el midgetron
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2023
- 9,549
- 7,468
- 1,938
Zone1 The Constant Lie About Black Criminality
- Thread starter DGS49
- Start date
- Status
Most of them never had the brains for that, and they were too addicted to crime.
el midgetron
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2023
- 9,549
- 7,468
- 1,938
el midgetron
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2023
- 9,549
- 7,468
- 1,938
The fruit of the historically-racist-Democrats.
Facts like that are graphic reminders that Negroes have a crime rate eight times the white rate. They also tend to be much less intelligent.
/——/ LBJ’s Great Society is what happened. The male of the household was replaced with a government program.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,015
- 105,151
- 3,645
No that didn't happen.
What about the mothers pension program that began in 1910 that provided money for single white women with children and no man at home? Did that replace the male of the household with a government program? What about Title 4 of the Social Security Act in 1935, that continued the mothers pension for singe white unwed mothers? Wouldn't these things ruin the white family?
White amnesia is amazing.
/----/ Oh yes it did.
What has the Great Society Wrought Fifty Years Later? Marriage, Family and Poverty | Houston Christian University
By Timothy S. Goeglein Fifty years ago in 1966, there was a major revolution underway in American government that would have a massive impact on mill ...
hc.edu
A plague of fatherlessness ensued, leading to nearly 72 percent of all American black children being born without married parents by 2015. Marriage had become a rare and distant thing.
In fact, between 1940 and 1965, illegitimately had grown from 4 percent to 8 percent, but in the 25 years that would follow, those numbers would dramatically jump to nearly 30 percent by 1990.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,015
- 105,151
- 3,645
Tell me Mr white boy who never lived in a black family, what did the shit you imagine that never was, do to the bllack family?
Man-in-the-House Rule
In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the regulation as being contrary to the legislative goals of the Aid to Families of Dependent Children (AFDC) program.In King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court entertained a challenge to the man-in-the-house rule brought by the four children of Mrs. Sylvester Smith, a widow. These children were denied benefits by Dallas County, Alabama, welfare authorities, based on their knowledge that a man named Williams was visiting Smith on weekends and had sexual relations with her.
The children of Smith filed a CLASS ACTION suit in federal court on behalf of other children in Alabama who were denied benefits under Alabama's "substitute father" regulation. This regulation considered a man a substitute father if (1) he lived in the home with the mother; (2) he visited the home frequently for the purpose of living with the mother; or (3) he cohabited with the mother elsewhere (King, citing Alabama Manual for Administration of Public Assistance, pt. I, ch. II, § VI). Testimony in the case revealed that there was some confusion among the authorities over how to interpret the regulation. One official testified that the regulation applied only if the parties had sex at least once a week, another official testified that sex every three months was sufficient, and still another placed the frequency at once every six months.
According to the High Court, Congress did not intend that the AFDC program require children "to look for their food to a man who is not in the least obliged to support them." The Court maintained that when Congress used the term parent in the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, it was referring to "an individual who owed to the child a state-imposed legal duty of support." Ultimately, the Court struck down the man-in-the-house rule by holding that under the AFDC provisions in the Social Security Act, "destitute children who are legally fatherless cannot be flatly denied federally funded assistance on the transparent fiction that they have a substitute father."
Man-in-the-House Rule
law.jrank.org
I want you stupid ass white morons to read the first line. Then understand King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968) was a supreme court case taken to the court by a black woman who worked to end the NO MAN IN THE HOUSE RULE.
The ONLY thing that has fucked up black families is CONTINUING WHITE RACISM.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,015
- 105,151
- 3,645
The Great sovciety dod none of that./----/ Oh yes it did.
(By 1965) Millions of Americans were soon engulfed in permanent chaos and dysfunction. Major metropolitan areas were comprised of block upon block of victimized children, broken families, and shattered lives.What has the Great Society Wrought Fifty Years Later? Marriage, Family and Poverty | Houston Christian University
By Timothy S. Goeglein Fifty years ago in 1966, there was a major revolution underway in American government that would have a massive impact on mill ...
A plague of fatherlessness ensued, leading to nearly 72 percent of all American black children being born without married parents by 2015. Marriage had become a rare and distant thing.
In fact, between 1940 and 1965, illegitimately had grown from 4 percent to 8 percent, but in the 25 years that would follow, those numbers would dramatically jump to nearly 30 percent by 1990.
King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968) was a supreme court case taken to the court by a black woman who worked to end the NO MAN IN THE HOUSE RULE. That ended in 1968 idiot..
Tell the right wing bigots at Hoouston Christian University whose website you used to go do some research.
This is yet another absolutely horrific story.
And why were the savages who killed them shirtless? Did the cops remove their shirts to make sure they had no weapons, or were they walking around like that in public? What lowlifes.
And will their trials be televised for America to see? Or does that just happen when whites kill blacks because it’s so rare?
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,015
- 105,151
- 3,645
I DGAF where you lived. Because if white boy tasted like chicken it was because white boy tried colonizing. And you are imagining white BOY, because the no man at home rule, created by white conservatves, was erased by the supreme court in 1968 because a black woman wanted to be able to have her man at home with her children.I've lived where 'white boy' tastes like chicken
I don't have to imagine anything Mr Black boy
~S~
Yes, and I know this for a fact: unwed mothers do not go after their Baby Dadas for child support because it’s easier to have OTHER PEOPLE pay for their kids. If we cut this off, or at least reduced it, maybe single mothers would take the lowlifes to Court and get their wages garnished.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,015
- 105,151
- 3,645
King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), was a unanimous decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends. The issue before the US Supreme Court involved how the states could determine how to implement a federal program. The court used the term "co-operative federalism." Shapiro v. Thompson, King v. Smith and Goldberg v. Kelly were a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with Welfare, specifically referred to as a part of 'The Welfare Cases'.
Mrs. Sylvester Smith was a Dallas County, Alabama resident who had four children, without a biological father providing support. The father of three of her children had died and the father of her fourth child was not in the picture. Thus, she qualified for AFDC. She was, however, having an affair with a Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams had nine children of his own. Williams, who visited on weekends, was counted as a "substitute father", thus disqualifying the family for aid according to Alabama Law.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the term "father" did not include substitute fathers because Williams was under no obligation to support Smith's children.
en.wikipedia.org
Mrs. Sylvester Smith was a Dallas County, Alabama resident who had four children, without a biological father providing support. The father of three of her children had died and the father of her fourth child was not in the picture. Thus, she qualified for AFDC. She was, however, having an affair with a Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams had nine children of his own. Williams, who visited on weekends, was counted as a "substitute father", thus disqualifying the family for aid according to Alabama Law.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the term "father" did not include substitute fathers because Williams was under no obligation to support Smith's children.
King v. Smith - Wikipedia
You told us already. Stop posting the same thing over and over.King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), was a unanimous decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends. The issue before the US Supreme Court involved how the states could determine how to implement a federal program. The court used the term "co-operative federalism." Shapiro v. Thompson, King v. Smith and Goldberg v. Kelly were a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with Welfare, specifically referred to as a part of 'The Welfare Cases'.
Mrs. Sylvester Smith was a Dallas County, Alabama resident who had four children, without a biological father providing support. The father of three of her children had died and the father of her fourth child was not in the picture. Thus, she qualified for AFDC. She was, however, having an affair with a Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams had nine children of his own. Williams, who visited on weekends, was counted as a "substitute father", thus disqualifying the family for aid according to Alabama Law.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the term "father" did not include substitute fathers because Williams was under no obligation to support Smith's children.
King v. Smith - Wikipedia
What is this supposed to prove? Unmarried welfare mothers and their illegitimate children deserve no help whatsoever. Children are the responsibility of their parents. Responsible married couples should not be taxed to support the illegitimate children of irresponsible unmarried people. Those illegitimate children grow up to be just as worthless and frequently dangerous as their parents.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Supreme Court orders Trump to ‘facilitate’ release of wrongly deported man- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Trump may achieve in four years what it took Reagan 8 plus his predecessor to do, he may defeat communism again- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 11
