Mediaboss Marketing

White House press secretary Sean Spicer in his daily media briefing on Thursday falsely accused journalists of holding President Trump to a different standard than they applied toformer president Barack Obama, when it comes to criticizing the judiciary.

Responding to questions about the propriety of Trump's recent tweets about a federal judge who ruled against a travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, Spicer drew an imperfect comparison to Obama's public opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in the 2010 Citizens United case and said inaccurately that there was no concern from reporters at the time.

The idea of one branch talking about or commenting on another branch is as old as our republic, Spicer said. So, I don't know why and I, I find it interesting [that] when President Obama criticized the Supreme Court for its Citizens United comments in the State of the Union, there wasn't a similar concern about that. It seems like there's clearly a double standard when it's how this is applied. When President Obama did it, there was no concern from this briefing room. When [Trump] does it, it's a ton of outrage.

Just in case you don't remember exactly what Obama said about the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address seven years ago, here it is:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

And here is what Trump has tweeted about U.S. District Judge James L. Robart:

Trump's rebuke was far more intense than Obama's.

Obama, a lawyer, merely labeled the Supreme Court's decision wrong and called on Congress to pass a bill that would reverse it. Trump cast aspersions on Robart's qualifications by referring to him as a so-called judge and blamed him for a hypothetical, future terrorist attack.

It is one thing for a president to disagree with a ruling, on the merits; it is another to suggest that a so-called judge could have blood on his hands.

Still, Obama's critique of the Citizens United decision was a big deal especially because Justice Samuel Alito could be seen on camera shaking his head as Obama spoke. The episode was dissected at length on cable news:

It was covered on the front page:

And at the first White House press briefing after the State of the Union, it, of course, came up:

Q: Would the president support requiring shareholder approval before a company could spend money on ads, like in reference to the Supreme Court decision?

DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILLBURTON: There are a series of reforms that the president is looking at and talking to members of Congress about. I don't want to get into the specifics of the negotiations and what those are, but campaign finance reform has become a lot more important in the course of the last couple of weeks and the president and his team are focused on it.

Q: What's the president's reaction to Justice Alito's reaction to his speech?

BURTON: Well, this issue is something that many have serious concerns about. It's something that Justice Ginsburg brought up in her oral arguments. It's something that Justice Stevens wrote about in his dissent. It's an issue that the court could have specifically addressed in its findings, but they didn't. And the American people deserve the right to know that foreign corporations cannot interfere with American elections.

So this is another one of the issues that the president is looking at in terms of campaign finance reform. In terms of the specific reaction to Justice Alito, one of the great things about our democracy is that powerful members of the government at high levels can disagree in public and in private. This is one of those cases. But the president is no less committed to seeing this reform.

Once again, Spicer stood before a roomful of journalists and made an assertion that is totally at odds with the facts.

Originally posted here:
Sean Spicer falsely claims 'there was no concern' from the media when Obama criticized the Supreme Court - Washington Post

Forbes

This Ritz-Carlton KL Manager Shares What It Was Like To Host Obama Forbes Former U.S. President Barack Obama travelled a lot during his two terms in office. Twice, he found himself in Kuala Lumpur and on both occasions, he stayed at one hotel The Ritz-Carlton. The 19-year-old establishment was the country's first truly ...

See more here:
This Ritz-Carlton KL Manager Shares What It Was Like To Host Obama - Forbes

House Republicans will vote next week to liberate states from an Obama rule requiring them to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

In one of his last actions, Obama effectively forced states to fund Planned Parenthood. Many states have policies barring state funds for the abortion giant, and Obama's 11th-hour executive order prohibited such policies.

Next week, the House plans to use the Congressional Review Act to repeal that Obama regulation a first salvo in their fight to roll back Obama's legacy on abortion.

According to congressional aides, the vote is scheduled for late next week and will specifically axe Obama's Title X rule. During his final weeks in office, Obama finalized the regulation, explicitly barring states from pulling federal grant money from clinics that provide abortion.

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told The Washington Examiner that the effort is about "protecting life and stopping the federal government from forcing states to support abortion."

"The federal government should not be sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers, and it shouldn't force states to do so either," McCarthy said in a statement. "Overturning this regulation from the Obama Administration not only allows states to freely choose pro-life policies, but will protect the lives of the weakest and least powerful among us."

Before the Obama rule went into effect, 15 states had defunded Planned Parenthood on their own. Should the bill make it to President Trump's desk and receive his signature, it would put Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funding at risk. Currently, Republicans enjoy complete control of half the states.

Echoing Speaker Paul Ryan, McCarthy insisted the legislation wouldn't keep women from receiving reproductive care. Instead it would allow states to use Title X money for "other community health centers and hospitals that offer more comprehensive service."

Altogether, the effort will serve as a dress rehearsal for the coming fight over Planned Parenthood. Since Obama left office, Republicans have eagerly set about demolishing his legacy using the Congressional Review Act. This is the first time it's been applied to the abortion issue.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The British-Nigerian actor who portrayed Martin Luther King Jr. in the 2014 movie gave his sons a talk about Trump.

02/10/17 4:46 PM

Chances are good that the CRA will pass the House. Last July, a similar defund bill by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., passed 241-187. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., could use a fast track process to neutralize a Democrat filibuster and pass the CRA.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Top Story

The former first lady will be a judge on "MasterChef Junior."

02/10/17 3:22 PM

See more here:
Hill Republicans plan to kill Obama's order on taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood - Washington Examiner

President Donald J. Trump simultaneously can advance his policy agenda, fortify the rule of law, and paint vulnerable Democrats into a corner. How? Rather than kill Obamas legacy projects unilaterally, Trump should invite Congress to help him scrap the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris agreement on so-called global warming, and the related Clean Power Plan (CPP). This will force vulnerable Democrats on Capitol Hill to vote on these calamitous measures.

Trump should transmit to the Senate the Iran nuke accord and the Paris climate pact. He should ask the upper body to vote on these international measures as treaties, requiring 67 votes for passage. Neither will reach that threshold, and both will fail but not before senators vote on each proposal.

This is how these international items should have been handled. Instead, Obama dubbed the Iran deal an executive agreement, which automatically went into effect, unless Congress killed it, subject to his veto. This cockeyed procedure which Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell and former speaker John Boehner inexplicably allowed made the Iran deal impossible to kill.

Even worse, the Paris treaty became binding upon America on November 4, after 55 foreign CO2-producing nations adopted it. Rather than seek the Senates consent, Obama outsourced its authorization to parliaments overseas.

These assaults on the rule of law aside, the deals are dreadful on the merits.

Rather than tame Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has unleashed an even more aggressive power. Under Obamas blessed deal, Iran has tested missiles (including one on Wednesday), harassed U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and even held American sailors hostage at gunpoint and on their knees. In the closing days of his reign of error, Obama approved Russias delivery of 130 tons of natural uranium to Tehran enough to fuel ten atomic bombs. This atop some $1.7 billio in cash that the U.S. jetted to the Iranians, plus at least $50 billion of unfrozen assets. None of this has tamed Tehran.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton explained in Mondays Wall Street Journalhow this deal is all gums and no teeth. As Annex B states, Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons for eight years.

Called upon?

I hereby call upon Warren Buffett to send me $1 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock. I await my shares.

The Paris Treaty sets non-binding CO2 limits. America most likely would abide by these restrictions and pay the price in economic stagnation. Brazil, China, India, Russia, and other nations probably would regard the deal as a list of suggestions, leaving America at a disadvantage.

Dumb.

The CPP is not a treaty. Therefore, both the Senate and the House would have to vote on it. GOP lawmakers will see that it dies a well-deserved death, and Democrats will have to decide whether to join Republicans in this merciful deed, or stand with the kite-sailor-in-chief and his nearly $1 trillion anti-warming symbol.

Obamas Department of Energy determined that, between 2015 and 2040, the CPP would cost the U.S. economy $993 billion in foregone real GDP and $382 billion in squandered disposable income. In exchange, CPP would do virtually nothing about so-called global warming. CPP would reduce expected warming by 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit in 2050. This is like cranking a thermostat from 72 degrees all the way down to 71.98 degrees. No wonder former EPA chief Gina McCarthy called CPP a strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action in other words, a trillion dollars worth of window dressing.

All of this should spread anxiety among Senate Democrats from states that Trump won, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Deeper worry should infuse Democrats from Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia states that Trump and Mitt Romney both secured.

Senate Democrats such as Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin should join Trump as bipartisan pallbearers at the funerals of these unpopular, foolish, and destructive policies. It will be tough for Trumps seething critics to call him an environment-hating warmonger if at least some Democrats help him and the GOP bury these horrid measures. This would boost Trumps political capital and please conservatives. But it will enrage the already volcanic Democratic base.

If, conversely, these non-rabid Democrats take a jump to the left and vote to hand billions to the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism and to cremate the U.S. economy on the altar of so-called global warming, George Soros will be thrilled. And moderate Democrats and independent voters will be appalled.

Either way, Trump wins, and already endangered Democrats will find themselves on ice as thin as contact lenses.

Rarely have good policy and good politics walked so tightly hand in hand. President Trump can trigger all of this simply by sending these three measures to Capitol Hill and calling for the yeas and nays.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online.

Read more from the original source:
Kill Obama's Legacy Projects - National Review

A painful Democratic rift over Barack Obamas political legacy is finally bursting into the open.

For years, the former presidents popularity among Democrats stifled any public critiques of his stewardship of the party a period in which the party suffered tremendous losses at the state and local levels.

Story Continued Below

But now that Obama and the political operation that succeeded his campaign, Organizing For Action, have expressed interest in playing a role in the task of rebuilding, its sparking pitched debates over how much blame he deserves for the gradual hollowing out of a party that now has less control of state-elected positions than at any other time in nearly a century.

That degree of mistrust rooted in the idea that OFA was always primarily interested in advancing the presidents political interests, often at the expense of the party is already showing signs of hampering Obamas former Labor Secretary Tom Perez as he pursues the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. And the wariness expressed by nearly three dozen Democrats in interviews also threatens to create a divide between Obamas loyalists and the rest of the party.

[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties. So I hope the OFA role is none. I hope OFA closes their doors and allows the country and state parties to get to the hard work of rebuilding the party at the local and grass-roots level, said Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb, echoing a sentiment that has dominated private chatter among state party chairs for months. OFA had no faith or confidence in the state parties so they created a whole separate organization, they took money away and centralized it in D.C. They gave us a great president for eight years, but we lost everywhere else."

While Obama has taken some responsibility for the partys down-ballot failures Democrats now have unified control over just six states, and 10 fewer governorships than when he took office, while Republicans have taken over the U.S. House and the Senate his political allies have made clear that he hopes to help the Democratic comeback through his involvement with a redistricting effort. And the groups around him, like OFA, intend to play a role when it comes to organizing, recruiting candidates and training activists.

Thats a reversal from Obamas longtime lack of interest in the partys infrastructure, dating back to when his advisers felt that he had to run against the state party establishments in his challenge to Hillary Clinton in 2008.

The former presidents newfound interest in party-building is partly about preserving his White House legacy when its under attack from Republicans which is in the interest of his fellow Democrats but there has thus far been no coordination between Obamas political world and the rest of the partys leadership structure.

I have not been briefed on the future of OFA and the presidents involvement, said Donna Brazile, the DNC chair.

And that silence is what alarms Democrats who resentfully remember a president who for years couldnt be bothered to replace then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, even after she became a source of intraparty controversy. They recall a commander in chief whose campaign was seen by state party officials as circumventing them, rather than working with them. And they think back to a party leader who didnt want to get too closely involved in governors races ahead of 2010s redistricting, which many of them say is a reason for Democrats state-level bloodbath in the ensuing years.

Still, there is no consensus over the amount of blame Obama should get for Democrats woes. To Boyd Brown, a former South Carolina state legislator and until recently a DNC member, the finger-pointing is a territorial ego game."

A lot of what happened with regard to the party at every level was the congressional leadership, said former Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire who lost his seat in 2012 after the states electoral map was redrawn deflecting the responsibility from Obama alone. Democrats as a whole overreached greatly leading up to 2010 and unfortunately for Democrats that was right before redistricting."

If you look at the organizational work that OFA did, they absolutely knew what they were doing, they were effective, they won two presidential elections, they helped get people like me in 2008 a 22-year-old elected to the state legislature because of their organizational efforts. So I think the more the better, I dont have a problem with having 100 different organizations out there, added Brown. Were still in the stage of a grief period where folks are blaming others, and that appears to be what these folks are doing."

That tension has reached the point where state chairs pitching donors now feel the need to explain what their local committees can legally do that an external effort like OFA cannot. Those state leaders also went out of their way to ensure that the data and supporter lists from Clintons campaign would revert to the party after the election. OFAs data treasure trove, after all, didnt settle at the DNC until 2015 three years after Obamas reelection.

It created a shadow organization that was recruiting the same volunteers [as the DNC], using resources from a very limited number of donors, and therefore, as a result it weakened the DNC and the impact that the DNC and state parties could have on politics during his tenure, said South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison, a candidate for DNC chair. Youve got five organizations knocking on the same door with five different messages. Thats not conducive. In the age of Trump we need to be a lean, mean, strategic machine."

Harrison and Adam Parkhomenko, a former Clinton campaign and DNC organizing official who is now running for the party vice-chairmanship, have both raised that problem in the partys public candidate forums in recent weeks. And that public airing has spurred a round of talk between state-level Democrats over the extent to which they wish to see a return of the Obama machine which, after all, is the only Democratic one to win nationwide since 1996.

Resources that are financial, and other resources like data and ideas that people are trying to bring to fruition in terms of organizing kits and materials: thats what the DNC needs to spend its time doing, so the only outside apparatus we should have in terms of the party is the [state] parties, said Parkhomenko, pointing to years of low investment and attention paid to local Democratic committees. The lack of party and DNC [capacity] was a big contributing factor to what happened in the last election, [and] hopefully it will be a lesson to our party to never let this happen again."

A major question now confronting DNC members is the extent to which this lingering frustration with Obamas political operation has a material effect on the race for party chairman: while Perez is widely seen as the Obama-wing candidate due to his praise from the former president and backing from former Obama White House officials like former Vice President Joe Biden, former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Obama has not formally endorsed him, and Perez was never involved with OFA itself.

The concerns over OFAs role as a parallel organization to the DNC are just as ripe when it comes to Our Revolution, the heir to Bernie Sanders campaign: a group that has not handed over Sanders golden email lists to the DNC, and which has endorsed Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, widely seen as the Sanders-wing candidate.

But those questions are operational, and not about the broader issues facing the reeling party. For those questions, Democrats insist, they cant afford to sideline Obama, their most popular and successful figure.

OFA should fold into the DNC. Having two organizations is redundant, and dilutes and confuses the mission. Given the urgency of the moment, we need laser-like focus, with clear lanes and cohesion, not duplication, said former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. "President Obama, I hope, will be fully engaged in helping the party rebuild. We need his inspiration, his ability to fundraise, his brilliant strategic mind and his ability to convene and mobilize. He can also help to engage millennials and communities of color, in addition to the work he will be doing on redistricting. He is also the best messenger of our generation: we need him."

People might have differences with some things he did about party issues, added Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy. "They all might have wanted him to do something one way or something another way, but clearly hes a gigantic draw in the Democratic Party. He should be heard. He has a voice, and if hes inclined to use that voice, Im inclined to listen."

As such, even the biggest skeptics of Obamas political organization agree that the former president is likely to be the partys most potent surrogate and potential fundraising tool in combating Donald Trump. They just dont trust his political operation to carry out the groundwork.

We all welcome President Obama and Vice President Biden, theyre heroes and giants in the Democratic world. This has nothing to do with them, this has everything to do with the political operatives in the D.C. bubble and not out in Nebraska, said Kleeb. Im sorry, you had eight years to build us a party, but you failed. So no, sorry, we do not want you. Thanks, but no thanks."

Edward-Isaac Dovere contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:
Obama's party-building legacy splits Democrats - Politico