Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay then the US government is perpetual, no matter what it does. That means if anyone rebels from the US, they are traitors and deserving of immediate death.Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution? if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution. Sorry.. enjoy your sad lives.You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
Do you fail to see how foolish that is?
Have you learned nothing from history?
Have you failed to learned the historic nature of government, even though we have several millennia proving it's tyrannical and murderous nature?
If so, you once again prove yourself a fool.
The Constitution is a dead letter. Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that. You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it. Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution? if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution. Sorry.. enjoy your sad lives.You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
It is dead thanks in part to your beloved Dishonest Abe, but many statists like you have followed Lincoln’s plan of subverting the Constitution to promote the all powerful state. It has progressed slowly so dummies like you fail to see it.The Constitution is a dead letter. Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that. You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it. Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution? if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution. Sorry.. enjoy your sad lives.You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
Wait.. the Constitution is a dead letter.
Then why are you upset in your wrong belief Lincoln avid things against it?
You see how stuck you are?
You have to bash the Constitution in order to give yourself the opportunity to say someone else bashed the constitution. You have yourself in a catch 22.
The Constitution is a dead letter. Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that. You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it. Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution? if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution. Sorry.. enjoy your sad lives.You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
It is dead thanks in part to your beloved Dishonest Abe, but many statists like you have followed Lincoln’s plan of subverting the Constitution to promote the all powerful state. It has progressed slowly so dummies like you fail to see it.The Constitution is a dead letter. Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that. You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it. Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution? if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution. Sorry.. enjoy your sad lives.
Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
Wait.. the Constitution is a dead letter.
Then why are you upset in your wrong belief Lincoln avid things against it?
You see how stuck you are?
You have to bash the Constitution in order to give yourself the opportunity to say someone else bashed the constitution. You have yourself in a catch 22.
The Constitution is a dead letter. Our government is not following it and it does not constrain the power of government, but you being statist like that. You want an unlimited tyrannical government, but may be too stupid to know it. Lincoln was the first POTUS to completely ignore the Constitution, commit treason, and cause following criminals to further promote tyranny.Can you admit that Lincoln shit all over the Constitution? if you can't, your prove yourself an idiot.Damn you are just bound and determined to shit all over the US Constitution. Sorry.. enjoy your sad lives.You sound like a total idiot, but statists always are.
You would do well in an Orwellian world and you would gladly execute people like me.
Sure... but only if we rip it up first and make that secession a legal one. Since it wasn't, Lincoln was facing traitors in a rebellion.
You are stuck in a catch 22 there. The only way for you to say those acts were unconstitutional... is to destroy the constitution. No matter how many times you talk in circles, that's not changing
Yes...............
Yes....Mr. Lincoln in a nutshell was a traitor and thus the motivation for his assasination.......most now do not realize Lincoln was the most hated President in history at that time.
The Presidential oath of office that Lincoln swore to was "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the US.
Secession of states was not prohibited by the US Constitution at that time. Therefore it was completely legal...
1.) Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports. This an act of war only Congress can do that. At that time Lincoln certainly violated the US Constitution.
2.) Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.
3.) Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him. Can you imagine that?
4.) Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.
5.) US Constitution Article lll Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them. Lincoln committed treason.
Lincoln waged war upon his own country. Unless one considers secession legal and the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.
6.) Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons. This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Constitutional violations against Maryland
'Maryland my Maryland' was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal.
Lincoln as already mentioned, trashed the Constitution by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and sending troops door to door confiscating weapons in areas of Maryland.
Maryland was a Union state. Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylanders for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.
7.) Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland.
8.) Lincoln also had arrested the Maryland State Legislature
9.) Most of the Baltimore city council
10.) The police commissioner of Baltimore
11.) The mayor of Baltimore
12.) Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens. These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.
This trashing of the Constitution upset many Marylanders. One of them was named Booth.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.
This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that terrorism these days.
13.) Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation. This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.
14.) The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.
A prime example is the Union army stealing Robert E. Lees home, Arlington House, which they used as Headquarters. Since dead Union soldiers were stacking up like cordwood, they started burying them in Lee's yard. There were so many Union soldiers graves here, this was to become Arlington National Cemetery.
15.) The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail. This violates the 8th Amendment, "Cruel and unusual punishment".
16.) Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians.
Much like President Trump.....Abraham Lincoln Was Actually Hated When President...the most hated President in history at that time. People back then obviously understood much more than the p.c. masses of today who are so easily duped by the media.
In A Nutshell
while in office, most of the American people not only thought he was doing a horrible job but also considered him to be a complete fool
When Lincoln took office in March 1861, he was entering a presidency he had won with only 39.8 percent of the popular vote. Reactions from the public were so negative that on the eve of his inauguration he had to be smuggled into the capital during the dead of night in a disguise. He was looked down upon for everything from his humble beginnings and lack of education to his awkward appearance and high voice. Even the commanding general of his armies, George McClellan, called him the “original gorilla.”
With the United States on the brink of civil war, the American public was on edge and blamed Lincoln for being part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution.
Of course, Southerners also hated him for trying to change the way of life they’d known for years....... aka 'ethnic cleansing' They had a fundamental hatred for him and his hostility and declared their secession from the Union on February 4, 1861. But Northerners weren’t fond of him either, unimpressed with his slow start at the presidency. They expected him to being doing more and to be doing it sooner.
People even hated his speeches. The Gettysburg Address—was panned by many. One Chicago Times writer said: “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly flat dishwatery utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.” Ouch.
Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, said the constant deluge of insults wore on the president’s feelings, and Lincoln himself reportedly said, “I would rather be dead than, as President, thus abused in the house of my friends.” Lincoln was, of course, was unsuprisingly shot by John Wilkes Booth just six days later......if it had happened earlier the great American holocaust could have been prevented....there was no one....absolutely no one more responsible for the War Between the States than Mr. Lincoln himself. This is his true legacy of shame and guilt....now the truth about Mr. Lincoln is gradually coming out....the mass media will not be able to protect him much longer.
Yes...Lincoln like most criminal politicians was all about the money. He made that clear in his first inaugural when he said pay Uncle Sam or die....but you can keep your slaves for perpetuity and we can even ensconce slavery in the Constitution.Why DID the south secede? It might lend credence if they actually had a moral reason for it. Because of the rising tide of abolition? Or that states rights? States rights? To what? Preserve their right to own slaves?
Silly woman, it was because the North thought we owed them our resources at a price they set for themselves. Seriously, that's it in a nutshell.
The North fancied themselves the South's slave masters is what it amounts to.
Nice guy old Dishonest Abe.The Statist speaks. What a bunch of horse shit. I find you APPALLING.
You really believe that NO ONE CAN REBEL, because the state is PERPETUAL and never wrong.
Dishonest Abe really fucked you up.
No doubt you also think the American Revolution was unjustified and we should still be subjects to the crown.
You are the one who believes a history that is WRONG.
You sound a lot like one of those California liberals burning copies of the bill of rights saying they shouldn't have to listen to the 2nd amendment and California should ban all guns.
See I'm not for picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution I like and will believe in and what parts I ignore. It's an all or nothing package as far as I am concerned, even if I personally may not like a part of it.
If anyone ever ignored/burned the Bill of Rights, it was most definitely Abraham Lincoln.
Illegal detention of publishers? Check! (2 amendments violated at same time)
Illegal housing of troops in residences? Check!
Illegal search and seizure? Check!
Want to find a Nazi in a haystack.. yell "Lincoln was a great President". They'll come running from miles away.
Losing argument? Call them a Nazi.
^Teh weaksauce.
Your best bet is to slither back under the rock you crawled out from under.
Your cow chips aren't going to fly around here.
HehHeh.....he has illusions of grandeur and not to mention he thinks he is an authority on Negroes....thinks they are just like white folk but with a nice tan bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You see his attitude often amongst white liberals who grow up with little or no contact with Negroes.....all they know about them is what they see in hollywood movies or on t.v. ...notice how so many commericials now have negroes in them...all out of proportion to their percentage of the population....just another propaganda effort by the media ...trying to force negroes on everyone....I did a count the other other day on the percentage of negroes in commericials over an hours time....65% of the actors in the commercials were negroes...portrayed in a very favorable light---- far from their true nature....we are saturated with such propaganda now. The public schools and the media lead the way....dividing America whilst they attempt to dumb it down even farther than it already has been.
by George Fitzhugh
“The Blessings of Slavery” (1857)
The descendent of an old southern family that had suffered hard times, Fitzhugh became a lawyer and planter. He became famous for his books Sociology for the South and Cannibals All.
