test
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
If President Obama was a CEO, DOJ would hold him accountable for scandals
IRS… Benghazi… AP… the scandals are mounting in D.C. Who’s to blame?
Well, if you use the standards that federal prosecutors apply to corporations, the president would be held legally responsible for any wrongdoing by federal workers—whether he knew what they were doing or not.
Like Sergeant Shultz from “Hogan’s Heroes,” President Obama insists that he knew nothing about the IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups. He only learned about it from media coverage of the Treasury’s Inspector General Report.
Similarly, he knew nothing about the Justice Department’s subpoena of phone records of AP reporters and editors.
As for Benghazi, we now know that his subordinates in the White House and the State Department edited the talking points that misled the public about what happened on September 11, 2012 although we still don’t know who in the line of command nixed any attempt to rescue Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans under attack by terrorists.
Let’s suppose he’s telling the truth: The president had no idea of what his subordinates were up to in any of these instances. How, then, could he be held legally responsible for what happened?
If Mr. Obama were CEO of a corporation rather than commander-in-chief, the Justice Department would certainly hold him accountable.
For years, DOJ has used a “responsible corporate officer doctrine” to prosecute business owners and corporate officers for crimes committed by their subordinates—even when the bosses had no knowledge of, much less involvement in, the criminal conduct.
To convict a business executive, all the Justice Department has to do is prove that (1) an employee did something illegal on the job and (b) the executive was above that employee in the corporate organizational chart.
The President’s own Food and Drug Administration revised its regulatory procedures manual in 2011 to make it clear that a corporate officer can be criminally liable “without proof that the corporate official acted with intent or even negligence, and even if such corporate official did not have any actual knowledge of, or participation in, the specific offense.” The key is whether the “official had the authority to correct or prevent the violation.”
President Obama may well have been clueless that Eric Holder’s Justice Department had secretly seized AP phone records, or that IRS officials were slow-walking tax-exemption applications from conservative organizations that (according to the IG Report) had “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names, “criticize how the country is being run,” or were “educating on the constitution and bill of rights.”
But the President is legally the head of the executive branch. In the federal government’s organization chart, he is above everyone at State, Justice, and the IRS. He and his immediate subordinates, the cabinet secretaries, are responsible for the actions of all those in the departments they supervise and the policies those employees follow. The enforcement and regulatory policies of the executive branch are, in fact, the special purview of the President, and he has “the authority to correct or prevent” the conduct that occurred.
So should the same rules apply to the government that apply to American businesses? If the Justice Department believes that corporate officers and managers can be held responsible for their employees’ misdeeds–even when they knew nothing about them–shouldn’t a cabinet secretary or the President be held responsible for their employees’ misdeeds?
We won’t argue that the most senior federal officials in the executive branch should be held legally responsible for the actions of people not under their direct control. But the same rule should apply to corporate officers being prosecuted by the federal government. It is a sad day when the government holds itself to a much lower standard of responsibility than it applies to everyone else.
Well, if you use the standards that federal prosecutors apply to corporations, the president would be held legally responsible for any wrongdoing by federal workers—whether he knew what they were doing or not.
Like Sergeant Shultz from “Hogan’s Heroes,” President Obama insists that he knew nothing about the IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups. He only learned about it from media coverage of the Treasury’s Inspector General Report.
Similarly, he knew nothing about the Justice Department’s subpoena of phone records of AP reporters and editors.
As for Benghazi, we now know that his subordinates in the White House and the State Department edited the talking points that misled the public about what happened on September 11, 2012 although we still don’t know who in the line of command nixed any attempt to rescue Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans under attack by terrorists.
Let’s suppose he’s telling the truth: The president had no idea of what his subordinates were up to in any of these instances. How, then, could he be held legally responsible for what happened?
If Mr. Obama were CEO of a corporation rather than commander-in-chief, the Justice Department would certainly hold him accountable.
For years, DOJ has used a “responsible corporate officer doctrine” to prosecute business owners and corporate officers for crimes committed by their subordinates—even when the bosses had no knowledge of, much less involvement in, the criminal conduct.
To convict a business executive, all the Justice Department has to do is prove that (1) an employee did something illegal on the job and (b) the executive was above that employee in the corporate organizational chart.
The President’s own Food and Drug Administration revised its regulatory procedures manual in 2011 to make it clear that a corporate officer can be criminally liable “without proof that the corporate official acted with intent or even negligence, and even if such corporate official did not have any actual knowledge of, or participation in, the specific offense.” The key is whether the “official had the authority to correct or prevent the violation.”
President Obama may well have been clueless that Eric Holder’s Justice Department had secretly seized AP phone records, or that IRS officials were slow-walking tax-exemption applications from conservative organizations that (according to the IG Report) had “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names, “criticize how the country is being run,” or were “educating on the constitution and bill of rights.”
But the President is legally the head of the executive branch. In the federal government’s organization chart, he is above everyone at State, Justice, and the IRS. He and his immediate subordinates, the cabinet secretaries, are responsible for the actions of all those in the departments they supervise and the policies those employees follow. The enforcement and regulatory policies of the executive branch are, in fact, the special purview of the President, and he has “the authority to correct or prevent” the conduct that occurred.
So should the same rules apply to the government that apply to American businesses? If the Justice Department believes that corporate officers and managers can be held responsible for their employees’ misdeeds–even when they knew nothing about them–shouldn’t a cabinet secretary or the President be held responsible for their employees’ misdeeds?
We won’t argue that the most senior federal officials in the executive branch should be held legally responsible for the actions of people not under their direct control. But the same rule should apply to corporate officers being prosecuted by the federal government. It is a sad day when the government holds itself to a much lower standard of responsibility than it applies to everyone else.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Israeli bombing in Syria may force Obama’s hand
Israel may be forcing the hand of President Barack Obama to become more heavily involved in the civil war in Syria.
Israeli jets have made three airstrikes on targets in Syria since January, going after Syrian weapons facilities, the Los Angeles Times reports. But it takes place as Syrian troops battle rebel forces from the Arab Spring two years ago in a bloody conflict that has claimed thousands of lives.
The Obama administration has said Syrian use to chemical weapons would represent a clear signal that the U.S. had to get involved in the conflict. The Israeli airstrikes may push Obama even more to keep the civil war from growing into an all-out Middle East firefight as other Arab countries take offense over the Israeli attacks in neighboring Syria.
Obama can’t afford for Syria to suddenly garner sympathy from the Israeli action. The development also raises concerns about whether Iran might be Israel’s next target because of Iran’s growing nuclear threat in the region.
Source http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/06/4221161/israeli-bombing-in-syria-may-force.html
Israeli jets have made three airstrikes on targets in Syria since January, going after Syrian weapons facilities, the Los Angeles Times reports. But it takes place as Syrian troops battle rebel forces from the Arab Spring two years ago in a bloody conflict that has claimed thousands of lives.
The Obama administration has said Syrian use to chemical weapons would represent a clear signal that the U.S. had to get involved in the conflict. The Israeli airstrikes may push Obama even more to keep the civil war from growing into an all-out Middle East firefight as other Arab countries take offense over the Israeli attacks in neighboring Syria.
Obama can’t afford for Syria to suddenly garner sympathy from the Israeli action. The development also raises concerns about whether Iran might be Israel’s next target because of Iran’s growing nuclear threat in the region.
Source http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/06/4221161/israeli-bombing-in-syria-may-force.html
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Obama Lauds National Teacher Of The Year
President Obama today praised the nation’s top teachers as he honored the Teacher of the Year, a Washington state teacher recognized for transforming his hometown school and peaking students’ interest in math and science.
In a Rose Garden ceremony, President Obama thanked winner Jeff Charbonneau, a chemistry, physics and engineering teacher at Zillah High School, for his leadership.
“Twelve years ago, when Jeff decided to return to his hometown to teach, Zillah High School had no engineering curriculum. The science curriculum was lagging. Kids had to go off campus for technology classes, and the computer resources were, frankly, pretty poor,” Obama explained. “But Jeff was determined to turn that around. He wanted to convince kids that something like quantum mechanics wasn’t something to run away from, but something to dive into.”
Now, thanks to Charbonneau’s help, science enrollment is up and students are graduating with college-level science credits.
The president also praised the heroic teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School who fought to save their students’ lives during the December massacre in Newtown, Conn.
“We saw the true depths of a teacher’s commitment when six educators were killed trying to protect the children they embraced as their own,” he said. “In those moments, those brave teachers showed the world what they do is more than just educate kids. They embrace them and they nurture them and they love them.”
The president joked that teachers don’t go into the profession “for money” or the “light hours and the easy work.” They walk into the classroom every day “because they love doing what they do, because they’re passionate about helping our children realize the best versions of themselves so that our country can become the best version of itself.”
“I want you guys to know that the country appreciates you. The kids appreciate you. The parents appreciate you. What you do matters,” he said.
In a Rose Garden ceremony, President Obama thanked winner Jeff Charbonneau, a chemistry, physics and engineering teacher at Zillah High School, for his leadership.
“Twelve years ago, when Jeff decided to return to his hometown to teach, Zillah High School had no engineering curriculum. The science curriculum was lagging. Kids had to go off campus for technology classes, and the computer resources were, frankly, pretty poor,” Obama explained. “But Jeff was determined to turn that around. He wanted to convince kids that something like quantum mechanics wasn’t something to run away from, but something to dive into.”
Now, thanks to Charbonneau’s help, science enrollment is up and students are graduating with college-level science credits.
The president also praised the heroic teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School who fought to save their students’ lives during the December massacre in Newtown, Conn.
“We saw the true depths of a teacher’s commitment when six educators were killed trying to protect the children they embraced as their own,” he said. “In those moments, those brave teachers showed the world what they do is more than just educate kids. They embrace them and they nurture them and they love them.”
The president joked that teachers don’t go into the profession “for money” or the “light hours and the easy work.” They walk into the classroom every day “because they love doing what they do, because they’re passionate about helping our children realize the best versions of themselves so that our country can become the best version of itself.”
“I want you guys to know that the country appreciates you. The kids appreciate you. The parents appreciate you. What you do matters,” he said.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Obama pushes gun-control measures in Colo. speech
President Obama is looking to rally gun control backers in Washington by trumpeting the success of allies in states like Colorado and Connecticut.
Facing a tough congressional fight in the coming weeks, Obama praised a new set of gun laws in Colorado Wednesday and said they are in line with what he wants to do nationally.
"I've come to Denver today in particular because Colorado is proving a model of what's possible," Obama said during a visit to the Denver Police Academy.
The president, who has a similar trip to Connecticut planned next week, said Colorado is showing that it's possible to enact "tougher background checks that won't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."
The president's trip came as Congress prepares to return from its Easter recess next week, with gun control on the Senate agenda.
In the wake of a series of mass shootings -- particularly the Dec. 14 attack that killed 20 school children in Connecticut -- Obama and aides are pushing legislation that includes improved background checks for gun buyers, a renewed assault weapons ban and restrictions on the capacities of ammunition clips. Obama is also proposing programs to improve school safety and mental health treatment.
"The president wants to sign the strongest gun bill he can," said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer.
Congressional Republicans and some Democrats object to many of the proposals, citing Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said the Democratic-run legislature in Colorado "rammed" through a series of bills, but that won't happen in Washington, D.C., because Republicans control the majority in the U.S. House.
"In holding Colorado up as a model for passing tough new gun control laws, President Obama is pursuing a model that will fail in Washington," Lamborn said.
The Denver speech began a brief western swing for Obama, including a trip to San Francisco Wednesday night for a pair of fundraisers for Democratic congressional candidates.
Colorado has been the site of two major major mass shootings over the past 15 years, at Columbine High School in 1999 and at a movie theater in Aurora in July. Legislators recently approved a new background check system and voted to limit the size of ammunition clips to 15 bullets.
At one point, Obama told the supportive crowd in Denver, "I don't believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters."
The Senate debate on a gun bill could begin as early as next week. But if a deal is struck by a bipartisan group of senators on a new background check provision, the debate could be delayed so that new language could be inserted into the bill.
Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., are working on a version that could draw broader bipartisan support.
In his Denver remarks, Obama noted that the existing background check system has blocked many criminals from obtaining guns, but it contains loopholes that need to be tightened. The president said he respects the Second Amendment, that none of his proposals involve gun registration or confiscation, and that "well-organized, well-financed" critics are ginning up fears of what he wants to do.
The president also criticized possible plans to delay or obstruct a vote on some provisions, saying the victims of mass shootings deserve to have at least an up-or-down vote.
Next week, Obama is also likely to laud gun control legislative efforts in Connecticut when he speaks Monday at the University of Hartford. The school is some 50 miles from Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults on Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Connecticut lawmakers are considering a package that includes background checks for all private and commercial gun sales. It would also ban the kinds of high-capacity ammunition clips used in the Sandy Hook shootings.
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of the Third Way, which supports Obama on gun control, said the odds are against any kind of federal assault weapons ban or restrictions on ammunition clips, especially with Republicans in control of the U.S. House.
She is more hopeful about congressional legislation improving the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking between states. Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics for Third Way, said Colorado can serve as an example for lawmakers in Washington because it is a state where gun ownership rights are highly regarded.
"No gun vote is an easy vote," she said.
Facing a tough congressional fight in the coming weeks, Obama praised a new set of gun laws in Colorado Wednesday and said they are in line with what he wants to do nationally.
"I've come to Denver today in particular because Colorado is proving a model of what's possible," Obama said during a visit to the Denver Police Academy.
The president, who has a similar trip to Connecticut planned next week, said Colorado is showing that it's possible to enact "tougher background checks that won't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."
The president's trip came as Congress prepares to return from its Easter recess next week, with gun control on the Senate agenda.
In the wake of a series of mass shootings -- particularly the Dec. 14 attack that killed 20 school children in Connecticut -- Obama and aides are pushing legislation that includes improved background checks for gun buyers, a renewed assault weapons ban and restrictions on the capacities of ammunition clips. Obama is also proposing programs to improve school safety and mental health treatment.
"The president wants to sign the strongest gun bill he can," said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer.
Congressional Republicans and some Democrats object to many of the proposals, citing Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said the Democratic-run legislature in Colorado "rammed" through a series of bills, but that won't happen in Washington, D.C., because Republicans control the majority in the U.S. House.
"In holding Colorado up as a model for passing tough new gun control laws, President Obama is pursuing a model that will fail in Washington," Lamborn said.
The Denver speech began a brief western swing for Obama, including a trip to San Francisco Wednesday night for a pair of fundraisers for Democratic congressional candidates.
Colorado has been the site of two major major mass shootings over the past 15 years, at Columbine High School in 1999 and at a movie theater in Aurora in July. Legislators recently approved a new background check system and voted to limit the size of ammunition clips to 15 bullets.
At one point, Obama told the supportive crowd in Denver, "I don't believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters."
The Senate debate on a gun bill could begin as early as next week. But if a deal is struck by a bipartisan group of senators on a new background check provision, the debate could be delayed so that new language could be inserted into the bill.
Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., are working on a version that could draw broader bipartisan support.
In his Denver remarks, Obama noted that the existing background check system has blocked many criminals from obtaining guns, but it contains loopholes that need to be tightened. The president said he respects the Second Amendment, that none of his proposals involve gun registration or confiscation, and that "well-organized, well-financed" critics are ginning up fears of what he wants to do.
The president also criticized possible plans to delay or obstruct a vote on some provisions, saying the victims of mass shootings deserve to have at least an up-or-down vote.
Next week, Obama is also likely to laud gun control legislative efforts in Connecticut when he speaks Monday at the University of Hartford. The school is some 50 miles from Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults on Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Connecticut lawmakers are considering a package that includes background checks for all private and commercial gun sales. It would also ban the kinds of high-capacity ammunition clips used in the Sandy Hook shootings.
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of the Third Way, which supports Obama on gun control, said the odds are against any kind of federal assault weapons ban or restrictions on ammunition clips, especially with Republicans in control of the U.S. House.
She is more hopeful about congressional legislation improving the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking between states. Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics for Third Way, said Colorado can serve as an example for lawmakers in Washington because it is a state where gun ownership rights are highly regarded.
"No gun vote is an easy vote," she said.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Preity Zinta doles out health tips to fans
Sleep well, early breakfast, exercise and much more came from actress Preity Zinta, who decided to utilise her Sunday by sharing some fitness tips with Twitteratis who are following her.
The 38-year-old discussed various health issues and also gave away tips on eating habits and working out.
"It's Sunday and of course, a fun day, so it's time for Sunday chat. Are you guys all ready? Should I suggest a topic today. Sometimes we have serious, hectic chats and sometimes it's all fun and frolic! Today, I think, we'll chat about health, beauty and fitness," Preity posted on twitter.
"Do you know that eating within 10 mins after waking up is guaranteed to make you lose weight? If you skip breakfast, then god help you, so don't do it... If you don't sleep well, you tend to overeat the next day and in turn increase your chances of putting on weight," Preity posted.
"Having lots of water first thing in the morning can cure up to 23 diseases in your body, especially if it's kept overnight in a copper vessel. If you drink water with ice in it while training, it gives more energy. Also, it burns more calories," she added.
The actress, who has worked in movies like "Dil Se", "Kya Kehna", "Mission Kashmir" and "Dil Chahta Hai", emphasised on working out regularly.
"If you are exercising, it's very important to take steam and massages. Massages help in breaking down lactic acid in the body, which helps with stiffness. It's a misconception that workout drains your energy. On the contrary, it rejuvenates. I feel more energetic afterwards," she wrote.
Preity also feels weight training helps in toning and and is a very important part of fitness.
"3 times cardio and 3 times weight training is almost perfect. Best way to run is at intervals with brisk walking and never on an incline. Weights should be done with 30 second intervals. You get better results," she added.
The actress, last seen in a full-fledged role in 2008 movie "Heroes", will soon be seen in her production venture " Ishkq In Paris".
The 38-year-old discussed various health issues and also gave away tips on eating habits and working out.
"It's Sunday and of course, a fun day, so it's time for Sunday chat. Are you guys all ready? Should I suggest a topic today. Sometimes we have serious, hectic chats and sometimes it's all fun and frolic! Today, I think, we'll chat about health, beauty and fitness," Preity posted on twitter.
"Do you know that eating within 10 mins after waking up is guaranteed to make you lose weight? If you skip breakfast, then god help you, so don't do it... If you don't sleep well, you tend to overeat the next day and in turn increase your chances of putting on weight," Preity posted.
"Having lots of water first thing in the morning can cure up to 23 diseases in your body, especially if it's kept overnight in a copper vessel. If you drink water with ice in it while training, it gives more energy. Also, it burns more calories," she added.
The actress, who has worked in movies like "Dil Se", "Kya Kehna", "Mission Kashmir" and "Dil Chahta Hai", emphasised on working out regularly.
"If you are exercising, it's very important to take steam and massages. Massages help in breaking down lactic acid in the body, which helps with stiffness. It's a misconception that workout drains your energy. On the contrary, it rejuvenates. I feel more energetic afterwards," she wrote.
Preity also feels weight training helps in toning and and is a very important part of fitness.
"3 times cardio and 3 times weight training is almost perfect. Best way to run is at intervals with brisk walking and never on an incline. Weights should be done with 30 second intervals. You get better results," she added.
The actress, last seen in a full-fledged role in 2008 movie "Heroes", will soon be seen in her production venture " Ishkq In Paris".
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Gun Control Will Crowd Out Other Obama Policy Points
“To be very blunt with you, we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media to cover these discussions, because the truth is that times have changed.”
-- Vice President Joe Biden talking to reporters at a Philadelphia press confrence on the administration’s push for a gun ban.
How much political capital is President Obama willing to spend to achieve gun control?
The choice may not be entirely up to him.
Obama tonight will talk about many things in his fourth State of the Union address in an effort to goad his adversaries into action or increase the political penalties for their resistance.
He will batter Republicans on their refusal to accept his plan to replace part of automatic cuts to federal spending that begin at the end of the month with a tax hike on top earners. Expect to hear of dire consequences that will befall the nation if spending drops by $120 billion this year: unsafe medicines, hungry children, unsecured nukes, etc.
Obama will denounce foes of a rapid amnesty for illegal immigrants and call for additional stimulus spending to “invest” in middle-income jobs. That jobs plea will, as it has invariably become for Obama, be tied to global warming. Obama Democrats see the fight against changes in the earth’s climate as a twofer: it’s environmentalism and a jobs subsidy program.
There will be all of those things and more in what promises to be a flurry of policy provisions befitting a re-elected president determined to have a transformative second term. He may not match Bill Clinton’s record for longest-ever (1 hour, 28 minutes and 49 seconds in 2000), but Obama will certainly not be wrapping up quickly.
But whatever Obama talks about, it is likely to be overshadowed by his call for a gun ban in response to mass shootings and a steady tide of urban shootings, particularly in his hometown of Chicago.
The Constitution instructs the president “from time to time” to update Congress on the state of the union and “recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
The tradition since 1790 has been for presidents to do this once a year, but the Framers included the line in order to make sure that there was at least some communication between the legislative and executive branches.
Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have needed little encouragement to tell Congress what’s on their minds, especially the current chief executive. Obama talks to, about and around Congress constantly.
So all that Obama says tonight about immigration, taxes, stimulus and global warming will have been heard and re-heard by the lawmakers Obama is ostensibly there to talk to.
The real purpose of States of the Union addresses since Lyndon Johnson moved his speech to primetime from the sleepy midday affairs of his predecessors is to talk to the folks at home and to get the political press to restate your talking points.
The speeches are predictable news events that allow for lavish coverage and great pictures – lots of cheering, the big Stars and Stripes, etc. What the president says can be analyzed, re-analyzed and dissected for the evening, and, since Obama will give partial versions of the speech in three campaign stops, for days afterward.
But the full laundry list of policies won’t make it through the media wringer. Despite Obama’s claims that Washington can “walk and chew gum at the same time” he surely knows by now that it cannot.
In the case of this speech, it seems inevitable that his push on gun control will predominate. It’s an issue that his political base adores, it being an article of faith on the American left that limiting gun sales will reduce gun crime. Add to that the double bias in favor of the issue in the press – dramatic stories for the “if it bleeds it leads” set and a policy that fits overall view in the establishment press that firearms are bad.
To that end, the president will use the parents and survivors of the Newtown, Conn. tragedy and other victims of gun violence to personalize his message on gun control. Reports will follow these breadcrumbs and produce the stories that reinforce the president’s message.
People getting shot and killed makes for better copy than “sequestration” or “out-year entitlement reform” or “green jobs” or whatever fiscal and economic crisis the government and the nation are currently stumbling through.
But the risk here for Obama is that for all of his pivots and policy pounding, the speech may end up being recalled as one about gun control. On each subsequent retelling, the storyline will grow shorter and shorter but guns will never drop from the lead.
And given the deep resistance, even among some his own party, to gun control, in political conflict over the subject will never go away.
So, if Obama means to see gun control enacted in his second term, he will never have a better chance to sell it than he will tonight. But the president had better be prepared to sacrifice much of the rest of his agenda to make this a reality.
And even then, he will have to consider whether he wants to make this his legacy project especially when voters remain bleak-minded on the economy and the world grows more dangerous by the day.
-- Vice President Joe Biden talking to reporters at a Philadelphia press confrence on the administration’s push for a gun ban.
How much political capital is President Obama willing to spend to achieve gun control?
The choice may not be entirely up to him.
Obama tonight will talk about many things in his fourth State of the Union address in an effort to goad his adversaries into action or increase the political penalties for their resistance.
He will batter Republicans on their refusal to accept his plan to replace part of automatic cuts to federal spending that begin at the end of the month with a tax hike on top earners. Expect to hear of dire consequences that will befall the nation if spending drops by $120 billion this year: unsafe medicines, hungry children, unsecured nukes, etc.
Obama will denounce foes of a rapid amnesty for illegal immigrants and call for additional stimulus spending to “invest” in middle-income jobs. That jobs plea will, as it has invariably become for Obama, be tied to global warming. Obama Democrats see the fight against changes in the earth’s climate as a twofer: it’s environmentalism and a jobs subsidy program.
There will be all of those things and more in what promises to be a flurry of policy provisions befitting a re-elected president determined to have a transformative second term. He may not match Bill Clinton’s record for longest-ever (1 hour, 28 minutes and 49 seconds in 2000), but Obama will certainly not be wrapping up quickly.
But whatever Obama talks about, it is likely to be overshadowed by his call for a gun ban in response to mass shootings and a steady tide of urban shootings, particularly in his hometown of Chicago.
The Constitution instructs the president “from time to time” to update Congress on the state of the union and “recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
The tradition since 1790 has been for presidents to do this once a year, but the Framers included the line in order to make sure that there was at least some communication between the legislative and executive branches.
Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have needed little encouragement to tell Congress what’s on their minds, especially the current chief executive. Obama talks to, about and around Congress constantly.
So all that Obama says tonight about immigration, taxes, stimulus and global warming will have been heard and re-heard by the lawmakers Obama is ostensibly there to talk to.
The real purpose of States of the Union addresses since Lyndon Johnson moved his speech to primetime from the sleepy midday affairs of his predecessors is to talk to the folks at home and to get the political press to restate your talking points.
The speeches are predictable news events that allow for lavish coverage and great pictures – lots of cheering, the big Stars and Stripes, etc. What the president says can be analyzed, re-analyzed and dissected for the evening, and, since Obama will give partial versions of the speech in three campaign stops, for days afterward.
But the full laundry list of policies won’t make it through the media wringer. Despite Obama’s claims that Washington can “walk and chew gum at the same time” he surely knows by now that it cannot.
In the case of this speech, it seems inevitable that his push on gun control will predominate. It’s an issue that his political base adores, it being an article of faith on the American left that limiting gun sales will reduce gun crime. Add to that the double bias in favor of the issue in the press – dramatic stories for the “if it bleeds it leads” set and a policy that fits overall view in the establishment press that firearms are bad.
To that end, the president will use the parents and survivors of the Newtown, Conn. tragedy and other victims of gun violence to personalize his message on gun control. Reports will follow these breadcrumbs and produce the stories that reinforce the president’s message.
People getting shot and killed makes for better copy than “sequestration” or “out-year entitlement reform” or “green jobs” or whatever fiscal and economic crisis the government and the nation are currently stumbling through.
But the risk here for Obama is that for all of his pivots and policy pounding, the speech may end up being recalled as one about gun control. On each subsequent retelling, the storyline will grow shorter and shorter but guns will never drop from the lead.
And given the deep resistance, even among some his own party, to gun control, in political conflict over the subject will never go away.
So, if Obama means to see gun control enacted in his second term, he will never have a better chance to sell it than he will tonight. But the president had better be prepared to sacrifice much of the rest of his agenda to make this a reality.
And even then, he will have to consider whether he wants to make this his legacy project especially when voters remain bleak-minded on the economy and the world grows more dangerous by the day.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Obama pushes gun control proposals in Minnesota
With his gun proposals dividing Congress, President Barack Obama took his case for universal background checks and for banning some military-style weapons to the upper Midwest on Monday, looking to build public support for his measures and to apply pressure on lawmakers.
Obama argued that there’s bipartisan support for a system to undertake criminal checks on gun buyers and for gun trafficking laws but, acknowledging the political challenges he faces, would only say that the assault weapons ban deserves a vote in Congress.
‘‘We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something,’’ he said.
Before his remarks, Obama held a roundtable discussion at the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center, speaking with law enforcement and community leaders.
Obama made his pitch in Minnesota, a Democratic-leaning state where officials have been studying ways to reduce gun-related attacks and accidents for several years. His visit to the Minneapolis Police Department’s Special Operations Center will mark the first time Obama has campaigned on his controversial proposals outside of Washington.
‘‘Changing the status quo is never easy,’’ Obama said. ‘‘This will be no exception. The only way we can reduce gun violence in this county is if it the American people decide it’s important, if you decide it’s important — parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, hunters and sportsmen, Americans of every background stand up and say, ‘This time, it’s got to be different.'’’
Ahead of the trip, the White House released a photo of the president skeet shooting at Camp David, the presidential retreat. Obama cited skeet shooting when asked in a recent interview whether he had ever shot a gun.
The president unveiled his sweeping package of proposals for curbing gun violence last month in response to the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. He vowed to use the full weight of his office to fight for the proposals, many of which face tough opposition from congressional lawmakers and the powerful National Rifle Association.
The reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, is expected to be the steepest climb for Obama. Universal background checks for gun purchasers may have an easier time passing Congress, though the NRA also opposes that measure.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, said Obama remained committed to the assault weapons ban and that it was too early to write off prospects for any parts of the package.
‘‘We all recognize that all the components of this are difficult and face challenges, some perhaps even more than others,’’ Carney said. ‘‘But the president’s support is firm and clear.’’
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has said he hopes his panel can write gun legislation this month, though it’s unclear what it will contain.
The White House picked Minneapolis as the backdrop for Obama’s remarks in part because of recent steps the city has taken to tackle gun violence, including a push for stricter background checks.
Obama argued that there’s bipartisan support for a system to undertake criminal checks on gun buyers and for gun trafficking laws but, acknowledging the political challenges he faces, would only say that the assault weapons ban deserves a vote in Congress.
‘‘We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something,’’ he said.
Before his remarks, Obama held a roundtable discussion at the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center, speaking with law enforcement and community leaders.
Obama made his pitch in Minnesota, a Democratic-leaning state where officials have been studying ways to reduce gun-related attacks and accidents for several years. His visit to the Minneapolis Police Department’s Special Operations Center will mark the first time Obama has campaigned on his controversial proposals outside of Washington.
‘‘Changing the status quo is never easy,’’ Obama said. ‘‘This will be no exception. The only way we can reduce gun violence in this county is if it the American people decide it’s important, if you decide it’s important — parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, hunters and sportsmen, Americans of every background stand up and say, ‘This time, it’s got to be different.'’’
Ahead of the trip, the White House released a photo of the president skeet shooting at Camp David, the presidential retreat. Obama cited skeet shooting when asked in a recent interview whether he had ever shot a gun.
The president unveiled his sweeping package of proposals for curbing gun violence last month in response to the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. He vowed to use the full weight of his office to fight for the proposals, many of which face tough opposition from congressional lawmakers and the powerful National Rifle Association.
The reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, is expected to be the steepest climb for Obama. Universal background checks for gun purchasers may have an easier time passing Congress, though the NRA also opposes that measure.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, said Obama remained committed to the assault weapons ban and that it was too early to write off prospects for any parts of the package.
‘‘We all recognize that all the components of this are difficult and face challenges, some perhaps even more than others,’’ Carney said. ‘‘But the president’s support is firm and clear.’’
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has said he hopes his panel can write gun legislation this month, though it’s unclear what it will contain.
The White House picked Minneapolis as the backdrop for Obama’s remarks in part because of recent steps the city has taken to tackle gun violence, including a push for stricter background checks.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
President Obama sounds off on football violence, safety
President Obama admits in a soon-to-be released article in the New Republic that it would be a tough decision to let a son play football.
The father of two daughters also said that football will probably become a less violent game in the future out of concern for player safety.
"I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football," Obama told the New Republic. “I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence.
“In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.”
Obama expressed particular concern for college players, who don't get paid to play and don't have the same representation as professional players.
“I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies,” he said, adding:
“You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about.”
The father of two daughters also said that football will probably become a less violent game in the future out of concern for player safety.
"I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football," Obama told the New Republic. “I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence.
“In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.”
Obama expressed particular concern for college players, who don't get paid to play and don't have the same representation as professional players.
“I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies,” he said, adding:
“You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about.”
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Obama wins 'fiscal cliff' victory, but at high cost
President Obama, who campaigned on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, has fulfilled that promise even before his next term starts.
The announcement Monday night of Senate agreement on a compromise to avert part of the "fiscal cliff" meant that for the first time in two decades, Republicans in Congress were preparing to vote in favor of a bill that raised taxes, an extraordinary concession to the nation's fiscal woes and the president's reelection.
But Obama's victory fell short of what he had campaigned for, and came at a high cost. Even if the House later Tuesday or Wednesday musters the votes to approve the bill that the Senate was to vote on in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, the terms of this compromise guarantee another pitched battle over spending and taxes within months.
Whether the agreement announced Monday evening turns out to be truly a victory for Obama or a lost opportunity, as many of his liberal critics feared, will depend heavily on how that next battle turns out.
PHOTOS: Notable moments of the 2012 presidential election
The agreement to freeze income tax rates for most Americans while allowing them to rise for the wealthiest dealt only with the most pressing elements of the fiscal storm Congress and the president created last year. A newly elected Congress will begin work in a few days and immediately will need to start negotiating yet another deal. That next fight will be aimed at further reducing the long-term deficit and raising the debt ceiling before the government runs out of money to pay its bills — a deadline that will hit sometime in late February or March.
The persistent battle over spending, which already has consumed Washington for two years, threatens to block Obama's other major legislative priorities, including immigration reform and gun control.
Moreover, to get a deal, Obama had to accept far less new revenue than he had wanted. In his reelection campaign, Obama had called for raising taxes on income over $250,000. The compromise starts the increases at $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. Overall, the deal is projected to raise about $620 billion in new revenues over the next 10 years, almost $1 trillion less than Obama had asked for.
Without that extra revenue, White House officials have said, the nation eventually will face punishing cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other domestic programs. Concern that the deal included too little revenue led liberals in the Senate to threaten repeatedly Monday to pull the plug. Obama, they said, was giving in too much to Republican demands at the point where he had maximum leverage.
"I just think that's grossly unfair," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a liberal leader, said in a Senate speech Monday objecting to the deal. "If we're going to have some kind of a deal, the deal must be one that really favors the middle class — the real middle class."
Even after most Democratic senators made their peace with the deal, influential liberal groups such as MoveOn.org denounced it for providing too little and conceding too much.
White House aides disputed that argument. They pointed to Democratic priorities included in the deal — tax credits aimed at students, parents and the working poor were extended for five years, for example, and long-term unemployment benefits were extended for a year.
The announcement Monday night of Senate agreement on a compromise to avert part of the "fiscal cliff" meant that for the first time in two decades, Republicans in Congress were preparing to vote in favor of a bill that raised taxes, an extraordinary concession to the nation's fiscal woes and the president's reelection.
But Obama's victory fell short of what he had campaigned for, and came at a high cost. Even if the House later Tuesday or Wednesday musters the votes to approve the bill that the Senate was to vote on in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, the terms of this compromise guarantee another pitched battle over spending and taxes within months.
Whether the agreement announced Monday evening turns out to be truly a victory for Obama or a lost opportunity, as many of his liberal critics feared, will depend heavily on how that next battle turns out.
PHOTOS: Notable moments of the 2012 presidential election
The agreement to freeze income tax rates for most Americans while allowing them to rise for the wealthiest dealt only with the most pressing elements of the fiscal storm Congress and the president created last year. A newly elected Congress will begin work in a few days and immediately will need to start negotiating yet another deal. That next fight will be aimed at further reducing the long-term deficit and raising the debt ceiling before the government runs out of money to pay its bills — a deadline that will hit sometime in late February or March.
The persistent battle over spending, which already has consumed Washington for two years, threatens to block Obama's other major legislative priorities, including immigration reform and gun control.
Moreover, to get a deal, Obama had to accept far less new revenue than he had wanted. In his reelection campaign, Obama had called for raising taxes on income over $250,000. The compromise starts the increases at $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. Overall, the deal is projected to raise about $620 billion in new revenues over the next 10 years, almost $1 trillion less than Obama had asked for.
Without that extra revenue, White House officials have said, the nation eventually will face punishing cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other domestic programs. Concern that the deal included too little revenue led liberals in the Senate to threaten repeatedly Monday to pull the plug. Obama, they said, was giving in too much to Republican demands at the point where he had maximum leverage.
"I just think that's grossly unfair," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a liberal leader, said in a Senate speech Monday objecting to the deal. "If we're going to have some kind of a deal, the deal must be one that really favors the middle class — the real middle class."
Even after most Democratic senators made their peace with the deal, influential liberal groups such as MoveOn.org denounced it for providing too little and conceding too much.
White House aides disputed that argument. They pointed to Democratic priorities included in the deal — tax credits aimed at students, parents and the working poor were extended for five years, for example, and long-term unemployment benefits were extended for a year.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Winter health tips
Now that the cold and snow are getting here make sure you are taking care of yourself and your house in a healthy way.
If it snows and you're going to be shoveling make sure you are shoveling correctly.
Shovel with your legs, lifting from your knees and upper legs when you shovel.
Don't use your back as it can lead to strains.
Take breaks as cold weather puts extra strain on the heart.
Also make sure you dress warmly, using layers of clothing helps to avoid hypothermia.
Lastly watch out for ice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found many cold weather injuries result from falls on ice covered walkways.
If it snows and you're going to be shoveling make sure you are shoveling correctly.
Shovel with your legs, lifting from your knees and upper legs when you shovel.
Don't use your back as it can lead to strains.
Take breaks as cold weather puts extra strain on the heart.
Also make sure you dress warmly, using layers of clothing helps to avoid hypothermia.
Lastly watch out for ice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found many cold weather injuries result from falls on ice covered walkways.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Connecticut gunman had hundreds of rounds; Obama to console Newtown
Residents and visitors streamed past a police roadblock to add to it. One woman knelt down and sobbed violently.
As children walked down the street in the rain, carrying their toys and signs, a man sat on the back of his parked car playing a mournful tune on a violin to accompany them.
"This is a time to come together," said Carina Bandhaver, 43, who lives in nearby Southbury.
The
children who survived will not have to return to the scene of the
massacre. They will attend classes at an unused school in a Connecticut
town about 7 miles away, school officials said. Classes elsewhere in the
town will resume on Tuesday, except at Sandy Hook.
GUN DEBATE
Several
Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on
Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons.
Democratic
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the author of an
assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, said she would introduce new
legislation this week.
"I think we
could be at a tipping point ... where we might get something done," New
York's Charles Schumer, another top Senate Democrat, said on CBS's "Face
the Nation."
Gun rights advocates have countered that Connecticut already has among the strictest gun laws in the nation.
Obama's
appearance will be watched closely for clues as to what he meant when
he called for "meaningful action" to prevent such tragedies.
The
president arrived in Connecticut on Sunday afternoon, a day after
authorities released the names of the dead and more details emerged
about the victims, the gunman and the rampage.
Adam Lanza attended Sandy Hook Elementary as a child, according to former classmates.
Police
were trying to establish the relationship between Adam Lanza, Nancy
Lanza and the school, and whether the mother and her sons were frequent
visitors to gun ranges, according to a law enforcement official briefed
on the investigation.
In addition to the military-style Bushmaster assault rifle, a civilian version of the weapon used by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, police said Lanza carried Glock 10 mm and Sig Sauer 9 mm handguns into the school.
Nancy
Lanza legally owned a Sig Sauer and a Glock, handguns commonly used by
police, in addition to the long gun, according to law enforcement
officials.
Lanza had struggled at
times to fit into the community and his mother pulled him out of school
for several years to home-school him, said Louise Tambascio, the owner
of My Place Restaurant, where his mother was a long-time patron.
Officials
said they were concerned misinformation and threats about the case were
being spread on social media websites. Police said a telephone bomb
threat forced the evacuation of the St. Rose church. It was searched and
declared clear.
David Fein, the
U.S. attorney for Connecticut, issued a stern warning that harassment of
victims or their relatives could be prosecuted. "Harassment not only
includes in-person contact, but also contact via the Internet, social
media and telephone," he said.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In
Amid demands from Republicans that President Obama propose detailed new spending cuts to avert the year-end fiscal crisis, his answer boils down to this: you first.
Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and
emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a
different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the
liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the
bargaining table.
Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy
while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement
programs beyond what was on the table last year. Until Republicans offer
their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his. In effect, he is
trying to leverage what he claims as an election mandate to force
Republicans to take ownership of the difficult choices ahead.
His approach is born of painful experience. In his first four years in
office, Mr. Obama has repeatedly offered what he considered compromises
on stimulus spending, health care and deficit reduction to Republicans,
who either rejected them as inadequate or pocketed them and insisted on
more. Republicans argued that Mr. Obama never made serious efforts at
compromise and instead lectured them about what they ought to want
rather than listening to what they did want.
Either way, the two sides were left at loggerheads over the weekend with
less than a month until a series of painful tax increases and spending
cuts automatically take effect, risking what economists say would be a
new recession.
Mr. Obama refuses to propose more spending cuts until Republicans accept
higher tax rates on the wealthy, and Republicans refuse to accept
higher tax rates on the wealthy while asking for more spending cuts.
“I’m puzzled why Republicans are locking into a principle that’s not
sustainable and why Democrats aren’t taking the moment to put forward
their own vision of entitlement reform,” said Peter R. Orszag, a former
White House budget director for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Orszag’s former White House colleagues said they had grown tired of
making unilateral concessions only to see Republicans moving the goal
posts, as they see it. “The president is not going to negotiate with
himself,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.
“He’s laid out his position, and Republicans have to come to the table.”
Republican strategists argue that in resorting to campaign-style events
to take his fiscal message to voters, Mr. Obama is overplaying his hand,
much as President George W. Bush did after his re-election when he
barnstormed the country in favor of a Social Security restructuring plan that he never successfully sold to leaders on Capitol Hill.
“He is overreading his mandate,” said John Feehery, a former adviser to
top House Republicans. “By doing the campaign thing, he is making the
same mistake Bush made in 2005.” Eventually, he said, Democratic and
Republican leaders “are going to cut the deal, and Obama is going to be
on the outside looking in.”
The difference might be that Mr. Obama ran more explicitly on the idea
of letting Mr. Bush’s tax cuts expire for incomes over $250,000, while
Mr. Bush’s re-election was fought more on grounds of national security
than Social Security. But both presidents emerged from relatively narrow
popular-vote victories determined to impose their will on a balky
Congress resisting their leadership.
Mr. Obama seemed to defy the Republican House last week when Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner delivered a plan calling for $1.6 trillion
in additional taxes from the wealthy over 10 years, as well as $50
billion in short-term stimulus spending and $612 billion in recycled
cuts first put on the table during last year’s failed debt talks.
Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific
alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness
since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for
the wealthy, though not by raising rates.
The administration laid out its latest plan in less formal ways a couple
of weeks earlier, according to a senior official who declined to be
identified discussing private deliberations. But the message was that
Speaker John A. Boehner could not move yet. After waiting with no
further response, the administration decided to have Mr. Geithner
deliver the proposal on paper knowing it would be provocative but
thinking it was needed to move the process along.
Instead, the process has collapsed, at least for now. The depth of
disagreement played out on the Sunday morning talk shows, even as Mr.
Obama went golfing with former President Bill Clinton in a session that
White House officials presumed would include trading notes about the
fiscal crisis.
“We’ve put a serious offer on the table by putting revenues up there to
try to get this question resolved,” Mr. Boehner said on “Fox News
Sunday.” “But the White House has responded with virtually nothing. They
have actually asked for more revenue than they’ve been asking for the
whole entire time.”
Mr. Geithner said it was up to Republicans to outline more spending cuts
than Mr. Obama had previously put on the table. “Some Republicans
apparently want to go beyond that, but what they have to do is tell us
what they’re prepared to do,” Mr. Geithner told Bob Schieffer on “Face
the Nation” on CBS. “And what we can’t do, Bob, is sit here trying to
guess what works for them.”
That represents something of a shift for Mr. Obama, who did try to guess
what worked for Republicans in his first term. When he crafted a
stimulus spending program to bolster the economy shortly after taking
office, Mr. Obama devoted roughly a third of the money to tax cuts that
he assumed Republicans would like. They did not. Likewise, his framework
for universal health care included free-market elements that he thought
Republicans would embrace. They did not.
While Republicans argued that the overall programs overshadowed any
palatable aspects, Mr. Obama came to believe he had made a mistake in
offering concessions up front. In an interview in September 2010, he
said he had learned “that if you already have a third of the package as
tax cuts, then the Republicans, who traditionally are more comfortable
with tax cuts, may just pocket that and attack the other components of
the program.”
Aides said Mr. Obama came to the same conclusion after his clash with
Republicans over raising the nation’s borrowing limit last year. “We put
all these things on the table, and the reason we couldn’t do a deal is
because Republicans couldn’t do revenues,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “So our
view here is the president won’t sign a deal that doesn’t have higher
rates for the wealthy. Until they cross that bridge, nothing else is
relevant.”
Yet there is risk in that. Republicans now understand that higher tax
rates on the wealthy is Mr. Obama’s No. 1 priority, so rather than give
in, some strategists say they should hold out to leverage those to shape
other aspects of a final deal.
“He only cares about one detail: raising rates on the top two brackets,”
said Tony Fratto, a former White House and Treasury Department official
under Mr. Bush. “Everything else is secondary. That’s why if that is
going to happen, it will be last if Republicans can hold out. I think
it’s pretty clear Obama will sacrifice just about anything to get that.
It’s the only win for him.”
Monday, November 19, 2012
Obama will be visiting a more open and hopeful Burma
RANGOON, Burma — From businessmen chasing new markets to basketball
players serving as sports envoys, the past year has seen an
unprecedented wave of American visitors to the once-pariah state of
Burma.
On Monday, President Obama arrived.
"This is not an
endorsement of the Burmese government," Obama said Sunday in Bangkok,
the first stop on a three-nation tour that also takes him to Cambodia
Monday night. "This is an acknowledgment that there is a process
underway inside that country that even a year and a half, two years ago,
nobody foresaw," he said.
Obama's day trip Monday to Burma —
when he will meet with President Thein Sein, a former army general, and
democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi — represents the first visit to Burma by
a sitting U.S. president. The U.S. government recently began rolling
back economic sanctions against Burma, also known as Myanmar, to
recognize its transition from military rule toward a more democratic
system.
Obama will set out his message for Burma's future and
"extend the hand of friendship" today in a speech Monday at the
University of Rangoon, which authorities shuttered for years after
student protests against the regime.
"Instead of being repressed,
the right of people to assemble together must now be fully respected,"
the president said in speech excerpts released by the White House.
"Instead of being stifled, the veil of media censorship must continue to
be lifted. As you take these steps, you can draw on your progress."
U
Kyi Win, a lawyer for Suu Kyi and her formerly banned party, the
National League for Democracy, noted the significance of Obama's visit.
"In
the past, foreign governments didn't care about our country; we were
treated with very low status on the world political stage," he said.
"Now Western countries deal with us on the same level, and this comes
from the co-operation between Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi to solve
(Burma's) problems," he said Sunday.
Plenty of challenges remain,
including longstanding conflicts in border areas, ethnic violence
between Buddhist and Muslim communities, and the continued jailing of
political prisoners. Several human rights groups, such as Human Rights
Watch and U.S. Campaign for Burma, have criticized the presidential
visit as premature.
Residents of Rangoon, Burma's largest city and former capital, were ready to welcome the U.S. president.
"Many
Burmese like Obama. After he comes, there should be more development
here," said Aye Nyein San, 26, a receptionist at telecom firm
Yatanarpon.
"He can encourage the political changes here, and the
conflicts in Rakhine state and Kachin state can be solved with his
support," she said. Rakhine and Kachin are border areas where violence
has escalated in recent months.
Graffiti artist Arker Kyaw
recently sprayed a wall mural to welcome Obama in downtown Rangoon, also
known as Yangon. Video producer Thu Myat, also a graffiti artist, said
the fast growth of street art and slogans reflected the political and
social changes here. He disapproved of Kyaw's stunt as too respectful of
hierarchy — "I believe police let him do it; it's weird he was not
arrested" — but he is confident the lifting of sanctions and Obama's
visit will bring benefits. "Obama showed the green light to every
country," he said. "Now Burmese people must grab the opportunity for
themselves."
Sandy and Bill Hitchcock from Laguna Beach, Calif.,
flew into Rangoon on Sunday for a nine-day tour. Two other couples they
will meet later, in Cambodia, declined to join them in Burma.
"They
don't like the political regime here," said Sandy Hitchcock, 63. "I
want to see it before it becomes the next big tourist trap," she said.
The tide of visitors already threatens to overwhelm Burma's limited
capacity for tourism. "The airport now receives twice as many visitors
as it was built for," Khin Mi Mi Tin, of the tourism ministry, said
Sunday at the Rangoon airport. "We are building more hotels, but even
the new hotels are fully booked."
"All of Myanmar likes Obama," she said. "He is interested in Asia and can help push us further towards democracy."
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Exit poll: Union voters power Obama in Wisconsin
The polls have just closed in Wisconsin, which CBS News is reporting
leans toward President Obama. The exit poll shows that he has union
households to thank: While the candidates are split among non-union
households, Mr. Obama has a 66 percent to 33 percent lead among the one
in five voters who say someone in their household belongs to a labor
union.
There is a big gender gap in Wisconsin: The
president leads by 11 points among women, while Romney leads by four
percentage points among men. Eighty-seven percent of voters in Wisconsin
are white, and Romney is winning them 52 percent to 47 percent. But Mr.
Obama holds huge leads among the seven percent of voters who are black
(93 percent to 6 percent) and the three percent who are Latino (63
percent to 35 percent).
Thirty-six percent of voters
identify as Democrat, 33 percent as Republican, and 31 percent as
independent. The two candidates are evenly splitting independent voters.
Mr. Obama is winning the 43 percent of voters making
less than $50,000 by 62 percent to 36 percent. Romney is winning the 21
percent of voters making $100,000 or more 63 percent to 35 percent.
One
in two Wisconsin voters favor increasing income tax rates on those
making over $250,000 per year, as Mr. Obama proposes. One in three do
not want those taxes increased.
Seven in 10 voters say
the nation's economy is in not so good or poor condition, though more
than half blame George W. Bush for the nation's current economic
problems.
Fifty-two percent of voters say they have
positive feelings about the Obama administration. Fifty percent of
voters say they have an unfavorable opinion of Mitt Romney, and 52
percent say his policies would favor the rich. Fifty-four percent say
they approve of Republican Scott Walker's performance as governor.
Ten
percent of voters made up their minds in the past few days. Wisconsin
is the home state of Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan.
This is an early exit poll and does not reflect the final exit poll.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Obama signs order implementing tougher sanctions on Iran
President Obama on Tuesday signed an executive order tightening sanctions on Iran over its nuclear-enrichment program.
The order implements a new Iran sanctions law enacted in August.
The White House said the administration’s actions “have created unprecedented pressure on Iran’s economy.”
“The
onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations with respect
to its nuclear program. If the Iranian government continues its
defiance, there should be no doubt that the United States and our
partners will continue to tighten our sanctions and impose increasing
consequences,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a
statement.
Iran policy has become a focus of the presidential election this year. During a speech
Monday at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., GOP
candidate Mitt Romney repeated accusations that Obama is too soft on
Iran and too distant from Israel, which views Iran’s nuclear program as a
threat to its existence.
Romney has called on Obama to draw a
clearer red line to warn Iran that the United States will not tolerate
it gaining nuclear weapons. Critics of this view warn that it could bind
the U.S. and force an armed intervention.
The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act expands the list of
those targeted by Iran sanctions, closes loopholes and enhances
penalties.
Those targeted include anyone who works in Iran's
petroleum sectors or provides goods, services, infrastructure, or
technology to Iran's oil and natural gas sector, those who insure or
re-insure investments in Iran's oil sector and those who transport
refined petroleum to Iran. It also targets Iranian and Syrian officials
involved in human-rights abuses.
This law also tries to stop Iran
from repatriating revenue from oil, to further destabilize its currency
and make more sanctions mandatory.
Obama and Romney will answer a
mix of domestic and foreign policy questions during their second
debate, next Tuesday in Hempstead, N.Y. The third presidential debate,
dedicated to foreign policy, is scheduled for Oct. 22 in Boca Raton,
Fla.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Obama takes world stage to fend off Romney attacks
At the podium of the cavernous U.N. General Assembly hall six weeks before the U.S. election, Obama addressed both American voters and world leaders, as he defended his approach to global challenges that have started piling up in the final stretch of a close presidential race.
Obama's stern warning to Iran over its nuclear program was meant not only for the mullahs in Tehran and for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has pressed Washington to take a tougher tack, but also for pro-Israel voters who could help sway the election in battleground states like Florida and Ohio.
His challenge to the fast-changing Arab world to embrace democratic values of free speech and tolerance and reject the kind of anti-U.S. violence that has swept the region in recent weeks was a clear rebuttal to Republican accusations that he has apologized for America and weakened its global standing.
"I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day," Obama said, in a comment that could be read as referring to both flag-burning protesters in Islamabad and political opponents at home. "And I will defend their right to do so."
The line drew laughter from an audience that otherwise sat in mostly polite but stoic silence.
With Obama headed to battleground Ohio on Wednesday, and Romney arriving there on Tuesday for a bus tour with vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan, both presidential campaigns are likely to return to bread-and-butter economic messages.
But foreign policy and America's world standing have become more of a factor in the campaign during the last two weeks, as the Muslim world has been roiled by protests over a film mocking the Prophet Mohammed. The issues dominated the day.
Sensing an opening, Romney and Ryan have escalated their attacks on the president's handling of world events.
And after Obama's U.N. address, the Republican camp made clear they weren't letting up.
Eric Cantor, Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, said Obama's foreign policy is "rudderless."
Paula Dobriansky, a Romney foreign policy adviser, was more specific.
"President Obama listed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Syria, and Iran as major challenges facing the international community," she said. "But those are three vital issues on which President Obama has unfortunately made no progress. The rhetoric doesn't match the policy."
SHORT CEASEFIRE
Before returning to the campaign trail, Romney and Obama observed a brief ceasefire in New York, with both men delivering statesmanlike speeches to Bill Clinton's global charity.
Romney told the Clinton Global Initiative, a foundation set up by the former Democratic president, that the United States should do more to encourage free enterprise as a way of creating jobs in the developing world.
The Republican largely avoided criticizing Obama in front of an audience that included many prominent Democrats. But his message that U.S. foreign aid frequently supplants private enterprise reflected one of his central complaints against the Obama administration.
"A temporary aid package can jolt an economy. It can fund some projects. It can pay some bills. It can employ some people some of the time," Romney said. "But it can't sustain an economy — not for long."
Speaking at the same venue a few hours later, Obama outlined new steps to fight human trafficking.
Neither Romney nor Obama are likely to talk about foreign aid or human trafficking when they return to Ohio, a politically divided state that will be crucial in determining who wins the November 6 election.
With only six weeks until the vote, Romney is running out of time to gain ground on the incumbent president.
Obama widened his lead in the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll to 7 percentage points over Romney, up 1 point from Monday. Obama now leads among likely voters 49 to 42 percent.
'DO WHAT WE MUST'
At the United Nations, Obama made his case in a statesmanlike way that struck a sharp contrast with the festive back-and-forth of campaign rallies that have come to occupy much of his time. But his message was still deeply infused with election-year politics.
Obama's annual visit followed protests over the anti-Islam video made in California that posed a huge dilemma for a U.S. leader who took office promising a "new beginning" with the Muslim world. He has also had to grapple with an escalating crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations over Iran's nuclear program and bloodshed in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad remains in power despite Obama's demand that he step down.
Honing in on Iran, Obama warned that United States will "do what we must" to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon and said time was running short for diplomacy.
That pledge fell far short of Netanyahu's demand that Obama set a "red line" that Tehran must not cross if it is to avoid military action, and it was unclear whether it would be enough to placate Netanyahu.
There was no immediate reaction to Obama's comments from Israeli leaders, with the country closed down for the holiest Jewish day of the year, Yom Kippur.
Obama also sought to reassure U.S. voters that he is doing everything he can to head off more violence like the recent September 11 attack in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three of his colleagues.
Americans were stunned by recent images of U.S. flags again burning in the Muslim world, the focus of intense personal diplomacy by the president at the start of his term.
In his speech, he faced the delicate task of articulating U.S. distaste for insults to any religion while at the same time insisting there is no excuse for a violent reaction - a distinction rejected by many Muslims.
Obama defended his approach to the Arab Spring but offered no detailed solutions to an array of crises that threaten to chip away at a foreign policy record that his aides hoped would be immune from Republican attack during the run-up to Election Day.
Despite Obama's international woes, administration officials are heartened by Romney's own recent foreign policy stumbles and doubt that the president's critics will gain traction in a campaign that remains focused mainly on the U.S. economy.
With pressures building in the presidential race, Obama's brief final turn on the world stage left little doubt about his immediate priorities.
He skipped the customary one-on-one meetings with foreign counterparts but went ahead with the taping of a campaign-style appearance on ABC's popular television talk-show "The View."
However, after coming under Republican criticism for the tradeoff, the White House said Obama did meet briefly with Yemen's new president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Obama dropped in on talks he was having with a senior U.S. aide and thanked him for helping protect U.S. diplomats during recent unrest in the country.
Source http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/us-un-assembly-obama-idUSBRE88M01J20120925
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Australian Classic Takes Top NSW Design Award
Award-winning architecture
is often characterised as the most modern, cutting edge and innovative
of the built realm. While these three elements often come together the
create highly acclaimed architecture, the Building Designers Australia
NSW Chapter has proven that this is not always the case.
Offering their top award to an
Australian classic, the building design authority has emphasised the
point that great design comes in any form, old or new, with a new spin
on a traditional favourite often creating a winning mix.
James Cooper of Sanctum Design’s Manly
Beach House, a modernised interpretation of the quintessential 1950s
beach house, was selected as the winner of Premier’s Award for Design
Excellence for new residential buildings over 450 square metres.
While the classic design
creates a strong sense of nostalgia, the modern features peppered
throughout the suburban beach side residential dwelling truly allow it
to stand out. These include an outdoor shower and ‘sand room’ that act
as functional spaces for post-beach activities.
The house itself focuses on optimising
natural flow and and natural lighting, creating a space catered to the
beach suburban lifestyle and all it has to offer.
Art House One by Kylie Mitchell Designs
took home the New Residential Buildings up to 250 square metres award as
well as the Penultimate Award or the Paul Dass Memorial Award.
While both of these developments fall into the residential sector, this is as far as their similarities go.
While Manly Beach house focuses on the
reinterpretation of a classic design developed in response to a popular
local lifestyle, the latter is a design piece that blurs the lines
between architecture and artistry.
According to Mitchell, the house simply
reflects her own desire to ‘create a living, breathing artwork, an
artwork that you can actually live in.’
“For a long time I had wanted to combine
the art and the building design, because they operate quite
separately,” she says. “With building design, you have a number of
regulations and codes that you have to work with whereas with the art I
can do whatever I want, whenever I feel like it.”
With award winners
varying greatly in their design motivations and interpretations, there
is no one key element common to all. If these particular awards
exemplify anything, it is that great design does not come in any one
distinct form, and that it can be delivered across a wide range of
genres.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Foreign spy 'stole' Australian secrets
AN ALLEGED Canadian spy compromised Australian intelligence
information in an espionage case that has sent shock waves through
Western security agencies.
The alleged sale of top secret
intelligence to Russian agents by naval officer Jeffrey Paul Delisle has
been the subject of high-level consultation between the Australian and
Canadian governments and was discussed at a secret international
conference of Western security agencies in New Zealand this year.
Australian
security sources have privately acknowledged that the massive security
breach compromised intelligence information and capabilities in Western
intelligence agencies, especially the US and Canada but including
Australia's top secret Defence Signals Directorate and Defence
Intelligence Organisation.
Information released under
Australian freedom of information legislation shows the high
commissioner to Canada, Louise Hand, discussed the case with Stephen
Rigby, the national security adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister,
Stephen Harper, soon after Sub-Lieutenant Delisle's arrest on January
14.
Her cabled report, classified "secret - sensitive" and
sent to Canberra on January 30, has been redacted in full on security
grounds. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was briefed
on the case through liaison with the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service.
Sub-Lieutenant Delisle worked at the Royal
Canadian Navy's Trinity intelligence and communications centre at
Halifax, Nova Scotia. Much of the information he allegedly sold was
much more highly classified than the WikiLeaks cables and included top
secret signals intelligence collected by the ''Five Eyes'' intelligence
community of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Sub-Lieutenant
Delisle was arrested after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
concluded he was passing classified information to operatives, believed
to be members of the Russian military intelligence service.
The
Canadian government has, for diplomatic reasons, avoided publicly
identifying Russia as the foreign power involved but several Russian
diplomats were recalled to Moscow before the end of their postings.
Precisely what type of information was allegedly passed has not been
publicly disclosed. But intelligence sources in Canada and the US have
been reported as privately confirming it involved top secret signals
intelligence.
Sub-Lieutenant Delisle's access reportedly
covered signals intelligence produced by the US National Security
Agency, Britain's Government Communications Headquarters, Canada's
Communications Security Establishment, Australia's Defence Signals and
New Zealand's Communications Security Bureau.
Australian
security sources told the Herald his access was "apparently very wide"
and that "Australian reporting was inevitably compromised".
"The
signals intelligence community is very close. We share our intelligence
overwhelmingly with the US, UK and Canada - often more people read
Australian reporting overseas than here in Australia," one former
Defence Signals Directorate officer said. "So it's perhaps no surprise
that a junior officer in faraway Halifax can compromise our material.''
Australian
security sources have suggested the Russians would have been interested
in a wide range of material, not only relating to the US and Canada,
but to China, North Korea, Pakistan and Afghanistan - ''all areas that
DSD makes a contribution towards covering".
Australia has said it will not comment on the case and it is its usual practice not to do so.
Sub-Lieutenant
Delisle will appear before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court for a
preliminary hearing in October. He is charged with communicating
classified information to an unnamed foreign entity over nearly five
years - between July 6, 2007, and January 13, 2012, when he was
arrested. He faces possible life imprisonment if convicted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)