MIKE VINSON: Good ‘walkin’ ‘round’ sense on The Murfreesboro Post

Sidebar Ads

MIKE VINSON: Good ‘walkin’ ‘round’ sense

Related Articles

BURRISS: Press should be free to work without intrusion

HUNTER: Pro wrestling heads to Nashville

GUEST EDITORIAL: Teachers deserve praise

PICKIN' ON FILM: Love of movies born at father's knee

VINSON: Doesn’t take astronaut to plan space party

MRS. MURFREESBORO: Spring finally blooms

LIVING WELL: B3 can help cholesterol

JORDAN: Sports make Murfreesboro a destination

WHITTLE: 'Pay it forward' acts melt pain away

LOGUE: America has a rape problem

View All

By: MIKE VINSON, Post Columnist

Posted: Sunday, July 25, 2010 4:16 am

On a daily basis, we encounter headline stories that are troublesome: a weak economy growing weaker with each passing second, earthquakes and other geo-eco disasters of such magnitude that talk about the “end of time” rules early morning conversations at local restaurants, and the list continues.

However, I would like to share with you something that frightens me even more than any of the above, horrific though they are. Consider the following more of a “heads-up” infomercial than anything else.

Several weeks back, I was working on the internet and stumbled across this headline: “Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’” (WorldNetDaily/WND).

The article, in part, read: “In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban ‘conspiracy theorizing.’”

Concerning what the government can do to impede conspiracy theories, Sunstein further stated, “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

Still, Sunstein said, “[Government agents] might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories. … “

However, it was this extract from that article that really caught my eye: “Some ‘conspiracy theories’ recommended for ban by Sunstein include [among others]: That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.”

As previously written I, for the past 12 years, have been involved researching and writing about the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and the guilt/innocence of James Earl Ray, King’s alleged assassin. I am convinced Ray was not the shooter.

That said, I never have come out and stated that federal agents killed MLK.

However, I never have been shortsighted enough to exclude, with certainty, any particular individual or group from involvement in the MLK murder.

Facts: Former FBI Director Edgar Hoover referred to MLK as a “communist” … “and a threat to national security.”

Robert Hanssen, a career FBI agent, was sentenced to life in prison for espionage against the United States.

Former CIA agent Aldrich Ames received a life sentence for selling classified documents to the Soviets.

What I’m saying, here, is that federal agents are human beings and, like all humans, are not immune to error.

While some are too quick to scream conspiracy minus any solid evidence, there are those who denounce the possibility of conspiracy when the evidence is so obvious that it slaps them in the face.

Is not one just as ludicrous as the other?

For the final kicker, the article stated “Sunstein allowed that ‘some conspiracy theories,’ under our definition, have turned out to be true.”

Now, I ask you: Does it make even good “walkin’ ‘round” sense — as the old folks use to say — to advocate the banishment of conspiracy theorizing in one breath, and in the next breath admit that conspiracies have happened, thus, logically exist?

Deep down, do you really buy off on this ideology?

Some might say that if you have good “walkin’ ‘round” sense, you don’t buy off on it even one-cent worth.

So someone in Washington D.C. thinks he can regulate the human thought process, huh?

Folks, that’s downright scary.

Heads-up!

(NOTE: Aaron Klein wrote the following for the WorldNetDaily:

“The U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country’s ‘white majority’ opposes welfare since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“‘The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics),’ Sunstein wrote.

“The Obama czar’s controversial comments were made in his 2004 book ‘The Second Bill of Rights.’”)

Mike Vinson can be contacted at mike_vinson56@yahoo.com.

Tagged under Meat 'n Potatoes, Mike Vinson, Voices

Member Opinions:

By: AReader on 7/26/10
A scary but highly informative read. Like he said, it is a 'heads-up' for anyone with enough sense to care about what's going on in our country. Strong article!

By: Gman1 on 7/27/10
Its good to see someone take a stand against the craziness that comes out of our politicians. But that is where were at today, people in Washington thinking they can tell you how to think and what to talk about. What the writer said here does make good "sense."