July 27th, 2009

A video on Gatesgate that stands for itself


[Hat tip: commenter "Darrell."]

This woman, Kelly King, should run for President. She’s truly articulate, as opposed to the surface smoothness and careful word calibration of our President. And her affect matches her rhetoric; she burns with the slow fire of the knowledge that she’s telling the truth.

61 Responses to “A video on Gatesgate that stands for itself”

  1. huxley Says:

    Whoa! That hug at the end was too much.

    Clearly the Cambridge Police are not going gentle into that good night or into a chummy group hug with O & G.

  2. Baklava Says:

    Whoa. Tears.

  3. huxley Says:

    It gives me hope to see blacks supporting Sgt. Crowley and his team.

  4. Baklava Says:

    I’ve become so cynical about the press, I don’t believe this video will stay on the CNN site.

    The power in the woman’s words and the courage she had to say them. Does she know what will come her way?

    Hope and Change. I hope her words bring hope and change. I hope everyone involved here remain unharmed and respected.

  5. Darrell Says:

    Loved it but it shows we still have a long way to go, when its black vs white people side along racial lines rather than listen to evidence and decide on facts. The only ones with credibility are other blacks, as advanced by the CNN host.
    Now lets see what comments are made about the black officers that support the SGT, they will probably get labeled and maligned, hope not but not holding breath. Thanks for the hat tip.

  6. sierra Says:

    After the president came out with his stupid “stupidly” comment, local news did some man-in-the-street interviews around Cambridge. Various young professionals, all hailing the middle of the Obama-voting demographic, expressed either incredulity or outright hostility towards Obama. Remarkable effect.

  7. Tom the Redhunter Says:

    Wow

    I don’t think that Kelly King’s is the only vote Obama has lost recently. His could be the fastest slide downward we’ve seen in modern times.

  8. rickl Says:

    I don’t think that Kelly King’s is the only vote Obama has lost recently. His could be the fastest slide downward we’ve seen in modern times.

    Too bad it didn’t happen in October.

    Was that Sgt. Crowley who hugged Kelly King at the end? I don’t know what he looks like.

  9. Darrell Says:

    Rickl, yes that was he…..

  10. zhombre Says:

    That was Crowley, who did not speak. I know at least one black voter Obama lost when he appointed Geithner Treasury secretary and attempted to appoint Tom Dashle.

  11. Ben Says:

    That woman was amazing. I like that Don Lemon, too. He seems at least partially interesting in finding and reporting the truth, which is a rare thing for reporters these days.

    And that “nod you head” thing was just good TV.

  12. Chinese Neo-con from Hong Kong Says:

    Thank you very much for posting this clip. I don’t watch CNN and I would have missed it. I’m glad common sense still exists.

  13. nyomythus Says:

    I saw this couple of days ago — this woman rocks my socks off!

  14. Baklava Says:

    Lucia Whalen (called 911) was very restrained in her call.

    Greta has Lucia’s lawyer on FoxNews, showing the angle of view.

    Lucia’s quote in the 911 tapes after asked, “I’m not sure”. When pressed she said she thinks one guy is Hispanic.

    Lucia will not add to the controversy by commenting on what she heard after her call.

  15. Baklava Says:

    Except to say that she thinks the police did NOT act inappropriately.

  16. Vieux Charles Says:

    This is a rare group of professionals that have worked very hard to earn each other’s respect over a long period of time. After watching this I’m convinced that any leftwing lunatic that wishes to publicly demean any one of them is going up against all of them, in short, a journalistic suicide mission.

  17. MikeLL Says:

    “She’s truly articulate, as opposed to the surface smoothness and careful word calibration of our President.”

    She is also very attractive. Great mix.

    “I voted for him, I supprted him, I will not do so again.”

    Wow. She is pissed.

  18. MikeLL Says:

    sierra: “Various young professionals, all hailing the middle of the Obama-voting demographic, expressed either incredulity or outright hostility towards Obama. Remarkable effect.”

    My boss is a raging liberal. Hated GWB. Loves Obama. Even he was confused and taken aback by Obama on this issue.

    Wouldn’t stop him from voting for Obama again, though.

  19. Darrell Says:

    She will probably get a call from “the most fashionable woman in America” If I was Crowley, I would bring her to the white house for the beer fest.

  20. nyomythus Says:

    I could be adjusting my opinion after reading this:

    …more recently, I was walking at night in the wooded California suburb where I spend the summer, trying to think about an essay I was writing. Suddenly, a police cruiser was growling quietly next to me and shining a light. “What are you doing?” I don’t know quite what it was—I’d been bored and delayed that week at airport security—but I abruptly decided that I was in no mood, so I responded, “Who wants to know?” and continued walking. “Where do you live?” said the voice. “None of your business,” said I. “What’s under your jacket?” “What’s your probable cause for asking?” I was now almost intoxicated by my mere possession of constitutional rights. There was a pause, and then the cop asked almost pleadingly how he was to know if I was an intruder or burglar, or not. “You can’t know that,” I said. “It’s for me to know and for you to find out. I hope you can come up with probable cause.” The car gurgled alongside me for a bit and then pulled away. No doubt the driver then ran some sort of check, but he didn’t come back. I found that a good cop even at dead of night can and will use his judgment, even if the “suspect” is being a slight pain in the ass. But seriously, do you think I could have pulled [this off] , or would even have tried it, or been given the chance to try it, if I had been black? The “Skip” Gates question is determined just as much by what can’t and what doesn’t happen as it is by what regularly does. I can easily see how a black neighbor could have called the police when seeing professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. trying to push open the front door of his own house. And I can equally easily visualize a thuggish or oversensitive black cop answering the call. And I can also see how long it might take the misunderstanding to dawn on both parties. But Gates has a limp that partly accounts for his childhood nickname and is slight and modest in demeanor. Moreover, whatever he said to the cop was in the privacy of his own home. It is monstrous in the extreme that he should in that home be handcuffed, and then taken downtown, after it had been plainly established that he was indeed the householder. The president should certainly have kept his mouth closed about the whole business—he is a senior law officer with a duty of impartiality, not the micro-manager of our domestic disputes—but once he had said that the police conduct was “stupid,” he ought to have stuck to it, quite regardless of the rainbow of shades that was so pathetically and opportunistically deployed by the Cambridge Police Department. It is the U.S. Constitution, and not some competitive agglomeration of communities or constituencies, that makes a citizen the sovereign of his own home and privacy. There is absolutely no legal requirement to be polite in the defense of this right. And such rights cannot be negotiated away over beer. Race or color are second-order considerations in this, if they are considerations at all. I was once mugged by a white man on the Lower East Side of New York, and then, having given my evidence, was laboriously shown a whole photo album of black “perps” at the local station house. The absurdity of the exercise lay not just in the inability of a half-trained and uncultured force to believe what I was telling them, but in the certainty that their stupidity was helping the guilty party to make a getaway. Professor Gates should have taken his stand on the Bill of Rights and not on his epidermis or that of the arresting officer, and, if he didn’t have the presence of mind to do so, that needn’t inhibit the rest of us.

    Christopher Hitchens, SLATE.
    “A Man’s Home Is His Constitutional Castle”

  21. Baklava Says:

    Nyom,

  22. Charles Says:

    Having listened to the 911 tapes released earlier today and now watching this video all I can say is that I hope *this* becomes a “teachable moment”, not the teachable moment that Obama, Gates, and other left-wing liberals were hoping for, but the “teachable moment for the truth.”

  23. Baklava Says:

    Wasn’t Gates arrested outside of his home? I thought I read that in the police report.

    Hitchens is making a leap somewhere.

  24. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Yes, I think he was arrested on his front porch. He could not have been arrested as a “disorderly person” for insulting Sgt. Crowley indoors because the offense requires public activity. As I understand it, Crowley tried to leave and Gates followed him outside, still hollering. It was the fact that this took place in front of a gathering crowd that took the matter beyond private rudeness. That’s inconvenient to Hitchens’ analysis, so he’s ignoring it.

    Hitchens is also ignoring the fact that Gates, not Sgt. Crowley or the rest of us, decided to focus the encounter on skin color rather than on the Bill of Rights. Yes, our privacy in our own homes is absolutely sovereign, and of course it should have been the central issue here. But once Gates introduced the smokescreen of race and our President fanned it into flame, nobody could see anything else.

    He’s also arguing from anecdote. Because, once upon a time (how long ago, I wonder?) he encountered racist presumptions from police when he was mugged, that must be what happened here, too. Because some police are “half-trained and uncultured,” they all are. He’s thinking just like our President! I’ve been struck by the inability of any enterprising reporter to find any Cambridge denizen who will say anything unsupportive about their city’s police force. Every person-on-the-street interview I’ve seen has reflected unequivocal support. If they’d made a habit, before this, of arresting people for homeowning-while-black or even for rudeness-while-homeowning, do we really think that the educated, privileged and entitled residents of Cambridge, of all places, would put up with it?

  25. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Said before, there are two issues. The arrest, and Gates’ reflexive jump into what has served him so well through out his career. What, come to think of it, has been his career.
    He’s a race-baiting, race-hustling jerk.

    Kelly King and Sarah Palin on the stump….

  26. ELC Says:

    He’s a race-baiting, race-hustling jerk. Who was welcomed onto the faculty at Harvard, and would be welcomed onto the faculty at most other “prestigious” American universities. If this is a “teachable moment” (what a grotesque cliche that’s become), perhaps it will teach a lot of Americans that their “prestigious” universities have pretty low standards for faculty, and specifically, that a Harvard education ain’t what it used to be (if it ever really was). The academy with a problem isn’t the police academy.

  27. Dennis Says:

    There are plenty of people like this out there. We need to put an end to this type of race baiting.
    I had this kind of thing happen to me as a Senior NCO. I had an individual, who was Black, who got promoted to E-6. It was time for him to take on more responsibility as an NCO and set the example, not be the example. I put more responsibility for his section on him and he called me a “racist.”
    If he had done this where no one else had heard it we could have talked about it, but he put me in a position where I had to take action.
    Fortunately most of my Senior NCO friends were Black and backed me 100%. Even though my Col wanted me to not press charges I did and the NCO lost a little money.
    This was in the late 70s and proves that there is on a personal basis a lot of good will to be had if one develops those relationships.
    Gates is race baiting because he thinks he can get away with it. So is Obama, but things are changing which can be evidenced by the fact that many are challenging both Gates and Obama.
    I would not doubt that Obama will lose a lot more than he though he would gain. Most of us are decent people.

  28. Deana Says:

    Wow.

    All of the officers that spoke in that clip are impressive.

    I happen to be somewhat distrustful of police officers. I am a white woman and have never engaged in unlawful or even questionable activities that would necessitate police involvement. Yet, years ago, a man in a truck ran into me and my interaction with the police following that incident forever shocked me and made me wary.

    I realize, though that many police officers are honorable, decent, and committed to what is right. I’m very impressed with the Cambridge officers and believe they were tarnished unfairly.

    I’m glad I saw this video.

  29. fmt Says:

    Hitchens and Gates have massive chips. Hitchens gets asked a few questions by a police officer and starts squawking about his constitiutional rights.

    If a police officer stopped me while I was walking in my neighborhood and wanted to know a few things, I’d tell him, willingly. Then I’d thank him for looking out for our property.

  30. Baklava Says:

    Richard wrote, “Kelly King and Sarah Palin on the stump….

    That would be a ticket with 100 times more experience and common sense than the current President.

    We can’t have that Richard !!

  31. I R A Darth Aggie Says:

    If a police officer stopped me while I was walking in my neighborhood and wanted to know a few things, I’d tell him, willingly.

    You might. I wouldn’t. It is unsafe. You should always invoke your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

    Watch a former defense attorney tell you why. Then, you can the other half of the presentation when the vetran cop admits “everything he said was true”.

  32. nyomythus Says:

    I think if Gates was on his porch, then he still has a constitutional right to speech and express himself how ever he pleases, even more so, but also in these circumstances the cops have a right to be inquisitive as well, it sounds like Gates acted immaturely, but well it depends when the arresting officers realized this was a man in his own home, when you act like an ass it doesn’t help the police make this out, but if you act like an ass or not on your property that’s the individuals right, right? I think it’s fair to say that Obama should not have commented on this and acted stupidly himself by doing so, but also the arresting officers may, and this is the biggest unknown variable of all, is did they act fairly once the realized this was a man in his own home. Wow, three varying degrees of stupidity may be in play for all three parties involved, most usual in the self-injection of the US President on a domestic matter (but in some defense it was his personal friend and not in his defense … don’t you have a freaking job to do mister???) … lots of stuff in play here, all I’m saying is if a new reasonable perspective comes to light then consider that perspective, it doesn’t have to be a 180 turn around, but it may tweak it more or less strongly this way or that. This story is still in play and we should be pursuing an understanding of it by classical reasoning and the dialectical process (a process I’ve heard some hatin’ on in the past). I personally don’t like seeing the cops hampered in their task and would simply engage simple questions with simple answers. Hitchens and Gates can be arrogant little asses if they want to be so — it’s their constitutional right — but they should mature a bit and learn how to moderate their behavior depending on the situation. But in their defense, I can go fuck myself too, right?

  33. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Just because I have a right to do something doesn’t always mean that’s what I should do. I disagree with IRA Darth Aggie that the privilege against self-incrimination should always be invoked in citizen/police encounters. It depends on a quick calculus: what kind of community is this? Do I seem to fit in here? How improbable is my explanation? In general, how likely is it that this police officer will think I’m a criminal?

    Like FMT, in most situations, regardless of my rights, I’d choose to politely explain myself and then thank the officer for his concern. But the fact is that I’d almost always be safe in making that choice, because I’m somebody most cops would be unlikely to suspect in any circumstance: white, female, middle-aged, middle-class, and generally unprepossessing. Come to think of it, I could probably embark on a profitable life of crime and get away with it for quite awhile before it would occur to anybody to suspect me. Also, I live in a rural community where people tend to know each other, or at least each other’s friends and relations, and where civility is the norm. That calculus might turn out differently if I were a scarier sort of person or if I lived in a scarier place.

    Once while I was driving home late at night, cranky after a long and fractious school board meeting, somebody came over a hill toward me with his high beams on and failed to dim them as he approached me. I snarled, high-beamed him right back, and left my high beams on as I passed him. Too late, I realized two things: 1) the other driver wasn’t high-beaming me at all — it was just the angle of his car, higher than mine as it came down the hill, that made his headlights glare into my eyes; and 2) the other driver was a State Trooper.

    Of course he turned around and pulled me over. Worse, the power window on the driver’s side of my car wasn’t working, so when he had to approach my car — from behind, on a lonely, unlit country road with no idea who was in the driver’s seat — I couldn’t open the window to speak with him. Instead, I had to open the whole door, which naturally might have made him think that whoever was inside could be coming out with a weapon. I switched on the dome light, turned so he could see what I hoped was my harmless-looking face, held up my hands so he could see they were empty, cracked open the door an inch or two, quickly got both hands up again into the light, and waited for him to ask me what the heck I thought I was doing. When he did, I explained myself fully — broken window, infuriating meeting, cranky mood, mistake about the headlights, and all. He laughed at me and let me go with the suggestion that I handle my high-beam button more sparingly in the future.

    Yes, I had a Constitutional right to keep my explanations to myself. That would have been a great way to get myself ticketed, or even arrested, and to turn a five-minute encounter into an expensive ordeal. What other advantage would it have offered?

  34. Artfldgr Says:

    Crowley was untouchable because he lives a real rightious life as judeo christians teach… by being moral everywhere, he was rendered untouchable in the public eye…

    the gilt has worn off as shakespeares play so aptly pointed out given the three chests and the rewards of each…

    now, things are going to get nasty..
    today i read that emanueal and the others are advocating euthanasia programs for the elderly by restricting care… and same for the infirm
    i would look up action t4 if one wants to know where this SAME program came from… remember sanger was part of this too, and they love her… and now a devout catholic was tricked into a late term abortion and was fired for it… at the same time i linked the articles about the almost 250 infirm that starved to death under nhs care, the SAME way the elderly and infirm died with hitler.

    i will also say that most of them were tortured to death as their food was placed just out of reach.

    and hitlers program was a hideen one. the german public didnt know for a long time that their loved ones were dying and they were getting ashes from common piles.

    and here with them starving at the nhs, how do they know that behind whats up front, is the same agenda?

    by the way… it was a famed US author and communist that said that we should stand before the state and every 5 years justify our existence.

    and today… i saw something i thought i would never see…
    here is a blow your doors off video of a young young veteran telling a senator off as to her oaths of office and what she is doing!!!

    here is clair mckaskills town office where the left was supposed to show up to create news for the health care plan… tea party people showed up and outnumbered them

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn71-wNccsw

    the best part was this young man..
    when and if he runs for president, he has my vote!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98HxYbsdBM

    I wish i knew what she said in respons!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    given the honduras, such may cause people to clean house and to remove every elected official who is violating their office!!!!!!!!!!

    clean house…

  35. joe buzz Says:

    For some strange reason this episode bothers me more than Team 44’s stance and responses to the Iranian uprising and Zelaya’s expulsion. Not sure why. Perhaps it speaks more directly to the old liberal, feelings based side of my brain. Seeing a good man just trying to do his thankless job and getting caught up in a sh*t storm.
    There are youtube videos available showing Gates hustling race and dropping n-bombs…Crowley tried to revive Reggie Lewis in ‘93 but failed. It is likely that POTUS knew the question was coming in his press conf., which makes his response that much more difficult to square. To what may “those lessons.. be applied”*, twenty years in the pews of Rev. Wright?

    * the lessons quote references a comment by the Cambridge City Manager

  36. Artfldgr Says:

    this photograph shows how hard it will be to flush this oen down the memory hole.

    as i said…

    in rome and the past, gossip was king and the king controlled gossip. eventually newsletters would replace that and economics would make them honest.. then news papers… and radio… but at that time, some were willing to own and lose money to meet agendas elsewhere, so papers fell to robber barrons… radio and television fell a different way… the internet was designed to maintain integrity by making its foudnation a scale free network.

    that is, there is no way to control the entry and exit of information without crippling the system that we now rely on.

    at each level we invent a new way to communicate that then gives freedom, sicne the inventors are not trying to make an effective state entity, but the most effective communication entity…

    every camera, cd/dvd, disk drives… all over… have the potential of being a resevoir for things scrubbed. text scanning means out of print will appear again… and so on..

    which is why they wnat control

    it would have allowed them to just order censor all these sources… and we would never know..

  37. Artfldgr Says:

    for 40 years the police have been used and abused by the left…

    isnt it any wonder that given a chance, they will gut that fish and throw it back as chum?

    the bourgegie are rising up for themselves and they are not taking it… they are not accepting racism as a career choice any more…

  38. huxley Says:

    nyomythus — The right of Constitutional free speech is not limited to whether one is physically on one’s property or not. That’s not the issue here. Neither is race or racial profiling.

    Gates was arrested for creating a public disturbance and you can do that on or off your property as well as long as you are in public. Obviously this gets to the nicety of discerning where behavior becomes a disturbance, which is the only unknown, but it is clear that Gates was behaving in a way approaching disturbance.

    I think it’s fair to say that Obama should not have commented on this and acted stupidly himself by doing so

    It’s not only fair to say, it’s true.

    I have a lawyer friend who can barely believe that Obama has had legal training given the utter stupidity of saying essentially “I don’t have all the facts but … I’m going to shoot my mouth off anyway” as President of the United States at his own press conference on primetime national television.

  39. Artfldgr Says:

    under parens patria the police also have the right to detain and observe a person who is acting irrational.

  40. Baklava Says:

    huxley wrote, “I have a lawyer friend who can barely believe that Obama has had legal training

    legal training or

    economic training or

    any critical thinking class or

    History or

    any scientific training or

    any executive experience

    people focused their ire on the wrong person during the campaign because they are focused on the wrong things in life. No perspective.

    What mattered was who had WHAT IDEAS. One team had a prescription for economic recovery. The other team had a slew of viruses to inject into the economy.

    Now we see the race virus being injected.

  41. Occam's Beard Says:

    Rule #1 of any executive position: get the facts – and think – before you speak.

    It’s pretty hard to unsay something, and everyone will be hanging on your every word for an indication of where you stand vis a vis them. Idle speculation is disastrous. As Obama has just found out.

  42. fmt Says:

    Thanks for your concern, Aggie. After several dozen encounters of one sort or another with police officers in my life, I think I’ll continue to talk with them. So far, no arrests, charges, or difficulties except for a few tickets, which I probably deserved.

  43. Artfldgr Says:

    now they will just push it up to the supreme court:
    BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Votes, 13-6, For Sotomayor

  44. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    Bottom line:

    The police have broad powers to arrest or detain someone. They have to, given their responsibilities for maintaining public order.

    As a result, we can conclude: it ain’t smart to give a policeman A REASON to arrest you. And, since policemen are people who get upset and make mistakes, it ain’t smart to annoy a policeman into WANTING TO LOOK for a reason to arrest you. (If he wants to find a reason, chances are he will.)

    If you really enjoy annoying police officers — who put their lives on the line for you, every day, whether you notice it or not — then be prepared to take the consequences. Don’t say afterwards that you had a legal right to stick your head in the lion’s mouth. It may well have been legal… but that doesn’t make it a smart thing to do.

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

  45. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    One other comment, on dealing with police:

    American policemen serve multiple functions. They chase armed criminals; they pull people over for minor traffic infractions; they give directions to small children; and they help stray cats out of trees.

    I’ve successfully talked my way out of tickets, several times, by getting a policeman to shift gears from one function to another. (Example: I got pulled over once for speeding in a school zone. I apologized, said that I never would have done it had I seen the sign or known it was a school zone… and asked him to please show me exactly where the school zone was, so that I’d know in the future. This shifted him out of ticket-writing mode and into giving-directions mode… and I got off with a warning.)

    And above all — remember, please, that policemen are people. They appreciate being treated as people. So show them a little respect, unless their behavior doesn’t warrant it. A little politeness can go a very long way, particularly to policemen who aren’t used to being treated kindly.

    This will not always work. But it’s worked several times for me. (And it also worked several times when other people used it on me, back when I was a traffic cop.)

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

  46. huxley Says:

    Rule #1 of any executive position: get the facts – and think – before you speak.

    Oblio: Absolutely correct.

    Part of the horror of this situation is that Obama did think before he spoke. He prepared for this question in the press conference. He said exactly what he wanted to say in his usual smooth insouciant manner.

    Obama answered that question as community organizer — to aggravate a wound for political gain — not as an executive, a lawyer, a critical thinker, or even, I will say, as a decent human being.

  47. Artfldgr Says:

    and now national review is asserting that a COLB is a birth certificate…
    article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=

    The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

    so i wonder why this:
    buenavistamall.com/HIbirthcertificate.jpg

    does not look like this:
    buenavistamall.com/COLB.jpg

    why cant they tell that the state issues TWO different documents…

    so i guess one can scratch off bothering to read any publisher who cant keep their writers in line. this piece is an editorial piece andhas no author and no way to answer to it.

    they are basically now providing the print material needed for the collective to use…

    and not hotair is in on it too…
    Video: Hawaiian official corroborates Obama COLB … again
    and hotair says its a non issue… that no matter what evidence they wont accept it now… which may be true.

    however, his logic doesnt cut it… .
    Obama has a valid COLB attesting to his Hawaiian birth, two statements from the state Department of Health explicitly noting his birth in Honolulu, and not one but two contemporaneous reports of his birth there. He’s a natural-born American citizen.

    ready.. i can put up 5 people who are officials who have said that the us developed AIDS and it escaped its labs…

    i can also put up the speech by gorbachev admitting that this was a hoax they did.

    there are more people today that think aids was an american bio warfare desease than know it was a plant.

    here is dr alan cantell jr
    sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/1.%20AIDS%20Biowarfare.html

    so now i have one doctor who gives a history of AIDS from biowarfare…

    and here is an article from upenn on it
    http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent_Action/AIDS_Contract.html

    and it then presents lots of information that sounds really good from genetic studies… [but any one want to compare the dates with the date of sequencing? ]

    do note its from their urgent action page and has tons of stuff to make the thing sound valid…

    they have more in this one post proving HIV came from a bio lab, than the people pushing the birth cert is valid.

    The theory hinges on the claim that the AIDS virus (HIV) is virtually identical to two other viruses: Visna, which causes a fatal disease in sheep but does not infect humans, and HTLV-I (Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus), which infects humans but is seldom fatal.

    Prof. Jakob Segal, the author of the theory, says that structural analysis using genome mapping proves that HIV is more similar to Visna than to any other retrovirus. The portion (about three percent) of the HIV genome which does not correspond tructurally to Visna corresponds exactly to part of the HTLV-I genome.

    sounds good eh? except that its wrong… HIV is most similar to SIV

    but you can still go online and read all this data asserting scientifically that this is so.

    The Soviets AIDS disinformation campaign began in earnest in October 1985… to cover the escape of weaponized anthrax from their labs.

    and the problem here is that we have had officials tell us stuff straight out, like these birth cert officials. though if you go back to when this first started the two talking now werent working there, and it was another woman giving different information.

    lets point out that obamas pastor wright also beleives this.

    so how are we as a public supposed to know what to belive?

    ruight now our president just made a racial incident out of nothing…

    are we to belive that he would nto manufacture a birth cert out of nothing to cover himself?

    he lies more than he is truthful…
    as does hs compatriots…

    [edited for length by neo-neocon]

  48. Lex Says:

    Re: birth certificate…

    Is it not curious to see the issue given oxygen by the mainstream media outlets like CNN? Isn’t this raising the issue among an audience which may never have been aware of it?

    In a sense it could be giving momentum to the case, even without intending this outcome…

  49. Artfldgr Says:

    National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200)

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

    “The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]–rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration–are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the US is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the US (p. 10).

