Tag Archives: president

Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy’s Replacement to Loom Large in 2012 Presidential Election

I don’t recall another Supreme Court justice announcing that the timing of her or his retirement hinged on who was president, even though we all know this is the undercurrent, barring mitigating circumstances. But Justice Anthony Kennedy has said it out loud, telling his inner circle he doesn’t want President Barack Obama to be The One. Thanks surely in part to Obama’s big mouth, as explained below, Kennedy’s replacement will loom large as a rallying cry for both parties in the 2012 presidential election. It appears the next president will choose the next SC vote that could either overturn or continue to uphold Roe v. Wade . And not withstanding the 2008 election, it is the Republican Party that usually gathers more steam/$$ from such a prospect/threat. As an aside, Senate Republicans should take this development into consideration and show themselves worthy of voter support for what will be the mother of all SC nomination battles. It is not too late to pick themselves up off the floor, where they have been New York Daily News , July 6… … Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least 3 more years – through the end of Obama’s 1st term, sources said…. That means Kennedy will be around to provide a 5th vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice. Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan , has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court’s 4 rock-ribbed conservative justices . Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech. Obama… was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on…. With the retirement of fellow Stanford graduate Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, Kennedy has inherited O’Connor’s mantle as the court’s swing vote. His voting pattern suggests he’s actually become a far more reliable vote for the conservatives.  In a piece entitled, “The fury of an idiot scorned,” Red State Insider at

Follow this link:
Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy’s Replacement to Loom Large in 2012 Presidential Election

Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. — Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence. Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn’t include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented. The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law. Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration. The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down. Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit. So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story: Although the lawsuit cites potential “detention and harassment” of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, “we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that’s something that we would take action on.”  Shh! Let’s not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

The rest is here:
Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

Obama to NASA Chief: Better Relations With Muslim World is the Foremost Mission

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world. Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel. “When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations. The NASA administrator was in the Middle East last month marking the one-year anniversary since Obama delivered an address to Muslim nations in Cairo. Bolden spoke in June at the American University in Cairo — in his interview with Al Jazeera, he described space travel as an international collaboration of which Muslim nations must be a part. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-… added by: JohnA

MSNBC Scarborough Slams Republican Sharron Angle as a ‘Jackass’

On Tuesday’s edition of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and his panel discussed the 2010 midterm elections and trashed Republican candidate Sharron Angle as a “mental patient” and a “jackass.”   The conversation, which included Chris Matthews and Mike Barnicle, began innocently enough when MSNBC contributor Mike Halperin said Angle is “vulnerable” in the race because “she has extreme positions that are out of step with the mainstream.” One doesn’t have to be fan of Angle’s to question the rude, demeaning outbreaks hurled in her direction.   Barnicle boldly stated that Angle was “embarrassing” to the residents of Nevada and ” sounds like a mental patient .” After this incident, Chris Matthews began to misquote Angle’s radio interview with Lars Larson asserting, “She understands why people think of and resort to second amendment solutions to the Democrats in Congress they don’t like.”   Here’s the actual quote in full: You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, you know, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

Larry King as Mr. Civility? ‘The Term Wacko Right-Winger Is Redundant’

