Original Post: CS Monitor
By Husna Haq
Associated Press reporters are not alone. One week after news broke that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from AP, more news has emerged about the Obama administration’s campaign to silence leaks.
Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated press, told CBS's "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
This time, it’s new details about a 2010 Justice Department investigation into a Fox News correspondent who reported government secrets on North Korea. The twist is that in the Fox News case, the government is suggesting that the reporter broke the law and criminal charges could result.
The news points to how the Obama administration is going to unprecedented lengths to defend secrets – prosecuting more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the crackdown is having an effect, with AP saying some of its sources are falling silent. But that success could come at the expense of the newsgathering and investigative-reporting process that the Founding Fathers saw as a crucial check on federal power.
The Fox News case, in particular, suggests the “criminalization of investigative journalism,” writes Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian, a British newspaper.
According to a Washington Post report Sunday, Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reported in June 2009 on a CIA analysis that suggested North Korea may respond to UN sanctions with more nuclear tests. The story was published online the same day that a confidential report on the matter was released to select officials in the intelligence community, including a State Department security adviser, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.
Detecting a connection, FBI investigators built a case alleging Mr. Kim leaked information to Mr. Rosen. To do so, they used every tool in their arsenal: analyzing security badge access records to track Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department, tracing the timing of his calls to Kim, even subpoenaing his personal e-mails.
Ultimately, FBI agents concluded Kim did, in fact, leak information to Rosen using a complex, if clumsy, system of communication including aliases and coded signals.
In his report, FBI investigator Reginald Reyes said evidence suggested Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
While details on the case are forthcoming, it is not a crime for journalists to report classified information, except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, government seizure of media records is tightly circumscribed under the government’s Code of Federal Regulations.
The AP and Fox News cases renew concerns about the potential stifling effect government investigations have on reporters and their sources.
“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin in the Washington Post report. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker goes further: “It's a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn't quite strong enough, it's more like freezing the whole process into a standstill,” she told the New Republic.
As a case in point, Gary Pruitt, CEO of the AP, told CBS’s "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
“Already, officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that they're a little reluctant to talk to us,” he said. “They fear that they – they will be monitored by the government.”
Perhaps the most serious implication, however, is that the investigations threaten to jeopardize the very practice of investigative journalism, already endangered by budget cuts and the 24/7 news cycle.
“Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information,” writes The Guardian's Mr. Greenwald. “That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.”
Showing posts with label tyranny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tyranny. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The IRS admits to targeting conservative groups but were they also leaking?
Original Post: Daily Caller
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted:
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted:
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.
Monday, May 13, 2013
After Benghazi, IRS tea party probe: Govt seized AP phone records
Original Post: Yahoo
By Olivier Knox
Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.
“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.
And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”
Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."
Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed. He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.
"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."
In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."
And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."
An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted: The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.
And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.
Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."
"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.
On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.
By Olivier Knox
Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.
“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.
And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”
Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."
Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed. He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.
"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."
In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."
And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."
An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted: The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.
And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.
Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."
"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.
On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
N.Y. Times Op-Ed bashes Obama on drone strikes for assassination
Original Post:Yahoo
By Rachel Rose Hartman
"Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?" a scathing New York Times op-ed asked Thursday.
The opinion piece, written by Vicki Divoll, former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, heaps criticism on the administration for the practice of using drone strikes for assassination and calls for greater transparency. Divoll writes:
Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.
Divoll notes the known killings of three American citizens who were suspected terrorists: Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who edited an English-language magazine and was with Awlaki at the time of his death; and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were all killed overseas.
By Rachel Rose Hartman
"Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?" a scathing New York Times op-ed asked Thursday.
The opinion piece, written by Vicki Divoll, former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, heaps criticism on the administration for the practice of using drone strikes for assassination and calls for greater transparency. Divoll writes:
Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.
Divoll notes the known killings of three American citizens who were suspected terrorists: Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who edited an English-language magazine and was with Awlaki at the time of his death; and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were all killed overseas.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
NY to ban more food you like
Health panel talks about wider food ban
Original Post: Fox NY
By LUKE FUNK,
The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.
The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.
At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.
One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.
"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.
"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.
Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city. It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.
The New York City Restaurant Association is fighting the proposal and is considering legal action of it goes into effect.
New York City voters oppose 51 - 46 percent Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on the sale of over-sized sugary soft drinks, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
drones in American skies, civil liberties in jeopardy
Original Post: Digital Journal
Washington - A bill passed last week allocating more than $63 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration would increase the existence of drones in civilian airspace across America and is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
As America’s drone war begins a new surge in Pakistan, the U.S. House and Senate have both approved the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act bill, a bill which would pressure the FAA to weaken rules currently in place on domestic drone authority, and allow American skies to be filled with tens of thousands of drones.
If the new bill becomes law, up to 30,000 drones could by flying in U.S. airspace by decade’s end. The Senate passed the bill by a 75-20 margin. Civil liberties groups have spoken out on the measure, stating the new legislation offers no restrictions on drone surveillance operations by police and federal agencies and could put us on track toward a “surveillance society.”
As drone technology rapidly advances, America’s law enforcement community is eager to use these robotic machines in their daily operations, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.
Details in the new drone bill are extensive. Among them, the bill would require the FAA to expedite and simplify its drone operation permission process to government agencies, to be completed within 90 days. The FAA is currently considering a proposed set of regulations alleviating drone rules, set to be released this spring. The operation of any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less would require the FAA’s approval to “a government public safety agency,” as long as certain parameters are heeded (sight lines, daytime operation, operation below 400 feet in altitude, and operated only in safe airspace.)
Also included in the new measure is a requirement the FAA produce a comprehensive plan “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system,” Common Dreams reports.
In this instance, “civil” drones applies to those operated in the private sector, but as things currently stand, permission to operate a drone is all but impossible for a non-government entity, save for hobbyists. Drone industry groups, along with their congressional backers, consider this as a potential source of income. The bill requires the FAA’s plan allow the integration of drones into U.S. airspace “as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.
The FAA has been given nine months to produce the plan. Additionally, it must develop a five-year “roadmap for the introduction” of these civil drones in national airspace. The bill would also require the FAA’s final ruling, within 18 month of the comprehensive plan’s submission, “that will allow” civil operation of drones weighing under 55 pounds in U.S. airspace along with a proposed ruling for conducting the plan. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group, has brought a lawsuit against the federal government requesting the FAA release records on agencies, almost 300 of them, carrying authorization for domestic drone operations.
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with EFF told Talking Points Memo the new drone bill increases the importance of the lawsuit. “I think the fact that Congress is pressuring the FAA to expand its UAS program through the FAA Reauthorization Act only reinforces the need for these records,” she noted. “It’s important that we learn more about how the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies are already using UASs before we expand their use further. The privacy concerns posed by the use of drones for domestic surveillance are too great to excuse the FAA’s lack of transparency on this issue."
As drone technology rapidly advances, America’s law enforcement community is eager to use these robotic machines in their daily operations, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.
Details in the new drone bill are extensive. Among them, the bill would require the FAA to expedite and simplify its drone operation permission process to government agencies, to be completed within 90 days. The FAA is currently considering a proposed set of regulations alleviating drone rules, set to be released this spring. The operation of any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less would require the FAA’s approval to “a government public safety agency,” as long as certain parameters are heeded (sight lines, daytime operation, operation below 400 feet in altitude, and operated only in safe airspace.)
Also included in the new measure is a requirement the FAA produce a comprehensive plan “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system,” Common Dreams reports.
In this instance, “civil” drones applies to those operated in the private sector, but as things currently stand, permission to operate a drone is all but impossible for a non-government entity, save for hobbyists. Drone industry groups, along with their congressional backers, consider this as a potential source of income. The bill requires the FAA’s plan allow the integration of drones into U.S. airspace “as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.
The FAA has been given nine months to produce the plan. Additionally, it must develop a five-year “roadmap for the introduction” of these civil drones in national airspace. The bill would also require the FAA’s final ruling, within 18 month of the comprehensive plan’s submission, “that will allow” civil operation of drones weighing under 55 pounds in U.S. airspace along with a proposed ruling for conducting the plan. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group, has brought a lawsuit against the federal government requesting the FAA release records on agencies, almost 300 of them, carrying authorization for domestic drone operations.
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with EFF told Talking Points Memo the new drone bill increases the importance of the lawsuit. “I think the fact that Congress is pressuring the FAA to expand its UAS program through the FAA Reauthorization Act only reinforces the need for these records,” she noted. “It’s important that we learn more about how the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies are already using UASs before we expand their use further. The privacy concerns posed by the use of drones for domestic surveillance are too great to excuse the FAA’s lack of transparency on this issue."
Lincoln Republican abolishes slavery, Obama Democrat brings it back
Original Post: ABC News
"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”
There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.
Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.
"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”
There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.
Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
EXCLUSIVE: GAB Investigating Democrat Allegations of Fraud From Wirch Recall
Original Post: Media Trackers
By Collin Roth
The GAB is investigating fraud in a recall effort!
But it is not an investigation into any of the of the recall efforts involving Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, or four Republican State Senators. This is an investigation into the effort to recall Democratic State Senator Robert Wirch from nearly a year ago.
On Thursday, Media Trackers learned that the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board dispatched two investigators to Kenosha to interview circulators involved in the effort to recall Senator Bob Wirch. According to sources, the investigators were asking about recall training, whether individuals were misled, and about the appearance of the late Bill Pocan’s signature on a recall petition.
Spokesman for the Government Accountability Board Reid Magney had no comment indicating that he cannot comment about ongoing investigations.
One year ago this month, the Taxpayer’s to Recall Robert Wirch launched their drive to recall Democratic State Senator Robert Wirch after he and thirteen other Democratic State Senator’s fled Wisconsin to avoid a vote on the Budget Repair Bill. The recall effort collected 17,138 valid signatures to force a recall of Senator Wirch over the 60-day period from February 24, 2011 to April 25, 2011.
During the signature gathering process, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin recklessly alleged “overwhelming evidence” of fraud in the effort to recall Senator Wirch.
The heart of the Democratic Party’s “overwhelming evidence?” A total of twenty affidavits, or 1/10 of 1% of the signatures gathered.
As a Media Trackers article from May 13, 2011 documents, the affidavits were extremely weak and lacked merit:
Of the 20 signed affidavits, five of the individuals signed recall petitions at Recall Wirch drive-thru’s, which were clearly marked by large signs. Others claimed to have been “tricked” into signing recall petitions for Scott Walker, in support of Sen. Robert Wirch, or even to “recall Sen. Wirch from Illinois.” Three of the 20 affidavits lacked a notary, and two were notarized by Heather Libbey, a staffer of Democratic Senator Mark Miller who Hunt contends, was “sent to Kenosha to thwart the recall efforts.”
The only affidavit that Hunt admitted had “relative substance” was that of Mrs. Pocan, whose deceased husband Bill Pocan, was discovered on a recall petition. Hunt went on to vouch for his organization saying “no one from Recall Wirch put that name on a petition.” A sampling of the affidavits went along these lines:
“I was mistaken when I signed the petition to recall Senator Wirsh(sic). I thought he was a Republican cronie(sic) of Scott Walker. When I found out he was Democrat I wanted to take back the signature.”- Wayne L., Kenosha County
“My neighbor stopped by my house about a month ago and he asked me to sign a petition. Had I known the petition was to recall Senator Wirch, I would not have signed the petition.”- Gertrude Z., Kenosha County
“I saw a sign and stopped. Asked if this was for Senator Wirch and they said yes. I thought that the petition was to get Senator Wirch back to Wisconsin and was not informed that the petition was to recall the Senator.”- Celia G., Kenosha County Dan Hunt, the former Chairman of Taxpayer’s to Recall Robert Wirch, told Media Trackers that special investigators from the GAB arrived on Thursday and interviewed individuals from the Recall Wirch effort concerning citizens who claimed they were “misled.” One such individual who claimed she was misled and signed an affidavit was Lisa Turner of Kenosha. Turner signed an affidavit saying:
A man came to my door and told me that they were trying to get people to sign a petition to have work done on the neighborhood park…I do not and have not supported the efforts to have a recall election held for Senator Wirch’s seat. When the Recall Wirch circulator accused of misleading Turner hired a private investigator to clear his name, the truth quickly came to light and Ms. Turner’s story fell apart. Media Trackers reported on August 12, 2011:
When the private investigator interviewed Turner, Turner stated that in April 2011, she was contacted by a representative from the Wirch campaign who asked explicitly if she had signed a recall petition against State Senator Robert Wirch. Turner responded that she had. As Prijic notes, “since Lisa Turner admitted to signing the Wirch Recall Petition, it makes no sense to claim later that it was a petition to improve a park.”
It was only after admitting she had signed the Recall Wirch petition that the representative from the Wirch campaign told Turner that “the circulators had been informing signers of the recall petition that it was for parks, neighborhood improvements, and streets etc.” When a representative from the Wirch campaign came to Turner’s door to sign the aforementioned affidavit alleging fraud, “Ms. Turner stated she did not read the affidavit or know its contentsI know I totally sign affidavits and legal all the time with out reading any it, including the title so that's an easy mistake to makes. Sarcasm.” Despite the weakness of the actual allegations and affidavits, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has dispatched at least two special investigators to Kenosha to interview those involved in the effort to recall Senator Wirch.
Dan Hunt, organizer of the Recall Wirch effort told Media Trackers that “the timing of this investigation is rather suspect.”
“At the time of the Democratic challenges, we vigorously defended ourselves and the GAB sided with us on most of the challenges” Hunt said. “It boggles my mind that the GAB can determine at this late date that an investigation is warranted,” Hunt added.
With numerous stories fraud and errors running rampant in the four State Senate recalls, as well as the efforts to recall Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch, the timing of this investigation could not be more suspect. Just last week, an Racine man found his name four times on the petition to recall Senator Van Wanggaard without having signed at all.
Nevertheless, it appears the GAB is devoting their precious resources not to investigating fraud that could effect current recall efforts but to a witch-hunt based on trumped up affidavits gathered by the Democratic Party nearly a year ago.
My comments:
And they didn't even have to be sued to to it? What I want to know is how this investigation started. Presumably the GAB didn't launch this investigation on their own, since their only job is to review petitions. I don't think the Wirch campaign asked for this since it happened a year ago. We also know that the GAB has no possible way of accepting requests to look into fraud from anyone else so what prompted this and why do they suddenly have the resources and authority to do this when they don't for Republicans? Surely it's not a violation of the Equal Protection clause, a group of judges would know better than to violate the Constitution wouldn't they?
By Collin Roth
The GAB is investigating fraud in a recall effort!
But it is not an investigation into any of the of the recall efforts involving Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, or four Republican State Senators. This is an investigation into the effort to recall Democratic State Senator Robert Wirch from nearly a year ago.
On Thursday, Media Trackers learned that the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board dispatched two investigators to Kenosha to interview circulators involved in the effort to recall Senator Bob Wirch. According to sources, the investigators were asking about recall training, whether individuals were misled, and about the appearance of the late Bill Pocan’s signature on a recall petition.
Spokesman for the Government Accountability Board Reid Magney had no comment indicating that he cannot comment about ongoing investigations.
One year ago this month, the Taxpayer’s to Recall Robert Wirch launched their drive to recall Democratic State Senator Robert Wirch after he and thirteen other Democratic State Senator’s fled Wisconsin to avoid a vote on the Budget Repair Bill. The recall effort collected 17,138 valid signatures to force a recall of Senator Wirch over the 60-day period from February 24, 2011 to April 25, 2011.
During the signature gathering process, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin recklessly alleged “overwhelming evidence” of fraud in the effort to recall Senator Wirch.
The heart of the Democratic Party’s “overwhelming evidence?” A total of twenty affidavits, or 1/10 of 1% of the signatures gathered.
As a Media Trackers article from May 13, 2011 documents, the affidavits were extremely weak and lacked merit:
Of the 20 signed affidavits, five of the individuals signed recall petitions at Recall Wirch drive-thru’s, which were clearly marked by large signs. Others claimed to have been “tricked” into signing recall petitions for Scott Walker, in support of Sen. Robert Wirch, or even to “recall Sen. Wirch from Illinois.” Three of the 20 affidavits lacked a notary, and two were notarized by Heather Libbey, a staffer of Democratic Senator Mark Miller who Hunt contends, was “sent to Kenosha to thwart the recall efforts.”
The only affidavit that Hunt admitted had “relative substance” was that of Mrs. Pocan, whose deceased husband Bill Pocan, was discovered on a recall petition. Hunt went on to vouch for his organization saying “no one from Recall Wirch put that name on a petition.” A sampling of the affidavits went along these lines:
“I was mistaken when I signed the petition to recall Senator Wirsh(sic). I thought he was a Republican cronie(sic) of Scott Walker. When I found out he was Democrat I wanted to take back the signature.”- Wayne L., Kenosha County
“My neighbor stopped by my house about a month ago and he asked me to sign a petition. Had I known the petition was to recall Senator Wirch, I would not have signed the petition.”- Gertrude Z., Kenosha County
“I saw a sign and stopped. Asked if this was for Senator Wirch and they said yes. I thought that the petition was to get Senator Wirch back to Wisconsin and was not informed that the petition was to recall the Senator.”- Celia G., Kenosha County Dan Hunt, the former Chairman of Taxpayer’s to Recall Robert Wirch, told Media Trackers that special investigators from the GAB arrived on Thursday and interviewed individuals from the Recall Wirch effort concerning citizens who claimed they were “misled.” One such individual who claimed she was misled and signed an affidavit was Lisa Turner of Kenosha. Turner signed an affidavit saying:
A man came to my door and told me that they were trying to get people to sign a petition to have work done on the neighborhood park…I do not and have not supported the efforts to have a recall election held for Senator Wirch’s seat. When the Recall Wirch circulator accused of misleading Turner hired a private investigator to clear his name, the truth quickly came to light and Ms. Turner’s story fell apart. Media Trackers reported on August 12, 2011:
When the private investigator interviewed Turner, Turner stated that in April 2011, she was contacted by a representative from the Wirch campaign who asked explicitly if she had signed a recall petition against State Senator Robert Wirch. Turner responded that she had. As Prijic notes, “since Lisa Turner admitted to signing the Wirch Recall Petition, it makes no sense to claim later that it was a petition to improve a park.”
It was only after admitting she had signed the Recall Wirch petition that the representative from the Wirch campaign told Turner that “the circulators had been informing signers of the recall petition that it was for parks, neighborhood improvements, and streets etc.” When a representative from the Wirch campaign came to Turner’s door to sign the aforementioned affidavit alleging fraud, “Ms. Turner stated she did not read the affidavit or know its contentsI know I totally sign affidavits and legal all the time with out reading any it, including the title so that's an easy mistake to makes. Sarcasm.” Despite the weakness of the actual allegations and affidavits, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has dispatched at least two special investigators to Kenosha to interview those involved in the effort to recall Senator Wirch.
Dan Hunt, organizer of the Recall Wirch effort told Media Trackers that “the timing of this investigation is rather suspect.”
“At the time of the Democratic challenges, we vigorously defended ourselves and the GAB sided with us on most of the challenges” Hunt said. “It boggles my mind that the GAB can determine at this late date that an investigation is warranted,” Hunt added.
With numerous stories fraud and errors running rampant in the four State Senate recalls, as well as the efforts to recall Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch, the timing of this investigation could not be more suspect. Just last week, an Racine man found his name four times on the petition to recall Senator Van Wanggaard without having signed at all.
Nevertheless, it appears the GAB is devoting their precious resources not to investigating fraud that could effect current recall efforts but to a witch-hunt based on trumped up affidavits gathered by the Democratic Party nearly a year ago.
My comments:
And they didn't even have to be sued to to it? What I want to know is how this investigation started. Presumably the GAB didn't launch this investigation on their own, since their only job is to review petitions. I don't think the Wirch campaign asked for this since it happened a year ago. We also know that the GAB has no possible way of accepting requests to look into fraud from anyone else so what prompted this and why do they suddenly have the resources and authority to do this when they don't for Republicans? Surely it's not a violation of the Equal Protection clause, a group of judges would know better than to violate the Constitution wouldn't they?
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Liberal L.A. City Council literally mandating use of condom
Should condom use in pornography be regulated by the city or the state?
Original Post:SCPREverybody knows that using condoms during sexual intercourse is safer than not using them, but what the City of Los Angeles appears to be uncertain about is who is responsible for regulating this safety precaution within the adult film industry. A proposed ballot measure that would require porn actors to wear condoms while filming in the city of Los Angeles has qualified for the June ballot. However, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich has filed court papers earlier this month arguing that Los Angeles voters would have no legal authority to adopt the proposed measure even if it were listed on a ballot.
Trutanich asserted that only the state — not the city — could legally implement rules requiring the use of condoms on porn sets and charge inspection fees. However, Ellen Widess, the head of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health that regulates workplace safety, claims the city could legally impose the actions necessary to uphold the proposed ballot measure. "We believe the city can use its authority to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS among people involved in the adult film industry" said Widess in a recent interview. County health officials have repeatedly stated it would be difficult to regulate the porn industry through the Department of Public Health and the county’s public health chief has said that the issue is a matter for the California Legislature.
I call the city council liberals because, they are. It's not evident from this piece but, c'mon.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Obama allows military to detain American citizens on American soil indefinably with out a trial
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Original Post: GuardianBarack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.
The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."
There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.
The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".
Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.
"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."
Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.
But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".
"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."
Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."
Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.
"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"
Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.
The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.
But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.
Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.
Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.
"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."
In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.
The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.
"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.
Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".
Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.
Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Apparently it's ok to threaten governors in Wisconsin
No criminal charges for woman accused of threatening Gov. Walker
Original Post: WKOW
MADISON (WKOW) -- The woman accused of posting a death threat against Gov. Scott Walker will not face criminal charges.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said he won't file charges against Regan Cowan.
Ozanne said the Facebook post did not appear that it was meant to reach the governor.
So apparently it's ok to threaten to kill people as long as it isn't meant to reach your victim. Who knew? I always thought it was illegal to threaten people, especially elected officials. I guess the Secret Service has been overstepping their bounds. I'm being ironic of course. Please don't throw me in jail, I of course realize that the Secret Service is just doing their job and that it is, in fact illegal to threaten to kill people. It's just unfortunate that Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne doesn't. It seems that I'm more qualified for his job than he is. In fact, I have called upon him to step down for gross incompetence. Dane County also contains the city of Madison, in which police allowed the destruction of recall petitions against sitting Democrats in front of them, but is now investigating anonymous allegations of the destruction of recall petitions against Scott Walker from second hand sources. It's interesting how selectively the law enforcement of Dane County chooses to do their job. As a non-Democrat I have no faith that I have any protection within the boarders of Dane County. And that's awful.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Democrat Govenor calls for suspention of elections
Original Post: USA News
With Washington more unpopular than ever, suggesting we cancel the 2012 congressional elections is not an idea voters will embrace. Yet that's exact what Gov. Bev Perdue did when addressing the Rotary Club of Cary, N.C., this week.
"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."
The words spread like wildfire, leading the Drudge Report and receiving significant airplay on both the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh radio programs.
Predictably, this lead to the "just kidding" defense.
"Governor Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what's best for the people they serve," said a Perdue spokesperson, hoping to reassure anyone who had not actually heard the comments.
The audio, however, gives no impression that Perdue was joking, or, as Perdue herself later claimed, "sarcastic." As the Charlotte Observer noted, "her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea." One neither hears laughter, nor applause (voters tend to take their constitutionally-protected right to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box rather seriously).
Were this a one-off comment, the Perdue team could chalk it up to an errant comment with no real political impact.
This isn't the first time Perdue has forced her team to make bizarre explanations. In mid-April, when the state was hit with massive storms that necessitated the declaration of a state of emergency, the governor went missing. Perdue, her staff explained, was out of town for a "family obligation." The next day, however, the story changed. Perdue, her staff then claimed, was in Kentucky to visit Gov. Steve Beshear and attend the Toyota Blue Grass Stakes, a popular thoroughbred horse race—only to deny the following day that Perdue had attended the race.
Confused? So were North Carolina voters and the media.
"Perdue's spokespeople still don't agree on where Governor was Saturday during storm," headlined a WWAY-TV story asking, "why the governor's communications staff seemed so unorganized Saturday when most of the state knew these deadly storms were headed our way at least two days in advance." (While the governor's office feels it has moved on from the controversy, North Carolina Republicans believe there may be another horse-shoe to drop.)
And if there have been problems for what Perdue (and staff) has said, so, too, has Perdue found herself in hot water for things she hasn't said.
Perdue has refused to state a position on an amendment to the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions, despite her involvement in moving the vote from the November elections to the May primaries.
And despite the aggressive efforts of a revitalized North Carolina Republican Party, Perdue refuses to weigh in on the National Labor Relations Board blocking Boeing Co. from shifting jobs to a nonunion plant in South Carolina, an important issue regionally and one that former North Carolina Democratic Party Chair David Young declared in the Charlotte Observer, "Yes, NLRB-Boeing Hurts N.C."
With labor unions already riled over the 2012 Democratic National Convention being held in the right-to-work state, perhaps Perdue does not want to anger them further. But Perdue's record on jobs may-be what most threatens hers.
Since she took office in January, 2009, unemployment in North Carolina has increased from 9.2 percent to 10.4 percent last month—a loss of more than 137,000 jobs in the state.
Voter reaction has been harsh. A High Point University poll released this week shows Governor Perdue with 37 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval—effectively wiping out the small bump she received from her response to Hurricane Irene—despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans, as of Wednesday, by 775,459 registered voters.
As the poll shows, voter dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, who narrowly carried the Tar Heel State in 2008, is at critical mass with 53 percent of respondents disapproving of his job performance. In other words, Perdue, who doesn't have much to run on herself, can't depend on long coattails.
Traditionally, state elections have favored Democrats; North Carolina Republicans have not elected a governor since 1988. But with voter anger—and unemployment—mounting, unforced errors such as the constantly changing Kentucky alibi and this week's comments only cement Perdue's position as the most endangered incumbent governor in the nation.
Perhaps, then, it's no wonder Perdue suggested suspending elections—and what should surprise us is that Perdue wasn't talking about her own.
Why North Carolina's Perdue Is the Most Endangered Governor
With Washington more unpopular than ever, suggesting we cancel the 2012 congressional elections is not an idea voters will embrace. Yet that's exact what Gov. Bev Perdue did when addressing the Rotary Club of Cary, N.C., this week.
"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."
The words spread like wildfire, leading the Drudge Report and receiving significant airplay on both the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh radio programs.
Predictably, this lead to the "just kidding" defense.
"Governor Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what's best for the people they serve," said a Perdue spokesperson, hoping to reassure anyone who had not actually heard the comments.
The audio, however, gives no impression that Perdue was joking, or, as Perdue herself later claimed, "sarcastic." As the Charlotte Observer noted, "her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea." One neither hears laughter, nor applause (voters tend to take their constitutionally-protected right to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box rather seriously).
Were this a one-off comment, the Perdue team could chalk it up to an errant comment with no real political impact.
This isn't the first time Perdue has forced her team to make bizarre explanations. In mid-April, when the state was hit with massive storms that necessitated the declaration of a state of emergency, the governor went missing. Perdue, her staff explained, was out of town for a "family obligation." The next day, however, the story changed. Perdue, her staff then claimed, was in Kentucky to visit Gov. Steve Beshear and attend the Toyota Blue Grass Stakes, a popular thoroughbred horse race—only to deny the following day that Perdue had attended the race.
Confused? So were North Carolina voters and the media.
"Perdue's spokespeople still don't agree on where Governor was Saturday during storm," headlined a WWAY-TV story asking, "why the governor's communications staff seemed so unorganized Saturday when most of the state knew these deadly storms were headed our way at least two days in advance." (While the governor's office feels it has moved on from the controversy, North Carolina Republicans believe there may be another horse-shoe to drop.)
And if there have been problems for what Perdue (and staff) has said, so, too, has Perdue found herself in hot water for things she hasn't said.
Perdue has refused to state a position on an amendment to the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions, despite her involvement in moving the vote from the November elections to the May primaries.
And despite the aggressive efforts of a revitalized North Carolina Republican Party, Perdue refuses to weigh in on the National Labor Relations Board blocking Boeing Co. from shifting jobs to a nonunion plant in South Carolina, an important issue regionally and one that former North Carolina Democratic Party Chair David Young declared in the Charlotte Observer, "Yes, NLRB-Boeing Hurts N.C."
With labor unions already riled over the 2012 Democratic National Convention being held in the right-to-work state, perhaps Perdue does not want to anger them further. But Perdue's record on jobs may-be what most threatens hers.
Since she took office in January, 2009, unemployment in North Carolina has increased from 9.2 percent to 10.4 percent last month—a loss of more than 137,000 jobs in the state.
Voter reaction has been harsh. A High Point University poll released this week shows Governor Perdue with 37 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval—effectively wiping out the small bump she received from her response to Hurricane Irene—despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans, as of Wednesday, by 775,459 registered voters.
As the poll shows, voter dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, who narrowly carried the Tar Heel State in 2008, is at critical mass with 53 percent of respondents disapproving of his job performance. In other words, Perdue, who doesn't have much to run on herself, can't depend on long coattails.
Traditionally, state elections have favored Democrats; North Carolina Republicans have not elected a governor since 1988. But with voter anger—and unemployment—mounting, unforced errors such as the constantly changing Kentucky alibi and this week's comments only cement Perdue's position as the most endangered incumbent governor in the nation.
Perhaps, then, it's no wonder Perdue suggested suspending elections—and what should surprise us is that Perdue wasn't talking about her own.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Former Obama budget manager calls for less Democracy
Too Much of a Good Thing. Why we need less democracy.
Peter Orszag
In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.
So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)