Once the SEIU said they were going to send their enforcers to townhall meetings this was inevitable.
The key info from the link:
Shortly thereafter, violence erupted, where there were 2-3 big goons came out and started pushing those in line, and roughing up one in the corner (see top left screen) as well as another being put in a choke hold. Directly in front of the gentleman in the plaid type shirt, is one of them in a flower print. (eleven o’clock from the camera phone in the scene.) To right of the phone, another in a white shirt. Keep your eye on him, as he then goes for the choke hold on one of the people.
For all Pelosi’s complaints about protesters bearing swastikas, it’s pretty easy to see which side is actually employing brownshirts.
Remember all those “independent” ethics filings against Sarah Palin? We were told they were all private citizens who were just concerned about good government. Turns out: not so much:
This is the Kos crowd coordinating with first the Obama campaign and now administration trying to smear Sarah Palin repeatedly.
Remember this the next time they tell you they’re not afraid of her, that’s she just some dumb snowbilly, and that they’re realling just laughing at her.
Yeah. That’s why they brought an Alaskan guy into Obama’s inner circle to coordinate attacks against her. But remember, they’re not afraid of her at all.
Naturally this has him up in arms about corporate censorship of the news. But Greenwald intentionally avoids the huge elephant in the room: GE’s use of its media networks to push its corporate interests. If I asked you to name the cable network best known for its sycophantic coverage of the Obama administration, which one would you choose? MSNBC, of course. And which network recently hosted an entire day of basically sitting on Obama’s lap and asking him to tell them a story? NBC.
Who owns both of these networks? GE.
So it’s pretty safe to say that GE is uniquely pro-Obama. But why? Obama’s anti-business policies and regularly scheduled class warfare against CEOs wasn’t exactly a closely-held secret to anyone who actually did their pre-election homework, and there’s no way GE didn’t do its homework before going all in for Obama. So then what could explain the obvious bias?
How many other ways is GE in bed with the Obama administration? I found these in about 10 minutes of Googling. How much could an actual news organization with dedicated reporters actually dedicated to finding out the truth uncover?
Their TV audience is dwindling quickly on both networks, and GE knows it. Why not go out with a bang and use their control of those networks to promote its other lines of business? And if that means getting in bed with the Obama administration in order to corruptly obtain highly lucrative government contracts, why not?
Especially when pundits like Gleen Greenwald are so eager to look the other way so long as GE keeps pimping for Barack Obama…
The real reason for stacking townhalls only with his supporters and for staged questions at press conferences is very simple: Barack Obama, is not now and never has been, capable of dealing with hostile questions. He has always gotten testy whenever challenged, and if there’s one thing a president cannot be it is short-tempered. It’s the reason the media has treated him with kid gloves throughout his time on the national stage: they know how he will react if they ask a question that is too “in his face” and they have a vest interest in making sure the public that they fooled into voting for him never actually gets to see what’s behind the mask.
Dan Balz got quite the scoop when he his hands on an Axelrod memo which points out just how obvious a character flaw this is:
Axelrod also warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 Senate opponent.
Emphasis mine. Even Axelrod must admit that Obama “flinched.” And, as I have long told those around me, as soon as his net approval goes negative we are going to see more and more of this testy defensiveness from Obama. Look for him to severely dial back his public appearances and willingness to take questions, not for fear of overexposure, but because his handlers are going to want to limit the opportunities for him to commit the gaffe of saying what he really thinks in a moment of anger - as he did in the Gates-Crowley incident.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review does yeoman’s work in this article about Barack Obama. As he points out, both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party - as well as their enablers in the media - have gone to an awful lot of trouble to obfuscate even the most basic biographical information about our current president.
If for no other reason than the sake of history, the public has a right to know these small mundane pieces of information about the man who represents us before the world. The question is: why don’t we?
Gateway Pundit has a must-see interview with Ahmad Batebi on the Iranian crisis, and the consequences of Obama’s failure to respond to it.
A quick taste:
“His (Obama) lack of response will not be regarded lightly. We will watch for how much his response will help the people or the regime. We will know more this week… Obama can hold talks with the regime in Iran if he wants. Is it morally correct for Obama to support the regime? Does he actually believe the people of Iran will appreciate that? The social movement requires support. If the world really wants the advent of terrorism to disappear in the Middle East, if they want peace with the Palestinians and Israel, if they want nuclear techhology to be developed for peaceful things and not nuclear weapons… They only need to support the people of Iran right now. This regime has the most dangerous of ideologies. They’re killing the opposition.
During the whole Carrie Prejean episode, lots of people pointed out that her position was no different than that of President Obama or even his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. So why were people crucifying her and giving these two Democratic icons a complete pass?
The answer from the gay community was that, yeah, Obama says he’s against gay marriage but he just had to say that to get elected. He’s really FOR it, you see, it’s just you ignorant straights that believed him when he said he was against it. We smart gays know better.
So tell me, how do you feel about your Messiah today? Still think that everybody else was stupid, and you were the geniuses who knew better? We’ll be waiting for that apology to Carrie Prejean for unfairly singling her out while you hypocritically shielded Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party from criticism. And you wonder why your cause isn’t taken more seriously?
When you’re willing to sell out on what you claim is the most important moral issue of the day in the name of your party politics, you’ll have to excuse people for thinking that you’re not really that serious about either wanting it or what your actions says about how little importance this “important moral issue” really has. As Glenn Reynolds often says about things like global warming, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it is start acting like there is one.”
It’s put up or shut up time with Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party. Which will you choose?
