Liberal

Regarding The Trayvon Martin Case

The following article comes to us via Tumblr:

sarahlee310 reblogged generalbriefing:

General Briefing: Wherein the tighty-righty smear machine is tangled in its own racism

cognitivedissonance: 

Anonymous asked you:

 2012-03-27 11:11

 Meg, I really need your help. Do you have links to the Trayvon Martin murder concerning the smear back-lash by certain right-wing outlets? A point-by-point dismantling of this blatantly false and blatantly racist “evidence” would be much appreciated for certain people in my social circle. I like how when the media actually reports on cases like this, the right-wingers call it “manufactured sensationalism”
 Meg at Cognitive Dissonance:

Yes.

Yes, I have lots of links, info, and outrage.

First, I’m getting sick of the new meme regarding the media “ignoring” the “black on black” violence. Bernie Goldberg insists if both men were black, we wouldn’t know the name Trayvon Martin. He’s probably right. Why?
BECAUSE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WOULD HAVE BEEN JAILED. No self-defense claim would have flown.
“What about all the dead black kids killed by other blacks?!” wails Heather Mac Donald of The National Review. I’m paraphrasing. Sort of:

Blacks commit 80 percent of all shootings in the city — as reported by the victims of and witnesses to those shootings — though they are but 23 percent of the population; whites commit 1.4 percent of all shootings, though they are 35 percent of the population. Add Hispanic shootings to the black tally, and you account for 98 percent of all of the city’s gun violence. In New York, as in big cities across the country, the face of violence is overwhelmingly black and Hispanic…

[T]he racial storyline that has been imposed on the shooting does not fairly represent contemporary America. That storyline is not just wrong, it is dangerous, because it only feeds black alienation and anger. Family breakdown, not white racism, is the biggest impediment facing blacks today, producing such casualties as the 18-year-old gangbanger who fatally shot a 34-year-old mother picking up her child from school in Brownsville, Brooklyn, last October. Sharpton and the national media didn’t show up for that killing, just as they don’t for the thousands of other black-on-black killings each year.

Screw examining the systemic explanations — let’s just chide people for the “racial storyline” while claiming “the face of violence is overwhelmingly black and Hispanic” because THAT’S NOT WRONG AT ALL. Perhaps examining the unequal criminal justice system, the incarceration rate of minorities, the efforts expounded by police in investigations dependent upon the race of the victim and perpetrator, and interactions with police in minority neighborhoods can shed some light on these statistics.

Nah, let’s just throw some numbers out there about scary brown people.
On to the release of Trayvon Martin’s suspension from school for traces of marijuana in an empty plastic baggie in his backpack. First, if the police department did indeed leak this information (and they need to get their pipes checked - lots of leaks lately) they may have violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA]. The information in a student’s educational record, including disciplinary record, is not to be revealed without written permission.

Before any conservative naysayers exclaim: “But Meg! It says on the government’s socialist website with ‘free’ information that they can release the record to law enforcement! What about the weed?!” — the AP is on it, confirming Trayvon Martin has no juvenile record. Oh, and these things called facts show white youths are more likely to abuse drugs than black youths but black students, particularly black male students, are much more likely to be suspended and referred to the juvenile system.
Of course, discussion of Trayvon’s maybe drug use fits nicely in with George Zimmerman’s claim he was suspicious and “on drugs or something.” The drug-crazed  brown man is an old canard:

Straight from The New York Times in 1914 — the only way to deal with drugs in the black community is to lock up “irreclaimable” users. As for marijuana:

Brown people are getting your kids hooked. Lock ‘em up. Does any of this ring a bell?
None of the alleged drug use matters, though. Zimmerman is not a cop, even if he aspired to be one. He didn’t observe Martin selling or using drugs. He just thought he was suspicious and up to no good. Neighborhood Watch captains are told to not carry weapons, and call 911 to report crime — not to confront alleged perpetrators because they aren’t police. However, Zimmerman thought differently. From the Miami Herald:

The recent shooting raised troubling questions about whether the homeowners association knew its volunteer was armed with a Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Many residents — black and white — question Zimmerman’s judgment and wonder why he would have engaged the teenager at all.

