Don’t Be So Hasty, Charles

LGF has been giving balanced coverage of President Obama’s actions. At times Charles criticizes, at other times he defends Obama and the Democrats. Over at HotAir bloggers are outraged over what seems to be a statement by Obama in which he asserts his intention to silence criticism: White House: We’ll cut off criticism of Porkulus. But LGF is claims that this is nonsense:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It’s a responsible move, to prevent abuse of stimulus funds.

Not so fast, Charles.

Cafe Hayek has already posted on the intimidation and thuggish tactics that the Democrats are using to keep criticism levels down. Here’s the text of a letter that the Democrats have sent to a private citizen who just so happens to oppose the way things are being handled in D.C.

Dear Mr. Frey:

We were outraged to read in today’s New York Times that you are actively opposing our efforts to achieve a diminution in foreclosures by voluntary efforts. Your decision is a serious threat to our efforts to respond to the current economic crisis, and we strongly urge you to reverse it. Given the importance of this to the economy and to what it means for future regulatory efforts, we have set a hearing for November 12, and we invite you now to testify. We believe it is essential for our policymaking function for you to appear at such a hearing, and if this cannot be arranged on a voluntary basis, then we will pursue further steps.

For the hedge fund industry, which has flourished for much of the past decade, to take steps so actively in opposition to what is currently in the national economic interest is deeply troubling and will clearly have serious implications for the rules by which we operate in the future if this posture of obstruction of our efforts is maintained. We very much hope you will be able to tell us very soon that you have reversed your position of trying to obstruct the operation of the bill that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by the President this summer, and we hope that you will also affirm your presence at the hearing on November 12.

This letter is signed by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Luis V. Gutierrez, Paul E. Kanjorski, Caroline Maloney, and Melvin L. Watt.

Here’s the pdf:

Letter of Intimidation

Obama seems to be taking a page from Barney Frank’s book of crime under the guise of politics. The President of the United States wants to control the expressed opinions of “anyone else exerting influence on the [stimulus spending] process.”

Charles at LGF misreads the restriction:

This restriction only applies to people who are competing for stimulus money. They’re not allowed to communicate with government representatives responsible for a particular claim unless they put it in writing, after the claim is filed but before the money is awarded. This is obviously intended to prevent corruption, and make sure that any claims for stimulus money are completely above board.

Well, no. The restriction applies to “anyone else exerting influence on the process,” as is stated in the White House blog post. An editorial in a newspaper would certainly count as an exertion of influence, would it not?

I would honestly like to believe that this is being done in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, so that the American people can read what would have gone on behind closed doors, but, given the the fact that Democrats like Barney Frank have already written letters of intimidation to private citizens in order to “urge” folks “to reverse their opinions,” it’s doubtful if the Obama Adm. is acting in good-faith here.

May 31, 2009 | Categories: Crime, Economy/Economics, Freedom, Hate/Discrimination, Politics | Tags: Barney Frank, Freedom of Speech, NYT, Obama | 4 Comments »