Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment & his DISH Network station

“Day after day, Obama demonstrates that the “change” he represents is a severing of our body politic from the moorings that make us America. If we idly stand by while he and his thugs kill free political debate, we die too.” Read it all.

by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online

Stifling political debate with threats of prosecution is not the “rule of law” — it’s tyranny.

In London last week, a frightful warning was sounded about encroaching tyranny. At an important conference, speaker after impassioned speaker warned of the peril to Western values posed by freedom-devouring sharia — the Islamic legal code. Like all tyrannies, sharia’s first target is speech: Suppress all examination of Muslim radicalism by threats of prosecution and libel actions, and smugly call it “the rule of law.”

But we may already be further gone than the London conferees feared. And without resort to the Islamicization that so startled them. For that, we can thank the campaign of Barack Obama.

I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.

We London conferees were fretting over speech codes, “hate speech” restrictions, “Islamophobia” provisions, and “libel tourism” — the use of less journalist-friendly defamation laws in foreign jurisdictions to eviscerate our First Amendment freedom to report, for example, on the nexus between ostensible Islamic charity and the funding of terrorist operations.

All the while, in St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”

The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. In the stretch run of an American election, there is to be no examination of a candidate for the world’s most powerful office — whether about his radical record, the fringe Leftism that lies beneath his thin, centrist veneer, his enabling of infanticide, his history of race-conscious politics, his proposals for unprecedented confiscation and distribution of private property (including a massive transfer of American wealth to third-world dictators through international bureaucrats), his ruinous economic policies that have helped leave Illinois a financial wreck, his place at the vortex of the credit market implosion that has put the U.S. economy on the brink of meltdown, his aggressive push for American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq, his easy gravitation to America-hating activists, be they preachers like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers, or Communists like Frank Marshall Davis. Comment on any of this and risk indictment or, at the very least, government harassment and exorbitant legal fees.

Nor was this an isolated incident.

Item: When the American Issues Project ran political ads calling attention to Obama’s extensive ties to Ayers, the Weatherman terrorist who brags about having bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, the Obama campaign pressured the Justice Department to launch an absurd criminal prosecution.

Item: When commentator Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center was invited on a Chicago radio program to discuss his investigation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an “education reform” project in which Obama and Ayers (just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”) collaborated to dole out over $100 million, the Obama campaign issued an Internet action alert. Supporters, armed with the campaign’s non-responsive talking points, dutifully flooded the program with calls and emails, protesting Kurtz’s appearance and attempting to shout him down.

Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents, including Bush administration officials responsible for the national security policies put in effect after nearly 3000 Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Item: There is a troubling report that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter “intimidation” or “oppression” in an election involving a black candidate. (Memo to my former DOJ colleagues: In a system that presumes innocence even after crimes have undeniably been committed, responsible prosecutors don’t assume non-suspects will commit future law violations — especially when doing so necessarily undermines the First Amendment freedoms those prosecutors solemnly swear to uphold.)

Obama may very well win the November election but he, like Sen. McCain, should be forced to win it fair and square: by persuading Americans that he is the superior candidate after our free society has had its customary free and open debate.

One understandably feels little sympathy for McCain here. His years-long assault on the First Amendment under the guise of campaign-finance “reform” has led inexorably to the brazenness of Obama’s Chicago-style strong-arming. But the victim here is not McCain. The victim is democratic self-determination. The victim is our right to informed participation in a political community’s most important decisions. The victim is freedom.

The Justice Department’s job is to prosecute those actively undermining our freedom, not to intimidate citizens in the exercise of that freedom. Consequently, instead of threatening criminal investigations of phantom future civil-rights violations, it should be conducting criminal investigations into whether public officials in St. Louis are abusing their offices to affect a national election.

The federal Hatch Act (codified in Title 5 of the U.S. Code) prohibits executive officials (such as prosecutors and police) from using their offices to interfere with federal elections. The statute may be of limited utility in St. Louis since it principally targets federal officials. Still, state and local government may come within its ambit if their activities are funded in part by the national Leviathan — as many arms of municipal government are these days.

The same bright-line demarcation does not limit application of the federal extortion and fraud laws. The extortion provision (also known as the Hobbs Act and codified at Section 1951 of the federal penal code) makes it a felony for anyone, including public officials, to deprive people of their property by inducing fear of harm. Property interests have been held to include, for example, the right of union members to participate in a democratic process; the harm apprehended can be either physical or economic. Inducing voters to fear prosecution and imprisonment unless they refrain from exercising their fundamental right to engage democratic debate may well qualify.

An easier fit may be fraud, which under federal law (Section 1346 of the penal code) prohibits schemes to deprive citizens of their “intangible right of honest services” from their public officials. Prosecutors and police who abuse their enormous powers in order to promote the election of their preferred candidates violate their public trust.

Regardless of the legal landscape, however, it is the political consequences that matter. Day after day, Obama demonstrates that the “change” he represents is a severing of our body politic from the moorings that make us America. If we idly stand by while he and his thugs kill free political debate, we die too.

~ End

Then there is this Item: Channel 073-00 on the Dish Network is now The Obama Channel where he’ll be pushing his socialist ideas…maybe he’ll be advertising VP Moderator Gwen Ifil’s book about him on his own cable channel

13 Responses

  1. What evidence do you have that my father, Frank Marshall Davis, hated America? Although he criticized America for its Jim Crow racial injustice, I would like to know your evidence that he “hated” America. Thanks!

  2. Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, was on the communist side long before the Vietnam War. Davis supported Stalinist Russia even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. This relationship may help explain why Obama would leave Hawaii, associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences in college (as he admits in his book, Dreams From My Father), and then associate with terrorists, communists, and socialists in Chicago, where he would launch his political career. Davis was a key influence over the young Obama, filling his head with anti-American thoughts
    Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily’s Jerome R. Corsi, many people are learning the basic facts about these relationships. Corsi covered the release of two reports on the subject through America’s Survival, Inc. organization. SO GO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH.

    The basic facts of the Obama-Davis relationship were originally disclosed by Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, who talked about Obama coming under the influence of Davis during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH .
    Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who had moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend [and secret CPUSA member] Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Obama and his family. As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”

    Horne is not the only significant figure to talk about the influence of “Frank” on Obama. Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who knew and interviewed Davis and wrote a dissertation on his life and career, confirmed that the “Frank” is, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis.

    Takara, an Obama supporter, confirmed that Davis was a significant influence over Obama during the three or four years that he attended the Punahou prep school. These would have been the years 1975-1979. She said Obama had been introduced to Davis by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who considered Davis a “strong black male figure” and thought he exerted a “positive” influence over the young man in his high-school years.

    Obama, nurtured to be anti America, anti white, no patriotism , sleeping with terrorists of every stripe, preferably his beloved muslim ones, his crimes and intent to harm America the country and its people are suppressed by the Deadly Leftist Media. Obama’s is severely addicted to muslim terrorists. Proof. ?
    On May 14 Barack Obama held a private and unpublicized meeting with Imam Hassan Qazwini at Macomb Community College in Michigan.
    Qazwini heads the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Qazwini is the Hezbollah terror group’s foremost agent in America.
    There’s more, lots more of Obama being a fraud and a closet Islamist terrorist.

    Obama and his equally rabid hate-America wife would love to see more 9/11 and more dead in America.

    Creeping does not have to prove anything. It is up to you, as a dutiful son, to prove to the rest of the world that your father was not a Communist lover and America hater.

    lotus

  3. You’ll have to ask Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review Online…

    we’ll see if we can get a response

    So you are agreeing that your father was in fact a Communist? If so he surely hated the Democratic ideals of which America is based – could that be what McCarthy was referring to?

  4. I’m sorry. Do I understand you correctly? Is it your position that the burden of proof is not upon the accuser but upon the accused? Basic justice dictates otherwise.

    I asked for evidence that he hated America. Criticizing the U.S. or joining the CPUSA is not evidence that he hates America. People from the far right to far left can all love America, even though they have conflicting views as to the proper course of action. I still await such evidence.

    He did not believe in the philosophy of communism. Edgar Tidwell, whom AIM’s Cliff Kincaid cites as “an expert on the life and writings of Davis,” demolishes right-wing misrepresentation of Davis’s radical influence in one simple paragraph:

    “Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.” (See here

    Frank Marshall Davis considered membership in the CPUSA as a vehicle and tool because, according to “The New Red Negro” (cited by AIM’s Cliff Kincaid as a source):

    ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique. Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only available institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support.

    Further, as The New Red Negro makes clear, there was no monolithic Stalinist doctrine within the CPUSA: “This is not to say that the impact of the Communist Left on African-American writers in the 1930’s and 1940’s flowed from absolute unity of ideology and practical application of that ideology. As mentioned before, the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies. This conflicts appeared within top leadership, where Earl Browder and William Z. Foster and their supporters were frequently at odds. They also surfaced in the regional leadership of important districts that were occasionally, and in the case of southern California frequently, in opposition to the national leadership. Finally, at the rank-and-file level, when leadership debates broke out into the open (as they did in 1929, 1956-1946, and 1956), the were replayed in almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of “unorthodox” political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist.”

    A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930’s until at least the early 1950’s. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work.

    The bottom line is that communist ties were the NORM for African American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.

  5. [...] O-STURMTROOFERS– Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment & his DISH Network station; in other news, NYT [...]

  6. It is a fact some of the poems Davis wrote were in praise of the Red Army and mocking Christian missionaries. Davis, who died in 1987, appeared before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1956 and took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions about his Communist Party USA (CPUSA) activities. His lawyer was Harriet Bouslog, another CPUSA member. Pls take Note!

    The Associated Press did run a story about Barack Obama’s Marxist mentor without ever mentioning him as a CPUSA member. The story, with a headline that read, “Writer offered a young Barack Obama advice on Life,” simply calls Davis a “left-leaning journalist and poet.” As investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid reports in an extensive exposé, Davis “was not a journalist in any real sense of the term. He was a propagandist and racial agitator for the CPUSA.”

    The fact is there is much more evidence of Communist influences over a young Barack Obama and more evidence of attempts to wash it from the record.
    It explains why the communist Frank Davis indoctrinated muslim called Barack HUSSEIN Obama (once a muslim always a terrorist) felt so much at home and in favour of William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Doran. Both Ayers and Doran were founders of the 1960’s era domestic terrorist group called “The Weathermen.” That group planted bombs in the U.S. Capitol Building, organized riots, set fires to buildings on college campuses, and plotted the overthrow of the United States. The Weathermen were known as the most violent and most dedicated communists of the 1960’s revolt. They had direct ties with Moscow and made numerous trips to Cuba and North Viet Nam in support of the world-domination goals of the Communist revolution.

    The Deadly Leftist Media does not investigate, nor report the truth. The lickspittles that give a smelly name to decent journalists are the gofors of their Spiinmeisters.
    Americans who read or hear their nightly news reports are not informed of the issues – they are instead victims of an elitist propaganda for what the media determines to be “globally- acceptable truth.” Real facts be damned. The media decide ahead of time who will get their support, based on their own political agenda. And they decide anyone who dares challenge that agenda will be ripped to shreds. The media offer themselves to be benign lap dogs for their chosen ones, and killer attack dogs for those who dare speak in opposition. And they call it journalism. The propaganda machine of Hitler’s Nazi Party couldn’t have done it better. And they root for Barack HUSSEIN Obama for nothing delights the maniacal loony leftists and communists in America than to dance on the graves of their fellow Americans for being WHITE.
    That is why the deadly Leftist Media suppresses and buries any news of Ron Paul, the only decent guy that will take America back for the people and Preserve the Constitution. Consider this fact. As Ron Paul’s supporters, 10,000 strong, met across town from the Republican National Convention, in a historic effort to literally found a new movement of dedicated, freedom loving activists, not a single major media outlet gave it the time of day.
    But the world gets the BS rhetoric of the great change Obama will perform. Americans are sheeple, we on the other side of the earth, are definitely not.

    Out here, when we make a statement we have to back it with proof. So if you say your father is not a communist, prove to us. Out here we get all the proof that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a child of communism ala Frank Davis. Just take a look at the list of mass murderers he and his evil wife sleeps with.

    lotus

  7. Sorry, Lotus, but you must have missed the conclusion of Cliff Kincaid’s expert, Edgar Tidwell. It may have almost been written specifically with you in mind: “Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology.”

    “So if you say your father is not a communist, prove to us.” I never said that. You must also have missed Tidwell’s statement “my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II.”

    I hope you don’t accept Cliff Kincaid’s journalism at face value. He has produced an extensive body of lies concerning the Obama-Davis relationship. Many of his specific misrepresentations are easily disproven, some using the research of his own associate, Herb Romerstein.

    Are you interested in the truth or his body of lies? I invite every person of integrity to examine the “specific misrepresentation” documented at Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX, and I challenge anyone to refute any these items. Please post your analysis on my blog or right here. If you would rather believe Kincaid than the actual evidence, however, then I will pray for you.

  8. Hey, the philosophy of the East is that if a progeny of a communist takes due umbrage at the slurs his father receives, we expect him to defend with facts . The fact that your father hid behind the 5th Amendment and engaged his fellow communist to defend him at his trial says a lot.

    You failed your duty as a son. Your facts would have carried more weight if it refuted all the facts that Corsi, Horne and Takara and the archives at University of New York made known to the public is more convincing than your feeble attempts.

    We in the Far East search more for the truth than you dumbells in the West who are so complacent and adolescent that you allow your country to be hijacked by slime balls, closet terrorist, islamists, et al. But then the sun rises in the East, no?

    lotus

  9. YOU WROTE: Your facts would have carried more weight if it refuted all the facts that Corsi, Horne and Takara and the archives at University of New York made known to the public.”

    RESPONSE: I do not refute facts. I refute lies. Some of the claims are lies, some are true. Disinformation always surrounds a kernal of truth with lies. I have documented the lies on my blog. Once again, I challenge you to refute any of the “specific misrepresentations” (i.e., body of lies), if you have the integrity to try.

    BTW: He never had a trial. He only testified at a Congressional hearing.

  10. BTW: My issue is not with “Corsi, Horne and Takara and the archives at University of New York.” My issue is with the falsehoods from Cliff Kincaid’s “Accuracy In Media.”

  11. Thank God that the DISH network is doing bad and that will shut up the Obama lies.

  12. As my mouth is still on the floor, and i could not get past the first couple of paragraphs… did i just read an argument AGAINST
    the libel law, as if it were a BAD thing. The argument basically put forth is a threat was made, that if in the late stages of this campaign, people speak out against Obama, and if what they say against Obama is FALSE, (I.E. A “LIE”) that they would be sued for libel…

    is the argument then that HOW DARE they not allow us to LIE?????????

  13. Items 1 and 2: #2 mentions Annenberg. That is the Republican guy who did the invitations to HIS thing, #1, the American Issues Project. Get focused in your anger and perhaps you will have an argument.

Your comments & your IP address are your legal problem, not ours.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37,302 other followers

%d bloggers like this: