Mediaboss Marketing

In this June 2012, file photo, Donald Trump stands during a pro-am round of the AT&T National golf tournament at Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Md. (Patrick Semansky/AP)

For years, President Donald Trump criticized his predecessor Barack Obama for playing golf while on the job.

"Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf," he tweeted Oct. 13, 2014.

But since taking office, Trump has been a regular visitor at his own golf clubs in Florida and Virginia so far outpacing Obama in the amount of time he spends on the green.

As Trumps presidency goes forward, well keep tally of how many times he plays golf and how that compares with Obama at the same point in his presidency on what were calling our Trump Golf Tracker.

The score so far?

So as of April 17 in the first year of each man's presidency, the score is Trump 14, Obama 0.

Obamas first game as president was April 26, 2009. He went on to play 333 times total over his eight years, according to CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, who tracked Obamas games.

Its not as easy to track Trumps game as you might think.

His staff has on several occasions declined to confirm he played golf while spending the day at his golf club. So in some cases, we have to rely on reporters observations and those of private citizens who spotted Trump on the course and posted pictures on social media.

Visit link:
Who plays more golf: Donald Trump or Barack Obama? - PolitiFact

Pence's muscular rhetoric comes on the heels of President Donald Trump's decision to strike the Syrian airbase where a chemical attack was staged and to drop the "mother of all bombs" on a ISIS tunnel encampment in Afghanistan.

In all three instances, Trump and his administration are going out of their way to highlight the clear differences in their approach from that of the Obama administration.

If you voted for Trump, these are welcome changes to an American foreign policy that too often kowtowed to the world community rather than asserting American exceptionalism first, last and always.

If you voted against Trump, you see this aggressiveness -- in rhetoric and action -- as a deeply dangerous development from a president who is badly out of his depth when it comes to foreign policy.

No matter which side of that divide you find yourself, what's clear is that Trump's approach to these issues is very different than that of Obama. Which, I think, is the point.

Trump is someone of deeply flexible political views. (He was a Democrat for years before running for president.) In many ways, he defines himself and his views only in opposition to others. He is reactive by nature -- in his words, a natural counter-puncher.

And yet, that's exactly what Trump did. His general election race was far less about what he would do and far more about what Hillary Clinton either wouldn't or couldn't do. And it worked.

Now, without an obvious foe to define himself against, Trump appears to be working out his foreign policy views by asking "What would Obama do" and then doing the opposite.

That isn't a comprehensive foreign policy, of course. But it's only 88 days into his presidency; few presidents have a fully-formed worldview at this point in their tenure.

What makes Trump unique among is that he appears to be primarily defining what he believes in reaction to the positions staked out by Obama. If Obama was for it, Trump is against it -- and vice versa.

It remains to be seen how long Trump can keep up this "anti-Obama" approach -- or how well it might work. But, what we now know -- and what Trump hopes the world knows, too -- is that his administration will look almost nothing like the one that came before it.

Excerpt from:
The Trump doctrine? Don't do what Obama did - CNN

Almost one year ago, Thomas Klocke, a student at the University of Texas in Arlington, took his own life. His suicide on June 2, 2016 was a tragedy that his parents insist did not have to happen.

The true culprit, they insist, was the university, which found Klocke guilty of sexual harassment without any semblance of due process. Regardless of the merits of the sexual harassment claim by a gay student, the case illustrates how universities have treated due process protections as themselves fostering abuse and shielding harassers.

The facts of the case are likely to be laid bare in a lawsuit filed by Klockes parents. While the university has not been fully heard on the allegations and could be vindicated, there is ample reason for the university to be called to account for the treatment of Klocke. For those of us who have spent years criticizing the denial of due process rights to students on our college and university campuses, Klockes story is all too familiar.

Klockes case began after a gay student accused him of typing gays should die into the search bar of his browser during a classroom conversation about privilege on May 19, 2016. The alleged victim then said he typed into his own computer, Im gay, and Klocke allegedly responded by calling him a faggot and that he should consider killing himself.

However, Klocke insisted that the gay student sat next to him and said that he was beautiful. Klocke then said that he typed into his web browser, Stop, Im straight. He said that the gay student replied with Im gay and then allegedly kept glancing at Klocke. Klocke said that he moved after the gay student kept looking at him.

In such a he said, he said situation, it would be very difficult to convict anyone absent a confession. However, the gay student went to Associate Vice President of Student Affairs Heather Snow. Snow, who is now a defendant, allegedly opted not to follow the schools Title IX process, which itself lacks key protections but still affords some notice and other protections to the accused.

Instead, Snow reportedly helped the student draft a complaint and then assigned the case to the schools associate director of academic integrity, Daniel Moore. Based solely on the allegations of the accuser, Klocke was barred from going to the class or contacting any member of the class (which would obviously include any witnesses that he could use in this defense). He could not even contact possible witnesses through third parties.

However, the accuser was allowed to continue in the class (and speak to other students and potential witnesses). Klocke was not told what he was being accused of when these restrictions were imposed on him. The school even barred his father, who is an attorney, from attending a meeting on his case. Moore then declared him guilty of harassment and he was placed on probation on May 25, 2016.

The finding would materially impact Moores record and would likely hinder both employment and graduate school. He went from an allegation on May 19 to a conviction on May 25. He killed himself roughly one week later.

Again, there is little evidence to prove what was typed on a computer screen unless it was observed by another student. Both men accused the other of inappropriate sexual comments. Yet, the complaint alleges that the school treated the accusers allegation as the statement of evidence while hindering the ability of Klocke to contact witnesses and present a meaningful defense.

It further charged him with physical abuse despite the fact that the accuser never made such a claim. Regardless of who was telling the truth, what is abundantly clear is that the University of Texas in Arlington denied Klocke basic due process protections in adjudicating his guilt.

Ironically, the university is accused of not even following the minimal standards laid out under Title IX. In 2011, the Obama administration muscled universities into stripping away basic protections for students in a push to increase convictions for sexual harassment and hostile environments.

This radical change did not come in legislation but a Dear Colleague letter from a largely unknown assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, Russlynn Ali. The administration threatened schools with the loss of federal funds if they refused to strip students and faculty of the protections. Ali told educators that, if education was to be the great equalizer in America, schools would need to curtail due process protections on the right to representation, the standard of proof, and other basic rights.

These rights included the right to confrontation, which the Obama administration said may be traumatic or intimidating (for the victim), thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment. If they did yield such rights, the letter warned, they could lose federal funding and face discrimination charges discrimination.

Schools fought the Obama administration in court, but judges insisted that the agency must be given sweeping deference. As a result, the Obama administration substituted honest efforts to investigate claims of sexual harassment with an approach that borders on a type of Vietnam body count culture, measuring success by the rate of conviction.

The Trump administration has indicated that it will rescind this controversial policy. Ironically, while most professors did not support President Trump and continue to oppose his various measures, this is one area where Trump would find many allies among many academics.

Universities caved to the threat of losing millions in federal funds and sacrificed the rights of our students. The result is perfectly Robespierrean.Being strong on due process does not mean being soft on sexual harassment.

It is time for a new Dear Colleague letter . . . or better yet, a law that protects schools from the loss of federal funds due to their due process protections to students or faculty.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the rest here:
OPINION: Obama's legacy is seriously hurting college students across America - The Hill (blog)

President Trump arrives at Palm Beach International Airport in Florida on Air Force One to spend Easter weekend at Mar-a-Lago resort on Thursday. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

President Trump arrives at Palm Beach International Airport in Florida on Air Force One to spend Easter weekend at Mar-a-Lago resort on Thursday.

Ordinary folks can fly from the Washington, D.C., area to southeast Florida for $200-300 round-trip, if they book in advance. For the president, the trip is a little more costly.

Exactly how much is not currently public, though. The conservative group Judicial Watch, which has been tracking the cost of presidential travel for several years, estimates that President Trump's frequent visits to his Palm Beach resort Mar-a-Lago probably cost the government around $1 million each.

Much of the expense stems from Air Force One 747, which costs around $140,000 per flying hour right now, says Judicial Watch's president, Tom Fitton. The trips typically incur other expenses as well, such as lodging and travel expenses for the Secret Service, and reimbursements for local police.

"It's a snapshot cost, in the sense that there are other costs obviously involved that we could get, but the government just doesn't want to give it to us or they keep secret for some reason," Fitton says.

The Government Accountability Office has agreed to look into the costs and security concerns raised by Democratic lawmakers about the Florida trips.

Trump has so far appeared to set a record for weekend travel, regularly shuttling back and forth between Washington and Florida.

"For someone who complained about President Obama traveling a lot, he's going to supersede President Obama's travel, all eight years [of it], within a year, which is just absolutely ridiculous," says Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who recently signed a letter to the Pentagon asking about the costs racked up by the president's use of Air Force One.

Political hay has long been made over personal travel by presidents. Republicans regularly excoriated Obama for the cost of his trips to Hawaii and Africa, for example.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the cost of a three-day, three-legged trip Obama took from Washington to Chicago and then onto Palm Beach in February 2013. The report calculated the cost of the trip at around $3.6 million.

In fact, Judicial Watch began monitoring travel costs during the Obama administration.

"He made a big show of taking his wife up to New York on a date night. And I thought to myself, 'Well, that sounds like a pretty darned expensive date night,' knowing what it costs to move a president around," Fitton says. Because the Obamas and their entourage flew on small planes, the cost of that trip was relatively low. Press reports put it at around $25,000.

The Obama administration was reluctant to answer questions about travel costs, forcing Judicial Watch to file Freedom of Information requests to get an answer (Secret Service documents show $11,648.17 in security expenses for that trip). So far, the Trump White House hasn't been much more transparent, Fitton says.

"There has to be an awareness that it costs money to go down there, and they should justify the cost or explain to the American people why it's necessary," he says.

A million dollars for a weekend trip to Florida is actually chump change for the Pentagon, with its annual budget of $600 billion, but Gallego says that isn't really the point.

"We've had to stop hiring child care specialists in child care day centers on Army bases because the president has done a hiring freeze," he says. "If the president wants to ask the country to sacrifice and other government agencies to sacrifice, then he should be doing the same."

Here is the original post:
Trump's Travel Costs Add Up, Setting Him On Path To Outspend - NPR - NPR

News of President Trumps response to the Syrian chemical attack left several Obama administration officials with a sense of frustration and a reluctant feeling of vindication.

Trumps decision to act swiftly and decisively, with an airstrike, was what they had wanted to see Barack Obama do in 2013 when he was president and the world learned of the Syrian governments chemical attack that killed some 1,400 people, including hundreds of children.

But Obama, they say, was too hesitant and too guided by a belief that dialogue was the way to deal with rogue leaders. He preferred the olive branch to the stick in his efforts to appeal to leaders with dangerous instincts, they say.

I think he left a more dangerous world, Barry Pavel, senior director for defense policy and strategy on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2008 to 2010, said to Fox News.

In Syria, a major mistake was treating it like a humanitarian crisis, when it was a major national security crisis that has caused destabilization on our closest allies in Europe, Pavel said, Syria has been a source of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States, and future attacks. I worry about that very much.

The world watched the United States underwhelming response to rogue moves by the Syrian government and by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, Pavel said, and got the message that illegal actions would not be met with military actions.

He left a more dangerous world. Political adversaries knew we had the capability, but not the will.

- Barry Pavel, National Security Council from 2008-2010, said of President Obama

Potential adversaries know we had the capability, but not the will to strike out at aggressive actions by certain nations against their neighbors or their own people, Pavel, who is director at Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, said. Because they knew that the Obama administration would never use military force for any purpose, they felt free to conduct their coercive actions in the South China Seas, the Russians went into Iran and Syria and North Korea accelerated their nuclear arms program.

Pavel called it unfathomable that it wasn't until this year thatU.S. troops arrived in Europe to deter Russia from a repeat of its 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

"That should have been done in 2014," he said. "We could have reinforced NATO to reassure our allies that we had their back, or we could have given the sovereign country under attack from Russia legitimate defensive weapons."

Pavel recalls the resistance he faced when before the 2013 chemical attack -- he suggested that the U.S. be more forceful in its handling of rogue leaders like Syria President Bashar Assad. While the Obama administration said it did not want to commit hundreds of thousands of troops in a military conflict, Pavel said there were choices between a full-scale commitment and complete inaction.

Gary Samore, who served for four years as Obamas White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), said the Iran nuclear deal widely criticized by Republicans has been effective.

That proves, Samore said, that not all adversaries can be handled the same way.

The constraints that Obama negotiated are holding, Samore, who is executive director for research at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, said. But who knows, in a couple of years they might renege on the agreement. Its true that you cannot trust the Iranians, but can we spot cheating? The agreement has mechanisms for us to restore U.N. sanctions. If we can catch them cheating we have much stronger rationale for using the military. We can say we tried the diplomatic approach, it gives you a stronger argument for using the military.

Military action can be risky with an unstable leader who has access to nuclear weapons, Samore said.

The Syrians are so weak, he said. By contrast, Iran has options. It can retaliate against U.S. allies, against Israel, Saudi Arabia. North Korea is another example.

Both men praised Trumps military strike against Syria.

I applaud Trump, Samore said. It was the kind of strike that Obama was planning a limited military attack against the airfields in order to deter Assad from carrying out additional chemical weapons attacks, but he decided not to use it. Obama made a huge mistake by saying he was going to go to Congress for authorization, it turned out he did not have the votes.

Trump was very smart to do it without congressional support, Samore said.

Pavel agrees.

I think the Trump administration is putting the world on notice, he said. The U.S. can use military force to achieve particular goals without getting mired in a protracted conflict.

Michael McFaul, Obamas ambassador to Russia, said in aninterview with the New York Timesthat the former presidents penchant for a kinder, gentler approach to adversaries was counterproductive.

For me, this tragedy underscores the dangers of trying to do deals with dictators without a comprehensive, invasive and permanent inspection regime, said McFaul after the Syrian chemical attack earlier this month. It also shows the limits of doing deals with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. Surely, the Russians must have known about these chemical weapons.

Other experts say that while reaching out to foes of the United States may not yield the desired results, playing hard ball may yield far worse consequences.

Imagine what Syria would look like without that deal, former Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said to the Times. It would be awash in chemical weapons, which would fall into the hands of ISIS, Al Nusra or other groups.

Blinken said that the Obama administration was not blind to the Syrian governments deceptive ways.

We always knew we had not gotten everything, he said, that they Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration.

Pavel says there is no one-size-fits-all answer to dealing with adversaries.

I dont agree that you should never come to agreements with dictators, he said, as long as the agreements are hard-headed and have necessary provisions, and they are largely enforced.

During the Cold War, we had agreements, and that contributed to stability, he said.

Elizabeth Llorente is Senior Reporter for FoxNews.com, and can be reached at Elizabeth.Llorente@Foxnews.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/Liz_Llorente

Read the original post:
Ex-Obama officials say hesitation to use force in Syria, elsewhere, emboldened adversaries - Fox News