Yep!!!!!! Lmao the slavery shit is confirmed in the census for Jamaica those years too.... her dad even admitted to it!!!!!!!! So we have an Indian, posing as a black who owned a bunch of slaves in Jamaica.... nice jobs Dems! Clown world IRL 🤡
Yep!!!! And great point. Yeah her dad publicly disowned her forever for “disrespecting them and the jamiaican people” by saying “I’m Jamaican. Of course I smoke weed and listened to Tupac and snoop in college (5 years before both of them started rapping” and they keep tryna scrub the article w the dad’s interview. Too bad the internet is forever
Kum-allah's family were major slave owners. Nothing says strong ̶i̶n̶d̶i̶a̶n̶ black woman like your ancestors working slaves to death to make rum and textiles.
Factcheck: More Manchurian Candidate than AnchorBaby.
She's awefully quiet about her parents' school visa and other documents. She was born Oct 20 1964, and the 1965 Ted Kennedy Immigration Act didn't take effect until June 30, 1968. So, the immigration laws most people think of do not apply to her. She likely never legally naturalized to be a US Citizen and isn't even eligible to be a senator. Something she doesn't like to talk about, other than saying she was born in USA.
Look into the documents her parents were on while here, when she was born. Under her theory of the case, she would also be legally able to run for President of Jamacia and President of India, if they had the same "natural born citizen" clause. Go ask her parents about their 1960's documents, ask the gov agencies that issued them.
We really need a congressional commission to comb through all the members' citizenships; and impeach/eject all those that aren't legit. Because that's their job as written in the Constitution to do.
Democrats always get away with crimes that support/advance Swamp narratives. Its major evidence that there is a systemic problem in DC, and major purges need to happen all over that town - starting with the DOJ and every intel agency.
I hear you, but I invite you to do your homework in detail, particularly for K.H.. Take any Supreme Court Case you think is on the topic, and read the opinion in the entirety (reading the disenting opinions is helpful too, but can skip that part). For instance, people mention or think of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This doesn't apply to K.Harris, since her parents were here on temp school visas? and did not have "perminant legal residency" in the USA (her parents were not perminant legal residents and likely not carrying on business, as they were students).
Oh I agree that it's complete bullshit, I've looked at the cases as well. I mean people literally come into the country illegally to give birth, and their children are American citizens - it's disgusting but Kamala is covered.
The 14th is clearly referring to black slaves but SCOTUS has been cucked for 100 years +.
She's not. Here parents weren't here illegally. They each signed temp student visas. They weren't here perminently. They weren't here working on business. Because she was born here, she could have applied to naturalized.
So, don't lump all the cases into one pot, because they're not. And if you remove the cases which come from legislation after her birth and not applicable. Basically, K.H. parents were here on temp student visas (not illegal) and student visas are not business/work visas.
And under the immigration laws at the time (and since), she could have officially filed to naturalize to become a US citizen (and eligible to be Senator, but still not POTUS/VP); but she never did this when she came of age to choose the USA vs either of her parents citizenships. If she would have filed to naturalize, it of course would have officially acknowledged and removed the ability of "my mommy told me I could be/should be President someday."
That's why she's not an anchorbaby, her parents weren't illegals, they had papers, and this makes a big legal difference, and why the cases do not give her automatic naturalization.
My understanding of all those 4 opinions is 3 out of 3 needed . BOTH parents citizens and born in USA:
"“those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”."
"Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country."
A few notes about the cites in the article, for instance the 3rd Minor v. Happersett is just saying 3 of 3 is good, it's not saying 3 of 3 is required, in other words if 2 of 3 is the standard, well obviously 3 of 3 is as good as it gets and there is no doubt, but it doesn't make 3 of 3 the case law in any way.
The 4th case cite, again is far more limited than what most people believe the case law says, similar to Roe v Wade doesn't say what most people incl lawyers and politicans say it does; and it was a bad case, as reading the discent is far more informative.
The key problem in citing the Book in the first two case cites, is like citing "the Federalist Papers"; those books are not the law, its not like citing true law source material pre-dating the Constitution which the Constitution rests upon like the Magna Carta. The book isn't an exact fit with out the Republic is being structured compared to royal France.
Well the one thing about the Founders and the Constitution is a significant majority is based on prior law and publications they had access to. However, when putting the various Founding documents together (like Articles of Conf. and the Constitution) sometimes they found the original to be too restrictive or expansive for setting up in the new Republic. They created a way to dovetail all these things together, and some they had to trim, or expand. The pre-Constitutional laws do not always fit or agree with the Constitution.
Some very practical reasons for 2 of 3, for instance, simple things like proving who the parents of the child is, or where exactly the birth took place (keep in mind the "frontier" wasn't labeled with GPS coordinates, there wasn't births in hospitals, there often wasn't a certified: "birth certificate" judge or gov clerk or lawyer etc.) mothers died in childbirth, fathers die in war or on the sea, etc. And as history would note going forward how many Presidents were born in what amounts to a log cabin, frontier, poverty, or some other things which makes for proving things like 3/3 rather hard.
The Founders didn't adopt the European nobility standard of requiring dual citizen-parent blood for "natural born citizen"ship, nor the father only line of blood or rank. Aside from the "nobility vs commoner" aspect which the Constitution was doing away with; it was simple math and practicality. The population of the United States going back to the first colonies (or technically too even amongst native tribes/nations) was one which had high levels of immigration and mobility. And what percentage of the population would meet this requirement at any given time if POTUS was only kids of parents whom both were citizens.
Keep in mind citizenry wasn't the same as being here. People could be here, but not be a citizen.
Places in Europe, as the history books about ancient Rome and Greece which our Founders also read, saw what happens when the % of the population of elite "natural born citizens" shrinks compared to the total population. And when someone is born outside of this political ruling class, and they really want to be king and have the skills, they will find a way even if it is to topple the king, the gov, or rebellion (insert Founders here). By making it too restrictive, the chances that a Sparticus or shortly a Neopoleon, would be born on the outside looking in goes up.
Their main goal and fear was to make sure a POTUS had a majority/super-majority loyalty to the USA (and thus American values and interests), and couldn't be loyal to another king/kingdom/nation (or disloyal to America).
An interesting example o it's not both parents can be found in the outdated words often overlooked in Art 2, Sect 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...
See if the standard were two citizen parents for natural born citizen; then there this part of the sentence would have some blood component to it (who the parents were of these citizens of America upon ratification), but these new citizens of new American Republic, came from all kinds of blood nationalites beforehand, and thus citizenship was you are here and you apply, you first batch are promoted to "natural born citizens" equivalent to be eligible to run for POTUS (if meeting the other requirements of age and residency).
Now, follow to see where this does or does not it make any logical sense: That every American who is a citizen at time of ratification (again counting age & residency) can someday run for POTUS; well if two of those citizens have a child in America then that child can run for POTUS (3 of 3); but if a person who could run for POTUS but has a child with someone who isn't a citizen, but child is born on US soil, that child can or cant run for POTUS (2 of 3). By the same token, if two original citizens have a child NOT on US soil, that child wouldnt be eligible to run for POTUS (2 of 3) even though both parents could (like if the child was born onboard a ship flagged under another nation, or if parents were taken prisoner and held on the carbean islands, or even more to the point Manifest Destiny by moving mostly westward pioneering)?
Basically the 2 of 3 is like most of the 2/3rds requirements in the Constitution for super-majority. It does away with the 100% requirement of the Articles of Confederation (like the E.U. today) which everyone had to agree as they found this very untenible for a Republic. 2 of 3 also avoids the historically/politically/realistically/practically bad situation (opposite that to the Rights of Englishmen) where a person could be president, but if they had a child on us soil that child could not be (by having a child with a non-citizen).
Further again the Founders knew human nature, and in many cases it would be impossible to prove all 3/3, and simply of course people would lie about it, if they sought power enough.
The failure of even holding to the 2 of 3 standard; and dropping down to 1/3 means candidates for POTUS have loyalties and ideological upbringings which are NOT American and NOT to our REPUBLIC.
