So by now, you have probably heard that the young conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe was arrested this week on charges that he was attempting to wiretap (or something) the offices of US Sen. Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe came to public attention last year when he exposed the corruption in many ACORN offices around the USA in a hidden camera expose.
My first reaction to O’Keefe’s arrest was “oh how stupid of him.” Upon further reflection, I have changed my mind. I think O’Keefe is a patriot and was probably onto something that We, The People should know about involving Sen. Landrieu.
Since the media no longer investigates corruption among the liberal elite, the burden falls to brave souls like O’Keefe.
The American Left praises and honors such real criminals and murderers as Castro, Che, Mao and Mumia Abu Jamal. Surely I’m not going to throw O’Keefe under the bus until I know all of the facts. And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.
James O’Keefe is no less a patriot than Ted Kennedy is a murderer. After all, the Democrats in Washington continually ignore our nations’ laws and the US Constitution. Perhaps it is time for We, The People to join the fight on their terms.
These are indeed times that try men’s souls and our time sometimes requires extraordinary measures to expose lies and stand up for Liberty.
UPDATE (from Dan): Bruce, this appears to be an area where we disagree, though appreciate this defense from a commenter at Althouse. Right now, I’m with Malkin, “Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.” That said, I’ll wait until the facts are in before rendering a final judgment.
Absolutely. I had the same reaction but knowing that the MSM would never stretch their necks out against those who would give them power makes him not only a patriot but an example all of us should aspire to. Always question authority.
Not to spam our blog, but I think that the facts (once O’Keefe’s lawyers start speaking) will probably vindicate him a great deal. And enrage the left.
http://tiny.cc/jemz7
Excellent. It’s the way I feel too.
Bruce,
I’m going to disagree with you on this one. We don’t know all the details yet. It could be something as ‘harmless’ as doing a film pretending to investigate the phones to see why she’s not been hearing her voters, (which is still illegal) or it could be something more malevolent. O’Keefe has done a wonderful service with the ACORN expose, but may have frakked up here. Even though our ideological foes don’t believe in the rule of law, we must.
Bruce and TL, you’re both right. We don’t know. Nor do any other commentators. We need O’Keefe’s side to the story. Maybe it won’t be good… maybe it will.
You. Must Be. Kidding.
You are condoning criminal behavior – wiretapping – because the ends justify some means – some fantasy that some great scandal must be lurking in Mary Landrieu’s office?
You hereby throw away any credibility you may have ever had. I really can;t believe this.
“Democrats in Washington continually ignore our nations’ laws and the US Constitution. Perhaps it is time for We, The People to join the fight on their terms.”
What insane delusion. First off, there are more Americans who consider themselves Democrats than who align with you. So this fantasy that you speak for America as opposed to Democrats is just that – a complete fantasy. Secondly, no honest person could possibly deny that Republicans are, if anything, far more likely to be violators of all manner of election laws or other political crimes.
But beyond all that, the logic here is absolutely pernicious. Its the common rationalization of criminals everywhere – other people treat me unfairly, therefore I am justified in doing whatever I please, no matter the law.
I do commend you for being open and straighforward with revealing your true principles. Or lack thereof.
We should be careful. Illegal wire-tapping is against the law, and surely no one, liberal or conservative, is above the law. Just because Teddy got a mulligan re Mary Jo Kopechne doesn’t mean we as conservatives should approve lawbreakers. After all, it is conservatives who most of all believe in the rule of law. He’ll have his day in court.
I have no doubt that Senator Landrieu bears investigating for any number of things and I am very proud of the work O’Keefe did with ACORN , but I have to disagree with you on this one. O’Keefe and his buddies appear to have screwed-up badly and in doing so not only put themselves in jeopardy but also have done damage to the good work Andrew Breitbart and Big Government have done and would have done in the future.
As to truth pursuit and justification . . . well, that’s getting into the ends justifies the means territory and we all know what a slippery slope that is.
According to the police report, they had no wiretapping devices with them at the time of the arrest.
Innocent until proven guilty, Tano. Innocent until proven guilty. You don’t know dick about this incident yet. We need both sides of the story.
Or does your commitment to “innocent until proven guilty”, Tano, only extend to terrorists who are known to have killed innocent people? Only when the talking points tell you to argue that way? Or only when it will work against America?
ILC,
Sure. I will grant you innocent until proven guilty of the wiretapping. But there seems to be no question that they were caught, red-handed, entering the building under false pretenses, and messing with the phones.
I wonder if you will hold yourself and all your buddies here equally to task over any statements about criminal behavior regarding anyone who has yet to be convicted of anything. Like ACORN, for example….
As much as it pains me to say it, this is probably the first time I find myself in agreement with Tano. You are condoning illegal activity, Bruce, for which IF O’Keefe is guilty of he will deservedly be sent to prison for a very long time. ILC is correct in reminding everyone that he is “innocent until proven guilty” and the young man will have his day in court, yet this in no way means that we should take a position which excuses illegal behavior – even if he didn’t do what he is accused of doing. We’ll find out eventually if O’Keefe is guilty of this alleged crime, but what he is charged with is a crime regardless of who does it. Should he be found guilty I hope they throw the book at him.
ILC,
On second thought, I am not going to even give you that. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a standard that we use in courts of law – such that we refuse to take away anyone’s liberty until and unless they have been convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers. The standard does not constrain average citizens from forming opinions about the guilt or innocence of people.
In fact, we are free to form such opinions, one way or the other, without violating any standards, even when juries have spoken. Can we not, for example, believe that OJ was actually guilty?
Bruce was, very plainly, NOT arguing that we should stand by O’Keefe because his guilt has not been established in a court of law. He was quite explicit in fact – he argues that it is proper to stand up for O’Keefe because he committed a crime that he was justified in committing.
He claims that Democrats routinely break the law -therefore “we the people’ should fight on those terms. He claims these are extraordinary times, requiring extraordinary (i.e. criminal) measures. I don’t really see much ambiguity here – he is constructing a defense of criminal behavior, just as I said.
Reluctantly I agree with Tano on this, they appear to have been caught comitting or attempting to comit an illegal act….and certainly shouldn’t be praise as “patriots”. Useful dupes perhaps, but not held-up as exemplars… Let the Dhimmicrats cling to “…the ends justify the means”, and let’s not provide pundit-fodder for Matthews, Olbermann and the Madcow to use to broad-brush Republicand or “conservatives” as a potential criminal-class.
We don’t need another group of inept “Plumbers” to spend the next 20-years disavowing…
Operative word “seems”. Which means my earlier comment stands:
As for ACORN: I don’t presume to say what they’ve done or haven’t done that’s criminal. That would be one difference between me, and what you’re doing here. I do know there is videotape of ACORN employees offering lengthy, knowing assistance to individuals who told ACORN of their desire to import underage sex slaves. Lengthy. Videotape. Of ACORN employees discussing that. That would be another difference, or example of something you lack here. But, again, I’ve *never* presumed to pre-judge, or even try to say, what ACORN employees would be guilty of what charges. Clear conscience.
…because it would depart from the talking points memo.
Tano, how you torture that out of Bruce’s post is beyond me. I just re-read it. Bruce did NOT take a position, there, that O’Keefe committed a crime. Given that: Bruce’s post can’t possibly be saying that O’Keefe’s “crime” was justified. Bruce did say this:
Emphasis added for reading comprehension. John, sorry but that includes you too. At times, I have seen you put delicate qualifiers into positions that your post otherwise espouses at length… and then rebuke people who, in your opinion, did not adequately catch or acknowledge your little qualifiers. Which means you should be among those who read and interpret Bruce’s post here carefully. It is not logically valid to accuse Bruce of “condoning illegal activity” where Bruce’s real position was that we do not know the facts – including the fact of whether there was illegal activity.
Based on the cleverness of James and his legal team I think he planned this too the letter of the law and will reveal something regarding misdeeds. Mizz Landrieu is a Louisiana politician…..not a stretch to imagine.
Had he been a Black Panther this would not be of interest to Eric Holder.
P.S. Bruce, if you think O’Keefe did definitely commit a crime or engage in illegal activity… by all means, correct what I said.
Tardo,
Your outrage against the New York Times and Washington Post for illegally publishing national security secrets, and the Democrats who leaked them is duly noted…oh, whats that? selective outrage? Ooops my bad!
We’ll just slide you from the “righteous anger” category over here to the “political hack” category.
There. thats much better.
“Bruce did NOT take a position, there, that O’Keefe committed a crime. Given that: Bruce’s post can’t possibly be saying that O’Keefe’s “crime” was justified.”
Can’t possibly?
Bruce said, quite explicitly, as I pointed out above, that since the Democrats routinely violate the Constitution and the laws, the “we” must fight on their terms.
What possible meaning do you get from that?
He also said that “we” need to take extraordinary measures in these times. What could he possibly mean by that?
He began, of course, by changing his mind from thinking O’Keefe was stupid to thinking that he was a patriot, doing what is necessary to find the dirt on Landreiu. That is not changing his mind from thinking O’Keefe was stupid to thinking that maybe he is innocent. His innocence does not seem to be in question here. The question is whether what he did was stupid, or patriotic. In either case, it seems that assumed that he committed at least some crimes.
And he writes, as you point out: “And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.”
Note – that does NOT say – if he was in pursuit of the truth, and he didn’t violate any laws, then his actions would be justified. No, given the other quotes I offer above, this seems unambiguous – so long as O’Keefe thought he was pursuing the truth, that alone is justification for doing whatever…incluiding wiretapping. As I said earlier, absolutely pernicious.
It seems pretty clear to me that Bruce is justifying the committing of crimes. If all he was doing was making a plea for holding fire until a trial determines guilt or innocence, then most of the post would have read very differently.
Tano believes that liars should be banned, except him.
He believes one should discriminate, but only as it benefits him.
Is anyone really surprised he’s outraged about this, but isn’t about the Black Panthers and Eric Holder’s ordering his subordanents to ignore the law?
There’s no mistaking Bruce’s words, which you yourself quoted:
“And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.”
This is condoning illegal behavior. In this instance it makes no difference if O’Keefe is actually guilty or not of a crime, Bruce has flatly stated that his “actions were justified”. The only qualifier Bruce has on here is that O’Keefe’s actions would be “justified” if the young man “was in the pursuit of truth”. Ok. Senator Landrieu can be scum of the earth for all I know, which is irrelevant to whether a crime was committed here by O’Keefe or not. No, if O’Keefe is guilty of a crime than like everyone else he should be locked up. I hope this is just a misunderstanding or perhaps an overzealous and unfounded investigatory body, but I have my doubts. We shall see about when O’Keefe has his day in court. Yet none of this excuses giving sanction to criminal activity.
If O Keefe committed a crime he should be punished the same way
T Kennedy, Conyers, McKinney, Geithner, Seibelius, Richardson, Clinton, Jefferson, P Kennedy, Patterson, Feinstein, were……
ooops never mind.
+ 1 for Tano and John.
Bruce, you’re just so wrong on this. I’m shaking my head.
What O’Keefe did was inherently, specifically illegal whether or not they had, or intended to, wiretap the office. That wouldn’t change even if ML was as obviously crooked as fellow Louisianan William Jefferson was. And come on, if there were something that the gang of four knew about her, one of their fathers is a AD. You would think they would either consult him on either pursuing an investigation, or at least get advise on what to do, and what not to do.
And here’s something to ponder. If we didn’t already know who these guys were, what their intent was, they would be in a HELL of a lot more trouble, possibly suspected of being part of a terrorist plot, and whisked off to be tortured… er, I mean interrogated.
PS. Yes, that last bit was over the top. But sorry, had to go there.
I’m appalled at the use of “moral equivalency” demonstrated here, that O’Keefe isn’t any-worse than the Democracts. Should not we as Americans, Republicans and as conservatives expect better from our “allies”…and ourselves. “Since they regularly break the law and get away with it, we can to…” isn’t a defensible position.
I’m gravely dissappointed…
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud] Everybody out at once!
Time to see the bottle of Vichy water for what it is, and throw it in the watsebasket where it belongs.
Secondly, no honest person could possibly deny that Republicans are, if anything, far more likely to be violators of all manner of election laws or other political crimes.
Actually, Tano, this is what your Barack Obama, your Obama Party, and your fellow liberals are stating.
Since you and your fellow liberals have stated that election fraud is justified for political purposes, all your screaming in this thread is accomplishing is to demonstrate what a hypocrite and liar you are.
Perhaps if you were not a paid criminal yourself — did you know your taking government money and using it to propagandize for Barack Obama is a crime — you could make intelligent statements on this. But given your criminal behavior and your party’s support for fraud, you haven’t really done anything here but demonstrate how you really have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
I wonder if you will hold yourself and all your buddies here equally to task over any statements about criminal behavior regarding anyone who has yet to be convicted of anything. Like ACORN, for example….
ACORN and its workers have been convicted of crimes.
On numerous occasions.
And, since we know your tactics, by refusing to denounce them, you support and endorse their criminal activity. After all, it’s the same standards you demand for Republicans, isn’t it?
Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see what was done illegally. And what would be the point of tapping a phone system that you know, and have demonstrated, has been turned off?
The al-Qaeda Press says:
What felony?
The FBI affidavit says:
Based on what?
So far as I can tell, they presented themselves as working for the phone company and that’s it.
I am staying neutral. The men involved in what took place need to be heard in court.
On the other hand, if there were no wire tapping devices to be found, then that makes such claims false – why am I not surprised that the usual suspects such as Tardo will make these false assumptions?
There could be a good case for the three attempting to investigate why it is that Landrieu’s constituents cannot reach her office. In other words, Landrieu and her office staff have tampered with the phones so that no one can get through. This might indeed explain why they used the cell phone to try and reach the office phone.
It is best not to get those knickers in a twist over this matter until it is resolved in the courts.
There is more than O’Keefe involved and all of the young men have their own reputations to consider.
What is different about this attempt to get at a truth and that of a 60 minutes reporter who goes under cover to give some really dodgy story in a kangaroo court environment?
We should not be talking about the case until it is resolved.
I will go one further on the elections laws. Somebody needs to explain about the campaign funds received by THE WON because there seems to be quite a few problems about legalities, including receiving large donations via PACs.
On top of that there is the issue of voter fraud, including fraud at the caucus level. There is also the issue of intimidation which goes further than the Black Panther intimidation that caused many elderly folk to turn away from voting in the various caucuses. All of it is documented. It is fraud and it is not being investigated.
“Landrieu and her office staff have tampered with the phones so that no one can get through.”
