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

Skip to comments.

Remove Sign or Leave, GOP Chair Told (Impeach Obama sign in PA)
The McKeesport Daily News ^ | Saturday, August 21, 2013 | Patrick Cloonan

Posted on 08/17/2013 9:49:51 AM PDT by kristinn

The chairman of a Port Vue-based political organization said he was given an ultimatum — remove an “Impeach Obama” sign or vacate the quarters he rents in a shopping center along Washington Boulevard in the borough.

Mon Valley Republican Committee chairman Brent Kovac said he did neither, so on Thursday his landlord Helen Siudyla-Totty painted over a sign that was painted on plywood posted after the political committee storefront was vandalized in October 2008.

“We did that mural on the panels where our windows were,” Kovac said.

Bricks and a tire were hurled through the storefront window a few weeks before the 2008 general election.

Kovac said Siudyla-Totty told him she had received “so many threatening phone calls” about the sign. Port Vue borough officials said they had no reports of any complaints about it.

The sign reportedly went up on Tuesday and was painted over later in the week. As of Friday morning red and blue rectangles had replaced the “Impeach Obama” caption.

“I just sat and watched it happen,” Kovac said. “I talked to a legal person who said, ‘You should call the ACLU.'”

The Mon Valley Republican Committee chairman said he wanted to tell friends to call his landlord in support of the sign, which went up as an endorsement of the “Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment” campaign.

“We were trying to get this together for a national event,” Kovac said.

SNIP


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: brentkovac; impeachobama; monvalley; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
Photos at source link. When you rent storefront space to a political party, advertising their political beliefs is part of the arrangement. The landlord is wrong and should be sued.
1 posted on 08/17/2013 9:49:51 AM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kristinn

I wonder if the landlord is the one who broke the windows.


2 posted on 08/17/2013 9:53:25 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Shades of the Egyptian 0bama Brothers’ calling for a week of rage.


3 posted on 08/17/2013 9:53:43 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Her name is hyphenated. She’s a lib.


4 posted on 08/17/2013 9:57:56 AM PDT by albie (re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“You should call the ACLU.”

http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/right.wav


5 posted on 08/17/2013 9:58:07 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Crystalnacht!!!!!


6 posted on 08/17/2013 9:59:28 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

It is not nice not to like Dear Leader. The hypocrisy of the left/liberals know no bounds.


7 posted on 08/17/2013 10:04:08 AM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

Trying to find out more about her. Near as I can tell she’s a 59yo pharmacist.

How many Helen Siudyla-Totty in Pittsburgh area can there be?


8 posted on 08/17/2013 10:04:45 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All; mickie; flaglady47; Bob Ireland; pax_et_bonum; Maine Mariner; seekthetruth; seenenuf; ...
We freepers sided with the bakery owners being sued by the homos for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them in their own store.

How can we be against this particular store-front owner for refusing to allow a sign in or by his front window that he finds offensive also?

I mentally agree with the former and disagree with the latter, but I'm having a little trouble trying to be consistent here.

Leni

9 posted on 08/17/2013 10:05:55 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

Jane Doe-Anything

Dead giveaway.


10 posted on 08/17/2013 10:08:12 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

This is how the Brownshirts started their campaigns of intimidation.

I believe it is fair to say that the Obama regime is well aware of the early tactics of intimidation that the Nazis were so successful with

This sort of thing will continue and is going to get worse unless vigorously opposed. But those charged with protecting our 1st amendment rights are the ones essentially encouraging the intimidation. And in some cases, behind it.

The options regarding our liberties are rapidly decreasing down to two. Give them up or ......


11 posted on 08/17/2013 10:12:05 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Another hyphenated idiot.


12 posted on 08/17/2013 10:13:34 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Apples and oranges. You are making an invalid comparison.

One centers around the right of association while the other is clearly 1st amendment protected political speech.


13 posted on 08/17/2013 10:15:10 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Notice that Allegheny County Republican committee chairman James Roddey throws this guy under the bus.

True it is not Kovac’s property, he is renting it, but did the landlord really think a political committee would not have political signs? It all depends on how the lease is written.


14 posted on 08/17/2013 10:15:57 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

and the brown shirts were HOMOsexuals. The Pink Swastika is a great book about it.


15 posted on 08/17/2013 10:16:03 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Democrats are LAWLESS,

Republicans are BALL LESS.
16 posted on 08/17/2013 10:17:28 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
It all depends on how the lease is written.

Yep.

Yet I imagine that were the renter a lib & the sign said Bush rather than Obozo, the DOJ would be down there right now investigating "civil rights" violations and intimidating the landlord.

17 posted on 08/17/2013 10:20:43 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

There are more than a few signs in Northeast Philly.They are signing people up to impeach him.People are honking their horns and people are lined up to sign.


18 posted on 08/17/2013 10:22:31 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Yup! It would be a “hate crime”


19 posted on 08/17/2013 10:22:52 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

You cannot speak ill of Dear Leader in a communist state.


20 posted on 08/17/2013 10:24:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Impeach Obama stickers were the most popular handouts at our Republican booth at our recent County Fair.


