Bill Clinton speaking at OKC bombing 30th anniversary: Learn the former president's ties
Former President Bill Clinton is set to give the keynote address on Saturday, commemorating victims and survivors at the 30th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The former president has spoken at previous remembrance ceremonies since 1995, most recently at the 20th anniversary in 2015.
Clinton was the sitting president on April 19, 1995, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed, which left 168 people dead as a result of the bombing. While he was the president of the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in United States history, Clinton's ties to Oklahoma City go beyond his term requirements.
Here's what you need to know about Clinton's trip to Oklahoma City for the ceremony.
President William 'Bill' Clinton served as the 42nd president of the United States from January 20, 1993, to January 20, 2001.
Clinton, who was two years into his first term as president at the time of the bombing, said April 19 is burned into his memory. Just days after the bombing, he delivered what many historians say was one of the finest speeches given by a modern president. Clinton said that speech — given on April 23, 1995, during a memorial service at State Fair Arena and only about nine minutes long — was one of the two most important speeches of his presidency.
"I wanted to keep it as brief as possible and to rally people and give them hope that we would overcome this," the former president told The Oklahoman. "How we handled this and what it (the bombing) did to us was really, really important."
Bill Clinton is in Oklahoma City to speak at the 30th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 15, 1995. As sitting President, Clinton has spoken on the bombing since his days in office and has returned to the ceremony every 5 years.
The victim Alan Whicher was a friend of Clinton's who would die in the bombing of the Murrah building. Whicher was a U.S. Secret Service agent who was a part of Clinton's initial security detail before being transferred to Oklahoma City.
Whicher had lived in Oklahoma City for seven months before April 19, 1995.
"You know I liked him a lot and I missed him when he left," Clinton said in a recent interview with The Oklahoman. "So I was determined to do what I could to help Oklahoma City become the place he thought it was when he went there."
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Bill Clinton at OKC bombing event: What to know about president's ties
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why. Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough. Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough. In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all. Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending. This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms. While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures. Consider the ongoing federal budget battle. House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade. Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse. Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients. More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved. In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it. Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients. My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable. When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no. They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade. More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree. But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols. Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs. By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs. In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices. Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it. Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable. The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal. The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market. Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief. A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids. Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole. Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings. In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it. Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth. They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants. And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet. No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support. The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Senate's one big, beautiful opportunity to deliver tax relief and pass Trump's agenda
President Trump ran — and won — on a bold promise: supercharge America's economy and restore strength at home and abroad. Now the Senate is on the verge of helping him fulfill that commitment with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Getting the bill through the House was a Herculean effort in itself, given the Republicans' thin majority. That required many compromises to be made. While there is a lot of good in the House version of the bill, some big improvements still need to be made. That is what the Senate is currently working on. First, the good. The bill extends and expands the Trump tax cuts, the largest in American history. It also increases the child tax credit, extends and expands the pass-through deduction that is vital for small businesses, and expands credits for employer-provided childcare. Failure to get this done is not an option. Any member of Congress — Democrat or Republican — who votes against the bill will vote for the largest tax hike in American history. Don't buy the spin of Democrats who oppose this bill and falsely give the impression that it's just tax cuts for billionaires. Instead, look at the numbers. By voting against this bill, Democrats are voting to double the federal taxes on every married couple with two kids making $80,000 a year, from roughly $1,400 in taxes owed to more than $3,000. By voting against this bill, Democrats are voting to force single parents with two kids making $40,000 a year to go from getting a net tax credit to owing nearly $1,500 in taxes. By voting against this bill, Democrats are also betraying tens of millions of small businesses. They'll be voting to triple the income tax bill for married small business owners with three kids and a net income of $180,000. They will also be voting against the most ambitious welfare reform in a generation. Medicaid is a lifeline for seniors on fixed incomes, low-income families, pregnant women and individuals with disabilities. It is also on an unsustainable path, with expenditures increasing by roughly 50 percent since 2019. Trump was right to push to protect Medicaid beneficiaries while calling for a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. The bill accomplishes this by finally enacting work requirements for able-bodied adults. Democrats, who once championed welfare reform under President Clinton, now ridiculously claim that work requirements are 'cuts.' How dare we expect an able-bodied adult capable of holding a job actively seek employment, volunteer in their community, or pursue education in exchange for taxpayer-funded benefits? The bill also includes other wins that fulfill Trump's promises. Included is historic funding for border security, so we can maintain the incredible success of the Trump administration's enforcement efforts, and build the infrastructure we need to keep illegals and the cartels out of our country in the years ahead. The bill also gives well-deserved pay raises to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol employees, makes energy exploration investments and takes measures to combat fentanyl trafficking. Despite a lot of good, there are some big areas in need of improvement. First, the Senate needs to find additional spending cuts and savings. While the House version saves taxpayers $1.6 trillion in spending, we need to push further for fiscal restraint. This will be easier said than done, as the reconciliation process that allows Congress to pass major tax legislation with a simple majority vote has major restrictions on what and where the Senate can cut. A prime target is the House's inexplicable decision to quadruple the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which wealthy taxpayers in high-tax blue states utilize. While I understand why lawmakers from California and New York want to increase the SALT deduction, it's not the responsibility of federal taxpayers to subsidize state tax bills. The SALT increase overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest of taxpayers and carries a significant price tag of $320 billion. The Senate needs to fix this and unlock additional cost savings to help working families, not coastal elites. The Senate also needs to be laser-focused on fulfilling Trump's goal of supercharging the economy. That means anything that 'costs' money should ideally produce growth. We must also scrutinize any provision that could ultimately cost jobs and capital, wiping out any intended savings in the bill. One such example is the hidden tobacco tax hike, which could put many of the North Carolina tobacco farmers I represent out of business. Moving forward, each Republican senator will have input, and each provision should be scrutinized. My simple request to all my Republican colleagues in both chambers is: do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We have narrow majorities in both the House and Senate and cannot waste the historic opportunity we have to deliver tax relief and pass Trump's agenda. Whether it takes the next few weeks or the next few months, let's do the hard work to find common ground, get the job done, and put the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Trump's desk. Thom Tillis is the senior senator from North Carolina. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics
The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill on Tuesday that would repeal a 30-year-old federal law created to safeguard abortion clinics — even as violence against providers and clinics has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, also known as the FACE Act, was enacted in 1994 by President Bill Clinton in response to escalating violence against abortion clinics. The law made it a federal crime to use force or the threat of force to injure, intimidate or block any person trying to provide or access reproductive health care services. While the law has primarily been used to protect abortion clinics, it also protects fertility clinics, anti-abortion pregnancy centers, churches and other places of religious worship from similar violence. Anti-abortion violence dropped by 30% when the FACE Act was first signed into law. The law is arguably now more important than ever, since federal abortion protections fell in 2022 and violence against providers and clinics have skyrocketed. The year the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, there was a 538% increase in people obstructing clinic entrances, a 913% increase in stalking of clinic staff and a 133% increase in bomb threats, according to a National Abortion Federation report. Reproductive rights are under attack. HuffPost is committed to reporting the truth, amplifying voices, and covering this fight with depth and care. Support our work by today. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025 earlier this year, claiming that President Joe Biden's administration weaponized the law to prosecute anti-abortion activists. The repeal is part of a yearslong push by the GOP to stoke a false narrative that Democrats are waging a war against the anti-abortion religious right. Republican support for the bill comes less than a month after a California fertility clinic was bombed and one person died. After a heated debate on Tuesday, the repeal bill passed in a 13-10 vote along party lines. It now heads to the House for consideration. 'NAF has been tracking anti-abortion violence since 1977, and we know this for certain: when the FACE Act is being enforced, it is an effective and important tool to keep abortion providers and their patients safe,' Julie Gonen, chief legal officer at the National Abortion Federation (NAF), said in a Tuesday statement. 'It is unconscionable to see anti-abortion legislators trying to repeal a law that has been keeping people safe for decades.' During Tuesday's debate, Roy claimed that he had little issue with the actual law and instead worried about overcriminalization and the Biden administration's 'one-sided enforcement of the law.' He noted that he's received pushback from within the Trump administration over his repeal bill because he said the administration is looking to use the FACE Act to protect churches. 'The previous administration weaponized the FACE Act to prosecute nonviolent pro-life Americans with the harshest sentences,' Roy said, routinely referring to abortion clinics and pro-choice advocates as 'anti-life.' Republicans argued that the law has been disproportionately applied against anti-abortion advocates who protest at abortion clinics. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said there has 'most certainly been egregious abuse' from the Biden administration's 'selective enforcement' of the law. Roy said in his opening statement that 8% of the FACE Act cases filed under Biden's Department of Justice were against protesters at anti-abortion centers and 92% were against anti-abortion activists at abortion clinics. Because of this there should be a full repeal of the federal law, Republicans argued. But several Democrats pointed out that simply looking at the numbers does not prove selective enforcement of the law. Instead, it shows that abortion clinics face a disproportionate amount of harassment and violence from anti-abortion protesters. 'The FACE Act is completely viewpoint neutral in its textual scope and viewpoint neutral in its application,' ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. 'If more people have been convicted of attacking pro-choice abortion clinics than have been convicted of attacking pro-life pregnancy centers, as my friend from Texas suggests, it is because there have been vastly more people attacking abortion clinics than attacking pregnancy centers.' The only Republican on the committee who did not support a full repeal was Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.), who said enforcement was abused but the law should instead be revised. Days into his presidency, Donald Trump announced he would limit enforcement of the FACE Act. He dismissed a handful of current ongoing FACE investigations and instructed prosecutors to apply the law only in 'extraordinary circumstances' such as instances of death, extreme bodily harm or significant property damage. Trump also pardoned 23 people for FACE convictions that ranged from harassing pregnant patients to breaking into clinics and stealing fetal tissue. Several of those pardoned, some of whom were serving prison time, have already said theyplan to return to targeting and invading abortion clinics. Abortion providers, clinic staff and other experts working in the reproductive health field told HuffPost shortly after Trump's announcement that they were deeply demoralized by the administration's decision. Some had already seen an increase in aggression and hostility from protesters in the few weeks since Trump took office. 'Unless you have worked at an abortion clinic, you will never understand the terror we face on a daily basis,' Renee Chelian, founder and CEO of Michigan abortion clinic Northland Family Planning, said in a statement following the advancement of the bill to repeal the FACE Act. Chelian and her staff have survived arson attacks and a chemical bomb, as well as bomb and death threats. Eight of the protesters who attacked Northland Family Planning were convicted under the FACE Act during the Biden administration, but were later pardoned by Trump. 'Our patients have been blockaded from entering while needing immediate medical attention. My own children were targeted and terrorized,' Chelian said. 'The FACE Act is one of the only tools to hold these criminals accountable … There is no explanation for repealing this law other than purposefully inspiring violence against patients and clinic staff.' 'We're Sitting Ducks': Abortion Providers Brace For Violence After Trump Limits Clinic Protections Arson, Burglary, Death Threats: Abortion Clinics See Uptick In Violence Post-Roe Trump Admin Sends 'Ominous Signal' On Emergency Abortion Care Guidelines
