Uncategorized

Op-Ed: Obama’s Foreign Policy Has Moved Us Toward Reason

Published

10 years ago

March 16, 2016

As Barack Obama’s presidency counts down its last months, amid the raucous babble of the Republican presidential debate, people are beginning to realize how much we will miss Obama’s leadership.

He has served with dignity and grace, increasingly rare attributes in American politics. His family has exhibited the values that Americans embrace. He has brought the economy back from the freefall he inherited.

Republicans, of course, scorn all things Obama, with particular emphasis on his foreign policy. They argue that he’s destroyed our nation’s credibility, gutted our military and fostered the spread of terror. The din covers the emptiness of the argument.

In reality, Obama’s foreign policy will be remembered as making a start toward reason. His record, of course, is complex. The president has enjoyed some remarkable successes — taking out Osama bin Laden, traducing al-Qaida, the nuclear deal with Iran, normalization of relations with Cuba (and thus with other neighbors across the hemisphere).

He’s also met with frustrations as well. He was unable to extract us from Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria and Libya.

He failed to close Guantanamo. He’s also asserted, dangerously, unprecedented executive prerogatives in the use of drones, assassination, the hunting of whistle-blowers, mass surveillance and more.

But Obama’s biggest legacy is his effort to turn America away from the interventionist appetites of both the neo-conservatives and the “indispensable nation” liberal activists. In a remarkable set of interviews with Jeffry Goldberg in the Atlantic, Obama argues that while the United States must lead, it cannot police the world. We must be both “hardheaded” and “big hearted.”

We have to be clear about our real security concerns, learn to pick our spots, and not allow ourselves to be dragged into every civil war or humanitarian crisis.

The president is clear — and clearly right — on the priority of threats facing the U.S. Despite the popular terrors about terror, he understands that the Islamic State is not an existential threat to the U.S. In contrast, climate change potentially threatens the world if we don’t act to counter it.

Similarly, the president argues that the Middle East is no longer terribly important to U.S. interests, particularly with our increasing energy independence. The U.S.-China relationship, in contrast, is the “most critical.” Sustaining a peaceful rise of China that will make it a partner in securing international order is far more important to our security than all of the civil wars in the Middle East.

Obama believes, against the clamor of an interventionist foreign policy establishment, that overextension in the Middle East is far more destructive than restraint in the region.

As his adviser Ben Rhodes summarizes, the president’s view is that “overextension in the Middle East will ultimately harm our economy, harm our ability to look for other opportunities and to deal with other challenges, and, most important, endanger the lives of American service members for reasons that are not in the direct American national-security interest.”

According to Goldberg, Obama also has a common sense position about Putin. He sees Russia as weak, not strong, but understands that it has direct security concerns about Ukraine and Georgia on its border. That fact is, as Obama says, the U.S. is not going to war over Ukraine.

Russia is prepared to do that. “People respond to what their imperatives are, and if it’s very important to somebody and it’s not that important to us, they know that and we know that.” Mexico has had to learn to live with the United States; Ukraine similarly has to learn to live with Russia.

This sounds like common sense, but it challenges the consensus of the foreign policy establishment that believes the U.S. is the only superpower and can “win,” as Donald Trump would say, simply by flexing its muscles. But of course they argue, we must be prepared to maintain credibility and strike if someone calls our bluff. Obama clearly understands the dangers of this posture.

Obama has made mistakes, as any president does. But he has come to understand the limits of U.S. power to direct global events, even as he realizes the importance of U.S. leadership to force global action. He calls on us to understand our limits and to set real priorities.

He does this in the face of a national security state that is permanently engaged across the world, in the face of liberal and conservative interventionists who scorn common sense as weakness, and in the face of allies who are happy to have the U.S. carry the load.

Listen to the posturing and the bloviating of the Republican contenders for the presidency. Listen to the drone of the think tankers and academics calling for escalation without thinking of consequences.

It doesn’t take long to realize that how much we should value the first steps that President Obama has taken toward reason.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Uncategorized

Not Just a Southern Issue: Advocates Say SCOTUS Voting Rights Decision Has Already Started to Reshape Black Political Power

OAKLAND POST — Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, constitutional amendments expanded Black citizenship and voting rights across the South, leading to dramatic increases in Black political representation. But those gains were quickly met with violent backlash and the rise of Jim Crow laws designed to suppress Black voting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and other “race-neutral” restrictions.

Published

7 days ago

June 17, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

U.S. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) whose district spans parts of Los Angeles County, joined fellow CBC member U.S. Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA-2) for a May 21 briefing with Black media outlets in California.

The lawmakers highlighted what they describe as a mounting threat to Black political representation resulting from an April 29 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened key protections under the federal Voting Rights Act.

Kamlager-Dove and Carter warned that the decision, which narrowed the role of race in redistricting, is already reshaping congressional districts across the South and undermining Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice.

“While we are a super blue state, we have far to go when it comes to Black representation; we tend to take that for granted,” Kamlager-Dove said of California, noting that the Golden State has the fifth largest Black population in the country and only has three Black members of Congress.

“While I support building coalitions, we have to make sure that as a Black community we are not yielding our power,” she added.

Calling the fight “not unique to the South,” Carter urged Black communities nationwide to recognize the broader implications of the legal and political battles unfolding in Southern legislatures and courtrooms.

The Supreme Court ruling centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the portion of the law that prohibits voting systems or district maps that dilute the voting strength of racial minorities. For decades, Section 2 allowed civil rights groups to challenge district maps that weakened Black political representation even when lawmakers did not openly state discriminatory intent.

Now, advocates fear that standard has fundamentally changed.

“You have to have smoking gun evidence,” said Mitchell Brown, senior voting rights counsel at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, during a recent media briefing hosted by American Community Media on May 15. “Legislators are not going to say the quiet part out loud.”

The implications could stretch far beyond congressional elections, Brown said.

Section 2 protections have historically applied not only to U.S. House districts, but also to state legislatures, school boards, county commissions, judgeships, and local governing bodies. Voting rights advocates warn that weakening those protections could reshape political representation throughout the South, particularly in states with large Black populations.

“This is not just a Southern issue,” said Amir Badat, manager of Black Voters on the Rise and voting special counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Badat described the current moment as part of a much longer historical pattern.

Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, constitutional amendments expanded Black citizenship and voting rights across the South, leading to dramatic increases in Black political representation. But those gains were quickly met with violent backlash and the rise of Jim Crow laws designed to suppress Black voting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and other “race-neutral” restrictions.

“This is the same move,” Badat said.

Advocates also emphasized that the consequences of weakened voting protections extend into everyday life.

Local elected offices such as school boards, city councils, county commissions, and judgeships often determine funding priorities, public safety policy, education standards, and infrastructure investments.

“These are not abstract numbers,” Badat said. “These have real political consequences and policy consequences on people’s day-to-day lives.”

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Uncategorized

Rest in Peace: A.M.E. Pastor and L.A Civil Rights Icon Cecil “Chip” Murray Passes

The Rev. Dr. Cecil L. “Chip” Murray, former pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church (FAME) in Los Angeles, died of natural causes April 6 at his Windsor Hills Home. He was 94. “Today, we lost a giant. Reverend Dr. Cecil Murray dedicated his life to service, community, and putting God first in all things. I had the absolute honor of working with him, worshiping with him, and seeking his counsel,” said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of the dynamic religious leader whose ministry inspired and attracted millionaires as well as former gang bangers and people dealing with substance use disorder (SUD).

Published

5 months ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

The Rev. Dr. Cecil L. “Chip” Murray, former pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church (FAME) in Los Angeles, died of natural causes April 6 at his Windsor Hills Home. He was 94.

“Today, we lost a giant. Reverend Dr. Cecil Murray dedicated his life to service, community, and putting God first in all things. I had the absolute honor of working with him, worshiping with him, and seeking his counsel,” said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of the dynamic religious leader whose ministry inspired and attracted millionaires as well as former gang bangers and people dealing with substance use disorder (SUD).

Murray oversaw the growth of FAME’s congregation from 250 members to 18,000.

“My heart is with the First AME congregation and community today as we reflect on a legacy that changed this city forever,” Bass continued.

Murray served as Senior Minister at FAME, the oldest Black congregation in the city, for 27 years. During that time, various dignitaries visited and he built strong relationships with political and civic leaders in the city and across the state, as well as a number of Hollywood figures. Several national political leaders also visited with Murray and his congregation at FAME, including Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Murray, a Florida native and U.S. Air Force vet, attended Florida A&M University, where he majored in history, worked on the school newspaper and pledged Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. He later attended Claremont School of Theology in Los Angeles County, where he earned his doctorate in Divinity.

Murray is survived by his son Drew. His wife Bernadine, who was a committed member of the A.M.E. church and the daughter of his childhood pastor, died in 2013.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Uncategorized

Court Throws Out Law That Allowed Californians to Build Duplexes, Triplexes and RDUs on Their Properties

Charter cities in California won a lawsuit last week against the state that declared Senate Bill (SB) 9, a pro-housing bill, unconstitutional. Passed in 2021, SB 9 is also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (HOME). That law permits up to four residential units — counting individual units of duplexes, triplexes and residential dwelling units (RDUs) – to be built on properties in neighborhoods that were previously zoned for only single-family homes.

Published

5 months ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

Charter cities in California won a lawsuit last week against the state that declared Senate Bill (SB) 9, a pro-housing bill, unconstitutional.

Passed in 2021, SB 9 is also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (HOME). That law permits up to four residential units — counting individual units of duplexes, triplexes and residential dwelling units (RDUs) – to be built on properties in neighborhoods that were previously zoned for only single-family homes.

A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the cities, pointing out that SB 9 discredited charter cities that were granted jurisdiction to create new governance systems and enact policy reforms. The court ruling affects 121 charter cities that have local constitutions.

Attorney Pam Lee represented five Southern California cities in the lawsuit against the state and Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“This is a monumental victory for all charter cities in California,” Lee said.

However, general law cities are excluded from the court ruling as state housing laws still apply in residential areas.

Attorney General Bonta and his team are working to review the decision and consider all options that will protect SB 9 as a state law. Bonta said the law has helped provide affordable housing for residents in California.

“Our statewide housing shortage and affordability crisis requires collaboration, innovation, and a good faith effort by local governments to increase the housing supply,” Bonta said.

“SB9 is an important tool in this effort, and we’re going to make sure homeowners have the opportunity to utilize it,” he said.

Charter cities remain adamant that the state should refrain from making land-use decisions on their behalf. In the lawsuit, city representatives argued that SB 9 eliminates local authority to create single-family zoning districts and approve housing developments.