Monday, October 20, 2008

Obama Using Brown Shirts to Eliminate Free Speech

What the difference between Obama Truth Squads and Brown Shirts? About the same difference between the US Media reporting on Obama and Nazi media or the USSR's Pravada reporting on Hitler and Stalin.

Obama attacks on free speech began against Democrat Hillary in May as reported by the NY Sun.


Obama for America (official campaign site) ^ | 9/28/08 | Winnie

Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 9:20:26 AM by Winged Hussar

[Note that this is from Google's cache. The Obama campaign's moderators deleted the entry within hours of its appearance, and on a Sunday.]

What the .....? I was surfing the net, looking for Obama stories and found one that was NOT good! Does anyone know what the heck this is all about? Anyone from Missouri who can shed some light on this? Let's hope it's all a bunch of overblown Repugnican crap...

Obamination: Obama Supporters Bob McCulloch, Jennifer Joyce Threaten to Prosecute People For Criticizing Obama September 24, 2008 Posted by Webmaster in Abuse of Power, Campaign 2008, St. Louis Local.

KMOV Channel 4’s TV newscast night before last at 6 PM had a story, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are implying that they will bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

...If a public figure brings a civil libel lawsuit against an individual or a group, then s/he has to prove to a civil jury (usually nine out of twelve jurors) that a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. it is more likely than not) shows that the defendant(s) knowingly said or wrote something factually incorrect about the plaintiff(s). If a prosecutorial authority brings criminal libel charges against a defendant on behalf of a plaintiff, as McCulloch and Joyce are threatening to do, then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve out of twelve jurors that the defendant knowingly said or wrote something factually incorrect about the defendant.

[The entry at also quoted Governor Blunt's statement below.]

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; blunt; censorship; democrats; elections; nobama08; obama; obamabrownshirts; obamatruthsquad; truthsquad

The fact that the Obama campaign deleted this within hours of its appearance, and on a Sunday, shows that this is the October (or late September) surprise that will end Obama's candidacy. Please circulate the following press release from Missouri's governor, Matt Blunt.

Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - 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.”

Obama Versus Free Speech
Editorial of The New York Sun | May 2, 2008

The Obama campaign must really be in worse trouble than we thought. What else to conclude from the campaign's decision to file a 64-page complaint with the Federal Election Commission, trying to prevent Edgar Bronfman and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees from spending $700,000 on television commercials to be aired at Indiana for Senator Clinton?

Mr. Obama's campaign has been outspending Senator Clinton by margins of two- or three-to one in recent contested primaries, amounting to millions more dollars in television commercials. Now that Mrs. Clinton's allies are trying to even the playing field, Mr. Obama is trying to inflict the Federal Election Commission — and, if that fails, the U.S. Justice Department — on the people.

Of what is Mr. Obama afraid? Is he worried that if Mrs. Clinton's allies spend enough money, their message might actually resonate better with the voters of Indiana than his own message will? Mr. Obama has boasted on the campaign trail, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." He did serve 12 years as a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law school. One would hope that Mr. Obama's respect for the Constitution would include respect for the First Amendment freedom of speech, a right designed to protect exactly the sort of communication in which Mr. Bronfman and AFSCME are engaged.

On the Republican side, the presumptive nominee is Senator McCain, who, in harness with Senator Feingold, led the way in restricting election speech. Senator Clinton voted in favor of that legislation and is now seeing its red tape and restriction of speech being used to suppress her campaign and even its allies. Anyone who had hoped that Mr. Obama would offer a refreshing contrast will be disappointed by the latest FEC complaint by the Obama campaign.

Obama thugs threatening free speech

This has been a troubling week for America. And we could be in for a rough ride if Barack Obama becomes president.

Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, through the American Issues Project, financed the production and airtime buys for a commercial drawing attention to Barack Obama's still ties to unrepentant former Weather Underground terrorist, Bill "Bomber" Ayers.

As I did yesterday, I'm offering an excerpt with an editorial from the National Review Online.

The Obama campaign's rejoinder is three-pronged: The first shot was an Obama response ad, which fails to offer any substantive explanation of why Obama maintains ties to Ayers. Obama’s second move was to launch a heavy-handed effort to pressure television stations into rejecting the ad by promising financial retaliation against the stations and their advertisers — which effort has apparently succeeded in intimidating Fox and CNN. The capper is a desperate call for the Justice Department to muzzle political speech through the prospect of a criminal investigation — a demand that provides a disturbing sneak peak into what life would be like under an Obama Justice Department.

Stanley Kurtz of the same publication has been on the front lines exposing Obama's links to Ayers. Kurtz led the charge in getting the stubborn University of Illinois to release the 140 boxes of records, which are still being examined by reporters, to release the documentation of what went on within the group Obama chaired for a few years. Ayers was a key person in securing the financing--$50 million--for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Kurtz appeared last night on a populuar Chicago radio show, Milt Rosenberg's Extension 720. I meant to catch at least part of it, but I didn't get a lot of sleep the night before, and Biden's speech put me under.

Rosenberg's show is nightly cerebral exercise-he's been on the air since 1973--and it's the perfect place for Kurtz to discuss Obama and Ayers. I don't know what Rosenberg's politics are, but I've never heard him espouse them on the air.

And that had members of the Cult of Change upset, as the Chicago Tribune's Swamp blog reported Wednesday night:

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is organizing its supporters tonight to confront Tribune-owned WGN radio in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that looked at Obama's ties Ayers, a former 1960s radical.

Okay, if Kurtz is a right-wing hatchet man, then the Obama needs to back that statement up with facts.


"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."

Kurtz had not appeared on the show yet when that e-mail was sent so what "lies" did they know about?

Once again, why is Obama "friendly" with a man who as recently as 2001 said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." When asked if would do it again, Ayers responded, "I don't want to discount the possibility."

Ayers is talking, and Obama is saying very little about him, but it's believed Ayers and Obama have been friendly since the early 1990s.

The National Review Media Blog has more:

Evidently, much of Obama nation is comprised of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.

One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, "We just want it to stop!" Another angry caller was asked what "lies" Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? "Everything he said is dishonest." The same caller later refused to get into "specifics." Another gentleman called Kurtz "the most un-American person" he'd ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley's name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.

As Rosenberg repeatedly pointed out that Team Obama had been offered the opporunity to take part in the conversation, the agitated masses adopted their argument to suggest it was outrageous to request an interview from the Obama campaign in the thick of the DNC. Delivering the line of the night, Rosenberg countered, "The Obama national headquarters is just down the street from here. They obviously have the time to send out these angry emails, but they can't walk a few blocks to our studios?"

I wish I had heard it. But there is a podcast available. Rosenberg, a psychology professor, has a calm, soothing voice. He doen't rile up his listeners.

Oh, now. Would people really refrain from criticizing Obama just because they fear being, er, sent to prison for it?

"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."

More at the link. Needless to say, no one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One.

Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearing of David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he? Click the image to watch.

Obama Using 'Truth Squad" to Eliminate Free Speech

Is this the guy you want for President of our great nation of freedom?
This nations newest reality TV celeb, Barack Obama is fighting to have free speech eradicated in states of Missouri and Connecticut. He is working with federal authorities in these states to target /arrest anyone who is using negative tactics to campaign agaist him. They are calling this the "truth squad", don't be fooled by this clever name, this is the "against free speech" squad. Kinda like the "fairness doctrine"
Watch this video below for your own good.
posted by Pete Basso at 10:08 AM

Thaddeus Neil said...
Yes! I do want "that one" to be my President!

19/10/08 6:33 PM
Pete Basso said...
congratulations Thad, you'll be voting for a guy who believes in:
1. the killing of God's little unborn children.

2. Being backed by Louis Farrahkan
3. Hanging out with pastors who are complete race bating haters
4. Married to a woman that has not been proud of America till they elected a black man to run for office
5. Is looking to control free speech in America
6. Will be pushing forward with the "fairness doctrine" which again is an indirect hit to free speech.


Post a Comment

<< Home