The Rutherford Institute, yesterday, strongly condemned Congressman Tom Perriello’s Town Hall “sign-ban” as “an act of outright censorship” that comes “at the expense of his constituents’ First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.”

Within hours of Rutherford releasing their statement along with a letter (which threatened legal action) sent to directly to “King Tom” Perriello, the Congressman reluctantly rolled.

Though relenting in word, Democrat Perriello, through staff mouthpiece Michael Kelly, arrogantly reiterated his opposition to constituents bringing signs into these taxpayer-funded campaign rallies:

“Going forward, we will suggest that folks refrain from bringing signs inside to encourage an atmosphere of civility and discussion, rather than spectacle,” Kelly said. “We will not prevent folks from bringing a sign if they choose to, but we will ask them to be considerate and respectful of other constituents’ time and comfort.”

Andrew Breitbart—who initiated his own coverage upon notification of The Schilling Show’s original post—revealed a previously unknown link between “King Tom” Perriello’s sign-ban policy and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU):

Banning political signs is a tactic first recommended last year by Health Care for Americans Now (HCAN) a front group for the SEIU. Their instructions to Democratic lawmakers and their union allies read: “Another way to limit protesters’ ability to hijack your event is to confiscate signs or leaflets that they may bring into the venue from outside. The best way to do this is to make a blanket rule that no one can bring signs or leaflets and to advertise this fact as you do turn out in the weeks preceding the event. You can distribute your own signs in the event and offer them one as they enter if you choose to allow them to enter.”

Noteworthy is the fact that SEIU is a major Perriello supporter, directly having bankrolled the Congressman’s destructive Marxist agenda to the tune of $15,250—and indirectly for likely hundreds of thousands more via television, Internet, and other pro-Perriello advertising.

Perriello’s close affiliation with SEIU, a group often accused of thuggery, is another cause for concern, and one for which the Congressman should be made to answer.

See SEIU’s television commercial thanking Democrat Tom Perriello for voting “yes” on nationalized medicine in America:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ2xHogjSkc

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

7 COMMENTS

  1. Perriello’s close affiliation with SEIU, a group often accused of thuggery, is another cause for concern, and one for which the Congressman should be made to answer.

    The SEIU claims 2.2 million members, and I can only find a few instances in which they’ve been accused of “thuggery,” which seems to be the Right’s favorite phrase for their occasionally loutish behavior. Apparently none of these incidents have occurred in the 5th District and have been instigated by actual Perriello supporters, or you would have noted them.

    I’ll bet there have been more racist signs and masks at Tea Party rallies than violent incidents by SEIU members. If Perriello should be made to answer for what a few people in a group that supports him do, then you should be made to answer for the racism of those few Tea Partiers, because that group supports you.

    Bottom line: hatred makes people say stupid things.

  2. “You can distribute your own signs in the event and offer them one as they enter if you choose to allow them to enter.” So the attendees can distract the gathering by using Perriello signs but not their own. You have the freedom of speech as long as it reflects Perriello’s opinion. Ridge Schuyler is constructing Perriello’s career as well as he was constructing a dam – it’s going to cost alot.

  3. The report on WCHV radio shows Tom still just doesn’t get it. He seemingly scolds the Rutherford Institute for going public with the letter they sent to the Congressman.

    I just love humble transparent politicians.

  4. So the attendees can distract the gathering by using Perriello signs but not their own.

    If there was any evidence that Perriello had taken this tactic, which I don’t believe for a minute he would, Rob would have posted it.

    And speaking of Rob, uh, Rob, contrary to what you said on the air, I didn’t say that the SEIU “hasn’t done anything wrong.” In fact I referred to loutish and violent behavior by a few of its members. Rebut what I said, if you can. If not, please don’t again duck an actual debate, or admission, and instead put words in my mouth. Again, if Perriello is accountable for bad actions by a few members of an organization, who are not even in his district, have done, then by the same absurd logic you are responsible for the bad actions of the national group that supports you.

    And contrary to another thing you said on the air, the DP didn’t write Perriello “strikes sign ban,” but rather “withdraws sign ban,” making clear that the ban was his. In the article itself McNeill writes that “Perriello’s office had banned signs.” The article also cites not one but two Tea Partier’s without rebuttal on their charges. If anything, “Lefty” bent over backwards to be fair here. You could learn from his example.

    I wonder sometimes why so few of your listeners post here.

  6. That’s it, Rob? That’s your whole rebuttal to everything?? You were right on that minor point. I read the story online, where the headline reads “After criticism, Perriello withdraws sign ban.”

Leave a Reply