Skip to content

Obama’s “Truth Squads”

27 September 2008

qb is not normally fond of playing the Nazi, Stalin, or Mao cards, which are used too frequently to refer to offenses that are relatively mild and unobtrusive.  Most of the time, the hyperbole is just too incredible to be credible.

In this case, however, one of our most cherished, foundational civic rights is at risk.  Let’s see:

1.  The context is political speech.

2.  The threat is prosecution for libel.

3.  The pretext is more a matter of interpretation than objective reality.  (That pretext, as stated plainly by Ms. Joyce, is nominally a desire to keep the debate focused on “issues, not character assassination.”  But there’s no way to ensure that standard is enforced justly;  what is character assassination to one is simply character exposition to another.  To say that Mr. Obama is not trustworthy on the basis of one of his public statements is to put oneself at risk of prosecution under such an expansive, amorphous standard.)

4.  The agents of the threat are elected government officials with enforcement prerogatives, such as sheriffs and district attorneys.

*****

Do the math:  what qb has just described to you is Gestapo.

Can there be any doubt that this tactic is intended to intimidate opponents of Mr. Obama into silence?

*****

“Truth Squads.”  It sounds noble enough, but look under the hood.  This is exceedingly dangerous, Andropovian.

qb

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. Ben permalink
    30 September 2008 4:11 pm

    qb, you have touched on a subject that some believe will be the window through which persecution is brought upon the Christian Church in America. Now, to avoid being alarmist, such a position on free speech as promoted by Obama’s truth squads is not really new in our country. (Remember the early Clinton years?) What is troubling is its endorsement by local authorities and an ambivalence among “the mass” that seems more interested in style and pandering.

    I will quote from Guy Brown; “God will save the church, he will not save the State.”

  2. queueball permalink*
    30 September 2008 6:33 pm

    Ben, you’re right…it’s not new. But its brazenness seems to be ratcheting up a bit, which is predictable enough.

    Yesterday, the defense opposing Samuel’s 7th-grade football team was shout-whispering “go” and goading our offensive line into jumping. “Go” is our snap count, and the opponent’s tactic is illegal by the rules up here in Amarillo. But it was not contested until the 2nd quarter, when emboldened by their success, the opponents started shouting it more and more loudly. Finally, we contested it, and they stopped doing it. But when they were unopposed, they just got more and more brazen about it.

    (I was delighted, however, with the outcome: Lorenzo De Zavala 32, Horace Mann 14.)

    So your observation about “ambivalence” is right on piont.

    qb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: