Another target for the criminalization-of-conservatism movement
Won’t be long before this guy is blamed for inciting violence:
An unusual sign has appeared along Interstate 70 in Blue Springs.
If you are traveling in the eastbound lanes of the freeway between Adams Dairy Parkway and the Grain Valley exit you will see a sign that appears to be anti-President Barack Obama.
The sign features the hammer and sickle, a symbol of communism and insinuates that Obama will jeopardize the first and second amendments to the Constitution, which are free speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
NBC Action News reporter Sloane Heller confirmed late Thursday morning the billboard is owned by William Cody, a metro small business owner. He lives by the stadiums and works in metal fabrication.
He says he isn’t necessarily anti-Obama, but is against the policies coming out of the White House.
He calls the Federal Stimulus Package a waste and is equally upset over the bailout of the Big 3 Auto Makers.
Cody says this is his first billboard and he did it “to vent.” He says, “We voted for change and this is the change we got?”
***
Related: Sean Paige, “Blood on My Hands?”
Earlier today: Now it’s “anti-gay” to describe safe school czar’s failures
Previous: September 25, “I killed the Kentucky Census worker — along with every conservative in America”
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Nancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
February 9, 2012 10:08 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Middle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
35 CommentsHiring Spree in NYC
February 1, 2012 02:47 PM by Doug Powers
43 CommentsMr. and Mrs. Cranky Pants
January 27, 2012 10:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
138 CommentsStimulus-Backed ‘Green’ Bankruptcy of the Week: Ener1
January 26, 2012 03:06 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Obama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Warren Buffett’s Secretary to Sit with First Lady at State of the Union Speech
January 24, 2012 12:35 PM by Doug Powers
93 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
What a racist.
This guy will be vilified by the left.
Probably blame Rush.
He’s free to do it on his own property, until next week, when the Feds outlaw property ownership.
There’s an anti-Obama banner here in Richmond that is getting a lot of attention.
Of course, it was vandalized overnight by attacking the messenger, not the message.
Bill Cody??? Knew him well. Used to own a Wild West show.
The story at that link ends with:
Why do they use the word “or“?
The two are not mutually exclusive!
It doesn’t have to be “either or”.
Michelle is right to bring attention to this article.
The implication by the author is that if the sign is “offensive”,
then it is not “freedom of speech”.
It’s political correctness gone amuck. It’s the implied suggestion that “freedom of speech” be taken away if something is determined “offensive” and/or “hate speech”.
The radical, Alinsky left never holds back from being offensive to us, so why should we (other than for Biblical, “golden rule” reasons) worry about offending them?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
He is raaaaaacist!
You just have to love someone named after Wild Bill Cody! Soon they will run out of ammunition there are so many of us “targets” out there!
Good for Mr.Cody. He had something to say, so he said it.
Now wait for it……. waaaait for it…..
The left’s attack on Mr. Cody saying his right to free speech doesn’t exist.
Anyone know what it costs to do a full color billboard in a prominent location?
The NAACP protested the Obama-Joker poster? I suppose they want it taken down. well… sit down and shut up NAACP. You have no right to demand any such thing.
If this guy is a target for anything, it is for not knowing what he is talking about.
Where and when has Pres Obama threatened, or jeopardized, the “Free Speech” embodied in the Constitution? Free Speech seems to be working fairly well on this BLOG.
Yes, Pres Obama has discussed local restrictions, made by local municipalities, on certain types of weapons. He has never supported the total elimination of all firearms.
Did the Federal Government bailout the big 3 automakers, or did it bailout GM and Chrysler?
I will agree that the stimulus package was bloated and it’s effectiveness is yet to be fully determined.
Nope, he won’t be taken to task, or become a target for the criminalization-of-conservatism movement, he will be challenged over his facts.
Another factless post by zyzzyg – and pretty quick this time too!!
You have a short memory of the campaign he ran.
The easy ones to pull up are where his campaign and other minions tried to silence ads that criticized him.
Oh sure… you can try to say “He didn’t do this… it was his supporters” but be honest with yourself. This is all under his direction.
And don’t forget this one.
zyzzyg said:
Here is the scoop — look at the Czars and what they believe and have written and talked about. It is called using proxies. What you hear out of the empty suits mouth is one thing, what he and his Central Committee are doing behind closed doors is quite another. You have to learn and understand and drill it in your head, this Sock Puppet of a President talks one thing and does then exact opposite.
Criminalize Buffalo Bill? What next!
Actually, you are the one that does not know what you are talking about. The same month he took the oath of office, he pushed through a ban on the military selling used brass for reloading purposes. This resulted in a shortage of ammo and was his first attempt at an all out ban on selling ammo to private Gun Owners.
The only time Barry Soetoro said he was not against banning guns in the USA is when he was running for President.
He instructed his head of Homeland Security to go after people like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as terrorists for the gaul to ask our government leaders to follow our Constitution.
All the cries of racism, all the baloney about incitement of violence, all the rhetoric from the left in response to opposition to Obama’s policies from regular Americans, tea parties, town halls, talk radio, Fox News, etc., is designed for one purpose: It’s setting the stage, it’s a prelude, to having Conservative viewpoints oulawed as “hate speech.” This is what’s coming if they have their way.
As SOUTHERNER ALL I
CAN SAY IS ‘WELL, BLESS HIS HEART.”
zyzzyg, you are going to be one of the many who wake up one day wondering how we got to the point where we lost our freedom. You’re looking for the blatant acts coming through the front door to curtail our freedoms, but they are using the back doors to do it. The easiest way to get at gun owners is through regulating ammo. He can say he’s not into banning guns, but if he regulates ammo out of the common man’s price range or creates a shortage as ScottyDog has already pointed out.
Same thing goes for his minions attacks on the freedom of speech. Unless we have freedom of speech everywhere without thug tactics to try to shut people up, then we don’t have the freedom of speech. I can have freedom of speech in my home, just like this blog, but that doesn’t make it true freedom. Remember, the buck stops with him whenever any of his minions do anything.
No, what he did was steal GM and Chrysler from the rightful owners and make a present of them to his supporters at the UAW.
Free speech has been curtailed by “hate speech” now. If the left doesn’t like what you say, it will be classed as hate speech and you will be prosecuted; either that or vilified as “racist”.
Is zyzzyg in a race with RSS to see who can be wrong about the most things in a day?
Just curious.
William Cody will be scrutinized and it will have nothing to do with “facts”-the Obaminations IRS and alphabet agencies will be in contact. Can you say Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy? God’s Speed William Cody.
I managed to point out where William Cody is wrong on the facts. And, I stand by them. Exactly where am I wrong on the facts? Throwing out invectives does serve the discussion.
zyzzyg spewed:
I believe you were trying to say “Throwing out invectives doesn’t serve the discussion.” – and in that case, does that mean you’re going to stop? No invectives from me. I was merely pointint out that you’re a liar.
Here’s a suggestion for you. Why don’t you show me where Obama (or his cronies acting under his direction) haven’t tried to squelch Conservative speech. I can point out numerous instances where he (or they) have tried to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.
And yes, calling someone a racist just because they disagree with him is an attempt to silence free speech.
If this man wants to put a sign, good for him. As far as I know, the 1st is still in our Republic.
My problem is the cross the aclu wants to take down on public land that has been there for over 30 years or so by friends who promised to honor our fallen with this cross. Some ‘person’ was upset to see this cross. This cross has been cared for all these years by the friends. For some years the cross has had to covered up so not get people bent out of shape. This case is going before the SC. If this thing is overturn, it will mean ALL federal land can not have a cross on it. Does this mean our National cemetary? Sorry to vent, but this makes me sick. The aclu sinks to the bottom of, you know what.
L
Keeping signs out of your rallies, and informing people about who is going to be on the radio is not the an attack on Free Speech. Moreover, libelous speech is certainly free, and you should be prepared to suffer the consequences when you elect that road.
Many candidates limit what the attendees can bring or wear to rallies if their clothes have some political graffiti. Some politicians even require that you present your questions in advance. Hardly on par with the intent of the Constitution. Just because you want to say something does not mean you have to be heard at any politicians rally.
Telling a vulgar rapper that you will not play his ‘music’ is not censorship nor is a challenge to his free speech. It is just you have good taste and standards.
Tell me where Pres Obama has shut down a newspaper, television station, radio station, or for that matter a BLOG?
How many placards were there at the 9/12 rally that Pres Obama might have found offensive or untrue? How many did Pres Obama or his minions and supporters stop from being shown?
Nope, the examples you provided are thin.
The topic is William Cody’s billboard and whether the statements are factual.
If you want to talk about Special Advisors to the Pres then sight examples where they are attacking the first and second amendments.
And how would you know what they are doing behind closed doors, if you do not eventually ‘hear from their empty suits’?
There are those who are blind, and then there are those who choose not to see -> zyzzyg
When you start thinking for yourself we can continue this conversation.
LOL, what!?
The military collects spent rounds from the battlefield to resell to arms manufacturers? That’s taking recycling a little to far, don’t you?
OK, meeting you half way. Let’s say the spent rounds are collected from military firing ranges and recycled, but not sold to munitions manufacturers. Wouldn’t the manufactures just produce more brass to meet the increased demand? Have munition manufactures stopped being capitalists all of a sudden?
Again, Pres Obama supports local municipalities creating their own gun laws.
Sight a source for this assertion.
Which freedoms are you talking about? I still have my bows and guns, and the price of my arrows and bullets have not changed much. I still read the newspapers, watch television, listen to the radio, and BLOG. What freedoms are you talking about?
Sight the back doors on limiting the freedoms you think are under attack. I’ll meet you half way. MM has sighted the fairness doctrine. A potential back door that is known and is being watched. So, how much of a back door is it really?
Did you say ‘if’? “If” is a mighty big word. Is Pres Obama regulating ammo, or isn’t he? Show me the back door where this is being done. We can speculate, guess and project all we want, but until the facts are subject to the disinfectant cleansing of the bright Sun. All that is left is conjecture.
Preventing people from carrying signs at your rallies is not an infringement on speech. Pointing out that someone’s words might be libelous is not an infringement on free speech.
Was anyone prevented from carrying placards at the 9/12 rally?
Listen, I am all about the facts. I raised the issue of the fairness doctrine. No one else did in relation to free speech.
Yep, take Pres Obama to task, but do it over facts, not on conjecture, speculation, “If’s”, guesses, and assigning motive.
Characterize it anyway you want to. The question is and remains was it three auto companies, or two? William Cody had it wrong.
Certainly it is a minor mistake, it could even be called a gaffe. But, it is revealing about someone who bases there thoughts on things that are not true.
Thank you for noting my error. BTW, didn’t you mean ‘pointing’?
Not going to stop when I am challenged. You challenged me and I responded. You still have not stated where I have misrepresented the truth, even after being asked. Yet, you continue with the invectives, calling me a liar without providing proof.
Repeating the question from my post #816033, “Exactly where am I wrong on the facts?”
You want me to prove a negative? Not going to happen.
Go ahead.
I have been called a racist and that has never stopped me from making my point. You might give up in the face of taunts and ridiculous accusations, but I won’t. If I have to find another way to make my point after being called a racist, I will.
You see, the thing is, just like the person who calls another person a racist in an attempt to shut down the converstion and not discuss the facts. You are doing the same thing. You calling me a liar will not work. It will not shut me down. If you don’t want to answer the question, then simply say so, and I will stop asking. No point in continuing the discussion or calling someone a racist, . . . or a liar.
Nope. When you start answering questions, and not reponding to a question with a question, we can continue this converstion.
For the third and final time, “Exactly where am I wrong on the facts?”
zyzzyg trolled
So you admit that you don’t want to think for yourself. Fair enough.
I have yet to see you post any facts. When you start posting facts I will start responding to them.
zyzzyg, the word you want is “cite” not “sight.” LOL
You are correct, my bad.
Since you and I have continued the converstion, it proves I am thinking for myself. Heck, it was your assertion and postulate. Admit it.
Have you forgotten your own post #825973, where you said, “Another factless post by zyzzyg”?
Very well, if you want to play semantics.
What is ‘factless’ about my post #815971?
zyzzyg trolled
Since you have contributed nothing toward making it an actual conversation it proves that you chose – and choose – not to think for yourself.
You’re the one who has been playing semantics. All I’ve been trying to do is to find a fact that you’ve posted.
Oh, wait. I found a fact that you posted!!
You said that you posted something in post #815971 – and you did!! That post #815971 was bereft of facts doesn’t mean that you didn’t make that post. Congrats on finally posting a fact!
Cue Nancy Pelosi in 3… 2… 1…
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
April 2009. This report was a direct attempt to suppress the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with Obama. As far as I know, Obama never called for any kind of retraction from DHS, but if he did, it would only have been in response to the criticism he took for it. Had Americans not said anything about it, he would have not only let it stand, but he would have done so with enthusiasm.
Obama also has shown his intentions with regard to bloggers and talk radio not by supporting the “Fairness Doctrine” outright (he’d get creamed like he did on healthcare if he did). Instead, you can bet his “Localism Doctrine” will be used to suppress free speech in ways the Fairness Doctrine couldn’t touch.
Per the Second Amendment, these restrictions are just as illegal as any effort to ban all weapons. Furthermore, HR 45 is still out there, and you can bet Obama is a huge fan. Even if he applies a veto (which will only happen if there are enough votes to override him), it will only be to deliberately give the appearance that Congress overruled him against his will.
Doesn’t matter. The government had neither the money nor the authority to bail out any one of them, let alone two or three.
Again, the government had neither the money nor the authority to do it. There is no indication anywhere that it will ultimately have been “effective” at anything good, and just like every other tax-and-spend program, will be shown to have exacerbated the problem it was supposed to alleviate.
Now you know why you have been a target for not knowing what you are talking about.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Hint: When the words on the screen are red, clicking on them will take you to the source being referenced. It’s called a “link”.
Try using them. There have been plenty provided.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Indeed it is.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
His accomplices in the media stopped plenty. Did you watch CNN?
My favorite part was when CNN showed a man armed pretty heavily at the September 12 rally, calling him something along the lines of an “armed white racist” or “racist white people armed with assault weapons”. Of course they edited out the man’s head and other features that would expose that he was actually black.
There’s no other explanation for CNN’s actions other than CNN (Obama’s minions and supporters) stopping something important from being shown. They had the full tape, but chose to edit out key information for purposes of making a phony point to support Obama.
A perfect example of the kind of thing that happens all the time. Reason #4522786 no one watches CNN or the rest of the radical media anymore.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
.See my April 2009 link above.
Just how short is your memory? It was covered right here by Michelle.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
What? You mean when Wilson correctly pointed out that Obama was lying about illegal aliens’ coverage status?
What a maroon.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Factcheck.org, a “non-partisan” liberal site, confirmed that Obama had, in fact, answered these questions as follows on a candidate questionnaire:
Again, this was confirmed by factcheck.org, which is pro-Obama.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who voted for Obama (only to realize now what he’s all about) that are now shocked at what has happened. Were they just plain BLIND prior to election day?
Perhaps the tides will indeed turn for 2010, but we shall see if average voters have learned anything.
The brass manufacturers cannot meet the demand from the military and private markets simultaneously because in the past the reloaders have been able to buy spent brass from the military by the ton.(We are talking about millions of rounds of ammo per month BTW)The Brass manufacturers had no way of knowing that the Federal Government was going to keep this policy or repeal it. Do you think they can go out spend millions on new equipment without knowing if Barry Soetoro was going to keep the ban in force?
I suggest you do a google on the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that was issued on orders of Janet Napolitano.
On gun control, did you miss the fact that Barry appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the supreme court who is anti gun? In addition,Barry Soetoro signed onto the CIFTA treaty which will require Americans to get a license to own or posses a firearm and will require all reloading equipment to be registered and licensed as well.As a senator, he voted against the Second Amendment at every opportunity. He has never seen a piece of gun control legislation that he did not support.
He also supports HR 45.
H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner’s family.
These are not local measures by any stretch of the imagination.