President Barack Obama: Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference

Source:You Hot News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) at The White House.

Source:The New Democrat

President Obama, once again nailed it, when he said that without this deal, which is of course is a deal, Iran would get the nuclear weapons that they want anyway. There are four choices here and only one of them are good. You do nothing else other than current economic sanctions that are crushing the Iranian economy, but not stopping them from pursuing nuclear weapons. You try to take the Iranian nuclear weapons program out from the air with air strikes. Even though they have nuclear power plants underground. You invade the country, go to war with them and if you’re successful there, then you try to take the weapons out that way. Or you prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons peacefully. Which is what dealmaking and compromise is about.

Compromises and deals, by definition are imperfect. You get something you want, or need by giving up something you don’t need, or value as much. With this deal, we can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange if Iran complies with the deal, they get economic and sanctions relief that will benefit their economy and their people. Which would make the Iranian Government look better with the Iranian people, but also makes America look better with the Iranian people as well. Who doesn’t like their government, but aren’t fans of the U.S. Government either.

What would the opponents of this deal and President Obama do instead? Invade Iran, a country the size of Saudi Arabia physically, but with seventy-five-million people? Even though they wouldn’t support any resolution that would empower President Obama to take America to war with Iran. Again with the air strikes, Congress wouldn’t support that most likely . And the Iranian Government has nuclear power plants underground. Continue to negotiate for a better deal? What would a better deal be? Iran, is going to have to get something substantial out of any deal, or they aren’t going to sign on to it. President Obama, got the best available deal here that could actually work. And deserves a lot of credit for it.

President Barack Obama: Eulogy at Charleston Shooting Funeral of Clementa Pinckney

Source:You Hot News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking in Charlottesville, South Carolina.

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t imagine anything worst than being murdered in a house of worship. A place, that is supposed to be a house of peace. I mean, if you’re not safe in a church in America, where would you be safe? And yet this is where these members of the Charleston AME Church were murdered. And why, because of the so-called accused murderer Dylann Roof, hated African-American people? His hatred was so strong, his faith in people was so weak, that he murdered people in church simply because they were members of a different race and had a different complexion. These murders, were simply pure evil. Perhaps something that only an Adolph Hitler and his followers would approve of.

I believe that is what President Obama was hitting on here. Yes, remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney and the fact that he was murdered just perhaps because he was an African-American Reverend. But also acknowledging why everyone was there in the first place. Why they were eulogizing a man of 41 years. When I think of how young Reverend Pinckney was when he was murdered and then add the fact that he was murdered in his church and for no other reasons than the color of his skin, it makes me really angry and wanting to see his murderer get similar treatment. But just not in a peaceful place like a church. But in some hell hole underground, where only Devils are welcomed and expected to attend.

South Carolina, I’m sure has its wonderful qualities and has aspects that make it a great place to live. And I believe Charleston is an example of that, but it has a level of hatred and bigotry that needs to be overcome. So it becomes that state where all Americans who are good productive people are welcome. And it doesn’t become a state where people aren’t even safe in church simply because of their race and complexion. President Obama, didn’t speak to that and to South Carolina as a whole and I’m just adding this myself. But no American should have to even contemplate being murdered in a house of worship. Especially just because of their race and complexion. And gunned down in the prime of their life.

Jared Bernstein: The Supreme Court & ObamaCare: Somehow Commonsense Prevailed

Source:On The Economy-

Source:The New Democrat

Jared Bernstein, progressive economist from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a very good pice about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. He talks about Chief Justice John Roberts and why he ruled in favor of Burwell, in King V Burwell. U.S. Secretary Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Burwell, being the Obama Administration in King V Burwell. Bernstein, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices who ruled in favor, 6-3 decision by the way, ruled in favor of the ACA and the subsidies, based on Congressional intent.

Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it was based on three parts.

Better rules and regulations for how private health insurance is given in America. Including protections for patients, so they don’t lose their health insurance simply, because they actually need to use it. Or have a pre-existing condition. Just a couple of examples.

The individual mandate. So everyone is in the system and is covered and paying for their costs of their health care. And not passing their costs onto others. And making health insurance more expensive for everyone involved.

And the last one and perhaps the most important, because it goes to expanding health insurance and health care in America. The tax credits for lower middle-income working class Americans. People who aren’t technically poor and who are working, but can’t afford private health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Chief Justice, arguing that Congress didn’t intend to leave the tax credits up to the states that have a health care exchange, or have the Feds handle it. He said that under the ACA, the Feds can give out tax credits to people who don’t live in state with a health insurance exchange. Chief Justice Roberts, wasn’t saying he supports the law, but was simply ruling on the intent of the law and how it was written. And the ACA, clearly tries to expand health insurance in America. Which is what the tax credits are about and why the Feds fund them.

Center for American Progress: David Madland & Kira Walter- 'Top 6 Policies To Help The Middle Class That Won't Cost Taxpayers a Penny'

Source:Center For American Progress- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois)

"Strengthening America’s middle class should be elected officials’ top priority. Incomes are either stagnant or falling for the middle class, while the costs of life’s necessities continue to rise. As a result, the risk of the middle class falling behind economically is growing. A weak middle class hurts all of us by stifling our country’s economic growth and undermining our democracy.

Unfortunately, reducing the deficit has distracted our political leaders from this pressing challenge and has made it seem like little can be done, as Congress blocked or failed to act on important legislation to help the middle class. In reality, however, there are many things that the federal government can do to help the middle class.

Rather than make excessive short-term budget cuts as we are currently doing, we can and should make needed investments in the middle class, such as expanding access to preschool and child care, as part of a package that reduces the deficit over the longer term, as CAP has proposed on many occasions. Furthermore, there are a number of things that policymakers can do that won’t require any additional expenditures." 

From the Center For American Progress 

"In "The Green Collar Economy", Center for American Progress Senior Fellow, acclaimed activist and political advisor Van Jones delivers a real solution that both rescues our economy and saves the environment. The economy is built on and powered almost exclusively by oil, natural gas, and coal—all fast-diminishing nonrenewable resources. As supplies disappear, the price of energy climbs and nearly everything becomes more expensive. With costs and unemployment soaring, the economy stalls. Not only that, when we burn these fuels, the greenhouse gases they create overheat the atmosphere. As the headlines make clear, total climate chaos looms over us. The bottom line: we cannot continue with business as usual. We cannot drill and burn our way out of these dual dilemmas.

Instead, Van Jones illustrates how we can invent and invest our way out of the pollution-based grey economy and into the healthy new green economy. Built by a broad coalition deeply rooted in the lives and struggles of ordinary people, this path has the practical benefit of both cutting energy prices and generating enough work to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral."

Source:Center For American Progress- former Obama White House advisor Van Jones.

From the Center For American Progress

Instead of taking the approach of how can we empower government to take care of everybody or take care of the people who are currently struggling and create all sorts of new government social programs, I'm going to take the approach (to quote Jerry Maguire) how can I (meaning government in this case) help you. And I would add to that what government do to empower the millions of Americans who need it help themselves. And have the same freedom both economic and personal that the rest of the country has.

And it gets to things like infrastructure investment rebuilding this country,

Universal lifelong education and job training so all Americans always have the ability to improve themselves.

Tax reform so we have more companies investing more money in America, especially American companies. And we tax people based on what they take out of society not what they contribute to society.

And a national energy policy that finally moves this country towards energy independence by utilizing our vast menu of natural resources.

So if you are looking for the Next New Deal, keep looking, I'm sure you'll find it.

If I were to write an Economic Bill of Rights for the United States and I may do that for this blog in the future, it would be about education and the right to organize for all workers, but that all workers would also have the right to not join a union and operate as a free agent. And not subjected to union dues, but just wouldn't get the benefits that come with being in a union as well.

The education part is also key that all Americans would have the right to a lifelong education no matter the income level or their parents. Always having the ability to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held accountable for what they do with those opportunities for good and bad and in between. So what government would be telling the people that they everyone in America who is physically and mentally able would have the ability to be successful in life. No longer stuck in poverty because they come from and live in rural or inner-city America.

What government will also do is subsidize people's success and for any American who is working would always make more than Americans who are unemployed.

And universal access to education and job training would especially be available for people who are not working, but need to be, too young or without the resources to retire.

We have an economic system like this and real tax-reform that taxes everybody by what they takeout of society, instead of what they contribute to society and we would have a true liberal democracy (I know Social Democrats and right-wingers hate that term, but get use to it) Where all Americans would have access to both economic and personal freedom.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Atlantic: Heather Boushey: 'The Economics Behind Barack Obama's New Liberal Agenda'

Source:The Atlantic at President Barack H. Obama's 2013 State of the Union, in front of a joint session of the 113th Congress.

"A higher minimum wage and universal pre-K might sound like hackneyed progressive goals. But they're supported by broad economic research -- and common sense." 

From The Atlantic

Salon: Jamelle Bouie: 'Four More Years to Enact a New Great Society'

Source:Salon- Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois 44th President of the United States.

"If you want a sense of how remarkable Barack Obama’s re-election victory is, think back to last summer. At the time, the president was struggling to reach a deal with House Republicans, who were threatening not to raise the debt ceiling and plunge the economy into a second recession. Unemployment was high—9.2 percent—Obama’s approval had dipped to the low 40s, and to anyone paying attention, the first African American president looked like a one-term failure.

But beginning in the fall, Obama began to reassert himself. With the American Jobs Act, he outlined a viable plan for generating economic growth and kick-starting the recovery. With his widely praised speech in Kansas, he outlined a populist agenda of greater investment and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Over the course of 2012, he built good will with important communities, from LGBT Americans with an endorsement of same-sex marriage to Latino immigrants and their families with a measure meant to emulate the DREAM Act. What’s more, the economy began to pick up: Job growth increased, unemployment dropped, and the overall economic picture began to brighten.

Together with one of the most hard-nosed campaigns in recent memory, Obama managed to bounce back from the nadir of 2011 to one of the broadest re-election victories in recent memory. At this point, news networks have called New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Ohio for President Obama. Only Florida has yet to be called, where the remaining votes are in traditionally Democratic areas of the state. Compared with 2008, Obama lost only two states: North Carolina and Indiana. When all is said and done, Barack Obama will have won re-election with 332 electoral votes—a much larger margin than the last president to win re-election, George W. Bush

Over the next week, I’ll write about the details of Obama’s victory, in particular his huge advantage with nonwhite voters—without historic margins (and turnout) among African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, it’s likely Obama would have failed in his quest for a second term. Indeed, it should be said that Republicans have themselves to blame for a good deal of this. If not for their categorical opposition to health-care reform, the Affordable Care Act would have never been passed in its current form. If not for their harsh approach to immigration, they might have won greater Latino support over the last four years. If not for their embrace of misogyny, they might have closed the gender gap. If not for their willingness to indulge the worst conspiracies about Obama, they might have made inroads with young people and college-educated voters. 

Together with one of the most hard-nosed campaigns in recent memory, Obama managed to bounce back from the nadir of 2011 to one of the broadest re-election victories in recent memory. At this point, news networks have called New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Ohio for President Obama. Only Florida has yet to be called, where the remaining votes are in traditionally Democratic areas of the state. Compared with 2008, Obama lost only two states: North Carolina and Indiana. When all is said and done, Barack Obama will have won re-election with 332 electoral votes—a much larger margin than the last president to win re-election, George W. Bush

Over the next week, I’ll write about the details of Obama’s victory, in particular his huge advantage with nonwhite voters—without historic margins (and turnout) among African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, it’s likely Obama would have failed in his quest for a second term. Indeed, it should be said that Republicans have themselves to blame for a good deal of this. If not for their categorical opposition to health-care reform, the Affordable Care Act would have never been passed in its current form. If not for their harsh approach to immigration, they might have won greater Latino support over the last four years. If not for their embrace of misogyny, they might have closed the gender gap. If not for their willingness to indulge the worst conspiracies about Obama, they might have made inroads with young people and college-educated voters.

It’s still far too early to make a judgment about Barack Obama’s overall historical standing. But by virtue of winning re-election, he has become the most successful Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson, and one of the most successful of the 21st century.

Not bad for the skinny Hawaiian kid with a funny name."

Source:Salon

I hate to break it to so-called Progressive Democrats, (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) but I have a friend on Facebook who is an admitted Democratic Socialist, more liberal-libertarian on social issues, but a proud Socialist on economic policy. A true proud Socialist who I like and respect personally because of his honesty and ability to backup what he believes in. Even though we rarely agree when it comes to the economy and what government's role should be in it.

My friend who voted Socialist yesterday at least for President, voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party technically, but she's a Democratic Socialist ideologically. With her Green Deal and all of that wanting to let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone to finance new public infrastructure across the country. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars. My friend knows that Barack Obama is not a Democratic Socialist, thats why he voted for the Green Party. I'm guessing expecting that the President would win anyway.

If trapped in the political closet Socialists believe that Barack Obama is going to try to build some new Great Society, an idea that goes back to the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson and we are going to create some new and expanded welfare state to accomplish this, or what Dr. Stein calls the New Green Deal, they are living in Dreamland and perhaps sharing an apartment there with Ann Coulter. Thats not the type of Democrat that Barack Obama is and he's never been that type of Democrat. 

What President Obama wants to do is build an economy that works for everyone, but doesn't expect the Federal Government to be able to do this itself. And wants to empower more Americans to be able to live their own lives and live what's been called the American Dream. When you think of Barack Obama you think of Bill Clinton politically. Progressive Democrat who I wish was more liberal on social issues who understands the limits of government.

If trapped in the political closet Socialists want a Socialist President, then they should back a Socialist who can win the Presidency. Instead of expecting Progressives or Liberal Democrats to do that for them. And then they also need to find a way for someone like that to get elected President of the United States.

Mother Jones: Mitt Romney On Obama Voters & The Entitlement Society

Source:Mother Jones- catching Mitt Romney being honest on the mic. If you really want to catch a politician telling the truth, or at least being honest, cover him or her, when they don't think you are there.

"Editor's note: Mother Jones has now removed the blurring from this video. Click here for the updated clip:   

 • Mitt Romney on Obama Voters  

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." 

From Mother Jones 

What Mitt Romney is basically saying here, is that the people who will vote for President Barack Obama, are the people who believe that Americans shouldn't have to do anything in life, in order to live well and live a quality life. 

All of this leftism in the Barack Obama movement, might have been true in 2008 when the Far-Left of the Democratic Party (the real Socialists in the party) thought that then Senator Obama was one of them. But those folks, like The Young Turks, the Salon's, The Nation's, the Noam Chomsky's of the world, are now calling Barack Obama a moderate Republican, ideologically, a corporatist, a sellout. Militant Black Nationalists are now calling President Obama an Uncle Tom. 

When you are bad card player, or at least a losing card player, you have do go with the only card that you have left. The American people have basically made up their mind about President Barack Obama. They like the man, they think he's a good President, but not a great President, and that he's better than anyone whose tried to run against him. 

I think Mitt Romney, at least when he's being honest with himself, knows all of this as far as how Independent voters and Democrats feel about President Obama. And because of this, he's going with the only card that he had left in a weak deck, which is try to to make Barack Obama look like some Un-American radical or something. And we'll see if that works in about 6 weeks.

CNN Early Start: 'DNC Chair Torn Apart Over Removal Of Jerusalem From Platform'

Source:CNN- U.S. Representative Debbie W. Schultz (Democrat, Florida) trying to make people believe her, instead of their own eyes and ears. That's what career, overly, ambitious, politicians do.

"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz get questions over the Jerusalem in the Democratic Platform debacle on "Starting Point" (September 6, 2012)." 

From GOP War Room 

Just to start off with; I think CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien did an excellent job, trying to get Representative Debbie W. Schultz, to acknowledge the obvious and just move on from this. And instead of taking the life raft or rope and avoid politically drowning, she cut off her right arm and leg and wrapped the roper around her neck, while she was drowning (who says that politicians aren't multi-talented) and just continued to drown under the water. And it's rare that I ever give Soledad credit for anything, positive. 

To answer Soledad's question: God and Jerusalem, was taken out of the Democratic Party's platform, because President Obama needs the Far-Left in and outside of the party to get reelected. And far-leftists tend to be Atheists (especially Communists) and see Israel as a racist state, that doesn't even have the right to exist. 

But Soledad gave Representative Schultz the opportunity to clean up isle 4 before she went home for the day, (you know, politically speaking) and instead, she slams 10 cartons of milk and 10 jugs of orange juice all over the floor and then slips and falls in her own political mess.

The Nation: David Cole: 'Why President Obama’s Healthcare Law is Constitutional'

Source:The Nation- columnist David Cole.

Source:FreeState MD

“What is at stake in the case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court in March? The challengers maintain that the case is about fundamental liberty, specifically our freedom not to be compelled to purchase things we don’t want. But that frame, while undoubtedly appealing to the radical libertarian strain in the Tea Party, is misleading. In fact, the only “liberty” that would be protected by a victory for the challengers is the freedom of insurance companies to discriminate against sick people.

The case is principally focused on the “individual mandate,” the law’s requirement that people who are not insured and can afford health insurance must buy it or pay a tax penalty. The federal government is a government of limited powers, and although Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, the challengers concede, if it can force people to “enter into commerce” in order to regulate them, then its powers are in effect unlimited. The reason Congress has never imposed such a mandate, they maintain, is that the power does not properly exist.

The Supreme Court deems the issue sufficiently serious to schedule an almost unprecedented five and a half hours of oral argument (it usually schedules a single hour). But the argument against the law is remarkably flimsy. Two of the country’s most conservative judges, Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit and Laurence Silberman of the DC Circuit, were unable to find a valid argument against the law and voted to uphold it. Harvard law professor Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general, has also said the law is plainly constitutional. It’s always dangerous to predict Supreme Court rulings on controversial cases, but if the Court applies its precedents faithfully, it should be a victory for the administration.”

From The Nation 

The Welfare Clause: 

"The United States Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare”, one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”[3][4]

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story’s view as the “Hamiltonian position”,[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position’s initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.” 

From Wikipedia

Commerce Clause: 

"The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, it is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the combination used to take a more broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation.[citation needed]

During the Marshall Court era (1801–1835), interpretation of the Commerce Clause gave Congress jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as activity that had traditionally been regarded not to be commerce. Starting in 1937, following the end of the Lochner era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since United States v. Lopez (1995), congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again to be limited to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).[citation needed]

The Commerce Clause is the source of federal drug prohibition laws under the Controlled Substances Act. In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce and relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce.”

From Wikipedia  

I’m honest enough to tell my readers that I’m not a lawyer and nor do I play one either on TV or online. But to me the debate about the 2010 Affordable Care Act is not a debate about whether the law is a good law or not. That’s not for the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. The debate is about whether the ACA is constitutional or not. The people, the President of the United States, and Congress get to decide if the law is good or bad and whether it should stay in place or not. Not unelected judges, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

To me again as as non-lawyer, I believe the ACA is clearly constitutional under at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution: the Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause:

The U.S. Government obviously has a role to look after the welfare of the country. Not run our lives for us, but to see to it that everyone’s basic needs are met and even help people in need who can’t help themselves. Otherwise what’s the point in having a Federal Government if can’t look after the welfare, as well as to protect the defend the country?

And as much as leftists (democratic and otherwise) might hate hearing this, health care and health insurance is a commodity. It’s something that people buy on the market in America. And under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has a role in regulating commerce in America.

So you might not like the ACA or you might love it, or you are like me and wish the law went further with a public option for Medicare, but this is not about the quality of the law, but about the constitutionality of it. If you don’t like the law, you can always lobby Congress with your First Amendment right to get the law either repealed or amended. But the U.S. Supreme Court can’t throw out laws simply because they don’t like them. Only when they believe they are unconstitutional.

Talking Points Memo: Senator Barack Obama- 'Confesses to Socialist Leanings'

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about his opponent Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)

"Obama Confesses to Socialist Leanings ...admits to sharing in kindergarten. Oct. 29, 2008."

From Talking Points Memo 

If Barack Obama is Socialist, then then John McCain is a Christian-Right Theocrat, as well as a Islamic Theocrat, wanting to bring both fundamentalist Evangelicalism, and Sharia Law to America. (Impressive guy to pull both of those off at the exact same time) 

2008 was obviously a very trying year for America economically and with the Republican Party in The White House and presiding over all of this turmoil, Senator John McCain and company knew they were in a lot of trouble politically. (Which would explain their political hail marry pass known as Sarah Palin) And when political campaigns are in trouble, they tend to get desperate, especially when both Congress and The White House are at stake. And throw every name in the book (and perhaps some names that haven't been invented yet) at their opponents.   

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

The White House: 'President Obama Presents American Jobs Act'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing the 111th Congress about his proposed American Jobs Act.

"Shares plan to create jobs with joint session of Congress. August 8, 2011." 

From The White House

Actually, I would prefer to call this post:President Obama Finally Goes On The Record, but I'm limited as far as how many characters I can share when it comes to titles on posts with social networks. And you really need to be a social networker to understand what that means. And if you are absolutely dying to know what that means, send me an email and I may answer that for your you. But keep in mind, I might ask to see proof that you are actually dying, so I don't expect seeing any emails on social networking. But so be it I can put the full title of my post. LOL

I would give President Obama 9.5 tonight which would be like a three run home run (for you baseball fans) on tone, substance, and length. My only problem with the President's Speech would be him pushing for tax credits to encourage business's to hire. It's not that business's don't want to hire right now, it's that they don't believe they can afford to hire, because of the lack of demand. Any tax credits should relate in encouraging people and business's to spend money because of our lack of demand. Which would lead into more hiring to meet the new demand. Something like a payroll tax cut, or consumer tax credit that people would have to spend and not save. 

