Tag Archives: Barack Obama

national news, political news

NRA was MIA at Obama town hall

2 Comments

gun-control

Barack Obama had a “town hall” forum tonight.

He fielded questions from an audience about his strategy to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

I was heartened to hear questions from some folks who doubt the president’s message. The forum wasn’t an amen chorus of folks who agree with the president, which of course would have ruined the notion of it being an actual town hall forum.

But the audience was missing a key component: the National Rifle Association.

The president said he had invited the NRA to attend the meeting. The nation’s leading gun-owner-rights organization was missing.

It should have been there to challenge the president, to joust with him publicly — on national television.

It’s not that I endorse the NRA position on gun control. It is that when given a chance to air its views on the same stage as the president of the United States, I believe the NRA should have taken advantage of the opportunity to do so.

Will the NRA decline future opportunities? It’s my hope that we can have a sensible, intelligent discussion from individuals and organizations on all sides of this most polarizing debate.

medical news, national news, political news

House OKs another waste-of-time measure

obamacare-1

Here we go again.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a measure to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The House vote comes after the Senate approved the measure earlier.

Speaker Paul Ryan blustered that the measure is going to President Obama’s desk — where it faces a certain veto.

The president’s signature effort is in no danger of being overturned.

Which begs the question: Why is Congress continuing to waste the public’s time and money on these efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Oh, I think I know.

Republicans who control both congressional chambers want to make political hay. They want to keep hammering at a law they detest because, they say, it expands the federal government.

Well, the ACA also does something else. It provides health insurance to roughly 17 million Americans who beforehand didn’t have it. They couldn’t afford it. They were denied medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay for it. The ACA now provides insurance.

Repeal the law? Sure. And replace it with . . . what, exactly?

House members and senators will get the veto that the president promises. They’ll be unable overturn the veto because Republicans lack the two-thirds majority in both houses to do it.

So, the dance continues.

Will someone tell the band to stop playing? Please?

 

national news, political news

Donald Trump: birther in chief

Polls%20and%20Surveys%20pic

Donald J. Trump has a birther fetish.

When he was leading the polls by a country mile, he saw no issue with the background of fellow Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz. The Canadian-born U.S. senator from Texas has qualified fully to run for president, Trump said. “He’s in fine shape,” he said of his GOP rival.

But wait! Circumstances have changed. Cruz is neck-and-neck with Trump. He’s overtaken him in Iowa, according to some surveys.

Now-w-w-w there’s a problem, Trump said.

“People” have called Cruz’s qualifications into question, Trump said. It could present a problem for the Republicans if Cruz is their nominee, Trump added.

So, which is it, Donald. Is Cruz eligible to run and serve as president or isn’t he?

Trump has raised this birther crap before. The other time involved President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii — one of the 50 United States of America. Trump, though, didn’t believe it; for that matter, I’m not sure he believes it yet.

The Constitution stipulates that only “natural-born” citizens can run for the office and serve if elected. Yes, Cruz was born in Canada. But he earned U.S. citizenship the moment he came into this world because — get ready for it — his mother is an American. Daddy Cruz is Cuban, but that doesn’t matter. Cruz is eligible to run for the highest office.

Don’t take my word for it. Others who are a whole lot smarter than I am have said the same thing. Constitutional lawyers have affirmed Cruz’s eligibility.

So, what’s Trump’s beef?

Oh yeah. It’s those polls.

I love, too, how Trump keeps shoving this issue off to “people” who’ve said such things. Well, Trump has said it, too.

It kind of reminds me of the time Sen. Walter Mondale — the 1976 Democratic vice-presidential nominee — came to Portland, Ore., to campaign for the White House. He held a press event in which a reporter asked him if Watergate was going to be an issue in the presidential campaign.

Mondale, grinning from ear to ear, said, “I am not going to make President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon an issue in this campaign.”

I guess Mondale was going to let “people” talk about it.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Are all rights absolute?

barack

Barack Obama made a number of interesting points today as he laid out his strategy to use his executive authority to reduce gun violence.

One of them dealt with the First Amendment and whether we should treat it as an absolute right. Yes, the president said, we have the right of free speech, but we cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.

We also have the right to religious freedom, but the law prohibits human sacrifice.

The Second Amendment is seen by many in this country as being an absolute right. The men who wrote the constitutional amendment meant that all Americans had the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Sure thing. I, too, have read the amendment and I get it.

I keep asking, though: Aren’t there measures that we can take that regulate the sale of these weapons while protecting the integrity of the Second Amendment? Gun-owner-rights groups — namely the National Rifle Association — keep insisting that the two principles are mutually exclusive. You can’t regulate firearms in any manner without watering down the Second Amendment, they say.

I guess I’ll just have to disagree with such a notion.

President Obama isn’t seeking to “legislate” through executive order, as his critics suggest he’s seeking to do. He has a team of constitutional lawyers who are advising him on what he can do legally. He wants to make it tougher for criminals or mentally disturbed individuals to put their hands on firearms and said today he has no intention of stripping law-abiding Americans of their constitutional right to own a gun.

Doesn’t that goal protect the amendment while trying to make the nation safer from bad guys with guns?

 

national news, political news

Law-abiding gun owners can relax; your guns are safe

gun over american flag

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this notion.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.” It doesn’t say so explicitly, but my strong hunch is that the men who wrote that amendment intended for it to apply to law-abiding Americans.

Now we hear the president of the United States suggesting that we need to tighten laws in an effort to ensure greater gun safety.

He said clearly and unequivocally: We aren’t going to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens who have guns for the right reasons . . . to hunt or to shoot at targets.

The target — if you’ll pardon the intentional pun — are the criminals who are able to purchase guns through loopholes in current state and federal law.

Thus, President Obama has acted.

Measures outlined.

I’m certain I heard him say he believes in the Second Amendment. He noted that it’s written “on paper.” It’s on the record. His support of the amendment will stand forever.

He noted quite correctly that we register our cars. Why can’t we register our guns? he asked. If the law-abiding folks want to own guns, they are able to do so. No problem. No issue here.

Obama said he wants those who sell guns to go through extended background checks. He wants to hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He wants Congress to authorize more money for mental health care.

Does any of that suggest that the president is going to dispatch storm troopers across the land to take away the guns of those who own them, who use them properly, who want to defend themselves against those who would do them harm?

I do not believe that will happen.

Ever.

 

national news, political news

Executive action on guns draws expected fire

1 Comment

gun over american flag

President Obama is considering some executive action he hopes will require gun dealers to go through increased background checks.

Does it mean that “law-abiding Americans” will be denied their right to “keep and bear arms” as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Obama says “no.” Republican presidential candidates say “yes.”

Who do you believe? I guess that depends on your political party, your philosophical persuasion, your own bias.

Me? I’m willing to let the president give it a try.

I am going to take the usual — and expected — criticism from readers of this blog who believe as GOP contender Chris Christie said that Obama is acting like a “dictator.”

I disagree with that characterization. The president has a team of constitutional lawyers surrounding him who’ll likely advise him that he’s acting totally within the law in issuing the orders to require the checks.

Congress won’t do it. Heck, Congress wouldn’t even approve legislation that would have restricted people placed on no-fly lists from owning firearms. Does the president expect Congress to follow his lead on his effort to curb gun violence? Not a chance.

So he’ll do what he needs to do on his own.

Do I feel threatened? Are the feds going to knock on my door and take my guns away from me? No and no.

However, the president’s apparent move toward executive action has prompted the apoplectic response from the GOP presidential field.

But what the heck. That’s politics.

 

local news, national news, political news, State news

Tornadoes need federal, political attention

dallas-tornado-from-airport

My wife and I laughed — nervously, I’ll admit — earlier today at our good fortune as we prepare to haul our fifth wheel back home.

We left the Texas Panhandle just ahead of a severe winter storm that blew in from the northwest. We headed for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to spend Christmas day with our son, daughter-in-law and our three grandkids — only to watch while tornadoes ripped through the region the afternoon and evening after Christmas.

The tornadoes resulted in several deaths and untold destruction of property all around our kids’ home in Allen.

I’m not well-versed in what happens next, but the destruction would seem to require some federal help. I am aware that state governors have to ask for it but as I write this brief blog post, I am unclear about whether Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is going to seek federal help to clean up the mess that the tornadoes left behind.

President Obama is due to return to Washington in the next day or so. I want to extend an invitation for him to land Air Force One at D/FW airport and take a look at what happened out there.

And the other candidates for president? I’m aware that Republican contender Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, already has taken a gander at what occurred in his home state.

We’ve still got a bunch of presidential candidates seeking the office. Yes, they can come, too.

Will anything get done? Will there be relief to be delivered to the state? Can it be delivered without attaching strings, such as what occurred when Joplin, Mo., was devastated by tornadoes in 2011 and then-U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor demanded that Congress cut spending elsewhere to “pay” for the relief?

We’ve got a lot of presidential contenders out there on the campaign trail. We’ve also got a president who’ll be flying directly at Texas on his way back to the White House. Texas is a big and important state.

And we’ve got a lot of residents who at this moment likely would appreciate some comfort from words of encouragement and support.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

President declares victory … over whom, what?

barack

It’s being reported tonight that President Obama today declared victory as he and his family took off out west on their family Christmas vacation.

I get that he’s anxious to finish his final full year as president on a high note. I question, though, whether there’s a victory yet to declare.

The president held his annual end-of-year press conference touting a few key victories: the Iran nuclear deal, the continuing enrollment of the Affordable Care Act, the recent budget deal worked out by Congress, re-establishing ties with Cuba, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and some other things.

They’ve all produced good signs of progress. But victory?

Not yet.

There’s still that ongoing fight with the Islamic State. He pledged yet again that the United States is hitting ISIL “harder than ever” and vowed to ramp up the pounding that U.S. and allied nations are delivering to the terrorist monsters. That fight is far from over. Indeed, it might never end. It won’t end by the time the current president leaves office and likely won’t end by the time the next one departs the White House.

It all reminds me of the time the late U.S. Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., once declared that it would be in the best interest of the country to “declare victory” in Vietnam and just go home.

Well, at least don’t have to “go home.” Still, there’s much more work to do before the 44th president hands the White House keys over the 45th.

Enjoy the time with your family, Mr. President. Come on back, though, and get to work.

Oh … and Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

national news, political news

American Muslims need to stand up for their nation

Sharjeel Hassan, left, and Yusuf Alwar,, both of Richardson, Texas, holds signs as they stand with supporters outside the Curtis Culwell Center, Saturday, Jan. 17, 2015, in Garland, Texas. A muslim conference against terror and hate was scheduled at the event center. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

I keep waiting to hear it.

The chants of “USA, USA, USA!”

Those chants need not come from large crowds at football games, necessarily. Instead, I am waiting to hear those chants coming from American Muslims who are standing up for their country.

I get that Muslims are upset at mosques being defaced. I have great sympathy for those who feel the pain of discrimination because of their faith. I share their angst at calls to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. I also share their disgust with presidential candidates saying that Muslims shouldn’t run for — let alone serve as — president of the United States.

However, there’s an element missing from the outrage that Muslims have been expressing in regard to the violence that’s erupting all around the world — including here in the United States.

President Bush said we are not at war with Islam. President Obama has reiterated it. We’re at war with extremists who have perverted a great religion. The extremists are killing more Muslims than any other religious group in the world.

They also are attacking nations, including this one.

I want to hear American Muslims shouting out their love of country as loudly as they do for their faith.

 

 

military news, Uncategorized

Bergdahl may be POTUS’s most stinging embarrassment

bowe

Barack Obama’s presidency is just about set to head into the home stretch.

I believe history over time will judge the Obama presidency well, even as many Americans now worry about the terror threat that, frankly, has been with us all along.

There likely will be a singular embarrassment, though, for the president that he might have to explain.

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is facing a court-martial on two critical counts: desertion and endangering his unit. Bergdahl was the subject of a prisoner exchange in which our side gave up five Taliban fighters in exchange for Bergdahl, who’d been held by the Taliban for about five years.

Once Bergdahl came out, he was honored by Barack Obama in a White House ceremony that included his parents. The president spoke of how the U.S. military “never leaves comrades behind.” He spoke of Bergdahl as a hero.

Well, a military court is going to decide whether Bergdahl abandoned his post in Afghanistan and whether his conduct put his fellow soldiers in danger.

I’ve sought to withhold judgment on Bergdahl, preferring to let the court decide his guilt or innocence.

If the court-martial convicts him, then the president will have to explain to Americans the reason for giving him such a hero’s welcome. And, of course, there’s the issue of negotiating the release of five known Taliban terrorists — which is what they are, no matter that the administration refuses to label the Taliban as a “terrorist organization.”

This court-martial will be worth the nation’s attention.