Sebelius Can"t Rule Out More Obamacare Delays

At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on The Daily News Source.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Sebelius Can"t Rule Out More Obamacare Delays

Seth MacFarlane can’t ruin the universe: Fox’s “Cosmos” looks good…

Animation helps capture the big picture on Fox’s new “Cosmos” reboot

Salon.com

Seth MacFarlane can’t ruin the universe: Fox’s “Cosmos” looks good…

Guy who can’t carry his own golf bag around makes gay handbag joke because … athletic.

By TBogg
Tuesday, February 25, 2014 14:39 EST

Steve Elkington, who makes his living walking around on well manicured lawns whacking at a little white ball while a gallery of mostly white guys maintain complete  silence so as not to distract him from his athletic endeavors, is kind of unhappy that a gay is going to play in that football league that competes for Sunday viewers with the JPMorgan/Rolex/Lear Rich Guys Watch Us Because They Think It Is A Sport Greater Hartford Open.

So Elkington, who chases that little white ball around on private country club courses using implements drawn from a bag that is carried by someone else who is in shape, or sometimes drives from shot to shot in an adorable little electric car, took to Twitter to express his dismay about the gay invading the fraternity of athletes to which he marginally belongs.

What is Southeastern Conference Defensive Player of the Year Michael Sam doing at the NFL combine that has your plaid pants wedged up your butt, Steve?

That is rich. Anything else:

Care to clarify?

So it’s not really the gayness that bothers you. It’s the damn MSM shoving gayness down your throat.

Duly noted…

The Raw Story

Guy who can’t carry his own golf bag around makes gay handbag joke because … athletic.

Robert Dew Settlement Proves Police Still Can’t Wrongfully Arrest Journalists

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Robert Dew Settlement Proves Police Still Can’t Wrongfully Arrest Journalists

Napolitano: President Can"t Order Drone Strike on American Under Constitution

President Barack Obama does not have the constitutional authority to order a drone strike on an American who officials claim was fighting with al-Qaida and plotting terrorist attacks against the U.S., former Judge Andrew Napolitano said Tuesday.

Obama “does not have war powers to kill an American . . . There are two clauses in the Constitution that specifically protect Americans,” Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, told “Fox & Friends.”

Napolitano said it was “defined as treason” if an American was waging war on the U.S. Under that circumstance, he said American citizens were guaranteed a jury trial and could not be convicted “unless there were two witnesses to the same overt act.”

Officials admitted Monday a U.S. citizen was suspected of actively planning to attack Americans overseas. Officials within the Obama administration stated they had been debating whether to kill him under a new drone strike policy.

The new drone policy stipulates targeted killings must be in an ongoing military conflict, the target must have taken up arms against the U.S., there must be no possibility of arresting the suspect, and the decision must be made by senior political leaders.

Napolitano said the drone policy was written by the president and, therefore, was not U.S. law. He said only the Constitution allowed Congress to write laws.

“Only the Congress can enact a law, especially a law giving the president authority to kill an American,” Napolitano said. “The president’s efforts to bypass the Constitution . . . in foreign affairs is just as unconstitutional as its efforts to bypass the Constitution in domestic affairs.”

The law allowed an American suspected of terrorism against the U.S. to be kidnapped, arrested, or put on trial, Napolitano said. However, to target a drone strike on an individual suspected of terrorism was “an insufficient basis to execute him without a trial.”

Napolitano argued that even if Congress authorized the action against the American suspect, “it would still be against the constitutional protections that he’s afforded.”

Related Stories:

• American Overseas Target for Drone Strike


• American al-Qaida Member May Soon Be Target of Drone Attack

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Newsmax – America

Napolitano: President Can"t Order Drone Strike on American Under Constitution

Santelli: Market Is Realizing That Central Bank "Programs Can"t Go On Forever"

RICK SANTELLI: The topic of today has to be what’s going on in all the markets around the globe, and I think the best way to look at it is to think about when you’re a kid and you used to do cannonballs. You jump in the water with a cannonball, you get a big splash. Now imagine that same pool, imagine you have a refrigerator in it with a crane. If you lift it up real fast you get the same action as a cannonball in reverse. The big splash and all the waves when you drop something in or take something out quickly. And I think that goes a long way to explain what’s happening. Let’s think about the fairy dust aspects of commercial banks, central banks. 

So you have the CBs, and many of them are going to of course say, you can look back to all of the emerging markets and all of the people involved in their central banking and their practices to keep their currencies in order, and there’s been a lot of squawking, now these are unintended consequences. So when we look at the fairy dust commercial central banks have created, we have to give them a nod that at least for a while they made everything seem like it could work, that everything we’re building upon is a foundation for the aftermath of the credit crisis is solid. And it works for a while.

RealClearPolitics Video Log

Santelli: Market Is Realizing That Central Bank "Programs Can"t Go On Forever"

Why I can’t call myself a gamer anymore

Why I can’t call myself a gamer anymore

Now, after three years of being ensconced in video game culture long enough to be disgusted by it on a regular basis, I’m ready to give up my identity as a gamer, even though giving up the word itself sometimes feels impossible.

* * *

The Spike television network recently held the VGX video game awards, formerly known as the VGAs, a production that often plays to the lowest common denominators among the video game audience. Last year, for example, an actor in camouflage fatigues “teabagged” guests who appeared on the show — virtually teabagging an opponent’s virtual corpse is a popular way that first-person shooter players embarrass their opponents in multiplayer matches.

This year’s offense was a transphobic comment made by co-host and comedian Joel McHale, assuring video game fans that the rumor that Wario, a popular character in Nintendo games, had undergone sex reassignment surgery was not true. Transphobia in the video game community has been a major issue this year, as marginalized groups among the video game audience refuse to be ignored anymore.

Microsoft offended women in late November by providing a customizable form letter, in the fashion of one of those notes you may have written to your mother as a child explaining why the gifting of a new toy would benefit the entire family. In this case, one of the ways to customize the letter was to address it to one’s girlfriend, in the hopes of convincing her that, among other things, the ability to use exercise software or interact with television programs for women using the Xbox One made it a worthy holiday purchase.

To be fair, the interactive letter could also be tailored as from a woman to a man, but in any case it validated the idea that gamers are a group of people separated from everyone else. The letter was another reminder that gamer culture is locked into old patterns precisely at a time when video games seem poised to break out of their niche status and become just another mainstream form of media. A familiar drumbeat from the progressive wing of video game criticism and cultural observation is that gamer culture slows this process.

As Parkin points out, the term “gamer” is idiotic. We don’t call movie fans “moviers” or literature enthusiasts “bookers.” We didn’t even call video game players “gamers” until the fairly recent past. I certainly don’t remember hearing the word “gamer” in the mid-’90s when I was gorging on my Super Nintendo Entertainment System, or in the early 2000s when I was mainlining video games on my PC and PlayStation 2.

Commentary on the preposterousness of the label’s existence speaks clearly to me when I consider that prior to 2010 I had never thought of playing video games as part of my identity. It was just a hobby. I invested more personally in my love for movies, going so far as to give up a promising career as a historian to instead study film as an undergraduate, but I was never part of a “movie culture.” I imagine that maybe, had I moved to Los Angeles and pursued a career in film, that might have been true, but otherwise the idea sounds ridiculous.

I took on the gamer identity because it was easy. I’m male. I’m straight. I love first-person shooters and action games. I am the quintessential example of the way gamers have traditionally been understood. The offensive jokes and comments regularly produced by the gamer community are legion precisely because they’re so easy to make in this climate of traditionally understood homogeneity.  And the gamer community resists introspection when confronted by the privilege this attitude engenders.

When Dustin Browder, a game director at the immensely successful and trend-setting game development studio Blizzard, was asked about the hypersexualized female designs in an upcoming game, his response was typical of how the average gamer might respond in the face of such a question. “We’re not running for president. We’re not sending a message. No one should look to our game for that,” Browder said.

Two days after the interview was published, Browder apologized for what came off as his dismissal of these concerns, which are increasingly being noted by social justice activists in the video game community and their allies. There’s hope for the future in that similar observations about the nature of gamer culture often result in acknowledgment and the promise to do better. But the fact that the instances of this sort of privileged perspective feel like they’re becoming louder with each passing year seems to support Parkin’s contention that the term “gamer” as a whole needs to be abandoned.

* * *

I don’t know if getting rid of the word “gamer” is a tenable proposition, however. I can’t seem to detach myself from use of the word because it’s such a convenient shortcut. “Video game players” and “video game audience” are such unwieldy phrases. The word “gamer” is a mainstay in any and all coverage of the video game culture and industry because no matter how idiotic the word may be, people know what a gamer is.

You can identify yourself as a gamer at a social function, and even if the result is having people think of you as a socially challenged recluse, or a potentially violent person to keep an eye on, they can picture an Xbox or PlayStation controller in your hand. Throwing out the word “gamer” in conversation is an excellent preemptive first strike against those sorts of reactions, which are predictable and boorish to those of us who love video games. Best if we figure out how to table the topic as soon as possible, and not waste our time preaching to the unconverted.

But the biggest roadblock to giving up the word may be its marketing value. Sony established a narrative about its PlayStation 4 console being “about the gamers.”

Kotaku, one of the biggest video game journalism outlets in the world, identifies itself as “the gamer’s guide.” Playboy has a holiday gift guide for “the gamer next door,” presented by a hostess whose half-naked pictures run directly below the embedded video, accompanied by an invitation to see her nude, a statement about the nature of game culture that is hilariously depressing for its candor.

* * *

I’m ready to no longer identify myself as a gamer, but not for any shame over loving video games. My continuing education, as a writer on the video game beat, about how video games are developed and the people who create them, has only deepened that love. And I can’t say that I judge people who call themselves gamers strictly because they adopt that identity. It’s a shame that the preponderance of problems in the gaming community has left such a bad taste in my mouth, such that I’ve come full circle back to where I was prior to April 2010.

I’d be lying if I said I thought it was going to be easy to stop thinking about myself as a gamer. Video games are stuck in an awkward phase where society at large is aware of but not conversant about them. Too many mainstream media outlets don’t cover or review individual video games, even though they are as or more relevant in 2013 than the television episodes or movies that do receive regular coverage in those outlets. It’s difficult not to feel relegated to a subculture no matter the degree to which I want to interact with that subculture.

The word “gamer” and the subculture that rallies around it are going to die when they’re no longer necessary. Their death will be the ultimate sign that the adoption of video games by the wider culture is no longer a future event to be anticipated, but has finally taken place. Until then, not thinking of myself as a gamer is going to be a matter of conscious effort and avoidance of temptation, because it’s just so easy to do otherwise.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | RFID | Amazon Affiliate
Salon.com

Read more about Why I can’t call myself a gamer anymore and other interesting subjects concerning Top Stories at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Cant Explain by Proof of Purchase

Cant Explain by Proof of Purchase

Atheists can’t be Republicans

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Atheists can’t be Republicans

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice’s recent adventures in surveilling reporters’ phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.

DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters’ privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $ 5 and starts a blog.” Quoth Feinstein: “This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters.”

Big mistake, that “real reporters” line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting “to strip independent journalists’ rights.” Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted “fascist.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure “leaves out citizen bloggers.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, “Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media.”

Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren’t licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.

“To me, there’s not really a need to define the world of journalism,” David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to

“protect journalists” but to protect the dissemination of information.

But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — (SET ITAL) report on (END ITAL) and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.

Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.

Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.

What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein’s belief in “real reporters.” It’s a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, “the longest-imprisoned journalist” in America.

Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn’t commit a crime. But he wasn’t a journalist.

He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.

Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as “salaried” staffers of news organizations or “independent contractors.” I don’t understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.

Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.

Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they’re more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.

SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don’t pay their people.

Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish? 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice’s recent adventures in surveilling reporters’ phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.

DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters’ privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $ 5 and starts a blog.” Quoth Feinstein: “This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters.”

Big mistake, that “real reporters” line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting “to strip independent journalists’ rights.” Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted “fascist.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure “leaves out citizen bloggers.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, “Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media.”

Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren’t licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.

“To me, there’s not really a need to define the world of journalism,” David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to

“protect journalists” but to protect the dissemination of information.

But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — (SET ITAL) report on (END ITAL) and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.

Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.

Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.

What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein’s belief in “real reporters.” It’s a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, “the longest-imprisoned journalist” in America.

Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn’t commit a crime. But he wasn’t a journalist.

He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.

Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as “salaried” staffers of news organizations or “independent contractors.” I don’t understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.

Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.

Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they’re more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.

SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don’t pay their people.

Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish? 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Obama can"t get ahead of NSA story

Unpredictable revelations makes it hard for Obama to maintain credibility. | AP Photo

President Barack Obama has the surveillance leak response down pat: Wait a couple of days after a rough story, then tell reporters most of what they already know.

What the White House hasn’t done is get ahead of the story.

Continue Reading

The administration’s pattern was in full effect Wednesday, when it got lapped by the National Security Agency news cycle. While three senior officials were explaining newly declassified documents that were largely reported by the Washington Post last week, reporters wanted to know details about a fresh Wall Street Journal NSA scoop from the morning.

Basic crisis management dictates that you push out as much information about the story as possible as soon as possible, but the White House’s public relations effort has been complicated by its inability to predict the next wrinkle to the story. It doesn’t know what revelations are coming next — or when.

(PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)

That makes it difficult for the president to maintain credibility when telling the American people they have nothing to fear about the programs.

“This is a secret system and it has to be secret, but it depends on public trust and credibility,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told POLITICO. “The president is doing his best to try to sustain it, but the nature of the disclosures and drip-by-drip revelations at a certain point are greater than the sum of their parts.”

It can take several weeks to declassify FISA-related documents because of the inter-agency cooperation that often is required. Administration officials have been left to complain that what’s leaked hasn’t told the whole story without being able to tell the whole story themselves, and waiting days after the fact to add context is far too long for an effective response.

(Also on POLITICO: Lawmakers, privacy groups rattled by latest NSA reveal)

“The administration is full steam ahead at the president’s directive that we declassify and make public as much information as possible,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. “But declassifying things doesn’t happen instantaneously. These things are classified for a reason, and it is incumbent upon us, even as we move quickly, to take into account all the national security interests that might be affected, whether they be legal or operational or otherwise.”

The delayed response often reveals itself in comical ways.

Take Wednesday: Senior officials from the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence held a 35-minute call, on background, with reporters to discuss documents showing NSA for three years collected emails that were “wholly domestic” and entirely unrelated to terrorism. But when predictable questions came about the Journal report that the NSA’s surveillance network can cover up to 75 percent of U.S. Internet traffic, the officials clammed up.

“I’m really here to talk about the documents being released today,” one of the officials said.

(Also on POLITICO: NSA collected non-terrorism-related emails)

Another chimed in: “We’re here to talk about these documents and that’s not covered in these documents so we’re just not in a position to talk about it.”

“We’re really here to talk about the documents that are being released today, not the Wall Street Journal article,” another said.

Hours later, shortly before 11 p.m. Wednesday, the NSA and ODNI released a joint statement to reporters responding to “press reports based on an article published in today’s Wall Street Journal,” but made no specific quibble with the Journal story itself. The statement ticked through what it described as misleading characterizations emanating from the Journal’s report.

But by then dozens, if not hundreds, of stories had been written based on the Journal’s reporting.

“At some level they become a piñata out there where they’re having to answer questions and they have no control over the flow of information,” said Clinton White House press shop veteran Chris Lehane.

POLITICO – TOP Stories

Obama can"t get ahead of NSA story

WH: Obama Alone Can"t Sway House on Reform

President Obama may have exhausted his capacity to nudge immigration reform toward enactment this year.

“They either are for immigration reform or they’re not,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, speaking of the House GOP majority. “That’ll be a choice they make.”

Although Obama is determined to “keep at it,” the fate of a statutory pathway to citizenship for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants will not ride solely on Obama’s shoulders, according to the White House.

That sort of talk — distancing a president from a potential legislative defeat — is a sure sign that defeat is being contemplated in the West Wing, despite public expressions of confidence.

“He’s an important part of it, but it’s bigger than he is,” his spokesman said.

Carney’s effort to broaden the rationale for immigration reform beyond the president’s second-term ambitions was a tacit admission that Obama has little pull when it comes to House Republicans.

The White House has cast Obama as just one of many advocates working the issue from outside Congress, including employers who want changes; Senate Republicans who voted for an earned pathway to citizenship; and the Republican Party leadership, which believes it must increase support from Latino voters in 2016 and beyond.

But House Republicans may prove immune to those advocates’ political, economic, policy and moral arguments.

“In the end, you know, we can’t prevent lawmakers from making bad choices,” Carney added. “We can simply be part of a broad, comprehensive effort of persuasion.”

The president met Wednesday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at the White House, assuring lawmakers that he wants to leverage the Senate’s recent bipartisan passage of an immigration measure into a similar victory this year in the House.

When those lawmakers asked Obama during the nearly 90-minute meeting if he would take his advocacy back out on the road, the president said he is considering it.

“The president has an extraordinary ability unique to him to put sunlight … where there are clouds,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., told RCP after the meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The lawmaker — who during Obama’s first term publicly challenged the president to make good on his pledges to enact reforms — clarified that the request Wednesday was not for campaign-style GOP-bashing.

“I didn’t say, ‘Use the bully pulpit and beat anybody up.’ There’s a difference,” Gutierrez explained.

The meeting with Hispanic lawmakers came a day after a similar White House session with the Congressional Black Caucus. And it followed the White House release of a report summarizing federal and academic studies that cited benefits to the economy should Congress help undocumented immigrants gain legal status.

While encouraging the Senate to pass a reform measure, Obama assumed a decidedly backseat role at the request of Democrats in the upper chamber, who feared his overt involvement on Capitol Hill might harm prospects for GOP votes. Senate reform advocates gingerly referred to the president as “the outside cheerleader.”

(With that bill now passed, however, the president will meet Thursday with Sens. John McCain and Chuck Schumer to discuss the reform, the White House said. Vice President Biden will also attend.)

Obama’s leverage appears spent with House conservatives, however, who have grown more hostile to reform as the 2014 midterm elections draw closer. Echoing the analysis of many conservatives that the GOP’s viability may hinge on its outreach to Latinos hasn’t done the trick. Nor has private stroking or public cajoling.

Many House Republicans, who say they do not trust the Obama administration to enforce tough border provisions of any reform law, declare they will not be influenced by the White House or public opinion polling; or be steered by a weakened Speaker John Boehner; or persuaded by some of the most popular elected leaders in their party or by VIPs in the business and religious communities.

“Of course there are limits to the powers of the bully pulpit on every issue,” Carney said when asked if immigration was testing Obama’s second-term clout.

“This is a methodical effort, using all the tools available to us and to him, using all the tools available to advocates and lawmakers who support immigration reform, to get this done,” he said.

RCP congressional correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns contributed to this report.

RealClearPolitics – Articles

WH: Obama Alone Can"t Sway House on Reform

Rand Paul On Immigration Reform: "I Can"t Support The Final Bill"

CANDY CROWLEY: OK. Let me move you on here because I want to ask you about the immigration reform bill that you’re going to vote on this week, probably twice, first for the border security amendment and then for the bill as a whole. How are you going to vote?

SEN. RAND PAUL: I’m all in favor of immigration reform, but I’m like most conservatives in the country, that I think reform should be dependent on border security first. So, i introduced an amendment that would have done just that. Border security first and then immigration reform –

CROWLEY: — defeated.

PAUL: — with Congressional checks on whether or not it’s occurring. That wasn’t voted in favorably. And so, without some Congressional authority and without border security first, I can’t support the final bill.

###

CROWLEY: Is it going to pass the House? Yes or no?

PAUL: It will pass the Senate, but it’s dead on arrival in the House. The House is much closer to me, and I think they think border security has to come first before you get immigration reform.

RealClearPolitics Video Log

Rand Paul On Immigration Reform: "I Can"t Support The Final Bill"

Why Democrats Can"t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street

Who needs Republicans when Wall Street has the Democrats? With the help of congressional Democrats, the Street is rolling back financial reforms enacted after its near meltdown.

According to the New York Times, a bill that’s already moved through the House Financial Services Committee, allowing more of the very kind of derivatives trading (bets on bets) that got the Street into trouble, was drafted by Citigroup — whose recommended language was copied nearly word for word in 70 lines of the 85-line bill.

Where were House Democrats? Right behind it. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a major recipient of the Street’s political largesse, co-sponsored it. Most of the Democrats on the Committee, also receiving generous donations from the big banks, voted for it. Rep. Jim Himes, another proponent of the bill and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, now leads the Democrat’s fund-raising effort in the House.

Bob Rubin — co-chair of Goldman before he joined the Clinton White House, and chair of Citigroup’s management committee after he left it — is still influential in the Party, and his protégés are all over the Obama administration. I like Bob personally but I battled his Street-centric views the whole time I served, and soon after I left the administration he persuaded Clinton to support a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Jack Lew, Obama’s current Treasury Secretary, was chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group, from 2006 to 2008, before he joined the Obama administration. Peter Orszag, Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the Obama Administration to become Citigroup’s vice chairman of corporate and investment banking, and chairman of the financial strategy and solutions group.

All these men are honorable. None has broken any law. But they and their ilk in congress — the Democrats who are now rolling back Dodd-Frank — don’t seem to appreciate the extent to which Wall Street has harmed, and continues to harm, America.

It’s not entirely coincidental that the Obama administration never put tough conditions on banks receiving bailout money, never prosecuted a single top Wall Street executive for the excesses that led to the near meltdown, and still refuses to support a tiny tax on financial transactions that would bring in tens of billions of dollars as well as discourage program trading.

Democrats can’t be trusted to control Wall Street. If there were ever an issue ripe for a third party, the Street would be it.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

Robert Reich

Why Democrats Can"t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street

Why Democrats Can"t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street

Who needs Republicans when Wall Street has the Democrats? With the help of congressional Democrats, the Street is rolling back financial reforms enacted after its near meltdown.

According to the New York Times, a bill that’s already moved through the House Financial Services Committee, allowing more of the very kind of derivatives trading (bets on bets) that got the Street into trouble, was drafted by Citigroup — whose recommended language was copied nearly word for word in 70 lines of the 85-line bill.

Where were House Democrats? Right behind it. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a major recipient of the Street’s political largesse, co-sponsored it. Most of the Democrats on the Committee, also receiving generous donations from the big banks, voted for it. Rep. Jim Himes, another proponent of the bill and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, now leads the Democrat’s fund-raising effort in the House.

Bob Rubin — co-chair of Goldman before he joined the Clinton White House, and chair of Citigroup’s management committee after he left it — is still influential in the Party, and his protégés are all over the Obama administration. I like Bob personally but I battled his Street-centric views the whole time I served, and soon after I left the administration he persuaded Clinton to support a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Jack Lew, Obama’s current Treasury Secretary, was chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group, from 2006 to 2008, before he joined the Obama administration. Peter Orszag, Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the Obama Administration to become Citigroup’s vice chairman of corporate and investment banking, and chairman of the financial strategy and solutions group.

All these men are honorable. None has broken any law. But they and their ilk in congress — the Democrats who are now rolling back Dodd-Frank — don’t seem to appreciate the extent to which Wall Street has harmed, and continues to harm, America.

It’s not entirely coincidental that the Obama administration never put tough conditions on banks receiving bailout money, never prosecuted a single top Wall Street executive for the excesses that led to the near meltdown, and still refuses to support a tiny tax on financial transactions that would bring in tens of billions of dollars as well as discourage program trading.

Democrats can’t be trusted to control Wall Street. If there were ever an issue ripe for a third party, the Street would be it.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

Robert Reich

Why Democrats Can"t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street

Why Democrats Can"t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street

Who needs Republicans when Wall Street has the Democrats? With the help of congressional Democrats, the Street is rolling back financial reforms enacted after its near meltdown.

According to the New York Times, a bill that’s already moved through the House Financial Services Committee, allowing more of the very kind of derivatives trading (bets on bets) that got the Street into trouble, was drafted by Citigroup — whose recommended language was copied nearly word for word in 70 lines of the 85-line bill.

Where were House Democrats? Right behind it. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a major recipient of the Street’s political largesse, co-sponsored it. Most of the Democrats on the Committee, also receiving generous donations from the big banks, voted for it. Rep. Jim Himes, another proponent of the bill and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, now leads the Democrat’s fund-raising effort in the House.

Bob Rubin — co-chair of Goldman before he joined the Clinton White House, and chair of Citigroup’s management committee after he left it — is still influential in the Party, and his protégés are all over the Obama administration. I like Bob personally but I battled his Street-centric views the whole time I served, and soon after I left the administration he persuaded Clinton to support a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Jack Lew, Obama’s current Treasury Secretary, was chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group, from 2006 to 2008, before he joined the Obama administration. Peter Orszag, Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the Obama Administration to become Citigroup’s vice chairman of corporate and investment banking, and chairman of the financial strategy and solutions group.

All these men are honorable. None has broken any law. But they and their ilk in congress — the Democrats who are now rolling back Dodd-Frank — don’t seem to appreciate the extent to which Wall Street has harmed, and continues to harm, America.

It’s not entirely coincidental that the Obama administration never put tough conditions on banks receiving bailout money, never prosecuted a single top Wall Street executive for the excesses that led to the near meltdown, and still refuses to support a tiny tax on financial transactions that would bring in tens of billions of dollars as well as discourage program trading.

Democrats can’t be trusted to control Wall Street. If there were ever an issue ripe for a third party, the Street would be it.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

Robert Reich

Why Democrats Can"t Be Trusted to Control Wall Street

John Edwards: Re-Entry Into Public Life Proves You Can"t Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards Re Entry Into Public Life Proves You Cant Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards is preparing a comeback. The Associated Press reported this week that Edwards has reactivated his legal license in North Carolina and accepted a speaking gig on June 6 at a “private retreat” for a law marketing firm’s lawyer clients.

Returning to the spotlight after public disgrace is a timeless political tradition. Edwards’ return to the public spotlight would come over a year after his hawkishly watched campaign-finance trial last summer. He was cleared from all charges because of a mistrial and doubts remained about his campaign finance abuses. Even after the trial he still faced the aftermath of the tell-all memoir by his mistress Rielle Hunter. The salacious revelations of the book decimated his golden-boy reputation even more than when the affair first surfaced and pushed him out of the 2008 presidential race.

Edwards is hardly the only promising but troubled politician to have wandered off the straight and narrow, and is in unfortunately celebrated company with Mark Sanford, Anthony Weiner, David Petraeus, and most famously, former President Bill Clinton. All of them made slow and calculated repairs to their image after their missteps and have rebounded to varying degrees of success.

It will be something of a guilty pleasure to watch the road to redemption that Edwards embarks on as the 2016 races start to pick up. However, his decision to re-emerge in the public eye should not come as a surprise to anyone.

During a press conference after his mistrial was announced Edwards hinted at that all-too-omniscient endorsement of God for his future political ambitions: “I don’t think God’s through with me. I really believe he thinks there’s still some good things I can do.”

What do you think? Will John Edwards work his way back on to the presidential candidate roster?

Discuss with me below and follow me @shwetika for more news and commentary on politics.

PolicyMic

John Edwards: Re-Entry Into Public Life Proves You Can"t Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards: Re-Entry Into Public Life Proves You Can"t Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards Re Entry Into Public Life Proves You Cant Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards is preparing a comeback. The Associated Press reported this week that Edwards has reactivated his legal license in North Carolina and accepted a speaking gig on June 6 at a “private retreat” for a law marketing firm’s lawyer clients.

Returning to the spotlight after public disgrace is a timeless political tradition. Edwards’ return to the public spotlight would come over a year after his hawkishly watched campaign-finance trial last summer. He was cleared from all charges because of a mistrial and doubts remained about his campaign finance abuses. Even after the trial he still faced the aftermath of the tell-all memoir by his mistress Rielle Hunter. The salacious revelations of the book decimated his golden-boy reputation even more than when the affair first surfaced and pushed him out of the 2008 presidential race.

Edwards is hardly the only promising but troubled politician to have wandered off the straight and narrow, and is in unfortunately celebrated company with Mark Sanford, Anthony Weiner, David Petraeus, and most famously, former President Bill Clinton. All of them made slow and calculated repairs to their image after their missteps and have rebounded to varying degrees of success.

It will be something of a guilty pleasure to watch the road to redemption that Edwards embarks on as the 2016 races start to pick up. However, his decision to re-emerge in the public eye should not come as a surprise to anyone.

During a press conference after his mistrial was announced Edwards hinted at that all-too-omniscient endorsement of God for his future political ambitions: “I don’t think God’s through with me. I really believe he thinks there’s still some good things I can do.”

What do you think? Will John Edwards work his way back on to the presidential candidate roster?

Discuss with me below and follow me @shwetika for more news and commentary on politics.

PolicyMic

John Edwards: Re-Entry Into Public Life Proves You Can"t Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards: Re-Entry Into Public Life Proves You Can"t Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards Re Entry Into Public Life Proves You Cant Keep a Good Man Down

John Edwards is preparing a comeback. The Associated Press reported this week that Edwards has reactivated his legal license in North Carolina and accepted a speaking gig on June 6 at a “private retreat” for a law marketing firm’s lawyer clients.

Returning to the spotlight after public disgrace is a timeless political tradition. Edwards’ return to the public spotlight would come over a year after his hawkishly watched campaign-finance trial last summer. He was cleared from all charges because of a mistrial and doubts remained about his campaign finance abuses. Even after the trial he still faced the aftermath of the tell-all memoir by his mistress Rielle Hunter. The salacious revelations of the book decimated his golden-boy reputation even more than when the affair first surfaced and pushed him out of the 2008 presidential race.

Edwards is hardly the only promising but troubled politician to have wandered off the straight and narrow, and is in unfortunately celebrated company with Mark Sanford, Anthony Weiner, David Petraeus, and most famously, former President Bill Clinton. All of them made slow and calculated repairs to their image after their missteps and have rebounded to varying degrees of success.

It will be something of a guilty pleasure to watch the road to redemption that Edwards embarks on as the 2016 races start to pick up. However, his decision to re-emerge in the public eye should not come as a surprise to anyone.

During a press conference after his mistrial was announced Edwards hinted at that all-too-omniscient endorsement of God for his future political ambitions: “I don’t think God’s through with me. I really believe he thinks there’s still some good things I can do.”

What do you think? Will John Edwards work his way back on to the presidential candidate roster?

Discuss with me below and follow me @shwetika for more news and commentary on politics.

PolicyMic

John Edwards: Re-Entry Into Public Life Proves You Can"t Keep a Good Man Down