21 posted on 08/17/2013 10:30:14 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
Apples and oranges. You are making an invalid comparison.
One centers around the right of association while the other is clearly 1st amendment protected political speech.

Nope, the 1st Amendment only applies to the federal government, specifically congress. (Before that evil called incorporation, anyway.) Even if the first were incorporated against the states it still does not apply to private persons. The issue here is really that of rental agreements, if there's no prohibition in the agreement WRT political signage (or, perhaps, a sort of upkeep clause) then the owner doesn't have a leg to stand on; whereas the issue in the baker's case was the ability of a business to refuse service to anybody.

22 posted on 08/17/2013 10:31:20 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

The two situations have nothing in common.


23 posted on 08/17/2013 10:32:04 AM PDT by Jukeman (God help us for we are deep in trouble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Were the stickers handed-out by a clown in an Obama mask? Or better yet, was there a picture of a clown in an Obama mask on the Impeach Obama sticker?


24 posted on 08/17/2013 10:32:40 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

“We freepers sided with the bakery owners being sued by the homos for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them in their own store.
How can we be against this particular store-front owner for refusing to allow a sign in or by his front window that he finds offensive also?
I mentally agree with the former and disagree with the latter, but I’m having a little trouble trying to be consistent here.”

Because sadly there are people here who are just as hypocritical as their counterparts on the left.

In stories like these there frequently doesn’t seem to be a principle involved at all. It’s either “It pi$$e$ off liberals so I’m for it” or “Liberals are for it so I’m against it”.

There also seems to be more than a little bit of the victim hood mentality here.

Politics has largely become nothing more than a spectator sport and IMHO it’s why we citizens are so easily maipulated.

Both sides run on emotions similar to “Sports Hate”


25 posted on 08/17/2013 10:33:13 AM PDT by snarkybob (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The lease is kind of a law unto itself.


26 posted on 08/17/2013 10:33:31 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

The Constitution declares that we have the right of Free Speech in this country and that means Political Speech. The tenant has the right to use the property as his own, as long as his rent is up to date and he does not violate the terms of his lease. That is quite different from telling a business owner who he must serve.


27 posted on 08/17/2013 10:33:47 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Bump


28 posted on 08/17/2013 10:34:50 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

“lowbridge bump”

:)


29 posted on 08/17/2013 10:36:37 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Ah! Memories of Hitler’s brown-shirts. Only now it’s Obama’s black-shirts.


30 posted on 08/17/2013 10:37:30 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
looks like.....some grassroots community organizing goin on


31 posted on 08/17/2013 10:37:51 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey (This Message NOT Approved By The N.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Whoa, good line.


32 posted on 08/17/2013 10:38:31 AM PDT by FreeperCell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
Democrats are LAWLESS,

Republicans are BALL LESS.

Motto of the year!

Congranulations!

33 posted on 08/17/2013 10:38:35 AM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

King Obama communists army in action. America is lost.


34 posted on 08/17/2013 10:42:28 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; flaglady47; mickie
Have you read the lease? How do you know what's forbidden and what's not?

Didn't you read in the article that what the renter put up wasn't a "sign" sign? The guy painted his message as a MURAL on existing wood panels on the front surface of the store.

Do you know if painting the store front without notification to the owner is permitted in the lease or not? Do you know if permanently painting a mural on the store's front wood panels is permitted in the lease or not?

When you read a copy of the lease let me know.

(P.S....My name is MinuteGal and I approve this guy's message. However, tenants cannot ALWAYS do what they want, and that's what lease terms are for).

Leni

35 posted on 08/17/2013 11:12:03 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

I said “as long as”. I’ll bet you haven’t read the rental agreement either. And I did read the article. What do you have against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? (FOS)


36 posted on 08/17/2013 11:32:40 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Can the landlord be held responsible for security, and lack thereof?


37 posted on 08/17/2013 11:35:48 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; mickie; flaglady47
I didn't say I read the lease. Everything depends on the lease so we can't pre-judge the issue (as you are trying to do) unless we read the lease.

I believe in property owners' rights as much as renters' rights.

Your last sentence is so childish that it doesn't belong on an adult forum.

Leni

38 posted on 08/17/2013 11:47:55 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

My last sentence was very adult and meant in that vein. So, don’t get snarky with me.

The SCOTUS has frequently upheld the right of freedom of speech — everything from burning flags (which I hate) to writing letters to the newspaper, or speaking out at a town hall. That includes posting signs on your lawn, or in your front window, AS LONG AS (there’s that little disclaimer again) it doesn’t violate the city ordinances. In the case of leased property, the lessee has the same rights as the property owner, unless the owner has incuded a clause prohibiting such use. (And I’m not sure that would stand in court in the case of political speech.)

In my town, for instance, the City had a rule prohibiting the use of candidate yard signs, except during a narrowly defined period before a election. That was challenged and thrown out by the courts. If people want to display yard signs for, or against, a candidate, they now can do so at any time of the year. Political advocates now have the same rights as realtors and other advertisers. The courts over-ruled the city ordinance. Our right to freedom of speech is held in the highest regard by the courts. I should think that a long time member of Free Republic, like yourself, would appreciate that concept.

On the other hand, I don’t think the courts have a clear record about forcing, or prohibiting, with whom a business person must do business (baking a wedding cake) for instance. Especially in a “right to work” state. The meddlers, like Obama and Hillary and Mayor Bloomburg, would have us believe differently, but I think the jury is still out on that.


39 posted on 08/17/2013 12:09:55 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; mickie
Get a grip. The guy painted the wood on the front of the owner's store without permission. That's P-A-I-N-T. He painted the words as a mural. It WASN'T a sign stuck in the window. The owner had to REPAINT.

I'd be ticked, too, if I owned a store and some dude repainted the store front or even part of it without my permission.

Your rant is unapplicable to the situation...and condescending, to say the least. I knew the First Amendment when you were undoubtedly still in diapers.

Leni

40 posted on 08/17/2013 1:26:16 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Completely different, I am surprised that you see any commonality. The bakery is about trying to engage a service that the vendor does not want to offer you. No contract was entered into, because the vendor turned refused the work.
The storefront is about a contract that is already in place. Unless the rental agreement stipulates that the renter can’t post political statements, or can’t criticize the president, or can’t make known views that disagree with the landlord, the renter can do whatever he wants.


41 posted on 08/17/2013 1:44:13 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snarkybob

No, you could not be more wrong with a capital R. The bakery is about refusing a client. No contract exists. The storefront has been rented. A contract exists. Unless the rental agreement specifically prohibits displaying political signs, the storefront is at the disposition of the renter to do as he pleases.


42 posted on 08/17/2013 1:49:49 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

As if the ACLU would give a crap.


43 posted on 08/17/2013 1:51:48 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

No, I think your initial confusion about refusing work versus a contract already in place is so childish that I question whether you are adult enough to be on any forum.


44 posted on 08/17/2013 1:53:04 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo; flaglady47; mickie
You're sweating the nits. Whether it's the bakery or the store owner or any other place of business I believe in freedom of speech (the renter), freedom to practice one's religion (the bakery folks) and also the sanctity of contracts (the store owner.) Constitutional guarantees, THAT's the commonality you asked about.

We'll never know how the lease is written, but I've never in my long life seen a store lease where the renter can willy-nilly and at his own whim alter the appearance of the store front with cosmetic changes such as re-painting a facade without the permission of the owner....never. Makes no difference if he painted a political slogan or the Mona Lisa, he apparently did this alteration on his own and the owner swiftly put the kabosh on his artwork.

Would you like it if you owned a store on Main Street and your tenant painted a political mural or message right on the front without your permission....and all of a sudden rocks and tires are breaking your store windows and the life and the safety of the folks inside is being threatened by the minute...and you're getting the threatening phone calls by the scores from the Obama cultist crazies?

Never mind your sermons, just answer that one question. I live in Realville along with Rush. From the safety of your easy chair it's easy to run someone else's rental propery which was put in frightening peril by an eager-beaver, dumbo tenant....no matter how much you appreciate his graffitti as do I.

Leni

45 posted on 08/17/2013 2:15:06 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

“We’ll never know how the lease is written, but I’ve never in my long life seen a store lease where the renter can willy-nilly and at his own whim alter the appearance of the store front with cosmetic changes such as re-painting a facade without the permission of the owner....never. Makes no difference if he painted a political slogan or the Mona Lisa, he apparently did this alteration on his own and the owner swiftly put the kabosh on his artwork.”

You made an excellent point and you can bet money that if this were reversed and it was a democrat office many here would be cheering and talking about the the rights of landlords.
Same if it were any business that was seen to be a danger or nuisance to the landlord or the other tenants, or the property, say a custom lowrider shop with possible gang activity.

I think our own hypocrisy is one of the things that really damage the conservative image. JMHO of course.


46 posted on 08/17/2013 2:30:26 PM PDT by snarkybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

I doubt that, since I’m older than dirt. And you attacked me first in a snarky manner, saying the lease didn’t say this and that when you later admitted that you had not read the lease either.

Again, it depends on the terms of the lease, which neither you, nor I, know, but which I freely admitted with the phrase “it depends on the terms”. Many leases require the tenant to do all repairs and paint on their own dime.

The point you are missing is that this is POLITICAL speech, and that is protected by the 1st Amendment. If the building owner did not want such a sign, she should have had a clause prohibiting it. That’s what lawyers are for.


47 posted on 08/17/2013 3:08:47 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Thought control commissars.


48 posted on 08/17/2013 3:17:19 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
The point you are missing is that this is POLITICAL speech, and that is protected by the 1st Amendment. If the building owner did not want such a sign, she should have had a clause prohibiting it. That’s what lawyers are for.

No, the point being missed is that the First Amendment only applies to congress.

49 posted on 08/17/2013 4:02:47 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

They would be throwing rocks whether the message was painted without permission or if the renter had put up a nylon banner to express his ideas, so your question is meaningless.


50 posted on 08/17/2013 7:40:44 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 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