Obama increases gap in swing states

Free Speech in an Obama presidency? Not likely. This article by US News & World Report senior editor, Michael Barone, doesn't even mention the probable passage of the Employee Free Choice Act which takes away secret balloting rights during union elections.

October 11, 2008

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters. Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Hey, 1st Amendment.......have you forgotten the last 8 years? Free speech? Only when Cheney and Co. are listening in on your phone conversations, reading your emails, tracking your airline travel.............

I imagine it's two words that have helped drive the change in these swing states:

"President Palin."

THIS is a ridiculous bit of slanted, Right-Wing oratory aimed at hate & bigotry - not one word is true.

The liberals are against Palin because she a) is a Christian b) supports pro-life c) against gay marriage rights. Where is your dignity, people really! All your thinking about is your pocketbooks. No wonder this country going down.
I just say thank God Hillary didn't win the primary!

There's McCain 2000 and McCain 2008 - Not the same person at ALL!

'nuff said...

President Palin? Heaven help us.

Tis is not your blog.....
And what about Mr Todd Palin?
American is finally waking up, and certainly not for "moose nugget."

From the lips of Jesse Jackson. So goodbye Israel. Your days are numbered.

EVIAN, FRANCE
PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

I'm against Palin for none of those reasons, stephanie. I'm against Palin because she lies and continues the shameless fear-mongering that has been the GOP mainstay for the last 7 years. It is beyond shameful that she has allowed people in her audiences to shout things like "kill him!" without blinking an eye. It's appalling -- if she wants to be pro-life, that's fine, but be pro-every-life, including those already living.

Where is my dignity? My dignity is in not casting a vote for a candidate involved in an on-going ethics investigation that exposed her abuse of power having her husband to do her dirty work from his own phone in the governor's office. And then claiming that she was cleared of all wrong-doing.

Thinking about your pocketbooks? That's a GOP platform if I ever heard one.

Where is John McCain's dignity? Where is his integrity? The John McCain that showed up in 2000 and the early part of 2008 was a man worth voting for. The John McCain that is running now is a disgrace and a hypocrite. So much for his promise to run a clean campaign.

stephanie says:
"The liberals are against Palin because she a) is a Christian b) supports pro-life c) against gay marriage rights."

I am against her because she is pro-life, and could, as President, appoint Supreme Court Justices. I disagree with her stance on gay marriage, but, realistically, the federal government will have NO say in the matter, and, state-by-state, the gay marriage battle will be fought, so I don't really care about her stance on that. I don't really care that she is a Christian (so, by the way, is Obama), but I do care that she sees Iraq as God's war (as does Bush). When I elect a representative in government, I am giving them the power to represent ME, not God. I am mainly against her because she shows the same pig-headed stuborn ignorance that G.W. Bush shows - and after eight years of Bush, it astonishes me that the Republicans could choose someone as potential President who is more incompetent than he is. There are several reasons I would not want McCain in the White House, but for me, the strongest one by far is his selection of Sarah Palin as his potential replacement.

I hope that an Obama presidency with be the first step in the extreme antagonism between left and right. I know that I who am registered Democratic and will proudly support Obama this time am very concerned about the Democratic party moving too far to the left. It is my hope that Obama will work with Republicans and centrists Democrats to keep economic prosperity moving forward. What the Republican Party is going to have to rid itself of is the growth at any price contingent which Grover Norquist represents.

From here on economic prosperity will have to be measured with two indicators corporate profits and the wealth of the middle class. Those two indicators will show that the economy is growing and everyone is benefiting.

Palin is an embarrassment to thinking Americans everywhere. The more she opens her mouth, the more intelligent citizens recoil. That and Obama's brilliant campaign are opening the numbers up. Certainly, McCain isn't helping himself with his transparent hypocrisy.

Dear "1st amendment." Thanks for cutting and pasting the latest RNC/Limbaugh/McCain smear points of the day. It saves me the trouble of going to the RNC website. I love the tactic - toss some puke out there into the ether and hope that the wingnuts and the ignorant slurp it up and regurgitate it.

1st Amendment -

I'm sure your chest swells with pride when supporting Sarah Palin - an American terrorist. True, she doesn't deploy IED's, but everything else she says and does is classic terrorism - lie, demonize, fulminate hatred against "enemies within" and pedal nothing but fear to anyone who will listen. She and you are so far from being "patriotic" Americans, I have to wonder whether you both have Osama bin Laden's cell phone number. You're doing his work for him.

God how you are going to hate the next few years as we return this country to true American principles.

God how you are going to

The reason people call in and post comments supporting Obama and refuting the non-stop stream of cowardly exaggerations and lies openly voiced by the McCain campaign is because Obama has a lot of supporters. We do not want to see another election stolen. I believe if it is anything less than a landslide, the pubs will expend massive amounts of money and legal energy turning the result. It is individuals, like myself, who really care about the future of the country for our next generation and the immediate future that try to counter the lies. Obama, to his credit, has not given voice to the righteous indignation in which lesser politicians indulge. It is one of the strengths the country needs in a leader.