For those who think Larry King is the sweet saint of the sensible center, we can always draw up from our Notable Quotables archives some of King’s conservative-bashing venom from the Clinton impeachment period for a rebuttal. Take a look at these: “Shouldn’t someone tell President Clinton that one of his archenemies, Rush Limbaugh, actually said the following last week, speaking in defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft? `It’s OK to lie, everybody lies in business, especially in a civil case.’ Apparently to Rush, lying is OK about business but not about sex.” — CNN’s Larry King in his October 26, 1998 USA Today column, failing to recognize Limbaugh’s parody of how liberals excuse Clinton’s lies but want Gates pursued. “If he had to testify, do you think Thomas Jefferson would have been impeached? No chance, there was no talk radio.” — CNN’s Larry King in his USA Today column, November 16, 1998. “What-if department…What if President Clinton announced a cure for cancer developed by the National Institutes of Health? What would critics say? Would Bob Barr want him impeached for failing to tell us the study was going on? Would Rush Limbaugh decry the President taking credit while admitting getting rid of cancer wasn’t a bad thing? Would Pat Buchanan insist that no nation other than America be given it? Would The Wall Street Journal worry about its effect on pharmaceutical stock prices? And so it goes….” — CNN’s Larry King in his USA Today column, February 15, 1999. ” The term wacko right-winger is redundant. For example, they’re the only people who don’t like being called compassionate. Someone remarked that many now defend the tobacco industry because its products kill people early, saving us dollars in having to care for aged people.” — “Larry King’s People” item in USA Today, March 8, 1999. “I can’t figure out how religious leaders can support the National Rifle Association. One would think that guns and God don’t mix.” — CNN host Larry King in his USA Today column, May 17, 1999.

Link:
Larry King as Mr. Civility? ‘The Term Wacko Right-Winger Is Redundant’

Bronislaw Komorowski is the new President of Poland

The new President of Poland is officially declared. Bronislaw Komorowski is the new President of Poland. Komorowski won 53.01% of the vote while rival Jaroslaw Kaczynski got 46.99% in the Polish presidential election. Komorowski won 41.5% in the first round and Mr Kaczynski 36.5%. Eight other candidates were eliminated. Kaczynski knows that he will be defeated and has accepted the reality based on an exit poll. On the other hand, Komorowski’s camp remained hopeful and vigilant. This run-off election was held after neither candidate gained more than 50% in the first round last June 2010. Kaczynski represents the main opposition Law and Justice party, whiel Komorowski is from the ruling Civic Platform party. Komorowski appeared optimistic about his chances of victory, as he said in his address to supporters earlier last Sunday evening. Once again, congratulations to Bronislaw Komorowski for being the new President of Poland. Bronislaw Komorowski is the new President of Poland is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading →

Malveaux Hates Fourth of July – Reminds Her of Slavery and Economic Inequality

If you were African-American living in the era of President Barack Obama, would you hate the Fourth of July because it reminded you of slavery and economic inequality? You would if your name was Julianne Malveaux and you were the syndicated columnist that also serves as the president of Bennett College, the historically black women’s school in Greensboro, North Carolina. So disdainful of America’s most-revered national holiday is Malveaux that she admitted in her July 2 USA Today op-ed , “I have never been big on the Fourth of July. Most years, I took great pleasure in reading the powerful Frederick Douglass speech, ‘The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.'” Though written in 1852, this college president actually sees relevance to modern day America in these words: “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July,” he thundered to a crowd in Rochester, N.Y. “I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity … your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery.”  Imagine that. A black man is now the most powerful elected leader on the face of the planet. Another black man is the most powerful law enforcement official in the country, and under the previous administration, the Secretaries of State were black, one of them also being a woman. Regardless, the president of a mostly black women’s college sees nothing but racial injustice and economic inequality around her:  Our nation has come a long way since 1852, but for many African Americans, shouts of liberty are still hollow mockery. Unemployment is a scourge on all Americans, but the black unemployment rate, at 15.3% in May, is nearly twice the white rate. Every economic indicator – income, wealth, homeownership – screams inequality. Despite his scathing commentary, Douglass said, “I do not despair of this country.” Nor do I. But progress has been so slowed, optimism so dimmed, and some criticisms of our president so blatantly racial that I’m returning to my ritual of reading Frederick Douglass, if only as a reminder that the struggle for justice and equality must continue. So, in Malveaux’s mind like so many of her ilk, equal opportunity isn’t enough. Until all Americans possess the same things, the nation is unjust. Which means this is not about equal opportunity but equal outcome, an inconvenient truth her kind refuses to admit as they shout “racist” at any white person more successful than them. Of course, what should one expect from a serial-hater that in 1994 actually wished — on national television — for Clarence Thomas to die: I guess for folks like Malveaux, racial and economic equality need only apply to black liberals. Sadly, this is a racial hypocrisy quite common amongst so-called journalists today. Doesn’t make sense, does it?  On the other hand, Malveaux has contributed to The Progressive, a magazine whose editor also hates the Fourth of July. Like peas in a progressive pod. 

