Posts

barack_obama_on_phone_with_benjamin_netanyahu_2009-06-08

Obama’s Legacy: 5 Failures the Media Won’t Tell You About

Even though Obama’s presidency comes to an end Friday, The Great Revision has long been underway. Obama and the mainstream media have been spreading falsehoods and fantasies about his record. Last year, I co-wrote and published a comprehensive takedown of Obama’s presidency so that America wouldn’t be so easily fooled. Here are five failures that stand in stark contrast to the fictions Obama has been spreading about his legacy:

1. Job growth was actually bad

Obama fancies himself a great president for the economy, citing “record job growth” and a low unemployment rate as proof. What he won’t tell you is that while roughly 15 million jobs were created since 2010, the working-age population grew by nearly 18 million. In fact, the jobs gap got wider during the “recovery”, and most of those jobs were actually part-time. Not only has job growth not kept up with population growth, and the labor force participation rate is at a 38-year low, but wage growth has also been stagnant. Hardly a record to be proud of.

2. Obamacare didn’t cover 20 million people

Obamacare certainly didn’t provide coverage “for all Americans” and I suppose Obama deserves a tiny bit of credit for not claiming that it did. But he is claiming that 20 million gained coverage because of Obamacare — which is pure hogwash. About 14 million people actually gained coverage, with 11.8 million of them actually getting coverage through Medicaid. And more than two-thirds of those people were eligible for Medicaid before Obamacare even existed. And then there’s the skyrocketing premiums — the same premiums Obama promised to lower by $2,500 per family — and higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. Despite Obamacare, the number of Americans delaying seeking health care over costs has not gone down since Obamacare was implemented. And, by the way, last year saw healthcare costs increase by the largest rate in over thirty-two years. Bravo, Obama! Bravo!

3. Obama crippled the Democratic Party

There is perhaps no better indictment of Obama’s presidency than how it crippled the Democratic Party nationwide over the course of his two terms. Between state legislatures, governorships, and the U.S. Congress, Democrats lost over 1,000 seats. Twenty-five states now have a total Republican-controlled government, compared to just five with total Democrat-controlled government. Thanks to the outgoing president, the Republican Party is the strongest it has been since the 1920s. But that’s a colossal failure I can live with. Thanks, Obama!

4. Race relations are worse … much worse

While Obama credits himself for improved race relations in the United States, recent polling says that a majority of Americans disagree. He had the chance to be a force for good in the struggle to heal the wounds of racial division, but he chose, among other things, to embrace Black Lives Matter. Thanks to bitter rhetoric and acts of violence within the BLM movement, there was a sharp increase in shooting deaths of police officers last year and a staggering 93% of police officers have become more concerned for their safety as a result. This was a huge failure of the first black president in history.

5. The most scandalous modern presidency

And then there are the oft-repeated claims by Obama (and his allies) of having a scandal-free administration. In a recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama declared he was proud his administration was the first “in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.” Sure, except for Solyndra, Fast and Furious, the Benghazi attack and cover-up, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, the Sestak Job offer scandal, the GSA scandal, the NSA scandal, the Iran nuclear deal and ransom, the VA scandal, the Pigford scandal, the Bergdahl swap, various EPA scandals … just to name a few. But, who’s counting, right? Of course, the media scoffs at these scandals, giving Obama pass after pass, when any one of them would have likely sunk anyone else’s presidency. The truth, however, is that the Obama and his administration were so tainted by controversy and scandal that Richard Nixon looks like George Washington by comparison.

From every conceivable angle, from failed policies to absent leadership to outright corruption, Obama’s presidency has set a new low bar. The media, however, seems to be working overtime to ensure that the truth of Obama’s legacy is covered up, so that history will judge him a successful president. The only way to prevent this from happening is to know all the facts. That is why I wrote The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. We can do a lot better than settling for failure and calling it success. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Legacy: 5 Failures the Media Won’t Tell You About” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_by_Gage_Skidmore_2

More Misappropriated Womanhood: Manning, Marching and Madness

Obama made history this week. He became the first President in history to commute the prison sentence of a fictitious person who was never convicted of a crime. PFC Bradley Manning sits in a cell at Leavenworth, convicted of espionage. But according to all the news reports on the story, Obama has decided to let Chelsea Manning out of prison in May. Neat trick, eh?

Our compliant, brainless media churns out the loony propaganda all day long. Manning is consistently referred to as “she” in media reports. They call him Chelsea now, and talk about “her,” and how this will certainly save “her life.” Take this, for example, from Fox News: “Manning was known as Bradley Manning at the time of her 2010 arrest, but revealed after being convicted of espionage that she identifies as a woman.”

“Her arrest”? “She” was never arrested. Chelsea Manning was never convicted of a crime, because Chelsea Manning was never a soldier in the U.S. Army. Chelsea Manning is not serving a sentence for espionage. Bradley Manning is. Can we all come back to the real world now? Bradley Manning is the man who betrayed his country and broke the law and now sits in prison where he belongs. Bradley Manning is not a woman. He is not a “she.” I couldn’t care less if he “identifies” as a radish or a seahorse or a comic book character. He’s still a man. Stop insulting the female sex by referring to him as a woman and calling him “her” and “she.”

Fools and Tyrants

Stop with the insanity. It is every bit as absurd to call him a woman as it would be to call him a radish. Enough already with this obsession with delusion and this infatuation with the magical power of a person’s claimed “identity,” no matter how objectively false.

The polite word for someone who is willingly hoodwinked into believing and then preaching absolute nonsense is fool. A better word is sucker. Moron. Bonehead.

The word for people who spread the absolute nonsense under threat and penalty, who mandate the acceptance of the absolute nonsense and punish any resistance is tyrant.

American society is officially captive to fools and tyrants. If you bristle at that assessment, if you find it harsh or intolerant, then I’d say your froggy self doesn’t realize the nice warm water you’re floating in will soon be boiling. There is no making friends with insanity. There’s no sunny middle ground where rationality and madness can picnic together.

People will either live and act and speak rationally, honestly and plainly, or they will surrender to lies and madness and chaos. It doesn’t matter if the present palate spits out objective truth in favor of popular delusions. Truth is still truth, and it will never peacefully coexist with deceit.

The (Some) Women’s March

Then there’s the Women’s March on Washington. The reports this week confirmed what we already knew, which is that this Women’s March is only for liberal, secular, progressive, Left-loyal, pro-abortion women. Women like me are not welcome. (“Women” like Bradly Manning, however, would be greeted with open arms and cheers.)

This march has taken the official position that feminism means the “right” of a woman to kill the child in her womb if she so desires. The women behind this march insist that the very essence of feminism is and must be bloodlust for our own babies.

Well, listen up, girls.

Your version of feminism is twisted and thoroughly demonic, and like all things demonic, it holds no affection for you, no regard for your happiness, and will show no restraint in consuming you after you’ve fed it your children. Sow death and you’ll reap death.

The time is over when we teach our daughters that being a free woman means our babies must die at our hands. No longer will we accept the lie that we have absolute authority over another human being’s life, merely because we are women. We will not raise another generation to turn their wombs into places of execution, and sell their bodies and souls to a greedy, self-serving industry built around violence.

The minds of young women have been poisoned for too long with the lie that the child in their womb is the enemy of their future, the thief of their own happiness, and a jailer to imprison them. Motherhood has been disfigured into a tiresome, lonely, hopeless thing that provokes fear, dread and pity.

And let’s not forget the damage done to men and fatherhood. Modern women are unquestionably a stupid lot. Liberal feminists have complained about men, belittled, and insulted men for decades, then have the nerve to whine when men turn around and fulfill all of women’s worst expectations. They lost all respect for men, and unsurprisingly, men began walking away.

Modern “feminism” is an unappealing, self-defeating exercise. It resembles nothing feminine; nothing womanly; nothing healthy, whole or loving at all. In my lifetime, I’ve seen it become a man-hating, child-fearing, marriage-killing, motherhood-denigrating, Pill-popping, abortion-worshiping cult of fools and tyrants. No thanks. I’m happy to sit this march out.

In fact, forget feminism. It’s time for a bigger vision. We need an authentic humanism. The human person is created male and female, in the image and likeness of God. Different by design. Equal in dignity. Divine in union. There is nothing in all creation more amazing, more beautiful, more powerful than the complementarity of a man and a woman.

That needs to be the next American revolution. Let men be men, and women be women, without requiring one to do all the same things the other does. (Exhale, everyone. It’s okay.)

Nobody knows what “zir” or “genderqueer” even means because the words are gibberish. Stop speaking gibberish. A male is a male is a male, and never a female shall he be. Call the madness what it is.

Finally, let’s call the “choice” what it is. Our age in history is distinguished by our zeal for the legal right to kill our own children. To h*** with that! The child in the womb demands our protection, and women deserve far, far better than abortion. God bless the tireless souls who are marching for that.

#MarchForLife2017

(For more from the author of “More Misappropriated Womanhood: Manning, Marching and Madness” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

8403802474_f593ae3964_b

The Triumph of Obama: What Conservatives Can Learn from the Liberal Warrior

Good bye and good riddance to the most radical and destructive president of all time.

With that said, before we let the first post-American president fade from our memory altogether, let’s reflect upon his commitment, passion, and tenacity in pursuit of his anti-American ideas and try to harness that same zeal and commitment for our ideas.

It’s undeniable that Obama has accomplished for the Left more than any other president has accomplished for his respective party’s ideology. The $9.3 trillion in debt he has accrued to bankrupt this country, destroy free markets and capitalism, create crushing dependency, and permanently grow government will live on long past his tenure. The numbers are staggering:

At least 65 percent of all children now live in a home that receives some sort of assistance from the federal government.

Over 82 million Americans live in a home where there is at least one Medicaid recipient.

49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving at least one government program.

Most of all, Obama’s signature legislation—the crown jewel of socialism—has destroyed health care and health insurance in a way that no middle-income family can control their own destiny without unsustainable government subsidies. And unless things change, the core of his plan will not be repealed.

The way Obama has violated our sovereignty and encouraged so many illegal aliens to remain in the country will create a permanent grievance for amnesty. His realignment of allies to enemies and enemies to allies has remade the world.

Yet, nowhere was his transformation more evident than as it relates to the founding values of this country. Obama was right to declare yesterday at a press conference that he “could not be prouder of the transformation that’s taken place in our society just in the last decade.” The sexual identity alphabet soup has become a national religion, marriage has been redefined, sexuality has been redefined, our founding religious values have essentially been criminalized, and he has completely crushed any semblance of organized opposition to even its most radical agenda items. Republicans are now further to the left on basic family values and civilization issues than Democrats were prior to Obama.

The biggest lesson of Obama is that he was comfortable in his own skin. He wasn’t just an “anti-Republican,” although he continued to use “blame Bush” as a tactic to promote that agenda. He had his own affirmative agenda for which he was willing to spend all his political capital enacting and marshal every resource in every agency of the executive branch to promote the cross-section of fiscal, social, and foreign policy liberal ideas. He didn’t make excuses. The few places where he failed to enact a liberal agenda item wasn’t because he didn’t try. It was because the electorate categorically rejected it and took away the House from him for six of his eight years in office.

Obama never appointed a single person to any position in any agency of any department that was not a full-throttled three-legged stool progressive. His administration spoke with one voice towards one mission as it relates to the critical policy battles of our time. They never deviated from their message on a single issue.

Some might suggest that Obama was punished for his overreach and is indeed a failure because Democrats have lost an unprecedented amount of power under his stewardship, especially on a state level. In the short term, this is definitely true. Voters have emphatically rejected his radical progressive brand. However, in the long run, he has completely neutered any legitimate opposition to most of his ideas and has thus shifted the entire universe of the political landscape inexorably to the Left.

Just watch any of the confirmation hearings and you will see the nominees and the GOP senators accept every radical premise of the Obama era. They have accepted the fundamental philosophy behind Obamacare and have agreed to keep the Iran deal. They refuse to oppose one morsel of the transgender agenda, and will not lift a finger to tamp down the absurd gender-bending and social engineering in the military. None of them appear comfortable espousing conservatism openly the way Democrats loudly and proudly champion their agenda, even after losing an election. Indeed, Obama has successfully shifted the entire universe of the political landscape so far to the left that even when Republicans create the minimal 2-3 deviations of space between the parties they are still well to the left of where Democrats were in the ‘90s on critical issues.

However, all is not lost. Republicans can still render Obama’s tenure a failure (even politically) if they countermand his agenda the same way Democrats reversed the progress of the Reagan Revolution. If they would trade in their diffidence for an Obama-sized confidence and passion on the beliefs espoused in the GOP platform, they have an unprecedented opportunity to roll back previous Democrat handiwork for the first time in modern history. The two-party system doesn’t have to operate like a ratchet effect, a metaphor Margaret Thatcher often used to explain the one directional progress of liberalism when the Left is in power and the inability to reverse one iota of that momentum when so-called conservatives are in power.

But that will take a commitment to pack the executive agencies only with people who share every view of the GOP platform the same way Obama appointed only those who shared his values. It will take a catharsis for elected Republicans to finally end their identity crisis and move beyond simply being “better than Obama” or “the lesser of two evils.” It will take an affirmative agenda—a positive, consistent, intellectually honest, and forward looking agenda on sovereignty, security, free markets, liberty, property rights, and a strong civil society. An agenda that can stand on its own veracity, not just as an opposing view to whatever the media or the Left is promulgating.

And finally, it means no more excuses. Republicans control all the levers of federal and most state powers and can easily roll back the critical items of the Obama years and forge a completely new path on so many domestic and foreign policy issues that have been locked in the failed intellectual ghetto of elitist political thought. Stop talking about Obama, Hillary, the media, or blaming failure to repeal Obamacare on something as absurd as a parliamentarian. Who are we and what do we stand for affirmatively? The only context in which we should continue to mention Obama is to remind ourselves of his determination and zeal to see his agenda actualized through thick and thin.

The success or failure of Republicans in the next four years will boil down to this simple question: if liberals are willing to sacrifice it all in order to implement their agenda unconstitutionally, how much more so should we harness every constitutional means of advancing the ideas this party supposedly adopted in the much-vaunted platform of 2016? (For more from the author of “The Triumph of Obama: What Conservatives Can Learn from the Liberal Warrior” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Money_Cash

The $20 Trillion Question Republicans MUST Answer

Obama’s parting gift to this country is a transformed society with $20 trillion in debt. The big question is what will Republicans do differently to curb the growth of the debt?

Given recent news about GOP plans on health care and infrastructure, there are no signs things will improve. Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office has released a new “fiscal health” study, which portends disturbing trends for our fiscal stability.

The gross federal debt now stands at $19.94 trillion — roughly $9.3 trillion more than it was when Obama took office. It took from our nation’s founding until 2008 (including most of the profligate Bush presidency) to accrue the first $9.3 trillion in debt. The public’s share of the debt is now $14.4 trillion, an $8.1 trillion increase since 2009.

