well, we all know what happens when he doesn’t read word for word off the prompter...
like ending the chinaflu, almost
Whenever Biden goes OFF SCRIPT, his comments are often WALKED BACK by the ones in charge.
Paging Captain Obvious!
So, like, he’s just like Obama…
Odumbo is in charge. Bygen’s press secretary told us that.
So, we need a body double for the teleprompter guy/gal, a quick kidnapping and swap-out, and a reverse course on Biden statements.
Brandon Burgundy.........”F**k you America”
"And when I say 'anything', I mean 'an-uhh-thing'"
At least in this video, Joe was able to read the teleprompter.
Miracles never cease.
Who is more at fault?
Biden who cannot even control his own bodily functions?
Or our representatives in congress who allow him to continue this charade?
Klain, Rice, etc. are compromised (bought and or blackmailed).
Every keystroke on the teleprompter for this senile old man is an act of fraud. Every signature Jao Bai-din puts on paper is a fraud.
The conspirators who are handling the puppet need to be charged in criminal court. No one voted for them.
Jao Bai-din needs to be charged with dereliction of duty for allowing others to make the decisions of the office of the President.
However, there is a rumor that some staffers wanted more control of the border and Biden shot them down. So in that respect he may have a veto over what his administration does, though he doesn't use it much.
“...the first Supreme Court decision in our entire history — the first in our entire history that just didn’t fail to preserve a constitutional freedom, but actually took away a fundamental right that had been granted by the same court to so many Americans… the constitutional right to choose.”
Uhm see:
Plessy v Ferguson (overruled by Brown v. Board of Education)
“To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone,” Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Bowers v. Hardwick (overruled by Lawrence v. Texas)
The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that there was no constitutional protection of sodomy and states could outlaw homosexual intercourse.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the court reversed the decision entirely. In a 6-3 ruling, justices ruled for John Lawrence, who had been convicted under a sodomy law. The court said making it a crime for two men to have sex violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Wolf v. Colorado (overruled by Mapp v. Ohio)
In the 1949 case. Wolf vs. Colorado, Julius A. Wolf, Charles H. Fulton and Betty Fulton were charged with conspiracy to perform an abortion.
Wolf challenged the evidence used against him, arguing it was seized illegally and in violation of his Fourth Amendment right.
The court, however, said illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from court by default.
Years later, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) saw another stunning reversal from Supreme Court precedent.
In that case, justices ruled in favor of Dollree Mapp, who was convicted of possessing obscene materials during an illegal police search of her home for a separate investigation into a missing fugitive.
Mapp had challenged the case and evidence against her based on a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The justices concurred with her argument.
“Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise,” Clark added.
Pace v. Alabama (overruled by Loving v. Virginia)
Pace V. Alabama (1882) concerned Tony Pace, an African American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, who were charged with adultery and fornication in Alabama under a law that severely punished interracial relationships.
Pace took a legal challenge to the Supreme Court, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Justices ruled that Alabama’s law was not in conflict with the Constitution, despite more severe punishments levied against African-Americans in violation.
In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court reversed that ruling in another case — nearly 100 years later.
Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a White man, were arrested in Virginia and sentenced to a year in jail for violating a law banning inter-racial marriages.(Effing stupid but hey, I was but a mere lad then. Who cares about race, except a racist....)
Loving challenged the statute, arguing it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court agreed.
“Under our Constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the majority opinion.
And so on