More:
Malveaux Hates Fourth of July – Reminds Her of Slavery and Economic Inequality

Billy Nungesser – There is a conspiracy between the Coast Guard and BP

This guy is one of the few truth tellers functioning on the Gulf right now. He is the president of Plaquemines in La. http://www.plaqueminesparish.com/ added by: samantha420

Krugman: ‘Heartless, Clueless and Confused’ GOP Block Unemployment Benefits

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is angry the Senate hasn’t once again extended unemployment benefits, and he’s blaming “heartless, clueless and confused” Republicans. “There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do,” the Nobel laureate wrote Monday. “Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?” asked Krugman. Unfortunately, his answer will be quite disturbing to most on the right: [W]e’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.  By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do – including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain – improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus. By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, who has repeatedly insisted that the unemployed are deliberately choosing to stay jobless, so that they can keep collecting benefits. But there are also, one hopes, at least a few political players who are honestly misinformed about what unemployment benefits do – who believe, for example, that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was making sense when he declared that extending benefits would make unemployment worse, because “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” In reality, Krugman is the clueless and confused person in this discussion, as well as disingenuous. Utilizing his classic bias by omission strategy, he led readers to believe that the unemployed haven’t gotten any benefits extensions up to this point, and that Republicans have been blocking them for years, But nothing can be further from the truth. As the Wall Street Journal reported in November: The latest extension of unemployment benefits couldn’t come at a better time, it seems; President Barack Obama signed legislation into law Friday providing an additional 14 to 20 weeks of benefits for those who have already exhausted theirs or will do so by year-end. The extension comes on the same day the Labor Department announced the U.S. unemployment rate hit 10.2% in October, crossing into double-digits for the first time in 26 years as the nation’s jobless swelled to 15.7 million. The bill, passed earlier this week by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, extends federal jobless benefits by 14 weeks for Americans in all 50 states who face exhaustion before year-end, and by 20 weeks for those living in states where the unemployment rate is 8.5% or higher. And here’s the inconvenient truth Krugman and his ilk want to hide as they point fingers at “heartless, clueless and confused” Republicans:   The additional 20 weeks in hard-hit states means the maximum a person in one of those states could receive is now up to 99 weeks, or nearly two years – the most in history. That’s right: some unemployed Americans have been receiving benefits for almost two years, and that is longest in our nation’s history. Kind of tramples Krugman’s “heartless” position, doesn’t it? Taking this a step further, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 stipulated that most adult welfare recipients have to find work within two years of the start of their benefits. This means that in theory, even our nation’s poor are required to find jobs at some point in the future.   Shouldn’t that apply to folks across all income strata? In the end, Republicans as a whole aren’t typically against extending unemployment benefits when economic conditions warrant such action. However, two years seems like a fine deadline to give people to find a job. After all, despite the contention by the Left that this is the worst recession since the Depression, unemployment still hasn’t risen to levels we saw in the early ’80s. With this in mind, why should unemployment benefits last longer now than they did then? Sadly, the clueless and confused Krugman didn’t answer that question. Color me unsurprised. 

Follow this link:
Krugman: ‘Heartless, Clueless and Confused’ GOP Block Unemployment Benefits

Prominent Green Activists Ask Obama To Step Up Climate Efforts Now

photo via flickr On Friday, notable environmentalists Al Gore, Fredd Krupp, and others sent a letter to President Obama warning him that time is running short this year to pass a bill that caps carbon pollution and asking him to personally intervene in the sausage making process to help get something done. The Senate’s leadership has not yet settled on a bill to get behind, with competing bills looking only at the utility industry, responsible for about 40 percent of US emissions, while others want an economy-wide solution. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original:
Prominent Green Activists Ask Obama To Step Up Climate Efforts Now