African tribalism resulted in victors of conflicts enslaving and selling their enemies.
The greatest motivating factor of the "Age of Discovery" was to get ships down to South Africa so they could cut out all the middlemen that jacked up the price as the slaves were trafficked north to the Mediterranean.
The Europeans literally invented methods of sailing into the wind and ship building techniques to get around blacks selling blacks for profit and in so doing created trade empires and discovered the world.
So there's Africa's greatest contribution to the world: their slave trade was so profitable the Euros discovered the world to get a piece of the action.
"What a bizarre thing to say."
"I'm afraid the President's head wound has scrambled his wits. Since coming to, he has raved naught but febrile nonsense. For instance, he has repeatedly accused one Bill Clinton of being a rapist followed closely by the exclamation of "info wars dot com". More puzzling is the repeated recitation of "two scoops, two genders, two terms"."
Fun Fact: Honest Abe supported sending all the freedmen back to a town called Freetown, Liberia - in a project known as the American Colonization Society. Malcom X himself supported similar ideas (black only state) 100 years later.
Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln
By DAN MCLAUGHLIN
October 7, 2020 10:30 PM
It was impossible to miss how Kamala Harris, like Joe Biden, refused to answer questions about their plans to expand the Supreme Court. But she also misrepresented history.
Harris claimed at the VP debate that Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice in October 1864 because “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first.
Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.
Kamala Harris is simply lying, the usual Democrap ploy.
WIKI:
When Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died in October 1864, Lincoln named Chase to succeed him. Nominated on December 6, 1864, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on the same day,[30] he was sworn into office on December 15, 1864, and served until his own death on May 7, 1873
Here is a more prescient (and actually real) quote from honest Abe...
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
Mike Pence is clearly a gentleman; all around good guy, and he’s a great “yin” to Trump’s “yang”. Still I cannot believe Camela brought up Honest Abe and lied about it, Pence let her slide sort of although he did say she avoided answering the question about court packing, her smugness and smile as if she thought she was about to drop a bomb before she gave her “history lesson” was disgusting. But, it reminded me of when Hillary gave an Abe anecdote at a 2016 debate, and Trump straight up destroyed her over it. This is just a short clip of Trump but the preceding bullshit spewed by Hillary may also be of interest.
“Mr Stanton, Mr Welles, and everyone whose graces have magnanimously accompanied me to the hour of my parting, it is with great, fervent urgency that I bequeath upon all of you the task of ensuring, many years henceforth, that the administration we have duly resided over the past several years not be tarnished and sullied by the misquoting of a sanctimonious nitwit, race-baiting clown who sucked her way to the top.”
Hey hey hey. No returns, no returns. The blacks are happy to have her, and we do not want her back. On behalf of Indians, we do not want her back. We want to bury this shameful fact. Let the blacks have her, they seem to be happy with her. Please stop calling her Indian.
RespectHisWish
abelivesmatter
Kamala’sfamilyownedabunchofslavesinJamaica
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you say it more plainly?
Come on, man
Her family did... y'know... the thing
Yep!!!!!! Lmao the slavery shit is confirmed in the census for Jamaica those years too.... her dad even admitted to it!!!!!!!! So we have an Indian, posing as a black who owned a bunch of slaves in Jamaica.... nice jobs Dems! Clown world IRL 🤡
And Biden's family had this strange thing of wanting their slaves to be in the most northern state allowable by the time period
Some people did something.
Yup 😂😂😂😂😂😂😆
Listen here, fat.
Corn Pop was a baaad dude
AND, it was almost a full century after Jamaica's emancipation proclaimation.
AND, it is within the lifetime of people who are still alive right now.
Yep!!!! And great point. Yeah her dad publicly disowned her forever for “disrespecting them and the jamiaican people” by saying “I’m Jamaican. Of course I smoke weed and listened to Tupac and snoop in college (5 years before both of them started rapping” and they keep tryna scrub the article w the dad’s interview. Too bad the internet is forever
Kuntmalakeptmeninprisonpasttheirreleasedateasslavesforthestate
Oh shit really? Wow.... this cunt is so fucked up! She’s pro police and the Dems hate 12..... hillarious
And she has the worst lockup record of blacks ever. Also 1,300 for weed when she bragged ab smoking w her family herself
andsodidBiden/Robinettefamily
Really????? Wtf???? Pedo Joe’s family owned slaves too? Wow! This really is a total shit show! 😂
Yes! ALM!
*gets shot in the head
*still makes it into deathbed.
Wut a badass
Tis but a hole.
Shut. Up. Beavis.
Yeah I think I remember reading he lived another 16 or 18 hours after getting shot.
EDIT: Not quite as long as I remembered. Looked it up, and he was shot at 10:15pm and died 7:22am the next day. So about 9 hours.
He was waiting for his CoD update to finish.
This is way to true for me. It takes forever. I just gave up on it.
That's public schools for ya!
Since when did a Liberal's story have any logical grounds to reality?
Ours don't need it either! ;D
LULZ I LIKE YOUR NAME
He got hit with like a derringer or something didn’t he?
They’re pretty weak.
Kum-allah's family were major slave owners. Nothing says strong ̶i̶n̶d̶i̶a̶n̶ black woman like your ancestors working slaves to death to make rum and textiles.
Factcheck: More Manchurian Candidate than AnchorBaby.
She's awefully quiet about her parents' school visa and other documents. She was born Oct 20 1964, and the 1965 Ted Kennedy Immigration Act didn't take effect until June 30, 1968. So, the immigration laws most people think of do not apply to her. She likely never legally naturalized to be a US Citizen and isn't even eligible to be a senator. Something she doesn't like to talk about, other than saying she was born in USA.
Look into the documents her parents were on while here, when she was born. Under her theory of the case, she would also be legally able to run for President of Jamacia and President of India, if they had the same "natural born citizen" clause. Go ask her parents about their 1960's documents, ask the gov agencies that issued them.
We have a congresswoman who married her brother and uses a false last name.
We are well beyond reconciliation in my opinion.
Lies to them are truth, and the government agencies as so full of corrupt liberals, they can get away with it.
We really need a congressional commission to comb through all the members' citizenships; and impeach/eject all those that aren't legit. Because that's their job as written in the Constitution to do.
Unfortunately congress is full of enemies of this nation who want to dismantle it and go full communist.
Helicopter ride?
Democrats always get away with crimes that support/advance Swamp narratives. Its major evidence that there is a systemic problem in DC, and major purges need to happen all over that town - starting with the DOJ and every intel agency.
They have no shame and to them "by any means necessary" is something to be proud of.
To them, truth is just a lie yet to be discovered.
Postmodernism - there is no truth other than the one that you feel.
Go back to your roof, faggot
The legality of anchor babies has (incorrectly) been affirmed by the supreme Court multiple times, it doesn't rely on any single statute.
I hear you, but I invite you to do your homework in detail, particularly for K.H.. Take any Supreme Court Case you think is on the topic, and read the opinion in the entirety (reading the disenting opinions is helpful too, but can skip that part). For instance, people mention or think of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This doesn't apply to K.Harris, since her parents were here on temp school visas? and did not have "perminant legal residency" in the USA (her parents were not perminant legal residents and likely not carrying on business, as they were students).
Oh I agree that it's complete bullshit, I've looked at the cases as well. I mean people literally come into the country illegally to give birth, and their children are American citizens - it's disgusting but Kamala is covered.
The 14th is clearly referring to black slaves but SCOTUS has been cucked for 100 years +.
She's not. Here parents weren't here illegally. They each signed temp student visas. They weren't here perminently. They weren't here working on business. Because she was born here, she could have applied to naturalized.
So, don't lump all the cases into one pot, because they're not. And if you remove the cases which come from legislation after her birth and not applicable. Basically, K.H. parents were here on temp student visas (not illegal) and student visas are not business/work visas.
And under the immigration laws at the time (and since), she could have officially filed to naturalize to become a US citizen (and eligible to be Senator, but still not POTUS/VP); but she never did this when she came of age to choose the USA vs either of her parents citizenships. If she would have filed to naturalize, it of course would have officially acknowledged and removed the ability of "my mommy told me I could be/should be President someday."
That's why she's not an anchorbaby, her parents weren't illegals, they had papers, and this makes a big legal difference, and why the cases do not give her automatic naturalization.
BEST article on Natural Born Citizen as described in four SCOTUS cases -- and as required of POTUS and VPOTUS:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Great username :) and Good link. Though I can simply the "natural born citizen" definition, by condensing (all information on the topic) down to:
To be a "natural born citizen" for POTUS, basically requires 2 of the following 3:
Biological Father was (only) a U.S. Citizen at time of childs birth;
Biological Mother was (only) a U.S. Citizen at time of childs birth;
Child Born on U.S.A. sovereign soil.
Having 2 of the 3 is a person with a super-majority loyalty to the USA, and not some other nation.
User name is accurate -- my first vote at age 21.
My understanding of all those 4 opinions is 3 out of 3 needed . BOTH parents citizens and born in USA:
"“those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”."
"Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country."
A few notes about the cites in the article, for instance the 3rd Minor v. Happersett is just saying 3 of 3 is good, it's not saying 3 of 3 is required, in other words if 2 of 3 is the standard, well obviously 3 of 3 is as good as it gets and there is no doubt, but it doesn't make 3 of 3 the case law in any way.
The 4th case cite, again is far more limited than what most people believe the case law says, similar to Roe v Wade doesn't say what most people incl lawyers and politicans say it does; and it was a bad case, as reading the discent is far more informative.
The key problem in citing the Book in the first two case cites, is like citing "the Federalist Papers"; those books are not the law, its not like citing true law source material pre-dating the Constitution which the Constitution rests upon like the Magna Carta. The book isn't an exact fit with out the Republic is being structured compared to royal France.
Well the one thing about the Founders and the Constitution is a significant majority is based on prior law and publications they had access to. However, when putting the various Founding documents together (like Articles of Conf. and the Constitution) sometimes they found the original to be too restrictive or expansive for setting up in the new Republic. They created a way to dovetail all these things together, and some they had to trim, or expand. The pre-Constitutional laws do not always fit or agree with the Constitution.
Some very practical reasons for 2 of 3, for instance, simple things like proving who the parents of the child is, or where exactly the birth took place (keep in mind the "frontier" wasn't labeled with GPS coordinates, there wasn't births in hospitals, there often wasn't a certified: "birth certificate" judge or gov clerk or lawyer etc.) mothers died in childbirth, fathers die in war or on the sea, etc. And as history would note going forward how many Presidents were born in what amounts to a log cabin, frontier, poverty, or some other things which makes for proving things like 3/3 rather hard.
The Founders didn't adopt the European nobility standard of requiring dual citizen-parent blood for "natural born citizen"ship, nor the father only line of blood or rank. Aside from the "nobility vs commoner" aspect which the Constitution was doing away with; it was simple math and practicality. The population of the United States going back to the first colonies (or technically too even amongst native tribes/nations) was one which had high levels of immigration and mobility. And what percentage of the population would meet this requirement at any given time if POTUS was only kids of parents whom both were citizens.
Keep in mind citizenry wasn't the same as being here. People could be here, but not be a citizen.
Places in Europe, as the history books about ancient Rome and Greece which our Founders also read, saw what happens when the % of the population of elite "natural born citizens" shrinks compared to the total population. And when someone is born outside of this political ruling class, and they really want to be king and have the skills, they will find a way even if it is to topple the king, the gov, or rebellion (insert Founders here). By making it too restrictive, the chances that a Sparticus or shortly a Neopoleon, would be born on the outside looking in goes up.
Their main goal and fear was to make sure a POTUS had a majority/super-majority loyalty to the USA (and thus American values and interests), and couldn't be loyal to another king/kingdom/nation (or disloyal to America).
An interesting example o it's not both parents can be found in the outdated words often overlooked in Art 2, Sect 1:
See if the standard were two citizen parents for natural born citizen; then there this part of the sentence would have some blood component to it (who the parents were of these citizens of America upon ratification), but these new citizens of new American Republic, came from all kinds of blood nationalites beforehand, and thus citizenship was you are here and you apply, you first batch are promoted to "natural born citizens" equivalent to be eligible to run for POTUS (if meeting the other requirements of age and residency).
Now, follow to see where this does or does not it make any logical sense: That every American who is a citizen at time of ratification (again counting age & residency) can someday run for POTUS; well if two of those citizens have a child in America then that child can run for POTUS (3 of 3); but if a person who could run for POTUS but has a child with someone who isn't a citizen, but child is born on US soil, that child can or cant run for POTUS (2 of 3). By the same token, if two original citizens have a child NOT on US soil, that child wouldnt be eligible to run for POTUS (2 of 3) even though both parents could (like if the child was born onboard a ship flagged under another nation, or if parents were taken prisoner and held on the carbean islands, or even more to the point Manifest Destiny by moving mostly westward pioneering)?
Basically the 2 of 3 is like most of the 2/3rds requirements in the Constitution for super-majority. It does away with the 100% requirement of the Articles of Confederation (like the E.U. today) which everyone had to agree as they found this very untenible for a Republic. 2 of 3 also avoids the historically/politically/realistically/practically bad situation (opposite that to the Rights of Englishmen) where a person could be president, but if they had a child on us soil that child could not be (by having a child with a non-citizen).
Further again the Founders knew human nature, and in many cases it would be impossible to prove all 3/3, and simply of course people would lie about it, if they sought power enough.
The failure of even holding to the 2 of 3 standard; and dropping down to 1/3 means candidates for POTUS have loyalties and ideological upbringings which are NOT American and NOT to our REPUBLIC.
In all fairness the slaves were all bought off black slave owners and I think the first actual slave owner in America was black.
Basically, black people are at least 50% responsible for slavery.
Closer to 90% as most slaves were sold by africans to the portugese
BLM should fly to africa and protest
13/50
African tribalism resulted in victors of conflicts enslaving and selling their enemies.
The greatest motivating factor of the "Age of Discovery" was to get ships down to South Africa so they could cut out all the middlemen that jacked up the price as the slaves were trafficked north to the Mediterranean.
The Europeans literally invented methods of sailing into the wind and ship building techniques to get around blacks selling blacks for profit and in so doing created trade empires and discovered the world.
So there's Africa's greatest contribution to the world: their slave trade was so profitable the Euros discovered the world to get a piece of the action.
Yep.
The real reason blacks became the slave class is because the blacks were the ones selling each other at the time.
Full-blown slavery had disappeared in most of Europe by that time but Africans (and Arabs!) were all for it so they were the easiest source of slaves.
The whole “black=slave” developed from this rather than white people just going “let’s enslave dem blacks”
It’s kinda like how blacks complain about being racially profiled but 13/50 so it doesn’t just spring from nowhere.
Arabs still have slavery to this day
Cartels are running slaves in the USA as we speak.
Blacks have done nothing memorable throughout history except committing crimes
Dats rayciss
Jogger , plz
Molasses. Molasses was shipped to Boston, and made into rum.
For some reason, this made me howl. Like, obviously it's funny, but I found it REALLY, REALLY funny!
Yeah why did it take us a week to come up with this?
We are back logged on our memes. Democrats do too much dumb shit every day. Production is falling behind.
We also work for a living. We're out here fighting as part-time meme soldiers and still winning.
Or, more accurately, six hours ago when I posted it - just sayin.....
This is just as real as RBG's last wish
Lincoln had a death bed?
That’s how badass he was. Got shot in the head and still lived for days after and spoke his last words.
Just to be historically balanced, there is evidence that Lincoln wasn’t as anti-slavery as we make him out to be: https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html
Not to mention Lincoln seriously considered sending all of the slaves back to Africa.
"What a bizarre thing to say."
"I'm afraid the President's head wound has scrambled his wits. Since coming to, he has raved naught but febrile nonsense. For instance, he has repeatedly accused one Bill Clinton of being a rapist followed closely by the exclamation of "info wars dot com". More puzzling is the repeated recitation of "two scoops, two genders, two terms"."
Pretty sure this is the actual quote.
I literally just said "God damn" out loud after seeing this beauty.
You fucks never mail to make me laugh
Now this is a top quality meme
Sick burn
https://thedonald.win/p/HrKAozSg/unreal--kamala-harris-made-up-th/c/
This is more likely than RBG's dying wish.
Fun Fact: Honest Abe supported sending all the freedmen back to a town called Freetown, Liberia - in a project known as the American Colonization Society. Malcom X himself supported similar ideas (black only state) 100 years later.
Kamala Harris’s Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln By DAN MCLAUGHLIN October 7, 2020 10:30 PM
It was impossible to miss how Kamala Harris, like Joe Biden, refused to answer questions about their plans to expand the Supreme Court. But she also misrepresented history.
Harris claimed at the VP debate that Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice in October 1864 because “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first.
Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.
Kamala Harris is simply lying, the usual Democrap ploy.
WIKI: When Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died in October 1864, Lincoln named Chase to succeed him. Nominated on December 6, 1864, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on the same day,[30] he was sworn into office on December 15, 1864, and served until his own death on May 7, 1873
One of my favorite pieces of advice: Remember the words of Abraham Lincoln; "Everything you read on the internet is true."
FAKE DEATHWISHES ARE LEGALLY BINDING!
Source ?
HONEST ABE ‘INCOLN
HONEST ABE!
So Hillary Clinton for lying blamed Abe Lincoln, commonly known as HONEST ABE 'INCOLN.
HONEST ABE!!
What's the quotes?
"I'LL USE THE WORD ANCHOR BABY, EXCUSE ME, NO, I'LL USE THE WORD ANCHOR BABY!" - GEOTUS
Far out
Anchor Thot
Jamaican-Indian anchor baby with a pedigree of slave ownership, no less.
2nd best President ever. Freed millions from economic bullshit.
Here is a more prescient (and actually real) quote from honest Abe...
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
—U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
For whatever reason, the artist really wanted the viewer to know that the guy on the right was a freemason (hand in jacket). Albert Pike?
SAYHISNAME
Not if you count the gurgling sound.
LET THE MEMES FLOW!
Mike Pence is clearly a gentleman; all around good guy, and he’s a great “yin” to Trump’s “yang”. Still I cannot believe Camela brought up Honest Abe and lied about it, Pence let her slide sort of although he did say she avoided answering the question about court packing, her smugness and smile as if she thought she was about to drop a bomb before she gave her “history lesson” was disgusting. But, it reminded me of when Hillary gave an Abe anecdote at a 2016 debate, and Trump straight up destroyed her over it. This is just a short clip of Trump but the preceding bullshit spewed by Hillary may also be of interest.
https://youtu.be/nsIsnIhmOcU
Probably something like "dam I wish I wasn't shot in the head by a democrat"
,la better apologize.
“Mr Stanton, Mr Welles, and everyone whose graces have magnanimously accompanied me to the hour of my parting, it is with great, fervent urgency that I bequeath upon all of you the task of ensuring, many years henceforth, that the administration we have duly resided over the past several years not be tarnished and sullied by the misquoting of a sanctimonious nitwit, race-baiting clown who sucked her way to the top.”
-Last words of Mr Lincoln. Really, it’s true.
Abe had no problem expelling traitorous senators
Abe Incoln
Thank you. I needed this laugh today.
I bet he didn't know that a town called Scoville existed.
You pedes never run out of ammo. God bless you good people...
the dreaded "death bed stretch."
Hey hey hey. No returns, no returns. The blacks are happy to have her, and we do not want her back. On behalf of Indians, we do not want her back. We want to bury this shameful fact. Let the blacks have her, they seem to be happy with her. Please stop calling her Indian.