Jump to content

The Picture That Should Cost Obama His Job


Recommended Posts

PJM

By Roger Kimball

September 15, 2012

Instapundit heads the piece "Why Barack Obama Should Resign". That’s a good title. The column might also be titled, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.†I remember a line from the philosopher David Hume that Hayek used as an epigraph to The Road to Serfdom. “It is seldom,†said Hume, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.†There’s the innocent seeming accommodation here, the turning a blind eye to official violations of the law there, and, bang, before you can say Saul Alinsky, people are being rounded up at midnight by brownshirted men for making a movie that embarrasses El Presidente.

In case you think that is a baseless exaggeration by a knuckle-dragging, right-wing hater, take a look at the photo:

6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-640wi.jpg

By way of explication, Glenn Reynolds quotes the L.A. Times: “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.â€

Got that? The chap made a movie. (He may also have violated probation, but that herring is red, Comrade.) As Glenn observes, “By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. . . . It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.â€

Yep. And he should resign. And, as Glenn further observes, he surely won’t. But the people of the United States, Democrat as well as Republican, should turn him out of office ignominiously in November.

Link

Link to comment
  • Administrator

So has the Obama Administration condemned the attacks yet and proceeded to put American boot to ass yet, or are we still apologizing? Because if we're still apologizing, then this is slightly more of an outrage than just trampling a citizen's 1st Amendment rights. Which in and of itself is a HUGE ####ing outrage.

I'm normally not prone to thinking that tinfoil makes for good fashion sense, but this sort of makes you wonder what sort of bull#### charges They could dredge up to arrest any one of us.

I will say this, it's not the fault of the SD Deputies that their uniform has brown shirts, nor that they were sent out on this particular call in their jurisdiction. Could have easily been the Brentwood TN PD that had to serve that warrant. While the historical reference is somewhat "amusing" and makes for great sensationalism, it's a bit overboard.

Link to comment

He went with the Officers voluntarily; he was not detained or arrested. He was questioned about a possible parole violation because as part of his release agreement he is not allowed to use computers or the net without his Parole Officers permission.

He said he is not returning to his home. The move by the Officers may have been to get him safely out of the public eye; who knows.

Link to comment
  • Administrator

It's hard to trust what you read. With that said, I read that he contacted law enforcement over concerns for his safety. Who knows what kind of spin is living in that story. It does line up with the fact that he wasn't charged.

Well that worked out well for him considering the media circus on scene.

Link to comment
He went with the Officers voluntarily; he was not detained or arrested. He was questioned about a possible parole violation because as part of his release agreement he is not allowed to use computers or the net without his Parole Officers permission.

He said he is not returning to his home. The move by the Officers may have been to get him safely out of the public eye; who knows.

I'm pretty ignorant about this stuff Dave, so maybe you can offer some insight due to you LE background, but is it common practice for parole officers to check up on guys for questioning in the middle of the night? From the outside looking in this looks like intimidation. Voluntary or not. Not too many people refuse to go with the cops when they come looking for you for questioning.

This, paired with the administration's request to Google, looks like suppression to me. I'm not normally the conspiracy guy, but this is a case of "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck". I don't think it's a pig, although it stinks.

Link to comment

I'm pretty ignorant about this stuff Dave, so maybe you can offer some insight due to you LE background, but is it common practice for parole officers to check up on guys for questioning in the middle of the night? From the outside looking in this looks like intimidation. Voluntary or not. Not too many people refuse to go with the cops when they come looking for you for questioning.

This, paired with the administration's request to Google, looks like suppression to me. I'm not normally the conspiracy guy, but this is a case of "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck". I don't think it's a pig, although it stinks.

Without going back and looking to see what time this took place I can only say its common practice for Parole Officers to act whenever they like. His house being surrounded and him being in fear of his life, coupled with the fact that he was only at the PD for 45 minutes, leads me to believe this was more of a move to get him out of there. But that’s just a WAG and could be totally off base on my part. My point was that he was not detained or arrested.

When you are on parole (or probation) many of your rights are gone. No warrant would be needed to take him in, no warrant is needed to enter or search his home.

As conditions of his parole he is not allowed to use the net, computers, or use any name other than his own without the permission of his parole officer. Unless he had the permission of his parole officer he clearly violated those conditions. Yes, something here stinks and it may be that he did this with his parole officer’s approval.

Edited by DaveTN
Link to comment

Has anyone here seen the movie he did?

Hardly ANYbody has seen actual movie. It showed one time at private showing in June to 10 people as "Innocence of Bin Laden". First uploaded as 14 min "trailer" to YouTube as "Life of Mohammed", now called "Innocence of Muslims".

All the uproar is over this "trailer" first posted on YouTube. Still there, and YouTube to its credit has resisted gubmint requests to remove it, and has added a "Thumbs Up For Free Speech and Human Rights" banner to the first of it.

Its artistic and production value pegs close to zero. I can't watch 13 min of it, can't imagine the whole movie. It is brightly and garishly lit, in focus, with intelligible audio -- those are its highest cinematic achievements. I might sit through whole actual movie for a C-note and free booze. Maybe.

Wiki's current coverage:

http://en.wikipedia....ence_of_Muslims

YouTube Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

- OS

Edited by OhShoot
Link to comment

Unless there's some way to get internet reception via a couple of rocks being rubbed together I'd guess you're right.

Well, to be realistic, I'd say it's floating around on lots of hard drives and smart phones/Ipads, general internet access or not.

But that means as of now, and it's probably true that not many had seen it before TSHTF all over Tues and Wed. This thing has been on YouTube since July, btw. And most of the countries now in uproar have plenty of the population that can access it, but haven't seen a peep of protest until the obviously well planned raid in Benghazi.

The BHO admin is being very disingenuous (to put in charitably) by doubling down that this little thing is cause of all this hooha. I hope it bites back big time.

- OS

Edited by OhShoot
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.