President Obama was very strong on infrastructure spending without actually mentioning infrastructure. Coming out in favor and going on the record for a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself after it gets start up capitol. And the figure is good as well 447B$. I would put most of that money in a NIB and let them do their work. Start rebuilding and building schools, bridges, airports, dams, highways, buildings, etc, to start putting our construction Workers back to work. 

President Obama not only talked about an extension in Unemployment Insurance, but empowering these people to go back to school and get additional skills. As well as subsidizing their employment as they go back to work for free as far as where they work. But they would still have their Unemployment Insurance and be able to keep their skills in check, especially for the long term unemployed. 

President Obama talked about passing the three trade deals that he hasn't pushed very hard or even sent up to Congress: Central America, Columbia, and Korea. So American business's can sell their products oversees and we can have the same trade access in foreign markets as they have here. 

I believe the President went into this speech knowing that the House Republican Leadership won't pass it as it currently stands. But with how House Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor have reacted to it, not calling it DOA and being in favor of some type of payroll tax credit as well as infrastructure spending.  

The President has been talking about creating jobs for thirty three months now, without actually putting anything in writing and sending something up to Congress. And tonight he finally went on the record and put a jobs plan on the table.

PBS NewsHour: Jeffrey Brown- 'Watch President Obama's, Speaker Boehner's Full Debt-Ceiling Remarks'

Source:PBS NewsHour- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about the debt ceiling agreement that was reached with Congress.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner addressed the nation Monday about the approaching debt-limit deadline and the political stalemate between top lawmakers over deficit-reduction proposals. Watch their full remarks plus analysis from Gwen Ifill and Political Editor David Chalian. Read more:PBS." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I believe the President did as well as someone even with his vast communication skills, could do with a national debt ceiling address. Especially with this material sounding very dry for today's reality TV audience and with Speaker Boehner countering him with a false statement where he said the House vote on "Cap Cut and Balance" being bipartisan last week. With only five Democrats voting for it and at least ten Republicans voting against it. There was actually more bipartisan opposition to "Cut Cap and Balance" than bipartisan support. 

I was a little worried Monday afternoon when I heard that President Obama came out in favor of Leader Reid's plan in the Senate, that cuts the debt and deficit through cuts only even though he includes 1T$ in defense cuts, coming from ending military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a left-wing blog Think Progress, the House switchboard has been flooded with phone calls and emails, all about tonight's speeches. I'm guessing hopefully in favor of President Obama's speech. But we'll probably see within the next few days. 

I believe though that enough people did listen to President Obama's speech. And hopefully enough of them liked it enough, to tell enough Republican Representatives, that it's time for the House GOP Leadership to make a deal with the President and Senate. But there's a much different team in the House now, thats not in business to negotiate. 

I believe however that Speaker Boehner is an adult who wants to put the debt and deficit debate aside or at least getting something accomplished on it. And start to move on to other things which I'm sure the Speaker and House Leader Cantor have on their agenda. Even though the House GOP only controls one chamber of Congress and one institution in the entire Federal Government, they believe they hold all the cards because of the 2010 mid-term elections. 

But what the House GOP Leadership doesn't understand is that the voters didn't give them the Senate for a reason, because they didn't like enough of their Senate candidates to give them the majority there. Which left us with not only a divided government but a divided congress as well. 

What Leader Reid did in the Senate on Monday was to offer the House GOP a chance to say yes and move on but they still said no. I'm glad the President has left tax hikes on the wealthy on the table to go along with entitlement reform and budget cuts including in defense. And let's see within the next few days if he was able to move enough Americans to tell enough of their Reps thats its time to make a deal with the Senate and President and compromise so we can finally move on. 

CSPAN: President Barack Obama- 'At The 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner'

Source:CSPAN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking at the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner, in Washington.

"President Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner. View the complete program here:CSPAN. 

Source:CSPAN- comedian Seth Meyers. 

From CSPAN

Ever since the mid-term elections of 2010, the President has been in full reelection mode. Thinking that if Democrats can lose the House, he could lose the White House just as easily.

And every decision and policy position and speech President Obama has given, has been based on that. Only when President Obama has to take a stand on anything, it's after endless concentrated thought on every possible proposal and idea that's out there. Libya being a perfect example of this and then after finally taking a position on anything.

Watching Barack Obama make up his mind on anything, (from a distance, anyway) is like watching a midget try to tackle an elephant: it is really difficult and painful thing to see that you want it to end and for some resolution to the matter: "If we do this, than that will happen and that will be bad. But if we don't do this, then this could happen and that might be worst". Politicians who try to please everybody tend to be the most unpopular. Because they end up offending everyone. And that is sort of where President Obama is right now.

It's the weakest position possible designed to offend the very least. It's Independent voters that the President is targeting. Meaning that he can’t seem too strong on anything, because he might offend those who look for the middle ground on everything­.

Which means that President Obama ends up doing what he wants the least, which is looking weak. Because he can't figure out what the hell he should do. Right now President Obama who’ve I tended to agree with on foreign and economic policy, is the On the Other Hand President.

President Barack Obama: "Well, if we do this, it could work, but on the other hand if we do this instead, it might work better. And costing the country economically because we have a weak economy that needs strong action".

Sometimes you just got to say, screw it! And do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. That is what leadership is about and what being President of the United States is about. The On the Other Hand Presidency might turn out to be effective leadership in the long-term, but it's definitely weak leadership in the short-term. And costing President Obama popularity and the ability to lead a large divided country.

The White House: 'President Obama Nominates Elena Kagan for Supreme Court'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama, nominating Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, at The White House.

"The President introduces Elena Kagan, the current Solicitor General, as his nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. May 10, 2010."

From The White House

When U.S. Justice Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, I saw it as another opportunity for President Obama and Liberal Democrats, of which I'm one, to appoint another liberal Justice to the Supreme Court who would be there for at least a generation and would fight for the U.S. Constitution and liberal values, which is what I believe we got with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, especially since Democrats also control the Senate with a large nine-seat majority. It took President Bush 5 years to nominate his two Justices to the Supreme Court.

President George W. Bush had a right-wing Republican majority in the Senate, a five-seat majority smaller than Democrats of course, but President Bush was smart enough to appoint hard-core conservatives in John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The two appointees had bipartisan support, so the then Senate Democratic Leadership never really considered blocking Roberts or Alito. The difference for President Obama and other Liberals is that we gained an opportunity to appoint two Justices within the first year of President Obama's presidency with a large Senate majority to go along with the White House.

I think the President did a very good job appointing as his first Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is in her mid-fifties and has pretty much voted the way the President was expecting, being a reliable vote on the four-seat liberal wing of the Court. With the President's second choice, I think he needs to appoint someone who can go toe to toe with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, two Justices with whom I rarely if ever agree.

But they are two people whom I consider to have brilliant legal minds and have the right approach to making their legal decisions. I usually don't agree with them, but you can make a credible case for why they believe what they believe and understand why they believe it. Also, it would be useful for the President to appoint a Justice who can persuade other Justices to vote with them, and of course I'm thinking of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the current swing vote on the Supreme Court.

E.J. Dionne said about Elena Kagan that she will be a reliable vote on the Liberal wing of the Supreme Court who can persuade conservative Justice Kennedy to vote with them, not always of course, but enough to make a difference. E.J. Dionne is a Washington progressive columnist and commentator who is also very objective and whose political judgement has my respect. He's a partisan in the good sense, someone who states his views but then backs them up, and he's not a political attack dog who attacks conservative Republicans just to attack them.

Elena Kagan also just turned 50 years old and could definitely serve 25-30 years on the Supreme Court if she stays healthy. I don't know much about Elena Kagan, other than that she served for then Senator Joe Biden when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Biden is a liberal Democrat for whom I have a lot of respect.  Elena Kagan also served in the Clinton White House, again more liberal Democrats for whom I have a lot of respect.

In many ways, despite the bad plate of food (like a typical meal in solitary confinement in prison) that Barack Obama inherited as President, so far in some ways he's lucky, because he has an opportunity to replace two liberals on the Supreme Court with two liberals as well as a Democratic controlled Senate in his first 2 years as President. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The White House: President Barack Obama- Slams Arizona Immigration Bill

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama, slamming the Arizona immigration bill, at The Rose Garden, at The White House.

"Barack Obama slammed Arizona's immigration bill and supported amnesty at a naturalization ceremony held at the White House on April 23, 2010."

From No Blather

The Arizona immigration bill is obviously a discriminatory, anti-Latino bill, because it simply singles out people that ignorant Arizonans could view as illegal, simply because of their physical appearance. We need a comprehensive immigration reform law which is what I get into her.

So what would I do?  I've said before it's easier to complain about something than to fix it.  I would have a comprehensive approach to fixing the illegal Immigration problem like the Affordable Care Act's reform of our health care system.

Boarder Security-

Increase the number of Boarder Patrol agents on the Southern border, so we have enough resources to protect that border adequately.  Collect dedicated revenue for Customs and the Border Patrol through a fee charged for  border crossings into America from Mexico, Canada, and other countries.

Employer Fines-

Place steep fines on employers who hire illegal immigrants and pay them below minimum wage.  Adjust the amount of the fine for the severity of the violation and the wealth of the company.

Employment Visa-

Since America is a country where people are expected to work and produce as part of living here and we don't have the resources to subsidize anybody who's not capable of supporting themselves, I would only admit immigrants who are capable of working and qualified to do a job needed here.   I would withhold their eligibility for unemployment insurance or welfare until they're citizens of the United States.

Probational Residency-

Since America is a nation of laws, I'm not for giving the 15M or so illegal immigrants who are in America amnesty for entering our country illegally. That contradicts the Rule of Law but I'm also not for attempting to kick out all of these people because it's simply impractical and inhumane.  I would bring these people out of the dark into the light of America and give them a chance at a normal life under the following conditions:


They pay a fine based on the length of time they've been in the country illegally.  If they can't pay it at once, installment plans would be available.

They pay all back taxes to Federal, State and local governments that they might have avoided as illegal immigrants, plus penalties and interest.

They become proficient in the English language so they can better assimilate and improve their employment chances.

In addition, illegal immigrants should be required to get a Probational Residency ID Card that would have to  be carried on their person like a driver's license and renewed every year.   Renewal of the card would be based on their ability to meet the conditions of Probational Residency. If they meet the conditions, they can stay for at least another year.  If not, they would be subject to immediate deportation.

These conditions would include a requirement to hold a job or have a private sector sponsor who can support then.  After 10 years, if they've met all of the conditions of Probational Residency, they would be granted legal immigrant status and allowed to move towards citizenship.  If they've met all conditions except for reparation of back taxes, interest, penalties, and fines, they could remain in the country while their paying off their financial obligations as long as they're not felons and employed.  They would be subject to annual review until they reach legal immigrant status.

I think this Comprehensive Approach to solving our illegal immigration problem is more practical and humane than attempting airtight closure of the borders and deportation of15M illegal immigrants.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The White House: 'President Obama Signs Health Reform Into Law'

Source:The White House- President Barack Obama, signing the 2010 Affordable Care Act. And to paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden: it's a big freakin deal.

"President Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a historic piece of legislation that will expand health insurance coverage to millions of Americans and put an end to the worst insurance industry practices."

From The White House

What do I think of the Affordable Health Care Act?  Well to be brief, and I guess this is simplistic, I would say that it is the best health care reform bill that could've been passed in this Congress. As a liberal, I believe in private enterprise and capitalism and open competition, as well as freedom of choice.  Thats what the public option would've brought, another option not a mandate like a single payer system.  Americans could choose  where to get their health insurance among providers who would compete fairly in the private market.

It's not a Medicare system for all, which would force everyone in the country to purchase Medicare whether they wanted it or not.  It offers a tax credit for employers and people who aren't eligible for Medicare and Medicaid that goes a long way toward seeing that these people are able to afford health insurance.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Health Care Act will provide health insurance to an additional 30M Americans who currently don't have it.

Other than the tax credit to purchase health insurance, the best part of the Health Care Act, along with the fact that it's totally paid for (according to CBO) and won't add a penny to our national debt, is that it has a Patients Bill of Rights.  This was debated in Congress ten years ago.  New federal regulations  prevent health insurers from abusing their customers and sitting on their profits instead of providing health insurance, which is their primary purpose.

No longer will health insurers be able to dump patients who have pre-existing conditions or just because they are sick and need their health insurance. No more caps on the amount of health insurance claims over a lifetime. Health insurers are required to spend a certain percentage of their profits on patient care.  They'll actually have to provide health insurance for  patients instead of sitting on their profits.

I'm a Liberal and I believe in freedom.   Part of freedom is economic freedom, the ability of people to set their own course in life.  People need to be able to make money to do that.  Economic freedom provides freedom of choice so that people can decide for themselves where to get the services they need in their lives.  A big part of that, of course. is health insurance, the ability to pay for your own health care.

The Health Care Act supports this by stripping away the most common abuses committed by the private health insurers.   It improves the private health insurance market so that people of modest means, but who aren't poor, will now have the resources to decide for themselves where to get their health insurance, just like upper middle class and upper class people can. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The White House: President Barack Obama- The 2010 State of the Union Address

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) delivering the 2010 State of the Union address.

"President Obama speaks about restoring security for middle class families after a lost decade of declining wages, eroding retirement security and escalating health care and tuition costs. January 27, 2010" 

From The White House 

I realize that we’re past the 365-day mark of the Barack Obama presidency and we’re probably around the 400-day mark but I want to lay out in this post how I believe the first year of the Obama Presidency has gone so far.

As we all know, when Barack Obama became President in January 2009, he inherited several awful problems that he had to deal with right away. On the domestic side, he inherited a deep recession of  -7% economic growth, where we were losing 700,000 jobs per month, roughly the population of Columbus, Ohio, one of the largest cities in America, which now has a 10% unemployment rate. He inherited a budget deficit of over $1 trillion and a national debt of over $10 trillion.  So that’s what was on the plate for Barack Obama and his Administration when he became President, facing two strikes with not a lot of room to make mistakes.  To grow on the job he had to make a lot of quick decisions with Congress right off the bat without much room for error.

It’s easy to blame the other guy when you are President and in a tough situation, but that’s not leadership.  Part of leadership is facing the problem and solving it the best way possible.  Putting the country back on a path of prosperity for better or worse is now the Barack Obama Administration’s problem.  His foreign, domestic, and fiscal problems come with being a leader responsible for his actions.

They did pass the 2009 Recovery Act and it was written quickly and could have been designed a lot better.  I would have put in around $400 billion for infrastructure spending, especially since the Corps of Engineers says we need about $500 billion of repairs across the country.  We also need small-business tax relief and capital gains tax relief.  

If we are going to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from China and other nations, we might as well put that money to the best use possible and plan a payroll tax holiday to encourage hiring and double the Make Work Pay Tax Credit to $1,000 per individual and $2,000 for couples to encourage consumer spending.

On foreign policy, as I said before, I think the Obama national security team screwed up the GITMO situation by announcing they would close that military prison without finding an alternative location for these terrorist inmates.  But I think President Obama has done a good job with Afghanistan, conducting a review of the Afghan War instead of just announcing his own policy from day one without having all the facts. And once he had all the facts, he announced an Afghan surge and sent in an additional 30,000 troops. 

Also, President Obama has made it clear to the world that although America is back as a partner, this doesn’t mean that America will be dictated to on foreign policy or anything else.  It does mean we are attempting to garner cooperation where we can.

So overall I would give President Obama an A- for his handling of foreign policy, with the minus applied to GITMO. Overall I would give the President a B because he could have done better on economic and fiscal policy.  But it’s his first year and he’s learning.  He’s off to a good start with a lot of potential to improve.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

C-SPAN: President Obama's Address to Congress on Health Care Reform (2009)

Source:CSPAN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress, on health care reform.

"Pres. Obama delivers his health reform program to a joint session of Congress." 

From CSPAN 

When the health care reform debate started earlier this year, President Obama made the political calculation that he would delegate the health care reform issue to the unpopular Democratic Congress and let the congressional Democratic Leadership figure out and take the heat for whatever problems and issues could arise, such as the Congressional Budget Office scoring the Senate health care bill at over $1 trillion of borrowed money, not a single dime of it paid for, or the fact that the House Democratic Caucus would be divided.

The House Democratic health care bill was scored by CBO at $900 billion, with a $500 billion tax increase in a struggling economy that's just starting to come out of the Great Recession.  The fiscally conservative House Blue Dog Caucus doesn't like tax increases in a struggling economy and they represent 52 members, or one-fifth of the House Democratic Caucus, enough by themselves to kill any health care bill or any other bill on their own along with the 176-member House Republican Caucus.

One problem with delegating the health care reform issue to the Democratic Leadership is that they delegated the issue to the so-called House Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus, as I call them), which represents another 50 members of the House Democratic Caucus, which wrote a socialist style health care reform bill that included the $500 billion tax hike as well as another big tax hike on employers who don't provide health insurance to their employees.

Another problem with the Democratic Socialists' bill is that only a small minority on this far-left fringe of the American political spectrum supports their bill and a large portion of the American public is terrified of the Democratic Socialists' bill, which has scared a lot of Americans away from health care reform.  If health care reform goes down in 2009, it will be because of this one fatal mistake that President Obama made in early 2009.

So going into tonight's speech to Congress and the American people, President Obama had five tasks, as I see it:

(1) Lay down his vision to Congress and Americans of health care reform in a clear and concise way.

(2) Bring back those independent voters who voted for him in 2008 who have been scared away from health care reform because of the House Democratic Socialists' bill as well as the Republican opposition and congressional minority and their allies.

(3) Reach out to the House Blue Dog Caucus as well as the Senate Center-Left Democrats by explaining he wouldn't sign a health care reform bill that isn't paid for and explaining his vision of what a public health insurance option looks like, and that it wouldn't have any unfair advantages over private health insurers.

(4) Reach out to Democratic Socialists in the House by making it clear he supports a public option.

(5) Reach out to senior voters by making clear to them that he wouldn't sign any health care reform bill that hurts Medicare.

I believe President Obama accomplished all five of these tasks tonight.  I thought it was a great speech and hopefully it will move the ball forward towards real health care reform in 2009.  Now it's time to get it done.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

VOA News: Sonia Sotomayor- Nominated For The U.S. Supreme Court

Source:VOA News- President Barack Obama, nominating U.S. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, for the U.S. Supreme Court.

"President Barack Obama nominated federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to replace retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed by the Senate, Judge Sotomayor would be the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice and would become the second woman justice on the nine-member high court. Sotomayor's appointment is not expected to change the political divide on the court because she would replace a retiring liberal justice. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone reports from Washington."

From VOA News

Justice David Souter was considered by then President George H.W. Bush to be the next conservative Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Ha!  He was the best mistake that President Bush could have made, in my opinion as a Liberal, because he was the opposite of what President Bush had in mind when he appointed him to the bench.

President Bush still gets flack from right-wingers today about the Souter nomination, about everything from civil rights, labor rights, environmental protection, to choice, civil liberties, keeping our streets safe, to protecting speech, to keeping America a republic rather then a theocracy, or to defending the U.S. Constitution.  Justice Souter was there defending the values that some Americans take for granted.

So how should President Obama fill the seat that Justice Souter will leave behind. For one, he should find someone who has values similar to those of Justice Souter, believing in the U.S. Constitution and America and defending it every day and every minute he/she is on the Supreme Court.

I realize that African-Americans have had two appointments, Jewish-Americans have had two appointments, Italian-Americans have had two appointments, women have had two appointments, and now that Latino Americans represent 12.5% of the American population, you can make the case that their time has come as well.

But it would be an insult to Latino Americans as well as America as a whole to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who is not qualified regardless of their racial or ethnic background. The idea is to nominate the best person for the job and someone who represents your values the best.  Then, if that person is Latino, great, but that should not be the primary standard for nomination.

So what am I getting at? Well, a couple of things. I'm not a lawyer (in case you missed the memo), but the job of any Justice is to interpret laws, not write them, and not to legislate from the bench.  Legislating is the job of elected legislators (or lobbyists).  Justices are supposed to judge the constitutionality of laws and what they mean, not how they should have been written.

Democrats control the White House and Senate, so they get to decide who is appointed to the bench and who gets confirmed. Liberals believe, and I'm one of them, that it's time for an appointment that we like, not a centrist, especially since President W. Bush got exactly who he wanted on the Supreme Court in John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But I want a real liberal, not a social democrat but someone who understands the real world and the U.S. Constitution and doesn't try to make it up as he goes along.

I'm not a huge fan of Judge Sonia Sotomayor and probably would not have appointed her, but judging from her professional background, she appears to have liberal tendencies, which is what you want if you are a Democrat appointing someone to the Supreme Court, but she also has a reputation as a tough prosecutor, which tells me she's not too far to the left.

Her ruling in the Connecticut firefighters case, and especially her short ruling to explain her decision, is troubling to me as a liberal who believes in equal rights for all, not just for some. But I'm not going to use one case to bring her down, especially when her legal record looks very good on the whole, which is why I believe she should and will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.