SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ManyMoose who wrote (65377)5/30/2013 11:21:19 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
A Double-Trouble Scandal for Obama
The Justice Department scandal has outraged two of the president's most reliable allies: the press and liberal activists.
May 30, 2013, 7:14 p.m. ET.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

The verdict is still out on how much political damage the current trio of scandals will inflict on the Obama White House. For now, the one that might hurt most is the one the public cares about least.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows President Obama's job approval falling to 45%, but the survey also ranks the public's focus on today's Washington controversies. Nearly 45% of voters said the IRS scandal is most important, followed by 24% who picked Benghazi. A mere 15% thought the Justice Department's seizure of press records was a big deal.

No surprise. The IRS is an agency that touches nearly every American, and both the IRS and Benghazi scandals revolve around the sort of big, breathless questions—Did the White House lie? Was the administration targeting enemies?—that rivet public attention. Most Americans don't much care what happens to the press, and if anything wouldn't mind seeing it get some grief.

What this verdict misses, however, is two important realities. The first is that—unlike the IRS and Benghazi scandals—the facts of the DOJ's press intrusions are clear and uncontested. We know Justice has seized records of reporters, that Attorney General Eric Holder himself signed onto a warrant that suggested a journalist was a "co-conspirator" in a national-security leak. We also know that government has violated its own guidelines on probing journalists.

So this is a scandal that can't be ignored or dismissed as a Republican witch hunt. Moreover, it is a scandal that has, for once, outraged two groups that Mr. Obama deeply depends on for his political success: the press and liberal activists.

For years, much of the Washington press corps has served as this White House's front-line defense. As recently as a month ago, the press was still playing no-see-um with Benghazi.

Yet since the AP story broke, the Beltway media have been doing a passable impression of a credible Fourth Estate. White House press secretary Jay Carney's daily briefings now resemble "Survivor" episodes, with journalists firing off questions, rejecting answers, and even rolling their eyes at responses. The White House's evasiveness on the press scandal has suddenly got the press corps wondering what else this administration isn't being straight on.

It has even led to the extraordinary sight of major media outlets this week banding together to boycott meetings planned by Eric Holder to discuss Justice's press investigations. The organizations balked because the meetings would be off the record. Since the press is not known for resisting the spin of anonymous Obama officials, this reaction is progress.

Will it last? That may depend on how many more revelations about press intrusions come to light. But the notable thing is that Mr. Obama has lost the media's loyalty at this critical moment of his presidency, as other scandals over the IRS and Benghazi continue to swirl.

Then there are the White House's left-wing allies. Justice's press mess is particularly toxic in this regard, since it riles up liberals regarding both press freedom and transparency, while reigniting their long-simmering fury over Mr. Obama's national security policies.

As the Nation's editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel explained on ABC's "This Week," the only "real" scandal is "that this administration picked the baton from Bush and failing to uphold what it promised, has had the worst record on press freedom." She moved on to indict the White House on the Patriot Act and wiretapping. Bloomberg columnist Al Hunt admitted it was "true" that "Obama is no better than Richard Nixon." Liberal radio host Bill Press tweeted: "What 'breach of national security' are we talking about re the AP story? It's BS and Holder should be fired."

Congressional Democrats have shown little appetite for defending the White House on the press issue. The risk to the administration is that Democrats begin to sense it is in their political interest (given the outcry from the left) to actively join in the criticism. Mr. Holder has survived past controversies because they were viewed as Republican attacks. Can he withstand a bipartisan barrage?

The White House's success in last year's election hinged in part on its liberal activists, who played a big role in getting the base out to vote. That's the model Mr. Obama and his Organizing for America political-support group are betting on for the 2014 midterms, too. So you can bet the White House is concerned about the fury coming from these allies now.

That's why, of all the scandals, the White House is pouring the most effort into damage control on Justice. The administration has revived its media-shield legislation. It has been summoning the press to the White House for sweet-talking sessions with the president. The president's speech last week at the National Defense University was a convenient platform for Mr. Obama to reassure liberals he was restarting his drive to close Guantanamo and addressing their concerns on drone strikes.

The left and the press have always been with Mr. Obama when it really mattered, and that may well remain the case. The particular significance of Justice's press scandal is that it has deprived Mr. Obama of support at a time when he is vulnerable on so much else. Who knows what will come of that?

Write to kim@wsj.com

online.wsj.com



To: ManyMoose who wrote (65377)6/9/2013 11:07:50 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
We Have Ceded Too Much of Our Liberty
President Big Brother says don't worry about federal spying
John Kass
5:28 p.m. CDT, June 9, 2013

Last week, when Americans learned of a massive erosion of our freedom, also marked the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's "1984."

If you haven't read it, please do so. If you read it years ago, read it again. The movie doesn't count.

But don't read it on the Internet. Instead, look for one of those quaint, old-fashioned "books on paper," so the federal security forces can't read along with you online.

On Friday, President Barack Obama stood in San Jose, Calif., to reassure a nation overwhelmed, perhaps numbed, at how quickly we've given up our liberty in the name of security.

President Big Brother from Chicago has always believed in the power of his rhetorical skills. Unfortunately, his aides forgot the speech. There was no script and no teleprompter.

"I think there's only one problem, and that is my remarks are not sitting here," Obama fumbled. "PEOPLE!!! Uh, things, by uh, Friday, uh afternoon things get a little challenged.

"Ah, I'm gonna have a uh, I'm gonna answer a question at the end of the remarks, but I want make sure we get the remarks out. PEOPLE!!! Oh, goodness!!" he said as an aide, scurrying forward with a printed copy of his remarks, all but tripped and fell.

"OH? … folks are sweating back there right now," he said.

With the speech printed for him, he began spinning against the news.

And what news? Something we've suspected for years.

The Guardian, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal told us that the federal government can now mine personal data from our phones, our credit card transactions and our Internet searches and postings.

The National Security Agency and the FBI are plugged directly into the electronic brains of the leading American Internet companies, from Google to Microsoft to Apple, the better to monitor the people who were once free. These federal agencies are now able to suck out photographs, audio, video, our email and other documents and track our movements and those of our friends.

According to an unnamed intelligence officer in The Washington Post, these once-secret federal computer powers give the government amazing reach. And that whistle-blower made a statement as devastating as the account in "1984" about Winston Smith and the rat cage.

The Post's whistle-blower said that federal police "quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type."

Think on that one for a moment: The government can see your thoughts building on your keyboard. And we thought Orwell was writing fiction, not history.

This all comes after other news, that the Internal Revenue Service was used to squash dissent and harass conservative and tea party groups; and that phone records of journalists from The Associated Press and Fox News were seized, even though President Big Brother insists that he's all about the First Amendment.

The loss of freedom has hit us so quickly that Obama felt compelled to stand up and make soothing sounds.

"When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls," he said Friday.

He neglected to add that they do track whom you call, when and for how long.

Obama admitted that Americans may be queasy about the long arm of the supersecret federal security forces, but that he had struck the right balance between privacy rights and the need to fight terrorism. He didn't mention that it was decided in secret.

"You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," he said, stressing that members of Congress and federal judges had also been aware of these secret programs. "You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."

Yes, we're going to have to make some choices. Us, not you. The first choice is to figure out who we were and who we are. We were once a people who prized individual liberty above all else. But we've given it up. We're tired.

We might as well admit it. What we've done, what we've given up, won't stop gnawing at us until we concede the truth of it.

We gave up freedom after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. President George W. Bush and Congress ceded it away. We were afraid and we gave it up. And President Big Brother, who campaigned against these Bush policies, has taken it to another level without much dissent from his adoring media.

We've been beaten down by a terrible economy. The Wall Street boys haul in profits. The rest of us struggle to pay the bills. And college students rush to study "Healthcare Management," eager to serve Obamacare for the promise of a steady paycheck.

We'll be told by pro-Obama and pro-Bush media mouthpieces not to worry, that those who shriek about the loss of freedom are irrational, perhaps even suspect.

We can listen to them, close our eyes and go to sleep.

Or we can remind ourselves who we were, and what we can be again.

I'd recommend another book, one that is prized by tea party people and the Occupy crowd, and should be treasured by all of us. It's a small booklet, subversive, perhaps even dangerous.

It was written by a now-forgotten people who wouldn't sacrifice liberty for security, and who once told the mighty king of England that they'd rather live free or die.

The authors didn't hide their work in a secret court. They wrote it out publicly, for everyone to see, starting with the words "We the people."

And they called it the Constitution of the United States.

jskass@tribune

Twitter @John_Kass

chicagotribune.com