He was born in what is now Romania and became a captive of the Nazi tyrants who rounded him up and kept him captive in one of the death camps scattered throughout Europe.

That he survived Auschwitz in itself is a miracle. That he found his voice later to bring to light the horror that occurred throughout Europe is his lasting contribution to humankind.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/elie-wiesel-auschwitz-survivor-and-nobel-peace-prize-winner-dies-at-87/ar-AAhVt8M?li=BBnb7Kz

It would be Wiesel who would remind the world of a once-little-known truth. It was that the opposite of “hate” wasn’t “love,” he said. The opposite was “indifference.” Indeed, Wiesel reminded us that “indifference” was the antithesis of many human emotions, such as love and compassion.

He was courageous, scolding President Reagan for touring a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where many SS officers are buried. The president should be with the “victims of the SS,” Wiesel said.

President Obama paid tribute today to Wiesel: “He raised his voice, not just against anti-Semitism, but against hatred, bigotry and intolerance in all its forms,” the president said Saturday in a statement. “He implored each of us, as nations and as human beings, to do the same, to see ourselves in each other and to make real that pledge of ‘never again.’”

The world has lost a powerful and eloquence voice against evil.

May this courageous and good man rest in the eternal peace he deserves so richly.

U.S. redoubles efforts to protect civilian lives

drone strikes

U.S. drone strikes have killed perhaps as many as 116 civilians since 2009, according to the White House.

What, then, is the response from the commander in chief, Barack Obama? He issued an executive order today that redoubles our military’s efforts to avoid killing civilians in future drone strikes.

I can hear it now from critics of the president.

* He’s soft on terrorists.

* Obama isn’t really committed to killing Islamic killers.

* We’re trying to conduct a “politically correct” air war against these monsters.

It’s all crap!

What the executive order signifies to me is that we’re better than the bad guys, who actually target civilians. They seek to go after so-called “soft targets” at airport terminals, train stations, shopping malls, schools, residential neighborhoods.

Our aim in launching these manned and unmanned air strikes has been to take out military targets — which we are doing with considerable effectiveness.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-house-at-least-64-to-116-civilians-killed-in-drone-strikes-since-2009/ar-AAhRCSZ

The White House figures are at odds with some independent estimates of civilian deaths, which place the number a good bit greater.

However, let us not give short shrift to U.S. military policy that seeks to minimize these deaths.

Sure, we didn’t always follow that doctrine. U.S. aerial bombardments during World War II targeted civilian population centers specifically. But that was then.

We are able in this modern age to launch air strikes with remarkable precision and accuracy. Are they always successful? Are we able to carry these strikes without inflicting death and injury on civilians? Of course not.

We shouldn’t change our standards to match the barbarism committed by our enemies.

Clinton within shouting distance of Trump in Texas

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

Take heart, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A University of Texas poll says you’re trailing Donald J. Trump. But, hey, it’s only by 8 points. The previous Democratic presidential candidate — Barack Obama — lost the Texas vote to John McCain and Mitt Romney by double digits in 2008 and 2012, respectively.

A part of me, though, is a bit surprised that Trump has even an 8-point lead over Clinton in Texas.

I don’t know who University of Texas/Texas Political Projects Poll surveyed to come up with an 8-point gap. I wonder if it included the requisite number of Latino voters who comprise such a significant minority of Texans.

We all know how Trump — the presumptive Republican nominee for president — has gone out of his way to offend Latinos. He started with his plan to “build a beautiful wall” along our southern border; then he intimated that all Mexican illegal immigrants were “rapists, drug dealers and murderers”; then came the assertion that  an Indiana-born federal judge was biased against him because the judge’s parents were Mexican immigrants.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/poll-trump-leads-clinton-8-texas/

I’m well aware that public opinion surveys only serve as “snapshots.” They don’t predict the future.

However, some political thinkers believe Clinton has a legitimate chance of winning Texas this fall. Others, though, believe the state is too deeply Republican to change now and that Clinton isn’t the type of Democrat who can repaint the reliably red state into a blue one.

If the Democratic nominee is to have a chance of capturing Texas’s huge trove of electoral votes, she’ll need to get Latinos to the polls. History is not on her side.

Then again, we’ve all talked about how “conventional wisdom” has been tossed aside during this election season.

Joe Biden for VP … one more time?

th

I’ll admit this isn’t an original thought.

Others have said it, so I’m just joining an “amen!” chorus of sorts.

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limits the president to two elected terms in office is silent on the vice presidency. The words “vice president” or “vice presidency” aren’t mentioned in the amendment, which was ratified in 1951 after Congress approved it in 1947.

My point? Why not nominate the current vice president, Joseph Biden, to serve another four years in a Clinton administration?

Stop laughing for just a moment and ponder this thought.

President Obama put the vice president in charge of what’s been called a “moon shot” program aimed at finding a cure for cancer. Vice President Biden lost his beloved son, Beau, to brain cancer, a loss that many believe kept him from running for the presidency in 2016.

My thought then, when Obama made the proposal during his final State of the Union speech earlier this year, was this: Is there enough time for Biden to get anything accomplished before he leaves office in January 2017?

I find it hard to imagine how the government could achieve what the president said he wanted — a cancer cure — in such a short span of time.

All this talk about who Clinton should pick as her running mate has provided some interesting chatter across the country, along with the chatter about who Republican nominee Donald J. Trump should select as his running mate.

Clinton has a ready-made, battle-tested, house-broken vice president already on the job. He’s a bona fide foreign-policy expert and he still has a tremendous working relationship and personal friendship with many congressional Republicans who’ve battled Barack Obama over every step the president has sought to make during his two terms in office.

The vice president also has a huge job that remains unfinished.

Why not, then, give him another four years to see this “moon shot” effort though?

Just a thought. I doubt seriously the Democratic nominee is going to heed this bit of advice.

But it’s out there, Mme. Secretary.

Brits to leave EU … and it will hit us hard

brexit

I might remember this day for a while.

I woke up, turned on my computer to catch up with the overnight news and learned that Great Britain voted to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to resign, Wall Street took a dive … and a leading American politician who advocated all this mayhem might benefit politically in the United States.

Holy retirement fund, Batman!

The Brits decided they’d had enough of their economic marriage with the rest of Europe. So they bailed. Cameron staked his political reputation on the vote; it went badly for him and so he’s moving out of 10 Downing Street.

My retirement account is going to shed a lot of value today and perhaps for the next good while. Sheesh!

But here’s the element of this story that might underscore perfectly the weirdness of the American presidential election season.

Republican candidate Donald J. Trump — who at this very moment is touring a golf course resort he owns in Scotland — said he wanted the Brits to leave the EU. His Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton — along with President Obama — pitched for the Brits to stay in. Trump argued for nationalism in Britain; Clinton and Obama argued for economic stability.

Who might gain from this chaos? Trump.

“They’re angry over borders. They’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over, and nobody even knows who they are,” Trump told reporters after his helicopter landed in Turnberry, Scotland. “They’re angry about many, many things.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755#ixzz4CVe9JjLF

Why does that matter here? It matters, according to Trump, because he says he’s angry about the same things. How he connects the EU situation with U.S. domestic policy, though, remains a mystery to me.

He also said that Clinton “misread” the mood of the British, which I guess in Trump’s view is another strike against the Democratic nominee-to-be.

It’s going to take some time for all this sink in. The markets will go wild and retirement accounts — just like those my wife and I are hoping to live on while we enjoy our “Golden Years” — will bleed heavily as investors push every panic button they can find.

Then we’ll get to listen to a major-party presidential candidate take “credit” for being on the winning side of a losing argument.

Crazy, man. Simply crazy.

Tie goes to the GOP with SCOTUS decision

immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s non-decision on President Obama’s executive order regarding illegal immigrants just demonstrates the need to get that ninth seat on the court filled.

OK, the president lost this one. The court came down 4 to 4 to uphold a lower court ruling that had set aside the president’s executive order that granted temporary amnesty to around 5 million undocumented immigrants.

His order would have spared millions of families from the fear of deportation, particularly those families with children who were born in the United States and, thus, were American citizens.

Now, their future is a quite a bit more uncertain.

Everyone knows that the court would have ruled 5-4 had Justice Antonin Scalia had been present to decide. He wasn’t. He’s now deceased. The president has nominated a moderate jurist to replace him. Senate Republicans won’t give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote because they want the next president to make the selection.

So, the tie vote means the Republicans win this round.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “I think the Constitution was upheld and this idea that there is a separation of powers — that no one person gets to make up law — was upheld,” Paxton said. “That’s a great thing for America.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-deadlocks-thwarting-obamas-immigration-actions-224720#ixzz4CS8xrwhm

But is it? Is it a great thing for those families that have come here to carve out a new life and for their children who were born here and who have considered themselves Americans for their entire life?

We can’t change the court’s non-decision now that it has acted — although I remain a bit dubious about how a tie vote actually settles anything. It reminds me a little bit of how court cases are decided on “technicalities.”

Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton both say the permanent answer must rest with Congress. Clinton vowed to seek congressional action if she’s elected president this fall.

Do I — as a layman — like how the court “decided” this case? Not in the least.

But you play the hand you’re dealt.

It does show quite brightly, though, why it’s important to fill that ninth seat on the Supreme Court — and why Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a vote of the Senate.

Oh, and then there’s Merrick Garland

garlandmerrick_031716hj3

Merrick Garland has kind of slipped off the media radar.

You’ll recall this fellow. He is the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who’s been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama selected him to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I’ve got an idea for the probable next president of the United States to consider: In case the U.S. Senate continues to obstruct Garland’s appointment, don’t toss his nomination over once you take the oath of office.

I’m talking to you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Garland’s nomination ran into a buzzsaw when Obama selected him. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared within hours of Scalia’s death that no Obama appointment would get confirmed. They wanted to wait for the next president to take office.

They accused the president — and this just slays me — of “playing politics” with the appointment by demanding a Senate hearing and a vote on Garland’s nomination.

Kettle, meet pot.

Garland is an eminently qualified jurist. He’s been left — to borrow a phrase — to “twist in the wind” while the Senate dawdles and blocks the president from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

I’m going to suggest that Clinton will win the presidency when the votes are tallied this fall.

If that’s the case, then the Senate GOP leadership might yell “Uncle!” and have the hearing and vote it should have had all along.

But if not, then it would seem appropriate for the president-elect to carry this nomination forward. By everyone’s reckoning, Garland is a judicial moderate, a thoughtful man who was confirmed to the lower court with overwhelming Republican support.

Sure, the next president has the chance to pick someone of her choosing.

But if the Democratic candidate for the highest office is going to talk about fair and humane treatment of people, it would seem quite fair and humane to move Merrick Garland’s nomination forward for the next Senate to consider.

Seeing some symmetry between SCOTUS and APD chief picks

14910136_0

Am I hallucinating, or do I see a certain symmetry between two appointments: one at the highest level of government, the other right here at home on the High Plains of Texas?

One of them deserves the opportunity to do his duties as an elected public official. The other one also has earned the right to perform his duty as an appointed one.

Amarillo interim City Manager Terry Childers has selected Ed Drain to be the city’s interim chief of police; Drain is set to succeed retiring Police Chief Robert Taylor on July 1.

There might be a point of contention, though. You see, Childers won’t be city manager for very long. The City Council already has begun looking for a permanent city manager and Childers has declared his intention to retire completely from public life.

The council, though, has given Childers all the authority that the city manager’s position holds. Childers can hire — and fire — senior city administrators. He also is able to enact municipal policy changes when and where he sees fit. What the heck? He was able to bring changes to the city’s emergency communications center because he misplaced his briefcase at an Amarillo hotel, right?

Now, for the other example.

Caplan-Merrick-Garland2-1200

President Barack Obama has named Merrick Garland to a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The voters delivered the president all the power he needs to do his duty when they re-elected him to his second and final term in 2012.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate, though, have said: Hold on a minute! The president’s a lame duck. We don’t want him appointing the next justice. We want the next president to do it. They, of course, are hoping that Donald J. Trump takes the oath next January. Good luck with that.

Here’s the question: Should the city manager be allowed to appoint the permanent chief of police, or should the council demand that the decision be left to the permanent city manager?

My own take is this: I’ve railed heavily against the GOP’s obstructing Obama’s ability to do his job. Republicans are wrong to play politics with this process and they are exhibiting a shameless disregard for the authority the president is able to exercise. The president is in the office until next Jan. 20 and he deserves the opportunity to fulfill all of his presidential responsibilities.

Accordingly, the Amarillo city manager will be on the job until the City Council hires someone else and that permanent manager takes over.

Thus, Terry Childers ought to be able to make the call — if the right person emerges quickly — on who should lead the police department … even if he won’t be around to supervise the new chief.

Teacher of the year now going to teach more teachers

shanna

I have this friend — with whom I used to work in a previous life — who this past year received the highest honor someone in her profession can get.

She was named National Teacher of the Year. Shanna Peeples went to the White House, where she was honored by President Barack Obama, who said many wonderful things about her and the dedication she has demonstrated in educating young people.

Peeples, quite naturally, turned the emphasis on her colleagues who also were gathered on the White House lawn. Shanna accepted the teacher of the year award in their honor, she said.

What makes her such a stellar teacher? Her undying love of the children who learn from her. She teaches English … and until just recently she was teaching students at Palo Duro High School in Amarillo.

Now, though, she’s being promoted.

The Amarillo Independent School District has decided to put her teaching skills to work at a higher level. As Peeples writes about her new assignment: ” … I’ve been trusted with the task that my friend, Jennifer Wilkerson has done so well for our district: Core Curriculum Specialist, ELAR 6-12. For my non-Ed-jargon friends: that’s the responsibility for growing teachers and shaping literacy learning in middle and high school.”

Are we clear? She’s going to teach the teachers how to do their jobs better. At least that’s what I read in what she wrote.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/shanna-peeples/you-cant-burn-the-suit/10209664555035203?utm_content=buffer7daf4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The next thing I want to say might be taken the wrong way. I do not intend at all to sound like a Negative Norm. There’s a certain irony, it seems to me, in taking a teacher who’s just been told she’s the best in the nation at what she does and then assigning her to do something different.

Shanna Peeples certainly doesn’t dismiss the new task she’s been given at Amarillo ISD. Nor do I. Her many friends throughout the Texas Panhandle are proud of her and proud of what she has accomplished in the classroom.

Her emphasis now will be on helping other classroom teachers become the best they can be, which then will enable them to pass on the joy of learning to the young people assembled before them.

As Shanna writes: “God help me, I’m a teacher. As I told a radio interviewer: ‘It’s like Peter Parker being bitten by the radioactive spider. You can’t just quit being a teacher like I say, quit being a deejay or a short order cook at the bowling alley. You’re a teacher for life.’

“Trust me, I’ll have plenty of assignments for other people. This work is big, important work. And it won’t ever be even partway done before I die. But that’s what makes it worth giving my heart to. And my heart is with teachers as much as it is with students. Always and always and always.”
Well said. As always.

Lower the flags, fella!

flag

Tucker Dorsey needs to have his head examined.

He might be certifiably … well, let’s just say he’s as wrong as he can be.

Dorsey chairs the Baldwin County, Ala., commission. He has refused to order flags on county buildings lowered to half-staff in honor of the 49 people slaughtered this past weekend in Orlando, Fla., per orders from President Obama and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley.

What passes for Dorsey’s “reasoning” defies logic, common sense and several basic tenets of human decency.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alabama-county-wont-lower-flags-for-orlando-victims/ar-AAhgaQ1?li=BBnb7Kz

According to CBSNews.com: “Once again I have to copy this post regarding lowering the flags because another follower of Islam decided to shoot up a bunch of innocents in a place where they didn’t have the chance to defend themselves or flee,” Dorsey began a Facebook post explaining the decision. “When are we going to acknowledge the truth? When will we stop the PC and identify the enemy?”

I’m a bit slow on the uptake at times, but someone’s got to explain what political correctness and “identifying the enemy” has to do with honoring the memories of those who died at the hands of a madman.

There’s more. Again, from CBSNews.com:

“When the flag is at half-staff, our country’s head is figuratively held low, and quite frankly, I am not willing to hang my head down because of a terrorist attack against our people and our allies,” Dorsey said. “I am not willing to hang my head down because evil shoots up a church, school, or movie theater. We need more than a gesture as a response. I want us, as Americans, to stand tall, courageously, and fight back against the forces of evil, and let’s fight like we intend to win.”

Good grief, dude. You grieve for the lives lost. Then you resolve to do what you must to eradicate the evil that resulted in this tragedy.

What is so difficult about doing that?

And despite what this guy says, lowering the flags to half-staff to mourn these national tragedies is quite consistent with long-standing tradition.