So, they’re finally pulling the trigger. I had a feeling. But I doubt that the Feds can really pull this off. They may be able to ensure some slight changes in enforcement, but the AZ law is, by many accounts, almost identical to Fed Law. In another article, Bob Christie states, “Arizona’s new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.“

We’ll see how this turns out, but seeing as how most Americans support the AZ Immigration Law (61% of Americans want a similar immigration law in their own state), I think this will be a losing battle for the Feds, and another nail in the Democrats’ coffin this Novemeber.

Next up, the Department of Justice dropped the case against a Black Panther who intimidated voters with nightstick at a polling station during the 2008 election.

Yeah, I haven’t been a fan of Eric Holder’s for a while now, but this really takes the cake. This guy would resign if he had any sense, and if we have any sense, we’ll demand it. And of course, my personal favorite for all of those who think that King Samir Shabazz (the guy with the nightstick) is just a regular guy, and the world is turning on him for no reason, check out this next video of him telling us what he thinks of “crackers”.

Cheese, anyone?

And lastly, I want to talk about Senator Al Franken and the convicts that may have put him in office. “The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.” - John Fund, Wall Street Journal

I always thought that was fishy, but never had any evidence. That’s changed, now that we know 340 felons voted illegally. “‘What we did this time is irrefutable,” McGrath (Minnesota Majority’s Executive Director) said. “We took the voting lists and matched them with conviction lists and then went back to the records and found the roster lists, where voters sign in before walking to the voting booth, and matched them by hand. The only way we can be wrong is if someone with the same first, middle and last names, same year of birth as the felon, and living in the same community, has voted. And that isn’t very likely.’” - Ed Barnes, Fox News

“Statistician John Lott’s own work in Washington State found that felons were 37% more likely to be registered Democrats even when accounting for race, gender, education level, religious habits, employment, age, and county of residence. No one knows for sure how the felons tagged by Minnesota Majority voted, but a thorough review of records in all of Minnesota’s 87 counties seems in order.” – John Fund, Wall Street Journal

Oh, Franken. Almost smart enough to make people like you…

Related:

AZ Governor Bans Attorney General From Immigration Lawsuits

Attorney General Consults Few in Terrorist Trial

Standard of Conduct

The first disappointment I will bring up actually took place after the election, but before Obama took office. I’m sure everyone knows about the Blagojevich scandal, but very few ever made the logical connections that show that Obama must have known about it before the story broke. One of my first posts on this blog was about Roland Burris, but in that post, I took the opportunity to explain my theory and frustration with the original Blago scandal. Since then, I’ve come across a blog post by Professor Jim Lindgren where he hashed out all of the details in chronological order, and it paints the same picture.

Let’s start with David Axelrod, interviewed on Fox News, saying, “I know [Obama] has talked to the Governor, and you know, he’s – there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and he’s – I think he has a fondess for a lot of them.”

Of course Axelrod backed out of that one in a hurry, once the scandal broke. Obama said that he never talked to Blago, and Axelrod said he was mistaken when he said that Obama did. But let me ask, how likely is it that someone who vacates a Senate seat to assume the office of the President would take no interest in who succeeds them in that post? It would be very prudent, I think, to talk to the Governor about possibilities, at least. But no, Obama insists:

But wait, there’s more! Not only does Mr. Obama’s story not make sense, it was refuted by some court documents that mysteriously unsealed themselves online for a brief time on April 22, 2010. ABC has a beautiful excerpt available online, and I’ll copy it here. These documents had parts blacked out to keep this information from becoming public, but some sort of “glitch” cleared it up just long enough for the truth to get out. Below are some very detailed summaries of evidence in the Blagojevich case, which indicate that Obama and his staff were in contact with Blago and his staff (I find section 17 particularly interesting). The bold parts are the newly (and accidentally) released bits:

9. Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

10. Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

11. According to Senate Candidate B, on November, 4 2008, Senate Candidate B spoke with labor union official about the Senate seat. Labor union official said he spoke to Obama. Labor union official said he was going to meet with Blagojevich and said “he was going to push Blagojevich hard on this. According to Senate Candidate B, labor union official’s language could have been stronger than the language that she was reporting to the government.” (Senate Candidate B 302, December 19, 2008).

12. On November 5, 2008, Blagojevich told John Harris that labor union official “talked to Barack Obama, wants to come and see me.” Blagojevich then told Harris that labor union official “was very explicit with me, “I talked to Barack about the Senate seat. Can I come and see ya? Can I do it tomorrow?’ I said, sure.” (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 261).

13. A supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama suggested that she talk to the wife of Governor Blagojevich about Senate Candidate B for Senator. (Valerie Jarrett 302, December 19, 2008). Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).

17. President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.7

18. President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich’s press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.” (Rahm Emanuel 302, p. 5, December 20, 2008). Harris told Blagojevich Obama’s suggestion on November 12, 2008 (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 539).

19. President-elect Obama was also involved in other senate candidate choices. On December 8, 2008, John Harris’ secretary’s call log noted President’s Chief of Staff called at 10:47 am and wrote “needs to talk to you asap” (Harris 302, February 20, 2009). President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator. [President's Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President's Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.” (President’s Chief of Staff, 302, 12-20-08). 20.

22. However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. & Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. & Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.”10

23. President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.

10 The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama. See, “Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake”, Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco, and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times, November 5, 2006. Senator Barack Obama was asked: “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?” Senator Obama answered: “No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interest. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation.” Obama’s involvement with Tony Rezko and this legislation coincides with the three paragraph summary the government has provided to the defense referenced above.

Given all of this information, I find it amazing that Judge James Zagel didn’t subpoena Obama for the case against Blago. But that’s a side note. Everything in this issue points at least to someone in the Obama camp knowing what Blago wanted to do (even if you only go back to my original argument that Blago couldn’t know Obama’s answer unless Obama gave an answer). And if someone in Obama’s camp knew what Blago wanted to do, I think it’s astronomically unlikely that they would answer for Obama without asking him. So, agree with it or not, I’m pretty sure that Obama knew about Blago, and the fact that he didn’t turn the guy in (and that he lied about his involvement later) is shameful. That’s my first disappointment with our president. It’s not the last.

By all other accounts, though, Adams was spot on. The people of this great nation have celebrated, proudly, the birth of this country, year after year. This country lights up every year like Adams couldn’t have even dreamed of. And yet, it’s hardly our country anymore.

It’s a sad thing, but we’ve surrendered the reigns of our government to wolves. And I’m not talking about this last election. I’m talking about a decades-long process of complacence, spreading like a cancer through our society to the point where our elected officials (our servants!) serve mostly themselves, while paying lip service to our needs. Our government did away with transparency decades ago, whether thinking that we didn’t need to know, or hoping we would never know, what they did to/for us with our money. Watching with infant eyes, as I have slowly gained political awareness, and seeing the decadence that pervades every level of government, I am sickened and saddened and outraged that WE ARE LETTING THIS HAPPEN. Because, mostly, we don’t care! Life’s a gravy train, and when the government takes large portions of our paychecks, we don’t ask questions. At least we don’t until something goes wrong. Then we let smiling faces feed us non-answers and we go back to our infantile, ignorant slumber.

“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.” –  Benjamin Franklin

Well, I hate to pull the alarm here, but I see wolves! Everywhere! Self-serving bureaucrats getting fat off of our hard work and giving little in return. And this isn’t about party lines, either. This cancer has no ideology. That’s too constructive for it. This is inertia, greed, sloth, and ignorance, and it’s all around us. It’s in us! And until we gather the courage to change ourselves, we will never be able to take our government back, and return it to the servant it once was.

“If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav’d. This will be their great Security.” – Samuel Adams

The only way we can fix our government is by exposing it to the light of day. We need to spend more time deciding who we should vote into office than deciding who to vote for on American Idol. If we expect a responsible government, we first need to become a responsible people. Stop demanding entitlements when you can provide for yourself. We can’t expect responsible leaders when we pick them from stock that has proven to be irresponsible. Debt? That’s our fault – you and me. Our public debt would be very manageable (or non-existent!) if we the people stopped demanding so many entitlements. Or if we demand all of those entitlements, we have to stop complaining about the costs! Entitlements aren’t free. You have to pay for them.

“But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.” – Thomas Jefferson

It’s ironic to celebrate independence when we live in a society of willful dependence. There’s no longer any doubt that most of our entitlement programs are unsustainable, so it’s time we stood on our own two feet. It’s time for real independence again. The United States is supposed to be a self-government, but when its people willfully fall into ignorance, it’s as if the driver of a car put on the cruise control and took a nap. What end other than disaster do we expect? I’ve heard it many times before, so I’ll repeat it here: In a Democracy, people get the government they deserve. Give that some thought while you celebrate “Independence”.

“The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.” – John Adams

“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it cost nothing to be a patriot.” – Mark Twain

What’s interesting is that in March, when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned by the press about whether the White House offered Congressman Joe Sestak a high-ranking position in order to remove him from the Senate race, he didn’t have much to say (see short video below).

He basically said, “I don’t know, let me ask my boss what I’m supposed to say.” And then, when questioned in late May as part of a follow-up, he said he didn’t have anything to add to his statements in March (see video below).

Then, they decided to issue a very carefully worded memo (which still says little), in hopes that it would be enough of a bone to get the media off of their heels. Here’s what the White House will admit via memo (.pdf):

“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Brand Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential of other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.“

But it didn’t work. The memo raised more questions than in answered (as seen in the video below), and Gibbs STILL won’t say anything more than what’s already been said.

As to the legality question, Judicial Watch has this to say: “[T]he Obama White House tried to bribe [Sestak] to abandon his Democratic primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter by offering him a high-level position in the White House.

This is an extremely serious charge. Those involved could be guilty of violating federal laws. At least four of them by my count:

18 USC 210: Offer to procure appointive public office: Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 USC 211: Acceptance of solicitation to obtain appointive public office, which reads in part: Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 USC 595: Interference by administrative employees by Federal, State or Territorial Governments, which reads in part: Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States…in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 USC 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity, which reads in part: Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person…for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.“

Now we have Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff with a similar tale of White House meddling. Judicial Watch comes through again with an e-mail released (.pdf) by Romanoff describing three positions he would be eligible for, were he to step down from the Senate race:

1. Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean, USAID

2. Director, Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID

3. Director, U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)

I make the distinction eligible for and offered, because at this time, Romanoff is saying that he wasn’t “offered” these jobs, but was told that he would be eligible for filling these slots if he were not in the Senate race. No promises were made. That’s no consolation in my eyes, because everyone knows what that was: a blatant attempt to run him out of the running. And we can’t have that kind of political manipulation and expect to have a healthy democracy. For that, we need all options on the table, but this administration has taken upon itself the task of removing those who the people think should win, so that those who Obama thinks should win will be able to do so. That doesn’t sit well with me.

Now look at Gibbs when he’s questioned about this. This looks like a guy who doesn’t want to be there – intensely interested in his navel, idly shuffling papers, glancing up occasionally to see if the mean old journos are still asking him questions. I feel for the guy. He knows how this went down with Sestak, and his boss is telling him to say the same things. He knows he’s not really answering the questions, so they keep asking him, but he also knows that if he answers them any way other than how he’s been told, he’s out of a job. See the painful video below.

I don’t know how this will all turn out, but I do know that this will be a painful thorn to this administration for months to come. I think it’s made all the worse by the fact that the administration won’t come out and say anything about it. They were hoping the Sestak thing would blow over, and it might have if not for the release of the Romanoff mess. Now, the longer they stay silent, the guiltier they look. This, amongst other things, is going to hurt Democrats this fall.

Wow, she just keeps talking while saying nothing. How about she gets “a ways removed” from her position on the board? I’m just thinking, maybe we should issue our elected officials some sort of test before they can take office. I know! I know! You’re shouting about discrimination, etc. But I think we ought to discriminate against the uneducated when it comes to positions where their choices affect entire cities, states, countries, or the world. Maybe I’m a bad person for advocating that, but I’m standing by it.

“General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.“

Of course, Michael Dobbs with The Washington Post ripped that piece to shreds here. But it’s a nice propaganda piece while it lasts.

What interests me more is that MoveOn has decided to scrub its pages of any reference to ol’ Betray Us, presumably in light of the fact that their Great and Beloved Leader, President Obama, has hand-picked the good general for success in Afghanistan. *Oops! Start the back-pedaling!* Luckily, I was able to find some screenshots of the page, so we can still take a look.

