Tom Mullen's Blog | Critics on the left have quite correctly pointed out that Tea Party activists who oppose President Obama’s “socialism” are hypocritical in that they do not oppose Social Security for themselves. The most common rebuttal to this criticism is usually something along the lines of Social Security being fundamentally different because the recipients pay into it. However, this argument is no different than arguing for a right to steal your younger neighbor’s car because an older neighbor has stolen yours. Allow me to explain.
AngryHateMusic | You are downstairs and hear a loud crash and mumbled yelling! What thoughts would go through your head? For Todd Blair he was allowed no more than a few seconds to become aware of his situation.
GeorgeDonnelly | Good men are in chains. Ridicule is heaped upon them. It’s easy to get discouraged. But this is the lot of truth-tellers. This is the inevitable result of living the truth. Giving up now would only compound the crime. Don’t submit to disappointment and despair. Don’t abandon these good men, Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller. The mindless brutes may cage our bodies but they will never cage our minds. Only we have the power to permit that.
GonzoTimes | People believe that authority comes from ‘the consent of the governed.’ This is not true in the case of a state. What I am using is something that I learned from discussing and studying sexual abuse and rape. Consent is not the absence of a no, but the presence of a clear and freely given yes. The system works off of the idea that consent is the absence of a no. When a no is present the state defies the definition of consent in the later part. It is not freely given but given under duress. It works off of the idea that the absence of a no is consent and when a no is given there can be no freely given yes because that yes is not freely given but given out of fear of some retaliation. This is the nature of not only tyranny, but any other nice word we have invented for a governing body that currently exists.
CopBlock | In May of 2010, 18-year-old Jeremy Marks was charged with interfering with an officer, making criminal threats to an officer, and “attempted lynching” (i.e., attempt to start a riot). He was a bystander taking a cell phone video of Officer Erin Robles, a particularly aggressive officer, who bashed a 15-year-old boy’s head into a window because he was smoking a cigarette. Several other bystanders also recorded the encounter with their phones. The videos, including the one taken by Mr. Marks himself, do not indicate Mr. Marks even approached Officer Robles, much less made criminal threats, attempted riot, or otherwise interfered (see our original post here).
