Video: Vigilantism, leftist style
posted at 6:09 pm on October 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Too bad it’s a recruiting office and not some private business so that the Brossard analogy would be complete. Here’s what happens when people who feel passionately about an issue decide they’re above the law and just can’t wait for resolution through appropriate channels.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Geez, Skeletor almost showed some spine there.
She is a total fool.We are kicking it in Iraq and they cannot stand it.
bbz123 on October 6, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Hey Allah, I agreed with you on the Broussard thing, so I can still say the Pinkos are obnoxious tools and be in the clear.
That said, I fully expect this sort of thing to pick up in intensity, the Broussard dealie was entirely predictable(not in the specific, I wouldn’t have guessed a guy with a bigass knife would hack a Mexican flag down, but general backlash), and I fully expect this sort of stuff to continue…probably worsen.
So Allah, I’ll ask an exit question, you expect this sort of thing to happen more frequently or with higher intensity?
I’ll be honest, I think its just the beginning, for both sides. Maybe I’m picking up your pessimism.
Bad Candy on October 6, 2007 at 6:21 PM
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Frankly, I’m surprised Benjamin didn’t toss Broussard at Hannity. She’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that was an easy gotcha.
Allahpundit on October 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Why the heck is it okay for MB to be on Fox but not the Dem Candidates? Oh, right, it’s fine when it’s about personal promotion. Carry on, nutroots.
BC – “I wouldn’t have guessed a guy with a bigass knife would hack a Mexican flag down”; what’s interesting to me (in addition to everything previously discussed)is he didn’t cut down the MX flag, he cut away the AM flag; he left the MX which presumeably could have been reflown if the owner was so inclined and had new twine.
Spirit of 1776 on October 6, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Slagathor sez, “Hippies Uber Alles.”
Pink is the new Black. Geheimstatzpolizei Black, that is. Bavarian ‘B’.
Mindcrime on October 6, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I think you’re right.
billy on October 6, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Acting incorrectly to stop a perceived crime seems like it should be different than defacing a Marine recruiting station because you hate our own troops.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that while both are incorrect actions, motivation should be at least some kind of factor in their comparison.
apollyonbob on October 6, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I agree. Prosecutor’s discretion.
Spirit of 1776 on October 6, 2007 at 6:36 PM
LMAO! I’m impressed.
Spiny Norman on October 6, 2007 at 6:39 PM
God this woman is so whiny.
She should get some of the
new perfume from Hillary Clinton!
wryteacher on October 6, 2007 at 6:40 PM
At least they go their swastika pointed in the correct direction.
“Recruited into into an unjust war.”
As if it that (”recruited”) isn’t an act of free will.
They seem to think that it is synonymous with “drafted”.
Colmes seems to have grown a testicle.
Must have been watching THE WAR.
profitsbeard on October 6, 2007 at 6:44 PM
JAIL FOR BROSSARD.
Allahpundit on October 6, 2007 at 6:47 PM
BROSSARD FOR SHERIFF
profitsbeard on October 6, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Ha. Let the punishment fit the crime. Even Thoreau, Mr. Civil Disobedience himself, (granted against his own wishes) was kept out of jail by his friends paying his taxes.
Broussard should be fined and he can collect 50+x the fine by his admiring public. Everyone wins.
Spirit of 1776 on October 6, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Broussard vandalized private property and deserves a good long stint in prison. Benjamin made a Constitutionally-protected political statement because it was a government office.
OK.
Spiny Norman on October 6, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Dude, you still eatin them happy pills? lol j/k
Kowboy on October 6, 2007 at 6:58 PM
It is me or did FOX put a pink backlight behind that insufferable woman?
erik on October 6, 2007 at 7:05 PM
The MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times was the “signal” to the left to start insulting the troops. It wasn’t clear in this clip, but CodePink called the Marines traitors in a written message.
Can “spitting” or physically assaulting the troops be far behind? They’re already vandalizing the Vietnam War Memorial.
There is an opinion research/Fox poll out that is very enlightening.
Two political parties, one of which has a significant number of members that are openly rooting for America to lose. While most Democrats, to their credit, do NOT thing that it would be better for America to lose the war in Iraq, the fact that 19% of Democrats can be considered traitors is stunning.
This 19% is where the people of CodePink and MoveOn.org come from. This is why the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with the nation’s security. This is why, unless the Democrats purge them, instead of embracing them as they do now: Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!
georgej on October 6, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Here’s a bio on this vile womyn
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=626
VinceP1974 on October 6, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Woulda been fair game, though I’m not surprised she didn’t drop Broussard on him, only cuz I’ve seen her on TV enough to know she’s a total space cadet.
Bad Candy on October 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Reminds me of Coulter’s quip about the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote:
Do these pink ladies have men that go along with this crap? Methinks they’re single– and angry!
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 7:15 PM
ALan: freedom and freedom of speech. nuance; isn’t this the buss word?
mjkazee on October 6, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Who do you think crafted the 19th amendment? Women?
The “Brossard analogy” isn’t applicable here, I don’t think anyway.
What principle or right did code pinko defend with their actions?
Free speech? Not.
What rights or Principles did Brossard defend with his actions?
Well, lets start with sovereignty and work out from there.
One action was against a perceived national threat the other, an act of prejudice.
Speakup on October 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Alan = Weasel
mjkazee on October 6, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Alan = Weasel
mjkazee on October 6, 2007 at 7:37 PM
oops:) sorry
mjkazee on October 6, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Also Benjamin needs about two days in the wilderness, not in the service just the woods. Then she could justify her face.
mjkazee on October 6, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Allah – I see your point on Brossard. But, am I missing something here? What resolution were these Code Pink people supposed to be waiting for?
There is no analogy between these people and the previous incident – because nothing illegal was being done by the recruiting center. In the Brossard case, it was an illegal act that he was responding to. Wrongly, possibly. But, here, they just didn’t like the recruiting office existing.
At least in the Brossard case, there was a legitimate breach of the law to which he responded. With Code Pink, it looks to me as if they just don’t like the law.
nailinmyeye on October 6, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Withdrawal?
Allahpundit on October 6, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Thanks for the link.
Snort!
erik on October 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Oh lord! That’s a potentially lethal dose of irony right there.
Spiny Norman on October 6, 2007 at 8:31 PM
LOL, yeah, right. She’s not a dummy-crat. Maybe she doesn’t consider herself one because she doesn’t vote. She certainly reasons like one, though.
“You only have a right to free speech and to rent office space if the people of the surrounding community vote to allow it?”
Now that’s got “dumb-butt-ocrat” written all over it.
Lone Star on October 6, 2007 at 9:03 PM
What resolition? Withdrawal or whatever their demand is. See they perceive the war as a crime, no one in government’s going to stop it, so they will. Kind of like someone else…
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM
And regardless of whether one is and the other one isn’t on the books, the crime Brossard witnessed carried no imposed punishment.
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Waiting for resolution == breaking law
Got it. I’ll have my online law degree yet…
deesine on October 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM
There’s no direct relationship between the Broussard incident and the Code Pink affair. If Broussard is to be believed, there were complaints made about the matter before he took action. Even if that were not true, surely some police officers saw the offense and chose to do nothing, not even bothering to tell the man to take the Mexican flag down, and thereby created the anarchy that impelled Broussard to take action. That is the real scandal, the underlying cause, and the matter that should be discussed, the punishment for those officers and the police department, not some poor bastard whose actions are truly best described as “taking the law into his own hands.”
S.F. Code Pink was merely breaking the law by defacing property as an option to protesting legally, and it isn’t the first time they’ve done it.
Aardvark on October 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Hillary in pink ? ?
Texyank on October 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM
A more useless tool is hard to find than this lady
sMack on October 6, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Only if you believe in relativity. Code Pink attacks that which is good in this country using the freedoms provided as a tool to destroy them. Same is true with the scumbag Mexican. Both the Mexican and Code Pink are wrong and it is up to patriots to challenge them.
csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 10:32 PM
The bottom line is free speech,don’t agree with code pink they will tell you to shut up,Michelle speaks at a University,
and they will chant solidarity.Liberal’s like Barbra Boxer,
will remind you who’s in power.Liberal Barney Frank will remind you your time is up on the floor,at this rate
Hillary will have the internet regulated,and talk radio
will have the fairness doctrine,of course up to Liberal standards.So liberals will still tell Republicans to shut up,so much for working together.
canopfor on October 6, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Look Medea Benjamin really isn’t that bright and shouldn’t be taken seriously. The few times that I’ve seen her stray from the standard talking points, like her silly temper tantrums at congressional testimonies and the state of the union address, she’s come off about as eloquent as an angry teenager.
Code Pink doesn’t pull these stunts on accident. They don’t have the intellectual substance or political weight to succeed as an independent actor, so this is the only way that they can force the media to pay attention.
John from OPFOR on October 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Hey “left coast” ! Want a Civil ? Lets have one. Then watch your leadership disappear into europe.
oldelpasoan on October 7, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I hate to come down with AllahP on this on, because my heart says the opposite. My rational mind says that if we’re going to respect the law and that we’ve built a respectable reputation for being in favor of law an order, then we have to come down on the side of the law.
So let the hammer fall on both, equally. That’s the only fair way.
Again, my heart is with the vet and my venom with that pathetic leftist bint, but the law provides for avenues to deal with both.
If we don’t like the laws, we can lobby to change them. It’s the right way, and the legal way. Vigilantism is…let’s just say “fun,” but it’s illegal and you can’t condemn it in one case and be for it in another if you’re in favor of following and applying the law equally.
I hate you, AllahP.
:-)
Good Lt on October 7, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Sorry Allah, as well as vandalizing a government building Code Pink could quite easily be found guilty of conspiracy to commit vandalism on a government building. Analogy not even close. While Brossard could be found guilty of petty theft and maybe even brandishing a weapon, it is a stretch to call it vandalism. Cutting the rope while committing the theft of the flag would be ‘destruction of property’. Vandalism would be cutting the rope for no obvious purpose. It would be an even bigger stretch to call it conspiracy. Maybe one could prove that the camera man knew what Brossard was planning to do before he did it and that could possibly be a conspiracy but I’m sure everyone can admit that the Brossard incident was more or less spontaneous while the Code Pink incident was planned in advance.
At best Brossard would be sentenced to a fine and thirty days suspended sentence for petty theft. Not sure what vandalism and conspiracy to commit vandalism could get Code Pink members but I’m sure it’s not much worse.
So let’s end the discussion now with the understanding that what Allah is telling us, that committing a crime to make a larger political statement is always wrong and should be punishable by a felony sentence. Long live the Monarchy.
LeeSmith on October 7, 2007 at 12:50 AM
That bytch was one of the organizers of the WTO riots in Seattle in 1999. That was a pointless distruption to our city by these insane self-appointed guardians of the “truth.” And it’s always the same: they gather to protest and violate the delegates right to assembly at the conference. When the police intervene, they show no respect for authority and the mayhem ensues. In the end, the POS libs blame the police for the whole thing. Meanwhile those hurt the most by their actions are the local people whose businesses are damaged and who have to clean up after these vile dip$hits.
I would like to meet this bytch, just so I could tell her to go fu*k herself.
Mallard T. Drake on October 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM
We’re seriously got to get rid of Hannity. He totally hurts the cause.
DaveS on October 7, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Fox hits new low, giving airtime to this whackjob, whats next?
Of course the Mullahs waterboy is right in line with this pinktard.
Viper1 on October 7, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Of course Broussard broke the law. He should face a stiff $ 5.00 fine and then let’s be done with it. Let the punishment fit the crime.
DaMav on October 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM
So I take it you already have him convicted AP?
This is a terrible case from the prosecution side, even with the video evidence; there are too many other factors like paid legal council, media attention and the idea that what this man did was justified. I would fight any charges brought and I would be able to beat this case .{This case would defiantly be going to the box. Jury trials cost the county alot more money then a plea bargin} I am saying it will be a disturbing the peace plea bargain with no suspended sentace and court probation and maybe a small fine. So jail time won’t even be an option, even if he violates the court probation.
Just to let you all know . none of these code pinko morons were not anywhere near the celebration and air show in SF for our brave soldiers and sailors. I guess self preservation out weighed their outrage about the war.
Mojack420 on October 7, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Transfer to DailyKos for Allahpundit
Gregor on October 7, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I get so p…ed off with Hannity. His questioning is so shallow he comes off sounding like a fool.
Doesn’t he have any researchers who can find out a bit more about Benjamin’s background. She is a founder of Code Pink. She is not a Democrat. She is at the very least a Socialist. She was against the US going into Afghanistan.
Surely, armed with this information, Hannity might have been able to attack Code Pink’s efforts at the recruiting station in Berkley.
davod on October 8, 2007 at 9:05 AM
PS: I should have said – Made a more coherant attack on Code Pink’s efforts in Berkley.
davod on October 8, 2007 at 9:06 AM
The lady with the “No Choice, No Voice” sign looked like a drag queen. (I’ll bet she thought the protest was for abortion rights, too.)
Lothar on October 8, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Medea Benjamin’s visage is a forceful and unrelenting positive argument for male homosexuality.
Loundry on October 8, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Comment pages: