Obama the Potential Thug-in-Chief – Silence the Opposition!


from HotAir.com

Pic: from HotAir.com

There have been at least 3 examples in just the last few days of what we can expect to happen to our First Amendment Rights if Obama becomes Thug-in-Chief and his Chicago Mobster-like buddies get a hold of the White House.

You thought the Fairness Doctrine was fair?  Well these tactics by the Obama campaign and, potentially the DNC, are a great example of how “fair” that doctrine will be if the Obamamobster is allowed into office.

1) Trying to shut down ads by the American Issues Project by way of the Justice Dept.  I covered that here.

2) On Wednesday, an ABC reporter was forcefully arrested while filming Democrats leaving a hotel with Democrat VIP donors after a meeting.  While this reporter might possibly have broken some law, it is suspicious that he was so man-handled by the Denver police for simply being asked to leave a sidewalk (not clear if it was private or public property).  The complaint came from the hotel.  I’m sure the manager of the Hotel is used to large crowds and different types of media during large conventions.  I would bet if THE Obama was eating lunch with his daughters or something to appear “like everyone else”, the cameras would have been welcome.  Instead we have thug donors walking with thug Democrats and we can’t let the “typical American” have a behind-the-scenes look at tearing-down-a-country in action!   Video here.

3) And the third and most recent example?  The Obama campaign set his follwers into action to blast a guest on Chicago radio program and tried to intimidate the host into not having the guest on the program.  The guest’s crime?  Accessing records and reciting facts that shed light on Obama’s relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers. 

This is pretty chilling — I pray this Thug-o-bama  gets beat on election day or we will soon have the joy of living in a country where it is no longer OK to speak your mind if it crosses with the views of the Left. 

Read from National Review (it’s long but I thought worthy or reposting in its entirety here):

While the Obama coronation proceeds apace in Denver, it is in Chicago that Americans are getting a disturbing demonstration of his thuggish methods of stifling criticism. Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Harvard-educated social anthropologist and frequent contributor to National Review, among other publications. He is widely respected for his meticulous research and measured commentary. For months, he has been doing the job the mainstream media refuses to do: examining the background and public record of Barack Obama, the first-term senator Democrats are about to make their nominee for president despite the shallowness of his experience and achievement.

Kurtz has written extensively, and with characteristic attention to factual detail, about Obama’s early career as a “community organizer,” his cultivation of benefactors in the most radical cauldrons of Chicago politics, his long-time pastor’s immersion in Black Liberation Theology, his ties to anti-American zealots, and the years in the Illinois state legislature this self-styled agent of change spent practicing the by-the-numbers left-wing politics of redistribution and race-consciousness, remaining soft on crime and extreme on abortion.

This has led Kurtz, naturally, to scrutinize the relationship between Obama and one of his early political sponsors, William Ayers. Ayers, as we have previously detailed, is a confessed terrorist who, having escaped prosecution due to surveillance violations that came to light during his decade on the lam after a bombing spree, landed an influential professorship in education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). As he has made clear several times before and after helping to launch Obama’s political career, Ayers remains defiantly proud of bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and other targets. He expresses regret only that he didn’t do more. Far from abandoning his radical politics, he has simply changed methods: the classroom, rather than the detonator, is now his instrument for campaigning against an America he portrays as racist and imperialist.

Obama supporters risibly complain that shining a light on the Obama/Ayers relationship is a “smear” and smacks of “guilt by association.” A presidential candidate’s choice to associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist would be highly relevant in any event — does anyone think the Obamedia would keep mum if John McCain had a long-standing relationship with David Duke or an abortion-clinic bomber?

But we are talking about more than a mere “association.”

Bluntly, Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers, whom he now dismisses as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Ayers and Obama have made joint appearances together; they have argued together for “reforms” of the criminal justice system to make it more criminal-friendly; Obama gushed with praise for Ayers’ 1997 polemical book on the Chicago courts; and they sat together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a left-wing enterprise that distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their ideological allies. Most significant, they worked closely together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

The CAC was a major education reform project, proposed by Ayers, which was underwritten by a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, complemented by another $100 million in private and public funding. The project ran for about five years, beginning in 1995. As the liberal researcher Steve Diamond has recounted, Ayers ran its operational arm, the “Chicago School Reform Collaborative.” Obama, then a 33-year-old, third-year associate at a small law firm, having no executive experience, was brought in to chair the board of directors, which oversaw all “fiscal matters.”

By the time the CAC’s operations were wound down in 2001 it had doled out more than $100 million in grants but had failed to achieve any improvement in the Chicago schools. What little is known about the grants Obama oversaw is troubling. As Diamond relates, one of the first CAC awards in 1995 was $175,000 for the “Small Schools Workshop,” which had been founded by Ayers and was then headed by Mike Klonsky. It was only the beginning of the CAC’s generous funding of Klonsky — a committed Maoist who had been an Ayers comrade in the radical Students for a Democratic Society (the forerunner of Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist organization), and who hosted a “social justice” blog on the Obama campaign website until his writings were hastily purged in June after Diamond called attention to them.

Kurtz began his review, and on Wednesday was invited on Milt Rosenberg’s radio program to discuss it. Rosenberg is a Chicago institution. His program, “Extension 720,” has aired for more than 30 years — a civil forum where knowledgeable guests from across the political spectrum discuss important issues in revealing two-hour interviews. What happened Wednesday night was stunning, as even the normally unflappable Rosenberg observed.

The Obama campaign — which has emissaries appearing everywhere — declined Rosenberg’s invitation to have a representative appear on the program and respond to Kurtz’s factual assertions. The campaign did, however, issue an “Obama Action Wire” that encouraged supporters to contact the program (telephone information was provided) and use scripted “talking points” to disrupt Kurtz’s appearance, which it deemed “unacceptable.” As the Politico’s Ben Smith reported, the campaign also urged supporters to demand that Rosenberg scrap the appearance of Kurtz, whom the campaign libeled as a “smear-merchant” and a “slimy character assassin.” The rant was reminiscent of the work of the left-wing media “watch-dog” Media Matters for America.Other than denigrating Kurtz for being conservative, Obama’s operatives have provided no response to the substance of his claims.

In their only pretense of engaging him, they accuse him of telling “a flat out lie” that Ayers recruited Obama for the CAC. Though it is a reasonable inference that Ayers recruited Obama, the careful Kurtz has stopped short of making it — observing only that Obama offers no explanation of how he was recruited if not through Ayers, his friend and the CAC’s driving force.

The station, WGN, has made a stream of the broadcast available online, here, and it has to be heard to be believed. Obama’s robotic legions dutifully jammed the station’s phone lines and inundated the program with emails, attacking Kurtz personally. Pressed by Rosenberg to specify what inaccuracies Kurtz was guilty of, caller after caller demurred, mulishly railing that “we just want it to stop,” and that criticism of Obama was “just not what we want to hear as Americans.” Remarkably, as Obama sympathizers raced through their script, they echoed the campaign’s insistence that it was Rosenberg who was “lowering the standards of political discourse” by having Kurtz on, rather than the campaign by shouting him down.

Kurtz has obviously hit a nerve. It is the same nerve hit by the American Issues Project, whose television ad calling for examination of the Obama/Ayers relationship has prompted the Obama campaign to demand that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation. Obama fancies himself as “post-partisan.” He is that only in the sense that he apparently brooks no criticism. This episode could be an alarming preview of what life will be like for the media should the party of the Fairness Doctrine gain unified control of the federal government next year.

And from RedState.com:

If the Obama team disagrees with Kurtz or thinks he has his facts wrong, fine. They are free to offer counter arguments and present the facts as they see them. But what Obama is trying to do is intimidate the media and attack the character of a well respected writer. What they are trying to do, and have been attempting from the start, is make criticism of Obama off limits.

Kurtz is conservative. So what? He is a scholar and journalist. Since when is it OK to sick your supporters on a radio station just because they have a guest you disagree with? Since when is it OK to try and shut down those who disagree with you?

The campaign was given the opportunity to respond and to be on the program with Kurtz. They refused. They would rather have their supporters attack the radio station and Kurtz personally then have an open debate on the issue. What happened to liberals vaunted belief in free speech and open debate? It goes out the window with The One.

As Jim Lindgren points out, ironically if Obama had denounced Ayers with the passion he has unleashed on Kurtz he wouldn’t have this problem:

Kurtz, unlike Ayers, is denounced in the most vicious and uncivil terms (there is a lot more than I quoted). If Obama or his campaign had ever denounced Ayers with the fervor that his campaign has now used in denouncing Kurtz, Obama wouldn’t be having trouble on his connection to Ayers. And I’m not suggesting that Obama should have denounced Ayers. I am just noting the grossly disproportionate responses of the Obama campaign to their differing offenses and the Obama campaign’s direct attack on Kurtz’s character, not just what he’s done or said – including very explicitly using arguments of guilt by association against Kurtz (which of course are being used against Obama, despite the protestations to the contrary of his critics).

…………..And when a reporter does legitimate research into the extent of that relationship and the policy outcomes that resulted, Obama not only seeks to shut him down and silence him, but attacks his character.This kind of response may be acceptable in Chicago Machine politics, but it is not acceptable from a candidate for president.

More at HotAir.com.

Welcome to life AB (After Obama) —the world will never be the same if we allow him in the highest office of this land.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. […] talker and a sleezy walker”.  Obama talks a good line while, behind the scenes, he engages in “stale tactics” to silence his critics.  Worse yet, he is also a man who believes in silencing permanently a newborn baby born of a […]

  2. […] is so much material to work with on Obama’s lies, self-absorption, associations, smears, and free speech suppression, McCain could talk 24 hours a day until the election and still not cover it […]

  3. […] has directed these threats in much the same manner that he, by directing his supporters, has threatened and interrupted the radio show in Chicago?  Wonder when Obama will try to send out the DOJ dogs to […]

  4. […] have blogged here about the abuses of the Obama campaign against those who disagree with or merely try to draw […]

  5. You idiots still do not know the difference between left and right, conservative and liberal. Obama is no left winger, I can assure you he is just a criminal in sheep’s clothing. He got into office by big money and that is Republican and Democratic money. Do some research will you and stay away from National Review that stupid rag of a mag!

  6. zombie reagan is rooming the land…

  7. Thanks that was a fantastic post!

  8. […] https://sharprightturn.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/obama-the-potential-thug-in-chief-silence-the-opposit… […]

  9. Hey there great blog! Does running a blog like this require a great deal of work?

    I’ve no expertise in coding but I was hoping
    to start my own blog soon. Anyways, should you have any recommendations or tips for new blog owners please share.
    I know this is off subject nevertheless I just wanted to
    ask. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: