This cartoon by Stilton Jarlsburg from the Travon Martin verdict last year is at once both sad and amusing. The amusing part is the exposure of the meaninglessness of President Obama’s “circle of compassion” speech (and Jarlsburg goes after the “trapezoid of meaningless rhetoric” and “the dodecahedron of decency.” But the sad part, of course, is the fact that this cartoon points to a deep underlying truth: President Obama got involved for all the wrong reasons. Rather than heal, he chose to inflame and divide.
(Reposted, as it disappeared from the site.)
We are relaxing to the idea of every communication between us being monitored by a government that considers the other political party to be “enemies.” (Isn’t it odd that President Obama will talk about compromises with Iranian jihadists, but not with Republicans?)
As has been revealed recently, NSA has off-shore sites making their gathering of email lists from Americans technically legal. So, despite recent court activity and supposed “executive actions,” this would not be affected:
The communists at SocialistWorker.org are heartbroken, as right-to-work laws are allowing workers to make a choice about whether or not to join the union.
And most horribly of all (in their minds it is “a nightmare”), people are investing and opening businesses and creating jobs as a result:
In Citizen Tom’s blog, he wrote a post entitled “Three Things You Probably Don’t Know about Islam.” In the discussion that followed, Citizen Tom wrote:
What makes the Bible different is that it promotes freedom of religion. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what Caesar’s and God what is God’s. The Bible says that what we each believe about God is a personal responsibility. Those on a quest for power hate that, of course. That’s why Christianity is so unpopular with power-hungry politicians.
The National Lawyers Guild
Just a few days ago, I mentioned the National Lawyers Guild (using its abbreviation NLG) to a person who portrayed himself as a lawyer involved with Constitutional issues. The NLG is a group of largely communist, America-hating lawyers and activists founded (along with the ACLU) by liberals and communists including Soviet KGB front people in the 1930s , and have spent the intervening time using the US Constitution to attack America any way they can.
What’s the difference between 110,000,000 people and 5,000 people?
In one way of looking at it, one of these numbers is 22,000 times as large as the other. But the real difference in these two groups of Americans that have had their phone records obtained by the US Government without prior court approval, is probable cause. From the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment:
In Citizen Tom’s blog, he’s been interacting with a person using the monikers “scout” and “novascout”; I pitched in a bit:
Scout wrote:<blockquote>The problem with defunding Obamacare is that the Republicans had nothing to replace it with.</blockquote>You say the most astounding things. Earlier, you asserted that the Speaker of the House “is not particularly in charge” and implied that this position was merely “a position of respect.” This is a rather badly misfired notion; even leftist Wikipedia (and thus likely to be palatable to you) demonstrates <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives”>the very substantial control and authority held by the Speaker</a> (not to mention being next in line for the President in the event of loss/disability of Obama and Biden).
(hat tip to Steven Goddard)
Truth is truth, regardless of the source. Falsehoods remain lies, even if told by someone you trust. I am in the odd position here of seeing an article that contains very likely true information, but the source is a known serial liar.
[UPDATE Dec 10, 2013: I reported below that in the bill passed by the US Congress "Mandela is not mentioned specifically." He is, in the final language, which is posted by Marmoe. I regret the mistake. Marmoe's comment also provides details of the "roundabout process that would lead to prisoner release" I mentioned. Also, I imply that Mandela, in his "evolution," distanced himself from ANC's violence early on. But even upon release from prison, he was still threatening that ANC's "armed rebellion" would continue until demands were met.]
Nelson Mandela did an excellent job as president of South Africa. He honored the notion of a limited constitutional republic, avoided wealth redistribution policies, kept the national budget close to balanced running a relatively small deficit despite extraordinary circumstances, and emphasized people coming together rather than pitting groups against each other. Mandela maintained a reasonable foreign policy and careful alliances with other countries.
In December of 2011, a fellow named Jules Manson made comments on his Facebook page against president Obama and his family. Those comments were quite vulgar and arguably “incitement to violence” — and thus the news media decided he must be a Tea Party member. He had run for a minor political office in southern California, and since he was a Mexican immigrant, activist for atheist causes, and had written for the DemocratExaminer, his Tea Party credentials were impeccable.
The three outfits he wrote for (including a fiercely libertarian site) seem to have disassociated themselves with him before that incident, so apparently something was going on in his life … before it got much worse.
Jules Manson became notorious instantly — and his immediate apology did not stave off a visit from the Secret Service. I wrote about this at the time, looking into his supposed “Tea Party” links, here — with a follow up here. As usual, the media got this story completely wrong, but it fit their narrative so out it went. I was informed later that my own research contributed to some of them issuing retractions, or toning down the “Tea Party is racist!” rhetoric. Mr. Manson himself contacted me, but did not follow up when I responded. He had a lot going on at that point, I’m sure.
All of that was in 2011. In the last few days, a surprising number of people have been coming to my site looking at the Jules Manson reporting. Puzzled, I looked around: This is being run as a brand new, October 2013 story, by a variety of outlets — complete with the “Tea Party is racist” headlines. And I’ve discovered that several people posted links to my site at these outlets — whereupon those links (which generated the visits that caught my attention) were killed.
When you have a story to tell, the truth is inconvenient indeed. Here are some headlines obtained by a search for “Jules Manson” limiting the search to the past week. Note the emphasis on Tea Party, including “Tea Party darling” — but few indeed give any hint that this story is from two years ago. In some cases, the dates have been blanked out. The story is being treated as breaking news: