Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Obama category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Democrats have started attacking Education Secretary Betsy DeVos because she’s announced that she’s rewriting the guidance on how universities handle sexual assaults on campus. Lucia Graves’ article starts off with a ridiculous premise, then gets worse after that.

The opening paragraphs to Ms. Graves’ article say “As she announced the rollback of Obama-era rules on campus sexual assault, education secretary Betsy DeVos seemed at times less like the head of the Department of Education than the department of rape apologists. ‘The truth is that the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students,” DeVos said in a speech at George Mason University on Thursday afternoon. ‘Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved. ‘It’s notable that the ‘victims’ she seems most worried about aren’t those of sexual assault – they’re ‘victims of a lack of due process.’

What a stunning accusation. Let’s look at what life has looked like for men who’ve been accused of sexual assault during the last few years. Student defendants don’t have the right to an attorney, not that it would do them much good since the defense attorneys haven’t been allowed to cross-examine the accuser. This is the criteria used in convicting these students:

Under 2011 rules that establish a low standard of proof, Kaminer says, “students accused of harassment are to be convicted in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of guilt, if guilt merely seems more likely than not.” And schools are enjoined to “take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment,” including “taking disciplinary action against the harasser” prior to adjudication. So the OCR-DOJ “blueprint” and related rules not only violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech but are, to be polite, casual about due process.

Perhaps Ms. Graves likes the thought of students getting railroaded, their lives ruined forever. When people don’t have the right to confront their accusers, they’re essentially defenseless. The prosecutor doesn’t have to present evidence proving that an assault happened. The defendant can’t question his accuser’s credibility. The verdict is essentially rendered when the accuser files the complaint.

How would Ms. Graves like it if she was accused of sexually assaulting a man, then not be able to defend herself? Would she be ok with not being able to question her accuser? Would she be fine with having her career ruined by someone who accused her of doing something she didn’t do?

It’s apparent that Ms. Graves hasn’t thought about the impact due process has had. Due process has protected people from dishonest accusers. It’s also made sure that accusers didn’t ruin honest people’s lives.

She didn’t talk about the fact that according to US Department of Justice reports, an estimated 19% of college-age women will suffer attempted or completed sexual assault, but that only 12% of those cases ever get reported – or that only between two and 10% of campus sexual assault accusations are actually false, per the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Those aren’t the victims she seems to care about.

Ms. Lucia, how will taking people’s due process rights lead to more women reporting sexual assault? Further, when sexual assault is defined as “making ‘sexual or dirty jokes’ that are ‘unwelcome’ or disseminate ‘sexual rumors’ that are ‘unwelcome'” that’s expanding the definition of sexual assault.

Eric Holder’s op-ed doesn’t sound like a man defending the principle of prosecutorial discretion. It sounds like a man rationalizing the Obama administration’s not enforcing existing immigration law.

In the opening paragraph of Holder’s op-ed, he writes “Our nation’s sense of morality — and of itself — is once again being tested.” Shortly thereafter, Holder wrote “DACA, which gave undocumented young people brought to the United States as children a chance to work and study here without fear of deportation, has been a dramatic success. The program provided a two-year grant of protection and a permit to work legally in the United States, after which enrollees were required to go through a renewal process. To qualify, immigrant youths had to meet a set of stringent criteria: When applying, they were required to have been enrolled in high school, have a high school diploma or equivalent, or have been an honorably discharged military veteran. In addition, they must have lived in the United States continuously at least since June 15, 2007, and not have a criminal record suggesting they pose a threat to national security or public safety.”

First, I’d question why Mr. Holder thinks our “nation’s sense of morality … is once again being tested.” Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to enforce this nation’s laws? Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to give lawbreakers an edge over people who follow the rules? Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to tell law enforcement, in this case border patrol and our nation’s sheriffs, not to enforce this nation’s immigration laws?

Next, I’d like to ask Mr. Holder what he meant when he wrote “Of course, as Sessions emphasized, we are a nation of laws, and the immigration system is no different. We must ensure that our laws are enforced to maintain the vitality, prosperity and security of our polity. But in painting DACA as a flagrant disregard for our constitutional separation of powers, Sessions exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of what DACA did.” Did Mr. Holder mean that he thinks that presidents should have the authority to unilaterally write new laws? After all, that’s what President Obama did when his EO gave illegal immigrants the ability to get a social security card and to apply for the EITC tax credit. Does Mr. Holder seriously think that President Obama never tried appropriating to the executive branch things that the legislative branch was authorized to do?

If Mr. Holder thinks that then-President Obama didn’t try doing things that only the legislative branch is authorized to do, then I’ll throw the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning ruling in his face. That’s the case where SCOTUS ruled that only the Senate could determine when the Senate was in recess. President Obama’s solicitor general essentially argued that President Obama determined that the Senate wasn’t in session. President Obama lost that lawsuit 9-0.

I’d submit that President Obama and Mr. Holder “exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of” the Constitution. Further, I’d submit this video as proof that the Trump administration, especially Attorney General Sessions, knows exactly what he’s talking about:

At what point will Mr. Holder admit that he’s a political hack working for the Democratic Party? It’s painfully obvious that he isn’t constitutional lawyer with integrity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s pretty much impossible for me to think that Sen. Franken is intelligent. After reading his statement about DACA, it’s impossible for me to think that he isn’t owned by special interest organizations like the ACLU and La Raza.

In his statement, Sen. Franken said “The men and women protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program—commonly known as DACA—are American in every single way except immigration status. Often called Dreamers, these are students, innovators, and entrepreneurs who were brought here as children and grew up in the United States. They’re our friends, coworkers, and neighbors, and they make enormous contributions to the economies of Minnesota and the entire country. The decision by President Trump to end DACA is a disgrace to our moral values and principles. It’s not who we are or should be as a nation. Let me be clear: I promise that I will fight to protect the Dreamers who live in Minnesota and across the country.”

Saying that DREAMers are “American in every single way except immigration status” is like saying that a criminal is trustworthy in every way except that he’s committed a felony. The point is that that’s a pretty significant exception. Sen. Franken’s foolishness didn’t stop there. Instead, Sen. Franken appeared on Hardball:

During the interview, Sen. Franken tried spinning DACA, suggesting that President Obama hadn’t done anything unusual. As usual, Sen. Franken wasn’t being honest. President Obama’s EO entitled DACA recipients to federal benefits:

But DACA allows recipients to apply for social security numbers, which are required to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a major tax benefit for lower-income earners. The program allows recipients to participate in Social Security and Medicare as well, but they generally cannot receive benefits until retirement age.

None of President Bush’s EOs conferred new benefits to people. That’s because the legislative branch is the only branch of government that can write legislation. The executive branch can suggest legislation but they can’t unilaterally enact legislation. If a president want DREAMers to get specific benefits, then that president must work with Congress to pass legislation.

That isn’t some quaint theory, either. That’s been how the government has done things for 240 years. If Sen. Franken wants to protect DREAMers, there’s a solution. It’s time for Sen. Franken and other Democrats to decide whether they want to protect DREAMers or whether they just want to pick ideological fights with Republicans. If Democrats want what’s best for DREAMers, they can vote for building President Trump’s wall.

I know they don’t want to vote for President Trump’s wall That’s tough. Sometimes, you don’t get everything you want. Democrats, including Sen. Franken, have a decision to make. Will they abandon DREAMers? Will they do NCLR’s dirty work? Finally, will they do what’s right for America?

It’s time Democrats admitted that they aren’t entitled to getting everything they want.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Sam Stein’s article suggests that someone behind the scenes is pulling strings. Stein’s article starts by saying “President Donald Trump’s decision Tuesday to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy opened the door for legislative deal making. And no proposed trade has been more widely discussed than one in which Trump gets funding for his beloved border wall in exchange for permanent legal protections for the so-called DREAMers. There are just two major hitches: Democrats aren’t biting and, more significantly, neither are DACA recipients. Those recipients, along with immigration reform advocates, have been lobbying lawmakers to reject any deal that would result in a border wall, Capitol Hill aides and activists have told The Daily Beast.”

This suggests that Democrats want the Mexico-to-the-US pipeline stay open after immigration reform is passed. It also tells me that organizations like La Raza, aka NCLR, are have sold DREAMers a lie. This makes building the wall all the more imperative. If DREAMers want permanent protection, the wall will get built. If Democrats don’t vote for President Trump’s wall, then Republicans should play hardball. Period.

“I’m not going to step on top of my community to get ahead,” said Jose Aguiluz, a D.C. native who was brought by his family from Honduras when he was 15 years old and who received his DACA status in 2012. Aguiluz, a nurse, was outside the White House on Tuesday to protest Trump’s decision. “By me trying to say, ‘Oh, let’s make a deal with the wall,’ it is like I’m stepping up on my community, my parents, uncles, and grandparents, that I’m putting them down so that I can get ahead,” he said. “That’s unfair and it’s not American.”

Democrats have tried painting a picture that these DREAMers a) were brought to the US when they were infants and b) would be “returned to a country” they’ve never lived in. Mr. Aguiluz was brought to the US when he was 15. He definitely doesn’t fit the image that Democrats are painting. Neither does this DREAMer:

Nearby stood Carlos Arellano, who was brought to the United States by his parents from Mexico when he was 15 and received DACA protection at age 26. “DACA changed my life completely,” he said, explaining how the program allowed him to pursue a nursing degree.

Republicans should insist that the wall be built. If Sen. McCain insists on going rogue, Sen. McConnell should inform him that his chairmanship is tied to his supporting the bill.

That likely will be met with criticism from the media wing of the Democratic Party and his relatives. It might not get him to change his vote but it will send the message to everyone that this isn’t negotiable. Lest there be any doubt, there will be lawsuits filed. Watch this video and tell me that the ACLU isn’t spoiling for a fight:

The best witness that DACA wasn’t implemented properly is President Obama. This is a collection of times when President Obama admitted that he couldn’t unilaterally implement DACA:

The video runs over 3 minutes. A video that runs over 3 minutes essentially repeating a single sentence contains lots of speeches.

If Democrats want to fight against building President Trump’s wall, that’s their decision. Their fighting that funding, though, will hurt the DREAMers they supposedly fight for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Washington Post has published another shoddy article that criticizes Republicans. The only surprise is that, this time, it’s written by a Republican.

Jennifer Rubin’s hit piece insists that “Republican reaction to President Trump’s decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) so far falls into one of three categories, none of them positive if you want to prevent the deportation of 800,000 young people who came here through no fault of their own.” With that out of the way, she then starts speaking in circles. The first category, Ms. Rubin says, is that “One reaction among Republicans is to throw it back in the president’s court, as if there is a contest to see whether the president or Republican lawmakers can be more spineless.” Ms. Rubin says that the second category “is to suggest DACA be part of comprehensive immigration reform.” The third category “is to spout platitudes and tamp down on any sense of urgency to fix the problem.”

What Ms. Rubin didn’t include is the indisputable fact that DACA was dead the minute 12 states’ attorneys generals filed the lawsuit questioning DACA’s constitutionality. What Ms. Rubin didn’t include in her hissy fit was the part about then-President Obama’s heartlessness in creating this legislation unilaterally.

Supposedly, Ms. Rubin is a Republican, though you wouldn’t know it by her latest article. She’s all criticism all the time. Where she starts talking in circles is in the first paragraph. That’s where she says “No one on the GOP side is offering a quick bill to fix DACA that could be expedited through Congress.” Late in her article, though, she said “Here is the real test for both parties: If they are serious about protecting dreamers they need to pass a quick fix addressing that single problem, likely by passing it to legislation that cannot be delayed.”

If Ms. Rubin were a better strategist, she’d notice that this presents a golden opportunity for Republicans. I’m positive that they’d pass DACA in a heartbeat if Democrats agreed to not block funding for President Trump’s wall. Apparently, Ms. Rubin hasn’t heard of thing called legislating. She should read up on it.

Of course, what Ms. Rubin wrote isn’t as bad as President Obama’s response to DACA ending:

Here’s the most dishonest part of President Obama’s statement:

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us.

When President Trump was inaugurated, President Obama should’ve disappeared like a bad memory. We put up with 8 years of his dishonesty and his animosity towards the Constitution. Saying that this decision “isn’t required legally” is dishonest in the extreme. As I said earlier, DACA was essentially dead the minute the states’ attorneys general filed their lawsuit. Then again, President Obama hasn’t fared well in the Supreme Court. He’s gotten slapped down, unanimously I might add, frequently. His biggest loss was when he got slapped by the Supremes with a 9-0 decision when he tried to stuff the NLRB through recess appointments.

