Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas woman harassed by Secret Service "Thought police"
via e-mail and Lufkin Daily News ^ | October 6, 2008 | Jessica Hughes/ Jessica Savage

Posted on 10/17/2008 9:34:20 PM PDT by Stingray

This story appears in Tuesday's issue of The Lufkin Daily News, 10/6/08. This is totally absurd regardless of what party you choose to support in the Presidential campaign.

On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from was 903-798-6020 which lists as "Obama Volunteers of Texarkana " (Texas).

She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied:

"No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." I hung up.

Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone:

"I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor." My husband laughed and told them "No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying.”I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently “Oh? Well why would she make that up?”I replied that I supposed she wasn't happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said, "That's right, you were rude!" The last time I checked being rude wasn't a crime in America .

Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, "So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?" They informed me that there was no evidence she was an Obama supporter. Someone calling from his campaign. Are you kidding?

I was not allowed to know the name of my accuser at which point they informed me that it wasn't like I was in a court of law, YET, as if this was a good thing. I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face me rather than sending the thought police to my house.

They then said they were trying to do me a favor, that they came to me first before embarrassing you by going to all your neighbors and family. Another threat? I told them to be my guest and talk to whomever they wanted but they weren't going to investigate my thoughts on my porch.

They also informed me that it would be easier if the next time a supporter calls me I just say "Yeah sure count me in, or just hang up" apparently so she won't get her undies in a bundle and give them more useless trips. Yeah right. I said "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate and I can't tell them why I don't?" I said I was sorry they made a wasted trip but if they had a problem with some made up lie they needed to go talk to her about it because it wasn't my fault they had to drive from Houston for nothing.

At one point I went inside and got a notepad to record their badge numbers and they refused to show me their badges. They had done the quick flip when they arrived. I asked for a card and the female Agent refused to give me one stating “You're not going to get a card.” The male Agent gave me a card and told me I could contact Houston with any questions.

The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didn't cooperate is not really the tragedy here. Because that girl on the phone doesn't have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer.

I want to file a counter complaint that false charges were made, that a false report was given to a peace officer. The Secret Service told me I cannot because they will protect the identity of the complainant. I also want the file they have on me destroyed and I want to know that my phone isn't tapped, et cetera. I am hearing a lot of "Out of my Jurisdiction."

Do I also hear jackboots?

Jessica Hughes Lufkin, Texas

Note: I have contacted several news organizations, Rep Gohmert, Sen Hutchison, the Atty General, Local Police Will keep you updated, pass it along.

Here is the link to the item in the Lufkin paper

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antichrist; jessicahughes; obama; obamatruthsquad; secretservice; thoughtpolice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Stingray
And there are people right here on FR(and elsewhere) who say the telephone polls are accurate and do not reflect a "Bradley/Wilder Effect" because,"Why would anyone be afraid to tell someone over the phone that they're not gonna vote for Obama?" The pollsters have your name, address, and phone number....Who knows what they can do with it (though I'd be more worried about minor harassment or identity theft than false secret service reports.)
41 posted on 10/18/2008 6:39:07 AM PDT by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

I was born in Lufkin-—and can get a Birth Certificate in the Angelina County Courthouse there in 15 minutes!


And I suspect that is true for most if not all of the remaining States of the USA. However I believe that Obama is playing this for the publicity that it continues to get him among the internet, etc. I don’t think this issue loses him any of his supporters nor does it gain him any. Thus no need to come forward and put the controversy to rest. jmo.

Love this cool morning.


42 posted on 10/18/2008 6:51:33 AM PDT by deport ( ----Cue Spooky Music---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: deport
Love this cool morning.

Isn't it nice! I had to turn the heat on to break the chill.

43 posted on 10/18/2008 6:54:04 AM PDT by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Stingray
Welcome to Amerika, comrade. The Brownshirts have arrived.

Just a small glimpse of what the future holds for Americans. Thought crimes against the state ripped right out of the pages of the book '1984' authored by Orson Welles.

44 posted on 10/18/2008 6:56:46 AM PDT by Ron H. (October 3, 2008 - the day we morphed into the 'United Socialist States of America')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Very well said.

This needs to be sent to the Houston newspapers, the Texas Congressional delagates, and the head of the Secret Service.

Not that they’d understand or do anything about it, but they need to know there’s an intelligent, well-argued rebutal to these tactics.

I’m certainly dismayed though, that someone in the SS doesn’t realize they’ve been gamed and do something about the gamer. If I was SS, that would piss me off if I wasted time and resources on someone filing a false report. Even if I could never really tell in a “he said, she said” situation, I’d certainly go back to the originator with a followup interview. And I would let them know I wasn’t happy, and at least as stern to the complaintant as they were to this woman.


45 posted on 10/18/2008 7:50:17 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Also, forgot to mention, this reflects badly on the SS. If you think about it, just the publicity on this website hurts their credibility and respect for their professional conduct with some naturally pretty strong and vocal supporters of law and order.

Those are things the SS needs to perform well, just as much as agents, bullets, and guns.


46 posted on 10/18/2008 7:54:20 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
Good points.

I think one of the problems right now is that all of the incentives drive the Secret Service toward more intrusive investigation and less concern for civil liberties because there is no downside to them for heavy handedness but God help the agents and their supervisor who miss an actual assassin.


47 posted on 10/18/2008 8:00:09 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking; Froufrou

I admire this woman standing up for herself. If they are going to take me down, they’ll do it with me kicking and screaming all the way.
Never will i sheepfully submit to tyranny.


48 posted on 10/18/2008 8:09:35 AM PDT by DeLaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
Ping-a-ling...

5.56mm

49 posted on 10/18/2008 8:22:20 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Somewhere up the food chain that is the national government and the SS, there is someone with a love for our Republic, her Constitution and her people. Perhaps having opinions such as ours expressed well, can give them just enough push to reign some of that in.

We’re still a political country. Support of the citizenry, especially the doers and stalwarts that generally make up the conservative side, counts. It’s hard to get your budget approved when our type of folks are angry at you. In any case, shining the light on thse types of things needs to be done. I consider it our duty as citizens to do so.

Note: I sent an email to my very good senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby asking if they can check with the SS and find out if anyone is going to check and see if a false report was filed by the Texarkana Obama campaign. I let them know I eagerly expect an answer, as any, even perceived, abuse of power greatly concerns me. I am only concerned, you see, that the SS I so greatly admired is not abused by political people. I’m sure the SS appreciates my and other conservatives strong support....yada yada, Yours Respectfully, etc.


50 posted on 10/18/2008 8:38:37 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
I share your view of the high quality of the people who work for the Secret Service. To blame them for doing what they are mandated to do never gets to the root of the problem. It is like blaming the cops to come to a scene of a domestic violence complaint for taking the man into custody upon an allegation of violence- they have no choice.


51 posted on 10/18/2008 8:49:51 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Never, in my wildest dreams, did I ever think the GESTAPO would ever come to America!


52 posted on 10/18/2008 10:22:13 AM PDT by mulligan (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: pandoraou812

I saw this story several days ago. Thanks for the ping.


54 posted on 10/18/2008 11:18:42 AM PDT by TigersEye (''Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty neat.'' -- Paul 'the forehead' Begala)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I recognize the validity of your argument even if I don't come down with a conclusion that matches yours.  I believe it's an important issue, and certainly one worthy of debate.

I would like to take issue with the entire assumption that the equivalent of a national police force should be permitted to investigate anonymous tips which do not explicitly allege violence against a candidate for president of the United States.  I believe that in this instance, the charge was made that this person expected to see Obama dead.  That is not the same as a person stating they were going to harm a candidate, so we come pretty close to agreement here.  While the tip is anonymous to the person being checked out, it is not anonymous to the Secret Service.  That's where I would hope some sanity would come into this.  Is the complainant above reproach?  What is their station in life?  What might their motive be?

The alternative is to accept an increased degree of risk of the assassination of the candidate. Which is the higher societal value? Is it more risky to representative government to increase the risk of assassination of the president or to permit secret investigations by a national police force, based on anonymous tips, coming from a partisan source, which do not explicitly alleged violence? I am inclined to think that the latter is more dangerous to our constitutional government.  What if a person were to say that they expected to see George Bush dead in short order?  Should that be checked out?  What would the Secret Service look like if a person who was reported to have said something like this were later found to be close to individuals who assassinated the President?  I realize the person being checked out didn't (allegedly) make a statement like this, but the Secret Service has been mislead to think they did.  What choice to they have really?  My main problem with the Secret Service here is their attitude while confronting the person being checked out.  Even then they may be trying to purposefully push the buttons of the individual trying to see if there is any indication that this person may be on the edge, almost unable to hide their passionate almost out of control hatred for Obama.

The system has proven many times that it can cope with the assassination of the president. It is anticipated, the Constitution provides for it. The horror of assassination is that it is the ultimate voter fraud. It deprives the majority of the right it won in the election. There is also the factor of the threat of an assassination as a means to shape policy contrary to the will of the majority.  You have mentioned several reasons why assassination is not appropriate, outside the normal aspect of murder.  There is also the continuity of governance.  We must have a government that is stable enough to conduct policy both foreign and domestic.  We cannot tolerate total chaos at the highest levels of our government.  Even the mere possibility of it, could cause chaos at the wrong moment internationally, for purposes of advantage to a foreign government.

But is the only and unavoidable alternative to these Stalinist investigations the assassination of the President United States? I think not. After all, there are other lines of defense which protect the president. The president is shielded by layer after layer of protection. This layer is probably the outer perimeter and the least likely to lead to the prevention of an assassination. By definition, it will only identify a blabbermouth bent on assassination. In this case a blabbermouth who allegedly betrays herself over the phone in an unsolicited call from a stranger. So by stopping blabbermouths who would assassinate the president, we are dealing with the lunatic fringe. A serious, professional assassin, a jackal for instance, will not be unearthed because he is a blabbermouth. He might be betrayed by a Confederate, but that is an entirely different set of facts.  I don't disagree with this.  Still, do you dismiss the blabbermouth?  I don't believe you do.  I believe you check out any individual who has been brought to your attention, that could constitute a serious threat, or could possibly know of a serious threat.  That being said, I also expect the Secret Service to recognize a false report for what it is.  It is an attempt to use the Secret Service to get even with a political enemy (in this instance).  It is also a hindrance to the Secret Service because it ties up it's staff on a wild goose chase, just for the meanness of it.  "I'll show you Mr. or Mrs. Conservative!"  Anyone found to be playing this game should spend a year or two in prison.

Short of encouraging a Gestapo state, the following protections could be put in place: Explicit threats might be investigated. The name of the tipster could be made public. The tipster could be subject to criminal sanctions or at least civil penalties if the claim is manufactured. The object of the investigation could have the right to the identity of the tipster. The object of the investigation could have the right to view the entire contents of investigators file. A tribunal could be established to adjudicate claims that the entire investigation should be expunged. At some time the object of the investigation should be informed that he is being investigated-even a murderer gets that protection when the cops are closing in on him.  Explicit threats must be investigated.  I also believe expressions of knowledge of a certain outcome must be investigated.  If we compare this to organized crime, we understand why tipsters cannot be outed.  I most certainly agree that tipsters should be vulnerable to serious penalties for false reports.  I believe the Justice Department should assign a department to review any such occurrences, to make sure the process worked the way it should, and that the Secret Service hadn't abused it's power on a whim.  It should also look for evidence of manipulation by an informant.  A follow-up interview of the person accused might not be a bad idea.

Are the feds now identifying potential assassins by eavesdropping? Are they about to?  If they have reasonable cause, I hope they are.  I don't consider this case to meet that level of reasonable cause.  If the interview with the person being charged went poorly, I might consider it for a short period of time.  If the person being charged did exhibit an extreme level of hatred for Obama, I might think it worthy of more investigation including a wire tap.

We are now vulnerable to a secret system which is obviously liable to be perverted by a tyrant who gets his hands on the levers of power. I will not mention names, but his initials could be Barak Obama. I understand that many investigations are kept secret: for example, grand jury investigations are not revealed. But theoretically grand juries have no warrant to investigate "intentions" or the mental eccentricity of citizens. Grand juries are there to investigate crimes or, at worst, conspiracies to commit crimes in which there is a least some overt act. That is not the case here.  The case here involves the possible foreknowledge of an impending attempt to end the life of the candidate.  If a false report was made here, a crime was committed.  The burden is still on the Secret Service to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being charged did constitute a threat.  While it's not the same as a Grand Jury, there is still the development of evidence to prove the assumption.  This person would still have their day in court, in the worst case.  At that point they would get to see their accuser.  Still, under these circumstances the Secret Service should be as anxious to convict a person filing a false report as they would be to convict a person being charged like this.  One of these two should take the fall IMO.  If the party being charged is innocent, guess what.  It would be time to take that informant into a dark room and rip them to shreds to find out what the hell really happened.  And then they should be prosecuted.

We are weighing the threat of the commission of a crime, in this case assassination of the president, against individual liberties and the potential for tyranny which secret investigations represent. We make these judgments all the time and often weigh on the side of individual liberty. For example, we conclude that the price of racial profiling is not worth its obvious crime prevention dividends. The individual liberties protected in that case are hardly more than the feelings of minorities who are innocent and not guilty and are investigated only because of their race. I don't think there is much societal benefit in protecting the feelings of the guilty ones. Yet we have as a society decided to accept an increase crime rate to protect the feelings of innocent minority members.  If a higher level of crime is being perpetrated in a racially segregated area of the city, then that area is where the focus of the police should be.  If the people in that area disagree with this premise, then it's up to them to make sure the level of crime in that area ceases to be a problem.  Otherwise, it's open season on criminals, and let the chips fall where they will.  That is why we have so many minorities in prison.  I don't apologize to anyone that it is.  People in high crime areas have a right to be free from crime, just like the folks in low crime areas do.  The loud mouths who claim racial profiling, are in effect pleading for the local authorities to please allow the crime to remain high, for the victims to remain victims, and for the youth in those areas to be condemned to growing up without hope.  To a certain degree I think you have a point.  I know the police do avoid certain areas because of a safety factor.  The fact is though, the police do continue to arrest higher volumes of individuals from high crime areas, generally in the racially segregated areas.  I'm not convinced your argument holds water here as much as you might think.  Minorities are still vastly over represented in prison.  I don't say that to complain.  I don't say it because I am happy about it either.  I state that as a recognition that criminals are being caught in the most lucrative of fishing holes.

The value to be protected against arising out of these kinds of investigations by a KGB-like national police force is very, very high on the scale: A police state. So we must ask ourselves where lies the greater risk to the greater value? Is the higher risk that a blabbermouth might get through many layers of protection and succeed in assassinating the president of the United States resulting in a catastrophic failure of our democracy rather than merely the constitutional remedy provided, the accession of the vice president? Or is the greater risk the imposition of a police state from which our democracy might never recover?  I believe there is a significant difference between what the Secret Service has done here, and what happens in states with a KGB-like presence.  In states with a KGB-like presence, evidence is manufactured, the judge is a part of the overall system, and people are railroaded from start to finish, generally involving prison on the whim of the government.  And in these instances, political motives are often all that is required.  We do have criminal courts.  Evidence is reviewed.  People still have a jury of their peers.  A political whim is not going to cause someone to wind up in prison.

Defenders of these intrusions will no doubt point to the war on terrorism to justify them by having resort to argument by analogy or by a relativism. Essentially the argument is, we tolerate intrusions on our liberties out of necessity to prevent terrorist attacks. The assassination of President United States is the equivalent of a terrorist attack. Because we tolerate intrusions in one place we should tolerate intrusions in another place.  The Secret Service has been doing interviews like the one mention here since it's inception.  Now all of a sudden we are supposed to tell the Secret Service to stand down no matter what the informant has charged?  I am troubled by some of the anti terrorism legislation.  It has been my premise that in the wrong hands, those statutes could be misused to terrible ends.  I still don't believe that we just surrender to potential assassins because we don't want to be accused of abusing power.  There has to be some reasoning here.  To my way of thinking, if a person has expressed foreknowledge of an assassination, they need to be checked out.  I've already explained what I think should happen to a false informant.  Their fate should be announced far and wide if they are convicted of having done so.  Let people be forewarned what will happen to them if they try to bludgeon a fellow citizen over the head with a federal agency on a whim.

One need only consider the consequences of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to recognize how very, very dangerous the assassination of a potential head a state can be. That assassination led to upward of 20 million dead, the destruction of several empires, and the end of at least four dynasties. But the assassination of the Archduke did not do these things in itself there was an intervening cause, the war waged in the aftermath. No assassination of an American president has ever led to a war or a civil war. Historians could rightly argue that the assassination in Sarajevo was only a catalyst but not the proximate efficient cause of The Great War.  I appreciate the point you are trying to make, the downside of assassinations not being as bad as some might think, but your focus is very fuzzy IMO.  I'm not going to argue that we should relax our efforts to prevent our elected officials from being assassinated.  I may not like Obama, but I'll be damned if I would ever make the case that assassinations are probably preferable to a citizen being confronted on the premise they may have foreknowledge of a plan to assassinate a political figure.

Do the intrusions of our liberties which we tolerate in the war against terrorism justify similar intrusions to protect the president- or viewed from another perspective, are the risks similar enough to justify similar intrusions? The answer to the first question is without question, no. One intrusion cannot be cited to justify another intrusion anymore than one wrong can be raised to justify another. The question is not whether the government has done wrong elsewhere but whether the risks justify an intrusion here. So all of the references to the war on terrorism are simply irrelevant unless you believe that precedent should take precedence over reason.  I think you've really gone down the wrong road here.  This interrogation of a person charged by an unnamed informant, is not tantamount to the revelation of a police state.  It is a reasonable precaution based on the information provided.  The Secret Service conducts these types of interviews as a normal course of their mandate.  Has that turned into a wholesale conviction mill where innocent citizens have been tossed into prisons all over the U.S.?  Please provide any evidence you can to support that premise.  I'm not aware of any.

A legitimate question is, indeed the only legitimate question, do the risks of potential assassination of a potential president justify intrusions which can lead to a potential tyranny? In my view, they do not unless the most stringent safeguards are put in place. We have many safeguards in place to protect us from intrusions generated by the war on terrorism. One wonders whether the left will be so clamorous for restrictions on government intrusions when they are doing the intruding for values which they peculiarly hold dear as leftists.  I'm going to continue to address the core issue here, whether the U.S. Secret Service should be investigating individuals reportedly having prior knowledge of a planned assassination.  The answer in my opinion is unquestionably yes.  If however it is found the charged person did not do what the informant said, then a false report has been filed for ulterior motives.  And when that is recognized, the informant should be subject to the full extent the law provides, including a long period of incarceration.

Whatever the greater risk, this current secret procedure is entirely alien to our tradition of individual liberties.  Secret informants have been putting away organized crime figures for a long time.  In court they are generally revealed as I understand it, hence the use of informant reallocations.  I don't see this as evidence of a police state, and I don't see this Secret Service interview to be evidence of it either.

Thanks for making your case.  I believe some folks will agree with your position.  More may agree with you than me.  This is still how I see it.  Take care.

55 posted on 10/18/2008 1:51:41 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Is Obamanation what our founding fathers, our fallen men in combat, and Ronald Reagan had in mind?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Thank you for a very well reasoned reply, I am very glad that I posted to your comment.

I think we can both agree that we have much to agree on here. We both see the need to protect the democratic process by protecting the person of the president. We see the need to investigate explicit threats. We both agree that safeguards should be imposed in the system to avoid abuse not least among them being some sort of sanction against malicious tipsters. We are both concerned about potential abuses arising here or arising out of the war on terrorism. We both want to make sure that the safeguards, like independent judicial review, prevent these investigations from morphing into some sort of sinister gestapo operation.

I think we both agree that the actual threat here as reportedly stated by the Secret Service, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor", is not in itself an explicit although it comes close, especially to the ear of a Secret Service investigator experienced enough to know that hearsay is notoriously inaccurate and precise words cannot be relied upon. So to err on the side of caution, an investigation is conducted.

But, assuming the facts as set forth by the original poster accurate, what happens to the investigation after the agents leave the object' s porch? An official file of the United States government has been created in which there is a solemnly written allegation that the object of the investigation has threatened the president. It may further state that the object of the investigation has been obstreperous with the investigator. It is not clear whether the file is protected against dissemination. Will this person's name appear on a no-fly list? Will she be denied access to the seat of government to exercise their constitutional right for the redress of grievances? Will she be denied a security clearance? A government job?

Has this occurred to this woman? Has it occurred to others? Has a chilling effect on speech occurred? And is not the speech affected the most precious speech of all, political speech? Does not the protection of political speech at the most critical time, in a political campaign, have a significant value to a free and democratic society which must be weighed against the intrusions justified to protect a presidential candidate?

Beyond free speech, there are other liberties such as the independent right to be left alone from government intrusion that must be weighed against the risks. My point, and I have no doubt it is a point with which you will agree, is that there has been no systematic, institutional, or legal consideration of the balancing of competing values which must be done in a free and democratic society. We both want some sort of judicial review , we both want to protect the rights of the "accused," we both want a series of safeguards put in place. We both want due process. We won't get that until some transparency is brought into this system.

The weighing process has not been done, or at least has not been done thoroughly enough and I have no doubt that we both agree about that.

Candor compels me to state that this discussion does not occur in a vacuum but in the context of a likely election of Barak Obama who has demonstrated a disturbing propensity to intimidate those who would exercise political free speech. He will be armed with considerable powers coming out of the war on terrorism. There will be few institutional barriers to him getting his way. For example, a majority Democratic Congress has already expressed its intention to oppose the fairness doctrine and eliminate free speech on talk radio. I would not be honest if I did not say that these apprehensions caused me to place more weight on the side of freedom from government intrusion. To the degree that that is a partisan reaction rather than a disinterested consideration which might be offered up in one of The Federalist Papers, I plead guilty.

Thank you again for a thoughtful piece.


56 posted on 10/18/2008 8:10:58 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
And thank you for the nice response.  I appreciate it.

We are both concerned with big government and it's ability to move into territory that is excessive.  I believe that there are examples of the government doing just that, so I'm certainly not unable to see it in that light.

The issue of files that can be left hanging around after this type of investigation are troubling to me.  If no determination of guilt is made, it would seem wise to me to give them some sort of expiration date, and purge them from public records.  If a strong compelling case did seem to be close to a reality, I might modify that a bit.  In the first instance purge after 2.5 years, and after the second perhaps 7.5 years.  Those files should not be part of a permanent record unless something comes along to indicate a pattern.

If this person were denied access to office, I believe you could make that case.  If she were blocked from certain government positions, it would also be problematic.  I would hope that during the review process, the final conclusion of the investigation would bear the most weight.  Perhaps even a tag on the individual's employement file that would be removed at the 2.5 or 7.5 year purge date might be reasoned.  She wouldn't be blocked from making private or public statements concerning public issues, so I'm not quite as concerned about that.  Some jobs do cause a sort of self imposed, or even a terms of employement imposed censure of comments made in public.  That woudln't be any different for her.

Unless I am misconstruing your comments.  I think you infered that there has been no review of the impact on freedoms related to this type of investigation, no weighing of threat vs individual rights.  If I'm reading your inference improperly, I appologize.  I would state that I think these types of reviews take place all the time.  Every court case that has top rate legal defense, is in fact a review of this process.  If the courts are moved by a defense arguement and  find that the government has gone over the line, it can lay down new guidelines that tweak what the government is allowed to do.  We see judges making mistakes from time to time, that you and I object to, so I think it's fairly obvious that this type of thing is in fact taking place.

You again state that you don't thing a weighing process takes place.  I am curious to see what your take on my above comments turns out to be.  Do you disagree that reviews are constantly being made before the courts?

I agree that Obama is going to be armed with far more powers than I would like, under the new anti-terrorism legislation.  That was troubling to me at the time those laws were implemented, and (I might add) over the hoots and hollers that people on our side were lofting in approval of them.  We're about to see just how detramental those laws can be, if that is Obama's true inclination.

As for the fairness doctrine, it seems to me that is going to be very hard on radio station owners.  For intance, Limbaugh will stay on.  The individual stations will now be forced to put on three hours of alternative drivel, even if it doesn't show a profit.  Rush will in effect be financing the second show, or perhaps more accurately the money he pulls in for the staion via commercials will.  You will probably find more harsh interpretations of what the fairness doctrine will result in, and they may be right.

I do want people to be able to express their views openly on the radio.  If the public favors those comments and wants to listen, they should be allowed to.

My guess is that the fairness doctrine won't affect MSM news reporting though.  After all, those are just the facts being presented.

I too find the concepts promoted by the Federalist Papers to be compelling, and vitally important.

Take care.

57 posted on 10/18/2008 10:40:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Is Obamanation what our founding fathers, our fallen men in combat, and Ronald Reagan had in mind?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Comade! You were quite fortunate not to been taken to the Ministry of Love and interrogated by the Thought Police in Room 101!

However, other members of the Outer Party like Comrade Jerry Blanchard are not so lucky!

This is his story by Comrade Ronbo...A Comrade the Thought Police will soon vaporize, I predict.

“FREE JERRY M. BLANCHARD FROM THE SS!”

Barack The Magic Negro Obama has not been elected President of the United States, but already his SS agents (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) are out arresting and sending to prison those whom they deem are enemies of The Lord Messiah Obama. One such individual is Jerry M Blanchard of Charlotte, North Carolina. Mr. Blanchard is currently being held at FCI (Federal Correctional Institute) Butner, North Carolina for allegedly threatening to assassinate The Lord Messiah Obama and, more importantly, calling him the “Anti-Christ.”

The foundation of the SS case(The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War)against Mr. Blanchard rests on the testimony of a few people who allegedly overheard Mr. Blanchard make threatening remarks concerning The Remarkable Obama. It would appear these days Democrats have developed a keen sense of hearing threats against The Wonderful Obama that were never spoken. These sensitive and patriotic American citizens who have no doubt have memorized the telephone numbers of equally sensitive and patriotic members of the elite SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) who never seem to find it out of place when Democrats and other Leftists as a matter of routine threaten the life of President Bush by way of books, movies, conversations overheard in most upper West side bars in New York City and in scores of Leftist Internet website like Daily Kos. After all, Bush is a fascist warmonger and baby killer who deserves no respect according to Leftists, Democrats and the SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War)

Thus Jerry M Blanchard, a stalwart Republican who actually believed that such a thing as the First Amendment still exists, made some conversations that were extremely politically incorrect and perhaps even very critical of His Excellency Obama, but given the context of a holocaust of Leftist hate speech and death threats directed against President Bush, Senator McCain, Governor Palin, the Boy Scouts and Mickey Mouse , Mr. Blanchard’s remarks were pretty much typical American political speech of 2008. The SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) did not see these alleged threatening comment reliably reported by Leftists concerning His Highness Obama in a laissez-faire political speech mode; no this was the beginning of dastardly conservative conspiracy to terminate with extreme prejudice His Holiness Obama. The Manchurian Candidate who has as good as won the election on November 4th and will no doubt be very grateful and generous towards members of the elite SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) who are so keen as to start arresting and throwing into prison conservatives before He takes office.

I may be a silly old Republican, but exactly what federal statute did Mr. Blanchard violate? This assuming he violated any law. I notice that U.S.C. 879 that Mr. Blanchard was indicted under refers to a “major party candidate. ” What is the definition of a “major party?” I’m sure many Republicans feel the Democrats are “major” only in the context that they are major league socialists. No doubt many Democrats feel the Republicans are a tiny minor minority party they can legislate out of existence if The Holy One Obama receives enough stolen votes from ACORN to become president. The devil is in the definition and since the statute doesn’t define a “major party” on this issue alone is Mr. Blanchard free from arrest unless Congress passes something like the “Obama Protection Act of 2008.” Also, what about due process of law, Writ of Habeas Corpus, bail and all those other republican safeguards of the inalienable Rights of Man and Citizen? I suppose under the new “Obama Protection Act of 2008” such old fashioned notions are out of style and a mere indictment by a Grand Jury which meets in secret and is staffed by secret members who hear only secret government testimony is enough to send an innocent man to prison. I understand the more advanced members of the elite SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) have sent a memordum to their Director with a highly advanced idea of how to end this bottleneck in the jails full of Obama critics waiting for judges and Grand Juries – Allow the SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) to simply arrest and send to prison anyone who they think may be critical towards The Supreme Leader Obama. The memo notes this worked well in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia where never a harsh word was said about The Leadership for many years. Yes sir! Say something hateful or allegedly racist about The Great Thinker Obama, like calling him The Magic Negro, and off you to go prison. No lawyer. No bail. Just jail. I’m thinking billboard signs all across the USA with a picture of The Fearless Leader Obama and this logo on it.

But back to poor Mr. Blanchard ,who after spending over a month in a single jail cell with a dozen members of The Nation of Islam also called “The Klan With The Tan” and converts to the most racist element of Islam to save his life, is finally released by the SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War)— Well perhaps released is not quite the word – he is transported to the very nice federal prison at Butner staffed by polite guards wearing coat and ties who in a very friendly manner escort Mr. Blanchard to his very own private cell in the Isolation Unit complete with security cameras and 24/7 security guards at taxpayer expense. The number one rule of the Isolation Unit is security. The security is so good here in the Isolation Unit that men go crazy and howl all day and night in the comfort of maximum security. Mr. Blanchard gets his security meals approved by the Federal Diet Agency and containing no more than 500 calories by way of a hole in the door three times day. The laundry is changed once a week and Mr, Blanchard receives a fresh security one piece red federal inmate uniform by way of the security food slot once a week. Also once a week Mr. Blanchard receives his security bath that will not include a razor due to Security Concerns. Mr. Blanchard will not receive recreation, mail, visits, or be allowed reading materials also due to Security Concerns. The Federal BOP (Bureau of Prisons) is not being unkind to Mr. Blanchard, a dangerous revolutionary and assassin who could raise an army torch bearing peasants that would storm the nearest castle looking for The Monster Obama, it’s simply Security Concerns. Did I mention security suicide watch? The BOP has learned over many years that political prisoners for some reason become depressed and kill themselves. This is unacceptable Security Concern because blood all over the cell my infect a politically correct staff member who thinks only good thoughts about The Chosen One and has applied for a job with the SS (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the
Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War).

Alas, all good things must end some day! One fine morning Mr. Blanchard missed because his subterranean cell had no skylight, the keys rattle in the door of his maximum security cell and there before his sleepy eyes stands the prison’s heavily armed SWAT team dressed head to toe in black to take him to the Interrogation...err...Conference Room. There under the hot lights a tag team of SS agents (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) grill him for hour after hour with questions and commands:

Confess your guilt!

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?

We want to know the names of everyone in your sleeper cell!

Why do you have DVDs of Road Runner cartoons?

Tell us everything you know about Ronbo!

And so forth.

As is well known to civil rights Guardians of The Republic like the Communist ACLU, torture is forbidden by federal law, however, sending an innocent man to prison without due process and putting him into a cell full racist black fascists and then sending him to an isolation cell in the high security wing of a prison and then hauling him out to be seated under hot lights until he confesses – this not torture. This is simply extremism in the defense of liberty. The federal courts have so ruled.

Remarkably Mr. Blanchard holds out. He won’t even tell the SS agents (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) anything about Ronbo. He says nothing. He’s knows nothing. He sees nothing. After 48 hours of intense interrogations and not allowed to sleep he begins to have visions that he’s an American officer in Nazi POW camp by the name of Colonel Hogan. “Where the hell is Sergeant Schultz?” He keeps yelling over and over so long the SS agents (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) start wondering if they do indeed have an innocent man in their hands.

The conversation between the agents went something like this:

Agent One: Remember Ronbo? I heard he was innocent.

Agent Two: I heard he was innocent too. I remember reading that somewhere on the Internet.

Agent One: Never mind. We go to Plan B. I’ve already cleared it with the Director.

Agent Two: What’s Plan B?

Agent One: DRUGS! DRUGS!! MORE DRUGS!!! Didn’t you go to Interrogation 101 at the Academy? We need a court order, but all we have to tell the judge is he’s crazy, and he will be totally insane after we give him the drugs.

Agent Two: It didn’t work on Ronbo.

Agent One: The drugs only work if the suspect is sane. Ronbo was insane and harmless. All the drugs did was turn him sane and dangerous. This is why we never give drugs to the insane. Now get me Judge Aisha Muhammad on the phone!

At some point in Plan “B” poor Mr. Blanchard confesses to the attempted assassination of the Anti-Christ. He also confesses to being James Dean, Lee Harvey Oswald, Martin Luther, George Washington and Ronbo. The SS agents (The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel SS Praetorian Guard of Adolf Hitler that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War) rush him to the nearest U.S. Attorney, a Democrat Socialist Muslim woman wearing a head to toe black burka, who agrees to a very generous plea bargain she hammered out in five minutes of hard negotiations with Blanchard’s Federal Court Appointed Attorney. The deal is this: If Mr. Blanchard agrees to plead guilty before a federal judge and not attempt to bring matters of small importance to the attention of the court like violations civil rights, Writ of Habeas Corpus, torture and so forth, she, the U.S. Attorney, who swears to Allah and the 72 Virgins of Paradise, will see to it personally that Mr. Blanchard will receive no more than 13 months in prison with time served at Club Fed on the beach in Florida with convicted Democrat Congressmen as roommates who are working on their tans. This means Mr. Blanchard is looking at little more than a year prison time. Mr. Blanchard looks at the U.S. Attorney with blood shot eyes framed by a head of hair and wild bushy beard and slurs in a drugged voice, “Will you let me go right now if I tell you everything I know about Ronbo? I know I confessed to being Ronbo, but I really don’t know anything about him. If you would only tell me something about him I’ll tell you right back.”

The offer is refused.

(AP) Today Jerry M. Blanchard was sentenced to 120 months in prison and three years probation for the attempted assassination of The Great Helmsman Obama and obstruction of justice after pleading guilty before a federal court. When asked by the judge if he had anything to say before sentencing Mr. Blanchard made a very strange remark, “I know the identity of Ronbo....I’m Ronbo!” Mr. Blanchard has been sent to USP Atlanta where he has been placed in a cell with five members of the Nation of Islam due to his conversion to the Muslim faith while in jail.

THE ARTICLE ABOVE IS POLITICAL SATIRE THAT BEARS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRUTH LIKE ALL GOOD SATIRE. IT IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE AUTHOR HAS NEVER MET JERRY M. BLANCHARD OR AS HAD CONTACT WITH HIM. THIS SATIRE WAS PRODUCED WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF GAINING PUBLIC ATTENTION TO HIS PRESENT CONDITION AS A POLITICAL PRISONER. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST THE LORD MESSIAH OBAMA EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE THE ANTI-CHRIST AND THE DESTROYER OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. WHAT GOD DOES TO HIM IS ANOTHER MATTER FAR ABOVE THE PAY GRADE OF SERGEANT RONBO.

Also:

THE AUTHOR HAS NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE! THIS ORGANIZATION IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. IT SHOULD BE DISBANDED AND PROTECTION OF THE PRESIDENT GIVEN OVER TO HONEST MEN AND WOMEN OF THE ARMED FORCES.

The U.S. Secret Service – This elite Praetorian Presidential Guard is not to be confused with the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad) SS Praetorian Guard that murdered and imprisoned millions of innocent people in the Second World War which began its existence as a few agents charged with the protection of Adolf Hitler.

THE LAST WORD:

JERRY M BLANCHARD 23096-058 48 White M —Jerry is being held at FCI Butner, NC. I’m in the process of contacting him. To my knowledge Jerry has not been tried, yet he is already an inmate in a federal prison and given a prison number! What happened to the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Bail?

This is chilling folks!!! So now anyone the SS says is a “threat” to Obama can be arrested, accused of being a nut case, sent to a prison psycho ward, and given drugs and “treatment” against his will. No lawyer. No bail. Just jail.

This is happening today in the USA and not Soviet Russia in the 1970s when political opponents of the Communist regime were deemed “Insane” and given drugs which ruined their minds and health. I say we form a “Get Jerry Out Of Jail” chapter. As I see it with the massive violation of his Constitutional rights, Jerry should be immediately released and paid a large dollar amount for damages. Also, the SS agents in charge need to be indicted for major civil rights violations. The old “I was only doing my duty” routine died in the Nazi war crime trials.

Jerry’s address:

FCI BUTNER MEDIUM I
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
ATTN: Jerry Blanchard 23096-058
P.O. BOX 1000
BUTNER, NC 27509

*Please feel free to send money. A U.S. Postal Money Order is best and it’s very important to put the inmate register number on the check along with the name, otherwise the Government will cash it and use the money for their own purposes. Even a small amount of money..$5 or $10 is big money inside and very important since many needed personal items aren’t issued by the prison. What say you? This guy is a registered Republican and now a political prisoner abandoned by nearly everyone for the high crime of being against Obama and saying so. There but for the Grace of God go all members of Free Republic.


58 posted on 10/20/2008 1:23:35 PM PDT by Sergeant_Ronbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I disagree. No one is above the law. If SS agents knowingly and willing violate the law they are criminally responsible for their actions. If SS agents obey the illegal orders of their superiors to violate the civil rights of an American citizen both the agents and the supervisors are criminally liable under the law.

The only difference between a rat and a secret policeman is the secret police have better PR.


59 posted on 10/20/2008 1:33:48 PM PDT by Sergeant_Ronbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Fury

Bump for later read...


60 posted on 10/20/2008 1:36:28 PM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson