I think what WBC meant was that WBC isn't going to stop the protests so if the counter-protesters show up, they should be arrested, too.
Again, I'm presuming that's what he meant.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I especially get troubled when the highest office-holder in our government signs what is so obviously an assault on and affront to the Constitution into law, using the word "hallowed" to justify it.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Told you so.
We're already down the slippery slope, whether it was Bush's 'free speech zones' (first under Bush, and continued now under Obama) or H.R. 347 that was passed just a few months ago:
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further:
The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.NObama'12
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
Who and what Republicans are isn't news, and all that tea-partyers are is the base of the Republican Party.
What is news is that Obama's 'most ardent supporters' never seem to learn: Obama is not going to satisfy your need to see tea-partyers' heads explode. Have you even heard Obama make any promises about doing anything different than what he's done these past 4 years? In style or substance? In substance, everything that he's running on, from Simpson-Bowles to energy policy, is Republican policy and legislation. On foreign policy and defense spending, Obama's on board with Republicans. He even goes Republicans one better on civil liberties and privacy.
The best predictor of Obama's future behavior is Obama's past behavior. His record. He's flip-flopped as much if not more than Romney, and has given no indication of having "learned his lesson" when it comes to 'bipartisanship'.
As a matter of fact, right before the 2010 midterms, Obama and Democrats made it clear that no matter what the outcome of the election, they would still work in a bipartisan manner, watering down legislation, making it Republican-like.
Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:
BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter.
Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak.
Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland).
Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek.
Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.
Blue Dogs took a beating (liberals lost only 3 seats) in the 2010 midterms and Obama took it as a mandate to move even farther to the right.
In the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on FISA, people like you said, "If he had kept his promise, Republicans would have accused him of being weak on security and he would lose the independent voters in the general election. You'll see, once he's in office, he'll be a reliable liberal."
NObama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Between redistricting, and how seats have been gamed, and Citizens' United, what we got in 2008 was as Democratic as it's ever going to get in the lifetime of just about everyone alive today, and we saw what Obama did with it (p!ssed it away, intentionally).
People are, generally, satisfied with the job that their representatives are doing. What people want is the other guy'selected representative to get the boot, but not their own. That's not likely to change as redistricting has basically just affirmed or extended the status quo. Some on the left and the right have been redistricted out of their seats. Look at Dennis Kucinich.
Politics, with political parties, is a top-down proposition. You do what the party tells you to do, and that goes for Democrats, progressives, too. If the president is a blue dog (as Obama is), you do what he tells you to do. The idea that Congress is like herding cats is ridiculous -- If you don't do what your party tells you to do, you get no help from them come reelection. You don't get money for your district. You don't get plum committee assignments. You are dead in the water of politics.
But Obama isn't interested in doing that. He only cuts off liberals and progressives. He keeps them out of his administration and he uses the power of the White House and the Democratic Party to keep them out of office.
Even so-called progressive Democratic senators and representatives are pretty worthless - For example, Al Franken, Tom Harken, Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer, all voted to prevent the requirement of labeling on foods containing GMOs. If they're not bought by one corporation, they're bought by another. Meet the Monsanto senators.
Any politician who isn't making campaign finance reform his first and only priority is corrupt to the bone. Neither party has this on their agenda, much less at the top of their list of things to do.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
