Archive for the ‘Rule of Law’ Category
MONDAY, JUN 25, 2012 04:01 AM PDT
Condemning foreign governments for abusive acts while ignoring one’s own is easy. But the U.S. leads the way.
Why this is important. Here is Greenwald’s Update excerpt:
A related point was made by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967, when he delivered an extraordinary speech designed to address complaints that his anti-war activism was distracting from his civil rights work, and he explained why the latter was impossible without the former (h/t Duncan Mitchel)
As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action.
But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.
Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
Last January, I wrote about King’s speech and how it relates to current political activism.
This is what the scum of the Earth do to try to tell other people that they really are the worthless garbage. Every person on this Earth that believes they are decent, God-fearing, freedom-loving people have a vested interest in what’s done to their fellow men and women.
While the world’s media focus is on Libya and the downfall of Gaddafi, let us not forget that editorial cartoonists elsewhere are struggling for freedom. Well-known Syrian cartoonist Ali Farzat was brutally attacked by masked men, who broke his hands (to stop him drawing) and left him on the road outside Damascus. A stark reminder of the dangers cartoonists can face, but also of how they are feared by oppressors.
All the Christian and Non-Christian do-gooders that are all the time preaching love and forgiveness in their hearts are hardly any consolation to this man, and the lucky ones that were NOT murdered. President Barack Obama and his enablers’ gutless, feckless blather and non-action are no consolation either.
As someone that occasionally feels the wrath for speaking out about the obvious, here’s Mike’s offering:
That’s the link that goes to Ernie Branscomb’s blog post titled: “Vent your Spleen” – This post is a classic example of what Ryan McMaken writes about in his article: “Lessons From the Casey Anthony Trial.” – Here’s the opening paragraph:
Perhaps not since the feds hanged Mary Surratt for Abe Lincoln’s assassination have so many been so happy at the thought of seeing a woman lynched. To the outrage of bloodthirsty, bleary-eyed couch potatoes from sea to shining sea, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the murder of her daughter.
Now compare this to what Branscomb says:
What got me started on all of this, is that I got to thinking about Casey Anthony. She has absolutely no principles whatsoever. While she was in jail awaiting trial it came out that she had used a friends credit card and ran up a bunch of bills on it that she had no way of paying. She stole her friend’s checks and used them to buy beer and clothes. She pleads guilty to 13 felony fraud, bad check, and credit card theft counts. On top of being a thief and a fraud, she is a liar and a slut. Only a fool would think that she doesn’t have at least a small idea of what happened to her daughter.
Followed by this:
**** Sadly, there are men out there that would like to take advantage of her drop dead gorgeous body. Maybe she could become a prostitute, it wouldn’t be much of a life style change for her, she apparently would go to bed with any man that was “Hot”. I guess the true test is what would the average man think of her?
This is probably the most disgusting display of effeminate, gossip-mongering and character assassination I’ve read in a local blog for some time. What makes it REALLY sewer-scum caliber is that these people (see comments) are some of the first people to preach law and order the old-fashioned way. We sure know what kind of law and order that is. But, then…
I’ll let Mr McMaken speak for me, he continues:
The case itself is far less interesting than the reaction to it. In spite of all the drama that the despicable “news” media attempted to inject into it, the actual trial was humdrum. In typical fashion, the prosecution built its case on mostly circumstantial evidence and on character assassination. The jury concluded that the prosecution had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A not-guilty verdict was returned. Case closed.
This is exactly how the legal system is supposed to work. People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. We’re not supposed to convict people of capital crimes because we find them distasteful or annoying.
None of that matters to the great American lynch mob, which, not even being present at the trial, finds itself so magnificently insightful and so morally pure, that its shrill cries for justice echo with unparalleled histrionic fervor down the virtual halls of Facebook and Twitter. [Emphasis added]
I could continue, but after reading Branscomb’s so-called venting, I felt like I needed to take a bath. I guess what really gets to me is the unabashed, in-your-face corruption and hypocrisy. Unprincipled, morally and ethically depraved versus sanctimonious, self-righteous, elitism. Because it goes to the very heart of, “preach rule of and law, but enforce rule of men” here’s a small example. He says, “’Karma’ which I absolutely don’t believe in, because I can’t hit it with a hammer, so it doesn’t work for me.” Then proceeds with all the authority and self-righteousness God gave a goose to tell everyone all about “Karma.” Perhaps Branscomb should have taken to heart the words of someone considered an authority on Karma: “Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you will be judged; and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.”
The standard exemplified here that sets the norm is also defined in this quote – a fitting conclusion:
“We are an attention-deficit nation, and we have dumbed ourselves down so much that people don’t understand the simplest of things.”
I just couldn’t pass this one up.
It’s been my opinion for some years now, that at some point the world population will get over their governments love affair with America and will stop tolerating the American assault on sovereign rights and begin to enforce the American-style (Osama bin Laden) Justice on individual Americans. Probably why I think the cartoon is so appropriate. The question is, was this the match that lights that fire?
It’s not just the media that wants to see this. It a whole lot of American too.
Glenn Greenwald puts forth a rather more practical perspective despite the wanton orgy. For the complete article and update on Salon.com click the title-link.
He starts by saying:
The killing of Osama bin Laden is one of those events which, especially in the immediate aftermath, is not susceptible to reasoned discussion. It’s already a Litmus Test event: all Decent People — by definition — express unadulterated ecstacy at his death, and all Good Americans chant “USA! USA!” in a celebration of this proof of our national greatness and Goodness (and that of our President). Nothing that deviates from that emotional script will be heard, other than by those on the lookout for heretics to hold up and punish. Prematurely interrupting a national emotional consensus with unwanted rational truths accomplishes nothing but harming the heretic (ask Bill Maher about how that works).
And concludes by saying:
In sum, a murderous religious extremist was killed. The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force. Other than that, the repercussions are likely to be far greater in terms of domestic politics — it’s going to be a huge boost to Obama’s re-election prospects and will be exploited for that end — than anything else.
Do ‘Birthers’ Have a Legal CONSTITUTIONAL Issue?
Does the U.S. Constitution require BOTH parents to be “natural-born American citizens” for their offspring to become legally eligible or qualified, meet the test of Constitutional law, to legally become President of the United States?
The issue emphasized here in this question, is NOT whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. Rather if BOTH of his parents were also born in the United States, thus becoming natural born citizens. – Certainly NOT naturalized citizens.
To become a “natural born citizen” one must have TWO natural-born citizen parents, NOT just ONE as is the case of Barack Obama.
There’s an interesting analysis of this issue raised on this blog, “Obama has declared war on the Constitution.”
Wikipedia also has a considerable discussion on this issue of natural born citizenship: “Natural Born Citizen Clause“. The definition discussed and argued ALWAYS stipulate to the TWO parent requirement – in other words “natural born PARENTS” for a “natural born child” for a “natural born citizen.” All three born in America or on American soil.
Does Barack Obama meet the legal test? He certainly is a “citizen born on U.S. soil, but I’m not so sure that he is a “natural born citizen.” His father certainly was NOT a natural born citizen. A copy of his recent released Birth Certificate is here – click “rest of the entry”.