Dark Brandon
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Friday, June 28, 2024 at 11:12 AM.
Michael Reynolds says:
@Jack:
Biden is not a rapist; Trump is.
Biden is not a felon; Trump is.
Biden is not a pathological liar; Trump is.
Biden believes in Democracy; Trump does not.
Biden believes in the rule of law; Trump is openly corrupt.
Biden believes in our allies; Trump supports our enemies.
Biden is a patriot; Trump is a traitor.
Trump is a piece of shit, and so are his supporters.
<a href="https://crooksandliars.com/2024/06/you-cant-debate-liar-and-biden-shouldnt">Republicans always lie in the Presidential Debates</a>.
Bush
SwiftLiars
Not AWOL from TANG. debunked by Dan Rather with TANG Memos.
McCain
Mother's-health exception/loophole to bans on late-term abortion being abused with mental health.
Joe the not Plumber debunked by State whistleblowers with Government database searches.
Romney
Obama: The '80s called, they want their foreign policy back
Benghazi attack "I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. … It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." Obama didn't call Benghazi a terrorist attack until 14 days later. - Debunked by Candy Crowley .
Trump
Hunter Biden laptop debunked as Russian disinformation by 51 ex US intelligence officials
Biden was brilliant, clear,energetic and articulate. He provide well
thought out answers on the subjects asked and the topics provided. He
deliberately, carefully and slowly explained them to the dolts and
idiots in the debate room. Trump was just a Gish gallop of lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories.
Biden focused on the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous arguments that
Trump presented and tore those arguments to shreds decisively destroying
the nonsense and clearly making his point.
I am so proud of our president. Our Democracy that must be protected from Trump. Justice Matters.
One small criticism, Biden did miss naming the strategy. “This is a
strategy called the ‘Gish Gallop’. Do not be fooled by the flood of
nonsense you have just heard.”.
MeToo Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s voice sounds just like Dr. Melissa Click’s.
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:56 AM.
"You need to get out. Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here."Hopefully Christine Blasey Ford will use her new found national platform to lobby for other victims of rape like the credibly accused Duke Lacrosse/UVA Frat gang rapists who have been protected by toxic, bad, insulting and hurtful narrative advanced by Rape Culture lead by GOP misogynist rape apologists.
2% are proven false. Those who were not found not guilt of rape or not tried due to lack of evidence (Dr. Christine Blasey Ford) are still considered in the credible accused 98%..
The Duke Lacrosse and UVA cases do not fall under the (2% are proven to be false) accusations.
The cases are just considered a toxic, bad, insulting and hurtful narrative because the prosecutor (Nifong) and the journalist (Erdely) made some minor mistakes that the rape apologists pounced on to dismiss them.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Dr. Melissa Click sounding voice can change that.
Republicans Don’t Seem To Care What Christine Blasey Ford Has To Say
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Monday, September 24, 2018 at 8:03 AM.
Republicans Don’t Seem To Care What Christine Blasey Ford Has To Say
Shame on the GOP as the party of misogynist rape apologists for the credibly accused Duke Lacrosse/UVA Frat gang rapists that will hypocritically not defend Hollywood, the media and the press because of Politics, looking for any info to discredit the victim's story or smear the women by pointing out inconsistencies that proves the rape victims suffered trauma. More discrepancies in a rape victim's story proves the rape because the traumatic event distorts the memory of the event and anything related to the event.
They created a toxic narrative so bad, insulting and hurtful that progressives refuse to talk about them. Just like the CBC and the teabaggers yelling the N-word at John Lewis.
The Duke Lacrosse Frat Gang rapists were proven guilty because they were indicted by a grand jury and could have been prosecuted Federally under Obama's DOE #TitleIX guidance.
Shame on the GOP as the party of misogynist rape apologists for the credibly accused Duke Lacrosse/UVA Frat gang rapists that will hypocritically not defend Hollywood, the media and the press because of Politics, looking for any info to discredit the victim's story or smear the women by pointing out inconsistencies that proves the rape victims suffered trauma. More discrepancies in a rape victim's story proves the rape because the traumatic event distorts the memory of the event and anything related to the event.
They created a toxic narrative so bad, insulting and hurtful that progressives refuse to talk about them. Just like the CBC and the teabaggers yelling the N-word at John Lewis.
The Duke Lacrosse Frat Gang rapists were proven guilty because they were indicted by a grand jury and could have been prosecuted Federally under Obama's DOE #TitleIX guidance.
Illegal Aliens have superior constitutional rights.
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:30 PM.
Where in the US constitution does it guarantee protections to those who are not citizens?
I’m happy you asked, you’re going to get a real answer because of that.
The Constitution specifically and explicitly guarantees due process and the equal protection of the law to non-citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A big piece of this worried that states might try to go back to some form of slavery, or at the very least end up doing a lot of discriminating, by essentially stripping people of their state citizenship, which was precisely what was happening in 1868.
First, it’s important to note that the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford had not yet been overruled - there were black people in the United States that were not considered citizens. There was also the matter of the decision in Barron v. Baltimore that stated that the Federal Constitution did not apply to the individual States except where expressly stated. Because of these two decisions, States could abridge free speech, free press, perform searches on black homes without legal recourse, lynch blacks that stepped out of line, and more.
That’s why after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, Southern states immediately moved to adopt “black codes” that severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence. This was justified because blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States and therefore entitled to no rights under either the federal or various state constitutions.
In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would have granted full citizenship to all former slaves and essentially to all people currently in the United States. The Southern states fought it bitterly, contesting the constitutional basis of its passage. President Andrew Johnson agreed and vetoed the law.
Enraged by this, Congressional Republicans, who were excluding Southerners from Congress at the time as not having been readmitted to the Union with representation in Congress, drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, and in particular the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, both of which are expressly targeted at the individual States themselves. They required ratification of this amendment as part of the Southern re-entry into congressional representation.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment first guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” However, the Republican drafters of this language were worried that white Southerners could interpret this to exclude any African-born slaves, or even to black people born after secession, and that’s why the drafters went a step further to make sure that the equal protection clause applied to anyone in the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s why the equal protection clause is explicitly guaranteed to “all persons within its [each State’s] jurisdiction.”
Thanks for pointing out that certain people remained excluded for a good long while after this. Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924 under the American Indian Citizenship Act and could be legally excluded barred from voting by states until 1957.
Aha! you might think - these all explicitly apply only to the states! So the federal government, which exclusively oversees immigration and non-citizen residents, would not be bound by such language! Unfortunately for such an interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled in Bolling v. Sharpe and more recently opined in dicta in Lawrence v. Texas that the Fifth Amendment requires the same equal protection of the laws under the Federal government.
(Note: while the Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires equal protection of the laws of the Federal government, the Federal government exclusively has jurisdiction over dealings with the Native American tribes, and that continues even today to be a poor and discriminatory relationship that does not particularly reflect either due process or equal protection. But I digress.)
Now, resident aliens and undocumented immigrants are not granted the entire range of rights granted to full citizens and the court has been somewhat inconsistent on the subject. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on voting in federal elections and state laws requiring public school teachers to be citizens and from being public notaries. The Court has struck down laws banning resident aliens and undocumented immigrants from attending public schools and laws requiring citizenship for bar applications to become a lawyer. It is unclear as to what level of scrutiny is applied to review of these laws; in some cases, the Court has applied strict scrutiny, in others, it has applied something like a heightened intermediate scrutiny.
Lastly, there is a very good reason to grant non-resident aliens due process and equal protection: the civil rights of actual citizens. If due process and equal protection are suspended whenever a person is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, it is only a matter of time before actual U.S. citizens, naturalized or natural-born, are going to be caught up in the process and have their civil rights abridged while they are forced to prove their citizenship. This has already happened, even and especially recently.[1][2]
Some people might argue, “Oh, that’s fine. I’ll just pull out my driver’s license.” Would that be good enough to satisfy a Border Patrol or ICE agent that knows such things can be obtained fraudulently? Perhaps a birth certificate? Passport? This is the problem that voter ID laws face that require some sort of “proof of citizenship”: they disproportionately affect certain groups of actual citizens who cannot afford to get the appropriate papers. Any policy of “papers please or have due process and equal protection suspended” will, as sure as I stand here, lead to an innocent full citizen having their rights trampled by the government.
As soon as the law doesn’t protect everyone, abusive governments will start to put people into unprotected categories, every single time, as many times as you care to run the experiment. Even with the explicit guarantee of equal protection in the United States, civil rights have been abridged for various racial minorities on many different occasions.
The minute we start to categorize people into “illegals” and start to associate “illegals” with “brown-skinned folks who speak something other than English,” and those people don’t get equal protection and due process, we are all damaged by it. And it becomes just a matter of time before an innocent person suffers because of it.
For these myriad reasons, the Supreme Court has been clear in the application of the law to non-citizens in the United States: the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to them............[1] https://taskandpurpose-com.cdn.ampproject.org/…/im-us…/amp/…
[2] http://www.krtv.com/…/us-citizen-questioned-by-border-patro…
I’m happy you asked, you’re going to get a real answer because of that.
The Constitution specifically and explicitly guarantees due process and the equal protection of the law to non-citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A big piece of this worried that states might try to go back to some form of slavery, or at the very least end up doing a lot of discriminating, by essentially stripping people of their state citizenship, which was precisely what was happening in 1868.
First, it’s important to note that the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford had not yet been overruled - there were black people in the United States that were not considered citizens. There was also the matter of the decision in Barron v. Baltimore that stated that the Federal Constitution did not apply to the individual States except where expressly stated. Because of these two decisions, States could abridge free speech, free press, perform searches on black homes without legal recourse, lynch blacks that stepped out of line, and more.
That’s why after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, Southern states immediately moved to adopt “black codes” that severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence. This was justified because blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States and therefore entitled to no rights under either the federal or various state constitutions.
In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would have granted full citizenship to all former slaves and essentially to all people currently in the United States. The Southern states fought it bitterly, contesting the constitutional basis of its passage. President Andrew Johnson agreed and vetoed the law.
Enraged by this, Congressional Republicans, who were excluding Southerners from Congress at the time as not having been readmitted to the Union with representation in Congress, drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, and in particular the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, both of which are expressly targeted at the individual States themselves. They required ratification of this amendment as part of the Southern re-entry into congressional representation.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment first guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” However, the Republican drafters of this language were worried that white Southerners could interpret this to exclude any African-born slaves, or even to black people born after secession, and that’s why the drafters went a step further to make sure that the equal protection clause applied to anyone in the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s why the equal protection clause is explicitly guaranteed to “all persons within its [each State’s] jurisdiction.”
Thanks for pointing out that certain people remained excluded for a good long while after this. Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924 under the American Indian Citizenship Act and could be legally excluded barred from voting by states until 1957.
Aha! you might think - these all explicitly apply only to the states! So the federal government, which exclusively oversees immigration and non-citizen residents, would not be bound by such language! Unfortunately for such an interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled in Bolling v. Sharpe and more recently opined in dicta in Lawrence v. Texas that the Fifth Amendment requires the same equal protection of the laws under the Federal government.
(Note: while the Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires equal protection of the laws of the Federal government, the Federal government exclusively has jurisdiction over dealings with the Native American tribes, and that continues even today to be a poor and discriminatory relationship that does not particularly reflect either due process or equal protection. But I digress.)
Now, resident aliens and undocumented immigrants are not granted the entire range of rights granted to full citizens and the court has been somewhat inconsistent on the subject. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on voting in federal elections and state laws requiring public school teachers to be citizens and from being public notaries. The Court has struck down laws banning resident aliens and undocumented immigrants from attending public schools and laws requiring citizenship for bar applications to become a lawyer. It is unclear as to what level of scrutiny is applied to review of these laws; in some cases, the Court has applied strict scrutiny, in others, it has applied something like a heightened intermediate scrutiny.
Lastly, there is a very good reason to grant non-resident aliens due process and equal protection: the civil rights of actual citizens. If due process and equal protection are suspended whenever a person is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, it is only a matter of time before actual U.S. citizens, naturalized or natural-born, are going to be caught up in the process and have their civil rights abridged while they are forced to prove their citizenship. This has already happened, even and especially recently.[1][2]
Some people might argue, “Oh, that’s fine. I’ll just pull out my driver’s license.” Would that be good enough to satisfy a Border Patrol or ICE agent that knows such things can be obtained fraudulently? Perhaps a birth certificate? Passport? This is the problem that voter ID laws face that require some sort of “proof of citizenship”: they disproportionately affect certain groups of actual citizens who cannot afford to get the appropriate papers. Any policy of “papers please or have due process and equal protection suspended” will, as sure as I stand here, lead to an innocent full citizen having their rights trampled by the government.
As soon as the law doesn’t protect everyone, abusive governments will start to put people into unprotected categories, every single time, as many times as you care to run the experiment. Even with the explicit guarantee of equal protection in the United States, civil rights have been abridged for various racial minorities on many different occasions.
The minute we start to categorize people into “illegals” and start to associate “illegals” with “brown-skinned folks who speak something other than English,” and those people don’t get equal protection and due process, we are all damaged by it. And it becomes just a matter of time before an innocent person suffers because of it.
For these myriad reasons, the Supreme Court has been clear in the application of the law to non-citizens in the United States: the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to them............[1] https://taskandpurpose-com.cdn.ampproject.org/…/im-us…/amp/…
[2] http://www.krtv.com/…/us-citizen-questioned-by-border-patro…
DEBUNKED smear of Saint and Rep. John Lewis that he lied when he said " this would be the first inauguration he wouldn’t be attending as a member of Congress."
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 10:00 PM.
Latest Right Wing Extremist Outrage Machine/Echo chamber and Donald Trump's smear of Saint and Rep. John Lewis that he lied when he said " this would be the first inauguration he wouldn’t be attending as a member of Congress. ".
MMFA/Politifact False and Debunked. John Lewis's staff says he forgot that he boycotted George W. Bush's inauguration: "That was almost 20 years ago."
MMFA/Politifact False and Debunked. John Lewis's staff says he forgot that he boycotted George W. Bush's inauguration: "That was almost 20 years ago."
CLIMATE CHANGE, RIGHT WING HATE SPEECH AND THE NRA CAUSED THE OUT OF CONTROL TRUCK ATTACK IN NICE!
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22 AM.
When will Progressives defend Katie Couric?
0 Comments Published by Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ on Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM.
Progressives can not allow the Right to control the narrative on this like they did with the Duke Lacrosse and UVA rape cases. The conventional wisdom that the Duke Lacrosse and UVA rape cases were hoaxes and not the truth that they were covered up by Right wing extremist rape apologists smears, victim blaming and victim shaming.
When are progressives lead by Media Matters and Thinkprogress going to push back at the latest Right wing smear against Katie Couric, Stephanie Soechtig and the excellent factual Gun Documentary Under the Gun over a unintentional minor editing mistake using audio that was the result of illegal wiretapping/eavesdropping performed by Radical Far right Anti gun safety extremists.
The 8 second insignificant edit of the two-hour acclaimed above reproach Gun
Documentary Under the Gun film, that the NRA is unfairly fixated on, "did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided. This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”
Progressive mikethegunguy points out that the answer inadvertently removed by the unintentional minor editing mistake was the stupid "usual mélange of gun-rights crap ... have been shown to be false in more peer-based research studies than I can count." unintentional minor editing mistake that just skipped lame answers that were so obviously wrong "solipsistic arguments".
When are progressives lead by Media Matters and Thinkprogress going to push back at the latest Right wing smear against Katie Couric, Stephanie Soechtig and the excellent factual Gun Documentary Under the Gun over a unintentional minor editing mistake using audio that was the result of illegal wiretapping/eavesdropping performed by Radical Far right Anti gun safety extremists.
The 8 second insignificant edit of the two-hour acclaimed above reproach Gun
Documentary Under the Gun film, that the NRA is unfairly fixated on, "did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided. This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”
Progressive mikethegunguy points out that the answer inadvertently removed by the unintentional minor editing mistake was the stupid "usual mélange of gun-rights crap ... have been shown to be false in more peer-based research studies than I can count." unintentional minor editing mistake that just skipped lame answers that were so obviously wrong "solipsistic arguments".
"listening to the audio of what actually transpired strikes me as more revealing than what is in the film. One person at the table lamely tries to defend the rights for anyone to have a gun, while the others use solipsistic arguments to speak about how existing laws are sufficient, which clearly they are not. Had the film played the moment more truthfully, we would have learned more about how these people really feel, and we would be spared watching the grandstanding going on Fox News (among other outlets and websites) that inflates one mistake into a condemnation of the entire film."
