February 11, 2005
Freedom Continues Its Retreat In America
As the Bush Administration sends democracy and liberty marching through the streets of oppressed nation around the world, here at home it is dying under the heels of a dictatorial regime; the American Presidency. In a continued effort to silence all opposition to his wrong-headed social security plan, Bush has now taken to black-listing from public forums American citizen who do not agree with political stance.
On February 3rd henchmen (no doubt Secret Service) barred some 40 American citizens from attending a publicly funded Presidential forum to discuss the Presidents (dim-witted) plan to remake Social Security.
Again the astonishing hypocrisy of this Republican Administration is stunning in its scope and audacity. What Bush and his henchman did in Fargo, North Dakota on February 3rd is a blatant and unconscionable violation of the spirit and letter of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The 1st Amendment was written expressly to ensure that the flower of free and open political speech does not whiter and die under the cold shade of oppression. And as free-speech dies so does the very heart of our democratic Republic; as free-speech dies, so too does the will of We The People, the free expression of political ideals, and the accountability of government to the people it services.
Terry McAuliffe the outgoing Chairman Democratic National Committee issued the following statement:
"It is disgusting and unpatriotic for President Bush to keep American taxpayers out of a public event they paid for just because they might disagree with his plan to privatize Social Security. If Bush really wants to have an open dialogue about the issue, he should welcome every American citizen to the table."
Said the Washington Post of the event in an article entitled: Some Barred From Bush's North Dakota Speech,
"Not everyone was welcome, apparently, at President Bush's speech in North Dakota yesterday…The Fargo Forum reported that a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors were among more than 40 area residents who were barred from attending the Bush event. Their names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites.The "Bush blacklist" is "frightening," Tom Athans, chief executive of Democracy Radio, said after learning that a producer for the liberal "Ed Schultz Show" was among those barred. "To blacklist a local citizen because he produces a radio program at odds with the political agenda of the White House is dangerous for democracy."
City Commissioner Linda Coates, whose husband was also on the list, told the newspaper that the list "is very revealing as to what this administration is all about."The White House said the list may have come from volunteers; it did not come from the White House." [Washington Post, 2/04/05]
Bush’s actions, or more accurately those actions taken on his behalf or behest are only the latest transgressions in a long list of un-democratic and unconstitutional practices taken by his administration in an effort to distance the would-be King from his disgruntled subjects. How much integrity does Bush have in order to extol the virtues of democracy to the world and then suppress them here at home? Would I be off the mark to state none? Does the man even know or understand the true nature of liberty? How this man and his deceitful Administration crawl under my skin and chill me, not because of his Party affiliation, but because his (al most) every action undermines the principles under-girding the very principles of our American democracy!
Four more years! Four more years of lies; four more years of blindness; four more year of deception and double-dealing; four more years of ineptitude; four more years of smug arrogance; four more years of trampled liberty that at their heart sow the seeds of tyranny and oppression into the soil of our future governance. We The People are losing our democracy to an American President even as he sends our Armed Forces to win it in distant lands. How sinfully, and desperately ironic!
Posted by V. Edward Martin at February 11, 2005 02:54 PM“The White House said the list may have come from volunteers; it did not come from the White House.” [Washington Post, 2/04/05]
Is this just another example of the Bush White House ineptitude?
Posted by: Rocky at February 11, 2005 03:24 PMIt’s like the McCarthyism Era all over again. Keep America Scared and the Bush administration can do just about anything it wants. I’m disgusted.
Posted by: Cameron Barrett at February 11, 2005 04:36 PMScrae Tactics, yeah that’s the ticket, kind of like scaring us into thinking our 1st Amendment rights are being taken away.
Posted by: Peter at February 11, 2005 05:08 PM[These] practices… are only the latest trasngressions in a long list… taken in an effort to distance the would-be-King from his disgruntled subjects.
In order to lend credibility to your allegations, can you offer more examples of this nature from a reputable source? Given his position, quotes from Terry McAuliffe do not count. I also see a couple discrepencies in your writing. The article you cite says that “[the banned] names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites”. Based on this context, one would assume that these workers were members of a local Republican group. But you said:
On February 3rd henchmen (no doubt Secret Service) barred some 40 American citizens from attending
This sounds like editorializing to me. I suggest the local Republican group who issued the tickets ought to be reprimanded, and (if the action is indeed illegal) required to reveal who gave them the list. But without more proof, this hardly implicates the Bush administration of wrongdoing.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 11, 2005 05:26 PMNew poll out reveals Bush’s numbers dropping, especially among “guess who”; that’s right, the Soc Sec soon to be eligible crowd.
Bush has also threatened to veto any Congressional attempts to rein in the new elevated costs of Medicare Rx reform.
2+2 equals Bush definitely attempting to bankrupt the government as a means of ridding our nation of taxpayer supported assistance programs like SS and Medicare. The 50 and up crowd with the wisdom and experience of decades of D.C. tactics and strategies are finally waking up to Bush motives. One can never prove motives, but, they can be plain as the nose on one’s face by virtue of a person’s actions which can’t be explained in any other credible way. Bush’s piling trillions on to the national debt has only one outcome, the inability of the US to continue to support Social Security and Medicare and public education and low cost housing, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2005 05:44 PMCameron:
“It’s like the McCarthyism Era all over again. Keep America Scared and the Bush administration can do just about anything it wants. I’m disgusted.”
Me too. And yet, being an optimist at heart, I still hope we will have our “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” moment, that will completely turn the tide against these Neocons, and when that day comes, even the majority of Republicans will rage against their machine.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 11, 2005 09:38 PMAnd what do you call it when people are screened for, and kept out of, Ward Churchill’s ‘lectures’?
Posted by: bugcrazy at February 11, 2005 10:12 PMBug,
Is the power of the federal or state government backing those Churchill screeners? Are students from the college itself being screened?
Is Ward Churchill a representative of the People? Was he an Elected Public Official?
Posted by: Aldous at February 12, 2005 03:59 AMBugcrazy:
“And what do you call it when people are screened for, and kept out of, Ward Churchill’s ‘lectures’?”
Hilarious!
Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until phone-sex pervert/stalker Bill O’Reilly reported a piece about him and demanded that his audience make a fuss. Since your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, I can only suppose you’re trying real hard to keep to the talking points dictated by the Faux News Channel, eh?
Bug,
Check C-Span, a Ward Churchill lecture from Tuesday is being televised, & they usually replay those. Great show. Seeing even a few moments shows you why screeners came into the mix. Watch it if you get the chance! Makes me wish I was back in college…
Not to diminish the documented evidence on the rise in ‘McCarthyism’ that Edward has presented, but I also think it’s important to put the machinations of the Right, in their proper perspective.
I think we’d all agree, that they are not acting like a party who just tightened their grip on Congress, and who’s leader just won a clear ‘mandate’ to implement a bold agenda.
I’ve said it before, the reason Bush’s Social Security scam is having a devastating effect on his approvals, for example, is that the Republicans can no longer use the Democrats (or John Kerry) as diversionary conspiratorial fodder.
Bugcrazy’s futile attempt to somehow equate a Ward Churchill lecture with a staged Bush sideshow, demonstrates perfectly their ongoing attempt to manufacture one.
If Iraq was the only issue on the table, an indifferent American public could be easily distracted by the Fox News led campaign against Churchill and the now ex-CNN News exec, while demonizing an anti-American Left in the process. However, Bush’s blatant and deceptive attempt to hit us squarely in the pocketbook, coupled with the exposed attempt to manipulate the media for good measure, proves obvious truths have their fullest impact - when not coming out of the mouth of Terry McCauliffe or Michael Moore.
The Left is still at a big disadvantage calling the administration on it’s ineptness, having to fight against a compromised American media. Yet, an exposed Social Security scam could not have had it’s proper affect on the country, if some of those ‘obvious truths’ were not getting through.
I read a quote from an American farmer recently, who was upset because the proposed cuts in farm subsidies in Bush’s new budget might put him out of business.
“I’m not happy. I voted for George Bush,” said cotton grower John Rife of Ferriday, La.
(Insert expletive-ridden, cynical, self-righteous and lengthy outburst by Kerry voter, here.)
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 13, 2005 02:32 AMV,
How does the first amendment come into this scenario exactly?
It’s unfortunate that the constitution and what our rights really are is so widely misunderstood today.
In what sense is keeping protestors out of a Bush speech violating their free speech rights?
Does free speech mean the freedom to go anywhere and do anything? Or is the Blue State definition different from mine? Because I think these people have plenty of forums to express their views, just not necessarily at an event in front of the President.
All such events are screened to some extent, and not just because the President happens to be Republican, or as they refer to him in Blue States, the Fascist dictator. I’d be surprised if such a GOP group ready to make a ‘free speech’ statement would have been let into a Bill Clinton or John Kerry speech either. And why should they? There’s no right to interrupt someone’s speech or event.
Again, how exactly have these people been silenced?
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 13, 2005 02:45 AMEric,
Show me evidence of an event in the last campaign, where only people who were pre-selected by the Kerry camp were allowed to ask him direct questions?
Then, I hope you will explain how preventing unwanted questions on Social Security from being asked of Bush, is an exercise in free speech?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 13, 2005 03:30 AMBert,
I hate to break this to you, but Kerry’s campaign ‘townhall meetings’ were filled with campaign supporters. Are you seriously telling me that you believe any questions asked at a John Kerry’s town hall meeting were not known beforehand? Hello?
Republican, Democrat, it doesn’t matter. Clinton did it, GH Bush probably did it, candidate John Kerry absolutely did it, and GW does it. It’s professional politics. You know, very much like professional wrestling.
Remember Kerry’s front porch meetings? Those were a spontaneous free for all weren’t they?
Shannon Imponen…was eager to share her struggle to pay for emergency post-partum health care with Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. Ms. Imponen, 24, had instantly agreed when Mr. Kerry’s aides knocked late Wednesday afternoon asking to borrow her backyard for an event just 40 hours in the future; she even said they could chop down a couple of trees to improve the view.But after asking how the sun falls and canvassing Ms. Imponen’s neighbors on A Street, a campaign worker called Thursday morning to say no thanks. “She said there were too many registered Republicans,” sighed the would-have-been hostess…
…In Columbus, last month, the campaign chose a cul-de-sac seemingly assembled to appeal to its constituency - a Hispanic family living next to a single mother next to a black couple next to a military veteran next to a laid-off worker, with a foreclosed home in between.
Or how about answering a few questions from a reporter about how you would have done almost everything different form Bush, yet voted to approve the war?
In August, I was talking with Kerry’s scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush’s decisions in the Iraq war, saying “I would’ve done almost everything differently.” A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush’s actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers. washingtonpost.com
Allows opposing viewpoints at townhall meeetings?
A minor incident occurred at the Kerry Town Hall Meeting in Houston on March 6th. The Houston Chronicle reported it as follows: Promised protests failed to materialize, although three demonstrators were ejected from the event after unfurling a banner that read, “Vietnam Veterans Are Not Fonda Kerry,” a reference to conservative attempts to link Kerry’s opposition to the war to actress Jane Fonda.…When it was announced on the news that Kerry was coming to Houston, I called two of my friends and asked them if they would join me. I stood in line for several hours and, with my friends, we were allowed into the rented Community College auditorium. We wore a button that I had made up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry and I had in my pocket the banner noted above. While waiting for Kerrys arrival, we stood against the back wall of the auditorium, so as to not block anyones view of the proceedings and we were interviewed by various members of the media to whom we told that we were there to disabuse the media of the notion that all veterans supported Kerry. Kerrys arrival time came and went. We were approached by several uniformed security officers, who asked us to leave. We asked them if the Kerry campaign really wished to throw Vietnam Veterans out of his town hall meeting. They responded that the hall was rented and the campaign staff wanted us to leave. We departed, unfurling a 2x3 banner on the way out.
Answering any and all questions, all the time in order to NOT violate anyone’s free speech rights?
September 17, 2004Over the past three and a half years he [Bush] has given a mere 15 solo press conferences — the least of any president in 50 years. By way of contrast, a President Kerry would grant one press conference per month — or so he promised at a campaign stop in Wisconsin on August 3rd. But it turns out that Candidate Kerry is not quite so generous with his time. He last made himself available to traveling reporters who sit just a few yards away in the back of his campaign plane on August 9th.
…It’s less than two months before the election, and the stakes are incredibly high, and the campaign, I think, is taking no chances. They feel that if they gave unlimited access or even partial access to Kerry, that the chances for, one, a slipup or two, for Kerry stepping on his daily message of the day would be high.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: That is a legitimate concern though, isn’t it? Either slipping up or changing the focus —it’s happened.
PAUL FARHI: Yes. Back in August 3rd, he gave a brief interview to the press pool, and he was asked whether he had any regrets about his vote on the Iraq war resolution, and he said in effect, no - no regrets. And of course he has since been put on the defensive about that statement and has had to explain and re-explain himself for the last month.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: It’s often been noted that Al Gore actually alienated his press corps, and suffered thereby. Is the lack of accessibility in the Kerry campaign breeding resentment?
PAUL FARHI: Yes, I was in Cincinnati with him last week, and we were all fired up, because they passed the word that he was going to come out and make a statement, which suggested to us that he was also going to take questions. We were all arranged on the tarmac at the airport. He read a statement for about 26 seconds or so, and he turned his back and walked away, and— it’s moments like that that make you feel like a campaign stenographer rather than a campaign reporter — we are being fed what the campaign wants us to have and not, obviously, what we’d like to know about. And— you could hear, literally, people fuming about - and [LAUGHTER] see people fuming about the way we were treated at that moment.
Please don’t try to tell me that everyone has the right to speak at every venue they want at any time they want no matter what. It doesn’t cut the mustard. That is not free speech.
Eric,
Thanks for showing that the Democrats also tried to tightly script their campaign events as well, and were busted for it.
Are you seriously telling me that you believe any questions asked at a John Kerry’s town hall meeting were not known beforehand? Hello?
Unless you can bring me proof otherwise - like what has been documented about every Bush event - yes, I do believe this statement.
Btw, thanks for finally responding to one of my direct comments.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 13, 2005 06:50 PMBert,
I believe I have responded directly to you before, Bert. Sometimes it’s not easy to respond to every comment, every time. I apologize if I have violated your free speech in any way.
You however, have sidestepped the question about how anyone’s free speech has been violated here.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 13, 2005 06:54 PMC’mon, Eric. All your examples are of people getting ejected from Kerry rallies for creating a disturbance. The guys VEM talks about weren’t even allowed in the door.
And there were plenty of examples of Kerry getting heckled during the campaign. Here’s one I just googled really quick.
I remember Bush’s isolation from dissent was also given as one of the reasons he lost all three debates - the first one in particular making him look like an idiot. That, and the wacko idea that he has a mandate to muck with Social Security, is what comes from making rally attendees sign loyalty pledges before they can get in the door.
Gandhi,
Stories of Bush’s tactics were all over the Internet during his campaign even if the established new failed to cover it in great detail. I even have accounts from friends all over the country that witness American citizens being frisked and turned away from Presidential rally’s because they were wearing the wrong t-shirt, or button. This is not democracy, this is bordering on dictatorial rule. And having to sign a loyalty oath, please!!
Eric,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. USCONST, amend 1.
First of all my understanding of the Constitution and my fundamental right guaranteed by it are intact. The First Amendment has historically been interrupted to mean that each citizen has the right to free political speech, a right to dissent. By barring these Americans the Bush Administration violated that right; their voices if they chose to use them were silenced, and the President as he usually does, was free to bask in the glow of those who agree with him.
At the very heart of democracy is free and open debate about the issues facing us all. Stifling debate and contrary opinions is the province of dictators who wish only their views to be heard. They care not a wit for the opinion of the people whom they serve. Need I remind you that the Constitution begins with We The People!
Second of all the people enjoined from attending the meeting were not protestors, and even if they were, they have a right to voice their opinion in a free society. Or are you saying that they do not? Are you advocating that protestors or anyone with an opinion different from that of Bush be silenced?
Event is which the President appearance should be screened for weapons and such, but absent those, ANY citizen should be allowed to attend. Bush is the President (and I use the term loosely), not a king or other monarch. And as such he is answerable to We The People, all of the People, not just those who in voted for him. He continues to be a disappointment…
V,
Once again, how have they been silenced? They have not lost their right to dissent. Neither have you by the way.
Your version of free speech rights is all backward. You confer upon those who agree with you the right to impose their speech on anyone, at anytime, in any place of their choosing regardless of the appropriateness or will of anyone else involved. That’s not freedom from being silenced, it’s freedom to dictate.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 14, 2005 11:40 AMEric,
My version of free speech is truly free, yours is subject to the whims and temperament of the Executive; that is the beginning of tyrannical rule. And I suppose if Bush decided that all dissenters should voice their complaints under Lake Michigan that would be okay with you. After all their voices have not been silenced, or have they?
The freedom to voice ones opinion carry’s with it a responsibility to use it wisely, as does any freedom. Asking questions of our President is never inappropriate, or inconvenient. He world for us and as such is accountable to is. If you do not understand that very basic tenet of our Republic, then perhaps it is you who does not understand Constitutional principles and the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
VEM
Using what you just said, the klan should be allowed to go to naacp rallies. But they are never allowed in.
Having worked security at halls, I have seen the left and right groups bar voices of dissent from all kinds of rallies.
Its not a one sided issue and using alittle common sense to avoid violence is’nt all that bad of an idea.
KCTim,
There is a well established separation between public and private discourse. If the KKK wanted to speak at public gathering of NAACP members, say at an outdoor rally in or on a public venue, they should be allowed to speak or protest. If however, said meeting was in or at a private venue, then the NAACP is allowed to choose who speaks and who does not.
V,
No. That does not explain how they were silenced. You sidestepped it again.
With all due respect, you still have not explained to me that you understand this very basic tenet of our Republic.
Your freedom to speak ends at my freedom not to listen. You may not like it, but that’s the truth. The President is under no obligation to hear a handful of people’s ‘questions’ under the first amendment even if he is a government employee. Neither are you under any obligation to hear me or vice versa.
I think we both know that these ‘questions’ are not inquiries per se, but a kind of protest. No one has silenced these persons ability to protest. They can still protest, Bush hasn’t forbid them that right. Just excercised his right to for them not to interrupt him. Their right to dissent in no way enables them to compel others to listen. That is the difference. Your version of free speech makes it incumbent on the President to hear 260 million people in person. It’s not going to happen.
The Bill of Rights are not positive rights, they are negative rights.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 14, 2005 05:20 PMVEM, I wouldn’t argue the freedom of speech angle. I’d just point out that this administration’s wacko agenda doesn’t stand up to the light of day, and never has,
“The American people expected genuine debate. Yet Republicans limited floor discussion on one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in its history to a mere two hours. Two hours. And this behavior was not limited and confined to the vote on Medicare. For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the American people, where they are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, taken in the middle of the night.“On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
- Rep. Pelosi, 12/8/03
Posted by: American Pundit at February 15, 2005 01:49 AM
Eric:
“That does not explain how they were silenced.”
They were silenced by not being able to attend an event open to the rest of the public, and therefore, be able to actually form an opinion on the presidents words, behavior, and actions at that event. What is most telling is that it appears that many of those who were silenced were apparently the kind of people whose opinions had the potential to carry weight with others.
From the Post article V. Edward quoted in his excellent article:
“a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors were among more than 40 area residents who were barred from attending the Bush event. Their names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites.”
Lists of those considered dangerous thinkers/undesirables.
That is kind of thing that Fascists produce in their earliest days.
The questions we must ask ourselves when faced with such a reality is: What are they so damn afraid of? Why can’t they take any kind of criticism or dissent of opinion whatsoever?
“Your freedom to speak ends at my freedom not to listen.”
Sure. But our freedom to speak means absolutely nothing if we are not first allowed to listen, become completely informed, and then have the freedom to share those opinions with others, yes?
Otherwise all our freedom of speech becomes is the freedom to spout ignorance.
“You may not like it, but that’s the truth.”
And you may not like it, but that is also the truth.
As American’s we don’t have to stand mutely by, either. This is exactly the kind of thing that Jefferson was talking about when he said:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
And:
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
“The President is under no obligation to hear a handful of people’s ‘questions’ under the first amendment even if he is a government employee.”
And who the hell do you think owns our government?
WE, THE PEOPLE DO - both the “desirables” and the “undesirables”.
And yes, he does have to answer to all of us collectively, otherwise what we have is a dictatorship.
“I think we both know that these ‘questions’ are not inquiries per se, but a kind of protest.”
Is that right? Are Republican’s now claiming the ability to look into the future and forsee that every liberal who trys to attend a public event are only there in order to cause some sort of disturbance?
“No one has silenced these persons ability to protest. They can still protest, Bush hasn’t forbid them that right.”
No, only their right to attend a public event where the president is going to talk about his policies has been removed - which in turn, effectively silences their ability to make an informed opinion and to share it with others.
“Just excercised his right to for them not to interrupt him.”
Oh, that’s rich!
Preemptively keeping others from interrupting him.
He’s big on preemption isn’t he?
Preemptively abridging our constitutional rights with the Patriot Acts, preemptively announcing WMD’s before the end of inspections, preemptively declaring war, preemptively announcing the bankruptcy of Social Security…
Its all one giant crock of horse dung with these neo-con artists.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 15, 2005 03:57 AMEric,
Just because you do not wish to listen (much like you are doing now) doesn’t mean that I have lost the right or freedom to speak.
I beg to differ, the President is elected by The People, he is our representative, our head of state. He has an obligation to listen to all of The People.
Questions can fulfill one of two needs; the need for information, or the need to be educated on a subject(s) you know little of. I do not follow your line of reasoning here. And nowhere in the article did it say the people barred from the PUBLIC gathering were there to protect.
