Wake up America

Posted: 30 May 2009 08:29 AM PDT

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Mark Tappscott's eagle eye caught something very interesting on the White House blog, posted by Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform:

I am writing with an update on the President’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. Section 3 of the Memorandum required all oral communications between federally registered lobbyists and government officials concerning Recovery Act policy to be disclosed on the Internet; barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing; and also required those written communications to be posted on the Internet. That Memorandum instructed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review the initial 60 days of implementation of the stimulus lobbying restrictions, to evaluate the data, and to recommend modifications.

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Tappscott concludes:

This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let government restrict political expression - i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy - in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.

The purpose, or so it will be spun, is to limit people with influence (lobbyists) from using outside sources to assert that influence, but reading the language on the White House blog, it is clear that this opens the door to restrict just about any criticism or communication with relevant officials, on any topic by claiming it falls under the header of "unique circumstances."

.

Sit Down, Shut Up And Deal With 'Your' Choice of Obama

Posted: 30 May 2009 07:36 AM PDT

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy, via Townhall)
While writing yesterdays piece about the "buyers remorse" certain Obama supporters were starting to feel, was thinking to myself that those that did not vote for "King Obama" has every right to speak up, point out his faults, his bad decisions and his broken campaign promises, but those that hung on Obama's every campaign promise and fought to get him in office, should sleep in the bed of nails they made and quit whining about feeling lied to.

Politicians lie during campaigns. FACT

Today, another Democratic supporter is whining and howling and this one is actually trying to call for Obama's resignation.... yeah, good luck with that.

Ted Rall's first paragraph is jaw dropping.

MIAMI — We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

He states that supporters expected the campaign promises to be broken... they expected it, yet throw a fit when it happens? They knew Obama was lying through his teeth on the campaign trail and supported and voted for him anyway and they expect anyone to feel even a twinge of sympathy for them?

Talk about brass balls.

Rall goes through his litany of complaints, then states:

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

Rall went off the deep end, evidently, when news hit the public about Obama's plan for "preventive detentions", but Rall as well as yesterday's piece showing buyers remorse from Obama supporters brings up the topic of how some of the far far left is now rebelling against King Obama.

I found some examples and in looking for them, I see I am not the only one noticing the rumblings from the left against Obama.

Warner Todd Huston at Stop the ACLU did a little research of his own:

A quick Google search finds many disappointed voices out there among the left. From lone voices, to some common folks at a Yahoo Answers page, to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, and half-baked lefty economist Paul Krugman the rumblings of Obama being a failure seems to be building. After initial praise, some gays aren’t happy with Obama and even the whack-jobs at the DemocraticUnderground are busy deleting comments that attack Obama as a failure. If one looks carefully, some rumblings can be found at The Huffington Post and the DailyKos, as well.

Another prime example, which Huston didn't mention, is Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who is about as far to the left as you can get and who has consistently been ripping Obama a new one. I have been writing about the left's dissatisfaction with their lil tin god for a while now, here, here and here just to show a few examples.

This "battle" with the liberal wing of the Democratic party isn't only being noticed by right wing bloggers though as evidenced by a piece in Yahoo News, titled "Obama's Battle With the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party."

Four decades ago, the liberal, antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped to force President Lyndon B. Johnson from office. Specifically, Johnson decided not to run for re-election in 1968 in large part because of rising primary challenges and increasingly vitriolic demonstrations against him. One chant that was heard often at anti-Vietnam War rallies was "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The level of anger now is nowhere close to that level, but there are warning signs that President Obama is starting to generate serious opposition on the fiery left. There is increasing unease about his sending 21,000 more troops into Afghanistan, which some compare to the early escalations in Vietnam. [Read about Obama's 12 most important decisions]

That article points out other areas where the liberal wing of the Democratic party are unhappy, starting with the broken promise to release photos of suspected terrorist interrogations, military tribunals, not banning assault weapons, not fighting hard enough for abortion, and they list more.

Among the groups that have been ratcheting up their criticism of Obama are the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Public Citizen, and members of the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. [Read about Obama's journey from charismatic to polarizing]

Of course the piece points out that the White House strategists are confident they can keep these people "in line" and the majority are willing to give Obama a pass or the benefit of the doubt, while asking how long that will be true.

White House advisers add that Obama will be pushed only so far to the left, and with good reason. Only 19 percent of Americans, after all, identify themselves as liberal, compared with 36 percent who say they are moderate and 41 percent who say they are conservative, according to the latest poll by Democracy Corps, a Democratic think tank.

Still, the next few months will be a time of testing. How many compromises will Obama accept on healthcare and on legislation designed to limit global warming and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil? How far will he go in courting conservatives on issues ranging from national security to abortion? Is he sliding ever deeper into a morass in Afghanistan, as LBJ did in Vietnam early in his presidency? [Read about Obama's challenges in Afghanistan]

The looming fight over Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court should ingratiate him to some critics for the time being, since she has strong support among liberals. But the overall uneasiness on the left is real and will remain a serious long-term problem for the new president.

So the message to Rall and others that feel betrayed by Obama... you were warned, you ignored the warnings, you ignored the fact that some of those campaign promises were impossible to keep and you voted for him anyway.

So, sit down and shut up, you people have done enough damage to this country.

Leave the clean up to the mess "you" created, to those that didn't buy Obama's bull hook, line and sinker.

.

Life on Sleepy Creek in Words and Images

Search This Blog

Saturday, May 30, 2009

THERE GOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMA'S A FULL BLOWN COMMUNIST. HOW MUCH PROOF DO YOU WANT?

Wake up America

No comments: