Friday, June 27, 2008

Obama's Unprecedented Attack on Free Speech - Mechanisms and Results

Original Link:

For many months now, Obama has run a campaign that has as its centerpiece the control and manipulation of the media, and the elimination of free speech. This began as a methodology designed to control the Internet. And moved to the main stream media very quickly.

The principle voiced by the Obama campaign is and was that the media must report what it wants to report and the way that it wants the media to report the "news." This includes opinion, which was to be and has been written in one way with the other ways attacked continuously by what could be a group of hired and independent writers.

Taking their cue from totalitarian regimes, Obama developed his own propaganda arm which spewed facts and figures to the media and made false claims designed to keep controversial issues dealing with the candidate off of the main stream media. At the same time, Obama attacked in merciless ways those who voiced opposition on various Internet systems and sources, including the media who dared to question him, and has now stopped debates in favor of tuning his message against McCain again with the help of completely compliant media.

The propaganda process was carefully managed turning everything damaging to Obama into racist or irrelevant issues. These included blatant refusals to print or to discuss clearly relevant issues to claims that any discussion was racism. Obama did not care about the truth. Only the message.

From this vantage point, Obama's continual attacks on Hillary Clinton supporters were continually repeated through numerous MSM channels with little or no questioning and constant support for the Obama view of the truth. Obama thereby created the most one-sided message system ever developed in US politics.

Calling Clinton and her husband just an extension of Bush, and McCain "Bush III," Obama has been able to seed the press with such false statements that the truth is far from anywhere one turns.

Obama communication and voting control systems designed to eliminate free speech rank at the pinnacle of Obama's attack on free speech. These include the following important free speech elements without which media, voters, and all in the world fail to understand the truth and could ultimately have no more opportunity to voice their differences and views than those in totalitarian regimes.

The first is Obama's successful eradication of Hillary Clinton supporters from the MSM, including especially CNN. We have never heard of such an effort, much less anyone who has successfully achieved such an eradication of opposition in any US political campaign.

The second is the system used to deny all those who were not supporters from any venue in which Obama appeared. In ASU and elsewhere, Obama operatives ensured that only supporters appeared, with opponents being rejected. Even then, the MSM learned that they were not to report anything negative about Obama, and they did not.

The third and most intrusive system of all was the use of race as a way in which to define Obama's opponent and the use of racism claims to ensure that major issues were stifled in the press. Indeed, to this day, the Democrats have continued to use racism wherever they turn. From the Wright controversy, where Dean called the coverage racist, to the war against Geraldine Ferraro claiming that she is a racist, Obama has turned the tables dramatically against free speech and toward some other place that we dare not go or discuss.

Obama's Control of CNN

In January 2008, CNN succumbed to pressure from the Obama campaign and told James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman that they would not be used again until the Democratic nomination had taken place.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.

After I reached him today and pointed out that he hadn't been on CNN in some time, Carville confirmed to me that the network had told him that he wouldn't appear until the Dem primary is resolved.

Sam Feist, CNN's political director, also confirmed the decision to me. "As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned," Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. "Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended."

With "neutral" people like Obama's friend and handpicked supporter Roland Martin who was the wild-eyed supporter who shouted throughout the evening of the South Carolina primary that the Clintons were racists, and Donna Brazile whose positions on Obama and Clinton have been as far from neutral as any commentator, worries about the need for neutrality were certainly based on the support of one candidate, not another.

Crowd Management To Sustain Message of Broad Support

With a system identical to that employed by George Bush, Obama denied other supporters from being able to attend a rally on a state university and has sustained that approach time after time. The method was recorded on video and remains one of the only documents showing how Obama manipulated crowds.

Other events similarly controlled the message. For example, in New Hampshire an agreement to prevent marchers in front of an arena was forged by Obama in exchange for a no-picketing agreement, effectively controlling speech both ways.

" I have some special guests I want to recognize: New Hampshire AFL-CIO, for the work they do," he said, just days after organized labor contemplated picketing the Verizon Wireless Area, which will not allow the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 195 to organize employees.

"This is a great facility and we should've had union workers in here," he said to loud applause from a crowd, full of many who must undoubtedly followed the story, which has been popular in the local press.

The New Hampshire Union Leader reported on Friday that the campaign had negotiated an agreement with AFL-CIO state President Mark MacKenzie, which prevented a picket line in exchange for a pro-union statement during the event.

Deal done.

Combination of Democratic Party Mechanisms Limit Free Speech
As in any election, the one who controls voting mechanisms is one who controls who comes to power. While many have lauded caucuses, and they have their appeal, the rank truth is that they have resulted in control from the top and the ability to control from the bottom.

Over the past few months, we have seen this mechanism at work in the DNC, caucuses, and delegate selection process. The most certain has been the use of superdelegates who will decide the nominee in this election.

Personal Attacks Limit Free Speech

But these pale in the face of the personal attacks used against Hillary Clinton and her supporters which began and ended with the claim that it was inappropriate to have any attacks against character, personal views, or anything remotely resembling anything usable by the Republicans in the general election. This one was perhaps the biggest attack on free speech of all. Vociferously supported for months by Democratic Party bigwigs and Obama and his supporters working in combination, such claims muted anything said by Hillary Clinton and her supporters while allowing a completely open highway for ad hominem and other similar attacks against anyone who dared take the "racist" position of any opposition to Obama.

Diminishing Speech - The Use of Political Correctness to Avoid Inquiry and Free Speech
In addition to mechanics which ensured victory and the concomittant diminution in free speech occasioned by such mechanisms, Obama and his supporters used political correctness as a by word for any attack on Obama and his views. They ranged deep and wide, but the most pernicious attacks were those claiming personal racism based on statements that had nothing to do with racism, and on the wild claims that ended the current campaign, suggesting that Hillary Clinton was calling for someone to kill Obama because of her reference to Bobby Kennedy.

The issue of race could have been quelled by Hillary Clinton, but was not, during the New Hampshire primary when she fired her co-chair in New Hampshire because he asked for more detail and voiced concern about Obama's admitted drug use. Why this would not be a valid question was never explained apart from Obama's claims of racism. And why a normal question in any other context became racism was never explained. The mere inquiry was deemed racism.
As a consequence, race became a justifiable factor even when dealing with legitimate questions. And the press stopped investigation and inquiry on this important moral (especially whether Obama was ever dealing drugs and his related contacts with criminal elements of the US and abroad) and mental issue (especially whether Obama has deep-seated mental problems that drug use exposes to a degree but not entirely) topic.

We also failed to inquire into many other topics. The patriotism question was fully answered according to Obama supporters, the personal racial prejudice questions about Obama and his wife were answered by brief statements, and his every move was accepted as if gospel.

Demanding Recognition as Victor - The Ultimate in the Control of Free Speech

For several weeks now, the fact that there is no democracy in the Democratic Party has been brought home to us by Obama and his supporters. Indeed, the early claim of victory has been one of the most devastating ways in which free speech has been curtailed, leading to the end of the most limiting approaches to nominees in the history of the United States.


In the end, it is only right to discuss the many bloggers, including many Newsviners, who have done their best through regular and repeated efforts to stiffle opposition to Obama. Their ways are many. But they have repeatedly tried to use threats and worse. And this article's predecessor is no different than any other. To all those who seek to eliminate viewpoints and truth, whose efforts are devoted to the promotion of Obama and the taking down of those supporting Hillary Clinton, to you we leave you with the words of one of your bretheren regarding the predecessor article to this one.

I have actually reported this article for being Inaccurate and Advertising. It is not that I mind the content, per se, or want to introduce censorship. I have seen fra more aggressive negative articles about candidates and commented on them without giving it much thought, because it is a part of the democratic discourse.

But this article seems completely baseless. There is a conspicuous lack of concrete examples. It contains no actual information, aside from a lesson about Free Speech. Somehow I do not feel it is a kind of article writing that should be encouraged.

If no action is taken against it, however, I don't see that as a big problem. It's lack of substance speaks for itself.

The author makes his wild accusations with no basis whatsoever. The objector, an Obama supporter, fails completely to state what is inaccurate. He also fails to say why his bizzare claim that the article is "Advertising." Indeed, despite being "part of the democratic discourse," and the author's claim that he does not want to introduce censorship, he is seeking without any basis to eliminate the first article on Obama's unprecedented attack on free speech because it is "completely baseless."

We leave you with this commentary, mild in the context of many who came before and some which have followed. The ability to judge what is supported and isnot is, after all, in the hands of Obama and his supporters according to them and much of the MSM. Obama and his supporters will seek to deny anyone else's right to say their piece through every means available, even if they are illegal, outside the rules, or otherwise just objecting to someone's right to speech.

Everyone beware. On persons such as this one, our freedoms may hinge.


Ah, Obama:

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

"[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

In Obama We Trust.

When a man becomes the Nation, we have Stalin.

No comments: