Thursday, June 2, 2016
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
DOJ Moves to Shield Immigration Records of Illegals Improperly Granted Exec. Amnesty
Breitbart ^ | 1 Jun 2016 | Caroline May
The Obama administration is pushing back against a federal judge’s order sanctioning government lawyers for misleading the court about the implementation dates for executive amnesty.
In a court filing Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that District Court Judge Andrew Hanen “far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies for what this Court concluded were intentional misrepresentations” when he ordered government lawyers to undergo ethics training and turn over the immigration records of the illegal immigrants who benefited from the government’s implementation snafu.
The Obama administration is pushing back against a federal judge’s order sanctioning government lawyers for misleading the court about the implementation dates for executive amnesty.
In a court filing Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that District Court Judge Andrew Hanen “far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies for what this Court concluded were intentional misrepresentations” when he ordered government lawyers to undergo ethics training and turn over the immigration records of the illegal immigrants who benefited from the government’s implementation snafu.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Hillary's 'Self-Inflicted' Email Mess
Townhall.com ^ | June 1, 2016 | Brent Bozell
Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Tim Graham.
Dana Milbank and Ruth Marcus are both Yale-educated reporters-turned-columnists at The Washington Post. They view the world through the same lens. This sometimes means they can write pretty much the same column. It also means they both have a huge blind spot when it comes to sympathizing with Hillary Clinton.
Last Sunday, both columnists wrote about the damaging report from the State Department's inspector general, which concluded that Clinton's act of putting her State Department email on a private server was authorized by no one but the self-appointed queen herself. Even the network newscasts, so normally supportive of the presumptive Democratic nominee, subtly implied that Clinton's self-defenses had been exposed as lies. But these two columnists concluded she was only guilty of a self-inflicted wound on her campaign.
Milbank's column was headlined "Hunkered Hillary made things worse." The pull quote from the Marcus column was, "The greatest irony here may be that the Clintonian urge for privacy produces the opposite of what she needs."
Here's the blind spot: Both Milbank and Marcus think Clinton doesn't match Trump's nickname "Crooked Hillary." She's just too scared of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and overreaches. Her "instinctive caution" got the best of her.
Marcus protests that this was just a dumb mistake, a "massive failure of staff" that no one talked Clinton out of a private server. Milbank's whole column can be boiled down to this rebuttal of Trump's nickname: "This isn't quite true: Though investigations into her activities have occupied much of the past 25 years, her accusers, on Whitewater to Benghazi, never really get the goods."
These columnists speak negatively of Clinton's "accusers" -- the ones responsible for giving her "scar tissue" with their "politically motivated attacks and endless investigations" -- as Republican partisans. The silent omission in all of that is that neither of these journalists think it's the job of the media to investigate and "get the goods," to make Clinton more transparent or accountable as a public servant.
The media are only assigned to call Republicans to account.
These journalists insist the Clintons should cooperate with investigators, but they refuse to admit that more often than not, the "protective crouch" works for them. Their relentless lying and hiding/destroying evidence seems damaging when it's fresh in the news for a few hours...and then the media go back to papering it over.
Take The Clinton Foundation. Imagine a Republican administration where a former president's wife became secretary of state, while he accepted huge donations to his foundation from foreign countries seeking preferential treatment in Washington, D.C. Would anyone ever think that would be permitted?
But the liberal media just laid down on the job as the Clintons made a "wink wink" arrangement with President Obama that The Clinton Foundation would stop taking new foreign donations...except from countries that had previously donated to the foundation...as long as donors didn't increase their contributions. And why not look the other way? The press has allowed the Obama administration to police itself since the start.
Even now, after reporters exposed how The Clinton Foundation broke these rules -- as if the Clintons would follow rules -- the major networks offered just 27 minutes in all of 2015 to the massive conflicts of interest. This from the people who offered 88 minutes to Chris Christie's Bridgegate scandal in two days. And, in case you're wondering how many minutes the networks have spent this year on The Clinton Foundation: less than five minutes.
So, why shouldn't the Clintons continue lying and hiding evidence? It's not like the media want to violate their precious "urge for privacy." After all, she's only running for president.
Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Tim Graham.
Dana Milbank and Ruth Marcus are both Yale-educated reporters-turned-columnists at The Washington Post. They view the world through the same lens. This sometimes means they can write pretty much the same column. It also means they both have a huge blind spot when it comes to sympathizing with Hillary Clinton.
Last Sunday, both columnists wrote about the damaging report from the State Department's inspector general, which concluded that Clinton's act of putting her State Department email on a private server was authorized by no one but the self-appointed queen herself. Even the network newscasts, so normally supportive of the presumptive Democratic nominee, subtly implied that Clinton's self-defenses had been exposed as lies. But these two columnists concluded she was only guilty of a self-inflicted wound on her campaign.
Milbank's column was headlined "Hunkered Hillary made things worse." The pull quote from the Marcus column was, "The greatest irony here may be that the Clintonian urge for privacy produces the opposite of what she needs."
Here's the blind spot: Both Milbank and Marcus think Clinton doesn't match Trump's nickname "Crooked Hillary." She's just too scared of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and overreaches. Her "instinctive caution" got the best of her.
Marcus protests that this was just a dumb mistake, a "massive failure of staff" that no one talked Clinton out of a private server. Milbank's whole column can be boiled down to this rebuttal of Trump's nickname: "This isn't quite true: Though investigations into her activities have occupied much of the past 25 years, her accusers, on Whitewater to Benghazi, never really get the goods."
These columnists speak negatively of Clinton's "accusers" -- the ones responsible for giving her "scar tissue" with their "politically motivated attacks and endless investigations" -- as Republican partisans. The silent omission in all of that is that neither of these journalists think it's the job of the media to investigate and "get the goods," to make Clinton more transparent or accountable as a public servant.
The media are only assigned to call Republicans to account.
These journalists insist the Clintons should cooperate with investigators, but they refuse to admit that more often than not, the "protective crouch" works for them. Their relentless lying and hiding/destroying evidence seems damaging when it's fresh in the news for a few hours...and then the media go back to papering it over.
Take The Clinton Foundation. Imagine a Republican administration where a former president's wife became secretary of state, while he accepted huge donations to his foundation from foreign countries seeking preferential treatment in Washington, D.C. Would anyone ever think that would be permitted?
But the liberal media just laid down on the job as the Clintons made a "wink wink" arrangement with President Obama that The Clinton Foundation would stop taking new foreign donations...except from countries that had previously donated to the foundation...as long as donors didn't increase their contributions. And why not look the other way? The press has allowed the Obama administration to police itself since the start.
Even now, after reporters exposed how The Clinton Foundation broke these rules -- as if the Clintons would follow rules -- the major networks offered just 27 minutes in all of 2015 to the massive conflicts of interest. This from the people who offered 88 minutes to Chris Christie's Bridgegate scandal in two days. And, in case you're wondering how many minutes the networks have spent this year on The Clinton Foundation: less than five minutes.
So, why shouldn't the Clintons continue lying and hiding evidence? It's not like the media want to violate their precious "urge for privacy." After all, she's only running for president.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Justice Dept. objects to judge’s order for ethics classes, disclosure of immigrant data
The Washington Times ^ | May 31, 2016 | Andrea Noble
The Justice Department fired back at the Texas judge who ordered its attorneys to undertake ethics classes after finding they misled the court in a high-profile challenge to President Obama’s deportation amnesty — saying the order was beyond the judge’s authority and would cost millions to implement.
In a motion filed Tuesday asking for a stay of the order, in which U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said DOJ attorneys were “intentionally deceptive,” government attorneys outlined their objections to both the training requirements and his requirement that by June 10 the Department of Homeland Security turn over identifying information for 50,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally and are now participants in a government program that shields them from deportation.
“The sanctions ordered by the Court far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies for what this Court concluded were intentional misrepresentations, a conclusion that was reached without proper procedural protections and that lacks sufficient evidentiary support,” DOJ attorneys wrote their motion for the stay.
The Justice Department fired back at the Texas judge who ordered its attorneys to undertake ethics classes after finding they misled the court in a high-profile challenge to President Obama’s deportation amnesty — saying the order was beyond the judge’s authority and would cost millions to implement.
In a motion filed Tuesday asking for a stay of the order, in which U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said DOJ attorneys were “intentionally deceptive,” government attorneys outlined their objections to both the training requirements and his requirement that by June 10 the Department of Homeland Security turn over identifying information for 50,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally and are now participants in a government program that shields them from deportation.
“The sanctions ordered by the Court far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies for what this Court concluded were intentional misrepresentations, a conclusion that was reached without proper procedural protections and that lacks sufficient evidentiary support,” DOJ attorneys wrote their motion for the stay.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Obama Administration's Disrespect For The Rule Of Law Hits A New Low
Forbes ^ | May 31, 2016 | George Leef
The lawlessness of the Obama administration has been astounding.
Entire books have been written about President Obama’s notion that he should be and is free to do whatever he wants (such as Lawless by Professor David Bernstein, which I wrote about here). No doubt more will be.
One remarkably brazen instance I recently learned about is his administration’s funneling of money from lawsuit settlements into the pockets of left-wing activist groups. It makes you wonder if there is anything this administration won’t try to get away with.
Following the collapse of the housing bubble, the federal government initiated several grandstanding, politically motivated lawsuits against big banks for their allegedly fraudulent conduct with regard to secondary market mortgage-backed securities. Rather than fight the feds and their almost bottomless well of taxpayer dollars, several of the defendants decided to cut their losses and settle.
That enabled federal prosecutors to claim victory and wave some prominent scalps. Siphoning off billions of bank capital is bad enough, but the rule of law problem emerges in two of the settlement agreements, under which the banks (Citigroup and Bank of America) were able to reduce their penalties by making “donations” to favored left-wing activist groups.
The lawlessness of the Obama administration has been astounding.
Entire books have been written about President Obama’s notion that he should be and is free to do whatever he wants (such as Lawless by Professor David Bernstein, which I wrote about here). No doubt more will be.
One remarkably brazen instance I recently learned about is his administration’s funneling of money from lawsuit settlements into the pockets of left-wing activist groups. It makes you wonder if there is anything this administration won’t try to get away with.
Following the collapse of the housing bubble, the federal government initiated several grandstanding, politically motivated lawsuits against big banks for their allegedly fraudulent conduct with regard to secondary market mortgage-backed securities. Rather than fight the feds and their almost bottomless well of taxpayer dollars, several of the defendants decided to cut their losses and settle.
That enabled federal prosecutors to claim victory and wave some prominent scalps. Siphoning off billions of bank capital is bad enough, but the rule of law problem emerges in two of the settlement agreements, under which the banks (Citigroup and Bank of America) were able to reduce their penalties by making “donations” to favored left-wing activist groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Monday, May 30, 2016
IMF OKs New Two-Year $88 Billion Flexible Credit Line For Mexico (build the wall with this)
International Business Times ^ | 27 May 2016
The International Monetary Fund on Friday boosted its flexible credit line with Mexico to $88 billion in a bid to support Latin America's No. 2 economy, whose currency has been battered by global volatility.
The fund said it canceled a previous flexible credit line, which was for $67 billion and approved on November 26, 2014. The new credit line will last for two years, the fund said.
Mexico's macroeconomic policies "remain very strong," but there are risks given global market volatility, David Lipton, IMF first deputy managing director and acting chair, said in a statement.
Mexico's peso was little changed following the announcement.
Mexico has been one of the most orthodox adherents among emerging markets to IMF doctrine — such as a freely floating currency — and only Colombia and Poland have received similar credit lines.
The International Monetary Fund on Friday boosted its flexible credit line with Mexico to $88 billion in a bid to support Latin America's No. 2 economy, whose currency has been battered by global volatility.
The fund said it canceled a previous flexible credit line, which was for $67 billion and approved on November 26, 2014. The new credit line will last for two years, the fund said.
Mexico's macroeconomic policies "remain very strong," but there are risks given global market volatility, David Lipton, IMF first deputy managing director and acting chair, said in a statement.
Mexico's peso was little changed following the announcement.
Mexico has been one of the most orthodox adherents among emerging markets to IMF doctrine — such as a freely floating currency — and only Colombia and Poland have received similar credit lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibtimes.com ...
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Heartwarming moment World War II veteran, 94, is reunited
Daily Mail ^ | 5/18/16
Full title :Heartwarming moment World War II veteran, 94, is reunited with man he saved from Nazi concentration camp in 1945
A 94-year-old World War II veteran was reunited with one of the prisoners he helped liberate from the Dachau concentration camp.
Retired U.S. Army corporal Sid Shafner said he was among the first Allied troops to reach the Nazi camp in April 1945, and that he is the last surviving member of his unit.
His tearful reunion with Marcel Levy, 90, who was a teenager when he was liberated, came during a recent tour of Europe and Israel.
'You know, everything that I have today is because of you. You saved my life. Because you had the patience to speak to me, to take to me,' Levy said while holding Shafner's hand, according to WFAA.
'Don't praise me,' Shafner replied. 'If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else.'
The two old friends met on an Israeli military base during a trip organized by FIDF, a non-profit organization supporting Israeli troops.
The last time they saw each other was 1995.
'I have been in touch with him all these years. Through postcards, greeting cards, and now email on the computer,' Shafner, who lives in a retirement home in Denver, told WFAA.
Full title :Heartwarming moment World War II veteran, 94, is reunited with man he saved from Nazi concentration camp in 1945
A 94-year-old World War II veteran was reunited with one of the prisoners he helped liberate from the Dachau concentration camp.
Retired U.S. Army corporal Sid Shafner said he was among the first Allied troops to reach the Nazi camp in April 1945, and that he is the last surviving member of his unit.
His tearful reunion with Marcel Levy, 90, who was a teenager when he was liberated, came during a recent tour of Europe and Israel.
'You know, everything that I have today is because of you. You saved my life. Because you had the patience to speak to me, to take to me,' Levy said while holding Shafner's hand, according to WFAA.
'Don't praise me,' Shafner replied. 'If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else.'
The two old friends met on an Israeli military base during a trip organized by FIDF, a non-profit organization supporting Israeli troops.
The last time they saw each other was 1995.
'I have been in touch with him all these years. Through postcards, greeting cards, and now email on the computer,' Shafner, who lives in a retirement home in Denver, told WFAA.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Friday, May 20, 2016
Despite a Setback, Right-to-Work is Advancing Across America
Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 5/18/2016 | Vinnie Vernuccio
On March 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-line ruling on a case that would have brought right-to-work protections to public employees across the country. The court said that a lower court decision would stand, meaning government unions in non-right-to-work states can still get public employees fired for not paying them.
But since the decision was the result of a 4-4 tie rather than a majority ruling, it does not affect the entire country — only the western states covered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was decided earlier. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was brought by the Center for Individual Rights on behalf of Rebecca Friedrichs and several other California teachers. Friedrichs and her fellow plaintiffs argued that everything done by a government union is “inherently political” and that they have a First Amendment right not to fund politics they disagree with.
The country is moving swiftly in the direction of worker freedom. When West Virginia became a right-to-work state, it became the fifth state to do so since 2000, and the fourth since 2012. Supporters of worker freedom were initially optimistic that the court would affirm the First Amendment rights of public employees through Friedrichs. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, however, a positive outcome seemed unlikely as Scalia was widely thought to be the swing vote in the case. For the time being, Scalia’s passing likely saved unions’ ability to force public employees in about half the states to pay them dues or fees.
Until a ninth justice is appointed, not much of anything deemed controversial will get through the court, meaning freedom may be delayed for Friedrichs and other public employees across the country wishing to exercise their rights.
But if the Senate continues to block the nomination of Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, and the president who is elected in November appoints a justice like Scalia, there is a good chance the issue of forced unionism could be reheard by a new court and decided in favor of worker freedom. On the other hand, if Garland or a similar nominee is confirmed to the court, chances are very slim for a decision favoring public employees’ First Amendment rights. As the Washington Times recently noted, “Garland rulings consistently side with labor unions.”
Still, attorneys for the plaintiffs are undaunted. Center for Individual Rights President Terry Pell released a statement after the decision, saying, “We believe this case is too significant to let a split decision stand and we will file a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court.” Rebecca Friedrichs echoed this sentiment, telling reporters, “All of us plaintiffs have been in the classroom for a very long time, so we’re very patient people, and we are definitely in this for the long haul. Today’s decision isn’t the end of the case, and in our view, it simply just delays the final outcome.”
Cases using similar reasoning to Friedrichs, such as the Janus v. AFSCME case brought by the Liberty Justice Center in Illinois, are working their way through lower courts and could be heard by a full Supreme Court if it does not rehear Friedrichs.
No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, labor reform will continue to come from the states. When West Virginia became a right-to-work state earlier this year, it became the fifth state to do so since 2000, and the fourth since 2012. It also became the 26th right-to-work state, meaning that there is now a majority of states in the country in which unions cannot get workers fired for not paying them. That number will continue to grow.
On March 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-line ruling on a case that would have brought right-to-work protections to public employees across the country. The court said that a lower court decision would stand, meaning government unions in non-right-to-work states can still get public employees fired for not paying them.
But since the decision was the result of a 4-4 tie rather than a majority ruling, it does not affect the entire country — only the western states covered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was decided earlier. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was brought by the Center for Individual Rights on behalf of Rebecca Friedrichs and several other California teachers. Friedrichs and her fellow plaintiffs argued that everything done by a government union is “inherently political” and that they have a First Amendment right not to fund politics they disagree with.
The country is moving swiftly in the direction of worker freedom. When West Virginia became a right-to-work state, it became the fifth state to do so since 2000, and the fourth since 2012. Supporters of worker freedom were initially optimistic that the court would affirm the First Amendment rights of public employees through Friedrichs. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, however, a positive outcome seemed unlikely as Scalia was widely thought to be the swing vote in the case. For the time being, Scalia’s passing likely saved unions’ ability to force public employees in about half the states to pay them dues or fees.
Until a ninth justice is appointed, not much of anything deemed controversial will get through the court, meaning freedom may be delayed for Friedrichs and other public employees across the country wishing to exercise their rights.
But if the Senate continues to block the nomination of Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, and the president who is elected in November appoints a justice like Scalia, there is a good chance the issue of forced unionism could be reheard by a new court and decided in favor of worker freedom. On the other hand, if Garland or a similar nominee is confirmed to the court, chances are very slim for a decision favoring public employees’ First Amendment rights. As the Washington Times recently noted, “Garland rulings consistently side with labor unions.”
Still, attorneys for the plaintiffs are undaunted. Center for Individual Rights President Terry Pell released a statement after the decision, saying, “We believe this case is too significant to let a split decision stand and we will file a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court.” Rebecca Friedrichs echoed this sentiment, telling reporters, “All of us plaintiffs have been in the classroom for a very long time, so we’re very patient people, and we are definitely in this for the long haul. Today’s decision isn’t the end of the case, and in our view, it simply just delays the final outcome.”
Cases using similar reasoning to Friedrichs, such as the Janus v. AFSCME case brought by the Liberty Justice Center in Illinois, are working their way through lower courts and could be heard by a full Supreme Court if it does not rehear Friedrichs.
No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, labor reform will continue to come from the states. When West Virginia became a right-to-work state earlier this year, it became the fifth state to do so since 2000, and the fourth since 2012. It also became the 26th right-to-work state, meaning that there is now a majority of states in the country in which unions cannot get workers fired for not paying them. That number will continue to grow.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
The Most Important Story This Political Season
Dr. Anthony Napoleon ^ | Feb. 3, 2016 | Dr Anthony Napoleon
An Avowed Socialist is a Viable Candidate for President of the United States
Let that headline sink in for a moment. I know what you’re thinking: Senator Sanders doesn’t have a chance. Before you get too much solace from that denial ridden and self-comforting thought, you’re missing the point. Put aside your desire to soothe your jagged nerves and consider that for the FIRST TIME in American history, an avowed socialist is a VIABLE candidate for President of the United States.
How did we get here? Well, to begin with, Baby Boomers are no longer the largest demographic group in America. Baby Boomers began their adult lives as the love children, drug addled 60s generation. At least 40% of Baby Boomers lean left. But the real story is to be found in their children and grand children, i.e., the Millennial and Generation Y demographics.
An Avowed Socialist is a Viable Candidate for President of the United States
Let that headline sink in for a moment. I know what you’re thinking: Senator Sanders doesn’t have a chance. Before you get too much solace from that denial ridden and self-comforting thought, you’re missing the point. Put aside your desire to soothe your jagged nerves and consider that for the FIRST TIME in American history, an avowed socialist is a VIABLE candidate for President of the United States.
How did we get here? Well, to begin with, Baby Boomers are no longer the largest demographic group in America. Baby Boomers began their adult lives as the love children, drug addled 60s generation. At least 40% of Baby Boomers lean left. But the real story is to be found in their children and grand children, i.e., the Millennial and Generation Y demographics.
(Excerpt) Read more at dranthonynapoleon.com ...
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Hillary reveals she earned $1.5million from just SIX speeches last year and $5million in book ...
(UK) Daily Mail ^ | May 17, 2016
Complete Headline: Hillary reveals she earned $1.5million from just SIX speeches last year and $5million in book royalties – while husband Bill's speeches raked in a whopping $5 million
[Snip]
Hillary Clinton's speeches to Wall Street interests between 2013 and 2015 spurred questions about her own lack of transparency, leading to repeated calls from her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, for transcripts of her talks to banks, investment houses and other financial interests.
[Snip]
In all, she made at least 94 appearances before corporate and other special interests between 2013 and 2015, earning more than $21.6 million for her services.
Complete Headline: Hillary reveals she earned $1.5million from just SIX speeches last year and $5million in book royalties – while husband Bill's speeches raked in a whopping $5 million
- Hillary Clinton filed a candidate financial disclosure form on Tuesday
- The documents show that the presidential hopeful made $5million from royalties for her book 'Hard Choices' in the year before her campaign
- In 2015 she also made $1.5million in speaking fees
- Her highest-paying speech was at eBay, for $315,000
[Snip]
Hillary Clinton's speeches to Wall Street interests between 2013 and 2015 spurred questions about her own lack of transparency, leading to repeated calls from her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, for transcripts of her talks to banks, investment houses and other financial interests.
[Snip]
In all, she made at least 94 appearances before corporate and other special interests between 2013 and 2015, earning more than $21.6 million for her services.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Trump: Obama’s Ignorance Is Why He’s ‘The Worst President in U.S. History’
Breitbart.com ^ | 17 May 2016 | Alex Swoyer
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump responded to President Obama’s jab during a commencement speech last weekend at Rutgers University.
Taking to Twitter, Trump posted:
"In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue." This is a primary reason that President Obama is the worst president in U.S. history!
Without calling Trump out by name, Obama focused on the Republican nominee throughout the graduation speech.
“In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue,” Obama told the graduates. “It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not keeping it real or telling it like it is. That’s not challenging political correctness. That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about. And yet we’ve become confused about this.”
“I guess it’s part of human nature — especially in times of change and uncertainty — to want to look backwards and long for some imaginary past when everything worked, and the economy hummed, and all politicians were wise, and every child was well-mannered, and America pretty much did whatever it wanted around the world,” Obama also stated. “Guess what? It ain’t so. The good old days weren’t all that good.”
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump responded to President Obama’s jab during a commencement speech last weekend at Rutgers University.
Taking to Twitter, Trump posted:
"In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue." This is a primary reason that President Obama is the worst president in U.S. history!
Without calling Trump out by name, Obama focused on the Republican nominee throughout the graduation speech.
“In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue,” Obama told the graduates. “It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not keeping it real or telling it like it is. That’s not challenging political correctness. That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about. And yet we’ve become confused about this.”
“I guess it’s part of human nature — especially in times of change and uncertainty — to want to look backwards and long for some imaginary past when everything worked, and the economy hummed, and all politicians were wise, and every child was well-mannered, and America pretty much did whatever it wanted around the world,” Obama also stated. “Guess what? It ain’t so. The good old days weren’t all that good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
