It Ain’t No More, OK?

On Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) hosted a Town Hall meeting on ObamaCare at the South Lakes High School in Reston, VA. As could be expected in these times of increased political involvement by the People, the turn-out was large and included both supporters of nationalized health insurance and its opponents.

That’s becoming normal and is certainly a welcome change from the general apathy the electorate has shown in previous decades.

What is also becoming normal, or at least normalized, and is most certainly unwelcome is the behavior exhibited by Obama’s supporters, now including ones who operate under the Color of Law.

Black Thug in Uniform says It Ain’t America No More

School security officer Wesley Cheeks, Jr. took offense to one of the protester’s posters, one utilizing a variation of Firas Alkhateeb’s now-viral Obama-as-Joker imagery. Unlike others who might have disliked the poster in question, Officer Cheeks had the badge, firearm, and misused legal authority to threaten an American into taking down the sign that so offended what passes for his “sensibilities.”

As is clearly demonstrated by this thug-with-a-gun-and-badge, a certain sort of follower of Obama just doesn’t care about the Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment, when the assembly or expression it would protect is counter to the agenda of the First Black President.

Protester – This is America. This used to be America.

Officer Cheeks – It ain’t no more, OK?

The thug, Cheeks must be given some credit for honesty at least. He was blunt and unapologetic in his treason to the ideals and foundations of America. It should only be a modicum of credit though; Cheeks is Black and therefore, due to various programs and laws in the South, shielded from disciplinary action or termination for his action; he’s protected and held to a far lower standard of behavior than a White officer would be.

Frankly, I’m thankful the protester was White. I’m afraid of what Cheeks’ response would have been to a Black who he might have considered a “Race Traitor.”

Don’t expect the Reston, VA Police Department to do anything to Cheeks. Don’t expect the ACLU to help in any civil suit. Certainly don’t expect President Obama to issue a condemning statement. If something is to be done about Officer Cheeks and the forces he’s a stormtrooper for, it must come from we, the People.

No matter what filth like Cheeks jabber, this is still America and it will remain such as long as Americans are willing to to balk the actions of such as him and, if needed and no other recourse is allowed, make an example of him such as will be remembered with terror by others of his foul ilk throughout the years.

Related Reading:

Black Rednecks and White Liberals
America: A Narrative History (Brief Tenth Edition)  (Vol. 2)
Politics (Oxford World's Classics)
America's First Daughter: A Novel

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

15 Responses to “It Ain’t No More, OK?”

  1. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:


    Free Speech is just that. Speech. These Town Hall meetings are turning into screaming crazy free-for-alls. Holding up signs portraying the President in a rude and inflammatory light is not conducive to a discussion. (It is fine at a corner protest). Other people were holding up signs that had actual words written on them, and no, they were not being asked to put down their signs.
    A cartoon is not speech. A cartoon does not belong at a meeting.
    An aside – when the Constitution adds “Free Cartooning” to it’s list of rights, well then, yes! This would have been a violation of Mr. Cartoon Signs rights. 🙂

    John McCain also threw someone out of a town hall meeting for yelling and being belligerent. As he should have. From what I can see in the video, Officer Cheeks is doing his best to keep order at the meeting, and finally walks away inn disgust because this man with the cartoon wants to incite and start getting folks riled up, which, as we all know, is illegal. Officer Cheeks would be within the law to have the man arrested.

    I agree with you, Jonolan, that these town hall meetings are a good thing, in that We, the People, are finally getting a chance to be heard, and not ignored as in previous administrations.

    Perhaps everyone is a little wild because of the pent up frustration on both sides, feeling as though they have not been heard by their elected officials in decades, as you mentioned in your post.

    During the Bush Administration, protesters were allowed to protest, literally miles away from any cameras or media. They were corralled as far away from the event as possible.

    During Clinton, the protesters that did not like Clinton were seen. Were they listened to? I do not know.

    I would like to believe that everybody getting a chance to be heard is like having that one cup of coffee too many – everyone is wound up, feeling as if this is their ONE chance, and they had better grab it while they can.

    It is my hope that all of us, from all political parties, will understand that we are being invited to speak our minds, and not just this one time, and that these Town Hall meetings will settle down and morph into what they are supposed to be – civil debate and discussion.

    My thoughts on the whole healthcare matter? Everyone, both on the Left and the Right, just take a breathe and settle down. We will all be heard, and while nothing is perfect, and change is often uncomfortable, I believe we will come out the other end with possibly a large percent of all parties feeling satisfied that they were heard.

    It is what I do pray for, for all Americans, regardless of race, religious preference, gender, and political affiliations. We are all human beings, we are all connected by that one simple fact. Working together is a lovely concept, and since we all came from tribes and communities, we do have the ability to tap back into our ancestors way of life and access said ability.

    It is about survival, and we cannot survive alone. We’ll make it, I have faith.


  2. jonolan Says:


    Cartoons, and other such things that are non-vocal expressions are protected under the 1st Amendment; flag burning being an example of how broad the protections are.

    Both the 1971 Cohen v. California and Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation US Supreme Court rulings upheld graphic images as being protected under the 1st Amendment unless they were “Obscene” or “presented a clear and present danger.”

  3. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:

    Jonolan –
    Fair enough – since my silly, uninformed joke was the only issue you picked out, I am gathering you agree with the rest of the comment?

    And to answer your protection under the 1st Amendment unless it is “obscene” or “presents a clear and present danger” – I reiterate – for a TOWN HALL MEETING, carrying that sign with an unflattering parody of the President is an attempt to incite a crowd, and can be perceived as “presenting a clear and present danger”.

    What else can you tell me that this man is trying to do at this Town Hall meeting with that sign, other than start a scene and possibly incite an incident, or incidents, that could lead to violence?

    It was up to the discretion of the police officer to make that determination, that was his job. The sign holder was trying to rile up the officer, for crying out loud. Officer Cheeks had the smarts to walk away from being goaded into anger. Other people might not have shown such restraint.

  4. jonolan Says:


    I could pick apart some of the inaccuracies in other parts of your comment but I don’t see the point in doing so since the gist of it as a whole is something I somewhat agree with; the “debate” has degenerated to the point of uselessness at the Town Halls.

    As for the idea that portraying Obama as the Joker “presenting a clear and present danger” – from a legal standpoint that is absurd. The standard for “clear and present danger” is quite strict and deliberately so.

    The poster was far less inflammatory than any march of the Black Panthers or the KKK, both of which enjoy the full protections of the 1st Amendment.

    As for the thuggish cop – he overstepped his authority since his authority cannot supersede the Constitution, a fact the he made clear that he both knew and didn’t care about.

  5. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:

    Jonolan –
    Good Sunday Afternoon!

    I agree with what you say concerning the sign portraying Obama as the Joker “presents a clear and present danger” from a legal standpoint is utterly absurd.

    Unfortunately, from what I see going on in these Town Hall Meetings, people showing up with everything from signs to guns is a bit over the top, and everyone, from every party affiliation, is so damned wound up, that a sign portraying Obama as the Joker, or, from the other side, a sign portraying Palin as a wild-eyed wolf-killing ‘Death Panels’ harridan in high heels, or Huckabee as a wacked out Basset hound pounding the Bible DO NOT belong at these tense meetings. They are, as my grandmother used to say, like throwing a match on a pile of dry pine needles.

    It is almost the equivalent of falsely yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire. That is creating a panic, a mob scene, a dangerous situation.

    There are plenty of places for these signs, this is free speech (I WAS being a smart-ass when I said “Free Cartooning”).

    This is just my opinion, but I feel that Officer Cheeks was trying to keep a situation calm, and in what you feel was overstepping his authority and superseding the Constitution, to me comes off as a rather exhausted “whatever, Sign-Guy”, officer trying to stop anything from becoming more tense. I do not feel his words were meant to be taken as literally as you have taken them, any more than the Joker sign, as you pointed out, presents a clear and present danger, outside the confines of these enclosed meetings.

    Unless I am mistaken, the Black Panthers and the KKK were not attending Town Hall meetings, they were marching and/or protesting. The were not in a confined space trying to debate a healthcare issue.

    This is a new situation, and everybody is doing their best to be heard. I feel that sticking so hard to what is “Legal” and “Constitutional”, while extremely important, needs to be viewed with a slightly wider scope in these situations.

    It is all just too damned inflammatory right now, that we do agree on.

    It has been great debating with you, as always. 🙂


  6. jonolan Says:


    When things are this heated and there is so much on the line is when we MUST adhere to the most stringent standards and scopes of what is is “Legal” and “Constitutional.” It’s just too easy to slide into despotism elsewise – as history has repeatedly shown us.

    As for the the “debate” being too heated – I’ve been thinking about it and I’m beginning to think that is isn’t becoming too heated because there is no debate in the first place. This situation will not be resolved via debate at the public level.

    This is about showing politicians, long insulated from the public, who supports what and in what strength of action and numbers. These town halls seem more about telling those politicians that their jobs are on the line than about debating the particulars of ObamaCare.

  7. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:

    Interesting take. I agree, politicians have long been insulated from the public, and we now have a president who does everything he can to listen to everyone and communicate with everyone, and first and second Ladies, Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, who are in the trenches every day doing work with families, soldiers, the elderly – the list is too long to post.

    That is why I am kind of surprised at how much you despise this new administration.

  8. jonolan Says:

    Kelly, what actual communicating is Pres. Obama doing? I hear a lot of radio addresses; i see a lot of YouTube video addresses; I see a lot of staged speaking events. I don’t see communication. I only see campaigning, something that Obama hasn’t stopped doing since he was elected.

    President Obama is a very good speaker – when he has his script and teleprompter – and is good at manipulating his supporters’ emotions. He seems less than interested in bilateral communication though.

    This is a one-way, top-down method of unilateral “communication” that is common amongst revolutionaries such s Obama. People who think that they “have the answer” tend to orate more than they tend to listen.

    …And, of course, some of his followers – ones such as officer Cheeks – don’t tolerate “interruptions” and “arguments” very well.

  9. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:

    Well, we could start with the recent Cambridge Police incident. President Obama apologized to the Police, and to Sgt James Crowley, acknowledging that his (Obama’s) words helped ratchet up an already heated situation. He admitted that he felt that not only had the white officer over reacted, but the black Professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr, over reacted as well.

    The President then invites the two of them to get together with him at the White House for a beer to work it out.

    How is that perceived as not communicating? And please don’t tell me it was elaborately staged liberal media stunt. Please.

    And what you see as campaigning, can it not be interpreted as communicating as best as he can without breaking any government laws, as to where he and Congress are at with certain Bills and what progress has been made, and where things are a bit knotty?

    And since you dislike the fact that President Obama is a good speaker with a “script and a teleprompter” (although I have seen him speak live, and he had many off the cuff moments) – and is “good at manipulating peoples emotions,” well, isn’t that what Sarah Palin does? The one you DO like? She works peoples emotions, yet takes no questions, and cries that she is being “picked on” when she refuses to take questions and leaves the media to draw their own conclusions. Palin, too, has die hard followers, and can do no wrong in their eyes, no matter what.

    I believe President Obama takes questions most all of the time.

    I would also like to know, since this started off on the 1st amendment issue, (and we have strayed a bit) where on your blog you are not outraged that (white) R. Senator John McCain threw a (white) woman out of a town hall meeting for yelling? What about her right to free speech? If it is on your blog somewhere, please tell me how to find it, as I have not found a post anywhere.

    Where is the outrage from you that the woman was denied her 1st amendments rights at McCain’s Town Hall?

    Just Curious.

    I find, sometimes, that your wording comes of as very, very subtle propaganda – sliding in words such as “revolutionaries” “orate” and “followers”.

    Especially after Obama won the election, you wrote to your readers that it was a “day of mourning” “America lost” but not to worry, you would “rise up” again, stronger than ever.

    Yet you subtly accuse the President of doing the very same thing.

    I am, as usual, confused. We are all complex creatures, we human beings, full of our own contradictions and hypocrisies, but you do have a tendency to really confound me sometimes. 🙂


    If you ask me why I do not like Palin, when I compare her to your interpretation of Obama, it is because I cannot find a single stance of hers that I agree with. I have tried, believe me, and there is simply not a one.

    (Just to save your fingers from asking).

  10. jonolan Says:

    I know you said, “Please,” but the “beer summit” was nothing but a media stunt – though I wouldn’t describe it as “liberal.” It was more pragmatic, a showy fix to smooth over Obama’s PR blunder of getting involved at all, much less how he did so.

    As for the Obama-Palin comparison. You’re spot on! I’ve never felt that Palin showed any great tendency towards communication either. She, like Obama, entered Office with an agenda that was top-down in nature and was, in her smaller scale as a Governor, just as much of a revolutionary.

    As for my silence on McCain having a disruptive woman ousted from an event – it’s in the same oblivion as my – non-existent – outrage over Barney frank’s treatment of an equally disruptive woman a few weeks ago.

    There’s a big difference between a disruptive person who is interfering with others’ right to speak and a person standing on a corner outside of an event.

  11. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:

    Oh well, we’ve kind of beaten this one to death, haven’t we? We see this video differently, and have a few agreeing points along the way, which is always a good thing.

    It seems to usually go like that, huh?

    At least we can exchange a few recipes along the way. 🙂

    See you down the road at the next brouhaha, lol.

    If you want to talk food, pop on over to “Dumpling” and let us exchange!

    However, you probably want to get on with your next political post, and I am behind on all four blogs at this point.

    Take Care,


  12. TRO Says:

    “And to answer your protection under the 1st Amendment unless it is “obscene” or “presents a clear and present danger” – I reiterate – for a TOWN HALL MEETING, carrying that sign with an unflattering parody of the President is an attempt to incite a crowd, and can be perceived as “presenting a clear and present danger”.”

    The only danger was to the guy holding the sign from fascists cops and lefties.

  13. jonolan Says:


    That’s my opinion as well. However, given the fact that many of the rank and file Liberals have been indoctrinated to see dissent to Obama as racism, I can see where some would consider posters like the one this guy had as inflammatory.

    That was, after all, the point of such a race-baiting campaign.

  14. Shanannon Says:

    Where was the outrage when Bush was repeatedly portrayed as a chimpanzee, Alfred E. Newman from Mad Magazine, or any other “cartoonish” representation of him throughout the media? I’m not saying either is right, but enough with the double standards already.

    Black Panthers were stationed outside at least one poling place brandishing batons. No it wasn’t a Town Hall meeting, but it certainly should be considered one of the United States’ most fundamentally sacred places in American politics.

    Just imagine if the races of the protester and Cheeks were reversed…

  15. jonolan Says:


    If the races of the protester and Cheeks were reversed, there would have been even less coverage of the incident than there was. The media would never be eager to show a Black protesting against Obama.

    Now if the races of the protester and the POTUS were reversed, it would have been a media circus and the officer in question would have been fired the next day.

Leave a Reply