How do I know media brainwashing is real?
Obama’s ICE Chief received an award for removing over 900,000 illegal aliens.
Trump’s ICE chief was called a Nazi.
It is the same person - Tom Homan.
The difference? What the media told people to believe.
@This_Redacted@ScottEnlow You don’t have to obey unlawful commands given by a power-hungry stupid fucking Cunt. Now I can get a big chunk of taxpayer money. She needs to be fired.
@scottagain2@RaggedVagabond@ScottEnlow Fuck you, stupid boot licker. He was there trying to conduct business, and if somebody didn’t want them there, they should’ve came out and talked to him not sent some stupid fucking Cunt to try and throw him out.
@twobootz@GBC_Press Because the Muslims there want to take over the world and the US is in their way. Why else would a country with huge oil reserves want to have enriched uranium and nuclear bombs? https://t.co/KZvcp5Wod3
Most Muslims genuinely believe the only thing preventing Islam from taking over the world is America.
They view their presence in America solely as a religious duty to undermine the country and achieve that goal.
“We are in the belly of the beast, and we need to strike the heart of the Empire to bring it down.”
They are working to destroy the country from within, and they are allying with progressive useful idiots.
America needs to wake up!
@Pivital_28@JC70769 You’re a fucking moron. How about food? A roof over your head, a vehicle to take you where you need to go? A phone so you can communicate, I could go on.
Yes, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, it is just “revisionism” to claim that the understanding of the 14th Amendment’s use of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant something other than; as you put it, “the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.”
So I guess Thomas J Cooley, namesake of Michigan’s School of Law, when writing his textbook “Principles of Constitutional Law” in 1880 and as revised in this 1891 edition, was engaged in revisionist history?
He was announcing a made up, revisionist understanding of the 14th Amendment, and not capturing the public or even legal understanding of that phrase?
M’kay.
Yes, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, it is just “revisionism” to claim that the understanding of the 14th Amendment’s use of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant something other than; as you put it, “the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.”
So I guess Thomas J Cooley, namesake of Michigan’s School of Law, when writing his textbook “Principles of Constitutional Law” in 1880 and as revised in this 1891 edition, was engaged in revisionist history?
He was announcing a made up, revisionist understanding of the 14th Amendment, and not capturing the public or even legal understanding of that phrase?
M’kay.
Yes, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, it is just “revisionism” to claim that the understanding of the 14th Amendment’s use of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant something other than; as you put it, “the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.”
So I guess Thomas J Cooley, namesake of Michigan’s School of Law, when writing his textbook “Principles of Constitutional Law” in 1880 and as revised in this 1891 edition, was engaged in revisionist history?
He was announcing a made up, revisionist understanding of the 14th Amendment, and not capturing the public or even legal understanding of that phrase?
M’kay.