Mediaboss Marketing

A luminary among the nation's museums devoted to African-American history was named the museum director at the future Obama Presidential Center, the foundation planning the center announced Wednesday.

Louise Bernard, outgoing director of exhibitions at the New York Public Library, will be charged with presenting the narrative of the Obama presidency and sustaining the legacy of the first African-American president.

Bernard previously was a member of the design team that helped develop the highly acclaimed National Museum of African American History and Culture, a Smithsonian Institution facility that opened to great fanfare in the National Mall in September.

She also serves as a key adviser for the International Museum of African American History in Charleston, S.C., which is scheduled to break ground at the end of this year.

"She's really a superstar," said Michael Boulware Moore, president and chief executive officer of the International African American Museum. "I'm sure President Obama and the first lady will have all kinds of thoughts about what they think should be in the museum. She will digest that and cull through it and there will be some back-and-forth."

"Her magic is coming up with dynamic ways of engaging people in interesting kinds of ways."

Scheduled to open in 2021, the Obama Presidential Center will rise in Jackson Park on the South Side. In a break from tradition, former President Barack Obama's official papers and artifacts will not be housed there but will be digitized and stored elsewhere by the National Archives and Records Administration and made available through loans.

The cost of the center is expected to be at least $500 million.

This month, Obama and his wife while in Chicago offered the first look at the design of the center, a campus of three buildings highlighted by an eye-catching museum, whose height and splaying walls would make a bold architectural statement.

Calling it a "transformational project for this community," the former president said he and his wife envisioned a vibrant setting that would be akin to Millennium Park, a destination for those drawn to the presidential center and the park itself.

"It's not just a building. It's not just a park. Hopefully it's a hub where all of us can see a brighter future for the South Side," the former president said.

Moore said Bernard, who has a Ph.D. in African American Studies and American Studies from Yale University, brings a firm grasp of the international African-American journey and an ability to integrate exhibits, architecture and landscape and the complexities of race to make a powerful impression that fulfills the Obamas' lofty goals. Under her direction, it likely will be impossible for visitors to tour the museum without realizing the historic significance of the first African-American in the White House, Moore said.

"She will be able to parse, distill a lot of the broad social nuances of his eight years and will be able to come up with some key deliverables in the sense of the museum experience that will be very valuable," Moore said.

Those with knowledge of the process said one of the first items on Bernard's agenda will be a series of listening sessions with a broad range of people and groups, including staff at the DuSable Museum and the Museum of Science and Industry, as well as community organizations, artists, and storytellers on the South Side.

Though Bernard is not from Chicago she's originally from the United Kingdom Moore said she excels at understanding the importance of place and incorporating that into the mission of a museum.

In Charleston, the museum will be situated on Gadsden's Wharf, where more than 100,000 enslaved Africans, including a paternal ancestor of Michelle Obama, stepped foot on American soil for the first time.

"(Bernard) quickly understood the power of the site and the history of colonial Charleston and the Low Country," Moore said. "She will easily understand the history of the South Side of Chicago and also infuse that into the museum in a way that grounds the overall experience."

The Obama Foundation's chief executive, David Simas, expressed confidence in Bernard's ability to make the Obama center much more than a traditional presidential museum.

"One of the key aspects of the Obama Presidential Center is a museum that does not just tell the story of the Obama Administration, but inspires individuals and communities to take on our biggest challenges," Simas said in a statement.

Bernard, also in a statement, said she hoped to carry out her new role in a way that inspires South Side neighbors, as well as Americans and people around the world.

"I look forward in bringing President and Mrs. Obama's remarkable story to the broadest possible audience," she said, "and to highlighting the crucial role of civic engagement in a way that is meaningful to local South Side residents."

Bernard's appointment follows a series of hires earlier this month including Lynn Taliento, a former McKinsey & Co. consultant, as chief program officer and Glenn Brown, a former executive at YouTube, Google and Twitter, as chief digital officer.

kskiba@chicagotribune.com

mbrachear@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @KatherineSkiba

Twitter @TribSeeker

The rest is here:
Louise Bernard named museum director for future Obama Presidential Center - Chicago Tribune

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, pictured on May 9 in Washington, is in an excellent position to walk back the Obama administrations efforts to protect minorities.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Shortly before the 2016 election, I wrote an article describing how President Barack Obama had managed to implement his civil rights agenda with little helpand, at times, much resistancefrom Congress. Obama, I explained, had seized upon federal agencies authority to interpret civil rights law, expanding protections for minorities by construing existing statutes as broadly as possible. I argued that the result was a legacy of equality and inclusion shielded by administrative safeguards that would endure well beyond Obamas tenure.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

Seven months later, it seems safe to say that I was very wrong.

On Monday, the Washington Post published a piece reviewing the Trump administrations efforts to roll back the civil rights protections crafted by executive agencies during the Obama era. For liberals, this is not good news. Trumps appointees have made quick work of the regulations crafted by the previous regime, disposing of rules and guidance designed to help women, minorities, the poor, and LGBTQ people. Obamas congressional achievements may prove durable, but the agency rules that lay at the heart of his progressive agenda are quickly disappearing in a bureaucratic fog, with LGBTQ protections proving especially vulnerable.

Federal agencies are charged with interpreting and implementing laws passed by Congress. They can promulgate two types of regulations: rules, which are binding regulations with the full force of law, and guidance, which interpret rules and are not binding. Rules must go through a public notice-and-comment period; guidance does not. To revoke a rule, an agency must once again undertake the notice-and-comment process, allowing opponents to intervene, protest, or sue. (Congress can also overturn recently finalized rules.) To revoke guidance, an agency need only issue a memo declaring the guidance to be null.

Many federal laws outlaw sex discrimination, and the courts increasingly understand that prohibition to include sex stereotyping against LGBTQ people. Obamas agencies followed suit. His administrations most famous transgender protection, forbidding schools from discriminating against trans students, was derived from Title IXs celebrated bar on discrimination because of sex. But this directive was issued as guidance by the departments of Education and Justice, interpreting an older rule regarding Title IX. As a result, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos were able to withdraw the guidance in February, immediately leaving trans schoolchildren across the country unprotected.

The Trump era has laid bare the peril of protecting civil rights through executive orders and agency rule-making.

Some of Obamas less controversial protections were also issued as guidance: A regulation proscribing anti-LGBTQ discrimination in credit, for instance, was handed down in the form of a letter, rendering it susceptible to sudden withdrawal. Other protections took the form of legally binding rules, making them more difficult, though not impossible, to reverse. To take one example, Sessions Justice Department has indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services is planning to repeal a rule interpreting the Affordable Care Act to prohibit discrimination against trans and gender-nonconforming people. (HHS has already stopped gathering data on LGBTQ elders.) Ben Carsons Department of Housing and Urban Development is also laying the groundwork to rescind a rule allowing trans people without a home to stay at the sex-segregated shelter that corresponds to their gender identity. And, with Trumps approval, congressional Republicans used an arcane law to reverse a rule barring states from defunding Planned Parenthood.

Sessions in particular is in an excellent position to walk back the Obama administrations efforts to protect minorities. The attorney general is currently reviewing consent decrees with discriminatory police departments, a process that will likely end with looser federal oversight of law enforcement abuse. He has also switched the DOJs position on voter suppression laws, urging a federal court to dismiss litigation against Texas draconian voter ID measure. And just this month, Sessions overturned an Obama-era policy designed to minimize the infliction of mandatory minimums upon drug offenders. Sessions new policy, which directs prosecutors to pursue the maximum possible penalties, is certain to have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities.

The easiest way for the Trump administration to block civil rights protections, however, is to defund the program for enforcing them. Trumps proposed budget would do exactly that to the Environmental Protection Agencys environmental justice program, which is tasked with identifying and alleviating pollution that disproportionately affects minority communities. Under Obama, the project flourished: His EPA developed sophisticated tools to measure the correlation between pollution and socioeconomic factors, helping the government protect low-income individuals from health hazards. But in March, the programs leader resigned, citing Trumps efforts to sabotage his projects, and now it seems destined for the chopping block.

Trump also plans to break up the Labor Departments Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which prevents federal contractors from engaging in discrimination. With the help of Congress, he has already repealed an executive order requiring contractors to provide documentation proving compliance with nondiscrimination law. And with nearly every federal agency now led by Trump-allied conservatives, the administration can simply stop enforcing a slew of civil rights rules designed to help minorities and the poor.

Top Comment

Republicans show up for every election: Federal, state and local. They always vote straight party line, no matter who The Party nominates. More...

This rapid backsliding does not prove Obama was foolish to rely upon agencies to carry out his civil rights agenda: Given congressional Republicans intransigence, agencies provided him with his only tool to bend the law toward justice. And some of Obamas accomplishments did run through Congress, including the expansion of the Violence Against Women Act and federal hate crimes laws to cover LGBTQ people, as well as the repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. These are lasting triumphs.

But the flurry of executive action that defined Obamas second termhis famous use of a pen and a phone to work around Congressis much less resilient to attack. The Trump era has laid bare the peril of protecting civil rights through executive orders, agency rule-making, and memoranda. The resulting reforms may be great while they last. But theres no guarantee that theyll last much longer than the administration that created them in the first place.

Read the rest here:
How the Trump Administration Is Dismantling Obama's Civil Rights Legacy - Slate Magazine

Former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power

WASHINGTON The inquiry into whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and transition team has a new surprise suspect: former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

The House Intelligence Committee announced Wednesday it was submitting subpoenas as part of its ongoing investigation into any Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election campaign, and sources gave more details to the Wall Street Journal.

Buried inside the papers account was a potentially bombshell development: The committee is seeking information from the FBI, CIA and NSA on unmasking requests made by Power.

Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of U.S. citizens gathered in foreign surveillance.

The new subpoena immediately raises the question: Why would Power be seeking such information?

Why would a diplomat care about Trump officials?

Power and Obama

It would hardly seem to have any obvious relevance to her job as U.N. ambassador.

She was, however, a close confidant of President Obama, and she served him as a foreign-policy adviser when he was a senator.

And members of the intelligence committee have previouslyshown concern about Obama officials unmasking Trump associates.

Sources told Fox News that Powers role is now under increasing scrutiny by the intelligence committee.

Republicans on the Intelligence Committee want to know if the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign for political purposes, as the president has charged.

It has already been established that the Obama administration collected surveillance information on Trump associates during the campaign, and on the presidents former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, during the transition.

The Obama administration claimed it was investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. However, in the seven months since the investigation was launched, no evidence of such collusion has ever emerged, as even all of the top Democrats involved in the inquiry have had to admit.

The House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas Wednesday. Three of them, signed by chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., explicitly asked the FBI, CIA and NSA for information on unmasking requests involving three top officials of the Obama administration: former ambassador Power, former White House national security adviserSusan Rice and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Brennan admitted to the House Intelligence Committee during testimony Tuesday that he instigated the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia even though he had seen no evidence of that.

Brennan claimed he had seen some contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials, and he was worried that might lead to collusion. So he referred the matter to the FBI, which launched an investigation.

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former Secretary of State John Kerry and former President Barack Obama

The other four subpoenas issued by the Intelligence Committee on Wednesday were requested by the committees ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and seek information on Trump attorney Michael Cohen and on Flynn. Democrats are still hoping to find some evidence of collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

Flynn was fired as national security adviser three weeks into the job after his name was unmasked by someone in the Obama administration and then leaked to the press.

Anonymous sources claimed Flynn discussed inappropriate topics before the inauguration with the Russian ambassador, such as possible sanctions relief. Trump said Flynn had not discussed anything inappropriate but was fired for not telling Vice President Mike Pence the whole truth.

Speaking to MSNBC in April, Ricedid not deny unmasking the identities of the names of Trump associates collected in foreign surveillance.

She implicitly acknowledged and explicitly defended unmasking by claiming: It was not uncommon. It was necessary at times to make those requests.

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice

But speaking to PBS on March 22, Rice had denied any knowledge of such unmasking after it was revealed by House Intelligence Chairman Nunes.

She told PBS, I know nothing about this, and I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

So, by her own admission, Rice was not telling the truth on March 22.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

Rice tried to defend her actions by telling MSNBC she did nothing inappropriate and that she sometimes sought the names of people in intelligence reports, as part of her job.

But, if that was true, why did she not tell the truth to PBS on March 22?

In her defense, Rice merely asserted to MSNBC that she did not leak unmasked names to the press and that the unmasking wasnt politically motivated.

The big questions now are whether those statements are true.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, one of the nations top legal minds, cast serious doubt on Rices veracity in comments made to WND and in acolumn in National Review.

Former President Barack Obama and Rice

Rice had told MSNBC the unmasking of any names of Trump associates in intelligence reports was not done to spy on them for any political purposes.

This is not anything political, as has been alleged, she said. The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That is absolutely false.

McCarthy pointed out that cant be the case.

The national-security adviser is not an investigator, he wrote. She is a White House staffer. The presidents staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it.

Therefore, If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic Party interests.

In other words, her actions contradicted her explanation.

Requesting the unmasking, according to McCarthy, could have had no purpose other than politics because she was not an investigator.

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations, he wrote.

There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked, McCarthy added. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities an intelligence need based on American interests the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.

Therefore, McCarthy deduced, there could be but one conclusion: Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic Party.

Of particular importance is that Rice focused her defense not on denying unmasking, but on denying she was the leaker of unmasked names, specifically denying she leaked the name of Mike Flynn, President Trumps former national security adviser.

I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would, said Rice.

However, it was the unmasking that made the leak possible.

The unmasking was the crucial part.

The leak could have been committed by any of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of intelligence officials who could see the intelligence after Flynns name was unmasked.

That was because of the executive order Obama issued in the waning days of his presidency relaxing the rules on the sharing of information within the intelligence community.

The New York Times reported Jan. 12,[T]he Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the governments 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

That was eight days before the end of the Obama administration.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WNDs Email News Alerts!

Visit link:
New surprise suspect in Obama spy scandal - WND.com

If President Donald Trump pulls out of the Paris agreement, it will be the latest step in his determined campaign to erase former President Barack Obama's green agenda. | AP Photo

President Donald Trump's expected decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement is a huge morale blow to the worldwide effort to head off the worst effects of global warming. But it's just the latest step in his determined campaign to erase Barack Obama's green agenda.

Pulling out of the Paris deal means that the United States the world's second-largest producer of greenhouse gases would no longer take part in the most comprehensive international pact ever crafted on climate change, joining Syria and Nicaragua as the only holdouts among nearly 200 nations.

Story Continued Below

But Trump's domestic environmental efforts will have the most immediate real-world impact on the planet's fate, by halting Obama's attempts to achieve steep cuts in U.S. carbon emissions and shift the country away from fossil fuels. The impact of those regulation rollbacks and other steps could be equivalent to adding almost 2 percent to the world's carbon output by 2025 compared with Obama's targets, based on recent analyses at a time when climate researchers say the world urgently needs to accelerate its reductions.

This is POLITICO's rundown of the steps Trump has already set in motion:

Trump ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to take the first steps toward repealing Obamas Clean Power Plan, a suite of curbs on greenhouse gas pollution from thousands of existing power plants. Those restrictions, and a separate regulation on future plants, would have encouraged power companies to shift away from coal.

The administration lifted Obamas freeze on new coal leases on federal land, and halted the Interior Departments formal environmental review of coal leasing charges.

Interior announced it will repeal an Obama-era rule that threatened to increase companies royalty payments for coal, oil and natural gas they extract on federal lands.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry ordered a 60-day review of tax and regulatory policies that are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants, language suggesting the report will criticize federal support for wind and solar power.

Trump ordered Interior to end restrictions on oil drilling in Arctic waters, and told it to consider opening up the Atlantic coast for drilling.

He ordered Interior to rewrite a 2015 rule that called for tighter environmental standards for fracked oil and gas wells on public lands. He also ordered reviews of a rule on offshore oil well safety, as well as one relating to air quality evaluations for offshore oil and gas drillers.

He signed a congressional repeal of an Interior Department land-use planning update after fossil fuel companies complained it would hurt their access to federal lands.

EPA withdrew a request for information from oil and gas companies about methane emissions from their operations. The Obama administrations request had been seen as an early step toward regulating those sources.

Trump ordered the Commerce Department to review all marine sanctuaries established or expanded in the past 10 years for possible oil and natural gas drilling opportunities.

He reversed Obamas denial of a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to allow final construction on the Dakota Access pipeline. Neither project would have much impact on the climate by itself, but the moves sent a strong signal of the administrations intention to increase fossil fuel production.

Trumps 2018 budget request proposed a 31 percent cut to EPAs budget, which especially targeted its climate programs. He also proposed cutting climate research at other agencies, including Interiors U.S. Geological Survey.

EPA reassigned employees who had been working on adapting to the effects of climate change.

Trump called for eliminating DOEs loan program and its Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which supports commercially risky technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The administration also sought deep cuts to offices devoted to fossil, nuclear and renewable energy as well as energy efficiency.

DOE placed a hold on funding for nearly two dozen ARPA-E projects. Only three have gotten approval under the Trump administration.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the rest here:
All the ways Trump is shredding Obama's climate agenda - Politico

President Donald Trump is mulling a reversal ofCuba policies enacted by former president Barack Obama that soften the U.S. stance towards the country, including the rescinding of the wet foot, dry foot immigration policy.

According to two sources quoted by the Daily Caller, the Republican has been intending to roll back the Cuba policies signed by Obama in January for some time, and is likely to take a tougher line on Cuba.

The Trump Administration has been ready since February 2017 to announce changes, but issues unrelated to Cuba have intervened, John Kavulich, from the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, told the Daily Caller.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Kavulich told the publication he believes the president will look at an increased enforcement relating to travel, and a focus upon discouraging transactions with entities controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of the Republic of Cuba.

The intention by Trump to reinstate more stringent polices in regards to Cuba is reportedly backed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including former presidential hopefuland Florida senator Marco Rubio, along with Democrat Bob Menendez, and Republican representative Mario Diaz-Balart, also from Florida, who criticized Obamas decision to rescind the wet foot, dry foot policy just before leaving office.

At times, Cuban President Ral Castro appeared defensive and even flustered when questioned by American reporters in Havana. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Back in January, Obama announced that an end to a policy that gave Cubans who reached the U.S. preferential treatment on immigration, also stating there would be an increase in cooperation with Cuba following an agreement on a number of issues including terrorism and human trafficking.

"Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal," Obama said in January. "By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries."

But his decision prompted ire from a number of Republicans including Diaz-Balart.

Speaking at the time of Obamas decision, Diaz-Balart said: With just eight days left in his administration, President Obama has found one more way to frustrate the democratic aspirations of the Cuban people and provide yet another shameful concession to the Castro regime.

He is now hoping to see Trump reverse such policies, and appears to be confident the president will do so, telling the Daily Caller he was1,000 percent sure the president is going to deliver on his commitment.

Here is the original post:
Donald Trump set to reverse Barack Obama's policies on Cuba - Newsweek