Today In BS: “Obama Closing The Vatican Embassy”

?Image via the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Talking Points Memo:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee launched a petition last week to protest what it described as the "latest anti-religion pursuit" by the Obama administration, but it looks like the group is already abandoning its crusade.

A webpage that took aim at President Obama for his "plans to close the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican" is nowhere to be found on the NRSC's website. The original URL now directs back to the NRSC's homepage…

But the embassy isn't actually closing. It's re-locating to a larger U.S. compound in Rome, a move that will save more than $1.4 million and bolster security. Vatican officials even dismissed the re-location as a non-issue.

The language of the National Republican Senatorial Committee's petition, now deleted, didn't mince words:

The media is reporting that President Obama plans to close the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican. This is just the latest anti-religion pursuit of this Administration, a slap in the face to Catholic-Americans around the country that weakens America’s position as a global leader.

Except, as CNN explains:

A spokesman for the Vatican said the move was well within the Holy See's requirements for embassies and that relations with the United States are far from strained.

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Canadian priest who works with the Vatican's press office, said the Vatican requires foreign embassies to the Holy See be separate from the country's mission to Italy, have a separate address and have a separate entrance.

Both Rosica and the senior State Department official said the proposed U.S. move satisfies those requirements.

Rosica also praised Ken Hackett, the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, telling CNN that "at this critical time in history, he brings eminent credentials to represent the United States to the Vatican."

A conservative blog here in Colorado joined in this apparently coordinated hit, quoting Colorado resident, former Vatican ambassador, and former Republican National Committee chairman Jim Nicholson of Colorado saying, "[Obama is] turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy." Colorado Peak Politics warned darkly, "this is just the latest in a series of controversial moves by the Obama administration the week of Thanksgiving, when many Americans aren’t paying attention."

Only problem is, the Monday after this story was spread around every Catholic Thanksgiving table in America, it turned out to be a bunch of bull. And while some might eventually learn that it was never true, it's just another case of spreading BS, and hoping it spreads farther than the fact-checking.

Unfortunately, that works quite often.

View the original article here

Coffman may take personal legal action against Obama

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Mike Coffman announced Tues. that he may file a personal lawsuit against President Barack Obama over what Coffman sees as Obama's abuse of power.

Speaking on KHOW radio's Mandy Connell show, Coffman said America is in a "Constitutional crisis" due to Obama's "abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion."

Obama is "creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government," Coffman said on air. (Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he's considering legal action against Obama.)

"My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration," said Coffman on the radio. "It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them."

On the radio, Coffman was unclear about the specific instances of prosecutorial discretion would be the focus of his legal action.

In June, Coffman voted to strip "Dreamers," undocumented immigrants brought to this country illegally by their parents, of work permits and start deporting them, because, Coffman said, Obama over-stepped his authority in allowing immigration officials to defer deportation of them. (Yet, Coffman is also opposed to comprehensive-immigration-reform legislation, passed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, and he has yet to propose a specific plan that he would support.)

On KHOW, Coffman said he believes Obama exceeded his authority in lifting "certain elements of the [Iran] sanctions," in deciding that governors had some discretion under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and in implementing Obamacare.

One wonders what else Coffman is thinking of. Relaxing some federal drug enforcement measures relating to Colorado's marijuana statutes? (unlikely since Coffman has signed on to a bill allowing banks to conduct business with dispensaries). Maybe Coffman is also upset about Coffman's approach to DOMA?

Reporters might explore the irony that Coffman is wasting time with a hail-Mary lawsuit trying to stop Obama from getting stuff done via executive orders, which Obama has arguably been forced to use thanks to Coffman and his fellow obstructionist House Republicans.

Partial Transcript of Rep. Mike Coffman's Appearance on KHOW Nov. 26, 2013

Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he's considering legal action against Obama

Coffman: I think this country is in a Constitutional crisis because of this President's ability or abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion, and basically creating law by not enforcing existing law, creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government.

Connell: …One of my great frustrations with the Republicans DC is that there does not seem to be a concerted effort to push back against these exact Constitutional abuses that you are talking about. Is this something that comes up in the Caucus about if there's any strategy. There has to be some way to tell the President of the United States that he cannot just on a whim choose to enforce or not enforce pieces of legislation that have been created by the Congress.

Coffman: My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them.

View the original article here

Gardner says Obama doing “everything he can” to stop America from abiding by the “rule of law”

View the original article here

Putin Bails Out Obama on Syria?

Vladimir rides to the rescue?

The latest turn of events as the Obama administration confronts the use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war is interesting to say the least, as the UK Guardian reports:

Barack Obama welcomed a Russian proposal on Monday for Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control, opening up the first real chance of a political settlement to the crisis since hundreds of civilians died in an attack on a Damascus suburb last month.

In a series of primetime television interviews, Obama described Russia's offer as a "possible breakthrough" and a "potentially positive development" in the standoff with the regime of Bashar al-Assad. With the prospect of a deal with the Syrians in the offing, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid postponed a crucial vote to authorise military action. Obama conceded in an NBC interview on Monday night that he might lose his campaign in Congress for authorisation. "I wouldn't say I'm confident" of the outcome, he said, adding that he had not decided what to do if it voted against him.

Russia's proposal came after an apparent stumble by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, which set off a diplomatic scramble in Washington as administration officials sought to assess whether it offered a way out for Obama from what has become an increasingly intractable problem.

Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly made a less-than serious suggestion that Syria "hand over its chemical weapons within a week" to avoid an attack, which was taken seriously by the Russians. And it may be just as well, as the Boulder Daily Camera reports on the latest vote in Congress against taking action:

“The president has chosen to ask for the advice and counsel of Congress, and with my voice and my vote, I respond: do not attack Syria,” [Rep. Jared] Polis wrote.

He concluded that the use of chemical weapons in Syria deserves a response, but the reasons not to attack Syria and the risks of escalation outweigh the benefits from the proposed military action.

An attack on Syria doesn't make the American people safer, Polis wrote, and the possible death of innocent Syrian civilians as collateral damage from missile strikes may increase local and regional anti-Western sentiment — and risks increasing the ranks of terrorists.

Even President Barack Obama has now conceded that he may not have the votes in Congress to authorize military action against Syria. At the same time, if the crisis resolves in a way that prevents further use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, most preferably fully surrendering the weapons to Russia or another responsible nation, Obama can claim some victory there just for having threatened to attack.

One thing's for sure, times have changed since George W. Bush was President.

View the original article here

Obama Asks Congress For Permission To Bomb Syria

UPDATE: CBS4 Denver has a new report on fresh skepticism from Rep. Mike Coffman today, including an interesting new possible GOP line of attack: should Obama not have gone to Congress then?

Coffman says the delay in striking Assad has wasted precious time.

“The Assad government has had all the time in the world to move their assets around so they don’t present themselves as easy targets,” he said. [Pols emphasis]

Coffman is not gung-ho for a strike. Not until it’s proven to him it would not lead to a protracted military engagement. He also wonders if Assad is chased from power, what then?

This wouldn't be the first time President Obama has been damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, of course.

—–

US Navy photo

As the Washington Post reports:

Syria on Sunday gloated over a "historic American retreat," deriding President Barack Obama for his decision to delay what had appeared to be imminent military strikes and dealing a further blow to U.S. credibility among the Syrian opposition and its allies.

The announcement Saturday by Obama that he would seek congressional approval for any U.S. military intervention in Syria, effectively pushing back any potential strike for at least 10 days, was seized upon by Syrian officials and state media, presenting it as a victory for the regime…

Back on the home front, there's bipartisan support in the Colorado congressional delegation for President Barack Obama's choice to seek congressional approval ahead of any military action by the United States against Syria, though from our read of the statements issued by lawmakers, considerably less evident appetite for actually going to war. Colorado Springs Gazette:

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and Reps. Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, applauded the president's plan to put the matter before Congress.

"I approve of the president consulting with Congress and seeking congressional support on this important issue. I will be gathering many facts before making any decision," Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican, wrote in an email to The Gazette.

Bennet, a Democrat, also stressed in a statement to The Gazette the need for Congress to weigh its options carefully.

"Syria's use of chemical weapons is deplorable. Congress will review the evidence presented by the administration and hold a serious debate about options," he wrote. "We must consider the enormous challenges in the region and the complexity of the situation that includes a military already stretched thin, a nation in civil war, and a region in transition."

9NEWS carried reaction from Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis: 

Congressman Ed Perlmutter released the following statement after the president's remarks on Syria:

"I agree with President Obama on his decision to provide information to the American people about the horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria that killed at least a thousand innocent people including hundreds of children. It's important for Congress to assess this information and discuss what actions are appropriate to deter this kind of massacre in the future. As the President suggested, any action must be targeted and limited in scope."

Congressman Jared Polis released the following statement after the president's remarks on Syria:

"I look forward to studying the issue, understanding the case that the President makes, and making an informed vote. This is a serious responsibility, and since the President has chosen to consult us I will provide the best possible guidance to the President that I can in the form of my vote and advice regarding Syria."

Rep. Mike Coffman, via the Denver Post's Allison Sherry earlier in the week:

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, said he wouldn’t support extended involvement since the United States is not “in danger of an imminent attack.”

“I will support the president should he conduct a limited strike on Syria in order to deter (Syrian President) Assad from further use of chemical weapons, but I would not support involvement beyond that because this is an intractable sectarian struggle,” Coffman said.

We haven't seen a statement from Sen. Mark Udall since President Obama's speech this weekend, but as reported Wednesday:

"The president needs to explain his plan to the American people, who are understandably reluctant to support further military engagement in the Middle East. I have real concerns that any surgical strike could lead us into deeper involvement in a complicated civil war, but last week's attacks — and the Syrian regime's years-long war against its people — demonstrate that staying on the sidelines may carry risks just as grave," Udall said.

Rep. Cory Gardner:

"I am glad that President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval before any military action is taken in Syria. Allegations of chemical weapons use are extremely troubling, but the Constitution rightfully requires that any action taken by the US military receive Congressional approval.

"Committing to place our men and women in harms way is not something to be taken lightly. I will weigh the full evidence available and make a determination once I believe I have the information necessary to make an informed decision in the best interests of the United States."

Rep. Scott Tipton sounds a bit skeptical about the President's decision to ask for permission:

I'm pleased the President is seeking Congressional authorization for the use of military force. There may be a difference however between 'seeking' versus 'asking' for Congressional authorization, and before the President proceeds with any action, I hope that he will allow for equal debate in both the House and Senate on his plan and ultimately adhere to the outcome of the votes we will take.

But interestingly, Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette's statement seems the most skeptical of the actual proposal to go to war:

I welcome the President's decision to ask for congressional authority for the use of military force against the Syrian government. Although it is the President's duty to protect our national security, Congress has the constitutional responsibility and power to approve the use of military force, even if the United States or our interests have not been attacked.

Bottom line: the President's decision to ask permission before engaging in military action in Syria is extremely risky from a foreign policy viewpoint, as it leaves a decision as consequential as military action to the whim of perhaps the world's most famously dysfunctional body. The constitutional debate over the President's authority to take any military action without consulting Congress is unresolved, and the Obama administration has already tested the limits by committing American forces to action over Libya two years ago without congressional approval.

On the other hand, if Congress, particularly the GOP-controlled House, fails to deliver the authorization Obama is looking for, that could be powerful political ammunition for the president in his long fight against partisan obstruction. We shouldn't have to remind readers that Republicans and the institution of Congress as a whole are losing that fight, as evidenced by the body's historically low approval ratings. Will it take a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, one that could have been prevented by Congress taking action, to demonstrate to the public that Congress is no longer capable of doing its job?

These questions will factor heavily, rightly or wrongly, while debating the original point of whether to go to war.

View the original article here

Obama Administration Turns Blind Eye to Toxic Fracking Pollution

Fracking,fracking water supply,fracking fluid,texas,oil industry,fracking gag orders,fracking pollut

Fracking,fracking water supply,fracking fluid,texas,oil industry,fracking gag orders,fracking pollut

Likes0Downloads0Comments0Embed Views0Views on SlideShare0Total Views0

View the original article here

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg Defends The “Obama Rodeo Clown”

The rodeo clown in question.

FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports on another Colorado GOP proxy brouhaha:

It’s been more than a week since an incident at the Missouri State Fair involving a rodeo clown wearing a mask of President Obama drew claims of racism and reignited, however briefly, a national debate about race.

But on Wednesday morning, Colorado state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, took to Twitter to weigh in on the issue, echoing the irritation of many conservatives who have groaned at the media’s hypersensitivity to what was, to them, just a joke…

The NAACP called the clown’s mocking of President Obama a “hate crime”; and the Missouri State Fair fired the clown and moved to require sensitivity training for future entertainers.

While some lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, quickly condemned the incident, a number of conservatives have defended the clown — Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Tex., actually invited the clown to come perform in Texas — chided citizens who can’t take a harmless joke and, like Sonnenberg, sought to remind people of a long history of clowns mocking presidents.

Rep. Rhonda Fields of Aurora doesn't agree with Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg's dismissive attitude, telling FOX 31, "That’s something they used to do at KKK rallies. It’s not something anyone needs to get over." The fact is, while lampooning political leaders is an age-old specialty of clowns, so is making racist stereotypes. You can't hold everyone responsible for generations of historical prejudice, but you can't really forget about it, either. If that makes certain types of "making fun" less cool, well, that's just the way it is.

Other than a misguided Greg Brophy-esque desire to glom onto controversy, though, we can't think of a good reason for Sonnenberg to wade into this landmine-strewn debate. But maybe that's all this is, in which case, nice job or something, Rep. Sonnenberg! Your new career as a low budget AM shock jock is waiting.

View the original article here