    [this may have been a counter to open borders, that is, if there are not enough people to immigrate who cares if the borders are open]

    though in light of ginsbergs talk about too many of the wrong groups in her discussion of roe v wade (what year wast that? this was 74)

    “While specific goals in this are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two- child family on the average), by about the year 2000.This will require the present 2% growth rate to decline to 1.7% within a decade and to 1.1% by 2000. Compared to the UN medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.

    - – - – -

    “(a) Concentration on key countries. “Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special US political and strategic in terests. Those countries are:India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand,Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. Together,they accountfor 47% of the world’s current population increase. (It should be recognized that at present AID bilateral assistance to someof these countries may not be acceptable.) Bilateral [US] assistance, to the extent that funds are available, will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth, need for external assistance, long-term US interests and willingness to engage in self-help….At the same time, the US will look to the multilateral agencies–especially the UN Fund for Population Activities which already has projects in over 80 countries–to increase population assistance on a broader basis with increased US contributions” (p. 14-15).

    at least now we know why care sends food and not farm machinery and spare parts…

    it also explains obamas paying for abortions in all these other countries… the open borders to allow pandemics… the linking of food and feul to create artificial famine.

    “We can begin with the most critical problem of all, population growth. As I have pointed out elsewhere, short of nuclear war itself, it is the gravest issue that the world faces over the decades immediately ahead…If current trends continue, the world as a whole will not reach replacement-level fertility–in effect, an average of two children per family–until about the year 2020. That means that some 70 years later the world’s population would finally stabilize at about 10 billion individuals compared with today’s 4.3 billion.
    “We call it stabilized, but what kind of stability would be possible? Can we assume that the levels of poverty, hunger, stress, crowding and frustration that such a situation could cause in the developing nations–which by then would contain 9 out of every 10 human beings on earth–would be likely to assure social stability? Or political stability? Or, for that matter, military stability? It is not a world that any of us would want to live in.
    “Is such a world inevitable? It is not, but there are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly. Or the current death rates must go up. There is no other way.
    “There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature’s ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene.”
    [part of the speech referenced siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTARCHIVES/Resources/Robert_McNamara_chronology.pdf ]

    so rationing health care for the elderly and such does what? abortion funded on demand does what? combine that with financial ruin and poverty and that does what? export it and you do more of it in which countries? now we read women who hacve signed on to feminism and are finding out that they are too old and barren to have kids at 42…

    if the rich survive at the expense of the poor, it’s only “natural.”

    Malthus wrote at the beginning of the 19th century and Darwin somewhat later. Neither could have foreseen the technological achievements that have been made since. Few of us realize, either, the full potential of these achievements. When someone like Buckminster Fuller comes along and tells us we have the technological capability of providing the basic necessities of life to every human being on earth, with plenty of room to spare, we call him an eccentric, a hopeless dreamer, without bothering to find out if he is correct. Our view of reality has been conditioned by elite spokesmen like Robert McNamara, who envision a world of 10 billion people as unliveable, a horror second only to nuclear holocaust. We do not stop to calculate that even with 10 billion people, the average population density worldwide would be less than one-third that of former West Germany.

    —-

    The greatest fallacy in the elitist Malthusian scenario, however, is the assumption that overpopulation causes poverty. The reverse is true: poverty causes overpopulation. Poverty can be reduced, of course, by reducing the number of poor people, which is what we really mean by “population control.” It can also be reduced, however, by development, that is, by humane development, designed to eliminate rather than exploit poverty, which automatically reduces population growth. This is another much-disguised fact, but we need only look around us to see the proof.

    so which reality is our current leadership and people reflecting? the one in which capitalism has made malthus a crank.. or the one in which capitalism is blamed, cut down, and the poverty is cured by the demize of these people?

    to the despotic, the later is better cause their genetics will compete in a smaller world..

    to the middle class the first one is the best cause it will raise up the poor, lower their birth rate, mix up the populations, etc.

    the rest has been a competition between these two camps with teh cargo cult lack of vision lack of principals people winning out through manipulation and the concept of might makes right. if they win, we deserve to lose what we didnt hold on to hard enough.

    modern medicine means that the poor are not dying fast enough and they are not replacing themselves with workers…

    and now obama care is looking more and more like action T4….

  50. huxley Says:

    Of course, the birth certificate controversy and whatever the previous post was about have nothing to do with the current Gates topic.

    My lawyer friend also said, though I haven’t found corroboration on the web, that get-together-with-a-beer idea was Crowley’s.

    That’s interesting. If so, it means that Crowley is trying to get out ahead of the situation and control it rather than be controlled. Whether it will work is another matter.

  51. Thomass Says:

    I don’t really trust police either but I also don’t support people being rude to them (or anyone).

    Gates could have protested in a calm manner and then had the chance to hear the officer’s reasons (if he had any before having a chance to look back and make some). Like, ‘why do you want me to go outside’… well, there is the posiblity someone is here forcing you to say no one is. I need you in a safe spot to tell me no one is here…

  52. CV Says:

    The charge was disorderly conduct and it occured as the officer was leaving the scene. Gates left his own house to follow the cop and continued ranting and raving and berating him in public, in full view of a gathering crowd.

    Maybe Hitchens, like Obama, should gather all the facts before pontificating on the situation in a public forum.

    I find it VERY hard to believe that the idea for all parties to get together for a beer at the White House was Crowley’s. That is classic Obama, “hey-let’s-all-get-together-and-I-will-dazzle-you-with-my-personality-and-really-impressive-house-and-all-will-be-forgiven-and-forgotten.”

    Not this time around, Mr. President. You may actually have hurt yourself on this one.

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    Hitchens is an interesting guy. He likes to be a contrarian, and fancies himself a feisty iconoclast. He also isn’t exactly a calm type.

  54. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    Kelly King for president…

    She should start smaller. Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    I’d send money to that. Not many Democrats* I’d do that for.

    *Concluded from her Obama vote.

  55. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Assistant.
    Not any more.
    She’s smart enough to figure the dems put Obama up there and he’s a disaster.
    So why would she trust them with the next candidate?
    She’s gotten a glimpse of what a number of zero’s supporters have–and more will–gotten about how they got snookered.
    What’s more, the more reflective of them will see their own roll in self-snookering.
    IMO, that will be even more infuriating.
    Still, for most the climbdown will be impossible to admit, either to themselves or at least in public.

  56. Nolanimrod Says:

    Whoa, Neo! Great! You hit this one right out of the park.

    BUT *** if you are going to tell us her affect matches her words you might want to slip us a little crib sheet before the test. Had I not read Walker Percy I may not have known what affect was, and that was fiction.

  57. Nolanimrod Says:

    Also, what continually surprises me is that people like Gates, who is obviously an hysterical, clueless, supercilious dweeb, has two chauffeurs and a chair at Harvard. He makes programs on Public TV that impressionable, unsuspecting liberals will watch and maybe go around all day with sour feelings in their stomachs due to thinking how dreadfully they, and their country, which they previously liked, have been to Professor Gates.

  58. nyomythus Says:

    neo-neocon

    Hitchens is an interesting guy. He likes to be a contrarian, and fancies himself a feisty iconoclast. He also isn’t exactly a calm type.

    It’s almost as if he’s been to so many despotic countries where of course you don’t talk back to the Syrian cop, or the North Korean cop, or the Zimbabwean cop … but in America you can talk back in defense of your rights and this is not a weakness, it is a demonstration of how a land is governed by not laws that oppress, but laws that free the human spirit.

    But still — when the cops are being nice — you don’t have to go ballistic for the sake of going ballistic as Gates seem to have done, you can calmly retort, but wild behavior is going to communicate more than you want it to communicate and if it’s disrupting the neighborhood peace or the investigation at hand then you’re just being an ass and probably breaking the law.

  59. Willa Says:

    All of this has had the effect of making me wonder if the birthers are not right. I know there seems to be no connection, but there is something so ‘off’ about Obama and he seems so deflated that he went where he didn’t have to go at the pres conf. and hurt himself badly. I wonder if it’s the question of his birth cert and have to ask, why doesn’t he just show his bc or his college records & be done with it? Why is he hiding the college transcripts? Why doesn’t the press want to see them? Are they afraid of their bubble bursting?

  60. Thomass Says:

    nyomythus Says:

    “It’s almost as if he’s been to so many despotic countries where of course you don’t talk back to the Syrian cop, or the North Korean cop, or the Zimbabwean cop”

    Actually, :), he has done some talk back in bad [non western] places. And he had the cr*p beat out of him for it (probably came close to being murdered). But, what can I say, at least he doesn’t only do it where it is safe.

  61. nyomythus Says:

    I know Thomas, Hitchens recently got roughed up in Lebanon because someone was harassing a woman on the street or something like that.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge