Saturday, November 5, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
A Black Man's Point of View
A Black Man's Point Of View Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American, Singer/Songwriter, Entertainer, Author, Artist No white man could ever write an article like this and live to tell about it.  By Lloyd Marcus  As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat's unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced ObamaCare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining." Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing ObamaCare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America . I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not. Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America's goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. in their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants. White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America 's sins of the past. Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me." Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive's young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside. Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it. Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing ObamaCare. The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question. "Why are you siding with these white racists against America 's first African American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, "These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue." Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into ObamaCare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States . ObamaCare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional. No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "no" to both president's proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black. The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible. My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America , the greatest nation on the planet, Obama's progressive agenda must be stopped. Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American, Singer/Songwriter, Entertainer, Author, Artist & Tea Party Patriot, 2010 Lloyd Marcus - All Rights Reserved |
Share This With America !
Monday, October 3, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
TROY DAVIS: GUILTY AS CHARGED
Troy Davis: guilty as charged
Troy Davis’ execution is nothing to celebrate. The only satisfaction it offers, if any, is the grim kind that comes from knowing a killer got his just deserts.
Of course, to opponents of the death penalty, every execution is an outrage. Davis’ supporters say this one is worse: the deliberate state killing of a man despite evidence that he is innocent.
If they’re right, Georgia and all of America should be ashamed.
But they’re wrong: Troy Davis is guilty.
How can I be so sure? After all, former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, and former FBI director William Sessions backed Davis. Prosecution witnesses have recanted their testimony; scant physical evidence tied Davis to the crime.
But it’s one thing to argue your case in the court of public opinion; it’s quite another to do so in a real court, with sworn testimony offered and cross-examined by both sides.
And when Davis had that opportunity, in a special hearing last year ordered by the Supreme Court, the judge rejected his claim, declaring flatly that “Davis is not innocent.”
This saga began the night of August 19, 1989, in Savannah, Georgia. Police officer Mark MacPhail, moonlighting as a Burger King security guard, rushed to break up a mugging in the parking lot. When the ensuing clash ended, MacPhail lay mortally wounded by gunfire.
A number of witnesses identified Davis as the man who stood over MacPhail and fired twice before fleeing. Based on that testimony, a jury of seven blacks and five whites convicted him and sentenced him to death in 1991.
Davis admitted being at the scene; but he insisted that someone else pulled the trigger. In the years since his 1991 trial, he has submitted affidavits from seven witnesses who inculpated him at trial but later said their testimony was either mistaken or coerced by the police.
Davis’ appeals, state and federal, failed – until August 2009, when the Supreme Court handed him a dramatic victory. Citing a “substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” the court overrode usual limits on death-penalty appeals, granted a stay of execution and ordered a federal court in Georgia to weigh Davis’ evidence of innocence.
Chief Judge William T. Moore of the U.S. District Court in Savannah, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, convened the hearing in June 2010 -- whereupon Davis’ case crumbled. Much of his “new” evidence had already been heard by the original trial jury. Some of his witnesses fared badly on cross-examination, while prosecution testimony stood up.
Davis’ lawyers declined to put two of Davis’ purported recanting witnesses on the stand, though they were available – one even waited outside the courtroom. Judge Moore quite logically found these omissions “suspicious.”
Davis’ lawyers did not call the “real” shooter; nor did Davis, with his life on the line, testify. Perhaps this reflected his experience at trial, where he told his story to the jury, and the jury did not believe it.
In August 2010, Moore issued a 174-page ruling, in which he picked apart Davis’ factual claims one by one, concluding, “The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact.”
Davis’ supporters say Moore unfairly required Davis to present “clear and convincing” proof of innocence, a high standard. But Moore’s emphatic findings implied Davis’s case wouldn’t have passed any test; it was, the judge wrote, “largely smoke and mirrors.”
I believe Moore because he is an impartial authority who reviewed all the evidence in an appropriate forum – and for whom a ruling against Davis was not necessarily the path of least resistance. No one in Moore’s position would want an innocent man’s death on his conscience if he could avoid it at all. The Supreme Court’s unprecedented intervention signaled it wanted federal courts to go the extra mile to avoid a wrongful execution. Certainly Moore would have been a judicial hero in many quarters if he set Davis free.
But Moore did what he thought was right -- and the Supreme Court, in deference to the judge’s mastery of the facts and law, unanimously declined Mr. Davis’ appeals in March.
The Davis case does raise legitimate questions. Should authorities have even sought the death penalty in this case? Though undeniably senseless and cruel, the murder of Mark MacPhail was an unplanned act against a single victim. As I have argued elsewhere, such offenses do not rank among the special crimes – mass murders, for example, or terrorism – for which the death penalty should be reserved.
Among its other benefits, limiting the death penalty more strictly to the “worst of the worst” would shrink the risk of executing an innocent man.
But that didn’t happen in this case. To insist otherwise is to insist that all the jurors, courts and other official bodies that gave Troy Davis due process of law for 22 years were wrong, and only Davis was right. And that is not a reasonable doubt.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)