Apparently this has been going on since 2010, but how do the Obama supporters defend this?
U.S. President Barack Obama issued a new executive order last week to fight human trafficking, touting his administration's handling of the issue.
"When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed -- that's slavery," Obama said in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. "It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we've long rejected such cruelty." But for the third year in a row, Obama has waived almost all U.S. sanctions that would punish certain countries that use child soldiers, upsetting many in the human rights community.
Late Friday afternoon, Obama issued a presidential memorandum waiving penalties under the Child Soldiers Protection Act of 2008 for Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen, penalties that Congress put in place to prevent U.S. arms sales to countries determined by the State Department to be the worst abusers of child soldiers in their militaries. The president also partially waived sanctions against the Democratic Republic of the Congo to allow some military training and arms sales to that country.
I have no idea. Its not uncommon for a bill to give the executive that kind of power. Depends on how its written really.
Sounds like he is acting like a republican. Ignoring social issues while letting big business do what it wants. But we can't forget that Obama is Super-Mecho-Stalin-Mao-Commie-Terrorist, and so clearly wouldn't do something like that.
The answer is easy: he's sacrificing principles for progress. Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist. If he follows the rules on child soldiers then he would have to withhold aid, and since those countries are fighting terrorists/fighting for stability, then holding back the aid could cause problems. In the case of The Congo, in the past he has been pretty strict with them so it looks like a "the more you cut back on child soldiers the more money you'll get" sort of arrangement (carrot, not just stick).
Mitt finally gave an answer on something today. I was looking at it and he said he'd respect what Obama put in place then goes on to say that he would put his own plan in before they're vistas expire. Did he just pander to hispanic community telling them he wouldn't repeal it and exact same time hinted to his base his might be harder that he's given no details on
Mitt Romney: Deferred Action Immigration Plan Would Remain Under My Administration
After months of dodging the question, Mitt Romney said on Monday night that he would respect the executive action President Barack Obama put into place granting certain groups of undocumented immigrants a reprieve from deportation.
The former Massachusetts governor has steadfastly refused to address the issue, insisting that he would achieve comprehensive reform quickly enough so as to make the Obama policy a moot point. But in a sit-down interview with the Denver Post, Romney went a step further.
"The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid. I'm not going to take something that they've purchased," Romney said. "Before those visas have expired we will have the full immigration reform plan that I've proposed."
I'd also say that dealing with these countries is (not to beat my favorite dead horse here) not a black and white scenario.
It seems to be, the argument is that without the sanction, they have access to fix the issue with child soldiers. The 'secret memo' seems to be implying that with sanctions in place, we could not provide the support and influence to stop them from using children. Which if you think about, this is removing a sanction put in place to discourage child soldiers, so that we have more access to discourage child soldiers. I guess Obama needs to have a talk with folks who pushed a sanction, he now finds to be impeding it's own intent. I guess he can do that next time he is near a mirror...
What is also interesting, this article from 2010, is now the sites second most popular story... Right behind 'Bachelor Padding'...
Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-02 at 02:55 PM.
I guess at the end of the day, this sort of thing is something I simply don't know enough about to feel comfortable playing back seat driver on.
It does seem odd to create legislation that calls for action, then block that action for several years.
Given that it involves putting children in harms way, I simply cannot help but think the administration must have good reason for taking this action given the potential backlash it would receive. Given my lack of knowledge of the intricacies of dealing with this issue, I guess at the end of the day I'm hoping that they are making the right decision with the data they have.
Oh happy day...you know. Growin' the piehh. Gettin' a slice o' the pieehh.
A nice summation of the article for those that choose not to check it out.
"...despite Obama's promise that he would reduce income inequality, it's increased each year he's been in office, reaching an all-time high after remaining flat during the Bush years."
FORWARD. (For more PIEHHH!)
So... rich people should vote for Obama?
Why me? Why not.
1) How much of that income inequality was due to the effects of the economic crash? The stock market has rebounded but the job market has not. That would create income inequality issues regardless of administration policies.
2) How much of that income inequality was due to tax policy? That would be something clearly linked to administrative policy.
3) etc. etc. You get my drift.
The only point you have -- is that Obama didn't follow through with a campaign promise. Old news at this point, and typical for any flavor of politician.
That all being said, this falls into the category of "Yeah, Obama didn't do a good job, but it'll just be even worse with Romney."
Not a compelling argument.
It's not ideal, but the real world is filled with shades of grey.
---------- Post added 2012-10-02 at 05:44 PM ----------
Anyway, the theory is that when America gives someone money or other aid--including those whose actions might be considered in some respects bad--it gives America some influence with them. It gives the recipients motives to at least give the appearance of cooperation, and once a dependency is created it can be used as a leash to try to force them in the direction you want them to go. Basically, it's buying friendship (or least paying off to prevent hostilities).
Unfortunately, it gives political opponents the opportunity to make superficial criticisms like "He's funding the Muslim Brotherhood! PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES AMERICA!"