In this document, Fitzhugh explores the idea that slaves are happier than competing “free” laborers and that a society that has embraced slavery is a stable and happyone. He, the Negro, is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child, not as a lunatic or criminal. The master occupies toward him the place of parent or guardian. We shall not dwell on this view, for no one will differ with us who thinks as we do of the negro's capacity, and we might argue till dooms-day in vain, with those who have a high opinion of the negro's moral and intellectual capacity. Secondly. The negro is improvident; will not lay up in summer for the wants of winter; will not accumulate in youth for the exigencies of age. He would become an insufferable burden to society. Society has the right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery. In the last place, the negro race is inferior to the white race, and living in their midst, they would be far outstripped or outwitted in the chaos of free competition. Gradual but certain extermination would be their fate. We presume the maddest abolitionist does not think the negro's providence of habits and money-making capacity at all to compare to those of the whites. This defect of character would alone justify enslaving him, if he is to remain here. In Africa or the West Indies, he would become idolatrous, savage and cannibal, or be devoured by savages and cannibals. At the North he would freeze or starve. We would remind those who deprecate and sympathize with negro slavery, that his slavery here relieves him from a far more cruel slavery in Africa, or from idolatry and cannibalism, and every brutal vice and crime that can disgrace humanity; and that it christianizes, protects, supports and civilizes him; that it governs him far better than free laborers at the North are governed. There, wife-murder has become a mere holiday pastime; and where so many wives are murdered, almost all must be brutally treated. Nay, more; men who kill their wives or treat them brutally, must be ready for all kinds of crime, and the calendar of crime at the North proves the inference to be correct. Negroes never kill their wives. If it be objected that legally they have no wives, then we reply, that in an experience of more than forty years, we never yet heard of a negro man killing a negro woman. Our negroes are not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but their moral condition is better. The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged and infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessaries of life provided for them. They enjoy liberty, because they are oppressed neither by care or labor. The women do little hard work, and are protected from the despotism of their husbands by their masters. The negro men and stout boys work, on the average, in good weather, no more than nine hours a day. The balance of their time is spent in perfect abandon. Besides, they have their Sabbaths and holidays. White men, with som muh of license and abandon, would die of ennui; but negroes luxuriate in corporeal and mental repose. With their faces upturned to the sun, they can sleep at any hour; and quiet sleep is the gretest of human enjoyments. “Blessed be the man who invented sleep.” ‘Tis happiness in itself-and results from contentment in the present, and confident assur- ance of the future. We do not know whether free laborers ever sleep. They are fools to do so; for, whilst they sleep, the wily and watchful capitalist is devising means to ensnare and exploit them. The free laborer must work or starve. He is more of a slave than the negro, because he works longer and harder for less allowance than the slave, and has no holiday, because the cares of life with him begin when its labors end. He has no liberty and not a single right. . . . Until the lands of America are appropriated by a few, population becomes dense, competition among laborers active, employment uncertain, and wages low, the personal liberty of all the whites will continue to be a blessing. We have vast unsettled territories; population may cease to increase slowly, as in most countries, and many centuries may elapse before the question will be practically suggested, whether slavery to capital be preferable to slavery to human masters. But the negro has neither energy nor enterprise, and, even in our sparser populations, finds with his improvident habits, that his liberty is a curse to himself, and a greater curse to the society around him. These considerations, and others equally obvious, have induced the South to attempt to defend negro slavery as an exceptional institution, admitting, nay asserting, that slavery, in the general or in the abstract, is morally wrong, and against common right. With singular inconsistency, after making this admission, which admits away the authority of the Bible, of profane history, and of the almost universal practice of mankind-they turn around and attempt to bolster up the cause of negro slavery by these very exploded authorities. If we mean not to repudiate all divine, and almost all human authority in favor of slavery, we must vindicate that institution in the abstract. To insist that a status of society, which has been almost universal, and which is expressly and continually justified by Holy Writ, is its natural, normal, and necessary status, under the ordinary circumstances, is on its face a plausible and probable proposition. To insist on less, is to yield our cause, and to give up our religion; for if white slavery be morally wrong, be a violation of natural rights, the Bible cannot be true. Human and divine authority do seem in the general to concur, in establishing the expediency of having masters and slaves of different races. In very many nations of antiquity, and in some of modern times, the law has permitted the native citizens to become slaves to each other. But few take advantage of such laws; and the infrequency of the practice establishes the general truth that master and slave should be of different national descent. In some respects the wider the difference the better, as the slave will feel less mortified by his position. In other respects, it may be that too wide a difference hardens the hearts and brutalizes the feeling of both master and slave. The civilized man hates the savage, and the savage returns the hatred with interest. Hence West India slavery of newly caught negroes is not a very humane, affectionate, or civilizing institution. Virginia negroes have become moral and intelligent. They love their master and his family, and the attachment is reciprocated. Still, we like the idle, but intelligent house-servants, better than the hard-used, but stupid outhands; and we like the mulatto better than the negro; yet the negro is generally more affectionate, contented, and faithful. The world at large looks on negro slavery as much the worst form of slavery; because it is only acquainted with West India slavery. But our Southern slavery has become a benign and protective institution, and our negroes are confessedly better off than any free laboring population in the world. How can we contend that white slavery is wrong, whilst all the great body of free laborers are starving; and slaves, white or black, throughout the world, are enjoying comfort? . . . The aversion to negroes, the antipathy of race, is much greater at the North than at the South; and it is very probable that this antipathy to the person of the negro, is confounded with or generates hatred of the institution with which he is usually connected. Hatred to slavery is very generally little more than hatred of negroes.
,
Late nineteenth and early twentieth century plantation memoirs and reminiscences, authored by former slave-owners, bring a nostalgic sensibility and aesthetic to bear in the making and remaking of the Old South plantation. Bring back the truth of those times and fine memories of life and lifestyle on the plantation with discourses on the compassionate paternalism that was the signatory element of life on the plantation and the love the darkies had for their mastah....no wonder so many former slaves longed for those good ole times on the plantation under the care and protection of their beloved mastahs. There were no problems with race relations on the plantation in most cases...it was like just one big happy family...everyone had their place.......these autobiographical accounts present a true narrative of those times those good ole days remembered with much nostalgia by all concerned...those who were there and know the truth.
One such approach focused on recollections of food, its preparation and presentation, and memories of good eating, as my recent research on childhood and adolescent memories of the Old South plantation community has shown. Food, for example, was often assigned a symbolic role in plantation relationships, and was significant to the system of plantation governance that the planter class espoused. Their memories of the paternalism and its ideal way of life regarding how to deal with Negroes for their own good as well as society---the true nature of the master-slave relationships, not only codified nostalgic forms of the Old South on the page, but also allowed former planters to recount the virtues of paternal authority, seen in retrospect, against the horrible racial realities of the post bellum era.
Within this individual and collective memory about the past, food, I argue, focused attention on the bonds of affection between white and black southerners and gave meaning to memories once rooted in everyday experiences on the plantation. Indeed, food memories, and the profusion of plenty, frequently cited to demonstrate a planter’s wealth, gentility and class, also connected powerfully with place: the plantation. Running through plantation memoirs and reminiscences are memories of great feasts and repasts, often concocted by talented and accomplished Negro cooks. “The Virginia cook and the Virginia cooking of that time were the full realization of the dreams of epicures for centuries,” rhapsodized one planter’s son, while a memoirist from Georgia, recalling a “sumptuous” family wedding, insisted that “Everything good to eat was bountifully furnished...all sorts of home collections and concoctions,” with loaf sugar and other luxuries brought in “by the wagonload”. These nostalgic representations of life on the plantation from the perspective of the planter’s table have attracted little scholarly interest, despite alertness to the pervasiveness of nostalgia in southern food studies . By critically examining these self-representational accounts of the Old South, we can begin to open up new ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries about the region’s past, exposing the emotional and political uses of nostalgia by recourse to enduring memories of food and eating and the bounty of the plantation....plenty for all...no need for government hand outs on the Plantation...a ideal life ...only possible without government intrusion. We could learn much today from those days.
REFERENCE: childhood down South on the plantation memoirs and reminiscences.
All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term. Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term. Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
Well allow me to retort.
Martin Luther King Jr. on The Declaration of Independence - America Comes Alive
This is a dream. It’s a great dream.
“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”
“Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”
The Yankee problem in American History....which one sees frequentlly exhibited on this thread by people with little knowledge and less understanding of past and present day truths.
The Yankee Problem In American History
All men created equal....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa try and understand or research the true meaning of that historical term. Here let me help you.........................................The meaning of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" – Matt Brundage
Well allow me to retort.
Martin Luther King Jr. on The Declaration of Independence - America Comes Alive
This is a dream. It’s a great dream.
“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”
“Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”
Martin Luther King was a pervert, fraud, plagairist and even Jackie Kennedy concurred.
FBI Reveals How Martin Luther King Allegedly Had All-night Church Minister S*x Orgy - 247 Nigeria News Update
Martin Luther King Jr. - A Historical Examination: The REAL truth about Martin Luther King Jr.