Again, it’s not surprising, just really disappointing that an organization that some rely on for news (yes, I personally know people who trust and rely on MoveOn.Org) is willing to flip-flop with the changing of political winds, and that they would sacrifice their core values – hide what they deem to be true – for their Dear Leader. It’s also ironic that they become guilty of what they accused Petraeus of in the ad they’re hiding. They’ve “cooked the books” and are covering for the administration they like. I suppose they have no true convictions, just an insatiable lust for Democrats in power. How sad.

Related: General McChrystal’s Interview – Should He Stay or Should He Go?

“‘Who’s he going to dinner with?’ I ask one of his aides.
‘Some French minister,’ the aide tells me. ‘It’s f—ing gay.’“

“Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
‘Are you asking about Vice President Biden?’ McChrystal says with a laugh. ‘Who’s that?’
‘Biden?’ suggests a top adviser. ‘Did you say: Bite Me?’“

“Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. ‘It was a 10-minute photo op,’ says an adviser to McChrystal. ‘Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f—ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.’“

“At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. ‘Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,’ he groans. ‘I don’t even want to open it.’ He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
‘Make sure you don’t get any of that on your leg,’ an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.“

Granted, most of the objectionable remarks were from his staff, but he still bears responsibility for them. I have tremendous respect for this man, but by allowing this article to be published with these kinds of remarks, McChrystal has crossed a line, and Obama may need to replace him. “Gen. McChrystal’s just-published interview in Rolling Stone magazine is an appalling violation of norms of civilian-military relations. To read it is to wince, repeatedly… The quotes from Gen. McChrystal’s underlings bespeak a staff so clueless, swaggering and out of control that a wholesale purge looks to be indicated.” – Eliot A. Cohen, Wall Street Journal “While McChrystal’s comments reflect the mounting frustration all around with a war effort seemingly in growing disarray, the dismal context does not excuse what experts almost uniformly deem was an egregious disregard for the democratic principle of military subordination to civilian command.” - Howard LaFranchi of The Christian Science Monitor

The President won’t make up his mind about what to do with McChrystal until after they meet face-to-face. “‘I think it is clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make a final judgment,’ Mr. Obama said, speaking briefly to reporters at the White House in the afternoon. Whatever decision he makes, he said, would be in line with his central focus of what was best for the country and the war in Afghanistan.” - Helene Cooper and Dexter Filkins of The New York Times I think this is a good move by Obama. At least, it’s exactly what I would do. McChrystal has proven to be invaluable to our success in Afghanistan, but his actions were dangerous and stupid, and his dismissal may be warranted, despite his record. It’s not an easy decision facing Obama, but I’ll stand by his tough choice.

Related: MoveOn – Full Reverse on “General Betray Us”

The Representative from North Carolina apologized yesterday. “‘I apologize for my actions,’ Etheridge said during a news conference Monday afternoon. ‘They were unacceptable.’” – The Washington Post And I’m sure he is sorry. This is awful publicity.

Etheridge could certainly be charged with battery, possibly assault. But Democrats are circling the wagons on this one, trying to shift focus onto video and who the young men were. Ben Smith, with Politico, says, “Democrats are seeking to raise questions about the video, which first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, because of what’s widely viewed as the media’s mishandling of the ACORN story, which emerged without context from edited videos.” He goes on to list the Democrats’ talking points:

“1. There is always the part of the story that you can’t see in these gotcha style videos — what were these folks doing, how did they approach him, how were the cameraman and/or others off camera acting?

http://gawker.com/5508190/okeefe-and-breitbart-acorn-videos-severely-edited“

I agree it’s odd that the face of the victim is blurred out, but I don’t think it necessarily follows that this is because it was a Republican “hit-job,” and they’re trying to get away with it. It is possible, but I think it’s just as likely that this young guy was actually scared by Etheridge’s actions, and fears reprisal with a real hit-job. I’m sure he knows, or at least suspects, that Etheridge could summon the power of the Democrats and tear his life apart. Even more frighting is the fear of how the Democrat base would react. North Carolina Democrats seem to have a problem with controlling their violent tendencies on the street. If you haven’t seen the video where an Obama supporter attacks Tea Party protesters, take a look at this: Tea Party Protesters Attacked by Obama Supporter. Judging from that, and other recent incidents, this guy would be perfectly rational in fearing some attack by a die-hard Democrat who saw the video and didn’t like what he exposed. Another thought is that he was just traumatized by the incident, and just wants the whole thing to be over. We see it in victims of rape, and other horrible crimes, where instead of trying to bring their assailant to justice, they’d rather just forget it all. If that’s the case, I hope this guy can get past that and come forward. Either way, it would be nice to have a full account of what happened, and I think he ought to press charges.

***

Update

***

Youfail has pulled the video. It’s a shame, because the video said it all. I have a shorter, poorer quality video right here, and right below, I have a good quality from another angle. We’ll see how long it lasts.

***

Update 6/11/10

***

Alright, I’ve got the original video that YouTube pulled, but it’s hosted by Eyeblast.tv, and I haven’t been able to embed it here. However, if you’d like to view it, click here.

Nobody is talking about this. I only learned the names of the key players today, thanks to an article in News Blaze.  Nathan Tabor, business owner and head of Forsyth County Republican Party, was leading a protest outside of Rep. Mel Watt’s Greensboro office on Tuesday 6/8/10. During the protest, union organizer Governor Spencer (also reputed to be the leader of the ’95 Greensboro K-Mart protests) entered the crowd and started shouting about G.Bu and Dick Cheney, saying they were responsible for the recession. Another protester argued with him, and brought up the Durbin amendment, and how Obama is practically writing BP a check. I’m not sure if anything transpired between this point and when Tabor’s camera turns back on, but Tabor claims “I turned my camera off, and walked around the corner to get my 5 year-old daughter, and turned around and he pushed me. And I turned my camera back on and asked him to stop pushing me.” That’s Tabor’s claim of what transpired while his camera was off. It sounds odd to me that there was no other aggravation involved, but until we see or hear something more, all we have to go on is the video and his interview, which is embedded below (thanks again to News Blaze). I, and my fellow bloggers, will continue to hammer this story home, because most of the “unbiased” media seems intensely interested in their own navels at the moment. Hopefully they wake up soon.

For your convenience:

What shocking comments, especially considering this was during a Jewish Heritage Month celebration. This kind of thing isn’t just some off-the-cuff remark. To make this kind of “slip”, one would need to really feel this way. And it amazes me that someone with Thomas’ background could show such a lack of tact. Of course, she still has her supporters. Sam Sedaei, also of The Huffington Post, says, “She issued an apology on her website, saying among other things that she ‘deeply regretted’ her comment, and they it did not reflect her ‘heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance.’ But as expected, her original comment threw the mainstream media in a blind sighted rage and predictable frenzy that no amount of apology could eliminate.“

Well, of course, Sam, I understand that being interviewed by a Rabbi often drives one to bowl over their “heartfelt beliefs” about “mutual respect and tolerance,” with bizarre and highly offensive comments – possibly stemming from the “blind-sighted rage” you spoke of. Actually, I don’t. But props on your attempt to get us to believe that this is really the fault of the big bad media, because they won’t listen to her heartfelt apology. Sam goes on to spin quite a yarn (six paragraphs reiterating the same point) about how the real anti-Semites are the Zionists. He then wonders aloud if anti-Semitism can ever be erradicated. I’m sure that argument could get Helen off the hook.

Sam finishes by telling us that it was “religious ideologues” who ended her career, not her own comments. “Despite the American mainstream media that continues to treat us like children by “protecting” us from certain debates and conversations, it is only by discussing these questions in free and fair forums that we can avoid the pitfalls of becoming the victims of religious ideologues who pushed such an esteemed and legendary journalist as Helen Thomas into her ignominious end.” Well, I guess we have to lump Obama into that category, because he felt the same way: “‘The comments were offensive,’ Obama told NBC’s ‘Today Show’ in an interview broadcast Tuesday. ‘It’s a shame because Helen is somebody who had been a correspondent through I don’t know how many presidents, who was a real institution in Washington, but I think she made the right decision.’” – jta.org

In closing, I’d like to say that Helen Thomas may be a great person. She certainly has an impressive biography. But no prominent figure in the public eye can live free of the consequences of their actions, and her actions have led her to this end. Let this be a lesson to everyone that no one is too big to fail.