Tag Archives: Barack Obama

business news, International news, national news, political news, State news

Gov. Abbott sheds the dogma … and heads to Cuba

cuba

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is using his office the right way while steering away from some of the dogma we’ve been hearing from those in his party about a particular issue.

Abbott is going to Cuba next week on a mission to promote Texas-Cuba trade.

Abbott is a proud Republican. But unlike some of his GOP brethren, he is putting common sense and what I call “enlightened self-interest” ahead of posturing.

Some prominent Republican politicians — namely Texan Ted Cruz and Floridian Marco Rubio, who are running for president — have called the re-establishment of relations with Cuba virtually a pact with Satan himself. These two Cuban-Americans still seem to fear the island nation that is governed by dedicated communists.

Why, how can President Obama grant those commies any favors while they still have one of the world’s worst human-rights records? That’s part of the mantra we’ve heard from some on the far right about this sensible diplomatic initiative.

Gov. Abbott often has joined some on the far right on a whole host of topics with which to criticize the president.

Not this time. Good for him. Better still, good for the state he governs.

The Texas Tribune’s Aman Batheja reports: “Texas was once a leading exporter to Cuba in a quiet partnership that helped produce hundreds of jobs and millions in revenue for the Lone Star State. Even following the implementation of the U.S. trade embargo more than 50 years ago, the relationship continued to thrive for decades.”

That stopped in the early 1960s when the United States ended all relations with Cuba in the wake of Fidel Castro’s takeover of the island nation’s government. The deep freeze in U.S.-Cuba relations lasted through eight American presidencies; meanwhile, Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, have remained in power.

President Obama made the right call to restore relations. The Cold War is over. Cuba presents no threat to the United States. It’s still dirt poor. Yes, it’s still run by communists, but Cuba is far less of a threat to U.S. interests than, say, the People’s Republic of China, a nation with which we’ve had relations since 1978.

Texas has a lot of goods and commodities it can sell to Cuban interests. Let me think … what can we sell them from, oh, this part of the state? Oh, how about some beef, or maybe cotton for starters?

Travel safely, governor.

 

State news, Uncategorized

Boy, family seek $15 million … for what?

ahmed

Ahmed Mohamed once was in the news.

He was doing a science project for his school in Irving, a Dallas suburb. Ahmed brought a homemade clock to school. But the clock was confiscated, Ahmed was detained, questioned intently by school officials and police who thought he had made a bomb. He then was suspended.

The incident brought a lot of attention because Ahmed and his family are Muslim.

Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed were so upset — and rightfully so — that they took their son out of school and moved to Qatar.

That should have been the end of the story.  It isn’t.

The family is now seeking reparations from the school district totaling $15 million.

That’s right. Fifteen million bucks! They also want a written apology from the school district.

Ahmed’s reputation, they family says, has been damaged beyond repair. They want the Irving district to pay them.

I’m generally in favor of allowing plaintiffs the right to sue for as much as they can get … within reason, of course.

However, not for something like this.

Ahmed’s detention and the publicity he got over the bogus bomb scare brought him a great deal of positive attention. President Obama invited him and other science students to the White House for an astronomy demonstration project.

Ahmed’s damages, such as they are, pale in comparison to what his parents’ reputation will endure by making such an unreasonable demand for reparations.

 

International news, national news, political news

What would ‘W’ do?

UNITED KINGDOM - JUNE 16: U.S. President George W. Bush waves upon arrival at RAF Aldgerove in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Monday, June 16, 2008. Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister said Britain is pushing the European Union to impose new sanctions against Iran, including freezing the assets of its biggest bank, to pressure the nation to give up its nuclear program at a press conference with Bush in London today. (Photo by Paul McErlane/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Mark Shields comprises one-half of a talk show tandem that appears Friday nights on public television.

He and the other half, David Brooks, were spot on in their analysis of the political talk arising from the Paris terrorist attacks one week ago.

Shields, a noted liberal columnist, noted how President Bush responded immediately after al-Qaeda monsters hijacked those four jetliners and inflicted the terrible carnage on U.S. soil on 9/11.

“He went to a mosque,” Shields noted, and said “we are not at war with Islam.”

Shields and Brooks — the more conservative member of the “PBS NewsHour” duo — then both described the white-hot rhetoric we’re hearing today from politicians of both parties as being un-American and unpatriotic.

President Barack Obama has sought to make the same case that his immediate predecessor made. Yet the Republicans who 14 years ago saluted President Bush’s stance contend that the current incumbent, a Democrat, is “soft,” that he isn’t serious about this war against radical Islamic terrorists.

George W. Bush was the first leading politician to declare that the current war against terror must not be seen as a war against a religion. Barack H. Obama is the latest one to say the same thing.

Yet we hear other leading politicians talking about shadowing people of a certain religious faith. One of them, Republican candidate Donald Trump, hasn’t yet told us whether he would intend to track U.S. citizens who also happen to be Muslim, which if that is the case is categorically in defiance of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.

This is what this current discussion has revealed.

George W. Bush had it exactly right. His political descendants have it exactly wrong.

 

International news

Paris attack ringleader gets it … see ya

attack

There won’t be a trial for the Belgian jihadist who organized the Paris terror attacks.

Awww …

The remains of Abdelhamid Abaaoud  have been identified by French authorities after the daring commando raid in the town of St. Denis. The 27-year-old terrorist was among several murderers killed by French police, demonstrating that French President Francois Hollande meant what he said when he declared his intention to launch a “pitiless” response to the carnage that erupted in Paris late this past week.

Let the bad-guy body count mount.

Just as American commandos took out Osama bin Laden in May 2011 and other terrorist leaders have been eradicated systematically during the course of this international war, let’s not high-five each other too vigorously over this latest battlefield victory.

Abaaoud will be replaced by someone else. The Islamic State is full of reprehensible individuals willing to die for whatever perverted cause they seek to further.

It’s becoming clearer by the day that the Islamic State act in Paris has brought new energy to this world war — and that’s what we should call it. France is bringing its own significant military capability to bear as it has stepped up its air strike campaign against ISIL targets in Syria. Russia, too, has pledged to increase its aerial bombardment efforts against ISIL as payback for the bombing of the Russian jetliner recently, which killed all 224 people on board.

The U.S. effort? It, too, must continue … and I have heard President Barack Obama give every assurance that we’re going to keep stepping up our own efforts to eliminate terrorists wherever and whenever we find them.

But now at least we can say “good bye” to one more evil ringleader.

It’s time now to find the rest of them.

International news

Is the Islamic State ‘terrorizing’ us successfully?

Syrian children march in the refugee camp in Jordan. The number of Children in this camp exceeds 60% of the total number of refugees hence the name "Children's camp". Some of them lost their relatives, but others lost their parents.

Most of the United States’ governors have vowed to ban Syrian refugees from entering their states.

No surprise that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is one of them.

But I’m wondering: Is the Islamic State winning the propaganda war by compelling the governors to act as they have acted?

The refugee bans are being sought in the wake of the Paris attacks this past week. ISIL is claiming responsibility for the murderous attacks. It’s been reported that Syrian refugees were among the attackers; then again, it’s also been reported that the men who did the deed were European nationals.

I’m confused.

But … back to the point.

I remember when the 9/11 attacks occurred more than 14 years ago. President Bush told us then that we should go about living our lives as we’ve always done. To change our way of life, he said, would give the terrorists what they want.

Are we doing now what the president cautioned against?

I’ve heard the arguments for and against the refugee ban.

Those who support the ban say: We don’t know how to screen all the bad guys who might disguise themselves as “refugees.” We must put security first and foremost.

Those who oppose the ban counter: This restriction goes against the very principles upon which this nation was created. We cannot turn away “widows and orphans.” We’ve already allowed more than 1 million refugees from the Middle East and we’ve had zero terrorist attacks perpetrated by anyone who has come here from that part of the world.

Oh, boy. Where do we draw the line?

And are we now giving the Islamic State another propaganda tool to recruit new members simply by denying Muslims entry because we fear what might occur if we allow them to come here? And do we feed that propaganda machine by allowing only Christians into this country, but not Muslims?

I’ve heard Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush say we aren’t waging a war against Islam. Well, did both men misspeak?

I’m just askin’.

 

International news, religious news

Let’s not condemn them all

ku-klux-klan_3153153b

The image that jumps out at me from this picture might not be what you think it is.

It’s not the low-life cloaked in that robe. It is the burning crosses in the background.

What do the crosses symbolize? Well, I suppose you can say they represent Christianity’s holiest symbol, the crucifix on which Jesus Christ lost his earthly life.

Yet the Ku Klux Klansman pictured here no doubt proclaims he burned those crosses to stand up for “Christian values.” Isn’t that what those loons proclaim?

Well, as a practicing Christian, I do not consider them in any shape or form to represent my faith. They are outliers in the extreme.

So, too — in my view — are the terrorists who commit their horrible acts today in the name of Islam.

And yet …

There are individuals around the world — including Americans, some of whom are friends of mine — who continue to tar all Muslims with the same brush with which they are painting the monsters who commit hideous crimes against humanity.

This prejudice and bigotry goes far beyond declarations by state governors, such as Greg Abbott in Texas, that seek to ban refugees from Syria from entering their states. They are concerned over whether some so-called refugee is a closet terrorist seeking to deliver more misery.

The bigotry being displayed by many against all Muslims is no more acceptable than it would be to label all Christians as believing in the hatred that is spread by Klansmen.

Yes, the Islamic State carries the name “Islam” in its own label. It does not, however, represent the tenets of what remains one of the world’s great religions. It is a murderous cult that has perverted Islam’s teachings to suit the demented ends of a terrorist organization.

And that, I do believe, cuts straight to the view that’s been expressed by the nation’s two most recent presidents — Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama — that the war in which we are engaged is not a war against Islam.

It is a war against murderous perverts.

International news, national news, political news, State news

Gov. Abbott slams door on Syrian refugees

Syrian children march in the refugee camp in Jordan. The number of Children in this camp exceeds 60% of the total number of refugees hence the name "Children's camp". Some of them lost their relatives, but others lost their parents.

Honestly, I have a measure of sympathy for what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has declared with regard to refugees from Syria.

He has informed President Obama that Texas won’t accept any refugees from the nation they are fleeing. Why? One individual who entered France as a “refugee” reportedly was part of the attack force that terrorized Paris this past week, killing 129 people and injuring hundreds more.

Abbott doesn’t want to take any chances by allowing Syrians into this state. He joins the governors of Alabama and Michigan in banning Syrian refugees.

On the other hand, I believe it is fair to ask: Is this what the United States of America stands for?

An Austin immigration lawyer told the Texas Tribune that Abbott’s order is legal, but questions whether it is right.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas,” Abbott wrote to President Obama.

I get that. But aren’t there intense security measures a state such as Texas can take screen all applicants coming here from Syria to ensure that they do not have any ties to the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah … or any sinister terrorist organization?

Here’s more from the Tribune: “House Speaker Joe Straus on Monday took a more nuanced position, saying he agreed with Abbott’s ‘concern’ and that refugees needed “thorough background reviews” in order to be placed in Texas. ‘I share Gov. Abbott’s concern that relocating refugees to Texas without thorough background reviews compromises our security,’ Straus said in an emailed statement. ‘Our highest priority as a state has been and should continue to be the safety of all Texans.’”

Virtually all the refugees coming here are fleeing terror, murder, warfare, mayhem, bloodshed. You name it, they’re seeking to escape that misery. What is to become of them? Do we send them to other states? Do we — as Donald Trump suggests — send them back to the chaos they are fleeing?

We proclaim ourselves to live in the Land of Opportunity. We profess our nation to be a bastion for the dispossessed.

Of course no one wants to create a safe haven for terrorist monsters. What, though, does the world do with those who deserve protection from those who would kill them?

 

International news, national news, political news

Does it matter what we call the enemy?

islam-at-war

Hillary Rodham Clinton did not use the words “radical Islam” during the Democratic presidential debate Saturday night to define the enemy with whom the civilized world is at war.

Does it matter? Is it vitally important for Clinton — or any leading politician — to use those words when describing terrorist organizations?

Her Republican opponents say it is. The leading Democratic presidential candidate, though, answered with a statement of her own, invoking the words — of all people — of former Republican President George W. Bush.

We are not at war with Islam, President Bush said in September 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. The fight, he said, was against extremists, those who have perverted what he called a religion of “peace.”

Clinton and President Obama have gone to great lengths to avoid using the words “radical Islam,” giving their foes plenty of ammo to use against them.

Personally, I think the words “radical Islam” are quite appropriate to describe our foes.

But does it really matter more what we say about them more than what we do to fight them?

No.

This debate is getting bogged down in a game of semantics. From my perch out here in Flyover Country it appears to be that our national leadership knows the name of the enemy — and is taking the fight to them.

 

 

International news, military news

ISIL clearly not ‘contained,’ however ….

obama and kerry

President Obama might have been a bit more precise in his answer to a question this past week regarding the U.S. war against the Islamic State.

He told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos that ISIL has been “contained.” Twenty-four hours later, terrorists launched the hideous attacks throughout Paris, killing nearly 200 innocent victims.

The president’s foes have seized on the “contained” remark as proof, they say, that he’s clueless.

What he said later in his answer to the question dealt with ISIL’s battlefield capabilities and whether the fighters’ advances in Syria and Iraq have been stopped. He believes that our air campaign has stalled the Islamic State’s march.

Clearly, though, the terror cabal is capable of launching the kind of attack that it did Friday in Paris. Richard Clarke, the anti-terror expert who’s worked for administrations of both political parties, said this morning that ISIL is far more capable and fearsome than al-Qaeda.

ISIL has committed “an act of war” against the civilized world, said French President Francois Hollande. How do nations respond to such acts? By going to war.

Contained or not, the Islamic State needs to face the combined fury of the immense military power of the nations it has chosen to fight.

 

International news

Up next? A ‘pitiless’ response to terror

epa05024278 French president Francois Hollande speaks in Paris, France, 14 November 2015, following a series of coordinated attacks in and around Paris late 13 November 2015, which left more than 120 people dead. Hollande blamed the Islamic State group for the attacks in Paris that left at least 128 dead, calling them an 'act of war'. EPA/STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN / POOL MAXPPP OUT

There can be nothing good to come from the Paris attacks this week that killed at least 120 French citizens.

However, the response from French President Francois Hollande gives one hope that the civilized world has gained another full-time participant in the world war against terrorism.

Hollande has vowed a “pitiless” response to the coordinated, well-planned attacks at several locations throughout the City of Lights. And from across the English Channel, British Prime Minister David Cameron told the French that “their fight is our fight.”

France brings considerable muscle to this global effort. The country has a significant military force capable of bringing great harm to whomever it engages. Its intelligence network ranks as one of the more sophisticated on the planet.

Meanwhile, the United States has been waging its own brand of warfare against the Islamic State — which has taken “credit,” if you want to call it that — for the horrifying act it committed in Paris.

Air strikes are continuing. President Obama has decided to send in a small cadre of special operations forces to help train the Kurds in their fight against ISIS in Syria. The British continue to provide air support for the air strikes against terror targets. And, yes, the Russians have joined the fight, too — although it remains an open question whether the MiG fighter jets are actually hitting ISIS targets or merely going after rebel forces fighting the brutal regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who remains a sworn enemy of the United States.

What will it take to defeat the Islamic State? Perhaps it will take more acts of brutality by the monstrous organization against more of our allies throughout the world.

We should continue to accept and welcome all the help we can get.