Earlier this month, news, “infotainment” and video sites suddenly were saturated with damning video of Democrat Bob Etheridge attacking a college student who attempted to interview him on a public street. Slurring his words as if brain-addled or drunk, the brutish Etheridge grabs the arm and neck of the student before him, ignoring repeated pleas to stop. “Who are you? Who are you?” he moans like Frankenstein’s monster, mumbling that he has a “right” to know the identities of anyone who presumes to question his imperial authority.

Predictably, the menagerie of Democrats, liberals and leftist fellow travelers in the media defended, dismissed or insincerely and weakly condemned Etheridge’s behavior in that order, because Democrats are always presumed by other Democrats to be above the laws governing what a BP executive might term the “small people.”

The best example was The New York Times, whose staff immediately dove to cover a member of their ideological team. The Times resurrected a years-old incident and claimed, essentially, that “everybody does it.” Assaulting a member of the media is no big deal, to the libs. Why, just ask Martha Coakley, who blithely watched one of her “aides” repeatedly rough up a reporter – yet another citizen whose only crime was neglecting to lower his gaze and drop his camera in the august presence of a Democrat politician.

“So, who were the young men hassled by Bob Etheridge?” demanded David Weigel of The Washington Post. After tepidly proclaiming that Etheridge’s assault was “disgraceful,” Weigel speculates that, well, gosh, we just can’t know whether legal charges will be filed against Etheridge, because we can’t confirm that those dastardly interviewers were indeed “students” (quotations added by Weigel). “Politicians can expect journalists or political operatives, some armed with cameras, to occasionally lie in wait for them outside fundraisers,” Weigel admits. “But it’s something else to ask the people with the cameras who they are and get nonanswers about ‘students’ and ‘projects.'” One wonders if Weigel had similar comments to make when Michael Moore made a name for himself using precisely these types of “gotcha” tactics, often dissembling about his purpose in conducting his interviews.

Meanwhile, Alexandra Petri, at The Washington Post, went so far as to declare Etheridge’s clear act of criminal assault “old news” while joking about it. “Members of Congress have been assaulting people for over a hundred years,” she wrote, before unconvincingly and limply denouncing Etheridge’s completely unjustified physical violence as “immature behavior” we ought not encourage. After all, she points out, college students like the ones who dared, impudently and without subtlety, to question a Great and Mighty Democrat politician, can be, in Petri’s words, “annoying,” and thus she doesn’t “lack sympathy for Etheridge.”

I mean, come on – somebody possibly linked to those people who exposed ACORN’s criminal behavior dared to put a camera in the man’s face. Wouldn’t you respond immediately with fisticuffs? The stampede to defend Etheridge by impugning all of Congress from the inception of our government was reminiscent of the rush to defend Bill Clinton during his impeachment. After Clinton wagged his righteously indignant finger for the media while lying to hundreds of millions of people, liberal media hacks flooded their publications with puff pieces on the cultural benefits and pervasiveness of lying.

The thuggery of Democrats will only get worse. No less a political figure than Barack Hussein Obama has, after all, made invocations of physical violence his rhetorical stock-in-trade. Confronted with dissenters? Argue violently with them by getting “in their face,” the president urges. As lib shock troops wave billy clubs at polling places and get away with it, as union backbreakers intimidate, beat and mutilate any who dare to oppose Obama’s agenda, the Democrats continue to support “gun control” because disarming you makes it easier for them to beat and murder you when you disagree with them.

Critical to exposing the violent, reprehensible conduct of Bob Etheridge was the presence of a video camera. Were the video not now viral, it would be a lying Democrat’s word against those of his critics (who, after all, can’t be trusted, because we don’t know for a fact that they’re “students”) in the court of popular-culture opinion. The video evidence changes that and puts bullies like Etheridge, not to mention countless other Democrat thugs, on the defensive.

The only way to combat Democratic violence is through exposing it. Wireless-phone cameras and video sharing online have given citizens great power. The technology to transmit truth is under assault from those whom it reveals, however. Authorities increasingly are responding to video of abuses of power by criminalizing the recording of law-enforcement officers in public.

“In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse,” writes Wendy McElroy in Gizmodo, “… [i]n at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.” Many law-enforcement officers have video cameras in their patrol cars precisely because video evidence is the most powerful indicator of the truth or falsehood of a suspect’s claims. So what is the problem? “Cameras,” McElroy points out, “have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.”

Liberals are not known for their support of law enforcement. Quite the contrary is true – but if this legal precedent is allowed to take root, the oppressive libs will seize the opportunity to jail anyone who can expose their fascist tactics. We dare not allow Big Brother to have the monopoly on surveillance.

Over and over again, Democrats sneer at the rule of law while using it to rule you. They smear and marginalize all those who oppose them as “potentially” violent domestic terrorists, while their acts of aggression and oppression go unpunished. The liberals will not be satisfied until your ability to expose their perfidy has been made illegal. They will not stop unless they are voted out of power – or until their totalitarian control is complete.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.