All videos on this site from public resources.The site provides only search video on such resources as Youtube,Dailymotion,Vimeo and other.Developers are not responsible for this video.If you find a video that violates your rights, please contact direct to video resources.
For any other case please contact us on info@one-news.net
Hegseth is making the same argument that was used to defend the illegal intervention in Vietnam.
It won’t succeed. And it won’t last anywhere near as long as that belligerent mendacity against law and reason.
the SC is saying that speaking up against racism is unconstitutional because “race-based”. But race-based Jim Crow is acceptable.
That would mean, of course, that anti-lynching law would be unconstitutional because based on the fact that a specific minority — African-Americans — has historically been the target of lynching.
So law prohibiting white supremacists from lynching Blacks would be unconstitutional because “race-based”. So lynching would be okay — even though race-based.
Justice Thomas would oppose anti-miscegenation law in only one case: his.
The nullification of the 1965 Voting Rights Act began with speech-reading actor Reagan.
The next target is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Those who believe that’s a good idea, that they aren’t affected by that, are as close to brain dead as it is possible to be while still being able to breathe.