And the Instapundit Loses His Shit Publicly

Demented and sad, but social:

“Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

Actually, the authorities involved were not Feds trying to trample on the 1st Amendment, but people looking into whether he violated his terms of probation:

Federal probation officers interviewed Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a California filmmaker responsible for creating an anti-Islam film that sparked protests in more than 30 countries, late last night and released him.

Nakoula was questioned for about 90 minutes, and then was taken to an undisclosed location, where he was released, officials said.

“He is gone. We don’t know where he went,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said. “He said he is not going back to his home.”

The man, who served 21 months in prison on fraud and identity theft charges, could face more prison time if it is determined his involvement in the film was a violation of his probation, which barred him from either owning or using devices with access to the Web without prior approval from his probation officer.

I guess Glenn Reynolds, faux libertarian and full time Republican, isn’t in the “Law and Order” wing of the GOP.

I made a joke the other day on twitter, but I didn’t realize how accurate it would be:

I guess we can add law school profs Reynolds and Althouse to the list of the 90% of morons. Apparently, the 1st amendment protects everyone from parole violations. Who knew?

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

99 replies
  1. 1
    Cain says:

    Stupid assholes. I got nothin.

  2. 2
    scott (the other one) says:

    Well, 27%, at least.

  3. 3
    Yutsano says:

    It’s so funny because of course Obummer just HAS to be sending his jack-booted thugs out to crush the voices of proud patriot dissenters like Nakoula because “SHUT UP THAT’S WHY!!” It’s just huge projection because Wonder Boy O’Keefe is still being closely watched by the Feds as well and they hate that.

    Also this:

    “He is gone. We don’t know where he went,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said. “He said he is not going back to his home.”

    makes zero sense. If he’s being suspected of a probation violation he should be tailed like a hawk on a field mouse.

  4. 4
    shoutingattherain says:

    “He is gone. We don’t know where he went,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said. “He said he is not going back to his home.”

    They can find him anytime they want. Just turn on the little homing chip they implanted…

  5. 5
    wasabi gasp says:

    When Obama takes his shirt off, he’s literally brown.

  6. 6
    amk says:

    Going godwin is the first thing that comes to the thugs’ minds on any manufactured poutrage crisis.

  7. 7
    owlbear1 says:

    Having a prior criminal record is going to be completely ignored. Duh.

    Bet he shows up on Fox within the week.

  8. 8
    owlbear1 says:

    @Yutsano: It sounds like they’ve determined he didn’t violate his probation.

  9. 9
    Anibundel says:

    Someone tell instapundit not to worry, this will all be forgotten as soon as Bibi starts bombing Iran on Wednesday. (I refuse to believe he would bomb them on Rosh Hashanah. REFUSE.)

  10. 10
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    Released after 90 minutes? That’s a classic Gestapo move. Lightweights!

  11. 11
    Waynski says:

    I haven’t seen the trailer, nor do I really care to, but from what I’ve heard about the quality, he may have made it on a smartphone, which may not be a violation. In any case, the guy’s on probation and the terms of his release were to stay off the Intertubes, so of course they had to question him. Would Reynolds have said the same thing if the guy was a Muslim in Detroit who made an anti whatever movie that may have violated his probation? Doubtful.

  12. 12
    aangus says:

    Insta-Reynolds should be forced to listen to this 50 times per day…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  13. 13
    Ken_L says:

    One of the saddest features of the internet is the willingness of so many academics to prostitute their calling. They strut their scholarly credentials as tacit claims to speak from authority, and follow up with the most brazen lies and bullshit arguments. Strangely, law professors seem to be the worst offenders.

    No other occupational groups behave this way. You don’t often read bank managers or engineers claiming expertise in public policy on the basis of their superior intellects. The shameless posturing “I’m a professor, hear me opine” crap brings the whole notion of academic integrity crashing to the ground. Thanks assholes.

  14. 14
    askew says:

    @Anibundel:

    I thought that it was impossible for Israel to bomb Iran by themselves because they don’t have aircraft that can do the roundtrip from Iran without refueling mid-air and they don’t own the refueling planes, we do. Also, what country is going to grant them permission to fly through their air space?

  15. 15
    giantslor says:

    I guess we can add law school profs Reynolds and Althouse to the list of the 90% of morons.

    Well, I mean, look what ideology they choose to follow.

  16. 16
    Joseph Nobles says:

    We are all convicted felons now in probable violation of our parole! Courage!

  17. 17
    ruemara says:

    These are some of the dumbest motherfuckers in the world. The term mouthbreather is too good for them.

  18. 18
    amk says:

    OT but very, very important.

    Hilarious thing that happened to me just now while I was having breakfast at the hotel cafe in Nairobi.

    Suddenly, something was grazing softly against my legs and lifting the overhanging table cloth, I find it’s a black & grey tabby with pleading eyes. The waitress, who was pouring coffee for me, said it was the resident cat.

    Snuck her a chicken sausage under the table and she kinda sniffed and backed away. I said ‘wtf’ and then realized it was still warm. So took it back, blew on it and then gave it back to her, which she gobbled up immediately.

    And then she sat there right next to my legs with those damned pleading eyes. I said, ‘what now?’. Sigh, go to the buffet table, grab a few more sausages, go back to the table, blow on the sausages one by one and then feed it to her. The maitre d’ at the entrance was watching all this with a disapproving look, I shot her a look that said, what, it was your cat that came to me.

    And the best part ? the damned tabby started following me back to my room. Then I had to shoo her off.

    What ? I am not gonna share my precious gin with her !

  19. 19
    Warren Terra says:

    @owlbear1:

    It sounds like they’ve determined he didn’t violate his probation.

    As I understand it, his probation terms include the following:
    1) Not to use an alias without prior permission of his probation officer
    2) Not to use the internet without prior permission of his probation officer
    3) Not to possess internet-capable equipment without prior permission of his probation officer.

    Now, I’m in no way a lawyer, and those are just my recollections of what I’ve read in the news; maybe I’m wrong, or maybe whatever I read was wrong. But – to the extent they’re accurate – it’s pretty clear he violated (1) with his “Sam Bacile” persona, and it’s pretty clear he violated (2) when “Sam Bacile” uploaded the clip to YouTube. So I’m skeptical of your claim that he “didn’t violate his probation” – though it may be that nothing will be made of his violation.

    SEK of LGM linked to a more serious and damning indictment of his apparent probation violations.

  20. 20
    Cmm says:

    @amk:

    Well, she needed something to wash down all the sausage!

    Hmmm, that didn’t really come out right…

  21. 21
    amk says:

    @Cmm: yeah, the whole thing sounds like a pr0n story, doesn’t it?

    Wonder if I should have just said meat instead of sausage…. Nah. Wouldn’t have made much of a diff.

  22. 22
    Citizen_X says:

    “Nakoula Nakoula” sounds like a really annoying dance hit. “I swear, if I hear Nakoula Nakoula one more time this summer I am going to shoot somebody.”

    Oh, sorry, not taking this seriously enough. OBUMMER’S BROWNSHIRTS! How dare you question felons that are violating probation! HOW DARE YOU!

  23. 23

    I have mentioned that I have been a crew member on a public access “law” show. They have a YouTube channel. They haven’t uploaded their most recent episode, but check them out, and tell me how much legal analysis they use. I have my own opinion on that.

  24. 24
    tam says:

    I know this shouldn’t surprise me anymore, but jeebus SNL is awful tonight.

  25. 25

    Well, the article conveniently doesn’t address the fact that the guy solicited tens of millions of dollars to create a really shitty movie. Nor does it mention the fact that he promoted said movie on Youtube while on probation/parole which said as one of his release conditions not to be on the godd@mn, motherfuckin’ Internet during his release…..

    (I used to be a probation officer….they’re just doing their damn job and this idiot is really making it easy for the probation/parole officers to do their job–of course, they won’t catch him because P&P officers aren’t trained to gather evidence the way a normal officer/detective is, particularly when it comes to computer evidence, and they’ve got about a thousand other, more dangerous people on their caseload–but at least they looked into this stupid idiot….more than can be said for your typical child molester or armed bank robber…..Yeah, I’m cynical and bitter, so what?)

  26. 26

    The site tag at the top said,

    Enormous, mendacious, disembodied anus

    Sounds like the final level of Half Live 2….but I might have been drunk at the time and misremembering…….

  27. 27
    Dennis SGMM says:

    Reynolds is clearly missing a bet here. The contortions that he went through to portray the administration as acting in defiance of the Constitution could have him headlining with Cirque du Soleil within hours. It’s bad enough that many conservatives refuse to learn anything. It’s worse when they deliberately forget what they did know. At this rate they won’t need bumper stickers, they’ll need stickers to put on the helmets they’ll have to wear on field trips.

  28. 28
    dsale says:

    @shoutingattherain: It’s called an ankle bracelet, no “implantation” required.

  29. 29
    jshooper says:

    so let me get this straight…romney shouldn’t drop out of the race for using the deaths of americans as a political weapon to smear obama…and for falsely claiming that obama sympathized with the attackers (terrorists)…but instead it is OBAMA who should resign as president for having NOTHING to do with local police bringing in a felon for questioning…yea that makes sense

  30. 30
    piratedan says:

    @Dennis SGMM: he’s not just missing a bet, the bastard isn’t even in Nevada.

