Obama Throws the First Amendent under the Bus AGAIN!
Posted: July 1, 2008 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Establishment Claus, first amendment, Obama hates the Constitution, Obama lies, Obama pandering 13 CommentsWell, here I am sucking up my morning coffee before heading to a frosh seminar to torture my students on the National Income accounts. I just finished responding to a friend supporting Obama that criticized my last post asking why Obama hates the constitution and decrying him as the real Dubya third term when this news pops up from the AP wire:
source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith
Obama to expand Bush’s faith based programs
“CHICAGO – Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
“The challenges we face today … are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “We need all hands on deck.”
Obama’s announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday’s Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.”
The Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law (on Leave) appears to not respect the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. He just continues to make my arguments for me. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I was heavily criticized for comparing Obama with Cheney. So, will some one explain to me how expanding Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives is not in keeping with my assertion that Obama is looking like the one that will be Dubya’s third term? This quote is from the same AP article.
Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama’s proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.
“I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration,” he said. “It ought to be shut down, not continued.”
I have to tell you, that because of these kinds of things I have a difficult time voting for ANY Republican. Now I get to watch a Democrat trample the same First Amendment rights with no shame? I’ll just leave you with a Monte Python clip, because if the Obama campaign get’s any more surreal, I’m going to think we’re living a Monte Python Movie. What’s next? Bill Richardson as head of the Ministry of Silly Walks?
I want to add this quote because it seems so relevant on this still unfolding story.
Beliefnet gives Obama’s proposal a 9 out of 10 on its “God-o-Meter.” Editor Dan Gilgoff writes:
“That’s why Obama’s announcement today…is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he’s being so bold as to criticize Bush’s faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to churches and other faith-based groups. In effect, he’s out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President’s specialty areas — connecting faith and public policy.”
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Was reading about that and thought here we go again with the pander to the religeous wackos.
Vastleft over at Corrente is so incensed he is un-endorsing Obama. Whodathunkit?
It’s about time some of these folks awakened! How many brain cells can the hopium actually destroy?
This is one of the issues that I’ve always been afraid the party would embrace to get votes. If Obama puts religion in the party platform that is the end of the democratic party for me.
This sounds like the perfect opportunity for the religious advisors and preachers that have supported Obama to get more involved in federal programs that will benefit their agendas. I am sure that hiring and firing criteria will make sure that only those who are on the approved wavelengths regarding race and politics as well as religion will qualify. I also think this is supposed to be a stick in the eye to all the white religious leaders who have supported conservative candidates and who have been in the headlines and on t.v. for decades. If Hagee and Falwell and Dobson have been close consorts with presidents, then perhaps Meeks and Wright and McClurkin will have their day. Once again, how does a terrible idea put forth and into practise by a Republican get the nod from Senator Obama?
For an accurate understanding of what has transpired kindly take a look:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16056.html
RW: Who is Steve Benen and why is his opinion any better than any one else’s? Is he a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law on Leave also? OOOppps… not even a part time senior lecturer on leave. It appears he’s an out of work Democractic consultant freelancing as a Huffpoop blogger who is looking for a job with the new, less democratic, DNC,
As far as I can tell he’s just a spin doctor who write part time at Huffpoop. That’s basically the democratic equivalent of Malkin. Get me a quote from some one whose resume isn’t basically one of lying to people on the part of candidates. okay?
“Benen got his Master’s at the George Washington University while interning at the Office of Speechwriting in Bill Clinton’s White House. He has written direct mail for a major Democratic consulting firm, worked as a communications director”
(uh, not impressed)
I don’t understand why respond with the dismissive attitude? All I offered was another viewpoint.
this is appalling. first, Obama runs over the Fourth Amendment. now he runs over the First Amendment.
there is a good discussion of this over at Shakesville:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/07/center-is-comfy-place-to-be.html#disqus_thread
Paul the Spud (who wrote the article at Shakesville) said that he’ll do another post on the topic soon.
there are many problems with what Obama is trying to do here. discrimination (either toward recipients or employees) is only one of them, although it is extremely likely that there would be pervasive discrimination in providing benefits and in hiring. there is no way to effectively monitor that. it would also take badly needed money from ongoing secular programs that are providing needed services that are already underfunded. it would provide money and publicity (which generates more members, money, and power) to certain religious groups. it would almost certainly favor certain religions over others.
thank you for the article, dakinikat. i hope it was ok to provide the link.
Anon : Fine with me … only thing I zap is over obscenities and name calling …
RW: “accurate understanding “- I guess I’d say that if it was a different viewpoint I’d accept it .. but for an accurate understanding I’d ask for a quote from a legal expert. I just read the guy’s background. I wouldn’t say he would be considered an expert, but just me.
From today’s Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p25s10-uspo.html
Religious groups hiring only those of their faith to operate federally funded programs remains a key issue, which Obama’s campaign needs to clarify further, says Marc Stern, a lawyer for the American Jewish Congress.
“You can’t mention the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities as models of what’s appropriate [as Obama did], and then say you can’t engage in religious discrimination in employment, because both of those organizations do discriminate,” Mr. Stern says.
On the other hand, two former White House officials responsible for the Bush initiative have responded positively to the Obama proposal. John DiIulio, the first director of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, says Obama has offered a “principled and problem-solving vision.”
Obama’s statement seems like a pander to me. IMO he’s trying to appeal to the religious right because he’s worried about not picking up a fairly large segment of the Dem base. (see also the Joshua Generation project.) like you, i’m appalled that Obama will sacrifice the 1st Amendment in order to pick up votes.
from NY Times:
A release by the Obama campaign on Tuesday said that most
Americans favor allowing faith-based groups to seek government funding for social services. It did not note that its source for that statement, a 2005 poll by the Pew Forum, also found that many Americans “find the practical implications of this idea troubling. In particular, the public expresses strong concerns about both the influence of government on particular religious organizations and the impact of religious groups on the people they are trying to help.” (emphasis mine)
dakinikat, fwiw, i read RW’s comment essentially saying that the link provided the correct, reality-based (i.e., “accurate”) assessment of Obama’s proposal in contrast to what your article said. i found the linked-to article to be very one-sided and politically-based. some ppl may agree with the article and that’s fine but to characterize it as an accurate understanding (in implied contrast to your inaccurate understanding) seems wrong to me.
i’m providing the link below so that people can read the text of the speech for themselves.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_speech_we_can_expand_fai.php
ps – i also posted above under anonymous. i’m not trying to look like two different posters. i forgot to put my name in the first post.
We will know where Obama is headed with this faith-based issue if he tries to change the party platform. And way to fight back, Dakinikat!