Obama Vs. Freedom of Speech - White House Attorneys Karen Dunn and Ian Bassin Attempt to Censor PCRM Posters in Union Station

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
(PCRM), in a laudable and smart effort to help encourage legislation that will/might actually get junk food out of schools and usher in a new era of nutritious food (God help us all! Is it possible, what with the bribes junk food corps give county school systems? ... Oh, there she goes again!), placed huge posters in Union Station in D.C. with poster children saying:

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DAUGHTERS GET HEALTHY SCHOOL LUNCHES. WHY DON'T I?

Good question? Are healthy school lunches only for the elite in wealthy prep schools while mainstream kids are lured more and more into unchecked obesity?

I hope not. Regardless, no sooner did the posters go up than Neal Barnard, President of PCRM, was contacted by White House attorneys Karen Dunn (Associate Counsel) and Ian Bassin (Deputy Associate) who wanted Barnard to remove the posters because the "president's children are off limits." Now, this does smell like an effort by White House subordinates to curry favor by drumming up a non-issue and playing crusader rabbit to impress Barrack and Michelle.

Is that so Karen? Ian? Or are you under orders from Michelle? ... And by the way, do you support the Bill of Rights?

Nevertheless, Karen Dunn and Ian Bassin are employees of Obama and therefore Obama is answerable for their actions, and right now his employees are acting very much like the lackeys of any dictator, such as Castro e.g., who do not wish to be criticized or look unfavorable in any manner that can be avoided or negated via the use of force, i.e., if White House legal muscle can intimidate Neal Barnard into removing the offending speech, so much the better. And besides, how dare this Barnard practice free speech and reveal that Obama's daughters get elite treatment and that most of American children do not! But wait, I thought the Obamas were democrats ... uhhhhhh.

No doubt the heat on Barnard will increase, but I sincerely applaud his efforts to resist the White House pressure despite various wags predicting hateful retaliation by Obama (see original Post article in paper).

If Neal Barnard is pissing off the Obama White House, I could not be happier. And I have a message for all White House employees: your boss is slowly murdering your country, in a manner as reckless and sociopathic as George Bush Jr. Why participate in the wreck of your nation?

God speed.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics Defeated by Daily Show in Effort to Force Obama Administration to Act Less Bush-like and More Like a Democracy

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics stymied again. Poor FOIA! At least someone is trying, but the judiciary is apparently becoming just another corrupt arm of corporate America.

Politico.Com says it best. This is unf'nbelievable! Obama is acting more and more Bush-like everyday. If this does not help convince you Dems of the fundamental dysfunction of the Illinois corruption machine in the White House, what will? Or is this just simply an act of cowardice? Or is it further evidence of the corporate-ocracy at work, i.e., regardless of regime, the trends continue ...

Rebound marriage, America!

Here we go:

Wrap your head around this: The Obama administration wants to save former Vice President Dick Cheney from the likes of "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart.

That was the thrust of arguments the Justice Department presented Thursday seeking to prevent the release of an interview Cheney gave in 2004 to Special Counsel Pat Fitzgerald as part of his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

In an afternoon U.S. District Court hearing in Washington, Judge Emmet Sullivan presided as Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith defended the government’s refusal to release the details of the Cheney interview. David Sobel, an attorney for the group suing for the documents, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, was there to argue in favor of disclosure. Here’s how it went:

Sullivan asked if President Barack Obama’s appointees stood by the Bush administration’s steadfast refusal to make the Cheney interview public, noting, “there’s a new administration.”

“This has been vetted by the leadership offices,” Smith said. “This is a department position.”

“It is disappointing that the new administration apparently is picking up where the old one left off,” said Sobel.

AND FURTHER:

Sobel argued that the government’s stance would render the records of any kind of White House-related investigation off limits to the public — not just an inquiry into a sensitive issue like the disclosure of classified information.

“The argument would apply to a murder in the White House, selling drugs in the White House, bribery in the White House,” Sobel said. “We would be carving out the White House ... for special treatment.”

Sobel also said it was "unseemly" for the court or the Obama administration to be predicting that there would be illegal activity involving White House officials.