• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Obama

A fitting end to 2018

31 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, maroon, Obama, social media, the wall, Twitter

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Seriously?

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!
3:59 PM – 30 Dec 2018

Eh, what a maroon.

The reality:

Trump claims there’s a 10-foot wall around the Obamas’ D.C. home. He is wrong.
By Michael Brice-Saddler
December 31 at 3:28 PM

In one of his most recent arguments for a southern border wall, President Trump on Sunday falsely claimed that the Washington home of former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama is surrounded by a 10-foot wall….

Someone bothered to check.

Exactly this

25 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#resist, guns, Kansas City, missouri, NRA, Obama, Sly James, social media

Kansas City Mayor Sly James (D) [2016 file photo].

Yesterday, via Twitter:

🐺@WolfJeremyR
Mayor, can you explain why gun sales skyrocketed from 2008-2016, and then slowed in 2017?
1:27 PM – 24 Feb 2018

Kansas City Mayor Sly James’ (d) response:

Mayor Sly James‏ @MayorSlyJames
Yeah. Fear of having a Democrat Black President is one reason.
[….]
1:32 PM – 24 Feb 2018

Yep.

White House Petition: make Trump pay for the wall, and have Mexico reimburse him personally

08 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Mexico, Obama, Petition, trolling, wall, White House

A petition at the White House site:

We the people ask the federal government to Take or explain a position on an issue or policy:
Make Trump Pay For the Wall, and Have Mexico Reimburse Him Personally.
Created by A.C. on January 06, 2017

Donald Trump recently told reporters that Mexico would reimburse American taxpayers for the cost of building and maintaining his proposed border wall “later.” This course of action would be in direct contradiction to his campaign promise that Mexico would pay to build a southern border wall at no cost to American citizens.
Instead of placing the economic burden on American families (estimated at $25 Billion, without including yearly maintenance costs), we ask that Donald Trump use his vast economic resources to finance the construction of the wall, and arrange for Mexico to pay him back directly.

This would avoid placing an undue economic burden on the American taxpayer, while maintaining one of his key campaign promises.

Budget & Taxes, Homeland Security & Defense, Immigration
Needs 96,107 signatures by February 5, 2017 to get a response from the White House
3,893 signed

The first mistake anyone made was in believing any of his campaign promises.

It’s speculation on my part, but the probability that the coming occupation of the White House will continue this petition process approaches zero. That’s sad, because it’s an easily accessible and harmless way for people to vent. And troll.

The coming occupant of the White House and his minions are quite sensitive to trolling. There are other and more effective ways to do so.

Brawndo! It’s got electrolytes!

29 Thursday Sep 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, missouri, Obama, Roy Blunt, U.S. Senate, veto

Last week from President Obama:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 23, 2016

Veto Message from the President — S.2040

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism.

I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have suffered grievously. I also have a deep appreciation of these families’ desire to pursue justice and am strongly committed to assisting them in their efforts.

Consistent with this commitment, over the past 8 years, I have directed my Administration to pursue relentlessly al Qa’ida, the terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks. The heroic efforts of our military and counterterrorism professionals have decimated al-Qa’ida’s leadership and killed Osama bin Laden. My Administration also strongly supported, and I signed into law, legislation which ensured that those who bravely responded on that terrible day and other survivors of the attacks will be able to receive treatment for any injuries resulting from the attacks. And my Administration also directed the Intelligence Community to perform a declassification review of “Part Four of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11,” so that the families of 9/11 victims and broader public can better understand the information investigators gathered following that dark day of our history.

Notwithstanding these significant efforts, I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured. My Administration therefore remains resolute in its commitment to assist these families in their pursuit of justice and do whatever we can to prevent another attack in the United States. Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. As drafted, JASTA would allow private litigation against foreign governments in U.S. courts based on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad made them responsible for terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil. This legislation would permit litigation against countries that have neither been designated by the executive branch as state sponsors of terrorism nor taken direct actions in the United States to carry out an attack here. The JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why I am returning it without my approval.

First, JASTA threatens to reduce the effectiveness of our response to indications that a foreign government has taken steps outside our borders to provide support for terrorism, by taking such matters out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts.

Any indication that a foreign government played a role in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a matter of deep concern and merits a forceful, unified Federal Government response that considers the wide range of important and effective tools available. One of these tools is designating the foreign government in question as a state sponsor of terrorism, which carries with it a litany of repercussions, including the foreign government being stripped of its sovereign immunity before U.S. courts in certain terrorism-related cases and subjected to a range of sanctions. Given these serious consequences, state sponsor of terrorism designations are made only after national security, foreign policy, and intelligence professionals carefully review all available information to determine whether a country meets the criteria that the Congress established.

In contrast, JASTA departs from longstanding standards and practice under our Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and threatens to strip all foreign governments of immunity from judicial process in the United States based solely upon allegations by private litigants that a foreign government’s overseas conduct had some role or connection to a group or person that carried out a terrorist attack inside the United States. This would invite consequential decisions to be made based upon incomplete information and risk having different courts reaching different conclusions about the culpability of individual foreign governments and their role in terrorist activities directed against the United States — which is neither an effective nor a coordinated way for us to respond to indications that a foreign government might have been behind a terrorist attack.

Second, JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if applied globally, could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. The United States has a larger international presence, by far, than any other country, and sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel.

Indeed, reciprocity plays a substantial role in foreign relations, and numerous other countries already have laws that allow for the adjustment of a foreign state’s immunities based on the treatment their governments receive in the courts of the other state. Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials — including our men and women in uniform — for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. This could lead to suits against the United States or U.S. officials for actions taken by members of an armed group that received U.S. assistance, misuse of U.S. military equipment by foreign forces, or abuses committed by police units that received U.S. training, even if the allegations at issue ultimately would be without merit. And if any of these litigants were to win judgments — based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts — they would begin to look to the assets of the U.S. Government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States.

Third, JASTA threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners. If JASTA were enacted, courts could potentially consider even minimal allegations accusing U.S. allies or partners of complicity in a particular terrorist attack in the United States to be sufficient to open the door to litigation and wide-ranging discovery against a foreign country — for example, the country where an individual who later committed a terrorist act traveled from or became radicalized. A number of our allies and partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the bill. By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their cooperation on key national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions.

The 9/11 attacks were the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil, and they were met with an unprecedented U.S. Government response. The United States has taken robust and wide-ranging actions to provide justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and keep Americans safe, from providing financial compensation for victims and their families to conducting worldwide counterterrorism programs to bringing criminal charges against culpable individuals. I have continued and expanded upon these efforts, both to help victims of terrorism gain justice for the loss and suffering of their loved ones and to protect the United States from future attacks. The JASTA, however, does not contribute to these goals, does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.

For these reasons, I must veto the bill.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 23, 2016.

[emphasis added]

Both houses of Congress overrode the President’s veto.

In the U.S. Senate:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress – 2nd Session
Question: On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Bill S. 2040 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? )
Vote Number: 148
Vote Date: September 28, 2016, 12:02 PM
Required For Majority: 2/3
Vote Result: Veto Overridden
Measure Number: S. 2040 (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act )
Measure Title: A bill to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:YEAs 97 NAYs 1 Not Voting 2
[….]
Missouri:
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis added]

In the U.S. House:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 564
S 2040      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      28-Sep-2016      3:01 PM
QUESTION:  On Passage, The Objections of the President to the Contrary Notwithstanding
BILL TITLE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

—- YEAS    348 —
Cleaver
Graves (MO)
Long
Luetkemeyer
Smith (MO)
Wagner

—- NAYS    77 —
Clay
Hartzler

Strange company.

Then the republican Senate Majority Leader suddenly discovered:

White House Slams Congress for ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ Over 9/11 Bill
By Ali Rogin and Arlette Saenz
Sep 29, 2016, 6:46 PM ET

….Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed the White House for not doing enough to express its own concerns about the legislation to Congress.

“That was a good example, it seems to me, of failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation that was obviously very popular,” he said. “I told the president that this was an example of an issue we should have talked about much earlier.”

But he also acknowledged that, in their zeal to support the families of 9/11 victims, lawmakers themselves did not fully consider the potential consequences of passing a bill that might leave the U.S. open to similar litigation.

“By the time everybody seemed to focus on the potential consequences of it, members had basically already taken a position,” he said. “Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but no one had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationship.”

Earnest had a different characterization for what happened.

“The suggestion on this part of some members of the Senate is that they didn’t know what they were voting for. They didn’t understand the negative consequences of the bill. That’s a hard suggestion to take seriously,” Earnest said….

[emphasis added]

Failure to communicate? Uh, next time read the veto message.

Ladies and gentlemen, your republican run U.S. Congress.

President Obama: about that Supreme Court nomination

30 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Obama, Supreme Court

President Obama’s weekly address:

The transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
April 30, 2016

Hi, everybody. It’s now been 45 days since I nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland is a man of experience, integrity, and unimpeachable qualifications. Judge Garland is someone who Senate Republicans are on record saying is “a man of accomplishment and keen intellect;” a man who’s “honest and capable;” a man whose “reputation is beyond reproach.” Those are all quotes from Republicans in the Senate.

But so far, most Senate Republicans have refused to even meet with Judge Garland. Which means they’ve also refused to do their job and hold a hearing on his nomination, or an up-or-down vote. But they’ve still found time to head home for recess over the next week.

This is an abdication of the Senate’s responsibility. Every Supreme Court nominee since 1875 who hasn’t withdrawn from the process has received a hearing or a vote. For over 40 years, there’s been an average of 67 days between a nomination and a hearing. This time should be no different. This is not about partisan politics – it’s about upholding the institutions that make our democracy work.

There’s a reason Judge Garland has earned the respect of people from both political parties. As a young lawyer, he left a lucrative private firm to work in public service. He went to oversee the federal response to the Oklahoma City bombing. For the last 19 years, Judge Garland has served on the D.C. Circuit Court – often called “the Second Highest Court in the Land” – and for the past three years, he’s served as that court’s Chief Judge. In fact, Judge Merrick Garland has more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. With a brilliant mind, a kind spirit, and a good heart, he has dedicated his life to protecting our rights, and ensuring that the voices of everyday Americans are heard.

So there is absolutely no reason for Republican Senators to deny him the basic courtesy of a hearing and a vote – the same courtesy that has been extended to others. This refusal to treat a Supreme Court nomination with the seriousness it deserves is what makes people so cynical about Washington. That’s why poll after poll shows a majority of Americans think Senate Republicans should do their job; give Judge Garland a hearing; and give Judge Garland a vote.

For all of our political differences, Americans understand that what unites us is far greater than what divides us. And in the middle of a volatile political season, it is more important than ever that we fulfill our duties – in good faith – as public servants. The Supreme Court must remain above partisan politics. I’ve done my job – I nominated someone as qualified as Merrick Garland. Now it’s time for the Senate to do their job. Give Judge Garland a hearing. Give Judge Garland an up-or-down vote. Treat him – and our democracy – with the respect they deserve.

Thanks for listening, and have a great weekend.

###

Somehow we’re still not convinced that Senator Roy Blunt (r) is inclined to listen.

Previously:

Originalism in a time of argle-bargle (February 14, 2016)

Jason Kander (D): the Supreme Court and Roy Blunt (r) (February 15, 2016)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): can’t be bothered to even attempt to appear to do his job (February 23, 2016)

Jason Kander (D) to Roy Blunt (r): #DoYourJob (February 25, 2016)

Tell Roy Blunt to do his job (March 4, 2016)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r) won’t do his job and the sun also rises (March 17, 2016)

President Obama: on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court (March 20, 2016)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the Harper Valley PTA

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, missouri, Nancy Reagan, Obama, social media, Twitter, Vicky Hartzler

…Well, this is just a little Peyton Place and you’re all Harper Valley hypocrites…

Today on Twitter from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r)

VickyHartzler030816

Rep. Vicky Hartzler‏@RepHartzler
Cant believe @POTUS is skipping former First Lady’s funeral. This insult adds to his classless actions skipping Justice Scalia’s. So sad. 3:50 PM – 8 Mar 2016

Someone else has an opinion about being sadly classless:

LeeLeslie030816

Lee Leslie ‏@leeleslie
@RepHartzler @POTUS Lets save our outrage for something more deserving. George W. Bush didn’t attend Lady Bird Jonson’s funeral either. 4:00 PM – 8 Mar 2016

That’s easy enough to check.

Selective outrage doesn’t wear well on anyone in public life in the information age.

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): can’t be bothered to even attempt to appear to do his job

23 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

missouri, Obama, Obstructionism, Roy Blunt, social media, Supreme Court, Twitter

Today from Senator Roy Blunt (r), via Twitter:

SenatorBlunt022316

Senator Roy Blunt‏@RoyBlunt
As usual, WH gets it wrong. Again, Senate shouldn’t confirm SCOTUS justice until we have a new president. I will not vote for Obama nominee. 2:18 PM – 23 Feb 2016

Some of the responses:

ChairQueen022316

thechairqueen ‏@thechairqueen
@RoyBlunt while you are busy doing nothing, maybe take that time to read the Constitution. #scotus 8:10 PM – 23 Feb 2016

TheStandard022316

The Standard ‏@nffc65
.@RoyBlunt so basically you refuse to do the job you are being paid for? 8:11 PM – 23 Feb 2016

MichaelThurman022316

Michael Thurman ‏@smichaelthurman
@RoyBlunt You’ve got to be embarrassed for your self, right? Come on… 3:06 PM – 23 Feb 2016

Nah, nothing every embarrasses Senator Roy Blunt.

There’s plenty more where that came from.

Previously:

Jason Kander (D): the Supreme Court and Roy Blunt (r) (February 15, 2016)

Clarity in a time of right wingnut political fog (February 15, 2016)

Because words that criticize bad behavior are so much more harsh than airstrikes?

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Attorney General, Daesh, guns, Kurt Schaefer, missouri, Obama, social media, Twitter

Via Twitter last night from one of the 2016 republican candidates for Attorney General:

Schaefer120615

Kurt U. Schaefer
‏@KurtUSchaefer If Obama would combat radical Islamic terrorism as aggressively as he combats the 2nd Amendment, ISIS could’ve been contained long ago. 8:05 PM – 6 Dec 2015

Ladies and gentleman, what passes for a leading intellectual light in your Missouri republican party.

What a maroon.

Winning the Internets

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Denali, GOP, Obama

Via Twitter:

Top Conservative Cat ‏@TeaPartyCat

After Obama renamed Mt. McKinley to Denali, House GOP votes to name a molehill Mt. McKinley to symbolize their outrage. 10:41 PM – 1 Sep 2015

Heh.

Curiously, it’s not affixed to a Lexus

17 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bumper stickers, missouri, Obama

Spotted today on a vehicle in west central Missouri:

If this had been about dubya’s presidency it would have shown the currency as body bags.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 736,295 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...