Obama Finds Foreign Affairs Do Not Bend to His Whims By Michael Barone
Foreign policy is hard. That's a lesson Barack Obama has been learning throughout his presidency. The world is not responding as he expected.
Foreign policy is hard. That's a lesson Barack Obama has been learning throughout his presidency. The world is not responding as he expected.
On Obamacare, as on immigration enforcement and welfare requirements, Barack Obama is following the course that cost King James II his throne. He is dispensing with the law.
As Americans, we tend to believe we have the right to do whatever we want, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. But sometimes the lines get a little blurry.
Obamacare is going ahead. It's happening, and concerted efforts by its foes to scare the public and otherwise delegitimize the health care reforms will be ultimately futile. That doesn't mean that Republican opponents won't try. The question is why, other than crude political posturing, would they want the Affordable Care Act to fail?
You pay taxes? You contributed to the $2 billion your government gave Egypt this year. And last year. And every year -- for 30 years. Most of it went to Egypt's military. How's that worked out?
"Leading from behind" would seem the right place for America to be in the complex crisis engulfing Egypt. But critics want President Obama up front, telling the Egyptians what's what.
Sen. John McCain complains on a Sunday talk show that Egypt's second coup in 2 1/2 years is "a strong indicator of the lack of American leadership, and influence, since we urged the military not to do that."
What's the outlook for the 2014 Senate elections? The Republicans once again have a chance to overturn the Democrats' majority, as they did in 2010 and 2012.
We call events caused by extreme weather "natural disasters" when they hit human-built environments. Had there been no shoreline civilization in Superstorm Sandy's East Coast path, we would not have called the happening a "natural disaster," but "nature." The whole thing would have been little more than an exceptionally rainy day.
Our nation's 237th birthday is being celebrated in many ways that have become familiar over the years. Fifteen percent of Americans will watch a parade; 29 percent will sing patriotic songs; 63 percent will enjoy a cookout with family and friends; 78 percent are likely to see fireworks.
The Fourth of July is always an occasion to think about what the United States of America has been, is and will be. A good way to reflect on that is to pick up a copy of "America 3.0" by James Bennett and Michael Lotus and ponder its lessons.
Like many men who volunteered for the U.S. Army in World War II, my late father never boasted about his years in uniform. A patriot to his core, he nevertheless despised what he called the "jelly-bellied flag flappers." But in the decade or so before he passed away, he began to sport a small, eagle-shaped pin on his lapel, known as a "ruptured duck." Displaying the mark of his military service said that this lifelong liberal loved his country as much as any conservative -- and had proved it.
Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistleblower, is either a hero or a traitor. We’ve heard him described both ways in no uncertain terms. So which is it? I’ve been withholding judgment, I thought, based on needing more facts. Yet no matter how many facts come out about the case, I remain ambivalent. In the Snowden situation, I believe we have encountered a paradox.
Many libertarians, outraged by how our government spies on us, call me a "traitor" because I'm not very angry. I understand that the National Security Administration tracking patterns in our emails and phone calls could put us on a terrible, privacy-crushing slippery slope.
Among the many reasons that Americans hold the House of Representatives in low repute -- at historically abysmal levels, in fact -- is the blatantly partisan and ideological misconduct of so many committee chairs. Without any evident embarrassment these mighty politicians deny science, defy mathematics and dismiss every fact that contradicts their prejudices. But bad as these chairs tend to be, none is quite as flamboyantly awful as Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, a special investigative panel whose latest effort to conjure scandal from nothingness at the Internal Revenue Service would provoke his removal by a responsible leadership.
A trip to London provides an occasion to compare and contrast British politics and attitudes with those in America.
This has been a big week for the Supreme Court. In four separate cases, it applied stricter scrutiny to racial quotas and preferences in higher education, overturned part of the Voting Rights Act, ruled unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act and dismissed an appeal of a case overturning California voters' ban on same-sex marriage.
In addition to being a fine actor, James Gandolfini was smart and rich. He could afford the best medical care the West has to offer and understand the stakes of being so overweight and stressed. Yet he let his weight balloon in an orgy of careless eating and drinking. Did he think himself invincible or assume that he had time to deal with health issues later, his age being only 51? Surely a doctor somewhere read him the riot act, so why didn't he make health a priority?
On Dec. 1, 1955, a churchgoing woman of character refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Ala. Many credit Rosa Parks' courageous action that day with launching the civil rights movement. While I have great respect for what Ms. Parks did that day, however, she did not start the civil rights movement. The movement began long before, and public opinion led the way.
The two political parties are in disarray. The Democrats are disheartened. The Republicans are disunited.
The instinct for survival is coded into the DNA of every living creature, and the Internal Revenue Service is made up of thousands of human beings with that instinct. As a single department of the government leviathan, the IRS is a good example, too, of the collective survival instinct of the federal government.