A flattering earthy shade of brown, perhaps?
“For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”–John F. Kennedy
Jennifer Joyce, a high-profile prosecuting attorney, is one of two who will be “reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than 250K$ a year.”
The video above repeats what I have previously said: this is impossible given the fact that not everyone even pays income taxes.
Aside from that, I want to know why people in Missouri or any state should tolerate prosecuters proseletysing for the Barack Obama campaign or go after ads that are “misleading”–subjective to begin with–or false, especially when Obama himself not only has lied but been caught at it.
Joyce says, “[W]e’re here to respond to any character attacks, to set the record straight,” and prosecutor Bob McColloch declares: “If they’re not going to tell the truth, then somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s not true, this is the truth.'” So what happens when Obama’s own campaign lies? Is this the kind of oppressive rule he intends to force of the American people?
The people of the United States have the right to hear from both parties and make determinations on their own. Not only is Obama’s technique another step towards a nanny state–deciding what is good for us–but also is a reprehensible and flagrant violation of our right to information, free speech and freedom to assemble.
Is this the beginning of the “national security force” he proposes to establish?
More and more every day, each time Barack Obama opens his mouth I am reminded of two scary words: Cultural Revolution. Mao had people getting in the faces and business of those he didn’t like and going after people who made critical discussions on the actions of the state. He had bands of people running around engaging in “keeping order” as well. Now Obama is advocating that his minions get in people’s faces and form a group called the “truth squad” to silence his opponents by shouting them down and attempting to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.
So how long until he asks for criticisms and recommendations and then gulags those who respond? When comes the day in which some of us will be required to publicly account for our sins and beg for the holy status of rehabilitated?
I’d like to believe all of this is as absurd as it sounds. Fear mongering is never an effective strategy, nor is a hyperventilating kind of activism. However, questions as addressed above, extreme as they appear on the surface, should give pause to those who like or dislike Obama and consider the effects of such behavior on the part of the Illinois senator, even if no one actually is jailed or prosecuted for their dissenting views.
As Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:
[N]o one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearingof David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he?
It’s stated well and I agree, but there also should be the caution to those who will silence or be silenced on the basis of fear.
Obama Campaign Threaten Legal Action Over NRA Ads
Fairfax, VA-Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has sent threatening letters to news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio to stop airing ads exposing his anti-gun record sponsored by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF).
The kicker? NRA-PVF’s Ohio’s ads have not yet begun running.
“Barack Obama and his campaign are terrified of the truth,” declared Chris W. Cox, Chairman of NRA-PVF. “Sen. Obama’s statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record. NRA-PVF will make sure that everyone knows of Obama’s abysmal record on guns and hunting.”
The Obama campaign sent cease and desist letters to news outlets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves. All stations where NRA-PVF has purchased or plans to purchase ads have been provided with documented evidence of Sen. Obama’s anti-gun record.
Obama Campaign Cease and Desist Letter
NRA-PVF Response Memo
NRA-PVF Response to Washington Post “fact check”
“Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation’s history. That’s the truth,” concluded Cox. “NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it.”
I understand some people reading this might not be interested in guns, or believe in gun control. In that case I would urge you to consider the erasure of rights we have been hearing about over the past few years include the right to information–what the Obama campaign here seeks to quash. Whether you agree with gun control or not, no campaign has the right to keep information from the public, or use insidious methods to intimidate others into doing the same.
If you believe this to be a small or insignificant matter, consider the consequences of government violation of any other of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections? Would you tolerate it? It is not the nature of a responsible citizen to pick and choose which guaranteed rights may apply to fellow citizens, but this is what the Obama campaign seeks to do.
The Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy had as its key findings:
* that secrecy is a form of government regulation
* that excessive secrecy has significant consequences for the national interest when policy makers
are not fully informed
* the government is not held accountable for its actions
* the public cannot engage fully in informed debate
The people of the United States are entitled to and demand better than such insidious forms of public control.