Michelle Malkin » Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

By Michelle Malkin • August 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Here is the ad Barack Obama doesn’t want you to see. Pass it on.

I cannot stress how outrageous the Obama campaign’s attempt to silence the creators of the Ayers ad is. Mr. Hope and Change is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics to intimidate those who want to alert the nation to Obama’s troubling ties to, and longtime relationship with, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Obama’s lawyers and minions are playing hardball with TV stations that have dared to air the ad. They have the gall to champion campaign finance integrity — even as Obama has just admitted hiding payments to his Chicago cronies at ACORN. The Obama campaign can’t cite anything false or defamatory about the ad because it is accurate and truthful. This intimidation campaign is of a piece with the left-wing MoveOn effort to bully GOP donors. Remember?

I’ve just obtained the response of the group running the ads that Obama doesn’t want you to see:

American Issues Project Responds to Obama Campaign’s Efforts to Compel TV Stations, Government to Censor Ad

Obama team fails to convince stations to kill ad in spite of threats, harassment and false claims

Washington, DC – August 26, 2008 – The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project’s initial ad.

“The Obama campaign knows it can’t argue the facts of the link between Obama and Ayers, so it is instead resorting to a desperate campaign of intimidation and legal threats,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Project’s president. “The scary question this raises is if Barack Obama demonstrates this little regard for free speech from his opponents during the campaign, what could the American people expect from him as a president?”

“The tremendous amount of time, money and effort the campaign is expending to run its own ads on the Ayers controversy and dispatch its hired guns all over the country – during the Democratic convention – speaks to the fear they must have that this issue is resonating with American voters.”

American Issues Project sent a letter today to the Department of Justice responding to the Obama campaign’s claims. Key points from the letter:

AIP is organized as a qualified nonprofit corporation as that term is defined in the regulations of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) 11 C.F.R. §114.10. As such, AIP enjoys the protections of the provisions of the Supreme Court’s decision more than twenty years ago in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 646 (D. Mass. 1984), aff’d, 769 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1985), aff’d, 479 U.S. 238 (1986)…

AIP complies with each and every one of the provisions outlined by the Supreme Court in the MCFL case, as well as the regulations of the FEC promulgated subsequently…

Counsel for the Obama Campaign is undoubtedly fully knowledgeable of the reporting and compliance responsibilities of qualified nonprofit corporations, such as NARAL-Pro Choice America (“NARAL”), an organization that, ironically, also claims protection as an entity described in Massachusetts Citizens for Life v. FEC…

AIP functions in exactly the same manner as NARAL and any other qualified nonprofit corporation. NARAL has made substantial independent expenditures in opposition to Sen. McCain’s presidential candidacy during the 2008 election cycle and continuing through the present time. Yet, no objection to those expenditures has been raised by the Obama campaign…

Surely we have not come to a point where the government and its agencies are used to protect presidential candidates from citizens’ speech, essentially destroying the very purpose, meaning and historical essence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The full text of the letter is available at: http://www.americanissuesproject.org/

The American Issues Project’s ad began airing Thursday, August 21, and will continue through the Democratic Convention. An electronic version of the ad and full documentation of all statements made are available at American Issues Project’s website: www.americanissuesproject.org.

About American Issues Project

American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 organization representing a coalition of conservative activists committed to raising important issues that deserve deeper examination given their impact on policy and politics. In accordance with federal law, American Issues Project only solicits and accepts contributions from individuals and not from any business corporation. For more information, visit: www.americanissuesproject.org.

***

Spread the ad far and wide. Will they come after bloggers next?

Shut us up?

No, they can’t.

Posted in: Bill Ayers

Regular View

comments (299)

trackbacks (72)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#422566

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm, mistressjustice said:

It is a bit of a stretch to say that the Bush doctrine is influenced by the random and inconsistent musings of Flinchy Binghole, the international relations major running for President of the United States.

Does the goofy nickname schtick get old to you? I too doubt if they are directly influenced by Obama’s opinion. What I do know is that the Bush administration has decided to “talk” to Iran, after condemning the idea from the likes of Obama. That is a reversal. I am glad they made such a move, but Obama had the correct idea.

Lay your money on the table. Syria and Iran- both governments will be crippled in the months to come (along with Bush signing over the oil rich lands within the US to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, thus wrecking the economies of both and Russia with the stroke of a pen).

How many months there Bear? If you mean coming months as in within the next year, “no freaken way”. Speaking of laying $. I never got a response to my request for a wager on your claim that Obama will announce himself as a Muslim after being sworn in. I’ll bet whatever you want on that one. I’m dead serious. You pick the terms…4yrs,8yrs, what? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Obama will not announce himself a member of the Muslim faith while president of the U.S. )
#422570

On August 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm, Misscheryl said:

Bear1909 – you’re my hero! (I’d do that little winkie face thing here if only I knew how). Carry on as I do like reading your posts.
#422576

On August 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

Bemusedlib

The John Kerry candidacy was irreperably harmed by lies broadcast by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

I didn’t agree with the attacks against Kerry’s war record, and any offense against someone’s reputation requires restitution, but he and his liberal allies drew first blood their with his little false testimony before Congress. Moral values take a distant second seat to Kerry and the Democratic Party in general.

The Obama campaign, having learned from that expoerience, is trying to stop the spread of another round of lies — that he’s best buddies with Bill Ayers.

Best buddies, no. In fact, not even Sean Hannity would go that far, but associations, yes.

It’s a sleazy little add, superimposing Obama atop pictures of a bombing that took place 40 years ago, by somebody who a) is a passing acquaintance and b) is free and legal.

A) The only reason Obama isn’t down even more in the polls are because the MSM hides information like this. Had they reported on it, maybe you’d have Clinton as the nominee. Now pending a major McCain mistake, the democrats have lost the White House.

B) OJ Simpson is also “free and legal”.

Support for free speech doesn’t mean allowing people to broadcast character assassinations so cheap even Fox news wouldn’t run it.

Does that just apply to Obama? Because I don’t even the MSM media anymore because of character attacks on Rudy Guilani’s 16-year-old daughter and Bill O’Reilly.

Seems to me, Bemused, it’s not the principle of the matter, and it’s wrong only if it pertains to liberals.

Funny how concerned you are about First Amendment rights when some propagandist may not get his lies on another whack-job’s network — please note that Sinclaire is the kind of First Amendment absolutist who ordered their station not to broadcast John Kerry’s ads — but when the New York Times reveals massive violation of American’s constitutional you clam up.

In case you haven’t noticed, this is a conservative blog. Whining about it won’t help.

The New York Times isn’t interested in the Constitution or even money. It’s interested in imposing it’s secular values on everyone else by spinning stories to favor hard-line liberals like Obama.

And I haven’t seen anyone clam up over the Times, anyways. The paper is loaded with bias it’s like the spin cycle of a washing machine.

My advice is to not waste your time reading it.

Garbage, to say the least, like just about every other metro paper.
#422618

On August 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pm, chapoutier said:

A) The only reason Obama isn’t down even more in the polls are because the MSM hides information like this. Had they reported on it, maybe you’d have Clinton as the nominee. Now pending a major McCain mistake, the democrats have lost the White House.

I am sorry, maybe you weren’t paying much attention to the Democratic primaries, but this was most definitely brought up.
#422630

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm, rocksandbroncs said:

One of the main resaons for MM’s post here is – in her own words – “Here is the ad Barack Obama doesn’t want you to see. Pass it on.” and “Spread the ad far and wide.” Those who have trackedback here are doing their part and I just thought we readers could maybe help disseminate the truth.

Since Wikipedia is infested with liberalist bias and Y! Buzz thinks blogs from HuffPo are news, I Y! Buzzed the only place online other than here that I could find that had the video embedded with an article. Maybe we can help Y! Buzz maintain at least a semblance of objectivity.

One click to get to the Buzz search page and one more to Buzz it up. And since we outnumber the libs here we have an advantage in numbers and can outclick them. Maybe through our efforts we can sway a ‘moderate’ into doing the right thing.

After the bullying MM went through yesterday, the least we can do is give her an assist.
#422638

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm, joromima said:

Michelle says the Obama campaign

is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics

which equates to asking the feds to investigate ….
asking advertisers to pull their support…
sending lots of emails to the stations in protest….

wow – those Chicago mobsters could really get nasty!!!!?
#422646

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm, rplatt said:

Obama has deployed his “brown shirts” and is attempting to quell both free speech and our political freedoms. The Democratic Party is exhibiting fascist behavior and people had better wake up and put an end to this before it’s too late. The Republic is in serious trouble.
#422647

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm, Mojave Mark said:

Bill Ayers, Bill Clinton. What’s next? What are we dealing with here people???
#422652

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm, atheling said:

englishqueen:

That video of Obama wanting to disarm America should be shown to every voter.

I note that mistressjustice ignored it. How honest.
#422666

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:32 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

mistressjustice (aka “boots”)said:

Disarm [American]? Get serious, will you.

Get ready to eat dirt sweetheart:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

Seems pretty serious to me boots. Dontcha’ think sweet hips?
#422673

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm, Eyas said:

Is the Leftist/Communist attempt to shut down dissent surprising to anyone?

Besides, Ayers,Schmayers, who cares? Half the country is ready to vote for Obama despite the fact that he is a Communist. Why worry about his associates and associations?
The same people would still vote for Obama if he were best friends with Osama bin Laden …

Given the way leftists (un)think, a close tie to ANY enemy of the United States would probably give him a boost in the polls.

Neither Obama, nor Ayers, is the problem. The problem is that half of this country has already been fully indoctrinated/brainwashed by Communism and Anti-Americanism. To the point that they’re willing to vote for a Communist like Obama regardless of his associations with other America-hating Leftists.
#422682

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm, heroyalwhyness said:

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs is going to get very very interesting –

Biden has deep ties to Rezko accomplice

No matter what help Barack Obama might get from Sen. Joseph Biden, his newly named vice presidential running mate won’t give Obama much cover on the Tony Rezko front.

and

Iraqi Billionaire Threatens Reporters Investigating Rezko Affair

Why aren’t the American media investigating the role of British billionaire businessman Nadhmi Auchi in supplying loans to Barack Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko?
#422716

On August 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm, rocketman said:

A man’s character is indicated by his associates, friends, and actions. How many other well known politicians / statesmen have friends / associates like Pastor Wright, Rezko, Ayers / Dorn, Acorn, etc? Obama is the only one I know of with such a collection of losers.

Ayers and Dorn should be doing life in a Supermax prison–or pushing up daisys for their bombings. How many innocent persons were crippled / maimed / blinded / killed by them? What’s a few bombs among friends?

John Bibb
#422775

On August 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm, almiller said:

Swift boating is truth telling in an inconvenient way.

This ad is all softballs but true to the last word.
#422887

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, dakine said:

Let’s keep it real. All things being the same, if Sen. Kerry was a conservative and the liberals were doing the “swiftboating”, most of you would be defending the guy to the death.

bear1909 out, you appear to be talking to yourself bra. Too clever by half my man.

RedPill, maybe stick to your own blog. The whole communist around every corner, extremist religious thing is kind of creeping me out.
#422927

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, dakine said:

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
#422929

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:27 pm, JHSII said:

Let’s be honest:

To “SwiftBoat” someone is to tell the truth about them.

There. Now that we have that as a baseline, we can continue the conversation.
#422938

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

dakine, I guess it’s just “coincidence” that Jason has found so many Marxists to interview…

…just “coincidence” that you see “Che” shirts and Che’s image on a Cuban flag in an Obama campaign office.

Just “coincidence” that Putin is using oil money to rebuild Russia and bring it back to it’s Cold War days.

Just “coincidence” that Obama said “57 states“.

Just “coincidence” that we continue to catch both Chinese and Russian spies in our country.

You want to know what creeps me out?

This true story.

Wake up, Neo…
#422951

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

JHSII,
Yes, and every time the liberal media uses “swiftboat” in a deaming way, they are dishoring these very honorable men.
#422954

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:39 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

~~deaming~~ demeaning
#422974

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:51 pm, Member-VRWC said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, BemusedLib said:
The John Kerry candidacy was irreperably harmed by lies broadcast by ~~Swiftboat Veterans for Truth~~John Kerry.

Fixed it for ya, dipstick.

The story of the Magic Hat and Christmas in Cambodia ring any bells for you?
#422984

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:55 pm, Jim M. said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, mistressjustice said:
On August 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm,mistressjustice said:
For the record Obama as stated unequivically numerous times that Iran can’t have nuclear weapons.

Really? Didn’t he also say that Iran was a tiny country and not a threat? And let’s put aside the fact that he may have uttered a stattement on the flip or the flop side that iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. And let’s also put aside the fact that he has offered zero guidance as to how he intends to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Why would he pick a running mate who is sympathetic to Iran? So much so that he stated we could not prevent iran from going nuclear, as it fulfilled their “emotional needs”. Why would he pick a running mate whose idea of a response to 9/11 was to give Iran $200 million to show there were no hard feelings? Why would he pick a running mate that has taken large campaign contributions from pro-Iranian regime groups?

With “Jihad Joe” at his side, I am certain the mullahs are quaking in their pointy shoes.
#423046

On August 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am, oldbuckaroo said:

The ONLY difference between terrorist bomber William Ayres and terrorist bomber Timothy McVeigh is the body count, and a lethal injection.
#423086

On August 27th, 2008 at 1:00 am, dakine said:

JHSII, nothing in your last post refutes my point. Truth or not, if Kerry was a conservative, you’d be defending him. You’re a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest.

RedPill, not much difference between your ilk and a nutjob like Alex Jones. You’re spending too much time knocking around in your head. Your blog is ridiculous and scary at the same time.
#423105

On August 27th, 2008 at 1:41 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

dakine,
Those who can’t handle the truth…
try to silence those who speak it.
#423109

On August 27th, 2008 at 1:50 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Communist activists such as Obama associate and terrorist William Ayers (quoted in the September 11, 2001 New York Times as saying, ”I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough”) think the United States is a great country for completely different reasons than we do…Dancing on a US flag, saying, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it’s a great country”. The only reason that man is free is because another Communist intentionally botched the case against him. (That would be the same Communist who played a major role in bringing down President Nixon.)
#423116

On August 27th, 2008 at 2:16 am, fluffy said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, chapoutier said:

So, whenever a politcian wants an ad pulled, the freedom of speech is suspended.
How exactly is freedom of speech suspended? Obama is not the government

Obama not the government? He is a United States Senator.

This says everything anyone needs to know about your positions, elusive as they are.
#423205

On August 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am, chapoutier said:

Obama not the government? He is a United States Senator.

He is an employee of the government, as are hundreds of thousands of others. And is any of what he is doing being done in his capacity as Senator or is it being done in his capacity as a presidential candidate?
#423246

On August 27th, 2008 at 9:44 am, DBNinKY said:

He is an employee of the government, as are hundreds of thousands of others.

You are above this type of obfuscation; even middle school students would not equate the influence and deference shown a U S Senator, vested with the power and authority inherent to the office, with that of the guys and gals who run their local post office or sweep the Capitol steps.

And is any of what he is doing being done in his capacity as Senator or is it being done in his capacity as a presidential candidate?

To voters Ma and Pa Simth out in middle America, there’s no difference; the fact that they know he is doing this is enough to turn them off even more to him and the Democrats.
#424213

On August 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, neocon527 said:

Why refer to them as Macho Man remarks? Or that the protests were what he had “wrought?” I mean, presumably, a strike on Pakistan to thwart a terrorist plot or nab Osama Bin Laden, would be something Michelle would agree with? No? I mean, are we so partisan that even when we agree with something the opposition says, we have to mock it for being similar to something we would say?

Let me try real hard to explain this to you.

The point isn’t that anyone here disagreed with that single statement Obama made about Pakistan. The point is that he had been bashing and bashing and bashing all aggressive policies prior to ever offering any policy ideas of his own. When forced to make a policy statement during the debate, he conveyed a very aggressive idea which doesn’t fit with his articulated approach to foreign policy.

His statement was a joke and did not represent any change.

Let me use an analogy. Imagine there are two roads, road A and road B, which lead to the same destination. Road A is flat and smooth but greater distance. Road B is hilly and rocky but shorter distance. Well, you would never choose Road A, and then decide to drive a Hummer. And you would never choose Road B, and then decide to drive a sports car.

Well, Obama had been articulating a softer approach to foreign policy. While most conservatives understand this approach and it’s advantages (although they might disagree that it’s better than a tougher approach) they certainly don’t understand the decision to suddenly make some tough statement about bombing Pakistan simply because some debate moderator forced you into a corner.

Many believe that he was forcing himself to show some bravado regarding an issue he felt was safe.

Obama was mocked by many. They would understand if someone with a tough foreign policy triggered irrational riots in the streets – but it’s certainly not understandable for someone with a softer, passive foreign policy to trigger irrational riots in the street.

This leads into the real discussion. It’s much easier to criticize the leader than to actually lead – just ask the Democrats in Congress since 2006. This out-of-place “macho” remark was a good example of his lack of leadership experience.

I hope this helps both you and mistressjustice