Obama

Jason Chaffetz: President Obama tries to re-write history on Benghazi

In a brazen attempt to re-write history, President Barack Obama in a speech on Friday blamed “the politics of resentment and paranoia,” which he said had found a home in the Republican Party, for “wild conspiracy theories – like those surrounding Benghazi.” What a reprehensible way to frame an event that killed four Americans while they waited for rescue and protection they deserved from people Barack Obama never sent. Of course, you only heard about Obama’s characterization of Benghazi if you pay attention to conservative media. By and large the mainstream press excluded references to Benghazi from their reporting of the speech. Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the heroes who watched his friends die that night in Benghazi, called Obama’s comments “disgusting,” tweeting: “Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent.” He’s right to be offended. The real conspiracy of Benghazi was the false narrative that the whole thing was the result of an offensive video – an objectively proven lie born from the resentment and paranoia within Obama’s own administration. They didn’t think the truth was compatible with getting Barack Obama re-elected six weeks after the attack. In reality, Obama himself contradicted this conspiracy narrative before he even left office. Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked him in April 2016 to identify the worst mistake of his presidency. “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.” At least he got one thing right: Benghazi (or what he euphemistically refers to as the aftermath of his war in Libya) WAS a terrible mistake. What it was not is a conspiracy theory. With President Trump methodically erasing the Obama legacy, this bizarre attempt to reframe the narratives around Obama’s greatest failures should fool no one. Barack Obama took us to war with Libya. His State Department refused multiple requests to meet minimum security standards at the Benghazi consulate. President Obama never sent anyone to rescue or protect our ambassador or our own people during the 13 hours they were under attack. Four brave men died as a result and many other heroes had their lives forever altered. That is not a conspiracy. That is fact – no matter how inconvenient Democrats may find it. This is one part of the Obama legacy that Trump should not erase. We all need to remember the lessons learned from Obama’s worst mistake.

Agreed!  Obama’s lies about his, and Hillary’s, epic failure with respect to Benghazi are unconscionable.  It shows just how much of a coward he is.  At best (and this is being WAY too generous), his and Hillary showed a spectacular lack of judgement and decision making when that horrific event happened.  If you’re an honest Democrat, that is the ONLY defense you can possible muster.  At worst, and this is FAR more accurate..there were a series of bad decisions, followed by a cover-up, and then when it was realized..Susan Rice was sent out to all of the major networks to lie about what they knew.  That is exactly how it all went down.  And, then.. When four brave Americans died as a result of this, Obama has the nerve in hindsight with the facts and videos out there to back it up…with his self-righteous, arrogant, metro-sexual manner to go out and suggest that the whole thing was a “Republican conspiracy?”  Seriously?!?  What a disgusting, nauseating tool…  Shame on you Obama…and shame on the media for not calling him out, to his face…on camera.  Thanks to former Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, who was the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, for setting the record straight.

Opinion/Analysis: Obama re-emerges to remind voters why they elected Trump

Just in time to remind America why voters elected Donald Trump president two years ago, ex-President Barack Obama emerged from political exile last week. Pompous, insufferable, self-enthralled, cliched and uninspiring, he picked up right where he left off. Reliving his eight-year campaign that cost over 1,000 Democrat politicians their seats, Mr. Obama put on his psychiatrist cap and declared our current politics mentally unwell. This November, he lectured, is “a chance to restore some sanity in our politics.” And his history professor cap. The “arc of American history” blah blah blah blah. The whole class was fast asleep before he got to his point. Including President Trump. He even donned his old commander-in-chief cap and tried some military talk. “We’re going to put on our marching shoes,” Mr. Obama said. The crowd just stared up and blinked in confusion. He said he had to break his silence in order to complain about Mr. Trump because things had become so “dire.” He called Mr. Trump a “demagogue” and a “threat to our democracy.” Which is why, perhaps, Mr. Obama’s administration deployed America’s entire espionage apparatus to spy against the Trump campaign at the height of the 2016 election. “If we don’t step up, things can get worse,” Mr. Obama said. So, he was stepping up. Either that or Mr. Obama had heard a Red Heifer had been born at the Temple of Israel last week and assumed that was his signal to return. Time for the Second Coming of Obama. Actually, his return to the political stage sounded more like somebody had fed a really terrible high-school term paper into Mr. Obama’s trusty old teleprompters. Also, he was sick and tired of hearing all these economists and financial experts talking about how great the Trump economy is doing. So he delivered a speech and declared that Mr. Trump’s excellent economy was actually a result of Mr. Obama’s eight-year assault on industry, small businesses, corporations, taxpayers and health care. Mr. Obama’s re-emergence comes after a truly remarkable week — in addition to the birth of a Red Heifer in Israel. Legendary swamp man Bob Woodward — jealous over the star treatment Omarosa Manigault Newman got over her kiss-and-tell book — responded with a kiss-and-tell book of his own. Only, Mr. Woodward failed to get the access inside the White House that she achieved. In time, perhaps, Mr. Woodward might develop Ms. Manigault Newman’s level of reporting chops. Anyway, the books were remarkably similar in their obsession with palace intrigue — and nothing else. Mr. Obama’s return to the swamp also follows an anonymous opinion article in The New York Times confirming the existence of a “Deep State” aimed at thwarting the will of American voters from inside the White House. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump remains focused on stoking the economy, expanding opportunity for all Americans, slashing government red tape, maximizing freedom for ordinary Americans and putting law-abiding constitutionalists onto the federal courts. Good luck, Mr. Obama. Looks like somebody jumped the Red Heifer.

HAHAHA!  That fun ditty was written by Charles Hurt.  Many Dems up for re-election in red states, like Missouri, are turning down Obama’s offer to fund raise and such there.  The more and more we hear about an inevitable mid-term “blue wave,”…the more and more we’re just not convinced.  Even Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) doesn’t think there is a mathematical path to taking the Senate back.  So, even IF the House went blue, and the Senate remained in GOP control, it would pretty much be status quo in D.C.   Guess we’ll see..

Obamas criticized for lavish library plans, including ‘test kitchen’

In their effort to break the mold, the planners of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago are taking heat for some less-than-lofty features in the sprawling complex. Namely, a “test kitchen.” Reports first surfaced last fall that the monument to the first black president’s legacy was taking on an activity-center vibe. There would be a museum – but also a basketball court, possibly a room for yoga classes, and a test kitchen to teach visitors “about the full production cycle of nutritious food.” It’s a reference to former first lady Michelle Obama’s campaign for healthy eating and lifestyles. But Chicago Tribune columnist Ron Grossman trashed the “test kitchen” idea as not worthy of the ideals and history for which the presidential center is supposed to stand. “Mr. President, I’ve got to tell you: The renderings for your museum are ‘little plans,’ more likely to congeal than stir blood,” he wrote. The problem, Grossman wrote, isn’t the design but the add-ons. “What brought me up short was a space in the adjoining Forum building labeled ‘test kitchen.’ Presumably that reflects Michelle Obama’s war on junk food. The museum’s champions similarly suggest it could host yoga classes,” he wrote. “President Obama, is that how you want to be remembered? As the healthy-eating and meditation-advocating president?” He added, “That’s not how I want the story to come down to my grandchildren’s children.” Grossman encouraged the planners to reflect the “revolution” his election stood for, breaking through decades of racism and exclusion for black Americans. This is hardly the first time the presidential center’s plans have raised eyebrows. Planners are taking an unconventional approach, including by opting to host a digital archive of former President Barack Obama’s records, but not keep his hard-copy manuscripts and letters and other documents onsite. Back in May, Obama described it as “more like a campus,” with plans to position it as a “premier institution for training young people in leadership.” The project is scheduled to be completed in 2021.

Analysis: The Great Regulatory Rollback

One by one, the artifacts of President Barack Obama’s rule by administrative fiat are tumbling. The latest is his signature Clean Power Plan, which Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt says he will begin the arduous process of unwinding. The first year of Donald Trump’s presidency has been characterized — despite his bumptiousness — not by executive overreach, but executive retrenchment. Trump the populist has operated within constitutional lines better than his technocratic predecessor, who used tendentious readings of the law and sweeping bureaucratic actions to impose his policies on immigration, health care, college campuses, and the environment. The Clean Power Plan, which sought to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, was government by the administrative state on a scale that has never been attempted before. The EPA took a dubious reading of a portion of the Clean Air Act (Section 111, which arguably prevented the EPA from taking this action rather than empowered it to do so) and used it to mandate that the states adopt far-reaching plans to reduce carbon emissions, under threat of the loss of federal highway funds. The legal foundation of the Clean Power Plan was so rickety that the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of blocking its implementation pending all the lawsuits against it. The presumption of the plan was jaw-dropping. The EPA usually targets pollutants; carbon dioxide isn’t one (although the Supreme Court erroneously said that it meets the definition in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA). The EPA has always regulated specific power plants; in this scheme, it went “outside the fence” to mandate broader actions by the states, e.g., the adoption of quotas for renewable energy. The EPA once considered its mandate to be protecting clear air and water for Americans; with the Clean Power Plan, it sought to adjust the global thermostat for the good of all of humanity. The last gets to the absurdity of the Clean Power Plan on its own terms — it did virtually nothing to affect global warming. As Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan (which includes the Clean Power Plan) would reduce the global temperature by 15 one-thousandths of a degree by 2100. The point wasn’t to fight climate change per se, but to signal our climate virtue in the hopes of catalyzing action by other nations and, not incidentally, hobble the U.S. coal industry in favor of more politically palatable sources of energy, namely wind and solar. Whatever the merits of this agenda, as a first-order matter, it must be enacted lawfully and not instituted by strained legal interpretations alone. In congressional testimony arguing that the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional, liberal law professor Laurence Tribe noted that the Supreme Court has said that Congress doesn’t “hide elephants in mouse holes.” If Congress had authorized the EPA to remake the nation’s energy economy, we would presumably be aware of it and recall an impassioned congressional debate over this radical and costly change. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has declined to enact laws limiting carbon emissions, including when Democrats held both houses of Congress under President Obama. If the future of the planet is at stake and it requires a generational effort to save it, surely it is not too much to ask that a statute or two be enacted by Congress explicitly committing the country to the task. Yes, this requires winning elections and gaining democratic assent, but such are the challenges of living in a republic and a nation of laws. In his impatience with Congress and his administrative imperiousness, President Obama dispensed with all that. What he imposed unilaterally is subject to unilateral reversal. The rollback will encounter its own regulatory and legal obstacles, but can be achieved more readily than if Obama had been able or bothered to write a swath of his legacy into law.

Agreed…  Rich Lowry is responsible for that analysis.  Excellent!

Huckabee Sanders: Obama Did Not Put America First — There Was a Lot of ‘Apologizing for Our Success’

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the administration of President Barack Obama did not always put America first. When asked about Trump calling Kim Jong-un “rocket man,” Sanders said, “That’s a Trump original. He is a master at branding. One of the reasons I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a problem we have been dealing with for 20 years. Americans wanted somebody, a strong leader, somebody who wasn’t going to put up with it anymore. That’s one of the reasons I think Donald Trump won. They saw strength. They saw somebody who was not going to apologize for America. Was not going to apologize for America’s sovereignty and our success. They wanted somebody to stand up and be a fighter. They got that in Donald Trump. I think that was on full display yesterday in one of his stronger moments. It was a great reminder why people supported him and certainly why he is going to be very successful president.” She added, “Certainly I don’t think the previous administration was always putting America first. I think there was a lot of, as I said apologizing for our success. That’s not something that America wants. That’s not what our country was founded on. And certainly, I think you see that day in, day out by the support for this president.”

Opinion: Trump Was Right to Condemn Violence on ‘Many Sides’ in Charlottesville

President Donald Trump reacted to Saturday’s violence in Charlottesville by condemning violence “on many sides.” His critics pounced, saying that he should have specifically condemned violence by white supremacists, and that by not doing so, he in fact condoned such violence. The critics are guilty of a double standard, and of exploiting the violence for political gain, widening America’s divisions at a time when national unity is the only proper course. First of all, as a factual matter, it is self-evident that there was violence on both sides on Saturday, though the attack in which a car plowed into a crowd of left-wing protesters stands apart as a despicable act. Two groups who have been fighting all over the country — white supremacists and so-called “anti-fascists” — went to Charlottesville to do the same, just as they did last summer in Sacramento, and just as they have elsewhere. Condemning one side alone would essentially have given the other side a pass for its tactics — and a political victory that neither deserved. Second, Trump’s critics never applied the same standard to Barack Obama. When five Dallas police officers were murdered in cold blood at a Black Lives Matter protest, Obama did not disavow the movement, nor did the media demand he do so. On the contrary, when he spoke at a memorial service for the police, he actually endorsed the movement and its goals: “I understand these protests — I see them. They can be messy. Sometimes they can be hijacked by an irresponsible few. Police can get hurt. Protesters can get hurt. They can be frustrated. But even those who dislike the phrase “black lives matter,” surely, we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. … With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged, and worry more about joining sides to do right.”(Alton Sterling was shot by officers in Baton Rouge; he was armed and had allegedly threatened someone with a gun.) When presented with an opportunity to disavow his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, then-candidate Obama gave an entire speech about how he could not do so: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” The media swooned and compared him to Abraham Lincoln. (He eventually disavowed Wright — but only after a substitute preacher, Michael Pfleger, attacked Hillary Clinton from the pulpit, at a time when Obama needed to consolidate Clinton supporters for the general election.) Third, many of those attacking Trump today did not make the same demand of Democrats just two months ago, when five Republicans were shot and wounded by a left-wing gunman in Alexandria. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even managed to blame Republicans for the shooting by allegedly inflaming political rhetoric during the Bill Clinton era. Fourth, the media and the Democrats blame Trump for violence even when he, and his supporters are the target of that violence. Last June in San Jose, California, Trump supporters were viciously attacked by left-wing thugs as they left a rally. Some media reported the riot as if Trump supporters had started the violence (“Trump supporters clash with protesters“), while Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo blamed Trump and his campaign for what happened. Finally, the claim that Trump has failed to disavow white supremacists is a lie repeated from the 2016 campaign, when the media ignored Trump’s prior rejections of the Ku Klux Klan and claimed he had failed to denounce them. Trump even denounced racism earlier this year, in his address to Congress: ” Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.” The purpose of the lie is to connect Trump to white supremacists by implying that he has something to disavow. Many of Trump’s critics compounded that lie Saturday by recycling false claims about members of his staff. Trump’s critics are guilty of something worse than hypocrisy. They are trying to divide the country when the right thing to do is to stress common bonds, as Republicans did in June, though they were the targets. Trump’s critics tried the same tactics in 2016, and all they achieved was more hatred. It is well past time for the slander to stop.

When I first turned on the news and first learned of this event, the very first photo I saw was some white guy with a flag rolled up on its pole confronting a black guy who had turned some aerosol can into a torch and blasting a firey flame toward the white guy.  On it’s face, it wasn’t clear who was the instigator and who as the one fighting back.  But, what WAS clear, was that there were two sides; NOT just one side.  And, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, hypocritical, and self-serving.  But, that’s par for the course for these self-righteous, sanctimonious, agenda-driven liberals in the media and elsewhere.  What started as a perfectly reasonable rally to counter the historical fascism of the left who continue to want to erase our history, turned into an ugly scene culminating in some lunatic driving his car through a crown killing an innocent woman.  That Hitler-loving loser should be put down like the dog he is.  BUT, Trump is exactly right.  There were elements on BOTH sides who escalated the situation and took advantage of the opportunity to further THEIR respective agendas.  Yeah, the Nazis and so on were there.  But, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) thugs were there with their baseball bats as well, lookin for a fight.  BOTH were at fault.  So, kudos to Trump for NOT playing the race card to further some self-serving agenda like Obama was notorious for doing.  Thanks to Joel B. Pollak for that outstanding op/ed.

Scott Pruitt: Obama EPA ‘Failed’ to ‘Protect the Environment’ Following Devastating Colorado Gold King Mine Spill

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt visited the site of the devastating Gold King Mine spill in Colorado that spilled 3 million gallons of contaminated mine water into the Cement Creek and Animas River, saying the Obama EPA “failed” at its mission to protect the environment. “EPA should be held to the same standard as those we regulate,” Pruitt said about the visit that took place on the eve of the two-year anniversary of the spill. “The previous administration failed those who counted on them to protect the environment,” Pruitt said. The press announcement of the visit noted that in January 2017, the previous EPA administration denied 79 administrative claims filed by farmers, ranchers, homeowners, businesses, employees, state and local governments, as well as other individuals seeking damages in connection with the Gold King Mine incident. “Despite the release of 3 million gallons of contaminated water tainted with arsenic, lead and other heavy metals, which turned the Animas River mustard-yellow, and moved along the San Juan River through Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and American Indian land to Lake Powell in Utah, the EPA Administrator at the time, Gina McCarthy, nor President Obama nor Vice President Biden, ever visited the site of the spill itself,” the press release announcing the visit said. The visit fulfilled the promise Pruitt made during his confirmation hearing to visit the site. Sens. Cory Gardner (R-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper joined Pruitt for a tour of the site. Following the tour, EPA political appointees participated in a town hall in Durango, Colo. with local residents about how they were affected by the spill. “We want to listen and learn directly from the community,” Ken Wagner, senior advisor to the administrator for regional and state affairs, said. “The local community is ground zero in environmental disasters, and we want to hear their concerns and do our best to coordinate and provide assistance,” Wagner said. The Denver Post reported that Pruitt pointed out the hypocrisy on this disaster compared to the Obama administration’s anti-fossil fuel agenda. “I think it’s safe to say if this had been any other company, a BP-type of a situation, there would have been an investigation that would ensue by the agency and there would have been accountability,” Pruitt said. “That didn’t take place here. “The federal government should not be able to hide behind sovereign immunity when the facts don’t meet the protections,” Pruitt said. “In my estimation, the EPA walked away from those folks and left them in a position of incurring damages without taking accountability,” Pruitt said.