That has got to be the funniest line yet….
Oh no, wait. this one surges into the lead:
“We should not be talking about the case until it is resolved.”
Aye, lets shut down the blogosphere!! No opinions allowed until the jury speaks!
So Tano does support and endorse ACORN’s criminal activity and states that the crimes for which they have committed were justified.
No surprise there.
Nope, Tano is the very model of a liberal facist. “Silly, laws are only to keep us safe. I know what I’m doing, so I can break them.”
I stand by all of my words.
Aye, let’s convict people for nothing in the court of public opinion a la Rep. Murtha. Let’s muddy the water enough so nobody can find out anything real about it.
What “illegal attacks”? Just what are we supposed to be disgusted, indignant or outraged over? People pretending to be who they aren’t? Ok. I’m disgusted, indignant and outraged with the DNC. Happy?
And are we supposed to be disgusted, indignant and outraged like the liberals were when it turned out one of their darling “soldiers” had his ass kicked out of boot camp?
Shall I go on with examples of liberals pretending to be who and what they aren’t?
tis interesting that in an interview follosing the ACORN exposure, he was asked if he was a ‘Conservative’ and Okeefe responded that he is a ‘progressive radical’
O’Keefe describes himself as a “progressive radical” who follows Saul Alinsky, wikipedia
As my dad used to say, the only thing he did wrong was get caught.
CPAC Diamond Ticket $750 for three days
Tea Party Nashville costs $549 a person for access to both the conference and Palin’s banquet, or $349 for a ticket to the dinner alone
Palin is reportedly making $115,000 for her speech – Tickets aren’t selling though according to a mother jones story
Maybe Okeefe would be available for the Tea Party event. Bauchman is reconsidering attending the event. . .because of possible ethical conflicts
O’Keefe’s side of the story is dripping out a tiny bit:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/27/fox-news-sources-close-to-okeefe-say-its-not-a-case-of-wiretapping/
Still true, though, that no one here knows dick until we’ve heard more of it.
I would not touch O’Keefe with a 10 foot pole. He is an independent film maker and he was arrested for ambiguous charges by the FBI. According to the New York Times, phone tapping is not any part of the reason why he was arrested.
What is interesting in the comments here, is what happens when you feed a Troll. I suspect that O’Keefe is his own man. I do not assume he is conservative, Republican or a team player trying to expose the charade that is the Obama administration.
I prefer to sit back and let the O’Keefe story unfold. If he turns out to have been tained by Karl Rove and financed by Dick Cheney, I will condemn them for really, really stupid stuff. If he is a hungary progressive who will sell himself for recognition and fame, I am totally positive Tano will show up contrite and asking for forgiveness.
From what I know now, I’m gonna say that O’Keefe is an idiot who is violating Landreiu’s rights and hurting the image of the conservative movement.
Breaking the law and spying on law-abiding citizens is wrong, even if those citizens support bad politics.
The assumed reason that he would target Landreiu is because of her payoff, but that’s just a corrupt political deal that typically happens in DC, not an illegal act, so what he seemed to be doing was unjustified.
I guess when everything comes out, we will know for sure, but he seemed like a jackass in college, too, for example, campaigning against Lucky Charms in the school cafeteria because they were offensive to Irish people.
And in his ACORN videos–especially the one in Santa Barbara–he kind of played loose with the facts sometimes. In Santa Barbara, he basically lied when he showed the video of the woman claiming she killed people and stuff, when it was easy to see by the transcript that she was joking and she didn’t have a felony background.
“Nope, Tano is the very model of a liberal facist. “Silly, laws are only to keep us safe. I know what I’m doing, so I can break them.””
This is great example of the Alice in Wonderland World of alleged liberal fascism. To their credit a number of conservative commentators have called out GP for his comments, but he will continue to “stand by all of my words.” But if we look at GP’s words isn’t he, and not Tano, the one who is claiming about law “I know what I’m doing, so I can break them” on regards to O’Keefe. In GP’s mind O’Keefe is a “patriot” and that justifies anything he do. Is there a definition of what is a patriot? No it is simply asserted and presumably it is up to GP to decide who is a patriot and who is not. Does it matter whether O’Keefe broke the law? Not according to GP, provided O’Keefe’s action were done in the pursuit of “truth”, a concept not defined and presumably it refers to what GP believes is truth. Why is O’Keefe’s action justified, regardless what those actions may be? Because he is acting against an unnamed liberal elite which is allegedly trampling on the constitution against true patriots and this calls for “extraordinary measures”.
I certainly agree that many on the left carelessly accuse conservatives of “fascism” as a way to not debate ideas and political philosophy. I also doubt that GP is in fact sympathetic to fascism, but I will say the ideas and the underlying assumptions and fears being appealed to in his post does rely upon tropes of fascist thinking. Quite honestly, this was a frightening post.
“Nope, Tano is the very model of a liberal facist. “Silly, laws are only to keep us safe. I know what I’m doing, so I can break them.””
reposted with typos corrected.
This is great example of the Alice in Wonderland World of alleged liberal fascism. To their credit a number of conservative commentators have called out GP for his comments, but he will continue to “stand by all of my words.” But if we look at GP’s words isn’t he, and not Tano, the one who is claiming about the law “I know what I’m doing, so I can break them” on regards to O’Keefe. In GP’s mind O’Keefe is a “patriot” and that justifies anything he does. Is there a definition of what is a patriot? No it is simply asserted and presumably it is up to GP to decide who is a patriot and who is not. Does it matter whether O’Keefe broke the law? Not according to GP, provided O’Keefe’s action were done in the pursuit of “truth”, a concept not defined and presumably it refers to what GP believes is truth. Why is O’Keefe’s action justified, regardless what those actions may be? Because he is acting against an unnamed liberal elite which is allegedly trampling on the constitution against true patriots and this calls for “extraordinary measures”.
I certainly agree that many on the left carelessly accuse conservatives of “fascism” as a way to avoid debate about ideas and political philosophy. I also doubt that GP is in fact sympathetic to fascism, but I will say the ideas and the underlying assumptions and fears being appealed to in his post do rely upon tropes of fascist thinking. Quite honestly, this was a frightening post.
The left is already blowing this into some huge Watergate conspiracy… which just tells me there’s probably nothing there. Some stupidity, perhaps, but a deep dark right-wing conspiracy? Meh, not so much.
Quite honestly, this was a frightening post.
But of course, if GP had been encouraging people to stand out in front of polling places with nightsticks and make threatening racial epithets to white voters, that wouldn’t be a problem. Indeed, according to the FBI and the Obama Party, that isn’t even a crime.
And if GP had called for outright voter fraud to “keep the bastards out” as liberals and the Obama Party were doing, that wouldn’t be a problem either.
Brendan is simply pulling a typical Alinsky stunt by trying to hold people to standards that Brendan and the rest of the left have demonstrated they have no intention of following themselves. I think what’s frightening to the thugs that make up modern-day liberalism is the thought of people turning their tactics back on them.
Thus Brendan follow in Tano’s footsteps.
I’d also point out, go over to Daily Kos and post he’s innocent until proven guilty. Watch how fast you get kick/banned. I disagree with Bruce, but we do it civilly over here.
“Brendan is simply pulling a typical Alinsky stunt by trying to hold people to standards that Brendan and the rest of the left have demonstrated they have no intention of following themselves.”
ND30, you do not know me and you have no idea what my alleged standards are or are not. As for the livewire, I certainly believe O’Keefe is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty–especially in this case when it is not even clear what the charges are. But that is besides the point as GP essentially said he should be defended regardless because he is on the side of truth and patriotism. It is that sentiment that I am responding to and I tried to keep it away from being a personal attack.
But that is besides the point as GP essentially said he should be defended regardless because he is on the side of truth and patriotism.
“Essentially”?
You don’t need “essentially”. You can quote him directly.
Surely I’m not going to throw O’Keefe under the bus until I know all of the facts. And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.
And therein the reason for your “essentially”, Brendan; GP did NOT say “regardless”. He said “IF”.
But that doesn’t fit the story you’re trying to tell, does it, Brendan? So that’s why, instead of quoting GP directly and honestly, YOU MADE UP A STATEMENT AND ATTRIBUTED IT TO HIM.
This is, again, the Alinsky stunt of liberalism. The fact that you would openly lie and try to smear GP in this demonstrates quite convincingly what your motivations are.
Patterico has a good summary of what we do and DON’T know at this point:
http://patterico.com/2010/01/27/
I certainly don’t condone law-breaking and shenanigans in a senator’s office is stupidity on stilts… but I’m going to wait for more facts to come out before deciding whether or not O’Keefe is a criminal.
As VtK points out, they weren’t in possession of any “listening devices” (which aren’t mentioned in the affidavit, either). If they wanted to bug ML’s office, there are certainly easier ways to do it (and the waiting room wouldn’t be too interesting, anyway).
I am not willing (yet) to follow Bruce in concluding that the ends justify the means.
Even MSNBC (the news part, not Olbermann/Maddow/Matthews) is admitting there was no wiretapping. Apparently, it was a stunt based around reports that Mary Landrieu’s office refused to take phone calls from constituents while she was being bought off during the Louisiana Purchase.
If true, then this is much ado about not very much.
ok ND30 signing out after this one, because you are a real nasty piece of work.
“Surely I’m not going to throw O’Keefe under the bus until I know all of the facts. And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.
And therein the reason for your “essentially”, Brendan; GP did NOT say “regardless”. He said “IF”.”
ND30, nothing you said contradicts my point. GP did not say he was standing by O’Keefe until he determined whether he broke the law or not, a point I would respect. His post is clear that he will stand by as long as he was pursuing ‘truth’. I suspect even GP would agree that his meaning was that he would stand by the man if he believed he acted in a manner that in GP’s belief was in pursuit of patriotic values and truth.
GP did not say he was standing by O’Keefe until he determined whether he broke the law or not, a point I would respect.
Actually, he did.
Surely I’m not going to throw O’Keefe under the bus until I know all of the facts. And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.
You simply are misquoting and lying — another typical Alinsky stunt.
again, O’Keefe was following the Alinsky hand book. . .
I’m curious why none of the liberal apologistas aren’t countering my claim that they honor and worship such murderers as Che, Mao, Castro, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh…. shall I go on?
A big part of this post was to highlight liberal hypocrisy and moral relativism.
You trolls completely missed it and by your silence show you agree with me on that point. Hilarious.
As a matter of fact, O’Keefe’s post about the ACORN video begins with a quote from Alinsky.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/chaos-for-glory/#more-274
It do?
It do?
Says the arrogant sombitch who thinks he has Bruce all figured out.
What’s really sad is we find out that al-Qaeda is trying to get WMDs, Obama doesn’t give a rat’s ass and his enablers are going apeshitspiceygonzo over this nothingness.
Amazing.
“What’s really sad is we find out that al-Qaeda is trying to get WMDs, Obama doesn’t give a rat’s ass and his enablers are going apeshitspiceygonzo over this nothingness.
Amazing.”
Wow, exactly the type of cogent political analysis one expects from TGC. Are we suppose to guess what he means? Does it mean anything?
Yeah, it means dipshits on the left (you included) have screwed up priorities.
“Yeah, it means dipshits on the left (you included) have screwed up priorities.”
Okay. that explains it.
Standing alone, this sentence is subject to a lot of “lack of context” abuse. At first blush, it appears to be saying something along the lines of “the ends justify the means.” It is reminiscent of Goldwater’s “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”
This is the problem word in Bruce’s statement: justified. Is he dealing in moral equivalency or not? What is the context that surrounds the use of this powerful word? It is this:
I assume the We, The People is a reference to the TEA party enthusiasm for a taking back of our government and a return to fidelity to the Constitution. When you take back the government from those who discard/disregard the Constitution, ram things down our throats behind closed doors in the dead of night and embark on socialism and the enforced redistribution of private wealth, I can only call it a return to revolution.
This revolution is not a heros of the left kind of Castro, Che, Mao type of murderous revolution, but the fighting of deceit and ACORN type of thug politics which means that your team had better be prepared for a knife fight and Chicago machine gutter tactics.
The Congress went totally deaf to Republicans and shut them out entirely, as did the President. Scott Brown has suddenly brought them religion and now Congress and Obama are calling for bipartisanship.
Clearly, the Democrats are scared stiff about November 2010. We know how they operate if the election is close enough to steal. Should the TEA party advocates adopt the Democrat tactics and fight the Democrat sleaze with equal and opposite sleaze? Do we try to get ahead of how the Democrats subvert the process? Isn’t a good offense the best defense?
This the milieu in which I parse the use of the word “justified” by Gay Patriot.
heliotrope: Nail-hit-on-head. Congrats. Thanks for educating the morons who troll here.
“A big part of this post was to highlight liberal hypocrisy and moral relativism.”
Well that makes it an historical, all-time championship FAIL of a post. For all you managed to accomplish was to engrave in stone the irrefutable evidence for your own hypocrisy, if you ever have the nerve to address Democratic wrongdoing in the future, and demonstrate your own moral nihilism.
Congratulations.
Heliotrope,
That was a long winding comment that really went nowhere. What did you end with? “Do we try to get ahead of how the Democrats subvert the process? Isn’t a good offense the best defense?”
How clearer can you be? You are making the exact same point that I was making. Bruce advocates complete sleaze politics – including criminality. He justifies it by claiming Democrats do the same. He has no principles of his own. He does not stand for anything higher than the lowest standard he sees out in the rest of the world. Its like living in a gang neighborhood and feeling that you are totally justified in being the baddest banger in the neighborhood – good offense and all that.
And to hear you people talk about supposed Democratic criminality – its just pathetic. Look at the record. Count the convictions. Use your common sense for chrissakes. Nobody with at least half a brain believes that Democrats are somehow more prone to electoral criminality than Republicans – you guys literally wrote the book on this stuff. – LINK
And to hear you people talk about supposed Democratic criminality – its just pathetic. Look at the record. Count the convictions.
As I did above.
Your party and you openly support, endorse, and practice voter fraud and voter registration fraud. Your party and you exhort people to vote multiple times, which is a crime, and insist that doing so is justified. Your party and you openly support posting armed thugs outside polling places to hurl racial epithets at and threaten white voters.
You are a thug, Tano, and a criminal. And the reason you are squealing and crying right now is that Alinsky thugs and criminals like yourself depend on other peoples’ moral aversions to turning the same type of behavior you practice back on them. You are not able to take the dirty tricks that you and your party openly endorse and practice being practiced on yourself.
The justification is simple. If you are going to forge ballots and vote on multiple occasions, as you and your party have already been convicted of doing, you have already broken the law, and there is thus no need for me to follow it to put a stop to you. You can’t follow the law because you would lose, and that means you have to cheat — which demonstrates repeatedly your inferiority and the failure of liberalism.
Meanwhile, let’s demonstrate how the Chicago thug and Alinsky boy Tano plays here.
He has no principles of his own. He does not stand for anything higher than the lowest standard he sees out in the rest of the world.
Which is the one set by the Chicago thug Barack Obama and you, Tano.
So why should Bruce try for anything higher when dealing with street dirt and gutter filth like you and Barack Obama? Why should Bruce be nice to thugs and hatemongers like yourself and Obama who openly support criminal actions like voter fraud and voter registration fraud?
Do you think criminals like yourself deserve kind treatment, Tano? Do you think because you vote fraudulently and forge ballots that you should be given some type of special dispensation?
What Bruce is advocating is putting a stop to criminal activity such as yours and Obama’s. What you advocate is continuing the criminal activity.
That shows the Chicago thug Obama’s values system. He supports criminals and thugs instead of law-abiding citizens. He believes in committing fraud and crimes to keep his grip on power, even if it disenfranchises law-abiding citizens.
The choice is between allowing the criminality and thuggishness of Barack Obama to continue or putting a stop to it. The former is INFINITELY higher. Stopping criminals is better than allowing criminality to continue.
You don’t understand that, Tano, because you are a criminal and a thug, just like your Barack Obama. Gutter trash and filth is what both you and your Obama are.
Also, Tano insists that the Obama Party has never committed any criminal actions. With that in mind, I propose the following:
— Posting white people outside polling places with nightsticks and having them tell anyone who walks up, “You are about to be ruled by the white man, n*****”.
Reason: the Barack Obama Party and Tano have stated that it is not a crime for Black Panthers to stand outside polling places with nightsticks and tell anyone who walks up, “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker”.
— Forging peoples’ names and committing voter registration fraud for millions of registrations.
Reason: Barack Obama’s organization ACORN has forged peoples’ names and committed voter registration fraud for millions of registrations, and both the Barack Obama Party and Tano state that that is not a crime.
— Voting on multiple occasions in the same election under fictitious names
Reason: the Barack Obama Party, Tano, and the media have stated that voting multiple times in an election is perfectly acceptable and justified.
So Tano, here you go. If Bruce does all of these things, he is doing exactly what you support and endorse as an Obama Party member.
Now, if you are attacking him as practicing “sleaze politics”, that means you are sleazy, since he would be doing exactly what you support and endorse.
What’s the matter, Alinsky boy? No answer? Can’t you live up to the standards you follow? Why do you demand that other people follow higher standards than you, who admittedly engages in sleaze politics?
Like I said NDT,
Tano believes laws are for the little people. All the actions that fascists like him and bob take are for ‘our own good’ as they’re enlightened and know better.
Tano,
At the close of my winding essay, I asked rhetorical questions. You have charged me with stating that I support taking the low road. We may well be at the Tammany level where raw power and turf battles break out. I don’t know. But sending Susan Collins with a box of chocolates to meet with Rahm Emanuel is off the table.
I can not speak for Gay Patriot, but if O’Keefe has done something illegal, he should pay the price just as every sleaze bag Democrat should do as well. Shall we list the tax cheats and graft artists for you?
But when Eric Holder helps the crotch bomber to clam up, I am sure he will be right at O’Keefe’s side waving off the FBI and providing free, world class defense.
This is the milieu we are in and you can hardly blame it on Bush other than your own Bush Derangement Syndrome has driven you to engage in political gorilla warfare where nice guys finish last.
Your squealing is just like Bertha Lewis. Obviously, O’Keefe is going to have a ton of laws thrown at him. But, he took the risk and we all have yet to learn what risk he took and why. Stay tuned.
That’s a mistake and one which cedes any moral high ground when it comes to legitimate critiques of liberal misconduct. It’s one thing to “stand by” O’Keefe because you believe he is innocent and the charges he is accused of lack any merit, it’s quite another to excuse possible criminal behavior because you consider him to be a political ally. I hope O’Keefe is innocent, I really do. I hate to see young lives destroyed over stupid mistakes and from a purely selfish political stance it would be hurtful, though not overwhelmingly so as libs may wish, to efforts in stopping the extreme Left. I’m also grateful for his helping to expose ACORN shenanigans and love the pricks into the liberal establishment, but I cannot and will not support breaking the law in order to do so. If O’Keefe were a liberal activist who did the same thing against say Senator Coburn’s office I do believe you would be singing a different tune.
25: +1! That scene from Casablanca always makes laugh…
When it comes to this despicable excuse for a human being, I’m sorely tempted to say “yes”…
The absurdity of this strikes as being hilarious, more in the vein of the recent bake sales that charged different prices depending upon race. If that is what O’Keefe intended, than it seems to be a good example of exposing absurdity by being absurd.
Unless you are calling for outright revolt and perhaps expulsion of liberals, a la the Loyalists of old, for which you run enormous risk which may not be “justified” or considered to be morally correct, not at the expense of the law. If you are advocating possibly criminal tactics of opponents you criticize for the “greater good” than you will become no different and no better than them which frankly I want no part of.
NDT, I gotta say, this is the kind of thread where I adore your honesty and consistency in reminding lefties of the awful truth about themselves. Backed up with links. Bravo!
#75 John: I do not disagree with your words here. As I noted, we will have to wait for the details. We are all, perhaps, hung up on the use of the word justified.The immediate assumption is that O’Keefe has committed a crime and likely does not have a story that will convince a judge that he should not bear any legal guilt.
In ethics, we look at good and evil. O’Keefe appears to have engaged in evil. That is why he was arrested. That is why the guy who murdered George Tiller was arrested.
But St. Augustine pondered the just war and the starving man stealing an apple. His work was not exploring moral relativism, but examining evil as must not, ought not and justifiable. Medical triage is justifiable evil. Over the centuries of enlightened development we have refined our views to the point where some people can justify just about anything and others are unable to forgive.
Until the facts are known, I will hold judgment. But if we have reached the point where politicians invite spying and covert investigations by their corrupt practices, then journalists will act like journalist as the New York Times did when it published the Pentagon Papers. Those papers were not obtained legally. The last time I checked Daniel Ellsberg was still a martyr and Father Robert Drinan was praised by the left for sanctifying the whole affair.
Sorry, he got a big head, and no matter what he thought he was up to, he was breaking the law.
Think on this a bit. Would you condone Tano doing this to, say, Scott Brown? I think not.
He and his buddies had no reason to be doing what they were trying to do. He may even have cause to believe she is doing illegal things, but he was not proving it correctly. This isn’t whistle blowing, it was fishing. Say they got “away” with what they were attempting. . . the office staff was fooled and they got in the phone closet and did what ever it was they planned (including doing nothing), then they post video of them doing what ever. . . or they get evidence of actual crimes by her. . . they then would have admitted to committing a crime…..and anything they had gotten would not be legal to use against her in court, and it is Louisiana, they happily elect criminals there (Home of the bumper sticker “Vote For The Crook! It’s Important!” during the Duke v Edwards gov race)
This is perilously close to condoning the “Ends Justify The Means”.
I too do not know the full story, but just the simple bit we do know is bad enough to criticize him heavily.
I have always believed that Ted Kennedy was a murderer. I don´t remember if the Kopechne family ever sued Teddy for the wrongful death of their daughter and her unborn child. Since this was before DNA, were any tests ever made to affirm or deny that Kennedy as the father?
As for James O´Keefe I admired his effort in exposing ACORN for what it is. I would certainly call him a patriot. As for the alleged breakin and attempt to wiretap (without equipment) of Senator Landrieu´s office, I will wait to hear him on his day in court.
And you agreed with this rubbish, Dan?
(This is a late post on this topic, I know, but I’m just now reading the update.)
It doesn’t surprise me that if Dan and Bruce disagree, that I’d personally side with Bruce. But honestly, Dan. Malkin is all wet here.
People should know their limits and not get carried away, no matter what they’re doing, of course. But how is it that breaking some laws makes you into “what you are targeting”? A glaring non sequitar there if you ask me.
Okay, now I’ve read Malkin’s post, and there her comments do make more sense: She’s talking in the context of advice to aspiring investigative reporters.
But still does breaking any law — even when you intend to later reveal your actions — make you whatever you may be targeting? I hardly think so. I usually agree with Malkin but I still say she’s wrong on this point.
Don’t think it’s funny to pretend to be a pimp; because pimps have guns; that how they force their tricksters; that’s how people don’t mess with them.
I’m for checks on the federal government coming from the states and people. But what is James checking here? Acorn isn’t federal officials. What exactly is the policy he is calling corrupt? A general pattern? And what is he checking about Sen. Landriue? That she didn’t answer phone calls being the beleaguered and possibly corrupt?
I’m for health care being discussed by the state and the people; Not the federal government. I don’t think we need a federal government; and certainly the bind of federal health care is something to work out of. So if you want to be a check on the federal government and federal government health care; such seems a moral battle. But if you want to be a check on community organizers or senators not answering their phones; when those agencies seem about par for the course; I’m not sure that James is about political theory and policy; but being annoyed with pathetic democratic machines.
having researched a little more, I see the issue clearly James was trying to check was Sen. Landrieu not answering her phone through her aides, for not days, but critical weeks leading up the health care vote and consistent with some several hundred million dollar bribe for louisiana. If this is the case, and can be verified, that as James said on Hannity, that her aides did not answer her phone for three weeks; that is incompetent behavior that very much requires check and prosecution. So why wouldn’t her constituents who tried to reach her file a class action suit to demonstrate their grievance. Surely some lawyer would want to encourage that.