Yes, Obama more than doubled the public share of the debt during his presidency!

obama debt graph (1)

The gross federal debt, which includes intra-governmental debt comprised primarily of obligations for Social Security, federal pensions, and military pensions, is now 107 percent of the size of our economy and will forever grow larger than our GDP. When Obama was inaugurated, the gross debt was just 74 percent of GDP. If we look at just the public share of the debt, the numbers are even starker. In January 2009, the public share of the debt was just 44 percent of GDP; now it stands at 77.4 percent.

To make matters worse, the GAO published a report amplifying what we all already know: The current fiscal crisis will place “the federal government on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path.” Here are some other key takeaways from the report:

The federal government made $144 billion in improper payments during 2016. Errors in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit collectively accounted for 78 percent of the overpayments.

If health care spending is not reined in, the public share of the debt (now at 77 percent) will reach 106 percent in 15 years and surpass the all-time high during the peak of WWII.

One of the reasons the debt has not already engulfed this country in a fiscal calamity is because of the artificially low interest rates servicing increased debt on the cheap. But a return to historically average interest rates, in conjunction with the growing size of the debt itself, will self-perpetuate interest on the debt as the fastest growing expenditure. It will more than quadruple from just 1.4 percent of the economy today to 6.2 percent in 30 years. The longer we wait, therefore, to address the debt crisis, the steeper the punishment will be when the tab comes due. At present, we pay $273 billion in interest payments. That number will rise to $1.4 trillion in 2045 (adjusted for inflation).

Spending on federal health care programs will double from roughly $1 trillion to $2 trillion (adjusted for inflation) by 2045.

These are not merely abstract numbers on a balance sheet that only affect the budget of the federal government. Aside from the fact that taxpayers will ultimately bear the cost of this debt, the crushing debt and misallocation of resources is already hurting the family budget. As the report observes, “high levels of national debt may contribute to higher interest rates leading to lower investment and a smaller capital stock to assist economic growth.”

As we head into an era of GOP dominance, we must pose the $20 trillion question: Where is the party of fiscal conservatism?

Rather than discussing ways to make existing health care entitlements more free market-oriented to lower costs, Republicans are concocting a new massive health care entitlement built on top of crushing regulations that will force taxpayers to subsidize health care at the highest price possible.

This GAO report demonstrates the additional folly of pursuing Obamacare 2.0 instead of the free market. The gross cost of Medicare already outpaces military spending, and the combined federal and state price tag for Medicaid will soon overtake the defense budget. According to the CMS Actuary, in just six years, annual Medicaid expenditures will total $835 billion compared with the $687 billion projected cost of base military spending in 2023. The simple reality is that there is no way to forestall the financial collapse without dealing with health care spending.

Why can’t Republicans just speak the truth of how socialist health care is bankrupting the private and public sectors and pin the blame where it rightfully belongs? Why are they being defensive about the need to legitimize Obamacare with a commensurate “replacement?”

While the media focus on the inaugural attire of the Trump family this weekend, conservatives should begin demanding answers from Trump and Republicans to the $20 trillion question. (For more from the author of “The $20 Trillion Question Republicans MUST Answer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_by_Gage_Skidmore_2 (1)

Obama’s Decision to Commute Manning Proves Liberals Will Always Choose Political Gain over Justice

In light of President Obama’s commutation of national traitor Chelsea Manning Tuesday, the looming question of whether Manning’s status as a transgender “woman” had anything to do with the decision remains. Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld speculated Wednesday about whether a non-trans individual in Manning’s situation would have enjoyed such a generous (and completely asinine) pardon:

If this were just an average guy that had leaked this stuff and just went to jail as an average guy and didn’t go and have a sex change and become a sympathetic character, would that person be treated differently? I think that person would be treated differently from Chelsea Manning.

There is reason to believe that Manning’s status as a “sympathetic character” played a role in his commutation, given Obama’s never-ending effort to appeal to the far Left. And if courting the favor of anti-establishment liberals was the goal, Obama succeeded.

The disgraced former U.S. Army soldier received support from Hollywood figures and prominent SJWs, who touted him as a “hero” of the LGBT community. WikiLeaks touted the commutation as a “victory”:

Tuesday’s decision is just the latest debacle in Obama’s long history of administrative missteps (i.e. befriending enemies of liberty). Take the recent death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: Obama sent one of his closest aides to attend Castro’s funeral, and the White House formulated a sentimental tribute to the murderous tyrant.

The outgoing president’s commutation announcement Tuesday was met with harsh backlash from conservatives who noted the blatant hypocrisy of Obama pardoning Manning while his party continues to condemn Russia and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for allegedly tampering with the presidential election.

Others cited Manning’s commutation as further evidence of the Obama administration’s complete disregard for law and order:

In an interview with “CBS This Morning” Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest offered what is quite possibly the lamest response to this episode:

The thing that I think is outrageous is for Republicans to say is that somehow Chelsea Manning deserves a more serious punishment because of her collusion with Wikileaks and its damage to the country when they endorsed a man for president of the United States who praised Wikileaks, who encouraged people to go and check out Wikileaks and who encouraged Wikileaks to collude with the Russians to hack his opponent. It is outrageous for them to suggest that right now what Chelsea Manning did is worse than what the man who they endorsed for president did.

Even if it were true that the majority of Republicans approve of hacker Julian Assange, his anti-American activities, and his interference with the U.S. election (they don’t), since when did, “Republicans excuse traitors, too” become a viable defense for absolving a man who aided terrorists and put countless American lives at risk?

This was never about “justice.” The real reason for Obama’s preferential treatment of Chelsea Manning is that the LGBT and sexual identity issues have become the issue for the Left, presenting Obama another easy opportunity to play the social justice hero and deity — without any of the cost or fallout. His disgraceful decision shows an utter indifference toward justice and a disregard for the safety of American citizens. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Decision to Commute Manning Proves Liberals Will Always Choose Political Gain over Justice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

9518370869_441953965e_b

Amid Republican Criticism, Obama Defends Chelsea Manning Commutation

President Barack Obama used his final press conference to defend his decision to commute the sentence of former Army Pfc. Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning.

“Chelsea Manning has served a tough prison sentence, so the notion that the average person who was thinking about disclosing vital classified information would think that it goes unpunished—I don’t think [that person] would get that impression from the sentence that Chelsea Manning has served,” Obama said.

In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking over 700,000 confidential military documents to WikiLeaks.

Republicans in Congress, however, are raising an outcry.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the decision “outrageous” and said that Obama’s decision could set a pattern for future decisions.

“Chelsea Manning’s treachery put American lives at risk and exposed some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets,” Ryan said. “President Obama now leaves in place a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said in a statement Wednesday that Obama’s action of shortening Manning’s sentence is an “act of disrespect” to the military.

“Manning is a traitor who handed military and state secrets to WikiLeaks, putting our troops in danger,” Tillis said. “President Obama’s commutation of Manning’s sentence is the ultimate act of disrespect to our troops, our intelligence community, and our allies.”

Obama argued that Manning’s sentence was “very disproportional.”

“It has been my view that given she went to trial; that due process was carried out; that she took responsibility for her crime; that the sentence that she received was very disproportional—disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received; and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made sense to commute and not pardon her sentence,” Obama said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that he is not surprised by Obama’s action on Manning.

“It is a sad, yet perhaps fitting commentary on President Obama’s failed national security policies that he would commute the sentence of an individual that endangered the lives of American troops, diplomats, and intelligence sources by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, a virulently anti-American organization that was a tool of Russia’s recent interference in our elections,” the Arizona Republican said in a statement Tuesday.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., also had harsh words for Obama’s decision.

“It is shameful that President Obama is siding with lawbreakers and the ACLU against the men and women who work every day to defend our nation and safeguard U.S. government secrets,” Rubio said. (For more from the author of “Amid Republican Criticism, Obama Defends Chelsea Manning Commutation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_speaks_in_Cairo,_Egypt_06-04-09 (1)

Obama Isn’t Planning to Be as Silent as Bush in Post-Presidency

President Barack Obama says he appreciated George W. Bush’s silence during his eight years in office. Now, as the current president prepares for life outside the White House, his aides have given mixed messages about just how political Obama will be during the Trump administration.

Obama has said speaking out on policy won’t be his priority after leaving the White House on Friday.

“Now, that doesn’t mean that if a year from now or a year and a half from now or two years from now, there is an issue of such moment, such import, that isn’t just a debate about a particular tax bill or, you know, a particular policy, but goes to some foundational issues about our democracy that I might not weigh in,” Obama said in a December CNN interview with his former adviser, David Axelrod. “You know, I’m still a citizen and that carries with it duties and obligations.”

Upon leaving the White House, Obama will be the first president to remain in the District of Columbia since Woodrow Wilson in 1921. The first family is remaining in the District until their 15-year-old daughter, Sasha, graduates high school.

Obama will have a new office in the same building that houses the World Wildlife Federation. He has also already started building his post-presidency staff, the Chicago Tribune reported Monday. He hired a chief of staff, Anita Decker Breckenridge, an aide since Obama was an Illinois state legislator in 2003.

Obama White House aides Valerie Jarrett and Jen Psaki told the Tribune that Obama will work to ensure affordable health care access—presumably meaning he will speak out against President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to dismantle Obamacare.

The Tribune also reported that Obama will speak up for Dreamers, the label given to children of illegal immigrants. In June 2012, Obama took executive action to carry out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects illegal immigrants from deportation. Trump opposes the program.

Obama’s involvement in policy battles would be a significant departure from his predecessor. Upon leaving office in 2009, Bush retreated to Texas and out of the spotlight.

Just days after the November election, White House press secretary Josh Earnest invoked Bush’s behavior to indicate Obama might not second guess Trump in public.

“He deeply appreciated how President George W. Bush, after leaving office, gave the new president some running room, gave him a little space, wasn’t backseat driving in public, offering up all kinds of critiques with every single decision that President Obama was making in the earliest days of his presidency,” Earnest told reporters during a White House briefing.

“I’m confident that President George W. Bush didn’t agree with every single decision that President Obama was making,” Earnest added, “but he was extraordinarily respectful of the democratic process. President Obama admired that.”

Bush has consistently steered clear of criticizing Obama or even making many policy pronouncements. Democrat predecessors such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have remained in the spotlight, choosing to speak out on various political issues of interest to them.

“He is already one of the wealthiest presidents in modern history and he will probably make millions more on corporate boards,” author and presidential historian Craig Shirley told The Daily Signal of Obama. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he became secretary-general of the United Nations.”

Shirley, a biographer of Ronald Reagan, said Obama will be similar to Clinton—young in retirement and unable to step out of the spotlight. He doesn’t anticipate Obama having a modest post-presidency like his immediate predecessor.

“He will continue talking. That’s what he knows how to do,” Shirley said of Obama. “He won’t fade away. When Reagan’s eight years were up, he went back to California. When [Dwight] Eisenhower’s eight years were up, he returned to Gettysburg and played golf.”

Reports over the last two years indicated Obama would focus on his presidential library to be built in Chicago, but also on helping black youth through a nonprofit incarnation of the White House initiative known as “My Brother’s Keeper.”

Obama has said he was committed to the goals of the “My Brother’s Keeper” program to boost opportunities for young men of color after leaving office. Shirley suggested this could be an “admirable” nonpolitical issue for Obama—one in which he could become an elder statesman in his post-presidency.

A more political effort would come from his work with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which is focused on doing away with gerrymandering. Obama is expected to work with former Attorney General Eric Holder on the initiative. Gerrymandering is the drawing of legislative and congressional districts to help one’s party.

Obama’s involvement is geared toward helping Democrats running for state legislatures win back state houses before the 2020 census and subsequent redistricting.

“The Democrats have lost about 1,000 elective legislative seats since Obama took office,” Shirley said. “For stopping gerrymandering, they’re not going to turn to Obama for guidance.”

During the CNN interview in December, Obama talked about shaping the next generation of leaders.

“With respect to my priorities when I leave, it is to build that next generation of leadership; organizers, journalists, politicians,” Obama said. “I see them in America, I see them around the world, 20-year-olds, 30-year-olds who are just full of talent, full of idealism.”

He continued that a short-term goal would be helping his beleaguered Democrats.

“I think what I can do is not do it myself, but say to those who are still in the game right now look, think about this, think about how you’re organizing that, you know, what are you doing to make sure that young talent is out there in the field being supported,” Obama said. “You know, how are you making sure that your message is reaching everybody and not just those who have already been converted. Identifying really talented staff and organizers who are already out there and encouraging them to get involved.” (For more from the author of “Obama Isn’t Planning to Be as Silent as Bush in Post-Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_at_Las_Vegas_Presidential_Forum (1)

Obama Told US ‘Elections Have Consequences.’ Here’s One Way to Reverse His Liberal Legacy.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

These were the infamous words President Barack Obama used to scold congressional Republicans just three days after his inauguration in 2009, foreshadowing how he would approach policymaking for the next eight years.

Rather than listening to and trying to work with Republicans, Obama governed through brute force—with his “pen and phone” more often than with the consent of Congress—guided by the dictates of his progressive ideology rather than the interests of the American people.

In virtually every policy area—from health care and immigration to the deployment of American troops and the accession to new international treaties—Obama ignored those who dared to dissent from his agenda and used whatever means necessary to accomplish his goals.

The result is a precarious legacy burdened by a host of deeply unpopular and highly controversial policies, many of which can be repealed, replaced, rolled back, and otherwise reformed by the new Republican majorities in Congress.

But Republicans should take care to avoid adopting the same high-handed, condescending governing style exhibited by Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

Instead of ignoring the concerns and preferences of the American people—and their elected officials at the state and local level—we should listen to and learn from them.

Rather than forcing diverse communities to abide by inflexible, burdensome rules and regulations devised by federal bureaucrats in Washington, we should empower local decision-makers to find solutions that address the unique needs of their families, neighborhoods, and businesses.

One of the areas of federal policy most in need of local empowerment is housing.

For instance, in 2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which requires cities and towns across the country to audit their local housing policies.

If any aspect of a community’s housing and demographic patterns fails to meet the department’s expansive definition of “fair housing” under the fair housing rule, the local government must submit a plan to reorganize the community’s housing practices according to the preferences and priorities of the department’s bureaucrats.

Failure to comply will result in the department withholding Community Development Block Grants, federal grant money that local officials have traditionally been free to use as they see fit.

Proponents of the fair housing rule claim the rule establishes a collaborative process, with local government officials in the driver’s seat while the bureaucrats at the Department of Housing and Urban Development merely provide “support” and “guidance.”

But the track record of the fair housing rule proves the opposite.

Many local housing officials from across the country, including in Utah, have told the same story: The costs of complying with the fair housing rule stretch their already thin resources, add hundreds of hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate low-cost housing to their community.

To provide some measure of relief to local public housing authorities, a group of Republicans in Congress has supported legislation to restrict the department from using federal funds to implement the fair housing rule.

The Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act is the latest iteration of this legislation, which I joined Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., to introduce last week.

For the past 18 months, with Obama holding the executive veto pen and unwilling to believe that his policies are unpopular, there was very little chance this bill would be signed into law.

But on Jan. 20, when Donald Trump is sworn into office, that will change, and I will do everything in my power to ensure its swift passage.

After all, elections have consequences. (For more from the author of “Obama Told US ‘Elections Have Consequences.’ Here’s One Way to Reverse His Liberal Legacy.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_by_Gage_Skidmore_2

Obama’s Commutation of Manning Sentence Sends a Horrible Message to Service Personnel

Exercising his authority under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, President Barack Obama commuted the court-martial sentence of convicted felon Bradley Manning.

Although there is no dispute that Obama had the legal authority to commute the former Army private first class’s sentence, the president and his advisors had to know that any relief granted to Manning would be terribly controversial, and for good reason.

Commuting Manning’s sentence sends a horrible message to everyone who serves in the U.S. military, emboldens those who seek to harm the United States, and disheartens countless Americans—in and out of uniform.

It is important to remember the facts of the case. This was not a whodunit. This was not a case where motive excused his behavior, as some Manning supporters argue.

This is a case about an Army private first class who, while stationed abroad, having access to top secret and other classified material, decided to steal that material and give it to Wikileaks, knowing full well that Wikileaks would publish the material for the world to see.

There is no dispute as to the facts of the case, as in some instances of presidential pardons. After Manning was caught, he was sent to a general (felony) court-martial. After consulting with his able defense attorneys, he decided to plead guilty.

In military guilty pleas, the accused must describe for the military trial judge facts sufficient to convince the judge, beyond a reasonable doubt, as to each and every element in each crime. The accused discusses these facts with the judge while under oath, and those discussions last a long time.

This case was no different.

According to the facts developed in the case, and discussed at the court-martial, between November 2009 and May 2010, Manning was deployed overseas, and during that deployment, had access to secret and top secret data. He had a duty not to disclose the data to any unauthorized person.

Nevertheless, he downloaded 400,000 classified files from the Iraq war, some 91,000 files from the Afghan war, around 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables (emails), sensitive and classified U.S. airstrike videos, and classified documents and files from Guantanamo Bay, including classified assessments of Guantanamo terrorist detainees.

Manning placed that material on a SD-type card, and took it. He gave that highly classified and sensitive material to Wikileaks, knowing full well that they would (1) publish the material and (2) that the material could and likely would fall into the hands of our enemies.

The Army charged Manning with, among other things, aiding the enemy—a crime that under certain circumstances could result in the death penalty.

Eventually, Manning decided to plead guilty instead of contesting the charges against him. The maximum possible sentence to those charges to which he pleaded guilty was 136 years. In other words, it would have been lawful for the trial judge to sentence Manning to 136 years.

At the sentencing hearing, the government presented evidence in aggravation of his crimes. Army Brigadier General Robert A. Carr, a top Pentagon intelligence official, testified that Manning’s disclosures “affected our ability to do our mission,” and endangered U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, testified that Manning’s actions sent the State Department into crisis and prompted a costly effort to assess the damage that the leaks had done.

He asserted, “I believe my colleagues abroad are still feeling [the results of the leak].”

Major General Michael Nagata, the deputy commander of the U.S. defense attaché in Pakistan, testified that Manning’s actions had a strong negative effect on the mission of the Office of Defense Representative in Pakistan.

Colonel Denise Lind, the military trial judge, sentenced Manning to 35 years and a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army. Manning filed his appeal in May 2016, which is now moot given the president’s commutation.

To some, Manning was a whistleblower who deserved of a pardon, or at least a sentence commutation. Indeed, one of the videos he gave to Wikileaks showed U.S. military personnel in Iraq engaged in a deeply troubling, if not illegal, shooting incident.

But there was so much more to Manning’s crimes than exposing that killing.

By downloading hundreds of thousands of secret documents about some of the most sensitive information related to the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, by disgorging highly sensitive diplomatic emails for the world to see, and recklessly exposing top secret files of terrorist detainees we held at Guantanamo, Manning betrayed his oath to his country, armed our enemies with information that they could only dream about acquiring, and forced our government to expend untold hours and money to minimize the damage inflicted by his criminal conduct.

Those who applaud the commutation also argue that the sentence Manning had received was “excessive and disproportionate.”

Yet it is difficult to imagine, much less point to, another case of a U.S. military member who singlehandedly stole the volume of classified information to an unauthorized source (Wilileaks), or one that caused the multi-layered damage to U.S. military security and diplomatic harmony that Manning caused by doing what he did.

Manning’s defenders argue that his mental health as a “vulnerable person” should act as a mitigating circumstance with respect to his sentence. But that argument was presented, in full, to Judge Lind before she sentenced Manning.

Under the law, military trial judges are required to take into account all aggravating and mitigating evidence before sentencing the accused. Thus, Manning already received the benefit of his gender identity issues when he was sentenced in the first place.

The “mercy” that some argue for was actually granted by the trial judge: She didn’t sentence Manning to the 50 or 100 or 136 years he could have served.

And everyone in the military justice system knows that a 35-year sentence of confinement, assuming good behavior while in custody, in reality will result in less than 10 years of confinement. Manning was set to be released in the coming year or so anyway.

Finally, it bears mentioning that U.S. military members across the globe carry out their duties, for the most part, with honor and fidelity. Many have access to secret and top secret material. Some have access to Special Access Program information—the most highly classified material our government possesses.

They guard this information with their lives, and for good reason. They know that if they violated their oaths by stealing this information and providing it to our enemies, American lives and national security would be in grave danger.

By commuting Manning’s richly deserved sentence, Obama is sending a horrible message to dedicated U.S. public servants, in and out of uniform, that honoring their responsibility to keep national security secrets from the public eye isn’t all that important.

This is a slap in their face. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Commutation of Manning Sentence Sends a Horrible Message to Service Personnel” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

50th_Anniversary_of_the_Selma_Marches_-_President_Obama_speech_2

What Obama’s Farewell Speech Revealed about His Plans for YOUR Future

In Obama’s farewell address, he rekindled his lifelong effort to reinvigorate leftist activism, provided hints and direction for more concentrated efforts, and directed leftists as to how to go about bringing “change.”

In November I wrote two pieces here and here, that had to do with community organizing on the constitutional conservative side, to counter the obvious organizational superiority of the Left. With Obama free to take up his previous tasks with rockstar status and an extremely distraught Left, he will have the fuel to launch highly motivated leftists in every town. We must be there too.

Obama began his speech describing his beginning as a community organizer in Chicago, saying, “I began working with church groups in the shadows of closed steel mills.” His start was a direct copy of Saul Alinsky’s start to begin to radically change the minds and hearts of people through agitation.

Writing about Hillary Clinton’s ties with Saul Alinsky over the summer, I quoted Alinsky when he argued community organizer must be:

… dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions… to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function–to agitate to the point of conflict.

That’s what the Left calls “community organizing.” Rubbing raw resentment and anger to the point of conflict. It is what we as Americans have been subject to during Obama’s presidency, and what has provided much of the strain we all see in the nation.

And Obama is certainly dedicated to that end. His farewell speech sought to re-dedicate his most loyal followers.

Obama called upon the Left to organize many times in his speech, including, but not limited to, these statements:

“… change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it.”

“We, the People, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union.”

“… we must forge a new social compact”

“All of us have more work to do.”

“All of us, regardless of party, should throw ourselves into the task of rebuilding our democratic institutions.”

“And all of this depends on our participation; on each of us accepting the responsibility of citizenship, regardless of which way the pendulum of power swings.”

“We, the people, give it power – with our participation, and the choices we make.”

“So you see, that’s what our democracy demands. It needs you.”

“If you’re tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet, try talking with one of them in real life.”

“If you’re disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures and run for office yourself.”

“Show up. Dive in. Stay at it.”

“I am asking you to believe, not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours.”

“To believe that you can make a difference, to hitch your wagon to something bigger than yourselves.”

Obama’s not going anywhere.

So many have complained that Trump was butting in on Obama’s presidency, causing a dual presidency. But now the shoe is on the other foot, and leftists are outright ignoring the greatness of the Constitution’s Electoral College, calling Trump “illegitimate,” and continuing to follow Obama as their president, blowing up the rule of law in their altered reality.

But Obama didn’t just call on his followers to organize. He issued directives for his community organizers while using the founding principles we all believe in: “self-government,” and “that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

But Obama and his followers do not believe those principles. If they believed in self-government, they would put stock in themselves and God instead of the government. If they believed that we are all created equal, they wouldn’t continue to agitate one man against another while focusing on our differences. If they believed we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights such as life, they would be pro-life instead of pro-abortion. If they believed in Liberty, they wouldn’t engage in coercion as they did with Obamacare, and so on.

Laced throughout the speech, Obama focused leftist agitators on:

Guaranteed college education

Increased unionization

Increased welfare

Higher taxation

Continued class warfare

Radical racialization

Forced employment policies

The false flag of anthropogenic global warming

Abortion as a human right

Fighting against voter ID laws

Overturning Citizens United v Federal Elections Committee

Redistricting

Contrary to Obama’s litany of “worthy causes,” constitutional conservatives must be able to articulate the proper disposition of the Constitution as it is dragged through the mud with the Left’s unending destruction of it. We need a counter to the Alinskyites.

President Obama gave all of us a list of things to do, and it matters because he is telling us that his side will be out there in force giving the people a destructive worldview. We will see more agitating, marching, demonstrating, and rioting, but that is not the beginnings of their conspiracies.

All too often, we ignore how the Left is able to change minds and hearts. They do it by influencing our churches, our neighborhoods, our culture, our schools, and our government at local, state, and federal levels. They are directed to by their president. Constitutional conservatives must stop playing catch-up with the Left or act as spectators, giving opinions that identify what is going wrong without providing the proper way to make it go right. We can’t just complain about how the Left changes our culture. We have to be there to nip it all in the bud, and provide the corrected version of the Left’s historically inaccurate and intellectually lazy homework. (For more from the author of “What Obama’s Farewell Speech Revealed about His Plans for YOUR Future” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.