Had DACA been passed by Congress, then signed by President Obama, it would’ve become the law of the land. That isn’t what happened, opening the possibility for President Trump to rescind it.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Late in 2016, President Obama officially created the Bears Ears National Monument on December 28, 2016. One of the first executive orders President Trump signed was to instruct the Interior Secretary to look into recently created national monuments. Last week, Secretary Zinke sent a report to President that included his findings and recommendations.

In this article published by the Navajo Times, it reports that “Pro-monument advocates are ‘deeply disappointed and aggrieved’ over reports that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has recommended to President Donald Trump to redraw the Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah. ‘(Native American) grass roots in Utah and beyond are deeply disappointed,’ leaders of Utah Diné Bikéyah – a grassroots tribal group that began developing the Bears Ears conservation initiative in 2010 – wrote in a statement, ‘and aggrieved that (Zinke) appears to have recommended reducing Bears Ears National Monument.'”

The key part of the article comes when it says “Leaders of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition – composed of members from Diné, Kiis’áanii, Ute, Ute Mountain and Zuni, also expressed “outrage,” criticizing Zinke’s reported recommendation that Trump shrink the size of the 1.35-million acre Bears Ears (Shash Jaa’) monument declared late last year by President Barack Obama.”

That part is important because it says President Obama created the monument through executive order. Had he created it through an act of Congress, then Interior Secretary couldn’t reduce the size of it through executive recommendation. Instead, President Obama decided he’d do whatever he wanted to do. He created Bears Ears National Monument with the stroke of his pen.

It’s one thing to create a national monument. It’s quite another to set aside 1,350,000 acres. (FYI- that’s 2,100+ square miles.) I like what President Trump is doing because it’s relatively respectful of President Obama. After all, President Trump could’ve gotten rid of that designation. Instead, he’s simply reducing its footprint.

Antifa’s spinners have been trying to convince people that they aren’t a domestic terrorist organization, that they’re just misunderstood and that they come out to protect people from evil right-wingers and the police. This article demolishes that myth.

The article starts by saying “Well before the deadly Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville and the ongoing violent clashes with white supremacists and other groups, federal authorities warned local officials the actions of left-wing extremists were becoming increasingly confrontational and dangerous.” Later in the article, it says “In previously unreported documents dating back to April 2016 and viewed by Fox News, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security wrote that ‘anarchist extremists’ and Antifa groups were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies. They blamed these groups for attacks on police, government and political institutions, racists, fascists and ‘symbols of capitalism.'”

Still later, it quotes “Brian Levin, a former New York City police officer who monitors domestic militants at the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino” as saying “People in this movement allow for confronting, jostling, committing low-level types of offenses, but there has been for some time a core that have tipped the movement to confrontational violence,” he told Fox News on Friday. “The hardest edge in the Antifa spectrum comes under that category…not all Antifa are busting heads.”

That’s right. Not all Antifa thugs are into violence. Those that aren’t committing acts of violence are enabling acts of violence. This video shows what some Antifa are willing to do:

The main thing to take from the article is that the Obama administration knew about Antifa in April, 2016, then did nothing. (Perhaps, this is proof that strategic patience wasn’t just limited to causing crises around the world?)

This isn’t surprising in that President Obama didn’t hesitate in punishing his enemies. (See Lois Lerner, IRS vs. TEA Party groups.) This isn’t surprising. It’s just disgusting.

Technorati: , , , ,

Democrats are expressing their faux outrage at President Trump’s pardon of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, often in terms that would make drama queens look stoic. For instance, Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general that President Trump fired for not defending his travel ban, said “With his pardon pen, POTUS reveals his own contempt for our Constitution, our courts, and our founding principles of equality and justice.”

Where was Ms. Yates when President Obama pardoned Bradley Manning? This article highlights what Manning did. According to the article, “Manning … was convicted of multiple other counts, including violations of the Espionage Act, for copying and disseminating classified military field reports, State Department cables, and assessments of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

The article continued, saying “The message won’t be lost for everyone in the military,” said Steven Bucci, director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. “When you sign a security clearance and swear oaths, you actually have to abide by that. It is not optional.”

