Good-bye Mr Obama... It's Time For You to Go

In the 2008 US Presidential election, your not-so-humble scribe backed John McCain -- at least so far as any Canadian had any business endorsing a candidate for any political office in the United States.

But when Barack Obama won the same campaign, this author was not terribly concerned about it. Although McCain had been deemed to be the superior candidate, there seemed to be an awful lot to like about Obama.

Sadly, many of those things never materialized.

Obama's "yes we can" mantra implied the empowerment of citizens over the imposition of state activism. Obama promised a more constructive dialogue on race. Government would be more responsive to the needs of the American people, especially during times of crisis.

These things haven't come to fruition -- there's little evidence that they will.

It isn't Obama's health care reform package -- although it was poorly conceptualized and the to-date execution of that plan has been poor, to phrase it kindly -- that has been the straw that broke the camel's back. Nor was his administration's meagre response to the still-flowing British Petroleum oil spill.

In the end, the final straw for the Obama administration has actually been its corrosive approach to racial issues. Ironically, a more constructive approach to race was one of the more promising prospects of the Obama administration. What has emerged has instead been the polar opposite.

Democrat legislators falsely accuse Tea Party protesters of hurling racial epithets with little or no admonition by the President or by Democratic party brass. A state that passes legislation to enforce federal immigration law replete with a higher standard of jurisprudence than the federal law mandates is declared to be racist, and challenged in court by Obama's Department of Justice.

But the final straw has to be what appears to be political interference in a voter intimidation case.

The case stems from the presence of members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2009. Members of the party openly brandished weapons while claiming to be "security".

Captured on video is King Samir Shabazz, who also attained some level of infamy by calling for the killing of white people and, specifically, white children.

Prosecutors for the Department of Justice won the case against the New Black Panther Party. Then an as-yet unknown figure within the US Department of Justice ordered the case dropped before the sentencing stage.

This is apparently the approach of the Obama administration to race and to law and order: when a group of African Americans is captured on video intimidating voters with weapons at an election polling station, the case is dismissed without explanation. And Americans still have yet to hear an explanation.

In an administration cognizant of its legal and constitutional obligations, Barack Obama would be leaning very hard on Attorney General Eric Holder. When more than a year went by without a satisfactory explanation of the decision -- whether made by Holder or by another Department of Justice official -- for the decision failed to materialize, Holder's resignation should have been sought.

It hasn't been. Holder remains Attorney General. In charge of a Department of Justice that is responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States, declines to do so, and then sues the state of Arizona when it passes legislation to do precisely that in the federal government's stead.

Your not-so-humble scribe, not being a citizen of the United States, does not imagine himself to hold any right or privilege to call for the resignation of the President of the United States; a foreign country.

But this author now agrees with a growing legion of American citizens who believe Barack Obama has failed to meet his obligations as the President of the United States, and should depart from that office at the earliest opportunity.

It's unfortunate. Riding a highly-motivated movement of politically active citizens, Barack Obama had the opportunity to combine government action with citizen action to truly better his country.

Instead, he has stood by while his Department of Justice threatens to render his country a nearly lawless state.

It's time for the Obama Presidency to end, as soon as possible. Americans of sound political conscience need to set the stage for a 2012 defeat of Obama -- provided that he doesn't do the honourable thing and resign as President -- by doing what they can to stem Obama's disastrous tide in 2010.

Democrats of sound political conscience need to ensure that Obama faces strong opposition in primaries leading up to the 2012 election. Republicans need to ensure that their candidate is of the highest possible calibre -- and need to put aside internal divisions within their party long enough to give that candidate the best possible opportunity to win the election.

John McCain cannot save the United States now. He's declared he won't run for President.

Who will be President after 2010 is not for this commenter to decide -- American citizens will have to decide that. But Barack Obama cannot continue as President so much as one minute longer than necessary.

Good-bye, Mr Obama. It's time for you to go.

Coming Clean(er) on Antonia Zerbisias

Fair is fair.

Recently, in a post here at the Nexus about Antonia Zerbisias challenging Liberal MP Irwin Cotler's loyalty to Canada, Zerbisias was unfairly credited for making the following comment on her Facebook page: "It doesn't seem possible for Jewish people to have a RATIONAL discussion about Israel!"

As it turns out, Zerbisias did not make the comment in question.

Although the comment was made by another individual (who is, and will remain, unidentified) she did express agreement with it, writing: "I agree. It's almost existential for some of them."

Evidently, this is what Jonathon Kay actually meant when he suggested Zerbisias "endorses" those views. As Zerbisias' Facebook profile is set to private (it can be viewed by her Facebook friends only), it's actually an easy mistake to make, as her comments were made very difficult to verify.

To some, it would seem entirely natural to attribute anti-Semitism to the comments of both individuals. Attributing irrationality to an entire ethnic group of people could certainly be viewed as a racially inflammatory comment. In the case in question, it could be viewed as anti-Semitic.

But rushing to that conclusion admittedly overlooks the rash hastiness of such comments. In the heat of a blogosphere controversy such comments can be uttered in undue haste -- and interpreted equally hastily.

In hindsight -- as due restraint often restores itself once the heat of the moment has passed -- one would like to be able to attribute Zerbisias' comments to that kind of hastiness. But Zerbisias has made it rather difficult to do so.

Even though she has been asked to elaborate on the sentiments behind her actual comments -- once again, expressing agreement with the original comments -- she has declined to share them.

Which is unfortunate. Zerbisias could very well have not meant to attribute irrationality to Jewish people as a whole, but rather to a particular group of pro-Israeli Jews. Truth be told, she would be right about that. There's little question that some Jews -- as well as some non-Jews -- cast aside the burdensome chore of critical thinking in all matters related to Israel. It's a sad truth.

Likewise, Zerbisias could very well have meant to attribute that to Jewish people as a whole. Her comments, even if uttered in haste, seem to suggest that (they also seem to suggest that for many Jews this irrationality is "existential").

If she refuses to elaborate on her comments, it would be impossible to know for certain.

It's on this note that Zerbisias may entreat herself to an apology for the misquote. Fair, after all, is fair.

But it's hard to leash suspicions of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism if Zerbisias herself won't explain some comments that seem like they allude to it. If Zerbisias doesn't like it, there are actually very simple remedies as her immediate command:

Don't say things that may make people suspect you're an anti-Semite. For most people, that seems simple enough.

The Reports of Sinfest's Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated

Thank god

But previously expressed sentiments stand.

Mea Culpa

I would like to issue a formal apology.

Since posting the video below, I've come to realize that it could be misconstrued as an attempt to make mockery of terrible, terrible actors.

That is not and never was my intention.

I'd like to sincerely apologize to all bad actors who, like Linsday Stewart, are a miserable failure at their chosen profession but, unlike Lindsay Stewart, aren't a miserable failure at life, and at being a human being. It certainly wasn't my intention to insult them by comparing them to the contemptible waste of human existence that is Lindsay Stewart.

Response to Some Reader Comments

Given the mini-controversy brewing here at the Nexus regarding some comments I made about the recent "bootgate" controversy, we're going to take some time out to address some reader comments.

Many of these comments have to do with the question of the rock in the officers hand, and what readers think he was going to do with it, despite the fact that what he didn't do with it is much more relevant:

Here’s a comment from a reader identified merely as Chris:

“Police have now admitted they were cops. They claim that someone gave them the rock to use but this doesn’t pass the laugh test given that they had been repeatedly told to “put the rock down”.

I’m all for cops going undercover as this appears to be, as claimed by the protestors, to be cops acting as provocateurs.”

Rocks in hand: one. Fair enough.

Rocks thrown? Zero.

This considering the fact that undercover officers routinely stage opportunities to defy police officers as a way of proving their legitimacy.

If the officer in question was holding the rock with the intent to throw it, and incite a riot, rather than simply as a pretext for their “arrest” (subsequent removal from cover), he probably would have thrown it. It actually would have served as proof they weren’t police officers, and the boot revelations would have never even come to pass.

Here’s another, from another reader:

“So there is no proof that they were "agents provocateurs", nothing conclusive at least. I'll grant you that. But why were they dressed as hoodlums carrying weapons when most of the guys around them were dressed normally?

Their presence only makes it easier for the media to ignore the protesters message and focus on violent extremists. That should not be the goal of the police. Worse their attitude and demeanor made the possibility of violence more likely. If David Cole wasn't there to demand he put down the rock, who knows what might have happened. ”

The other fact about undercover police work is that undercover officers don’t disguise themselves as an average, everyday person. They disguise themselves to fit in with their target.

Clearly, when patrolling a protest site for violent protesters, one isn’t targeting people like David Coles and the CEP. One is targeting groups like Black Bloc protesters (in this case, the officers were dressed as Black Bloc protesters.

There is a good reason for this. A Black Bloc is organized so that all members appear as part of a uniform unit, and are virtually indistinguishable from one another. A protester could throw a rock, retreat back into the bloc, and be unidentifiable. Police would be forced to arrest the entire Bloc, as opposed to merely the one member.

However, if you have undercover officers inside the Bloc, you’re more likely to be able to arrest that member once he retreats into the group.

It should be noted, however, that while groups like the CEF shouldn’t be considered targets for arrest, they are part of the patrol area in general, and will eventually be monitored in the name of covering the entire area in question.

However, this reader does make one very good point: this scandal does tend to direct attention away from the message of the protesters (which, in the CEF’s case, was a very benign and respectable image) and toward the issue of violent protest in general.

It does serve to undermine the protests, which, when non-violent (as was the CEF) are legitimate forms of democratic expression.

Here’s another comment, from a reader identified as Gayle:

“"There is still no reason to assume they were trying to incite a riot, and actually every reason in the world to believe the opposite, considering that staging an arrest to remove an officer from cover is well within the boundaries of typical undercover practices, especially when an officer's cover is blown."

The funny thing about lies is that once a person lies about one thing, it is pretty hard to believe that person is telling the truth about anything.

So here you have a denial they were cops, and then, finally, an admission. The first denial was an outright lie, and it begs the question as to why we should believe them when they say there were not there to incite a riot.

You may be correct - the cops may well have been posing as rioters and carrying weapons (and hid themselves amongst a group of individuals who were not armed) solely for the purpose of maintaining the peace. I would point out, however, that simply possessing a rock in those circumstances was itself a criminal offence (possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public) - hard to argue they were trying to preserve the peace when by definition their actions were violating the public peace.

Add to this the evidence of the other protesters, who claimed these undercover cops were there to incite violence. While you may not want to accept that evidence, it is in fact evidence and cannot simply be discounted simply because it is not convenient for you to acknowledge it.

Now I do not conclude they were trying to incite a riot, but that is hardly the point. The suggestion has been made, and the damage is done. If people believe the police were there to incite violence, the police have only themselves to blame.”

As Gayle may or may not be aware, in any criminal case two basic things must be proven: first that actus reus, the act itself, has taken place. Secondly, that mens rea, the intention to commit the act, was present in the accused.

In a case like Gayle is proposing, first the rock would have to be demonstrated to pose an imminent danger to the public. This is actually fairly simple to prove. When the officer picked up the rock (or accepted it, as Stockwell Day claims, but there is actually no evidence to show the rock was given to the individual in question, so this supposition will be discarded for the sake of this argument), there was a certain amount of danger involved: risk that someone else in the group could have taken the undercover officer’s possession of the rock as a cue to begin throwing rocks on their own, thus precipitating a riot. Whether or not these events actually transpired is immaterial: the danger existed once the rock was picked up.

However, mens rea cannot be established. As a matter of fact, it is already disproven, given that the rock gave nearby riot officers pretext to remove them from cover after their cover had been blown.

Once again, the evidence isn’t “inconvenient”. Where as previous evidence was inconclusive, the matter regarding the officer handling the rock is no less conclusive toward the pretext theorem than it is toward the provocateur theorem. Perhaps even more so, because the rock was never thrown.

Matt Bin:

“Let me just get this clear -- you're saying that despite the fact that the Surete were caught in a blatant, public lie, we should give their officers involved the benefit of the doubt about their intents. Because what they say about their agents' actions can now be believed.

You'll excuse my spluttering laughter”

People like Matt Bin, on the other hand, may want to check into the actual statements made by the Surete du Quebec. While they have recently admitted that the individuals in question were police officers, they never denied it (nor did they initially confirm it).

What they denied are the claims the officers were acting as agents provocateurs.

Admittedly, CTV's headline was somewhat deceptive, cosidering that no denial that the men were officers is found anywhere in the body of the actual piece.

As such, the initial statements released by the Surete du Quebec do nothing to undermine the credibility of later statements. There are no "lies" among them, except in the minds of those who have concluded that if police were working under cover among the protesters, they simply must have been there to incite a riot.

This despite the fact that the behaviour of the officers in question is consistent with the practices of undercover police officers, and not at all consistent with the past activities of either the RCMP or the Surete du Quebec.

Then again, when the case against the officers is built entirely upon politically-motivated cynicism, it's unsurprising that such facts seem to matter so little.

Undercover Police Officers, Clearly. Agents du Provacateurs? Hardly.

Still much ado over nothing

After two days of controversy, the Surete du Quebec have admitted that the alleged protesters taken into custody in this video were, in fact, undercover police officers.

But they maintain that the undercover officers were not agents provocateurs.

“At no time did the Quebec provincial police officers act as agents provocateurs or commit criminal acts," insisted a statement released by the force. "It is not part of the policy of the police force nor is it part of its strategy to act in this manner. At all times, the officers responded to their mandate to maintain law and order."

At the end of the day, those who are decrying the injustice of it all have nothing to rely on aside from one officer holding a rock in his hand.

Which actually provides the riot police on scene with a pretext to stage an arrest of the men in the name of withdrawing them from cover, particularly when they are at risk of being “made”. In fact, “busting” undercover police officers is a common practice:

“Undercover officers are often "busted" to give a progress report and let management know if they need more or less supervision.”

The assumption that undercover officers at a protest must be agents provocateurs stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what undercover police work entails. Consider the claims that the use of undercover officers to bust a terrorist ring in suburban Toronto last year entailed “entrapment”.

Yet undercover police work is entirely legal, and is often used to build cases against organized crime cartels, although it clearly also has its uses in terms of monitoring the situation at a protest, which are known to often turn violent.

So in the end, what does the scandal ultimately boil down to? The use of undercover police officers to help control potentially riotous crowds, a tactic that has been found to be effective in the past.

Of course, there are lines that can be crossed. The various cases of American protest groups being actively infiltrated by undercover officers is particularly troubling.

With no evidence, however, of any such attempts by Canadian police forces (at least in cases where no criminal acts are yet being committed), the actions of the undercover officers in Montebello appear to be nothing more than an earnest attempt to monitor and manage a very volatile environment – a tricky task indeed, even using the most refined psychological tactics available.

Hiccups like the outing of the officers in question are bound to happen.

In the end, it is true that some of accusations turned out to be well-founded. The officers were, indeed, wearing the same brand and model of boot (this has eventually been confirmed through photographic evidence, although early enhancements of the photographs in question were very poor). It turned out that, by the admission of the Surete du Quebec, the individuals in question were police officers.

Fair enough.

But the biggest, most serious accusation of all – that they were acting as agents provocateurs – has yet to be proven, and is still being based on circumstantial evidence. It stems, however, from a tendency to assume the worst about our men and women in uniform.

Whether it’s assuming that Canadian soldiers are knowingly and willingly handing Taliban prisoners over to torturers or assuming that Canadian police officers undercover at protests are there to incite riots, the suspicion of our uniformed men and women really stems from a fanatical desire to find the worst in any accusation.

At best, it’s politically-motivated hysterics. At worst, it’s a meager attempt to transplant an American scandal north of the 49th parallel.

This is because it’s well known that political protests can turn violent and cause thousands of dollars in property damage. It’s also well known that the Al Qaida training manual instructs terrorists to lie about torture.

Yet when politics are on the line, neither of these facts matter. Many of these people choose to assume the worst, because it’s politically convenient to do so.

It gets to the point where one assumes that those portraying the proactive law and peace enforcement activities of our men and women in uniform as the acts of totalitarian police states are opposed to allowing terrorists to strike on Canadian aoil and are against rioters causing thousands of dollars in property damage to people who really have little or nothing to do with the summits they protest, but who can be sure? Most of them aren't so vocal on that particular point.

Long story short, it can now (and only now) be accepted as fact that the individuals in question at the Montebello protest were police officers. That’s far from proving they were agents provocateurs.