Barack Obama’s attack on the First Amendment
The mantra of Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign is “Change we can believe in”. He also throws hope in for good measure and he has no end of flowing speeches, telling the American people he is the “change we can believe in”. With all due respect, I beg to differ. The kind of change he is offering is not the kind of change we need in America.
I have a lot of disagreement with Obama’s policies and the direction he would take our country. He has a lot of left leaning, socialist tendencies that are very dangerous to our country and to our way of life. He has no respect for our leaders and for our country, showing that in the way he tried to undermine President Bush during his July trip to Iraq. I could mention his avid fight against any effort that would restrict abortion and put a damper on Roe v. Wade or his lack of experience in anything, except to make speeches and write about himself. He talks about his time as a community organizer and how much of a difference he made in Chicago, but when you get to looking at the neighborhoods he says he helped build, it is clear the only people who benefited from the work he did were the ones who received contracts to build those housing projects that are in ruins today.
As bad as all of that is, the thing I find most disturbing is Obama’s attack on the First Amendment and our freedom of speech. Consider the fact that on August 27, 2008, Barack Obama’s campaign tried to have Chicago radio station WGN-AM stop the airing of an interview by Milt Rosenberg of Stanley Kurtz, an author who has detailed the relationship between Obama and William Ayers, the man who has admitted to be a domestic terrorist and who says he wishes he could have done more. Instead of responding to a request that the campaign send a representative to be given the chance to respond, they instead tried to jam the phone lines with supporters calling in with unfounded accusations. See this article for more details. The campaign tried the same tactics on September 15, 2008, concerning the appearance of David Freddoso, the author of “The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate”.
Now, let’s take a look at the attempts of the Obama campaign to silence the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the stations that are airing their advertisements against Obama and his record on the 2nd Amendment. According to a KMOV-TV report:
The Obama campaign asked members of Missouri’s law enforcement to target anyone who “lies” or issues misleading television ads. Formation of the Obama “Truth Squad” was the result.
This was in response to an effort by the NRA to educate voters in Missouri and expose the way Barack Obama really feels about the 2nd Amendment. The campaign also sent threatening letters to several news agencies in Ohio and Pennsylvania. According to WorldNetDaily:
The warnings were from Obama lawyer Robert Bauer, who told station managers that in order to stay in the Federal Communication Commission’s good graces, they should not air the ads.
In my simple way of thinking, this just doesn’t make any sense. If you disagree with an ad or a point it is trying to drive home to voters, so be it. That is your right, your freedom of speech, and you can air as many response ads as you have money to buy, but you do not go out and threaten news agencies like this. It is way beyond the pale and it brings up a major question about a Barack Obama Presidency. If he is ready, willing, and able to go against free speech now, then what will he be willing to do when he is able to bring the full power of the executive branch of our government against anyone who disagrees with him and has the fortitude to speak their mind?
If we value our freedoms, such as the right to keep and bear arms and the freedom of speech, then we need to consider the ramifications of electing Barack Obama. To elect him is to do so at our own great peril.
That’s my take!
Larry
Well Larry, perhaps the Obama supporters tried to shut down the radio station because of the constant stream of lies. The New York Times article that Sarah Palin referred to linking Senator Obama to William Ayers, I guess she was counting on people like you just taking her word for it. If you read the article and you can get it on the internet, the article states the opposite of what she claimed. The bombings where commited when Senator Obama was 8 years old. He was never in Mr. Ayers home, but at coffee shop for a rally sponsored by Mr. Ayers. They live in the same Hyde Park neighborhood. I guess Mr. Obama should have done a background check on him.
The desparation of the Republican party is so evident. In light of the sinking poll number John McCain feels like what have I got to loose. At his age, he knows this is his last chance. In this age of the world wide web, the truths and lies are easy enough to verify.
Larry, do your homework, research what the real truth is. The truth is they both lie and stretch the truth to reach the ultimate prize. Question is, who’s telling th biggest lie?
My article is not dealing with Sarah Palin, but rather with the attempts of Barack Obama to silence his critics by shutting down free speech. He wants to say the NRA is lying about his record, but if you research his voting record, he is clearly against the 2nd Amendment. If he wants to try to air ads that try to tell a different story, then so be it, but he clearly dangerous when it comes to the first two amendments to our Constitution.
As I stated in my article, the radio station tried to get the Obama campaign to come on the air and respond to the accusations, but they chose to try to shut down the program. That is simply not free speech.
As for Obama’s connections to Ayers, from everything I have read, he did not meet him in a coffee shop, but rather in his home.
Larry,
Thank you for pointing out some of Obama’s attempts at destroying our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. Sen. Obama needs to answer to a lot of questions about his past dealings with terrorists, communists, ACORN and his extreme left liberal socialistic agenda. If Americans are stupid enough to elect Obama as our president; we deserve the “changes” he will bring – President Obama = goodbye freedom.
I suppose the other way to look at this issue is to recognize that Obama doesn’t have to sit passively by while his character is slandered. He chooses to fight off these distortions, as any of us would. To do so is not an infringement of free speech. It’s a defense of his good name and an attempt to counter untruth. I’d think as a Christian you’d support that. Guess your ideology has blinded you.
LJ,
If you would read the article, you would realize I have nothing against Barack Obama doing his best to disprove the allegations that have been brought against him by different people. That is his right, but it is also the right of these people to bring valid questions to the light of day about his questionable character and past associations. To try to shut them up by threatening legal action is nothing short of a bully mentality and certainly is an infringement of free speech.
Let me say again, it is within his right to counter any allegation brought against him, but doing it in the manner that he chooses to use is an attempt to infringe on someone else’s freedom of speech. My ideology has not blinded me, I just think there is more to Obama than meets the eye or that he is telling or will allow to be told. Plain and simple, his idea that he can use legal action to shut his opponents up is a very dangerous road for anyone to take.
With all due respect, the WND article’s connections are spurious at best. Presumably the only speech that should be protected is Mr. Kurtz’s–not Obama’s nor the callers to the WGN show. I think Ms. Joyce said it best: “We want to keep this campaign focused on issues, . . . We don’t want people to get distracted by the divisive character attacks.” That is what this Ayers nonsense is–plain and simple. Keep that in mind and the story shifts into proper perspective.
Look, your argument that Obama is somehow stifling free speech can be refuted quite easily. Legal action is the operative term here. If Obama were to use force, then you could cry against his infringement of the 1st amendment. Yet the very fact that he offers his opponents the option of speaking their peace in a court of law, and then having them back off says volumes to me–you don’t seem to grasp the significance of these facts.
First, note that there is no attempt to shut someone up; on the contrary, they are invited to speak in court (i.e. put up or shut up). But more to the point, that they didn’t take him up on this offer illustrates the vacuous nature of their claims. Again, offering the chance to air their grievances in a court of law is the opposite of squelching free speech. But refusing to take this offer should tell us all we need to know about the “speech” in question. This is not a dangerous road–it’s the road of legal action.
All best,
LJ
LJ,
The fact is, Obama was offered a chance to come onto the show and give their side of the story. They refused that offer and instead resorted to tactics such as I have described.
I stand by my statement that if Barack Obama is elected President, our country is in for a change that we may never recover from. He is a very dangerous man to hold the highest office in our country.