BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 194696 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#163728 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. In a certain manner, yes. But, as I pointed out to Rogue, does the first amendment allow one to wear a t-shirt showing two men, stark naked, frontal nudity, making love on a t-shirt? Your first amendment, like our Constitution that grants free expression, has limits and, as per the bible, as per the constitution, as per law, requires some form of interpretation. I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church.
It's nice that you and I can disagree civilly. So rare here.
Re: "I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church. "

I disagree about a public place. A school presents fine issues about the age of the students who are at that particular school. At a public state university, I disagree, since the students are old enough to absorb the content and deal with it rationally. Workplaces and churches are PRIVATE, and their owners (and churches have legal owners, their trustees) have the right to decide that matter.

So the issue boils down to whether or not it should be allowed in a public place such as a street or public university. And, in my opinion, not only would it be allowed but that it should be allowed, and---as much as I hate Nazis--I think that it should be allowed. It is political speech, and people should have the right to make even shocking and immoral political speeches (unless there is actual danger of violence being caused by the speech and that reasonable and prudent police action cannot protect against that violence---which is where the "no right to cry fire in a public theater analogy comes from).

In principle we should be as far as possible from dictatorial systems, and if that means allowing people to wear Nazi t-shirts in public places, so be it.

But you are quite right that speech is not unfettered. Schools for example would have every right to keep Nazi t-shirts out if kids of 4 or 8 or 12 or 16-years old are involved. Courts have to make such fine distinctions. Or, they may have to decide whether or not there was real danger of a riot. But in principle even shocking and immoral political speech should be allowed.

Pornography is different. There is no right to wear a t-shirt depicting the sex act CURRENTLY, but there may well be in 50 or 100 years.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163729 Jul 14, 2013
Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens' Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint

OCALA, Fla., July 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/-- Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the alleged falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.

The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com ), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.

Following Corey's criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure. Dershowitz called her actions unethical and themselves crimes ( http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-georg... ).

Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government.(504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992)(quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)). By indicting Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the people are exercising their God given rights, recognized by our Founding Fathers, to mete out justice when the political and legal establishment subverts the rule of law. Hopefully, this indictment will serve as a warning to the political and legal establishment that they are not above the law. Ironically, Corey will now be tried and likely convicted for her alleged crimes – which resulted in Zimmerman being charged under false pretenses, now coming home to roost during Zimmerman's on-going trial. Corruption cannot be tolerated, particularly by law enforcement officers who are elected by the people to serve their ends, not the law enforcement officer's political ends."
http://www.libertyfederation.com/zimmerman_pr...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163730 Jul 14, 2013
Texas Republicans finally pass new abortion limits
Like

AUSTIN, Texas (AP)— Republican lawmakers in Texas passed a bill that would give the state some of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws and force most of its clinics to close, leading Democrats to promise a fight over the contentious measure in the courts and at the ballot box.

More than 2,000 demonstrators filled the Capitol building in Austin to voice their opposition to the bill, including six protesters who were dragged out of the Senate chamber by state troopers for trying to disrupt the debate. The Republican majority passed the bill unchanged late Friday — just before midnight — with all but one Democrat voting against it.

"Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life," said Gov. Rick Perry, who will sign the bill into law in the next few days. "This legislation builds on the strong and unwavering commitment we have made to defend life and protect women's health."

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-republicans-final...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#163731 Jul 14, 2013
The jury has spoken.
***
Anytime you armchair quarterbacks have a question or concern about the medical profession you would be wise to come and ask for my advice before making speculative assumptions about something which you know little about.
loose

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163732 Jul 14, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church. "
I disagree about a public place. A school presents fine issues about the age of the students who are at that particular school. At a public state university, I disagree, since the students are old enough to absorb the content and deal with it rationally. Workplaces and churches are PRIVATE, and their owners (and churches have legal owners, their trustees) have the right to decide that matter.
So the issue boils down to whether or not it should be allowed in a public place such as a street or public university. And, in my opinion, not only would it be allowed but that it should be allowed, and---as much as I hate Nazis--I think that it should be allowed. It is political speech, and people should have the right to make even shocking and immoral political speeches (unless there is actual danger of violence being caused by the speech and that reasonable and prudent police action cannot protect against that violence---which is where the "no right to cry fire in a public theater analogy comes from).
In principle we should be as far as possible from dictatorial systems, and if that means allowing people to wear Nazi t-shirts in public places, so be it.
But you are quite right that speech is not unfettered. Schools for example would have every right to keep Nazi t-shirts out if kids of 4 or 8 or 12 or 16-years old are involved. Courts have to make such fine distinctions. Or, they may have to decide whether or not there was real danger of a riot. But in principle even shocking and immoral political speech should be allowed.
Pornography is different. There is no right to wear a t-shirt depicting the sex act CURRENTLY, but there may well be in 50 or 100 years.
The USSC has already ruled on this issue. Get over it!
Wearing a t-shirt with Hitler and Jews praising him would be clearly "disruptive" to the school but wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Hitler and a swastika would be no more disruptive than one with some of your heroes like Castro, Che, Marx, Mao, etc. on it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163733 Jul 14, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
The jury has spoken.
***
Anytime you armchair quarterbacks have a question or concern about the medical profession you would be wise to come and ask for my advice before making speculative assumptions about something which you know little about.
loose
Neither Pooptard or Wotard could ever answer the question, "what crime did GZ commit that started this event?". Trayvon assaulted GZ simply because he was a creepy cracker, and nothing more. Trayvon never would have been shot if it were not for that but Libtards think they have the right to assault people simply because they want to.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163734 Jul 14, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church. "
I disagree about a public place. A school presents fine issues about the age of the students who are at that particular school. At a public state university, I disagree, since the students are old enough to absorb the content and deal with it rationally. Workplaces and churches are PRIVATE, and their owners (and churches have legal owners, their trustees) have the right to decide that matter.
So the issue boils down to whether or not it should be allowed in a public place such as a street or public university. And, in my opinion, not only would it be allowed but that it should be allowed, and---as much as I hate Nazis--I think that it should be allowed. It is political speech, and people should have the right to make even shocking and immoral political speeches (unless there is actual danger of violence being caused by the speech and that reasonable and prudent police action cannot protect against that violence---which is where the "no right to cry fire in a public theater analogy comes from).
In principle we should be as far as possible from dictatorial systems, and if that means allowing people to wear Nazi t-shirts in public places, so be it.
But you are quite right that speech is not unfettered. Schools for example would have every right to keep Nazi t-shirts out if kids of 4 or 8 or 12 or 16-years old are involved. Courts have to make such fine distinctions. Or, they may have to decide whether or not there was real danger of a riot. But in principle even shocking and immoral political speech should be allowed.
Pornography is different. There is no right to wear a t-shirt depicting the sex act CURRENTLY, but there may well be in 50 or 100 years.
Isn't it odd that you hate Hitler, but not Stalin, Mao, Che, etc.?
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#163735 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither Pooptard or Wotard could ever answer the question, "what crime did GZ commit that started this event?". Trayvon assaulted GZ simply because he was a creepy cracker, and nothing more. Trayvon never would have been shot if it were not for that but Libtards think they have the right to assault people simply because they want to.
Trent Lott, Ronald Reagan and Republican Racism
Dec. 14, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/d9w75
Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,859...

========

No tears for Reagan
June 8, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/558r6l
Excuse me if I don’t shed any tears over the passing of former President Ronald Reagan. While the news of the 40th president’s death brought on a flood of sentimentality over the nation’s media this past weekend, I could not help but recall what the Reagan presidency really meant for Black Americans. Similar to what occurred upon the death of Richard Nixon, amnesia has set upon journalists as they recall Reagan’s era; choosing to indulge in idol worship rather than serious reflection on the former president’s policies.
http://www.blackamericatoday.com/article.cfm...

===

Ronald Reagan: The Great White Redeemer
http://tinyurl.com/6jljhm / June 10 2004
Only 12 years elapsed between the glorious military victory over the Confederate Slave States in 1865 and the definitive defeat of Reconstruction in 1877. In many important respects, the Reconstruction period was even briefer than that. By 1870, when the last of the southern states ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, Tennessee had already rejected biracial democracy and installed an all-white “Redeemer” government.“Redemption” then swept through Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/94/94_cover_r...

-------

Reagan's heart of darkness
June 9, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/28ytj
PRESIDENT Bush proclaimed: "Ronald Reagan believed that God takes the side of justice and that America has a special calling to oppose tyranny and defend freedom." In the first three days of news reports on the death of the former president, not a single major American newspaper, television station, or politician has dared to exhume this counterpoint to the Reagan's legacy: "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_op...

-----

Reagan, White As Snow
http://tinyurl.com/6lujee
Last week, as we’ve heard, the Republican presidential candidates praised the name and heritage of Ronald Reagan 40 times during the televised Show and Tell at the Reagan Presidential Library. That none of them mentioned Reagan’s legacy of white supremacy and support for apartheid is a little like invoking Jefferson Davis and not mentioning treason or slavery. Actually, a lot like it.
Ronald Reagan was a white supremacist to his very core, and left enough traces over his lengthy political career so that it’s evident for anyone who cares to look—which apparently few do.
Domestically, he opposed every legislative remedy for African Americans, betraying a meanness of spirit and an open racism. As Sidney Blumenthal wrote in The Guardian in 2003:/ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/08/r...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#163736 Jul 14, 2013
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution"

Thomas Jefferson
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#163737 Jul 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department is investigating the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and will prosecute George Zimmerman if evidence shows he violated the teen’s civil rights.
Don't forget the advice of Yoga Berra.
That would be double jeopardy and Holder is just blowing smoke.

Although there is a difference between Federal and State court.

This criminal case is over.

Now the wrongful death civil case can go forward.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163738 Jul 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department is investigating the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and will prosecute George Zimmerman if evidence shows he violated the teen’s civil rights.
Don't forget the advice of Yoga Berra.
Pdamerica org wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be double jeopardy and Holder is just blowing smoke.
Although there is a difference between Federal and State court.
This criminal case is over.
Now the wrongful death civil case can go forward.
I disagree. Just like in the Rodney King case where the feds charged the officers for violating Rodneys civil rights, then can try and do the same to GZ.
Law enforcement officers have to use MINIMUM force to effect an arrest and it appeared to they used excessive force. But George waited 40-45 seconds while being assaulted by Trayvon and then he fired only once so I can see how they could claim this this time.
Ah, but under Florida's SYG law, not only does the state have to repay Zimmerman for all his legal expenses but also things like lost wages and no one can sure him!!! Read it and weep you Idiotards.

776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)&#8195;A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)&#8195;A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)&#8195;The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#163739 Jul 14, 2013
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you’ll be called a Commie and a Socialist for associating with any organization that is of the people, by the people and for the people. Ironic isn’t it?
30 min after taking a couple of Motrin I can dance all the way through that song. LOL
One of my Beatle favorites.
Of the people, by the people and for the people has never totally materialized just like a ( more perfect union ) or the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

What does a more perfect union mean? LOL

Your post is spot on pops.

Keep on Rockin and Truckin!!!

http://tinyurl.com/d7uwkc

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163740 Jul 14, 2013
776.032Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#163741 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department is investigating the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and will prosecute George Zimmerman if evidence shows he violated the teen’s civil rights.
Don't forget the advice of Yoga Berra.
<quoted text>
I disagree. Just like in the Rodney King case where the feds charged the officers for violating Rodneys civil rights, then can try and do the same to GZ.
Law enforcement officers have to use MINIMUM force to effect an arrest and it appeared to they used excessive force. But George waited 40-45 seconds while being assaulted by Trayvon and then he fired only once so I can see how they could claim this this time.
Ah, but under Florida's SYG law, not only does the state have to repay Zimmerman for all his legal expenses but also things like lost wages and no one can sure him!!! Read it and weep you Idiotards.
776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— <quoted text>
(3)&#8195;The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
I will bet you all the tea in China that Zimmerman will NEVER EVER be prosecuted by Holder or any Federal Court.

This criminal case is forever closed.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163742 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another classic difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives are not celebrating the acquittal of George Zimmerman as they know that someone died. But in the case of O.J. Simpson, many of the jurist when out and partied! Partied because a WHITE woman and a white man had been murdered!!!
Ron Goldman and Nichole Simpson did not attack O.J.!!! But Trayvon attacked George Zimmerman .... because he was a creepy cracker and nothing more.
And normal people—those not obsessed by racial issues—are not so obsessed by the Zimmerman case as Rouge has been.

The jury reached a verdict, the trial is over.

Meanwhile I'm packing for my 5 week vacation in Cebu. When I get back, President Obama will still be in the White House, Mike Zullo will still be shilling for birfoon nickels, Rouge will still be posting racist jokes while whining about injustices against whites, rambling about helicopters and anything that randomly pops into his empty head, and expectantly waiting for the 'inevitable' day when the President is impeached as a usurper.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163743 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
776.032Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Zimmerman WAIVED his right for a hearing to determine if he was immune from prosecution. Had he asserted his right for a hearing and if he prevailed in the "SYG" hearing, he would have been entitled to fees and expenses. Key word, WAIVED.

Duh!

As usual, Rouge is on the WRONG PAGE.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163744 Jul 14, 2013
Pdamerica org wrote:
<quoted text>
I will bet you all the tea in China that Zimmerman will NEVER EVER be prosecuted by Holder or any Federal Court.
This criminal case is forever closed.
It is highly unlikely, but he will probably go through some motions just to keep the heat on Zimmerman. The Feds do tend to be vindictive.
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#163745 Jul 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is highly unlikely, but he will probably go through some motions just to keep the heat on Zimmerman. The Feds do tend to be vindictive.
Very true, but it will be mostly for "show" going through the motions.

The Feds will not pursue this case IMO.

Maybe if this protesting in the streets gets larger Obama will come out and say the Jury Has Spoken and we shall all except it even if you disagree with it.
Pdamerica org

Sayville, NY

#163746 Jul 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Zimmerman WAIVED his right for a hearing to determine if he was immune from prosecution. Had he asserted his right for a hearing and if he prevailed in the "SYG" hearing, he would have been entitled to fees and expenses. Key word, WAIVED.
Duh!
As usual, Rouge is on the WRONG PAGE.
ROTFL

LOL

Rouge is wrong again?

What is this world coming too?

He still thinks Obamacare, Romneycare, and the Bush/Cheney Senior Citizen Prescription Drugs Bills are all liberal/progressive policies.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163747 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither Pooptard or Wotard could ever answer the question, "what crime did GZ commit that started this event?". Trayvon assaulted GZ simply because he was a creepy cracker, and nothing more. Trayvon never would have been shot if it were not for that but Libtards think they have the right to assault people simply because they want to.
Pdamerica org wrote:
<quoted text>
Trent Lott, Ronald Reagan and Republican Racism
Dec. 14, 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/d9w75
Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,859...
========
No tears for Reagan
June 8, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/558r6l
Excuse me if I don’t shed any tears over the passing of former President Ronald Reagan. While the news of the 40th president’s death brought on a flood of sentimentality over the nation’s media this past weekend, I could not help but recall what the Reagan presidency really meant for Black Americans. Similar to what occurred upon the death of Richard Nixon, amnesia has set upon journalists as they recall Reagan’s era; choosing to indulge in idol worship rather than serious reflection on the former president’s policies.
http://www.blackamericatoday.com/article.cfm...
===
Ronald Reagan: The Great White Redeemer
http://tinyurl.com/6jljhm / June 10 2004
Only 12 years elapsed between the glorious military victory over the Confederate Slave States in 1865 and the definitive defeat of Reconstruction in 1877. In many important respects, the Reconstruction period was even briefer than that. By 1870, when the last of the southern states ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, Tennessee had already rejected biracial democracy and installed an all-white “Redeemer” government.“Redemption” then swept through Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/94/94_cover_r...
-------
Reagan's heart of darkness
June 9, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/28ytj
PRESIDENT Bush proclaimed: "Ronald Reagan believed that God takes the side of justice and that America has a special calling to oppose tyranny and defend freedom." In the first three days of news reports on the death of the former president, not a single major American newspaper, television station, or politician has dared to exhume this counterpoint to the Reagan's legacy: "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_op...
-----
Reagan, White As Snow
http://tinyurl.com/6lujee
Last week, as we’ve heard, the Republican presidential candidates praised the name and heritage of Ronald Reagan 40 times during the televised Show and Tell at the Reagan Presidential Library. That none of them mentioned Reagan’s legacy of white supremacy and support for apartheid is a little like invoking Jefferson Davis and not mentioning treason or slavery. Actually, a lot like it.
Ronald Reagan was a white supremacist to his very core, and left enough traces over his lengthy political career so that it’s evident for anyone who cares to look—which apparently few do.
Domestically, he opposed every legislative remedy for African Americans, betraying a meanness of spirit and an open racism. As Sidney Blumenthal wrote in The Guardian in 2003:/ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/08/r...
Whaz da matta dar Tootzie, Two afraid to answer the question?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min DBWriter 1,264,375
amy august 2 30 min Blunt Advice 5
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 50 min Sublime1 100,305
Abby August 3 51 min Blunt Advice 7
Ask Amy August 3 53 min Sublime1 8
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ariel Sharon 70,148
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 1 hr nag 1,198
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages