Obama’s Ongoing Threats Against Free Speech
The first glimmer of the kind of strong arm tactics Obama would use came back in 1996 when Obama ran (over his competition) for the State Senate:
The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama’s first campaign puts a hard edge on the image he has honed throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
Silencing critics by whatever means are available is nothing new to Obama–and it has not stopped either. Far from it. One of the most recently uncovered attempts by Obama to squelch opposition comes from Missouri:
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.
Cnsidering what Obama is up to, Gov. Blount may be guilty of an understatement. From The National Review:
A St. Louis television station reports — their words — “The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”
Prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri are joining “The Barack Obama Truth Squad.”
They mention Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis Circuit Attorney and Bob McCullough, prosecutor for St. Louis County in Missouri.
The reporter says, “They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”
AllahPundit at Hot Air notes the other times that Obama and his campaign have threatened people who have criticized him:
Obama is free to dispute it in public. Why doesn’t he?
With all due respect to Obama, he does not have a monopoly on squelching free speech–or is the Democratic Senate leadership taking pointers from the Islamists when it threatens to take away ABC’s broadcasting license:
[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows…
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
So when the sponsors of the anti-Ahmadinejad rally at the UN were threatened with having their tax exempt status removed unless Palin was disinvited, it was just business as usual.
With Obama, some things actually do not change.
UPDATE: Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis Circuit Attorney has come out with a statement about the Obama truth squads in Missouri:
As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.
Clearly there are those who are attempting to twist the purpose of this initiative for their own benefit. This attack is a great example of how the truth is distorted in campaigns and what we’re trying to stand up against.
Also see Volokh Conspiracy here and here–especially the second one which points out that McCain Truth Squads also include law enforcement officials.
by Daled Amos
The Missouri “truth squad” is not much of an issue, unless its members who happen to be in law enforcement appear to be using police powers to support or oppose a political campaign.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — September 29, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Why undermine the cause of stopping obama with this evenhanded shit. You are not a reporter, why feel compelled to air the other side and then link to some jackass claiming McCain is also guilty. It’s bullshit. I don’t give a fuck what Jennifer Joyce says, she is scrambling to downplay this scandal.
Comment by Laura — September 29, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
It is in fact illegal in many places for a uniformed police officer to linger near a polling place, except to exercise his right to vote. Per Ohio,
The obvious problem is that a law enforcement person, when acting in that capacity as opposed to that of a private citizen, could be perceived as threatening or intimidating voters. By extension, a prosecutor could conceivably be on a “truth squad” (e.g. by making statements in favor of a candidate) as long as they don’t associate their law enforcement capacity with that activity.
Comment by Bill Levinson — September 29, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
As far back as I can remember, I’ve never voted for a lawyer — except for Bob Dole. Then it was a choice between him and “Technically, I didn’t have sex with her” Clinton.
The lawyer’s profession is inherently dishonest and manipulative: Half the lawyers in every case are trying to make a guilty party look innocent. The presidency ought to be restricted to farmers, chemists and machinists; but they tend to have an aversion to the game.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — September 29, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
It should not much of a problem for the prosecutors on Obama’s truth squad; prosecutors have in the past been able to participate in political campaigns without appearing to use their police powers to promote or oppose a political campaign.
The threatening letters sent by the Obama campaign to get the NRA ads off the air are a bit more problematic. I wonder why word is not getting out to the major networks.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — September 29, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
Yeah, they’re all FOR FREE SPEECH so long as they get their own way - but challenge them by their own hypocrisy - they can dish it out but they can’t take it. I am reminded of my recent experiences with two democratic corporations. One democratic company hired a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a former member of the Mexican mafia to SECURE their buildings. When the Ku Klux Klan guy said, “I think they should just move the Israelis somewhere else.” I responded, “I think that the world should leave Israel alone!” He could dish it out but couldn’t take it - neither could his supervisor, who obviously had something criminal going on. In another case, an Arab woman had violated every corporate policy in the book and got away with it, yet whenever I stood up for myself I got write ups and got harrassed. You see, a lot of discrimination takes place among these democratic institutions and their hypocrisy has always been an interesting phenomenon to watch. I can honestly tell you, that when they dish it out, just hand it right back to them,because THERE IS SOMETHING WORSE GOING ON THAN THEIR ATTACKS AGAINST YOU. And when HUMAN RESOURCES tries to terminate you without you having the right to defend yourself, you know something is wrong, especially when you’ve been an outstanding employee. Usually, corrupted people who badger you and provoke you and try to get you to say and do something wrong, have a criminal activity taking place - because anytime they are allowed to express themselves freely while you are not - there is something VERY WRONG! In the case of democrats - they are all just a bunch of hypocrites, bought and paid for by foreign investors. By the time I was done with both companies, they believed I was crazier than their ringers - all true! Better to stand up for yourself and exercise your freedom of speech than to sit back and collect the money of corrupted individuals who are a bunch of crooks!
Comment by Michael Sunstar — September 30, 2008 @ 2:10 am
The major networks need to cover this issue.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — September 30, 2008 @ 9:03 am
Obama may just be an empty suit, but he is an empty suit made of teflon.
No matter how much dirt has been dug up on this and other blogs about Obama, the MSM is just not prepared to deal with it in any serious way, if at all.
The MSM have protected Obama by ignoring the dirt, minimizing the dirt, dismissing the dirt as untrue, inconsequential or irrelevant without investigation or explanation or by giving Obama the opportunity to deny the dirt. The MSM has generally accepted Obama’s explanation, regardless of how flimsy or disingenuous and have followed that up by joining with Obama to say, old dirt has now been dealt with, lets move on.
With the media finding a new balance that tilts decisively in Obama’s favor, barring some unforseen stroke of great, not just good fortune for McCain, it looks now like Obama is going to be the next President of the U.S.
Comment by Bill Narvey — September 30, 2008 @ 9:30 am
This is unfortunately true.
And they are doing this despite their lack of credibility.
They could not sell the proposed bank bailout to the American people any better than Bush, Paulson, or Pelosi could.
But hiding the truth does not require credibility.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — September 30, 2008 @ 12:35 pm