Any thoughts on Instapundit’s call for President Obama to resign due to un-Constitutional actions? I would note, as many have, how eager Old Media has been to help out the Caliphascist on this matter. At what point can I say “fellow traveler”?
According to the L.A. Times, “…the Office of Probation in the Central District of California was reviewing whether Nakoula, who has been convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation…” and he has been neither arrested nor detained.
While the timing is certainly suspicious and somewhat worrisome, I think that Instapundit may have been a bit overheated on this one in calling these actions un-Constitutional and calling for Obama to resign, at least at this point.
I should just stop at “According to the LA Times” because anything past that is unreliable1 but I would note that I made no claim of arrest and there are certainly pictures of him being detained. Does the LA Times claims those pictures were faked, that he never left his house in the company of law enforcement?
I would agree that Instapundit is a bit overwrought but I think this is a very serious incident. IMHO it is clearly using the power of the state to attack someone for exercising their freedom of speech, scapegoating him for government policy failures and putting him at risk (with the eager cooperation of Old Media).
As noted there was a huge flutter over Ari Fleischer rather mild comments.
1 which you argued is an OK state of affairs and since the LA Times doesn’t follow my Narrative I can just ignore them…
“…which you argued is an OK state of affairs and since the LA Times doesn’t follow my Narrative I can just ignore them…”
Indeed, and this very much looks like a narrative thang to me, with Instapundit leading this hyperbolic narrative.
This guy publicly and flagrantly violated the terms of his parole. Why is law enforcement supposed to look the other way? Is there any evidence that Obama personally directed law enforcement to question this guy?
Yes, the difference being that Instapundit freely admits his bias and does not attempt to be an information monopoly. He actively encourages people to read elsewhere as well and not depend on him.
Why is law enforcement supposed to look the other way?
They were until the guy’s action were politically embarassing. Check out when the video was put online. Nobody cared until it made the Obama Administration look bad.
Moreover, if it was just about parole, why make such a major media story out of it? It could have been done without prior media notice by one deputy showing up and asking the guy to come it. All of that was done to make a political statement out of a routine law enforcement operation.
On top of all of that, did you not write that he had not been arrested or detained? Why not, if this was about violating parole? Is that not law enforcement looking the other way?
Is there any evidence that Obama personally directed law enforcement to question this guy?
Yes, the FBI went after him, that’s how he was found. It was not just the local police, they just made the pick up.
Not so long ago the Department of Justice refused to rule out blasphemy prosecutions. I, and Instapundit already knew this, but it seemed apropos to mention it here as a bit more context.
Well, here’s the other narrative, and I personally find it more plausible than Instapundit’s.
“The FBI contacted the filmmaker because of the potential for threats, a federal law enforcement official told CNN Thursday. But he is not under investigation.”
“With media parked at his residence in Cerritos, California, Nakoula called the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Wednesday night to report a disturbance, said spokesman Steve Whitmore. He wanted local police to protect him.”
If you prefer Instapundit’s narrative, that’s fine, but at least we all agree it’s nothing but narratives all the way down. :-)
There wasn’t much chance of threats until after the FBI contacted him. Where did the media get the information that lead them to camp out on the film maker’s door? That’s not explained in the CNN article. Do you also think that the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff was calling around for the same reason? What in that explains the large number of law enforcement officials during the non-arrest / non-detention?
I do like this best —
The FBI and U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a joint intelligence bulletin about how the film poses “security concerns to U.S. interests at home and abroad,” according to the bulletin obtained by CNN.
The film poses security concerns?
I find the narrative that Obama is pushing on this to distract from the far more plausible view that his spiking the ball on Bin Laden’s death and the DNC vote on God and Jerusalem in the party platform was a bigger factor in the violence (e.g., the protestors shouting “Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!” doesn’t make much sense if it’s about that film - the DNC voting clip was played over and over again in the MENA in the immediately preceding days according to eye witness reports).
P.S. Does the CNN narrative explain why the Department of Justice won’t commit to not prosecute blasphemy?
Hmmmm, even the NY Times thinks it was a federal effort to calm Middle East tensions and not about parole violations.
And now our State Department is running advertisements in Pakistan about how much our government doesn’t like that film. Perhaps, maybe, just possibly, there’s some coordination at the federal level on this?