Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

No NCAA Bracket for Trump, but How Good, Really, Were Obama's? New York Times After eight years of Barack Obama gamely filling out an N.C.A.A. tournament bracket, President Trump has declined to make picks this year. The president respectfully declined, ESPN said in a statement. Andy Katz of ESPN basketball told The Washington ... Trump is asked to keep Obama tradition by filling out NCAA Tournament bracket. Here's his reply.TheBlaze.com Trump ends Obama's 'March Madness' legacy, will not fill out NCAA tournament bracketAOL News Trump Ends A Recent Tradition Established By ObamaDaily Caller all 79 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
No NCAA Bracket for Trump, but How Good, Really, Were Obama's? - New York Times

Weve heard a lot of Republicans and conservatives respond to criticism of President Trump by pointing to things President Obama did. And the liberal/progressive-pundit buzzword du jour for this is whataboutism i.e., the idea that its illegitimate to cite Obama as a defense to criticisms of Trump, even in arguments with people who defended or praised similar conduct by Obama. Does it matter that Obama did it first?

As a matter of right and wrong, or on a question of constitutional principle, the answer obviously is no. If Obama did something first, that doesnt make it right. Indeed, for those of us who see the Obama presidency as a disaster for national security, small government, religious and economic liberty, separation of powers, and the rule of law, the fact that Obama did something first makes it more likely that it was wrong. For example, Obama claimed the right to effectively legalize millions of illegal immigrants by unilateral executive fiat as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. This was a gravely dangerous incursion of presidential power into lawmaking powers that the Constitution properly gave to Congress. President Trump has no similar power if he has the power to issue things like his executive order on refugees, he needs to identify when and how Congress gave him that authority (which is exactly the argument made for that order, insofar as it is temporary in nature). To pick another example, conservatives rightly blasted Obama for picking economic winners and losers and taking a corporatist view of the economy. Boondoggles like Trumps Carrier deal cant be defended on the grounds that they are Obama-like; thats the problem with them.

But there are a number of other ways in which looking back at the Obama years is quite relevant.

First, some controversies are entirely about what is normal, typical, or unprecedented in the conduct of the president or the federal government. That was especially clear during the transition. For example, there was an enormous hue and cry about Trump taking down sections of the White House website on particular issues; in fact, his team wiped clean all the Obama-era policy content on the site, moving it to an archived site. But thats exactly the same thing Obama did on taking office. Theres no moral or political principle at stake, just the claim that Trump was doing something unprecedented and it turned out he wasnt. What about Obama was the central issue.

Second, there is the question of radicalism. Much of the Resist movement among Democrats and liberals (including the view that Trump should not even be entitled to fill a Cabinet) is premised upon the idea that Trump represents a truly unprecedented break with how our government operates. Certainly, this is true of Trumps biography, his business empire, his use of Twitter, and of a lot of his behavior on the campaign trail. Aspects of his press shops contempt for the media and the truth have also broken new ground.

But many of the supposedly radical and dangerous acts by Trump and the Trump Administration turn out not to be such dramatic breaks with the Obama Administration, for good or ill. As Ive detailed before, critics have overstated how Trumps refugee order differs from Obama-era refugee policies (all the way down to Obamas Administration having singled out the same list of seven countries for heightened scrutiny over terrorist risks under the visa waiver program). Its fair to argue that both have been seriously misguided or that Trump has gone a step too far, but the context of knowing what the existing policy already was is important. Likewise, the argument that Trump is engaging in an unprecedented assault on the independence of the judiciary falls apart when you look at Obamas record of public attacks on the Supreme Court. In that case, both Trump and Obama are in the wrong, but the Rubicon was crossed under the last Administration.

Third, theres the matter of who caused a problem. Traditionally, most every president blames his predecessor for nearly everything when he first arrives in the office, and traditionally, the voters have the patience to accept this excuse for roughly the first year. That tendency goes beyond the presidency or government, as illustrated by the old prepare two envelopes joke. And presidents typically use what we inherited as a bar for measuring accomplishments after that. On the other hand, it becomes a crutch to keep just blaming every failure on the last guy, as Obama tended to do with Bush all the way to the very end. Its fair and appropriate, for now, to notice which problems are not of Trumps own making. But eventually, that will become a lame excuse.

Fourth, theres the question of hypocrisy and media double standards. It is more than fair to note that people outraged at Trump had nothing at all to say about similar actions or statements by Obama, or celebrated them, or mocked his critics (and incumbent on conservatives, as well, to criticize things that we found genuinely troubling about Obama). For example, lots of liberals spent October 2016 lecturing us about how the worst, most un-American thing anyone could do is call into question the result of an election they should not be able to memory-hole that now when doing precisely that. This is just one of a long list of categorical value statements trotted out by liberal pundits over the years that are forgotten as soon as they become inconvenient, from denouncing anyone who questions the patriotism of political opponents to arguing for compartmentalization. An adversarial system of punditry is necessary in order to remind people how little of this stuff is sincere.

A two-party system ensures that the shoe will often be switched to the other foot. Sometimes, its true, switching feet will make you change your mind about what the rules of the road should be, but reminding people where they stood the day before yesterday is a healthy way to encourage long-term consistency and punish nakedly hypocritical opportunism.

Continued here:
What About Whataboutism? Does It Matter If Obama Did It First? - National Review

Is there an Obama connection to The (so-called) Resistance to the Trump administration? The Washington Free Beacons Adam Kredo provides a case study in the matter of Michael Flynn.

More generally, Paul Sperry asserts the existence of an Obama connection to The (so-called) Resistance in the New York Post column Obama is scheming to sabotage Trumps presidency. Sperry argues that the Obamas sabotage is to be conducted via a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action, an outfit that dates back to President Obamas third day in office.

In 2014, the Washington Posts Philip Bump questioned how much longer Organizing for America would last. As the March of Dimes has endured the defeat of polio, so Organizing for America survives Obamas second term. The cause is eternal.

Sperry asserts that Organizing for America is working from a growing war chest. Im curious about that. The left is certainly long on money. Funding is never an issue in their quest to maintain power. George Soros may or may not be in the background, although he frequently is. Aaron Klein puts him in the foreground of a new anti-Trump protest movement calling itself Indivisible. The Winter issue of City Journal carries Stefan Kanfers timely profile of Soros with an eye to explaining his dystopian vision.

Read this article:
The Obama connection, &c. - Power Line (blog)

Updated | Houserepresentatives voted on Thursdayto reverse an Obama administration regulation that blocks states from withholding federal family-planning dollars from Planned Parenthood affiliates and other health centers that provide abortions.

President Barack Obama made the decision about Title X funding, the federal family-planning program introduced under President Richard Nixon, in the final days of his presidency.The rule, which went into effect two days before Trump took office, states that state and local government must distributefederal family-planning funds, which cover health care services including contraception, STD testing, cancer screenings, breast exams and fertility treatment, to relevant health centers, even if they perform abortions. However, no federal funding goes toward paying for abortion procedures in the U.S.

House representatives voted 230 to 188 to overturn the rule, outlined in resolution, H.J. Res 43. Two Republicans voted against the resolution, whole two Democrats voted in favor of it. The resolution will now undergo a vote in the Senate; if passed, it will reach the desk of President Donald Trump.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Buoyed by a wave of anti-abortion legislation introduced into state legislatures this year and emboldened by Trumps determination to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the vacant Supreme Court seat, the House will vote to strike down that rule, House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. Ryan said the House woulduse the Congressional Review Act to reverse the rule.

Related: Oklahoma bill would require men to give permission for abortion

Rolling back the rule on qualifications for Title X is dangerousit could prevent millions of people across the country from getting the health care they need," Dr. Willie Parker, board chair at Physicians for Reproductive Health, said in a statement on Thursday. "The people who rely on Title X fundingincluding people of color, people with low incomes, and those who live in rural areasalready face obstacles to getting health care.

This rule will strengthen access to essential services like cancer screenings and contraception for some of the most vulnerable patients in this country, Dr. Karen A. Scott, chief medical officer at the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement after the rule was approved last year.

The new resolutions co-sponsors instead want Title Xfunding to be redirected to just health centers that do not provide abortion services. However, reproductive rights advocates say that might be difficult, as manyclinics that provide women's and reproductive health services also perform abortions. Planned Parenthood affiliates account for roughly 10 percent of health clinics that receive Title X money, although those centers treat about one-third of people that receive services covered under the law, The News York Timesreports.

Ryan says the current rule effectively forces states to fund abortion services through Planned Parenthood. House MajorityLeader Kevin McCarthy also saidin a statement that the rule forces states to administer Title X health care funding to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.Reversing the morally reprehensible rule fulfills two promises made to the American people, said Ryan: First, it restores federalism; second, it is pro-life.

The hearing comes nearly a month after the annual anti-abortion March For Life, which this year included a speech by Vice President Mike Pence. Last weekend, rallies calling for Planned Parenthood to be defunded were held around the country;many of the demonstrations weremet with counterprotests in favor of abortion rights.

This article has been updated to include information on the congressional vote.

See the rest here:
Congress Votes to Reverse Obama Rule Blocking States From Defunding Planned Parenthood - Newsweek

A foreign national is arrested during an enforcement raid in Los Angeles by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Feb. 7, 2017.(Photo: Charles Reed, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via AP)

The first major immigration raid under President Trump showsa clearshift in the federal government's deportation strategy,targeting fewer undocumented immigrants with criminal records than under President Obama.

Of 678 people rounded up in 12 states during raids last week, 74% had been convicted of a crime. That is down from 90% of detained people with criminal records in 2016 under Obama, according to a USA TODAYanalysis of more than a dozen federal raids.

For example, during a June 2016 raid conducted in six Midwestern states, 85% of the 324 people arrested had beenconvicted of crimes. During a raid in those same six states last week, 69% had criminal records.

The increase in arrests of those without criminal records does not appear to be consistent with Trump's promise afterhis electiontouse Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to target murderers, rapists and other "bad hombres" who pose serious threats to public safety.

Obama had taken a similar stance byfocusing on criminal offenders.After 18 raids in 2016, ICE issued summaries notingthat all the undocumented immigrants arrested were"enforcement priorities" who included convicted criminals, gang members, threats to national security, those who recently crossed the borderand people with standing deportation orders.

In summaries of each of the five coordinated raids conducted last week, however, ICE explained it was taking a new course of action."During targeted enforcement operations, ICE officers frequently encounter additional suspects who may be in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws," the summaries said. "Those persons will be evaluated on a case by case basis and, when appropriate, arrested by ICE."

READMORE:

Immigrant communities fearful after hundreds arrested in what feds call routine 'surge'

Mexico warns citizens of 'new reality' after undocumented mom deported from Arizona

100 years and 16 presidents ago, a look at another anti-immigration act

David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration attorney and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said exposing all undocumented immigrants encountered during raids for deportation represents a "major shift" in enforcement that takes the focus away from serious criminals and creates a sense of panic throughout the immigrant community.

"This is the blueprint for mass deportations," he said.

Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, whichfavors lower levels of immigration,saidthe shift is simply common sense. Krikorian, who has advised the Trump administration on immigration policy,said Obama correctlyprioritizedlimited deportation dollars on the most serious criminals. But he said it was a mistake tolimit the ability of ICE officers to arrest other undocumented immigrants caught during their operations.

"What's different now is that we've returned to normal enforcement practices where the 'bad hombres' are still job one, but ordinary lawbreakers are no longer exempt from enforcement," Krikorian said.

The ability of ICE agents to arrest undocumented immigrants encountered during their day-to-day jobs islaid out by orders from the president or the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Over the course of his eight years in office, Obama gradually restricted who ICE agents could apprehend. He created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012, which granted deportation protections to more than 750,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Then, in 2014, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a memorandum outlining "enforcement priorities" and ordered ICE agents to only capture alimited group of undocumented immigrants.

That led to an increasing percentage of people deported under Obama with a criminal record. In 2011, about 67% of undocumented immigrants deported from the interior of the country had criminal records. Thefigure rose every year after that, hitting 92% in 2016.

All that changed on Jan. 25, when Trump signed an executive order vastly expandingthe pool of undocumented immigrants considered "enforcement priorities." The new list added undocumented immigrants who have been charged with a crime but not convicted, those who have used fake Social Security numbers to find jobs orabused public benefit programsand people who "otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security."

This week, new Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly reiterated Trump's earlier call to focus on the most dangerous undocumented immigrants. Kelly said ICE agents would have a "specific focus on those who pose a threat to public safety."

John Sandweg, a former acting director of ICE under Obama, said suchpronouncements mean little to ICE agents working in the field. Instead, they operate under guidelines set forth by their superiors,in this caseTrump's Jan. 25 executive order.

"The priorities are what govern the operations," said Sandweg. "Thats how theyre graded, thats how their compensation and benefits are awarded, that's how theyre promoted."

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lbZeA1

Read more:
Trump immigration raids target fewer criminals than Obama raids - USA TODAY