The Trump Administration Shouldn’t Imitate the Obama Administration’s Crony Energy Style

Solar, wind and the like are awful returns on your energy investment dollar (also known as taxes). On their own – and even more so when compared to real energy sources like coal and oil.

And fake energy sources – claiming to be “green” – are absolutely awful for the environment.

Spent solar panels – must be handled as if they are nuclear waste. Wind turbines – also must be made of toxic materials. And wind turbine farms – are giant bird blenders. They mow down hundreds of thousands of fowl per annum.

And of course – these “green” energy sources can not exist without massive infusions of government cash. When the subsidies go away – so too do the “fake” energy companies.

If you are so awful at whatever it is you do that you need government money to continue to exist – you shouldn’t continue to exist.

As I have always said: Government doesn’t pick winners and losers – it picks losers at the expense of winners.

Government takes money from winners – people who have succeeded, and thus pay taxes – and hand it to losers who have proven they can not succeed, and thus need government money.

Good ideas are…good ideas. And require no government money. No one needs to subsidize ice cream.

Green energy…is an awful idea (let the private sector take care of it). And thus requires tons of government money.

The Barack Obama Administration loved bad ideas. And LOVED spending tons of government money on them. Green energy – was a particular love thereof.

And why did the Obama Administration engage in this inanity – aside from ideological idiocy? Why, crony idiocy of course.

80% of DOE Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Backers

Thankfully, finally – the Barack Obama Administration is in the rearview mirror. We now have the Donald Trump Administration – which has spent some of its time undoing what its predecessor did.

But unfortunately – some habits die hard. Like heaping government money upon people who aren’t hacking it on their own.

The Trump Administration’s Energy Department – is poised to continue this awful Obama Administration Energy Department practice. Only with different government-money crony-recipients:

“In January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) unanimously rejected a profoundly anti-competitive proposal by the Energy Department to provide billions in subsidies to old, unprofitable power plants. After the exceptional political blowback from its attempt to pick winners (or more aptly, subsidize losers), Energy Department officials are back to the drawing board. But have they learned?

“The early signs indicate a clear ‘no.’ Key political appointees at the Energy Department (DOE) are ignoring evidence and bypassing their own in-house experts to funnel financial aid to unprofitable power plants. The motives couldn’t be more obvious – the same politically-tied companies that drove the last proposal are back at it again because they can’t compete in the marketplace.”

Fantastic. More government money – for more political cronies. How very Obama Administration of the Trump Administration.

Everyone involved in the process of generating and delivering real energy – and not on the government money recipient list – are vociferously opposed. The opposition – is bipartisan and nigh universal:

“Democrats and former George W. Bush administration energy officials decried the proposal while consumer and environmental groups joined free-market think tanks, including the R Street Institute and The Heritage Foundation, in opposition….

“Broad coalitions – such as the Affordable Energy Coalition – have formed in defense of markets….

“Grid operators strongly opposed the department’s proposal, citing deep anti-competitive concerns and saying it was not necessary to preserve grid reliability. FERC’s decision echoed this sentiment….

“Heavy industry, dismayed by the Energy Department proposal, told Congress that ‘DOE is saying manufacturing jobs are not as important as the jobs at economically obsolete…power plants.’ It’s not the role of the federal government to determine whose job is more important.”

Indeed “it’s not the role of the federal government to determine whose job is more important.”

The Trump Energy Department’s response – was very Obama-esque:

“Almost comically, Energy Department officials responded by suggesting that they needed to ‘help FERC members understand the importance of coal’ to electric reliability and resiliency.”

This DOE proposal – is unadulterated cronyism. No more – no less:

“At the nexus of incompetence and cronyism lies the pinnacle of bad governance. For an administration that promised to drain the swap, energy subsidies do precisely the opposite. Subsidizing unprofitable power plants puts cronies, not America, first….

“Economic fundamentals, not cronyism, should drive electricity investment decisions. Competitive electricity markets align economic incentives and put customers, not well-connected companies, first. Putting private capital at risk, rather than socializing risk through taxpayer or ratepayer-funded subsidies and regulated monopolies, ensures that companies properly assess their investments. This is why competitive markets have outperformed monopoly investments, resulting in cost-efficient investments, increased innovation and more choice for American families and businesses….

“If power plants are profitable, subsidies only serve to pad a company’s bottom line. If they’re not profitable, taxpayers should not prop them up. Rather than keeping them on life support, government should allow economic failures to fail so that those resources are free to flow to more useful purposes elsewhere in the economy.”

Here’s hoping this massive, bipartisan opposition – and their massive assertion of reality – will lead to a change of heart…and minds:

“In an April 2017 memo, (Energy) Secretary (Rick) Perry requested a study examining the country’s electricity markets and reliability. The Energy Department should seek to enhance competitive markets by following through on technical recommendations from the resulting staff report.

“Furthermore, the department should offer its modeling and other in-house technical capabilities to grid operators and FERC officials as they continue to examine grid resilience. This would complement a broader conservative energy reset, anchored by a commitment to competition, customer choice and good governance.”

We need a change of Obama pace. And, actually, a change from decades of bipartisan DC awful:

“For decades, the federal government has implemented distortionary energy subsidies and regulations. Further undermining competitive markets and pouring billions in subsidies to cronies is a surefire way to harm all energy customers, stifle innovation and promote energy dependence on handouts. Congress should press the administration for a course correction – or else members will face the wrath of dismayed voters with higher energy bills this fall.”

Let us, finally, return to an actual free market energy system – and thereby reassert just a little bit of Reality in DC.

Advertisements

You’re not allowed to root for both the White Sox and the Cubs… But why?

This blog post has very little to do with politics. As a Chicagoan and a devout White Sox (as Obama is too (probably his only good quality)), I get very annoyed (and I am sure Cubs fan get annoyed too) with baseball “fans” claiming that they are both Sox and Cubs fans; and with the City Series starting up today, I thought that today was a great day to write a post about Chicago baseball:


We are told from the time we are children that we can be almost anything we wish in this great country of ours — except, of course, a real fan of both the White Sox and the Cubs.

North Korea will unite with South Korea before that is acceptable. Cheering both Chicago baseball teams simply isn’t done.

When it is; often but not exclusively by craven politicians, children too young to know any better and/or those who don’t truly care that much about either team; practically no one who does care believes the sincerity or depth of commitment.

You may object to this as a gross simplification.

You may say it is not true and that you are living proof.

There’s no need to call, write, post or tweet to say, “But I do sincerely cheer for both teams.”

Tell yourself anything you want. Your friends, relatives and colleagues know.

If the dual Sox-Cubs fan does in fact exist, it is baseball’s equivalent of Schrodinger’s cat, which offers the possibility of something being two opposite things simultaneously even when always seen by observers only as one or the other.

Do we really want to add quantum mechanics to the sabermetrics and analytics in baseball?

Didn’t think so.

Besides, the decided and distinct split between the fan bases predates even the Sox’s existence. It is by design.

What drew blood was when, after a year of minor-league ball in 1900, the White Stockings’ American League took on the Chicago Orphans’ National League as a rival major league.

Sometimes, particularly for a newcomer to the Chicago area not already aligned with a team, loyalty is a matter of individual choice. Other times first allegiance is passed down from generations, like one’s religious heritage.

Defy your parents if you wish, but acceptance of their choice is the path of least resistance while living under their roof, no matter what your friends and neighbors embrace.

As a teen, you may rebel; as an adult, you are free to be who you want to be. There are mixed marriages and families divided north and south that do just fine over time.

But the unwritten rules do not change, and somewhere between “Bat, flipping” and “Pitch, knockdown” you’ll find the one about choosing the Sox or Cubs and how embracing both is verboten.

We’re increasingly an open-minded society (which sometimes has negative consequences). Unfortunately, every other hard-and-fast rule and traditional allegiance in law, lifestyle and culture has been pulled apart or at least greatly loosened in recent years.

But Sox and Cubs? If you can’t pick one and one only, you must pick neither.

Intellectually, this admittedly makes no sense.

The two ballclubs meet no more than a half-dozen times in a 162-game regular season. They compete for different division titles, different playoff berths and different pennants.

Emotionally too there should be more than enough love within a single heart to go around and be shared for two teams that barely have enough historic success between them to adequately return the affection.

Too many disappointments to count over the years is merely one of many things the Cubs and Sox have in common, along with ballplayers such as Jose Quintana, Sammy Sosa, Steve Stone, Jeff Samardzija and Ron Santo.

But even if what unites the two teams is greater than what separates them, there’s a Mendoza line in the lakefront sand for fans that those on either side do not want crossed.

Fans of one team do not necessarily have to despise the other. Disinterest is also acceptable.

Some may refuse to set foot in the other team’s ballpark. But when one does, it is OK to rise (NOT cheer) when the home fans do against a neutral opponent, similar to how non-Catholics rise but remain in their pews when others in their row take communion.

A few (traitor) Cubs fans in 2005 were swept up in the Sox’s World Series championship, but they eventually wound up again in one camp or the other. Same for some of the (traitor) Sox fans who may have “justified” the siren call of the 2016 Cubs bandwagon (big emphasis on the bandwagon) fleet by saying they were simply in the habit of rooting against the Indians.

No one alive remembers choosing to root for the Sox or Cubs in an all-Chicago World Series. As Cubs fans will tell you, it was played almost 112 years ago in 1906. Sox fans will note their team won it in six games.

It is proof that anything is possible.

Were these two clubs somehow to meet in a World Series for a second time, perhaps anyone whose heart survives the shock will be so glad to be alive they won’t care who wins.

Rooting for both teams, however, is still likely to be seen as rooting for neither.

If Congress Isn’t Going to Defund Planned Parenthood, Then We Have to Do This Instead

Pro-life conservatives have been frustrated with the ongoing failure to defund Planned Parenthood, and for good reason. America’s largest abortion provider markets itself as a defender of “women’s health,” but performs zero mammograms, willfully covers up statutory rapes, and has had to pay multimillion dollar settlements for Medicaid billing fraud.

All while ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn children for massive profits every year.

So when the latest omnibus spending bill passed with half a billion dollars of funding for Planned Parenthood intact, even with Republicans in control of the White House and both the House and the Senate, conservatives were enraged. And not just because omnibus bills happen because Congress is stupid.

Watching Republicans campaign as pro-life champions every election cycle and then continue to send half a billion freaking dollars — that’s five hundred million dollars, $500,000,000.00 — every year is extremely infuriating.

Now, I don’t believe that Congressional Republicans are secretly pro-choice and actually want to continue providing funding to abortion clinics. What’s far more likely is they are wary of the backlash from Democrats and the media, who would complain that those mean ol’ Republicans are heartlessly cutting medical care to poor women.

Fine. Here’s an easy solution.

Don’t defund the budget for Planned Parenthood. Transfer the money. 

Take all of the money we send to Planned Parenthood clinics, and instead, send the money to medical clinics that provide services to the poor.

Congress has proven they have little appetite for cutting spending, so fine, just take the money we are giving to these abortion clinics and instead, send it to other health clinics in the exact same towns. Dollar for dollar, take it from the abortion clinic and just send it down the street.

The communities will still have the exact same amount of federal funds coming their way, but the money will go much further since it will be going to actual health clinics, and not Planned Parenthood, with its lavish budgets for its political activity, lobbying, contributions to candidates, executives’ salaries and benefits, travel, and events — not to mention all those flashy advertisements, graphics, and videos all over their social media.

And let’s be very clear: there is an abundance of choices for where these funds could be sent.

Drafting the bill should be an open and bipartisan discussion. Members of Congress should take into consideration the clinics in their own districts that are providing excellent care to the needy in their communities. If the Democrats truly care about women’s health, they should participate in the debate and offer amendments with their suggestions.

Some ideas for qualifying for the funds could include accepting Medicaid patients, providing a certain percentage of services pro bono or at reduced costs, being in operation for a certain number of years to prove stability, providing comprehensive prenatal and gynecological health care, and so on.

A similar program was adopted in Texas in 2013. The state cut funding to abortion providers and created the “Healthy Texas Women” program, providing low-income women with birth control, family planning services, and other health care. A Daily Signal report called the program a success, with the state’s pregnancy rate remaining relatively stable and abortions dropping.

There was also a massive drop in Medicaid and contraceptive claims, which liberals attempted to frame as a negative, but a federal civil suit was brought against Planned Parenthood for Medicaid billing fraud from 2003 to 2009 and eventually settled for $4.3 million dollars. Plus, the enactment of Obamacare during this period meant that women with those policies were entitled to free contraception. In other words, when another government program provided contraception coverage and the fraud spigot was cut off, that made the number of claims go down, not women forgoing necessary medical care.

“The data belies the claim that Planned Parenthood was necessary to women’s health care in Texas,” said Casey Mattox, a senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom.

The Democrats say they care about women’s health care. The Republicans say they don’t want to send money to an abortion provider. Fine. This solution lets both parties do what they say they want to do. 

If we can’t get our Republican-controlled Congress to cut spending, let’s at least quit sending money to America’s largest abortion provider, and send it somewhere it can still help women.

Man Who Absolutely Trashed Obama For Eight Years Calls For Utmost Respect For President Trump (Satire)

LAKE ZURICH, IL—Local Trump supporter Christoph Dzienis absolutely brutalized President Obama for the full length of both the former president’s terms in office, but is now calling for all Americans to unite and show respect for their current president, sources close to the man claimed Monday.

The self-described “political junkie,” who is angered every time he sees someone criticize President Trump, reportedly slammed President Obama in a series of savage memes and rants several times a day for eight years.

“Really, it should be a crime to blatantly disrespect the presidential office,” the man who still has a faded, yellowing sticker of Calvin urinating on President Obama on his pickup truck said. “I’m all for free speech, but enough is enough.”

Dzienis further called people who criticize the president “un-American” and “unpatriotic” for not completely agreeing with President Trump’s policies.

“He’s your President, for goodness’ sake. Grow up and stop acting like children,” he said, while blowing his nose with a nearby roll of novelty toilet paper depicting President Obama’s face on each square, according to sources.


Disclaimer: The above story is satire. It is completely fictitious.

Why Our Prescription (and Lifesaving) Drugs Cost So Much

Spark Therapeutics recently launched a pioneering new drug that can improve the vision of patients with a rare hereditary form of vision loss. That’s not the only thing that is pioneering about this drug, called Luxturna. Its price is, too. Spark announced this week that treatment will cost $850,000 a patient. “We believe that price reflects the type of life-altering value we’re seeing with Luxturna in clinical trials and will allow us to build on revolutionary science,” Spark Chief Executive Jeff Marrazzo told The Wall Street Journal.

The company reportedly had considered setting the price even higher, at $1 million.

Cue the usual howls from politicians and activists who rail against the high price of modern drugs and other treatments.

No doubt hoping to mute that chorus of critics, Spark says it will offer alternative payment arrangements to health insurers, including partial refunds if the drug doesn’t work as advertised. The market of potential patients isn’t huge: An estimated 1,000 to 2,000 Americans stand to benefit from this treatment, the company says.

But imagine you are one of those patients today. Imagine what Luxturna could mean to your life.

I’m not here to celebrate “extreme” prices. But I do celebrate the genius that drives the development of such powerhouse drugs. And the free markets that allow companies to set prices so they reap profits from blockbuster drugs. Today’s profits, of course, become the seed money for tomorrow’s research on more new, perhaps miraculous, drugs.

The trouble with such medical miracles: They’re not cheap. They never will be.

Developing drugs takes immense investments in time and money. Spark won’t say how much it cost to develop Luxturna. But a 2014 report from Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development pegged the average cost of developing a new drug at $2.6 billion. Many promising drugs fizzle without ever reaching the pharmacy shelf.

In recent years, U.S. spending on prescription drugs has rocketed. One reason: Drug companies continue to launch novel medicines that bring breakthrough therapies to treat an array of illnesses, from multiple sclerosis to several forms of cancer. Luxturna shares a dubious distinction with some of those drugs: Its price tag approaches $1 million.

But remember, prescription drugmakers face not only the failure of new products, but also fierce competition. They have a limited time to sell new products before lower-cost generic versions are allowed.

In 2016, President Barack Obama named Vice President Joe Biden to command an American “moon shot” to cure cancer. Obama didn’t say how long it would take or how much it would cost. Some of the latest prescription drug weapons in that war now reach similar “stratospheric” prices as Luxturna.

But who wants to tell the drug companies to stop because the cost of a cure is too high?

The price of drugs is fair game for debate, in Congress, among insurers, and over the kitchen table of every American.

What’s fair? What’s gouging? We don’t know. Nor do politicians. Officials and activists may exert pressure to drive better bargains. But as long as the market largely decides prices, researchers will continue to find these medical miracles. The next one may vastly improve life for several thousand people. Or several million.

The Problem With Net Neutrality

When the idea was created in 2002 by leftist college professor Tim Wu, Net Neutrality was just four innocuous things:

  • Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
  • Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
  • Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
  • Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

But as with oh-so-many things devised by the left, Net Neutrality sounds good, but isn’t. It is, in fact, a terrible idea, for a whole host of reasons.

It is always a bad idea to have government enforce, especially what the private sector is already enforcing without government. You never want government involved, unless you absolutely can not help it.

All of these four Net Neutrality things were being adhered to at the time Net Neutrality was coined and created. And they have all been adhered to each and every day since.

So Net Neutrality was and is totally unnecessary. So any government enforcement thereof is totally unnecessary.

Net Neutrality is a solution running around, in chicken-headless-fashion, blindly looking for a problem.

But that’s not why Wu created it. The left saw the private sector Internet take off like a rocket, totally government-free. The left desperately needed a fairy tale to convince people to allow the burying of government hooks into the Internet, so as to then reel it back in.

That fairy tale is Net Neutrality. We’ll let another leftist college professor, Robert McChesney, explain what then:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

How very Venezuela of them.

Net Neutrality’s “ultimate goal” is to have government be the only way you can connect to the Internet.

How very China-North Korea-Iran-Saudi Arabia of them.

Net Neutrality has always been the left’s Trojan Horse, to get the government into the Internet, with the “ultimate goal” of a total government takeover.

Which is what the Barack Obama Administration executed in 2015. Under the false rubric of “Net Neutrality”, the Obama Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pretended to be Congress and totally rewrote existing telecommunications law.

Congress had in the 1996 Telecommunications Act classified the Internet as Title I. Which leaves the Internet largely unmolested by government, no coincidence that the internet did so very, very well.

Obama’s FCC, without Congress, “reclassified” the Internet to Title II  which was created by the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Because we all know that 1934 Congressional intent was to regulate something that wouldn’t be created for another sixty years.

Title II is for landline telephones. The telephone network bears just about zero resemblance to the Internet network. The Internet network is significantly more complex.

So why did Obama’s FCC do this? Because the FCC has HUGE regulatory (and taxing) powers in Title II. They have just about none in Title I.

Having the government regulate the Internet like a telephone will cripple the Internet. And shrink it back down to phone network size, scope and power.

(See also: Obamacare driving private health insurance providers out of the Obamacare network.)

Which, again, is what the left actually wants. Kill the private providers, ultimately leaving us with government as our only one.

Thankfully, the Donald Trump FCC is in the process of undoing the Obama reclassification power grab. Which has led to this last fortnight’s left-media freakout.

Repeated again and again in the freakout is the “Net Neutrality” Trojan Horse lie, with endless mentions of the the harmless “Net Neutrality” but with zero mentions of the accompanying HUGE power grab.

Leaving out the HUGE power grab allows the left-media to dishonestly portray the Trump FCC as “tools of the Internet providers.”

Rather than as what the Trump FCC actually is: reasoned, reasonable steward of 1/6th of our entire economy.

Restoring the pre-Obama-power-grab status quo will allow the private sector to deliver us the free speech-free market, that is the government-free Internet.

This is really very good news – no matter what the leftist “news” media says.

Did the Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?

I know the mainstream media is always licking its wounds after President Donald Trump smacks them around in his press conferences since being in office.

And I hate to add salt to their wounds, but it seems they’ve got a case of amnesia.

It all started when President Trump went all-out against the network because they reported on an unsubstantiated 35-page document that claimed Trump is being blackmailed by the Russian government.

Trump praised those in the media who had restraint from peddling the false report.

“I have great respect for the news, great respect for freedom of the press,” Trump said, thanking those who didn’t run the unsubstantiated story, saying his opinion of them may have “gone up a notch.”

But the mainstream media rallied around CNN.

“The journalist whom Trump called on should have yielded to CNN. Don’t allow him to refuse to answer questions  from certain news outlets,” Politico reporter Peter Sterne tweeted.

Acosta whined that incoming press secretary Sean Spicer threatened to toss him out of the press conference after he repeatedly interrupted the president-elect demanding to get his question answered.

I can’t recall the mainstream media rallying around Fox News anytime over the last eight years when President Obama attacked them.

In fact, let’s review the times Obama blamed the number one name in news (AKA Fox News).


October 25, 2008

Then-candidate Obama complained he would be polling higher if Fox didn’t exist. This may work in soap operas and song lyrics, but that’s not exactly the best start to a working relationship with the press.

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latté-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

June 16, 2009

Obama says that Fox News is entirely devoted to “attacking my administration.”

JOHN HARWOOD: Last question. When you and I spoke in January, you said–I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming. Media critics would say not only has it not come, but that you have gotten such favorable press, either because of bias or because you’re good box office, that it’s hurting the country, because you’re not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Assess that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty…

HARWOOD: I assume you’re talking about Fox.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone. And you’d be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front.

October 14, 2010

Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

December 2010

After the Democrats’ midterm election shellacking, President Obama reportedly toldlabor leaders in a private meeting that Fox News was partly responsible for him “losing white males” who tune into the network to “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7.”

He needed someone to blame for the massive losses because the next election was his.

May 10, 2011

Obama takes a shot at Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.

“One CEO had this to say about reform. ‘American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society… Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, science, higher education and innovation.’ That’s Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with his views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama bumper sticker on his car.”

January 27, 2013

Obama hits Fox News for making “compromise” a “dirty word.”

“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

September 26, 2013

Obama went after Fox News on the campaign trail for his health care law.

“If you’ve talked to somebody who said, ‘Well, I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said this is horrible,’ you can say, ‘you know what? Don’t take my word for it! Go on the website.”

February 2, 2014

During a pre-Super Bowl interview, President Obama suggested Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly was being unfair for asking questions about ObamaCare’s shortcomings, the IRS scandal and Benghazi.

“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.”

“And they believe it because folks like you tell them that,” Obama said, adding on the IRS scandal: “These kinds of things keep on surfacing, because folks like you will promote them.”

October 2, 2014

President Obama insisted ObamaCare is “working pretty well in the real world” despite it being a “fanged threat to freedom on Fox News” in a speech at Northwestern University.

May 12, 2015

Obama hits Fox News for anti-poverty narrative.

“There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And, look, it’s still being propagated.

“I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, ‘I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone’ — or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right? That gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress — which is much more typical — who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.”

September 20, 2015

Obama takes a shot at Fox News for allegedly covering him unfairly.

“I want to repeat — because somehow this never shows up on Fox News. I want to repeat — because I’ve said it a lot, unwaveringly, all the time: Our law enforcement officers do outstanding work in an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. They put their lives on the line for our safety. We appreciate them and we love them.”

October 27, 2015

Obama claims “certain televisions stations” distort his position on guns.

“And some of you who are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs. Please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everybody’s guns away and every time a mass shooting happens one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of firearms and ammunitions jump up because folks are scared into thinking that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights.”

November 5, 2015

Obama blames Fox News for making him “seem scary.”

“It’s interesting, because we’re talking in Iowa; people always, I think, were surprised about me connecting with folks in small-town Iowa. And the reason I did was, first of all, I had the benefit that at the time nobody expected me to win. And so I wasn’t viewed through this prism of Fox News and conservative media, and making me scary. At the time, I didn’t seem scary, other than just having a funny name. I seemed young. Sometimes I look at my pictures from then and I say, I can’t believe anybody voted for me because I look like I’m 25.”

September 18, 2016

At a Clinton fundraiser in New York City, President Obama predicted a close election “not because of Hillary’s flaws,” but because of Fox News and some blogs “that are churning out a lot of misinformation…”

November 3, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for “balkanization of the media.”

“The problem is we’ve got all these filters. Look, if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either because you’ve got this screen—this funhouse mirror—through which people are receiving information. How to break through that is a big challenge.”

November 29, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for election loss.

“In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments.”


While the media and liberals are lamenting the fact that Trump is defending himself against CNN and other left-wing news outlets, they were largely silent as President Barack Obama routinely attacked Fox News for 8 years.

So, it happens during every presidency. The president feels a need to defend himself, so before CNN and MSNBC and other speculation news outlets have another seizure, as President Trump points out how unjustly his administration is being covered, think about all that President Obama said about his “enemy” in the media.

The irrationality in some precincts and the dishonesty of the talking heads and the absolute hysteria that surrounds some news stories is simply dumb and incredibly annoying. You get nowhere when you present the facts and they are rejected, so why bother? Facts don’t matter to these ignorant morons or conspiracists, why debate them? And the worst part is if you don’t see it the way that these far leftists do, then you’re branded as a racist.