She’s that fucking stupid.

Palin’s comments about the Quaker sermon and the 1A are dead on because it was the….. wait for it….. wait just a little longer (you know what’s coming)….. GOVERNMENT prosecuting – which is a tpe of punishment – someone for the CONTENT of their speech.

In general, Randy, keep in mind that some comments about the 1A are correct and some are incorrect. Sometimes – believe it or not – the SAME person can make both kinds of comments!

Your arguments are so dumb and illogical it’s breathtaking. Oh wait did I just violate your first amendment rights? Or implicate them in some weird abstract way that requires nuance to understand? (Hint: the answer is no I didn’t).

“Ad Hominem attacks” and sarcasm aside, here’s a few simple facts for you Randy:

Criticism by the media is an exercise of 2 different clauses of the First Amendment and must be allowed. Whether the criticisms are fair, truthful, accurate, biased, deliberately dishonest, or anything else does not take them out of the purview of the First Amendment (though it may allow different redresses in an extremely small portion of extreme circumstances).

Further, and this is the fact that makes your argument incredibly dumb, is that even if the entire mainstream media colluded to NEVER EVER cover anything related to Sarah Palin – act as though she didn’t exist – this would not implicate the 1st Amendment! The 1st Amendment only applies to government agents and actors when they seek to punish, or prevent speech. Any sort of government granted rights or protections that apply to the press (or even specific requests by a political candidate to the press to report certain things or cover things in a certain way) are not enough to make them agents of the government enough to trigger the protections of the BoR. This is incredibly black and white and it is why Palin’s comments are dumb, and your defense of her is pathetic.

You criticize your critics by saying they need to connect the dots better, while at the same time you say that what Palin is complaining about “may lead to a possible erosion” of 1st Amendment rights without explaining how? So let me ask you, how would the media unfairly, biasedly, wrongly covering/criticizing Palin make it more likely or possible in the future that the GOVERNMENT will begin to punish or prevent more types of speech, or do so more harshly, or otherwise create new restrictions? How? I’m honeslty thinking this through and I don’t see any connection whatsoever how one could lead to the other. Help me out!

Also, Palin doesn’t understand the job of the Vice President and can’t name Supreme Court cases, but you want us to believe she has an ultra-nuanced, post-modern comprehension of the First Amendment worthy of a note in a prominent law journal? You’ve got to be kidding.

The truth is she probably has never read the Constitution, and almost surely doesn’t know the jurisprudential history of free speech.

That said, I don’t really see how the media accurately reporting on the character of each campaign is an attack on free speech. If McCain wants argue primarily that Obama is a bad guy with bad judgment, that’s fine–but it’s a textbook example of a negative campaign. And while I’m obviously biased in Obama’s favor, I’d say that even in the connotative understanding, ‘negative’ pretty accurately describes a lot of the crap we’re seeing from McCain and his supporters.

What’s amusing about this is that conservatives have spent the last however many months arguing that an Obama presidency is going to result in all manner of censorship and government regulation of speech, media activities, etc. And yet, the implications are rather similar with Palin if she actually believes that the MSM is violating her 1A rights.

It’s a stretch because you’re saying criticizing statements is the same as trying to “silence” someone. If no one is threatening Palin, she’s not being “intimidated.”

The fact is that Palin lies and says stupid things (like every other politician). Then when people say, “that wasn’t true,” or “that sure is stupid,” Palin and her supporters whine like children that the big, bad news media is trying to “silence” her. How? Well, by reporting what she says! And then people have the nerve to make fun of her for saying stupid and dishonest things! To describe that as “intimidation” is baseless (not to mention whiny and pouty and intellectually weak).

That the Obama campaign condemns the bigots at her rallies while ignoring the insults coming from liberals is typical political fare. It has no force of law. Anybody “intimidated” by these tactics has no business in the public square. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. People are free to say stupid, hypocritical things, and other people are free to say, “that’s stupid and hypocritical!” No thinking person should be “intimidated” by the free flow of ideas, no matter how insulting those ideas are.

It’s perfectly reasonable for me to describe her arguments as “hilarious and pathetic” and that hardly counts as “ad hominem.” Calling her a deluded, fundamentalist liar would be ad hominem (as well as observably true). Her arguments are hilarious and pathetic because she’s described herself as a “pitbull” and then she whines about people criticizing what she says.

I’m not a liberal. I’m not voting for Obama. I think his campaign’s threats against the TV station that ran the McCain ad are appalling.

But truth is truth and it doesn’t matter which of the two dishonest, oppressive political parties you’re loyal to.

Radley calls himself a libertarian, but he’s so deep in the tank for Obama I think he needs to stop.

I still don’t get what Obama or the Democrats have to do with Palin thinking that the media can somehow threaten First Amendment rights.

************************************************
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/proclamations.php?id=1463

Jury Rights Day

WHEREAS, September 5, 2008, will mark the 338th anniversary of the day when the jury refused to convict William Penn of violating England’s Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon to his congregation.

WHEREAS, by refusing to apply what they determined was an unjust law, the Penn jury not only served justice, but provided a basis for the U.S. Constitution’s ***First Amendment rights of freedom of speech****, religion, and peaceable assembly.

WHEREAS, September 5, also marks the anniversary of the day when four of Penn’s jurors began nine weeks of incarceration for finding him not guilty. Their later release and exoneration established forever the English and American legal doctrine that it is the right and responsibility of the trial jury to decide on matters of law and fact.

WHEREAS, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments are included in the Bill of Rights to preserve the right to trial by jury, which in turn conveys upon the jury the responsibility to defend, with its verdict, all other individual rights enumerated or implied by the U.S. Constitution, including its amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ***Sarah Palin***, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim September 5, 2008, as:

Jury Rights Day

in Alaska, in recognition of the integral role the jury, as an institution, plays in our legal system.

Dated: September 3, 2008

(2) Two hundred years of political discourse you say. But how often have people had the medium to gain (or drown out) everyone’s ears, such as they do now with their vitriolic and fallacious statements on television, radio, newspapers and the Internet?

The liberals want Palin and McCain to insist they quiet their passionate crowds where a small handful of individuals may ask if Barack is a Muslum or say something else inflammatory but when people blog here or Salon, Huffington Post, etc. allows unabated inflammatory remarks to be made against Palin such as calling her stupid, it’s okay and done so in the nam of freedom of speech and good-old fashioned poltiical discourse.

Finally you said it’s actually “hilarious and pathetic” for her to say that.. this is an ad hominem attack and in debates you would be docked as fallacious. Please be more specific and address point by point the examples I gave of the slippery slope we are on with Barack Obama and his staff and why one shouldn’t be concerned? Otherwise, your rebuttal is shallow in content.

And Cynical: regarding 600 inches, etc. Remember: the “devil is in the details”. Details are part of a debate for the non-simple minded. Just like Barack wants lower-class and lower-middle class to have more opportunity to rise from their pitiful and indigent state (such as buying a car or sending their children to school with his $500 tax credit) — then I want people who don’t like statements that are fallacious and want facts, details to more properly make up their mind or shape their opinions. For those who can’t handle it, does it really matter if it’s 4 inches or 600 inches?

we want the

It’s not only a huge stretch, but it ignores over two hundred years of rough and tumble political discourse. It’s actually hilarious and pathetic for her to suggest that pundits (on the left and right) pointing out all of the stupid and/or dishonest things she’s said, will actually somehow prevent her from speaking her “mind.”

It’s ignorant, it’s weak, and it’s whiny, and it’s sadder still to see people defending it.

Of course! Seldom are options limited to two. Perfect, Peter.

As for free speech, well, there is none. All political speech is regulated.

Something is either free or not free. On/Off. 0/1.

Look, Randy, I appreciate the support. But a word of advice — posting 600 inches of text here is a bad move. No one is that interested.

Anyway, after reading all I could manage, I think we actually disagree more than agree — nothing wrong with that.

“Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) understands the First Amendment and the threats thereto better than some ‘libertarians’, for example, Radley Balko.”

It is too great a stretch on Governor Palin’s part to say that when the poltical allies of the frontrunning candidate attempt to name-call and shout her into silence, that the election of that candidate may represent a threat to First Amendment values.

If you don’t understand that, Radley, you are totally unfamilar with what happens on university campuses. What used to be name-calling and shouting down has evolved into “speech codes”.

Where will our “free speech zone” be? I would bet on Alaska over my own home state of Massachusetts, site of many universities plus ACLU lawyers.

That is, she is saying she is concerned that the response of muting her negative but truthful comments about Obama is a slippery slope to the *possible* erosion of First Amendment rights. This is too subtle for most people who blog here and elsewhere so vitriolically and who are so hate-filled that they can’t see gray, only black and white (an exception here is “Cynical in CA” who is very bright, in my opinion).

You really should read his John Hasnas reference.

To clarify the slippery slope Sarah is concerned about, most of you should take off your rose-colored glasses and read this chilling piece of how Barack Obama has his own form of erosion of freedom of speech — and what scares me and Sarah Palin. Take a look at:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/

Where it says:

[**START SNIPPET**]
On August 27, respected radio talker
Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed.

The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”

A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.

In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)

When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers [randy: do you feel a chill yet?]. They argued the ad ­ the contents of which are undeniably true ­ violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”

Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president.

But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
[**END SNIPPET**]

Randy (me) also says this: it’s chilling — that would be like McCain suing Saturday night Live for Tina Faye sounding like Sarah Palin to mimic Sarah with Sarah’s own exact words — I am depressingly sad that most of you don’t get this –and this is exactly what Sarah was saying: and so all you common folks and all you intellectual derelicts such as Salon, etc. afail to address her point by erroneously focusing on her intentions and focusing on speculating she doesn’t even understand the 1st Ammendment — this makes you and those folks, fallacious — and it makes you be the ones who have been successfully mind-controlled by them to be “sheeple” (a NY Times term for sheep-like people who are dumb as sheep). So who is really stupid here? Those who are being brainwashed into agreeing with misinformation presented to them about what Sarah meant with that quote (expressing her 1st Ammendment Right concerns)? Or those who dig deep to understand the nuanced, gray, subtle and chilling truth of her valid and concerned statement?

One more thing: you know Obama’s staff blackballed reporters who would fly on their campaign plane if they were from newspapers who announced on Friday, Oct 31st, 2008, they support McCain (such as the Dallas Morning News). And then there is the neutral female TV reporter from Florida who was banned from being offered interviews ever again when she asked Joseph Biden if this “spread/distrubute the wealth” philosophy, is, like many people on the Republican and Independent side argue, a form of “socialism” (to which Biden chose not to reply and could only say “are you serious” or something like that)?

P.S. Got to go — I am mailing a check for $20 to Barack’s half-brother in Kenya who makes $1/week (or is it month) and Barack hasn’t set him a dime. And I am laughing at how Barack asked all those lower and lower-middle class people contributing to his campiagn to help give Hillary back the $5M she had to spend out of her/Bill’s own coffers which violin-sadly went from a net worth of $50M to $45M. Fortunatelty for you all, the mainstream media does not mention these delectable spread-the-pain “selfish” issues. Instead, they tell **you** are the ones with the virtue of “selfishness”.

And so, who is really stupid? When Obama signed a written pledge to use government-based/tracked funding (like McCain) and then saw all that money flowing in from you all so-called “smart” people, he broke the pledge and when his staff were asked about this, their response was that he never made a promise, he was just proposing “an idea”. An “idea”? Hahahahahahahahah! Remember that when he does not keep any of his promises and makes your life painful — all those promises were just “ideas” he hoped to implement but realized they were not feasible and that inflicting more pain on you is a better “idea” that *is* implementable and feasible.

Yes — take a good hard look in the mirror and say “Sarah is stupid” a few times and you just might see who the stupid one really is.

You sound like a worthy opponent, Dan.

When you’re ready, put your money where your mouth is. I’m dying to read your reasoned refutations of my comments instead of the cheap ad hominems you posted so far.

Ooops. Sorry. Did I use too many big words for you, child?

That is, she is saying she is concerned that the response of muting her negative but truthful comments about Obama is a slippery slope to the *possible* erosion of First Amendment rights. This is too subtle for most people who blog here and elsewhere so vitriolically and who are so hate-filled that they can’t see gray, only black and white (an exception here is “Cynical in CA” who is very bright, in my opinion).

You really should read his John Hasnas reference.

To clarify the slippery slope Sarah is concerned about, most of you should take off your rose-colored glasses and read this chilling piece of how Barack Obama has his own form of erosion of freedom of speech — and what scares me and Sarah Palin. Take a look at:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/

Where it says:

[**START SNIPPET**]
On August 27, respected radio talker
Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed.

The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”

A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.

In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)

When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers [randy: do you feel a chill yet?]. They argued the ad ­ the contents of which are undeniably true ­ violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”

Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president.

But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
[**END SNIPPET**]

Randy (me) also says this: it’s chilling — that would be like McCain suing Saturday night Live for Tina Faye sounding like Sarah Palin to mimic Sarah with Sarah’s own exact words — I am depressingly sad that most of you don’t get this –and this is exactly what Sarah was saying: and so all you common folks and all you intellectual derelicts such as Salon, etc. afail to address her point by erroneously focusing on her intentions and focusing on speculating she doesn’t even understand the 1st Ammendment — this makes you and those folks, fallacious — and it makes you be the ones who have been successfully mind-controlled by them to be “sheeple” (a NY Times term for sheep-like people who are dumb as sheep). So who is really stupid here? Those who are being brainwashed into agreeing with misinformation presented to them about what Sarah meant with that quote (expressing her 1st Ammendment Right concerns)? Or those who dig deep to understand the nuanced, gray, subtle and chilling truth of her valid and concerned statement?

One more thing: you know Obama’s staff blackballed reporters who would fly on their campaign plane if they were from newspapers who announced on Friday, Oct 31st, 2008, they support McCain (such as the Dallas Morning News). And then there is the neutral female TV reporter from Florida who was banned from being offered interviews ever again when she asked Joseph Biden if this “spread/distrubute the wealth” philosophy, is, like many people on the Republican and Independent side argue, a form of “socialism” (to which Biden chose not to reply and could only say “are you serious” or something like that)?

P.S. Got to go — I am mailing a check for $20 to Barack’s half-brother in Kenya who makes $1/week (or is it month) and Barack hasn’t set him a dime. And I am laughing at how Barack asked all those lower and lower-middle class people contributing to his campiagn to help give Hillary back the $5M she had to spend out of her/Bill’s own coffers which violin-sadly went from a net worth of $50M to $45M. Fortunatelty for you all, the mainstream media does not mention these delectable spread-the-pain “selfish” issues. Instead, they tell **you** are the ones with the virtue of “selfishness”.

And so, who is really stupid? When Obama signed a written pledge to use government-based/tracked funding (like McCain) and then saw all that money flowing in from you all so-called “smart” people, he broke the pledge and when his staff were asked about this, their response was that he never made a promise, he was just proposing “an idea”. An “idea”? Hahahahahahahahah! Remember that when he does not keep any of his promises and makes your life painful — all those promises were just “ideas” he hoped to implement but realized they were not feasible and that inflicting more pain on you is a better “idea” that *is* implementable and feasible.

Yes — take a good hard look in the mirror and say “Sarah is stupid” a few times and you just might see who the stupid one really is.

==============================================
Part 1 of 2 parts:

Palin is not stupid. The liberal hate-mongering media is. What I took her to be saying is a simple analogy that if some of the mainstream media will disparage her so vigorously (for speaking negatively of the truth about Obama) to the point where she is muted, then what could happen to the more important freedom of speech in the First Amendment if the main-stream media complicity supports violating it indirectly or otherwise by exercising their own rights to drown her out?

That is, she is saying she is concerned that the response of muting her negative but truthful comments about Obama is a slippery slope to the *possible* erosion of First Amendment rights. This is too subtle for most people who blog here and elsewhere so vitriolically and who are so hate-filled that they can’t see gray, only black and white.

To clarify the slippery slope Sarah is concerned about, most of you should take off your rose-colored glasses and read this chilling piece of how Barack Obama has his own form of erosion of freedom of speech — and what scares me and Sarah Palin. Take a look at:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/

Where it says:

[**START SNIPPET**]
On August 27, respected radio talker
Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed.

The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”

A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.

In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)

When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers [randy: do you feel a chill yet?]. They argued the ad ­ the contents of which are undeniably true ­ violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”

Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president.

But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
[**END SNIPPET**]

Randy (me) also says this: it’s chilling — that would be like McCain suing Saturday night Live for Tina Faye sounding like Sarah Palin to mimic Sarah with Sarah’s own exact words — I am depressingly sad that most of you don’t get this –and this is exactly what Sarah was saying: and so all you common folks and all you intellectual derelicts such as Salon, etc. afail to address her point by erroneously focusing on her intentions and focusing on speculating she doesn’t even understand the 1st Ammendment — this makes you and those folks, fallacious — and it makes you be the ones who have been successfully mind-controlled by them to be “sheeple” (a NY Times term for sheep-like people who are dumb as sheep). So who is really stupid here? Those who are being brainwashed into agreeing with misinformation presented to them about what Sarah meant with that quote (expressing her 1st Ammendment Right concerns)? Or those who dig deep to understand the nuanced, gray, subtle and chilling truth of her valid and concerned statement?

–continued in part 2–
==============================================
Look in the mirror to see who is stupid
==============================================

Part 2 of 2 parts:

One more thing: you know Obama’s staff blackballed reporters who would fly on their campaign plane if they were from newspapers who announced on Friday, Oct 31st, 2008, they support McCain (such as the Dallas Morning News). And then there is the neutral female TV reporter from Florida who was banned from being offered interviews ever again when she asked Joseph Biden if this “spread/distrubute the wealth” philosophy, is, like many people on the Republican and Independent side argue, a form of “socialism” (to which Biden chose not to reply and could only say “are you serious” or something like that)?

P.S. Got to go — I am mailing a check for $20 to Barack’s half-brother in Kenya who makes $1/week (or is it month) and Barack hasn’t set him a dime. And I am laughing at how Barack asked all those lower and lower-middle class people contributing to his campiagn to help give Hillary back the $5M she had to spend out of her/Bill’s own coffers which violin-sadly went from a net worth of $50M to $45M. Fortunatelty for you all, the mainstream media does not mention these delectable spread-the-pain “selfish” issues. Instead, they tell **you** are the ones with the virtue of “selfishness”.

And so, who is really stupid? When Obama signed a written pledge to use government-based/tracked funding (like McCain) and then saw all that money flowing in from you all so-called “smart” people, he broke the pledge and when his staff were asked about this, their response was that he never made a promise, he was just proposing “an idea”. An “idea”? Hahahahahahahahah! Remember that when he does not keep any of his promises and makes your life painful — all those promises were just “ideas” he hoped to implement but realized they were not feasible and that inflicting more pain on you is a better “idea” that *is* implementable and feasible.

Yes — take a good hard look in the mirror and say “Sarah is stupid” a few times and you just might see who the stupid one really is.

Just like every single negative word ever spoken about the Obama candidacy or its supporters.