"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-C. S. Lewis
I see. Let me take this to it's hyperbolic limit. Where are the stories of people who have given up swimming now that they see the corruption and abuse that went on for years while USA Swimming sat idly by...nay...knew about the problem and did nothing?
Where are the calls for criminal investigations? For Federal racketeering investigations? Threats of arrest to the head of USA Swimming? How has this violated trust not shaken America's faith love of aquatic activities? Where are the letters to the editor conflating the love of swimming with the tacit, if not active, endorsement of such abuse?
Will all due respect to the Cardinal. We already know you don't like turning criminals over to the police. We've seen it for decades. You obfuscated, prevaricated and worse when you had monsters working for you and along side you. You knew it and didn't turn them in to the police why would we think for a moment you'd bother with something to trivial as border hopping?
Please spare me. One more year until he retires. I pray the Pope appoints somebody like Saltarelli. California needs him.
I can't decide whether that would be good or bad. Based on nothing other than wild speculation, it seems that Obama's intransigence stems from Rahm. Removing his proverbial Wormtongue would perhaps make Obama more open to compromise thus making him less radical and lessen the damage he's doing. On the flip side, it would blunt the Tea Partiers a bit and if it douses their fire then we go back to business as usual. Which is worse? I'm not sure.
This story is a prime reason why you should be wary of government power. Let's assume for a moment the article is true in it's entirety. (I have no idea if it is or isn't but for arguments sake, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Think for a moment what this means. It means they destroyed this man not just by legal means but by extra-legal means (disclaimer: IANAL, just how it looks to me). They teamed up with the press to find a boogeyman and he was it. Full stop. The pressure to close the case was too great and he was the only thing they had. How many people lost their jobs or were reprimanded after this fiasco? Zero.
Liberals (in general) are wary of very powerful law enforcement. With good reason. This case is a prime example many on the Right could learn from. I would also caution that those on the left should be equally wary of other instruments of government becoming too powerful lest they steamroll another innocent person by bureaucratic ine…
The caller stated: "Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this [expletive deleted] does not live to see her next term. Good-bye."
I'm absolutely positive that our local Progressives will jump right on this to condemn this guy. I'm sure they'll also wildly conflate him with Hillary (he gave $250 to her campaign in 2008) and Democrats in general.
Ha ha. No. I'm sure they'll dismiss him as a loon, a lone hanger-on and in no way representative of Democrats/Progressives or other people who like free stuff and big government.