spike1, this woman was a true heckler and you know it...
ZOT! 
Posted on 07/28/2007 7:48:00 PM PDT by Nan48
On July 25, a Texas woman was forcibly removed by handlers of Fred Thompson — who is being groomed by Bush administration insiders to replace the president — for asking Thompson to explain his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) during a question and answer session at Houston's Hobby Airport.
The woman pressed Thompson to justify the CFR's backing of the controversial North American Union plan set in motion by President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada in March 2005. The CFR has been instrumental in laying the groundwork for the NAU and related initiatives such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Thompson responded, "I didn't know they were up to that . . . . There's several conservatives over the years that have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations. I try to learn as much as I can from all viewpoints."
The woman asked no further questions and remained silent as she resumed video-recording the public interview. A few moments later — the video reveals — she can be heard to say, "Do not touch me," as someone apparently grabbed her arm and attempted to pull her back.
Three minutes later, she can be heard to say in surprise, "Do not touch me, sir. I've not done anything wrong." She then appears to be pulled from behind, and upon breaking free, turns toward Thompson and indignantly exclaims, "Sir, they're asking me to leave. You were a lobbyist for 18 years. You're not a real conservative, sir. What do you think about World Trade Center 7 — it was an inside job. What do you think about . . . ." At that moment, she says to someone, "Don't grab me! Why are you touching me?"
A man can be heard responding, "They want you to leave." The woman is then forced out of the building by police officers called in to assist, while she protests the aggressive behavior of those dragging her forcibly out. At least three times, she yells, "Get off of me," and then says, "Get your hands off of me," as she is escorted to the sidewalk.
All of this is posted at YouTube — and directly contradicts the misleading accounts reported by CNN and NBC.
As soon as she asked the question they grabbed her.
before Phred even had finished dodging it.
Every candidate should be forced to answer about their relationship with George Soros and his Council on Foreign Relations.
Soros is america’s enemy and I won’t support anyone who hangs out and parties with him like your hero Phred.
>>She wasn’t a ‘tough questioner’. She was a Ron Paul plant.
Ronnie really ought to pull the plug on this nonsense since everyone knows his campaign is doing it. Kinda loses its effectiveness once the cat it out of the bag.<<
She could be a Ron Paul supporter without being there on behalf Ron Paul. If you look at the internal discussion over there - they are struggling with a really diverse group of supporters , many of whom don’t like each other.
If its shown that Ron Paul is having people scream out 9/11 conspiracy theories at Republican candidates, I’ll, of course admit I was wrong.
But my gut feeling is that he would not actively do that.
I couldn’t ever support him for President because of his wacky finance ideas and his buy in to the NAU conspiracy stuff but I think he’s basically a good guy who is keeping some important issues in the spot light - mainly constitutional limits to government and how government ought to abide by those limits.
>>Hillary’s handlers do this often.<<
I would think that any Presidential campaign is going to try to keep non-accredited media from yelling out conspiracies during press conferences.
>>Renew America and Alan Keyes are pushing this?? What the heck?<<
I do not support Ambassador Keyes for President. Or Vice President.
But if you look at the Renew America site you’ll find the columnists, who are Keyes supporters taking all kinds of positions not endorsed by Keyes himself.
I’ve read through dozens of his columns and can’t find 9/11 conspiracy stuff.
That said, it would be good for him to distance himself from this junk.
>>A person using her first amendment protected right,that’s who you are calling a bitch and saying that you are glad he tossed her.
He skates around so slick,doesn’t he? He hasn’t declared yet,but he’s stumping.
Why would a freedom loving person want to silence the woman who questioned him?
Guess inherent rights don’t mean much to him.<<
I’ve never seen an airplane hanger that was open to the general public - I have the feeling this was private space and they were within their rights to remove hecklers.
Frankly this makes Ron Paul look worse than Fred - if it ever comes out that he sanctions this stuff by his followers he’s gonna be persona non-grata among a lot of us that currently respect him on some key issues even we do not thing he is qualified to the President of the United States.
>>I think the grooming bit is the next attack on the list written up. I guess that means they’ve not had success with the others.<<
When somebody runs for President you want him to have people with executive branch experience. For a Republican candidate, they can’t all come from just the Reagan administration... some of those folks are getting old.
>> She was a Ron Paul plant.
You could say that about a number of candidates.
Since non of the front runners is a serious conservative it follows that conservatives will be supporting a non-front runner or someone who has not declared at this point.
Insurgency-based campaigns are not slick corporate affairs - you take the volunteers you get and sometimes you get support from groups that don’t like each other.
It would be good if we can do as Triple E suggests and remember the distinction between the campaign versus someone who has a bumper sticker on their car.
The cost to get a message out is low - between Myspace/Obama-girl, and independent research on message boards and a million blogs it may be tough to know who is whom.
But we can start by trying to cut fellow conservatives a little slack. If the campaign is implicated that’s one thing but until then its more likely that hecklers just supporters.
>>Every candidate should be forced to answer about their relationship with George Soros and his Council on Foreign Relations.
Soros is america’s enemy and I won’t support anyone who hangs out and parties with him like your hero Phred.<<
That’s not helpful - the CFR has 3,000 members, supreme court Justices, a dozen Senators, Presidents from both parties - your building Soros up unreasonably to suggest he has that kind of power. He’s a rich, connected currency trader who throws his money around, not some kind of Illuminati Lord.
>>So the police do the thinking for Mr. Fred Thompson?<<
I suspect the police realized they had let a civilian nut sneak in amongst the press and wanted to correct their error.
>>It’s clear that the woman was removed at the orders of Fred’s people, solely for asking him about his CFR status. The evidence overwhelmingly supports this assertion, and no one here has reasonably challenged that evidence or this assertion.<<
Are you kidding? Fred should have paid her to do this. Given the paranoia about the CFR, I’m sure its helpful to have it raised by the same person who screams out 9/11 conspiracy stuff
On July 25, a Texas woman was forcibly removed by handlers of Fred Thompson
Uniformed police officers
— who is being groomed by Bush administration insiders to replace the president — for asking Thompson to explain his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) during a question and answer session at Houston's Hobby Airport.
She had asked her question, and Fred had answered. That her "inconvenient" question is the reason she was ejected is the fancy of the article's author, and is not supported by what's in the video (keep reading).
The woman pressed Thompson to justify the CFR's backing of the controversial North American Union plan set in motion by President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada in March 2005.
A question Fred answered calmly, lightheartedly and with more seriousness than it deserved.
The CFR has been instrumental in laying the groundwork for the NAU and related initiatives such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
It's easier to take the heckler's side if you assume her premises, isn't it?
Thompson responded, "I didn't know they were up to that . . . . There's several conservatives over the years that have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations. I try to learn as much as I can from all viewpoints."
Fair summary.
The woman asked no further questions and remained silent as she resumed video-recording the public interview.
True enough, to a point. Because the video is from her point of view, we don't know what she was doing other than shooting -- she clearly wasn't focused on the viewfinder or the screen, because there is no apparent effort to frame the shot.
From the video, it's clear that she is near the front of the pack, and did not step back to allow someone else a turn after she asked her question and received an answer.
A few moments later — the video reveals — she can be heard to say, "Do not touch me," as someone apparently grabbed her arm and attempted to pull her back.
And an unidentified male voice can be heard saying "everyone's touching everyone. Just calm down."
Three minutes later,
The same unidentified male voice can be heard saying "could you step out of my shot, please?" and then ...
she can be heard to say in surprise, "Do not touch me, sir. I've not done anything wrong." She then appears to be pulled from behind, and upon breaking free, turns toward Thompson and indignantly
Indignantly? I'd describe it as hysterically.
exclaims, "Sir, they're asking me to leave. You were a lobbyist for 18 years. You're not a real conservative, sir. What do you think about World Trade Center 7 — it was an inside job. What do you think about . . . ." At that moment, she says to someone, "Don't grab me! Why are you touching me?"
Here's my summary of what I took away from the video.
A pack of reporters and cameramen (sound guys, too, but they have long booms and don't have to get in as close) were jockeying for position. This arrangement is sometimes called a scrum or a gaggle. There's a little shouldering and shoving for position, but the pros don't get to nasty or block each other's shots; the reporters don't try to out-shout each other. They'll run into each other on other stories later, and life's too short to carry that kind of feud every day.
