In April 1921, the then Governor of Georgia unveiled a pamphlet alluded to as the ‘The Negro in Georgia’ (Dorsey) and it was a significant step for a segregation history. The pamphlet stirred a series of mixed reactions within the state and beyond its borders. In his pamphlet, the governor endeavored to mirror the cruelty accorded to Black people at the hands of white citizens. The governor used an array of injustice and violence cases on black people in the state of Georgia, all derived from unsolicited testimonies that he had previously received while in office. He unveiled the pamphlet in an era when numerous black people were seeking political participation, acceptance, and accommodation. Be that as it may, racial equality seemed overly ambitious. At a time when Jim Crow personified a governance framework founded on racial segregation and oppression, the problem of race was the dominant menace of the century. As a result, Dorsey’s plan on dealing with the race problem in Georgia was both realistic and visionary given its magnitude.

In his statement, the governor advocated for an end to various forms of injustices and acts of violence against the blacks. According to Dorsey, the state of Georgia would effectively combat racism through his proposed remedies such as necessary education for both races, punishments to regions in which lynching happened, and a state commission to examine those wrongdoings. Truly an opponent of peonage and racism, Dorsey argued that the state should stand indicted as a people before the world. Peonage was a form of debt slavery where employers compelled workers to pay off their debts with works. Congress banned peonage in 1867, but many black people continued to suffer its consequences through various forms. Dorsey’s efforts, therefore, stirred a series of black advancement endeavors which arguably led to complete eradication of peonage in the 1940s.

Additionally, Dorsey’s plan through his pamphlet depicts his indirect opposition to Jim Crow. The governor grouped an array of acts of injustices in four distinct categories. These classes of injustices were propelled by Jim Crow, which was a series of anti-black laws and a way of life structured to demean the black people. His encouragement for the people of Georgia to stand indicted as a people depicts his conviction that the state, both white and black, could work together to address the race problem. What’s more, the governor suggested changes that would open up new opportunities for blacks.

To end the conditions, Governor Dorsey also recommended a clear six-part remedy plan. The remedy plan encompassed publicity of facts, advancement of the social gospel, compulsory education, committees on race relations, repeal of certain laws, and new law enactments (Dorsey). An in-depth analysis of the pamphlet reveals that Dorsey endeavored to accomplish a series of objectives with the flagship being to appeal to all citizens of Georgia stop all the cruelty and amend their ways. By disclosing the underlying names of counties and individuals that were perpetrating the injustices against the southern people, it was evident that Dorsey had no desire to propel prejudicial publicity. He hoped to speak to all those counties and the state at large and convince them to condemn the acts of violence and adopt corrective mechanisms.

In conclusion, the backdrop above plausibly depicts that Dorsey’s plan, through his pamphlet was not only realistic but visionary. The governor’s plan was visionary because he unveiled it during an era when racial equality seemed unachievable. Dorsey’s vision was arguably ahead of time. For instance, peonage was only completely eradicated in the 1940s. Suggestions outlined in his remedy plan were also fully effected years later. In other words, Dorsey started a conversation that black activists picked up years later, making him a visionary. Be that as it may, his plan was also realistic. The governor published 135 cases of injustices and acts of violence that mirrored the cruelty in Georgia. He went ahead to provide a clear outline of suggestions that if adopted, would combat racism and stop the cruelty, thus making his plan realistic. Finally, Dorsey probably unveiled his plan weeks before his resignation to pave the way for the execution of his plan. Furthermore, his plan was clearly outlined.

The president of Russia Vladimir Putin announced that he would move nuclear-capable missiles closer to Europe in response to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO’s) expansion in the Baltic States. According to Putin, to manifest force against western allies, Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles and a ballistic Islanders system will be opened in Kaliningrad, which is located between Lithuania and Poland. Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law to approve a new national security strategy of the Russian Federation. According to that law, expansion of NATO and the alliance’s approach to Russia’s borders implies a threat to the country’s national security. With the high technology of missiles that Russia has, it highly threat the peace of united states. Putin s warning of attacking anyone who threatens them brings it out clear that this is a threat to United States.

Since the Putin expansion was to counter attack the expansion of the NATO whose major united states is one its major leaders we can deduce that the United States is in the danger of being attacked by Russia. Putin said that they will attack anyone who tries to threaten them and this implies that they will be very careful in observing what all the members of NATO are planning and what their next target in their attacks. Putin also said that when a country joins NATO it is impossible to fail to comply with NATO’s pressure on implementing their plans. Putin’s statements are strongly basing their threats to united states because when he talk of NATO and the United States being one of the leaders it simply mean whenever Russia faces threat there is a possibility of them attacking us presuming they are the ones who suggested the threat or attack.

NATO’s explanation on their purpose of expansion is not convincing to Russia. This is due to the counteraction that NATO showed during Ukraine attack by Russia in 2015. The independent internal and external policy conducted by Russia triggers counteraction from the U.S. and their allies seeking to keep up their domination in global affairs. Rassia is safeguarding its strength and fears that the United States can use all means to pull them down. This fear can lead to Russia attacking the United States to make sure they do not overtake them. America is in great danger because Putin and his people strongly believe they are the target of a Western plot to weaken their country.

Russia might be having not much past experience with democracy, but it was a major power for centuries prior to the collapse of communism. Putin has built his political base by appealing to nationalism, fashioning a revisionist view of most recent activities in which Russia is the victim and the author of its own misfortunes. This frustration makes Russia to be aggressive towards all that happens around it. This could be the reason why they feel like NATO’s expansion is a threat to their security.

Russia can have power over the world if it decides to attack anyone who attacks them. With their expanded missiles technology, Russia can attack any country around the world. Although Russia might not have enough power to attack the whole world, attack the countries with stable economic growth can spread the problem to the entire world. This is because most of the NATO members are the most developed across the world meaning most countries depend on them to develop their economy. If Russia tampers with the security of the major producers of oil and other minerals that are the key to production of all products it will have messed with the economy of the whole world. If they can manage to conquer all the super power country they will have managed to govern the entire world since they can easily attack other countries without much effort and finally Russia will have the entire world under her control.
According to Tom Leonard’s article, Putin said that he believes that it’s only a candidate from republican who can ease the tension that is there between Moscow and Washington. With this we can hope for Putin to work closely with Trump and solve the differences that makes Russia fell that NATO’s expansion was a threat to her national security. If Trump and Putin manage to have an agreement about the differences, Russia will no longer be a threat to America.
We cannot evidently say that Americans voted Trump due to fear of Russia attack but at least they did what will bring them peace as Putin had put it.

Putin is a threat to the United States. NATO’s expansion being the major concern to Putin and the United States being a leader Russia can easily attack America. Trump should take measures to protect his people before Russia attacks. The only way to do this is having Trump hold a talk with Putin and find solutions to the problem arising from NATO’s expansion. If Trump can bring everything under control the entire world will be assured of their internal peace and economic development.

The second Obama

Barrack Hussein Obama made history by becoming the first African American president of the United States of America in January 2009. He had been identified as a potential presidential candidate after his beautiful speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while he was Senator for Illinois. The possibility of an African American occupying the oval office was realized when Senator Obama became the first African American to win the nomination of a major party in the history of American Presidential Elections.

There have been African American Presidential Candidates whose bids were unsuccessful. They include:
 Fredrick Douglass who was a Republican aspirant in the 1888 primaries
 George Edwin Taylor who was a Southern Democrat in the July 1904 convention
 Shirley Chisholm who garnered 180 delegates from the 1972 Democratic National Convention
 Jesse Jackson who competed as a Democrat in the 1984 and 1988 presidential election
 Alan Keyes competed as a Republican in 1996, 2000 and 2008 Republican primaries
 Carol Moseley and Al Sharpton ran in 2004 Democratic Primaries
 Herman Cain, a tea party Republican ran briefly in 2012 but later withdrew before the primaries
 Ben Carson ran for the Republican Ticket in 2016

The impact of African American presidential candidates has been immense. They have made sure their voices were part of the national conversation.
Some names have been touted as possible leading contenders for the White House Race in the next election. Who could be the second Obama?

 Senator Cory Booker
Senator Booker electrified the Democratic National Convention in 2016 with a rousing speech. Pundits drew parallels to the Obama Speech in the 2004 DNC. The 49-year-old junior senator for New Jersey has been touted as a possible future Obama. He has served as Senator since 2013. He has previously served as Mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. He was Newark City Council Member for Central Ward between 1998 and 2002. Booker is a Yale Educated Lawyer. Obama is a lawyer too.
Senator Cory has been a champion of women’s rights, affirmative action and single – player healthcare. He is mostly considered neoliberal and a political moderate. His political ideologies align with those of the New Democrat Movement.

 Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
The 54-year-old Former First Lady and Harvard trained Lawyer has been tipped as a suitable candidate for the top job. Michelle, like her husband Barrack, is a highly gifted orator and writer, Her 2016 DNC speech remains etched in the memories of Democrats when she endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
She is a role model for women, an advocate for education, nutrition, healthy eating and poverty awareness. Her popularity during her stint as the first lady for the eight years was at an all-time high. If she were to run, she would make an incredible candidate and even a great commander in chief.

 Oprah Winfrey
When receiving her Cecile B. DeMiller Award for lifetime achievement at the 2018 Golden Globe Awards Ceremony, she gave a rousing acceptance speech. That speech evoked a national debate on her possible 2020 run. It even got the attention of President Trump who sarcastically responded that he would beat Oprah were she to run against him in the next election. The 64-year-old entertainment mogul is the first black woman to acquire the status of a billionaire. With her expansive networks, she has been the greatest black philanthropist in American History.

 Senator Kamala Devi Harris

The 54-year-old first time Senator from California has Jamaican and Indian descent. She served as a District Attorney for San Francisco for seven years. She then rose to become the Attorney General for California from January 2011 to January 2017. When she was DA, conviction rates rose from 52% to 67% for felony convictions, 85% for homicides and 75%convictions for drug dealers.
She has been considered a top contender for the 2020 Democratic Nomination for President. She has been a fierce critic of the Trump Administration.

 Deval Patrick

The 62-year-old Civil Rights Lawyer and former Governor of Massachusetts has also been considered as a potential. He is the only African American to have served as Governor of Massachusetts. During his tenure, Patrick spearheaded the implementation of the health care reform program. He increased funding for education. Like Michelle, he hails from the South Side of Chicago.
Speculations on his possible run started way back in 2012. He, however, downplayed running in the 2016 election. He has now publicly hinted at a 2022 run in March this year. He came to the defense of Obama in 2008 when Obama was accused of plagiarizing Patrick‘s gubernatorial run speech of 2006. He was also a surrogate of the Obama re-election campaign. He had even been as possible nominee for the United States Associate Justice seat in 2016 and also Attorney General way back in 2008.

Conclusively, there are high profile politicos who are likely to fit into the Second Obama profile. Others include New York Senator Kirk Gillibard and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. As 2020 approaches, the possibility of there being a second African American cannot be wished away.

In the space of under a month, the odds on a hung parliament after the election have moved from Evens to 4/7.

The main development behind this has been the startling polling coming out of Scotland showing the possibility of sweeping SNP gains, mainly at Labour’s expense. The continued good showing of the Greens at the polls has also hurt Labour disproportionately.

Meanwhile, UKIP’s numbers have shown no sign of declining and the prospect of a comfortable win for Mark Reckless in Rochester next week isn’t going to help the Tories – UKIP are now 1/33 to win the by-election.

Is the betting shift reflected in the political scientists’ forecasting models? I’ve taken the latest estimates from a couple of excellent sites; Steven Fisher at electionsetc and Chris Hanretty at ElectionForecast and compared them to the probabilities suggested by Ladbrokes’ latest odds

Lab Maj23%19%9%17%
Con Maj17%25%12%18%

The Hanretty estimate of a hung parliament would make it just under a 1/4 chance, which makes our 4/7 offer look quite generous. Both models make a Tory majority more likely than a Labour one, although that isn’t reflected in the betting yet.

All of this makes the market on what the post-election government will emerge even more open. We’ve seen a bit of money in recent days for a Lab/LD/SNP coalition, which has shortened up from 33/1 to 20/1.

Oh dear. The Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling may have been very bad news for Jim Murphy, but it wasn’t much better for Ladbrokes. We were hoping it might show some encouragement for Labour in some of their safest seats, but no. We are now sitting on some hefty losses if the SNP do as well as this polling suggests.

The SNP are now clear favourites in 40 seats in Scotland. Below is a list of every constituency, with their odds. You can find all of our latest constituency betting here.

Seat2010  WinnerSNP Odds
Dundee EastSNP1/100
Banff and BuchanSNP1/100
Perth and Perthshire NorthSNP1/33
Na h-Eileanan an IarSNP1/25
Inverness, Nairn, B & SLib-Dem1/8SNP GAIN
Argyll and ButeLib-Dem1/10SNP GAIN
Dundee WestLabour1/7SNP GAIN
GordonLib-Dem1/7SNP GAIN
Ochil and Perthshire SouthLabour1/6SNP GAIN
FalkirkLabour1/5SNP GAIN
Caithness, Sutherland & ERLib-Dem1/5SNP GAIN
Glasgow EastLabour1/3SNP GAIN
Ayrshire North and ArranLabour1/3SNP GAIN
Fife North EastLib-Dem1/3SNP GAIN
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & K.E. Labour1/5SNP GAIN
Glasgow NorthLabour2/5SNP GAIN
Kilmarnock and LoudounLabour2/5SNP GAIN
Linlithgow and Falkirk EastLabour2/5SNP GAIN
Motherwell and WishawLabour2/5SNP GAIN
Glasgow SouthLabour2/5SNP GAIN
Aberdeen NorthLabour4/9SNP GAIN
Dunbartonshire WestLabour1/2SNP GAIN
LivingstonLabour1/2SNP GAIN
Glasgow CentralLabour1/2SNP GAIN
Edinburgh EastLabour1/2SNP GAIN
InverclydeLabour4/7SNP GAIN
Paisley and Renfrewshire SLabour4/7SNP GAIN
Airdrie and ShottsLabour4/6SNP GAIN
East Kilbride, Strathaven & LLabour4/6SNP GAIN
Glasgow North WestLabour4/6SNP GAIN
Lanark and Hamilton EastLabour4/6SNP GAIN
MidlothianLabour4/6SNP GAIN
Paisley and Renfrewshire NLabour4/6SNP GAIN
StirlingLabour4/6SNP GAIN
Dunbartonshire EastLib-Dem4/6SNP GAIN
Edinburgh WestLib-Dem4/6SNP GAIN
Aberdeen SouthLabour8/11SNP GAIN
Aberdeenshire W & KincardineLib-Dem4/5SNP GAIN
Glasgow South WestLabourEvs
Coatbridge, Chryston & Bells’Labour11/10
Ayr, Carrick and CumnockLabour5/4
Ayrshire CentralLabour5/4
Dunfermline and Fife WestLabour6/4
Ross, Skye and LochaberLib-Dem6/4
Edinburgh South WestLabour13/8
Edinburgh SouthLabour7/4
Edinburgh North and LeithLabour15/8
Glasgow North EastLabour2/1
East LothianLabour2/1
Renfrewshire EastLabour9/4
Kirkcaldy and CowdenbeathLabour11/4
Rutherglen and Hamilton WestLabour11/4
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & TConservative3/1
Dumfries and GallowayLabour3/1
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & SLib-Dem3/1
Orkney and ShetlandLib-Dem4/1
Page 1 of 13123410...Last »