Category Archives: Barrack Obama

Russian Bill Retaliates Against New U.S. Law

Posted on by

The “reset button” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave to the Russians early in President Obama’s presidency with the hopes of improving relations between the U.S. and Russia is still failing. Business Week reports that Russian legislators have given initial overwhelming approval to a bill that would impose sanctions on Americans accused of human rights violations.

The U.S. bill that caused the newest dust-up was intended to open new export opportunities for Americans wanting to do business in Russia. However, there is one section named after Sergei Magnitsky. He was an activist lawyer who was jailed and refused medical treatment until his death. He was arrested after he accused that police officials had engaged in multi-million dollar tax fraud. Russian rights organizations point out that no one has been prosecuted and that some officials he had accused have been promoted.

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman issued a statement after President Obama signed the U.S. bill into law saying it was “odious” and “blatant interference in our internal affairs.” The most troubling part of the story is the uncertainty about “what criteria would be used to assess human rights violations. The spokesman said “…targets could include people who abuse adopted Russian children and people responsible for creation of secret prisons.” I’m guessing that people in the U.S. considering adopting Russian children might want to know more about the law and the intent.

Winston Churchill’s Bust in the White House

Posted on by

I recently reviewed a book about Winston Churchill, and there is much to admire about what that man did to combat Hitler during the darkest early days of World War II when England stood virtually alone in containing the German military. I wrote in that review that Churchill signaled what an inspirational and powerful leader he was when he heard France had surrendered. He said, “Then we shall be alone. For myself, I find that rather inspiring.”

There has been controversy about the Obama administration sending a bust of Churchill bust back to the English. The story was circulated that Mr. Obama disliked Churchill’s imperialist views (which are uncontested) enough that he did not want the bust of the man displayed in the White House. In fact Mr. Obama’s press secretary got into a disagreement with Charles Krauthammer about whether a bust was returned and said that the reports were false and based on “urban myths.”

The press secretary was forced to apologize to Krauthammer when it was obvious that a bust was returned, but there is more to the story. The bust that was returned had been loaned to President Bush after the September 11 attacks. The written apology to Krauthammer said, “The bust that was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something President Obama or his Administration chose to do.” The bust in question was therefore lent to President Bush for the duration of his term, and was returned to the British Ambassador’s residence along with other art work lent to him when his presidency came to an end.

The bust of Churchill given as a gift to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 remains in the White House residence. A spokesman for the British ambassador said “Both President Obama and the Prime Minster have repeatedly underlined that our countries remain the closest of allies”

Fair Income Tax Rates

Posted on by

The primary campaign strategy of President Obama to secure his re-election was to advocate that wealthy (successful) people should pay higher taxes. I assume that resonated because many assumed that the government having more money would provide them more benefits. That discounts the continuous television ads pointing out that Mr. Romney is a Capitalist, that he did not believe it was the place of government to provide free birth control, and the government should pay for Big Bird episodes. (And, yes, I’m oversimplifying.)

So here we are in the midst of a government-created economic crisis about whether the primary objective of Congress is to raise taxes on those who have been successful, to cut spending, or to do nothing and see what might happen next. My bet, and I make that bet without judging whether it is the best approach, is that our highly paid government officials will do whatever they think is best for their political careers.

Government officials from areas where Democrats dominate will hold out for tax increases on the wealthy and will not risk suggesting reform of entitlement programs that they know are economically unsustainable.  Republicans will feebly demand some sort of spending and entitlement reform. The country will continue to be awarded with a lack of leadership from the President and Congressional leaders. I predict President Obama will continue to campaign that everything is the fault of Republican leaders going back to George W. Bush. I also predict that he will be heartily awarded with applause for that meaningless rhetoric. Continue reading →

Drones versus Water Boarding

Posted on by

President Obama has won reelection, so it seems appropriate to revisit the politically sensitive question about the treatment of “terrorist prisoners.” First and foremost, it seems the policy of refusing to use the term “terrorism” resulted in the Obama administration putting out false information about what happened in Libya. I’ve read that there was an official policy issued to the State Department after Mr. Obama’s first election that they were not allowed to use the words “terrorism” or “terrorist.” Perhaps that’s why the term “spontaneous riot” was used in the misleading reports. I speculate the desire to not have a national security scandal just before the election also had something to do with it.

What changes to national security policies will we see now that Mr. Obama is safely re-elected? Perhaps we will now what he had in mind when he was recorded telling the Russians he would “have more flexibility” after the election. I’m also wondering whether the policy of targeting terrorists (perhaps he calls them “rioters”) with drones will be continued. It is reported that he meets with a select group of military, national security, intelligence, and political advisors each Tuesday morning to review a list of enemies called the “kill list.” He is then said to personally decide who is to be killed by a drone. The CIA probably operates the drone, because federal law would require public reporting and congressional approval if the military is involved. Drone strikes have killed people in Pakistan and Yemen. Of course people who have misfortune to be near the targeted person are also killed. Continue reading →

Presidential Election and Aftermath

Posted on by

It is 9:14 P.M. Mountain Standard Time on election day November 6, 2012 as I begin typing, and the announcement just came that Ohio will cast its electoral votes for President Obama. That virtually guarantees that President Obama has won reelection. What next?

I expect that Republicans will be quite critical of themselves and Mitt Romney’s campaign strategy. They will ask why he did not mention Libya in the foreign policy debate when there was ample evidence that the Obama administration bungled the security for the consulate by responding to requests for additional security by reducing the number of security agents. They then covered up the terrorist attack that resulted in the death of the ambassador and three other Americans by repeatedly claiming the attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration. The only reason to cover up the truth was that the facts would be embarrassing to the administration. The focus was protecting President Obama’s chances for reelection, and the facts of what resulted in the four dead Americans might have been “problematic.”  The cover story succeeded because Mr. Romney did not make it an issue.

On a societal note, I find it distressing that we have reelected a president whose campaign was almost exclusively based on advocating that people who earn more should be taxed at higher rates. His campaign worked despite the flaw that it won’t work. Wealthy people already pay most of the taxes, and even if you take all of their money it won’t solve the budget deficit. The only way to control the deficit is to staunch the government thirst for more and more spending while getting out of the way of economic development. Economic development is the key. Romney’s approach would have encouraged entrepreneurs to develop businesses, the business would pay taxes, the employees would pay taxes, and the government would have more income. The majority of voters went with the guy who promised to raise taxes on people other than themselves. Continue reading →

Dueling Presidential Candidate Gaffes

Posted on by

With less than a week until we learn who will be elected president it seems the time is right for a mention of gaffes by the two candidates. It wouldn’t be a duel if the subject referred to Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, since Mr. Biden would win on the numbers of gaffes by an overwhelming margin.

Mitt Romney stirred understandable criticism when he foolishly mentioned that he need not campaign to the 47 percent of Americans who are “dependent on government” and consider themselves “victims.” He later said that he understood that he wasn’t going to get the vote of people who expected that the government’s job is to redistribute wealth, and that “I’m not going to get them.” He added “I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay to allow people to pay taxes. I think people would like to be paying taxes.”

Mr. Obama presented a different opinion in an appearance at Loyola University in 1998 when he was an Illinois state senator. The admittedly 14 year-old video has Mr. Obama saying, “The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.” Continue reading →