Attacks on Free Speech

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Interesting article by Michelle Malkin concerning lawyers for the AFL-CIO, lawyers for Barack Obama, and reps from MoveOn.org using threats and intimidation in order to squash free speech.

Obama has already made a complaint to the Justice Dept. because an organization dared to bring up his association with Bill Ayers. They also smeared Stanley Kurtz, a man who dared to delve into Obama's days with Ayers serving on the Annenberg Project - and the $100M they were given in gov't grants that ended up kinda disappearing.

The ACLU apparently doesn't care. Free speech doesn't apply to Conservatives and Republicans apparently. That's what the whole "Fairness Doctrine" is about, right? John F. Kennedy and FDR aggressively used that doctrine to silence Republican opposition and prevent them from developing any kind of conduit to get their message out.

Historically the Democrats have a very bad record on free speech over the last 100 years. Woodrow Wilson threw opponents into jail quite often. FDR suppressed the opposition from speaking as did JFK, LBJ, etc. Looks like Obama takes after them in attempting to block any kind of criticism whatsoever.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mz ... g0NjVhMTY=

On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama’s longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.

On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.

And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama’s ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The “Obama Action Wire” supplied Rosenberg’s call-in line and talking points like this:

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. . . . It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves.

[WarAdmiral]

— Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

Author just might have a biased agenda.

Anyways, on the surface it appears to me, that the Obama camp deals with slander a bit differently than the Kerry camp did.

If there is merit, it will come out in the MSM eventually and FOX doesn't count, just like MSNBC shouldn't count on any potential slander against the right, in regards to having merit.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

— Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

Author just might have a biased agenda.

Not really biased agenda. She does come from the right. I think it would be most honest if all journalists declared their own political viewpoint. That's how it used to be. Throughout much of our history it was known which newspapers backed which party, etc. We got rid of that in order to create a sense of "unbiased" journalism, but that really doesn't exist.

Anyways, on the surface it appears to me, that the Obama camp deals with slander a bit differently than the Kerry camp did.

It's hardly slander since nothing in the ad is untrue. I'd be willing to listen to Obama if he actually presented something to contradict the ads. These ads are documented. They link to sources that can easily be explored by the press and the public. Obama has provided no documentation to prove these are slanderous. He just doesn't want his ties to Ayers exposed. That's probably why he's so concerned about Kurtz looking into the Annenberg stuff. Obama called Ayers earlier "just a next door neighbor". We now know he was lying and that he worked with him for a very long time. We now know that Obama's political career was kicked off at Ayers' home. This means that Barack Obama lied when he described he relationship with Ayers when asked.

If there is merit, it will come out in the MSM eventually and FOX doesn't count, just like MSNBC shouldn't count on any potential slander against the right, in regards to having merit.

The MSM will avoid it if they can. They're in the tank for Obama because most all of the mainstreamers are liberal Democrats. Insiders like the Chief over at the Washington Post have admitted this. Most Americans (around 70% at last count) believe that the MSM is in the tank for Obama. They'll avoid reporting anything that can undermine their man. That's why I'd like them to throw out their "unbiased" claims. That goes for FOX as well.

The beauty of talk radio is that you know where they're coming from. No deception. Hannity is like that on FOX as well and O'Reilly is too. Olbermann is clearly far left but he and his network try to claim that they really are unbiased. CNN is manned by lefties (about 90% of CNN media personalities and staffers are Barack supporters - I have a friend that works for Turner in Atlanta that has said that). ABC, NBC, and CBS are run by lefties and the stories are largely written by lefties. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times are all lefty papers.

Why not just declare your side and admit you won't cover things that make your guy look bad?

Hey, funny that the conservative blogs are all actually heavily covering the Palin pregnancy story. I think the conservative side is far more honest about their coverage. Sure they have a slant, but they don't attempt to suppress stories like the MSM does.

Fact is, Obama is attempting to thwart free speech and will do even more if elected. That's scary from a man that has talked about serving as President for 10 years or more. Either he's the most inept Constitutional Law prof ever or he believes he'll be able to get an Amendment.

My guess is that he'll try to pull a Mussolini, a man idolized by the left before he allied with Hitler. Obama will attempt to pull a Hugo Chavez and become President For Life. We may see him attempt to ban the Republican Party eventually and arrest any that oppose him. He knows that Leftists love dictators as long as they are THEIR dictators. That's why they all love Chavez and Fidel.

It won't get to that extreme because I think the American people are much smarter than that, though the class warfare rhetoric is so similar to what Il Duce used, to what Chavez used, to what Franco used, and to what Castro used. Hitler used it too but Hitler also had an agenda against the Jews. Other fascists were actually fairly good towards the Jews. I think Obama is a fascist in the mold of Mussolini.

More speech suppression to come if Obama gets elected. I know you don't care because you're drinking the kool-aid. If Obama banned talk radio you'd probably think it's a good thing.

Tell me, what do you think of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"?

[idoctribefan]

—

Anyways, on the surface it appears to me, that the Obama camp deals with slander a bit differently than the Kerry camp did.

Slander [noun]

1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person — compare libel

Now it is your job explain how it is "slander".

ANd like Mac said, Malkin is an admitted conservative. Doesn't disguise it when she does talk shows. Olbermann and others at MSNBC, along with CNN all disguise themselves as unbiased journalists. It is fine for people like James Carville and Alan Colmes to give liberal talking points. They tell you ahead of time what you are getting from them. Not so with countless others.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

ANd like Mac said, Malkin is an admitted conservative. Doesn't disguise it when she does talk shows. Olbermann and others at MSNBC, along with CNN all disguise themselves as unbiased journalists. It is fine for people like James Carville and Alan Colmes to give liberal talking points. They tell you ahead of time what you are getting from them. Not so with countless others.

That's why I actually respect Carville. I may not be a fan, but he's honest enough to admit where he's coming from.

You know what you've got with Hannity and Colmes.

You know what you've got with Bill O'Reilly.

These guys don't act like unbiased journalists. They admit their biases.

It's so much better to just disclose your biases instead of trying to act like you're not biased. Now you can be fair minded even with a bias. Some people are not. It happens.

I just wish we'd get past this idea of an unbiased press. It has never been that way. I prefer having leftist and rightist and center right and center left newspapers and other media outlets.

The blogs at least function that way. We know where Daily Kos stands. We know where Hugh Hewitt stands. We know where Townhall stuff comes from.

Why not a reporter for ABC News.

How's about this reporter from CNN that inserted a political agenda into her "reporting":

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW4QXol1f4U[/youtube]

Bill Bennett, a guy who's allegiances are well known (former Dem who became a Republican under Reagan, though was a Dem when appointed), called her and CNN on it:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUsrTV_DSuc[/youtube]

That's agenda journalism and op-end work. It's just a shame that it gets pushed as part of a "news" story.

[jfiling]

Funny thing is, this wouldn't be an issue except for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act. The funnier thing is how Obama is trying to abuse it.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Funny thing is, this wouldn't be an issue except for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act. The funnier thing is how Obama is trying to abuse it.

Yeah. It was a bad piece of legislation. I don't think either McCain or Feingold intended for it to end up like it has.

I prefer to just take the caps on donations and make very few rules. With technology the way it is today it is even easier to do this. All contributions over a certain amount must be made completely public and be posted online (and made easily accessible). They must list the name, occupation, and the company that that person works for. Same goes for businesses, unions, etc if they want to contribute to campaigns. Let them all contribute, but let them all be fully disclosed.

Small time $100 donors need not be released, but donations must aggregate. If someone gives $100 to a candidate 10x or however long it takes to hit the threshold then that person must have all the information supplied.

In this way the public can know who is donating to who.

I also have no problem with 3rd party groups running ads, etc, but they also have to play by the same rules. They can spend as much as they want and people can give as much as they want but same rules apply. MoveOn.org or the SwiftBoaters or whoever would have to declare where all their money came from. Any business donations, political org donations, etc.

I would have a problem if someone did truly slander, but then there is recourse through a civil suit if it can be proven.

In this case if it were truly slander then why not file a lawsuit and attempt to get an injunction to stop the ads? I honestly don't know if the campaign law stipulates that the Justice Dept. has to handle it or not. I'd guess that slander and defamation of character probably could be brought forth in a suit but the evidence is strongly against that on this so Obama would lose out and end up bringing much more attention to it than he'd like. Backdooring it gets much less coverage.

[rawdawgexpress]

macphisto:
"My guess is that he'll try to pull a Mussolini, a man idolized by the left before he allied with Hitler. Obama will attempt to pull a Hugo Chavez and become President For Life. We may see him attempt to ban the Republican Party eventually and arrest any that oppose him. He knows that Leftists love dictators as long as they are THEIR dictators. That's why they all love Chavez and Fidel. "


rawdawg:

You're really melting down aren't you? You invoked Hitler in only the 3rd post in the thread. Wow. That's some kind of record.

You betray your best efforts at rationality and sanity when you talk like this. All is not black or white.

In your world:
Health care for all equals communism
The social security system leads to marxism
Regulation of business leads to fascism

We've seen none of these things are true.

But thinking in black/white like that must really drive you crazy.

I feel bad for you.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

Fact is, Obama is attempting to thwart free speech and will do even more if elected. That's scary from a man that has talked about serving as President for 10 years or more. Either he's the most inept Constitutional Law prof ever or he believes he'll be able to get an Amendment.

My guess is that he'll try to pull a Mussolini, a man idolized by the left before he allied with Hitler. Obama will attempt to pull a Hugo Chavez and become President For Life. We may see him attempt to ban the Republican Party eventually and arrest any that oppose him. He knows that Leftists love dictators as long as they are THEIR dictators. That's why they all love Chavez and Fidel.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

You're really melting down aren't you? You invoked Hitler in only the 3rd post in the thread. Wow. That's some kind of record.

No, invoked Mussolini and that's very different from invoking Hitler.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were all socialists as Obama also clearly is when you read his books and look at his record. The easiest way to implement a socialist state is trying to suppress the opposition and set up a long term rule of some kind.

You betray your best efforts at rationality and sanity when you talk like this. All is not black or white.

Not really. I can look at historical precedent and see troubling things in Obama's rhetoric and his viewpoints.

In your world:
Health care for all equals communism

Wrong. In my world government run healthcare equal socialism. It would mean less innovation in medicine and spiraling costs for the government. It has been a failure in Europe and ruled unconstitutional in Canada. It has shifted the burden onto the US for innovation. I'd like to see every one have health insurance but not through a single-payer system. I want market driven solutions.

Why are you trying to make my views so black and white?

The social security system leads to marxism

Where've I stated this? The social security system will lead to government bankruptcy as it is now. The growth is ridiculously low and too many people rely on SS for retirement, something FDR never intended it to be for. The age on SS need to be raised over time up to 70 and beyond. We need to allow for more private investment to those that want it, just like is allowed overseas in the UK and elsewhere.

Regulation of business leads to fascism

No, suppression of opposition like what Obama is attempting leads to fascism. Fascism is an elitist stance that is an overlay on socialism. All fascists on record have been socialists. They are not communists - there is a difference, though both are on the left.

The fascist focuses on recreating national and religious identity compared to an atheist stance of the communist state.

We've seen none of these things are true.

But thinking in black/white like that must really drive you crazy.

I feel bad for you.

I feel bad for you because it is clearly YOU who see things in black and white. I thought you guys liked "nuance".

Good job at hypocrisy, calling me black and white and then making blanket statements about my stances in very black and white fashion. I'm sure you'll come back and say that you were just trying to use those black and white views as an example. Right. Problem is that ou can't actually articulate you viewpoints, I can use the historical comparisons to guys like Mussolini and his rhetoric.

Obama sounds a lot like Mussolini. The American Left LOVED Mussolini before he allied with Hitler and some loved him there. Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer even afterwards.

Mussolini was a fan of socialized medicine, high taxation of the upper class, heavy regulation, and he enjoyed talking about hope and change. Sound familiar?