President Lincoln did no such thing. I'm surprised that a law school, hell, even a college graduate, would say that he did.
Blatant lie.
You’re right and furthermore, this crap has gotten way too far out of line and too damn tiresome.
ENOUGH.
It did not apply to Union states that still allowed slavery.
Had it done that, then the Confederacy would likely have won.
How would you like that, "Kam"?
Thanks to the proliferation of “Stand Your Ground” laws, America is in danger of turning back into a country where no black person has any civil rights which any armed white racist vigilante feels bound to respect.
Oh. I guess I didn't know black people are still prohibited by Jim Crow laws from keeping and bearing arms.
Zimmerman had a broken nose and bruises to his face, and lacerations and bruises on the back of his head.
Zimmerman also had grass stains on his back and the back of his legs.
Martin, OTOH, had grass stains on his knees, and had only two injuries. Scraped knuckles, and the single bullet wound that killed him.
It is clear what happened. And so it is time that we removed this lie:
And replaced it with the truth:
But with the race baiting, hate America, get "whitey," crowd, the truth of what happened does not matter. Advancing their goal of "fundamentally changing" America is all that matters.
One thing...for once, Obama actually got it right. Now that we know so much more about Trayvon, it is true...if Obama had a boy, hhe would have been just like Trayvon.
Ya know what pisses me off?
My town was a part of the underground rail way.
No one in my family ever had a slave.
But my entire life I have to pay and pay and pay, because of my skin color.
I expect these idiots will grasp the overplaying of their hand.
Black Law, you know. It’s a whole other constitution. Whitey to camps.
So why do they try to say Zimmerman was at fault when it was Martin who really had the chance to avoid a confrontation - "run away"?
Martin did not have to confront Zimmerman the way he did. He could have asked why Zimmerman was following him and after being told that he was the Neighborhood Watchman just checking things out, Martin could have ID'd himself and been on his way home (with his "Skittles").
But no, Martin had to initiate a violent confrontation, probably such as what he is used to in his environment (and that does not necessarily mean "black"!).
Liberals are always harping on how kids turn bad due to the environment they're brought up in. Well, here was a perfect chance for them to step up to the plate and put their words to action. But what did they do? They chose to play the race card.
Martin is dead because he wanted to play the tough guy, maybe even thought he had to, such as it is in today's society.
Dredd Scott was emancipated 3 months after the ruling by the USSC.
Will this, then, be the prelude to our next Civil War?
It looks that they are trying to ‘change’ history so that they are justified in what ever they are about to do.
Rough times ahead, 2ndDivisionVet, rough times ahead.
And they’ve already telegraphed what they want... They want to remake the U.S. into a nation just like Zimbabwe and South Africa.
If the actions of the Panthers, Holder, and a large contingent of inner city youth is any indication, one might be forgiven if they believed that assessment. There's a definite social cancer in the black community these days and it reflects poorly on African Americans in general.
lloyd sham williams is wrong on o so many levels...
pure bullcrap
Here is a complete and exhaustive list of all of the true statements in Williams’ piece:
1)
Typical lefty using the compound lie. They have to go there, because they’re losing blacks. The Democrats are fracturing over immigration and SSM. The fences on the plantation are being trampled down.
Time to tell those who are protesting to wake up, smell the coffee, and GROW UP for a change!
Another point about Dredd Scott. Taney was a racist idiot who took a simple matter of interstate commerce and injected all sorts of racist/white-supremacist language into it that continues to haunt us to this day and ends up being the “go-to” for Liberals rather than the actual legal aspects that were involved.
Slavery was legal under the US Constitution. Yes, it sucks, but it also happens to be true. Slavery ONLY became illegal with the ratification of the 13th Amendment (NOT the Emancipation Proclamation).
The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Dredd Scott was, legally, property. The Fugitive Slave Act was, at the time, a completely Constitutional law that required slaves (property) to be returned to their masters (rightful owners) if they crossed state lines. Without there being a 13th Amendment (yet), and with the Constitution permitting slavery (3/5ths Rule) it was an open/shut case. Taney didn’t need to go there as was just being an a**hole with a lot of the language he injected into his reasoning.
Now, here’s the funny thing. The writer, and most other Libs, tend to fall back on the argument that since Illinois was a “Free State” in which Dredd Scott had taken up residence, Illinois law trumped Federal Law.
So, in essence, the ignorant moron who wrote this piece is actually basing his whole argument in STATES RIGHTS and STATE SOVEREIGNTY.
Without actually understanding what he’s doing, I’m sure.