Mediaboss Marketing

January 29, 2017 Less than a week after the inauguration of President Trump, an Obama has already spoken out against one of his policies.

No, not the 44th president, who left the White House last Friday. In fact, it was Barack Obamas eldest daughter, 18-year-old Malia, who attended an event at the Sundance Film Festival this week to express solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe the Native American group that for months has protested the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

The news was revealed by Divergent actress Shailene Woodley, herself a vocal activist against the oil route, in an interview with Democracy Now!:

AMY GOODMAN: Were you surprised to see Malia Obama yesterday at the protest?

SHAILENE WOODLEY: It was amazing to see Malia. I saw her last night when we did the event with Chairman Dave Archambault. And it was incredible to see her there. Also

AMY GOODMAN: President Obamas daughter.

SHAILENE WOODLEY: President Obamas daughter. Also, to witness a human being and a woman coming into her own outside of her family and outside of the attachments that this country has on her, but someone whos willing to participate in democracy because she chooses to, because she recognizes, regardless of her last name, that if she doesnt participate in democracy, there will be no world for her future children.

Tuesday morning, Trump signed a presidential memorandumordering DAPLs expedited review and approval. That night, Malia, Woodley and others at Sundance assembled in support of Standing Rock.

Opponents of the 1,172-mile pipeline argue that it would run through ancient Sioux burial grounds, and that the project could possibly leak into the Missouri River. Last month, the US Army Corps of Engineers the federal agency overseeing DAPLs construction ordered a stop to construction pending further review.

Malias appearance at the annual movie meeting in Utah came as no surprise, seeing that shes interested in an entertainment industry career. The New York Post reported last week that Malia will be interning with Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, after previously working on the sets of HBO and CBS television shows.

But was her DAPL stance a preview of an outspoken career? Perhaps. While the former president said in his final press conference that neither Malia nor 15-year-old Sasha intend to pursue a future of politics, he did hint at their coming civic engagement:

I think that they have, in part through osmosis, in part through dinnertime conversations, appreciated the fact that this is a big, complicated country, and democracy is messy and it doesn't always work exactly the way you might want, it doesn't guarantee certain outcomes. But if you're engaged and you're involved, then there are a lot more good people than bad in this country, and there's a core decency to this country, and that they got to be a part of lifting that up.

And I expect they will be. And in that sense, they are representative of this generation that makes me really optimistic.

Joshua Kendall, author of First Dads: Parenting and Politics from George Washington to Barack Obama, says that in general, political children tend to be rebels.... There is this tradition of the First Kids really speaking out, and Malia is firmly in that tradition.

The most direct parallel between Malia and another first child, Kendall says, is with Amy Carter, the youngest of former President Jimmy Carters four children. Both were around the same age at the time of their fathers inaugurations Amy was 9, Malia was 10. Both are Ivy Leaguers Amy went to Brown University, and Malia will attend Harvard this fall.

The teenage Amy was known for her political activism, having marched with counterculture figure Abbie Hoffman. Both were arrested in 1986 at an anti-CIA demonstration in Massachusetts. A year later, after she and Hoffman were acquitted, 19-year-old Amy invited supporters to another CIA protest at the agencys headquarters in Virginia.

Kendall chronicled in his book: Everyone out there should be at Langley, she stated before adding with a smile, Tell your parents to come. This was a knowing reference to her famous father, Kendall says.

Carter fully supported his daughter, Kendall says, and the same is also true of former President Gerald Ford. Two days after Ford was inaugurated in 1974, his eldest son Michael then a graduate student at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary told the Associated Press that recently-resigned President Richard Nixon should make a total confession of what was his role in Watergate.

Ford, who went on to pardon Nixon, said a month after Michaels comments that All my children have spoken for themselves since they first learned to speak, and not always with my advance approval. I expect that to continue.

Follow this link:
Malia Obama at pipeline event: Do former 'First Kids' normally attend protests? - Christian Science Monitor

President Trump signed an executive order halting all refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days, among other provisions. Here's what the order says. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. President Trump, statement on executive order, Jan. 29, 2017

In justifying his controversial executive order halting travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries, President Trump claimed that President Barack Obama did the same thing in 2011. But the comparison is a bitfacile.

Heres what happened in 2011.

The only news report that we could find that referred to a six-month ban was a 2013 ABC News article that included this line: As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.

The Kentucky case refers to two Iraqis in Kentucky who in May, 2011 were arrested and faced federal terrorism charges after officials discovered from an informant that Waad Ramadan Alwan, before he had been granted asylum in the United States, had constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. The FBI, after examining fragments from thousands of bomb parts, found Alwans fingerprints on a cordless phone that had been wired to detonate an improvised bomb in 2005.

The arrests caused in uproar in Congress and the Obama administration pledged to re-examine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees. Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed visa approvals, even as the United States was preparing to end its involvement in the Iraq war.

The enhanced screening procedures have caused a logjam in regular visa admissions from Iraq, even for those who risked their lives to aid American troops and who now fear reprisals as the Obama administration winds down the U.S. military presence, the Baltimore Sun reported.

The Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. official acknowledged delays, but were trying to speed up the process:

A U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad, speaking on condition he not be identified, acknowledged unfortunate delays in issuing special visas, the result of enhanced security clearance procedures, some instituted after the Kentucky arrests. But he said recent changes would speed the process. The State Departments National Visa Center has been ordered to flag special visa applications for expedited action, the official said. And a requirement that Iraqi applicants provide an original signature on certain forms sent to the U.S. has been dropped after Iraqis complained of logistical difficulties. We are making changes, ordered at the very highest levels, that will help shave time off the application process, the official said.

At a September, 2011 congressional hearing, Sen. Susan Collins asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if there had been a hold placed on Iraqi visa applications.

COLLINS: So my question is, is there a hold on that population until they can be more stringently vetted to ensure that were not letting into this country, people who would do us harm?

NAPOLITANO: Yep. Let me, if I might, answer your question two parts. First part, with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC [National Counter Terrorism Center] databases and the Department of Defenses biometric databases and so that work has not been done and focused.

COLLINS: Thats completed?

NAPOLITANO: That is completed. Moving forward, no one will be resettled without going through the same sort of vet. Now I dont know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.

The new rules were stringent, The Economist reported, and it resulted in some turmoil.

Immigration authorities soon began rechecking all Iraqi refugees in America, reportedly comparing fingerprints and other records with military and intelligence documents in dusty archives. About 1,000 soon-to-be immigrants in Iraq were told that they would not be allowed to board flights already booked. Some were removed from planes. Thousands more Iraqi applicants had to restart the immigration process, because their security clearances expired when the program stalled. Men must now pass five separate checks, women four, and children three.

State Department records show there was a significant drop in refugee arrivals from Iraq in 2011. There were 18,251 in 2010, 6,339 in 2011 and 16,369 in 2012.But its unclear that equates to an actual six-month pause in visa processing, rather than a dramatic slowdown in approvals as new rules were put in place. One news report said pace of visa approvals having slowed to a crawl, indicating some were still being approved.

The Pinocchio Test

So whats the difference with Trumps action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threatthe discovery that two Iraqi refugees has been implicated in bomb-making in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, had been a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and also impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat.

Second, Obama did not announcethere was a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitanos answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had been slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it was their policy to halt all applications. Even so, the delaysdid not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.

Third, Obamas policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling the United States. Trumps policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.

We have sought comment from the White House and also from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Share the Facts

2

5

"My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.

in a statement

Sunday, January 29, 2017

-01/-29/2017

See the original post here:
Trump's facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama's in 2011 - Washington Post

President Trump's first week in office has been marked by a series of significant executive actions as he looks to start in on some of his key priorities.

Presidents have a handful of tools to push through policy without waiting on Congressincluding executive orders and the less formal process of presidential memoranda. Both allow the president to direct executive agencies on how he wants them to enforce existing law.

Trumps pace ofsix orders and eight memoranda in his first seven daysputs him roughly on pace with former President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaTrump, like Obama, signs flurry of first week executive actions Ex-Defense secretary: Trump's changes to security council a 'big mistake' De Blasio: Trump's immigration order 'un-American' MOREs first week in office. But Trump and Obama both dwarfed other recent presidents in their use of executive actions early in their term.

Donald TrumpDonald Trump'60 Minutes' changes lineup to re-broadcast Syrian refugee piece Trump, like Obama, signs flurry of first week executive actions Feinstein to introduce two bills in response to Trump's ban MORE 5 Executive Orders, 9 Presidential Memoranda

Trump used executive actions during his first week in the White House tostart fulfilling campaign promises.

Trumps first moves were lifted right from his presidential bid: an order calling for agencies to minimize the burden of ObamaCare ahead of the impending repeal, along with a memorandum freezing all new government regulations.

On Monday, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and announced a federal hiring freeze.

The same day, he announced theinstitution of an expanded version of the Mexico City policy, a Reagan-era rule suspended by Democratic presidents that forbids federal money fromgoing to foreign nonprofits that receive perform or support abortions outside of America.

Remember this one, since every president has changed Americas stance on this anti-abortion policy when their party retakes the White House.

Later this week, Trump instituted measures dealing with pipelines and manufacturing: ordering pipelines to use as much American-made material as possible, reauthorizing the Dakota Access and Keystone Pipelines and calling for expedited reviews for companies looking to build new factories.

Trumps next twoexecutive ordersdealt withothermajor campaign promisesstarting the construction of a wall on the Mexican border and anotherthat laid out policies on deportations.

He closed out his first week with twoFridayactions. One order banned immigration from Syria while pausing all refugee admissions while a memorandum called for a rebuilding of the military.

Barack Obama6 Executive Orders, 9 Presidential Memoranda

Obamasignedseveral executive actions in his first seven days, a departure from the slower first-week paces of presidents immediately before him.

Those actions mostly centered on a few major themesincreasing transparency, softening detention policies and promoting a more liberal environmental policy. All of these matched with key Obama campaign planks.

Obama laid out an ethics plan that instituted lobbyist gift bans and placed limits on lobbyists entering government or appointees leaving it. He also issued a broad memo calling for government transparency, greased the wheels for more disclosures of presidential recordsby repealing a more restrictive George W. Bush order,and called on agencies to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure for Freedom of Information Act requests.

Obama also called for reviews of detention policies,orderedthe closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center and ended the use of enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

On energy, Obama issued threeenvironmental orders. They includedincreasingfuel economy standards and granting California a waiver to enact tougher emission restrictions.

Obama signed three other ordersone reversing the Mexico City Policyin favor of abortion rights, one freezing senior executive branch pay and a third that allocated funding for Palestinian refugees.

George W. Bush0 Executive Orders, 2 Presidential Memoranda

Bush is the only one of the last five presidents not to issue any executive orders in his first week in officehis first executive orders came on his ninth day in office, creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

But both of the memoranda Bush signed in his first week in office were substantial. The first reinstated the Mexico City policy, while a second limited executive branch hiring.

Bill ClintonBill ClintonTrump, like Obama, signs flurry of first week executive actions Chelsea Clinton attends NYC protest against Trump immigration ban Trump brings his campaign tactics to the White House MORE2 Executive Orders, 6 Presidential Memoranda

Clinton got to work quicklywhen he took office after12 years of Republican control of the White House, removing social policies favored by Christian conservatives.

Five of Clintons six earliest memoranda dealt with social issues in some form.

He lifted the ban on fetal tissue research, removed the Title X gag rule that barred federally funded clinics from providing information on abortions, allowed military hospitals to perform abortions as long as no Defense Department funds were used and eased restrictions on the medical abortion drug RU-486.

He also rescinded the Mexico City policy, beginning thefirst-weektug-of-war over the policy.

His other orders include an ethics pledge, the creation of the National Economic Council and a regulatory review.

George H.W. Bush1 Executive Order, 0 Presidential Memoranda

Coming off of two terms of serving as President Ronald Reagans vice president, the elder Bush didnt find too much in the executive branch that he felt he needed to fix immediately.

Bush issued no presidential memoranda during his first seven days, according to theAmerican Presidency Project, and only signed one executive order on ethics reform.

That order created the Presidents Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform, which was tasked with making a report about potential reforms to help ensure full public confidence in the integrity of all Federal public officials and employees.

Go here to see the original:
Trump, like Obama, signs flurry of first week executive actions - The Hill

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

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