Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump pauses before signing one of three executive actions in the Oval Office, Saturday. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

President Trump pauses before signing one of three executive actions in the Oval Office, Saturday.

Updated 9:30 a.m., Jan. 29

In signing an executive order imposing tough ethics standards on executive branch employees, President Trump followed a path laid by the two Democratic presidents who preceded him, almost word for word.

"This is a five-year lobbying ban," Trump said at the ceremony where he signed this and two other orders. "It's a two-year ban now, and it's got full of loopholes, and this is a five-year ban."

He joked that the senior staff standing near him for the signing had "one last chance to get out" before they would have to stick to limits on lobbying laid out in the directive.

"This was something, the five-year ban, that I have been talking a lot about on the campaign trail," Trump added. By the end of his campaign, supporters were chanting "drain the swamp," so this order, like many of his others in the past week amounts to Trump trying to show he's keeping a campaign pledge.

But what Trump is doing is derivative of what his two immediate Democratic predecessors did. On his first full day in office, Jan. 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order titled, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees." Twenty four years, a week and a day later, President Trump signed an order bearing the exact same title.

But the similarities don't stop there. As Trump's team drafted his order on ethics, they appear to have borrowed heavily from the language used in orders signed by both Clinton and President Obama. Obama also pulled from Clinton, in parts and the ethics directive signed by President George W. Bush is nearly identical to the one signed by his father twelve years earlier. But that's less surprising given those were presidents using the language of their predecessor from the same party. Perhaps more importantly, Trump not only seems to be lifting from Democratic presidents' language, but they are presidents he has condemned, including for not "draining the swamp."

"The story here is not the copying per se, it is the claim Trump has been making that he is doing something really different, new, and righteous when, apparently, in many respects he is actually copying Democrats he so thoroughly condemned as corrupt," said John Woolley, a professor at UC Santa Barbara and co-director of the Presidency Project.

The irony, he points out, is that those Democrats had also promised their own version of draining the swamp in response to the Republican president who preceded them.

Clinton ended up revoking his order in his final weeks in office, allowing his appointees to go straight into lobbying after all. And the Obama administration granted some waivers to its ethics order. It remains to be seen, of course, if Trump sticks hard and fast to his ban.

Trump criticized Clinton for backing off the ban during the 2016 presidential campaign. "President Clinton did what the Clintons always do he rigged the system on his way out," Trump said in a statement in October of last year. "Clinton lifted the executive order so the Clintons and their cronies like John Podesta could start raking in cash." (Podesta was Clinton's chief of staff in the White House, founded a lobbying and public affairs firm with his brother and later became Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.)

The Trump administration did not reply to a request for comment.

"When a new president's executive order deals with a subject of operational concern to multiple administrations, it's not surprising that the president's lawyers would look to previous iterations as models," wrote Peter Shane, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor, in an email to NPR after reviewing the overlapping language. Shane focuses on separation of powers law and the application of law to the presidency.

"For a Republican president, reiterating the restrictive obligations prior Democratic presidents imposed on their appointees has the double advantage of using provisions vetted by other lawyers and apparently deemed acceptable to the political opposition," Shane added.

Below, we were able to trace back each bullet point in section one of Trump's order to either Clinton or Obama nearly verbatim. For clarity, Trump's order language is in bold, Clinton's is in italics and Obama's is plain text:

Trump:

"Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2017, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:"

Obama:

"Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:"

Clinton:

"Section 1. Ethics Pledges. (a) Every senior appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 1993, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge ("senior appointee pledge") upon becoming a senior appointee:"

Trump:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in an appointee position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:"

Obama:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:"

Clinton:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a senior appointee position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:"

Trump:

"2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions."

Obama:

"4. Revolving Door Ban Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions for a period of 2 years following the end of my appointment."

Trump:

"3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration."

Obama:

"5. Revolving Door Ban Appointees Leaving Government to Lobby. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 4, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to lobby any covered executive branch official or non career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration."

Trump:

"4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended."

Clinton:

"3. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, if undertaken on January 20, 1993, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended."

Trump: 5.

"I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee."

Obama:

"1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee."

Trump:

"6. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

Obama:

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

Trump:

"7. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 6, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment or participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls."

Obama:

"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

"(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

"(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

"(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment."

Trump:

"8. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate's qualifications, competence, and experience."

Obama:

"6. Employment Qualification Commitment. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate's qualifications, competence, and experience."

Trump:

"9. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled 'Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees,' issued by the President on January 28, 2017, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the obligations of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Government service."

Obama:

"7. Assent to Enforcement. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled 'Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,' issued by the President on January 21, 2009, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain of the terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the terms of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Federal Government service."

Clinton:

"2. I acknowledge that the Executive order entitled 'Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees,' issued by the President on January 20, 1993, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain of the terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the terms of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Federal Government service."

Interestingly, when it came to picking language for the "waivers" section of the order, Trump's team chose the language used by Clinton, with one notable exception. Trump's executive order doesn't require waivers to be published in the Federal Register, meaning it will be harder for the public and press to determine whether the Trump administration is taking advantage of the loopholes written into the executive order. Obama's order didn't require the waivers to be published in the Federal Register either, but the Obama administration had a practice of posting them on the internet and required an annual report from the Office of Government Ethics. Trump's doesn't contain the reporting language.

Trump:

"Sec. 3. Waiver. (a) The President or his designee may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person."(b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the President or his designee."(c) A copy of the waiver certification shall be furnished to the person covered by the waiver and provided to the head of the agency in which that person is or was appointed to serve."

Clinton:

"Sec. 3. Waiver. (a) The President may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person if, and to the extent that, the President certifies in writing that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver.

"(b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the President. "(c) The waiver certification shall be published in the Federal Register, identifying the name and executive agency position of the person covered by the waiver and the reasons for granting it. "(d) A copy of the waiver certification shall be furnished to the person covered by the waiver and filed with the head of the agency in which that person is or was appointed to serve."

Ethics watchdogs are offering a mixed reaction to the Trump executive order. In a joint statement Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Chair Norman Eisen and Vice-Chair Richard Painter say that "while there are things to like in the Trump [executive order], it tears two major loopholes in the Obama executive order on ethics it replaces."

They say it removes Obama's ban on lobbyists going to work for the agencies they had lobbied and also gets rid of revolving door restrictions on people who don't go on to become registered lobbyists but do work to "influence the system." Eisen and Painter call it "shadow lobbying."

They conclude that "Mr. Trump's [executive order], while it has some positive features, does not live up to his promise to drain the swamp."

Read more:
Trump's Executive Order On Ethics Pulls Word For Word From Obama, Clinton - NPR

Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."

Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."

"This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."

DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.

Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence are both "included as attendees anytime that they want to be included."

In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989. Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.

Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns about Bannon.

"I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern this quote reorganization."

Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings. And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"

And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.

"Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."

And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."

The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.

There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community, though during a January 22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I love you. I respect you."

Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes.

In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary, the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.

CNN's Eric Bradner contributed to this report.

This story has been updated.

Go here to see the original:
Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy' - CNN

Demonstrators protest against President Trumps executive immigration ban at Chicagos OHare International Airport. Photo: Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images

John Quincy Adams was defeated for reelection in 1828 by Andrew Jackson, who proceeded to win reelection in 1832, and whose fellow Democrat, Martin Van Buren, won in 1836. It seemed to cement for all time the defeat of Adams vision of an active federal government that would invest in education and infrastructure, and the triumph of the southern vision of slavery and weak central authority. I fell, and with me fell, I fear never to rise again the system of internal improvement by national means and national energies, he wrote in 1837, according to Louisa Thomas, and mourned that the defeats would rivet into perpetuity the clanking chain of the slave.

Long-term pessimism about the liberal project has come roaring back in style since the election. Barack Obamas pet line, the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice, has been hauled out for a great deal of public mockery on all sides. The liberal coastal elite has wallowed in self-flagellation about their failure to understand the great country, a sentiment Donald Trumps henchmen have exploited to cast the news media as an alien appendage from the real America and its deep, mystical bond with the new president. (They dont understand this country, claims Steve Bannon, They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.)

But the events of the last two weeks, both of which have seen massive nation-wide protests against the new presidency, suggest a different conclusion. It is Trump who does not understand this country. And it is Obamas vision of the country that will ultimately win out.

The election has provided ample reasons for alarm. But it is important to have some clarity about what we ought to fear. The federal government is in the hands of an extremist claque. It will probably carry out enormous amounts of terrible policy, and the tail risks of permanent disasters arising from misgovernance new Katrinas, new Iraq Wars, or worse are terrifyingly high.

On the other hand, there is no reason to believe Trump is actually good at politics. He has the largest popular vote deficit of any president ever elected, and comes into office with historically low approval ratings. The only things he has done well are correctly gauge the fecklessness of his Republican rivals, who he understood would fall in line behind him even after he smeared and bullied them mercilessly, and to beat up on Hillary Clinton while James Comey, Vladimir Putin, and the national media pinned her arms behind her.

Some liberal journalists have greeted each new Trump action by solemnly insisting that we take him literally and that he will do what he says. But what exactly should we take literally? His promise to provide terrific health insurance that covers everybody, at lower cost? Forcing Mexico to pay for the wall? Resuscitating the declining coal industry? The complete eradication of Islamic terrorism? The most competent president would not achieve these goals. And Trump is a political amateur who has surrounded himself with other political amateurs. He will wreak a fearful toll on this country before he is finished, but the assumption that Trump will do what he promises extends him credit he does not deserve.

The argument of my new book is that Trump (who was an important character in it even before the election) represents the death rattle of a declining vision of American retrenchment, and Obama represents the future. The civic values our grandchildren will celebrate and be taught in schools will be Obamas, not Trumps. American history in punctuated with horrors. Yet the reality that life in the United States is better more affluent and more egalitarian than it was 50 years ago, and 50 years ago it was better than 50 years before that, at which point it was better than a half century before.

Obamas story about the arc of history does not imply that progress moves forward steadily and without interruption, or that liberals should adapt complacency, or that progress will occur without conflict. Indeed, that conflict has burned for more than two centuries. What we now call the struggle between red and blue America was the same basic divide that pit Adams against Andrew Jackson. Blue America envisions a positive role for government in developing the talents of all its citizens, and regardless of identity. Red America intertwines a suspicion of elites and centralized authority with a commitment to racial revanchism.

Adams fatalistic assessment 180 years ago seemed accurate at the time, after his party had suffered three consecutive defeats. And indeed his Whigs would suffer a series of misfortunes leading to its ultimate expiration within two decades. Yet, in the long run, Adams ideas won out. Slavery was abolished in 1865, a national bank was established in 1913, and the federal government actively invested in education and infrastructure, all as Adams had dreamed. From the vantage point of the twenty-first century, writes historian Daniel Walker Howe, we can see that the Whigs, though not the dominant party of their own time, were the party of Americas future.

Why have the successes of blue America proven more durable than those of red America? One reason is that liberal politics has a better record of producing successful policies. For all the rage conservatives have generated against Obamacare, it is fulfilling its goals and providing access to medical care to people who are too poor or sick to afford it. When Republicans gathered Friday to strategize on health care, a secret recording revealed they havent the faintest idea how to proceed. Trumps immigration crackdown was drafted and executed in in absurd fashion. It looks like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour, one lawyer told Ben Wittes, My take is that it is so poorly written that its hard to tell the impact.

Demographic change is another source of liberal confidence that has sustained a lot of post-election mockery. Yet the fact remains that Republicans remain heavily dependent on running up large margins among the oldest voters. The youngest cohort has remained about as staunchly Democrat today as it was in 2008. Americans under the age of 30 are far more racially diverse than their parents and grandparents, and young whites are far less likely to vote Republican. The Trump coalition can win an election, but its margin for error is shrinking.

The blue coalition has weaknesses of its own. Liberal voters have congenital tendency to sulk when Democrats hold the presidency. And the younger voters Democrats have come to rely on turn out less reliably than the Republican base. But the Womens March last weekend, and the immigration protests this weekend, have drawn on powerful American ideals: inclusion, social mobility, and optimism. Obamaism may have lost control of the levers of power of government but it has never lost the country.

Kal Penn Raises $295,000 (and Counting) for Syrian Refugees in Name of Troll Who Said He Doesnt Belong in America

Sean Spicer Retweets Onion Video Saying He Provides Robust Misinformation: You Nailed It

Judge Temporarily Blocks Part of Trumps Ban on Refugees and Citizens from 7 Muslim-Majority Nations

Carrie Fisher Had a Very Specific Request for Harrison Ford Regarding Her Oscars Death Reel

Images and videos from more than 20 anti-ban protests which were held throughout the country on Sunday.

It turns out to be Trump who does not understand this country.

Trump apparently asked Giuliani to come up with the right way to implement an illegal Muslim ban, and the travel ban was the proposed solution.

Count the Trump administration among those who dont seem to understand the presidents new executive order.

The raid was the first U.S. ground operation in Yemen since the start of the countrys two-year-old civil war.

The hastily planned executive order, which has upended the lives of countless U.S. visa holders, has failed its first legal hurdle.

The pen-happy, plan-lite president has signaled his desire to combat lobbying, be ready for cyberattacks, and have a strategy about ISIS.

The vice-president isnt going to let a total lack of evidence get in the way of a perfectly good voter-fraud investigation.

But the White Houses joint statement omits the part where the two leaders say they wont talk publicly about the wall.

In the spirit of international harmony and understanding.

The 45th president is an unlikely champion for abortion opponents. And he may not accomplish more for them than did George W. Bush.

All the norms the president has already destroyed.

Trump joined British PM Theresa May for his first White House press conference Friday.

Theres no single fix. Theres no single plan, says Republican in charge of writing plan.

Trump pulls ads alerting consumers to the Obamacare enrollment deadline even though the spots have already been paid for.

Miller will join Doug Bands Teneo Strategy to act as a liaison to the Trump White House.

Theres a real movement afoot to make the Golden State its own golden republic. At very least, it will galvanize opposition to the Trump regime.

The presidents of the U.S. and Russia havent spoken since just after the election.

Up until now, Trump and his staff have generally pointed, misleadingly, to mainstream studies to support the claim. Not anymore.

Steve Bannon has called out the elite press for misjudging the 2016 race. Is now the right moment to take a lesson?

Original post:
Obama's America Rises Again - New York Magazine

Barack Obama had to see much of his legacy go up in flames the mooment Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, from the dismantling of Obamacare to threats to the Paris Climate Accord, the reversal of TPP and many, many other key issues.

While the former POTUS may not be able to do much to curb his successor's appetite for destruction, he'll have a chance to preserve his legacy by way of a presidential memoir. And, by the looks of early numbers tossed around by potential publishers, the world is hungry for Obama's words of wisdom and perspective.

According to theNew York Times, Obama could fetch an advance of more than $20 million for his memoir more than any other president in U.S. history. By comparison, Bill Clinton was paid $15 million for his 2004 autobiography My Life.

Put our outgoing POTUS isn't the only Obama who could get a seven figure check for writing a book: former First Lady Michelle Obama is reportedly being offered in the ballpark of $10 million for her memoirs.

Clearly, America and the world needs the Obamas' voice more than ever. Hopefully these memoirs will come sooner than later.

Read the original:
Damn! Barack Obama Could Get Paid This Much For Writing His Presidential Memoir - BET

SPECIAL TO THE DAILY NEWS

Saturday, January 28, 2017, 9:59 PM

Barack Obama needs to come back from his vacation. Michelle, too. We need a voice for the majority of Americans who did not vote for Donald Trump.

Democrats and progressives are frantic about Trump's steady stream of executive orders violating the human and civil rights of people firmly established by law and the U.S. Constitution.

Arrogantly some pundits are asking people expressing their outrage "why are you surprised?" "He's doing what he said he would do."

No one is surprised that he is doing what he said he would do. We are surprised he is getting away with it so easily. The checks and balances we've read about since middle school need to kick in and kick in fast. Thankfully, the much-maligned ACLU convinced a federal judge to block Trump's immigration executive orderfor now anyway.

BAN BLOCKED: Federal judge grants emergency stay to thwart Trump's refugee ban, halts deportations

75 photos view gallery

Normally people hesitate to compare any violator of human and civil rights on a grand scale to Hitler for fear of minimizing what Hitler did.

And, while most Americans can never know what it was like to be Jewish in the time of Hitler, perhaps weafter 10 days of Trumpcan start to imagine, especially if we recall what we know about Germany in Hitler's adolescent days.

In Forward magazine, Andrew Nagorski, who wrote "Hitlerland: American Eyewitnesses to the Nazi Rise to Power," described Jews and non-Jews' slow wake-up call to the Nazi danger:

"In the very early 1920s, when Adolf Hitler was still only a local rabble rouser in Munich, two men from Munich's American consulate made a point of observing his rallies: Robert Murphy, the young acting consul, and Paul Drey, a German employee who was a member of a distinguished Bavarian Jewish family.

Day one of Trump refugee ban sparks chaos at U.S. airports

"Do you think these agitators will ever get far?" Murphy asked his colleague. "Of course not!" Drey replied. "The German people are much too intelligent to be taken in by such scamps."

Nagorski wrote German Jews and many Americans in Germany thought Hitler would "never act on his most extreme rhetoric, and besides, the donations would keep him reasonable."

Almost 100 years later, we are hearing similar remarks from smart and politically-seasoned Americans. "It's all going to calm down." "He needs to placate his base." "The Republicans won't let him destroy the party."

Meanwhile, Trump's actions could very well result in refugees being murdered when they return to their homelands. Their lives should matter to the President and to all Americans.

Trump, I suppose, argues American lives matter more, but the truth is Americans do not live in daily fear of violence the way some Muslims, Latinos and other people from ethnic groups do in war-torn countries under dictatorial governments. That doesn't mean we don't have economic and societal problems that need solving. We do. But, nothing Trump is doing gets at the real pocketbook issues facing the white middle class Americans who put him in office nor does it protect us from a terrorist attack. Time will prove this true.

Until then, somebody with authority and presence needs to go toe-to-toe with Trump.

Someone who isn't delusional about possibly having a relationship with this man after he "calms down." Someone who isn't using Trump to get elected or re-elected. Someone who isn't participating in Democratic Party in-fighting. Someone who will give voice to the millions of Americans watching cable news, as I write this, thinking what can I do, what can I say, so I don't feel so helpless, so afraid. I am one of those Americans.

Is that someone Obama? I don't know. I can't think, though, of anyone else who could synthesize the energy of the Women's March on Washington and bring Democrats, moderate Republicans, progressives, whites and people of color together.

He has a legacy to protect. We have the very soul of our country.

Karen Hinton is Chief Strategy Officer at Fenton and is the former press secretary for NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.

See more here:
Obama, you need to come home - New York Daily News