This woman apparently missed a memo. Someone tried to get her to move from her front-and-center position; we're meant to believe that it was some sort of Thompson goon squad, but it could have been anyone in the gaggle who wanted to get his own shot, felt that she'd had her turn, and could tell that she had apparently never held a camcorder before.
The man's voice off camera sounds, to me, like someone with more experience trying to be nice to the newbie ...
A man can be heard responding, "They want you to leave."
Yup. That's him.
The woman is then forced out of the building by police officers called in to assist, while she protests the aggressive behavior of those dragging her forcibly out. At least three times, she yells, "Get off of me," and then says, "Get your hands off of me," as she is escorted to the sidewalk.
My take: The woman was becoming increasingly disruptive, and someone -- police, private security, or other members of the press gaggle, tried to move her aside to defuse the situation. She reacted hysterically.
We are meant to believe that she was being manhandled because she's screaming "stop touching me," but there's nothing in the video to support that. Adn when she reacts by screaming truther looniness over her shoulder -- and over the reporters' questions -- that tends to support the hypothesis that she intended to be disruptive.
You don't have to be a professional to display professionalism. Plenty of bloggers, with and without camcorders, prove that every day. A calm, reasoned person would have turned the camera on the person escorting her out, and asked calmly, "Why are you dragging me out? I have as much right to be here as anyone." Etc.
This woman reacted by screaming at the top of her lungs, which would tend to support the security folks' conclusion that they didn't want an apparently unstable woman standing inches away from a presidential candidate.
I hate to harp on her lack of camera skill, but every indication is that she paid no attention to the camera at all. What else was she doing? Did she look like she might lunge or draw a weapon as she jockeyed for a position right up front? She cartainly sounds unstable. I can't tell more than that from her POV.
If so, it's inaccurate. Not all hostile questions are tough questions. Fred had about as much trouble with it as Barry Bonds would with my fastball down the middle.
Infinity!
Run along, kids, the grownups are trying to talk here.
That's for sure. The big problem with this article is it reports that the woman asked an insane 911 question but then seems to call that question a "tough question". "Tough question" implies that it was a legitimate question.
Had the woman instead shouted out something about Bush on the grassy knoll, would it b portrayed as a "tough question" that Thompson is hiding from?
“His goons are more knowledgeable than he is?”
Thompson was asked about 2 well-known specific activities/goals of the CFR, further specified as NAU and SPP......He (not his “goons”) said he didn’t know they (CFR) were up to that.
I simply do not believe Thompson when he said he didn’t know that the CFR was “up to” that.
Having been lukewarm at best toward him to this point and now seeing him play ignorant on what is for me a critical issue - the sovereignty of our country - freddie has arrived at zero for me. As of this moment I will vote for Hunter in the primary.
This is a point worth repeating. No matter how much those who produce or consume videos and print article from blogs may want bloggers and vloggers to automatically be considered part of "the media," that does not make it so.
That goes doubly for those who don't know or respect members of real media outlets, as it seems this woman may well have been doing.
I “day” there is no difference at all.
This demonstrates why I didn’t pursue a career in mental health. They emptied all the asylums in the early ‘70s.
What evidence? That there are people who had worked on the Bush campaigns who have signed up to work on Fred's? Sounds like they want to work for a winner again, to me. Otherwise, why hadn't they already signed up with one of the other 10 candidates for the Republican nomination?
You, and some others may want to see the Illuminati behind every decision, but I don't. I'm looking at the man's record in the Senate, and his comments on issues over the last 6 months. I like what I've read and what I've seen. In the end, that's how the decision will be made.
Most folks, when they go into the voting booth neither know nor do they care about consipiracy theories; they'll go with their gut feeling about a candidate. If Fred wins the Republican nomination, I believe he'll win the Presidency because the Dems candidates are just weak, Hillary's fame, Democrat fundraising and the media, notwithstanding.
So, will you be calling yourself a "kook" for demanding we vote for your particular brand of RATpublican should Dr. Paul not survive the Primary? Or will you be just as "glad" to be relegated to the "sidelines" for the next couple of decades? Blackbird.
spike1, this woman was a true heckler and you know it...
ZOT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.