printWE KNOW that Attorney General Martha Coakley, who lost Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, is at the very least philosophically corrupt. But what about the said omissions of those who’re supposed to check the “lady” and her posse? I mean the roving citizen journalists, endeavoring to expose her?
I watched the hereunder YouTube clip twice. Perhaps I missed something but, as far as I could see (and hear), nowhere did the “journalist” filming the Coakley goons’ crass conduct articulate for her viewers why they ought to be furious at the conduct of these fascistic public servants.
WATCH the clip. What lessons for citizens does it impart? How does this YouTube snippet help, or even convey, the cause of liberty? The answers to these questions: “Nada” to the first; “it doesn’t” to the second. Not unless you consider being polite and not calling journalists Nazis as contributions to liberty and freedom.
Goons say to journalist, “You are on private property.” Journalist replies softly, “We want some questions answered,” “Why so rude?,” and, “We’re on a public sidewalk.”
Unless “journalist” is able to append a principled tag to her gritty clip, the Democrat mafia appears merely impolite.
THE SHORT, SWEET instructive reply to these fattened fascists would have been this: “You are NOT on private property but on public, taxpayer-funded property. You and Coakley are civil servants, beholden to the public who pays your way.”
What service do you perform as a putative journalist if you cannot convey the only philosophical truth the viewer ought to take away from this snippet? None, as I am sure a Democrat journalist could easily film similar infractions.
All this journalist has done is add a tit to the other side’s tat.
I grow impatient with the “Age of the Idiot” activist. Resources such as this blog and its companion site, ilanamercer.com, can help the corrupt and the clueless (with attribution please) become acquainted with the now “defunct foundations of the republic.”
But to take instruction, one has to have courage and humility. Dream on, ilana.
Update (Jan. 24): Say the Democrat Party paid for the offices of this candidate. Is this property then accessible only to a select portion of the public? Was Coakley seeking to represent some constituents to the exclusion of others? At the very least, journalists ought to be able to pose such question, when a politician’s brown shirts turn them away from said premises on the grounds that the offices from which a candidate is operating are walled off from the individuals she is endevoring to represent.
What do you say?
There are a couple of things that are unclear in this video. Who the reporters were representing ie: a news agency or private citizens. If it was a campaign office which is paid for by the political party rather than taxes or a government office provided for her staff. Therefore, I can’t comment on the reporters. The two “Workers” though came straight out of a 30’s black and white ‘B’ mobster movie. Thug, comes to mind. I wouldn’t want to meet them anywhere without a full clip and/or running shoes.
Get used to going toe-to-toe with thugs immediately. It will makes things much easier when the safety net is removed.