Thursday, 23 October 2008
|0840 - Oppose Obama, get a free visit from the Secret Service|
...or should they be renamed the Gedankenpolizei (thought police)?
A Lufkin, Texas woman called Obama a socialist when one of his campaign workers called on her cellphone to campaign for him. The next day, she got a visit from the Secret Service. Read the story in the Lufkin Daily News.
current mood: pissed off
Really? That's what you got from this article? For christ's sake, the second paragraph explains exactly what caused the visit, and it wasn't being called "socialist".
"I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."
Now, as far as death threats go, I'd consider it a bit overzealous to call this one, but damn, for someone who complains at great length about how the "MSM" doesn't bother to tell the whole story, you sure excel at it.
Read the article again. That's what she was accused of saying, but that's not what she said. Her accuser - who is being protected by the Secret Service from being charged with filing a false police report - claimed
she gave a death threat.
A more complete account of the encounter can be found in this post
at the Twin Cities Carry site.
...which appears to require registration to get to that one. Okkay, here it is:
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.
[continued from last comment]
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 wanted 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, etcetera. I am hearing a lot of “Out of my Jurisdiction”. Do I also hear jackboots?
Oh, I'm not saying that I know what is going on, what I'm saying is that you didn't even point out that there was another side to the story.
She is saying she said one thing. The volunteer claims differently. The fact is, we will probably never know the truth of the situation which, in my experience, is somewhere in the middle. I have no reason to believe either the volunteer or the woman, so I place no more weight on either of their stories.
But you didn't even tell the story, you told your half of a slanted, partisan story. (And, not being a member of the Twin Cities Carry site, I don't have immediate access to the article.)
Considering that the Obama campaign has tried to use the FCC to silence the NRA, I have no trouble believing that trampling the First Amendment is a part of their policy.
You're right, we'll never know for sure...but I find the lady from Lufkin's story credible.
We're (thankfully) winding up the last year of an administration that has spent the past eight years shitting on the Constitution and wiping its ass with the Bill of Rights, and you're worried about what a potential future administration might do?
You make no sense.
winding up the last year of an administration that has spent the past eight years shitting on the Constitution and wiping its ass with the Bill of Rights,
Hey, what was Obama's vote on FISA again?
and you're worried about what a potential future administration might do?
Obama's position on the Constitution isn't notably better in any way than that of the Republicans, and in at least one way it's much worse. Of course I'm worried about what a potential future administration might do; aren't you?
Both parties have used the local police and Secret Service to violate the First Amendment (or didn't you read any news articles about their nominating conventions?)
I didn't follow the Democrat convention at all, but I have no trouble believing that the St. Paul police did exactly what they needed to do to prevent major disruptions of the cnvention and civil order in general during the Republican convention, despite what the left-wing moonbats who went there with avowed intentions to wreak havoc are now claiming.
"Exactly what they needed to do"?
You mean like invading houses without warrants? I don't care if they needed to do that, they deserve to be in prison for it.
When the lawsuits are settled (and the Republicans reimburse the St. Paul police for the millions they promised in indemnity) will you still be claiming that the police did what they "needed" to do?
That's what she was accused of saying, but that's not what she said.
How do you know what she said?
The call apparently wasn't recorded.
The only two people who know tell different stories.
I can conclude that at least one of them is lying. Does your telepathy tell you which?
I find her story credible, and I do believe that all that would be required to get the Secret Service to visit would be to tell them that she'd said what she was accused of saying. It's a process similar to what judges and juries do when evaluating opposing statements: weigh the credibility of the two people and choose who you find more credible. Since the Obama campaign worker is being shielded from any consequences of her actions, she has no reason not to lie. Lying to the Secret Service, OTOH, is a federal offense, as they'll be quick to tell you.
I find both stories credible.
Neither party is being prosecuted, because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.
At least one party lied to the Secret Service. We don't know which.
I don't think "lying to the secret service is a federal offense" is a good reason to believe that this woman is telling the truth.
Consider the situation if she did in fact make the "dead on the floor" statement:
- She tells the truth, and goes to jail.
- She lies, and gets caught, and goes to jail for a little bit longer - making death threats against a senator and presidential candidate is much bigger than lying about same.
- She lies, and does not get caught, and does not go to jail.
If she has reason to believe that she will not get caught in a lie, then it is in her best interest to lie.
I look at it this way. Bush, with a Republican Congress, didn't manage to overturn Roe vs. Wade, eliminate Welfare, privatize Social Security OR get a constitutional amendment in against gay marriage.
I heard alot of my friends with similar "panic" "anxiety" and "fear" about those things happening 4 years ago as you express about Obama now, just with regards to socialization, gun bans, and big(er) government.
The way I look at it is: take a big breath. These guys talk alot of smack. But when push comes to shove, they are mostly inept.
For the sake of honesty, I personally am for alot of what Obama has to say, I really like his ideals. I liked pre-campaign McCain. And if Hillary'd been the nominee, I'd have been voting McCain.
But, really, if you're going to post this article, please follow up with an equally heinous one about some poor American bastard in Guantanamo. Because we all know that's happening... and it is equally as Nazi as you fear this action is.