The sudden death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has dealt a gut punch to the Republican Party. It is something they couldn't wait minutes before announcing that President Obama cannot replace him on the nation's highest court. Why? Because he's a lame duck. Didn't Ronald Reagan nominate Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court when he was a lame duck? (Let's check the record.)
I find that ironic, since Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution enumerates that it is the president's expressed power to nominate Supreme Court justices (how about that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)?). Of course, that is with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, by way of Alabama), is sure that he can mire any Obama nominee in senatorial minutiae, until Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president on January 20, 2017. (Wouldn't that be ironic and just desserts?)
Until then, the U.S. Supreme Court may divided in its votes on important court issues facing it, with only eight members. In such a case, the court could be divided by series of 4-to-4 votes.
On another note, why would a sitting United States Supreme Court justice be visiting a luxury Texas hunting lodge (or ranch) with people flying in on private jets? That seems like a prime recipe for ex-parte discussions about cases that may be facing the court. Republicans, however, may argue that since he was an appointment of Ronald Reagan, he is immune from such impunity.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead
It would appear as if one of the Republicans' worst nightmares has come true. President Obama gets to add a liberal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the passing of Justice Scalia today in Texas. The passing of Scalia leaves only Justice Anthony Kennedy to carry on the Reagan-era legacy of the Supreme Court.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Our First Canadian President, eh?
In February, 2014, I published my thoughts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) running for president.
It would seem that Senator Cruz is going to announce his candidacy for the nation's highest office in the near future, despite constitutional reservations about his ability to serve.
Unlike Barack Obama, Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was a Castro-sympathizing Cuban, while his mother is his only birth connection to the United States, since she was born in Delaware.
How can Republicans not criticize Cruz legitimately for the very thing they illegitimately criticized Obama for in 2008 and 2012? Will Donald Trump parade Cruz's Canadian birth certificate for the whole world to see? Will Cruz publish his birth certificate? Will he acknowledge his Canadian roots at all?
I have reservations about people who claim they are natural born Americans, when in fact they were born on foreign shores. That applies to John McCain (R-AZ), despite the fact his father was on active military service which led to his birth in Panama. Let me go a step further, would I have berated the issue if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii prior to 1959? The answer is an astounding yes! Considering, Hawaii was not a state until 1959. (Obama was born in 1961.)
With that said, Obama's father was born in Kenya, while his mother was born in Kansas. (If we want to draw parallels to Cruz and Obama's American pedigrees.)
Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution very clearly states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." While it may seem ludicrous to have this conversation in the 21st century, it was an important principle for the individual holding the highest political office in the land to have no allegiance by birth, or claim thereby, to another sovereign nation.
It will fall to the United States Supreme Court to decide if that portion of the Constitution allows for naturalized citizens as well. Of course, there's the constitutional amendment option, but I doubt that will happen before 2016 (or ever).
It would seem that Senator Cruz is going to announce his candidacy for the nation's highest office in the near future, despite constitutional reservations about his ability to serve.
Unlike Barack Obama, Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was a Castro-sympathizing Cuban, while his mother is his only birth connection to the United States, since she was born in Delaware.
How can Republicans not criticize Cruz legitimately for the very thing they illegitimately criticized Obama for in 2008 and 2012? Will Donald Trump parade Cruz's Canadian birth certificate for the whole world to see? Will Cruz publish his birth certificate? Will he acknowledge his Canadian roots at all?
I have reservations about people who claim they are natural born Americans, when in fact they were born on foreign shores. That applies to John McCain (R-AZ), despite the fact his father was on active military service which led to his birth in Panama. Let me go a step further, would I have berated the issue if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii prior to 1959? The answer is an astounding yes! Considering, Hawaii was not a state until 1959. (Obama was born in 1961.)
With that said, Obama's father was born in Kenya, while his mother was born in Kansas. (If we want to draw parallels to Cruz and Obama's American pedigrees.)
Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution very clearly states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." While it may seem ludicrous to have this conversation in the 21st century, it was an important principle for the individual holding the highest political office in the land to have no allegiance by birth, or claim thereby, to another sovereign nation.
It will fall to the United States Supreme Court to decide if that portion of the Constitution allows for naturalized citizens as well. Of course, there's the constitutional amendment option, but I doubt that will happen before 2016 (or ever).
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Let's sue the President
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Isn't that a noble concept?
Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.
Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?
No.
Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?
No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)
So, who can help in such a quagmire?
Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?
When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.
In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!
Isn't that a noble concept?
Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.
Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?
No.
Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?
No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)
So, who can help in such a quagmire?
Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?
When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.
In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Silly Canadian, you can't be President!
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Canadian born citizen, thinks he can be president of the United States.
Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?
His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.
So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?
It's remarkably insane! Gracious!
Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?
His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.
So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?
It's remarkably insane! Gracious!
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Hillary for President
I was reading an article on Yahoo! extolling the cautious virtues of declaring a political party front-runner in the modern age of presidential elections, when it dawned on me that Hillary must be really putting the screws to Republicans and to Democrats!
If we could go back in time to 2008, with the knowledge we have today (yes, I know, 20/20 hindsight), I know we would have elected Hillary as president. Barack Obama would have continued as the junior senator from Illinois, and America would have been a much better place because of it!
I'm back up and running for Hillary Clinton for president!
If we could go back in time to 2008, with the knowledge we have today (yes, I know, 20/20 hindsight), I know we would have elected Hillary as president. Barack Obama would have continued as the junior senator from Illinois, and America would have been a much better place because of it!
I'm back up and running for Hillary Clinton for president!
Hillary 2016
Saturday, August 31, 2013
It's 3am and a phone is ringing in the White House...
I am reminded of that famous Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign commercial today. It sounds like there is a phone (probably a lot of them) ringing at the White House as I type this. Who is answering that phone?
The President has scheduled an address from the White House today at 1:15pm. He has also done due diligence by contacting the Senate and House leadership, which is customary before an attack on a foreign nation. I think all of the indicators are there to support the fact that the United States has already carried out some sort of assault against assets inside of Syria.
America is not ready for another war, even if it doesn't involve "boots on the ground." We can barely tread water as things stand today. I am saddened that people are dying in Syria, but it is hardly the responsibility of the United States to do anything about it. The proverbial can of worms will soon spill over and we will be left with a much larger mess to actually clean up in the end!
The President has scheduled an address from the White House today at 1:15pm. He has also done due diligence by contacting the Senate and House leadership, which is customary before an attack on a foreign nation. I think all of the indicators are there to support the fact that the United States has already carried out some sort of assault against assets inside of Syria.
America is not ready for another war, even if it doesn't involve "boots on the ground." We can barely tread water as things stand today. I am saddened that people are dying in Syria, but it is hardly the responsibility of the United States to do anything about it. The proverbial can of worms will soon spill over and we will be left with a much larger mess to actually clean up in the end!
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Barack Obama takes his second (third) oath of office
In what was a very low key event, held in the Blue Room of the White House, Barack Obama officially began his second term as president of the United States shortly before noon today.
This time they did not "flubbed" the oath of office.
The ceremony with all the "pomp and ceremony" begins tomorrow, since today is Sunday.
This time they did not "flubbed" the oath of office.
The ceremony with all the "pomp and ceremony" begins tomorrow, since today is Sunday.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Trillion Dollar Coin
The recent uproar over the "trillion dollar coin" has brought up some economic questions for me, as a person and teacher.
My students have asked me in the past how come we can't just print more money and let people have it to spend how they see fit. It sounds like a stupid idea, on the surface, but it would seem that our government might be willing to do it.
My go to response is that money has to have a guarantee of its worth. I suppose since we know longer use a gold standard, it is merely the word of the Federal Reserve that the money is good for whatever its face-value may be.
In essence, I suppose a platinum trillion dollar coin is a solution...from a child's perspective. If the government can do that, why not simply strike a $17,000,000,000,000 coin and pay off the national debt with a brand new surplus in the Treasury?
We really can have our cake and eat it too!
My students have asked me in the past how come we can't just print more money and let people have it to spend how they see fit. It sounds like a stupid idea, on the surface, but it would seem that our government might be willing to do it.
My go to response is that money has to have a guarantee of its worth. I suppose since we know longer use a gold standard, it is merely the word of the Federal Reserve that the money is good for whatever its face-value may be.
In essence, I suppose a platinum trillion dollar coin is a solution...from a child's perspective. If the government can do that, why not simply strike a $17,000,000,000,000 coin and pay off the national debt with a brand new surplus in the Treasury?
We really can have our cake and eat it too!
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Election 2012
Just before Elections 2014 & 2016 get started, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on Election 2012. More than a billion dollars was spent on a single day's outcome. Certainly Election Day is a big deal, as we elect representatives on the national, state, and local levels; however, I am left feeling unimpressed by so-called Big Money's attempt to sell Mitt Romney.
It's no surprise that I voted for Barack Obama, even though my state went for Romney. I would do it again. I believe that our ideas, needs, wants, and hopes are bigger than the 47%, the 1%, or any other minority group. I am more than a Democrat, a Kentuckian, a believer that we can all do better than what we are doing now; I am an American.
I once heard that America's best days are always ahead of it. I believe that statement. How could our ancestors have seen our today from their yesterday? How could they have envisioned a nation such as ours from the deepest depths of the Civil War, two World Wars, Great Depression, Cold War, and so much more adversity?
We are more than our fears, our prejudices, our insecurities. Yes, we are the authors of our own stories. Each story is combined with a neighbor's story, and another's, and so it goes. We are a nation that perseveres. The next rainbow will always be the brightest. Tomorrow's dawn the sweetest, because we live within it.
We can dream, we can hope, we can conquer. No matter what we are told those three principles hold true, from the lowest of the low to the highest of the high, and everyone in-between. We have been to the stars. We have seen what we can accomplish.
We know there is more!
It's no surprise that I voted for Barack Obama, even though my state went for Romney. I would do it again. I believe that our ideas, needs, wants, and hopes are bigger than the 47%, the 1%, or any other minority group. I am more than a Democrat, a Kentuckian, a believer that we can all do better than what we are doing now; I am an American.
I once heard that America's best days are always ahead of it. I believe that statement. How could our ancestors have seen our today from their yesterday? How could they have envisioned a nation such as ours from the deepest depths of the Civil War, two World Wars, Great Depression, Cold War, and so much more adversity?
We are more than our fears, our prejudices, our insecurities. Yes, we are the authors of our own stories. Each story is combined with a neighbor's story, and another's, and so it goes. We are a nation that perseveres. The next rainbow will always be the brightest. Tomorrow's dawn the sweetest, because we live within it.
We can dream, we can hope, we can conquer. No matter what we are told those three principles hold true, from the lowest of the low to the highest of the high, and everyone in-between. We have been to the stars. We have seen what we can accomplish.
We know there is more!
Friday, October 05, 2012
Big Bird-gate
Like many others, I watched Wednesday night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I agree with Obama. Who was that guy? He was a new person. I suppose someone had shaken the Etch-a-Sketch just before the debate, so that he could transform himself into a lover and liker of many things. We found out that he likes green jobs, but he would never fund them. We found out that he likes coal. And he really loves Medicare (i.e., senior citizens of the 47%).
The thing that caught a lot of people's attention was Romney's attack on PBS's Sesame Street. Mitt Romney likes Big Bird, but he isn't going to borrow any more money from those loan shark Chinese to keep him on the air. This caused a lot of uproar in the media.
What do I think?
I doubt that Big Bird and his pals are the main cause of America's economic woes. I find it incredulous of Romney to attack a children's show in the middle of a presidential debate. That doesn't seem very presidential to me.
Let's talk about what presidential means.
Did Mitt Romney win the debate?
He certainly came off stronger than I expected. Obama was more reserved in his debate style. Many people say that it means Romney was the over-all winner. The winner of a debate is circumspect at best. He may have won in the eyes of some, but I saw it as more of a strategy on the part of the Obama team.
The debate was a platform for Romney to hang himself politically. He had to make himself seem more human and likable from the standpoint of the 47% of independent voters, who he slashed in a private melee with his top 10% of political contributors. Now that Romney has laid it all out on the line before a nationally televised audience, he can't take back anything he has said. I believe the next debates will show a much more concise and ruthless Obama. Wednesday's debate was more about feeling out where Romney "really" stands on domestic issues.
Romney is running on his record as one-term governor of a liberal New England state, who created the very model of Obamacare, and the CEO of a slash-and-burn capital investment firm. (What happened to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics?) Obama is running on his record as President of the United States, which is a much more visible platform. Romney has a lot of personal demons to exorcise, as well. He must figure out how Romneycare is different from Obamacare. Of course, I realize that it was on a state-level, but it worked. Why shouldn't it work for the entire nation? (I believe that Obamacare doesn't go far enough. But, that's for a Clinton presidency.)
As a final thought, I am reminded of a 1995 Michael Douglas movie, The American President. Douglas plays an incumbent president who is mired in a harmless personal scandal with a Washington lobbyist, which is lampooned by his rival for the presidency, played by Richard Dreyfuss. Dreyfuss' character always ends his speeches by declaring he is "running for president." I think we saw a little of that in Romney on Wednesday night; in that the only consistent issue we have seen from Romney is that he is "running for president." Everything else he has flip-flopped on like a big dead-eyed mackerel!
This message is Big Bird approved!
The thing that caught a lot of people's attention was Romney's attack on PBS's Sesame Street. Mitt Romney likes Big Bird, but he isn't going to borrow any more money from those loan shark Chinese to keep him on the air. This caused a lot of uproar in the media.
What do I think?
I doubt that Big Bird and his pals are the main cause of America's economic woes. I find it incredulous of Romney to attack a children's show in the middle of a presidential debate. That doesn't seem very presidential to me.
Let's talk about what presidential means.
Did Mitt Romney win the debate?
He certainly came off stronger than I expected. Obama was more reserved in his debate style. Many people say that it means Romney was the over-all winner. The winner of a debate is circumspect at best. He may have won in the eyes of some, but I saw it as more of a strategy on the part of the Obama team.
The debate was a platform for Romney to hang himself politically. He had to make himself seem more human and likable from the standpoint of the 47% of independent voters, who he slashed in a private melee with his top 10% of political contributors. Now that Romney has laid it all out on the line before a nationally televised audience, he can't take back anything he has said. I believe the next debates will show a much more concise and ruthless Obama. Wednesday's debate was more about feeling out where Romney "really" stands on domestic issues.
Romney is running on his record as one-term governor of a liberal New England state, who created the very model of Obamacare, and the CEO of a slash-and-burn capital investment firm. (What happened to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics?) Obama is running on his record as President of the United States, which is a much more visible platform. Romney has a lot of personal demons to exorcise, as well. He must figure out how Romneycare is different from Obamacare. Of course, I realize that it was on a state-level, but it worked. Why shouldn't it work for the entire nation? (I believe that Obamacare doesn't go far enough. But, that's for a Clinton presidency.)
As a final thought, I am reminded of a 1995 Michael Douglas movie, The American President. Douglas plays an incumbent president who is mired in a harmless personal scandal with a Washington lobbyist, which is lampooned by his rival for the presidency, played by Richard Dreyfuss. Dreyfuss' character always ends his speeches by declaring he is "running for president." I think we saw a little of that in Romney on Wednesday night; in that the only consistent issue we have seen from Romney is that he is "running for president." Everything else he has flip-flopped on like a big dead-eyed mackerel!
This message is Big Bird approved!
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Rebirth of the Ottoman Empire
It's hard to know when Republicans are being literal or figurative. Case in point: Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX).
After thanking "Barack Hussein Obama," who's Muslimhood is between him and God, Congressman Gohmert goes on to criticize President Obama (and President Clinton...where does President Dubya Bush fit into this sordid equation?) for helping to restore a second-coming of the Ottoman Empire.
Is he for real?
According to him, all of the President's failed Middle East policies are going to create a lot of problems for Israel. I wonder if Gohmert's new Turkey will look back to the issue of its last caliph, Abdulmecid II, for leadership?
Like most Republicans, he didn't get into specifics on how this imminent threat to world peace was going to play out.
Shocking!
Mind you, of course, this all took place on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
After thanking "Barack Hussein Obama," who's Muslimhood is between him and God, Congressman Gohmert goes on to criticize President Obama (and President Clinton...where does President Dubya Bush fit into this sordid equation?) for helping to restore a second-coming of the Ottoman Empire.
Is he for real?
According to him, all of the President's failed Middle East policies are going to create a lot of problems for Israel. I wonder if Gohmert's new Turkey will look back to the issue of its last caliph, Abdulmecid II, for leadership?
Like most Republicans, he didn't get into specifics on how this imminent threat to world peace was going to play out.
Shocking!
Mind you, of course, this all took place on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
I blame George W. Bush
Conservatives are crying their eyes out today after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare's primary mandate stating each American must have health insurance by 2014 or face a tax. The highlight was that seemingly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal majority (5-4) in upholding the most polarizing portion of Obama's legislation; he even crafted its opinion!
Now, I cannot confess to have any love lost on Chief Justice Roberts. He is a George W. Bush appointee, after all, who came with high conservative backing during his nomination and confirmation to the Court. I thought Republicans were surely going to win a victory in the healthcare reform battle, with people like Roberts sitting on the bench, but boy was I (and many other people) wrong. Even CNN and Fox News incorrectly reported that the mandate had been overturned this morning.
It just goes to show that sometimes a Bush appointee can join with Clinton and Obama appointees when the stakes for our nation are highest.
Now, I cannot confess to have any love lost on Chief Justice Roberts. He is a George W. Bush appointee, after all, who came with high conservative backing during his nomination and confirmation to the Court. I thought Republicans were surely going to win a victory in the healthcare reform battle, with people like Roberts sitting on the bench, but boy was I (and many other people) wrong. Even CNN and Fox News incorrectly reported that the mandate had been overturned this morning.
It just goes to show that sometimes a Bush appointee can join with Clinton and Obama appointees when the stakes for our nation are highest.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Mexican Candidate
Forget the "Manchurian Candidate," at one time a Mexican Republican was running for president!
A lot has been made of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Birthers run this issue into the ground in the 2008 presidential election, and of course, since it is a new election cycle, they are coming out of the wood-work and insane asylums again to discredit the president. The only thing is that former Michigan governor, Jorge, I mean George Romney, who was the father of Mitt Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico. It gets better. George Romney was a candidate for the 1968 Republican nomination. What could be more precious?
Now, I suppose 1968 was a gentler time for politics (NOT!). People didn't ask for piddly things, like birth certificates back then. (What Republican would let the Constitution get in their way, after all?) The only time I have ever heard of someone being required to produce a birth certificate was when a black man decided to run for the highest office in the land.
In the end, I suppose it is best that Jorge Romney lost the Republican nomination to "Tricky Dick" Nixon! It kept the process honest. (Ha! Ha!)
A lot has been made of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Birthers run this issue into the ground in the 2008 presidential election, and of course, since it is a new election cycle, they are coming out of the wood-work and insane asylums again to discredit the president. The only thing is that former Michigan governor, Jorge, I mean George Romney, who was the father of Mitt Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico. It gets better. George Romney was a candidate for the 1968 Republican nomination. What could be more precious?
Now, I suppose 1968 was a gentler time for politics (NOT!). People didn't ask for piddly things, like birth certificates back then. (What Republican would let the Constitution get in their way, after all?) The only time I have ever heard of someone being required to produce a birth certificate was when a black man decided to run for the highest office in the land.
In the end, I suppose it is best that Jorge Romney lost the Republican nomination to "Tricky Dick" Nixon! It kept the process honest. (Ha! Ha!)
Sunday, April 29, 2012
98th annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
For some reason I really connected to this video that compared Mitt Romney's dog, Seamus, and the President's dog, Bo.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Iowa
Calling all Republicans!
It looks like Mitt Romney will be your candidate to go up against President Obama; even though, Pennsylvania's uber thin-nosed son, Rick Santorum, came within a few votes, Mitt Romney won the state's caucus last evening.
Wild-eyed Michele Bachmann, who came in sixth place, decided to postpone her campaign indefinitely. Of course, George W. Bush's wanna-be clone, Rick Perry, finished at a paltry fifth place. He originally indicated that his campaign may have been over as he was off to Texas to think things over, but it seems he has decided to stay in the race (for the time being). A bitter Newt Gingrich left Iowa for New Hampshire, after finishing fourth place, and attacking Mitt Romney for his SuperPAC's hateful political ads against him in the latter days of the contest.
Honestly, I was pulling for Ron Paul to win the caucus. It seemed that the entrance polls indicated he was the favorite among young voters, but he only finished in third place. Even though, I'm not sure what Ron Paul has to do with the Republican Party, I respect his strict interpretation of the Constitution; even though, I take a more Jeffersonian view that the Constitution is a "living" document that can bend and change with the needs of the times. It is funny, but I think his take on the United States' foreign policy is pretty much spot on. It is time to reign in the troops and let the world tend to itself. We have many wounds that need licking!
So, it's on to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
It looks like Mitt Romney will be your candidate to go up against President Obama; even though, Pennsylvania's uber thin-nosed son, Rick Santorum, came within a few votes, Mitt Romney won the state's caucus last evening.
Wild-eyed Michele Bachmann, who came in sixth place, decided to postpone her campaign indefinitely. Of course, George W. Bush's wanna-be clone, Rick Perry, finished at a paltry fifth place. He originally indicated that his campaign may have been over as he was off to Texas to think things over, but it seems he has decided to stay in the race (for the time being). A bitter Newt Gingrich left Iowa for New Hampshire, after finishing fourth place, and attacking Mitt Romney for his SuperPAC's hateful political ads against him in the latter days of the contest.
Honestly, I was pulling for Ron Paul to win the caucus. It seemed that the entrance polls indicated he was the favorite among young voters, but he only finished in third place. Even though, I'm not sure what Ron Paul has to do with the Republican Party, I respect his strict interpretation of the Constitution; even though, I take a more Jeffersonian view that the Constitution is a "living" document that can bend and change with the needs of the times. It is funny, but I think his take on the United States' foreign policy is pretty much spot on. It is time to reign in the troops and let the world tend to itself. We have many wounds that need licking!
So, it's on to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Healthcare
The CDC reports that about 2.5 million more Americans now have health insurance because of what Republicans have termed "Obamacare."
I say if there are 2,500,000 people (and young people, too) who now have access to decent healthcare insurance, then Obamacare is a perfectly acceptable program in my book!
I say if there are 2,500,000 people (and young people, too) who now have access to decent healthcare insurance, then Obamacare is a perfectly acceptable program in my book!
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Time for Some Balls?
House Speaker John "Cries a Lot" Boehner (R-OH) recently rejected a presidential request to a Joint Session of Congress to address the creation of new jobs. Boehner requested that the address be postponed for a day, as to allow for adequate "security measures" in the House chamber of Congress. It just so happens, of course, Republican presidential candidates are set to debate that same night.
Hmmmm....sounds a bit fishy to me.
If it were me (as president), I'd bust some balls of my own. Sure, the House of Representatives may reject me, but that wouldn't deter me from making my speech on my own terms. Who needs to the House of Representatives anyhow to do it? Personally, since the Senate is Democratic-controlled, I'd go to the Senate chamber and make my speech to the nation. Unprecedented? Of course. But so is denying the President's request for a Joint Session of Congress. As a matter of courtesy, I would invite members of the House to the Senate, if they felt so inclined. Boehner: non persona gratis.
As you may have already guessed, President Obama acquiesced to the demands of Speaker Boehner and rescheduled HIS speech. I suppose Republicans can add this to their "win" category. When is the President of the United States going to realize that his political party controls the executive branch and a house of Congress? It's time to put House Republicans in their place and truly get on with the business of America. If you really think about it, how is the President going to get House Republicans to join him on his jobs initiative if he can't even get them to allow him to make a simple speech?
Duh!
Hmmmm....sounds a bit fishy to me.
If it were me (as president), I'd bust some balls of my own. Sure, the House of Representatives may reject me, but that wouldn't deter me from making my speech on my own terms. Who needs to the House of Representatives anyhow to do it? Personally, since the Senate is Democratic-controlled, I'd go to the Senate chamber and make my speech to the nation. Unprecedented? Of course. But so is denying the President's request for a Joint Session of Congress. As a matter of courtesy, I would invite members of the House to the Senate, if they felt so inclined. Boehner: non persona gratis.
As you may have already guessed, President Obama acquiesced to the demands of Speaker Boehner and rescheduled HIS speech. I suppose Republicans can add this to their "win" category. When is the President of the United States going to realize that his political party controls the executive branch and a house of Congress? It's time to put House Republicans in their place and truly get on with the business of America. If you really think about it, how is the President going to get House Republicans to join him on his jobs initiative if he can't even get them to allow him to make a simple speech?
Duh!
Friday, July 29, 2011
Did Boehner Cry?
It's time for the President to invoke the Republican staple, the George W. Bush clause, as a measure to deal with the debt ceiling crisis. He has to raise the debt limit without congressional approval. George W. Bush didn't need the approval of Congress for 95% of the things he did, so why should Obama? He can't let something as tedious as the United States Constitution get in his way.
No sir!
No sir!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Healthcare
See if you've heard this joke.
A man walks into a bank and hands the teller a note demanding $1 and healthcare. He waits patiently for the police to respond to the robbery and take him into custody. As a ward of the state, he is now receiving the healthcare he couldn't afford on his own.
The only thing is that this really happened. It isn't a joke. It was a reality, recently, for a 59-year-old North Carolina man. As Republicans and Democrats wage a war on the cost of national healthcare--whether you want to call it "Obamacare" or "Obamneycare"--there are people who cannot afford to receive life saving health care. They can't afford medications, medical procedures, or long-term life extending care, whether in public or private facilities.
Our country has the money and medical resources to guarantee each American top-notch medical care for those who cannot afford it through no fault of their own, whether or not they are homeless, laid off from work, injured, and the list can continue.
As American taxpayers foot the bill for two wars, which cost ten-of-billions of dollars annually, we allow our own citizens to suffer and die needlessly. Besides these two wars, we are set to fight another one in Libya. It's time for President Obama to live up to his promise of ending the Bush wars. Thus, bringing home those billions of dollars dumped into a bottomless blackhole located on the other side of the globe. There is no hope that these wars will ever end satisfactorily. My suggestion is to stop Libya before it begins in earnestness. It's not our fight. We weren't there when it began in 1969, why do we insist on being there at the end in 2011? Yes, innocent people are dying there, but the same is true about the United States. In the final analysis, who deserves our money most?
A man walks into a bank and hands the teller a note demanding $1 and healthcare. He waits patiently for the police to respond to the robbery and take him into custody. As a ward of the state, he is now receiving the healthcare he couldn't afford on his own.
The only thing is that this really happened. It isn't a joke. It was a reality, recently, for a 59-year-old North Carolina man. As Republicans and Democrats wage a war on the cost of national healthcare--whether you want to call it "Obamacare" or "Obamneycare"--there are people who cannot afford to receive life saving health care. They can't afford medications, medical procedures, or long-term life extending care, whether in public or private facilities.
Our country has the money and medical resources to guarantee each American top-notch medical care for those who cannot afford it through no fault of their own, whether or not they are homeless, laid off from work, injured, and the list can continue.
As American taxpayers foot the bill for two wars, which cost ten-of-billions of dollars annually, we allow our own citizens to suffer and die needlessly. Besides these two wars, we are set to fight another one in Libya. It's time for President Obama to live up to his promise of ending the Bush wars. Thus, bringing home those billions of dollars dumped into a bottomless blackhole located on the other side of the globe. There is no hope that these wars will ever end satisfactorily. My suggestion is to stop Libya before it begins in earnestness. It's not our fight. We weren't there when it began in 1969, why do we insist on being there at the end in 2011? Yes, innocent people are dying there, but the same is true about the United States. In the final analysis, who deserves our money most?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)