Obama can't have it both ways

Our president proudly touts his willingness to go it alone on a domestic issue (Immigration) but adamantly rejects “going it alone” on a foreign issue (ISIS). Some ideological “dissonance” going on? Make up your own mind on that, but the logic he applies to either does not hold much water for me.

Obama has ignored a much simpler correction in favor of trying to make immigration a “must do now” issue. The recent border “crisis” (children at the border) is a result of an “unintended consequence” of an earlier law. The logical, most expedient, action would have been to correct that part of the earlier law. That option was totally ignored, with our president quickly leaping to the need for a total immigration reform as the answer. The need to address immigration is real, but the president’s method is like putting out a lit match by opening Niagara Falls on it. That’s not leadership, it’s simply trying to take advantage of a crisis.


Real leadership (although painful for our president) should be to go to Capitol Hill, meet the many congressmen he has yet to meet, roll up his sleeves and respectfully listen to and work with the other 535 duly elected counterparts. Hard work, with mutual respect shown, would do wonders for the approval rating of all 536, and isn’t that what we expect of any chief executive?

Regarding ISIS, it appears the administration is not having much success in forming a true, fully committed coalition. The president’s speech to the nation remains emotional ... nothing more. Obama consistently rejects American boots on the ground, but if no one steps up to provide the adequate boots, are we going to walk away from the threat he has so eloquently identified? In fact this message is further muddled when our president states that we will be the “air support” arm of a larger ground force made up area nations. Yet we are the ones leading the effort to form that coalition. That doesn’t sound like a “supporting “ role to me. The American citizens appear to me to be missing some old-fashioned honestly here.

The problem is difficult to be sure, but our administration’s leadership, so far, does little to increase my confidence in where we are going.

From Tom Tyschper, Gilbert, Ariz.

US is wrong not to pledge financial aid to prevent climate change

Advocates of the idea that global warming is nonexistent or not caused by humans are painfully unaware. Self-preservation is the most basic concern of people, so why are there so many who choose to disregard or remain apathetic to the insurmountable mountain of evidence that points to humans largely contributing to the destruction of their world?

The largest of ecosystems, the ocean, is turning into a synthetic soup of toxins and plastics. Carbonic acid that has formed from the 20 percent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the last several decades is destroying entire coral reefs, and oil continues to inconspicuously leak into the seas — just last March was the greatly under publicized release of a report that revealed a Wyoming oil company spilled 220,000 gallons into the environment in just a few months.

The fight against climate change must be a united, worldwide effort. Why then, is the United States, along with many other first-world countries, not planning to pledge financial aid to impoverished nations to combat climate change? It is the responsibility and duty of the government to help educate and assist the people of the environmental crisis we are experiencing, and advocate beneficial action by the people by providing the means to do so. 

From Britni Chau, Oceanside, Calif.

It's past time to lift the ban on crude

It is not only House Republicans that are now requesting that the U.S. government lift the ban on crude oil exports (“Momentum builds to allow US oil exports,” Sept 14), America’s trading partners are calling for the same — and with good reason. 

The ban on U.S. oil exports was passed back in 1975; since then much has changed. Investments and advancements in technology now enable the U.S. to produce more oil and gas than any other nation in the world. Congress already permits limited oil exports to Canada and allows refineries to export gasoline, heating oil, diesel and other refined products to global markets. Approval has also been granted to begin exports of natural gas in 2015. So why can’t we treat crude oil the same way?

Allowing exports of U.S. crude oil would stimulate massive investment in infrastructure, create tens of thousands of desperately needed American jobs, help stabilize global energy markets, and place us nearer our goal of achieving energy security. The status quo does not serve this nation’s interests as the world’s leading energy producer.

From Raheem J. Brennerman, chairman & CEO, The Blacksands Pacific Group, Los Angeles