Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Philly Mayor Wants Mag Punished over Race Relations Story
Source: American Renaissance
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2013
Author: Todd Starnes
Post Date: 2013-03-21 11:20:26 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 3327
Comments: 46

The Philadelphia Human Relations Commission has launched an investigation at the request of the mayor after a well-known magazine published an essay that explored perspectives of white citizens on the issue of race relations.

Mayor Michael Nutter called on the commission to consider rebuking both Philadelphia Magazine and writer Bob Huber noting that “the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right.”

Nutter’s fury was directed at a cover story titled, “Being White in Philly.” The story included conversations with mostly anonymous residents who detailed race relations in the City of Brotherly Love.

And the mayor also had some choice words for the anonymous individuals who were interviewed–some of whom claimed to have been victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks. He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Tom McGrath, the magazine’s editor, told Fox News he is very concerned that the government is investigating his publication.

“I find it chilling that he now wants to use the government to censor a news outlet,” he said. “As a journalist – as someone who thinks free speech is really important–I find that really, really troubling.”

McGrath said he stands by the story and the author–and acknowledged it set off a firestorm.

McGrath said the mayor “seriously overreacted to the story” and “mischaracterized the piece and what it’s trying to do.”

“White people do not always feel comfortable talking about race,” he said. “There are some white folks who don’t feel their views on certain issues are welcome in the conversation.”

And critics believe–ironically–that the mayor’s reaction to the story validates that point.

Nutter wants the commission to consider whether the magazine’s essay was the “reckless equivalent of shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

“Only by debunking myth with fact, and by holding accountable those who seek to confuse the two, can we insure that the prejudices reflected in the essay are accorded the weight they deserve: none at all,” the mayor wrote.

McGrath did say he welcomed the mayor’s call for a city-wide discussion about race – but noted the announcement was rich with irony.

“I find it pretty bizarre,” he said. “At the same time he wants us rebuked, he’s saying we need to have a conversation about race in Philadelphia – which was our point in the first place.”

“His point seems to be that he’s allowed to talk about some of this stuff but that other people aren’t,” McGrath added.

[Editor's Note: Mayor Nutter's full letter can be found here. Below is the most troubling portion.

While I fully recognize that constitutional protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an incitement to extreme reaction.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: purplerose (#0)

Please explain to me some more about your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   11:21:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Turtle, purplerose, voters, 4 (#0)

Please explain to me why anyone would vote for a guy named Nutter in the first place.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2013-03-21   11:46:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Turtle (#1)

And the mayor also had some choice words for the anonymous individuals who were interviewed–some of whom claimed to have been victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks. He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Oh I have absolutely NO misunderstanding of the First Amendment. And from the article I have quoted in part, the First Amendment does not protect speech that foments civil unrest. As far as I am concerned that anonymous individual named "Anna" may as well be an agent for the KGB and also working with our CIA to foment civil unrest.

You are aware (at least you should be) that we have Russian soldiers trained on American soil by our own CIA?

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   13:46:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Turtle (#0)

I pledge allegiance, to the Diversity
of the Jewnited State of America
and to the supremacism for which it stands
many peoples, under Jews
with a piece of whitey's hide for all

"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2013-03-21   13:52:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: purplerose (#3)

the First Amendment does not protect speech that foments civil unrest.

Yes, whites must not object to white genocide. It might cause civil unrest.

"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2013-03-21   13:55:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: purplerose (#3)

Oh I have absolutely NO misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

You have shown you have no understanding of it at all. If some 85 IQ niggers are offended by the article and riot, then the article is hate speech and must be censored.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   13:59:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Turtle (#6) (Edited)

If some 85 IQ niggers are offended by the article and riot then the article is hate speech and must be censored.

Which is why police departments have Hate Speech notices posted on their walls. Forewarned is forearmed. And should such speech result in riots, and the culprit ("Anna" from Moscow) responsible for making the comment is not dealt with then a class action lawsuit may be brought forward with several issues presented before the SCOTUS justices. Several issues that I would love to present in my brief would be the following:

1. Does hate speech have provided protections under the First Amendment?

2. When does hate speech fall within the category of the Fighting Words Doctrine?

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   14:10:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: purplerose (#7)

"Fighting words" falls under assault, not the First Amendment.

You do know that there is a difference between assault and battery, don't you?

Apparently you still never understand the First Amendment.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   14:18:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Turtle (#1)

Please explain to me some more about your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Ooops! I just knew she was going to miss the opportunity back-up, take a deep breath and think. She agrees with George (it's just a Goddamned piece of paper) Bush and the judges that say don't mention the Constitution in my courtroom when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele

“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb

“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm

Hmmmmm  posted on  2013-03-21   14:31:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Turtle (#8)

"Fighting words" falls under assault, not the First Amendment.

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended. Thanks to some anonymous "Anna" from Moscow paid by the CIA.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   14:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: purplerose (#10)

The disquiet of offended fatass professional scribblers does not constitute "civil unrest."

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2013-03-21   15:13:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Lod (#2)

Please explain to me why anyone would vote for a guy named Nutter in the first place.

I believe that he is a black. Philly is mostly black in population. Go figure. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-03-21   17:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Turtle (#0)

He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Mr Nutter has no idea if the magazine left their names out or if they themselves requested it.

He kinda strikes me as one of those that do protest too much ... bigot

__ There are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!

titorite  posted on  2013-03-21   17:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Turtle, *libertarians*, *Jack-Booted Thugs* (#0)

ping

free and legal online poker site click here

freepatriot32  posted on  2013-03-21   18:50:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Turtle, purplerose, All (#0) (Edited)

Nutter wants the commission to consider whether the magazine’s essay was the “reckless equivalent of shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

Cross-referencing 4um Title: It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

[Editor's Note: Mayor Nutter's full letter can be found here. Below is the most troubling portion.

While I fully recognize that constitutional protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an incitement to extreme reaction.

The word he's left out of that crowded theatre phrasing is "falsely". What SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said was in regard to "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Presuming the phillymag.com article to be false does not justify reactions of panic, criminality or harm.

The Second Amendment, the First and Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater

The idea that some speech is so dangerous that it isn’t protected under the First Amendment is a concept that comes from the Schenck v. United States supreme court decision of 1919. Schenck was agitating against a draft based on Thirteenth Amendment grounds (the one against involuntary servitude) but did so in a way that advocated for enlisted men to disobey orders. The supreme court ruled that in a time of war, the First Amendment needs to take a backseat to the needs of the country and that Schenck needed to shut up and sit down.

That ruling was later overturned. The phillymag.com article, "Being White in Philly", does not advocate riotous actions nor does it amount to an inducement of unthinking panic rather than research and debate. On the contrary, it frowns on criminal behavior; even though it gives examples expressing over-tolerance of it. These issues, raised at the second link above and paraphrased below, seem relevant to what Nutter and other reactives of his Constitutionally oppositional mindset on this matter are calling for punishingly:

Censors making sure we don't write anything "racially insensitive".

A waiting period while backgrounds are checked before being allowed to speak.

A requirement to register your newspaper or blog with the government.

A government list of approved publications requiring a tax to move that instrument of speech between people.

I suggest something like a journalistic merit badge directory [Edit to add: non-governmental and untaxed] of those who support the Constitution -- sort of a seal of approval by their name, which can be suspended or removed when they advocate against it (with a notation of reference about why it was put on probation, so to speak, or withdrawn).

Edited to include the bracketed section of the last paragraph and to change a word in the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   20:51:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: purplerose, All (#10)

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended.

No, the Constitution can't be suspended for any reason. Congress can suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus but only when "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [Reference: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9]

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   21:12:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#4)

I pledge allegiance, to the Diversity
of the Jewnited State of America
and to the supremacism for which it stands
many peoples, under Jews
with a piece of whitey's hide for all

Ha!!

I don't understand why White people, even White liberals like the journalist in Philly, willingly subject themselves to public humiliation at the hands of self- appointed minorities who convene boards to castigate and villify Whites for speaking the truth about race.

“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group."
-Alex Kurtagic

X-15  posted on  2013-03-21   21:30:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: purplerose (#7) (Edited)

police departments have Hate Speech notices posted on their walls. Forewarned is forearmed. And should such speech result in riots, and the culprit ("Anna" from Moscow) responsible for making the comment is not dealt with then a class action lawsuit may be brought forward with several issues presented before the SCOTUS justices. Several issues that I would love to present in my brief would be the following:

1. Does hate speech have provided protections under the First Amendment?

2. When does hate speech fall within the category of the Fighting Words Doctrine?

A class action lawsuit for what? Do you also want a class action lawsuit against Blacks who speak insensitively about Whites? If not, why not?

Cross-referenced for more on the so-called "Fighting Words Doctrine" and what "Anna of Moscow" really said, which you apparently didn't want to discuss further then for whatever reason:

Post #42 of the 4um Title: All Black People Spend Their Time Smoking Marijuana And Popping Out Babies!

You didn't answer my question at #18 there either so can you do that now, please?:

Shouldn't we have a law to pre-empt injury to our republic by any legislative subversions of our Constitution?

Also, it seems to me that the Supreme Court should be reviewing prospective laws for Constitutionality before they're enacted -- not just afterwards.

Edited a word in paragraph 2.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   21:52:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: purplerose, christine, James Deffenbach, Esso, BTP Holdings, Itistoolate, Jethro Tull, Original_Intent (#7)

Well, sweets, please consider that Dr. Bill Cosby and Jesse Jackson have both expressed the same concerns about hearing footsteps behind them at night and being relieved that they were white people, not young black males.

And, when college newspapers reprinted David Horowitz's, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too" campus blacks and black leaders nationwide were unable to refute the points raised. Their reactions included destroying newspaper offices and demanding expulsions of newspaper publishers, writers and editors. None accepted the offers to respond in writing for publication at the time.

Kweisi Mfume (former president and CEO of NAACP) said of Bill Cosby's remarks that he only wished that Cosby hadn't spoken (the truth) in front of whites in attendance. So you see, some black leaders fully intend to ride the victimization mule until it dies, which is why American blacks are the greatest underachievers of any in the Diaspora, despite being the wealthiest blacks in the world.

The FBI compiles national crime stats and releases them annually in THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS.

The cold, hard stats speak for themselves, and whites in general (and in Philly in particular) are completely justified in their fear and disdain of blacks. It's a fact of life that in the scenic and beautiful Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the closer you get to Philadelphia the thicker the bullet resistant glass each time you stop for gasoline.

The last time I visited the city there were WANTED POSTERS on many poles for a cop from my county (NEW CASTLE) and I live 30 miles away in Delaware. That county police officer had made a successful arrest of a Philly black that resulted in conviction, so the cop was a marked man for any young black male with no fear of prison that wanted to "make his bones", (earn high status in prison for killing a white like Colin Ferguson) or earn gang membership.

It's not an advertised fact but there's a war on in Philly (remember the MOVE siege in 1985?) and any white can be targeted, which is why black leaders in the cities demanded that gun permits not include concealed carry in Philly and Pittsburgh. For many years that was the law and the unspoken reasoning behind it was, "it's better if whites are brutalized, robbed, raped or killed than for bruthas to be shot in the commission of those crimes."

The PA Legislature eventually came to its senses and not only repealed the limitations on carry permits, but they also passed one of the first laws that allows permit holders from reciprocal states to go armed anywhere in the commonwealth.

Your sensitivity and understanding of the plight of inner city blacks would not protect you from attacks either. The young woman who went to South Africa after college in order to aid Apartheid blacks was literally raped to death when set upon by the folks she went to help.

I mean no disrespect when I say that if you don't understand the nature of inner city American blacks your views will be met with skepticism at best, and scorn at worst. Even the attempt to extend constitutional protections to "street blacks" would likely be a waste of effort and possibly result in harm as you attempt to "make black folks white". Remember, that would mean that you represent the same system that jails and even executes blacks, and trying to sell that on the street could result in a violent attack and maiming, not unlike those when chimpanzees in Africa rip out arms and eyeballs of people who attempt to corral them.

Although I am a racist (which does not endear me to our beloved christine) I don't have to misrepresent any facts to make my case. Not only are blacks their own worst enemy, but they are encouraged by their own to attack and victimize whites as a crude form of "reparation payments on demand."

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-03-21   22:15:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: HOUNDDAWG, purplerose, christine, James Deffenbach, Esso, BTP Holdings, Itistoolate, Jethro Tull (#19)

Actually I am perfectly willing to grant virtually all of your points. The feral blacks of the inner city are dangerous to everyone and in particular anyone who is not black. By and large the inner city of most major cities is a seething cauldron of crime and hate. I would no sooner walk alone through dark town after dark than I would test a straight razor by sliding the edge across my throat. The outcome in both cases is predictable. However, that does not require me in turn to hate. I can respect the danger represented by a rattlesnake without hating the snake. I don't have any easy answers but I do know that responding to hate with hate and continuing to suppress blacks will not solve the problem.

A lot of our current inner city problems can be laid squarely at the feet of white oppression of blacks for several centuries AND subsidizing destructive behavior with a government check. The first could have been overcome if it hadn't been for the second. The Civil Rights Movement was preaching education and opportunity. It only turned violent, at times, when faced with intractable suppression. Following the introduction of Lyndon Bane Johnson's "Great Society" black illegitimacy skyrocketed. The programs were set up so that they penalized intact families and rewarded broken families. What you reward you get more of. With the increase in illegitimacy was a parallel decrease in black literacy. Illiterate people have a predictable behavior. They are generally resentful and angry and this has little to do with race but particularly applies to the black inner city because the literacy levels are so low and getting worse.

No, there are no easy answers and quick fixes. Even if an effective program was begun today it would take at least 3 generations to see any significant improvement.

Perseverent Gardener
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2013-03-21   22:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: HOUNDDAWG (#19)

The PA Legislature eventually came to its senses and not only repealed the limitations on carry permits, but they also passed one of the first laws that allows permit holders from reciprocal states to go armed anywhere in the commonwealth.

That's some good news. Applause for Pennsylvania.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   22:48:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Original_Intent, All (#20)

I don't have any easy answers but I do know that responding to hate with hate and continuing to suppress blacks will not solve the problem.

Being mis-schooled in the history of Slavery and our Constitution causes many problems of excessive resentment and more. Expectations that our Constitutional form of government must be infringed or suspended until enough people get a better understanding of those subjects is a very big part of the problems. We're not supposed to be in a contest about our right to Constitutional government and adherence to it, let alone forever. Of course there should always be efforts to correct misperceptions but those who are opposed to the Constitution and our Bill of Rights should be excluded from seats in our government until they get more functionally oriented Constitutionally.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   23:22:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Original_Intent, All (#20) (Edited)

No, there are no easy answers and quick fixes. Even if an effective program was begun today it would take at least 3 generations to see any significant improvement.

Here's an example of someone Black working educationally to speed that process up some. DNA testing not a requisite for the students to understand his message:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKjuu1ZOF-o [Edit to add: 2.5 minutes]

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   23:38:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: purplerose, All (#23)

Perhaps there should be a class action lawsuit regarding malpractice by America's school system and wrongful agitation by profiteering institutions like the NAACP, et al. At the most basic level, Americans should be aware that Slavery and the Slave Trade were not established here by America, which wasn't even a nation yet at the time, but was the business of other governments. What's most unusual about those issues concerning America, as compared to the rest of the world, is that the Slave Trade and Slavery ended much quicker here than it did elsewhere once we became free of colonial rule -- and in some places here, even before that.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   0:14:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: GreyLmist (#16)

No, the Constitution can't be suspended for any reason.

Wrong, GreyLmist. Not only can our Constitution be suspended but during the Rodney King aftermath of rioting, the entire city of Los Angeles was put on lock down and a set curfew was established for at least a week or so. That curfew meant that anybody out after 7 P.M. was going to be pulled over by the U.S. National Guard. In fact, I even had to carry my id with me to work and the only customers around at that time were the National Guard on duty. I remember this so much and when I think about those riots that took place in L.A. it was a dangerous time.

Are you aware that since 1933, we have been under the Emergency War Powers Act and that our Bill of Rights are really a provisional document as of right now? Our Constitution is also a provisional document and not one set in stone. All public servants in Washington D.C. who work in the Legislative Office are well aware of this. All of them are. And I also know this for a fact due to my filing cases in federal courts.

dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   0:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: purplerose (#25)

Thanks for the link but there are no real additional powers to the President of the United States by Act of Congress or Executive Order -- emergency situation or not. There's a difference between what's Constitutional or not and what you've described -- intrusions and missaplications by way of a misguided consensus that those actions are Constitutionally permissable.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   0:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: GreyLmist (#26)

There's a difference between what's Constitutional or not and what you've described -- intrusions and missaplications by way of a misguided consensus that those actions are Constitutionally permissable.

Try saying that to a federal court judge and they'll have a good laugh at you. Seriously! In fact, any constitutional proceedings you address in any federal court is not even ruled by the judge at all. It's all written by the law clerk and the judge just rubber stamps it. Those judges don't even read those pleadings. Their law clerks brief them on what to tell you when you make your appearance.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   0:49:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: purplerose, All (#25)

Just noting here that the Constitution isn't suspended by the National Guard being called upon as part of a State's Militia (or as reinforcements from other States in a joint effort) to counter and patrol during incidents of rioting. I do think, though, that the non-federalized branch of the State's Militia should have been tasked with that duty before any joint task forces were deployed at the Federal level.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   0:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: purplerose (#27)

Like I said before, what they're doing is not Constitutionally permissable. It amounts to Martial Law prohibiting our Republican form of Constitutional government by occupying forces of an alien system hostile to ours and aggressively working to overthrow it.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   0:59:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: GreyLmist (#28)

Think about this statement:

In time of war the laws are silent. --Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   1:04:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: purplerose (#30)

Think about this statement:

In time of war the laws are silent. --Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman.

I thought about it and that's not what the Constitution says. Even a temporary suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety might require it takes an enactment of Congress to implement.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   1:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: X-15 (#17)

I don't understand why White people, even White liberals like the journalist in Philly, willingly subject themselves to public humiliation at the hands of self- appointed minorities who convene boards to castigate and villify Whites for speaking the truth about race.

So they can keep their jobs.

"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2013-03-22   14:36:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: GreyLmist (#31) (Edited)

Even a temporary suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety might require it takes an enactment of Congress to implement.

Habeas Corpus is dead to the letter thanks to the passing of the NDAA Act. This applies to my post on the Emergency War Powers act which my quoted post about the law being silent in times of war.

Click onto this site and scroll down to read the comments by a lady named Kay Sieverding who was detained and held in prison for 124 days without rights to seek counsel. She was never charged with a crime nor has a criminal record. This was recent.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-o...-threatening-veto-992860#

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

Whatever they taught you in high school and college and even in law school about Due Process Rights, Right to Assembly and Free Speech is mythical in those federal courts (bankruptcy courts). Somebody once corrected me when I told them we live in a republic. We do! However, since we have lived under the Emergency War Powers Act, the Constitution has more protections than our Bill of Rights. Both are separate issues in that the Constitution is set up as a corporation of the united states of America. The Bill of Rights were separately established to emphasize Rights reserved for the citizens of their respective states and also to exalt the importance of our nation under a Republic. However, since the War Powers Act was implemented on March 9, 1933, we have been under a democracy where we are under mob rule. In a mob rule, those three branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, no longer function separately. An example of this are the Presidential Decision Directives and the Executive Orders coming from the Executive Office. We are seeing this happen right now with the implementation of NDAA. This is the harsh reality. It is really too bad this is not being taught in our schools. The students are being robbed of a true education. You can damn well bet that the children of the nobility class are well aware of all this. They are tutored very well by their private tutors on who runs this country and makes laws.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   14:48:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: purplerose (#25)

not only can our Constitution be suspended

You are a fascist, purplerose. Thanks for exposing yourself.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-22   21:28:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Turtle (#34)

You are a fascist, purplerose. Thanks for exposing yourself.

That insult was totally unnecessary. I am not a fascist. But the United States has lived under it for some time. You are just now awakening from your deep slumber. And it certainly is a very rude awakening for many of those like yourselves who are in denial of what has happened.

For somebody like me who has actually been inside those federal courts and Supreme Courts presenting oral arguments at en banc hearings, I've seen the reality. And its not pretty at all. As fragile as our Bill of Rights are to the common man, the courts do not respect the meek let alone the letter of the law.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-24   2:27:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Original_Intent (#20) (Edited)

that does not require me in turn to hate.

Don't hate. Go armed and be safe. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-03-25   17:55:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: BTP Holdings, Original_Intent (#36)

Don't hate. Go armed and be safe. ;)

Turn that frown upside down!

Send someone a greeting card. Airmail. Mark it: URGENT - live sharks.

"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2013-03-25   19:43:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: purplerose (#33)

Habeas Corpus is dead

This is true, unfortunately for all of us. But, you did not mention the PATRIOT Act. This is another substantial erosion of our God-given rights. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-03-26   17:07:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: purplerose, All (#33)

purplerose at: Post #33: since the War Powers Act was implemented on March 9, 1933, we have been under a democracy where we are under mob rule. In a mob rule, those three branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, no longer function separately.

I had to look that up -- "War Powers Act of 1933" -- since we weren't at war then. Supposed "War Powers Acts" are misnomers, as well as Unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't amendable by such legislation; nor have we ever been at war officially since WWII ended.

These are excerpts from a summary at congressionalresearch.com on Presidential Emergency Powers: The So-Called "War Powers Act of 1933":

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Presidential Emergency Powers: The So-Called "War Powers Act of 1933"
David M. Ackerman
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Summary

The "War Powers Act of 1933" is a name given by some members of the militia and patriot movement to emergency banking legislation passed in 1933 five days after President Roosevelt came into office. The legislation did not, in fact, have the title attributed to it. It has apparently been so labelled by some because the banking legislation amended the "Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917" in order to give legal underpinning to President Roosevelt's efforts to cope with the banking crisis. It is alleged by its modern-day critics that by that amendment the government in effect declared war on the American people and began a reign of unconstitutional rule through Presidential emergency powers. These allegations overlook the facts that [sic] President Roosevelt's declaration of national emergency has been terminated, the amendment of § 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act has been repealed, and the Presidential proclamations and executive orders issued pursuant to that authority have been eliminated. [sic]

[Further info at the site.]

President Roosevelt's 1933 declaration of national emergency and the various measures taken pursuant to that declaration have been terminated. Moreover, Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act is now explicitly restricted to use only in time of war and is no longer available for use in a national emergency. Finally, the National Emergencies Act subjects any future exercise of emergency power by the President to the constraints of public declaration of the emergency, specific designation of the statutory authorities to be used during the emergency, Congressional oversight, and automatic termination. Whether those constraints are sufficient may be debatable. But the so-called "War Powers Act of 1933" is no longer a source of Presidential emergency power.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-26   17:49:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: purplerose (#33)

the Constitution is set up as a corporation of the united states of America.

Cross-referencing info at Post #35 of 4um Title: The CIA controls Evergreen Air Death Dumps | Links: "Corp. U.S. Mythology" and "IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT A CORPORATION? IF TRUE, SO WHAT?" | Excerpt from the 2nd reference:

The enemies of freedom must be happy to see us chasing phantom issues because, as long as we do, we are out of the battle.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-26   18:07:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 46) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest