Here is the scenario: A Bronx man has claimed that he was attacked and robbed while riding on the subway all because of the color of his skin. The police are investigating it but they don't consider this to be a hate crime, so far. There were four men who followed the victim to another train, surrounded him and then called the victim some nasty racial slurs. That was outrageous! So wrong! This racial hatred needs to stop! Then the victim claims that the group of hooligans punched and kicked him while he was held in a headlock. The police say they're unsure whether this assault was motivated by bias so it hasn't been handed over to the NYPD's hate crimes task force yet.
I would like some Blacks/African Americans opinions on this matter. Do you think that this should be considered a hate crime or not? Do you think that the police should investigate this matter further?Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/blacks Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
This is an excellent interview. Cenk Uygur, the Young Turk, interviews Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, and Reverend Peterson blows TYT's mind, making bold statements that no white person could get away with. According to Reverend Peterson, "most blacks" are morally deficient. He blames the government, specifically welfare and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society programs for replacing the father and making him unnecessary. Even those who are not on those programs are morally damaged because they support them.
Do you agree with Rev. Peterson's assessment?
A theological word of caution: In one part of the interview the host makes reference to Leviticus 11:9-12, and implies that homosexuality is on the same moral plane as eating shellfish (kosher law). He is dead wrong, but this requires an explanation. Leviticus is the book in the Pentateuch that pertains to priestly laws about what is holy and unholy. This is a cermonial law that goes beyond the moral law, just like how in Pre-Vatican II times in the Catholic Faith it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays, or this ceremonial law is analgous to Jews not eating pork. Eating shrimp is not intrinsically wrong, but homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. God was preparing Israel for the Incarnation of Jesus. That was the whole purpose of of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws. With Christ's sacrifice an institution of the New Covenant the old temperal cermomial laws have been replaced but the moral law is eternal. It remains unchanged. The prohibitions against murder, theft, blasphemy, impiety, covetousness, and sexual immorality (adultery, incest, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual acts) are everlasting.Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/blacks Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Russia Today News has visited the black U.S. pastor James David Manning from Harlem in New York, who claims the world's most-popular leader President Obama only got into the White House by playing on the nation's racial guilt.
A big H/T goes to Maggie's Notebook for her post, and her finding this wonderful article and video. She keeps her excellent blog updated often on various issues so I am asking you to please go and check out her blog.
Justice Clarence Thomas spoke to law students at the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, FL. yesterday and gave the Court's Constitutional reasoning for the controversial striking down of some portions of the country's campaign finance laws. His explanation is dissimilar from any other you've heard, and guess what? It has to do with "race." He also paints a picture of what it is like to sit with the Supremes in a State of the Union address - a picture you and I do not see or hear. He wanted no part of it. See a video below.
If you need background on campaign finance laws and why it is in the news today, read this, which in short, has a former FEC chairman, Bradley Smith, defending the Supreme Court's ruling, saying unequivocally, the law after the ruling "continues to forbid election spending by foreign corporations. Smith also said the President's decision to reprimand the Court in the middle of a SOTU address was "pure demagoguery."
The remarks of Justice Thomas are always devisive, because he is a conservative Black man, and Lord knows, we can't have that. Just wait until you hear this, which boils down to Democrats trying to restrict the free speech of those favorable (Republicans) to our Black neighbors back to 1907. Source: New York Times:
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
In other words, Justice Clarence Thomas chooses to be a servant of Constitutional Law. God Bless this man, Amen.
It was odd to see the Supremes gathered at the SOTU and note the absence of Clarence Thomas. Here is his explanation:
I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”
“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”