The answer may lie in police records, which show that 50 suspicious-person reports were called in to police in the past year at Twin Lakes. There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death…

Since the beginning of the year, Zimmerman made 46 calls to police. His most frequent calls were to report “suspicious persons” — all of whom were black — including a skinny black male, about 7-9 years old. The Orlando Sentinel reports:

Many of the calls start the same way — Zimmerman mentions the recent rash of burglaries in the area and identifies himself as a member of the neighborhood watch.

“We’ve had a lot of break-ins in our neighborhood recently and I’m on the neighborhood watch,” Zimmerman said during one call. “There’s two suspicious characters at the gate of my neighborhood, I’ve never seen them before. I don’t know what they are doing. They are hanging out…loitering.”

That day, the “characters” are two black men in a white sedan, Zimmerman tells the dispatchers. An officer is sent to check out the call, but it’s unclear if anything suspicious was uncovered. Another time he calls to report two black teens who match the description of suspects in recent break-in, who his wife saw and identified for police.

One of Zimmerman’s African American neighbors, Ibrahim Rashada, discussed his discomfort with Zimmerman’s zealotry in the Miami Herald:

[Rashada] does not walk around the neighborhood at all. “I fit the stereotype he emailed around,” he said… “So I thought, ‘Let me sit in the house. I don’t want anyone chasing me.’” For walks, he goes downtown. [Rashada’s wife] listened to her husband’s rationale, dropped her head, and cried.

Zimmerman’s neighbors expressed frustration with police response and anger at his tactics. However, Zimmerman is not without his defenders:

Problems in the 6-year-old community started during the recession, when foreclosures forced owners to rent out to “low-lifes and gangsters,” said Frank Taaffe, a former neighborhood block captain.
“Just two weeks before this shooting, George called me at my girlfriend’s house to say he saw some black guy doing surveillance at my house, because I had a left a window open,” Taaffe said. “He thwarted a potential burglary of my house.”

Oh, really? You know this black man was going to burglarize your house? In the neighborhood invaded by “low-lifes and gangsters” no less… Taaffe’s emerged as one of Zimmerman’s primarydefenders. There’s a lot of guilt by association and dredging up the supposed past in order to tarnish Treyvon Martin and black men in general.

You wanna play that game?

Let’s play.

Frank Taaffe said George Zimmerman is just like him and a likable guy. Well, Zimmerman and Taaffe appear to have more in common than a pathological distaste for young black males strolling their neighborhood. Taaffe was arrested for Battery, Felony Trespass, andDomesticViolence. He’s also the respondent in multiplecivil cases filed for non-support of children, “repeatviolence,” and DomesticViolence from as far back as 1983, and as recentlyas 2008.
Zimmerman was arrested for domestic violence, resisting an officer with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer without violence. His father, a retired judge, insists his son is a good boy. These two men are smearing all people of color as “thugs,” “low-lifes,” and “gangsters.” Again, Trayvon Martin has no arrest record. None. But he’s a “thug.”

Certain elements stand alone. After being told not to pursue Martin by 911 operators, warned not to be armed as a neighborhood watch captain, muttering “these assholes always get away” and a racial slur, instigating a confrontation with an unarmed man, and shooting that unarmed man dead, George Zimmerman is still free and still armed. Witnesses state Zimmerman loudly reassured people it was “self-defense” and set his gun on the ground after shooting Martin. In fact, the lead investigator did not buy Zimmerman’s story, and wanted him charged with manslaughter.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who signed the controversial “Stand Your Ground” law in 2005 said this is not the proper application of the law. Bush said, “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.” Like Zimmerman did.

Bush is not the only conservative to speak out. Columnist and commentator George Will said the law, “Tries to codify a right of self-defense that really confers upon citizens the illusion of these, that they have powers exercised by highly-trained police officers. Mr. Zimmerman says he was acting under this self-defense law, but he is said to have been recorded saying he pursued the person. You cannot be in pursuit and acting in self-defense.” Like Zimmerman.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. even chimed in and said, “We all know there’s a racial component to this, and when the president highlights it, I don’t think it adds a whole lot. But nobody suggests that the president’s insensitive to the 17-year-old if he’d been white. I think the criticism by our guys was a little off-base.”

But it’s not about race, right? The fake photosoriginating from neo-Nazi sites, smearingTrayvonMartin’sname, calling him a thug via his alleged Twitter — that’s not about race, it’s perspective. Attempting to link Trayvon Martin and President Obama to the New Black Panthers isn’t about race, either. It’s not about race or politics when conservative site The Washington Free Beacon loudly proclaims “REGISTERED DEM KILLED TRAYVON” and “guns don’t kill people, Dems do.” And we should feel sorry for Zimmerman because in many ways, “George has lost his life, too.”

No. That would be Trayvon Martin. He’s the one who lost his life. You know, the one armed with Skittles, not a Kel-Tec 9 mm handgun.
Conservative blogger Dan Riehl writes the outrage is the fault of black leaders — not the guy who fired the gun. Seriously: “Said leaders, I use the term loosely, seem only interested in fueling outrage and a mob mentality for political gain. It’s sad to see so many black Americans still falling for it after so many decades. Their minds haven’t been freed, all that’s changed is the owners of the plantation. Too many would be black leaders are too happy to lead them down a path through a cotton field of ignorance and hate ending at the ballot box, before just going on and on with no real end in sight.” Disgusting.
Riehl also claims Obama is leading a “lynch mob” against Zimmerman since the Obama campaign sells hoodies. No word if Mitt Romney is also leading the mob with his fashionable “Believe in America” and logo zip-up and pullover hoodies:


Angry Black Lady rips Riehl (and others) apart on her site, Angry Black Lady Chronicles. And rightly so. Black men are persistently stereotyped as dangerous, hoodie-wearing thugs, even though crime rates among black youth have fallen to record lows. Trayvon Martin’s crime appears to be “Walking while black” — a crime Bernie Goldberg or Dan Riehl will never be accused of, thanks to white privilege. Tommy Christopher writes:

This is the essence of the oft-misunderstood term “white privilege,” which is that even the least fortunate among us take for granted things that black people cannot. These don’t feel like privileges, because they’re really not, they are things that ought not be denied to anyone. It doesn’t feel like a privilege to catch a taxicab, or to walk around a store without being constantly watched and shadowed, or not to fear that any encounter with police could escalate to lethality… or to send your child to the store for a snack, confident he’ll return home without being mistaken for an imaginary criminal.

The murder of Trayvon Martin must spark a national conversation and one that must include people of color, for precisely the reasons outlined by Christopher. His fellow Mediaite columnist, Frances Martel, said, “[O]ur broken criminal justice system isn’t a black problem. It’s an American problem.” Until we acknowledge the existence of institutionalized racism, in a system serving liberty and justice for some, and then commit to real reform, Trayvon Martin will not be the last “suspicious person” gunned down for wearing nothing more than dark skin.

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers,

Meg

Just wanted to add, while the police failed to run a drug and alcohol test on Zimmerman, they managed to test Trayvon’s body and HE WAS CLEAN.  NO DRUGS.  Not an issue, not only because it doesn’t give Zimmerman anymore right to shoot an unarmed person, but also because there were NO DRUGS!!!!!

Note: This case is tragic and George Zimmerman, the killer, must be dealt with by law accordingly.

         Update: Zimmerman was arrested this month, April 2012 and is currently in jail
         awaiting a trial hearing. I've heard that Zimmerman also wanted to speak with
         Trayvon's parents for some reason, maybe to apologize hopefully and ask for
         forgiveness and mercy from them for killing their 17 year old son.

Why The Individual Mandate, Whether Wise Or Not, Is Constitutional

Why The Individual Mandate, Whether Wise Or Not, Is Constitutional

In light of the Supreme Court arguments going on right now to determine the fate of Obamacare, I wanted to rehash my thoughts on why the individual mandate is constitutional, edited slightly for clarity. Keep in mind that these are intensely abbreviated remarks, intended only to get the general ideas across for general consumption.

The following [came mostly from] from an e-mail exchange with a couple colleagues of mine which occurred on the heels of news that the Sixth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate in the PPACA. My colleagues’ concern rests on two factors: a) the Commerce Clause becomes meaningless if Congress can regulate inactivity as well as activity, and b) if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, they can theoretically force you to buy anything.

I address these concerns herein:

Interstate Commerce

1. To start, it’s hard to argue, as a practical matter, that an industry which takes up 1/6 of our economy does not qualify as “interstate commerce” within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. There are probably trillions of transactions that take place across state lines involving both health insurance and healthcare delivery every year. We’re not talking about a situation like that in Gonzalez v. Raich involving criminalized Cannabis which never crossed state lines. There is clearly Interstate Commerce going on here. With that being said, I think we can all agree that the right to “regulate” interstate commerce shouldn’t mean “whatever the hell Congress want to do.” The question is what exactly the first continental Congress meant by the word “regulate,” which leads me to:

Intentions Of The Founders

2. I draw your attention to “An Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen, 1798.”

Not a decade after the ink dried on the Constitution, Congress passed, and John Adams signed, a law which mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health insurance. The bill was structured such that the cost of insurance could be deducted from a sailor’s salary by their employer. But in essence, the nature of the coercion was the same: A Congress and White House populated by most of the original Founding Fathers passed a law that mandated a certain class of private citizens to purchase health insurance. The fact that the men who wrote the Commerce Clause felt this legislation was compatible with the Clause itself suggests that they did not see the sort of conflict with the Commerce Clause that has been raised by critics of the Individual Mandate. The form of the 1798 mandate was different, but the nature of the coercion was the same. The government was forcing private citizens to purchase a product that in many cases, they would not have purchased voluntarily. Which brings me to:

The Nature of State Coercion: Mandates vs. Tax-for-services

3. If the Mandate is unconstitutional, then I don’t see how, philosophically speaking, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or really any tax at all is Constitutional. A mandate to purchase goods on the open market is a less coercive than a tax paid in return for a service. That’s because tax-for-service arrangements affect two spheres of freedom, while mandates only affect one.

When the government mandates you to buy something, it only affects one sphere of freedom: they are removing your freedom to choose *not* to buy it, but they are not removing the freedom to choose *where* to buy it. You still have choice among providers of that service in the free market.

But when the government taxes you in return for a service, they are removing two spheres of freedom: the freedom to decide *not* to purchase that service, and also the freedom to decide *from where* to purchase that service (i.e. you have to get it from the government). Because taxation-for-service restricts both these freedoms, taxation-for-service is a more coercive exercise of state power than simply mandating you to purchase something in the free market.

This logic affects a whole host of government programs that are currently well-established, and have withstood constitutional scrutiny. Social Security doesn’t give you a choice of Financial Managers: you are compelled to use the government as the manager of your SS retirement money, vis-a-vis the Social Security Trust Fund. Nor does Medicare or Medicaid give you a choice of insurers.* Being insured by Medicare means being insured by the government; take it or leave it. The Individual Mandate, on the other hand, leaves this choice to the individual.

Also: if the Individual Mandate is ruled unconstitutional, but Social Security and Medicare are left intact, what does that mean? Why couldn’t the government then accomplish the exact same thing as the Individual Mandate by simply taxing people and purchasing private insurance on their behalf? Surely this would be a more coercive exercise of authority than forcing people to buy insurance without a government middleman. But the legal theory upon which opposition to the mandate rests permits this to occur, if aimed only at the “stream of commerce,” and not Congress’s power to tax and provide services therefor.

In short: Telling me I have to buy something is one thing. Telling I have to buy something AND that I can only buy it from one source (i.e. the government) is another thing entirely. The mandate falls into the first category. Taxation-for-services (i.e. medicare, social security, etc) falls into the second.

So at this point, the obvious question is: “if the government can force me to buy health insurance, then what can’t the government force me to buy?” I think you can respond to to this by asking another question in return: what services can’t the state levy a tax for in order to provide as a service to the public? If the government can force you to give them money out of your paycheck, to pay for something they provide to you whether you want it or not, it hardly makes sense that they can’t accomplish the same result by giving the taxpayer the freedom to choose their own service provider through a mandate. Taxation-and-spending forces you to buy from the government and no one else. Mandates, on the other hand, allow you the freedom to select a merchant of your own choosing. The former is, by definition, a more coercive and intrusive exercise of government power than the latter.

What follows from this? If the mandate is unconstitutional, then the 16th Amendment literally rests on nothing more robust than the paper it was written on. It is essentially a meaningless proclamation that grants the government no real authority, or alternatively, an authority that rests on a flippant, absurd contradiction.

Either the mandate is constitutional, or taxation itself rests on a legal philosophical absurdity: namely, that governments can tax and provide services in return (thus restricting both what you buy and who you buy it from); but not, alternatively, simply mandate a purchase (thus restricting what to buy, but not who to buy it from). If that is the case, then we live in a strange country indeed.

*Medicare Advantage notwithstanding!

Source: letterstomycountry via Tumblr

Trayvon Martin Case - President Obama Weighs In: 'If I Had a Son, He'd L...

Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"

(CBS News) President Obama spoke out for the first time on Friday about the fatal shooting of an unarmed 17-year-old African-American boy in Florida named Trayvon Martin, calling it a "tragedy."

"I can only imagine what these parents are going through," Mr. Obama said from the White House Rose Garden, "and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened."

Mr. Obama said he is glad the Justice Department is investigating the shooting and that Florida Gov. Rick Scott formed a task force in response to the incident as well. The president suggested he was sympathetic to suspicion that the shooting may have been racially motivated.

"You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Mr. Obama said.

"All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen," he continued.

"And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident."

Mr. Obama was asked about the shooting on Friday during an event at which he announced the nomination of Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to be World Bank president.
Martin was shot in Sanford, Florida, nearly a month ago after a confrontation in a gated community with a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman maintains he shot Martin in self defense, and a Florida self-defense law has so far let Zimmerman remain free. But Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him when it happened, says Zimmerman was the aggressor. Before he shot Martin, Zimmerman called 911 and told an operator an unfamiliar African American was in the neighborhood. The 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop following him.

In spite of the ongoing investigations, outrage over the incident continues to grow.

Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton said on "CBS This Morning" on Friday that she wants Zimmerman arrested. Thousands of people rallied in Sanford on Thursday to push for his arrest, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also decried the fact that Zimmerman remains free.

Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida took to the House floor on Wednesday to call for justice for Martin, calling the incident "a classic example of racial profiling quickly followed by murder."

From: CBS News via Tumblr

President Obama = Captain America!

We all have our heroes. I have mine as well ;)

From: The Obama Poster Project via Tumblr

My thoughts on The Upper Middle Class and Republicans

And why I think a Minority would make a good president:

The Middle Class and Upper Middle Class majority do not spend most of their lives amongst what constitutes most of America in city's, inner city's and even suburbs with lower middle class to poverty line and below people. Minority's such as Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs and Jews as well as some Whites and even those of Mixed Race may actually do a better job of leading America and making decisions in the best interest of the American people rather then trying to please corporations, lobbyists and other privileged (White) people in politics and congress. Those who are minority's most likely know what the main causes of poverty are (hint: it's not laziness) and what programs are needed to help people who are not privileged make a better life for themselves.

Minority's work harder then most people and some may make less then others
for doing the same job. I suspect they also have to work harder if they attend
college and study harder as well. The ones I know in real life have much empathy
and compassion for others and show understanding I think many on the right lack
that come from privileged backgrounds and family's.

(It occurred to me that Republicans want lower taxes so they can keep more money
for themselves while donating less to others. Many people need help on a monthly
basis with food, medicine and rent something that most individuals and church's
cannot provide on a monthly basis (save for some Catholic Church's) and some
of these people cannot work which is where government assistance comes into
play. Living among Rich White People (I myself am White) for 5 years in Prospect
Heights, IL (my Mom moved there after she married my Step Dad and we lived
there for about 5 years) they seem to display, regardless of religion or background,
contempt for poor people and ridicule. Minority's (including the wealthy Jews out
there) don't have this attitude of contempt nor ridicule and seem to have no problem
paying taxes to fund government programs to help those less fortunate that
I've known)

And so far, I think President Obama, who is a minority (and came from a lower middle class background imo) is doing a fine job of running the country so far. -Rob

Barack Obama's Irish Roots

From: TheDailyBeast

Barack Obama's Irish Roots

The Irish village of Moneygall is preparing to welcome an American president whose ancestor was a native son. Obama's planned May visit has excited locals—and prompted more racial awareness, writes Tom Sykes.

President Obama set down in Dublin Monday as part of a six-day European trip that will include a stop in Moneygall, the tiny town where his great-great-great grandfather was born. In anticipation, the 350 people who live there have painted their homes and opened a coffee shop called “Obama’s café.” Tom Sykes on the president's Irish roots.

The great, but generally unvocalized, astonishment of the people of Moneygall is not so much that one of their descendants is president of the United States, but that one of their descendants is black. You see, a lad going off to America and doing well for himself … well, all the folks in the pub drinking their pints of Guinness can get their heads around that story; sure, wasn't JFK the most famous Irishman of all?

Obama has Irish roots. Credit: Evan Vucci / AP Photo

But a black man? From Moneygall? What?

Moneygall, a very, very small village on the edge of a very, very large Irish bog, is the hometown of Barack Obama's great-great-great-great-grandfather, Joseph Kearney, an Irish wigmaker who emigrated to Ohio in 1849. As such, it will host the president on his current trip to Ireland.

After a bit of bemused head-scratching when the genealogical breakthrough was made by a parish priest during Obama's battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the news has now been digested and processed by the collective consciousness of Moneygall, population 299.

So when (not if) the subject of "O'Bama" comes up at Ollie Hayes's stars and stripes-festooned saloon—Ollie's has been declared Obama HQ by the media because the Kearney family home was located out the back, and Obama's 24-year-old ninth cousin, Henry Healy, a plumber, drinks there—and you start to say, "But how come…" they cut you off right away, and explain patiently that Obama is "mixed race" and his mother's side are Irish and his father's side are Kenyan, and this is why the president is dark-skinned.

 "People didn't really relate to the idea of a black president having Irish roots."

But the fact remains: Moneygall is very, very white. There are no black people living in the village, although there is a "very nice Indian family" living in the housing estate outside town. But Moneygall is not unusual in that respect; rural Ireland is very, very white. The 2006 census showed that just 1.06 percent of Irish citizens are black, and outside major city centers, black people are still a rarity. In the countryside, the presence of black people is usually commented on. Inadvertent racism pervades conversation and society, both polite and impolite. Mixed-race people, for example, are often referred to as "half-castes" or "half-and-halfs."

A university-educated, professional friend of mine who was going to stay with an Irish friend in London who is married to a black woman recently told me he was due to visit "Mandela Hall." It's not malicious (usually), just naivete and a lack of familiarity, awareness, and education. But still, you don't quite know where to look.
You might expect the Irish to be a bit more sensitive. They are far from unfamiliar with prejudice themselves. Generations of Irish emigrants saw signs in the windows of London hotels reading, "No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs."
Moneygall itself has been through an accelerated racial-awareness program since the news of Obama's heritage broke. You hear more people using the words "mixed-race" than "half-caste" here. But the village was unusually well-prepared compared with most of rural Ireland for the extraordinary news that one of their descendants was black, for, back in the 1930s, another black man lived in Moneygall.

His name was Joe Kelly, and he lived at the local big house, Ballintemple, which is located directly opposite the Anglican church where Obama's ancestors worshipped, married, and christened their children, and where the records identifying Obama's heritage were found. Ballintemple was occupied by a family of farmers called Burris until around 1930, when it was sold to the grandparents of the current owner, Henry Hogg.

"We still call his old room 'Joe Kelly's room,'" Hogg says. "Children from orphanages were basically handed out to families, and Joe Kelly was taken in by Mrs. Burris. When the house was sold the family 'inherited' Joe Kelly. He came with the house. It was where he had always lived, so he wouldn't actually have had anywhere else to go. My uncle later told me that his mother was a prostitute in Dublin. He was a houseboy for Mrs. Burris and then he was a houseboy for my grandmother. He used to go into Cloghjordan (a nearby town) at the weekends and go to the pub and so on.

For the rest of this article go here: Barack Obama's Irish Roots

Barack Obama drinks Guinness and tells jokes in Moneygall pub on officia...

The Thinking President

"He really is being treated unjustly by many Americans. Remember when presidents were honored? Obama is not getting the credit he deserves. He's a beautiful person with integrity. No matter how the 'others' rake him through the coals, he remains eloquent. I'm so proud to have him as my president." ― Shiovan M via the
facebook page: Re-Elect President Obama

President Obama is a loving father, caring person, good man and great President!

President Obama is a loving father, caring person, good man and great President!

President Obama is 100% American!

I'm looking at you, Mississippi.

From Bruce Lidner via Facebook.

Abortions.... Fact!

Fact: Abortions have happened under every President and will continue to happen regardless of whom is President of the U.S. even if abortion is outlawed it will still happen so stop blaming President Obama for things that are not his fault anti-Obama protestors!

KONY 2012

Chief Shares His Dream of President Obama