Obama is
scheduled to speak at a rally at the University of Mary Washington
today (UMW). The public is invited to this forum, on property it,
the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed,
according to the organizers and compliant campus officials.
Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First
Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of
politicos. Why does an Obama rally justify taking a little off the
top of Americans’ most fundamental rights?
A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the
sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for
"security" reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service,
responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the
service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of
the sign could be used as a weapon," e.g., a heavy metal pole or a
sharpened stick.
The McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to make signs at our
events."
Police State Tactics
Gov. Matt Blunt today
issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed
plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to
threaten and intimidate his critics.
"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit
Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama
and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have
attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden
campaign."
"What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond
words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is
abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence
political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred
principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more
offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to
deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable
purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people
away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to
suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by
this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress
ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on
television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation
about the election.
"Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in
the press constantly say false things about me and my family.
Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the
purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri
law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent
of the Sedition Acts -- not a free society."
In
this letter, sent to TV stations from Obama campaign general counsel
Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign, once again, attempts to intimidate
television station managers from airing a
TV ad by the National Rifle Association.
Bauer argues, "Unlike federal candidates, independent political
organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast
facilities.' Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from
false, misleading or deceptive advertising.' We request that you
immediately cease airing this advertising."
The Obama campaign takes issue with an ad called "Hunter," pointing out
that claims in the ad were called "false" by Factcheck.org, and were
given three Pinocchios by the Washington Post's "Factchecker."
In response, Cleta Mitchell, Counsel to the NRA, fired back in a letter
to station managers that the fact checkers in this case are wrong.
"We respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully
false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys," Mitchell
writes. You can read more of Mitchell's letter at the
blog of Ben Smith of Politico, who reprinted it in full.
Political speech is absolute. This is
another attempt by Obama's
NKVD to deny
Americans their 1st Amendment "free expression" rights.
As you read down the page you will see other instances of intimidation
by Obama's NKVD. This is obviously a formal tactic of his
campaign.
Just imagine what these people would do with the full force of the
Department of Justice behind them.
Obama's assault on free speech reminds me of how Islam deals with speech
it does not like: "Behead Those Who Insult The Prophet."
As an aside, the "lawyer letter" is on Obama
Campaign stationary. Obama's name in the letterhead is quite
large. One can hardly read Biden's name.
The Bigger Story
300winmag
says the bigger story is that liberals have thrown away their own
sacred principle of "separation of church and state" to side with an
alien and hostile religion. They turn a blind eye to that
loathsome
Phelps guy who desecrates funerals of our military to invite a suit
that will bring him millions. In the name of his "free speech," we
have to shut up and take whatever crap he dishes out.
Since the
Supreme Court said that burning the American flag was "protected
symbolic free speech," will liberals and cowards elevate the koran above
that principle? This pastor is free to burn his own Bible, the
American flag, his money, and anything else that does not create a fire
hazard.
But now that Islamic terrorists, their sympathizers, and
self-proclaimed dhimmis oppose his First Amendment rights, the entire
country is being threatened by another cowardly attack if we don't
submit.
These murderous coward Islamists have murdered innocent
Americans for no reason. Will they try to kill us deader if they
now think they have a reason? I'm afraid that the majority of our
"best and brightest" have proclaimed the USA a "dhimmi
nation" rather than standing firmly for the First Amendment and our
highest standards, like that of "separation of church and state."
Their greatest principles were the first ones they threw
overboard upon reading a press release.
"Transparent" Obama Administration Holds
More "Listen Only" Events
Eric Scheiner
says Barack Obama has often
lauded his administration as being the "most transparent," but the
administration continues to hold a string of "listen only" media events
where reporters are not allowed to ask questions.
On Wednesday,
first lady Michelle Obama held a "listen only" media call on the
"Joining Forces" national initiative to support military families.
This latest conference call where reporters can not ask questions, is
part of a string of media events with the first lady where reporters can
only "listen in" or attend if invited by the White House press office.
This "listen only" procedure has been used earlier this May by
the State Department. During the first days of the U.S.-China
economic summit neither Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner took questions from reporters.
There
have also been reports of threats from the White House press office to
ban reporters from events if they don’t like the coverage they have been
given in the past. This Wednesday, a reporter from the Boston
Herald newspaper was not given full access to Obama’s fundraising visit
in Massachusetts. Reportedly because the White House press office
was not pleased with a front page op-ed by 2012 GOP presidential
candidate Mitt Romney that ran in the paper.
Late last month, it
was reported the White House press office threatened to ban a San
Francisco Chronicle reporter and other Hearst newspaper reporters from
the press pool covering Obama. This was allegedly because the
reporter posted video of protestors at an Obama campaign fundraiser for
the paper’s website. The White House denies the threat was issued.
Not all reporters are threatened with bans however, it was revealed
on air on May 12th that CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria has face-to-face
meetings with President Obama, at Obama’s request. This is after
the CNN host told viewers on-air that he would vote for Obama for
president in October of 2008.
"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."
However, Team Obama seems to
have no problem with abridging the freedom of the press -- but what is
really weird is that "the press" doesn't seem to mind -- in Obama's
case.
