Obama & Independent Thought

Having spent a fair deal of time walking the halls of various institutions of higher education, from the US to the UK, I can, with a fair deal of experience, hold forth on what a liberal utopia might look like. One of its key features, addressed by this blog previously, are speech codes.

These codes seek to lay out, with a ridiculous degree of specificity, which words and types of words are and are not acceptable in "progressive" discourse. They typically emanate from sociology and anthropology departments, though english and psych departments like to contribute too.

These types of 1st Amendment limiting codes, along with chilling, peer-pressure oriented, group-think (read in this election contest: Obama hipsters), will be the word of the day in an Obama presidency. Disagree with progressive liberals over the prevailing, conventional wisdom about, well, anything, and you can just Shut[...]Up.

Michael Barone's latest article highlights examples of this at work already in the Obama campaign and how it would carry over to his presidency. Think I'm a fearmonger? Read about the already existent examples and judge for yourselves. If this is what they're willing to do during an election, imagine how it will be once they're ensconced in the Presidency.

"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.

If you really believe in freedom of speech and independent thought, you won't vote for Barack Obama.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Who Are Obama's Supporters?

Add this to "who is the real Obama?" John Fund in yesterday's WSJ Political Diary, reports on Obama's "grassroots" financial supporters--you know, all the small-time donors that supposedly made Obama a new kind of politician. Turns out Obama (read: Axelrod) won't turn over the information related to these donations. Legally, he doesn't have to, but McCain did and we're able to find out that none of his were shady in the least. Meanwhile, Obama ...

More than 2.5 million Americans have contributed to Barack Obama's campaign, an impressive accomplishment. But are all of them Americans, as required by law?

John McCain's campaign has identified its entire donor base, including those contributing under $200, whose names are not required to be legally disclosed. But the Obama campaign hasn't identified individual donors for nearly half of the $427 million his campaign has raised. Small donations account for much more of Mr. Obama's donation take than most candidates.

That concerns the Republican National Committee, which cites Federal Election Commission records that show some 11,500 Obama donors trigger one or more warning flags that they may be foreign nationals -- including use of a foreign bank account or foreign address. About one out of seven of the donors in question are clearly U.S. diplomats or military personnel since they used an APO address overseas. But the others may be worthy of inquiry, especially given the tale of Palestinian brothers Hosam and Monir Edwan, who contributed more than $31,300 in small increments to the Obama coffers even though they are residents of the Gaza Authority. The FEC flagged their donations and alerted the Obama campaign, which acted in slow motion to refund the money. Almost a year after the last donation by the two brothers, the campaign has still failed to return $891 of their contributions.

The problems with possible foreign donations could have been resolved if the Obama campaign had simply agreed to the transparency rules suggested by the Center for Responsive Politics and seven other watchdog groups. "We asked both campaigns for more information on small donors," Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center, told Newsmax's Ken Timmerman. "The Obama campaign never responded," she notes, while the McCain campaign has made all of its small donor data available online.

For its part, the Obama campaign responds to questions about its small donors by saying "we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available step to root-out improper contributions." No mention of why it won't post the names of donors online.

The FEC will eventually unravel the mystery, but it usually requires three to four years to finish any probe. Should Mr. Obama become president, the full extent to which his 2008 campaign may have skirted the law will be known about the time he seeks re-election.

(emphasis added)

My position on campaign finance reform is the same it has always been: I disagree with McCain's signature piece of legislation, McCain-Feingold. I think it's a horrible, anti-speech bill. I say let anyone donate any amount to anyone, but let there be transparency. Also, limit donations to American donors (though I can be persuaded on this point).

This way we wouldn't have shady 527s accepting donations from who knows where and run by who knows what group with no responsibility to anyone. This way, if there is an ad in bad faith, we would know who to castigate.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Free Mark Steyn

At least in Canada, when the local Muslim interest group complains, they don't throw you in jail and threaten lashes and/or worse. Well, they haven't, yet.

Mark Steyn has been a favorite columnist of ours for some time now. We serialized one of his best (and funniest) columns here, here, here, and here. We mentioned him in a post about an experience at the Cambridge Intel Seminar where we met a critic of his here. And if that's not enough Steyn for you, he's currently filling in for Sean Hannity on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.

First of all, it behooves us to understand that other Western countries do not protect speech the way the US does. In fact, they typically don't have a Bill of Rights in the way that America does. This bears repeating: speech is not protected anywhere the way it is in the United States. Mark Steyn, like others before him, is currently experiencing what it is like when one offends a powerful interest group in a country with limited speech protection.

Read the overview about the case at National Review Online. Then, read what prompted the current kerfuffle at Macleans.ca. Finally, check out more about the case in an article by John Robson. Then, if you like, return and comment here.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.