"OBAMA TRUTH SQUADS" TO TAKE ACTION IN MISSOURI: SHADES OF GOOSE STEPPING NAZI BROWN SHIRTS

This is one of the most incredible stories I've seen in some time. It's completely under the radar, but this is so reminiscent of Nazi Germany it's scary.

St. Louis and Missouri law enforcement are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign.

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

See the video report here.

And more from St. Louis CofCC Blog:

KMOV Channel 4’s TV newscast night before last at 6 PM had a story, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are implying that they will bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, New York Times vs Sullivan, that set the benchmark for libel vis-a-vis “public figures,” of which Barack Obama is certainly one. If a public figure brings a civil libel lawsuit against an individual or a group, then s/he has to prove to a civil jury (usually nine out of twelve jurors) that a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. it is more likely than not) shows that the defendant(s) knowingly said or wrote something factually incorrect about the plaintiff(s). If a prosecutorial authority brings criminal libel charges against a defendant on behalf of a plaintiff, as McCulloch and Joyce are threatening to do, then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve out of twelve jurors that the defendant knowingly said or wrote something factually incorrect about the defendant.

The two key concepts here are “knowingly” and “factual.” Successful civil libel lawsuits brought by public figures are exceedingly rare, because it’s very difficult to prove that the defendant “knowingly” said or wrote something factually incorrect. Criminal libel prosecutions thereof, because they require a unanimous jury and a higher legal standard of proof, are virtually impossible.

As for “factual,” it means that the statement made cannot relate to an opinion. If you say that Barack Obama isn’t really a Christian, that’s not a statement of fact, because religion is mostly subjective. The Catholic Church still really doesn’t consider Protestants to be Christians, and in some cases, some radical Protestants don’t think that Catholics are really Christians. Therefore, if one says that Barack Obama isn’t a Christian, it isn’t actionable, because it’s somebody’s opinion. Now, if Obama were a Catholic, and really was Confirmed as such, and someone for whom that it can be proven does know he is a Confirmed Catholic goes out and says that he isn’t, that’s actionable. The reason is that Confirmation in the Catholic Church is (usually) provable by ecclesiastical records.

In other words, virtually nobody that levels criticism at Barack Obama can be charged criminally for doing so.

However, in the opinion of this writer, Bob McCulloch and Jennifer Joyce are, at the behest of the Obama campaign, ratting sabers to intimidate people from criticizing Obama. If my contention is correct, then if anyone will face civil or maybe criminal liability from the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in St. Louis, it’s McCulloch and Joyce themselves. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, in my opinion, that their threats violated Federal Civil Rights laws, two public authorities might well be forcing a “chilling effect” on 1st Amendent free speech. If Barack Obama or any of his people have any fingerprints on this, they could be sent up the river as well.

I think this blogger has nailed it. This, in my opinion, is nothing other than some high level Obama supporters trying to intimidate any dissenters of Obama into silence. It certainly fits the new Obama model as evidenced by his recent attempts to silence the NRA in Pennsylvania and Ohio:

The Obama campaign has written radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, pressing them to refuse to air an ad from the National Rifle Association.

"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, who provided the letter, said it shows clear evidence that the ads are "hurting him," and stood by their substance. He also provided a copy of the NRA's own letter to the stations and memo disputing the Post story, after the jump. He also said the ad is running only in Pennsylvania at the moment.

It also is consistent with Obama's truth squads that were dispatched during the primary against Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. Obama has also dispatched his "truth squad" goons in Pennsylvania, Indiana, California, and North Carolina.