Barack Obama has shown himself to be an unusual candidate for high office. He doesn’t necessarily play by the rules. He is a typical Democrat. If he is winning, all is well. If he starts to lose, he pulls out every stop.
In 1996 when Obama was first running for the Illinois state senate, he managed to clear all his opposition from the electoral field by challenging enough petition signatures from all four candidates that he was left with the party nomination. This speaks volumes not only about Obama, but about corruption in Chicago, that so many signatures were challengeable in the first place.
In 2004 Obama operatives dug up dirt on his Republican US Senate opponent Jack Ryan and pushed him off the ballot using details from Ryan’s private divorce records.
In other words, Obama plays hardball. Yet when his opponents engage him in just a typical American political campaign, he cries foul.
Michelle Obama came in for substantial criticism when she made controversial statements about America, saying that our nation is “downright mean” and then saying “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” These quotes rightfully became controversial.
It would seem that if a spouse wants to get involved in her husband’s campaign, that she should expect scrutiny. But Illinois Democrat US senator Dick Durbin said in response that “the hottest ring in hell” is reserved for people who bring candidates’ families into the campaign.
Meanwhile a Florida Democrat group used an image of Cindy McCain in an anti-McCain ad when she has hardly opened her mouth on behalf of her husband. And Obama surrogates in the Ancient Media have been relentless in their attacks on Sarah Palin’s family, including her pregnant teenage daughter and one Saturday Night Live skit that suggested that her husband Todd Palin was having sex with his own daughters.
The hottest ring in hell, Senator Durbin? Will we see your friends at NBC there?
When Obama’s connections to onetime Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers are brought up, he tries to brush them off saying that they are not germane. In his autobiography, Obama does not even mention Ayers’ Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $100 million foundation that Obama chaired for 4 year(!)
Obama tries to dismiss all of his questionable relationships, charging “guilt by association”. But if you have questionable associations and you wish to be President of the United States, the voters might find those relationships relevant.
Obama even has skirted his association to pastor Jeremiah Wright by simply quitting the church he attended for 20 years after he found out that Wright was making radical anti-white and anti-American statements.
The media play along, as if Obama could never have heard those words over 20 years.
Things have turned downright alarming, however. In Missouri, Obama’s campaign recently organized a ‘truth squad’ made up of top Democrat prosecutors from the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Kansas City in order to combat any misleading political advertising that may be used against Obama.
This use of law-enforcement officials, rather than campaign operatives, is frightening. Obama is claiming that he simply wants to respond to political ads that may violate what his campaign called “Missouri ethics laws”.
It sounds awfully threatening, however, that political speech might be seen as violating “ethics laws” and that law-enforcement officials are part of the campaign. But then again, this is Obama.
When the ‘truth squad’ story received national attention, people all over the country were rightfully outraged, concerned that the Obama camp was planning to prosecute or indict people for speaking their minds.
The Obama campaign denied that anything of the sort was going to happen, but in fact it was using a heavy-handed intimidation strategy and hoping nobody would notice.
This might seem like the end of the story, but there’s more. In Pennsylvania, the Obama campaign threatened radio and TV stations that aired anti-Obama ads from the National Rifle Association.
Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote to the stations about the ads that “unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations (i.e., NRA) do not have a right to command the use of broadcast facilities. Moreover, you have a duty to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising… We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising.”
NRA was outraged. And NRA is not somebody you want to argue with about the Bill of Rights.
NRA responded that “Obama and the (Democratic National Committee) have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama’s radical anti-gun record.”
NRA has sent clear rebuttals to each TV and radio station refuting the Obama campaign claims that the ads are inaccurate, with step by step clarifications. Its letter is here:
FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq. Counsel to National Rifle Association DATE: September 25, 2008 RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (“NRA-PVF”) This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (“NRA-PVF”), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired. The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post. Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based. The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms. The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum. Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.
Obama is treading on very thin ice, and doing something that is wholly disturbing – trying to link political opinions to legal libel. This dovetails with Obama’s clearing of the field in his two races for office; with his unspoken deal with the media to obliterate any reference to his questionable associations of the past; and with the national media blackout that has taken place on the controversial actions in Missouri and Pennsylvania.
These actions should give us all a clear idea of how Obama will try to shut down conservative talk radio with The Fairness Doctrine. He will use every trick in the book to impose Democrat rule.
Voters must realize that Obama is running a treacherous campaign and is relying on treacherous people in the media to cover for him.Obama is a hardball, far-left, thin-skinned politician who appears to have a nice smile and an easy manner. He is a very ornery character, as exposed in Missouri and Pennsylvania, and a candidate who is much less complex than he portrays himself. And much more dangerous.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more common sense.