Let’s summarize quickly. Sally Yates was fired for refusing to do her job as acting Attorney General. Before that termination, she sat silent when President Obama pardoned Bradley Manning, who was convicted of “copying and disseminating classified military field reports, State Department cables, and assessments of detainees held” at Gitmo. Sheriff Joe didn’t undermine national security like Manning did. Sheriff Joe ran afoul of a corrupt judge for enforcing laws that the Obama administration refused to enforce.

The stupidity wasn’t purely partisan. Republican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted his opinion, saying “Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course.” In other words, Sen. Flake was too spineless to take a unambiguous position.

Simply put, Arpaio was targeted by the Obama administration because, unlike the Obama administration, he actually enforced immigration laws. Anyone criticizing President Trump’s pardon show that they’re soft on protecting Americans from south-of-the-border drug cartels and human traffickers.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The headline speaks for itself. North Korean leader Kim Jung Un displayed something approaching rational behavior. The opening paragraph of Fox News’ article said “Kim Jong Un appeared to blink first, with North Korean media reporting Tuesday the dictator had delayed a decision about whether to fire missiles toward Guam – a pronouncement that came hours after a particularly stark warning from Defense Secretary James Mattis promised further escalation would mean ‘game on.'”

More than a month ago, Gen. Mattis was asked what kept him up at night. His response was essentially that he keeps others awake at night. Now we see why. Gen. Mattis brings to the equation something that wasn’t there during the Obama administration: a credible threat of the use of military force.

Last week, Gen. Mattis said “The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.” Apparently, Kim Jung Un took that not-so-veiled-threat seriously. That’s one of Un’s first rational thoughts in ages.

Last week, Marie Harf got into it with Lisa Booth, asking “If this rhetoric leads to North Korea attacking Guam, are you ok with that?”

Booth replied “No offense, Marie, but I am so sick and tired of the criticism of the “sound and fury” comment. We have Secretary Mattis, who was confirmed by 98-1 in the Senate, who is a brilliant military scholar, who is a student of history, who is known for being deeply thoughtful, who essentially said the same thing yesterday…”

This morning, we found out that Kim Jung Un backed down, thereby eliminating all of Ms. Harf’s what ifs. During the Obama administration, they didn’t attempt to back Kim Jung Un down with a credible threat of the use of military force. The Obama’s policy of strategic patience was deployed. The Chinese and the Un administration didn’t have an incentive to blink.

As for the question that the media wing of the Democratic Party didn’t ask, Susan Rice answered it recently, saying that the US could live with a nuclear North Korea. The truth is that the Obama administration was filled with Carteresque pacifists. This time, Americans should be happy that Gen. Mattis was asked to clean up the Obama administration’s mess.

Then-Candidate Obama once infamously said “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In Obama’s thinking, coal miners who had lost their jobs thanks to overregulation were just bitter people because they were bigots or religious zealots. Notice the part where he said that these coal miners had “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” That’s a smooth way of accusing them of bigotry.

That article was written in April, 2008. Progressive bigotry hasn’t changed much in that time. Last night, during President Trump’s rally in Huntington, WVA, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg let his bigotry slip when he tweeted “Lots of people in West Virginia can’t support themselves or speak English.” It didn’t take long for Rothenberg to become a piñata. Townhall’s Kurt Schlichter tweeted a sharp reply, saying “They hate you. Remember that.” Salena Zito jumped in, tweeting “Respectfully as someone who comes from the region that is incredibly bigoted — people from West Virginia are incredible hard-working folks.”

Rothenberg made the mistake of replying to Ms. Zito, saying “Of course they are hard-working. They mean well. Just close-minded, provincial, angry & easily misled. My wife’s dad was a coal miner in PA.” TRANSLATION: They’re nice, hard-working people. They just aren’t citizens of the world like I am.

Ms. Zito finished Mr. Rothenberg with dignity, saying “I would never consider making fun of an entire state of people who might be different than me-you need to come to West Virginia with me sir.” Ms. Zito is exceptionally gracious. If Mr. Rothenberg is wise, which is still in question, he’d take Ms. Zito up on her offer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,