By Kevin Price, Publisher and Editor in Chief, US Daily Review.
Two news websites, both very sympathetic to President Barack Obama, have come out with two articles today that point to serious concerns about the excessive use and even abuse of power by the Obama administration.
Most people remember the antics of candidate Obama in 2008 who, upon learning that certain members of his press corps represented media that endorsed his opponent, John McCain, left those reporters on the tarmac as they were about to head for another campaign stop. Then President Obama, once he took office, actually tried to exclude the Fox News network (which has more viewers than all the other cable news networks combined) from White House briefings. If it wasn’t for a collective outcry of all the other media (including some typically hostile to Fox), that the decision would have stood. After all, it could be Fox today and anyone else tomorrow. In this same vein, the first article is from the Huffington Post, in which it
declared in today’s headline “War on the Press: Obama Administration Attacks Basic Reporting Rights. It states that “The Obama administration Friday morning continued its headlong attack on the right of reporters to protect their confidential sources in leak investigations. Before a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a Department of Justice lawyer argued that New York Times reporter James Risen should be forced to testify in the trial of former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who is charged with leaking classified information to Risen about a botched plot against the Iranian government. Rather than arguing the specifics of the case, DOJ appellate lawyer Robert A. Parker asserted that there is no reporter’s privilege when a journalist receives an illegal leak of national security secrets. When Judge Robert Gregory asked Parker to explain why the public’s interest in a free press was outweighed by the specific circumstances in this case, Parker declined.”
Meanwhile, Obama’s apparent disregard of checks and balances when it comes to the Congress and the courts has become famous. Shortly after being in office, Obama stacked up his administration with “Czars” to create a powerful executive branch, disaffected by constitutional legislative checks. The late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), an Obama ally, expressed concern. Byrd stated that, “As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.” Also, most are familiar with the concern raised by a Federal Appeals Court over whether the Obama Administration would abide by a Supreme Court decision to overturn his healthcare law. Any of these type of concerned are unusual in administration, but all of them combined are unprecedented. The thought of a re-elected Barack Obama never having to face the voters again, makes everyone, even his allies, concerned.
That disregard for checks and balances persists today, and is seen in today’s article by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) when it comes to Obama’s use of military force. Although many will argue that Webb is like most Democrats in the coming election cycle who are trying to distance themselves from the unpopular president. Webb is not running in this election cycle. In fact, he is not running at all, announcing his retirement last year.
The US government is more polarized today than any time in modern history, but there is an area that enjoys bi-partisanship– a belief that the Obama administration is usurping the authority given to it in the Constitution.