    Wingnut dictionary

    an ongoing project, please feel free to update with pithier definitions :-)

    Freedom = means they have it, you don’t
    Free speech = listen to what they say and anyone who disagrees should STFU
    Pro Life = they are in favor of life from the time of ovulation thru conception up til birth… anything regarding your health or your quality and opportunity for life outside that time period, go fuck yourself.
    Freedom of Religion = means that they can proselytize you to their hearts content and if they’re in charge, penalize you for not believing as they do.
    GOMLAYMI – get off my lawn, after you mow it

  31. 31
    Pseudonym says:

    Wow, tags! How are those different than categories again?

  32. 32
    owlbear1 says:

    @Warren Terra: Yeah the more I think about it the more I think they know right where he is and they just aren’t telling anybody.

    But he also didn’t need access to the internet personally, to get that trailer uploaded.

    Not enough details.

    So we’ll see. But on Fox this week.

    PROVING how oppressed he is1111!

  33. 33
    👽 Martin says:

    @jshooper: This is going to turn into another ‘Obama is taking religious liberties away from Christians again!’ thing.

  34. 34
    Waynski says:

    @piratedan: Foreign Policy: Kill brown people.

    Domestic policy: Deport brown people.

  35. 35
    Narcissus says:

    I tried the Nakoula Nakoula but I slipped a disk

  36. 36
    amk says:

    @Waynski: Nutshell. Tweeted.

  37. 37
    Warren Terra says:

    @owlbear1:

    But he also didn’t need access to the internet personally, to get that trailer uploaded.

    that blog I linked to, following a pointer from SEK of LGM has the following, in another post:

    defendant shall not have another individual access the Internet on defendant’s behalf to obtain files or information that defendant is restricted from accessing personally, or accept restricted files or information from another person

    The complete probation terms, apparently, are linked there; I’ve just excerpted a passage from the excerpt on the blog that deals with internet use (other sections may exist, for example regarding the use of aliases)..

    Now, maybe uploading to Youtube isn’t “obtaining files”, but the idea that the guy under probation restrictions might use the internet through another human was conceived of, and at least plausibly banned, in the terms of probation.

  38. 38
    piratedan says:

    @Waynski: those are fantastic!

  39. 39
    owlbear1 says:

    @Warren Terra:

    Good grief!

    Okay, I find it hard to believe he didn’t know he would get a visit from his probation officer if he had that trailer posted to YouTube.

    Because;

    It’s hard to believe Nakoula thought a video of that nature would ‘sneak under the radar’ and his part in it would not come out.

    Cynically speaking; of course, this may well be playing out just like Nakoula intended.

  40. 40
    vestigial says:

    @Waynski: The video quality is decent, actually… it’s just everything else that’s horrible. I made it about half-way through the 13-minute trailer (which is probably all that was edited). A young Mohammed goes down on an attractive woman to chase the visions of demons away… odd.

    But it doesn’t really matter; I doubt most of the people rioting have seen it, any more than the people protesting “The Last Temptation of Christ” had seen that movie.

  41. 41
    magurakurin says:

    I think I may be watching too many reruns of Law and Order, but my thought was this. Maybe the real target of the investigation by the AG’s office isn’t this Naukola freak, but rather the real nutbag, Steve Klein. It was Klein that got the film on the Internet and who really had the agenda. Publicly he has said the purpose of the film was education, but if he mentioned to someone anything to the effect of “I hope the muzzies see this, loose their shit and go off the rails and kill a motherfucker” then doesn’t that go to criminal intent?

    It sounds like the Libyans are rounding up the usual suspect and are probably going to hang someone out to dry (literally most likely) for the murder of the Ambassador. They have to demonstrate to the US, the World and really their own people they have a grip on their crazies. Maybe the AG is thinking the same thing. Charge this Klein fuck with a murder charge for the Ambassador as well. I can hear McCoy saying “depraved indifference” right now.

    So, maybe our parolee is in violation and did hear Klein say some incriminating shit and he is rolling over on his boy Stevie.

    I suppose my initial though about too much tv is correct…but damn I’d love to see Holder bust a cap in that Klein jokers ass. And the wingnut tears…oh such deliciousness….

  42. 42
    Studly Pantload, the emotionally unavailable unicorn says:

    Instapundit: Just Add Bullshit™

  43. 43
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Too early in the morning for this nonsense.

    Anyway, Nakoula Nakoula is probably safer at an “undisclosed location,” with or without the ankle bracelet.

    And if the feds are handling this, the Sheriff might not know where he is.

  44. 44
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    They don’t know where he is because TEH BLACK HELICOPTERS TOOK HIM TO GUANTANOMOBAGRAMDARKSITETAJIKISTAN!1!

    drooooonnnneeeessss! Wake up, sheeple!

  45. 45
    Keith says:

    And apparently, this incident has convinced Instapundit’s readers that “There is no possible justification for voting for this man in November. None, period.”

  46. 46
    Joseph Nobles says:

    @Keith: I’ve been joking about the NiCLANG Event Horizon, only half thinking it would ever actually happen. After watching the reaction to this (APOLOGY! FREE SPEECH! NO AMMO!), I’m now quite certain it’s going to happen. It’s going to be someone like Limbaugh leading the way and it’s going to be incredibly ugly.

  47. 47
    jayboat says:

    I don’t know what Reynolds eats for breakfast, but, GOOD GAWD, MAN!

    Save yourself before it’s too late.

    Ok, the whole point of the video in question is PUBLICITY.
    That we are discussing it here is but one tiny validation that it worked.

    Also, too- about video quality…
    was attending an event recently and ran into a couple of acquaintances who work for a magazine on the west coast. (I know, a real, live PRINT mag)Video guy and stills photog… while talking with them, one is shooting video of the day-long affair w an iphone. When I comment on the fact, the stills guy says, “yeah, the iphone shoots better video than 4,000 pounds of equipment we used to carry around.”

  48. 48
    RossInDetroit, Rational Subjectivist says:

    I don’t think we’ve got anywhere near the whole story here. When the cast of characters behind this ‘film’ is known along with their motivations I think Sam Bacile will likely be the least interesting of the bunch. This doesn’t look like a con man’s MO unless he talked someone out of a load of dough to do this and he’s just in it for the money.

  49. 49
    WereBear says:

    @amk: She appreciates the food.

    But what she wants once fed? That would be affection.

  50. 50

    I’m having flashbacks. This is exactly the same as the rest of Obama’s ‘bad record on civil liberties’. Utterly legal, even normal if you examine the context. Hell, he’s not even directly involved. It’s weird to see one pushed by the Republicans. They prefer to go for outright imaginary rather than wildly distorted Obama failures.

  51. 51
    Zandar says:

    WE ARE ALL IN THE VEAL PEN OF INSTADIPSTICK’S MIND

  52. 52
    Baron Elmo says:

    Imagine that some American made a film with the express intent of goading blacks into rioting in predominantly white suburban and business areas.

    Then imagine that the film succeeded in its objective, with lives lost and major property damage inflicted. Shopping malls the nation over are forced to close indefinitely.

    How many goddamn conservatives would take a First Amendment stand on behalf of that particular filmmaker? Hell, they’d be screaming for his head on a stake… and issuing exploding hollow-point slugs to the riot police.

  53. 53
    Kirbster says:

    In one sense, I almost think that this is a spectacularly unfunny version of “The Producers” in which this Nakoula’s real intent was to scam his rube investors out of $5 million by making a cheap, sure-fire flop of a film and running off with the money. “The Innocence of Muslims” is, in effect, his version of “Springtime for Hitler.” It was a good enough scam until one of the Rush Limbaughs of the Arab world became aware of it and decided to use it to enhance his own power and popularity, consequences be damned.

  54. 54
    magurakurin says:

    @Kirbster: That sounds very, very likely. The pieces of the puzzle fit rather nicely with that story line.

  55. 55
    JPL says:

    Is the the first time that Glenn defended those of Egyptian descent?

  56. 56
    danielx says:

    @owlbear1:

    Fox was happy to have G. Gordon Liddy as a regular guest; they have no problems whatsoever as long you’re the right kind of criminal.

  57. 57
    scav says:

    Do you think we could convince them into promoting an in-depth national showing of all Mr. Nakoula Nakoula’s and S. Klein’s oeuvre to their base, including the anti-Mormon ones?

    They’re such shallow shams. Their mighty sets and backdrops are cheap and wobbling cardboard and their lines are badly over-dubbed, written by a hack and spoken by actors either going through them by rote or wildly over-emoting. WTF happened to those people?

  58. 58
    ChrisNYC says:

    Sort of OT but that Maureen Dowd column on Dan Senor is great. Many paragraphs just tearing him apart. The extent to which he’s been able to grin and blather in the last couple of months without Wolf or Joe saying, “You were rah rah and front and center for Iraq, right? Do you really think you deserve to be back in the WH?” is infuriating.

  59. 59
    RossInDetroit, Rational Subjectivist says:

    @ChrisNYC:

    Just read that MoDo column. She treats him pretty ugly, and backs it up by cataloging his failures. In the context of Romney’s foreign policy sutpidities the last week it’s pretty damning.

  60. 60
    Zinsky says:

    Being a convicted felon, Mr. Nakoula, surrendered many of his rights. The man is scum. I say we deport him back to Egypt and drop him right in the middle of the protest mobs. The Egyptian authorities then would only need to hose Mr. Nakoula’s remains down the storm sewers.

  61. 61
    Neech says:

    @ChrisNYC: @RossInDetroit, Rational Subjectivist:

    Tbogg wrote about this a month ago. The “Scanners” picture at the top of the article pretty much sums up my reaction to this news.

  62. 62
  63. 63
    Chris says:

    @Ken_L:

    No other occupational groups behave this way. You don’t often read bank managers or engineers claiming expertise in public policy on the basis of their superior intellects. The shameless posturing “I’m a professor, hear me opine” crap brings the whole notion of academic integrity crashing to the ground. Thanks assholes.

    I think a large part of that is conservatives trying to prove they have just as many smart and pointyheaded intellectuals as the liberals they loathe.

  64. 64
    betty erickson says:

    Its likely that the fulmination meter of right wing nut jobs is ready to explode because of the connection of Joseph Nasrallah and the religious group Media for Christ. They didnt even have the grace to make up their own name, but took this name from a more established religious group which is now having to deal with the blowback.

  65. 65
    Betty Erickson says:

    Sorry about the duplicate comment. I will add that Nasrallah is connected with the right wing Pamela Gellerof the blog Atlas Shrugged, who is also fulminating about the loss of the hatemonger’s free speech right–or something. She is not mourning the death of our ambassador, however.

  66. 66
    jp7505a says:

    Lets assume for the sake of the argument that it was the FBI and they were asking questions about the movie. Since the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into what happened in Libya with the intention of bringing the terroists to justice, it would seem logical that they would follow all threads of evidence. One of those threads is what is the movie and who made it. Questioning someone ons who may have information about the crime being investgated is not ‘unleashing the brownshirts’.

    I don’t remember this clown and his fellow right wingers being upset when anyone with a Muslim sounding name was rounded up and held in jail post 9/11. I remember the story of one Arab-American doctor who was held for several months after 9/11 for the high crime of taking flying lessons just prior to 9/11.

    This has nothing to do with love of the constitution and everything to do with trying to frame Obama as a foreigner and a traitor.

  67. 67
    Liberty60 says:

    Atlas Shrugged III – The Dominionist

    [Authorities] “We’re looking for Nakoula Nakoula.”

    [1st slave]”I am Nakoula Nakoula!”

    [2nd slave] “No, I am Nakoula Nakoula!”

    [slaves- in unison] “We’re ALL Nakoula Nakoula!”

    Featuring Kirk Cameron as Nakoula Nakoula.

  68. 68
    Spatula says:

    I’ll be impressed when Federal authorities perp walk George W Bush in for questioning.

    He’s done a tad bit more damage in the ME than Kanoula Kanoula.

    Yes, I know: Kanoula’s pathetic little Smartphone movie is the greatest cinematic crime since “Triumph of the Will.”

  69. 69
    Jamey says:

    I guess we can add law school profs Reynolds and Althouse to the list of the 90% of morons. Apparently, the 1st amendment protects everyone from parole violations. Who knew?

    Are you kidding, JGC? The good profs are the “27%ers” of that 90%…

  70. 70
    pluege says:

    reynolds and althouse were already at the top of the list – no need to add them.

  71. 71
    jp7505a says:

    a few more thoughts and a bit of history (not that these fools will care):
    From the diatribe ‘Note Althouse’s strikethrough. You are not “free” when police can come to your door after midnight and demand that you “come downtown and answer a few questions” over a film you’ve made. Voluntarily, of course.’ Ah, cops do this all the time in the drug war. Sometimes they even get the right address. Of course if you live in New York and come home at 4am you can expect to be riddled with 41 bullets because you acted ‘suspiciously’. No impact on your freedom there but then if your dead it doesn’t matter. Nothing to see keep moving.

    Now the history that seems to be overlooked or forgotten even though it happened between 2001 and 2008:
    1. Warrantless wiretaps (bye-bye 4th amendment)
    2. Waterboarding (bye-bye 8th amendment and numerous treaties, one
    signed by Ronald the Great)
    3. Gitmo
    4. the arrest and imprisonment of Jose Pedalla (bad actor though he
    might have been) for 3 years without a trail, access to a lawyer or
    a court.
    5. the Patriot act allowing the FBI to issue a ‘national security
    letter’ and then conduct a search/black bag break-in without a
    warrant.
    6. the 2006 law that suspended habeas corpus in terrorism cases
    7. Herding protestors into designated protest sites, conveniently out
    of sight of the political leader (that 1st amendment freedom of
    speech and right to petition for redress of grievence is so 18th
    century).
    8. the torture memos

    I’m sure I missed a few. Since 2008 we have the ‘show-me-yours-papers’ laws at the state level and the recent indefinite detention law signed by Obama.

    Obama has not pushed back on many of these abuses but they were passed, for the most part, by a republican congress and implemented by a republican president. Instapundit, althouse and the rest were strangely silent when all of that was going on.

    And the 44% of the publicthat backs Romeny are quite happy with all of this. Truly depressing

  72. 72
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Spatula:

    Yes, I know: Kanoula’s pathetic little Smartphone movie is the greatest cinematic crime since “Triumph of the Will.”

    Actually, the real problem with Triumph des Willens is that it makes National Socia1ism attractive. All the bad things about the Nazis are not to be seen. You’ve got all this pomp, all these obviously happy people celebrating their belonging to something bigger than themselves.

    This was filmed only months after the Night of the Long Knives, and there’s not the slightest hint that a bloody purge of the movement just took place.

    It’s seductive. It used a lot of new techniques to make it so. There is no doubt that Leni Reifenstahl was a brilliant filmmaker. Every bit s much an innovator and experimenter with the medium of film as Orson Welles was.

    The fact that it is so visually seductive is why the Germans, to this day, are leery of allowing it to be seen. It is art fully in the service of utter evil.

  73. 73
    Neldob says:

    Ward Churchill should reflect on this.

  74. 74
    tomvox1 says:

    I guess ol’ Glenn & Ann didn’t get the Reuters version with this header:

    * Left home voluntarily to speak with probation officials* Nakoula not under arrest and not handcuffed* Use of aliases, Internet may violate prison release terms

    #assholes

  75. 75

    @Betty Erickson:

    On Balloon Juice, duplicate comments are part of the fun. Just wait until FYWP posts three of your comments seven times in the same thread.

  76. 76

    @magurakurin:
    Klein is said to have ties to the Pam Gellar/John Bolton set.

    Why stop at Klein?

  77. 77
    W. Kiernan says:

    Nakoula was questioned for about 90 minutes, and then was taken to an undisclosed location, where he was released, officials said.

    “He is gone. We don’t know where he went,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said. “He said he is not going back to his home.”

    I’m finding it hard to understand how that moron Reynolds comes to that conclusion from facts – actually, let’s not go so far as to say “facts” – from the data in the news report.

    So the police came to his house, to talk to him about various unspecified matters, and then immediately after their little chat Nakoula decided that going back home was a bad idea, and he’d have to decamp to an undisclosed location. What does that sound like to you? Sounds to me like the cops had been informed of a shitstorm of death threats spouting up out of the religious-maniac community, and they came to get him the Hell out of town before all the heavily-armed religious-maniac scumbags show up.

  78. 78
    Triassic Sands says:

    Althouse and Reynolds never get “added” to a list of morons. They are default members of any such list and reside comfortably in a perpetual top ten.

  79. 79
    Tonal Crow says:

    Instapundit is flat-out wrong.

    However, I take real issue with parole conditions that circumscribe speech. It’s difficult for me to conceive of a valid reason to prevent a person from using the internet. To avoid a certain, carefully-delineated physical location (e.g., a victim’s house’s immediate vicinity), sure. To avoid certain classes of behavior that are otherwise legal but that contributed to the crime (e.g., drinking alcohol) maybe. But to ban all use of the internet? What’s the reason for that?

  80. 80
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    But to ban all use of the internet? What’s the reason for that?

    Because he used the internet to commit his crimes. That’s why he was forbidden to create fake usernames, etc. — the internet was the tool he used to fraudulently bilk people out of their money.

    If someone is convicted of drunk driving, do you think they should be allowed to keep their driver’s license because the problem was the drinking, not the driving? After all, driving is perfectly legal so there’s no reason to take their right to drive away from them since obviously the problem is alcohol, not driving.

    ETA: And, yes, the fact that a known internet fraudster used a fake name and fake identity to promote his “free speech” should be a big, giant red flag about whether or not this truly qualifies as free speech or was another attempt at criminal fraud by a convicted felon.

  81. 81
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Mnemosyne: 1. Speech is special. Speech is a core right protected by federal and state constitutions. Driving is important, but not a core right.

    2. Using an alias is not of itself a crime, nor does using an alias (e.g., “Publius”, “Mmemosyne”, “Tonal Crow”) in any way reduce the constitutional protection to which speech spoken in that name is entitled.

    3. Speech-restricting parole conditions impede parolees’ ability to participate in public policy debate, and impede the larger public’s ability to understand parolees’ lives. Also, such conditions can easily become racially discriminatory, because prosecution, conviction, and sentencing are often racially discriminatory.

    Oh yeah:

    4. “Minority Report” should not be viewed as a how-to manual.

  82. 82
    priscianusjr says:

    @Yutsano:

    makes zero sense. If he’s being suspected of a probation violation he should be tailed like a hawk on a field mouse.

    It would make sense, however, if the Feds don’t want anyone to know where he is because they are protecting him as a key witness in an ongoing investigation.

  83. 83
    yopd1 says:

    I love this line in one of his follow-ups:

    Yes, given that the laws are so complex that pretty much everyone is a felon, prosecutorial discretion rules.

    So we are all to blame?

  84. 84
    Brantl says:

    Can’t we work out some way that googling “Instapundit” comes up with “Instadumbass”? It’s the least that we could do as a public service.

  85. 85
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    1. Speech is special. Speech is a core right protected by federal and state constitutions. Driving is important, but not a core right.

    So is gun ownership, so therefore convicted felons on parole or probation for armed robbery should be allowed to buy as many guns as they want, yes? Otherwise, you’re unconstitutionally restricting their 2nd Amendment rights.

    2. Using an alias is not of itself a crime, nor does using an alias (e.g., “Publius”, “Mmemosyne”, “Tonal Crow”) in any way reduce the constitutional protection to which speech spoken in that name is entitled.

    Using an alias is not itself a crime, but using an alias to bilk people out of their money is a crime. In fact, it was the crime that Nakoula was convicted of. So, again, your position is that the terms of a convicted felon’s probation should not include forbidding them from accessing the tools they used to commit their crimes.

    Note that we’re not discussing any kind of lifetime ban here, but only forbidding them those tools while they are still under the authority of the justice system after being convicted of a crime that utilized those specific tools.

    3. Speech-restricting parole conditions impede parolees’ ability to participate in public policy debate, and impede the larger public’s ability to understand parolees’ lives. Also, such conditions can easily become racially discriminatory, because prosecution, conviction, and sentencing are often racially discriminatory

    You can also argue that it’s racially discriminatory to prevent people who are on parole for armed robbery from buying guns because our justice system is so often discriminatory. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on probationers buying guns.

    4. “Minority Report” should not be viewed as a how-to manual.

    You may need to watch “Minority Report” again if you think the problem in that movie was that they were preventing convicted felons from using the same tools during probation that they used to commit their crimes.

    Just out of curiosity, if the situation turns out to be what some people are starting to suspect and Nakoula raised $5 million to produce an anti-Islam movie, spent maybe $100K on it, and pocketed the rest, is what he did still 100 percent protected free speech and he gets to keep the other $4.9 million?

  86. 86
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Mnemosyne: 1. In case you didn’t get the memo the first time, speech is special. It is not the same as any other constitutionally-protected right. It is foundational of all the others. (Don’t take my word for it, read the caselaw). We should therefore be most hesitant to infringe it for whatever purpose, even in punishment for crimes committed, and certainly not as a way of preventing potential future crime (see below).

    2. My position is, in fact, that there should be no probation condition forbidding a convicted criminal from using a tool of speech, even when his crime involved speech. Radical, that 1st Amendment, ain’t it?

    3. The problem in “Minority Report” was the obsession with preventing crime at whatever cost, as opposed to punishing crime already committed.

    Just out of curiosity, if the situation turns out to be what some people are starting to suspect and Nakoula raised $5 million to produce an anti-Islam movie, spent maybe $100K on it, and pocketed the rest, is what he did still 100 percent protected free speech and he gets to keep the other $4.9 million?

    4. Just out of curiosity, do you understand the difference between protected speech and fraud?

  87. 87
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    1. In case you didn’t get the memo the first time, speech is special. It is not the same as any other constitutionally-protected right. It is foundational of all the others. (Don’t take my word for it, read the caselaw). We should therefore be most hesitant to infringe it for whatever purpose, even in punishment for crimes committed, and certainly not as a way of preventing potential future crime (see below).

    So the First Amendment is foundational, but the Second Amendment is not, therefore we can infringe on people’s Second Amendment rights as we feel necessary?

    Just out of curiosity, which of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights can we infringe at will since only the First Amendment has special protections?

    2. My position is, in fact, that there should be no probation condition forbidding a convicted criminal from using a tool of speech, even when his crime involved speech. Radical, that 1st Amendment, ain’t it?

    Sadly, it’s not quite as radical as you seem to think, unless you think that laws against commercial fraud, libel, and slander are all unconstitutional.

    You are not allowed to hide behind the First Amendment in order to lie and commit crimes, despite what you seem to think.

    3. The problem in “Minority Report” was the obsession with preventing crime at whatever cost, as opposed to punishing crime already committed.

    Again, your construction means that the law should not be able to prevent convicted felons on probation for armed robbery or other gun-related crimes from buying firearms because all the law is doing is infringing on their Second Amendment rights to prevent crimes they haven’t committed yet.

    4. Just out of curiosity, do you understand the difference between protected speech and fraud?

    I do, but I’m pretty sure you don’t since you seem to think you can claim “protected speech” to avoid being investigated or prosecuted for violating the terms of your probation.

    Again, you seem to see absolutely nothing wrong with someone who has been previously convicted of fraud raising money under a false name and identity and selling his film under false pretenses as long as he can claim that the subject of the film is “protected speech.”

  88. 88
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    Next question: if the First Amendment is foundational and trumps everything else, isn’t it unconstitutional to prosecute the Catholic authorities who covered up for child-abusing priests? After all, they were doing it because of their religious belief that pedophiles could be cured through prayer, so doesn’t prosecuting them mean that we are violating their First Amendment right to their religious beliefs?

  89. 89
    CJ says:

    If you think this is “normal procedure” in the case of suspected parole violation, that’s pretty naive of you.

  90. 90
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Mnemosyne: 1. No, that the 1st Amendment is foundational does not mean that other constitutionally-protected rights can be infringed willy-nilly. The precedent does not contain such a stark dichotomy. Please read a primer on constitutional law, with especial attention to the three main standards of review: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational-basis scrutiny. Then see how the courts have treated the various rights in different contexts. You’ll see that not only do the different rights often get different levels of protection, but that levels of protection vary even as to different assertions of the same right. For example, political speech is protected more highly than commercial speech.

    2. That I believe that it’s unconstitutional to deny a parolee access to the internet does not mean that I think that it’s unconstitutional to define a (carefully circumscribed) set of speech-based crimes, like fraud. False dichotomy and strawman much?

    3. Again, I am carefully distinguishing between the foundational right of free speech and other, less-foundational rights. And you are persisting in attempting to erase that distinction. Once again, read the caselaw, and you’ll see that courts have consistently been more protective of speech than of other rights, exactly because speech is the foundational civil corrective for self-government.

    …you seem to think you can claim “protected speech” to avoid being investigated or prosecuted for violating the terms of your probation.

    Once again, I think that probation conditions that inhibit otherwise-protected speech are unconstitutional. I do NOT think that that confers a right to engage in fraud. Again, strawman much?

    Again, you seem to see absolutely nothing wrong with someone who has been previously convicted of fraud raising money under a false name and identity and selling his film under false pretenses as long as he can claim that the subject of the film is “protected speech.”

    Reading comprehension. You need it badly. Even more than you need a primer on con law.

  91. 91
    burnspbesq says:

    @Spatula:

    I’ll be impressed when Federal authorities perp walk George W Bush in for questioning

    Liar. You’ll never be impressed by anything other than the mendacious crap you post here.

  92. 92
    burnspbesq says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    The single biggest problem with your analysis: idiot-boy agreed to the terms of his probation, most likely in a signed writing. And he did it after his counsel explained exactly what rights he was signing away in order to get out of the slam.

    There is no First Amendment issue here. None. Nada. Niente. Nichevo. Rien. A knowing and intelligent waiver trumps.

    Try harder next time.

  93. 93
    Tonal Crow says:

    @burnspbesq: 1. Where is this purported waiver documented? Nothing in the linked article says anything about it. One can be sentenced to probation (with or without prison time) involuntarily, and thus without waiving any right.

    2. I question the knowledge (and especially the voluntariness) of waivers under threat of prosecution. The prosecution’s got the defendant over a barrel, hard. Especially if the defendant is represented (as most are) by an overworked, underpaid PD, and opposed (as most are) by a well-funded DA with a much more reasonable caseload.

    3. I question the ability to alienate constitutional rights, and especially to alienate 1st Amendment rights. I know I’m swimming upstream here, but plea bargaining is a circus that has little respect for constitutional rights of any kind. That emperor has no clothes.

  94. 94
    Jay C says:

    @priscianusjr:

    It would make sense, however, if the Feds don’t want anyone to know where he is because they are protecting him as a key witness in an ongoing investigation.

    Investigation into what? AFAICT, Instaclown and the rest of the 101st Chairborne Commandos seem to want to view Nakoula Nakoula as some sort of victim, not a perp: i.e. a courageous brave truth-teller courageously telling the truth about what violent backward barbarians all Muslims are, and being punished for his bravery by said barbarians’ apologists/enablers. Like Barack Obama. Or something.

  95. 95
    LanceThruster says:

    Btw, do all Doctor Who productions involve a Scooby-Do cast of helpers and such?

  96. 96
    sagesource says:

    @Ms. D. Ranged in AZ (IrishGirl): Half-Life 2 doesn’t HAVE a final level. That was supposed to come with Episode 3, which is now six or so years late. God knows what happened to it, but the rumor is that Valve has no idea how to end the series, having screwed up the story line so thoroughly.

  97. 97
    Jay C says:

    @LanceThruster:

    Yes, various “companions” have been a feature of the Doctor Who franchise right from its start in 1963, and in the rebooted series from 2005….

  98. 98

    @sagesource: I was actually thinking about the level where you’re stuck in this massive room with a floating fetus that you have to kill–that was a looooooong time ago, so Half-Life 1? Anyway for some reason, I found it very, very disturbing (and frustrating, it took me frigging forever to get past that annoying alien fetus).

  99. 99
    Lordwhorfin says:

    @Zandar: I HAVE NO MOUTH AND I MUST HEH-INDEED . . .

Comments are closed.