Comments on: Barack Obama’s attack on the First Amendment

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:29:02 +0000

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.

By: LJ

LJ — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:19:28 +0000

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,

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:35:37 +0000

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.

By: LJ

LJ — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:55:59 +0000

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.

By: Granny T

Granny T — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:02:40 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:15:20 +0000

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.

By: Jeannie

Jeannie — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:05:19 +0000

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?