Mediaboss Marketing

European government officials revealed what they truly think of Donald Trump, and shocker, it's not good.

Donald Trump does not like Barack Obama. Why? Well, for a whole host of reasons. First off, Barack Obama had the audacity to be both the President of the United States and a black man, and Trump spent years obsessed with the racist idea that Obama must have been born in Kenya. Another reason Donald Trump doesn't like Barack Obama is that Obama famously dunked all over him at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, and Trump is nothing if not petty and vindictive. And now that he's running the country? The president's only ideology seems to be: "Do whatever it takes to destroy what Obama did."

Now we've known that this was a piece of the Trump plan for a while now. Take this excerpt of a June New York Times piece:

Five months after leaving office, Mr. Obama watches mostly in silence as his successor takes a political sledgehammer to his legacy. Brick by brick, President Trump is trying to tear down what Mr. Obama built. The trade deal? Canceled. The climate pact? Forget it. Cuba? Partially reversed. Health care? Unresolved, but to be repealed if he can navigate congressional crosscurrents.

Now he couldn't navigate those congressional crosscurrents, so thankfully Obamacare lives (for now), but since then there have been even more examples of the Trump administration reversing course. The DOJ has attempted to roll back LGBT protections in the workplace. It seems that every single Department of Education decision these days seems to be designed to get rid of every policy the Obama administration put in place to help with student loans. But a new report from BuzzFeed shows the extent to which the Trump administration seems to be dead-set on getting rid of and going against everything Obama has done.

[European government officials] also believe Trumps foreign policy is chiefly driven by an obsession with unravelling Barack Obamas policies. Its his only real position, one European diplomat said. He will ask: Did Obama approve this? And if the answer is affirmative, he will say: We dont. He wont even want to listen to the arguments or have a debate. He is obsessed with Obama.

Now look, I don't love everything President Obama did foreign policy-wise, but anyone can see that he approached international affairs thoughtfully and with the careful consideration that they deserve. The idea that Donald Trump, who these same diplomats go on to say knows nothing about foreign policy, is making so many serious decisions on the international stage based on being "Opposite Day Obama" is beyond disconcerting. These are decisions that impact the lives and safety of hundreds of millions of people, and rather than making informed choices or even surrounding himself with people who can make informed choices that he can co-sign, he is just trying to vindictively win some battle with Obama that only exists in his own head. And the real loser in that fight is literally everyone on the planet.

MORE STORIES LIKE THIS ONE

Read more here:
Donald Trump's Only Policy Agenda Seems to Be "Undo Obama Stuff" - GQ Magazine

Photo Last years Photoville festival, in Brooklyn Bridge Park, Brooklyn. Credit Kisha Bari/United Photo Industries

The sprawling free photography festival known as Photoville returns to Brooklyn Bridge Park on Sept. 13 with a pop-up village of repurposed shipping containers. This years festival programming will address issues like immigration and climate change and include a conversation with President Obamas White House photographer.

Photoville will run through Sept. 24 and feature work by more than 500 visual artists, talks, outdoor projection shows and workshops. Now in its sixth year, the festival has expanded: in its physical footprint, in its number of artists and in including a second weekend. The festival is organized by the Brooklyn-based nonprofit United Photo Industries with a number of partners.

Exhibitions include Stories of Survivors, a project by the photographer Malin Fezehai in conjunction with the United Nations Development Program that documents survivors of violent extremist attacks in five African countries, and Redefining Gender by Lynn Johnson, which explores gender identity through science and culture.

A number of the exhibitions have a modern political bent. But Laura Roumanos, one of the organizers, said she was also excited about an exhibition that looks at the past. In a vintage Shasta camper R.V., Lost Rolls America will display old, forgotten rolls of film mailed from across the country to the photojournalist Ron Haviv.

Read more:
Obama's White House Photographer Among Highlights of Photoville ... - New York Times

Major donors to former President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Illinois makes 'Barack Obama Day' a state holiday GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism MORE arent committing to Joe BidenJoe BidenIllinois makes 'Barack Obama Day' a state holiday Bidens kick off bike race fundraiser for cancer research Bill Clinton wishes Obama happy birthday: 'I love a good balloon' MORE.

While it is exceedingly early in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, top Obama donors are signaling that Biden cannot depend on their support.

Some say they might prefer a fresher face.

Hes got more than 40 years in Washington, one Obama donor said of Biden.

The Hill contacted more than 10 top donors to Obama for this story.

None of them would commit to backing Biden, and many of them said they preferred to find a new voice to run against PresidentTrump in 2020.

On the heels of Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonClintons attend private screening of 'Wonder Woman' Rosenstein: Trump did not direct feds to investigate Clinton GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism MOREs stunning Election Day defeat, the donors say they are picking up on the partys mood for a new direction and that they have to be practical about who they back financially.

[We've] gotta be realistic and strategic, not emotional, said one top fundraiser to the Obama-Biden tickets in 2008 and 2012. Democrats can't support a candidate over obligation, the fundraiser added.

There are some who love Joe and have a lot of respect for him but want a whole new face for the party and want an aspirational voice,acknowledged a second Obama-Biden donor, who wouldonly speak on background in order to discuss reservations about Biden more candidly.

When donors talk about fresh, new faces, one name frequently mentioned is Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who many believe will play a significant role in the future of the Democratic Party.

Harris lit up the donor circuit last month in the Hamptons, where she was feted by top fundraisers. The event signaled to many in the room that she would seek higher office and they continue to buzz about the prospects. Even some longtime Obama aides say she fits the bill as a face for the partys future.

Kamala has come to embody whats next for our party, Ben LaBolt, the longtime Obama spokesman, told The Hill last month.

Harris has conservatives talking, too. Last week, talk show host Hugh Hewitt predicted Harris could be the partys next nominee.

This isnt to say that Obama World is unifying around Harris at this early stage.

Valerie Jarrett, Obamas senior adviser and confidante, has been trying to convince former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to enter the race, according to a source familiar with their conversations.And others in the Obama orbit say they're intrigued by Patrick.

Progressives are still clutching to the hopes that Sens. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenFive tough decisions for the GOP on healthcare Warren: 'I am not running for president, Im doing my work' Senators push federal prisons to expand compassionate release MORE (D-Mass.) and Bernie SandersBernie SandersFive tough decisions for the GOP on healthcare Booker on hug with McCain after healthcare vote: 'I'm a hugger' Former DNC chair criticizes whiny left MORE (I-Vt.) will enter the race. But donors point to Sanderss age hell be 78 in 2020 as a possible negative if he follows up his 2016 presidential bid with a second run.

They also wonder if Warren, 68, will be able to appeal to party centrists.

Age is an issue mentioned with Biden as well. The former vice president will be 77 during the next presidential race, said the first Obama donor source in noting that campaigning is really exhausting.

Biden hasnt said whether he intends to run for president again. But all signs indicate hes considering it seriously.

For starters, he has a book coming out next month, which some allies say will be a barometer for a presidential run. He has also been giving campaign-style speeches in New Hampshire and other states.

Several donors predicted it would be difficult for Biden to do well with major donors and low-dollar fundraising, the two major buckets candidates rely on to filler their coffers.

A Biden spokesperson did not respond to request for comment.

The former vice president ran into fundraising walls in 2016 as he considered whether he would jump into the Democratic primary. As he took time to make his decision following his son's death, he realized that many of the staunch donors who had supported the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 and 2012 had already committed to Clinton.

This time around, Biden may find himself in a similar situation.

I hate to say it, because I love Joe, but some feel hes yesterdays news, one donor said.

Elections are about the future not the past, one Obama fundraiserput it when asked why he would likely not support Biden.

But Robert Wolf, a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who is close to Biden, said the former vice president is a strong potential candidate. There isn't anyone who doesn't love Joe, Wolf said. And I think everyone would be excited if he decided to take the next step.

One former Biden aide said Bidenappeals to the fractured Democratic Party, bringing together progressives and centrists.

Showing how to successfully lead is a model for the future, the former aide insisted. It's about having that vision. And if theres one thing Joe Biden has in spades it's theenergy and the steadfastness to get things done.

A Morning ConsultPolitico poll out in June showed that 74 percent of Democrats viewed Biden favorably. Warren followed in second place, at 51 percent.

Most donors and fundraisers interviewed for this story said they wont begin to commit to candidates until the first quarter of 2019. And some acknowledged they could tread water, as one put it, until late 2019, when it will be difficult to avoid choosing sides.

Until then, donors and fundraisers say theyll be watching how the candidates set the stage in the coming months.

Its all about how they get noticed, one donor said. Donors will be watching Biden and what the mood around him is like, but hell have his work cut out for him.

Original post:
Obama donors not committing to Biden - The Hill

Is solar energy now suddenly affordable and reliable despite its checkered history? Up until now, it has not been able to stand on its own two feet without substantial subsidies.

The authors of a two-year, taxpayer-funded study acknowledge that the answer to that question is: not quite. But that could change in short order, they argue, if public policy maximizes recent innovations.

In 2014, Stanford University's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance received a $618,155 grant from President Barack Obama's Energy Department to examine recent trends in China's solar energy industry and to determine what the international implications are of those trends.

Based on their findings, the center's research team recommends tighter cooperation between the U.S. and China on solar energy initiatives, increased U.S. government spending on research and development, and a steep U.S. price on carbon-based energy sources.

The report titled "The New Solar System" says that a price on carbon is needed to provide private enterprise with enough incentive to develop renewable energy sources, such as solar, to alleviate climate change. The research team doesn't exactly quantify how much of a price they would like to see, but they do make it clear that it should be as steep as possible. Here's what they recommend:

"More than any other single policy, a significant price on carbon in the United States would induce a market shift from higher-carbon to lower-carbon technologies," the report says. While there are carbon-pricing arrangements currently in place at the state level, the Stanford researchers find that they are not sufficient enough to result in any significant reduction of U.S. emissions. What's needed instead, they suggest, is "an intelligently crafted and meaningful price on carbon."

Energy consumers, who would be forced to absorb higher costs over the short-term, would supposedly benefit over time as the shift to renewable energy sources mitigates the effects of climate change. But, there's no guarantee that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Heritage Foundation policy analysts Kevin Dayaratna and David Kreutzer have produced a study based on the Obama administration's models and assumptions that shows a tax on carbon would reduce household incomes, raise electricity prices, and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs with only a "minimal impact on climate."

However, policymakers might seek to impose a price on carbon, the hard reality is that U.S. consumers would be forced to absorb higher energy costs in the short-term in exchange for benefits that may not ever materialize.

Tom Pyle, the president of the Institute of Energy Research, a Washington-based nonprofit group devoted to a free market approach to energy policy, warns that taxpayers who are footing the bill for grants distributed through the Department of Energy, and other federal agencies, often lose out as a result of "crony deals" that enable "well-connected" former and current government officials to advance their own narrow special interests.

"What we see all too often with government grants is an incestuous relationship between a particular federal agency and former government officials who previously worked with that agency in some capacity," Pyle said. "These grant recipients manipulate and game system to their advantage at the expense of taxpayers. The end result of this particular grant to the Steyer-Taylor Center is a study that proposes to put a price on carbon and to double-down on solar energy. This means that taxpayers are losing twice both as taxpayers and as energy consumers. They are paying for a study that calls for policy makers to raise their electricity prices."

Dan Reicher, who serves as executive director for the center and holds faculty positions at Stanford, is one of the study's lead authors. Prior to joining Stanford, Reicher served in energy and environmental positions in the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations. He was also the director of Google's Climate Change and Energy Initiatives and has worked as an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in New York City.

As a long-time advocate for renewable energy from inside and outside of government, Reicher is well-positioned to solicit government grants.

I exchanged several emails with Reicher inviting him to comment on the merits of solar energy and the major findings of his report for this blog. As of Tuesday, he hasn't responded. His report does say that "the grant gave the Stanford Steyer-Center full independence and authority to frame the inquiry, conduct the research, draw conclusions and write the report."

But, it's also clear that the Steyer-Taylor team accepted the Obama administration's premise that human emissions are responsible for dangerous levels of global warming, a position that has become more untenable in recent years.

There are hundreds of scientists and researchers who have come forward to identify natural influences as the primary driver of climate change. How many of those scientists are eligible for government grants?

With the change in administration, Pyle is calling on Energy Secretary Rick Perry to conduct a thorough review of his agency's grant-making policies in an effort to root out instances of "cronyism" that work against the public interest.

Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C. who writes for several national publications.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Here is the original post:
Cronyism ruled Obama's Energy Department - Washington Examiner

Last Updated Aug 9, 2017 11:23 AM EDT

President Trump on Wednesday seemed to take credit for the the strength of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a day after warning North Korea that it would be met with "fire and fury" if it continues to threaten America.

Mr. Trump suggested in tweets that in his nearly seven months of serving as commander in chief, he has made the arsenal more robust.

Much of the improvements to the arsenal, however, were carried out by the Obama administration, CBS News' Major Garrett reports. The Defense Department and Energy Department spent billions of dollars on refurbishing the arsenal and bringing aging nuclear weapons up to modern capabilities as well as guidance systems and related technologies.

Mr. Trump did order a review of U.S. nuclear posture and strategy early in his presidency, but that's different from modernization and bringing old systems up to usable standards.

The credit really lies with former President Obama and defense hawks in Congress who funded the work, especially during a time when the federal budget is subject to spending limits. Mr. Trump has requested a 11 percent funding boost in his 2018 budget blueprint to Congress.

Ultimately, Obama advocates eliminating all nuclear weapons, a goal he has acknowledged might not be realized in his lifetime.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Link:
Trump takes credit for nuclear arsenal that was largely modernized during Obama administration - CBS News