We stand behind those calling for Chancellor Katehi’s resignation.  But not for the reasons they might think.

The events of UC Davis and the way in which the pepper-spray was handled has set a number of dangerous precedents.  In the setting of academia, the rights of the majority of students are being trampled on to appease the tyranny of a minority.  Further, the very system of law and order and its public servants instituted to protect the rights of the public at large have been undermined by incompetent leaders, unable to withstand the growing pressure of a noisy minority and the corrupt media that supports it.  Most importantly, propaganda has established a foothold that is now stronger than ever, and far more dangerous than the short-term effects of pepper spray.

Over the last week, we have seen the media pick up the UC Davis story and run with it, always highlighting the same twenty seconds of one Officer Pike, methodically pepper-spraying eleven “peaceful protesters,” as onlookers gasp and scream in horror and dismay.  The public was almost undivided in its immediate condemnation of the act.

But just as Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Perhaps in this case, it’s not so much a lie, but a lot of omissions.

We know now that the Davis 11 locked arms to block the public access way, creating both a safety hazard and barring other students and the public from gaining access to facilities beyond that point.  What the media has never explained is that the protesters were repeatedly warned to clear the path.  Video shows officer Pike, the one with the pepper spray, informing each protester one last time that they would be “subject to the use of force” if they did not voluntarily move.  The protesters acknowledge the warning and hunker down for the consequences.

The media also never provides an accurate portrayal of why the students were protesting in the first place, and what prompted them to block the access way.  In an interview with Democracy Now, UC Davis Sustainable Agriculture student Elli Pearson, one of the protesters in the blockade who was pepper sprayed, reveals the truth.

She describes that the students were there to stand in solidarity with UC Berkeley students and the Occupy Wall Street movement, and to “protest tuition hikes that are happening at public universities all across the nation.” Pearson goes on to explain: [my emphasis]

“We linked arms and we sat down peacefully to protest their [riot police] presence on our campus, and then at one point we had encircled them [police] and they were trying to leave and trying to clear a path, and so we sat down and linked arms, and said that if they were trying to clear a path they would have to go through us.”

When asked if the student protesters were given any sort of warning by police, Pearson responds:

“I believe they told maybe one student or maybe had some dialogue, but certainly not everyone could hear, it wasn’t like an announcement that was made.”

So, they intentionally encircled the police and blocked them in.  In doing so, the Davis 11 created a serious public safety hazard.  But you’d never see that from the same twenty seconds of video splashed across every media outlet.  Not until other bloggers began to delve into the story did the more complete versions of the incident begin to crop up on video.

But by then, the damage was done.

Police Chief Annette Spicuzza and two officers, including Lt. John Pike, have already been placed on administrative leave, and petitions calling for their resignation have been collected.  Videos and internet memes of the “Casually Pepper Spray Everything Cop” have gone viral.  The hacktivist collective Anonymous posted Pike’s information online and encouraged people to call and harass the officer.

Other law enforcement personnel have explained that pepper spray is often used as a compliance tool when necessary.  “People don’t consider what it takes to break up an unlawful assembly if the protestors refuse to disperse. It always takes some kind of force,” said one law enforcement officer we spoke with.  Police needed to remove the protesters, who’d linked arms to form a blockade.  Reaching in to manually break them apart would have required the use of physical force, while leaving the officers’ weapons vulnerable to seizure.  In that case, most procedures indicate that pepper-spray is justified and the most humane of all options.  While it creates temporary discomfort for the protestors, it enables the officers to safely contain, and in this case, arrest the protesters in order to remove them from blocking the public’s access.  Protesters have since admitted, they intentionally surrounded the police and blocked them in.  While the video footage shown on mainstream media may not appear this way, the complete footage that has since surfaced clearly backs up the officers’ claims.

Police officers are public servants, they are people too.  Where are they supposed to turn when a situation has become so politicized that they aren’t supported by their own chain of command?  At Monday’s general strike at UC Davis sister campus UC Berkeley, a statement from the university’s police officers’ union reflected this sentiment and admonished regents and UC administrators:

“[do not] ask us to enforce your policies, then refuse to stand by us when we do…It was not our decision to engage campus protesters. We are now faced with ‘managing’ the results of years of poor budget planning.”

Speaking of the chain of command, where is the same support for police from our own leaders, Vice President Biden and President Obama, as they supported police in 2010 and last month when Biden opined that rape would rise without the jobs bill?

In March, some of the very same protesters encountered similar events during the March 4^th Day of Action to Defend Public Education (video & photos), when protesters blocked a major California highway in a standoff with police that required the use of pepper-spray pellets to contain the crowd. Protesters later went on to “Occupy” buildings and classrooms at UC Davis.  One of those participants listed at the March protest was Kase Wheatley, one of the Davis 11 featured in the November 18^th video.  Clearly, Kase is no stranger to such conflict, and judging by the high-end raincoat he’s seen wearing in the video, he apparently came prepared.

Kase and other students have actually been protesting for some time, supporting labor causes like unionized teaching assistants at UC Davis and protesting union busting on behalf of AFSCME.

“The UC system has actually hired one of the premiere union busting firms in the country to basically break up the unions on campus,” Wheatley said.  “They’re all connected, it’s happening all over the world. It’s happening with riots and protests in Tunisia and Egypt, and all the way to the United States.”

With all the comparisons to Tunisia and Egypt, it’s not surprising then that media outlets like MSNBC have exalted Kase to martyr status, where he was most recently heralded by Michael Moore, who calls the UC Davis pepper spray incident an iconic moment in the Occupy movement akin to “Tiananmen Square.”

But the ramifications of the pepper spray incident reach further than the topic of the use of force.  Too many fail to realize that 200 protesters in a school of over 30,000 tuition paying students is a tiny minority, less than 1 percent.  What about the 99 percent in this case?  The 99 percent who want to go about their daily routines, be safe on their college campus, not be afraid to voice their own opinions, and want to attend the classes for which they’re paying?

There is no better example of this majority than a young woman and a young man who spoke up at a Town Hall meeting that was held with Chancellor Katehi and other administrators from UC Davis.  As the woman so eloquently stated, while it’s great that the school supports the rights of the Occupy protesters, it’s come at the expense of the other students.

“My concern is what the events of the last week have been doing to the quality of our education. I know that myself personally I’ve already had two days worth of classes canceled by the professors, I expect to have more classes canceled on Monday with the general strike and I don’t think I’m alone in this.  As was just stated, we have midterms coming up, we have finals coming up, and it’s both ironic and sad that one of the initial starting points of this movement was to defend the right to education by not making it a classist place, and I do feel as though within the last week we have had some of those rights taken away from us.  Not only are we not able to attend class because of noise, but classes are actually being canceled, we don’t have the option to go.”

This sentiment appears to be echoed by the failure of students to turn out for Monday’s general strike, as many of those interviewed emphasized that it is mid-terms week at the university and thus, they prioritized their coursework above the strike.

UC Davis maintains published policies in its Standards of Ethical Conduct by which every student and faculty member must abide. Individuals are required to sign agreements to such policies.  The Davis 11 were expected to follow these policies, and to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  They did not.  And their actions risked infringing upon the rights of others.

Let’s put this into perspective:  Whether you agree or disagree with cities’ decisions to evict Occupy encampments, the fundamental 1^st Amendment rights of the protesters are not being violated.  Protesters are still permitted to assemble, they are still permitted to speak, they simply must do so within the limits of the law – free speech is subject to time, place, and manner regulations.  Such guidelines exist in order to protect the rights of the public as a whole to safely access the same facilities in an unrestricted manner.  As was the case in the Zuccotti Park ruling, the Judge ruled that the protesters:

“had not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators and other installations to the exclusion of the owner’s reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely.”

The first amendment does not protect the right to camp out or to prohibit others from gaining access to the same spaces.

Such is the issue at UC Davis and likely soon to be at many other college campuses.  Protesters may assemble and have their voices heard – in the time, place, and manner permitted – but not to the detriment of the majority of the public, including the other students trying to attend classes.  Police responding to requests to clear encampments and access ways are enforcing existing laws and performing a much needed service to the general public.  The outcry that protesters’ rights to free speech are being violated are nothing more than opportunistic propaganda.  And the more we see the repetitive accounts exploiting the police, publishing their information as retaliation for “violating the first amendment,” the more dangerous the propaganda becomes.  One can certainly argue the merits of the appropriate numbers of police officers, the gear they wear, the procedures they follow – all of these are another conversation.

In fact, not only should Chancellor Katehi resign for her failure to show leadership, but the protesters who violated the Standards of Ethical Conduct should be expelled or punished, not given amnesty.  Pepper spray aside, they broke the rules and that has an impact on their fellow community members who chose to be responsible and play by the rules.

As the Occupy movement progresses to the next phase of its lifecycle, we must all be vigilant to keep things in perspective and to look at the entire picture before hastily drawing conclusions.  There will be those on all sides who strive to polarize the country, and wish to create and disseminate propaganda that serves a specific purpose.  Left unchecked, the propaganda itself can be more dangerous than anything like pepper spray.

Last week the AP reported that Walesa was backing the Occupy “movement” and considered traveling to New York in support of the growing nationwide mob activity that currently plagues the United States. However, when former Illinois gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski, (For the Good of Illinois)  found out about this, he quickly reached out to his contacts in Poland to alert the former president to the truth behind this radical movement.

“We made the point that the political themes of Occupy Wall Street may have started out with some of the principles that we share, but OWS themes were rapidly being morphed into anti-freedom and anti-liberty messages.  At the core is the want for a big, powerful central government to dominate the lives of individual citizens.” -Andrzejewski

In his write-up last night at BigGovernment.com, Andrzejewski stated that with the help of BigGoverment and other sources, he was able to convey an accurate picture of the Occupy movement, particularly that it is “…organized by anarchists, Code Pink, the American Communist movement, jihadists, anti-Israel, socialist, and anti- free enterprise interests.” After reviewing this information about the true nature of the demonstrations, Walesa and his team withdrew their support and will not be attending any Occupy protests.

We were overjoyed to learn that recent Rebel Pundit investigative reports and footage were able to play an an important role in Walesa’s decision. According to Andrzejewski:

“They appreciated the inside info- they weren’t getting that in Poland from the European media.”

Walesa commented on creeping Socialism in America last year in the following interview from FoundingBloggers.

It is alarming, to say the least, that Europe is still so poisoned by the remnants of Soviet Socialism and authoritarian government rule, that even the former president of Poland, who oversaw the transition to privatization and free-markets after the cold war, cannot get a straight story about this worldwide, totalitarian revolution.

Nothing better underscores the importance of a “free press” than this incident; if liberty is to once again flourish in America and elsewhere, it must be protected at all costs. Without the vigilance of regular people involved in this fight working to spread accurate news (that the mainstream media simply ignores its obligation to), Walesa would not have been properly informed on the current situation. The result of this ineptitude of the mainstream media is that this leader and champion of freedom could have made an unfortunate–and possibly embarrassing–decision to lend support to a movement that stands in direct opposition to everything for which he has fought.

Follow @RebelPundit on Twitter

Here’s but a small sampling from the #caring Tweeters:
(NOTE:  I prefer to view the video with music like this as accompaniment…)

Initially, I’d written a summary here of some of the details around Gov. Walker’s proposal, including some of the positive highlights, like granting employees the right to choose whether or not to contribute dues to a labor union.  But then I decided, “nahhhh….why bother?”  Agree or disagree with some, all or none of the Governor’s proposal, everyone has something to contribute to the conversation.  But death threats are NOT an acceptable part of ANY conversation.

I’d thought we’d learned that by now, after documenting the same exact behavior in January.  With all the Big-Brother Twitter monitoring the Soros flunkies are doing out there, you’d think they would have posted and condemned this by now.

So much for that #newtone.

Video h/t Joe Haas and Kim Hedum.

I noticed a man in black shirt with a phone camera aggressively questioning and haranguing a gentleman with the sign, “No Sharia Here.” He was very aggressive, disrespectful and condescending; apparently, he did not like the man’s answers about Shariah and pushed the point: “Why do you feel threatened? What are you afraid of? Why can’t you answer my questions?”

My instincts told me to document the scene, and I took out my camera. I originally thought he was a supporter of the mosque (they’d gathered in much smaller numbers a few blocks away), or some kind of fringe reporter for a small, even fringier leftist paper. When I challenged the man in the black shirt, asking him to tell me what media outlet he worked for, he refused to answer. He walked away.

But there was cameraman was standing nearby, watching the scene play out. When I asked, he said he worked for ABC News. I then asked if the man in the black shirt was with him. The ABC cameraman said, “yes.”

Sure enough, a few blocks away, I observed the man in the black shirt getting into an ABC News truck and putting on the sound equipment. When he saw me with my camera, he attempted to hide. At that time it became clear the man in the black shirt was an employee of ABC News. The ABC cameraman also witnessed his colleague’s aggressive behavior–and did nothing to stop him.

In my opinion, the ABC employee’s role at the rally was to provoke a confrontation with participants so ABC News cameras could record it and then use the footage; literally, making news.

Media bias courtesy ABC News’ “Working Press.”

To:                   Eric Boehlert, Media Matters
From:               David Axelrod

Personal and Confidential

SUBJECT:       BREITBART

“O’Keefe’s humiliating guilty plea”—is that the best you could do?  Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear yesterday.  We don’t want to embarrass Breitbart; we want to destroy him.  O’Keefe is the instrument–if we act decisively.

Forget BP and Sestak.  Put Stossel, Beck, and O’Reilly on the back burner for now.  Call in your people who are sitting in toilet stalls around Washington hoping to snag a Republican congressman on the next john over.  Devote all your resources to mounting a sustained effort to morph O’Keefe’s “entry under false pretenses” charge (hey — they could get everyone in Congress on that beef! Little joke there) into a McVeigh-level atrocity sponsored by Breitbart.

The whole crew at MSNBC will be pounding on Breitbart’s mania to foster civil chaos in America as long as it takes to make the charge resonate.  He will be Olbermann’s first “Worst Person of the Millenium.”  The Times and Post have assured me they’ll give the matter their full Abu Ghraib treatment, starting with above-the-fold articles this weekend.  Williams, Couric, and Sawyer will jump on the story after a decent interval, citing a “raging controversy.”  Time Magazine’s cover next week, I have on good authority right from Rick Stengel, will feature a caricature of Breitbart setting fire to an SEIU T-shirt in front of the White House, with the headline: “What Are the Limits of Dissent in Obama’s America?”

When public indignation reaches white heat (or even if it doesn’t), the entire House Democratic caucus (and a few Republican simpletons) will demand that Attorney General Holder appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the Breitbart affair.  He will immediately agree.  I understand Ramsey Clark will make himself available to Justice, and believe me there are plenty of empty cells down at Gitmo.

Related matters:

Big Journalism’s mascot, Retracto, the Correction Alpaca, has been attacking your credibility with some success.  You need a counter.  I suggest Rumo, the Calumny Capybara.  Make him another Senior Fellow — what difference does one more make? Soros is loaded.

Also, we have to offset our PR setback the other day at the house of the Bank of America official.  Be advised that hundreds of SEIU members wearing “Tea Party 2010” tees will descend on the homes of Media Matters’ principals at noon tomorrow — while they’re at work — to protest . . . something or other. After all, it’s a normal course of action for this group.

They will arrive in Tea-Party-labeled buses sporting Sarah Palin’s image.  Ostensibly to keep things under control and to ensure the safety of our people, protestors will be escorted by hefty Huffington Posters posing as skinheads.  Please remind your Senior Fellows to keep their children home from school that day, and not forewarned: we want the kids to show unfeigned terror at the mock-harassment—including frantic calls to 911 that Maddow can replay endlessly.  Local authorities have been tasked to identify and roust neighboring real journalists to avoid a Nina Easton fiasco in reverse.

Please call me if you have any questions.  I don’t need to tell you that the Boss is taking a personal interest in this one. From one “journalist” to another — look how far you can go if you play your cards right.

Now get to work.

DA/sg

(dictated but not read)

Even after the story broke here that the buses that carried an estimated 500 protesters to the Greenville Rd, Chevy Chase residence of a B of A executive were escorted by at least two units of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the incuriosity of the WaPo continues.

This afternoon, all the details of this story were reconfirmed through the Montgomery County Police Department spokesperson, Corporal Daniel Friz.  Meanwhile, two high-level D.C. police officials have disputed their department’s police presence at the B of A executive’s home.

Operating in full CYA mode, the first statement cames from D.C. Chief of Police Cathy Lanier:

In a blog posted on Bigjournalism.com there is an allegation that CDU officers from the DC Metropolitan Police Department escorted protestors into Montgomery County MD – and specifically to the home of a bank executive. The MPD refutes this claim and our officers merely shadowed protest groups while they were in the District of Columbia to insure that DC laws were obeyed and that noone [sic] would be injured as a result of a traffic collision or other event. This is standard protocol for protests of this nature as we seek to balance public safety with first amendment protections. There were no arrests or injuries as a result of this protest, and the Metropolitan Police Department notified the Montgomery County Police Department when we became aware that the group was leaving Washington DC. Our officers staged along Western Avenue (DC/Montgomery County Line), and did not leave the District of Columbia. MPD had no knowledge of the locations in MD where the protestors were planning to visit – and thus had no role in this alleged escort to homes.

This statement raises several important questions:

If their units were not present at the protest, how would the D.C. cops know there were “no arrests or injuries as a result of this protest?”  It would, after all, not be their responsibility or authority to make arrests.  On its face, the statement appears to be an attempt to diminish the significance of the entire event.

Also, the Montgomery County PD, through its spokesperson Cpl. Friz, denies having received a “heads-up” – the words used in posing the question – that the SEIU protesters were headed into their jurisdiction.

A second statement came from senior D.C. police official Patrick Burke and is identical to much of Chief Lanier’s statement, including the same typographical error noted above.  To Chief Lanier’s statement, Burke adds,

MPD does not escort to homes as alleged. I oversee SOD and was monitoring this event. My officers would not be able to escort persons to any location outside of DC – and secondly, we have no information on adresses [sic] in MD that protestors are targeting.

So if the Chief is correct in stating that “MPD had no knowledge of the locations in MD where the protestors were planning to visit,” and, likewise, Burke correctly states “we have no information on addresses in D.C. that protestors are targeting,” and the Chief correctly states that “the Metropolitan Police Department notified the Montgomery County Police Department when we became aware that the group was leaving Washington DC,” what’s the substance of the “notification?”

Was it merely that: “There’s a protest group headed your way, we think?”

The spokespersons for both departments involved have acknowledged the practice of cross-jurisdictional escorting for the purpose of assuring public safety.

On May 24, a Washington Examiner op-ed piece entitled “No more police escorts for union thugs” was later updated with a police union response that states, in part, that:

Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the labor committee of the District of Columbia’s Metropolitican [sic] Police Department chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, provided the following response to today’s Examiner editorial: “The editorial treated as fact unconfirmed, and apparently inaccurate, claims that Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) vehicles and police officers escorted and provided protection for a group of protestors at an individual’s residence in the state of Maryland.

Additionally, the Fraternal Order of Police (the cops’ union) stated, in its rebuttal to the Washington Examiner op-ed, that:

That would mean that any such action [Metropolitan PD cops escorting the SEIU protestors to the BoA executive’s home], if it occurred, would have to have been ordered by MPD officials. The FOP and its officers have taken a hard stand against any misuse of official police resources by MPD. Your own newspaper has reported on that issue (see, e.g., “Dozens of local police officers assigned to concierge duties,” January 29, 2009).

In fact, several FOP officers have faced retaliation and are currently involved in whistleblower litigation over the very issue of MPD misusing resources. Accusing the FOP of directing, or even participating, in the misuse of MPD resources is inexcusable, particularly given the fact that FOP officers have risked their careers to end this type of abuse.

On its face, the FOP statement is tacit admission that “misusing resources” has happened in the past, and may have happened (“if it occurred”) in this case.  Did it happen here without having been ordered by MPD officials?

In summary, here’s the situation as it stands now: Two police departments offer varying accounts of the involvement of the Metropolitan Police Department in the SEIU protest at the home of the B of A executive.  Specifically:

1. The Montgomery County PD, through its spokesperson CPL Friz, denies having been notified by the D.C. cops that the SEIU protestors were headed their way.
2. The MCPD states, through its spokesperson, that when its four patrol units arrived on scene at the private residence, at least two D.C. units were already present. And –
3. A police escort, according to the MCPD, is not uncommon practice when a protest group travels from D.C. into its jurisdiction, as well as on those occasions when the circumstances are reversed.

When the MPD spokesperson, Officer Eric Frost, was queried as to why Washington units would be accompanying the SEIU group, he reported that such was one role of the Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU).  When they accompany DC-based protest groups to another adjacent jurisdiction they’re present to assure the safety of the group, but they have no authority to enforce the laws of the neighboring jurisdiction visited.

In this case, the SEIU group had no Montgomery County permit to demonstrate at the private residence.  It was not the responsibility of the D.C. police to enforce that Montgomery County requirement, or any other Montgomery County code applicable to demonstrations, such as the requirement to keep moving during the protest.

Meanwhile, the silence from the Washington Post concerning the SEIU demonstrations at the homes of two bank executives continues to be…deafening.

Where’s the outrage?

I knew something was up when the following day, Fortune magazine editor Nina Easton, a neighbor of the targeted residence, published an account of the incident and was almost immediately attacked by what seemed like practically a coordinated dogpile of writers from several specific sources.

In almost mirror fashion to the Town Hall events last August, when both the Huffington Post and Media Matters seemingly tried to cover up and dismiss the violent acts that SEIU committed against Kenneth Gladney, the same players were again out in full force. As our Larry O’Connor wrote, both outlets behaved less like journalists and more like arms of the SEIU press office, dismissing SEIU’s bad behavior and attacking an innocent party with fabricated conflicts of interest as a method of distraction and intimidation.

Bob Borosage, Erica Payne, and John Podesta

And now we learn this: Erica Payne, the guest who was invited to appear Friday on Megyn Kelley’s Fox News show and proceeded to blame the Tea Parties for the behavior of SEIU? She was co-founder of Democracy Alliance, the very organization that spawned and is a donor to Media Matters. SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger is also the Vice-Chair of its Board.

Payne’s appearance was a lucky development for SEIU – it fit right into the union’s media defense plan. First came the regurgitation of SEIU talking points from Huffington Post and Media Matters, and now this TV appearance from Payne. As it turns out by the way, Payne is also a Huffington Post blogger herself, and a glowing fan of Media Matters, among several other progressive associations that are too many to note in this post.

Throughout her several minute segment, as our Larry O’Connor explains, Ms. Payne repeatedly distracts viewers away from the real story to fixate instead on an obscure lone incident that was supposedly related to the Tea Party movement. (She also repeatedly implies that a house’s gas line was cut by that individual when in reality, it was the gas line to an outdoor barbecue grill that was allegedly vandalized). The attempt was entirely transparent and laughable. Her rhetoric was scripted and her points forced into the storyline in a clumsy and awkward fashion. So much so that as I watched it myself, I became suspicious. I realized I had seen her name before, and I knew Ms. Payne definitely had an agenda.

That’s what led me to look through my research and recognize Payne’s name as the co-founder of Democracy Alliance (before she departed and became involved with helping some of the other progressive infrastructure groups get started). The main founder Rob Stein, is a former Clinton Treasury official who was Chief of Staff in the Department of Commerce from 1993 through 1995.

Oddly enough, before taking his position at Bank of America as Deputy General Counsel for the company’s Bank Regulatory and Public Policy legal group, Gregory Baer, the target of SEIU’s protest, also served in the Treasury Dept. under President Clinton where he was Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. There, Baer coordinated Treasury policy on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and led the development of presidential initiatives on financial privacy and consumer protection – not unlike the new position that Eric Stein holds today. Baer also previously served as managing senior counsel at the Federal Reserve Board.

Other than the fact that he works for Bank of America, why target Greg Baer?

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed and portions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed to allow banks, brokerages and insurance companies to merge in order to provide a full array of financial services to consumers. Baer had direct responsibility for policy in this area, and as a Democrat, his views on deregulation are today often criticized by the more liberal-progressive Democrats.

In fact, the Huffington Post published a piece last November by Robert Scheer, who was critical of deregulation and even specifically called out Greg Baer for what Scheer perceives as Baer’s role in the financial crisis.

“Baer went to work as a corporate counsel for Bank of America, which announced his appointment with a press release crediting him with having “coordinated Treasury policy” during the Clinton years in getting Glass-Steagall repealed. As a result of deregulation, B of A too spiraled out of control and ended up as a beneficiary of the Treasury’s welfare program.”

I won’t use this post to debate the merits of Mr. Scheer’s arguments one way or the other, rather I include his article to demonstrate the public criticism of Baer from members of his own political party.

Further, I point out that again, the information came courtesy of one of the same two outlets that seem to have become a ubiquitous support mechanism to the SEIU. It’s interesting, to say the least, that so many of the same people involved with the Boards and funders and patrons of these two organizations are now popping up as players in the public eye of this protest incident.

• We’ve already seen the example that illustrates the funds paid by SEIU to Media Matters, along with a timeline of the articles that were published by Media Matters just prior to those donations.
• We’ve already seen the example that illustrates the outstanding debt that SEIU owes to Bank of America
• We’ve already seen examples of the union’s prior intimidation in their efforts to force unionization of bank tellers.
• Below, you’ll see an example of SEIU’s contributions to Democracy Alliance, an organization for which SEIU’s Anna Burger serves as Vice-Chair, and that provides funds to Media Matters
• Below, you’ll see an example of SEIU’s patronage to Huffington Post. Their purchase of a subscription service is most likely for some form of legitimate advertising or email campaign services; but this establishes that SEIU has a working relationship with HuffPo as a customer.

I’m especially curious to know why Greg Baer was selected in the first place. Who suggested him and for what reasons? And did it have anything to do with Baer’s time in the Clinton administration, where his policies on deregulation apparently became a more current trigger for some of the progressive rage regarding the financial crisis? Did any of the progressive new media outlets, through their mutual relationships with one another, have any input or advance knowledge of Baer as a target?

It may be a tangled web of progressive organizations out there, but the same few always seem to make their way to the surface. Perhaps it’s too soon to tell if there’s any conflict of interest in any of their activities, but we’ve got plenty more research we’re holding onto. One thing is for certain, we will keep watching and waiting.

There’s an attempt to brand any dissenters of this administration as being crazed and dangerous radicals. CBS made the claim that the Tea Party is made up almost entirely of older white people, which is media code for “racist”. Apparently, having a group of white people is equal to the Klan or a Nazi march. Which is fascinating because CBS, MSNBC, et al. are groups made up mostly of older white people. Bust out the schnapps!

Of course, CBS has a poor record of polling, as theirs tends to be skewed. Gallup did a poll of Tea Partiers that found they were very close to the American mainstream except for having fewer Democrats. And this is what scares the establishment. The mainstream is against them. So they’ve decided to attack the Tea Party — and, by extension, ordinary Americans — as never before.

First they ignored them, then they mocked them, now they’re attacking them. Sounds familiar. Oh, yes…I remember now. Gandhi said it:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,then they fight you, then you win.

The Tea Party protesters are Americans, of all races, who disagree with the policies of this administration. They’re protesting non-violently. There is no racism involved. Many key speakers at the rallies are non-white. The only violence at Tea Party rallies has come from leftists and Democrat operatives. There have been plenty of incidents in which  Democrat minions have attacked Tea Party protesters, yet the media and the Democrats are painting the Tea Party as dangerous villains. Former President Bill Clinton has again implied that dissenters of this administration are like the right-wing extremists who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building.

The zombie media laps this up and breathlessly reports it. Apparently, the ex-president forgets his own lack of concern over much worse rhetoric during the Bush years.

Time Magazine’s paid Democrat shill, Joe Klein, has even gone so far as to accuse Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, two popular conservative pundits, of sedition.

Add to this Homeland Security’s report last year that conservatives and veterans posed a possible terrorist threat and you see the makings of a “wag the dog” scenario wherein any trumped-up incident can be used as an excuse to target dissenters as possible threats. It’s an intimidation tactic right out of the totalitarian playbook. It’s no coincidence that the people who love big government are the very ones making these moves.

This is what they think of your free speech. You’re free to agree with them. If you don’t, you will be demonized and, at the very least, ridiculed.

But remember what Gandhi said. Keep up the non-violent protest, go to the elections with a renewed sense of purpose and vote out those who think these kinds of tactics are acceptable. The people need to take their country back.

The accusations are flying.  Virtually every MSM news outlet is running commentary of alleged “racial slurs” and “violent outbursts.”   Shouldn’t they be running video of the actual incidents, instead (if they actually happened)?

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D, Mo.) made accusations and the media took the allegation as gospel despite the absence of any corroborating evidence.  The  MSM reported the allegation as news. Interesting, there was almost no national MSM coverage of an innocent black man who was attacked, beaten, and stomped on tape by SEIU protesters in St. Louis.

When Representative Cleaver found media attention for his yet unfounded accusations, others jumped in with more accusations.   They all got press, too.  They all accused conservative groups like the Tea Party of the threats, violent actions, and vicious activities.

If you have destroyed an economy, are unpopular, have promised transparency and done backroom deals, and pushed through the most astronomical piece of legislation ever by underhanded means, what is left to do but divert the attention of the public? Alinsky would add that you should change the dialogue to the ugliness of the opposition quickly, and in a very distracting way.  Alinsky would tell you that you should find people to do bad things within the crowds of their enemy, and then run away pointing the finger.  Alinsky would say that if you want to destroy the enemy, just accuse them of what you would do.

The only problem is that Alinsky didn’t know about New Media and Citizen Journalism.

I am a Citizen Journalist. I attend numerous Grassroots Conservative Rallies as a speaker, as a mother interested in the future of her children, and as a Citizen Journalist.

The night the sickening health care bill passed the US Congress, my team of patriots was outraged and afraid for the future of our Republic.   Despite jobs and children and burdens multiple events over the days preceding, we wanted to be together.  We gathered outside the home of Congressman Russ Carnahan (who obviously was not there because he was in D. C. voting for this leftist agenda), and we held a candlelit prayer vigil complete with a “Freedom Funeral.”   I was there to report on what I saw.  I saw a group of people sad, frustrated, and truly mourning the loss of freedoms that matter to them.  I couldn’t help but notice as people choked back tears, gave re-assuring looks at one another, and tried to find hope in what felt like the beginning of the end of our free market.

When I asked the originator of the idea why he chose Carnahan’s house for the prayer vigil, he said it was because he wanted to pray for him, and for his role in the future of our country. Then the leftist blogs began to accuse, or Russ Carnahan was feeling left out of all the victimization going on, or something made the left believe they had to complain about even this very somber, very sober prayer vigil.

It was reported that Carnahan “had a coffin placed near his home,” and that he “felt threatened.”   This made for great theater and the MSM lapped it up like M-n-M’s scattered on a sidewalk in front of hungry dogs. The only problem…there was no casket left in his yard.

Not only was there no casket, the citizens there carried flags and candles and Bibles. People were careful to stay off of the lawns, keep voices respectful, low and quiet, and to responsibly extinguish all candles after the prayer vigil.  That wasn’t reported, although it was all available on tape. None of the efforts to be polite mattered when the media reported this, even though Carnahan’s spokesperson began her retraction of misstatements the next morning.  If a coffin was truly left at the home of the Congressman at a later date, one can only deduce that it had to be someone trying to make it appear as though it was a conservative citizen.

No sane people violence or threats.  But it is just as offensive for the left to manufacture false threats and incidents, and try to blame the right who are trying very hard to keep the discussion civil.

Why is there no accountability when the media reports such things about real people?  Why is there no outcry for photos, or video proof of all they say?  And why is there no critical eye cast on the group making baseless accusations?  And why is there no MSM follow up when what was errantly reported turns out to be false?

Grassroots conservative leaders have known for a long time that this moment would come.  We knew it was only a matter of time before they started infiltrating, impersonating, and planting attacks against themselves to try to make us look bad.

I have been to dozens of conservative rallies around the country, and I have never seen a violent act or heard a racial slur from the membership.   At the last peaceful demonstration there was a violent incident when a leftist infiltrated our crowd and began to try to pick fights with the citizens there.  He ultimately pushed one of us and was taken away by the police.   Another time I caught a woman on tape who came into our crowd and pushed and bullied a quiet, gentle woman in our crowd for holding a sign.  I still have the tape, if anyone is interested.  Big Journalism reported on the St. Louis veteran journalist who pushed the cameraman we sent to an Obamacare Rally.  There were no charges in any of the previous cases, despite videotapes of every incident.  Contrast that with the Ken Gladney case that has still not been prosecuted.

Consumers are indirectly responsible for this double standard in journalism.   If audiences don’t demand accountability, this problem will get worse because the left will know they can get away with making baseless accusations, and will continue their yellow journalism.

Whether or not consumers demand honesty, one thing is for sure.  There is a growing, grumbling, surging group of conservatives out there who are not going away.  Their passion is billowing, and their conviction propels them.  They won’t back down.  They are defiantly committed because they believe their country is wounded.  They are training and learning and multiplying each day.  They have cameras sprouting out of pockets like straw on a scarecrow.

Perhaps it is not they who need to be afraid at all.

A year ago, the good folks at Zomblog assembled a great series of photos showing the mental derangement exhibited by the human detritus at those once ubiquitous anti-war rallies that the distempered left hosted so often between the years 2003 and 2009… you know, those anti-war rallies that totally disappeared after Obama took office even as the wars rage on? Yeah, those anti-war rallies.

Why was no one ever arrested for threatening President Bush at protests, when they displayed signs in public that called for his death?

Many readers may naively think, “The answer is obvious: no protester was ever arrested for threatening Bush at a protest because no one ever threatened him at a protest. Who would be that stupid? I certainly never heard of any such threats.”

Alas, if only it were that simple. Because the bald fact is that people threatened Bush at protests all the time by displaying menacing signs and messages — exactly as the anti-Obama protester just did in Maryland. Yet for reasons that are not entirely clear, none of those Bush-threateners at protests was ever arrested, questioned, or investigated (at least as far as I could tell).

In any case, if the left and the Old Media want to pretend that Tea Partiers are nothing but filled with hate, perhaps they should get a look at some of these photos?

Of course, the fact is, none of this “violence” has been tracked to anyone in the Tea Party movement… but let’s not let facts get in the way of the Old Media’s good stories, eh?

As self-interested congressmen try to fool the public into thinking that Tea Partiers yelled the “N” word at them, even as not one shred of proof exists that it ever happened, let’s be reminded of what real hatred looks like…

Let’s start out with a sign that depicts President Bush being hanged.

Then there is this decrepit hippy wannabe saying that Bush should be guillotined.

Some halfwits that imagined that Bush could actually destroy the earth, or sumpthin’.

Nice shirt.

Plenty more to be found here, here, here, here and here.

And these are just the anti-Bush signs! These photos don’t include the many thousands of signs that announce support of communism, socialism, and other anti-American ideals. These signs also don’t take into account the many thousands of signs at these idiot anti-war rallies that denigrate Jews and come to the aid of the terrorist “Palestinians.” Not to mention that none of the signs pictured above reveals the outright hatred of the entire U.S. as an “imperialist” or as a “terrorist” nation. That would take up dozens of other posts, so I just focused on the Bush Derangement Syndrome placards.

Remember folks, the left is filled with a venomous hate that nearly consumes them. The Tea Party folks are pikers compared to the unhinged left.

And can you remember the Old Media ever publishing these sort of photos during Bush’s eight years in office? Nope, me neither.