A Message From Lucianne  







S-G1




























ST-GC



        
 

 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


  Topic: The Seventh Circuit Blocks the HHS
Mandate for a Private Business
Change your user profile.
If you are having trouble posting, please take the time to register.
Your User Name :
Your Password
  I forgot my password
Your Reply  :
Preview Reply     Post Reply
The Seventh Circuit Blocks the HHS
Mandate for a Private Business

National Review Online, by David French

Original Article

Posted By:Pluperfect, 12/30/2012 5:26:00 AM

Late yesterday afternoon, the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency injunction against the HHS mandate — preventing its enforcement against an Illinois business and its owners. My colleagues at the ACLJ represent Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family-owned, full-service construction contractor. The company is located in Highland, Ill., and employs about 90 workers. The brief opinion is worth a read in its entirety, but two parts stand out. First, the court disagreed with the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request for a similar injunction. In a key paragraph the court stated:

      


Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: Chuzzles, 12/30/2012 6:26:30 AM     (No. 9089570)

We get any more judges with commonsense and I may have to revise my opinion about the courts in this country. They may do the right thing yet.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 2 - Posted by: Judith, 12/30/2012 7:27:30 AM     (No. 9089620)

#1 This will eventually work its way up to a supreme court led by roberts and dominated by left-leaning judges and women judges who think with their lady parts....not a good thing.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


   

 

R-G1
  
R-VAR_AD


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: seamusm, 12/30/2012 7:31:38 AM     (No. 9089629)

But can we trust Roberts?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 4 - Posted by: Rinktum, 12/30/2012 7:34:58 AM     (No. 9089633)

We wouldn´t be here today if Chief Justice John Roberts would have been less concerned with the court´s legacy and more concerned about the unconstitutionality of this massive Frankensteinian piece of junk legislation. Ironically, "his Court" is going to have one humdinger of a legacy.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 5 - Posted by: JAN, 12/30/2012 7:40:12 AM     (No. 9089641)

President GW Bush made noises about breaking up the 7th. Circuit and they began to behave themselves for a while.

We need to start looking at some of these circuit courts with a serious eye.

The 7th. is certainly a welcome change from the usual suspects who trample our rights.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 6 - Posted by: M2, 12/30/2012 7:44:38 AM     (No. 9089653)

The ACLJ´s outstanding win record deserves note. It is one of the few national groups our family supports with our dollars. They deserve yours, too.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 7 - Posted by: stablemoney, 12/30/2012 7:47:21 AM     (No. 9089657)

Government and lawyer hell. Now business must spend their resources litigating against condoms and birth control issues.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


   

 

  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: Sfacheem, 12/30/2012 7:57:00 AM     (No. 9089675)

Well, it looks like we have a court that did not want to get upstaged by the French.

Good for us.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 9 - Posted by: geekrunner, 12/30/2012 7:59:23 AM     (No. 9089680)

I think #5 is referring to the 9th Circuit (in California), not the 7th (in Chicago)

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 10 - Posted by: Spidey, 12/30/2012 8:18:25 AM     (No. 9089701)

I seem to remember a judge in La. overturning Obama´s ban on drilling after the Gulf spill and of course he completely ignored it. We also won initial lower court cases in Obamacare that went in one ear and out the other. This ruling is good news but all it does is set up another SC battle of religious liberty being threatened by Obamacare.

I think Roberts will rule on our side this time because he bought himself some political capital on the first case.I think Obama should have been impeached for his public posturing while the case was under review but that´s neither here or there now.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 11 - Posted by: Bad Dog, 12/30/2012 8:21:10 AM     (No. 9089703)

Agreed, #9.... you beat me to that corrective point. It was the 9th.

I have friends who work for Korte´s Las Vegas office - my own company subcontracted with theirs frequently on low-rise builds. Back in the good ol´ days, when construction was booming here in Vegas and hubby and I HAD a company - you know, before the Obama Devastation Era began.

Good on Korte for hiring the ACLJ (love the Sekulows!) and good on ACLJ for pursuing this case ... obviously they made wise and convincing arguments!

Pray that this ruling withstands the onslaught of media and supra-court salvos to come.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 12 - Posted by: WimeTarmerFable, 12/30/2012 8:38:40 AM     (No. 9089728)

One battle won, so many many more to go.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


   

 

B-G1


 
Reply 13 - Posted by: CEP, 12/30/2012 8:50:09 AM     (No. 9089745)

So one court says this another court says that. Can the Supreme Court ignore this?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 14 - Posted by: VinGoombatz, 12/30/2012 8:58:25 AM     (No. 9089756)

The French ruling got me thinking again about equal protection. Can any of the lawyers posting here point to the early history that allowed different tax rates to be applied to different people? In other words, in defiance of equal protection. In addition to net incomes, could we apply different tax rates based on different hair lengths? Different clothing preferences? Different races?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 15 - Posted by: strike3, 12/30/2012 9:07:20 AM     (No. 9089767)

Ultimately, the people are the law. If we refuse to cooperate with the kenyan dictator on every point that we know is wrong and/or unconstitutional, he doesn´t have the courage or the resources to put all of us in prison. This is our country, not his.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 16 - Posted by: Patchy Groundfog, 12/30/2012 9:12:49 AM     (No. 9089777)

#7 has it. We can celebrate so-called victories but the Rubicon has been crossed and now all medicine is political - and that´s just the way the statists like it.

They MIGHT get your vote if you want a phone or a TV but your vote is virtually GUARANTEED if they can threaten to withhold a transplant or lifesaving drugs.

Individual exemptions are nice but we must never lose sight of the goal - repeal of any sort of socialized medicine.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 17 - Posted by: msjena, 12/30/2012 9:24:36 AM     (No. 9089797)

Very interesting. There is also a dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court will no doubt hear this issue. And I wouldn´t be so sure that Roberts is now a liberal.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


   

 

R_DBL_B
  


 
Reply 18 - Posted by: philly_patriot, 12/30/2012 9:24:38 AM     (No. 9089798)

The problem is the Supreme Court and great leader controls that ............... and he ............ will have additional appointments there.

Stevens ´holding on´ and a Roberts ´internal revelation´ will not help us ........ the Constitution and our Nation are doomed.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 19 - Posted by: Zumkopf, 12/30/2012 9:33:30 AM     (No. 9089819)

Sorry, boys and girls, but elections have consequences. By 2016 the vast majority of federal judges -- something like 85% -- will have been appointed by Clinton or Obama. Conservative Federal Court rulings are going to be as rare as conservative Democrats. It´s nice to have a victory today, but between this and John Roberts´ desire to be loved, any victory for our side is going to be ephemeral.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 20 - Posted by: Rumblehog, 12/30/2012 9:53:29 AM     (No. 9089865)

From the gut, I think Roberts knows he screwed up big time and needs to get back in good stead with the American people.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 21 - Posted by: suziannr, 12/30/2012 9:58:56 AM     (No. 9089878)

the Courts are not the final arbiter of our Constitution...we are. It stands or falls on the backs of we...the People.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 22 - Posted by: chicodon, 12/30/2012 10:15:39 AM     (No. 9089919)

#14
Which goes to show our entire tiered system of taxation should be unconstitutional.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


   

 



 
Reply 23 - Posted by: Udanja99, 12/30/2012 10:15:39 AM     (No. 9089920)

#15, exactly what I´ve been saying since Pelousy locked her doors to write this monstrosity. Worst case scenario is that one gets thrown in jail where one will get "free health care", including sex changes in some states.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 24 - Posted by: Buzzman, 12/30/2012 10:18:53 AM     (No. 9089924)

The Supreme Court is dead to me now. They have abdicated their responsibility to protect the people from unconstitutional laws.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 25 - Posted by: Hobbiest, 12/30/2012 10:30:35 AM     (No. 9089936)

Obamacare is going to suffer the same fate as McCain Feingold. There was great dismay when the court found that constitutional, too. Since then it has suffered death by 1,000 rulings and McCain Feingold didn´t need the support of the governors to work the way Obamacare does.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 26 - Posted by: oh-heck, 12/30/2012 10:37:14 AM     (No. 9089948)

The Supreme Court must rule on issues as they are brought to them. The religious liberty question was not brought to them because the penalties were not in the immediate future. In the case Sotomayor ruled on, the Appeals court had ruled against an injunction. In this case, the Appeals case properly ruled for the injunction. The Hobby Lobby family has decided to pay the fines until they get their day in court. So the religious liberty question will definitely get to the USSC,

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 27 - Posted by: kono, 12/30/2012 10:53:44 AM     (No. 9089984)

A ray of hope in a world where the light of reason seems to be increasingly overcome by darkness.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 28 - Posted by: RancherJack, 12/30/2012 10:55:36 AM     (No. 9089987)

Sounds good.

Will never stand the test of total evil which is how Washington works.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 29 - Posted by: Ray of Sunshine, 12/30/2012 11:10:24 AM     (No. 9090007)

I must disagree...the USSC, doesn´t HAVE to decide or rule. It´s strictly up to their decreation if they will hear a particular case. But, settling differences between lower court rulings, is a major, traditional function & purpose of their existence.
Pray that religious freedom prevails.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 30 - Posted by: mickturn, 12/30/2012 11:12:43 AM     (No. 9090013)

The underlying issue is that the Constitution does NOT put judges and courts in charge of any of this. The law is clearly unconstitutional and any judge that finds otherwise should be immediately impeached, removed from office and disbarred! Of course this includes Mr. Roberts who obviously found his own way to leave the law it self in place.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 31 - Posted by: chefrandy, 12/30/2012 11:47:06 AM     (No. 9090055)

Congrats to ACLJ and Korte/Luitjohan. The owners and their family members are active in our community and I´m glad they drew a line in the sand and went to bat against this.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 32 - Posted by: planetgeo, 12/30/2012 11:53:19 AM     (No. 9090065)

Unfortunately, there is a fatal flaw in the otherwise brilliant system of checks and balances that our founders created. They didn´t (and couldn´t) foresee that someday (now) the three branches wouldn´t truly be independent of one another. And the judicial branch in particular has been "dependent-ized" beyond repair.

The Supreme Court appointees now are clearly political apparatchiks rather than skilled and fiercely independent legal experts. The only thing that shocks me about Sotomayor, for example, is that she doesn´t wear a big, pink vagina outfit instead of black robes on the bench. What exactly are her qualifications other than being a liberal activist suckup?

No, our founders never envisioned the court system, and the Supreme Court in particular, as the surrogate dictator robber stamp pad. The entire system of judicial selection must be completely revamped and removed from the clutches of the political party system.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 33 - Posted by: danshanteal, 12/30/2012 12:46:59 PM     (No. 9090134)

Call Sandra Fluke and see what she and the sisterhood think.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 34 - Posted by: bennie, 12/30/2012 12:48:27 PM     (No. 9090137)

Good thing it wasn´t the 9th circus court. It undoubtedly would have gone the other way.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 35 - Posted by: Gallo3, 12/30/2012 1:01:47 PM     (No. 9090154)

Agree with #s 14, 22: the ´progressive´ system of taxation is the major problem, and we need to fight fire with fire: it is ´unfair´.
Taken to its logical conclusion, we should have ´progressive´ gas prices, where if your income is at a certain level you would have to pay more for gas at the pump. or more for a loaf of bread, or higher prices for TV´s etc.

It must be attacked for being ´unfair´, the radical egalitarianists must be hoisted on their own Marxist petard.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 36 - Posted by: Shucky, 12/30/2012 1:14:16 PM     (No. 9090173)

the nation could be invaded, but we can´t compel a conscientious objector to shoot at the enemy in defense of himself, his family and the nation. yet, the democrats would demand that conscientious objectors provide the means to kill innocent babies.

the values of the left are misanthropic.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 37 - Posted by: Timber Queen, 12/30/2012 2:40:35 PM     (No. 9090270)

#15, #23 - Right On!

As for me and my house we will not comply. We will not comply with any local, state or federal regulation that smacks of Agenda 21 marxist redistributionist policies. Government only works with the consent of the governed, and that encompasses more than just casting a vote.

As for jail or prison, might that not be the best place? The socialists are letting out the truly violent, criminal, and the insane. Their end game is to construct a virtual prison by restricting our actions, devaluing our property, and stealing our labor´s just rewards. Why not live in a real prison where they will have to house, feed, and clothe us? Writers can write, artists can paint, readers can read, and the religous can study Scripture, unless of course they do the gulag thingy.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 38 - Posted by: fayebeck, 12/30/2012 2:56:06 PM     (No. 9090297)

#1 and #2. The liberals never quit until the final decision is in their favor.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 39 - Posted by: roger h. cook,MD, 12/30/2012 4:08:26 PM     (No. 9090357)

tHERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG ! tHESE LAWYERS HAVE COMMON SENCE.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 40 - Posted by: roger h. cook,MD, 12/30/2012 4:38:17 PM     (No. 9090375)

No. 3 ,the answer is NO!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 41 - Posted by: Ida Lil, 12/30/2012 6:53:33 PM     (No. 9090490)

This thread tells a story that is a shameful
lack of the American independence we are supposed to acquire with birth.
Every cry of woe is us we have lost and must bow to the dictators proves it we who are too sloth and timid to stand up and fight for the Constitution and our continued liberty.
All talk and no action gives the tyrants their most secure impression that they have won without a fight.
Do you want it all saved by someone else -- by their sacrifices? It seems that way.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 42 - Posted by: Babsathome, 12/30/2012 7:22:06 PM     (No. 9090516)

#21, 30 and 41 have laid out my feelings exactly. Time to put the grown up pants on and speak up! Fight for our God given Rights against tyranny.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who did not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 43 - Posted by: Coy860, 12/30/2012 7:33:42 PM     (No. 9090524)

I will never forgive Justice Roberts.
I am old, and he signed my death warrant.
No longer can I be assured a death with dignity. The angst is real. Thanks for nothing, Roberts.


  Click Here if you Like this Comment



Post Reply   Close thread 717124




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"



Nevada rancher: “I did not graze
my cattle on United States property”
Hot Air, by Allahpundit    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/15/2014 4:35:40 AM     Post Reply
The fairest explainer I’ve found on the Bundy saga is Becket Adams’s post at TheBlaze. If, like me (and Ace), you came to this story after it had already been hyper-polarized and weren’t sure whose facts to trust, try Adams’s Q&A. He plays it straight. In one sense this is complicated — land ownership, grazing rights dating back decades, a court battle, the feds tasing a Bundy family member, even a Harry Reid cameo — but after listening to this Glenn Beck interview with Bundy, it seems surprisingly simple. Bundy stopped paying the BLM in 1993 for grazing rights on

Antiquated law adds billions to fuel costs
New York Post, by William F. Shughart, III    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/15/2014 4:23:57 AM     Post Reply
An obscure 1920 law is costing Americans billions of dollars a year in higher fuel costs. The Jones Act requires that cargo shipped from one US port to another be carried on a US-registered vessel, built, owned and crewed by Americans. This protectionist law was designed to support a shipbuilding industry that no longer exists — but inertia and labor-union muscle keep it on the books. The law mainly makes the news in time of crisis. It delayed shipment of road salt to New Jersey during a shortage last winter — happily, without incident, as the weather moderated before the Garden State

Ukraine and the Obama doctrine: Our president´s
puzzling "go to war or ignore" philosophy
Fox News, by Richard Grenell    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/15/2014 4:18:58 AM     Post Reply
The continuation of Putin’s push into Ukraine makes it official. The Obama Doctrine is to ignore an international crisis or go to war. There is no in between. And President Obama’s been clear that he isn’t going to start any new wars. The recent bipartisan push by Congress to help Ukraine, however, was the latest signal that the president´s foreign policy is unraveling and his doctrine of ‘war or ignore’ is making America less safe. The bill had a huge majority in Congress (378-84 in the House, 98-2 in the Senate) pushing back against a slow and disinterested White House.

People With Old Social
Security Debts Get Reprieve
Associated Press, by Stephen Ohlemacher    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/15/2014 4:12:49 AM     Post Reply
WASHINGTON -- People with old Social Security debts are getting a reprieve - for now. The Social Security Administration had been participating in a program in which thousands of people were having their tax refunds seized to recoup overpayments that happened more than a decade ago. On Monday, Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin said she was suspending the program while the agency conducts a review. Social Security recipients and members of Congress complained that people were being forced to repay overpayments that were sometimes paid to their parents or guardians when they were children.

State GOP gets to vote
on secession at convention
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel [WI], by Daniel Bice    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/14/2014 6:33:38 PM     Post Reply
To secede or not to secede. That will be the question for Wisconsin Republicans at next month´s convention. Earlier this month, the party´s Resolutions Committee voted in favor of a proposal that says the state party "supports legislation that upholds Wisconsin´s right, under extreme circumstances, to secede." A version of the so-called "state sovereignty" resolution was first OK´d last month by one of the state GOP´s eight regional caucuses as an assertion of the state´s 10th Amendment rights. The measure also calls for ending all mandates that go "beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers of the federal government."

Bundy supporters planned to
sacrifice women to feds
Daily Caller, by Rachel Stoltzfoos    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/14/2014 6:19:26 PM     Post Reply
Cliven Bundy supporters were planning to put women on the front lines in case the federal officers started shooting, Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack said Monday on Fox News’ “The Real Story.” “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” Mack and other organizers, reportedly armed, traveled to Nevada to support Bundy during his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management, which had seized hundreds of

Accused bully says judge who sentenced him
to hold sign in public ´destroyed´ his life
Cleveland Plain Dealer [OH], by Adam Ferrise    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/14/2014 5:01:41 AM     Post Reply
SOUTH EUCLID, Ohio — The man accused of bullying his neighbors for 15 years, including children with developmental disabilities, carried out part of his punishment on Sunday by sitting at a busy intersection with a large sign that says he’s a bully. Edmond Aviv, 62, endured five hours of people yelling at him from passing cars while holding a sign that said: "I AM A BULLY! I pick on children that are disabled, and I am intolerant of those that are different from myself. My actions do not reflect an appreciation for the diverse South Euclid community that I live



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



Ben Carson: White House wanted
apology for ‘offending’ Obama

53 replie(s)
Daily Caller, by Alex Pappas    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/15/2014 5:22:51 AM     Post Reply
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson says the White House wanted him to apologize for “offending” President Obama after he famously delivered a conservative message at the National Prayer Breakfast last year. Carson, the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, recalls the events surrounding his 2013 speech in his new book, One Nation: What We Can All Do To Save America’s Future. The Daily Caller obtained an advance copy of the book, which is set for release May 20. “He did not appear to be hostile or angry,” Carson writes of Obama, “but within a matter of minutes after the conclusion of

Obama Generation Losing
Interest in Obama

44 replie(s)
Wall Street Journal, by James Freeman    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 4/14/2014 4:23:09 PM     Post Reply
President Obama inspired a generation of young people to support his historic election in 2008. And in 2012, despite the struggles of his first term, Mr. Obama still managed to win the support of a full 60% of voters age 18-29. But the man who once dreamed of being a transformative leader in the Reagan mold is inspiring few of those young people to follow his lead. "For all the talk about the movement that elected Mr. Obama, the more notable movement of Obama supporters has been away from politics. It appears that few of the young people who voted

Why You Should Be Sympathetic
Toward Cliven Bundy

43 replie(s)
Powerline, by John Hinderaker    Original Article
Posted By: Toledo- 4/15/2014 8:40:58 AM     Post Reply
On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are. First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can

Chelsea Clinton no longer
ruling out politics

35 replie(s)
The Hill (Washington DC), by Judy Katz    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/14/2014 11:57:36 AM     Post Reply
Chelsea Clinton says when people ask her these days whether she wants to go into politics, her answer isn’t an automatic “no.” The 34-year-old former first daughter told Fast Company in an interview published Monday, “for so long the answer was just a visceral no. Not because I had made any conscientious, deliberate decision, but since people had been asking for as long as literally I could remember, it was no." Now, the only child of former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains, "I live in a city and a state and a country where I

Glaring limits of the Civil Rights
Act: We need to redistribute wealth

34 replie(s)
Salon Magazine, by Matt Bruenig    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/14/2014 7:20:41 PM     Post Reply
Although the Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation which just reached its 50th anniversary, made great strides in desegregating the economy, economic discrimination is still widespread, and anti-discrimination legislation alone can never rectify the economic damage inflicted upon blacks by slavery and our Jim Crow apartheid regime. The Civil Rights Act was a mild reform, all things considered, but one conservatives fought with vigor and one many conservatives are still bitter about to this day. When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, the primary purpose was to root out discrimination in public accommodations (like hotels and movie theaters)

White is not right: Campus admins ask
for help weeding out white people

31 replie(s)
Daily Caller, by Robby Soave    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/15/2014 7:47:18 PM     Post Reply
Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.” The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth. The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform. “I’ve said before and I’ll say it

Atlanta Braves flooded with Hank
Aaron hate mail: He’s a ‘s*****g’

30 replie(s)
Washington Times (D.C.), by Cheryl K. Chumley    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/15/2014 3:23:19 PM     Post Reply
Hank Aaron’s recent comments about the need for America to realize that racism is still very much alive and thriving — only now due to those who wear “neckties and starched shirts” rather than KKK hoods — has sparked an angry backlash and many fans are turning the tables, calling the baseball legend himself a racist. “Hank Aaron is a s*****g piece of [expletive] [racial slur],” one man said in an email to the Atlanta Braves’ front office, one of the teams Mr. Aaron used to play for, CBS News reported. “My old man instilled in my mind from a


Post Reply   Close thread 717124





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


© 2014 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

~~~c~~~