Rodney King, who beacame famous in 1992 after being arrested and beaten by Los Angeles police officers, was found dead at his home after apparently drowning. He was 47 years old. King published a book this year: “The Riot Within: My Journey From Rebellion to Redemption.”

King’s early death is a tragic story. Politicians love to insert themselves into the lives of other people – often without justification. Will the story of Rodney King in 2012 end with the telling of his life or with the comments about to be made about people who never knew him?

Comments

  • Anonymous

    About the immigration debate and Obama not enforcing the law.

    Romney, and conservatives, have a problem if they argue that Obama has not the constitutional right to simply not enforce a law he disagrees with, as it is his job to enforce law, not make it. Romney is making the same pronouncement about Obamacare. He has said he will not enforce the dictates of Obamacare from day one. Really? As much as I agree that Obamacare is bad it will need to be reversed through legislative action, as immigration needs to be as well.  But, Romney can hardly criticize Obama for acting against his constitutional authority if, Romney himself, is promising to do the same from day one if elected in regards to Obamacare. I have heard no liberals make that connection. Lets hope they do not.

    The President is elected to enforce the laws. If we do not like the way the President is enforcing the laws we have elections to remove them from power to continue to do so.

    • Anonymous

      Romney said he would sign an Executive Order repealing ObamaCare on day one during the debates.  That is certainly within his rights as President under the Constitution.

      The one difference is this:  

      ObamaCare was shoved down our throats no matter how much the citizens told him we didn’t want it.  So when/if Romney repeals it the majority of America will be very happy. (That is if SCOTUS doesn’t strike it down first)

      Obama, and his Administration, refuses to uphold immigration laws and sues the state of Arizona when it tries to take up the slack.  Obama’s lack of respect for what the majority of Americans want (uphold the laws on the books) is nothing but a slap in the face.

      • Anonymous

        What part of the word legal don’t you understand?

        Congress, elected by the citizenry, passed Obamacare (against my best wishes). You can add another cliche that is was “shoved down our throats”, but, the bottom line is that it was passed and signed into law through the constitutional legislative process. Are you suggesting that any President can subvert the legislative body and pass executive orders on any and everything? Why do we have a congress? According to you we elect dictators who can subvert law through executive orders? Really? 

        I have read the Constitution and nowhere do the words “executive order” appear. It is quite ironic that a Paul supporter would now be arguing that executive orders are “within his rights as President under the Constitution.” Somehow I suspect that “Dr. Paul” would disagree.

        Hand……scratch head.

        • Anonymous

          One is trying to changes the law to benefit the people, the other to their detriment. 

          • Anonymous

            That is an overwhelmingly weak response, Troy. Nice try.

            • Anonymous

              Everyone that wanted ObamaCare raise your hand.

              Everyone that wants it repealed outright, raise you hand.
              Thought so.

  • Anonymous

    About the immigration debate and Obama not enforcing the law.

    Romney, and conservatives, have a problem if they argue that Obama has not the constitutional right to simply not enforce a law he disagrees with, as it is his job to enforce law, not make it. Romney is making the same pronouncement about Obamacare. He has said he will not enforce the dictates of Obamacare from day one. Really? As much as I agree that Obamacare is bad it will need to be reversed through legislative action, as immigration needs to be as well.  But, Romney can hardly criticize Obama for acting against his constitutional authority if, Romney himself, is promising to do the same from day one if elected in regards to Obamacare. I have heard no liberals make that connection. Lets hope they do not.

    The President is elected to enforce the laws. If we do not like the way the President is enforcing the laws we have elections to remove them from power to continue to do so.

    • Anonymous

      Romney said he would sign an Executive Order repealing ObamaCare on day one during the debates.  That is certainly within his rights as President under the Constitution.

      The one difference is this:  

      ObamaCare was shoved down our throats no matter how much the citizens told him we didn’t want it.  So when/if Romney repeals it the majority of America will be very happy. (That is if SCOTUS doesn’t strike it down first)

      Obama, and his Administration, refuses to uphold immigration laws and sues the state of Arizona when it tries to take up the slack.  Obama’s lack of respect for what the majority of Americans want (uphold the laws on the books) is nothing but a slap in the face.

      • Anonymous

        What part of the word legal don’t you understand?

        Congress, elected by the citizenry, passed Obamacare (against my best wishes). You can add another cliche that is was “shoved down our throats”, but, the bottom line is that it was passed and signed into law through the constitutional legislative process. Are you suggesting that any President can subvert the legislative body and pass executive orders on any and everything? Why do we have a congress? According to you we elect dictators who can subvert law through executive orders? Really? 

        I have read the Constitution and nowhere do the words “executive order” appear. It is quite ironic that a Paul supporter would now be arguing that executive orders are “within his rights as President under the Constitution.” Somehow I suspect that “Dr. Paul” would disagree.

        Hand……scratch head.

        • Anonymous

          One is trying to changes the law to benefit the people, the other to their detriment. 

          • Anonymous

            That is an overwhelmingly weak response, Troy. Nice try.

            • Anonymous

              Everyone that wanted ObamaCare raise your hand.

              Everyone that wants it repealed outright, raise you hand.
              Thought so.

  • Anonymous

    Why no discussion on what Allen West had to say about Romney punting when asked about Obama giving back door amnesty to illegals?

    “I guess I feel a little bit dejected because I think that it goes back to what my mother taught me, ‘a man must stand for something, or else he’ll fall for anything,’ ” West said on the Laura Ingraham radio show.

    • Anonymous

      Allen West does not understand that as a presidential candidate one has to be cautious and reserved in what they say and how they say it. West does not understand the trap that was, and is, being set for Romney in regards to this issue. That is exactly why it is completely laughable when people ever suggest that a bomb thrower like West, who can get away with throwing bombs from his congressional district, should be a choice for veep. Such a suggestion is simply unserious and demonstrates a complete lack of political understanding of what it takes to run an effective campaign that can actually win an election. 

      Again I take note of the politics by cliches such as “a man must stand for something, or else he’ll fall for anything”. Deep. Is that supposed to be a profound statement? Am I supposed to get a thrill up my leg from such deep political analysis? That is great for a half time locker room raw raw raw speech but it is not great to operate from in terms of a serious and substantive discussion.

      I suggest everyone read Jonah Goldgerg’s Tyranny of Cliches. It talks about how the left has used such “homespun aphorisms” as a substitute for a real political discussion on legit issues. I am starting to see the same trend by far too many on the right with “not a dimes worth of difference between the two Republicans and Democrats” and “Lesser of two evils” etc. etc.

      http://www.amazon.com/The-Tyranny-Cliches-Liberals-Cheat/dp/1595230866/ref=la_B001JRV28W_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340069929&sr=1-1

      I like West. I think what West brings is good for the party and good for West. Unfortunately, politicians like West, Paul, Palin, Bachmann, are best served from their political safe zones where their rhetoric will not take down a candidate or the party on a national stage. Most of the time such rhetorical devices are used by lefties who lack any real political understanding of the complexities of real issues. Unfortunately, there are more and more on the right of the political spectrum who now defend their positions with the same vagueness that is too often displayed by the left, using cliches as a substitute for deep a legit discussion on actual policy and it economic, social, and political impact.

      • Gururussell

        I propose the following additions to the dictionary of political cliches:

        1.  Laughable
        2.  Bombthrower
        3.  Politics of cliches

        • Anonymous

          Once again you find yourself on par with Troy.

          “‘Tis better to be alone, than in bad company.” -George Washington

          Cliches are fun!

          • Gururussell

            Three thoughts occur to me;

            1.  That is a quote, not a cliche. 
            2.  Washington was paraphrasing a Proverb from the Bible.
            2.  Paul Rodgers would strongly disagree with GW.

      • Anonymous

        This may be a “trap” as you call it, but I see Romney being weak on a very important issue.  Yes, the economy is the #1,  but I consider illegals to be a top five issue.

        In your eyes does this mean we should ignore everything the Obama Administration does and concentrate solely upon the failed economy?

        That’s just giving him a golden ticket to push other parts of his liberal agenda with impunity.

        • Anonymous

          It also makes it harder to vote for Romney considering he won’t take a stand on a major issue like Allen West.  You call it bomb throwing, I call it upholding the principals of the Republican Party.

          • Anonymous

            The stand you take is that students who were brought here at a young age at no fault of their own, who have been successful in our schools that we paid to educate them in, have not been in trouble with the law, but now, they  should be deported to a country they most likely do not even remember is your idea of taking a stand, that is political stupidity. The GOP cannot afford to lose another entire constituency to he Dems.

            Here is what the RINO Charles K. had to say on Romney’s “punt” on tho issue.
            http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/krauthammer-romney-right-to-punt-on-presidents-immigration-policy/

            • Anonymous

              I shall reply to you the same way I reply to Democrats:

              What part of illegal don’t you understand?

              • Anonymous

                Seriously? That is your best response?

                Obamacare is “legal” but I do not like it. Abortion is “legal” but I do not like it. Gay marriage in some states is “legal” but I do not like it….on and on and on. I could make the same silly argument “What part of legal don’t you understand?” about any number of laws, that does not mean because something is “legal” or “illegal” it is correct. The war in Iraq was “legal” but somehow I bet you disagree with it.The question is what should the law be and how should the law be enforced. If the GOP thinks that threatening the deportation of a 28 year old tax paying “illegal” immigrant who was educated in the USA since the age of 4 and has been a productive member of American society and has a family and has no memory of their once home in El Salvador is a sound political platform to get elected on they will continue to lose elections to liberal democrats as the GOP constituency continues to shrink.

                It is easy to make such hardline policy positions from your couch, Troy. But, for elected leaders, their actions have a real impact on real people’s lives. Their positions on real issues are not cushioned by insignificance as the positions that you and I take are, as our opinions impact nobody.

                What part of common sense don’t you understand?

              • Anonymous

                If politicians, and Republicans in particular, had a pair we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.  The law of the land is what I am talking about.  You made my point for me.

                Iraq – I believed in the action but know we should have had a declaration of war with clear goals.  My only other beef is we stayed too long, just like in Afghanistan. 

                If that kid came in at age 4 that makes him illegal, period.  I believe anchor babies should be stopped as well.

                I do agree with you, common sense.  Send the illegals home and make them follow the law if they want to come back.  Would you rather an illegal have a job or a citizen?  Apparently, you think like a Liberal and would rather give the job to an illegal.

                If following the law is being a hardliner, then  so be it.

              • Anonymous

                Other than the guy who cuts my grass every two weeks for $40 I have never given a job to anyone. I did not ask him to provide me with his birth certificate or proof of citizenship status.

                I prefer employers to make decisions about who they want to pay and at what cost, not the federal government dictating such. As a “libertarian” you should agree. 

                The federal government has failed and turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for decades. Now, because it has become a political issue now some want the government to mass deport tens of millions of people? LOL. 

                You say “anchor babies” should be stopped. Hmmmm. Since you are such a stickler for following the law as it is written, and, the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all natural born citizens, I am forced to ask you a very simple question……. 

                What part of the word legal don’t you understand?

              • Anonymous

                It hasn’t been proven that it applies to babies born from illegals. 

              • Anonymous

                What part of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” do you not understand?

                C’mon, Troy. You can do better than that.

              • Anonymous

                Granted but the big debate is that this is just an incentive for illegals to have babies in this country.  
                http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129279863   I believe the law should be changed to remove that status and only those born to at least one American parent would have citizenship.

              • Anonymous

                A Constitutional Amendment. Good Luck.

  • Anonymous

    Why no discussion on what Allen West had to say about Romney punting when asked about Obama giving back door amnesty to illegals?

    “I guess I feel a little bit dejected because I think that it goes back to what my mother taught me, ‘a man must stand for something, or else he’ll fall for anything,’ ” West said on the Laura Ingraham radio show.

    • Anonymous

      Allen West does not understand that as a presidential candidate one has to be cautious and reserved in what they say and how they say it. West does not understand the trap that was, and is, being set for Romney in regards to this issue. That is exactly why it is completely laughable when people ever suggest that a bomb thrower like West, who can get away with throwing bombs from his congressional district, should be a choice for veep. Such a suggestion is simply unserious and demonstrates a complete lack of political understanding of what it takes to run an effective campaign that can actually win an election. 

      Again I take note of the politics by cliches such as “a man must stand for something, or else he’ll fall for anything”. Deep. Is that supposed to be a profound statement? Am I supposed to get a thrill up my leg from such deep political analysis? That is great for a half time locker room raw raw raw speech but it is not great to operate from in terms of a serious and substantive discussion.

      I suggest everyone read Jonah Goldgerg’s Tyranny of Cliches. It talks about how the left has used such “homespun aphorisms” as a substitute for a real political discussion on legit issues. I am starting to see the same trend by far too many on the right with “not a dimes worth of difference between the two Republicans and Democrats” and “Lesser of two evils” etc. etc.

      http://www.amazon.com/The-Tyranny-Cliches-Liberals-Cheat/dp/1595230866/ref=la_B001JRV28W_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340069929&sr=1-1

      I like West. I think what West brings is good for the party and good for West. Unfortunately, politicians like West, Paul, Palin, Bachmann, are best served from their political safe zones where their rhetoric will not take down a candidate or the party on a national stage. Most of the time such rhetorical devices are used by lefties who lack any real political understanding of the complexities of real issues. Unfortunately, there are more and more on the right of the political spectrum who now defend their positions with the same vagueness that is too often displayed by the left, using cliches as a substitute for deep a legit discussion on actual policy and it economic, social, and political impact.

      • Gururussell

        I propose the following additions to the dictionary of political cliches:

        1.  Laughable
        2.  Bombthrower
        3.  Politics of cliches

        • Anonymous

          Once again you find yourself on par with Troy.

          “‘Tis better to be alone, than in bad company.” -George Washington

          Cliches are fun!

          • Gururussell

            Three thoughts occur to me;

            1.  That is a quote, not a cliche. 
            2.  Washington was paraphrasing a Proverb from the Bible.
            2.  Paul Rodgers would strongly disagree with GW.

      • Anonymous

        This may be a “trap” as you call it, but I see Romney being weak on a very important issue.  Yes, the economy is the #1,  but I consider illegals to be a top five issue.

        In your eyes does this mean we should ignore everything the Obama Administration does and concentrate solely upon the failed economy?

        That’s just giving him a golden ticket to push other parts of his liberal agenda with impunity.

        • Anonymous

          It also makes it harder to vote for Romney considering he won’t take a stand on a major issue like Allen West.  You call it bomb throwing, I call it upholding the principals of the Republican Party.

          • Anonymous

            The stand you take is that students who were brought here at a young age at no fault of their own, who have been successful in our schools that we paid to educate them in, have not been in trouble with the law, but now, they  should be deported to a country they most likely do not even remember is your idea of taking a stand, that is political stupidity. The GOP cannot afford to lose another entire constituency to he Dems.

            Here is what the RINO Charles K. had to say on Romney’s “punt” on tho issue.
            http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/krauthammer-romney-right-to-punt-on-presidents-immigration-policy/

            • Anonymous

              I shall reply to you the same way I reply to Democrats:

              What part of illegal don’t you understand?

              • Anonymous

                Seriously? That is your best response?

                Obamacare is “legal” but I do not like it. Abortion is “legal” but I do not like it. Gay marriage in some states is “legal” but I do not like it….on and on and on. I could make the same silly argument “What part of legal don’t you understand?” about any number of laws, that does not mean because something is “legal” or “illegal” it is correct. The war in Iraq was “legal” but somehow I bet you disagree with it.The question is what should the law be and how should the law be enforced. If the GOP thinks that threatening the deportation of a 28 year old tax paying “illegal” immigrant who was educated in the USA since the age of 4 and has been a productive member of American society and has a family and has no memory of their once home in El Salvador is a sound political platform to get elected on they will continue to lose elections to liberal democrats as the GOP constituency continues to shrink.

                It is easy to make such hardline policy positions from your couch, Troy. But, for elected leaders, their actions have a real impact on real people’s lives. Their positions on real issues are not cushioned by insignificance as the positions that you and I take are, as our opinions impact nobody.

                What part of common sense don’t you understand?

              • Anonymous

                If politicians, and Republicans in particular, had a pair we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.  The law of the land is what I am talking about.  You made my point for me.

                Iraq – I believed in the action but know we should have had a declaration of war with clear goals.  My only other beef is we stayed too long, just like in Afghanistan. 

                If that kid came in at age 4 that makes him illegal, period.  I believe anchor babies should be stopped as well.

                I do agree with you, common sense.  Send the illegals home and make them follow the law if they want to come back.  Would you rather an illegal have a job or a citizen?  Apparently, you think like a Liberal and would rather give the job to an illegal.

                If following the law is being a hardliner, then  so be it.

              • Anonymous

                Other than the guy who cuts my grass every two weeks for $40 I have never given a job to anyone. I did not ask him to provide me with his birth certificate or proof of citizenship status.

                I prefer employers to make decisions about who they want to pay and at what cost, not the federal government dictating such. As a “libertarian” you should agree. 

                The federal government has failed and turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for decades. Now, because it has become a political issue now some want the government to mass deport tens of millions of people? LOL. 

                You say “anchor babies” should be stopped. Hmmmm. Since you are such a stickler for following the law as it is written, and, the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all natural born citizens, I am forced to ask you a very simple question……. 

                What part of the word legal don’t you understand?

              • Anonymous

                It hasn’t been proven that it applies to babies born from illegals. 

              • Anonymous

                What part of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” do you not understand?

                C’mon, Troy. You can do better than that.

              • Anonymous

                Granted but the big debate is that this is just an incentive for illegals to have babies in this country.  
                http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129279863   I believe the law should be changed to remove that status and only those born to at least one American parent would have citizenship.

              • Anonymous

                A Constitutional Amendment. Good Luck.

  • Anonymous

    Rodney King was thrust into the media spotlight and cultural icon status. He had problems before the 1992 beat down and he problems after. Unfortunately for King it seems the worst beat downs of his life were self inflicted and his premature death may also be such. This should be not be a time to gloat and dance on his grave. The beatings by the police that made King famous and the riots that followed their acquittal are both national tragedies. King’s death is a personal tragedy.

  • Anonymous

    Rodney King was thrust into the media spotlight and cultural icon status. He had problems before the 1992 beat down and he problems after. Unfortunately for King it seems the worst beat downs of his life were self inflicted and his premature death may also be such. This should be not be a time to gloat and dance on his grave. The beatings by the police that made King famous and the riots that followed their acquittal are both national tragedies. King’s death is a personal tragedy.

  • Whodat

    Like Ernesto Miranda, who gave us “Miranda Rights”, Rodney King was human debris who got his 15 minutes via the police who over-cooked thier enthusiasm for protecting us from him.  Miranda was later murdered, maybe shot in a bar if I remember correctly.  King drowned in a pool – maybe drunk or high.  Both had continuing troubles with the law after their infamous moments, both were losers.  Both died young.  I would not buy the book of or on either as there is nothing to learn from either life.  May both rest in peace, but let’s mush on…

  • Whodat

    Like Ernesto Miranda, who gave us “Miranda Rights”, Rodney King was human debris who got his 15 minutes via the police who over-cooked thier enthusiasm for protecting us from him.  Miranda was later murdered, maybe shot in a bar if I remember correctly.  King drowned in a pool – maybe drunk or high.  Both had continuing troubles with the law after their infamous moments, both were losers.  Both died young.  I would not buy the book of or on either as there is nothing to learn from either life.  May both rest in peace, but let’s mush on…